Video: Huckabee slams conservative “chattering class,” Coulter slams “easily led” Huckabee

posted at 6:46 pm on December 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

Consider this the video version of last night’s post. There’s an ugly yet fascinating dynamic brewing between these two, each of whom is playing identity politics games with the other. Watch the clip with Huck first as it shows him referring explicitly to the term Coulter has used the last few days to describe him, both in her column and on Fox News: “easily led.” She ups the condescension ante below by calling him a “stupid Christian.” Her shtick is to agree with him that evangelicals deserve their own political champion and to pronounce him grossly unequal to the task. His shtick is to incorporate class and regional elements into the evangelical “identity” he’s trying to construct and pronounce rich, east coast conservatives like her really not “one of us,” however devout a Christian she may be. Scylla and Charybdis, and we’re stuck in the middle. How do you like it?

Since we’re talking Huck, I’ll toss this in the pot too — a selection of his letters to the editor of the Arkansas Times from the mid-1990s. TNR is shocked, shocked, at the ill temper they reveal, and while the occasional comparisons to Jeffrey Dahmer and analogies to being stabbed do raise an eyebrow, they’re pumping a dry well if they think conservatives are going to get too bent out of shape over a Republican fuming at the liberal media. Read this one if you don’t want to wade through all of them; I hope you’ll agree that Huck doesn’t come off entirely bad. And if you don’t agree, imagine Fred Thompson having written it instead. For some of our readers that’s all it takes. Click the image to watch.

huck-ce.jpg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

“Why liberals love Huckabee”

Give the person who came up with that title a medal.

Nonfactor on December 20, 2007 at 6:48 PM

I think its time for a Steel Cage Death Match: Ann vs. Huck.

My money’s on Ann.

Always Right on December 20, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Scylla and Charybdis, and we’re stuck in the middle. How do you like it?

Yep, between a rock and a hardplace lack of reason and the unreasonable.

Entelechy on December 20, 2007 at 6:53 PM

BTW, where did he come up with the phrase “chattering class”…

is that Evangelical code for “urban sinners”?

Always Right on December 20, 2007 at 6:54 PM

My money’s on Ann.

Always Right on December 20, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Ditto. :-)

I agree with Ann on why Dems want him the nominee: They think he’ll be easy to beat. And he will.

amerpundit on December 20, 2007 at 6:55 PM

He comes across as inevitable as Mrs. Clinton. May both get theirs, though him in the primaries, and she in the general.

Entelechy on December 20, 2007 at 6:59 PM

is that Evangelical code for “urban sinners”?

No we have a different name for them:)

terryannonline on December 20, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Scylla and Charybdis, and we’re stuck in the middle. How do you like it?

Sucks ass, dude.

Always Right on December 20, 2007 at 6:54 PM

No, its just another word for punditry, its a way for him to lay waste to or dismiss punditry, who are at this stage his biggest obstacle. What Huck has to do is separate his flock from otherwise trusted punditry that are warning he’s an impending disaster.

Bad Candy on December 20, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Interesting – Ann seems to be saying that he’s not only liberal, he’s not Christianist enough. Lol.

peski on December 20, 2007 at 7:00 PM

ANN could take em all (“the Protector” stair climbing scene) style.

Many of my “conservative” friends think she is too right and rude but shes a “Marine” in the sense that she’s the point of the spear.

I have to agree with her content on Huck and her style is fine with me as well.

amend2 on December 20, 2007 at 7:01 PM

And by punditry, I’m talking talk radio and larger bloggers too.

Bad Candy on December 20, 2007 at 7:01 PM

The media knows that Fred is the man that would slaughter any dem candidate.

They fear the Fred.

TheSitRep on December 20, 2007 at 7:03 PM

peski on December 20, 2007 at 7:00 PM

That seems stupid, but I thought about this late last night…why not? Nearly everyone on the else on the right is attacking him from the standard non-social con position, he’s a squish on immigration, taxes, gov’t growth, crime, War on Terror, she may as well try attacking him from a different angle, as awkward as her arguments are. At this stage, why not?

Bad Candy on December 20, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Gah, nearly everyone else on the right is what I tried to say…

Bad Candy on December 20, 2007 at 7:06 PM

I believe Huckabee’s “chattering class” is the same group of people Graham was making reference to when he called them “the loud people.”

Thank you loud people. Thank you chattering class. You are a force that is weeding out the snakes in the grass within the field of the Republican party.

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Does anyone here know what Ann thinks of evolution?

laelaps on December 20, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Does anyone here know what Ann thinks of evolution?

laelaps on December 20, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Liberal plot to recreate the Christian God and destroy the school system.

Nonfactor on December 20, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Wouldn’t it be awesome if Ann ran for president?

imshocked on December 20, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Why is Coulter going after him for all the wrong reasons. You’d figure she would be pouncing at someone with such an abysmal record across the board, instead she talks religion to possibly fuel Huck’s MO and religion-baiting? Sigh.

Patriot33 on December 20, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Does anyone here know what Ann thinks of evolution?

laelaps on December 20, 2007 at 7:08 PM

She doesn’t believe in it.

Entelechy on December 20, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Why do I feel like Huckabee and Hillary are playing good cop-bad cop. It wouldn’t suprise me any. ‘Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here’

sonnyspats1 on December 20, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Nonfactor on December 20, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Who are you voting for in the primary Nonfactor? Silky, the Glacier or the Messiah? Or are you undecided? Gravel?

Zetterson on December 20, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Ann seems to be saying that he’s not only liberal, he’s not Christianist enough.

I disagree. Having heard and read Ann’s comments on Gov. Huckabee, she is indicating that his conservative stripes only appeared when his campaign for president began. She has indicated several clear examples of Huck’s big government preferences and his love of tax increases. She even pointed out that Governor Huckabee favors a nationwide ban on smoking (‘nationwide smoking ban in public places,”); probably not something conservatives would sponsor. Though minor, such an example serves as a clear signpost that Huckabee has a loy to hide… I see Ann Coulter as performing a valuable service; showing us the Huckabee the governor wants to stay hidden!!!

IntheNet on December 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM

This is hilarious. Coulter calling Huck stupid while at the same time alluding to the Theory of Evolution as a hoax. Coulter’s more to blame for the stupidity of today’s conservative voter than anything Huck has said. She’s the greater embarrassment.

Alan on December 20, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Why does Gibby have a co-anchor? Key word, anchor.

Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Huck says,

“it’s making some folks uncomfortable ’cause they don’t know what we’re going to do.”

Nope. It’s because we know what you have done.

I am a conservative, evangelical Christian and we might have some spiritual common ground, but I don’t see much in him for which I would want to cast a presidential vote. I think the idea that he is gathering the evangelical vote is something being pushed by the MSM for their own purposes, as has been suggested earlier. Some may consider him because they do NOT know anything else about him and his positions, but those (evangelicals, conservatives) who do I doubt would want him as their candidate – at least none I know.

IrishEyes on December 20, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Ann is dead on, she is hitting him on his weakkneed submissions. If his will can be broken by a soft petaling hack like Larry King, he doesn’t have the strength to govern.

He is just another in the Republican field of liberal wannabes.

Seriously, what part of conservative is Huckabee?

Rode Werk on December 20, 2007 at 7:19 PM

I don’t disagree with anything Ann said but then again I tend to listen before making up my mind. I’ve never believed idividual words make up complete thoughts, I consider entire sentences, paragraphs and statements before deciding what the speaker is saying.

peacenprosperity on December 20, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Does anyone here know what Ann thinks of evolution?

She spent the last 1/3rd of her book previous to this one, Godless, attacking the assumptions that it is predicated on. She doesn’t believe in it – she in fact thinks it is part of a political movement as much as anything if I read her correctly much like global warming, excuse me, climate change has now become.

Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Why is Coulter going after him for all the wrong reasons.

Patriot33 on December 20, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Any of the other candidates can go after Huck on the regular issues. So Ann is going after him on the third rail of whether his positions on religion based issues make sense. She has more space in her article, so she makes the points more convincingly there:

“Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are “probably” unconstitutional.”

pedestrian on December 20, 2007 at 7:21 PM

I read the letters. This one made me laugh.

terryannonline on December 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM

They’re both evangelicals but one of them is a hypocrite and that ain’t Ann.

There’s actually nothing wrong with Huck that a seat across the isle wouldn’t fix.

How about each of them on either side of Hannity and Colmes?
Fight fight fight fight fight.

Speakup on December 20, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 7:20 PM

And I was just guessing.

Nonfactor on December 20, 2007 at 7:25 PM

imagine Fred Thompson having written it instead. For some of our readers that’s all it takes.

Youre just mad cause you and Michelle got burned on the ‘Firemans Hat’ story. The “Fredheads” were right on that one.

FWIW I think Fred is toast.

amish on December 20, 2007 at 7:26 PM

alluding to the Theory of Evolution as a hoax.

No worse than pushing a theory as a proven fact (speaking of general evolution, intra-species), which is exactly what the public “skruls” have done for decades. Avoiding suppressing any debate/intellectual inquiry puts the establishment (controlled by liberals, who are always so quick to embrace openminded debate /sarc off) on a par with (or below) those who persecuted Galileo vis-a-vis his support of Copernican astronomy.

IrishEyes on December 20, 2007 at 7:28 PM

And I was just guessing.

Easy to decipher from her TV appearances.

Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Wouldn’t it be awesome if Ann ran for president?

imshocked on December 20, 2007 at 7:11 PM

No

FloatingRock on December 20, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Wouldn’t it be awesome if Ann ran for president?

Do you really mean this? I wonder when people say AC for Pres or MM for Pres – is this flattery because they said something that resonated with you or do you really think that’s a good idea?

Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Huck is a FOOL – read the letter linked to “Read this one” in AP’s post to see just how poor his judgment is. To vent his anger this way in writing, in a permanent document, where he also reveals himself as a sexist pig (what the hell is wrong with him making a reference to trying to “hide Dolly Parton in a 32 AA bra” is so revealing, it SHOULD be the final nail in the coffin of his presidential bid.

I don’t care that he GOT mad, but only an outright fool puts his anger in permanent form and sends it to an adversary.

JustTruth101 on December 20, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Ann is the voice of reason, here. Huckabee is getting creepier by the day.

sinsing on December 20, 2007 at 7:44 PM

After her embarrassing conservatives over and over again with her hateful crap I’m now supposed to give a rat’s behind what Ann Coulter thinks?

Benaiah on December 20, 2007 at 7:51 PM

she in fact thinks it is part of a political movement as much as anything

Begun 150 years ago by a Victorian Brit? Did he also hide all the fossils scientists continue to find?

I don’t think either Huck or Ann is stupid, but calling evolution a “hoax” is a stupid statement. It goes a lot further than even the Discovery Institute would.

dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 7:53 PM

she may as well try attacking him from a different angle, as awkward as her arguments are. At this stage, why not?

Ever heard of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? After a while, if you didn’t believe her first two or three attacks, you’re going to stop listening.

calbear on December 20, 2007 at 7:53 PM

“Read this one if you don’t want to wade through all of them; I hope you’ll agree that Huck doesn’t come off entirely bad. And if you don’t agree, imagine Fred Thompson having written it instead. For some of our readers that’s all it takes. Click the image to watch.”

Four pages???! I would have ripped Fred a new @#!^%%$, if he had written anything more than*:

Dear Mr Brantley,

“Here’s your FOI documents. Ask for anything again and I’ll punch your lights out.

Sincere and serious,

* that’s probably too wordy for Fred.

Dusty on December 20, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Huck n Ann……neener neener BS, both of em. Huck plays Bambi right after mom got turned into venison and Ann plays the fountain of all knowledge.

Limerick on December 20, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Can we get away from the words “slammed” or “So n So slams So n So”. I mean…it is so juvenile.

msipes on December 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Who supports this guy? Someone who reads a weekly local paper, or gets his haircut for $2, but is at the barbershop everyday? Huck is way off the conservative path…

right2bright on December 20, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Incidentally, Jeffrey Dahmer was baptized in prison in 1994, eight months before his death. Huckabee would have pardoned him.

sarahk on December 20, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Now, I am ready for a little Jimi Hendrix “Foxy Lady.” Thanks Ann. So very tired of Huckles and Rudiani-Kerik-Juliani.

saved on December 20, 2007 at 8:47 PM

msipes on December 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

All I’ve got to say is that headline writing is not easy.

terryannonline on December 20, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Ann is the voice of reason, here. Huckabee is getting creepier by the day.

Based on the clip, Ann’s voice of reason asks to have science compromised in the classroom but government regulations in the bedroom? Does she believe that hetero sodomy is also something that the government should be free to police?

dedalus on December 20, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Coulter — right as usual.

Heck, even when she’s wrong she’s right.

Drum on December 20, 2007 at 9:23 PM

But when they got elected, behind closed doors, they would laugh at us and speak with scorn and derision that we were, as one article I think once said “the easily led.” So there’s been almost this sort of, it’s okay if you guys get a seat on the bus, but don’t ever think about telling us where the bus is going to go.

I’ve never been their favorite. I wasn’t their pick. I wasn’t the one they early on said “Well he has the money, and he has the name and the ancestry.” What we have in this country is this growing sense of tension where there are people would just as soon, guys like me, just continue to support candidates and make sure they get elected. But we don’t really want to have to hear from guys like me

The Huckahoaxer is a moonbat with a bible, here he is playing the victim card at least as well as Joe Biden ever did.
Whats next, Mike Matters website?

Speakup on December 20, 2007 at 9:47 PM

The Huckahoaxer is a moonbat with a bible

That sums up my opinion of him very nicely.

TheBigOldDog on December 20, 2007 at 10:22 PM

not always an Ann Fan, but she kicked ass on this one. Huck is a fraud!

Dirthead on December 20, 2007 at 11:04 PM

They were more than happy for us to come to the rallies and stand in lines for hours to cheer on the candidates, appreciated us putting up the yard signs, going out and putting out the cards on peoples doors and making phone calls to the phone banks and – really appreciated all of our votes. But when they got elected, behind closed doors, they would laugh at us and speak with scorn and derision that we were, as one article I think once said “the easily led.”

It doesn’t sound to me like he knows that Coulter was the source of that comment. He is characterizing the quote as coming from an elected politician and, earlier in the quote, as someone not evangelical.

He is making a good point here about conservative candidates disparaging evangelicals after they no longer need their votes. But the problem is, he is not the right candidate to change that, which is what Ann Coulter is pointing out.

I frankly don’t see the Scylla and Charybdis here. It looks to me like Coulter is simply right and he is wrong. As I mentioned in the earlier thread, I don’t think she is trying to say that he isn’t evangelical enough to be a candidate, just that he isn’t the right evangelical candidate. Her point isn’t that presidential candidates can’t believe in evolution, but that if you say you don’t, you should act accordingly. Same thing with gay marriage. It isn’t a litmus test. Candidates just shouldn’t bring up the issues to score points with Christians.

JackOfClubs on December 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Coulter kicks Huck’s booty:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Mike+Huckabee&word2=Ann+Coulter

lol

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on December 20, 2007 at 11:50 PM


“For some of our readers that’s all it takes.”

Geezus H. Huckabee Allahpundit! Get over it. ! .

Griz on December 21, 2007 at 12:06 AM

AP, to compare Huck and Ann is absurd. Huck is a huck-ster. I mean really, how hard is it to become a preacher? And really, how hard is it to become governor of Arkansas? And really, how hard is it to run an exploitative, populist, presidential campaign?

On the other hand, Ann is a lawyer, and has written several best-selling books which have been extraordinarily well-researched, and almost not at all refuted, by anyone. And she’s funny, which I have never heard Huck be.

If some gutless POS doesn’t like her style, maybe he shouldn’t link to her videos online to up his traffic.

urbancenturion on December 21, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Do you really mean this? I wonder when people say AC for Pres or MM for Pres – is this flattery because they said something that resonated with you or do you really think that’s a good idea?

Spirit of 1776 on December 20, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I absolutely mean it. I laugh just thinking of the left having a meltdown and the media spinning like a top. AC pulls no punches, she’s intelligent and she says what she thinks. Not what she thinks someone wants to hear. We need a lot more of that in this country.

imshocked on December 21, 2007 at 4:31 AM

I’m an evangelical, and nothing Ann said offended me, but she’s not really making the best argument against Huckabee, namely that he has repeatedly demonstrated a complete incomprehension of the conservative philsophy as applied to government, law and economics. He is not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.

American conservatism is not really hard to understand: The federal government is too big, too powerful and too expensive. It wastes resources and threatens liberty by doing things for which it has no constitutional authority — from Social Security to ag subsidies to No Child Left Behind — while failing to do those things (e.g., defend the borders) for which it was specifically created.

Ergo, government is not the solution; government is the problem. That is conservatism — and Huckabee doesn’t understand it. Case closed. Court adjourned.

Ali-Bubba on December 21, 2007 at 5:18 AM

Seriously, what part of conservative is Huckabee?

Rode Werk on December 20, 2007 at 7:19 PM

First syllable part.

soundingboard on December 21, 2007 at 5:55 AM

I just read this:

So there’s been almost this sort of, it’s okay if you guys get a seat on the bus, but don’t ever think about telling us where the bus is going to go.

He’s talking about the intellectuals at Weekly Standard/National Review/Wall Street Journal/Heritage/AEI, is who he’s talking about — and he’s exactly right about them. They’re city boys with elite academic backgrounds, and they have almost complete disdain for the average grassroots Republican in, say, Oklahoma. You really saw that with the “shamnesty” scam — the think-tank geniuses really believed Joe GOP in Tulsa was too stupid to understand what “amnesty” means.

Ali-Bubba on December 21, 2007 at 6:46 AM

I guess Robert Rector at Heritage ought to be exempted from that sweeping denunciation, and perhaps a few others (Derb at National Reivew), but not many.

Ali-Bubba on December 21, 2007 at 6:48 AM

She’s [Coulter] the greater embarrassment.

Alan on December 20, 2007 at 7:18 PM

I like Ann, but know that, were we to chat politely over cocktails, the politeness would quickly wane. I don’t much care for Huckabee (anybody who cuddles up to Chuck Norris is, in my opinion, rather slimy and not suitable for the Oval Office).

She is a leading voice on the conservative side of politics, but as Alan says, she can really embarrass the right wing with her…ahem…extremism. With all due respect to the HA readership, I’m not terribly comfortable with the whole Adam & Eve vs. Monkeyboy debate, and I don’t much care for the federal government telling people what they can and can’t do in the bedroom (nor do I believe that our illustrious government is qualified to determine what is and is not a religion, e.g., Scientology). To quote Reagan: “Government is not the answer.”

Huck strikes me as a pale (no pun intended) version of Barak Obama: seems a nice enough guy, but no way is he prez material. The sooner he’s out of the way, the sooner we can get on with business.

thejackal on December 21, 2007 at 7:23 AM

Huck was Arkansas’ backlash after Clinton. He was meant as a way back to morality. Ask anyone from Arkansas. (except Bill Clinton).

Ernest on December 21, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Her shtick is to agree with him that evangelicals deserve their own political champion and to pronounce him grossly unequal to the task.

I don’t see her as saying that at all.

It looks to me as though she’s saying, “you claim to be the political champion of evangelicals, but really, you’re not.”

I really wonder if Ann’s just pissed off too many people to be taken seriously. Would her statements read different if they came from someone else the way you suggest we read Huck’s?

Esthier on December 21, 2007 at 9:45 AM

One thing I’d like to know from the evangelical Huckabee supporters, how do they reconcile the fact that many evangelicals supporting Huckabee are avid homeschoolers, yet Huckabee stands in opposition to vouchers.

These Huck’s Army folks are homeschoolers from Oregon whose father is a huge home schooling champion. I love home schooling, but you need to support vouchers so that your tax dollars aren’t spent on public schools that your children do not attend.

Where are the Huckabee supporters on this? They are dead silent.

Huckabee’s strategy to win the GOP nomination is to attack the GOP. Even CBN is giving Huckabee a pass.

gabriel sutherland on December 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM

I don’t like Huckabee, and can’t see myself voting for him if he gets the nomination. But I certainly respect the people who support him.

Let’s let the chips fall where they may. Let’s start the primaries/caucuses, and see what happens. I may not agree with who ends up getting the nomination, but I certainly respect the process.

I’m too young to remember when the primaries did NOT decide who got the nomination. This seems fairer.

asc85 on December 21, 2007 at 11:10 AM

I don’t much care for the federal government telling people what they can and can’t do in the bedroom (nor do I believe that our illustrious government is qualified to determine what is and is not a religion, e.g., Scientology). To quote Reagan: “Government is not the answer.”

thejackal on December 21, 2007 at 7:23 AM

I don’t much care for the federal government telling people what they can and can’t do in the classroom. There should be no such thing as public education. Huck is a big government tool. Ann knows that Reagan quote backwards and forewards, but Huck certainly doesn’t.

There really isn’t a comparison, here. This whole thread is specious.

urbancenturion on December 21, 2007 at 12:04 PM

I don’t much care for the federal government telling people what they can and can’t do in the classroom.

I agree!

There should be no such thing as public education.

I’m not convinced there is. But whatever the hell is going on in so-called public schools, it sure as hell shouldn’t be federally funded!

[Centurion, why do they titter so?]

thejackal on December 21, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Ann’s video is no longer available. :-(

Tim Burton on December 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM