12.10.2007
The votes of the followers of Romney, Thompson, and to some extent those for McCain were really anti-Giuliani votes by social conservatives. Rudy’s lead in the national polls has made him the key factor in the race and social conservatives panicked at the idea of a pro choice nominee. But they were diffused among three candidates. Now that there is a consensus among social conservatives on one candidate — Huckabee — they have tipped in his favor creating a self-sustaining surge.
But with the surge comes scrutiny and vetting. We will see if Huckabee is up to handling it.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
As an agnostic conservative, I’m unsettled by the emphasis that Huck’s putting on his religion (I suspect it will be downplayed if he ever campaigns here in NY). I don’t have an issue with his faith per se, but when he starts talking about teaching ID in schools, or quarrantining HIV infected people as late as 1992, I think it shows that he can be too easily blinded from facts where they conflict with his faith. And after 8 years of Bush, I think the GOP is in danger of looking like the “Believers Only” club, and those of us who are military/foreign policy and economic conservatives are being taken for granted.
Of course my real problem with Huck is his lack of foreign policy experience. Were this 2000, he and Obama would have made an interesting and likely very civil campaign, but in 2008 I just don’t want either one leading our military.
Huckabee is doing a fantastic job so far in explaining (not running away from) his record. He resonates with average people because he comes across as sincere. I do not understand the critics about his lack of foreign policy experience—none of the GOP candidates have a great deal of experience either. He is a great communicator and he has all the skills of a diplomat. My husband is a military officer who supports Huckabee and we have other military friends who are also supporting Huckabee. They all would be proud to have him as their commander in chief. No one I know wants Hillary!
The only reason why Huckabee talks about Intelligent Design in the schools (and keep in mind that he says that he has no legal right to change this as President- it is up to the states- and so it is presonal opinion since they ASKED him) is because evolution, the way it is presented today, is taught as being mutually exclusive of a God creating the universe. So Mike, who again asked what this had to do with his Presidency (anymore than asking what is his favorite sports team and why), thought that the 2 ideas should be taught to encourage debate. That’s all.
I see postings everywhere talking about how Mike Huckabee thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old and should not be running for Presidency. This is an outright distortion as to what he (and I) believe. To quote Mike,”I don’t know how God created the world, because I wasn’t there.” He does not believe that everything in the bible is 100% real hard facts.
It is funny that Huckabee only promotes himself as a christian leader (which he was- he was elected to a christian office) and wants voters to know that in a conservative state and gets accused of being bigoted or playing the religion card. All Mike has said himself (outside of the billion questions on his faith from Creationism, to his view on Mormonism, the role of women in the Church, etc…) is that he has not waived on the issues of life and other social issues (which is true) and that he has the emotional fortitude to be President because of some of the very difficult social problems he has to face with his membership. I don;t think he wants to play the religion card at all and if people would stop asking Romney and him about it, it would be fine by them.
I think that Mike Huckabee can be great in foreign policy because he will work to see if we cannot rebuild some alliances in Europe (France is back behind us now) and understands the Islamo-threat. If I recall, he has people called ADVISORS who can clarify more of the “how-to” on running wars. If he wants, he could give McCain a job in his cabinet and that would solve that!
Candidates should stop trying to let people believe they know everything about everything.
I support Mike Huckabee because he will do so many great things and one of which is to end this horrible parisanship in Washington. No one else can.
Macvee, I’m a HS science teacher. Evolution is taught without God’s hand because SCIENCE is taught without God. It does not deliberately exclude God from the idea, either. Science can deal only with natural phenomena and that means any notion of God, Satan, Vishnu, Santa Claus, Dennis Kucinich or any other supernatural being simply lies outside the purview of science. ID simply lacks the research to back it up as a legitimate, well tested scientific theory, and by and large has been adopted by leading Creationists as the wedge to get God back in the science classroom (though I am sure many ground-level ID supporters may be unaware of ID’s history). His answer in one of the myriad debates about the topic was a clear dodge. I don’t think Rudy’s support for the Red Sox in this year’s WS has anything to do with being president either, but he still answered the question (and lost some votes because of it, but really, who needs those votes?).
In the case of the AIDS issue, I saw Huckabee try to explain his comments, pointing out that at the time much was unknown, but by 1992 that was very far from the truth. By then we knew it was caused by a virus, and knew how it was transmitted. There was simply no reason for a man running for office to be that ill-informed about one of the hottest topics of the day.
As for him not running on the religion card, that’d be fine if he didn’t just run an ad proclaiming himself a Christian Leader. In a race in which the issue of faith appears to be a litmus test for many voters, specifically those who would never vote for a member of a “cult”, the ad was a bad idea. It may well be that he didn’t intend for it to be a dig at Romney (or for that matter Rudy the Lapsed Catholic, or John “Agents of Intlerance” McCain), but he should have realized that’s how many would perceive it.
As for ending the partisanship, I think that’s a pipe dream right now, and even if it weren’t, I don’t see another white, male, Christian Southerner being someone that the left would want to reach out to. Honestly, he’s everything that their base abhors. As with Bush, the Far Left will paint every one of his actions as those of a zealot intent on making this a theocracy (never mind that Clinton tended to refer to God more than Bush, and Democrats seem to have a special affinity for fund raising in churches). And really, with Bush’s approval numbers hovering just above Michael Vick, I think rolling out a “new model Bush” (all the compassionate conservatism, now with improved articulation) would be a bad idea.
All that said, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, I’d be happy to support any of the GOP nominees, and think all of the Top 4 could serve well in cabinet positions in the White House (Rudy’d be a great AG, McCain as SecDef or Sec of State, Romney for Treasury, Huckabee as Interior, HHS). Of course the odds are good 1 of them will win the nomination (still think there’s an outside shot of it being decided at the convention, and that leaves the floor open to a “draft pick”), and another as VP (though I doubt McCain would take that role - the VP’s primary perk is as stepping stone to President, and he’ll likely not run in 2016; he’d be of greater use in a position with real authority).