Rush To Huck: Checkmate

The commenters at Hot Air are speculating as to the whys and wherefores of Rush Limbaugh's response to Huckabee as reported at The Politico. But Rush's response comes with a landmine that Huckabee doesn't dare go near.

“Gov. Huckabee’s campaign is engaged in identity politics at this moment, ....

That charge is key to why so many conservatives have a problem with Huckabee. As most realize, he seeks to do the same thing with being Evangelical as the Left has been doing for years with identities such as Black, Hispanic, Female, gay, etc. Huckabee would have it so that his qualifications and positions on many important issues don't matter - only his religion, or identity, does.

If he or his people engage Rush's premise it opens the door for Limbaugh to take him down and make the argument that Evangelicals, of which Bush is one btw, shouldn't be fooled. Conservatism and evangelical-ism are two different things. I wouldn't look for Rush to drop this anytime soon. He'll have to at least comment on it when he comes back.

Given that any conversation could be so dangerous for Huckabee, he's going to look as though he turned tail and ran from a talk show host. So, the question for Huckabee is, how are you going to stand up to terrorists, if you can't even stand up to Rush? He may not realize it, yet, but Huckabee has already lost this confrontation.

He can come away looking weak, or being exposed for his non-conservative views. He'll probably try to finesse it by responding indirectly, but Rush's mentioning of identity politics in his email makes it clear Rush isn't backing down.

Comments

[Yoda]

Liberal he is too, which helps not.

[Mike]

WELL SAID!!! Very well said, love it. Thanks

[Fred Beloit]

"Conservatism and evangelical-ism are two different things."
Very true, and this needed to be said.

Don't want to deflect too much from this important subject, but there is an especially offensive post at Kos that is somewhat related to this one. This one tries to conflate U.S. troops and their training with savage and suicidal murderers and defames religion in the process. A new propaganda low for Kos,Inc.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/23/10251/691/341/425784

[BobInStamford]

This is shocking - scandalous even. Thank you for your service, Fred! America is grateful for your efforts on behalf of democracy and the troooops.

[rightwingprof]

My question about all this is why didn't Huckleberry just call in and talk to Rush on the air. That would have been the honest, up front way to do it, rather than release statements to the press.

[jj]

"Conservatism and evangelical-ism are two different things."
"Very true, and this needed to be said."

So, I guess you fellows think the Republican Party can win without evangelicals. You secular Republicans may abandon the so-called Religious Right, but I doubt whether the Party will, but if they do, the Republicans will fade into oblivion, never to win another national election. Just in case you fellows didn't know this, either, the vast majority of evangelicals are conservative. For you to say otherwise is just another indication of your willful ignorance in this matter.

[DJordan]

"So, I guess you fellows think the Republican Party can win without evangelicals."

I don't think they meant that we are discounting the evangelical vote, or that if you are evangelical, you aren't conservative. They just meant that you are not necessarily conservative if you are evangelical, and it is wrong for Huckabee to pretend that is what it means. He does not want us to focus on his policies, which is really the only reason to vote for an individual. I know people who believe very strongly in Christ, who go to my own church, that I would not want to become President. That is not the most important issue. So evangelicals should not just check the box next to an evangelical and expect a conservative president.

[Peter]

I spent a couple of terms as a Republican Precinct Chairman. During that time I found that it was the Evangelicals who did the grunt work, they were the ones that spent hours in the phone banks, they were the ones who walked the Precincts.

The Evangelicals are very important. That does not mean I support THIS Evangelical. So we must beat him without bashing the religion, this isn't rocket surgery or brain science. We are, after all, used to having some leaders fall short.

[capitano]

"So, I guess you fellows think the Republican Party can win without evangelicals."

************

No, but that's what the NY Times would have us believe, which is why the MSM made sure that every potential GOP voter in the Bible Belt heard all about Rudy's divorces and Fred's hot, younger wife.

Perhaps you were a Kerry voter in 2004; if so, maybe this analogy will help. John Kerry tried to insulate his public record from scrutiny by touting his "heroism" in Vietnam -- it became a proxy and a shield for his entire record on national security, military, and foreign diplomacy,. When anyone pointed out his flaws, he would puff up his chest and claim the critics were attacking his service or his patriotism. Even worse, he would claim that his opponent's views should be ignored because he didn't have equivalent combat service, i.e. a few months in Vietnam.

Making his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign backfired on Kerry when it was obvious he was a borderline fraud. Huckabee is undoubtedly a true evangelical, but making it the sine qua non of his campaign is a mistake.

Now perhaps you are planning to vote for Obama and if so, maybe this will help you understand the identity politics criticism. Remember when Al Sharpton suggested that Obama might not be black enough to deserve the African-American vote? It was about the same time that Democrat Senator and Presidential hopeful, Joe Biden, said that Obama was clean and articulate. Rather than just reject the whole idea of identity politics, the Dems wanted to debate the issue of Obama's blackness -- us "fellows" would rather stick to the issues on why Obama is a poor choice for America. It's much cleaner that way.

[red]

us "fellows" would rather stick to the issues on why Obama is a poor choice for America. It's much cleaner that way.

Its more American that way too.

And shall we say that attacking O'bamma is playing with identity politics fire? If blacks get that Hillary is attacking his 'blackness' -- all the other ways that Democrats screw Blacks may come to mind (failing inner city schools, illegal aliens taking jobs that innercity youths could be doing, kneecapping Black politicians). And Democrats would become a footnote in history.

[Curly Smith]

This seems like an ill-conceived preemptive strike against Rush. The Huckabee Campaign tried to align Rush with the Party so any future criticism would fall into the Campaign's "it's Huckabee against the Establishment" narrative. However, it shows two important aspects of the Huckabee Campaign:

- First, the Huckabee Campaign thinks attacking Rush will energize their base, which tells us a lot about who the Campaign thinks their voting base is.

- Second, the Huckabee Campaign is utterly incompetent as it learned nothing from Rush's takedown of "Hapless" Harry Reid. There is zero evidence that Rush would ignore the personal attack and ample evidence that he would publicly ridicule the attacker.

Huckabee's Campaign went out of their way to start a fight that they can't win, that they can't even fight to a stalemate, and that will ultimately cost them support. Maybe they should drop their subscription to The New York Times and get a subscription to The Limbaugh Letter.

[M. Simon]

The Republican Party can do without liberal evangelicals.

BTW to all you evangelicals - if you want to be pandered to join the Dems. I'm sure they will accommodate once you become a big enough voting block. You can also engage in all the corruption you want. The Dems won't mind.

You can sell your souls for a mess of pottage. The Dems are buying. With your money.

[seekeronos]

"---

"Conservatism and evangelical-ism are two different things."
"Very true, and this needed to be said."

---"

But they are very much interwoven at this present time.

And as a commenter upthread said, it is a key area that the liberal MSM and the Democrats will want to exploit - and unfortunately, Huckabee has NOTHING to offer the wider spectrum of conservatives (for many of whom religion is simply an add-on or even not that important) except for his religious identity politics:

"Vote for me, because I'll oppose abortions and gay 'rights', and am generally a nice guy"... while he goes on to be the closest thing to a socialist to wear Republican colours.

Evangelicals in particular and Christians in general tend not to scrutinize a candidate beyond his "religious cred", possibly because if that candidate really is born again, that he will tend to do everything else right.

This is why creeps like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland still have a pulpit to speak from; many Christians have failed to test the spirits of these men to see if they are truly operating from Scripture, and if they are endorsing politicians like Huckabee, that should be a red flag.

The point here is then not to isolate or ignore the evangelicals, but to try to co-opt them into voting for an electable candidate - and by electable candidate, I mean Fred Thompson.

See here:

Evangelicals are probably not going to get over the Mormon issue, to say nothing of Romney's flip-floppery and other dances around his past statements (MLK). McCain remains a possibility, and Fred is the best choice who represents the best mesh of all interests in the Reagan Coalition.

Fred may not be the "perfect" SoCon because he refuses to get wrapped up in discourse about supporting a nationwide ban on abortion, but would rather leave it to the states.

This is actually a wiser approach, because the far left liberal dominated states would never accept such a ban, but the deep South and middle American states would be free to enact a ban legislatively if there was an amendment that protect the states' rights to do so without activist judges cramming their liberal interpretations down everyone's throats.

[Greg Marquez]

Is Huckabee really engaging in identity politics or are blue state conservatives trying to paint him as engaging in identity politics in order to marginalize him and elect the candidate with whom they more closely identify? (Are Wall Street financiers an identity group?)

Evidence of the latter are the attacks on Huckabee's Christmas commercial. Wishing people Merry Christmas is identity politics? Identifying Christmas as the celebration of the birth of Christ is identity politics? Paranoid fantasies about mysterious floating crosses convict Huckabee of identity politics?

Who is making an issue of these things Huckabee or his opponents?

It's very hard for the substantive arguments to get any traction against Huckabee because they are coming at him from the right. The attacks on his granting of pardons are not going to work against him as they would against a Democrat, because by default Republican means you're the law order guy. Granting clemencies just means you're a compassionate law and order guy. (This is the genius of compassionate conservatism and of President Clinton's triangulation.) The only people the argument has any traction with are those on the far, far right. The same argument can be made with respect to Huckabee's tax hikes and scholarships for children of illegal aliens. They won't stick with anyone but the far, far right, because to the rest of the world they come across as conservatism leavened with a little compassion.

As a result of the lack of traction on the substantive points the blue state conservatives have begun to attack him from the left. Trying to make him out to be some scary religious nut or at least somebody who associates with scary religious nuts.

The problem is that since he is a Baptist who has a 12 year or so record actually governing a state, the attacks are coming across to his fellow evangelicals as bigoted and anti-evangelical. The typical evangelical is thinking something like this: Here's a guy who was governor of a southern state for 11 years and he didn't start any state church or pass laws requiring kids to pray or read the Bible, or re-instituting sabbath observance laws but you still think he's a religious nut because he said Christmas was about the birth of Christ? You must think I'm a nut too and you want me to vote for you?

Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net

[Worst President Ever]

Establishment Republicans LOVE evangelicals, but only in November. And only for their willingness to work and vote.

The Republicans have for years consciously appealed to the Evangelical vote, but done little to actually deserve it. Now that a true evangelical may actually win, all those establishment move and shakers, from Washington consultants to wanna-be king-makers like Rush are suddenly flabber-gasted at what's happening. Geez, have a man that acts on the Word of God in the White House. Are you nuts? It's, in Peggy Noonan words, the idiot vote.

Establishment Republicans hate Huckabee because he's isn't beholding to them like Romney, McCain, Guiliani who are all traditional products of the political machine. They know and understand how those guys work. That may not be true for Huckabee.

[Bill]

Only stupid evangelicals like Huckabee, and I suppose the republicans can win without them. In reality, it's the mainstream media that want Huckleby to be the nominee, so the dems will be sure to win in Nov 08. Devious, but in an obvious, duncehat way.

[LOL]

Well Republicans finally get what they asked for. With Bush and Rove you guys wanted evangelicals to turn out in election after election. And now that they're crapping on your party of idolatry you're all pissed off. It's truly satisfying to watch.

[BobInStamford]

My prayers are with you, Mike Huckleberry. May you be the first Holy Redneck Emperor!

[TheSpartan]

"Only stupid evangelicals like Huckabee"

Just who does this eliminate?

[Fred Beloit]

jj, these are the folks you want to join?

"Well Republicans finally get what they asked for. With Bush and Rove you guys wanted evangelicals to turn out in election after election. And now that they're crapping on your party of idolatry you're all pissed off. It's truly satisfying to watch.

Posted by: LOL | Monday, December 24, 2007 at 03:30 PM

My prayers are with you, Mike Huckleberry. May you be the first Holy Redneck Emperor!

Posted by: BobInStamford | Monday, December 24, 2007 at 04:04 PM

"Only stupid evangelicals like Huckabee"

Just who does this eliminate?

Posted by: TheSpartan | Monday, December 24, 2007 at 10:11 PM

I'm not for Huck because of his political views, jj. No other reason. There is no reason to feel you are being abandoned.

[jj]

Not abandoned, but demonized.

[seekeronos]

JJ, speaking as a person who is firmly of the opinion that the Republic should retain its Judaeo-Christian character and influence... I think that evangelicals should carefully pray and examine their conscience to see if we should vote for a man solely based upon what he says and claims to stand for when measured against his record.

That is to say, Rev. Huckabee belongs behind a pulpit, and not behind the presidential podium.

His brand of "compassionate conservatism" differs only in name and character from the secular humanist liberalism espoused by the Dhimmicrats because it has the stamp of religion upon it.

I call you to consider for yourself: is Huckabee really a conservative?

I see him a likely a very good pastor and a Christian, but woe-fully ill-equipped to be a president, and I fear that he is being skillfully maneuvered by the MSM and the Dhimmicrats as a paper tiger that will get swatted down with frightful ease when faced against the Hillary machine (or increasingly more likely Oprahbama machine) in November.

Consider instead a candidate that has a fair chance of beating Huckabee in the primaries (Mitt) even though he hasn't got a consistent record as a conservative...

... or a less-likely-to-be-nominated candidate like Fred Thompson, who has a rock-solid record, and while no pastor, embraces Christ in his own personal way.

Let us join hands to elect the man who really is best for this country, and who will have the ability to fight and win against the Dhimmicrat machine.

[KE]

I agree with Greg Marquez. Huckabee did not just step out from behind a pulpit. He has experience as a governor and did not turn Arkansas into a theocracy.

The problem with so-called conservatives who hang on every word from the Rush/DC crowd is that they are the ones who are not conservative, who have abandoned the values outlined by our founding fathers, but like a frog in boiling water do not realize it.

Read the words of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson - going into debt, borrowing from other countries to finance wars and nation building - all big no-no's. The "conservatives" from DC and NY spearheading the attacks on Huckabee aren't conservative. They are greedy, "what's in it for me, and how can I spin it to be sure I get it all - and then some". Evangelical and conservative are not necessarily mutually inclusive, but neither is the philosophy of greed and power-grabbing that is bringing this country to the brink of financial ruin. They have sold our sovereignty to the highest bidder. While decrying UN control over our country, they furiously try to tamp down any warning about selling our economic security and sovereignty down the river via the WTO and burdening us with enormous debt to the Chinese - you know, those freedom-loving guys on the other side of the Pacific. They fear Huckabee because he's got experience, charisma, and conservative values, has not imploded by being too radical, AND is willing to make a small fissure in their boatload of **** they have sold to the American people. I don't expect Huckabee to survive for the same reason that the Democrats wouldn't let Dean continue - there is no real difference between the parties - just a firmly entrenched group that wants to keep milking it for all they can - and do not want anybody to spoil their party.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, KE, any chance of naming a few of the conservative demons you described?

[Pastor Dan]

Limbaugh's whole argument about Huckabee's appeal being simply identity politics is another incredibly stupid thing out of Limbaugh. Here's why he's dead wrong. Identity politics is voting for somebody on the basis of some characteristic that has no absolutely no influence on their positions. Some examples would be race or gender. To say that religion has no influence on one's position is absolutely laughable. One's religion determines their worldview through which all their thinking is filtered. Limbaugh says that Huckabee plays identity politics and Romney's Mormonism doesn't matter. It probably because Limbaugh calls himself a Christian but doesn't even know what the word means. Huckabee's faith influences and determines all of his positions. For more information, read my recent post Should Christians Listen To Rush Limbaugh? at http://www.pastordanwalker.org.