A rather amazing about-face on Huckabee from Romney supporter Dean Barnett:
First off, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. I underestimated Huckabee. He's the best politician in the land. He connects with people in a scary way. He exudes decency. He doesn't fumble over answers. He prepares well, but he also ad-libs brilliantly.In taking on a top tier of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson, it's obvious where Mike Huckabee got the notion that he should be president. Being president has a great deal to do with being a skillful politician. It's easy to imagine Huckabee figuring that he could take these guys, even starting from way back in the pack and with no money. (I should add that the rationale behind the Tommy Thompson campaign still eludes me to this day.)
Left unstated in the above is the obvious and I'd argue indisputable fact that all the other top tier candidates are, objectively speaking, more qualified for the job than Huckabee. Huckabee probably knows this. But he also knows that in the modern era, we don't elect résumés. In 1992, we selected an unproven young man from one of America's most impoverished states. In 2000, we elected a late bloomer who hadn't done anything of significance with his life until just six years prior.
SO WHAT WOULD a Huckabee nomination mean for the Republican party? First, the good news. Huckabee, as we've all discovered, is quite good at seeking office. As a Romney guy, it pains me to say this, but Huckabee may well be our strongest potential nominee. All of the others have well documented weaknesses as wholesale and retail politicians. Huckabee doesn't.
What's more, Huckabee is the one Republican with a chance of having some crossover appeal to people who are traditionally unlikely to vote for Republicans. As the nominee, he would rebrand a party badly in need of rebranding.
On that last point, it bears repeating: earlier this year, when Huckabee came to the Dallas Morning News editorial board for a meeting, I wasn't able to attend the session, but I was startled by how enthusiastic my colleagues were for him. We are not a socially conservative editorial board by any means, and I anticipated that my colleagues would be put off by a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Republican candidate who is a former Southern Baptist preacher. But he wowed 'em -- and his environmental stance especially seemed to impress.
We're now in the process of deciding which presidential candidates to endorse in the primaries. We have our meeting on this topic on Thursday. I have no idea how we're going to go -- really, I don't -- but Huck's bound to rate a lot higher than he would otherwise, given his positions on social issues.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Left unstated in the above is the obvious and I'd argue indisputable fact that all the other top tier candidates are, objectively speaking, more qualified for the job than Huckabee." Disputable! Since Romney only served one full term as governor of Mass. He was elected in 2002.
Shelaigh is right: Huckabee's credentials are at least as legitimate as those of the other top tier candidates.
Giuliani -- A former Mayor. I don't care how big NYC is. Nobody has ever been able to make the jump from a mere mayor to President of the United States.
Romney -- Former one term governor of Massachusets, where his power was severely limited by the fact that Democrats held veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of his legislature.
McCain -- War hero and longtime U.S. Senator. No executive experience.
Hillary Clinton -- Former first lady and now backbench Senator from NY. No direct executive experience.
Barack Obama -- Still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, where he has made no impact at all. No other significant experience.
John Edwards -- Former one term U.S. Senator, whose 6 year stint on Capitol Hill was utterly undistinguished. Like Romney, he shrewdly kicked himself upstairs by running for President rather than face a reelection campaign in which he would almost certainly have been defeated.
On pure "experience," how is Huckabee's service as Governor of Arkansas less significant than what these other candidates have done (or not done)?
Let us all pray that Huck gets the nomination and that the result is a populist/subsidiarist vs. libertarian/elitist realignment of political camps.
The modern (winning) republican party has been a coalition between social/religious conservatives and economic conservatives. If you look at it honestly, it looks more like the old new-deal mix than the recent democratic party in that there is more difference of opinion and contentiousness. Still it works when each side agrees to settle for some of what they want and not the whole loaf. Winning heals the wounds and losing results in finger pointing. As a social and economic conservative, I'm pretty comfortable myself except for the pork barrel.
So the non-social conservatives (think Heather MacDonald) thought they could run away with the party by nominating Rudy cause he's a tough guy and there has been a social conservative backlash that has benefited Huck. A stand-off.
If either side wins outright the other will be soured and the party will definitely lose. To win the party will need a compromise candidate with stature. People were hoping it would be Thompson but he ain't it. Romney would like to be that candidate but he lacks stature because he's spent his career talking out of both sides of his mouth. So who does that leave?
The only republican who can hold the coalition together and has the stature to appeal to independents is John McCain and I predict he will be the nominee and the next president. If the republicans choose anyone else they'll lose to any of the three weak democratic party alternatives.
Y'know I tend to agree with SVSteve. I think Huckabee will serve to bring out more of the moral conviction in McCain. [Which to me is a GOOD thing.]And while McCain is no evangelical, I sincerely think he's much more respectful of their views this time around. And I'm truly glad Pat Robertson is out of the mix now since his Guiliani endorsement.
Huck would've been great if he'd have dropped this 'Fair Tax' - Which BTW just by it's name sets off alarm bells. Why DO we need to call it FAIR? Perhaps b/c it's not? And naming it thus might wish it so.
But anyways, We're hoping to get a chance to see McCain again before we decide. Possibly tonight. Wish us luck. May not be able to get in though. Should be a huge crowd. It's being marketed as "Politics and Baseball" with special guest - famed and beloved Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling!! [Who gave us our World Series after 86 years] Just Another reason why alot of people still love McCain up here... He gets us!
Huckabee? Sure, the Fair Tax? has some merit and the particular adjustments help it's workability and equitability.
But Huckabee? The man has zero honor. He's one of the sleaziest things to hit the campaign trail since Billary Clinton. He sat and lied in our faces about his state's tax record and other things. He lied in our faces about a deal in West Virginia where McCain had his people vote for Huckabee. I mean you only had to follow the math. Huckabee had 30% McCain had around 20% and Romney had 41% and Ron Paul around 10%. When it came down to another vote? Huckabee got 52%, McCain no % Ron Paul was out, and Romney had 47% so ... Not only did Huckabee lie on Fox and Friends, right in their faces and in ours, AND this pure addition is so simple the Huckster thinks we are all stupid.
Yes, Huckabee connects with people extremely well, just like a well polished pro who's life work depends on it ... yes, a professional con man.
The Huckster has also proven that unlike Romney, he is interested in his own ambitions and totally disregards the good of the country. This is reminiscent of Clinton and Gore, not of politicians who put their country first and would give up their own greedy goals to keep the country from being divided, or divide their party and by so doing help elect those who would be very bad for our country.
I really don't like McCain, the man has not much honor in my eyes either, but not to the depths Huckabee goes, and not nearly to the lengths of hypocrisy.
There is another reason the liberal media so loves and pushes Huckabee (he would be nothing without media pushing him) he is easy meat to either democrat, in any general election.
You have to be able to trust what someone is, before it ever should matter what they say. That doesn't mean they worship like you, and how many ugly cons have been perpetrated on millions by ministers of Huckabee's ilk? so his religious qualifications are not historically worth a pea in a swamp ... But that man is a dishonorable, pathological, lying, self serving individual. A man who's own interests are much more important to him than his country.
This man of tainted dishonorable character would be representing the republican party, and Christianity, to those in our country and through out the world. Do you really want a scum bag like Huckabee defining who the republicans are? What Christianity is? I surely don't. The Liberal media would bury the only chance this country has with the garbage he would exude. Remember Nixon? They sure do, and compared to Huckabee, Nixon was a choir boy.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.