Unless the loyal reader is dense, he/she has figured out this blogger is less than thrilled at the notion of a Huckabee nomination. That said, as a political observer you just have to pause and admire the amazing run Huckabee has had of late.
His lightening quick rise Iowa and nationally is beautifully and amazingly illustrated at pollster.com. While their charts, which purposefully don't allow short-term shifts to move their trend lines, don't yet show his full Huck-mentum in South Carolina, the snapshot RealClearPolitics average for the Palmetto State does.
The historic nature of this election, with its open primaries on both sides of the aisle, guarantees many lessons will be learned by political junkies from this election cycle. Fred's flop is one, the raging enthusiasm of Obama's supporters in the face of the Clinton juggernaut is another (especially if it is harnessed into real votes in the coming weeks), Huckabee's dramatic rise will be yet one of many more.
Want him to be the nominee or not, it's a sight to see.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 11, 2007 10:34 PM | Email This"We need subsidies to help our farmers compete with heavily subsidized farmers in Europe and Asia and to insulate them from the effects of natural disasters."
Posted by: John Bailo on December 11, 2007 11:05 PMHe is strong only in one or two areas of the ticket: abortion and gay marriage.
He is weak in the leadership area, weak in the fiscal area, weak in the foreign relations department, and weak in the military.
Examples: When he was governor of Arkansas, he seemed to pander to the legislature rather than set the tone and change things. He raised taxes several times, and doesn't seem to grasp the concept that lower taxes => more revenue. He didn't hear about the recent NIE report on Iran's nuclear program, and doesn't seem to care much about foreign policy. Most of all, his position on Iraq is "we broke so we gotta fix it", which is pretty lame compared to everyone else's, "Iraq is core to the overall strategy of the war on terror."
I don't feel inspired by him. I am not excited over his new policies because they are nice ideas but are largely unimplementable in today's climate. (Fair Tax? Get real. Like that can happen.) He doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb, and to top it off, if he can score political points by attacking anyone but his approved religion, he'll do it.
I didn't know much about him until recently either, and the more I learn the more I dislike him.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 11, 2007 11:07 PMIf this is how Huckabee is winning Iowa, then we have a dirty republican indeed. That is not how Reagan republicans win, by bribing the voters with even more government programs and subsidies.
Egads! You libertarians out there, I know you hate the republican party, but it's going to be a lot worse for you if Huckabee gets the nomination. There will be no sympathetic ear on fiscal issues. Act now to at least keep the republican party somewhat libertarian before it goes over the edge.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 11, 2007 11:24 PMMy sense is that in addition to the obvious love of subsidies noted by JG and JB above, his rise is an MSM phenomenon. Huck has had a lot of favorable press. And I think that is because he has been a frequent subject of MSM press and specifically a lot of the magazine press, for several years. They often visited the Arkansas governor's mansion, because they liked the weight loss feel-good story. And those MSM journalists met a man, who while they did not always agree with on every issue, they could see eye to eye with in terms of how they like to play their journalism game. And that lead to many more MSM visits. That tells you a lot.
If the MSM really takes a liking to any candidate, that is your signal to run like hell away from him or her.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 11, 2007 11:50 PMHowever, for those that reject ag. subsidies out of hand, I don't believe they are grounded in common sense or reality, just a fleeting shallow political thought.
Posted by: Doug on December 12, 2007 12:06 AMIn my view, Huck can be summed up in three words: National Smoking Ban. That isn't the only issue he's wrong on, of course, but I think it admirably sums up his peculiar blend of compassion and statism. Law-abiding citizens under a Huck regime would be subjected to ever more regulation to turn them into the kind of people Huck wants them to be, while criminals and foreign enemies would be rewarded and coddled because that's what Jesus would do.
This guy is Jimmy Carter with an "R" next to his name.
Posted by: ScottM on December 12, 2007 05:25 AMPlease take your anti-farm subsidies message to Iowa and see how that works out for your boy Romney. You take swipes at a former governor in Huckabee who lowered taxes 90 times and held the rate of spending growth in his state at half of the national average. (How did Massachusetts fair?)
One thing Romney supporters hate talking about is how the government takeover of health insurance in Massachusetts is proof of his "small government" leanings. Come on you guys, don't you hear yourselves blathering in the wind? Romney didn't get elected head of the most liberal state in America by accident. He promised things and he delivered- (just not in the way his Republican backers would have you believe).
Oh, and I much prefer a change of heart on economic matters as opposed to those issues which are truly a reflection of one's principles and core beliefs. Mitt's flip on abortion and gay marriage will cost him the Republican primary- plain and simple. I have no doubt he is a devout man, but I'm concerned that he worships at the altar of political expediency before consulting any higher being.
He will, however, be a good fit in a Huckabee or Giuiliani administration.
Posted by: Marko on December 12, 2007 07:03 AMAs to his rise, after every one of these so-called debates, it has always been unanimous that Huck won the debate. In that format and with six others on stage and 30 second answers, he flourishes.
It is just that the other pundits always concentrated upon McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson and just let Huck get a lot of cred because he came across so good during these formats that allowed him to sneak up.
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 07:04 AM"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
I found this at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TFL9B81&show_article=1
After hearing that and someone criticizing another's religion, I have just found someone bad enough that I would vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of besides Ron Paul. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? I can see intolerance in not voting for Romney, but I certainly don't accept it in a Presidential candidate. Bad move there, Shyster.
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 07:20 AMThat statement on its own does not dissuade me from voting for Huckabee (for one thing if it's based on a fallacy, that fallacy is widespread among evangelicals). I saw him (via C-Span) give a speech four years ago (remembered him as the Governor of Arkansas with the horribly unpresidential name!) and wished he was running then. I've read his latest book and find I agree with almost all of his positions. His ideas for solutions are, in some instances, things I hadn't heard of before and they made me think about what I want for America. It's the first time in a long time a candidate has done that rather than simply ask me to bend to the GOP vision. I don't think I'm willing to give that up yet.
Posted by: Jessica on December 12, 2007 08:09 AMWe don't need talkers and poll-followers in the White House, who will tell any audience on any given day what the polls say. It certainly would have helped Bush to have some communication skills, but give me a leader with proven history anytime over the fakes we're seeing with the arrogance to believe they can run this nation.
You know where you stand with Huckabee. He provides targets for criticism because he states his positions. Taking positions is a good thing, folks. Dodging them is a bad thing, right? When a politician refuses to state a clear and consistent position, you should run like hell and not simply tolerate the bull. To lesser degrees other Republicans do it too, but this crop of Democrats is an embarrassment. That they can be considered qualified to run this nation is a pathetic reality of today's ill-informed and mis-informed electorate.
Give me Huckabee or Romney and I'll be happy. The American Doomsday clock will roll back some, while electing Billary, Hussein or the trial lawyer will only make things far worse than they already are. The American people, via polls, can't be allowed to govern this nation based on their perceptions molded by the media. But elect a Democrat or some of these Republicans, and you'll be doing just that - handing the simple majority the ability to grow government, raise taxes on others, and elect more of these worthless poll-followers to buy votes with other people's money.
Posted by: MJC on December 12, 2007 09:20 AM2. Swatter brought up the new Huckabee/Mormon controversy, which again is another case where the MSM doesn't get it. Huckabee is turning the question asked around to the reporter and asking him a somewhat rhetorical/innocently phrased question that simple congregants in mainstream or evangelical congregations may ask. The real brunt of the question is we hear all these things about Mormons, what is true, what isn't? At times the Mormon church can be so secretive about its policies that it rivals Scientology. This is the opposite of Christianity, which puts their faith and beliefs right out in the open. There is not secret temple that only select elders can enter. Huckabee is speaking for the common man when it comes to Romney. He is asking who are you really? Why should I trust you?
3. I would agree that Huckabee is in essence a Rep. version of Jimmy Carter. The one difference however, is Carter was a trained U.S. Navy Officer and Nuclear Engineer. Carter thought through every decision, and his over analysis was sometimes his downfall. This is interesting because the same is said of Romney. Romney's business analsyis approach of wanting all the facts to make the best decision flies in the face of historical presidential decisions where Presidents stood on principals in spite of the data. There is a good article on Real Clear Politics that discusses this more.
Just my two cents worth.
Posted by: tc on December 12, 2007 09:22 AMI would prefer a more small government candidate.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on December 12, 2007 09:52 AMI am so with you on this, swatter. This man claims Christ, but I don't think Christ would claim him! He is trotting theology out as a negative attack and trying to be coy about it. Preacher Schmuckabee can just head right back on down to the South where bigotry like that can be appreciated!
We don't need someone who will cloak themself in religion, we need someone who will look at facts and make decisions. If Schmuckster gets the nomination, count me out until next time. I am NOT riding that losing horse and may even cross over to vote against him!
Posted by: roughrider1901 on December 12, 2007 10:05 AMtc, tongue-in-cheek now; Christians, except for Larry O'Donnell of the McLaughlin Group meltdown fame where his beliefs are whatever he wants and his Catholicism allows him to be squishy. Or so he says.
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 10:05 AMI am so with you on this, swatter. This man claims Christ, but I don't think Christ would claim him! He is trotting theology out as a negative attack and trying to be coy about it. Preacher Schmuckabee can just head right back on down to the South where bigotry like that can be appreciated!
We don't need someone who will cloak themself in religion, we need someone who will look at facts and make decisions. If Schmuckster gets the nomination, count me out until next time. I am NOT riding that losing horse and may even cross over to vote against him!
Posted by: roughrider1901 on December 12, 2007 10:06 AM"This man claims Christ, but I don't think Christ would claim him! He is trotting theology out as a negative attack and trying to be coy about it."
You attack Huckabee and then proceed to do the same thing that you have just blasted Huckabee for. The only person who knows if Christ would claim the Huckabee is Christ.
I'm would be horrified if Huckabee received the partys nomination. About all he has in common (ideologically) with me is faith and I don't think that is reason enough to vote for the man.
At this point I'd place my money on Romeny to win the GOP nomination. I guess time will tell.
If you don't think George W. Bush has been liberal enough, then Huckabee is your guy.
Posted by: jimg on December 12, 2007 11:31 AMOne may not like his policies, but I don't see how he betrays his Christian faith. He may attempt to promote it, but this isn't betraying it. There is a difference. Jesus didn't remain silent on who he was.
Therefore, what specific Christian tenants do you feel he is wrong on, or is it he belays your Republican Faith? I sometimes wonder about the so-called religious right on which is first (God or Republicanism).
Posted by: tc on December 12, 2007 12:07 PMI always thought it was lower taxes and smaller Govt first. All that seems to go out the window once they actually get elected. Generations may pass but lying politicians remain a constant.
Hey, what was Keyes doing there? Contrast to Huckabee?
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2007 12:46 PMFor what it's worth, I think Romney and Thompson did best in today's Iowa debate. Huckabee did not impress, Giuliani was fairly non-descript and Alan Keyes was just bizarre. Just my two-cents. I don't know what will happen in Iowa, but I still don't think Huckabee can win the nomination, but he may get picked up as the VP for either Giuliani or Romney.
I did like that Fred looked more animated in this debate--I really like his positions and him not fearing coming out against things like the NEA and global warming, but hadn't seen much fire. Maybe he is making a start on that...
Posted by: Bill H on December 12, 2007 03:56 PMI read the whole article, not just the sound bite. Then I read Huckabee's contorted explaination following his apology.
The guy is clearly not ready for prime time, even though he seems nice enough. Call him the candidate from Mayberry, not Hope.
Here's what's really stupid: the GOP allowing this continuing religious story line where there's limited space for debate about things that matter and connect beyond the factions candidates are chasing today.
Now Huckabee unwittingly consumes another news cycle ot two on the subject of LDS doctrine. Or is he really just playing dirty sick politics? Or does he even get it? It seems like a combination of ineptitide, dirt devil and hubris.
It is just plain stupid for the GOP and the object of continuing delight for democrats.
It eliminates both Huckabee and Romney from serious consideration. Or ought to. What we are watching is the GOP destroying itself because of the ambitions of two politicans fighting for a small slice of the GOP base.
These two are brothers in the folly of self promotion above all else.
Posted by: redflag on December 12, 2007 07:44 PMBut, you bring up a good point, when is enough enough? Kennedy fought the Catholic issue his whole campaign and it didn't have the media scrutiny we have today. If Nixon hadn't gone to the televised debate without makeup, history may have been rewritten.
It seems every candidate mentions their religious bonafides. Clinton, Bush, Gore, Kerry and on and on it is mentioned. But, this time, the pander bear Huckabee feels he has to drive a knife in Romney's back at every chance. Romney has had to respond.
So, don't give up. If we can get past this one, things should refocus onto real issues. Perhaps the Huck and the MSM don't want to talk real issues and decided to creat the religion diversion?
Posted by: swatter on December 13, 2007 07:05 AM