Huckabee: The Coalition Splitter

Responding to my earlier post on the GOP coalition, Daniel Larison writes:

If Huckabee’s Cato grade was a D, Romney’s was a C, yet we are gamely told by those who endorse Romney that he is much better as an economic conservative than Huckabee, when the truth is that, by the high standards of Cato and CfG, both are woefully lacking.  The difference is that Romney is a corporate Republican and will be quite glad to work in the interests of corporations, while Huckabee manifestly is not.  That makes Romney more reliable, even if it does not make him any more conservative on economics and fiscal policy (and could conceivably make him less so if he pushes something akin to the Medicare Part D boondoggle on the country).

I don’t want to speak too much for other organizations, but here at FreedomWorks, we’ve been fairly clear in our disappointment with some of Romney’s policies, especially his Massachusetts health care plan.  I think a  Romney nomination would signal a serious amount of give in the GOP on on health care in specific and domestic spending programs in general — something that worries me quite a bit.

But the larger point to be made is that, at the bare minimum, no other candidate is explicitly running as a coalition splitter, and no other candidate with serious potential to get the nomination is so explicitly and blatantly writing off a wing of the party. Other candidates have contrary positions on a number of issues, but they’ve all signaled a willingness not to press those issues against any segment of the party’s base.  Huckabee, however, is rallying around his Wall Street/Main Street dichotomy, hoping to turn one faction against the other — something that’s very dangerous for conservatives.