On the November 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asked his guests, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen and Politico congressional reporter Josephine Hearn: “What if the following scenario takes place: What if Mike Huckabee, who is not considered now the front-runner, actually wins Iowa? And what if John Edwards wins Iowa? You have two people who most pundits think cannot be elected president winning what we're calling the most important state. What happens?” Hearn responded: “Right, well, I think if Huckabee wins -- and he's been surging recently in the polls -- if he wins, I think that's very damaging to Mitt Romney, because they're both going after values voters. So they're both trolling in the same area.”
By adopting the label “values voters” to characterize the subset of voters being targeted by Huckabee and Romney, Hearn advanced the myth that only that subset, specifically social conservatives, votes its “values” -- a myth often repeated in the media, as Media Matters for America documented here, here, here, here, and here. Presumably any voters for any candidate -- Republican or Democratic -- base their voting decisions on their values. As conservative columnist George F. Will wrote in his May 18, 2006, Washington Post column, titled "Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?" the phrase “values voters” “is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.” He added, “This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to ... well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.”
Similarly, on the October 7 edition of ABC's This Week, Will stated: "[T]here's a vanity in this group right now -- they call themselves 'values voters.' I have news for them: 100 percent of the American electorate are 'values voters'; they vote their values. And this kind of semantic imperialism that they have when they say, 'We vote values' -- everyone else votes what?"
From the November 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: We're talking to former Governor Mike Huckabee in just a minute. Iowa, more important this year than any other year in recent memory, that's the narrative anyway, that's kind of the conventional wisdom. What if the following scenario takes place: What if Mike Huckabee, who is not considered now the front-runner, actually wins Iowa? And what if John Edwards wins Iowa? You have two people who most pundits think cannot be elected president winning what we're calling the most important state. What happens?
HEARN: Right, well, I think if Huckabee wins -- and he's been surging recently in the polls -- if he wins, I think that's very damaging to Mitt Romney, because they're both going after values voters. So they're both trolling in the same area. I also think that because Romney is the front-runner in these states, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it's a blow to him because it shows that he doesn't have an inevitability about him in those states. So I think it has the potential to really shake up any sense that Romney has it locked up. It would be -- plus, the fact that Huckabee is such an interesting choice for the Republicans.
ROSEN: Right, right.
CARLSON: Yes, he is.
HEARN: He's essentially an economic populist and a social conservative. It's a kind of, I mean it's a fascinating combination --
ROSEN: Which is exactly where a lot of people think the Republican Party ends up going.
