Shuster Says: Huckabee Next President

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.

See Update at foot: Could it be Jeb?

Bona fide prediction, or devious three-dimensional-chess-move-cum- double-bank-shot-jujitsu gambit designed to sow chaos in Republican ranks? Hard to say, but one thing is undeniable: MSNBC correspondent David Shuster has predicted that Mike Huckabee will be the next President of the United States.

The surprising prognosis came at the end of an interesting pundits roundtable [presumably recorded over the weekend] that took the place of Morning Joe's regular live programming this Christmas Eve morning. Wrapping things up, host Joe Scarborough went around the horn, soliciting predictions from his guests.

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

DAVID SHUSTER: I'm gonna say that John Edwards is gonna win out in Iowa, but Hillary Clinton is going to pick up some steam afterwards and get the nomination. I think Mike Huckabee wins Iowa pretty cleanly and goes on to get the Republican nomination. Here's my big prediction, though: if it is Hillary Clinton [which Shuster predicted] against Mike Huckabee, Mike Huckabee will the the next President of the United States.

While Shuster might just have been looking to make mischief, there's something in his background that helps explain his regard for Huckabee's political skills. From 1994 - 1996, Shuster was a political reporter for ABC-affiliate KATV in Little Rock, and thus had a prime perch from which to view Huckabee in action. In the course of his reporting during this electoral season Shuster has often drawn on that experience to extol Huck's political talent. This morning, for example, Shuster related an anecdote from 14 years ago, when Huckabee was Lt. Governor and Governor Jim Guy Tucker got convicted in a Whitewater-related trial but was refusing to resign from office.

SHUSTER: I witnessed Mike Huckabee go into the newsroom of the station where I was working. He looked into a camera and spoke for 10 minutes, no teleprompter, and gave one of the most dazzling political speeches I've ever seen in which he said "Jim Guy Tucker, you have until noon tomorrow to resign, or we're going to start impeachment proceedings." I mean, this guy had those skills 14 years ago and he's been able to grow ever since.

So struck is Shuster by Huck's skills that he approvingly cited someone who had said "if you consider Ronald Reagan to be the Great Communicator, then Mike Huckabee is the Greatest Communicator."

While none of the other panelists seconded Shuster's pick of Huck as the next prez, interestingly all who did make a specific prediction saw him getting the GOP nomination.

Pat Buchanan saw Huck as even money to get the Republican nod, with Mitt at 3-2 and McCain at six or seven-to-one. His dark horse: "if you've got two extra bucks, Joe, put 'em on Ron Paul."

Mika Brzezinksi exclaimed "I agree; I second that" to Shuster's prediction of Huck as winner of the nomination, if not the general. Mika fleshed out her thinking a bit later.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I just think at this point Mike Huckabee knows what he's doing. The religion thing that he's taken care of here; he's strangling Mitt Romney, he's a break from President Bush and he's also the anti-Giuliani.

Mika declined to predict the Dem nomination winner, presumably wanting to stay above the fray because her father and one brother are advising Obama.

Scarborough himself picked Obama and Huck to win their respective party's nominations, with the former Arkansas governor ultimately becoming the VP candidate on the GOP ticket.

The most intriguing possibility came from NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd: "on the Republican side, I think there's a 5% chance that the Republican nominee is not in the race. I think it's that messed up. Obviously that's a crazy thing to say, but that's how uncertain this field is. I don't think the establishment part of the party is ready to rally around Huckabee. I just don't."

Todd didn't offer any inkling as to who that 1-in-20 candidate might be. But whereas not long ago the conventional wisdom was that Iraq would doom the GOP, wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if the Republican champion turned out to be . . . General David Petraeus?

UPDATE | 12-24 1:30 p.m. In subsequent correspondence with this NewsBuster, Todd suggested that Jeb Bush might just be that 1-in-20 shot for the Republicans while describing Petraeus as a "fascinating thought."

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well if Shuster says

Well if Shuster says it...it won't happen. Is it just me but if Huck wins it will more Republicans go third party and then whoever wins from the Dems take the white house.

 

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

And here's your 3rd Party Candidate

Here we go....Ron Paul has continuously stated he wouldn't go third party....until now.....he says he hasn't ruled it out.

