Huck on Rush: “I hope to make it so that someday he loves me as much as I love him”; Update: Dobson cheers Huck
posted at 10:57 am on January 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s responding to Limbaugh’s criticism on the air yesterday and again last night on Fox News denying Huck the imprimatur of Reagan Republican. Pay careful attention to his credentials here; you’ll be hearing them repeated a lot, including by Rush Limbaugh himself, if Huck somehow sails through to the nomination and we’re stuck backing this guy.
Submitted for your approval this morning: “Unorthodox” conservatives David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan joining Huck’s own campaign team in downplaying the evangelical factor in his victory, despite the astonishing informal survey conducted by the Times showing more than 80% of Huck’s caucus-goers professing to be such. In Brooks’s case, it’s a paradigm-shifting economic populism that won the day; in Sullivan’s case, it was “hope,” an elegant sidestep past Huck’s “Christian leader” demagoguery, his wondering aloud about the finer points of Mormon theology, and his assertion that the power of prayer had accounted for his rise in the polls. It’s amazing how smoothly “Christianism” goes down when it’s deployed against the GOP establishment Sullivan loathes so much, isn’t it?
Read Peggy Noonan for a shrewder (and not unsympathetic) take on Huckabee. Oh, and Andrew Stuttaford, too. He’s sort of a conservative of doubt, to coin a phrase.
Update (Bryan): Here’s audio of Rush’s phone call on Fox last night after Huckabee’s win. It’s in two parts.
Part 2.
Update: At long last, Sully and James Dobson are on the same side. Dobson’s take is in line with Peggy Noonan’s, although I suppose Huck’s win has a certain Rorschach aspect to it. You’ll see in it whatever you want (or don’t want) to see.
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
As Rush says, Huck (and most of the GOP candidates) aren’t Reaganesque, but still, this hopefully will lead to a more constructive relation between them. It sure beats Huck saying that Rush can call him, or that he doesn’t have Rush’s phone number.
petefrt on January 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Well that did it. He won me over.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Support the ‘one true conservative’ in the race! AND show Rush some love:
http://www.stickittopolitico.com/
It’s a GREAT place to donate to Fred
(See Redstate too:
Posted at 9:48am on Jan. 4, 2008
Crack Whores Run The Politico
By Erick)
Ex-tex on January 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Ex-tex on January 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Huckabee is like Obama, in that he can make you like him so damn much, as long as you don’t pay attention to what he has in store for the country if he is the president.
Nice guy, good guy, devout guy. I like it fine, I’d love to have dinner with him and listen to him talk for a couple of hours. I just don’t want him pardoning rapists and murderers, raising my taxes through the roof, giving somebody who is not a citizen of this country the taxes that he’s raised on me, and telling me what I can and can’t eat because he knows best.
MadisonConservative on January 4, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I will not vote for Huckabee
MarkB on January 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Don’t hold your breath. I think Rush will be loaded for bear this afternoon after this restated claim of true conservativism from Huck.
MT on January 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM
On the GOP side:
– There was a TREMENDOUS gender gap that propelled Huckabee as he killed Romney among women, 40%-24%, while winning men by just 3 points.
– Huckabee had one devoted flock of supporters as he won every single slice of voters, including those who made their decision that day as well as those who made their decision a month ago.
– More proof that Romney’s attack ads didn’t work? Huck beat Romney among those folks who said immigration was the most important issue facing the country. By the way, immigration was the top issue, followed by the economy, terrorism and Iraq. Huck won every issue group.
– Here’s an irony for Romney: The only ideological segment he won? Moderates. Didn’t he used to be a moderate Republican governor?– The most important number in the entrance poll on the GOP side: 60%, the number of folks who said they were born-again Christians.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/04/547795.aspx
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Does anybody really thing that Huck can beat the dem nominee in the general? This is EXACTLY what the MSM wants…they like Mike, because he cannot win.
JustTruth101 on January 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM
For Rush this is all about Rush. He sees himself as a king maker. So now he will go after Iowans because they didn’t agree with him.
IMHO, Rush is part of the New York establishment, no matter how he trys to frame himself.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I don’t think Huck will last much past SC.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 11:17 AM
If he gets elected, he will resent the criticism he’s now getting from conservatives and go right back to the squishy middle/left on security, immigration, taxes and foreign policy.
MT on January 4, 2008 at 11:18 AM
If immigration was the top issue for republicans in Iowa, what were they trying to say? It would seem to me they are supporting comprehensive immigration reform or they wouldn’t have voted for Huck.
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 11:18 AM
That’s fine that you think that, but Huck went after Rush first, not the other way around.
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I WILLVOTE FOR OBAMA (HILLARY, WHOEVER) IF THEY NOMINATE THIS DUMBASS TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
thareb on January 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Awesome. “Just don’t him angry!” says the battered wife to the kids.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM
No Huck did not go after Rush first. Some guy on his campaign did and it brused Rush’s big ego. With Rush it’s personal.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM
And that’s all that matters, of course. Not nominating an actually conservative candidate, or even one that can win the general. All that’s important is strengthening your muscle.
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM
argh. make him angry…
bnelson, why do you keep saying that about Rush? And are you claiming that makes his analysis inaccurate or you just chiming with that a ‘for what it’s worth’?
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM
He loves Rush. He says he’s a conservative. In another part of the interview he said he was Seabiscuit. Then he said he and McAmnesty are fellow soldiers in the same fight, they’re not going to attack each other. That was after one of the hosts asked about an alliance between them.
I’ve always been proud of being a conservative. I’ve been a voting Republican since Reagan 1. I have to change my voter registration address today. It just may be unaffiliated now. You hear about how some of these old school democrats say “my party left me.” I’m only 47, so not exactly old yet, but at this moment I feel like my party is leaving me.
PowWow on January 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Speak for yourself. If this turd gets the nomination, I’m going to be stuck on my couch or stuck checking off “none of the above” come election day.
I’m not sure what they were trying to say, but what they did say is that “we don’t know our a$$ from a hole in the ground.”
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Not what I meant to say. I just think his conservative talk is just that… talk.
MT on January 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I suggest flowers and chocolates.
ronsfi on January 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM
From Sullivan:
How in the world does this jibe with the post you highlighted?
I like Sullivan, but his vendetta too often gets in the way of consistency.
SouthernDem on January 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Huckabee is the most cynical candidate in 40 years. Enough of the faux Golden Rule/Love bullsh*t that he puts off.
Nothing proves the evangelical right to be exactly what the lib media portrayed them (dumb, easily led, etc.) as Huckabee’s campaign.
Geez, I’m tempted to think Sinclair Lewis nailed it.
The joke’s on us. I’m disgusted.
Drum on January 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I say it because it is true. Rush is an entertainer. He isn’t president, he isn’t the leader of the Republican party. Rush is mad at Huck because his ego is bruised. So his analysis is biased. I am no fan of Huck, but I don’t see any reason to put Rush on a pedestal either.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’m not sure how you guys get the idea that Noonan’s column is somehow sympathetic towards Huck after reading the final 3 paragraphs:
I guess we just interpret things differently.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I’m still inclined to think there was a strong anti-Mormonism impact influencing this thing. That would certainly explain the gender gap if the ladies interpet Mormonism to be totally patriarchal, especially if the Rick Warren effect is as strong as Bryan indicates. I’m still having problems with illegal immigration being set aside when it came time to vote. Unbelievable.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Ah.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM
So that’s your claim. Can you support it in a manner other than by sheer repetition?
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 11:31 AM
thareb on January 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
A couple of points:
1) Voting for a Dem just because you don’t like Huckabee is foolish. It would be better for you to just not vote at all.
2) Supreme Court…need I say more here.
3) Huckabee won’t be the nominee. Unless one of the Republican candidates really breakout, the idea of a brokered convention would not be far fetched.
4) New Hampshire. It is the last NE state somewhat conservative. John McCain has been climbing the pools there consistently. Given McCain’s strong military support, a McCain win in NH will carry him well into South Carolina. His amnesty support quite frankly stinks, but could the old guy make a comeback? Who knows. (PS…I am not formally supporting anyone yet, so I am not shilling for anyone in particular)
reppac122 on January 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM
No it is not, Rush has said the same more or less about Mitt, and has been far more critical in my opinion of McCain. He calls em as he sees em. They are either conservative or not. In this field, most of them are not. That is what he has said.
conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM
From bnelson44’s earlier post:
I haven’t seen that analyzed yet by any of the usual suspects. I have a theory as to why it’s true. The backbone of any megachurch is legions of female volunteers. Even in conservative congregations where theology emphasizes the “headship” of the male, it’s the women who do most of the social networking and volunteer work at the church.
So in my opinion, huge support among Evangelicals in general would almost necessarily imply a gender gap in Huck’s favor.
Does anyone have real statistics to back up my hunch?
Yes, I read Elmer Gantry too, Drum. Go to the head of the class for literary references! But please notice that they make you sound like an upper-west-side liberal. I am a red-State Evangelical with two Ivy League degrees. Huck is not my guy, but I don’t assume that his supporters are all dupes. I assume that he is appealing to a serious set of concerns that I don’t quite understand yet.
Anton on January 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I’m afraid I’m going to have to vote a Party rather than a Person (i.e., that Party which most closely reflects my views). Unfortunately, I’m getting the feeling of being left behind by my Party. The water is tepid here. I am conservative. I am a Christian. I maintain a Biblical worldview. Yet, I try to maintain balance, as I understand there are those in America who do not have the same values as I do.
In the case of this upcoming election, however, what can I do? Not voting is out of the question: I want a voice. Voting the person conflicts with certain civic/political values, and voting the Party is beginning to exhibit the same problem.
BNCurtis on January 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I, too, will not vote for this man.
Nice guy, charming fellow, even has a sense of humor.
However, this man is not fit to be President.
Haven’t we learned that being Governor of Arkansas leaves one ill-fitted to be President?
Yet another reason why Iowa is insignificant in terms of choosing a President.
kcluva on January 4, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Are you actually trying to tell us that it wasn’t personal? He was mentioned by name and called an irrelevent, DC talking head. I’d have taken it personally too.
Rush might have an ego, but that is with good reason. He’s been giving his opinion for 20 years, and millions of people have been clamoring to agree with him. How would YOU handle that?
tickleddragon on January 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Susan “The Carol Channing” Estrich certainly stepped in it at the end of the third clip.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Yep. And, throw in a bit of irrational fear of polygamy, in spite of lip service denials.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM
This bunk about Rush just being an “entertainer” is just simply naive. Whether you want to admit it or not bnelson, Rush has the ear of millions of conservatives, and the fear of liberals. That is not because he’s entertaining. It’s because he says what millions are thinking.
You write him off as easily as that anonymous Huck shill… it’s either you’re being naive or just blindly stubborn.
tickleddragon on January 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Maybe. All I’m saying is that Huck’s Christian beliefs are no indication of the type of president he’d make (though we can be sure that he’s be cynical). Moreover, were he a serious Christian theologian (and one would presume that being ordained qualifies him as such), he’d know that the two are not and ought not be mutually indicative of the other. Remember Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Remember Jimmy Carter.
Drum on January 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I think their concerns are in part driven by a fear that a man they consider part of a cult will be elected. I think they’d prefer one of their own both in religion and in geography. I think the circumstances that propelled his victory in Iowa don’t exist in much of the rest of the country. We’ll soon see.
TheBigOldDog on January 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Well said tickles
conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Rich Lowry: Was just talking with a friend who is a shrewd political analyst and who is always worth listening to. He thinks Romney’s loss is basically irrecoverable after spending so much and getting beaten by an under-funded candidate who was an unknown not too long ago by nine points. In the end, the devastating Huckabee line was the one about voting for the candidate who seems like someone you work with rather than someone who laid you off. Both he and Obama rejected their party’s establishments and old-style politics. Obama rejected Clintonian triangulation and Edwards-style netroots rage. Huckabee rejected (at least notionally) Rovian zero-sum politics and the Washington GOP establishment.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjk0MmJlOWE3YTNhZTM1Mzk0ZDkzYjA2MmE5ZmZhZDQ=
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The “Bush Can’t Win” mantra worked better in 2000 because it had a 3-beat waltz tempo…but it was proven false. “Huckabee can’t win” only works in five-beat jazz ensembles.
Sensei Ern on January 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Should be a very interesting program today.
Darksean on January 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I thought the fear of liberals was a Christian, according to the Susan Estrogen comment.
Sensei Ern on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM
So, we should vote for a higher tax, higher spending big Government (R) instead of a (D). Which is more honest? Which is more in keeping with the party division we’d expect?
And which sends a clearer message to the GOP? Not voting at all takes one vote from Huck. Voting for his opponent takes one from Huck, and gives one to his opponent… twice as effective.
If we wanted Huck to won, we’d vote for Huck. If we don’t want Huck to win, the best plan is to vote for the Dem and vote against him. Sitting it out is only half as effective.
Why do you think it’d be better to use a plan that is only half as effective? This makes me suspicious of your motives.
Please do. Explain how Huck’s previous ventures into Jurisprudence (Pardons and Commuted sentences) give you hope. How you think a man who “listens to his heart” and sets murderers and rapists free for following the correct religion cannot be tricked or misled into a choice as bad or worse than what the Democrats would give.
After seeing Huck’s record at deciding who to pardon, who to commute the sentence of, and the reasoning behind these; his Judicial decision making skills aren’t exactly comforting.
I can certainly hope you’re right, but up until now we’ve been talking about what to do if Huckabee wins the Nomination. Claiming this isn’t likely doesn’t give any idea on what to do if it should happen.
Again, hoping Huck isn’t the nominee, and the “I’ll vote for a Dem if he wins it” never comes down to pulling the lever is nice. But it doesn’t have any relevance to what people will do if Huckabee actually wins it.
gekkobear on January 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Mike Huckabee, one of the most “misunderestimated” politicians in recent memory, far more even than George W. Bush. At this point, I’m expecting a solid third place or even second place finish in New Hampshire, followed by a landslide in South Carolina. At that point, his momentum will be secured. As for Obama, I agree with Rush that this is huge news, and a major blow for Hillary Clinton. She was the obvious, anointed frontrunner that the GOP’s already been campaigning against for years. And now, in her first real political trial nationally, she blew it. Obama is a fresh voice with fresh ideas — ideas I may personally find horrendous for the most part, but nevertheless he’s a true progressive idealist like the grand orators of old. Clinton represents the old guard power base in Washington, and people are fed up with it. They’ve had enough. Huckabee, along with Ron Paul, are the only two Republican candidates who are truly fresh and inspiring, and thankfully Paul is enough out of the mainstream as to be a non-issue (unless he does run as a third-party candidate later this year).
I hope Huck and Rush can have some good debates with each other. Let ‘em duke it out. If Rush and his audience disagrees with Huckabee, let them do so based a real discussion of political philosophy, not this half-baked pseudo-fact crap that has been lobbed at Mike.
We live in interesting times!
Jared White on January 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Indeed. It’ll turn especially interesting next November when Obama crushes Huck by 15 points.
Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
He lets Tobey McGuire climb on top of him and whip his flanks?
James on January 4, 2008 at 12:43 PM
“I’d call Rush if I knew his number, but I don’t know his number. But, if I did know his number I’d dial 1-800-GOTOHELL”
DfDeportation on January 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Again, hoping Huck isn’t the nominee, and the “I’ll vote for a Dem if he wins it” never comes down to pulling the lever is nice. But it doesn’t have any relevance to what people will do if Huckabee actually wins it.
gekkobear on January 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM
If The Huckster, Giuliani, or McCain wins the GOP nomination, Moderate Democrats will sit out this election and NOT vote for a New Direction Democrat. And we’ll sit back and watch the continued free-fall of the Republican Party.
DfDeportation on January 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Wow Allah, this is the first time I’ve ever seen you be so optimistic. Congeatulations.
I’m serious, I would have put the over/under on Obama v. Huck at Obama 65 Huck 35.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Congratulations, too.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
What is it about AP misreading everything James Dobson says? He did not cheer Huck. He cheered the fact that so many evangelicals participated in the caucus after the NY Times pronounced last rites over evangelical influence in politics.
jgapinoy on January 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM
If I recall, Bill took third place in Iowa in 1992.
Sensei Ern on January 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM
LoL. I’m telling you. The whole time he was on I sat here watching,shaking my head, just saying how?
PowWow on January 4, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Rush is facing a barrage of Huckabee supporters today on Open Line Friday. It’s pretty disheartening.
joewm315 on January 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
When the general election comes (and if it comes down to these two) Sullivan will find a suitably gay-centric reason to turn on Huck and back Obama (so to speak). Count on it.
WasatchMan on January 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Yes, Huck went after Rush first. Unless, of course, you are claiming Huck isn’t his campaign. Kind of like Huck didn’t write the words, or maybe he did, he can’t remember, about Bush.
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM
You’re a nitwit, and I’m guessing that you’re unfamiliar with Limbaugh’s show if you think his ego is bruised because of Schmuckabee. And learn how to spell bruised.
Jaibones on January 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Laura Ingraham was talking about huckster and barry this morning as if they were now inevitable and it was hard to tell who she would back. I listen to alot of talk radio and enjoy and respect everyone I listen to but the only one who comes close to knowing how my conservative freinds and I feel is Rush. Laura got on Rush the same way the huckster’s people did, like he is a ny elitist rich guy. She is not only dead wrong about Rush but she doesn’t know herself very well. Not only is she dead wrong most of the time when she speculates what people like me are thinking but she almost always precedes segments about washington and ny leftists by saying what nice people they are. She obviously considers herself part of that elite crowd and she’s not alone. Hannity is almost as bad. If satan complimented Hannity he would say he was a nice guy. Although I don’t always agree with Rush, when he starts speculating about the grass roots, which I consider myself, he is almost always correct.
peacenprosperity on January 4, 2008 at 5:08 PM
I won’t vote for jimmycarterII. I’ll vote the other races and leave my presidential vote blank or write in someone. If huckster and barry are the nominees it is almost 100% certain to be a third party candidate and maybe even a fourth. Then true conservatives can all write in Rush. He might have a shot.
peacenprosperity on January 4, 2008 at 5:15 PM
pnp,
Great call on Laura as compared to Rush, or anyone compared to Rush. He’s the one, and has been for 20 years. He’s the one who understands what’s really going on. Laura exposed herself as the Ivy League court clerk who comments on conservative politics during the silliness about Harriet Miers.
Jaibones on January 4, 2008 at 8:43 PM