Email
Print
SyndicateThe Huckabee Theory
By Robert Ringer - Thursday, August 13, 2009
By Robert Ringer
I’ve often been asked if I think Mike Huckabee will run for president in 2012 and, if so, do I believe he can win the Republican nomination — and the presidency. These are three interesting questions, and, until recently, my answers were (1) I’m not sure, (2) no, and (3) no.
The reason I’ve never been certain whether Governor Huckabee would run or not is because if I were in his shoes, it would be a monumental decision for me to make. Overnight, he’s become a TV star and is in a position to make untold millions of dollars in the coming five-to-ten years. He’s incredibly talented, and began his stint as a TV host as though he had been doing it all his life.
If Huckabee gives it all up to run for president and loses, he could have a difficult time getting back on the Star Train. He’s certainly smart enough to know that fame is fleeting and that things change as time passes.
But recently I’ve started putting two and two together, and they might just add up to four. Conservatives have long been dismayed by the fact that liberals, in abundance, are welcome guests on Huckabee. Which causes many to believe that, at heart, he’s a liberal.
I had similar concerns when I read his book Do the Right Thing. The governor tends to pander to “the Walmart crowd” throughout the book, which smacks of populism. But I am compelled to admit that most of what he says in the book, and, even more important, what he has been saying on his television show, is pretty solid conservatism.
So, as I’ve watched guests such as Oliver Stone, Richard Dreyfuss, and Bill Maher appear on Huckabee, I haven’t been able to figure out why he’s so attracted to these far-left types. But last Saturday’s show was so over the top that I think I just may have figured out what’s going on.
Huckabee’s first three guests were liberals — Representative Loretta Sanchez, Dr. David Lipschitz, and Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. Many conservatives must have been going ballistic. How could the good governor possibly hope to garner the Republican nomination by continuing to showcase liberals on his program? Well, here’s a theory that hit me as I watched each of the libs make his/her appearance:
Mike Huckabee already has the religious right sewed up, but he can never win over the conservative Republican base. Solution? Pick off everything left of center that he can get his vote-catching machine to grab hold of, including liberal Democrats who are disgusted with how “change we can believe in” turned out to be a hodge-podge of corruption, bailouts for big corporations, deficit spending, government-controlled health care, repression of individual rights, and astonishing arrogance.
Light bulb: If Governor Huckabee could find a way put together a coalition of evangelicals and disenfranchised liberal Democrats, he could conceivably slip in without the support of the conservative Republican base — and use the same strategy to win the presidency. It’s not so farfetched when you consider that:
Sarah Palin, though still a possibility, is probably not a viable candidate until 2016.
Bobby Jindal is probably still too young and timid, though he would be a prime vice-presidential candidate.
Mark Sanford has been banished to Edwardsville.
Mitt Romney is distrusted by many in his own party.
Ron Paul may not run again … but, in any event, the party base breaks out into hives at the mere mention of his name.
And Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and the rest of the field are … well … dull.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but you have to admit that my new Huckabee Theory is interesting. And remember the rules: If it should it play out as I have suggested, you heard it here first. If it doesn’t, it was just a wild theory I threw out there for the fun of it.
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
11 Responses to “The Huckabee Theory”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
The name Bobby Jindal keep surfacing as a potential Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. Does no one realize that when his parents immigrated to the United States his mother was already pregnant with Bobby and neither of his parents were citizens of the United States when he was born?
Thus, Mr. Jindal is not and can never be a “Natural Born Citizen” as defined by the Founders.
The Democrats would love to have him run, secure the nomination, and then “out” him shortly before the election in 2012. Just because their own candidate’s Natural Born Citizenship has never been proved it would not stop the Democrats and their lapdog media from demonizing the Republican candidate. After all, when John McCain’s eligibility came into doubt, both candidates were questioned about the issue. John McCain immediately submitted records to substantiate his Natural Born status and Barack Obama sealed all of his records to keep prying eyes away.
Double standard? You bet! But Mr. Obama will continue to be protected by the media while his opponents are held to a much, much higher standard.
Mike Huckabee is no more viable a candidate than Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or any other Republican on the list right now. If no one else emerges by the end of 2010 we just may see a third-party candidate become a real option in the 2012 election.
Personally, I’m pulling for The Constitution Party.
Mr Ringer… you are very correct on the theory of why Mike does what does… “The Huckster” as we who know him have called him for years, is no stranger to politics – both party and religious. He was able to win the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention long before he became governor of Arkansas. Mike built his name recognition in a failed attempt to unseat the state’s Senior Senator Dale Bumpers just before Bill Clinton’s election as US President allowed Mike to get elected both Lieutenant Governor and then Governor. This in a state that had before Mike had elected only one other Republican since Reconstruction.
After elected, he was able to disappoint most of his supporters by giving most political appointments in the state to Democrats… an important move if you want to get re-elected. As a minister that he has great insight on how to spend your money as a ‘trusted servant’, and has no qualms about using your money… Because of that, Mike never was against raising taxes or doing anything with the tax payer’s money that could help build his legacy in the state.
Here is what we from Arkansas know and that others from around the country will learn if Mike is ever elected president… he is a moral conservative, but a fiscal liberal. While he will lure voters in with his conservative views on life – nothing wrong with that – he will garner the favor of liberal Democrats because he will never see a tax increase that he is opposed to.
Mr Huckabee is using his Fox TV show to once again build a political career. While many thought that after Bill Clinton and the embarrassment he brought to Arkansas, not to mention the jail terms of his friends, that another Arkansan wouldn’t be elected to the nation’s highest office… well, think again.
Hi Robert, You may be on to something here, but what I see on his show is that he has these people on and he confronts each one of these with his conservative ideals and his view comes across in a way that exposes the liberal view as the flawed views that they are.
ROBERT – Hopefully, Sarah Palin will not make “The Hillary mistake” of waiting too long too run for the top. Hillary absolutely had it in 2004, she was younger and better looking then, and George Bush was running on his virtually indefenseable “record” and was looking like easy pickings.
Putting a white male against Obama still is to start 25 yards behind in a 100-yard dash. Sarah Palin has to be more ready and more qualified than Obama ever could be, plus Sarah is an AMERICAN-FIRST, thank you, with some capitalist and God-fearing values we desperately need in Washington, to go with it.
Huckabee can be on the ticket, but Sarah Palin is the liberator for this internally-besieged country, who should be on top. She instills passion in her constituency, which negates the wasted emotion which got the current occupant over the top.
I see your point, Mr. Ringer, however, the problem with your theory is the following: given the difference between a liberal Republican and Liberal Democrat, liberals will go with the Dem. Always have and always will.
As for “Minister Mike” having the “Religious Right” sewn up – not a chance. He has shown his liberality and for many in the RR ranks it doesn’t matter HOW left-leaning he is, just that he IS left-leaning. If you don’t believe that, witness what happened to McCain. A large number of RR voters stayed away from the poles… or voted Dem (“at least I know my enemy, then”)… rather than “chance” a vote for the centrist McCain, and thus we have BHO as President! So, I guess we really should stop blaming ACORN for the mess we’re in and start blaming the RR!
I admire Mike Huckabee very much. I truly believe he is a born-again Christian. However, I am not at all sure he could unseat Pres. Obama. I really wish the Repubs would go back to their conservative roots. By doing this, I truly believe the next President would be a Repupblican. People are yearning for someone who will truly put the country, not their party or their agenda ahead of the values of America. I feel the Repubs are currently a bunch of wimps, afraid of offending anyone and afraid of confronting the “evils” in government. There truly is a tremendous amount of corruption in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. The difference is that the Repubs aren’t willing to sacrifice their senior citizens to achieve power. the Dems are.
waitingfortruth
Citizenkay, I’m missing something. Jindal is an American citizen who was born in the USA. The courts have consistently held to that definition of natural-born.
Robert, I agree in part with you: but Huckabee cannot get the Republican nomination by alienating conservatives–just can’t be done numbers-wise. Anyone who wants to run under a party label must have the base–and the Republican base is much broader than the RR.
Unless something amazing happens, the Dems are not going to ditch Obama in 2012, no matter how badly he fudges up.
That means Huckabee will have two choices:
1) run as an independent, ala Perot in ’92, in which case he hopes to capitalize on widespread disgust with both the Republican brand and with Obamunism, or
2) at some point before the caucuses and primaries he will come back and try to woo the conservatives into giving him the Republican nomination. In the meantime, he will have laid the groundwork with moderate liberal and blue dog Democrat heavy-hitters to be his apologists when he gets to the general election.
In this instance, Robert, we are on differenct wavelengths. I have believed for some time now the next twosome to run from the Republican party for the White House will be Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Newt has simply the skills and understanding to be the single most effective President since Reagan. Sarah has the star power to draw the entire conservative group in, all the religious groups, the 2d amendment groups, the anti-abortion groups, independents, and the centrists. We should, however, be getting busy as conservatives putting our focus on 2010. Getting a better bargaining position is tantamount to an absolute neccessity if the conservatives are to even survive to fight in 2012. Obama (The One) is moving every day to consolidate power and may, if he has the strength of numbers (he actually has it now) to alter substantively HOW we do business constitutionally in this country.
We had better be very afraid of what The One is capable of — for it is massive. He has no morality, and no scruples. He wants to be a President-for-life, and it is not out of the rhelm of possibilities. I hope we get some balance back to be a real factor in the nations defense in 2010.
Check me out at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kmwallin
It is also very possible that he has libs on to generate controversy, which brings in viewers and advertising dollars.
Arms merchant, Bobby Jindal is a citizen of the United States. But to be a Natural Born Citizen a child must be born to parents who are themselves citizens of the United States. That is, not owing allegiance to any other country. It is best stated in this quote:
“The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, ‘[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,’”
Since Bobby Jindal’s parents were not citizens of the United States at the time of his birth, they had not yet sworn allegiance to the United States.
It was clearly the intent of the authors of The Constitution of the United States to be sure no one would become President of the United States without total commitment to this country. They wanted no outside influence in the affairs of this country.
Not that simple, citizenkay. First, Bingham’s statement only implies, but does not state, the inverse. He does not say, for example, if parents DO owe allegiance, then Bobby is NOT a natural-born citizen, only that it’s obvious if both conditions (parents not owing allegiance born on U.S. soil) is “in the language of the Constitution itself” natural-born. Not the same thing.
Furthermore, since the 14th amendment was passed there is a body of case law that states foreigners residing in the U.S. other than diplomats or officials of foreign governments are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore are natural-born citizens. As for the founders, English common law typically held that foreigners living in England (again, other than diplomats or other representatives of foreign governments) were under the crown’s protection and subject to its jurisdiction, and therefore, their children were British citizens.
The blanket statement that “he is not natural-born” is just not true–the courts have held different things at different times.