The Huckabee Phenomenon

I saw Mike Huckabee speak at a political conference I attended back in the early 1990s. This was before he lost all the weight. I'd never heard of him before the speech but he was delightful; charming, funny, articulate - the surprise of the conference.

I suspect the voters of Iowa are responding to the same things that I responded to. He's taken the lead in some polls and Mitt Romney, who must have thought a few weeks ago that Iowa was wrapped up, is starting to panic. Romney loses Iowa and his whole primary strategy goes out the window. He knows that the social conservatives are responsible for the Huckabee surge, and his Mormon speech is supposed to reassure them, I suppose, that, hey, he's a Christian too. Or at least convince those traditional Christians that he shares their values.

I think Romney does have a 'Mormon Problem'. I myself have no problem with him being a Mormon (my problems with him lie elsewhere) but I think some people do. Not many, mind you, but perhaps enough to make the difference in a general election. The electorate is split almost 50-50 these days; an issue that makes a percent or two difference in a battleground state could turn it - in this case, the wrong way. While I agree with Jonah Goldberg at NRO:

What I would like to know, however, is what exactly these people think a Mormon President might do that would be so unacceptable? Are there Mormon public policies I do not know of that would be implemented? Is there a Mormon faction in foreign policy?

it is also clear to me that there is an issue here among some evangelicals, and some others, that will hurt Romney.

Yes I know, my whole point goes up in smoke when I reveal to you that I'm a Rudy guy. I know, I know. If conservative Christians have a problem with Romney, how do you think they feel about a cross-dressing, homosexual-loving, abortion-supporting New Yorker? I take your point, and I'll give you my answer in another post at another time, but this post is called 'The Huckabee Phenomenon' so let me get back to talking about tax-hike Mike.

Tax-hike Mike indeed:

"Again, let me state what I've said privately as well as publicly, but I want to get it on the record again. There's a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that's fine with me; I will very happily sign that because it's a revenue stream that will meet the needs if enacted at a level that will help us to meet that $90 to $100 million target, and that's what I would begin to focus your attention on -- is the target.

"Some have suggested the retail level of tobacco; if that ends up being your preference, I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that's acceptable; I'm fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that's fine.

"Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of those various ideas, and if that's the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks."

If you are a low-tax, limited-government, free-market conservative, that ought to send a few shivers up your spine. Members of the legislature, I beseech you to raise taxes, any taxes, all taxes if you want, though let me suggest a few. It really doesn't matter, just please raise them. If you do, I will thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Phew.

Actually, I decided a few months ago that Huckabee was not someone I wanted anywhere near the Presidency when I heard he was okay with a federal ban on cigarette smoking. That he believes the federal executive has any business deciding when and where people smoke is a disqualifier, period. At the time I thought it was because he'd lost all the weight and had possibly become a health zealot: what is good for me is good for thee. Now I see, as more information has come out, that it is the product of a more dangerous mind-set - he believes the government is there to improve you: what is good for thee we will force you to do. But, hey, it's for your own good. This is Michael Gerson's Heroic Conservatism it's GWB's conservatism. So-called compassionate conservatism, if you will, a phrase that has always annoyed me - it implies that non-qualified traditional conservatism is not compassionate, an assumption I reject, as do George Will and David Frum, among others.

However, it's all well and good to argue about Mitt, Rudy, and Huck and who you prefer as the nominee. I find Huckabee unacceptable, others have their own reasons to oppose Mitt and Rudy. But that's now, and that's all theory. As my buddy Mike always points out, when you go into the voting booth next November and the choices are Mrs. Clinton vs. the guy you find unacceptable (insert Huckabee/Guiliani/Romney/Thompson/McCain/Paul here), who are you going to pull the lever for?

Which gives me an idea for another post: Is this the best we've got?