And today features two editorial columns attacking him, neither behind the subscription wall. The first is by Peggy Noonan, and is entitled American Pastoral: Mike Huckabee preaches to the choir, but not everyone's singing along. The second is by DC-based member of the editorial board Kimberly Strassel in her regular Firday "Potomac Watch" column. This one is entitled Leap of Faith: Mike Huckabee and Little Rock ethics. It is worth taking the time to read both to see how the chattering class of non-theocon conservatives are reacting to the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. And the best part is because the pieces are not behind the subscription wall you don't have to give Rupert Murdoch a dime.
Keep reading for some excerpts and analysis by yours truly.
Let's look at Noonan's piece first. She begins by telling us that she had to watch the infamous Christmas ad twice before she saw the cross in the background. And her reaction can be summed up in one sentence:
Is there a word for "This is nice" and "This is creepy"? For that is what I felt. This is so sweet-appalling.
She notes that in general we don't "hit people over the head" explicitly with our expressions of faith when in a political context. She offers a further personal reaction upon reflection to the ad:
wound up thinking this: That guy is using the cross so I'll like him. That doesn't tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I'm dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh.
She has no doubt it was no accident that the image of the cross appears. You can read her column for her observation of Huckabee's reactions when challenged on it. What is more interesting is the insight she offers as to how Republican strategists approach their advertising, especially in Iowa. Note the following:
Ken Mehlman, the former Republican chairman, once bragged in my presence that in every ad he did he put in something wrong--something that went too far, something debatable. TV producers, ever hungry for new controversy, would play the commercial over and over as pundits on the panel deliberated over its meaning. This got the commercial played free all over the news.
The cross is the reason you saw the commercial. The cross made it break through.
Noonan makes an interesting observation about Huckabee that is worth quoting:
Mr. Huckabee reminds me of two governors who became president, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Like Mr. Clinton, he is a natural, charming, bright and friendly. Yet one senses something unsavory there, something not so nice. Like Mr. Bush, his approach to politics seems, at bottom, highly emotional, marked by great spurts of feeling and mighty declarations as to what the Lord wants. The problem with this, and with Bushian compassionate conservatism, which seems to have an echo in Mr. Huckabee's Christianism, is that to the extent it is a philosophy, it is not a philosophy that allows debate. Because it comes down to "This is what God wants." This is not an opener of discussion but a squelcher of it. It doesn't expand the process, it frustrates it.
She is worried that the direction he is taking his campaign can potentially tear apart the Republican party [observation from teacherken - do we interpret this as meaning that she is afraid the traditional party elders and economic conservatives won't be able to control a party whose nominee is a religious conservative, that they want the religious conservative votes but not their ideas driving the campaign?]. She ends her piece with a religiously based dig at the former pulpit minister Huckabee:
Could he win the nomination? Who knows? It's all a bubbling stew on the Republican side, and no one knows who'll float to the top. In an interview this week with David Brody of CBN, Mr. Huckabee said people everywhere were coming to him and saying, "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you, that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."
Prayer is powerful. But Huckabee's critics say he's a manipulator with a mean streak and little knowledge of the world. And Isaiah 54 doesn't say anything about self-inflicted wounds.
Nosw let's turn to Strassel. She is doing us a real favor should Huckabee actually get the nomination. Let me give you the thrust of her piece in one sentence, which appears at the end of her third paragraph:
It isn't just that Mr. Huckabee is far from a traditional conservative; he's a potential ethical time bomb.
But it is not just that she provides in one place an extensive list of all of good ol boy Mike's ethical problems. It is how she sets it up that I find so interesting. Let's look at her two intro paragraphs:
As pigs in pokes go, the Democratic Party bought itself a big one in 1988. Michael Dukakis was relatively unknown, but he was also the last man standing. Only too late did his party, along with the rest of the country, realize Mr. Dukakis was a typecast liberal--a furlougher of felons, and a guy who looked mighty awkward in a tank.
This is what happens when a party takes a flyer, and it could be Republicans' turn with Mike Huckabee. The former Baptist minister and governor of Arkansas is surging in Iowa, and is tied with Rudy Giuliani in national polls. He's selling his party on a simple message: He's not those other guys, with their flip-flops and different faiths, and dicey social positions. As to what Mr. Huckabee is--that's as unknown to most voters as the Almighty himself.
Ooh, that's nasty. Comparing Huckabee to Mike Dukakis! How nasty can one Republican be towards another? Of course, note the key expressions "a furlougher of felons" - although Strassel does not choose to explicitly describe the incident that might haunt Huckabee (and remember that in 1988 it was Al Gore who first elliptically raised Willie Horton against Dukakis). Strassel tries in passing to rehabilitate Rudy (thereby demonstrating not only Murdoch's support but also how much the economic conservatives wanted someone they knew?) in this snippet:
Some will also argue Mr. Huckabee is no more ethically challenged than Mr. Giuliani, who is getting pounded with questions about Judith Nathan's security detail and Giuliani Partner clients. The difference is that Hizzoner is a celebrity whose past bones were long ago picked clean by the media crows. Even the Nathan flap is an extension of news that made the rounds five years ago.
Of course, Strassel's assessment of the current furor over Giuliani's escapades is laughable on several counts, and seems oblivious to some of the more recent news that has broken in that arena.
Strassel worries that the GOp already has problems with financial scandals, and that Huckabee might present an unfortunate comparison with one Democratic candidate who has so far avoided being tarred with scandal - she is apparently very afraid of Barack Obama.
She also displays a bit of a tin-foil hat mentality. Try this paragraph:
Democrats know it. Here's an interesting statistic: Since the beginning of 2007, the Democratic National Committee has released 102 direct attacks on Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani has warranted 78; John McCain 68; Fred Thompson 21. Mike Huckabee? Four. The most recent of these landed back in March. GOP voters may not have examined Mr. Huckabee's record, but the left has--and they love what they see.
So, because the Democrats haven't attacked Huckabee as much as the other candidates that is proof that Republicans shouldn't support him? I have one immediate response - this is the last proof I will ever need of the lack of critical thinking skills by members of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
Perhaps you need a good laugh today? If so, go read the the two columns. We tend to spend a lot of time here in our own partisan internecine warfare, with adherents of one candidate smashing another. But I have yet to see a semi-official organ of the party - which is not an unfair description of the editorial and op-ed pages of the WSJ with respect to the "other party' - offer anything so concerted against one of our leading candidates.
I don't know about you, but reading this brightened up my day.
What do you think? Does it mean anything? Or is it the last gasp of a group within the Republican party who may be seeing their previous influence being supplanted by something else, by the rise of a candidate who is not tied to their agenda? And whether or not they succeed in taking down Huckabee, might these kinds of pieces not indicate an internal battle capable of doing to the Republicans what we Democrats have so often in the past done to ourselves?
Peace.