Sunday, December 16, 2007
# Posted 10:57 AM by Taylor Owen
HUCKABEE A DISASTER? Rich Lowry of the National Review says that Huckabee is the GOPs Howard Dean -- an untested governor who is surging in the polls because he appeals to one niche within the party. Lowry adds that like Dean, Huckabee's nomination would be tantamount to suicide for his party.
I haven't had the chance to read much about Huckabee yet, but have found his performances in debates and interviews were quite proficient, even if I disagree with some of his stands. But I strongly agree with this point made by Lowry:
I think GOP primary voters may want a candidate who has nothing to with Iraq, and that kind of gamble may seem worthwhile as things on the ground are getting better and better. But I agree that national security has to be the core of any winning strategy in 2008. Then again, what real credentials do Romney or Thompson have in that regard? Or even Giuliani, who's great "foreign" policy moment took place in his own back yard. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Ron Paul in 2008! (Just for the record, that was a joke. Also for the record, if you are a Ron Paul supporter who didn't think that was funny, please be nice.)
Then, there's national security, the Republican trump card during the Cold War and after 9/11. Huckabee not only has zero national-security credentials, he basically has no foreign-policy advisers either, as a New York Times Magazine piece this Sunday makes clear.
Posted by David (10) opinions -- Add your opinion
Well, Ron Paul does have military experience, so that puts him ahead of the rest in this regard aside from maybe Thompson, Hunter and of course McCain.
He can't win. Repeat: he can't win. Huckabee is the Democrats' dream opponent.
He will take the Party down with him. It needs to be Thompson, Romney, or Rudy. Hunter would be nice too, but his chances of winning would be less.
Paul??? A catastrophe. I just hope he doesn't distract the rest of us when he loses the primary and is stupid enough to try and run as a 3rd party candidate.
RP's experience as a more or less drafted physician isn't exactly the kind of military experience that a President needs.
And this is one physician who won't vote for that crackpot, even if he's the Republican nominee.
The point you neglect is that Huckabee's stated foreign policy is simply dreadful. It's Carter-esque, ironically when we are again at great odds with Iran. And his domestic policy isn't too grand either. To me, Huckabee is the exact opposite of Giuliani.
An interesting point to remember; Arkansas is a traditionally Democratic state. It's the same state the elected Bill Clinton more than once.
The more press and support Huckabee gets, the less I care who of the other frontrunners get the nomination. Suddenly a Romney/Thompson ticket doesn't seems so bad.
RP's experience as a more or less drafted physician isn't exactly the kind of military experience that a President needs."
Sure, why not? Maybe we'll finally have a president that sees to it that Walter Reed isn't run into the ground.
Whether fair or not, we're never going to have a president with a name as funny as "Huckabee".
Plus, Lowry doesn't even mention other aspects of the Huck record, such as collaborating with the MexicanGovernment in a deal that, oddly enough, made it easier for illegal immigrants to come to Arkansas. In fact, the MexicanConsulate that Huck helped establish is going to have to add on staff to keep up with the demand.
Since when does the President need military experience? Clinton didn't have any. Bush for all practical purposes didn't have any either.
If Iraq keeps getting better, any Rep can win in November against any of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards (except maybe not Ron Paul); except maybe Mormon Romney. Not fair, nor admirable in America, but real.
"Huckabee" is at first worse than Romney is "Mormon" -- but if he jokes about it his policies and his own likeability will overrule the first impression. Unlike Romney's Mormon faith.
At least with Ron Paul leaving Iraq, and hopefully NATO and reduced funding for the UN, the US could have a consistent non-interventionist policy, and save big bucks in the short term. If Darfur-like genocide / Killing Fields happen, it might well be blamed on the murderers who are there, rather than the Americans who leave -- plus Darfur, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, kablooiestan, and other possible EurAsian disasters could happen.
I wish I liked Huckabee's policies more though ... looks like I'm drifting towards Fred.
(No no Rudy, McCain, nah.)
[i]If Iraq keeps getting better, any Rep can win in November against any of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards (except maybe not Ron Paul); except maybe Mormon Romney. Not fair, nor admirable in America, but real.
"Huckabee" is at first worse than Romney is "Mormon" -- but if he jokes about it his policies and his own likeability will overrule the first impression. Unlike Romney's Mormon faith.[/i]
Hip hip hooray for American bigotry, still alive and well in 2007!
If Iraq is stable then foreign policy will be off the table and the Dems have the edge.Post a Comment
The Republicabs will have an uphill battle campaigning against a progressive Democratic agenda. Everyone wants something and the Dems will promise everything.