The ‘Huckabee Panic’ revisited

Following up on the extensive discussion over the weekend about the conservative establishment’s aversion to Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, Andrew Sullivan notes just how far this sentiment goes among leading bloggers on the right.

Ace, for example, who few would consider a moderate, is even willing to vote for Hillary Clinton over the former Arkansas governor.

Not that what one blogger thinks matters that much, but if Huckabee gets the nomination, I’m voting Democratic. It’s not just an idle threat; I just won’t vote for him and in fact won’t even vote third party or stay home. I’ll vote for the Democratic candidate, even Hillary. I won’t be a party to selling out everything the party is supposed to stand for to a liberal ideology. If we’re going to have eight years of liberal rule, I’d rather the Democratic Party be governing, so at least they can take the blame.

Dan Riehl, another blogger who no one would mistake for a centrist, agrees.

[If Huckabee] buys the Republican nod with a smile, a prayer and empty promises, I’m done. That Presidential “R” in 2008 will stand for nothing I believe in. The guy is slick but doesn’t even look competent. And if Republican primary voters are that stupid, they deserve to lose next Fall. To pass over McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani ONLY because someone’s slick and a Jesus Freak, which makes him your average televangelist — forget it…. Frankly, I think Huckabee just might be worse than Hillary….

And Glenn Reynolds conceded today he’d vote for Edwards over Huckabee.

Basically, I believe that both would have similar socialist/populist programs, but that Republicans would combine against Edwards’ programs, producing useful gridlock. On the other hand, Dems would be only too happy to go along with Huckabee’s programs, and too many Republicans might do so too, out of party loyalty.

There’s no shortage of possible explanation for this kind of revulsion.



* It’s the culture: Kevin Drum argued (and I agree) that the right’s opposition to Huckabee stems from the right’s discomfort for his yahoo-ish qualities. “Huckabee, it turns out, isn’t just giving lip service to evangelicals, he actually believes all that stuff. Among other things, he believes in creationism (really believes), once proposed that AIDS patients should be quarantined, appears to share the traditional evangelical view that Mormonism is a cult, and says (in public!) that homosexuality is sinful…. I think this brand of yahooism puts off mainstream urban conservatives every bit as much as it does mainstream urban liberals.”

* It’s taxes: The Club for Growth has gone after Huckabee with a vengeance, in large part because he broke GOP Cardinal Rule — he raised taxes, quite a bit, and didn’t apologize for it. This makes him a liberal, and disqualifies him from being the Republican nominee.

* It’s foreign policy: Huckabee has humiliated himself, repeatedly, making nonsensical comments about national security, foreign affairs, and military affairs. As one observer put it, “Regardless of how [Bush] ran in 2000, hawkishness has become the absolute cornerstone of Bush’s governing philosophy as far as the conservative elites are concerned. Huckabee is more or less openly clueless about foreign policy. That threatens the raison d’etre of war-party cheerleaders like Rich Lowry.”

* It’s immigration: If you’ve stopped by Malkin’s site lately, you’ll see Huckabee’s liberal immigration policies as governor make him persona non grata in far-right circles.

* It’s electability: Some conservatives may actually agree with Huckabee on all of the issues, but they’re terrified of a Democratic landslide in 2008.

* It’s all of the above: The opposition is so broad, one explanation may not be sufficient.

Am I missing anything?