The Huckabee Factor
December 12th, 2007Here’s a long, but good, profile piece about Mike Huckabee in the New York Times.
In other political matters, the editors of National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney for president.
23 Responses to “The Huckabee Factor”
I wouldn’t have agreed with NR’s endorsement of Romney in any case, but I hate that there didn’t seem to much more than a glib dismissal of the concerns that some Christians have regarding the question of supporting a Mormon candidate.
And, frankly, the endorsement is weakly argued, because they can argue that Mormonism shouldn’t matter, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t, and so I’m not sure that Romney’s dramatically more viable than Rudy or Huckabee. And there’s this:
Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.
It seems to me that the process matters a great deal as to whether a politician’s position is trustworthy.
The editors want Romney to be the most viable candidate and a reliable conservative, but they make no persuasive argument that he is really either.
I hope Huckabee gets the nomination.
Cineaste,
If Huckabee did get the nomination, do you think he would be easily defeated by any of the Decomcratic candidates? Who do you think would give him a run for his money and on what issues?
j razz
Here is the key paragraph.
Huckabee is no theocrat. He simply believes in the power of the Christian message, and in his ability to embody and deliver it. ‘‘It’s not that we want to impose our religion on somebody,’’ he wrote in ‘‘Character Makes a Difference,’’ a book first published in 1997 (as ‘‘Character Is the Issue’’) and reissued earlier this year. ‘‘It’s that we want to shape the culture and laws by using a worldview we believe has value.’’
I think most Democrats are salivating at the idea of running against a guy who advocates increasing the price of every good by 30%. There are a lot of things I like about Huckabee, but he’s this year’s Howard Dean.
How come no one talks about John Edwards? I’d vote for him before I’d vote for any republican other than Paul. (not that it matters who any of us vote for)
Edwards is too milque toast.
Owen, while the paragraph you wrote may accurately sum up his beliefs, we all know how it will come out—Christian loony wants to reclaim country for God.
This country needs revolution. Paul is the perfect man for it. The government needs to fear the people–not the other way around.
to be perfectly honest, it seems to me that America will continue without truly worthy leadership for at least the next five years…..
Huckabee is a sure fire loser. He’s the latest darling of the evangelical elite, the folks who’ve given us two terms of ‘W’. That in itself is enough for me not to support him.
Even a cursory look at Huckabee’s record in Arkansas raises huge red flags. In addition, Huckabee is now distancing himself from his Christian beliefs in an effort to make himself more marketable. Just recently he made a true statement about Mormonism (they do indeed teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers) but is now backtracking because the statement was not well received. He has also refused to release copies of sermons he preached while a pastor of two different Baptist churches.
A man who will not stand up for truth regardless of the consequences is not qualified to be president.
At one time I thought I would vote for Huckabee (its interesting to live in a high-profile primary state like SC), but no longer. There are the yellow flags that others have raised, and I don’t trust him any more than the others.
I think Romney would be a fine nominee, certainly the most electable in the general election, though I have some reservations there too.
Right now I’m trending toward Ron Paul, because a lot of what he says and stands for just makes sense. Perhaps the campaign is a bit quixotic, but something about it resonates with me.
Whether you like them or not, “W” and Huckabee have something in common….they both had the monumental tasks of cleaning up after the Clintons: Huckabee in Arkansas first as lt. governor then as governor, Bush as president.
Knowing what we now know about Clinton and his lack of anything resembling moral fiber, I applaud Bush and Huckabee for bringing some dignity back to the executive branch of government.
I’ve been pushing for Huckabee for a while. I really doubt that he’ll get the nomination. But I’m happy with his surge just to get his popularity out there to make him a very good vice presidential option. I would vote for a Guiliani/Huckabee ticket.
“W” has never met a spending bill he didn’t like, having outspent Clinton by quite a wide margin, so I’m not sure how much cleaning up he’s done quite frankly.
Huckabee too is an advocate of bigger more intrusive government as he proved while Governor of Arkansas, so yes, they do have some things in common. That’s what worries me.
Larry-
Wars cost money. We are at war-time during Bush’s presidency. We were not in a war during the Clinton presidency. We could have avoided the war on terror if Clinton would have had the backbone to take UBL out when he had the chance (or several chances). Bush is having to clean up after the Clinton presidency. And it’s costing us all a great deal.
Who is the great proponent of “standing up for the truth regardless of the consequences” that you are supporting in next year’s primary race?
First of all Bush’s spending spree has not all been related to his adventures in Iraq. Secondly the war there is unnecessary and immoral so I don’t exactly see Bush as some kind of moral paragon as compared to Clinton nor do I see the spending for it justifiable.
The ‘war on terror’ is bogus. You cannot wage war on a faceless, nameless, nationless noun. Its as ridiculous as the ‘war on poverty’ or the ‘war on drugs’. Every time the government wages war on some abstract noun its a dismal failure, Iraq being no exception.
As far as standing for truth regardless of the consequences, Ron Paul has been doing that for years.
Knowing what we now know about Clinton and his lack of anything resembling moral fiber…
This seems pretty unfair to me. It seems to fall square into the age old stereotypical criticisms, that is Democrats saying Republicans are stupid and Rebublicans saying Democrats are immoral. Neither are true.
Certainly Clinton’s new book on “Giving” shows the presence of some moral fiber, right?
Nick-
Being a Christian, and Clinton claiming to be one, I would have to say that any discussion on giving comes down to whether the giving is being done out of plenty or out of poverty (sacrificially). The dollar amounts are of no consequence.
I would agree with you that stereotypical generalizations, as a rule, do tend to be inaccurate. But are you suggesting that Bill Clinton didn’t display gross immorality?
are you suggesting that Bill Clinton didn’t display gross immorality?
No, he certainly did, but so have I. i like what Tony Campolo says about this issue, “If we had spent $40 Million looking into your past, I bet we would have found something.” That is vcertainly true for me.
I guess what I took issue to was the extreme statement of “…anything resembling a moral fiber…” you were certainly exaggerating, so I don’t want to be unfair and too reactionary to your words, but discrediting him like that seems extreme.
I think we could make other statements about the immorality of politicians on completely different issues. Some would say the war is immoral. some would say giving the vast majority of tax breaks to the rich is immoral, and on and on. i guess in the end I would say both sides (Dem and Rep) are moral, but perhaps they are moral about different issues.
As far as Clinton’s book on giving, let me state first that I have not read the book, so I am certainly no expert. But, it seems from hearing him talk about it and reading blurbs about it that he is enouraging all of us to give money and time to causes we care about and make the nation better. I understand that ammounts differ and what not, but the idea of everyone doing something as they are able certainly seems like a noble proposal.
I like Huckabee (at least more than the other candidates). In fact, I kinda hope he gets the Republican nomination. But I have some reservations about him - including some that others here have not mentioned yet. I’ve posted them in a couple of places in case you are interested.
http://newunderthesun.blogspot.com/2007/12/huckabee-and-copeland-guilt-by.html
http://newunderthesun.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-huckabee-and-copeland.html
AN
“If we had spent $40 Million looking into your past…”
Just to be clear, Tony, that is not you personally, just a statement to make a point. I certainly was not pointing the finger at you.
Thought that was clear, just making sure.
It may be difficult, if not impossible to wage a war against a faceless, nameless foe, but you have to remember that this faceless, nameless foe attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans.
“…this faceless, nameless foe attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans.”
No, the people who attacked us had faces and names and we were well within our rights to go after them and those who supported them. Trouble is no one in Iraq is in that category and no one from Iraq has ever attacked the United States, nor as we now know has Iraq ever even had the means to attack us.
“I applaud Bush and Huckabee for bringing some dignity back to the executive branch of government.”
Huckabee I can’t speak to, but Bush is a charlatan. We all had the wool pulled over our eyes.
How is he dignified?