Why Huckabee wins with the values voter
posted at 11:34 am on January 4, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Dwayne Horner has a good take, to which I would add something that’s purely gut but may be valid.
Much has rightly been made of Huckabee’s 1000+ clemencies and particularly the DuMond case. That’s a legitimate issue as far as I’m concerned, and one that resonates with the law and order side of the values vote. Put beside Romney’s record of 0 clemencies and you ought to have a clear win for Romney.
But there’s another issue that may resonate more strongly with the values vote, and it’s Mitt Romney’s $50 abortion component of the MA universal health care plan. I know when I saw it I found it repulsive, and I’m the kind of voter who is both a values sort but predisposed to like Romney for his executive experience and record of saving major efforts from certain calamity. I would put someone with his record to work on problems like Social Security in a heartbeat, long before I would put Huckabee in the same role. Same goes for the war, which is my paramount issue. I’ll take Romney or Thompson or McCain on the war before Huckabee. But the war isn’t the only issue, certainly not for most values voters. It seems to be less of an issue for a majority of values voters than I’d suspected.
This is more guess than anything, but values voters may have looked at Huckabee’s lackluster record on clemencies alongside the $50 abortion and rightly concluded that neither is good but the latter is responsible for far more death than the former and in the grand scheme cuts more strongly against their values. The $50 abortion is the kind of issue that can fly through the kind of word-of-mouth network that propelled Huckabee to win in Iowa but will never register in the press because they won’t ask the questions that could get them there, and that goes for the conservative punditry as well. Mitt’s problem with the values voter, then, is that while he’s very much one of them on his life history and his executive experience is formidable, he has a public record that just kills him with values voters at an instinctive level. It’s not bigotry at work. It’s a legitimate issue that speaks to what candidates have done with political power.
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 Next »
But Bryan, while that’s true, it’s not like Mitt had a choice–his state supreme court mandated that.
It’s like the “no executions thing”–Mitt’s hands were tied.
The problem Mitt had in Mass is he promised while running for govenor that he wouldn’t change any abortion laws–even though he was pro-life. That allowed the state to vote for him, because as we all know, Mass is very big on abortion rights.
And Mitt kept his word–he vetoed any change on abortion laws. He’s now suffering for keeping his word, but still, I’d like to hear how, exactly, he could have reduced the abortion rights any in Mass?
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Yup, but Mitt didn’t do much to make that case. I doubt he even saw that issue as a serious problem, and probably saw his public change from being operationally pro-choice to pro-life as sufficient to seal the deal.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Especially in the evangelical network. I don’t really hold the $50 co pay abortion against Romney completely. That was probably the cost (politically speaking) of getting a health care plan through in a liberal paradise like MA. I do have a problem with the concept like getting behind the idea that a universal health care plan was necessary in the first place.
conservnut on January 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I get what you are saying that Mitt’s governing record isn’t the shining example of conservative values, but let’s not forget the big social victories he DID get: He prevented mass from becoming the gay marriage capital of the US; he held the line on any expansion of abortion rights, he fought the good fight over the Catholic charities being forced to let gay couples adopt… and he kept his word where he’d made it.
I have always found it a bit strange that Mitt is hammered as pro-gay rights or something, because his opposition to that is what first got him noticed on the national scene. He, basically alone, managed to fend off Mass. Supreme Court and their legislature to fight gay marriage. And he gets no credit for it.
I think the problem people have with Mitt’s record is they are attributing to him policies forced on him by his environment. I’m sure Mitt doesn’t like the $50 copay for abortions any more than you do, but it’s the law in Mass. that they had to include it. So what can he do? And the Huckabeeites are pinning that on him, which is unfortunate.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I’d rather have someone who has the faith to stand on their convictions.
Wow, that was a slap on Mitt with the forehand and on Huck with the backhand.
- The Cat
P.S. Fred ‘08 :P
MirCat on January 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM
That sounds like a pretty good analysis Bryan. Like you, I am at least partially a values voter, but at the same time, the biggest issue for me is the war. I agree that I would rather put someone else over the war than Huckabee.
The thing I’ve been thinking about abortion is that, even if we have Giuliani in the White House – who would arguably be good at carrying out the war – abortion is still an issue that I, or pro-lifers, or the church, or whoever, can work at on a grassroots level. The pro-life movement will still continue with a pro-choice President. The issue becomes less clear, however, when a President, or Governor, would seek to use public funds to cover abortion – and yeah, that is a problem with my view of Romney.
On the other hand, the war can’t really continue on a grassroots level. I need a Commander in Chief who believes that we are at war with terrorists, and is willing to do what it takes to win that war. It isn’t something that I, or a group of us, can do on our own.
