Huckabee: “Who me? What’d I do?”
Mike Huckabee, ably assisted by the press, continues to try to rewrite history. This time in a radio interview with Doug Wright on KSL. I honestly cannot believe that I have to break this down for everybody again, but here we go. First comment:
Huckabee admitted that he saw a “different Romney” than the man he knew as a fellow GOP governor. (Romney served one term as governor of Massachusetts.)
During the presidential primary campaign Romney “was not the Mitt I knew,” Huckabee said. “You could ask all the guys” who ran in the GOP primaries, said Huckabee, and they would agree that backstage, in public debates and campaigning, Romney acted differently than when he was governor or otherwise out of an intra-party race.
Ok, this is code. Remember what a certain segment of the Evangelical community thinks of Mormons – basically that Mormons lie. So, by calling Romney, in essence, “two faced,” Huckabee appeals to that stereotype while maintaining plausible deniability on making the actual accusation himself. It is a bit like saying, while walking around the red light district in Amsterdam, “That woman sure is dressed provocatively,” and then saying, “I never called her a ‘harlot.’”
Moving on to Huckabee’s second comment:
When “11 words were completely misconstrued” when spoken about the LDS religion in a long New York Times profile of him, Huckabee said he “immediately” apologized publicly to Romney and church members in general.
Alright, lets break this down completely. On December 12, 2007 Huck said, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” On December 13, he is reported to have apologized. Huckabee’s apology was; however, based on being taken”out of context.” (That is still essentially what he relies upon.) No one buys it! (Except of course people who are looking for a reason to exercise their bigotry. Consider all the analysis we brought to bear.
But look closely at those dates 12/12 – incident reported — 12/13 the NYTimes story actually appears, along with the reporting of his apology, which is, of course swamped by the initial story. More to the point actual Iowa Caucus was January 3, 2008 – just a couple of weeks later, but that was no ordinary couple of weeks; it was the Christmas/New Year’s holidays. In other word, Huckabee timed his bizarre “inquiry” to be just about the last piece of news anybody paid attention to prior to the caucuses themselves.
More to the point, Romney’s religion had been written about and discussed ad nauseum in the build up to Iowa. The issue had been pretty effectively delegitimized. People’s prejudices remained intact, but even those prejudiced souls out there knew they needed to overcome their baser natures. That is, until, one of the candidates lets slip with a comment like this. They know he has to apologize, but he has also said, “I understand your ‘concern’ – bring it to me – together we can prevent the heretic from getting elected.”
We know Huckabee provided political cover for the anti-Mormons out there from the comments on his now removed web site.
Until Huckabee repudiates all those surrounding his campaign that exercised genuine anti-Mormon sentiment, until his apologies come without equivocation, explanation, or “context” claims, they are vacant and meaningless.
Lowell interjects: Remember the context for Huckabee’s infamous NY Times interview and his incendiary 11-word question (about whether Mormons “believe Jesus and Satan are brothers”): Huck was running ads in Iowa describing himself as a “Christian leader,” and another ad, as I recall, with a cross cleverly depicted in the background. Romney had built an overwhelming organization in Iowa, and he was Huck’s only real opposition, the other GOP candidates having decided not to campaign actively there. It’s simply ridiculous to ask us to believe Huckabee’s well-timed and well-targeted shot was an unfortunate and inintended coincidence.
Brief postscript the next day: After rereading this post it dawned on me that a candidate giving political cover to a movement is hardly a new idea. The conservative coalition that has functioned so well up until this cycle was born in just such cover. Ronald Reagan was, publicly, an abortion moderate, but he gave free reign to the pro-life movement in his campaign and administration – he provided them with the political cover they need to make inroads. Thus in his administration their alliance with fiscal and defense conservatives was forged.
But it is also important to note that they, by virtue of how this alliance was forged were always in the back seat, which may explain in part why they were willing to blow the alliance up this round. The issue of Romney’s religion was sufficient for them to get a little too agitated, particularly with Huckabee using the same essential tactic to appeal to that agitation.
What social conservatives need to realize is that becoming someone else’s back-seater is no way to get into the front seat, particularly over an illegitimate concern like religious bigotry. Loyalty as a back-seater is usually the best way to the front seat.
Posted in Religious Bigotry | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Lori on 09 Jan 2009 at 3:00 pm #
Thanks for your brilliant analysis. When I first read this story in the Des News I has hoping you would weigh in. Huckabee’s non-apology is what just irritates me beyond measure. A genuine apology does not accuse others of taking you out of context. So Huck is sorry? Sorry for what? Certainly not for anything he said, but for what others had miscontrued. Blaming the miscontruers is not an apology. Huckabee steadfastly refuses to be responsible for what he said, probably because he doesn’t think he said anything to apologize for.
Furthermore, this idea that Romney was not the same guy he used to be is ludicrous. I’d like to hear anyone, any single associate, friend, or supporter who knew Romney “when” confirm such a change in personality and character once the primary began. Is he suggesting Romney has a serious personality disorder? Laughable. The only folks I ever heard say an unkind word about the man were in Huckabee’s campaign or in the media.
I think the interviewer missed an opportunity to have Huck clarify. How was Romney now different he should have asked. It would have been fun to listen to Huckabee dig himself into a hole as he continued this holier-than-thou whining.
CarlH on 09 Jan 2009 at 4:59 pm #
Wow, now we Mormons have a “different Romney” to go along with our “different Jesus”!
klarsen on 09 Jan 2009 at 5:43 pm #
I can’t help but observe that you missed By Common Consent’s naming of Huckabee to the inaugural 2008 Boggs-Doniphan Award, given to the non-Mormon who had the biggest impact on Mormonism during the year.
I’m sure someone will complain about this too. [GRIN]
eto on 11 Jan 2009 at 9:50 pm #
RE Huckabee – I’m tired of this old non issue. Every time the Mormon defenders whine about Huckabee ambushing Romney Huckabee wins again. I expect Romney has forgotten about this and may even be uncomfortable with the unwanted attention. In a situation like this the best defense is no defense, no attention, no reward for insulting behavior. Attention encourages more attention. Huckabee and evangelicals can see that the Mormons are offended, threatened, embarassed by linking Jesus and satan. No explanation will change the issue but ongoing attention proves to the world that Huckabee was right and justified. The Mormon Church was not hurt by Huckabee and in the long run Romney was not hurt either. I would think the Mormon Church would embrace and welcome the explanation that all spirits are and were children – brothers and sisters – of a heavenly father.