Log in
2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/04/24/the-most-popular-republican-mike-huckabee/
0
0
  |   75 comments

mike huckabee and sarah palin and john mccainIt may come as a surprise to regular readers of PoliGazette – we are generally fiscally conservative yet socially moderate or even liberal – but Governor Mike Huckabee is the most popular prominent Republican leader in the nation.

The results of this poll are extremely surprising:

A survey conducted by Public Policy Polling tested the popularity of four prominent Republicans: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Among the four, Mr. Huckabee is the most popular with a 42 percent favorability rating, 34 percent negative. Mr. Romney also polled well, earning a 40 percent favorability rating versus 35 percent unfavorable.

Mrs. Palin and Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand, didn’t do so well. Mrs. Palin polled 42 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable. Mr. Gingrich’s ratings were 36 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable.

Palin’s and Gingrich’s ratings can hardly be called surprising. Gingrich is extremely intelligent, but he is also a decisive figure. Palin should in theory be able to unite moderate and conservative voters, but has problems overcoming the image of her created by the mainstream media last year.

But Huckabee’s ratings do come as a surprise, to me at least. Lest we forget, Huckabee is a former preacher and convinced Evangelical. If we are to believe the standard talking points, such a figure has no chance whatsoever of ever being elected.

Yet, he performs well in this particular poll.

Why is this? Well, I think the answer consists out of two parts:

1. Huckabee is a big-government Republican. Seemingly, big-government ideologies are fairly popular in the United States these days

2. The man has charisma and a tremendous sense of humor. He is probably the most articulate national Republican

3. Despite his populism and ability to connect to John Doe, Huckabee is an intelligent fellow

4. He can count on the massive support from Evangelicals and, again this is why the poll results surprise me so much, also on quite some support from others

A bit more about Palin: not only is the Alaska governor struggling to overcome her negative image, she is also in trouble these days with her daughter’s ex making the rounds on major TV shows. Even if you believe that he is a (stupid) golddigger, he is taking the Palins down with him. You get the distinct impression it is a trailor trash family – that is obviously not a correct assessment, but many will start to believe this nonetheless. What’s next? Jerry Springer?

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is pretty much Mike Huckabee’s opposite. He does appeal to fiscal conservatives, but probably less to Evangelicals. Like Huckabee, however, he should do pretty well with the party’s moderates, which is one of the few political traits the two men have in common. Like Huckabee, by the way, Romney is intelligent and articulate: there is no one who would ever call the former Massachusetts governor dumb. This in stark contrast to Sarah Palin.

More than anything else, the poll proves that Palin has a long way to go before she can reasonably be expected to make life difficult for President Obama.

  1. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93724 ›
    Doomed This is from a write up about the Minutemen. Patrolling the border is only about 5 or 10 percent of what the Minuteman Project is about. The other 90 to 95 percent is driving this issue up through city councils, mayors, state legislatures, and governors into the halls of Congress to force change.” Yeah I have to say I dont agree with any racial or biggoted agendas but I have to say I agree with enforcing the laws. The problem with our borders is that the border patrol was never designed to stop Illegal immigration and 911 changed all that. Perhaps there is a a time for everything. Perhaps its time for a neighborhood watch on our border.
  2. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93726 ›
    Jason Arvak I think that if you look at the actual rhetoric that the Minutemen use in "driving this issue up", you will find a shocking prevalence of racist stereotypes and even open slur words. I certainly did when I looked into the Minutemen about 5 years ago. Then again, maybe they have cleaned up their rhetoric to make it APPEAR less racist. But having seen what I saw from then, well, I know the KKK when I see it.
  3. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93729 ›
    Jason Arvak
    Additionally they are portrayed as against immigration when in fact they are against illegal immigration and breaking the law.
    This is a common response I encounter when I criticize the anti-immigrant attitudes of groups like the Minutemen. They claim only to be opposed to ILLEGAL immigrants. Unfortunately, I do not accept this spin for two reasons: 1) The persons espousing it almost always also oppose any expansion of the restrictive immigration quotas that make LEGAL immigration not a practical alternative. 2) The rhetoric that accompanies anti-immigration statements is rife with racial stereotypes (e.g. slurs, claims of disease, cultural objections) that indicate that there is much more in play than a mere dedication to law and order. Because of my first-hand interactions with anti-immigrant activists, I stand behind my characterization of them as "anti-immigrant". I support immigration for practical reasons like a desire to see the U.S. avoid the demographic trap that is about to destroy Europe and is already destroying Japan. George Friedman is right when he says that the time is not far off when we will be begging people to immigrate because that will be the only way to avoid a crippling labor shortage and tax shortfall after the Boomers get done retiring and start living for 30 years off of the government. I want to see a dramatic expansion of legal immigration before I will accept as valid any criticisms of illegal immigrants. The only reason anyone who wants to immigrate should be denied legal entry is because of PRIOR involvement with some kind of VIOLENT crime. I also support amnesty (a DIRTY WORD to the far right) for the simple reason that I think opponents are dramatically exceeding the appropriate punishment for the "crime" of illegal immigration. We don't punish speeding on the way to a hospital with a jail term and we shouldn't punish crossing a border to escape economic desperation with blanket deportation and criminal sanctions either. A mild fine should be all that a non-criminal illegal immigrant should have to pay in order to gain legal status. We are a nation of immigrants. We should act like it.
  4. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93733 ›
    Doomed Im curious as to what demographic trap your referring too.
  5. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93734 ›
    Doomed If your talking about the age thing then I agree. The problem I have with your side of the argument is that you continue to encourage illegal floods of workers into the country unchecked. The problem with Americas immigration problems is not biggots. Its a government policy that is shortsighted and fails to solve the problem. We granted amnesty in the 1980's and here we are back doing it again. That should be a wake up call to the people that biggotry is not the problem. A government that cannot enact legislation to solve the issue is the problem. Yet its easy to paint the oppositon with a broad stroke of biggotry paint but the same can be said for those who shout down their opponents. I find biggotry on both sides of the debate. KKK on one side and Militant Hispanics on the other. Who has the bigger cross in this debate?
  6. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93750 ›
    Jason Arvak I don't like La Raza either. I don't feel forced to choose, however, since few if any illegal immigrants are members of an elitist group of wealthy and almost entirely naturalized Hispanics pushing a political agenda. Illegal immigrants are too busy trying to survive to indulge in militant anything. So don't even try to link a call for amnesty to La Raza militants demanding the "return" of Mexican land, etc. I would prefer that the flow be regulated and legal, but I choose not to blame the victims of a racist set of government policies that set quotas far too low and thus force people seeking work to be illegal. If the quotas were reasonable in the first place, I might have more sympathy for the "flood of illegals" talking point. But since the quotas are NOT reasonable and since the anti-immigrant side is the one responsible for setting race-based quotas so low in the first place, I choose not to let them have their cake and eat it too by setting racist low quotas on the one hand and then blaming the victims of those racist low quotas when they turn to desperate measures to get around them. And the only broad brush of bigotry I am using is that warranted by the openly racist rhetoric I keep hearing FIRST-HAND from the anti-immigration side.
  7. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93752 ›
    Doomed Wait Jason. You again continue to say that the militants on the Illegals side are not to be drawn into the debate because they are not representative. Fine. I concede that point. But then I expect the same concession for the KKK or the skin heads. I do not feel they are representative of the proponents of immigration controls. Now it seems that we are peeling away the layers of bigotry on both sides to get to core issues. That core issue is exactly what I surmised. A government policy that is racist.
  8. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93754 ›
    Doomed Oh and I just noticed this. I have not called for amnesty nor have I said that it should be rejected. I simply said that we granted amnesty in the 80's and were back doing it again. To me the failure is not bigotry and its not narrow minded people. The problem is the government creates and fosters an atmosphere that demands the people of America choose a side. The general trend in politics for centuries has been to choose a side and stick with it. However in this issue the government is stirring the pot with failed policies and then forcing ordinary Americans to make a choice. If they choose wrongly they are painted biggots for being put in that position by a government who has a RACIST policy.
  9. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93756 ›
    Jason Arvak Ok, we agree that government policy is racist. Who demanded those policies be put in place? Anti-immigration activists. Who insisted that "amnesty" be rejected and that a harsh approach be taken towards immigrants in 2007? Anti-immigration activists. So, I still think that I am pointing the finger of blame in the right direction. Government policy does not emerge in a vacuum -- it has someone pushing for it. And anti-immigration activists -- a group that includes and tolerates the predominance of a large contingent of bigots -- are the ones controlling the status quo.
  10. Michael Merritt Seems like this is one of the issues I find myself to the right of you, Jason. I'm all for revising bad and bigoted policy, but such policy doesn't seem like an excuse for ignoring the process laid out by the law. I have a co-worker who's been here for more than five years and has been following the process for months, fretting about whether or not she's going to get her green card. I don't think she'll have to worry about things for much longer, but at least she's gotten in line and submitted all the paperwork. I feel bad that conditions in Mexico and elsewhere are worse than here, and that people really want to come here. But we already have a strain on welfare as it is without people here who are undocumented and not paying taxes to support that institution. I'm for legal immigration, and have even come out in support of the repeal of discriminatory immigration policies against AIDS patients and the like. I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rhetoric of a group with which you disagree doesn't seem like an excuse to completely brush aside every argument about an issue because that one group is yelling the loudest.
  11. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93777 ›
    Doomed The Bill that is in force now Jason was written by Kennedy. I hardly think that Kennedy could be construed as a racist. It was designed to fix the problem of illegal immigration that has plagued the US for quite a long time now. It failed. Why? Additionally when you find stuff like this:In January 2006, the actions of California Minutemen helped influence the cancellation of a program sponsored by Humane Borders and the government of Mexico to supply over 70,000 maps to migrants to aid their illegal entry into the United States. When you have this sort of state sponsored illegal activity then it becomes more then people looking for work and the people that are making those choices to oppose open borders are more then biggots and racists. They are protectionists, no less so then those who want our jobs back from overseas, want tariffs to protect goods etc. No I think those who want to continue to have open borders and continue to paint opponents of Illegal immigration as skin head, KKK bigots is fostering a climate where no solution will ever be found unless the solution is a total capitulation by the other side. No side of any debate is ever going to capitulate. That is why the two sides need to moderate their views and rhetoric and find common ground and work towards allowing amnesty, work towards increasing quotas and work toward getting the Nation of Mexico to work with us instead of against us.
  12. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93783 ›
    Jason Arvak I listened closely to the debate over immigration reform in 2007, when the bill sponsored by Kennedy and McCain was shot down under very heavy fire from conservatives. I was dismayed by the open racism that came from some very mainstream conservative sources, like Laura Ingraham when she ranted about how immigrants were a major source of disease. These were not fringe characters, these were the leaders of the anti-immigration movement and they spoke loudly, broadly, and at great length with ZERO sign of internal correction or dissent. Their racist comments were accepted among other anti-immigration activists as not only representative, but as thoroughly uncontroversial. I even recall one mainstream conservative commenter at TMV (they are rare enough to be quite memorable) who claimed, for example, that all the Hispanics he saw driving past a 7-11 were illegals based solely on the fact that "they dress like illegals". From that, he felt quite secure concluding that they were also violent rapists who were a threat to his wife and children. I mean, COME ON. So, I am sorry if it seem immoderate, but I'm not backing down. I agree that being too broad in detecting racism is common in some areas and that it is a toxic practice, but that agreement should not stop me from identifying racism where it actually does seem to exist. And when it comes to the anti-immigration movement, I see a LOT of it and I don't see anyone within that movement trying to openly acknowledge it and expunge it. P.S. The provision of maps won't cause anyone to immigrate that wasn't going to anyway. The only thing it would do is lower the number who die in the desert. Thus, while you see blocking that program as something to be proud of, I see it as an example of treating immigrants as less than human.
  13. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93787 ›
    Doomed No but the provision of maps shows us that the Government of Mexico is a sponsor of breaking the law. Additionally I never said I was proud of the fact. I pointed it out to show that "find common ground and work towards allowing amnesty, work towards increasing quotas and work toward getting the Nation of Mexico to work with us instead of against us." That is of course unless you and the side of the debate you represent do not want to concede that this massive influx of illegals into our country is a problem. If that is so then you have won the battle because doing nothing is the same thing as drastically increasing quotas to a level that would make you and your side happy. I suggest that your side of the debate has done more to harm Illegal immigrants and that your side encourages them to risk their lives getting here. I suggest that your side of the debate does more to injure, maim and kill Illegals then anything the kkk, or skinheads have ever thought about doing. Because no matter the justification, encouraging the breaking of the law is never a solution to anything. Why not change the laws to be less restrictive. Create a law that is not partisan and encourages growth and stops painting both sides as evil. There will never be a resolution to the problem in place while both sides are busy screaming insults at the other to actually debate policy or to find solutions. I dont want to find trailer loads of dead illegals smoldering in the hot sun when they could easily get their green card and come here to work and stay. That is if we as a nation work to make this happen rather then screaming insults at each other and encouraging more illegals to risk their lives by sneaking over the borders with the help of unscrupulous people.
  14. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93798 ›
    Jason Arvak
    Why not change the laws to be less restrictive. Create a law that is not partisan and encourages growth and stops painting both sides as evil. There will never be a resolution to the problem in place while both sides are busy screaming insults at the other to actually debate policy or to find solutions.
    This was exactly what was tried in 2007. The immigration reform bill containing both secure-the-border and legalization elements was shot down by the anti-immigration side, who dubbed it "shamnesty" and who deployed openly racist rhetoric in the process. So while I respect your desire to find a compromise solution, I am mindful that the anti-immigration side is the ones primarily responsible for killing the most recent attempt at compromise and who killed it in a way that contributed MORE than their share of demonization to the debate. BTW, I do not agree that all law-breaking is unjustifiable. Speeding to get to a hospital is justifiable, even though it involves breaking the law. And violating a border in a desperate effort to feed one's family is, in my opinion, justifiable on the same grounds. Until the anti-immigration side's purism can be overcome, I won't support punishing the victims twice by adopting harshly anti-immigration attitudes or policies. I would support a mild fine attached to a legalization process for illegals. I won't support the mass deportations (pogroms) demanded by the anti-immigration purists.
  15. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93808 ›
    Doomed I notice you don't address my key points but rather keep going back to amnesty. Amnesty. Amnesty. Essentially your side has no solution but to accept mass amnesty and keep the borders open and then 20 years from now have another amnesty program. Repeated by another 20 years. Essentially you advocate breaking the law to feed your family. So stealing some chickens along the way is acceptable. Breaking into a barn and taking everything not nailed down is acceptable. Butchering a cow. Even the family dog is okay. Tearing down fences. So you see they break lots of laws. Not just one law when they sneak into this country broke and hungry. Every night its like Shermans march thru the south.
  16. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93811 ›
    Jason Arvak
    Essentially your side has no solution but to accept mass amnesty and keep the borders open and then 20 years from now have another amnesty program. Repeated by another 20 years.
    It is pretty gutsy to tell lies about what the other guy said when the refutation is repeatedly posted above. I've endorsed the 2007 compromise, which had substantial border security measures attached to amnesty (and was rejected by the anti-immigration purists who want security and deportation ONLY). I've also endorsed radical increases in legal immigration which I think would dramatically decrease illegal immigration for the simple reason that people will take the safer legal option if only it were available. Border security would be a much easier problem then.
    So you see they break lots of laws. Not just one law when they sneak into this country broke and hungry. Every night its like Shermans march thru the south.
    First, it isn't like "Sherman's march". Illegal immigrants are trying to escape notice, they aren't raping and pillaging. Nice stereotype, though. You have dramatically validated my negative impression of the anti-immigration movement. Pressed even just a little bit, the racial stereotypes pop up pretty quickly.
  17. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93832 ›
    Doomed I said your side........NOT you. Sorry to disappoint you Jason but I am not anti immigration. I was in a lodge south and east of San Antonio a number of years ago. I was doing work for the owner as part of a crew. We were instructed to keep the doors locked at night and to keep the lights on and to leave nothing of value outside. I was there for 11 days doing a remodel of the owners lodge. I was truly amazed at the number of Illegals crossing the property in the middle of the night...literally walking between the lodge and out buildings. Several times we were taken on tours of his property the next day to see the damage done. Fences were torn down. Foilage was damaged. Planted trees were in dissarray. Major damage? No. He said that he was vandalized on average about 15 times a year and that he gave up calling the police because they did nothing about it. What is not happening is happening. People along the border have literally stopped reporting it because its pointless.
  18. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93835 ›
    Doomed First, it isn’t like “Sherman’s march”. Pressed even just a little bit, the racial stereotypes pop up pretty quickly. Excellent debate tactic though. I forgot you thrive on winning a debate instead of going with the flow of a discussion given the fact that I never suggested or even mentioned rape or violent crimes. Bully for you.
  19. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93839 ›
    Jason Arvak What was the Sherman's march reference supposed to invoke if not the image of violence and pillaging? But you got me on the desire to win a debate. I do try hard to win debates, especially when it is on an issue that I strongly feel I am making the right arguments about, like immigration. Immigration is one of the very few issues (probably the only issue) where I think the left position wins hands down. You want me to be tentative about something I think I am right on? Sorry. And I'm not ashamed of words like "amnesty", I embrace them. And even though I usually am VERY skeptical about charges of racism, I refuse to be shy about calling out what IS in fact a large amount of outright racism on the other side.
  20. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93885 ›
    Doomed No Jason Im not trying to change your mind on Immigration. I believe that amnesty is the only course. I believe that we need to allow more immigration into this nation and not less. The only problem I have with your view is the incessant harping about anyone who has a view that is in conflict with yours on this subject is painted racist or biggoted. I believe that illegal immigration needs to be controlled and regulated. I am not a biggot. I have seen the carnage that these people have been subjected too because they are FORCED to break the law. Lets change the laws to make them not want or not need to sneak over the border in the middle of the night. Lets save lives...Not take them.
  21. Michael Merritt I will concede to you Jason that there are many in the media and many politicians who take the debate way too far. Too often, and they always deny it, their talk is just code for "America is going to become less white. Panic!" I'm not sure about the other talking heads, but O'Reilly is one who is always quick to emphasize the criminal possibilities of illegal immigration. He'll never admit that not all coming here illegally are not here to commit terrorism, murder people, or steal. While I think his approach is wrong (and possibly has racial undertones), I don't think the pure argument behind it is without merit. Emphasizing legal immigration is the best way to weed out the bad apples. If increasing (or de-capping) the number of people we allow will fix that, then great. I'm all for it. As for amnesty/no amnesty, I'm downright skeptical of any suggestion that we go and round up every illegal and deport. Not only does it seem like a practical impossibility (the country is too big), but it'd be an organizational nightmare. I won't even get into the human rights aspect of it. Think Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib was bad? Lets see what happens when we go after 20 million people, the majority of who are already counted as job stealers by many Americans. Even if every person doing the law enforcement wouldn't hurt a fly, lets add on the amount of internment facilities needed to be created in order to hold these people prior to shipping back to Mexico. You wouldn't hear the end of it from the truthers after that. I think those who are here are basically staying put, whether the right likes it or not. Though I thought an idea put forth by one (very) lesser known presidential candidate had some merit. What happens if you take away any welfare benefits they get? Will they just go home on their own? Though I do recognize the human rights problems of that idea, too. Probably the best solution is to actually enforce the border and turn away those trying to cross illegally.
  22. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93892 ›
    Jason Arvak I don't have a problem with increasing border security, but making 100% security a prerequisite to other measures (as the right did in 2007) is unreasonable and amounts to a de facto veto of any reform. The simple fact is that it is not possible to completely seal a 2000 mile border running through remote and often rugged areas. It cannot be done. Even though they were armed with complete ruthlessness and unlimited military force, the Soviets could barely manage to seal off a 90-mile perimeter around West Berlin. Think about what would be involved -- practically and morally -- to try to meet the anti-immigration demand for total border security with Mexico. (BTW -- the fact that they are completely unconcerned with the Canadian border feeds my racism critique.) It is the very insistence that the impossible be done as a prerequisite for considering compromises combined with the coded rhetoric that makes me believe that "anti-immigration" is the appropriate description to paste on the far right here and that "racism" is a fair charge to level at many of them. The fact that "racism" is abused by liberals in other areas should not make it permanently off the table in places where it really exists. But the bottom line is that I'm willing to support all kinds of border security measures if that is the price of getting reform in other areas. It is not my side of this issue that is pushing a purist agenda. It is the anti-immigration side that is pushing a purist agenda. And it's not just me saying it -- I can point to 2007 as proof. The anti-immigration right ACTUALLY DID take a compromise measure and blow it up because it failed to meet their absolutely purist agenda. And the rhetoric they used at that time ACTUALLY DID deploy racial and cultural stereotypes. There is no complaining their way out of it -- the charge stings because it is true.
  23. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93939 ›
    Doomed There is no complaining their way out of it — the charge stings because it is true. But its not entirely the far right that is at fault here Jason. The 2007 bill did not have support from the AFL-CIO and the Immigration lawyers either. There were many people that were opposed to this because they would be directly affected. the 2007 bill promised to do a lot of things. However the bill written in 1987 promised a lot of things too and did none of them. AFter reading the 2007 bill a couple times and listening to the debate I was able to ascertain that it was full of the Government promises to do for the RIGHT...but we immediately will do for the left. I think thats why the bill failed above all else. People on both sides of the isle dont trust the government to do what it promises but the right is probably more guilty of that then the left. But I will agree that the far right is anti amnesty. I am too. But Im willing to do amnesty because as with MM above I just dont see the point in embarking upon an FDR roundup. So I would like to see a provision in the next bill that rules out amnesty after 2012. Ever again. Lets get the border problem fixed. Build a fence if we must. Hire more guards if we must but Lets increase the quotas of Immigration and lets find solutions to our problems instead of fixating on our differences.
  24. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #93940 ›
    Doomed I think its possible this bill would have passed had the bill said. We will build 1600 miles of fence...or whatever. Hire 24000 border agents. Build security towers. Install electronic monitoring devices and when these are in place then we will grant amnesty to illegals and we will then increase the quotas of immigrants into this country. The problem with the 2007 bill was that the Left immediately got their desires met and a complete and full resolution of their grievances while the opposition got promises. So here we sit almost 2 years later and the illegals still do not have their amnesty and yet we are slowly building a fence and hiring a few more guards while the flood of Illegals continues. Everyone lost. Left, Right and the Immigrants. The problem remains and we are more divided now then ever before. I can see it now....Hispanics on the other side of the border chanting..."Mr. Obama...tear down this wall."
  25. Posted by Mark
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #109921 ›
    Mark I typically vote Democrat, but would consider voting for Huckabee. I would not consider voting for Romney-he's way too creepy. Sarah Palin is a joke and has absolutely no chance of winning in a general election. The only thing that Republicans really have to worry about is the perception that they are divisive. Hannity does nothing to help that perception. Obama is shooting himself in the foot as we speak with his indecision, but so are the Republicans by playing partisan politics as usual. If they could look more willing to unite the nation and not just push the agenda of the radical right wing, then they could attract voters like me. That will not happen if they nominate Romney.
2
 
1