I’ll take Romney, or Thompson, or McCain…or Giuliani over Huckabee on the war. And, that is the issue that is really important to me.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I will say that you are right to knock Mitt for not blaming the Dem’s and liberal culture more than he has, but he’s already getting a lot of grief for bashing Massachuessetts. I’d be upset too if I was a voter there. It’s a delicate balance that unfortunately is not working in his favor.
On the other hand, he does support the Human Rights amendment, I think it’s called, which most of the other candidates don’t. Why doesn’t he get any cred for that?
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 11:52 AM
I don’t know what Iowa saw in Huckabee. I suspect it is a case of him being very personable on the podium. The ‘nice guy’ offense.
If it was the ‘value voter’ pushing him ahead then the value voters better be prepared to get smacked around in 49 States come November. ‘Mr Smith’ isn’t going to Washington.
Limerick on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The difference between why Huck won and Romney didn’t is about the percentage that say they will never vote for a Mormon.
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Our “values” won’t mean squat if we’re overrun by militant Islam.
D2Boston on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I also agree, Bryan, that Mitt didn’t see the $50 copay as a serious problem. If he had, he would have pointed out how his hands were tied.
But that’s the thing about Huckabee–he won based on his network of the churches. And no one really knew what was going on. I’m sure Mitt would have addressed it if he’d known it was hurting him, but how would he have found that out? This is another example of the traditional organs, and in this case, pollsters, letting him down.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Bryan,
On a similar note. In the Huck ad “that never was.” he said 0 executions. That wasn’t Romney’s call either. That’s a law they’re never going to have in this damn state. And that’s being pinned on him too. He had to make compromises to get the no drivers licencs for illegala too. Though that’s not getting much play.
I mean I’m no Romney apologist, believe me. I was just here when this stuff happened.
PowWow on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Okay so my first rant got axed – but here’s the short answer.
HUCK WINS WITH THE “VALUES VOTERS” BECAUSE THEY JUST MIGHT BE AS STUPID AS THE DEMOCRATS THINK THEY ARE.
thareb on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Oh brother. It only took 9 comments.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
From CNN…
Wow, almost 40% of Iowans are independent???
Which means most, by far, did not caucus…
Now, figuring in that ONLY the two party members usualy have the ear of politicians, that means that 39% are not truly represented by a political organization…
Pretty scary.
Romeo13 on January 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
(I’m sorry, but 60% of the GOP caucus goers identifying themselves as “born-again” is terrifying.)
tree hugging sister on January 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Yes, but again, Huckabee is playing cynical (as all, as Rush puts it, “identity” candidates) by emphasizing the values versus the policy. If evangelicals looked at the history of abortion they would recognize that 35 years of electing “pro-life” presidential candidates has rendered little in the way of rolling back permissive abortion policy. As National Review recently pointed out, it was policy introduced and driven by Henry Hyde (RIP) that may have done the most to decades to save unborn humans. Huck supporters need to have crammed down their throats that the best a president can do so far as abortion policy is concerned is to take advantage of the bully pulpit (which only Reagan did, and that only for a season) and appoint the right justices if the opportunity presents itself.
Drum on January 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM
What took only 9 comments? The truth?
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I know. Christians are scary.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Which is…?
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Heh. Whatever.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Because the venomous anti-Romney trolls think Romney was supposed to become dictator of Mass, dissolve the legislature, ignore the supreme court, and push through conservative agenda after conservative agenda in Massachusetts to remove the blight of liberalism, just like Fred Thompson, America’s greatest hero would do if we would just “get it” about his candidacy and realize policy talking points = concrete unstoppable, unfillibusterable actions.
Romney was just the governor, he can recommend bills but he’s still got an 85% Democrat monkey on his back changing his suggestions to something other than what they were. Abortion co-pays were probably included and approved by the Mass. legislature.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Okay.
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Huckabee is cynically manipulating emotions for his personal and political profit; cut from the same mold as Bill Clinton.
Mitt Romney’s political deal making were intended to keep a civil society together as best he could within the limits of his political support.
Look at the public support for the democrat candidates; the cries from the street, ‘give us health care….give us health care’. So Romney’s response was, ‘ok, you want it, here you go.’ while attempting to craft a plan that would appease the mob, while doing the least damage to society.
In my view, he should have explained why government provided [anything] is a poor substitute for providing for one’s self.
rockhauler on January 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Mircat sez: “I’d rather have someone who has the faith to stand on their convictions.”
Well, that’s an interesting question, isn’t it? What Mitt did was try to find something acceptable: yeah, it’s preferable to end abortion, or roll it back, but that was a non starter. It won’t happen in Massachusetts. And anyone who campaigns on that is not electable. So, you tilt at a windmill.
I suppose it comes down to this: is it better to stand there and never compromise, and get nothing, or move as little as you can to get something else? Romney made his stand: “under my administration, no changes either way for abortions.” The benefit was no expansion of abortion rights, the penalty was no contractions, either.
But he got to balance the budget, fight against gay marriage, shrink government, etc. Was it worth it? I would say yes; clearly you would say no. It’s an interesting question, really. Do you try to get the whole hog and in so doing, lose for sure, or do you focus on the parts you can achieve?
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Huck looks like someone from Iowa. Mitt looks like a CEO
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Correct.
There’s something about Hope.
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Actually, the percentage is 18%, so Mitt did cut into the percentage.
Sue on January 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Let me see if I can give you the POV of the “values voter” on Mitt’s co-pay.
Mitt says he’s pro-life, but he let that health care plan go through with the $50 co-pay. Apparently being pro-life isn’t as important to him as getting a universal health care plan. Had it been me I would have made it very clear that if the bill hit my desk with the co-pay on it, I’d veto it every single time. What’s the point of having a principle if you aren’t willing to put something at risk to defend it? Apparently, it’s not worth a lot to him.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
You know what thareb… Truthfully, this group of Evangelicals in Iowa who overwhealmingly voted for the garden tool that is Huckabee have openned my eyes to just how true that is. The Evangelical portion of the Republican base is going to be a very very big problem for Republicans when they start voting for big government, high tax, nanny state, slimy, Clintonian, foreign policy ignoramuses simply because they say the name Jesus with a mindnumbing frequency.
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
NO COMPRIMISES! Comprimise is a dirty word for cave in to liberalism!
I’m with Fred ‘08! It’s a Fredalanche!
/Gregor.
We already know the answer to that one Vanceone. The good is just as much an enemy to the perfect as the bad, so we’re better off having the bad if the perfect can’t win.
As for me, I’d rather not shoot for a ladder with one rung at the highest point and a complete guarentee of death if I don’t catch it. At the same time, shooting for the bottom rung of a ladder isn’t good either.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Didn’t that issue come forward in the ad that wasn’t really and ad, but everyone saw anyway? How much time did Romney have to respond to that?
Here are the details which explains why that charge was fraudulent:
Huck did a masterful job of getting that charge out in the ad that never ran (along with his phony “no executions” charge, which ignored the fact that there is no Death Penalty in Massachusetts, and that Romney’s legislation to re-instate it was killed by the Democrat Mass legislature).
I do agree that Romney does need to address this issue NOW. Maybe knock a few of Ed Rollins’ teeth out :-)
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Bryan
What did Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Gerry Ford, George HW Bush and George W. Bush do to end abortion?
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Sorry, here’s the link:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Real_Romney_Record
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Jimmie: So you are asking Mitt to break his word? The law in Massachuesetts demanded that that co-pay be there. Mitt can’t just ignore the law.
Fine, you say, he should have vetoed the health care plan. But then he’s breaking his word, which was he wouldn’t touch abortion for or against. Vetoing it solely on the grounds of this co-pay would be an attempt to shrink abortion rights (a good thing), but then he has broken his word. Integrity is also important.
Plus, I’m not even sure it was brought up at all there. It probably never occurred to anyone to even check about co-pays for abortion.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Because they’ll riot in the streets and maybe cut off your head anytime they get upset about something?
Yeah, I could see how you’d be terrified of that.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 12:15 PM
As Governor of California, Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, written by progressive Democrats in the California Legislature, IIRC.
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
This will be a hit and run comment, since I spent my entire lunch hour catching up with reading.
But I wanted to say that while I don’t support Mitt Romney, I appreciate your comments, Vanceone, explaining his term in office as governor and the fine line you feel he had to walk on many issues, as well as some of the context behind some of the decisions he made.
Michael in MI on January 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
No, he wouldn’t be breaking his word. Vetoing the bill wouldn’t be shrinking the ability to get an abortion. Subsidizing all but $50 of the cost of an abortion would, by any reasonable measure, be considered expanding abortions – making them easier to get by making them more affordable at the expense of the taxpayer.
By signing the bill, Mitt broke his word. Abortions are now more available because they cost a lot less. If Mitt had intended to keep his word, he shuold have vetoed the bill, thus keeping the abortion situation the same as it was.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
$50 abortions!?????? and to think we pay like 300 here in NY!!!!!
Oy, if abortion is what gives Jimmy Carter’s bastard clone the presidency, I’ll renounce both Jesus Christ and the Republican party for finally doing America in.
ernesto on January 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Probably because he flip-flopped on that just this year.
Your spin is getting absurd- Romney ran as pro-choice, not pro-life, and cited very personal reasons for being pro-choice. And the whole “compromise” argument doesn’t work either- such “compromise” is exactly the reason so many of us are opposed to McCain.
That he governed in a blue state doesn’t give him a free pass on every single non-conservative stance and action he took there.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM
And there you have it, folks. Fundamental problem, right there.
I’ve seen it in my circle of acquaintances again and again and again. Certain evangelicals seem to have a leftist’s head-in-the-sand belief that “the war” is not “real”, or that in any case it is less of an issue than all the baby-killin’.
Purple Fury on January 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM
This makes no sense at all. . . would you feel more comfortable if they said they were muslim? It’s comments like this that might make me throw my support behind Huckabee for spite of the anti-Christian bigots out there.
None of the other candidates are any good anyway. He’s as bad as any of the others. . . and you find the fact that voters (and America) is CHRISTIAN to be a problem?!
Here’s an idea. . . go to a country that doesn’t have Christians and see how you freaking like it. The Christians aren’t the problem.
ThackerAgency on January 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I agree. And this is why I will not vote for Mitt Romney. I can appreciate the fine line he apparently had to walk with regards to supposedly being a conservative/semi-conservative governor in a liberal state, but if you can only claim to be a principled person if you actually stand by those principles.
Michael in MI on January 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Giuliani too, I’d hope.
Unacceptable and unforgivable.
JiangxiDad on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
amerpundit
And the GOP Presidents have given us John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and the guy Nixon gave us who Harry Blackmun wrote Roe V. Wade. The country does not want to see abortion made illegal despite its distaste for the procedure and a so called Human Life Amendment to the constitution ain’t gonna happen.
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
It is amazing that you feel comfortable saying that because you would feel uneasy saying that about Catholics, and would be rightly derided for making such an obscene suggestion. Christians are no reason to be terrified.
ThackerAgency on January 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Now this news just doesn’t make sense since an Iowan was on Hannity the other night saying they don’t like “negative ads.” So someone’s lying in Iowa if they paid attention to a $50 deductible for abortions. Was there no takers on the fact that Huckabee received $35,000 from Novo Nordisk, one of the world’s largest embryonic stem cell researchers?
I hope what happened in Iowa, says in Iowa.
moonsbreath on January 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
This just reinforces the notion that the Iowa voters weren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. Mitt has numerous (acceptable) explanations for why this copay came about, but the arguments are too nuanced for most voter to get it. Huckabee took advantage of this fact to link Romney to being accepting of abortion. Mitt should just say, “I had nothing to do with the establishment of a $50 copay for abortion and under no circumstances do I approve of abortion”. That at least would have molified a few voters. I’m still sticking with the ‘Iowa voters aren’t that bright’ line though. Look at who they have picked in the past!
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Let me see if I have this straight. If the copay provision, which is required by law is not removed, the entire plan to insure everyone in Massachusetts has to go in the trash?
Perhaps you should clarify what it is that bothers you about this mandated co-pay provision. Are you saying that abortion should not be covered under insurance at all, or that only poor women should have to pay for their abortions, while people with private insurance can just get by with a co-pay (which is probably less than $50.00, but I digress)?
If that is what you’re suggesting, you’re discriminating against poor women.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Since when has the Right adopted the viewpoint of the Left that the POTUS is a monarch who can just outlaw things at will and impose his opinions on the rest of the country?
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Hope they “say” in Iowa too, but it should read:
I hope what happened in Iowa, stays in Iowa.
Geez.
moonsbreath on January 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I would argue it wasnt so much an issue problem as it was a perception problem.
Laying aside Abortion and other issues I think we have to go back to something else. Just a month or so ago Mitt made his “JFK Mormon” speech.
I think it was a major strategical error. It only highlighted that Huck was an evangelical by showing Mitt to be part of some strange alien religeon (in the eyes of many evangelicals). Mitt’s speech I would argue backfired and pushed evangelicals into Huck’s camp.
I think to some voting for Mitt would be almost the same as voting for a Muslim. His Mormonism was a big issue to evangelicals I would think
William Amos on January 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
No, but it at least puts the issue back in the public arena for discussion. The country may not want to see abortion made illegal, but don’t you think we should decide that for ourselves? Most folks who want to see abortion made illegal are more than willing to put those views on a ballot and let their friends and neighbors decide the issue along with them. They may not like the results but at least they know that they had a fair shot at getting what they wanted.
Unlike now.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Romney wasn’t even aware of the copay. The legislature there (from everything I have heard) formed a committee to establish the finer points of this policy, AFTER it was voted on.
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM
The $50 co-pay shouldn’t have been a factor. Abortion has to be made “illegal” for insurance not to cover it. Change the law and there is no co-pay.
moonsbreath on January 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I’m just curious – are the Mitt supporters here pretending that he has a consistent record on abortion? Because, it kinda sounds like it…
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
So if I understand Jimmie correctly, he is punishing Mitt for this $50 copay. Yet, at the same time, he’s not doing anything against Rudy or McCain, who don’t even really give lip service to stopping abortions.
This matter of a $50 co-pay is enough of a reason to just toss fiscal and security conservatism out the window.
In other words, abortion is the be-all and end all of a politicians existence. If I promise to outlaw abortion, and I have a record showing that, I can get 40 percent of the evangelical vote, even if I want to double your taxes and surrender to Cuba.
If that’s true, then I am not sure what to say. And it appears to be true, since that is practically Huckabee in a nutshell, and he got 40 percent of the evangelical vote.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM
1. Do you have any idea how many bills Romney vetoed?
2. See my 12:27. Maybe you can answer the questions I posed to Jimmie.
Keep in mind that because of Roe v. Wade, abortions cannot be made illegal. States can try to put in provisions like parental notification, but this legislation always ends up in the courts.
The only solution is to have conservative judges on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe. At that point all that happens is it goes back to the states, and it starts all over again on a case by case basis.
Values voters have an obligation to view these issues rationally and not emotionally. They think the President has far more power than he really does on these issues, when the reality is that their power is limited to the bully pulpit and the courts.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
That and the fact that making nice with the jihadis, as in inept foreign and domestic policy, will lead to a form of law here that takes care of those values questions for you. We won’t have to worry about it any more.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Do you honestly think that Mitt’s Mormonism wasn’t an issue with evangelicals before he made his speech?
Have you read the vitriol against Mormons and/or Mormonism, on this site alone?
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
There is a distinct division forming in the Republican party right now. I think we are going to start to hear a lot of people out there making the same argument that Bryan is making in this post. The argument is that Huckabee didn’t win simply because the Evangelicals are bigots. There are other, more socially conservative reasons why he won. The purpose for this argument (not necessarily in Bryan’s case but will be for others making the same case) will be to delay the breakup between fiscal, small gvt, strong defense conservatives and religious/social conservatives. But this is going to prove to be a pointless excersize. Its a pointless argument to make. The Evangelical base cannot support big government, high taxes, foreign policy incompetence, federal bans on smoking, carbon taxes, taxpayer funded tuition breaks for illegal aliens, affirmative action, etc and still expect to be welcome in the Republican party.
Mike Huckabee is simply not a Republican yet he won the Iowa caucus amongst primarily Evangelical voters. The democrat equivalent of this would be if the African American base of that party in an early left leaning primary state voted for a candidate who supported lower taxes, less government spending/handouts, anti affirmative action, anti illegal immigration, pro Iraq war, etc. Believe me, if the African American part of the Dem base voted overwhealmingly in favor of those things we would notice. We would see it as evidence that the Democrat party is falling apart at its seems.
In the end, what this means is, the higher Mike Huckabee rises and the closer he gets to the Republican nomination the more the Republican party falls apart.
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
As I said in my initial comment, I’m trying to give you the POV of a “values voter”. I’m not sure I’d argue from this position, but it’s a pretty strong argument to make, if you think about it.
Essentially, they’ve asked themselves why he didn’t dig in his heels, if his pro-life principles were as important to him as he said they were. They looked at his actions and found them lacking. I can’t say that they were wrong.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Nailinmyeye: no, I’m not pretending that Mitt has a consistent record. What he has is a perfectly consistent journey.
Why was Mitt pro-choice in the beginning? By all rights, he shouldn’t have been, really. He’s LDS, and aside from twerps like Reid, the LDS church is pretty firmly anti-abortion. If you have an abortion, unless it’s for rape or incest or mothers life in danger, that’s cause for church discipline.
But Mitt had a close relative who died from an illegal abortion performed improperly. So, there was an incentive for him to be “safe, legal and rare” position. Which, technically, is the pro-choice position when you look at their claims…. except in reality they want them to be safe, legal and often.
So Mitt’s personal experience with abortion was that if done at all (and it’s insane to think they will never happen) they should be done safely–if so, his relative would still be alive.
Fast forward to his running for governor. By now, he’s also been in Utah, he’s been around conservatives for a bit, and I think his views were starting to change. In any case, he couldn’t run as pro-life–he’d never win. So he made a deal with the Mass. people: no changes on abortion. He wins. Now comes his famous conversion, when he sees the moving baby pictures. I can totally see that happening, too. Up until that point, his personal experience with abortion had involved the death of the mother. Now, he saw the point of view of the baby, and had a change of heart.
But he’d still made his promise. And Mitt is a man of integrity, so he kept his promise. He was having enough battles over gay marriage to just be glad the abortion thing wasn’t flaring up.
And now, now that’s he’s free from the constraints of Mass. politics, he can be what he is now: a pro-life republican.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Yes it was an issue. But broadcasting it in TV ads in an attempt to play down the issue I think only forced it to the surface. While Mitt played defense on religeon Huck was playing offense. And in the end he beat Mitt by simply saying “Hey Im more like you than this guy from the east who has a different religeous veiw than most of you”
William Amos on January 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Drawing any conclusion about the Republicans based on Iowa is a mistake. The circumstances were set up perfectly for what happened and that won’t be the case in most of the rest of the country. You’re not going to get 60% – 80% of the vote coming from Evangelicals. It’s just not going to happen.
TheBigOldDog on January 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Maybe I have my facts all wrong, but isn’t the $50.00 copay to cover poor women who don’t carry private insuranc and who are put into a state plan like Medicaid?
I’m kind of stymied by this whole issue. Is it that $50.00 co-pay was too little? Would Evangelicals have been happy if it was $500.00? The abortion still goes forward, but it’s more expensive, so their conscience is clear?
This whole issue is just a red herring in my view and does nothing to address the issue of abortion itself – something which Mitt the Governor had no control over, especially with a liberal Dem legislature who were not about to propose legislation to restrict abortion in any way, and which if passed and signed in to law would have ended up on the desk of a judge, ad infinitum until it made it’s way to the Supreme Court, if they’d even take the case.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Perhaps evangelicals are tired of being jeered at, used, shoved aside by fellow conservatives? Perhaps they dream of a President who is kind, generous, warm, and really Christian? Maybe they think Huck would change the tone and
improve the morality of the nation. Is that horrible? Sure, they look stupid, but only because they want to trust a fellow Christian, and because they have little idea what their fellow Republicans and conservatives say about them in forums like, say, this one.
NellE on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM
William Amos: I’m not sure I buy that.
What Bryan is pointing out is there was an undercurrent network for Huck, the churches and pastors. A large chunk of evangelical pastors are more than happy to rail on other faiths they perceive to be cults. And number one and two on that list is the LDS church and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I can’t help but think there was a few sermons on the evils of Mormonism preached recently in Iowa. No, nothing about Mitt was mentioned, I’m sure. Just the standard stuff that they’ve preached for a long time.
But they got the message. No question. Mitt may have brought it to the surface, but I think Huck’s widely reported “innocent” question certainly was a cue to those ears that would hear.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I’m missing the finer point of why Mitt had to sign for universal health care legislation of any kind. It’s that kind of socialist crap that convinces me he’s a RINO.
TexasDan on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Who’s TV ads are you referring to?
It’s not as if it was a secret that Mitt is a Mormon that only came to light after his speech.
Huck was going to run as the Baptist Preacher Christian who doesn’t think that Christ and the devil are brothers like it is rumored those danged Mormons believe, speech or no speech.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM
RINO’s are blue state Republicans beholden to liberal voters. Romney (or Giuliani for that matter) are asking to be beholden to conservative voters now. Mercenary? You bet. So let him be your lying sack of shit this time.
JiangxiDad on January 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Hening on January 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The idea behind it was sound. We are all paying for uncovered people anyway. The show up at the hospitals and get free care. So, the idea was, make it like car insurance and force everybody to carry private health insurance. People who can’t afford the premiums would go into a group and buy as a group and have part of their premiums subsidized. Over time that would reduce the amount the state was actually paying for health care and lower the costs of providing it by getting people out of the ERs for routine care and by preventing the hospitals from passing along the costs of providing free care to the State and insured people. Will it work? We’ll see. It starts this month.
TheBigOldDog on January 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
You think the back-stabbing, rumor-mongering, “don’t you dare attack me!” Huckster fits the bill, huh.
Do you know the details of Mitt’s plan? It is nothing like Universal Health Care as Hillary would have us suffer under.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
So, what you are saying is Huck won the Iowa Republican caucus, despite being handicapped by being a Republican?
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Sorry about that….hit the submit too fast…..
I might miss your point, but I think evangelicals would prefer to see not one penny of tax dollars going towards the support of abortion. Just like you can’t be a little pregnant, supporting abortion as birth control is simply not a biblical option.
Hening on January 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Hey, when Mitt is done running for President, can he come back to Mass. and be our governor again? It seems like a lost golden age compared to the jackass we are now enduring!
Little Boomer on January 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Did you have something to say on this? : -)
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
because christians are not conservatives or americans. they pledge their undying fealty to their church and they’re uninterested in the fate of this republic, let alone this party. if they suddenly became convinced that mike gravel was the “values voter” candidate, they’d be over on the democrat side of the aisle en masse.
and this is who the christian party wants: a distribuitivist foreign policy pacifist who bashes gays and thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
jummy on January 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
But you do have to admit that Evangelicals are a noticeable part of the Republican base. They are hardly without influence as the race marches on. Evangelicals voters are to the Republican base what the African American vote is to the Dem base.
If African American voters all of a sudden expressed their willingness to vote on the Republican side of practically every major wedge issue, we, on the right, would recognize that as a HUGE opportunity to tap into that once loyal Dem voting group. It would be an invitation to woo them.
Mark my words, Hillary, Obama et al are taking notes right now. They are noticing the Evangelical Republicans willingness to vote for Huckabee who is essentially a Christian Democrat with an R in front of his name. They are loving it. Its no mystery why Susan Estrich is practically giddy about the prospects of a Huckabee nomination.
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Again, this is not my personal argument. As I said (and said again), I’m trying to give you the other side of the argument, since it doens’t look like anyone else is.
As far as the “tossing fiscal and security conservatism out the window” do read the post that Bryan linked. Short answer: They’re not. They believe it’s easier to convert a fiscal liberal to conservativism than a social liberal. But read it anyhow.
Okay, again from the pro-life POV. Yeah, it sure as heck can be a single-issue vote-killer, and why not? Conservatives seem to have other deal-killers and we don’t blink at those. And from that POV, the matter of abortion is a matter of the survival of the country as surely as the war we’re in right now. Islamists have yet to kill a couple million people a year, but we do. It matters.
Look, let me try to make this plain. People who are pro-life and for whom that matters a whole lot see a country where we’re killing actual people. They don’t see them as simple blobs of flesh or proto-humans or whatever. They see them as people, deserving of the same basic rights that every other person has. In that, they are not at all different from early abolitionists who, in their thinking, conferred the rights of personhood on slaves. So imagine how it might be considered if we killed a million or two people without much of a second thought. Imagine how it might be considered if we actually used tax money to help pay for those killings. Do you see where it could be problematic to someone without that person being a complete raving lunatic for thinking so?
If you want to communicate with this hypothetical value voter you’re giogn to have to do a lot better than this thread. You have to at least understand that their point of view does come from rational thought, has some real consistency to it, and is worthy of consideration. Even if you don’t ultimately agree with it.
The biggest reason Huckabee resonated so strongly with those folks is not because he agreed with them but because he treated their serious thoughts seriously.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
So now we are going to go into Christian bashing ? I disagee withe the evangelicals backing Huck but the did it because he was able to paint himself as “one of them”
It wasnt anything more sinister than that. All the other politicans came across to Iowa voters as outsiders and Huck didnt.
William Amos on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I think this is indeed insightful but unfortunately I also think that Evangelicals don’t like Mormons, combine that with Huck’s J.C. appeal (Jimmie Carter) and the catch phrase king, wins.
Speakup on January 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I often hit that submit button by mistake, so you’re not alone.
Anyway, what we “prefer” and what the law allows are two different things. There was nothing Mitt could do with the requirements of Roe v. Wade and Massachusetts law.
Huck could have been the governor of Massachusetts and he would have been as powerless as Mitt in that regard.
I believe that Mitt’s insurance plan deserves a chance to work on the merits. Arguing over this copay issue may be a clever political ploy, but it solves absolutely nothing.
Surely you are not suggesting that the entire plan be scrapped over this one issue?
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Perhaps if the evangelicals had backed a candidate who isn’t a smirking two-faced religious demagogue, other conservatives and Republicans, even those of strong faith wouldn’t be turned off. Oh yeah, there’s also the bit about him having nothing other than social conservatism to his name.
You already have a kind compassionaite evangelical Christian in office. His name is George W. Bush. Quit whining and having a victim complex over the poor, marginalized evangelical voters.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Dude!!
Most of the greatest Americans are/were Christians. What are you talking about? I think you got yourself mixed up with those pesky Catholics coming over here in 1847 to give the USA to the Pope. That didn’t seem to be a realistic opinion either.
Any good Christian worth their salt wants a strong foreign policy and a strong policy against homosexual porkers painting them as un-American.
Hening on January 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
*sigh* Look, I am a social conservative too! What, exactly, is the “Christian Coalition” all about? It’s not an “Evangelical” coalition!
The LDS church, most pundits realize, is what stopped the ERA. We forced through several gay marriage constitutional changes for state constitutions. Evangelical Christians are not the only ones concerned about social issues!
But they act like they are. I totally understand the frustration of the social conservatives. They want to stop the gradual drift in a Europe like direction.
But they swallowed Huck’s schtick whole. His stated goal is to eliminate the fiscal and hawks from the party. And this “stand up and look at the power of the social con” vote, which is what this was, is going to destroy the party, going to destroy the conservative coalition, and permanently entrench the Dems as majority parties.
It’s so frustrating! I agree with them on social issues, but they are just giving the middle finger to anything else, and that will doom all of us.
Plus, lump in a healthy dose of bashing Mormons too, and you can see why Huck probably doesn’t want to set foot in Utah anytime soon.
Vanceone on January 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Why not? Because you imagine that the President (or in this case the Governor of Massachusetts) has more power over this issue than he really does?
Realistically at this exact point in time, all you can do is hope to change hearts and minds. All a President can do is appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court and hope Roe gets overturned. But even that does not end abortion.
And certainly refusing to vote for a nominee (as many threaten to do) because they are not sufficiently “pro-life” in the view of pro-lifers, does nothing to overturn Roe since a presidential defeat only hands the court back to the liberals.
Is that what you want?
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Any Christian political leader who makes decisions on illegal immigration based on what he says his soul will or won’t let him do, isn’t helping the values battle. Nor is he kind, generous, and warm when he innocently asks about the brotherhood between Christ and Satan in an interview. O When he plays a negative ad for reporters to show his value system won’t let him use it in his campaign. I suspect his value system has more to do with ambition than what he likes to project. Evangelicals allowed one issue to overide Huck’s record and superficiality. They can wear it.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
— Henry Mencken
ronsfi on January 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Buy Danish – Are you actually reading my posts? It has nothign to do with what I want. I’m not speaking from my own POV. For goodness sake, go back and read my last post again until that’s clear to you.
Jimmie on January 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM
All of the comments here are very telling. Most of you are stereotyping Christians as brain-washed bobble heads. We aren’t stupid and most of us aren’t exactly thrilled with our list of choices either. You talk about us like we are something to be feared and hated and that is why most Christians could care less about the Republican party in general. It is why last night we reasserted ourselves in such an overwhelming manner. You ought to learn some respect.
Huck does agree with me on virtually all social issues. I do have concerns that he will increase the size of government but my concerns with other candidate’s problems are greater. In the end I think character matters most. Not religion, not experience. Huck’s character leads me to believe him when he pledges no new taxes and that he’ll curb spending. As far as experience goes, there is a man most of us admire for his foreign policy and he had little more experience than Huckabee: Ronald Reagan. Reagan wasn’t exactly for small government before his presidency either. I’m not saying Huck is like Reagan because he’s not. I’m just saying that being governor is different from being president and there is hope that Huckabee could be the president we all want him to be. I think there is a better chance of that with him than any other candidate.
Bottom line: When I weigh the pros and cons, Huckabee wins.
Spacen on January 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
No, I’ve been for Fred all along. But being nasty about Huck and the evangelicals is only going to push other Christians (like me) into their camp. And it isn’t necessary. Huck won’t win. Most evangelicals aren’t political junkies, but they will figure out that Huck is a liberal in time. What do you want to bet he’s appointed some scandalously liberal judges in Arkansas?
NellE on January 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I’m hoping to see this style plan time to work now that we have a Liberal loon for governor.
I find any funding of abortion as being a tragedy, and that does defeat the intent of any humanity being offered in this plan.
Hening on January 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Ha. No, not exactly. Despite being a Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton clone he won.
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Evangelicals see Mormons as folks that are not on the path to salvation, and attempt to present accurate biblical teaching to them. This is hardly the action of people that don’t like Mormons. You can say that they don’t like that Mormonism presents itself as Christianity, but don’t dismiss that they see the people of that religion as faithful and seeking God, and wish to bring them to Christ.
Hening on January 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM
We’ll see how that works out in the general if we are cursed with Huck as the nominee. Last I looked, we’re a two party system.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I wish thats all there were to it but unfortunately there really is significant Christian on Christian bias.
Maybe the scenario of a Mormon running for President is an opportunity to get some sunlight shed on what shouldn’t exist.
Of course that would necessarily include confession lets see how hard that is to come by.
Speakup on January 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Excellent points about who is is that makes up the “Christian coalition”.
Jimmie!
Did you say this or not?
Why don’t you answer the questions I asked you about why the co-pay bothers you? Then give us a practical solution as to how Mitt could have changed something that is a matter of Mass Law.
Thanks in advance.
Or do values voters operate only on principle and care not a whit about reality?
Hening,
It’s a tragedy. What did you and do you want Mitt to do about it?
Specifics, please.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »