Open thread: “The Decision”; Update: Huckabee not running; Update: Video added

posted at 7:20 pm on May 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

The magic begins at 8 p.m. ET on Fox, although the announcement probably won’t come until the last 10 minutes of the show. Before the flood of “I DON’T CARE” comments begins below, let me assure you: You do care. You care if you’re a Palin fan because having Huck in the race will deny her some of the social conservative votes she needs to win. And you care if you’re a Pawlenty fan — or merely a Romney-hater who finds T-Paw an acceptable alternative — because his candidacy probably can’t survive a field that includes both Huckabee and Mitch Daniels. If Daniels jumps in, Pawlenty will have to tack right and reframe himself as the true social conservative option among the top tier. With Huckabee in too, he can’t do that; he’d have to reframe himself yet again from being the “Not Romney” in the race to the “Not Any Of Those Other Guys.” Is there enough of a demand for someone like that among primary voters to beat the competition in either Iowa or New Hampshire? I’m skeptical. All of which is to say, in the words of Joe Biden, Huckabee’s decision is a big effing deal, even if you’d never vote for him. (Especially if you’d never vote for him.)

If you’re one of the three people who hasn’t yet seen the e-mail he sent to his inner circle last night, here’s the money bit:

Tomorrow night (Saturday) I will announce the next step in my plans for 2012 during my show on the Fox News Channel. I would like to be able to call you or email you personally and in advance of the announcement, but due to the fact that the decision was not finalized until today and that I committed to Fox that I will absolutely not release it prior to doing so on the channel, that became impractical…

I will look forward to speaking with you soon and once I fulfill my sworn obligation to Fox, I will be free to discuss things that I can’t now due to promises to them and to some possible legal considerations of the announcement.

Many friends have said, “how can we help you in the decision?” My answer has consistently been, “Pray that I have clarity.” I have it and will share it Saturday night during the show. Please be patient if I don’t respond immediately to an email because I expect that once I pull the trigger Saturday night, things will get even crazier, as if that’s possible.

So there’s the possible/likely explanation of why he suddenly went quiet on his advisors over the past week. He decided a few days ago to run and knew that if it leaked out before he announced, Fox would have to yank him off the air before he did his final show. So he kept his own counsel, even vis-a-vis people like Ed Rollins, in order to give himself a proper TV send-off. Another possibility is that he’s not running but leaked the e-mail with the head-fake teaser about “pulling the trigger” because he’s a ratings whore who wanted to sucker people into watching tonight. Which, admittedly, would be funny. Imagine if, as the clock struck 8:59, he turned to the camera and said, “Nope.” And then announced that he’ll be back with a brand new show next week featuring Jon Voight and Toby Keith or whoever. Hilarious — but mean.

Some of you may be thinking, “If Palin had turned her presidential decision into some hour-long LeBron-ish TV melodrama, wouldn’t the press be destroying her over it?” Answer: Indeed. Huck’s gotten off verrrry easy — so far. But even some of his advisors are getting nervous about the fallout:

One source said the email appeared to have gone to roughly 10 people. Yet while it sparked widespread intrigue among political watchers, several sources close to Huckabee still remained unconvinced he will run again for the presidency, citing his approach to making a decision.

Others privately expressed concern that, if Huckabee does run, his approach so far has had an overly theatrical quality that hasn’t screamed “presidential” and has been comparable to the way developer Donald Trump has gone about his potential candidacy…

[Former South Carolina Gov. David] Beasley added that if Huckabee does run, “I’ve got some questions – (like) why did you take this route??”

So … I don’t know. Maybe he’ll announce that he’s not running after all, with the “craziness” in the e-mail a reference to the surge of reaction to his decision that he’ll have to deal with in the coming days. Friends and advisors will want to talk him out of it, media outlets will want to ask him questions, and of course the rest of the field (minus Romney) will be reaching out to him for an endorsement. The one thing I can’t figure out is why, if he’s running, he didn’t wait for Daniels to make up his mind first. Mitch the Knife getting in arguably makes things easier for Huck because Daniels will draw votes from centrist candidates like Mitt and Pawlenty. The more moderates in the field there are to divvy up the pool of RINO support, the better Huck’s chances of winning primaries with 35 percent of the vote via the social conservative base. Instead, he’s — apparently — jumping in before we know for sure what the Hoosier Hamlet is doing. Why not wait two more weeks, by which time Daniels will have decided, and then make a fully informed choice?

Or maybe, per NRO’s Katrina Trinko, he’s simply planning to announce that he’s taking his talents to the 5 p.m. weekday time slot once Beck departs. Suspense. While we wait, here’s a sneak preview of reaction in Iowa social-con households tonight if Huck decides to pass. The thread is open.

Update: Next year, Huckabee will not be taking his talents to Des Moines. Stand by for video.

Update: That was fast. Just arrived in my inbox, from Jon Huntsman’s campaign:

“Our country has been very fortunate to have Mike Huckabee as a leader and public servant. His commitment to this country and its core values — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — is a model to which all elected officials should aspire. It is unfortunate that we will not have his voice — or his bass guitar — in the presidential debate, as our party would have benefited from his involvement. Yet I’m confident that he will continue to be a positive force in the national conversation no matter his future endeavors and I look forward to his continued friendship.”

Huntsman and Huckabee had dinner recently. Needless to say, an endorsement from one of the GOP’s most prominent social cons would help Huntsman win over base voters concerned about his religion.

Update: Via Mediaite, here’s the video. I think we all had an inkling that he was leaning “no” when he prefaced this by, um, jamming with Ted Nugent.


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

Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.

steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Your idea is stupid too… the problem isn’t who is moderating the debates but the idea that debates need moderators to begin with.

Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

So far the Rs are proving to be LESS SMART on so many levels.

CoffeeLover on April 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM

The 2016 primary is a bit unusual in that there is a clear top-tier of candidates (whoever runs from the Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie group.) As a result, it’s likely to be easier to control the debate process if they can be convinced that’s in their best interest to limit appearances.

Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Nevermind… I just skimmed over and I thought your entire idea was have Hugh Hewitt et al moderate the debates…

I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

That’s a great idea. I’d also say that each candidate should be given equal speaking time, to use as they wish – give them a button to activate their microphone, and cut it off permanently when they’ve run out of allotted time. If one guy wants to talk for 10 minutes on a single topic and then have no time for any other exchanges, let him.

Inkblots on April 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM

And change the format entirely. Why do we need eight people at eight podiums fighting with each other in the first place? Take a page from Newt Gingrich’s playbook instead. Have two chairs, one for the host and one for a single candidate. Give each of them fifteen minutes. Ask them the same questions on general policy issues, mixed in with specific questions for each candidate on proposals they have made or areas where they haven’t provided a solid plan yet. You could fill up the same two hours and give the voters a clear, uninterrupted look at where each of them stands without turning it into either a softball love festival or a planned attack by hostile, liberal guard dogs.

How is this any different from a series of interviews? Presumably, the candidates will be engaging in more than enough of those?

The emphasis on policy proposals is a bit problematic since it ignores other things that will determine whether someone can be an effective President, such as their accomplishments in the past. In a discussion that is just about policy, there’s nothing to distinguish a failed state legislator from a popular Governor.

Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I say run a tournament of one-on-one debates.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…

Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Sounds good.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I agree with Jazz, Republicans are running to be the Republican NOMINEE not the DEMOCRAT Party nominee. I don’t get why they want to appear on Democrat news. If they want to go on ONE big cable news it should just be Foxnews moderated by Hannity and Erick Erickson.

Rush should also have his own debate forum. Republicans should just stick with going on blogs and conservative places like Glenn Beck.

No MORE going to debate hosted by Marxist.

BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…

Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

From what I remember, the moderators of Lincoln-Douglas debate don’t get to ask questions. It’s a strait up one-on-one point and counterpoint about a single topic.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Rush should also have his own debate forum.
BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM

How about a radio debate on Rush’s show?

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM

How about duct taping the mouths of the leftard moderators and let the candidates talk?

Old Country Boy on April 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM

A new way to handle primary debates…..


Don’t listen to ANYONE connected to the failed gop that has had anything to do with any national election since 1988.

Limited government Conservative values haven’t been on the ballot since 1984 (and to be honest that wasn’t really smaller government). It at least had the veneer of having someone at the head that preached it constantly (and appeared to believe it).

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM

View the DOTUS and all his glory (his fundamentally transformed United States of America) here.

http://glennhenson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image001-obama.jpg

2017 here we come.

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.

karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Surprised no one suggested the Republican candidates stand silently on the stage while the liberal media debates how bad each Republican candidate is compared the the Democrat running for office.
;-)

albill on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Awesome picture. That needs to be used in campaign ads next year to help dethrone Reid in the senate.

karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM

It is about time the GOP did what the Democrats do. Hire moderators that share the philosophy. We simply are not interested in Stephanopolis’s delusional presumptions.

pat on April 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Nice article Jazz Shaw..You made some very valid points..:)

Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

This debate situation is a problem to be sure. But it’s not a problem without a solution. We just have to be smarter than the people who are causing the real problem in the first place.

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

We just have to be smarter than the people who are causing the real problem in the first place.

You’d think this would be the easy part, but no…… *shakes head*

GWB on April 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Given the recent trajectory of events, the first debate we see in 2015 will be sponsored by MSNBC, hosted by Chris Hayes, and feature the opening question, “Show of hands… which of you will do the least damage to the country if you somehow manage to steal this election?”

A version of this scenario is what we saw over and over ad infinitum in 2012. If Republicans allow this outrage to be repeated … They. Will. Lose. Again. And deserve it.

marybel on April 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM

The first thing I would do is refuse to have any debate on CNN. After Candy Crowley set Mitt Romney up there is no reason to give that network any recognition until such time as they recognize the harm they did and rectify the situation.

bflat879 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Stuart Stevens (of Romney campaign fame shame) understandably feels that the circus has made far too many stops in the same town.

No political circus would be complete without Mr. “Etch-a-Sketch,” Stevens, Andrea Saul, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie or the rest of the clowns from Team Romney.

bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM

There have been some watchable formats that differed greatly from the ‘stand around the stage as targets’ venue.

Huckabee did a very good job with the candidates and they each got to answer questions but on their own, no back and forth, just state your position without knowing what anyone else had said before that.

The Value Voters Summit is, perhaps, one of the best venues that has happened and is a very good format style as a table-talk discussion not a ‘please indict yourself for the moderator’ junk we normally get.

Then there is always the strange concepts of asking the campaigns to each submit moderators and put their names into a hat and pick out two and then go to an online venue for this stuff.

Or ask Brian Lamb to host them on CSPAN with someone on the clock to cut off microphones.

Anything but the last two go-arounds all over again.

ajacksonian on April 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.

steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

But, does anyone think Jazz is a serious person? Doubtful.

bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Offer events hosted by Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty, Al Cardenas… hell, let’s have Ed Morrissey and Erick Erickson host a couple. And change the format entirely.

Geraghty and Erickson are the only ones from that list that aren’t total RINOs and Erickson is a complete jerk.

bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I’ve always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas format with moderators serving only time-keeping functions. That just isn’t practical with eight debaters. Jazz’ suggestion of 15-minute segments would yield far more substance than the current system, but I wonder if the lack of confrontation would cause the networks to lost interest in covering them.

It is insane to allow the media to control the selection process for the Republican nomination. They are not neutral brokers, but active enemies of our side and agents for the other side.

Adjoran on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Here’s an idea: how about having real debates that force the candidates to actually answer the question by ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?! And stop allowing them to drone on and on about anything but the issue. O/T a bit, but how about fielding candidates with iron balls instead of the shriveled little ones the dweebs we now see seem to possess? And clear the field of ANYBODY who was even the slightest associated with the last election. Fresh meat is what we need.

HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

At this stage the only near-”absolute” I think that needs to be corrected is a new way of picking moderators.

No more hostile lib/pro Dem questioners who live for the chance to embarrass and marginalize GOP candidates…ever. And no wire hangars either!

Sacramento on April 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Nein, nein, nein

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

+1

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

There need to be some debates.You can’t let candidates just get away with spouting their ideas unchallenged.And debates are good practice for the 3 in the general against the Dem candidate.Under no circumstances should any GOP candidate agree to appear onstage with a liberal moderator,and this should be insisted upon in advance by having each candidate take a pledge not to do so.If the networks want to host a debate they will provide a conservative moderator.Lastly,the sheer number of debates was ridiculous.Limit them to one each on economic policy,social issues,and foreign policy.

redware on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.

If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?

triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.

karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

…someone should insist on it!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.

If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?

triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I think the moderators should be Michelle and Hussein official jock holders from the white house staff.

fair and balanced

tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM

I am thinking we should bring back “Win Ben Stein’s Money” to weed out the unprepared.

Jimmy Kimmel can’t be any more partisan than Candy Crowley, and far more intelligent and easy on the eye’s to boot.

Snowblind on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM