Coulter unloads on Huckabee, to little effect
posted at 10:43 pm on December 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“It’s not his faith or his Merry Christmas commercial that many conservatives question (I certainly don’t),” writes Mark Levin at the Corner, “but it’s his record as governor and his stated positions on the war, foreign policy generally, taxes, spending, and illegal aliens.” Quite. What does Coulter zero in on? The fact that Huck’s evidently not evangelical enough, qualifying his dissent from Darwinism by assuring people he wouldn’t pull evolution out of public schools and tepidly supporting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case finding gay sexual conduct protected by constitutional privacy rights. (Although note her point about how his standards on regulating private behavior change when it comes to, say, smoking.) He’s too “cornpone,” she says, too “stupid and easily led,” criticisms of the sort non-evangelicals have been warned not to make about Huckabee lest their alleged contempt for Christians drive them fuming from the party. Hitchens called Huck a “smirking hick” the other day; will AC’s sneering to the same effect be received more warmly because she has her Bible in hand or is she part of that mysterious east-coast conservative establishment that supposedly hates southern Christians because they’re blue collar and take their religion seriously? Can’t wait to find out. Like Ace says, weak.
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:
Great Ann. Cornpone just got Huck 3 points, if not more.
Why can’t we just let him hang himself without trying to help him up the steps?
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Yeah, she was just kinda all over the place.
Bad Candy on December 19, 2007 at 10:53 PM
stop the philosophical train. I want to get off because Coulter has taken it off the tracks.
Resolute on December 19, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Ann needs to focus and go for the issues. It read as if she had several ideas jotted down on several scraps of paper and then just threw them together without bothering to think about purpose or transition.
INC on December 19, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Again, we’re doing a decent job tamping down Huck’s popularity boom, but good grief, opinion columnists seem hellbent on handing Huck ammunition, first Hitch, and now Ann.
Bad Candy on December 19, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Maybe Huck’s right. Maybe there is a collection of east coast douchebag conservatives who hate Huck just because he’s a little earthier than they’re used to.
If Huck turns this into a “me vs. Coulter” thing, he could win me over.
Allahpundit on December 19, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Coulter probably gained some voters for Huck there.
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I love that Ann even though she believes in alchemy, astrology, creationism and the like.
Once you buy the idea that it is the collectives responsibility to educate your child you will loose control over what is taught to said child.
TheSitRep on December 19, 2007 at 10:58 PM
“Curioser and curioser”, said Alice.
Entelechy on December 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM
…And that was as far as I got.
FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Yeah, me too. That is, of course, until I check his record again.
I read Coulter’s article twice, and I’m still not positive what Coulter’s going on about.
amerpundit on December 19, 2007 at 11:02 PM
From who? Conservative atheists gonna vote for him out of sympathy? Evangelical democrats? He is done, she is just speeding up the process.
Anyone who wants huckabee for president better be careful what you wish for because if you get him as the nominee say heel to a democrat president and congress.
peacenprosperity on December 19, 2007 at 11:03 PM
heelhellopeacenprosperity on December 19, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Just ticks me off….there are so many avenues to attack him on. Pardons, taxes, international relations….but evolution? Wow…what a way to get in there and dig until you hit bone! Was the target to convince evangelicals Huck isn’t the one? Great idea to tell em they are easily led cornpones. That’ll wake em up. All this does is play right into Huckabees hands. Film at 7am on the Today Show.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Not even that could make me support Huck, and I’m not a Coulter fan.
Bad Candy on December 19, 2007 at 11:06 PM
She just wants to sell books, its pretty obvious. She could have blasted him, but she just pimped her book and rambled on for a few paragraphs to justify it.
Bad Candy on December 19, 2007 at 11:08 PM
gotcha….I hate this new election cycle! To much at stake too early. No time to recover if a mistake is made. Lord help us!
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 11:10 PM
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 11:22 PM
I, for one, have learned my lesson regarding small state Southern governors, especially Arkansas. It will be a long time before I look that way again. No apologies.
And I wouldn’t vote for another Bush even if his nominating speech was given by Jesus Christ Crucified.
thegreatbeast on December 19, 2007 at 11:28 PM
She was “going on about” (as someone who has written 4 more bestsellers then you or I) the fact that huckabee is so blatantly a hypocrite. He talks out of both sides of his mouth about issues basic to evangelism. I watched him in the debates and in interviews and the only thing I will give him is that he is well coached in his inanities. The guy did not govern as a conservative. He didn’t even attempt to govern. He declined to appoint the heads of at least 15 state agencies and instead retained clintons appointees. Coulter’s point is that his place in the polls is not driven by true evangelicals (if the polls aren’t totally bogus anyway). When the voting starts, all the northeastern rinos who are flirting with him will have jumped ship.
peacenprosperity on December 19, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I went back and slogged my way through Ann’s article and it seems to me that her intent is to attack Huckabee for being a soft evangelical, which I don’t think falls into Lee Harris’ threat about evangelicals bolting the party. Lee was referring to attacks on Huckabee’s religion from more secular corners, not necessarily from coreligionists.
I don’t think that Ann’s piece is going to help Huck and might actually hurt him a bit. However, as is typical in these matters, Huck’s supporters probably figure that he’s only moderating his view temporarily until he gets the nomination or makes it all the way to the White House, and only then will he will flip back to more hardcore evangelical principles of inserting themselves into everybody’s private affairs, banning science and using our schools to indoctrinate children.
FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 11:30 PM
The question is: who needs who more? Do fiscal conservatives need the evangelicals, or do the evangelicals need the fiscal conservatives? Discuss.
SouthernGent on December 19, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I am very discouraged at the turn we are taking for what qualifies as a president. You would think we were electing our pastor, or Rabbi, or Reverend, or Priest, or whatever title the leader of your church takes on. Hell’s bells. It is the President of the United States. Not a religious pulpit. I do not care what religion my countries leader is. Or if he even has a religion. All I want to know, is if he will kill the terrorists, protect our borders, and punch hippies. Abolishing a few totally useless government agencies would be a nice iceing on the cake so to speak, but one of the LAST things I care about is who or what he or she prays to. Thats my stand, and I am sticking to it.
MalkinFan on December 19, 2007 at 11:47 PM
What we need is a Party who’s members believe the preacher puts his pants on one leg at a time. Everything else is negotiable.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 11:51 PM
What surprised me as someone who knew almost nothing of Huck before about three weeks ago, was the amount of vitriol that was immediately thrown at him from almost all the established “conservative” blogs. The arguments were mostly ill-founded and centered on a few things that would have caused a minor column if he were Rudy of McCain. How much of it is simply because he is an evangelical and there is a lot of pent up hostility towards evangelicals.
bnelson44 on December 19, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Bullcrap, most of the criticism aimed at Huck is about his record, and you know it.
Bad Candy on December 20, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I do not think it is hostility toward an evangelical. I would have no problem with an evangelical that supports conservative principals. Please do enlighten us on the unfounded things, I would like to know if I am wrong.
MalkinFan on December 20, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Did someone actually read Ann’s article linked in the phrase “What does Coulter zero in on?” It really makes a lot of sense.
thedecider on December 20, 2007 at 12:01 AM
As with many of AC’s shock quotes, she’s not actually saying Huck’s stupid, but rather he fits the liberal perception of evangelicals. AC can be Clintonian with her word parsing.
Seems she is saying “Hey evangelicals I hate Darwin more than Huck so believe me when I tell you that liberals think you are stupid and easily led when voting for Huck.”
If the “stupid and easily led” sound bite circulates by itself, I agree that it could help Huck a bit. Otherwise, Huck knows where his votes are in Iowa and they’ll likely be more persuaded by him than Coulter.
dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 12:15 AM
To blame the reactions of conservatives to Huckabee on hostility toward evangelicals is a gross oversimplification, bnelson44. People have correctly identified Huck as a bleeding heart liberal, with the exception that he apposes abortion and gay marriage and supports the 2nd amendment, and any hostility toward evangelicals is primarily as a result of the fact that they are trying to foist him onto the rest of the party regardless and have threatened to bolt if we don’t play the game by their rules.
Evangelicals act as though they’ve never actually had a Republican candidate that represents their views in any way, like they’ve been neglected and have never received anything from the coalition— which is complete bunk. The problem is that they want control of the Republican Party with their liberal candidate at the helm.
To be honest, I’m starting to hope that they do bolt and that Gore uses the opportunity to run as the Green Party candidate, and I hope that the Republican Party wins without them and that the evangelical political movement is forever relegated to the dustbin of history.
FloatingRock on December 20, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Interesting comment, given that it’s coming from an east coast conservative : )
Rick on December 20, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Huckabee is a boob. Coulter is right… you can have him, Allah.
D2Boston on December 20, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Ann seems to think the best way to get surfer Huck to wipe out is to expose his political expediency/evangelical hypocrisy.
I think both of them prove Darwinian theory, Huck is popular because of the same reason commission salesman still make a good living. People can still be taken in by slick talk and promises, Huck is one of those people who inherited the developed ability to take advantage of others gullibility.
Ann seems to want a Huck only for real.
Hopefully with enough exposure the second coming of the Teflon Arkansas governors will fall by the wayside else the choice might be slim and none on election day.
Speakup on December 20, 2007 at 1:21 AM
I thought it was a good article from Ann. Her point was that evangelicals aren’t to blame for Huckabee because his positions aren’t really in synch with the evangelical ideologies. Evolution was one, homosexuality was one.
I think this article was just fine. At least it is a hit on Huckabee for something other than that he’s a Christian and he’s telling people that he is.
ThackerAgency on December 20, 2007 at 2:24 AM
All this screed means is that on the issue of “evolutionism and Darwinism is a hoax”, Ann claims she is even more fundamentalist and Bible-thumping han Huck, and Huck already said he doesnt believe in evolution.
So the result is I am not voting for either Huck OR Ann for President.
BTW, Ann’s piece fits perfectly the liberal and secularist stereotype of a Christian conservative: that when they take over, all the science textbooks in high school get replaced by Bibles and all scientific research gets ridiculed as non-Christian. Thats the stereotype with which Democrat hack politicians have been scaring voters for years, and all Ann and Huck are doing is reviving it and giving it legitimacy.
Always Right on December 20, 2007 at 5:17 AM
Huckles is a religionist playing to the religionist crowd. Huckles wears his religion and pro-life stance on his sleeve and hides his love for open borders and criminals. Rudiani-Kerik, Hill, or Huckles. Pick a liberal, any liberal.
saved on December 20, 2007 at 5:59 AM
So a vote for Huck would be a vote against Coulter?
Dude.
You’re teetering on the edge of Huckite and Ronulan land, where dwell the eternally indignant.
Back away.
Nichevo on December 20, 2007 at 6:19 AM
It’s not one of her best columns, but I don’t see where you could say it’s “weak.”
Her basic point is that the MSM likes Huckster because they know he’d lose badly in the general election, which he certainly would, and also because in the process, he will continue Team Bush’s project of permanently destroying the GOP’s “brand ID.”
Thanks to Dubya, the GOP is now the party of expanded federal education spending, massive new entitlements, and amnesty for illegals. If Huck were to get the nomination, you could add class warfare rhetoric, soft-on-crime, and meddlesome regulation to the “New GOP” message.
If Huck gets the nomination, I’ll vote third party.
Ali-Bubba on December 20, 2007 at 7:19 AM
In whose opinion is Dreher “estimable”? Name one useful political insight Dreher has ever had.
Ali-Bubba on December 20, 2007 at 7:25 AM
He is too easily led!!!! That’s not attacking his faith, that’s an accurate description of the man. Credit where credit is due.
jeanie on December 20, 2007 at 8:34 AM
I love Ann! She is spot on with evolution. It is the silliest argument ever made for anyone who has ever really thought about it. But to those that have blindly accepted the religion…good luck and best wishes on selecting your candidate! Since we all are the result of something that crawled out a primordial ooze and are just being pushed along by events what the hell difference does it make?
sabbott on December 20, 2007 at 8:38 AM
If anyones vote, either direction, can be changed by Ann Coulter makes me wonder if everyone should be allowed to vote. \sarcasm
Ann always raises some very hot issues that open discussion and research for thinkers, but to take Ann at face value compares to taking James Carville at face value.
Wade on December 20, 2007 at 8:40 AM
Nothing like a good Coulter column to bring ‘em screaming out of the closet. You guys take the Huckster, I’ll take Annie. Deal?
Jaibones on December 20, 2007 at 9:25 AM
From Ann’s column:
She spends the rest of the column on two issues where Huck has been inconsistant: His statement that he doesn’t believe in Evolution, and his position on “teh Gay” issue. She gives examples of his weak and inconsistant statements on these issues, then concludes:
I agree with her that the MSM are loving Huck because they see him as a great example of an ignorant Christian who would be easily beaten by Hillary. But I think her column also discredits his evangelicalism, exposing a few examples where he has stated things contrary to his belifs for purely political reasons. At least give her credit for deflating his evangelical credentials a bit. Are’t the rabid “Christianists” suposed to be the ones behind his rise in the polls? This column does him no favors with the Bible thumpers, the ones so many of you are itching to blame his nomination on, should that nightmare come to pass.
This column fails to point out his record on taxes, his lack of foreign policy insight, or his son’s behavior – although Ann does mention his weakness on the illegal immigration issue in her column from Oct 10th. Along with a healthy dose of disrespect for the candidate. I know some people on our side don’t like Ann because she says mean things about liberals, but hey, she doesn’t like the guy either.
Dork B. on December 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Huckabee so far appears to be a luke warm Christian, as opposed to Mitt who appears to be fully engaged in his chosen faith. And even though placing ones faith miguidedly into what the Bible clearly defines as a false religion, Mitt comes off to conservatives as one who stands up and is willing to be counted because of it. Huckabee just comes off as someone possibly willing to compromise their beliefs in exchange for something else…OR worse, for those with ears to hear, as a non Bible believing believer. I think we have seen what a luke warm Christian does as President, as evidenced by the current President…just warm enough to REALLY piss off the Godhating liberal minds, but not warm enough to turn the Country around and rip it from the grip of the current group of Godless and perverted worshippers of liberalism and perversion…
NRA4Freedom on December 20, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Wade wrote…”If anyone’s vote, either direction, can be changed by Ann Coulter makes me wonder if everyone should be allowed to vote.”
Amen!!!
tomk59 on December 20, 2007 at 9:56 AM
I guess I SHOULD add here though that this list is going to be hard for any Christian or conservative to ignore…
http://www.issues2000.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
NRA4Freedom on December 20, 2007 at 10:01 AM
I have to agree with you. I’m sure many people listen to Ann’s venom and do the opposite of what she says, but those people aren’t necessarily going to be evangelicals, especially not evangelicals who believe evolution is worse junk science than global warming, something Coulter has written extensively on.
And those people are after all Huck’s supporters, right?
Plus, and I can only speak for myself, Coulter isn’t an outsider like Hitchens. She is a Christian, and she even believes evolution is a joke. She’s laid out her creditials before tearing into him on his inconsistencies.
The way I read it, she isn’t tearing into him because he’s not Christian enough but because he pretends to be so Christian yet doesn’t seem to understand his own positions.
Feel free to disagree that Darwin’s theory has been discreditted, but she is correct in saying that mathematicians have done the math and claimed that evolution is so mathematically improbable that there is no number to even show how improbable it is.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 10:09 AM
It depends who her sources are. She has cited Michael Behe frequently, whose observations about irreducible complexity with regard to bacterial flagellum have scientific explanations. Behe doesn’t himself disprove evolution, just points out that there are gaps that are hard to explain.
Coulter misunderstands or misrepresents evolution and what natural selection, common descent, and modern genetics actually address. To pursue scientific study, using the tools of science is not incompatible with a belief and reverence for God.
American high school students already lag European and Asian students in science, turning biology class into a competition for religious agendas doesn’t help. It also doesn’t help conservatives to have a media figure like Coulter coming across as a Luddite.
dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 11:00 AM
AP, you’re a riot. Your hatred and contempt for Coulter is down right pathological. How you can get that out of that article shows the mental gymnastics your willing to go through to take a shot at a woman you despise. Dork B. on December 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM analyzed her article (something anybody who can read beyond an 8th grade level can easily do) so I’ll leave it to you to reconcile your analysis with his.
TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Damn, if I voted the very second after reading that crappy Coulter article, I might have voted for Huck. Scary. I have a Southern accent, too, so I guess I’m a stupid hick. Just shut up, Ann. Your being controversial thing to sell books used to be annoying; now it is just dangerous.
RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM
And I always thought she was funny, but a CRAPPY writer. Her articles always read like something from a conservative creating writing class or something.
RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM
She agrees with that.
And yes, she does cite Behe, but I’m fairly certain that he isn’t the mathematician I was mentioning. I don’t have the book in front of me, so I can’t say for sure.
He doesn’t disprove evolution, but he does make Darwin’s theory highly unlikely. Darwin’s claim was that every evolution would have to make the creature better, or else natural selection wasn’t at play.
With the flagellum we have a thing that must have evolved without all of its parts helping a creature without the benefit of its other parts.
A creature wouldn’t seek out another that had only one part of something that could be really awesome if only it was mixed with two other things three generations later.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Did you even read the article or a re you simply being lead into your reaction?
TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I usually defend Ann, but this one is pretty weak. Ann, you had me at “a Republican Jimmy Carter” a week ago. Shoulda stopped there.
thirteen28 on December 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM
What? How did you get that out of the article? Are you being sarcastic?
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 11:21 AM
I’d bet he didn’t even read it (or he’s being obtusely sarcastic). He read AP’s tortured analysis and reacted which, I suspect, is a trap many people here fall into these days.
TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Maybe he did. I don’t know. Coulter can rub people the wrong way, which is largely her fault for basically trying to rub people the wrong way.
I just don’t understand how some people are interpreting the article the way they have.
She was addressing specific issues where Huck is either a hypocrite, a liar, or uneducated on the issues. It’s not a comment on Christians, Southerners or anyone else but the MSM and Huck.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 11:33 AM
That’s a pretty sad attempt to explain what’s wrong with our government schools. Our government schools are very successful, they have dumbed down our students so they will not have enough information to question our government. Moral relativists, like huckabee, are the tools the government uses to accomplish this goal. Our students are failing because our government schools no longer emphasize academics.
peacenprosperity on December 20, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Like i said earlier, anybody who can read at an 8th grade level or better can easily understand exactly her point. Dork did a very good job summarizing it above (as did you). Heck, you can even just skim it and understand it.
This will help you understand it. It’s called pathological hatred:
See, this is from a guy who has a problem with Ann using the “F” word but has no problem calling a woman a douchebag. Where I am from, calling a woman a d-bag is right up there with the C-word and usually gets you beating.
TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Right. It would be a cheat to say that animals or cells planned several generations in advance.
In the case of the flagella engine, the component parts have independent uses, such as the needle-like structure that is useful for injecting material into other cells.
The mathematician Coulter often cites is Bill Dembski.
dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 11:51 AM
PS, I happened to catch the movie The Breakfast Club for the first time in like 25 years. If you want to understand how the “F” word was used to mean Coward/Pussy/Gutless and how often it was used in those days by our generation (I am around Ann’s age), just watch that movie.
TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I never understood this site’s aversion to AC.
I thinks she’s great.
In the word’s of Michael Corleone,
“Hot Air, you’re conservative and I love you…but don’t ever takes with anybody against the family. Ever.”
moc23 on December 20, 2007 at 11:59 AM
It isn’t an attempt to explain the current problem at all, rather I’m identifying something that would make biology class even less effective. By introducing multiple creation myths into the curriculum, in order to satisfy each religious group is exactly the type of “moral relativism” that you are criticizing.
Render unto God what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to Darwin what is Darwin’s. Theology and biology are different disciplines.
dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Then maybe I’m thinking of the eyeball.
I don’t remember it being someone she used throughout the book, just someone she mentioned in one paragraph of one chapter of her book. But that could be the guy.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Yes, I read it, but I was being sarcastic. Sorry, will use the /sarc next time. She did call Huck a dumb hick, though. But not the rest of us, at least I don’t think so. Don’t recall her saying that about Bush, so I won’t consider her some sort of Northern elitist just yet.
RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 12:47 PM
And I do think her writing style sucks.
RW Wacko on December 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM
No, she basically just called him unprincipled. He could be unprincipled because he’s stupid or because he’s uneducated or because he’s just full of it.
Esthier on December 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Esthier, good comments on this thread. The people who hate Coulter often seem to have a visceral reaction that transcends what she actually wrote, and becomes something else altogether.
I believe that they find her use of ridicule unseemly for such a lovely woman. I have no such aversion.
Jaibones on December 20, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Yeah, that sure sounds like Huck.
NOT
Mark Jaquith on December 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM
In fairness, I think Coulter has already said much about Huckabee’s failing on more mainstream consevative issues like taxes and immigration (here and here, for instance). What she is trying to do in this article is drive a wedge between Huckabee and the type of evangelical that doesn’t care about such issues, but just wants a president with a plastic fish on his lapel. In other words, to the voter who says “I don’t care about politics, I just want an Evangelical like me in the White House”, Coulter is saying, “Even so, Huck isn’t your guy.” While I think she still could have applied the same analysis to more resonant issues, (abortion for instance), I applaud her attempt at bringing critical thinking skills to bear on a subject that is all too often a matter of visceral response.
But that just higlights another concern implicit in Coulter’s complaints that should be noted even by those who don’t share her interest in the particular issues of Darwinism or homosexuality: what I call Conservative Tribalism. The force of Coulter’s criticism is that Huckabee is willing to express the proper Evangelical pieties on such issues, but his “convictions” don’t seem to translate into actual policy positions. What Huckabee supporters seem to want is not someone who will do what is right, but someone who is from the right tribe. This has been a problem in Southern politics since the Civil War, though it has usually been more characteristic of the Democratic party than the Republicans. Coulter is quite right to point out that this is “bad for Evangelicals”.
JackOfClubs on December 20, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Comment pages: