Blogger’s lament: let’s say you have a post in progress about a Republican carving out a promising niche in a crowded presidential field. He’s talking about highly salient issues for non-wealthy Americans, in a way that will distinguish him from most of his rivals. Not only do those policies relate to the well-being of many voters, they also allow the candidate to position himself against “elite” GOP strategists and other establishment figures hated by the party’s conservative base.

Then the guy does the stupidest thing you could imagine.

With one Facebook status update on Friday, Mike Huckabee may have wiped out any chance of broadening his appeal through the smart decision to focus his early campaign rhetoric on Social Security and trade.

Huckabee won the 2008 Iowa caucuses as the leading social conservative candidate in the field. That campaign may be most remembered for the Christmas-themed television commercial with the “floating cross” in the background. But even then, economic issues were an important part of the former Arkansas governor’s appeal to Iowa Republicans. Huckabee’s support for the so-called “fair tax” (eliminating the IRS and replacing federal income taxes with a high sales tax) was a big factor in his strong showing in the August 2007 Ames straw poll.

The “fair tax” is still part of Huckabee’s domestic policy agenda, but other issues took center stage when he made his second presidential campaign official earlier this month.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Maggie Haberman reported for the New York Times on May 6,

Mike Huckabee drew roaring cheers from supporters on Tuesday as the latest entrant in a sprawling field of Republican presidential candidates by declaring himself the guardian of so-called entitlement programs, warning, “Let them end their own congressional pensions, not your Social Security!”

But his pledge to fend off any tinkering with the popular Social Security and Medicare programs put him at odds with his Republican opponents, exposing growing fault lines in the party over an issue that has long been considered a political third rail. […]

[Huckabee’s] pledges run up against the emerging orthodoxy of the party’s elite, many of whom have lined up behind the entitlement overhaul priorities of Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has also been out front on the issue, calling for gradually raising the Social Security retirement age and for means-tested benefits.

And the issue could expose a structural gulf within the Republican Party. On one side are the party’s wealthy donors, whose views on reducing entitlements are helping shape the positions taken by establishment candidates, and on the other are the less affluent voters whose support candidates will ultimately need in a crowded field.

What side Huckabee’s on came through loud and clear in his May 5 interview with Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace.

[Deace] Recently you discussed entitlement reform, and your belief these programs need to be maintained as a matter of trust between government and the people. Yet, we are currently in a $128 trillion cash-flow deficit to maintain the size of our government in the next couple of decades, and these programs are by far the biggest expense. And that doesn’t even count the $18 trillion we’re currently in debt at the moment. Two years ago you backed Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform. What’s changed since then?

[Huckabee] Social Security and Medicare are not voluntary programs, but are based on involuntary confiscation of every paycheck with the promise that there will be benefits in 50 years when one retires. The government does enough lying and stealing, and if for 50 years the government takes money from us with a promise to return it and fails to return the money or keep the promise, the individual shouldn’t be played for a chump. I never embraced the details of Ryan’s plan. I applauded him for putting something on the table. It’s clear that without growth in the economy or a different means of funding and protecting the contributions, the programs would be jeopardized in the future. That is not the fault of the American worker, but the government. Making the problem worse is adding a disastrous program like Obamacare, and robbing $700 billion from Medicare to help pay for it. Robbing people of the benefits they have contributed to is not a solution-it’s an escape from one. Bringing reforms is something we can all be for-but simply breaking the promises after years of promises is not something Republicans should embrace.

That frame may be the best political “fractured fairy tale” in recent memory.

For progressives, Social Security is the ultimate big government success story, protecting generations of hard-working Americans from ending their lives in poverty. Huckabee’s twist on the narrative will appeal to many blue-collar Republicans, who don’t like the concept of government but understand how much they or their loved ones rely on Social Security income. In Huckabee’s telling, we need to protect Social Security, not because it’s a great federal program, but because doing so will stop the “lying and stealing” government from shafting the “American worker” after decades of “confiscating” money from paychecks.

While other GOP candidates call for entitlement reform to put the country’s fiscal house in order, Huckabee voices the moral imperative to keep our promises to seniors.

During his first Iowa visit as an official presidential candidate this month, Huckabee also defended the importance of Social Security’s disability payments. At that press availability, he ignored a reporter’s questions about whether he would attend a same-sex wedding. Clearly he doesn’t plan to let himself be pigeon-holed as obsessed with “God, guns, and gays.”

Deace has a large conservative listening audience and was an important ally for Huckabee during the 2007 Iowa caucus campaign. (He hasn’t selected a candidate yet this year but seems to be leaning toward Ted Cruz.) He believes Huckabee was foolish to spend part of his presidential announcement speech defending unaffordable “welfare state entitlements.” In Deace’s view, “GOP primary voters understand the greatest threat to their own liberty is their own government.” I strongly disagree. Huckabee doesn’t need a majority of primary voters at this point–he just needs to consolidate enough support to make him a leading conservative on the top tier of candidates. Social Security income is as important to working-class Republicans as it is to their Democratic counterparts.

The Club for Growth, a big-spending voice for conservative economic orthodoxy, has long loathed Huckabee and launched a tv ad attacking him in Iowa and South Carolina immediately following his presidential campaign debut. Notably, the “Why do conservatives oppose Mike Huckabee?” spot focuses on Huckabee’s past support for tax increases and doesn’t take on the governor’s comments about Social Security. My hunch is that the group’s strategists understand Huckabee’s stance on entitlements could be a winner with voters. David Weigel sees the “strangely Beltway-focused” new commercial as less effective than the Club for Growth’s advertising against Huckabee during the 2007 campaign. I tend to agree, though anything that draws voters’ attention toward taxes and away from Social Security could hurt Huckabee.

TRADE

The other smart move for Huckabee this month was highlighting trade policy during his rollout. We’ve known at least since Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign that a candidate can strike a chord with some conservative-leaning voters by connecting trade agreements with American job losses. Huckabee hit that theme hard on the first day of his new campaign. Adam B. Lerner quoted the key parts of Huckabee’s case against giving President Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement:

“When there’s cronies involved and getting a special deal and when other countries are cheating and Americans lose jobs,” Huckabee said, “I’d like to think the U.S. government would stand up for the U.S. workers rather than let them take it in the backside and somehow just have to tough it out.” […]

“Fast-track means that nobody’s paying attention. The last time we really fast-tracked something was Obamacare,” said Huckabee. “Why do we ever want to again believe that the government fast-tracking something without thoroughly understanding the implications is the best way to go?”

When Kasie Hunt of NBC News suggested that Huckabee’s stance on trade “puts you to the left of Hillary Clinton,” the governor replied,

“You know, I don’t care where it puts me on the horizontal scale,” said Huckabee. “I think about it on a vertical basis. If we do another trade deal that drives American wages lower, and that isn’t monitored, and isn’t secured to be completely fair in how it’s administered, then that’s not free trade. Free trade is about trade going both ways fairly, accurately.”

The 2012 Iowa GOP caucuses winner Rick Santorum has been warning Republican audiences for years that GOP candidates should acknowledge the needs of Americans who are not thriving economically. Huckabee appears to have taken this advice to heart. While Santorum makes a “meta” case for Republicans speaking to working-class concerns, Huckabee does him one better by talking to those very voters (instead of talking about talking to them).

In this May 12 commentary, Huckabee fleshed out his argument against giving Obama trade promotion authority. Show me one thing in this excerpt that any right-minded conservative could disagree with:

We don’t create good jobs for Americans by entering into unbalanced trade deals that forgo congressional scrutiny and ignore the law only to import low-wage labor, undercut American workers, and drive wages lower than the Dead Sea.

Republicans must NEVER again give Obama more power. Republicans must NEVER again fail to hold Obama accountable. As President I’ll do something this President has NEVER done – put American workers first.

The U.S. has lost five million manufacturing jobs in the last 15 years. China cheats, foreign countries break the rules, and Washington falls asleep at the wheel.

The Obama administration has fooled and failed the American people for far too long. I cannot support giving this administration trade promotion authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Given the Obama administration’s track record on executive overreach, immigration, gun control, and Iranian nuclear talks, they simply cannot be trusted to negotiate anything on behalf of the American people. Personally, I wouldn’t trust this administration to negotiate a deal on a secondhand Subaru – let alone a multi-trillion dollar trade deal. It’s time we get trade deals right, and that starts by having a clear, transparent discussion on the front end. The secrecy of this deal chillingly reminds us of the secrecy of Obamacare. I just know we’ll hear Nancy Pelosi say, “We’ll know what’s in the trade deal after we’ve signed the trade deal.”

Conservative opinion leader Deace may not be a fan of Huckabee’s Social Security promises, but even he believes the former governor is on the right wavelength about trade policy. From a Deace Facebook status update on May 11:

I definitely don’t agree with [Ted Cruz’s] support for “fast track” giving Obama trade authority. The absolute last thing we should be doing is granting Obama any more power on any level, and I would think a man who has released four, fully-documented reports on Obama’s lawlessness wouldn’t need someone to tell him that. This article in Conservative Review does a good job of explaining it.

Not to mention when have these trade deals been a good deal for the American worker? They seem to do little except exporting American jobs out of the country, while we import more illegal aliens (NAFTA, anyone?).

Here’s the link to that Conservative Review post by Daniel Horowitz: “The Big Questions about Trade Promotion Authority.”

Huckabee’s positions on Social Security and trade could help him solve the biggest problem most of the GOP presidential candidates will face this year: how do you distinguish yourself in a field of a dozen or more contenders, when everyone agrees on big issues like Obamacare and abortion? Economic populism strikes me as an excellent niche for a candidate seeking to make it to the short list of Republicans competing in the later caucuses and primaries.

Unfortunately for Huckabee, last week he distinguished himself from the rest of the presidential field in the worst way possible.

A CAMPAIGN-KILLING BLUNDER?

I was stunned to read the May 22 Facebook update expressing Huckabee’s “support for the Duggar family.” Excerpt:

Josh’s actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, ‘inexcusable,’ but that doesn’t mean ‘unforgivable.’ He and his family dealt with it and were honest and open about it with the victims and the authorities. No purpose whatsoever is served by those who are now trying to discredit Josh or his family by sensationalizing the story. Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things. The reason that the law protects disclosure of many actions on the part of a minor is that the society has traditionally understood something that today’s blood-thirsty media does not understand-that being a minor means that one’s judgement is not mature. No one needs to defend Josh’s actions as a teenager, but the fact that he confessed his sins to those he harmed, sought help, and has gone forward to live a responsible and circumspect life as an adult is testament to his family’s authenticity and humility. Those who have enjoyed revealing this long ago sins in order to discredit the Duggar family have actually revealed their own insensitive bloodthirst, for there was no consideration of the fact that the victims wanted this to be left in the past and ultimately a judge had the information on file destroyed-not to protect Josh, but the innocent victims.

It takes talent to pack so many flawed assumptions into a paragraph.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar weren’t “honest and open” about the alleged abuse with the authorities or the victims. Neither was their son. Who knows how many other molestations occurred in the family home during the year or more that the father didn’t report the alleged abuse. Neither Josh Duggar nor his victims received any real therapy. The Duggars didn’t level with the police about the treatment (or lack thereof) that they sought for their son.

If a teen stranger had repeatedly broken into the Duggar home to molest young girls, I doubt Huckabee would be so forgiving about poor judgment shown by a minor.

Moreover, a large age gap between the participants is a big red flag when it comes to children’s sexual exploration. Two 5-year-olds playing doctor or a 14-year-old boy feeling up his girlfriend while they make out consensually are within the normal range of behavior. A teenager allegedly fondling the breasts and genitals of sleeping girls as young as five years old is not normal or merely “immature.” That kind of predatory behavior warrants intervention by trained professionals and removing the offender from having access to the victims.

Huckabee expresses confidence that Josh Duggar “has gone forward to live a responsible and circumspect life as an adult,” but we have no idea what goes in in the man’s home or whether other alleged victims will come forward.

How presumptuous for Huckabee to speak on behalf of victims who “wanted this to be left in the past.”

A judge appointed by Huckabee ordered police to destroy Josh Duggar’s police report, but this story will live on. An enormous number of women and men have survived childhood sexual abuse. If you’re not one of them, several of your friends or relatives probably are. Nearly everyone knows about the Duggar family, whether or not they have watched the now-canceled reality tv show.

Some of the comments bashing Huckabee’s Facebook post about the Duggars have attracted thousands of “likes.”

All through the holiday weekend, Huckabee tried to change the subject on his Facebook page, but nearly every new thread was hijacked with a wave of comments about defending the Duggars.

For instance, in this May 23 Facebook post, Huckabee linked to his campaign website, commenting,

I support free, fair trade, but I’m sick of America’s workers getting punched in the gut. Read why I oppose trade promotion authority for President Obama.

At this writing, the top comments on the thread below are all about the Duggar story. For example,

I was on the fence about you in dealing with my vote but I’m sorry, after you came out for the Duggar boy you lost my vote. I hope one day you look back and see what that choice did to you.

Or,

If your immediate reaction to child molestation allegations is to rush to the defense of the molester, I’m not sure you should be asking the American public to trust your decision making skills.

Also this weekend, Huckabee posted a link to a Q&A he did with Iowa blogger Shane Vander Hart last Tuesday. At this writing, all of the top comments on that thread are about Huckabee “supporting the child molester” and so on.

Ditto for a blatant pander disguised as crowd-sourcing from May 23:

I need your feedback: I have pledged, as President, to end the national disgrace of failing to properly care for our veterans.

Do you agree this should be a top priority of my Administration?

Top comments in the thread below (each attracting hundreds of “likes” at this writing) include:

“I have pledged, as President” !!?? Are you out of your tiny mind? You will NEVER be president you enabler of child molesters. […]

I have no desire to listen to anything you have to say after standing up for a sexual predator. […]

Dismayed and appalled at your stance on Josh Duggar, Your defense was uncalled for. Do I believe Josh is forgiven? If he honestly confessed it to the Lord you bet he is. Is he free of predatory behavior? No one but Josh and his possible victims know for sure. He’d never babysit any child I loved, that is for sure.

I not only want the Duggars to be honest, I want my fellow Christians and conservatives to be honest as well. You were all over yourself, defending Josh’s “mistake.” (how offensive of the family to dismiss it as such!) If one of Rosie O’Donnell’s sons molested her daughters, you and many other conservatives would be having a come-apart in your denouncing of him and his upbringing.

I spent a couple of decades dealing with children and teens who suffered such “mistakes” at the hands of people they loved. It is NOT a mistake. It is a life changing act of physical and emotional violence, not a conspiracy theory against conservatives.

Huckabee’s staff may yet delete those negative comments, but the damage has been done. Most eyes land on fresh Facebook threads, not posts that are several days old.

Pat Rynard summed up the politics of this episode well at Iowa Starting Line:

Here’s a tip: if you’re running for president, don’t strongly publicly defend a child molester. Mike Huckabee didn’t seem to ever get that memo. […] Huckabee has shown the voters he values his friendships with reality TV stars more than defending child molestation victims.

Although voters and political reporters can have short attention spans, I have trouble seeing Huckabee get a lot of traction after this debacle.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S.: Iowa dark money king Nick Ryan hasn’t commented on Huckabee’s defense of the Duggar family. In fact, Ryan’s Twitter feed has been fairly quiet this past week. I wonder whether he is regretting his decision to sign up early to lead the pro-Huckabee super-PAC. I sure wouldn’t want to make those fundraising calls.