A week ago, the buzz was that Mike Huckabee sat atop the list of potential vice presidential running mates for John McCain. Seven days later that seems a distant memory, after Huckabee's joke at the NRA's annual meeting about Obama having a gun pointed at him. Despite his strong showing with evangelical voters in the Republican primary, Huckabee has never been a favorite amongst conservative bloggers. And many of those same bloggers see the NRA joke as taking Huckabee out of the VP race:

AmSpec's James Antle:

I don't think there was any malice on Huckabee's part when he made his Obama gaffe. But I do think it shows spectactularly poor judgment and the potential for some Quayle-ian moments should he get the vice presidential nod.

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

A momentary lapse of the tongue shouldn't be enough to keep someone off the ticket, but it probably will be enough. A McCain selection of Huckabee in a race against Obama would get this joke played and replayed about as often as "macaca."

Hot Air's Allahpundit:

The left will use it as a Larger Truth about the NRA; the media will use it to find some racial subtext that isn't actually there; and righteous conservative bloggers will use it to gently suggest that perhaps Huck isn't VP material.

John McCain, Mitt Romney and even Ron Paul all received some form of promotion from CPAC in advance of their respective speeches yesterday. While McCain didn't appear on the initial agenda because his appearance was only confirmed in the past week, CPAC posted a separate note on their website announcing that all four remaining Republican presidential candidates would be appearing and speaking.

But some Huckabee supporters believe CPAC is snubbing their candidate by taking down any mention of the former Arkansas governor's appearance. From a commenter at Huckabee's campaign site:

I just wanted to point out to you that cpac.org does not mention Mike Huckabee on their list of 2008 speakers on the front page or the agenda page of their web site. Huckabee supporters are very angry about this and have emailed CPAC, but we have received no response. Mike Huckabee is scheduled to speak at 9:00 A.M. on Saturday. This is just another example of the unfair treatment Mike Huckabee is getting from the news media and his own party!

A few Huckabee supporters say they have written in to CPAC but haven't received a response. In fact, I was just browsing the CPAC site going over tomorrow's agenda and trying in vain to double-check the time for Huckabee's speech, which is scheduled for 9am.

Over at NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru weighs the up and downsides of having Mike Huckabee on the ticket as John McCain's VP: He could help deliver evangelical voters and the South, but may further alienate the anti-McCain conservatives. After all, Huck often conjures the ire of the far-right in ways only Ron Paul seemed capable of:

The upsides are obvious. They're the first- and third- best vote-getters in the Republican field. Huckabee helps to make up for McCain's weakness with evangelical Protestants and, to a lesser extent, his weakness on domestic policy. The most frequently mentioned downside—the further alienation of

And over at New York Magazine, John Heilemann adds:

So long as Huckabee maintains his sanity and doesn’t go mad-dog on the front-runner, every vote he gets from here on out only enhances his profile, builds his stature, and advances his ultimate cause — which, as everyone with half a brain comprehends, is to land himself the VP slot. Will McCain give it to him? Seems plausible to me. In the primaries, Huckabee has been the answer to McCain’s prayers. In the general, he might, just might, be the solution to McCain’s most nagging problem.

Former Fred Thompson spokesman Darrel Ng has launched a website asking people to boycott actor Chuck Norris for his support of Mike Huckabee. Ng posts his personal phone number and email on the site and a list of companies who have advertised on syndicated reruns of Norris' show, Walker, Texas Ranger.




















It would appear that some Huckabee fans discovered the site, since all of the comments are pro-Huckabee. As for me, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Silent Rage.

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett offers a different take on last night's Republican debate, suggesting that Mike Huckabee was in fact the winner, both for sounding presidential and because he "deftly parried" Fred Thompson's zingers:

For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.

The national media have anointed John McCain the new GOP frontrunner, but I just find it hard to picture him as the nominee. He has a great personal story and the perfect blend of conservative to moderate positions for a surprising Republican victory next November. It’s just really difficult to picture primary voters being so reasonable or pragmatic.

Mike Huckabee is also hated by many of those same so-called conservative elites. However, unlike McCain, he is a fresh face whose mixed partisan background as governor of Arkansas is still likely largely unknown to most voters. What those likely voters do know about Huck – his consistent background as a social conservative and his empathetic touch – are inherent advantages over any other Republican candidate.

Real Clear Politics’ John Ellis outlines the case for how Huckabee wins the Republican nomination:

A strong Huckabee showing in Michigan and a convincing win in South Carolina would set up a showdown with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in Florida, one that Huckabee could afford to lose. Indeed, he might even want to lose it, if only to fatten Giuliani up for his eventual slaughter on the altar of social conservatism. Again, the longer Huckabee faces two "not Huckabee" candidates, all of whom are alien or anathema to the GOP's core Sunbelt/Christian constituencies, the more likely it is he will eventually emerge victorious in the final showdown, wherever that might occur.

“Crunchy Con” Rod Dreher agrees, adding:

I'm thinking that if Huck can pound his Main Street populist message, and get lots of free media in Michigan, he could win over enough independents and Democrats to make a difference in a close three-way race.

Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt and McCain supporter Andrew Sullivan with more.

Rasmussen Reports has an early poll out of South Carolina showing Mike Huckabee with a solid lead at 28 percent, to John McCain's 21 percent.

Mitt Romney places third with 15 percent and Fred Thompson gets 11 percent. Rudy Giuliani is also in double-figures, with 10 percent of the vote.

Of course, these numbers are bound to change after tonight's results from New Hampshire. How much of a boost will John McCain get? How far will Mitt Romney's numbers fall? And will Mike Huckabee's numbers be affected at all?

Now that the cable news networks are calling New Hampshire for John McCain, the driving question is how does his victory affect the McCain and Romney campaigns?

Romney has many built-in advantages in the upcoming Michigan primary, but so does McCain. Is this the end of the Romney campaign, or the second stage in a tortoise vs. hare(s) contest?

And even with the apparent resounding victory, McCain will soon face some of the very same questions the Huckabee campaign is facing, most prominently: How does your campaign continue beyond one friendly contest?

Follow all the real-time results with CQ's New Hampshire Primary page here.

John McCain began the 2008 presidential campaign in first place, and that's where most national polls have him after his strong win in New Hampshire on Tuesday. McCain seems to have everything in place for a Michigan victory next week, but that could all change on a dime if he does not perform well in tonight's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina debate, where immigration is listed as a top issue for voters. And remember, McCain is largely considered to have under-performed during the last two debates before NH. But he did still win...

Going into tonight's Fox News sponsored debate, two new polls show him with traction in Michigan (1/15), a state he won in 2000, and where Mitt Romney will make his "last stand."

A Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey shows Huckabee leading with 23 percent, followed by Romney at 22 and McCain at 18. No other candidate shows in double digits. However, this poll was conducted before McCain's win, so I suspect Romney and Giuliani, who is pulling in 8 percent of the vote here, could both experience drops.

Meanwhile, a Strategic Vision Poll, also taken before NH, shows McCain leading with 29 percent of the vote, to 20 percent for Romney. Huckabee receives 18 percent and Giuliani gets 13 percent.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small has joined her publication's blogger ranks over at Swampland and files this dispatch from New Hampshire reporting that Elizabeth Edwards is now comparing her husband to the famous racing horse Seabiscuit.

Newton-Small brings the snark, taking down the awkward metaphor by asking, “And doesn't the Seabiscuit mantle require, um, winning something first?”

Of course, it’s worth pointing out to both her and team Edwards that another candidate was comparing himself to Seabiscuit not too long ago: Dennis Kucinich.

UPDATE: Mike Huckabee also thinks he's Seabiscuit

Salon’s Glen Greenwald has a hilarious round-up from the barons of Beltway conventional wisdom who inaccurately predicted/reported an impending Huckabee Iowa demise largely because his campaign tactics apparently do not comport with their savvy views on how an election should be run:

I love when this happens. It's a reminder that the political prattle that spews forth from group-think media stars without end and which consumes our political dialogue for a full year is based on absolutely nothing. Also, most predictive "analysis" from the media stars' cousins, the cogs in the right-wing noise machine, is merely self-absorbed wishful thinking masquerading as objective knowledge:

Greenwald's target list includes: Time's Joe Klein, The Politico's Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin, The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett, Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin and NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez.

A few more reactions to the Huckabee and Obama victories:

The American Spectator’s Hunter Baker provides readers with a respite from the anti-Huckabee hyperventilating:

When has the GOP last seen a candidate like Mike Huckabee? This man is talented, driven, and hungry. The same personality that decided to defeat diabetes has locked onto winning the nomination and he has achieved far more with far less than anyone thought possible.

We need more candidates with that kind of desire. If Huckabee should fall short, I hope he still has time to get in for the Arkansas U.S. Senate seat. Give that guy four years or so on the national stage and he'd be unstoppable.

Meanwhile, nearly every blogger on National Review’s The Corner seems blind with rage at Huckabee’s triumph. The Corner is flooded with posts insisting he can’t win the nomination, including one from Mark R. Levin, whose one-word thesis is “relax.” But the counter-arguments lack much evidence or reasoning, pushing rosy forecasts that imagine comeback scenarios for Fred Thompson, Romney and even Rudy Giuliani.

Some might say at least they are sticking to their guns. But it’s more like they aimed the gun, pulled the trigger, found it wasn’t loaded and are instead just making “Bang, bang!” noises and hoping for the same result.

The Obama praise continues to center on how his victory is good for America as a whole, as opposed to Democrats or African-Americans in particular. There are some over-the-top proclamations, like this one from Ezra Klein, but most fall into the theme outlined by Arianna Huffington:

Obama's win might not have legs. Hope could give way to fear once again. But, for tonight at least, it holds a mirror up to the face of America, and we can look at ourselves with pride. This is the kind of country America was meant to be, even if you are for Clinton or Edwards -- or even Huckabee or Giuliani.

Talk Left’s Big Tent Democrat dissects how Obama's message is telegraphing and to whom:

What to make of this? Some say it shows that Obama was perceived as a strong progressive. Some say it shows that Obama is selling progressivism to Independents and Republicans. I have a different take. I think it shows that Obama is able to convince people that he agrees with them or that his views are not anathema to them. How did he do it? I believe he did it by blurring his policy views, which are largely mainstream Democratic. Indeed, I find that Obama's views match up with my own more than any other candidate.

But many in the progessive blogosphere remain opposed to what they see as a Clintonesque triangulation on the part of Obama. It doesn't quite rise to right's level Huckabee antipathy, but it does reflect some level of discomfort between Obama and the left.

MyDD’s Jonathan Singer:

It's becoming increasingly difficult to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama understands the stakes of this fight and/or that he really stands on our side when he bashes Democrats, tries to gin up fears of a crisis in Social Security, and now kowtows to some of the basest elements of the Republican machine.

The early conservative blog reaction to Huckabee’s Iowa victory is decidedly mixed. Are they in denial at this point, or holding onto some knowledge that runs counter to all trends of actual voters?

Powerline’s Mirengoff hopes it’s a short-term relationship in lieu of a long-term Romney commitment:

With any luck, tonight will be the high-water mark for Huckabee. Romney, meanwhile, faces the very real prospect of back-to-back second place finishes. That wouldn't be bad in the abstract, but given the resources he's thrown into these states and the leads he has held, it would raise doubts about his ability to "seal the deal" with voters. Of course, if Romney manages to defeat McCain in New Hampshire, his set-back in Iowa will quickly be forgotten.

And National Review, who endorsed Romney and has been boosting his candidacy for two years over at The Corner, isn’t happy either. But are they already preparing to shill for a candidate most have openly opposed? Mark Steyn writes:

Peter is right that we'll all have to start being more respectful of Huck after tonight, but, before that dread hour arrives, let me say there is something slightly jaw-dropping about a two-party system that presents voters with a choice between Mike Huckabee and (if early numbers hold up) John Edwards.

All three cable news networks have now officially called Iowa for Mike Huckabee.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews says Huckabee's appeal has spread beyond evangelicals to reporters and "average" voters. "He's an acquired taste," Matthews says.

UPDATE: Matthews now says Romney "goes into New Hampshire a loser" against John McCain

CNN has joined the Fox News Channel in calling Iowa for Mike Huckabee.

Romney sadists will note the former governor just gave a very somber interview to Fox talking up New Hampshire...

Fox News Channel just called Iowa for Mike Huckabee.

John McCain is on Fox News right now answering questions about Iowa and New Hampshire. The most current returns show Huckabee looking forward to a “decisive” victory over Mitt Romney, according to Fox’s Brit Hume.

Carl Cameron notes that Romney just referred to Iowa as “the first inning of a 50 inning game.” As Cameron points out, it wasn’t too long ago that Romney said one needed to win Iowa to win the nomination.

For his part, McCain did look a bit subdued with the numbers showing him trailing Thompson for third place. However, as the interview was wrapping up, the latest election ticker numbers show McCain catching up to Thompson, 12 percent to 14 percent, respectively.

The conservative blogosphere today continues to deliver a big “Huck Off” to Mike Huckabee’s surging campaign. However, it’s liberal bloggers who have some excellent counter-intelligence today, as opposed to the right's rampant mudslinging.

Huckabee has been getting lots of attention in the press today for hiring Ed Rollins, who helped run Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign, as his national campaign chair. But Daily Kos diarist DHinMI links to an archived Time Magazine article reporting that when Rollins managed the successful campaign 1993 New Jersey gubernatorial candidacy of Christine Todd Whitman, part of that strategy included suppressing the African-American vote.

That reminded me of a question from the CNN/YouTube debate a few weeks back, where Huckabee touted his African-American support while running for governor in Arkansas:

Huckabee: Well, according to your network's exit polls, some 48 percent of the African-Americans in my state did, in fact, vote for me, which is unusually high for African-Americans voting for a Republican. Here's the reason why: because I asked for their vote, and I didn't wait until October of the election year to do it. And, while I was governor, I tried to make sure that we included people not only in appointments and employment, but also in the programs that would truly make a difference, like putting disproportionate amounts of help for health problems specifically targeted to African-Americans like hypertension and AIDS and diabetes. So there's a reason. And I just want to express that our party had better reach out not just to African-Americans, but to Hispanics and to all people of this country.

I don't want to be a part of a Republican party that is a tiny, minute and ever decreasing party, but one that touches every American from top to bottom, regardless of race.

Mitt Romney’s new ad attacking Mike Huckabee’s record on immigration is being called the first attack ad of the Republican primary, if not the entire election.

Jonathan Martin says the ad is a sign of “ Mitt desperation” from Romney, which I think is pretty accurate analysis.

However, most bloggers across the spectrum are using the opportunity to attack Huckabee, not Romney. That too may be a sign of desperation: fear from conservative bloggers that Huckabee’s momentum is too strong to stop at this point, and from liberal bloggers who are having to deal with “Republican” and “momentum” being used in the same context for the first time in awhile.

Simon Rosenberg writes in his Daily Kos diary that Huckabee has put up a response ad, “consistent with his new nutty immigration 'plan,' showing how tough he is.”

Leading conservative blog Red State says Huckabee is a nice guy but would be a terrible president because of his policies on immigration, taxes and foreign policy:

Mike Huckabee is a great guy trying to the right thing but becoming President of the United States isn’t where he’s headed. We may not have the greatest choices this election but the more there are, the less of a chance we have of actually achieving a Republican victory.

While Powerline says: "Mike Huckabee’s wrong-headed foreign prescriptions threaten to outstrip our ability to report them."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake notes Huckabee has received the endorsement of “extremist xenophobic vigilante” Jim Gilchrist.

