Huckabee Lights a Fuse Under the Neo-Cons

What do the Neo-cons have against Mike Huckabee?

First it was National Review (see my blog below); then President Bush; and now Rush Limbaugh.

In case you missed it in my blog, National Review (NR) used its December 10 endorsement of Governor Romney to take a swipe at Mike Huckabee, accusing the former Arkansas Governor of "alienating economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives."

Then just this week, the Bush administration took aim at Huckabee, first in a critical statement by former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, followed by similar criticisms Friday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

To top it off, conservative icon Rush Limbaugh joined the chorus of criticism Friday, accusing the Huckabee campaign of "trying to dumb down conservatism in order to get it to conform with his record."

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign has been busy all week parsing and channeling the Huckabee criticism into support for their own candidate.

What's going on?

So what's it all mean? As far as the Huckabee campaign is concerned, it's mostly just "sour grapes". Ever since their candidate's unexpected surge in Iowa, campaign officials have been warning supporters to brace for the negative publicity that typically accompanies front-runner status.

The "mainstream" media, on the other hand, repeatedly point to Huckabee's recent criticisms of President Bush's foreign policy likening it to an "arrogant bunker mentality." It's this Bush-bashing, the press tells us, that's responsible for the political heat Huckabee's receiving.

There's clearly truth in both explanations. Everybody loves the underdog who somehow manages to defy the odds--everyone, of course, but those who end up losing the race. And Huckabee's harsh language in Foreign Affairs probably couldn't have been more poorly timed. After all, who needs to make enemies with your party's political base before a single primary vote has even been cast? Save your Bush-bashing for the general election, any sensible advisor would surely have cautioned the Huckabee campaign.

Is there Another Explanation?

But be that as it may, I think there's another explanation for the current firestorm of criticism threatening to engulf the Huckabee campaign. Go back and read some of the backroom deliberations taking place among Evangelical leaders in early Autumn of this year. As late as Thanksgiving, no consensus had been reached on which Republican candidate Evangelicals should support. Some already leaned toward Huckabee, but just as many seemed to find good reasons to support either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. About the only thing all seemed agreed upon was the unacceptability of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Then, around Thanksgiving, the same Evangelical leaders began sensing the need to make a choice. Would it be Thompson, who seemed to have the right credentials, but who's campaign looked uninspired and struggled daily to gain traction? Or would it be Romney, who seemed to embrace the right positions, but left prospective supporters wondering if he could be trusted to deliver on his promises. And finally, Mike Huckabee, who exuded trustworthiness on all key issues, but seemed to lack national organization and essential fund-raising skills.

Of course, we all know the answer now. Mike Huckabee became the evangelical choice by a landslide.

But what's curious is this. Soon after Huckabee's initial surge in the polls, counterforces began mobilizing and steadily grew with each new "Hucka-bump" in the polls. Until finally, National Review's editors let loose with their dismissive characterization of the Arkansas Governor as a hopeless populist in the mold of Pat Buchanan.

Neo-conservatives versus theo-conservatives

I believe it's this neo-con/theo-con split in the Republican party that's resurfacing now. Last week's announcement of Ed Rollins as Huckabee's new national campaign director seems to have added further fuel to the fire, especially Rollins' intimation that Huckabee is the rightful heir to former President Reagan's political legacy.

So what's to this split between the neoconservatives and their theological rivals on the right? I'll be addressing that issue in my upcoming blog. For now, just remember this. If I'm right and the conservatives are already splintering along ideological lines, a bitterly-contested convention seems almost certain, especially with Giuliani starting to fade from the race. And if that happens, expect the GOP to lose badly next November.

What's your take?

You just heard from me. Now I want to hear from you. What's your view on the issues I've covered today? Click "Comment" below and tell me what you think.