Drudge: Democrats can’t wait to get in the ring with Huckabee; Update: It didn’t come from us, says DNC
posted at 11:59 am on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Really? The Democrats are dying to do battle with an ordained minister from the south known for his preternatural communication skills and centrist economic and immigration policies? To the point where they’re refusing to attack him — except when they leak crap like this to the biggest news site in America about how eager they are to start attacking him? I’m skeptical. Granted, he often appears not to know what he’s talking about, and the claim from Drudge’s source that the past week’s fiascos “ain’t even scratching the surface of what we’ve got on him” is all too credible, but he’s got a lock on the south in the general and chumps like me are bound to hold our noses and vote for him, especially if he’s matched up with Hillary. Unless they’ve got dirt on some sort of criminal activity we don’t know about — which, if so, should be coming out soon so that the GOP can detonate this guy in the primary before we’re stuck with him — how exactly is this a cakewalk for them? And never mind the head to head polls, either. No one knows Huck yet and he’s not doing very much worse against Obama and Edwards than Fred or Mitt are, frankly. Check back in six weeks and see how he’s doing then.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Could be; read this. Exit question: When exactly did Drudge become to the anti-Huckabee camp what Hugh Hewitt is to the pro-Romney camp?
Update: Blar blar blar.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m a Rudy supporter. But if I had to, I could vote for Mitt, Fred, or McCain. There’s no way I would ever vote for Huckabee.
asc85 on December 11, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Come on Allah. Everybody knows Drudge has a very, very “complex” relationship to Hillary. She probably phoned him with this stuff herself.
BJ* on December 11, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Why would the Democrats leak/release this information now?
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 12:07 PM
If he’s the other choice, I’ll be voting ABH (anybody but Hillary).
jdpaz on December 11, 2007 at 12:07 PM
In my lib environment, plenty of people who don’t like Clinton, would hold their noses and vote for her against Huckabee.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Indeed. But why do that unless they’re worried about Huck?
Allahpundit on December 11, 2007 at 12:08 PM
If Drudge is a Mirror-Universe Hewitt, than can anyone else be trusted as an analyst if they support Huckabee?
Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I agree
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Same with me. Huck really represents the convergence of the worst traits in politics today.
sweeper on December 11, 2007 at 12:10 PM
That’s easy to say now. But next November, when you’ve been subjected to nine months of attacks from Hillary on conservatives and Huck attacking back to champion the GOP? You’ll think differently, I guarantee it.
Allahpundit on December 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Huck’s soul won’t allow him to do what it takes to win.
Hillary sold her soul back in college and has no such restrictions.
saint kansas on December 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM
They love their trial balloons. Float it out there, poll it, see how reps base react.
sweeper on December 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Likely, but I can’t imagine it’ll be easy.
Esthier on December 11, 2007 at 12:13 PM
but he’s got a lock on the south in the general
i dont think so. The media will pants this guy like a Yankee tourist on a canoeing vacation in Georgia five minutes after he gets the nomination.
Pr illegal Immigration, weak on crime, and wrong on taxes. Thats a dead end in the south for a Republican.
amish on December 11, 2007 at 12:13 PM
The democrats look at The High Reverend Huckster like a kid on Christmas morning looks at the base of the Christmas tree.
They just don’t know which present to open first.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Exactly; I don’t care much for Huck, but if he ends up the nominee, I’ll still vote for him over anyone from the Dem’s camp.
Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Maybe Obama did it. He doesn’t want to run against Huck.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 12:14 PM
She is going to tack so far to the right, after the primaries, that you’ll think Goldwater is running.
sweeper on December 11, 2007 at 12:15 PM
That’s a real brain teaser… Uhh, a few days ago?
captivated_dem on December 11, 2007 at 12:15 PM
It’s all over anyway. I just read this morning that both Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon are throwing their support behind Edwards.
Done deal.
saint kansas on December 11, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Allah,
I thought you weren’t voting. Being in a blue state, and all.
amerpundit on December 11, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Huckabee’s candidacy is going to be marked by the constant drum beat of flip flop flip flop to an extent that could make a Kerry blush.
Nevermind the whole “A power that is ‘not human’ is fueling my rise, says Huck” thing.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 12:19 PM
If The High Reverend Huckster is the GOP nominee, Hillary won’t subject conservatives to nine months of attacks. She won’t have to. She will run to the right, and certainly to the libertarian side, of him on many issues.
I guarantee it.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Its the same situation when social conservatives, like James Dobson, say they will never vote for Rudy. When they see Hillary with her thick ankles and socialist tendencies coming they will sing a different tune.
Complete7 on December 11, 2007 at 12:20 PM
They’re trying to cool off all this Republican/Evang ardor. The way I see it is that they’re more scared of Huck than anybody else. The Drudge leaks aren’t crowing and bragging about how easy he’ll be to take on, they’re panicky attempts to pile on the negatives so that Huck is taken out.
BJ* on December 11, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Nuh uh. Not a chance. I would “hold my nose and vote” for Rudy, Romney, or even McCain over Clinton … but I would sit and watch Hillary win before I’d vote for this guy. If conservatives are stupid enough to nominate Huckabee … I welcome Her Thighness with open arms.
Gregor on December 11, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I guarantee you’re wrong.
Gregor on December 11, 2007 at 12:25 PM
They’re trying to cool off all this Republican/Evang ardor. The way I see it is that they’re more scared of Huck than anybody else. The Drudge leaks aren’t crowing and bragging about how easy he’ll be to take on, they’re panicky attempts to pile on the negatives so that Huck is taken out.
Just like Republicans were really afraid that Dean was gonna get the nomination last time.
Huck is a joke. Mondale style landslide IMO.
amish on December 11, 2007 at 12:25 PM
With respect to Drudge, about the same time everyone else- including Hot Air- started covering his campaign closely?
Hugh had his nose surgically attached to Mitt’s backside from the very beginning.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 12:27 PM
The man is an ordained minister. The Dems have proven again and again they can easily destroy anything honest and good. Not that the huckster is… but to them he is.
Griz on December 11, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Why?
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Oh by the way… I’ve been saying this from the very beginning. The huckster IS ‘easy kill’ for the dems.
Griz on December 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM
A Romniac criticizing a candidate on flip-flops? Irony, thy name is BKennedy.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I can’t get into what the Dems are up to on the alledged “leak,” but it’s going to be an interesting contest. Assuming Hillary is the nominee (not so assured as of today) I agree with the conspiracy camp on this one. They want to prop up Huck because they know he’s a lightweight beneath the smooth speeches and they can destroy him.
It’s really discouraging seeing the talk about “no way I’d vote for _____, I’d rather sit through 4 years of Hillary, it’ll be good for America” BS. No flippin’ way, man. No way. The validation of media CW that a Hillary win would bring…the return of the Clinton mob family….the absolute snakes and slime of the Media Matters crowd. Fairness Doctrine. CommieCare health plans. “America spoke up and rejected the NeoCons!” No way.
If our choices are really going to be John Edwards in a clerical collar vs. the crypto-Marxist she-male, sign me up for a Huck badge. Hell, I might even go to church once or twice.
Hannibal Smith on December 11, 2007 at 12:35 PM
We do not have a nuclear program, says Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
amerpundit on December 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Huckabee (no I am not a supporter) has that likability factor that scares Hillary.
Little humor, a little aw shucks, a little stumble, a little faith…scary stuff or Dems. And they can’t attack him on raising taxes, big government, immigration,he is one of them.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Huck would suck vs Hillary in the general. Yeah, Huck would do well in the South, but where else? Do you really see Huck winning Florida? Michigan? Ohio? Oregon? Pennsylvania? He can’t win the general by winning the South alone. If Hillary is desparate, and Obama is willing to play second fiddle, Clinton/Obama would also peel off some Southern states due to the black/woman vote.
RW Wacko on December 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I think that The High Reverend Huckster retired the worlds record on flip-flops when he went from calling those who did not want to roll out the red carpet for illegals, un-Cristian, un-American and anti-life to having positions on illegals on his web site that read like Tom Tancredo on steroids.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 12:41 PM
A caller to Limbaugh says the DNC suspects Romney camp of contacting Drudge about not taking on Huckabee.
JiangxiDad on December 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I’m with you, AP. Only holding my nose won’t be sufficient. If Huskabee is the nominee, I’m going to need a barf bag.
peski on December 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM
That sounds both unpleasant and uncomfortable – for Hugh and Mitt.
Frozen Tex on December 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM
The DNC statement would hold a lot more water if they hadn’t spent so much time attacking Mitt.
Medicated on December 11, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Romney has flipped but not flopped. He’s tacked to the right ever since he knew he wouldn’t be running in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts.
If Huckabee gets the nomination I’m writing in Hunter. And I’ll be pissed off for years.
NTWR on December 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM
To say that they can’t wait to be matched up against Huck means one of two things: 1). They really can’t wait to be matched up against Huck, or 2). They really don’t want to be matched up against Huck and they are trying to frighten Republicans away from voting for him.
I believe that this statement is an example of option #1 but its a bit of a misdirection play. The reason why I believe this is because the MSM and every Dem strategist on TV has been building Huckabee up as best they can for the last month or more. If they were really so afraid of the Huckster they would not be praising him at every turn prior to this statement. I think they released this statement because they are afraid that Republican voters have noticed the false enthusiasm Dem strategists and MSM members are providing Huckabee in their attempt to build him up and as a result damage the other Republican candidates (Thompson and Romney in particular). I think they have conducted some internal polling that has shown them that Republican primary voters have just recently begun to ask themselves the question, “hey, why are all these Dems and MSM talking heads speaking so highly of this Huckabee fellow?” I think the Dems have leaked this to Drudge for fear that their effort to build up Huckabee is too noticeable and, as a result, could backfire.
Zetterson on December 11, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Keep in mind that Romney governed about as far to the right as he could in leftist Massachusetts and The High Reverend Huckster governed about as far to the left as he could in center-rightist Arkansas.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM
It’s a classic match-up, Huck the Saint versus Hillary the She-Devil. Dems have proven time and again they are on the side of the Anti-Christ.
Added extra bonus, as pointed out by Rush today, the Dems will label Huck as a Bush clone, enabling them to use all of their tried and true Bush-hating propaganda all the way through to election day.
HuckHitler is just around the corner.
fogw on December 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Huck would suck vs Hillary in the general. Yeah, Huck would do well in the South, but where else? Do you really see Huck winning Florida? Michigan? Ohio? Oregon? Pennsylvania? He can’t win the general by winning the South alone. If Hillary is desparate, and Obama is willing to play second fiddle, Clinton/Obama would also peel off some Southern states due to the black/woman vote.
Florida will vote for Huckabee easy. He’s probably the only Rep right now that could pick up Ohio and Penn. too. His blue collar rhetoric will play extremely well there. You still think Obama is strong southern contender and it makes me laugh. A black guy from Illinois is going to do well in the South huh? Hillary will do better in the south on her own.
bj1126 on December 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Dang it screwed up the quotes… man this thing needs an edit feature.
bj1126 on December 11, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Prolly came from Hillary’s campaign
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM
I have a crystal ball. Huck is not going to win the Republican nomination but he could very well be VP candidate… for Hillary.
Zetterson on December 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I just heard that Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman fame endorsed the Huck.
Now THAT’S irony. Red meat screenshot anyone?
NTWR on December 11, 2007 at 1:02 PM
The High Reverend Huckster’s “blue collar rhetoric” of calling those who did not want to roll out the red carpet for illegals, un-Cristian, un-American and anti-life?
That “blue collar rhetoric”?
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Are you kidding me? Does he know that Huck is an open borders, anti-immigration law enforcement candidate?
Zetterson on December 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM
I’m, glad you said that and not me.
captivated_dem on December 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM
The Mitt-Mike Religious War
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM
AR isn’t as liberal as MA, but the Dems still controlled the legislature in AR while he was governor.
Point is- to me it looks like there’s a double standard here. I’m certainly no supporter of the Huckster, but it seems that Mitt is getting a pass from many on his numerous flip-flops, while Huckabee isn’t. Must be the hair.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Sorry AP, but you don’t have a clue about what I’ll be doing. I’d either vote 3rd Party, or I simply wouldn’t vote. In ‘96 I actually voted for Perot, because I wasn’t voting for Bob “Just Don’t Do It” Dole.
But Huckabee isn’t getting the nomination anyway, so this is really all an exercise in the abstract.
You want to vote for Huckabee? Be my guest.
asc85 on December 11, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Because people like to talk, and they find it especially difficult to contain their glee.
Suppose the Democrats looked ready to nominate, say, Dennis Kuchnich. You think we wouldn’t be chortling like schoolchildren? Or that the RNC wouldn’t be doing handsprings?
paul006 on December 11, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Because the reality is (yes, I stole that from the other fraud in the race) that Huckabee will do pretty much the same things Hillary will do. Regardless of what he is “saying” he’ll do … he’ll refuse to build the wall, he’ll raise taxes, he’ll be weak on crime, he’ll most likely shoot for some type of national health care, and pretty much screw the entire country in every way possible.
The only positive trait Huckabee has is his Christian faith and I sense that’s as fake as a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
I will not vote for Huckabee. Period. And my feeling is that there are millions more who feel the same way.
Gregor on December 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM
In general usage, a “flip flop” doesn’t require changing positions twice, but rather a sudden change in position during or immediately before an election campaign.
And “tacked to the right”? That’s pretty charitable- the guy completely re-invented himself. Why should I believe he won’t tack back left to the center during the general election or while in office if the political winds change even slightly?
Rudy: Fiscal moderate, social liberal.
Mitt: Fiscal big government moderate, social moderate/chameleon.
Huck: Fiscal liberal, social conservative.
McCain: Fiscal conservative, social moderate/backstabber.
I’m already pissed off that these are among our choices as front-runners.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM
As you can tell from my previous posts, I’m in complete agreement with you. I get there differently, but that’s where I am.
asc85 on December 11, 2007 at 1:33 PM
I suppose it depends on how you define “sudden.” For what it’s worth, Mitt’s current positions were locked in before any of the campaign heavy lifting and he has kept to those positions to a T ever since.
Naturally if he tacks left in the general, the only thing he’s doing is committing suicide. I have decided based on Romney’s exemplary moral life that he is worthy of trust. My belief (based on purely anecdotal evidence) is that decent, hard-working people are horrible at lying. By his life example Mitt is a decent, hard-working family man. I doubt lying comes to him easily or if it ever even occurs to him as a respectable option.
On the other hand, Huck’s revelations on immigration came last week and his “God’s candidate” crap is getting on my nerves.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 1:45 PM
You forgot…
Fred: faux fiscal conservative, faux (pro-choice) social conservative / Lobbyist, Terrorist Lawyer
Plus, Rudy is fiscally conservative, not moderate, and socially moderate, not liberal.
But what are labels?
tommylotto on December 11, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Allah, wake up. Huck is a disaster! I don’t care about how many people like him right now. Just wait til when they wake up. He is VERY weak on immmigration (despite his recent endorsement). He is also a fiscal liberal. His nomination would be the nail in the coffin for the Republican Party. I honestly don’t think I would vote for him if he were nominated.
davenp35 on December 11, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Fla is more NY than NY at this point. Plus Huck pissed off the Cubans. Hillary has been working the Cuban vote for years, now. Gimme a break. PA and Ohio going for Huck? No way.
RW Wacko on December 11, 2007 at 2:27 PM
His campaign actually started about mid-2005; as late as 2006 he flipped on amnesty, and flipped on a federalist view on abortion in 2007.
Tacking to the right for the primaries and left towards the center is what most Repubican candidates do almost every election… and there’s a lot of room on Mitt’s left to move back to.
“I’ve hunted pretty much all my life”. “I own a gun”.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 2:32 PM
I will never vote for Huckabee, and that goes for all the other LDS people I know. You reap what you sow, Republicans.
WasatchMan on December 11, 2007 at 2:32 PM
lommylotto: Delusional.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Which candidates besides Romney would the LDS people you know vote for?
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 2:35 PM
How is this happening. Someone please wake me up from this nightmare.
Patriot33 on December 11, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Mitt had two epiphanies on abortion one right before running for governor of pro-choice Mass. In that epiphany a close relative was killed by an illegal abortion and he realized that abortions must always be safe and legal. The second epiphany happened months before running for POTUS as a Republican famous for its pro-life plank. In that epiphany (much less credible) stem cell research overcame the death of a close relative to a back alley abortion and convinced him to become ardently pro-life. Both of these epiphanies came at politically convenient times. The “faith of his fathers” is all about securing the confidence of others even if you need to change the word of God to do so. Mitt’s career as a politician is the same. He has no principles other than those he offers to you in order to win your confidence.
You have much more faith in his veracity than his personal history warrants. He is a craven politician that will say anything or take any position if it will get him what he wants — elected.
tommylotto on December 11, 2007 at 2:44 PM
A candidate who does not have a history of exploiting anti-Mormon prejudice.
WasatchMan on December 11, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I (and most people) don’t particularly care about whether he owns a gun or not or hunts regularly. That was probably ill-advised psychobabble his advisors wanted him to say. It has no actual impact on any of his positions and only gun nuts give a rip.
Insofar as McCain-Kennedy that’s a blot on most of the candidates, bar Tancredo and Hunter.
And I fail to see how supporting a constitutional amendment goes against the principles of federalism considering in order to pass it would need the approval of 38 states. Anyone arguing the HLA is against federalist principles is an idiot on an unfathomably grand scale. Federalists put the ability to amend the Constitution by a supermajority of the states in the first place. Essentially what a “federalist” against the HLA would argue in that instance is that the constitution should never be amended because it takes away power from the states.
But then, that’s “Fraud!eralism” for ya. Completely clueless conjectures on topics which Fraud! makes no attempt to understand.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Glad we can agree on Huckabee, at least.
I don’t know what attracts you to Rudy though. He’s quite evitable, has a closet so full of skeletons ir makes the cryptkeeper blush, and is generally not conservative in any way shape or fashion. Make the guy SecDef, but don’t give him the Presidency.
BKennedy on December 11, 2007 at 2:55 PM
TucoThe High Reverend Huckster: God is on our side because he hates theYanksMormons!Blondie: God is not on our side because he hates idiots more.
MB4 on December 11, 2007 at 3:08 PM
I am living in the midst of the Huckaboom. I think I can give some insight, which boils down to just my opinion. They like him. He is down to earth. He talks the way they talk. The more Wall Street and the Beltway demonize him the more they will get their backs up. I’m not saying he will win it all I am just telling you how it looks from Iowa.
Bill Clinton had an “event” planned in my town today but it was canceled for the ice storm. Darn. Another opportunity missed to have “Bob Barker” sign an autograph.
Terri on December 11, 2007 at 3:23 PM
The point is that both statements were inexcusible lies that he had to retract when he got caught.
I’m ambivient about the HLA because it has no chance of passing- my point was that Mitt went from pro-choice and pro-Roe v Wade to a pro-life anti-Roe v Wade “let the states decide” stance to a pro-HLA one when he wanted to pick up the NRLA endorsement- all within the span of his current campaign efforts.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Just because they say the “DNC” didn’t do it does not mean that a knowledgeable Democrat didn’t do it, and that snarky and irrelevant hit at Romney hurt their credibility.
I think the Dems are fearful of Huck. As much as I really don’t like his policies the fact remains that he is an extraordinarily talented communicator. I’ve never seen anything like it.
Next to Obama the Messiah it would be a stalemate, but next to Hillary the Harridan Huck would have a great chance of getting elected.
Buy Danish on December 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM
This is all so depressing.
Rose on December 11, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Drudge has a news item up saying National Review endorses Mitt (which doesn’t come as any surprise, really).
bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 4:06 PM
The last person I am ever going to vote for is someone like Huckabee who wants to push his religion on everyone, wants prayer in schools, lets his “christianness” take over in criminal matters (EVERYONE can be rehabilitated), who wants to tax the hell out of everyone and redistribute it to the poor.
There is NO way I will ever vote for Huckabee. If he is the nominee, I will actively campaign against him. I will support ANY democratic candidate over him, offering them my vote and my time if needed to defeat him. The LAST thing we need is a person like Huckabee as president.
muyoso on December 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I should preface that I am not excited about any prospects of a Huck nomination.
However, I think everyone here who would rather cross party lines because of personal reasons against Huck, should reflect a little on what a national election means for a party vs local to state elections. We may never get a candidate that is spot on with what we want in issues or a candidate as conservative as we would like, but at least we would get someone closer to our objectives than any of the Democrat candidates.
If your candidate does not win the primary, don’t cry sour grapes and vote the other party in the general election. It doesn’t make sense.
Unless you can show me a Democrat candidate who is more conservative than the Republican canditate, I am voting GOP in the general election. It’s that simple.
Please help me to understand why one would “cut the nose to spite the face?”
. . .or am I being too simple?
geckomon on December 11, 2007 at 5:14 PM
A Huckabee nomination would make it clear that Mormons are not welcome in the alleged “big tent” of the GOP. You want our votes, but you trash our church. What are Mormons supposed to do, just let this go?
WasatchMan on December 11, 2007 at 8:43 PM
The latest from “Speaking adventures with Huck!”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1693659,00.html
Those wacky Arkansas governors!
Bradky on December 11, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Turn the other cheek? Just saying . . .
geckomon on December 11, 2007 at 10:30 PM
I think Drudge is bashing Huckabee just because he’s the man of the hour right now.
SoulGlo on December 11, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Amazing how many times it’s the one doing the slapping who ends up quoting that scripture.
WasatchMan on December 12, 2007 at 1:56 AM
Back that up! It’s easy. Ctrl-F geckomon. Please. Research does wonders.
Don’t create fiction at an attempt to prove a point.
geckomon on December 12, 2007 at 12:38 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
WasatchMan on December 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Comment pages: