Reading the posts at the Corner this afternoon on the Huckabee for Vice-President boomlet, I have to feel like I was watching a scary campfire story. Rick Lowry, editor of National Review (which endorsed Mitt Romney) basically said, “Hey, you want to hear something scary?”
There’s no indication that Huckabee is being considered, so consider this idle speculation like the Hillary chatter prior to Obama’s pick. But wouldn’t Huckabee make a lot of sense given the things we’ve learned the last two weeks? 1) McCain might have a “wealth problem,” and certainly Democrats are going to try to hit his wealth for all its worth in their play for working-class voters; Huckabee doesn’t have a problem on this front, and has lots of working-class cred. 2) The pro-choice trial balloon hasn’t been well received, and it’s clear that a pro-choice nominee would create a major disruption; Huckabee is pro-life. 3) Obama picked Biden who is going to a vivid presence (for better or worse) on the stump and could be formidable in debate; Huckabee is a great campaigner and might be just the guy to puncture Biden in a debate. 4) (This is a less important point.) The McCain folks have made a huge deal about differences between Obama and Biden during the primaries; McCain and Huckabee didn’t have much in the way of differences and went out of their way to praise each other. The other upsides are the press likes Huckabee (for now), he’s a different kind of Republican, and his selection would be such a shock, it might even be considered bold. The downsides are—as I’ve noted many times before—he doesn’t have much in the way of national security credentials and has a big seriousness gap, obviously not trifling matters. But if McCain can’t do Lieberman, and isn’t thrilled by Pawlenty or Romney, Huckabee might be worth a last-minute second look.
Then, like kids around the campfire, the Corner’s highly paid authors in their middle age take turns playing the parts of kids frightened around the campfire. First is noted huckahater Kathryn Jean Lopez, the National Review Online Editor:
Don’t encourage! I’m certain this is the case, that he’s getting a second look, and, if McCain picks him, there will be a clear, renewed declaration of independence among many conservatives from the Republican party, especially inasmuch as it is the McCain/Huckabee party. If Mike Huckabee is veep, don’t expect him to be president four years down the line. A McCain/Huckabee administration would be a real eye-opener for the Right. Even moreso, I think, than four years of Barack Obama.
Don’t you love, how Lopez who on Sunday dropped her own suggestion of a Huckabee Veep pick on Sunday may think just a tad too highly of National Review Online. After all this decision comes down to John McCain and I don’t think the Corner’s going to decide how he votes. Now I’ll change my mind if when McCain announces his Veep he says, “You know I was going to go with Mitt Romney, but then I read Rick Lowry’s post on the Corner and I decide, ‘You know that Huckabee sounds pretty good…’
Jonathan Adler cringes by the campfire along with the rest saying:
Not that I’m representative of any big constituency or anything (libertarian-leaning law profs in swing states?), but if McCain were to select Huckabee as his running mate he would lose my vote for sure. I’m luke-warm on McCain to begin with, but I care enough about judges, trade, judges, spending, and judges that I’m still likely to pull the lever for him come November. But not if he were to tap the Huckster.
Libertarian law professors in swing states…thousands of voters and volunteers….hmmm. Tough choice.
Note here that judges is both Adler’s primary issue and one thing nobody ever doubted Huckabee on, and he’d bolt over Huck. Say what?
Finally Andrew Strattaford:
I’m with Kathryn on this, Rich. It’s not just the probability that Huckabee would irritate (to use a gentle word) as many on the right as, I suspect, he would reassure, but it’s also the certainty that picking him would horrify the independents and centrists who, ultimately, decide general elections. Yes, opting for Huckabee ‘might be considered bold,’ but so would an attempt to leap across the Grand Canyon.
The only ones who seemed horrified are the National Review editorial board. As for the center, I will adopt Big Tent Democrat’s axiom:
Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.
‘Nuff Said.
Rich Lowry sensing that his fellow National Review Online contributors were taking things too seriously tried to calm them down:
Relax — there’s zero indication that the McCain people are looking at him. If they are, it’s news to Huckabee, I’m told.
But Kathryn Jean Lopez isn’t done, even though she and none of the Corner crew have even begun to explain the problems they have with Huckabee. Enter a reader who makes a case for Sarah Palin:
All four of Lowry’s reasons that Huckabee could help McCain are equally
achieved by Sarah Palin, and she has many other benefits as well without the
risks. If McCain picks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, he locks up the election. To
Lowry’s 4 points on Huckabee:
1) Connecting with the average Joe on wealth, lifestyle, likeability—-While
fairly well-off, Palin is entirely self-made and not filthy rich (By the
way, McCain did a great job answering the wealth question last night on
Leno). She has working class creds: her husband is a commercial fisherman.
She is an outdoorsman and hunter. She has something like 80-90% approval
ratings.
2) Sanctity of Life—-Palin is staunchly pro-life and will not fracture the
base. She has 5 kids and is proof positive of the wisdom of Feminists for
Life’s the effective call to “refuse to choose”—women should not have to
give up motherhood for career/education or vice-versa.
3) Debates: Palin is an excellent speaker and in a debate with Biden he
would come off as the gasbag buffoon he is. And if he goes too far attacking
her he comes off as Lazio did vs. Hillary, i.e., mean.
4) On-the-record statements against the nominee: She has no major
“differences” with McCain at least on the record the way Biden did w/ Obama
(maybe one slight exception on energy where she expressed favor towards one
particular element of Obama’s energy plan, but nothing compared to Biden’s
praise of McCain).
In addition, Palin could increase the share of women voting GOP (maybe even
grab some disaffected Clinton supporters if they can get over the abortion
thing), plus she is such a darkhorse that it would be a total media
blindside and thus create a huge story right when McCain needs to tamp down
Obama’s convention “bounce.” Plus it makes the ticket exciting/fresh/hopeful
(take your pick) and can help seize the change mantle back from Obama
(rather than being another ticket of boring white guys.) Palin has a
reformer/outsider image which dovetails well w/ McCain’s themes. In Alaska
she ran on an anti-corruption platform and totally toppled the Alaska GOP
establishment. Finally, her oldest son is an enlisted soldier in Iraq,
which, like McCain, gives her more credibility on war issues and with the
military vote.
These are all great points for Sarah Palin. I love Sarah Palin. Here’s the problem with her as VP. Major political experience: less than 2 years as Governor. With Obama, we have the least experienced candidate for President since the Republicans nominated Wendell Wilkie in 1940. In Sarah Palin, we would have the least experienced candidate for Vice-Presidence since 1972 when the Democrats nominated S. Sargent Shriver. That worked out well. 2012, maybe. 2008, it would take away too much of McCain’s edge on experience.
Plus, it seems really presumptuous to assume identity politics. “Oh, you’re a woman, you’re going to vote for the woman.” Wasn’t there a campaign that ran around assuming that?
The e-mailer goes on:
McCain and Huckabee are too similar in their often-democrat-sounding class
warfare rhetoric. Palin could moderate McCain on that front, yet she too is
a reformer who has “taken on big oil”, etc. Huckabee is a tax-raiser who
scares Wall Street. Plus his theocratic comments scare many McCain-inclined
independents.
So Huckabee is a tax raiser? I guess that whole signing the “No Tax Increase” pledge doesn’t help. He did raise taxes in Arkansas under a variety of circumstances that came up in Arkansas with a 3/4 Democratic legislature that could override his veto with a majority vote, but let’s not get into all those boring facts right now. But what about Sarah Palin. Great governor, but she raised taxes $1.5 billion on oil companies and was compared to Hugo Chavez by Bloomberg and she’s even earned a following of anti-Palin trolls who show up on blogs when Palin is mentioned to diss her, similar to the anti-Huckabee trolls who do the same.
Yet, for this reader, either he/she didn’t know what Palin did (because National Review has decided not to make a big deal out of Palin’s tax increases) or for some reason decided to ignore it. Either way, it adds up to a double standard.
Regardless, I have to chuckle at the self-induced fear at National Review about a rumor they created for fear that the rumor they made up might be true. What it indicates to me is that National Review should consider relocating its office to somewhere like Knoxville, or Topeka, somewhere outside of the New York-Washington bubble.
I think what the fear and loathing of Mike Huckabee is a larger sympton of is the elitism of establishment ”conservative media” inside the beltway that while willing to accept the support of people in middle America, is really doesn’t care that much for people they might look at as bumpkins and rednecks, who by the way, purchase their magazines. If you don’t live inside the DC Bubble or have close ties to it, to the National Reviews of the World, you really don’t have anything to contribute.
If Middle Americans want their voice heard, National Review is, unfortunately, one of those institutions they’ll have to fight to get the job done.