Charming.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Ron Paul/Ross Perot

R.P.=R.P.=R.I.P. for the Republicans again! When will they ever learn?

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

P.S. David Shuster is an immature half-wit.

Run RON Run

If Guiliani wins the nom. Ron would be the only one against abortion.

Taking your ball and going home

Translation: "WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!  You better be against abortion or I'M GOING HOME!!!"

There's simply not enough reason to convince me to vote for a reactionary.

(Not a Rudy supporter...however, I should note that if he does in fact appoint justices of the caliber of what Bush has selected, and those justices eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, there will be Rudy statues built all over red-state America.) 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

How many of us doubted him?

It is great when the self appointed saviors decide that when they cant get the support they, need they will refuse to offer support for those who can. Cry babies get spanked around here. I was sure he had 3rd party written all over him when he refused to offer his support for the nominee. His self importance is only surpassed by his ridiculously defensive supporters.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Agreed

And when Hillary gets elected, abortions will be banned in America. Riiiight. By far, the biggest problem the Republicans have is their own egos. They eat their own to satisfy themselves. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Abortions will be one of

Abortions will be one of the least problems this country will have if Hil gets elected....actually make that any Democrat.

 

Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns

}}---> Russert

I saw the Russert interview and he really did take Paul to task on this issue. 

I ♣ My Seal

I'll be so glad when this

I'll be so glad when this election is over so Ron Paul, and all of the misfits, KKK members, truthers, and Alex Jones wannabes that support him will go away!

Lol, are you

Lol, are you serious????

 Ron Paul has continuosly stated he has NO INTENTIONS of running third party. On Meet the Press, he confirmed he had NO INTENTIONS of running third party. Somehow this is a topic? Lol.  He has never given an absolute no on the topic. The American Stinker has produced yet another pile of stink. Why would a candidate with so much cash on hand stop running to win? It would be ignorant to be half heartedly going after the Rep nomination. He's going after it 100%. Which means he has no time to INTEND to run third party.

The American Stinker pulled that article from their rear.

Paul refused to close the door, xfast

"No intentions" are weasle-words.

I saw the interview.  When asked several times, he REFUSED to say he would not run as a third party candidate. 

His lame excuse was that he was against giving 100% guarantees.  

Russert was trying to nail

Russert was trying to nail him down as 100% refusing to run 3rd party. Ron Paul is not looking at running third party. He is campaigning in the Republican party because he knows the way the game is played that 3rd party runs doesn't make sense being that they are shunned from the general election debates.

Why would he be stupid enough to make it sound like he has any interest in running 3rd party when he doesn't? He has a lot of money and a lot of support though, so he is wise to not give a 100% so all the pundits can play "gotcha" with him if that did come about.

 Its not weasling. Its staying focused on the task at hand which is running in the Republican primaries. If he answered maybe every time he was asked, what good would that do? It would show he wasn't sure about running in the Republican race. Not a smart move for someone trying to win.

This was nothing more than smear artist Russert trying to make a big deal out of NOTHING.  

If he were honest...

Paul would have made it 100% clear that he has no intention of going 3rd party. This alone tells me he's at least considered the possibility. If he has no intentions of going 3rd party, why not come out and say "no, I will not"?

That's what an honest person would do! 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

xfast, you're playing with weasel-words just like Paul

"Ron Paul is not looking at running third party."

Weasel-words, xfast.   Even if, as of this moment, he's not "looking at running third party" he has deliberately left the door cracked open.   Anyone who isn't blinded by loyalty to him can see that.

If you were to ask the other candidates that question, you know as well as I that their answer would be "no...100% no."  Why should Paul be any different?

And what is this line from you?  

"...he is wise to not give a 100% so all the pundits can play "gotcha" with him if that did come about."   In spite of your denials, you're admitting that you see the possibility of (and are open to) him running as a third party candidate.

This is laughable. What is

This is laughable. What is the problem with leaving a door open?

And of course none of the other candidates would consider saying anything other than no. They are fully in line with the current Republican party. Ron Paul doesn't like the way the party has gone and would like to get elected to change it. Should the door be shut in his face, there would be nothing wrong with him going back to an independent status, although I doubt he would.

As for my line:

Why was it such a big deal for Russert to try and get an absolute no? This topic has already been beat to death before the Press the Meat interview. Russert just pressed the issue trying to get a firm no, so should RP actually go for an independent run, it would be a new talking point. RP is running for the Rep nomination, nothing else right now. Should he bomb all the way through Feb 5th, there is still time to get in as a 3rd party candidate and if the donations and voter support did not come to a halt, that would possibly be enough motivation to do so. He realizes this which is why he won't close the door. But doing poorly through Feb 5 would only mean he still has the option open for consideration. He doesn't want to consider it at all until then, and I don't blame him.

I have never denied that there is a chance he would run 3rd party, although I think the chance is very low, nor have I ever said I'm not open to him doing so. If you could point out where I have denied there is a possibility or that I have a problem with it, I'd love to see it...

Not so, xfast

Not so fast, xfast.

You were the one who contended, in response to my original post, that The American Stinker pulled that article from their rear.    

Now you're "not denying" a third party run from Ron Paul.  Which is it?  

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, he's hoisted himself

by his own petard. His "logic" is ridiculous and his argument is disingenuous.

"The new greatest generation."  -Gen. David Petraeus

Aye, my nautical friend

I love that saying.

Sometimes it's just too easy. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Its hard to reason with

Its hard to reason with retards, especially when they are convinced that giving the same answer twice is somehow flip flopping.

Even harder

It is even harder to reason with Paul worshippers who hurl middle-school ad hominems like "retards".   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

He said in the youtube

He said in the youtube debate he had no intentions of running third party. He said on meet the press he had no intentions of running third party. The American Thinker writes an article calling that a flip flop. Repeating the same answer is apparently flip flopping to the writer there.

I never was "denying" a third party run for RP. I said I doubt it. I still doubt it. Apparently to some people repeating the same answer is confusing.

Since you seem to be rather reading impaired

American Thinker was referring to the Tim Russert interview.  Not YouTube.

But keep on thrashing, it's kind of cute.

 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

I should have guessed your

I should have guessed your confusion is due to you not even reading the article.

 In the YouTube debate last month, Paul seemed firm in his commitment not to run as a third party candidate when he answered the question by saying he had "no intention" of running such a race.

But according to Jeralyn Merrit of Talk Left, he sang a different tune on NBC's Meet the Press today when he said that he hadn't ruled a third party run out.


The American Stink article was trying to create a contradiction where one didn't exist.

 RP's response at the YouTube debate: I have no intention of doing that.

RP's response on Meet the Press: I have no intention of doing that.

 

 

Sorry the facts get in the way of a good smear from time to time.

 

Keep thrashing.

Wow.  More obtuse than Leon. 

Will wonders never cease? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde...

It looks like logic is having the same effect on xfast as it does with Leon. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

According to the link, xfast, Ron Paul actually said....

According to the link.... "He was asked on the CNN/Youtube debate; If you don't receive the Republican nomination will you run as an Independent? Ron Paul replied: 'I am a Republican, I won 10 times as a Republican. No, I will not run as an Independent'."  

Now he says "I have no intention."  Weasel words at best, a flip-flop at worst...

And, while you didn't flatly "deny" that RP might make a third party run, the thrust of your post clearly suggested it.    More weasel words.

And the link just helps

And the link just helps prove that the American Stinker is anything but credible. The actual transcript is below and does not include the lines from the Stink link.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript.part2/

 

And, while you didn't

And, while you didn't flatly "deny" that RP might make a third party run, the thrust of your post clearly suggested it.    More weasel words.

Wow, you are grasping at straws. You are almost as bad as Media Matters isolating context.... 

No, xfast

The tone of your post clearly suggested you were denying that Paul might run as an Independent.  That he might do so had to be dragged out of you. 

In fact, I don't know about you personally, but for months now the Paulites have been openly and flatly denying that Paul would run as an independent.   Many of us didn't believe them.

So, do you represent current thinking?  Is there a strong contingent among the Paulites that is pushing for an Independent run?   

Wow, I didn't know my post

Wow, I didn't know my post had "tone" to them. My view has been the same all along. I SERIOUSLY doubt he will run as an independent as he has invested too much into running as a Republican. I would be very surprised if he does, but not shocked.

RP supporters vary a lot. I think there have been a lot of them wanting him to run as an independent as they realize the odds of getting the Republican nomination with his anti-war stances is not good at all and that any time spent campaigning as a Rep is waste of time. Then there are others that realize anyone running outside of the 2 party system are automatically pushed away by the media and in the general election debates and that a lot of the Dem and Rep voter base simply show up and vote party, regardless of who is running.

Personally I think its a double edged sword. There is no way he would have raised so much money as an independent, but regardless of how much he gets in donations and even if he places well in a lot of primary states, he has chances just above zero of getting the Republican nod.

I think he fits the Libertarian mold much better than the Republican mold today. I would vote for him as a Libertarian and it would be my first vote ever not going to a Republican, although I've skipped elections when I didn't like the Rep candidates as I would NEVER vote for a Dem so long as the socialists are pushing their buttons.

All in all, I'm not really sure how many of his supporters want him to stay in the Rep race vs how many would prefer him to run as an independent. I will vote for him if he's on the ballot regardless of Republican or Libertarian. If he's not on the ballot, Fred Thompson is the only other candidate I would be interested in voting for. I have no other choices that would compel me to go vote.

Thanks xfast

I agree that he's more Libertarian than Republican.  Of course, I disagree that he would make a good President, but thanks for the civil details. 

I really am curious how strong the push might be among his supporters.   If strong enough, that alone, not his chances of success, might push him into running as an Independent.  It will be hard to turn away from the adoration....something all Presidental candidates love.

The MSM is projecting their

The MSM is projecting their hopes on to Paul & also NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Why?

I'll say it again: Since 1964, no Democrat was elected Presidnet without special circumstances. Carter on the heals of Watergate, and Clinton with a Strong 3rd party both times.

No way any Democrat gets elected unless someone is siphoning votes away from the GOP candidate.

 

Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!

You could blame Al Gore's

You could blame Al Gore's loss on Ralph Nader's run costing him votes. But it means nothing. There will always be 3rd party runs.

The Republicans would not have to concern themselves with losing votes to 3rd party if they could provide a candidate that is worth voting for. Its only when they know their lineup is weak and unable to unite the party that they start talking about 3rd party hurting them.

Nice

Hanging on every word you post.

They is us, in case you're lost.  But keep it up, new trolls are always fun.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Been around this board for

Been around this board for a long time. If making comments means trolling, then nice trolling with ya.

I realize my comments don't always fall in line with the folks on this board. If the comments section is intended to be simply an echo chamber then I would hope it would be noted by the administration.

xfast...

Post away, but don't expect people to NOT react to you if you post something dumb. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

I fully expect people to

I fully expect people to react.

The "troll" card being played is what I was responding to.

Thanks for the kind words though.

Well, kind of obvious, aren't you?

Too bad, so sad, strung up by your own postings....alas. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Too good, eat wood, blah

Too good, eat wood, blah blah blah. Your words are so profound.

Yes, they are.

Particularly in response to your silly posts.  Everyone here (but you apparently) exactly gets my point.  Sheesh, grow up already.

If you're going to make an ass out of yourself, at least try to have a sense of humor about it.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

I'm laughing at every

I'm laughing at every single post you have made so far. Trust me, I find this very humorous.

I'm laughing at every

I'm laughing at every single post you have made so far. Trust me, I find this very humorous.

To the Fair haired Troll Slayer!

He loves you so much Blonde, he had to say it twice. 

Thanks, AF

For some reason, I have that effect on some of the trollers. Like Leon & Eye sending me pm's!

The horror.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Oops, I just accidentally

Oops, I just accidentally ran for president on a third party ticket just now.  How'd that happen?  Couldn't help myself.  Those third parties are tricky like that.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

Hey Trach

Was it good intentions????  We know where that goes.

The fact that you call one

The fact that you call one of the the leading conservative political opinion magazines, "stinker," tells me something about you.

And I'm thinking it doesn't include the word "conservative."

And by the way -- when a politician utters the phrase that they "have no intention" of doing something, it it actually a meaningless, weasle comment.

Just like the so-called apology which does not apologize for an action, but merely expresses regret thier action may have caused offense. You see the difference?

Intent can change depending on circumstances in the blink of an eye. I guess most people have no intent to murder, but they do.

And when that phrase is even further qualified by refusing to rule out a third party run, then it hold even less value that berfore, which was pretty meaningless in the first place.

He could have quite catergorically stated that under NO corcumstances WOULD he run as a third party candidate.

That is a definifitive, unambiguous statement of your position, that would be impossible to change without looking a liar. And who wants to look a liar?

The fact he didn't is telling. Yea -- I'm dead suprised to see he's a politician, just like the rest of them.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Some people call the Daily

Some people call the Daily Kos a respected blog. That doesn't mean they are an authority. Just an opinion source. So calling the American Thinker a respected political opinion magazine is just that. Opinion. Doesn't make it a fact, and certainly doesn't mean they are right just because it comes from them.

Back to the topic.

Intention-A course of action that one intends to follow.

Ron Paul has no intention to run as third party. That means he is not even considering it at this point. But he also realizes the political machine that brings us the neocons and the socialist Dems each election cycle is very strong. Considering he has a ton of support and a ton of money, he is simply leaving open another option should he not get the Republican nomination. He is not pursuing that option in ANY way at this point, which means he has NO INTENTION of running as 3rd party. That is a question that will be better asked after Feb 5th.

Merry xMas, xFast.... oh and....


Ron Paul has no intention to run as third party. That means he is not even considering it at this point.

Doesn't it bother you that the politician you so admire uses such tired, non-commital, politician-speak words as "I have no intention" ? There is nothing more grey-area than that... nothing more lacking in courage of ones convictions than that.

 

We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos

I don't "so admire" him. I

I don't "so admire" him. I like him better than the other choices in the Rep field. I don't think he's perfect.

There is nothing gray about the statement. Either he has intentions to run 3rd party or he doesn't. If he doesn't, and he says he doesn't, there is nothing wrong with the statement.

 

 

 

No thanks

Of course he isn't perfect.  The Paul cultists and worshippers will have us ALL believe that he and he alone is THE authority on the Constitution, yet he has made it plain he is absolutely unwilling to defend it if called upon to do so.

No thanks. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

David Shuster is Keith Olbermann's Renfrow.

David Shuster is the designated MSNBC sycophant for Olbermann.  To say anything that comes out of his mouth is suspect is gross understatement.

Yup, CT, Shuster was asked the followup question this morning

"Did conservatives approve of Huckabee when he was governor?" 

He said "absolutely."  

For political purposes, Shuster is making a blatant attempt to sell Huckabee to Republicans and conservatives.

Anything he says should be given as much credence as the garbage that comes out of Olbermann's mouth. 

Who is this David

Who is this David Shuster?

Screw diversity, celebrate competancy

Shuster

Shuster is the guy who was at Fox and chased congressman Condit(sp?) around asking him about the missing girl who later turned up dead. Then he jumped ship like Chentry (sp?) and that other person who would rather show their legs than make any sense. Worst of all, Shuster doesn't even have the legs. 

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

 Don't forget Rita Cosby

 Don't forget Rita Cosby and Paula Zahn.Fox scored a CNN guy though.Bill Hemmer I think?

 

Victory in Iraq.

Huckabee v. Clinton

Just what we need; two Democrats running for President!

The Huckster

I caught this segment this morning...

I am still laughing.

Thompson/Hunter '08!

....whoever it is it isn't going to be The Huckster!

You got that right unsane

Besides there are a dozen reason to vote against Rudy in the general election if it were to come to that, aside from his rabid pro-abortion stance. Social conservatives aren't about to become the blacks of the GOP, no matter how many temper tantrums you rockefeller types throw between now and Nov.2008.

And anyone thinks Rudy would appont a justice who would overturn Roe, a move entirely inconsistent with his view of Roe's constituionality, his record and his staunch pro-abortion stance is either borderline insane or mentally retarded.