David Brooks on Mike Huckabee
October 22nd, 2007NY Times columnist David Brooks writes about the appeal of Mike Huckabee, and why he might have a chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Huckabee has some significant flaws as a candidate. His foreign policy thinking is thin. Some of his policy ideas seem to come off the top of his head (he vows, absurdly, to make the U.S. energy independent within eight years).
But Huckabee is something that the party needs. He is a solid conservative who is both temperamentally and substantively different from the conservatives who have led the country over the past few years.
He’s rising in the polls, especially in Iowa. His popularity with the press corps suggests he could catch a free media wave that would put him in the top tier. He deserves to be there.
Hat tip: Justin Taylor
I agree with Brooks. I would rather vote for Huckabee than Romney (strategy aside) simply because Huckabee’s record speaks for itself and the fact that he has remained calm and focused throughout this pre-primary period. He’s done a lot with little and hasn’t changed his tune once.
I know that Romney has disavowed his former political stances on some key issues, but what if he has another change of heart once he’s elected?
Plus Mike Huckabee lists Francis Shaeffer as one of his favorite authors. That’s big points in my book.
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter has an interesting piece on why Huckabee is the most electable Republican. He’s right.
I like Mike.
In 2004, didn’t Kerry lose in part to the fact that he was a flip-flopper? Don’t you think the media will return the favor to Romney?