Another troubling Huckabee clemency
posted at 9:07 pm on December 15, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Since 1992 I’ve wished that what happens in Arkansas would just stay in Arkansas. And that includes the state’s politicians as well as what they do, how they do it and who they do it for.
Much discussed lately is Gov. Mike Huckabee’s incredible record on issuing clemencies — more than 1,000 of them during his 10 years as governor. National Review and MSNBC are both reporting on a suspicious one involving an evidently incorrigible DWI convict who just happens to donate lots of money both to the AR GOP and to Baptist causes in the state. That the story is coming from both a liberal and a conservative outlet at roughly the same time suggests to me that it’s being fed to the press by a rival campaign, but nevertheless, if the facts are as reported, it doesn’t look good for Huckabee.
Questions are being raised about then-Gov. Huckabee’s 2004 decision to grant clemency to a repeat Driving While Intoxicated offender in Arkansas named Eugene Fields, despite the objections of a law enforcement official at the time. Documents obtained by NBC News reveal Fields’ case was handled differently from any other DWI clemency or pardon granted by Huckabee, and some Republicans are now suggesting significant political contributions may have influenced the governor’s decision.
In August 2001, Fields, of Van Buren, Ark., was convicted of his fourth DWI charge, a felony in the state of Arkansas, was sentenced to six years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Fields reported to prison in August of 2003.
But prison records obtained by NBC News show that six weeks into that six-year sentence, Fields’ application for clemency, a commutation of his sentence the governor could issue to grant Fields an early release from prison, was unanimously supported by the parole board. Within months, Huckabee issued his intent to grant executive clemency to Fields, who was released from prison soon thereafter.
On Fields’ application for a commutation of his sentence, four options are listed as possible reasons as to why the application was being made, including, “I wish to correct an injustice which may have occurred during trial,” and, “I want to adjust what may be considered an excessive sentence.” No boxes are checked on Fields’ application; instead “N/A” is written across the top of the sheet, for “Not Applicable.”
That’s the MSNBC set-up. Here’s the NRO writer’s take on why this particular clemency was unusual.
First, his case was the only one in which public objections were raised. Both the Crawford Country prosecutor and the county sheriff strongly objected to Fields’s executive clemency.
Second, there is a disparity between the Fields case and the others in respect to the time between conviction and clemency. When last convicted, Fields was 62 years old; but when Huckabee commuted his sentence he was 65 years old — a difference of three years. The years between convictions and executive clemencies for the others are as follows: 15 years, 17 years, 9 years, 14 years, 13 years, 10 years, and 14 years.
Third, Fields’s application contained none of the standard justifications for commutation requests. The form for executive clemency contains four reasons for clemency requests – the correction of injustice, a life-threatening medical condition, an excessive sentence, and exemplary institutional adjustment — and applicants are instructed to check the applicable box or boxes. The only comment Fields supplies for “reason(s) for applying for a commutation of my sentence” is a handwritten “N/A.”
Both the MSNBC and NRO articles also do a good job of laying out the relevant donations.
A review of campaign-finance records shows that Fields’s wife, Glenda, made two $5,000 contributions to the Arkansas Republican party — one on June 26, 2003 and another on July 14, 2003. Less than two months before Glenda Fields wrote the first of those checks, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied Eugene Fields’s petition for rehearing his 2001 felony DWI conviction.
—
Political contributions weren’t the only donations made by the Fields family. Also contained in his application (along with a character reference from his Southern Baptist pastor) were copies of thank-you notes and tax receipts for financial contributions from charitable causes and organizations he’d supported: The Salvation Army, Arkansas Children’s Hospital, U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, and the First Baptist Church of Van Buren’s “Women’s Mission Ministry.” The scope of his charitable donations, which began around the time of his second DWI conviction, expanded as his DWI rap sheet grew.
They’re not huge by national standards but do land in the upper echelon of state donations in Arkansas. None of this proves Huckabee did anything wrong, but it’s one of those things, like the infamous Clinton pardon of Mark Rich, that looks like selling government favors for cash. That the donations grew as Fields’ rap sheet stretched out is certainly something worth entertaining as a relevant fact.
Whether news of this clemency will dent Huckabee’s 9-point lead in Iowa is anyone’s guess, but I’d guess no at this point. Like most conservative bloggers I’ve been scratching my head about Huckabee’s rapid rise in the polls both nationally and state by state. Going by his record and most of what he says, he’s at best a squishy conservative. My take is that he’s hardly a political conservative at all though he is socially conservative on some issues, so his rise makes little sense apart from his getting some lift outside the normal channels of politics. And after thinking it over for a while, I do think he may be benefiting from just such a lift. It probably won’t surprise anyone to learn that that lift, if it’s happening, is coming primarily from evangelical Christians. It may surprise some to learn how it’s happening so quickly and why it may be all but impossible to break.
Here’s what I suspect. I can’t prove this, but I think Huckabee is getting enormous lift from one near-endorsement he earned that hardly anyone is talking about. It’s from Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in California, and it appeared on Huckabee’s official website in November.
Dr. Rick Warren recently made this statement discussing Governor Huckabee on a radio program:
“I know most of the candidates running for president but I’ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike’s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I’ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don’t. That’s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He’s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That’s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader - someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn’t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.”
Huckabee was still a second-tier candidate at the time and thus few noticed that statement’s appearance. The earliest major blog mention of it that I found was on Campaign Spot on November 28.
People who don’t spend much time in church or who don’t pay much attention to trends in church settings probably aren’t familiar with too many pastors, or at least aren’t familiar with many pastors who haven’t been caught bilking their followers out of millions of dollars or been caught in some other corruption, but chances are most of you have heard of Rick Warren. He’s the author of the mega best seller The Purpose-Driven Life. He’s also clean as a whistle on the corruption front. And he’s in my opinion the single most influential Protestant pastor in America, by far, and may be the most influential pastor in the world. Pat Robertson and others get much more media attention, but Warren either controls or strongly influences tens of thousands of churches around the country through the aforementioned book and through his many church educational programs. It’s difficult to overstate Warren’s influence on some churches, especially the ones led by pastors who literally buy Warren’s sermons (complete with Power Point slide shows) from his web site and deliver them from their local pulpits. Other pastors don’t do this, but Warren remains a towering influence in their churches in one way or another. Warren is staggeringly influential, and I’m not commenting on what I think about that influence in this post, just noting how influential he is. And to the extent that he has endorsed anyone in the 2008 race, he has endorsed Mike Huckabee, as seen in that statement above. Google “mike huckabee rick warren” and you’ll see thousands of references on small blogs and chat boards to that statement that appeared on the Huckabee website back in November.
I’m not saying that that Warren statement is responsible for Huckabee’s rise. I am saying that the perception that Warren endorsed Huckabee has probably flown through many of the churches, most of which are Southern Baptist, that follow Warren’s lead most closely. That’s bound to benefit Huckabee. If I’m right about that, then Mike Huckabee is positioning himself to be the first Purpose-Drive president, and because of that he’s going to be very tough to stop in the GOP primary.
Fwiw, Huckabee himself is a Southern Baptist minister who ran his church ministry on Warren’s Purpose-Driven model. Warren’s purpose-driven politics tend to run left on economics to favor “compassion” over government frugality, right on social issues and preserve a steadfast ignorance on foreign policy. Sound familiar?
I could be wrong on the Warren-Huckabee connection. I don’t think I am, of course, but I could be. If I’m right, I just hope the evangelicals who are supporting him will take a cold, hard look at his actual record before vaulting him to the nomination.
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: [1] 2 »
I will never forgive the Christian right if Huckabee ends up with the nomination.
Its Tommy on December 15, 2007 at 9:14 PM
and they care why?
EnochCain on December 15, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Good luck with that… I’m afraid Pastor Holiday Inn Express has locked in the poor, uneducated and easy to command vote. The only question now is just how much of the GOP does that group control? I’m about ready to start keying cars with Huck bumper stickers in church parking lots. Must. Resist. Temptation!
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 9:18 PM
I would be very happy if I never heard of the Huckster again.
It is a travesty of democratic politics that religious special interests, and maybe the MSM, and maybe Dems, are driving the polls for this empty suit.
I am sick of the religious debate and ready for some solid conservative political debate on the ISSUES.
fred5678 on December 15, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Where is the solid conservative in this race?
EnochCain on December 15, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Governor Clemency Hokeybee!
Gatordoug on December 15, 2007 at 9:22 PM
elect him and the huck is on all of us..
normsrevenge on December 15, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Well unless he implodes we are all Hucked.
EnochCain on December 15, 2007 at 9:25 PM
That’s a complete mischaracterization of Warren’s following — they’re neither poor nor uneducated nor particularly easy to command. They attend the country’s largest and wealthiest mega churches, and many of them are very highly educated and quite affluent. They do listen to a pastor that I think is mistaken in many ways, but that doesn’t make them stupid or backward and to characterize them as such doesn’t hold up to the facts.
I’m only pointing all of this out to keep us close to the facts. Insulting people that you don’t agree with but hope to win over isn’t likely to work. As an evangelical who is skeptical of Warren and opposed to Huckabee, believe me, I know what I’m talking about. Many here on Hot Air and elsewhere are content to spit at and insult Huckabee’s supporters. Imho, that’ll end up helping Huckabee solidify his support by creating a rallying effect. The anti-Huck (which often comes across as anti-evangelical) vitriol here has left me angry more than once, and I agree entirely with the criticisms of Huckabee. Heck, I’ve led in those criticisms when it’s been warranted.
Bryan on December 15, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I still prefer to think it’s a Democrat/MSM conspiracy to get the least electable GOP candidate nominated, thus ensuring a Democrat in the White House. It’s just more fun that way.
But seriously…if the Huckster gets the nomination, we’re all screwed because there’s no way he’ll win the general.
flipflop on December 15, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I think Fred’s the closest we’ve got, crappy campaigner or not.
flipflop on December 15, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Don’t forget, Warren essentially renounced his own faith recently for political gain. He is not exactly a deep thinker (he didn’t bother to understand what he was signing and didn’t care when it was pointed out to him later) and while he may not be corrupt in the political sense of the word, he’s big into empire building. There’s no doubt in my mind he’s pushing Huck in a big way behind the scenes.
The only way Huck will implode is if the media really turns on him, and what are the odds of that? Liberals will love it if he’s nominated, because no matter who wins, a liberal will be President.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM
That phrase comes from a Washington Post description of evangelicals. I assume it’s being used as a parody.
Still, as a pro-life, conservative Catholic, I have a big fear that if Huckabee wins the nomination, the “religious right” will be forever tarnished. I don’t want to be taken along for that kind of ride. I’m supporting Thompson, and I think Huckabee would be a disaster.
Still, I think this blog could use less parroting of MSM-style talking points when it comes to evangelicals. There’s no need to parrot the Washington Post’s description here.
Sydney Carton on December 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Leading to the question about the appropriateness of using the pulpit for political purposes. A connection to Warren doesn’t help him in my book, let’s just put it that way.
Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Bryan on December 15, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Snark, Bryan, from the old WaPo article that used that phrase. I wrote it to indicate that I think we’re playing into the stereotype.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 9:32 PM
I thought Obama was Warren’s guy.
Kid from Brooklyn on December 15, 2007 at 9:37 PM
[gasp!]
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
At this point, I wouldn’t be shocked to find out he just gave clemencies to entire prisons on Sundays as a Day of Jubilee.
Lehosh on December 15, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Although it sure looks that way, it isn’t likely. Given that Huck doesn’t understand Romans 13, I don’t expect him to grasp Leviticus 25, either.
Kid from Brooklyn on December 15, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Plus, the Kid doesn’t do hand shows, either. ;)
Kid from Brooklyn on December 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM
He is. Both Obama and Huck are. Like Wall St. bigshots contributing to both parties. Obama was featured guest in Warren’s church last year I think.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM
In all fairness, Hillary recently was there also - as far as I know he’ll have anybody over for various conferences, etc. He has not - as far as I know - turned his pulpit over to any of them on a Sunday morning. It’s all been for “extracurricular” stuff like the AIDS conference.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 9:45 PM
There’s got to be a point where Christians finally say ‘Huckabee may be a brother, but he’d make a terrible president.’
I hope that point comes soon.
Slublog on December 15, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Wow, in an older thread of an upcoming Huckabee endorsement I wrote that I had read a posting on an obscure blog that Warren would be endorsing him. I had no idea he had already done it.
I also highlighted some things that Warren said about Huckabee fighting the Global Jihad. I linked to the blog that had what Warren had said. Interesting read, but the blog itself that its on is pretty much left leaning.
broker1 on December 15, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Obama and Clinton have both spoken at Saddleback recently. Neither has earned a statement like the one above, though, at least as far as I know, and from what I know of evangelical churches (I’m a deacon of one), Obama and especially Clinton are far from popular in them.
Bryan on December 15, 2007 at 9:48 PM
There’s a “who ya voting for?” thread at pastors.com (Warren’s message board) and interesting, there’s plenty of variety. Some Huck fans, several FredHeads, Romneys, even a Ronulan.
Nothing in there about endorsing Huck.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 9:53 PM
My apoligies, it wasnt Warren please retract.
broker1 on December 15, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Didn’t the evangelicals (present co excepted of course) take up global warming as a worthy cause under the guise of stewardship? A pattern of not exercising the best judgment perhaps.
Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM
lol
Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 9:57 PM
I was wondering what the chatter on pastors.com was like. I haven’t logged in myself there in ages. Like I said, I could be wrong about the connection. It does make intuitive sense though, and above I wasn’t suggesting that pastors were endorsing Huck from their pulpits, just that word of mouth might be building him up among the churches that follow Warren’s lead.
Bryan on December 15, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Hey now, I’m a Christian and I’m dead set against Huck.
boomer on December 15, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Ditto.
As a Christian (far right!), I don’t care for Huck as a politician whatsoever. I don’t know anyone
down here north of Houston who is supporting this guy.
He’s not electable and, in my humble opinion, he’d make a horrible President. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
SouthernPride on December 15, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Sure is a lot of clemency’s,I don’t know,but the judges
in these cases were Liberal or conservative!
And normally this would be an asset for a Liberal,but for
a Republican a boat anchor,does’t bode to well for Huckabee.
And if the Republican Christians have him set for the nominee,and Huckabee doesn’t get that nod,please don’t tell
me,as I said before,that they’ll sit this one out,I
understand the principal’s idea,but there’s a war on,
and four years of Obama,or Hill!
canopfor on December 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM
It makes a great deal of sense. I (no snark this time) am really praying you’re wrong.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 10:11 PM
James Dobson has enough clout to sink the S.S. Huckabee. Too bad there isn’t a clear alternative for him to support.
Warren has seriously damaged his clout on the right with his transparently liberal agenda.
Valiant on December 15, 2007 at 10:11 PM
At least this is something that makes sense Bryan. I was starting to wonder about that “higher power” reasoning. He’ll sure take a beating from the media.
Go Fred.
Griz on December 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM
I hope so - but even if it’s true, will he? And he could do so without endorsing anybody else, just by saying something to the effect of, “Look at this guy’s history and policy positions - if he weren’t running on a ‘I’m a Christian’ platform you wouldn’t touch him with a ten meter cattle prod, so smarten up already!”
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Is Chuck influenced by Rick? Might that be the unseen connection that brought them together - ’cause that still befuddles me.
Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Now Huck smashes not only the conservative coalition, but splits evangelicals? Interesting turn of events.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I don’t think he will. Dobson is basically a single issue voter. Oh wait, two issue voter–abortion and gay marriage. He was ready to accept Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee simply because he was told that she would overturn Roe (at least according to the John Fund column in the WSJ).
If Huck isn’t seen as a threat to his pet issues, Dobson won’t speak up.
bert169 on December 15, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Well, I’m not a typical evangelical - if it’s not too “inside baseball” for you, I’m Reformed Charismatic. Too Calvinistic for most evangelicals. Sadly, I know quite a few people who are not total political junkies like I am, who support Huck. When Justin Taylor endorsed him that turned quite a few heads in the circles I run in. Oddly, less than Wayne Grudem’s support for Romney.
As for me, I’ve reconsidered. I would touch Huck with a ten meter cattle prod. Repeatedly.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 10:22 PM
So let me see if I understand this correctly. There are now massive churches spread out all over America, some of them holding thousands upon thousands of worshipers and many of which, possibly, are being influenced by some guy named Warren that I’ve never heard of? Next you’ll be telling me they have rows of barracks and dormitories in their compounds. Yikes!
To be honest, I’m starting to hope that Huckabee wins the Republican nomination. Maybe he’ll act as sort of a safety valve and bleed off some of the pressure that seems to have built up over recent years. I don’t think there were any mega-churches when I was a kid.
Huckabee has no business in the White House as far as I’m concerned, other than on a tour, but for the first time I’m developing a fear of Huckabee and the organized legions he and some guy named Warren command.
Nah, seriously though, I’m just kidding around for the most part, but it really is a little unnerving.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I am a born-again Christian, far right conservative and there’s no way that I am going to vote for the “Huckster”. I feel the same way about him that I felt about the “Peanut Brain” president that we had who had “lust in his heart”. He is still causing trouble for our country with his apartheid in Israel statements and other extremely STUPID things that he continues to do. He has to be the WORST president that we have had up to this day. If a Dumocrat gets elected, he may become the second worst president in our history.
TruthToBeTold on December 15, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I’m not going to bad-mouth Rick Warren, but I am not a fan.
Connie on December 15, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Especially the part where some guy named Warren may turn out to have virtually handed the Republican nomination for President of the United States to the man of his choice.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Heh. It’s nothing like that. On Christian teachings I consider Warren shallow and weak, and he’s shown that he has no depth on foreign policy questions more than once. But he’s no Heaven’s Gate cultist.
Bryan on December 15, 2007 at 10:40 PM
I was talking to someone else while I was typing and wrote the opposite of what I meant. MORE than Grudem’s support of Romney.
Laura on December 15, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I think at least part of the reason he is getting so much support in Iowa is because he is doing a better job of getting his message out. I am constantly seeing commercials for him on Iowa stations. Lately I’ve seen more commercials for him than any other candidate.
The commercial I usually see is on immigration, which is probably the number one issue around here, and he is saying all the right things. Build the fence, enforce the laws, no amnesty, etc. I don’t think people are hearing the truth about his immigration record, or his record in general, except us political junkies. Everyone else is just hearing what he wants them to hear, and there is no one contradicting him. I’m not sure if theres time to get the record set straight or not, maybe if we have a real debate, I don’t know. Somehow someone is going to have to hit him, particularly on the immigration issue, but I don’t know if there’s time left to do it.
Gianni on December 15, 2007 at 11:00 PM
…because of course the first thing out of Jesus’ mouth when I get to heaven is how much money I drug into the church coffers by letting murderers, rapists, degenerates, and reprobates run loose in society and harm innocent people.
It all makes sense now. Jesus wants us to vote for Mike Hucakbee.
thareb on December 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Finally some close to ground zero with some real information. Thank you!
Limerick on December 15, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Giuliani is Reagan compared to this guy.
If Huck is elected I will seriously consider voting for Obama.
The Dems might as well take the blame for liberal the economics and Jimmy Carter like foreign policy.
If anyone thinks the Huck will elect Scalia like judges….good luck.
Get your head out of your asses SoCons.
mylegsareswollen on December 15, 2007 at 11:27 PM
As one of the Frozen Chosen (old school, Presbyterian, serious WASP), I need someone to give me a handle on how influential Rick Warren is. My mother read his book, The Purpose Driven Life, but she’s frozen too, and not about to let someone without a serious classical education tell her about politics. Is it the number of books he’s sold that makes people believe he’s politically influential? The size of his church? Something else? What am I missing?
DrMagnolias on December 15, 2007 at 11:27 PM
So, Iowa has illegal issues as well?
Being sarcastic of course, but this is the first I’ve heard it. Haven’t heard the media talking about the good folks of Iowa’s thoughts on the issue one iota. Maybe I’ve just missed it.
Saying that, if the issue is actually important to Iowa, why would they have Huck in the lead? Just curious.
SouthernPride on December 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I think you need to read the previous posts and then my “name”. My head is NOT in my ass. Never is.
Don’t blame Huck’s current Iowa surge on Southern conservatives. We ain’t there dude (or dudette).
SouthernPride on December 15, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Oh and one more thing…
Us “SoCons” make up most of our military. You might want to watch your condescending tone “swollen legs”.
SouthernPride on December 15, 2007 at 11:37 PM
I don’t think this is about the ‘Christian right’ although the media likes to put it in a nice little package like that. I don’t know what his appeal is. But I didn’t understand Clinton’s appeal either.
I don’t know that these clemency revelations and other revelations are sexy enough to resonate with people. If they haven’t derailed him yet, I don’t think they will.
Great post and it shows that there are other elements at play here. Namely illegal immigration (which as we know he’s terrible on, but he plays a good song about it).
I wonder how much of his popularity might have to do with Rudy wanting him to do well to get rid of Romney’s threat. None of it makes sense. But the problem is not as much Huckabee as it is that we don’t have a good candidate to choose from. All the GOP needed was a conservative. The GOP had 8 years to mold a conservative and we get a rag tag RINO bunch thrown together at the last minute. What is wrong with the party?
Newt would beat all of these guys in a second.
ThackerAgency on December 15, 2007 at 11:38 PM
I seem to remember an endorsement from another Southern Baptist leader for Fred Thompson. Dr. Richard Land has endorsed FT since his intention to run for President was made known. Surely the endorsment by a man of Dr. Lands stature must carry considerable weight in the evangelical community. FT needs to republicize this fact.
sonnyspats1 on December 15, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Thank you for saying this.
INC on December 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
correction/ no endorsement but a very favorable opinion
sonnyspats1 on December 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
sonnyspats1,
Interesting you should bring up Dr. Land, because from this Opinion Journal article of late October, it’s clear that the SB’s are not solidly behind Huckabee.
INC on December 15, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Ok, hubby just told me that “SoCons” would mean “Social Conservatives”. If that’s what “swollen legs” meant, sorry for my retort. I thought you were referring to “Southern Conservatives”.
Eh….whatever. I don’t like the term either way.
SouthernPride on December 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Has the Huckster seen his last rise in the polls?
Has the Blogosphere exposed another candidate by telling the facts?
Will the MSM follow and ask the tough questions?
Tune in tomorrow as the world turns!
Same BAT channel same Bat time…… :)
Nelsa on December 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
In my view, the main problem with the party is that for the past eight years or so, they have completely misread the political landscape at every turn. They thought the Bush win in the last election was about Bush, when it was really about Kerry. They believed the GOP defeat in the last election was about Iraq, when it was really about people being completely fed up with a GOP that seemed to be racing to outspend Democrats, and had no principles whatsoever. The party interpreted the bath they have taken in recent years as a repudiation of conservatism, when in fact a conservative is the party’s best hope.
DrMagnolias on December 15, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Because as I said, no one knows his record outside of us political junkies. The only thing that is being heard is his commercials which say exactly the right things about immigration. He needs to be hit, and hit hard on that issue. Unfortunately the only ones hitting him are bloggers.
Remember this from a few months ago? Even Iowa Democrats are fed up with illegal immigration.
How about this from the Iowa straw poll? Immigration was a big issue at the Straw Poll.
You can also look at Rep. Steve King of the conservative Iowa 5th District. He is a very strong opponent of illegal immigration.
Gianni on December 15, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Thank you!!! Lord, I wish the TANK and Duncan Hunter were tops in the polls. They are the REAL CONSERVATIVES!!
And cuddos to the Lady, a registered Dem., who can actually SEE what is taking place in this Country!
Thanks again for the re-runs.
SouthernPride on December 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM
I appreciate this link between Huckabee and Warren. It explains much about Huckabee’s behavior during this campaign.
I too am a southern-baptist and am well aware of Warren’s influence and methods. I have personally seen the effects of the his influence that Bryan mentioned.
I recommend hotair reading southern-baptists to read some good books about the Purpose Driven author.
Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church?
Deceived on Purpose
I wonder what you think of when you say ‘Christian right’. Is it the popular christian leaders in TV and radio?
Is it the those christians that firmly believe that there are absolute wrongs that you don’t agree with?
Or is it most Christians in general?
I can only guess the possibilities but have no idea what you actually were thinking. I don’t need to know actually but let me say that on one level I might agree with you. I am frustrated with celebrity Christians who do unspeakable things in the name of Christianity and either are clueless or just plain ignore both biblical and historical christianity.
shick on December 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM
OT, but Evan Sayet seems to be writing again. Good stuff.
If you want a glimpse at just how much the ‘progressives’ hate you and everything you believe in, just check out the comments.
techno_barbarian on December 16, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Does anyone here find local online forums in Iowa or any other state and post in them?
Connie on December 16, 2007 at 12:18 AM
That’s just about as right as a person can get.
Buzzy on December 16, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Here’s an example of the kind of things Iowans are hearing from Huckabee, which don’t match his record:
Another thing that helps him in Iowa is that he “seems like a real person,” as one of the people in the article mentioned.
Gianni on December 16, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I see 1992 all over again. The MSM and others promoting Perot, and many people sucked into believing he had a chance.
…same with McCain in 2000, although the outcome was different.
The real question is, how many supporters of the Huckster are at all informed on his positions.
91Veteran on December 16, 2007 at 12:50 AM
The drive-by media will only turn on Huckabee, and they will, after he gets the nomination.
Once that happens, expect them to start reporting all the stories that have been already shown here at Hotair, but with hyper-drama as if he is Elmer Gantry reincarnate.
The drive-by media wants no politician with an R after his name in office, no matter how liberal.
91Veteran on December 16, 2007 at 12:56 AM
So it sounds like perhaps the Huckster has gained so much ground largely due to a steady deluge of hucksterism. If you’re right it means that the other candidates may be able to emulsify Huck’s snake oil with some reality-based campaigning. However, if his rise really is the result of some guy named Warren then probably nothing can stop Huckabee but Warren himself.
FloatingRock on December 16, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Wow, if you are right about the influence of Rick Warren, Bryan, then this would mean that Rick Warren has more influence than Rush Limbaugh (considering Rush Limbaugh gave a non-endorsement endorsement of Fred Thompson a week or two ago). Scary.
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 1:03 AM
By the way, I meant to ask so many other times when posting on this topic, but are the Presidential tracking polls polling “likely voters” or just “adults” or something?
All these polls seem dire, but so did the exit polls in 2004 and we all know how that turned out. And we all know how the media conducts polls nowadays simply to spit out the results it wants. See here for example. So are all these polls showing Mike Huckabee rising polling “likely voters”? Just curious. Because it really doesn’t matter if most adults support Huckabee, but then don’t get off their butts to bother to vote for him in the Primary.
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Bryan on December 15, 2007 at 9:26 PM
FloatingRock
Michael in MI
I just wanted to tell you I have really enjoyed your posts this evening, and expressed very eloquently what has been frustrating me about this site for the last few weeks. (ad hominem attacks on evangelicals)
Bryan, you expressed my views as an evangelical very well, and F.R. and M. had some great posts about the coalition within the Republican party. Kudos to you!
Bottom line, we all need to work together to support the candidate with the best chance of beating the Dems in ‘08.
NOT Huckabee!
Jodella on December 16, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Jodella on December 16, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Agreed.
And let me also throw my hat in the ring (in case it was not already obvious from my earlier posts) that I am someone who would probably be labeled as “evangelical” or “right-wing Christian” and I am wholeheartedly against Mike Huckabee. I am as flabbergasted as everyone else to figure out why he is getting so much support.
The only thing I can figure is that people are ignorant as to his actual positions on many policy issues. The posts by Gianni only make me believe this even more.
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 1:39 AM
The silver lining I see in this is:
Huck is busy airing commercial after commercial in Iowa hoping to snow enough people that he is serious about immigration.
Along comes the Fred!, and he airs a few commercials in Iowa showing what Hucks record is on both immigration and his clemencies.
I suspect Iowans are smart enough to then realize they may have been played for fools, and won’t be happy about it.
91Veteran on December 16, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Another thing that would hurt Huck is if Steve King endorses either Mitt or preferably Fred. I think a lot of Huck’s supporters are probably Steve King voters. He could take a lot of wind out of Huck by strongly endorsing the right person. Of course if he endorses Huck, which I can’t see happening, then we are all screwed. He is supposed to be endorsing someone soon, so we’ll see.
Gianni on December 16, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Interesting.
Looks like the other campaigns are starting the attacks now. Hopefully they can knock him down some.
Gianni on December 16, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Oh, I can understand the catching more flies with honey than vinegar approach. But do try to understand how infuriating it is that the same people who have been screeching about Bush on immigration and the GWOT are now endorsing Huck who is WAY worse on those two issues and worse on crime and taxation to boot. All they seem to hear is that he’s a Christian and they just assume all kinds of things from that, apparently.
As far as I’m concerned, they’re making us all look bad - reinforcing every stereotype of the “poor, uneducated, and easy to command” Christian who can’t think for for himself and just believes whatever he’s been told. Not just politically - but the gospel as well. I’m not talking about every Huck supporter, obviously - just the ones who have been all over Bush for not being aggressive enough in the war, and pretty much everybody who thinks we need to crack down on illegal immigration, etc. For them to support Huckabee is a disgrace.
So I’m hopping mad about it. Maybe sweet talk is more effective than the rhetorical slap in the face I’d like to give them - and trust me when I say that I’ve been very restrained so far. I’ll try to tone it down still further. But I think the difference between those folks and Truthers is one of degree, not kind.
Laura on December 16, 2007 at 2:46 AM
A comment from Gianni’s link:
Q.E.D.
Laura on December 16, 2007 at 2:53 AM
For quite some time we’ve been told that the evengelicals have “matured” and would shut up and support anyone shoved down our throats… Funny, but we didn’t buy Rudy with his Pro-Abortion, Nanny-State approach to government and now the elites are upset with us! Bush fooled us twice and we aren’t going along for the ride again!
sabbott on December 16, 2007 at 3:34 AM
Speaking of troubling stories about Huckabee, Dan Riehl posts this:
Uh Oh: Huckabee: Torture Not Ok, … Except For Dogs?
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Look bad to whom? The Democrats? The media?
Cheesestick on December 16, 2007 at 4:57 AM
Clinton operative.
saved on December 16, 2007 at 8:02 AM
Cheesestick - look bad to non-Christians in general. Because as a body, conservative Christians seem to be turning their backs on some key ideas that we’ve roasted others for not adhering to, now that Pastor Holiday Inn Express is running.
You think we’d put up with a candidate whose soul wouldn’t let him enforce federal immigration law if that candidate were Hindu? (We didn’t give John McCain much of a break on that issue and he’s at least nominally Christian.) It’s one thing to say that only the political junkies are aware of details about Huck. But that “my soul won’t let me” nonsense got a lot of play, and so have the tuition breaks. He’s Mr. Border Tough Guy now, what, a month later? If we’re dumb enough to buy that based on several weeks worth of campaign commercials, we’re dumb enough to buy anything - like this whole wacky idea of Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice.
Laura on December 16, 2007 at 9:00 AM
BINGO!
This scares me more than anything. I’m a very conservative very convinced “evangelical Christian”. But I’m certain Huck is the guy who’ll wreck our country with a completely wrong-headed understanding of what scripture requires of civil governments.
Compassion is NOT allowing a nation of individuals to abdicate their personal responsibility to care for their neighbor since the government has become their surrogate giver.
International leadership is NOT consorting with lying murderous political leaders or tolerating illegal intruders neither of whom have any thought or concern about the sanctity of our constitution or its values!
The Religious Right will make a huge mistake if they fall for this weak-minded candidate!
The Ritz on December 16, 2007 at 9:09 AM
OK, call me crazy - there’s enough about Huckster that I don’t like - BUT, does he remind anyone else of Gregory Itzen (played Pres on 24).
msflea on December 16, 2007 at 9:13 AM
I would still rather have him as president instead of one of the Democrats.
This guy is more an evangelical, token whipping boy for both ends of the political spectrum. All I can see is that he did a better job in some of the debates than the other Republican candidates. Rudy is stuck on being a mayor, Fred is a sour, old poop and Mitt gives me the same nausea that Bill Clinton does. If someone would ‘biotch’-slap Ron Paul while he’s talking, that would be the sign for me of who needs my support.
He will never get the nod for the Republican party, but I guess it’s fun to fantasize the worse.
Hening on December 16, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Just saw this at Townhall, via The Corner:
Laura on December 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM
I hope so too Bryan. We’re electing a president here, not a chaplain.
Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on December 16, 2007 at 10:02 AM
If Huck actually read the bible, he would know that as a minister, a teacher of the word a leader, he is held at a much higher standard…those are the words of the person he has sworn to serve and worship.
That is why, a true believer and teacher in the Word, cannot be a politician. The standard is just too high.
*
Put a fork in him, he is done…he should return to the pulpit, obviously he is held to a lot lower standard then we expect of our political leaders.
right2bright on December 16, 2007 at 10:14 AM
How refreshing to read a Huckabee comment thread here at Hot Air that isn’t chock-full of bias and resentment towards Christians. Excellent post as usual by the way, Bryan.
Having said that, why am I not surprised that Rick Warren has given Huck his stamp of aproval? I saw Warren’s populist political shortcomings on full display when he invited Obama to speak at his church. I am convinced that his success and influence have less to do with God’s blessing than his own marketing skills. His church -growth model has proven to be too irresistable for many well-intentioned pastors who are tempted by the promise of larger congregations.
When I moved to Cleveland a few years ago, I set out to find a good chuch. One of the churches I visited happened to be full-on working the Warren model. Everyting in print at that church had the Prupose Driven logo on it - the signs, the lukewarm worship lyrics, the program - even the three-point “sermon”, which by the way was a lesson on church membership growth. The pastor more than once stated that their vision was to have a mega-sized congregation. There was one mention of sin in the whole service, during a skit or video - I can’t remember. It was disheartening. I thought, “this isn’t a worship service, this is a business seminar.”
Rick Warren has mass-marketed the seeker-freindly church model with stunning results. But I wonder how many true conversions this movement is responsible for.
The Huckleberries need to wake up and do a little research on their candidate rather than assume his surge in the polls indicates a mandate from God. (And I hope that more people will excercise a bit of discernment in regards to Warren. It’s called Google, folks!)
Thanks to Hot Air I know the truth about Huck - should some of these evangelical supporters find their way here I hope they feel welcome - but some of the recent threads for Allah’s posts have revealed for me a new level of anti-Christian sentiment.
Dork B. on December 16, 2007 at 10:55 AM
So, we have a guy who franchises belief systems serving as a kingmaker for the GOP nominee? Swell! If this succeeds, it will discredit the whole Christian coalition when Huck goes down in flames vs Hillary or Obama. Opposition research will be on this like white on rice, and fair or not, the stereotypes will be invoked. Warren’s trip to Syria and his comments/denials will be above the fold during the general.
a capella on December 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Willow Creek just gave up on the seeker-friendly (read: pandering) model (which they started) because they finally figured out that butts in the pews ≠ successful ministry.
Laura on December 16, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »