Let me start off this post by doing something I rarely do: Praising Sarah Palin. I don't often have kind words for her, but she was ahead of the curb in endorsing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in a US Congressional special election in New York's 23rd District. The Republican Party had fielded Dede Scozzafava; a pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-spending liberal candidate; for this special election being held on Tuesday and many in the national GOP establishment got on her bandwagon. Palin raised hell when she endorsed Hoffman, but she raised a lot of attention on this significant race and really helped Hoffman surge.

In fact, she shifted the momentum so well that Scozzafava has officially suspended her campaign.

Now, where was Mike Huckabee in all of this?

Well, nowhere. Huckabee was totally AWOL in this battle. Although it is very apparent that Huckabee wasn't needed, his absence wasn't unnoticed. Even the Vice President of the Christian-Right think tank, the "Family Research Council" (FRC), came out and slammed Huckabee for not fighting the good fight. Huckabee defended himself two ways. First, he reminded people that he had a speaking engagement with the Conservative Party (he refused to say how much money he was paid for that, but it cost $125-$400 per ticket) and he wanted to avoid a conflict of interest. Huckabee also said that he only wanted to use his resources fighting for Republicans. More specifically, on Niel Cavuto's Fox News show, he said, “I am not going to go out and endorse somebody who did not get picked by the Republicans.”

The first excuse is hypocritical because Huckabee didn't hesitate to endorse Les Phillip after being paid tens of thousands of dollars for a speaking engagement at one of his campaign events. Nor did he worry about a conflict of interests when he returned the favor and endorse the corrupt-as-all-hell Don Young in last year's Republican Primary in the US Congressional Race in Alaska.

The second excuse is more interesting. It's hypocritical because Huckabee is endorsing Doug Hoffman now that the Republican candidate has dropped out of the race. But that's also interesting because it indicates something more about Huckabee that I encouraged when I still supported the man's political aspirations... a new cooperation with the establishment. As a Huckabee supporter in 2007 and 2008, I saw clearly how the GOP establishment tore down Huckabee and prevented him from winning the GOP nomination. If he wanted to stand a chance at 2012, he needed to make friends and play nice with those party insiders. As long as the establishment was endorsing Scozzafava, it would have been bad for Huckabee to follow (or even beat) Sarah Palin in endorsing Hoffman.

With that said, it does indicate something more troubling for Huckabee supporters. Not only is Huckabee lacking the backbone it takes to be the leader of the conservative movement, it's a direct and critical hit to Huckabee's "Vertical Politics" that he loves talking about. Throughout 2007 and 2008, Huckabee made the case to Americans that people don't care if you're left or right, Democrat or Republican; they care about whether you take this country up or down. Vertical Politics.

By his own admission, Huckabee knew Hoffman had a platform that would take America up. But because he wasn't a member of Huckabee's political party, Huckabee refused to endorse him until the Republican Politician with ideas that would take this country down dropped out of the race.

Again, I dislike Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee about equally, but Palin proved to me that in this particular incident, it was her who was most willing to "Do The Right Thing," which is sad considering that's literally supposed to be Mike Huckabee's book. A hat tip to Sarah Palin for being so far ahead of us on that one. I still think she'd make a terrible President, but at least she's behaving like a leader instead of a lemming like Mike Huckabee.

Archived Comments

Jarrod
"Although it is very apparent that Huckabee wasn’t needed, his absence wasn’t unnoticed."
This statement is the kicker in all this criticism of Huckabee. His opinion doesn't matter, he's not conservative enough on economic issues, and so on and so forth, yet people all over the conservative movement go into apoplexy over the fact that he didn't officially endorse Hoffman.
I understand why he didn't. He knows that third party candidates split the vote and is counterproductive in most cases. Rush Limbaugh has expressed concern over this same thing; encouraging people to reform the Republican party and not split the vote with a third party candidate. Huckabee and HuckPac has been working behind the scenes since The One's election to support conservative Republican candidates all over the country. He was one of the first to endorse Rubio in FL.
In this case, he did not endorse the chosen establishment candidate like Newt did and he praised Hoffman's conservatism. He is able to formally support Hoffman now because the Republican candidate dropped out, which makes it a race, absent a Republican candidate, between a conservative and a liberal. Makes perfect sense to me.

Travis Gearhart
What I think is the more important part about this is the fact that prominent Republicans (regardless of each individuals feelings on each "prominent" Republican) seem to be moving back to the conservative side of things, and that's great! Building onto what Jarrod said, perhaps that move (to not endorse the Conservative Party candidate until the Republican dropped out) shows that Huck's a bit more serious about running his Presidential campaign and gaining the trust of the establishment? I agree with Jarrod on his points, too. Third party's screw stuff up worse than if a bad or so so Republican were to win.

briand
Here we go again Jarod, "third parties split the vote". As if Republicans are entitled to being one of only two choices. How long have we been hearing this crap about reforming the Republican party only to be disappointed year after year because they are bought and paid for and rotten to the core. Is there any point in supporting them when they give us McCain and Bush? Let me suggest some alternatives. Allow cross party endorsements like they do in New York State and a few others. Encourage ballot access and proportional representation for third parties, instead of trying to cowardly circumvent democracy, and then form governing coalitions of multiple parties like they do in Europe. If you are really interested in people engaging in the system and being heard. Or you can just use tricks to keep power and silence the people you disagree with. Which sounds more like facism than democracy.

daltonsbriefs
Third parties would have more influence if states would mandate run-off votes when none of the candidates gets more than 50%. This would let multiple candidates run, and then a European style coalition building process for the runoff election a month later.

Kevin Tracy
I disagree, the two largest recipients of votes in virtually all elections would be Democrats and Republicans. And because virtually all parties in this country are more right wing or more left wing, the runoff would ultimately defeat the importance of the 3rd party.
If anything, the current system requires coalition building that should be taking place in the primary process. If you fail to please all parties in a coalition, you run the risk of a 3rd party candidate running against you and splitting the vote.
Like I said earlier, it is a lot easier to defeat an incumbent liberal Democrat than a liberal Republican and 3rd Party candidates help us police ourselves and keep us honest so we don't elect those liberal Republicans.

briand
The irony is that had a conservative enough Republican ran, the New York Conservative Party could have simply endorsed him or her and they would have appeared once on the ballot as a Republican and once as a Conservative. All votes would have been counted as going to the candidate. Since the Republicans were not able to do this the Conservatives had no choice but to run their own candidate. This cross endorsement or "fusion candidate" system increases even more the influence that a third party can have on the major parties. Unfortunately most states do not allow this. My father was the vice chair of the Conservative Party in the county where we lived in New York State. We would beg and plead with the Republicans to listen to us. Sometimes they did, sometimes they did not. Sometimes we ran our own candidates, sometimes we even endorsed Democrats if they were Conservative enough. To us it was about the principals not the party label. It has caused me to feel that third party politics is in my blood.

Blue State Republican
I'm disappointed that you've turned against Huckabee, Kevin. If you truly care about ending abortion as we know it, no single candidate has ever been more strong, more consistent, and more dependable on the subject than Mike Huckabee. If, on the other hand, you only care about advancing the Conservative Party, it is a bit unreasonable for you to have expected a prospective GOP presidential nominee to have helped legitimize and advance a rival party that - if it strengthens-can only bleed support from the GOP, never win outright, and ensure liberal domination - and millions upon millions of un-checked abortions - for generations to come.
Better to spend our energies bringing the conservative back to the GOP, than to split the baby (reference to King Solomon intended).
BSR

Kevin Tracy
Abortion is not the only issue. If Mike Huckabee is the only one who can represent the issue, then nothing will ever change and talking about it is a waste of time. I personally think there are going to be far better messengers in the future.