Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

John Fund and Human Events on the efforts to drive conservative talk radio off the air.

Jed Babbin argues that Hillary Clinton would be more like Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton as President.

Jed Babbin argues that Hillary Clinton would be more like Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton as President.

Message to conservatives: MIKE HUCKABEE IS NOT A GIULIANI LIBERAL. STOP ACTING LIKE HE IS. Damn it…

UPDATE: Huckabee speaks.

The Boston Red Sox do it again, winning their second World Series in four years.

How much of a role will talk radio play in the 2008 election?

A fair argument can be made that talk radio put George W. Bush into the White House in 2000, and kept him there in 2004.  While Rush Limbaugh is often credited with helping the Republicans win the House and Senate in 1994, too many folks overlook the role he played in the 2000 election. Because the conservative blogosphere was in an embryonic stage, and because conservative-themed websites such as FreeRepublic.com were in their early stages of influence, Limbaugh’s show was the primary media entity defending Bush and attacking Al Gore. Limbaugh relentlessly ridiculed Gore’s self-righteousness and his aloof personality; he also went after mainstream media outlets that denigrated Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney. Although Limbaugh’s predictive skills were off—in October 2000, he claimed that Bush would beat Gore as decisively as Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter twenty years earlier—his ability to motivate conservative voters was just as strong as it was six years earlier. If Limbaugh hadn’t been on the air encouraging the anti-Gore vote, Gore would have defeated Bush in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Even if one disputes the role Limbaugh played in the 2000 election, it is impossible to question the role he and other major conservative talkers played in the 2004 race. Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other nationally syndicated talkers worked overtime to motivate the pro-Bush, anti-Kerry vote; these broadcasters reminded listeners of Kerry’s less-than-stellar record in the Senate, his rhetorical attacks on his fellow Vietnam veterans in the early-1970s, and his long history of political two-facedness. Conservative talk radio gave a prominent platform to the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, led the charge against Dan Rather and his anti-Bush reporting, and stressed the importance of not changing horses in midstream.

Can talk radio help the Republicans retain the White House next year? That depends on who the candidate is.

Limbaugh has made it clear that his loyalty is to conservatism, not to the Republican Party. The whole point of Limbaugh’s show is to move the country to a point where Reagan conservatism is considered the national political template. He simply will not spend his time and energy backing a candidate who won’t try to nudge the country in this direction once in office.

Thus, it’s hard to see Limbaugh getting firmly behind either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain if either man becomes the GOP nominee. In fact, one can easily see a scenario in which Limbaugh openly scorns either McCain or Giuliani, declaring that no matter who wins, liberalism will advance instead of conservatism. If either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney wins the nomination, Limbaugh may work as hard as he did in 2000 and 2004 to secure a GOP victory; however, it’s difficult to imagine him doing the same if the party nominates either a liberal (Giuliani) or a quasi-liberal (McCain).

The same goes for Ingraham, whose rise to talk-radio prominence is one of the biggest media stories of the 2000s. Ingraham is every bit as committed to Reagan-conservative principles as Limbaugh; it’s hard to see her supporting a GOP nominee who is not firmly committed to protecting the unborn and respecting the traditional religious beliefs of millions of Americans. If the GOP nominates either Giuliani or McCain, Ingraham will likely recoil in disgust, and rightfully so: Reagan will turn over in his grave like rotisserie chicken if one of those two is chosen as the standard-bearer for his party.

Hannity has been repeatedly attacked by Free Republic for allegedly being a Giuliani cheerleader. While Hannity is also a Reagan conservative, Hannity apparently feels that the most important issue in the 2008 election is the War on Terror—and that Giuliani is well-suited to lead the charge against Islamofascism. If Giuliani receives the nomination and Hannity stands solidly behind him, one wonders if conservatives outraged by Giuliani’s non-conservatism will turn on Hannity for backing the man. I hope that doesn’t happen; while I disagree with Hannity’s apparent stance on Giuliani, the veteran host has done a lot to help the conservative movement, and he should not be declared persona non grata by conservatives merely because he thinks Giuliani’s a nice guy.

Nevertheless, GOP primary voters would be well advised to select a real conservative as the party’s new representative; it’s quite dangerous for the party to risk alienating Limbaugh and Ingraham by nominating someone these influential hosts cannot truly support. “America’s Anchorman” and “The Healthy Radio Addiction” have always placed principle above party—and they won’t suddenly change to help a non-conservative win the general election. If someone who doesn’t truly support the Reagan-conservative vision is nominated, Limbaugh and Ingraham will consider it a turn-off. Will GOP primary voters get the signal?

Saw IV tops the charts.

Jeff Jacoby on the future of American newspapers.

In a hilarious article, the Washington Post reports that some liberal Indian-Americans just can’t stand the fact that Louisiana’s new governor, Bobby Jindal, happens to be a conservative Republican. You mean to tell me that some ideologically intolerant folks are going to "Clarence Thomas" this guy? Lord love a duck…

Will Virginia Senator Jim Webb be Hillary Clinton’s running mate next year?

Andrew Cline on New Hampshire politics.

Bill Kristol on the GOP’s reasons for optimism in the ‘08 election.

You know something’s wrong when a Columbia University speech by liberal-turned-conservative David Horowitz is considered more controversial than a speech at the same school by the President of Iran…

Is there any way that Mike Huckabee won’t be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee next year?

The former Arkansas governor has become a media darling during the pre-primary season—and although media darlings usually have a brutal fall from grace (ask Gary Hart, John McCain and Howard Dean), it doesn’t seem as though Huckabee’s star will diminish anytime soon. While he won’t be the Presidential nominee (he lacks the money and the prestige), Huckabee should be the first name on the list of potential GOP running mates.

Although he is not a bona fide Reagan conservative, Huckabee’s strengths as a possible Vice Presidential candidate cannot be overlooked. It is impossible for the mainstream press to successfully demonize him; the only thing the media can really attack him for is his belief in Creationism.

The usual lefty allegations of bigotry, greed and contempt for the downtrodden won’t stick to Huckabee, a GOP maverick in a way McCain could never be. Yes, Huckabee has dissented from Republican orthodoxy at times, but he has stayed true to social-conservative principles, and his disagreements with the party have always been rooted in principle. You can’t call Huckabee a flip-flopper or a dishonest dealer. He is what he is.

Huckabee’s crossed swords with conservatives on issues such as taxation and immigration—but he does not shock the conservative conscience the way Rudy Giuliani does. The difference between Huckabee and Giuliani is that Giuliani comes across as someone who joined the Republican Party by accident, whereas Huckabee’s commitment to the party is unassailable.

A fair-minded observer cannot accuse Huckabee of being a RINO; at best, one can only say he is wrong on certain issues. I certainly don’t fall in line with Huckabee on everything. However, he could be the GOP’s not-so-secret weapon in ’08.

Whether conservatives like it or not, elections are won and lost on image. It’s been the case for years, and it’s not changing anytime soon. Let’s not forget the way Bill Clinton exploited image to secure victory in the 1992 election: how many Americans cast their vote for him just because he played saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show?

Don’t take this the wrong way, but Huckabee could be the Bill Clinton of the 2008 election—an veteran Arkansas politician whose down-home, regular-guy image could resonate with a majority of voters. If Dick Cheney’s “gravitas” motivated folks to vote for George W. Bush in 2000, Huckabee’s geniality could reassure voters that the average American’s interests will be represented in the next administration.

Huckabee will be able to hold his own in a debate against whomever the Democrats nominate for the number-two slot; he is arguably the best communicator among the Presidential candidates of either party. He breaks the mold: no one can smear him as an “extreme right-winger,” no one can denounce him as a fool, no one can label him a hate-filled politician.

Can conservatives accept Huckabee as a VP candidate? Well, why not? If the center-right could accept George H. W. Bush—who, as Ronald Reagan’s second-in-command in 1980, was to the left of where Huckabee is today—they can certainly abide by Huckabee. If a solid conservative receives the Presidential nomination, Huckabee will enhance the ticket; in fact, Huckabee could play the same role George H. W. Bush successfully played in 1980, that of a “centrist” providing “balance” to a ticket headlined by a man characterized by the press as an ultraconservative. Huckabee is where the party is on life, on marriage, on the culture. Even his “softness” on immigration is a strength; if Latino voters really suspect that the GOP’s desire for immigration reform is little more than barely disguised xenophobia, Huckabee can allay their concerns—and, hopefully, receive their votes as one-half of the GOP ticket.

Republicans often dream about the “perfect” VP candidate—one who can break down ethnic barriers, cross rigid political lines and steer the GOP ship to safe harbor. Years ago, Republicans believed Colin Powell would be ideal for that role. Later, such figures as J. C. Watts, Michael Steele and Condi Rice were considered potential triumphs on a GOP ticket. Perhaps Huckabee is really the Neo of the GOP’s political Matrix—the unlikely hero who plays a crucial role in a brutal battle against the Democrat Party’s sentient machines.  If Huckabee can help the Republicans secure a third consecutive White House win, he’ll have every political observer in the country saying, “Whoa!”

Is there any way that Mike Huckabee won’t be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee next year?

The former Arkansas governor has become a media darling during the pre-primary season—and although media darlings usually have a brutal fall from grace (ask Gary Hart, John McCain and Howard Dean), it doesn’t seem as though Huckabee’s star will diminish anytime soon. While he won’t be the Presidential nominee (he lacks the money and the prestige), Huckabee should be the first name on the list of potential GOP running mates.

Although he is not a bona fide Reagan conservative, Huckabee’s strengths as a possible Vice Presidential candidate cannot be overlooked. It is impossible for the mainstream press to successfully demonize him; the only thing the media can really attack him for is his belief in Creationism.

The usual lefty allegations of bigotry, greed and contempt for the downtrodden won’t stick to Huckabee, a GOP maverick in a way McCain could never be. Yes, Huckabee has dissented from Republican orthodoxy at times, but he has stayed true to social-conservative principles, and his disagreements with the party have always been rooted in principle. You can’t call Huckabee a flip-flopper or a dishonest dealer. He is what he is.

Huckabee’s crossed swords with conservatives on issues such as taxation and immigration—but he does not shock the conservative conscience the way Rudy Giuliani does. The difference between Huckabee and Giuliani is that Giuliani comes across as someone who joined the Republican Party by accident, whereas Huckabee’s commitment to the party is unassailable.

A fair-minded observer cannot accuse Huckabee of being a RINO; at best, one can only say he is wrong on certain issues. I certainly don’t fall in line with Huckabee on everything. However, he could be the GOP’s not-so-secret weapon in ’08.

Whether conservatives like it or not, elections are won and lost on image. It’s been the case for years, and it’s not changing anytime soon. Let’s not forget the way Bill Clinton exploited image to secure victory in the 1992 election: how many Americans cast their vote for him just because he played saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show?

Don’t take this the wrong way, but Huckabee could be the Bill Clinton of the 2008 election—an veteran Arkansas politician whose down-home, regular-guy image could resonate with a majority of voters. If Dick Cheney’s “gravitas” motivated folks to vote for George W. Bush in 2000, Huckabee’s geniality could reassure voters that the average American’s interests will be represented in the next administration.

Huckabee will be able to hold his own in a debate against whomever the Democrats nominate for the number-two slot; he is arguably the best communicator among the Presidential candidates of either party. He breaks the mold: no one can smear him as an “extreme right-winger,” no one can denounce him as a fool, no one can label him a hate-filled politician.

Can conservatives accept Huckabee as a VP candidate? Well, why not? If the center-right could accept George H. W. Bush—who, as Ronald Reagan’s second-in-command in 1980, was to the left of where Huckabee is today—they can certainly abide by Huckabee. If a solid conservative receives the Presidential nomination, Huckabee will enhance the ticket; in fact, Huckabee could play the same role George H. W. Bush successfully played in 1980, that of a “centrist” providing “balance” to a ticket headlined by a man characterized by the press as an ultraconservative. Huckabee is where the party is on life, on marriage, on the culture. Even his “softness” on immigration is a strength; if Latino voters really suspect that the GOP’s desire for immigration reform is little more than barely disguised xenophobia, Huckabee can allay their concerns—and, hopefully, receive their votes as one-half of the GOP ticket.

Republicans often dream about the “perfect” VP candidate—one who can break down ethnic barriers, cross rigid political lines and steer the GOP ship to safe harbor. Years ago, Republicans believed Colin Powell would be ideal for that role. Later, such figures as J. C. Watts, Michael Steele and Condi Rice were considered potential triumphs on a GOP ticket. Perhaps Huckabee is really the Neo of the GOP’s political Matrix—the unlikely hero who plays a crucial role in a brutal battle against the Democrat Party’s sentient machines.  If Huckabee can help the Republicans secure a third consecutive White House win, he’ll have every political observer in the country saying, “Whoa!”