Allahpundit,
You suggest here that Huckabee fanned some flames by stating he wasn’t vetted at all. You write,
All that’ll do is stir up the same sense of grievance among the Huckheads that finding out Hillary wasn’t vetted stirred up in the PUMAs. Or is that the point?
I’m sorry if you can’t distinguish between Huck’s supporters and Hillary’s die-hards. But the fact is, the social conservatives who backed Mike Huckabee (and my support was more tentative than most) don’t go around talking about “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” We have no such sense of entitlement. Instead, we are issues-driven voters who soldier on in our pursuit of conservative social policies. Would we have been excited by the choice of Huck for VP? Absolutely. But as long as McCain doesn’t go overboard with a left-leaning running mate, we’ll still express our solidarity in November.
(Contrast that with the “Huck-No” types among libertarian-leaning conservatives, who never gave Huckabee a single look even though they are now backing an arguably less-conservative McCain.)
An ominous crack has formed in the conservative coalition during this election cycle–between fiscal and social conservatives. Never before has the modern conservative movement been subject to so much friendly fire, at least to my (admittedly poor) memory. Here’s to finding a way back from the heated rhetoric (especially along Romney-Huckabee fault lines) of the nomination contest. But this won’t be possible so long as respectable conservative commentators such as yourself dismiss a large portion of the GOP coalition as “Huckheads” who are no different from Clintonites, no less, and express joy that fans of Huckabee would “find coal in their stockings” this morning.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Social Con
Tags: Allahpundit, fiscal conservatives, GOP nomination, McCain, Mike Huckabee, running mate, social conservatives, VP
