Are voters sure they want Huck?

Sorry for the ultra-light blogging today. I'm very hard up against a Friday deadline for a newspaper project. One advantage to light blogging, though, is readers tend to spend more time discussing a post in the comboxes. So there.

I was wondering why, though I am planning to vote for Ron Paul if he's still in the race when the Texas primary comes around, I am so preoccupied with Mike Huckabee's candidacy. It's because I like him personally, and I like his populism. I'd like to see the GOP remade broadly in his image. But I've gotta say, all the attention he's been getting this week is starting to make me queasy about his prospects.

I was thrilled when Huckabee took Mark Krikorian's immigration plan for his own. But how can Huck credibly advocate Krikorian's line when two years ago, he spoke to a LULAC conference in Little Rock, and sounded quite different:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," Huckabee said, citing the Golden Rule. "I have tried to govern that way and it stands to reason that I really do believe that what made this great country so great and so unique is that it has always been a place for people to run to - and not run from.

"I would hope that no matter who we are, or where we are from, that America should always be a place that opens its arms, opens it heart, opens its spirit to people who come because they want the best for their families ...," Huckabee said as the largely Hispanic audience gave him a standing ovation.
[snip]
During the legislation session, Huckabee criticized an immigration bill by Republican senators Jim Holt of Springdale and Denny Altes of Fort Smith as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.

Senate Bill 206, which died in the Senate, would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote and also force state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally. Holt, R-Springdale, replied later to Huckabee's comments that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.

I brought this up with a Republican friend this evening, a guy who supports Huckabee. He pointed out that this past year, several people we know, including a very liberal Democrat, have had a change of heart on illegal immigration, and now take an "enough is enough" line. Still, I worry that Huck's new hard line won't last past the primaries, if he's the nominee.

I'm also increasingly uncomfortable with his apparent winging it on foreign affairs and the economy. Ross says it best here:

In considering Huckabee's run for the Presidency, it's worth making a distinction between being qualified and being prepared. The obvious rap on Huckabee is that he doesn't have the qualifications necessary to occupy the Oval Office, and that it's absurd to imagine someone with his resume taking over 1600 Pennsylvania. I tend to think that's wrong, and that Huck is just as qualified for high office as most of the primary contenders in both parties. Serving two terms as a successful and popular governor in a state like Arkansas tells us at least as much about a candidate's mix of political skill and policy savvy, I would submit, as being a one or two-term Senator with a negligible list of accomplishments, and it isn't clear to me why Huckabee's lack of foreign-policy credentials are supposed to put him at such a disadvantage when contrasted with say, Barack "I was a child in Southeast Asia" Obama.

But when it comes to preparedness, to the hard work of scaling up one's understanding from state-level challenges to national issues that any aspiring candidate needs to do, Huckabee is way out of his depth.

This strikes me as true, and I wish it weren't, because I don't see any other candidate willing to advocate anything like social conservatism and (relative) economic progressivism (in other words, a good old fashioned European Christian Democrat). I worry, though, that Huckabee's Evangelical decency will lead us into the same foreign trap that fellow Evangelical G.W. Bush's crusading universalism did.

Daniel Larison brings out a point I tried to make on my bloggingheads episode with Amy Sullivan: that Huckabee's boomlet might well be because he's reaching the sweet spots identified in "Applebee's America," which Daniel cites as:

+ People make choices about politics, consumer goods, and religion with their hearts, not their heads.

+ Successful leaders touch people at a gut level by projecting basic American values that seem lacking in modern institutions and missing from day-to-day life experiences.

+ The most important Gut Values today are community and authenticity. People are desperate to connect with one another and be part of a cause greater than themselves. They’re tired of spin and sloganeering from political, business, and religious institutions that constantly fail them.

(Understand that Larison is not advocating those views -- Larison fans would find that idea hilarious -- but drawing from the book co-authored by GOP consultant Matthew Dowd, and Dem consultant Doug Sosnik, with Ron Fournier).

I get that, I get that. And maybe that's one reason why I've got a soft spot for Huck, and want him to do well. We were talking at the paper the other day about Huck's lack of foreign policy experience versus, say, McCain's. Someone brought up Bush's lack of same as a way of defending Huck, but was quickly reminded that that's not actually the strongest defense, in light of how things turned out. But I pointed out that the defense and foreign policy team Bush surrounded himself with was very experienced. And look how things turned out. So experience matters only if one has learned the right things from it. Right?

Still, Ross's point remains: there's a difference between being qualified for the presidency, and being ready for the presidency. Like Ross, I credit Huck for being at least as qualified as anybody else in the race on either side (save John McCain). But ready for it? Hmmm...