Sunday, November 20, 2011

Huckabee: Tea party may 'need to get behind' Romney

From a Politico piece quoting some of Huck's comments to WABC's Aaron Klein comes further evidence of whom Huck may be settling on as someone he could become very comfortable with supporting.

The impact of this statement could be that former Huck supporters who were not inclined to support Romney under any circumstances, may now at least begin to consider it. Some will, some will not. It has the potential to change some of the dynamics in Iowa, now that Mitt is ramping up efforts there. The timing of Huck's comment could not be better for the Romney campaign.

Read more here.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Terrye said...

Huck is right...needless to say the anybody but Romney crowd will just remind us that he is a big government Rino...same old same old.

Julia / Idaho said...

We do need to find common ground with ROMNEY. The anyone but Romney crowd needs to re-think, re-evaluate, and research ROMNEY from the RIGHT SOURCES... I think you will find, as I have, there there is much to respect in Romney. We will never be blindsided with disrespectful behavior, he will protect our Constitutional Rights, and bring strength and prosperity back to America... America will once again be respected on the world stage. Find YOUR common ground with Romney. UNITE. UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED, OBAMA WINS AND AMERICA FALLS.

hamaca said...

Gotta wonder what the Evangelical preachers who participated in Huck's 2008 whisper campaign are thinking right about now.

Huck's message provides cover for those caucus goers who really do want to vote for Mitt to do so with greatly diminished fear of being ostracized by those who shamed them into voting for Huck over Romney.

Anonymous said...

you TOTALLY misrepresented Huckabee's statement. He said IF romney is the nominee then the tea party should consider backing him. But it will be Newt gingrich leading us out of this ridiculous socialism we're in

Machtyn said...

Newt Gingrich? Leading us out of the corruption?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


JAJJAAJAJAJAJAJAA! (a little spanish laughing for you.)

hamaca said...

Anon @ 5:23,

That's why the title of the piece includes the word "may", not should. There is a difference.

The whole point is not that this is an explicit endorsement, it's not, but rather that Huck is implying that it's ok to consider Romney, because there's a chance he'll be the nominee. If so, we'll need to rally around him.

That's very different from the anyone but Romney stance many of Huck's supporters have had until now.

Anonymous said...

If Newt is the nominee, you can say hello to Obama for four more years. It will be like running McCain all over again. Huckabee sees the writing on the wall and is trying to make it ok for evangelicals that need permission to support a Mormon. People need to think for themselves, but unfortunately so many can't.

TexasConservative said...

When I first read this earlier this morning at politico, I wondered how many blogs would misrepresent what Huckabee said and sure enough, Hamaca did what I suspected.

Here is what Huckabee said:

"if it’s Mitt Romney"

But no where on the front page of the post does it say that.

Y'all hated Huckabee in 2008 and now you are using him in 2012.

Huckabee will not endorse in 2012-he has said so many times. He will get behind whomever is the nominee though. And his statement yet again proves that he is a man of his word: "if it’s Mitt Romney"

Hamaca, you need to add this to the front page. But given the fact that you want your post to suggest a certain message, I doubt that you will correct what you have published.

We will wait and see what you do.

Right Wingnut said...


I agree with your interpretation. This is no different than what he said 6 months ago.

Anonymous said...

Huckabee will endorse romney before Iowa caucus.

If he doesnt endorse ANYONE, then he is one of those (like palin) who is hoping for Obama's reelection, and for the country to get worse so that they can gear up for 2016.

Anonymous said...

Huckabee endorses pro-choice, pro-TARP Romney? Huckabee just neutralized any influence he would have had among conservatives.

“Hold your nose” Huckabee sells out the conservative base of the GOP.

hamaca said...


If I had been suggesting that this was the equivalent of an endorsement from Huck, you'd be absolutely right--and I'd certainly amend the post.

However, I was not suggesting that in the least. Firstly, I kept the exact title from the Politico piece, which included the word "may", i.e. Tea Party may need to get behind Romney. The word "may" implies a condition which has not yet been met.

Second, the intent of my post was to go a step beyond the Politico piece and focus on the subset of Huck's supporters who heretofore may have been in the Anyone-But-Romney camp including staying home on election day if Romney does happen to become the nominee.

What I'm suggesting is that Huck is slowly and carefully reaching out to those folks step by step to help them understand that there are circumstances in which it's ok to support Romney--something they would otherwise never consider.

The fact that Huck would enthusiastically support Mitt in the general election, I believe, will provide a different perspective for some of that group of voters to the point that, if they find the other GOP candidates unacceptable, perhaps, maybe, they might be persuaded to consider Romney. The fact that Huck made the comment at this point in time is excellent timing for the Romney campaign.

I'm not sure whether you're in that group of Huck supporters. I suspect you are, but don't know for sure. What I do see from your comment is a strong desire that nobody confuse Huck's comments as being too supportive of Romney. It would be too much of a shock to your system, i.e. you couldn't handle it. Therefore, your misinterpretation of my post was a result of your bias against anything "too" positive coming from Huck about Romney. It just can't be.

I could be wrong, but I think Huck has already decided to strongly support Romney. Whether that includes an official endorsement doesn't matter--I acknowledge your point on his previous statement that he wouldn't do so. Anyway, I think he's slowly, step-by-step, gradually putting more comments such as this out there for his supporters to get used to, as they can handle it, in preparation for more substantive support.

Anonymous said...

yes, pro-tax, pro-illegal immigration, pro-criminal,pro-food mike huckabee will endorse romney.

huckabee has influence within the conservative base or just within the religious bigots?

Anonymous said...

I also think will support mitt, he wanted to support ANYBODY but mitt, but herman cain and newt have women problems, and the rest have no chance.

TexasConservative said...

Yes, RWN, Huckabee has been saying the same thing about Romney for about six months. The timing that Hamaca implies just isn't there.

And Huckabee said the same thing about McCain in 2008-that everyone needs to get behind the Republican nominee.

Huckabee also disagreed with the idea that he or any other GOP candidate go third party as it eventually leads to the Democrats winning ala Bill Clinton/Ross Perot/George Bush 41.

But c'mon Hamaca you state that this is further evidence of whom Huckabee is settling on.

No, it's just the same thing he said months ago. If I could pull videos out of a hat, I would give you the link. But I just don't remember where and when he said it. I just know he said it more than twice now.

hamaca said...


I don't doubt he's been saying similar things--in fact, I think I do vaguely recall at least once him talking about the dangers in going third party.

But why would he single out Romney for this comment and a few other comments complimentary of him? Why not just speak in generic GOP terms if his only intention is what you describe, i.e. rallying around whomever the nominee happens to be.

I haven't heard him specifically refer to Newt, Cain, Perry. I think he's been complimentary of Bachmann and Santorum, but not in these terms. Perhaps you've heard? I haven't been following him all that closely.

Anyhow, again, my main point is that I believe that, whether intentional or not, his referring to Romney in this sense is good news for the Romney campaign. I think it's intentional. But even if not, either way, it reinforces the notion that Mitt is a much, much better than Obama. Coming from Huck, that means something to certain demographics.

Anonymous said...

Let's review.

1. Huck played the religion card against Romney in 07-08, and made numerous underhanded comments about Romney's character.

2. After the election, Huck continued his snarky ways for at least 2 years.

3. It has been quite a number of months since Huck took a potshot at Romney.

4. Huck finally invited Romney on his show.

5. Huck has made numerous positive comments about Romney in the past 6 months, including that the tea party may need to get behind him.

Sure looks like a thaw to me, and I welcome Huck's more sensible, if not enthusiastic attitude about Mitt Romney.


Anonymous said...

Texas, I've seen your comments here and at race, and the only thing that seems to animate you is your distaste for Romney. You are squarely in the ABR crowd. I've never seen you acknowledge even one single good thing about Romney. You're even reduced to defending Perry, which I know must be hard!

I hope you find a candidate that suits you. For your sake, I wish Huck had run. I know how I would feel if I didn't have anyone to get excited about.


Anonymous said...

Hamaca, I don't know what the hullabaloo is about. I thought you were clear, and not implying anything beyond what was obvious.


Ohio JOE said...

"I wish Huck had run." Now that is a 180 degree turn. Do you wish Mr. Trump, Mrs. Palin and Mr. Christie ran as well?

Anonymous said...

I was one of the most ardent anti Huck people for a long time. I have been able to let some of that go over the last few months as Huck has made significant gestures of good will towards Romney.

We are not just using Huck, as TC suggests. Many of us who like Romney are willing to accept Huck's help because he is being gracious. Too bad TC can't be gracious too.

Anonymous said...

Hamaca I also think that you were perfectly clear and didn't at all misrepresent Huckabee. TC is so ardently anti Romney that she is twisting in contortions to try to reconcile her support of all things Huckabee, her opposition of all things Romney, and this statement by Huck.

Right Wingnut said...

I think Huck is angling for VP with comments like this, but it's no different that what he's been saying. I don't think Romney would pick him though. Too much bad blood.

Anonymous said...

DanL, I agree. While it's hard to move on with huck, he has been gracious the past few months. I don't like what he did in 08. But I do like the 'thaw' that has been taking place. I honestly don't think that would have happened if Romney had been not gracious himself.

Anonymous said...

RW, I'm not sure that a Romney/Huckabee ticket is a great idea, but I believe Romney will choose Huck as his VP if he feels it is best. People can look at such a choice in one of two ways: 1) Romney will do ANYTHING to get elected, or 2) Romney is a smart man who will work with others and forget the past.

I have been following Romney for a long time now, and I could see him choosing Huck if he thinks it's the best choice; Romney is like that.


Ohio JOE said...

"We are not just using Huck, as TC suggests." True Dan L, you and Hamaca are not using Mr. Huckabee or any other candidate (or former candidate,) but I do not think we can say this across the board with a straight face.

Anonymous said...

Romney will never have Huck as a VP unless he wants to keep answering or Huck's poor record as governor and especially his soft record on crime or the maurice clemmons thing.