**12/12: Here’s my follow-up post to this one.**
————
Much is being made about the “surge” in the polls former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has seen the last few weeks in the run-up to Iowa. I think this says a lot more about the sad state of affairs in the Republican presidential race than it does Mike Huckabee. Rudy, Romney, and McCain aren’t inspiring people, Thompson’s faltered badly after jumping into the race in a blaze of glory, and somewhere along the way, that lack of inspiration has somehow morphed slowly into rising support for Huckabee.
One good thing Huckabee has going for him is that he’s proven himself good at beating the “Clinton machine.” He’s also a clear conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage, something I admire him for, but his record on fiscal issues is anything but. And up until recently, his views on illegal immigration were at odds with the conservative base. But after the release of his “official” plan for illegal immigration, where he made concessions which he hopes will appeal to the base, he’s gotten the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, founder of the border-protecting Minutemen Project.
There are things about Huckabee to like, but there’s a lot more about him not to like, in my opinion. The fiscal liberal in him is obviously one thing, and his wishy washy position on immigration is another, but several things he’s said recently have given conservatives cause for alarm as to whether or not Huckabee is ready for the national stage. A few examples:
1) His ignorance on the release of the NIE report on Iran. NRO’s Byron York nailed it in his response to Huck’s admission:
After [The Politico’s David Paul] Kuhn explained the NIE’s findings to Huckabee, Huckabee seemed confused about what it meant. Beyond doing nothing to resolve doubts about his foreign policy qualifications, the exchange underscores the fact that Huckabee doesn’t really have much of a campaign, in the sense that Giuliani and Romney have campaigns, with teams of advisers and carefully-thought-out policy positions. In important ways, he has been flying by the seat of his pants, relying on his unequaled talents as a retail campaigner. But now that he is leading in Iowa, and moving up nationally as well, the deficiencies of his campaign might come more and more into the spotlight.
2) Case in point: His admission today that his views on the Cuba embargo have changed now (he used to be against it, and now he’s for it) because he’s “running for president” - a clear admission if there ever was one from a candidate that he’ll change his positions to whatever in an attempt to get elected …
3) … which he’s done on the issues of Gitmo and waterboarding, too.
4) And that’s in addition to the switcheroni he’s done on immigration, which I mentioned earlier.
But hey, all candidates flip flop, and come off as ignorant sometimes, right? Sure they do. Even if Huck hadn’t flip flopped, or shown ignorance on the NIE, the concerns many conservatives have about Huckabee wouldn’t - and shouldn’t - go away. Jonah Goldberg summed up the problems with Mike Huckabee in a piece he did on the Huckster and Ron Paul last month:
What’s troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee is a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do “good works” extends to using government — and your tax dollars — to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee has indicated he would support a nationwide federal ban on public smoking. Why? Because he’s on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
Just tonight we learn via Drudge (h/t: HH) that the Democrats (and MSM) are salivating over the possiblity of having Huckabee as the Republican candidate next year, and have instructed their candidates not to pile on to any criticism leveled at him by his Republican rivals, which is a clear indication of the lack of confidence in they have in their own candidates, so much so that they have to wish for a weak candidate to be the opposition’s nominee. No doubt this CNN/Research Opinion poll released today (h/t: Flopping Aces), which shows Huckabee losing in double digits to any of the “big three” Dems running, reinforced that position among top Dems.
As Ericka Andersen at RedState posted, even with all his baggage, he’s still a likeable guy - but likeable guys don’t always make good presidents. Such is the case with Mike Huckabee.
Related Election ‘08 news: National Review Online has officially endorsed Mitt Romney. Read conservative reax to the news here.
I agree, ST. I also get the feeling that support for Huckabee is becoming a kind of “none of the above” for GOP primary voters. None of the other candidates has captured the imaginations of a majority of GOP voters, and politics (like nature) abhors a vacuum.
Another reason that I believe that Huckabee is gaining support is the virulent Christophobia of the MSM and the Democrat Party, who see fundamentalist Bible-thumpin’ theocrats under every bed. There is the temptation to vote for Huckabee as a kind of “up yours” response to the MSM’s and Democrats’ rather obvious religious bigotry.
I get the feeling that a Huckabee administration would be in essence a third Bush term – maybe. The two worst aspects of the current administration are on display in Huckabee’s candidacy - a record of reckless domestic spending and waffling on immigration and border security. Worse, he seems to lack Bush’s excellent, clear-headed views on national security (that and Bush’s choices for judicial posts are the only aspects of his presidency that I still support). A Huckabee administration may make the current one look good by comparison.
If Huckabee won the nomination, I would vote for him in the general election. But if he is as weak and milquetoast as the Compassionate Conservative-in-Chief has been for the past three years, Democrats will bury him in a mudslide.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 12/11/2007 - 11:11 pm
Wow, Huckabee will get blown out. Badly. Even the Breck Girl would kill him. Romney might be able to win, but I doubt it. Both Huckabee and Romney have a history of letting criminals go free and having them rape/murder once released. Get ready for the Willie Horton ads but this time against us.
Rudy would win, but is faltering. I still think he’s the one to beat and will surprise in Iowa and South Carolina. Fred! could win, but people have got to stop wanting a broadway show with their candidates. He’s not exciting to listen to, but at least he can carry a sentence.
I wish Tancredo would get more traction. I really think he could win a general. He says most of the things people want to hear (like put a wall up and deport the illegals), but unlike the others running, he actually believes it and would fight for it.
As much as it would pain me to have another Bush term, I would hold my nose and vote for Huckabee or Romney. Any of the Republicans are better than Hillary.
Comment by Chris @ 12/12/2007 - 12:22 am
My rankings are:
1) Thompson
2) Romney
3) Guliani
Huckabee isn’t on the list. Neither is McCain.
Comment by Baklava @ 12/12/2007 - 1:02 am
Huck is floating high because that’s where the MSM wants him. They pulled this crap with McCain in 2000. When he hits his peak - and the MSM prays he gets the nomination - they will tear him apart.
Otherwise Huck is down near Tancredo and Hunter and only a tad above Paul in the polling. He’s not gonna be Prez.
Comment by benning @ 12/12/2007 - 8:43 am
Baklava states:
That is about how I am thinking also.
While Thompson is not the pounding on the pulpit type, and seems ot be criticized for not have a ‘fire in his belly’, we don’t hear as much that almost all of what he says is spot on.
People seem to want more image in the candidate than a person who will do or be as close to what we hold as ideals.
As for Mitt, he doesn’t strike me as true as Thompson does.
And Guliani, he may have surged at first, but I think his support will begin to falter after the novelty has waned.
I still like Thompson, not sure if he will have the support, or if it is just being under-reported, but he resonates better with me than the other two.
Comment by sanity @ 12/12/2007 - 9:40 am
I like Huck, but he won’t win the nomination. For one thing, he doesn’t have the organization necessary to carry a nationwide campaign. And I don’t believe he’ll be able to raise the hundreds of millions necessary, either. Among the GOP field, only Rudy (or) Mitt can pull that off. At present, Mitt’s easily got the better organization. But Rudy’s the big fighter, and he’d be able to pull in the big money from the anti-Clinton factions. Fred’s already reported to be abandoning Iowa/New Hampshire in favor of the early southern primaries. MCain’s effort will soon be just a memory.
Comment by Tango @ 12/12/2007 - 10:30 am
Honestly tho, this is exactly what I want. Anyone who wants to be President as bad as some of these people want to be, shouldn’t be. This craven need for power just flat out scares me. I like Huckabee, and I think he would make a good VP, I am still hoping for Thompson. I remember way back in 1991, when Al Gore was riding high in the polls, then outta no where Bill was the nominee, and Al was the VP. This thing called politics can be just an odd state of affairs. God help those who get all worked up about these things, especially polls. We the People change our minds about which person to nominate faster than we change our breakfast cereal.
- Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/12/2007 - 10:36 am
I don’t know, people are now saying Huck is flying by hte seat of his pants and didn’t even know what the NIE was for Iran - which is a big concern for foriegn policy, which showed glaring holes in his ability for president.
Comment by sanity @ 12/12/2007 - 10:38 am
I would be more concerned about Hucks lack of knowledge about the NIE if it was the actual documents, instead what was released was “judgements” by 3 libs from what I understand. Who the hell cares what libs in the inteligence community have to say. This is a mixed bag of tricks and I don’t think the “judgement” of this asessment is of much value. Even if the Government said it has stopped it’s search for a bomb, then why did I’madinnerjacket say this week, that Iran needed 5000 more centrifuges?? Why does the Revolutionary Guard still want a bomb?? Why is the Mossad saying they are still actively seeking a bomb?? Why did one of the authors of the NIE say in July that Iran was actively seeking a bomb. Even the NIE says that Iran is keeping it’s options open. Too many questions from too many different sources to suit me. Especially since we have seen some pretty huge lies coming from those who suffer BDS. The NIE does not equate to foreign policy, especially since they don’t know what Iran is planing next month.
Now getting beyond this surface and moving into the meat of the situation. Why would you let anyone divide this party over who the nominee MIGHT be?? Why offend Christians over who the nominee might be?? Personally I don’t see a reason that Gulianni should get the nomination, but if he does, I will most certainly vote for him. Rather a near RINO than a Dem anytime when it comes to this office. But why offend a voting block of nearly 30,000,000 people over something that we have no control over.
All of our candidates have some pretty high negatives, and it concerns me greatly. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/12/2007 - 2:11 pm