The emerging anti-Huckabee backlash

Not very long ago, Huckabee was the Republican underdog that Democrats liked -- the Bobos in Paradise-era David Brooks of the GOP primaries. He seemed like a nice guy, he was funny, he was something of a populist on economic issues, he refused to demagogue illegal immigration as much as the other candidates, etc. In the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg called it a "nice change" that Huckabee "seems to regard liberalism not as a moral evil, a mental disease, or a character flaw—merely as a political point of view he mostly disagrees with."

But in the last few weeks, Huckabee has surged in the Iowa and national polls. Now Newsweek has put him on the cover -- just in time for the emerging backlash that is going to destroy his campaign. Here's a roundup of what's already come out:

Huckabee apparently lobbied for the release of Wayne Dumond, a rapist who allegedly raped and murdered two other women, but now denies doing so or knowing that Dumond posed a threat. Some of those lobbying Huckabee for Dumond's release believed he had been persecuted because his first victim was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton's.

A closely affiliated pro-Huckabee third-party group is running a push poll in Iowa.

He hadn't heard about the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran 36 hours after its release.

He supports an absurd 23 percent national sales tax that even conservatives agree would lead to massive tax evasion. His website promises that "When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness."

He defends creationism and says it should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

In 1992, he wrote on a candidate questionnaire that homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful" and advocated quarantining AIDS patients.

He seemed to credit God for his rise in the polls.

During a 1998 speech to Southern Baptist pastors, he said he "got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives … I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

An outside group backed by tobacco money paid him to oppose the Clinton health care plan, which included a cigarette tax, while he was lieutenant governor.

There's something in here for everyone to hate! In all seriousness, it's hard to imagine Huckabee and his campaign are going to be able to survive the backlash, especially when economic conservatives are also going to be hammering him for raising taxes in Arkansas.

Update 12/10 9:01 AM: You know you're in trouble when the New York Times is fact-checking you effectively:

The sudden rise of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was hardly considered a factor a month ago, has shaken up the race and thrust him into the center of controversies.

He began the day defending his record on “Fox News Sunday,” where he argued that when he called in 1992 for taking steps to isolate people with AIDS, he was not advocating a quarantine...

Mr. Huckabee said that when he called for isolating AIDS patients, “we didn’t know as much as we do now about AIDS.” But as early as 1986, the United States surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, had stated that AIDS was not spread by casual contact.

Comments

[Dave]

None of these scandals will actually disqualify him to be the GOP nominee, with the exception of his record on taxes (which seems to have been pretty widely known before and during his recent poll surge.)

1. Potentially bad, though the convoluted details will likely prevent this from becoming a major story.
2. Minor scandal that's far from a momentum killer.
3. Not too damaging at all when your major competition is Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
4. Not as absurd to the people whose votes he's going to need.
5. As does the Republican party, in general.
6. Does this differ much from the 1992 views of social conservatives?
7. Crediting God hasn't hurt a Republican in a while.
8. Finding answers in Jesus Christ an easy way to win over Republican votes.
9. The corruption is potentially damaging but the opposition to a Hillary Clinton health care initiative is a net positive in this race.

This seems too close to a David Broder "the American people will not like such and such" post ("American People" = "Me"), though in this case we're not even talking "the American people" we're talking "Republican primary voters." None of these "things to hate" disqualify him for that party's nomination, and indeed some (5, 7, 8, 9) seem likely to win him some votes.

[Ian from Ann Arbor]

The effective tax rate percentages, that different income groups would pay under the FairTax, are calculated by crediting the monthly "prebate" (advance rebate of projected tax on necessities) against total monthly spending of citizen families (1 member and greater, Dept. of Commerce poverty-level data; a single person receiving ~$200/mo, a family of four, ~$500/mo, in addition to working earners receiving paychecks with no Federal deductions) Prof.'s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) concluded,

"...the FairTax imposes much lower average taxes on working-age households than does the current system. The FairTax broadens the tax base from what is now primarily a system of labor income taxation to a system that taxes, albeit indirectly, both labor income and existing wealth. By including existing wealth in the effective tax base, much of which is owned by rich and middle-class elderly households, the FairTax is able to tax labor income at a lower effective rate and, thereby, lower the average lifetime tax rates facing working-age Americans.

"Consider, as an example, a single household age 30 earning $50,000. The household’s average tax rate under the current system is 21.1 percent. It’s 13.5 percent under the FairTax. Since the FairTax would preserve the purchasing power of Social Security benefits and also provide a tax rebate, older low-income workers who will live primarily or exclusively on Social Security would be better off. As an example, the average remaining lifetime tax rate for an age 60 married couple with $20,000 of earnings falls from its current value of 7.2 percent to -11.0 percent under the FairTax. As another example, compare the current 24.0 percent remaining lifetime average tax rate of a married age 45 couple with $100,000 in earnings to the 14.7 percent rate that arises under the FairTax."

Further, per Jokischa and Kotlikoff (circa 2006?) ...

"...once one moves to generations postdating the baby boomers there are positive welfare gains for all income groups in each cohort. Under a 23 percent FairTax policy, the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 enjoy a 13.5 percent welfare gain. Their middle-class and rich contemporaries experience 5 and 2 percent welfare gains, respectively. The welfare gains are largest for future generations. Take the cohort born in 2030. The poorest members of this cohort enjoy a huge 26 percent improvement in their well-being. For middle class members of this birth group, there's a 12 percent welfare gain. And for the richest members of the group, the gain is 5 percent."

(Permission is granted to reproduce, in whole or part. - Ian)

[Sean-Sean-B]

The fair tax is a ridiculous sham. I'll support it if we all start out with the same amount of money, how about that?

[Howard]

On item number two -

Dumond allegedly raped another woman in Arkansas. This victim came forward when Huckabee was considering commuting his sentence.

After his release Dumond did rape and murder a woman and was sentenced for that crime. It wasn't alleged.

He was the suspect in a second murder/rape case but he died in prison prior to charges being brought against him. That crime was committed the day before his final arrest.

Prior to the conviction for the rape for which Huckabee advocated leniency Dumond was also charged in helping two other men kill a fourth man with a hammer in a premeditated attack. Dumond turned prosecution witness in that case and admitted taking part in the attack.