Mike Huckabee Won't Run in 2012

As many predicted, Mike Huckabee announced he won't seek the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

Was it his clemency record? As I wrote here, listing his many clemency decisions:

Huckabee granted a lot of deserved pardons while in office, particularly for drug offenders serving excessive sentences. A Governor's use of clemency and pardon power is a good thing. The problem with Huckabee's exercise of the power is that several of his decisions make no sense, he refused to explain his decisions, and he injected his religion into it.

< Saturday Open Thread | Robert Gates on "60 Minutes": He Had Doubts About Osama bin Laden Raid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Fire in the belly" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 14, 2011 at 08:46:32 PM EST
    massively lacking. He's a basically lazy man at core, and he's got a cushy life spouting his opinions on Fox without having to do a whole lot of work.  It's not just his own show, he's a regular guest on most Fox News and Fox Business programs during the week, and gets an adoring reception from the various hosts.  Who'd want to give that up?

    Major Pay Cut (none / 0) (#2)
    by mmc9431 on Sat May 14, 2011 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    The problem the Republican's is that most of their potential candidate's are too rich and too greedy to take the pay cut. It's much easier and lucrative to sit on the sidelines and criticize.

    it's the money!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#3)
    by loveed on Sat May 14, 2011 at 09:22:20 PM EST
    In this economy he will keep his day job.

    Huckabuck (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Makarov on Sat May 14, 2011 at 11:05:54 PM EST
    called in rich.

    I suspect half term Palin (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sat May 14, 2011 at 11:08:56 PM EST
    will call in with the same illness . . .

    Not only is Swartzenneger (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat May 14, 2011 at 10:57:42 PM EST
    ineligible because he isn't "native born," but also, hopefully, his reducing young Mr. Nunez' sentence would bite the Governator.  

    According to the LAT (none / 0) (#13)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    Herr Ahnuld had to have the CA budget translated into German so that he could understand it better, so he really isn't much in the brains department outside his own Hollywood-based expertise.

    I always thought he was kind of unlucky, marrying the only member of the Kennedy family with no political instincts or understanding of politics whatsoever.


    Not buying that one (none / 0) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    the guy has long been notorious for micromanaging his (very successful) business dealings.  I suspect he knows perfectly well how to read a budget.

    I read it in the LA Times (none / 0) (#24)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    and you do realize doing the numbers for a movie is a lot different than the numbers for a state with a population of 30 million people.

    Maria wised up about him, why haven't you?


    That's funny coming from you. (none / 0) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    Of course, you read it in the LAT, so it must be true, right?

    I wouldn't be surprised if he asked to have a budget document translated into comprehensible language, but it ain't because he's too stoopid to understand the figures.

    And before you embarrass yourself further, you might want to look up Schwarzenegger's business career, which made him a millionaire long before he got into acting. (Hint: It had nothing to do with movie box office or bodybuilding contest ticket sales.)


    Uh, The LAT has a reputation (none / 0) (#31)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    and won 2 Pulitzer prizes this year for their coverage of the corruption in the city government of Bell.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he asked to have a budget document translated into comprehensible language, but it ain't because he's too stoopid to understand the figures.

    Nope the article was quite specific that he had the budget translated into German.

    And before you embarrass yourself further, you might want to look up Schwarzenegger's business career, which made him a millionaire long before he got into acting. (Hint: It had nothing to do with movie box office or bodybuilding contest ticket sales.)

    Ask any Californian how well Arnold has done in the governorship, gryfalcon, and again, you confuse success in business with ability in politics.

    Again, Maria figured it out, I don't know why you can't.

    You might want to stop before you embarrass yourself further.


    There's also that lil' issue about (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sat May 14, 2011 at 11:07:26 PM EST
    his son and the stray dog . . .

    Mittens has a dog problem also . . .

    I have never been able to grasp (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 15, 2011 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    Getting your child completely off the hook for torturing and killing a dog, and when he was a camp counselor, and when smaller children are under their influence and care.  There are so many "issues" surrounding what went down over this event.  But as a parent, I would have been concerned about that violence and potential killer risk that my child was displaying.

    What happened re boy and dog? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat May 14, 2011 at 11:53:35 PM EST
    A lil' overview . . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sun May 15, 2011 at 12:08:52 AM EST
    Who ARE these people? (none / 0) (#10)
    by sj on Sun May 15, 2011 at 12:43:39 AM EST
    Cripes.  He has more than a dog problem.  The guy -- apparently the family -- has no regard for other living creatures at all.  That twenty year spread between the [known] dog incidents shows just what he taught his family.

    Let's just say this . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun May 15, 2011 at 01:12:33 AM EST
    my Republican parents taught me (the family) much differently in regards to living creatures (including humans) . . . . I can credit my user name to their upbringing. Funny thing is, in the 2008 primaries, Huck didn't stand a chance with them before the dog issue came up. My Dad has since passed on, but I think the R's are going to have to really offer something up before intelligent (Mom) R's vote for them.

    Huck (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun May 15, 2011 at 10:42:08 AM EST
    Had some financial issues and may just have needed or wanted the money.  Running only makes sense if this will be your last shot (newt) or you are rich (mitt).

    Obama has a challenge but is still the clear favorite. 2016 however will be wide open.  That is when I think we'll see palin and huck return.  That's the smart play I think.

    The other model is to use this to audition for VP. Which is what Pawlenty is doing I think.

    If Palin (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 15, 2011 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    doesn't run this year which I don't think she is, she's not going to run in '16 with a much more crowded field like Rubio and Christie.

    I think the media (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Makarov on Sun May 15, 2011 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    seems to like Christie a lot more than residents of New Jersey.


    38% of NJ adults approve of the job Christie is doing, 56% disapprove

    For the LOL effect:

    Among lower-income voters, Christie is Minus 32. Among upper income voters Christie is Minus 5.

    When you lose the rich, it's pretty safe to say you've lost everyone.


    Newt is also now rich and (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    this would be Romney's last shot, but probably not Newt's.

    (You cannot run repeatedly for president after getting trounced if your name is Romney.)


    No (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2011 at 05:34:33 AM EST
    it's Newt's last shot too. He's not going to be any more appealing in 2016 than he is now. In 2016 there are a lot of "fresh faces" who have been waiting in the wings so I think this is Newt's last and only shot.

    No wonder they aren't happy (none / 0) (#17)
    by mmc9431 on Sun May 15, 2011 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    They're going to have to dig into their pool of governors. (Republican like that anyway)

    None of the candidates to date will make it to the final cut. I just can't imagine the business community trusting in Trump. Palin has become a caricature of herself at this point. Gingrich is only fooling himself and Romney would be a really tough sell for the tea baggers and the Evangelicals.

    Pawlenty, Daniels and Huntsman? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 15, 2011 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    Democrats will also use their pool of Governors (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 15, 2011 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    in 2016. Shumlin, Cuomo, O'Malley, Hickenlooper... We will have a better pool to pick from.

    Not Cuomo (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 15, 2011 at 02:58:05 PM EST
    don't know about the others but not Cuomo.

    Cuomo (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 15, 2011 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    If he can maintain his popularity during his tenure as Gov of NY, he will be a front runner in 2016. He can also raise a lot of money.

    Cuomo is turning out to be (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by shoephone on Sun May 15, 2011 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    quite the Republican governor. If he continues in his current vein, I don't think he stands a chance of getting labor support for a 2016 presidential run.

    I think Cuomo believes (none / 0) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 15, 2011 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    he's "Nixon opening China."

    He's our Christie, without the extra baggage. (pun intended)


    Shumlin? (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 15, 2011 at 05:49:01 PM EST
    You think?  Who says that?

    I'm a Vermonter and like the guy very much, but I don't know that the Dems. would be interested in another plain-spoken center-left Vermont governor.


    Yes, Shumlin (none / 0) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 15, 2011 at 10:13:52 PM EST
    I will be interested in him. I am hoping he will run in 2016.
    gyrfalcon, keep the faith :-). There was a time not so long ago when Democrats used to think that only a Southern Democrat could get elected President. I can remember Edwards making this point repeatedly during the 2004 primaries. Now we know that Democrats from reliably blue states can get elected to the highest political office in the land. It is entirely possible that in 2016, nominating a plain-spoken center left governor from Vermont may be the most natural thing for Democrats to do.

    Utter and total lack (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 16, 2011 at 08:30:36 AM EST
    of any foreign policy experience, or as far as I can tell, interest would be a handicap, not that that ever stopped the Tim Pawlentys of the world.

    He's a good guy, though, one of the least pol-like pols in demeanor and speech.  I'm not fond of the center portion of his center-left orientation, but his Bill Clinton-like ability to talk about issues and explain his point of view on them like a normal human being is very confidence-inspiring-- though God knows he lacks BC's mesmerizing charisma.

    Don't know how much of that would survive a national campaign, though.  I knew Michael Dukakis back when he was like that, but he became almost unrecognizable when he ran for president.


    The (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 15, 2011 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    evangelicals will vote for Romney. I saw a recent poll where Romney was doing quite well with GOP primary voters in SC.

    The tea baggers will vote for anyone with an R by their name because they are essentially voting against Obama.


    To me, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Makarov on Sun May 15, 2011 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    it's been more a question of if someone capable of winning a general election can win the Republican nomination.

    I'm not sure Romney will be embraced by the religious right. That said, a large field works in his favor, I think. The longer people who have no chance of winning the nomination stay in there (Bachmann, Paul, Cain, etc.), the harder it is for the Pawlenty's to raise $.


    It's (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 15, 2011 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    not a matter of whether they'll embrace him or not. It's a matter of whether they will vote for him and they will vote for him. The thing that is going to play a factor in '12 like it did in '10 is the enthusiasm factor. Nobody is polling on that right now outside of rasmussen and even if they were, I don't know how relevant it would be since we're 18 months out from the election.

    Who you or I might think could win a general election might not prove to be true. Honestly, the country voted for a trust fund baby with a boulder on his shoulder who lied us into a war. At this point I'm not willing to take any bets on who could win in '12. This could be a repeat of '72 with Obama getting a rout because the GOP puts up such a bad candidate or a repeat of '76 where it's a squeaker and the base of the incumbent basically sat the election out. Right now it looks to be a squeaker.


    lots of the Dem base is unhappy with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by The Addams Family on Sun May 15, 2011 at 07:07:05 PM EST
    but most Dems will vote for him

    the memory of the Bush-Cheney crime wave is too recent & too vivid

    granted, Obama has aided, abetted & perpetuated some of the Bush-Cheney crime wave's worst effects

    but i honestly don't see too many Dems sitting out 2012, at least not after the primaries


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 15, 2011 at 07:17:44 PM EST
    had a "near death" experience in barely beating McCain. If he hadn't gotten the push over the top from the Bush economic implosion we'd be talking about the chances for the Maverick's second term.

    And, we don't need "too many Dems sitting out 2012,".... just a few.


    wow (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    define "barely"

    Because from my memory he won by a lot.  And I know the cw. around here is that he would've lost without the economy, but frankly you guys are just making that up, there's no way of knowing for sure, and McCain was a gawd-awful candidate all on his own.  The economy crashing didn't help McCain, but McCain didn't help McCain either.

    Sure, he might have been leading in a poll or two at some point in '08, but John Kerry did too and didn't need any kind of economic implosion to lose anyway.


    Not sure about "making it up" (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon May 16, 2011 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    McCain was leading Obama into the middle of September until Lehman Brothers imploded - that was after the Greek temple columns and complete adoration at the Denver convention.

    funny (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    because i just googled mccain obama poll september 2008 and found 3 headlines "obama mccain tied" "obama leads 48 - 44" and one fox news poll that has mccain ahead 45-42.  And all those polls were taken before the collapse (although some published right after).

    So yea, he might have had a slight lead in a poll or two, and lost in a few polls.  But he certainly wasn't walking into the white house.


    I didn't say (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon May 16, 2011 at 02:54:33 PM EST
    He was ahead by a ton, but Lehman Bros collapsed in September,a nd many of the major polls (not just FOX) had McCain ahead by up to 4 points.  Had the economy not imploded, it's hard to say what would have happened.  I think Obama would have won, but your comments seem to indicate that you think that Obama was winning from the convention on, and that just isn't true.

    what (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    in my comments indicate that?

    I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.


    You know, (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:16:26 PM EST
     this reminds me of a football (or basketball) game where one team goes into the game as the overwhelming favorite. But somehow, the underdog, right up to the end of the game, is tied, or up/down slightly. Then, on the final play of the game, the ref/umpire makes a controversial call leading to the favorite losing the game.

    Invariably, after the game, all you hear from the losers was how the "lousy" official "lost" the game for them.

    Well, my question is, "why, as the tremendously better team, did you allow it to get to the point that a lousey call determined the outcome of the game?" If you had been ahead by 20 points, like you should have been, a "lousey" call wouldn't have made any difference.

    My point was that  McCain was so incredibly inferior in so many ways, why was the election results even a question? A couple of points, one way or the other in some polls had no bearing on the point of my comment.

    p.s. I've found a little Windex does wonders for clearing up the clairvoyant powers of our crystal balls:)  


    um (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    at the end of the day, the election results weren't really in question.

    That was kind of my point.  In basketball terms, this was at least a 10-20 point win.  More like "gee they almost made it an interesting game in the third quarter but lost it after all like we all expected them too". You would've needed a whole lot of Dems to stay home to change that.


    The key phrase, (3.50 / 2) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    "at the end of the day"

    but, leading up to  ".... the end of the day," you gotta admit there were a few "uh, oh" moments.

    More importantly, why are we splitting hairs?

    Shake hands, call it a tie,  and live to fight another day, o.k?....eek.


    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    I was never scared.  Never! I say.

    How (none / 0) (#53)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 16, 2011 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    is the time slice before a single debate was held, "right up to the end of the game"?

    IIRC (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2011 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Obama and McCain were pretty much tied until the financial implosion.

    that's more or less what I remember (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    Obama started out ahead, McCain got a brief convention bounce, and then Obama caught up and it was basically tied by the time the financial implosion happened, at which point it was game over.

    But Obama was always ahead on the "enthusiasm" factor, until Palin entered the race, but then let's also not forget the Sarah Palin/Katie Couric/SNL takedown that happened after Lehman brothers as well.

    I guess I don't relly see the difference between "projecting" and "making stuff up".  But I can be nice and revise my previous comment to "projecting" if you want.


    For most of the campaign, (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Mon May 16, 2011 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    except for that 10-14 day period around the time of the early Sept GOP convention, Obama had the lead, according to CNN's Poll of the Polls weekly tracking.

    The GOP post-convention, post-Palin bump wore off just before the economic collapse -- prior to the latter event, polls showed O's #s going up slightly and McC's slightly down as people probably began to wake up to the prospect of Palin only a heartbeat away from a rather old guy.

    The collapse, and McCain's curious panicky decision to suspend his candidacy -- trend continues in the polls in favor of O, and against McC.

    Then the first debate and subsequent debates -- O never loses ground, but instead gains a bit.

    Iow, even w/o an econ crisis, McC was going to have the post-convention bounce disappear, then was going to have to face the superior Obama in the 3 debates (plus hapless Sarah against Joe).  The polling overall, since the beginning of the g.e. in early summer, until Nov, suggests O winning the race absent the financial meltdown.  Change Year, and O was a solid candidate, and looked better than cranky McCain in the debates.


    as for Mittens (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Mon May 16, 2011 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    I think healthcare will be what crushes him in the primary.

    He is really being taken to pieces for that on the right.

    I don't see how the base can mentally switch from Death Panels to Romneycare.

    I agree that mormonism will be a non(ish) issue.


    People (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 16, 2011 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    keep predicting  that but yet he leads in places he shouldn't be leading like SC. Maybe many voters are willing to overlook Romneycare because they realize that the other candidates are just unelectable?

    And now it's come out that Newt supported mandates too so I don't know how much of an issue that's going to be. I mean everybody who supported Bob Dole in '96 basically supported the ACA.