And the Street Prophets blog speculates that Huckabee’s meteoric rise in the polls may be largely thanks to support from GOPer Randy Brinson and his 71 million strong email list.

All this on a day when Matt Drudge is leading with an item claiming that Democrats are "holding fire" in their criticism of Huckabee. Just more evidence that while the blogs and traditional media often focus on the same subjects, they are rarely on the same page.

Finally, Soren Dayton’s round-up on Huckabee backlash can be found here:

Conservative and liberal bloggers are both largely upset over Mike Huckabee’s comments today suggesting his rise in the polls comes from a “non human” source, i.e. God: “There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people,” Huckabee said.

I would just note this is far from the first time Huckabee has made the loaves and fishes reference, despite some in the media and blogosphere treating it that way. In fact, it’s one of his more common stump speech lines and I believe he’s used it in at least one debate.

Markos Moulitsas does raise a fair point, asking:

“If Huckabee's god has chosen him as his favored candidate, will that mean that this god isn't "all powerful" when Huckabee crashes and burns?”

Meanwhile, National Review’s Jim Geraghty said the comments made him cringe and paraphrases what I believe is an old Chris Rock joke:

“It reminds me of a comedian’s joke about football players who point to the sky and thank God and/or Jesus when they score a touchdown. Nobody ever hears a defender say, ‘well, I thought I had him covered pretty well, but then Jesus got in my way.’”

This may be less a defense of Huckabee than an attack of alleged intolerance on the right, but declaring it, “Huckabee’s Race to Lose,” Jerome Armstrong takes National Review to task: “The NRO conservatives like to mock Huckabee for his religious views almost as much so some of the secular bloggers. Good luck with that too.”

UPDATE: Here's a link to the Huckabee video

As Mike Huckabee continues to ascend in both Iowa and national polls, so rises the level of distrust and criticism from the conservative blogosphere.

The oft-cited narrative of the Republican primary is that voters are just waiting for someone to latch onto. Rudy reflects their views on crime and foreign policy, but little else. Romney says all the right things, but hasn’t held those views long enough publicly to earn their trust. Fred Thompson seemed like a perfect fit, until he didn’t. And Huckabee, he's great, just not electable.

There are a number of significant differences between the conservative and liberal blogosphere aside from the obvious ideological gaps. The netroots are more reflective of what the Democrats’ progressive base believes in the same way that conservative talk-radio speaks to the Republican base. The overall membership of the Democratic Party is certainly more moderate, but philosophical alignment between liberal bloggers and the Democratic base is a powerful, and mostly united, front.

Meanwhile, the conservative blogosphere tends to more accurately reflect the largely diminished sentiment of fiscal conservatives. It’s a very respectable branch of political thought, and one that many disaffected voters call for a return to, but not one that dominates the party nowadays.

So, how do we evaluate the contrast between Huckabee’s rise in national polls versus his lackluster reception in the righty blogosphere?

Real Clear Politics’ John McIntyre says Huckabee has benefited because: “I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney.”

Sounds a lot like this morning’s post on how John Edwards is potentially benefiting from the Obama-Clinton cage match.

Most conservative bloggers don’t like Huckabee’s record on fiscal issues or his opposition to torture. And they are crying foul at this Politico story today revealing that he, as of yesterday, had not yet been briefed on the latest NIE report about Iran.

All that outrage aside, I doubt any of these issues really hurt Huckabee in his quest for the nomination. Fiscal conservatives are no longer reflective of a base that has largely continued to support George Bush and congressional Republicans despite their very liberal record on spending issues over the past several years.

And Mary Katherine Ham’s cry that Huckabee needs to carry around a Blackberry to avoid missing breaking news may sound practical to Beltway pundits, but I find it hard to believe that Iowa voters will punish Huckabee for being slightly behind the curve on an evolving news story that many conservatives have rejected. If you actually read through the transcript of that Politico interview, you’ll find the substance of Huckabee’s answer was quite measured and tailored to a conservative audience, even if it didn’t come directly off a Fox News Channel email alert.