(Note: as of this writing, I haven’t yet caught up with today’s GOP debate)
In a few recent posts, I’ve mentioned my intrigue with Huckabee as a GOP candidate. With some of the recent press and online commentary, I think I ought to either apologize, or at least better explain that intrigue.
Politically, I’m mostly a centrist. I’m socially liberal, fiscally conservative, both tempered by realism (or delusions of realism), and I’m generally distrustful of government as we know it. Due to a lack of viable political candidates with similar views, I tend to use different criteria to govern how I’ll vote. And, I tend to prefer Washington when neither major political party has a monopoly of power.
Thus, as much as it pains me after the past seven years to say it, for the next year or so, I’m probably going to sound like a Republican when it comes to armchair-quarterbacking the Presidential race. Given the likelihood of a Democratic Congress (and with a chance of the Dems getting to 60 seats in the Senate), I’d like to see a President in office who will keep the excesses of a Democratic Congress in check.
In terms of satisfying my social liberal / fiscal conservative / realistic desires, Ron Paul and Chris Dodd arguably come closest. However, Dodd seems unlikely to be viable and reeks too much of being a professional politician. And Dr. Paul….well, he fails the “realistic” test so soundly that his unviability hardly bears mentioning. So, I’m left at looking at other criteria.
The next President is going to inherit a heckuva mess from the Bush administration. American diplomatic credibility abroad is shot. Credibility of the Presidency with much of the American public is similarly abysmal. A mess has been made of civil rights in the name of the War on Terror. There are a ton of bills coming due from the spending binge the federal government has been on for the past seven years. And, while the political polarization of the past decade is helpful in keeping reigning in the feds from making too much mischief, the current level of partisan stress can’t be a good thing for the country.
All of the major candidates probably have it in them to face those challenges. Some candidates are probably stronger in certain elements of that list than others, but none of the frontrunners have me feeling a desire to emigrate should they be elected.
But, that list of challenges is part of why I’m intrigued by Huckabee. He comes across as a nice, credible, principled guy…and that, I suspect, could go a long way towards addressing the credibility and civility issues the next President will face. A strong, but humble President would serve us well right about now…and that’s Huckabee’s appeal for me.
Yes, Huckabee’s stand on many social issues trouble me. However, I’m not terribly concerned about that, because of my assumption that Congress will have a relatively liberal Democratic flavor at least in 2009 and 2010.
If we were looking at a socially conservative Congress likely being in power, then yes, I’d be very uncomfortable with the idea of a Huckabee theocracy, just as I have been uncomfortable with the Bush Junior Imperial Reign.
While I’m on a roll, looking at the other viable candidates in the reconstruction/rebuilding mold:
- Romney—I like his talking points in regards to fiscal conservatism, and I suspect that he’s more realistic than the what he’s able to portray in the primary campaign. However, he reeks too much of being a poll-driven politician.
- Giuliani—Earns brownie points in my book for social moderatism/realism and for coming across as more human than politician. He’d give Hillary a run for her money in Connecticut, meaning that the Presidential candidates might finally pay some attention to this state. However, is his manner really conducive for the rebuilding challenges that he’d face in the White House?
- McCain—Deserves Kudos for fiscal conservatism, and for sticking to his guns on Iraq recently. However his manner too doesn’t seem conducive to fixing the diplomatic damage done in recent years.
- Thompson—In addition to the warm-and-fuzzy criteria that seems to be dominating my thoughts recently, I also want to see a President who’s a competent administrator. Thompson hasn’t yet conveyed his qualities in that regard to me.
- Ron Paul—Shouldn’t be on this list, as I don’t consider him to be viable. The criticism about his not being a “good” libertarian may also have merit. However, given the power of mainstream media to shape political discourse, and given that media attention is driven by numbers… I will likely vote for Dr. Paul in February, in an effort to help keep the media reporting on small-ell libertarian ideas that much longer.
Among Dems:
- Dodd is the Democratic candidate I probably would like the most, if I were going to participate in the D’s primary in February. He’s well rounded and respectable, and at least somewhat realistic…except about his chances of winning the nomination. Plus, there is a definite politican’s stench about him.
- Edwards I probably couldn’t bring myself to vote for under any circumstance for a very simple reason: I’m an actuary in the insurance industry, and Edwards can hardly go a day without blaming insurers for all that is wrong with the country.
- Obama probably satisfies the likability criterion, and his history of “crossing the aisle” would aid in the rebuilding needed. However, his relative inexperience tempers any thoughts I might have of him being realistic.
- Hillary Clinton impressed me both times I’ve met her, and she strikes me as being a very able politician. However, the idea of her in the White House with Democrats controlling Capitol Hill is particularly scary to me. Plus, I recall an comment I encountered recently which argued that Bush-43 was elected because his supporters though his administration would be just like his dad’s. I wonder if the same lazy thinking might be at work in generating support for Clinton, with possibly equally disasterous consequences at risk.
But back to Huckabee (and to wrap this post up)—Yes, I’ve heard a lot in the past couple of weeks that troubles me about Huck. That is, of course, a sign of Dems and the rest of the GOP field doing their jobs in trying to compete against the guy, and therefore it’s important to keep the salt-shaker around when considering these newest revelations.
However, after fifteen years of scandals, shenanigans, and abuse of power by the White House…is it too surprising that the appearance of potential respectability might be appealing?
5 responses so far ↓
1 Vincent Freeman // 12 Dec 2007 at 11:56 pm
You stated “I’m socially liberal, fiscally conservative” & you’ve concluded Huckabee is the choice for you? With a Dem. congress & Huckabee presidency, you get a balance on social issues. However, the combination of Huckabee plus a Dem. Congress results in massive taxing, borrowing & spending. Respectability isn’t garnered by good composure and a catchy line about issues, which I admit Huckabee is the best at. It’s about good policy. Huckabee’s social views don’t affect me much either way, but it’s his spending & taxing history. I often think that if he wasn’t pro-life, he’d be a democrat.
Here’s how I see the primary elections turning out.
The Dem primary is a two horse race between Hillary & Obama. Edwards, Richardson & especially Dodd (sorry) don’t have any advantage on issues, money, straw polls or grassroots which can catapult them ahead. Outside the Bill vs Oprah endorsement, I find the Dem race relatively lackluster. It’s the GOP race that has captured my interest.
As far as the GOP field, it boils down to four candidates. Giuliani, Romney, Paul & Huckabee. McCain is broke and doesn’t have the grassroots he had back in 2000. Thompson comes across as incompetent at times and has been lazy about campaigning. Giuliani & Romney have name recognition, plus lots of money (in Romney’s case it’s much of his own). Neither has captured the minds of fiscal conservatives or the evangelicals, and seem to be holding onto votes due to coverage and recognition. That’s allowed Paul & Huckabee to compete.
Paul is an interesting variable, because although he doesn’t register as high in mainstream polls, he has the most passionate grassroots resulting in winning the majority of straw polls indicating high turnout. It’ll be interesting to see how this translates in Iowa, where we can expect a turnout as low as 7% and New Hampshire (turnout probably 40-50%) where independents are the majority presence. With his 4th quarter fundraising expected to lead the GOP, I have now considered him a realistic candidate due his advantage in these areas plust the lack of a frontrunner.
Huckabee is the other former darkhorse. He now leads in many MSM polls, which is still in low the 20%, due to the balance of the field, mainly because the evangelical right have endorsed him. However due to his record of massive taxes, fiscal conservatives balk, which has placed him in a tie with Giuliani in polls. I do think he can win some early primaries, but I think a lot of his candidacy will depend on his 4th quarter fundraising efforts. His campaign hasn’t raised any money previous to this quarter as seen here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
Back to your points on respectibility. I quote you, then respond.
“American diplomatic credibility abroad is shot.”
Huckabee wants to continue doing the same things as Bush, so I don’t see his appeal to you here. Why not Obama or Paul instead? These are the two guys who’ve stood out against the war from the beginning. Obama took on heat for dropping his flag pin as it reflected a false patriotism. And Paul, who active military Americans most donate to, said that the Congress should follow the Constitution and declare the war. How will Huckabee have more diplomatic credibility than either of these guys?
“A mess has been made of civil rights in the name of the War on Terror.”
Huckabee is the guy who thinks we need to quarantine Americans with AIDS.
“Credibility of the Presidency with much of the American public is similarly abysmal.”
Parts of the GOP loves him, but other parts hate him. I don’t think he can pull the middle, and I still have little confidence in the credibility of a President who’s willing to continue the War on Terror, now into Iran, when 70%+ of Americans want it to end. He also says things like he wants to end the income tax, but then he says he wants to implement the fair tax. He is so smooth, lol.
“There are a ton of bills coming due from the spending binge the federal government has been on for the past seven years.”
Huckabee taxes & spends more the Democrats. So he’ll facilitate, not check, taxing & spending.
Everything you say you want, I just don’t see how Huckabee stands for it. He comes off really well in debates & interviews, but I think it’s important to be more than just enamored without any reasons behind it. Everything you say you want, he doesn’t stand for.
2 MikeTheActuary // 13 Dec 2007 at 1:20 am
Re diplomatic credibility:
Well, as I’ve pointed out…I actually changed my party affiliation officially over to the GOP in order to help get Paul’s numbers up (not because I like him, but because I’d like a bit more media attention on something other than the D/R party mantras). In Connecticut, one has to pre-declare a party affiliation in order to participate in the primary, which makes Obama kind of moot for me at the moment.
If I were ranking Democratic candidates in my mind, Obama might be at the top of my list of viable Democratic candidates.
In terms of Huckabee “wanting to do the same things” as Bush, I’m not sure that I’d agree…and that’s not relevant to the point I was trying to make.
The Bush administration has deceived, belittled, and/or outright arrogantly ignored those who disagree with the party line. The next President needs to change that pattern away from being standard operating procedure.
True, that’s what he indicated in a 1992 questionnaire. A few years before that, before AIDS began to be understood, that wasn’t an uncommon position to take. That Huckabee still held that view in as late as 1992 does trouble me…but that still wasn’t too far out of the norm in Arkansas at the time.
Frankly, none of the major, viable candidates really gives me the warm-fuzzies when it comes to civil rights. (Paul is excluded from my consideration on this point because I don’t see him as viable.)
However, when it comes to toning down the impression of President as imperial tyrant back to chief executive… many of the major candidates probably have some ability in this regard. Huckabee’s appearance of humility intrigues me within this context.
Something that seems to be lost among the fiscal conservatives opposing Huckabee he was governor of a state with a balanced budget amendment at a time when that state’s infrastructure was nightmarish. Given the choice of finding the funds to improve the infrastructure (attracting new business, bolstering the state’s revenue flow, theoretically reducing the odds of future revenue/expenditure squeezes), doing nothing, or finding a third option likely to be less acceptable to the majority of Arkansans…. Huckabee seemed to take the most realistic path open to him.
The things I want, I’m not going to get. These days, I don’t see a the trifecta of social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and realism as being electable in the minds of most Americans. The best I can realistically hope for is a bit of voter education to take place (i.e., continuing coverage of Ron Paul, hence my likely voting for him in the primary), and for a divided government to keep both major parties in check.
So assuming that a divided government (GOP White House, Dem Congress) can keep the undesirable nuttiness/repressiveness/whateverness in both parties in check…what’s wrong with being interested in a likeable, honest-seeming, non-political-sounding, and realistic-ish candidate?
3 Vincent Freeman // 13 Dec 2007 at 10:45 am
Let’s forget civil rights, since I’m also pessimistic about everyone else’s stance on this issue.
Again, I quote you, then respond.
“The Bush administration has deceived, belittled, and/or outright arrogantly ignored those who disagree with the party line. The next President needs to change that pattern away from being standard operating procedure.”
Other than Giuliani, I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that Huckabee fits this criteria better than the other GOP candidates (I exclude Dem’s since you seem adamant about having a GOP White House). This is guy who apparently destroyed State of Arkansas computers as outgoing Governor.
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/01/huckabee_gimmegate_continues.aspx
“However, when it comes to toning down the impression of President as imperial tyrant back to chief executive… many of the major candidates probably have some ability in this regard. Huckabee’s appearance of humility intrigues me within this context.”
Again, it’s simply appearance that you’re attracted to?
“Something that seems to be lost among the fiscal conservatives … Huckabee seemed to take the most realistic path open to him.”
What’s realistic about giving the average Arkansas a 47% increase in taxes? He wants US citizens to pay for illegal immigrant healthcare & higher education. Arkansas now has $1billion in debt services. Fiscal conservatives have a very realistic view on who he is.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316496,00.html
I just don’t agree with you that a GOP White House plus a Dem Congress automatically results in keeping parties in check. After all, Huckabee worked with Dems, not the GOP, for all these tax increases.
“what’s wrong with being interested in a likeable, honest-seeming, non-political-sounding, and realistic-ish candidate?”
Those are some clever hypenated words. So, in addition to being Republican, someone who is “honest-seeming, non-political-sounding, and realistic-ish” is your criteria you’ve settled for to elect your next President? If you said something like I’m pro-big gov’t or at least I don’t mind, and I want a guy whose Christian beliefs will affect his policy, then although I’d disagree with you, at least you’d have principles that you stuck with.
I don’t mean to come off as an idealist either, because I think if you don’t mind continued spending but want social liberalism, then you have an entire field of candidates to choose from. They just happen to be Democrats (and I say this as a fiscal conservative). If you want realistic & fiscal conservatism, but don’t mind losing social liberalism, you have Romney (Giuliani just comes off as the most dishonest of all the candidates). If you want fiscal conservatism & social liberalism, but don’t mind rooting for a darkhouse, then you have Paul.
However you’ve chosen to give up both fiscal conservatism & social liberalism. Huckabee also isn’t any more realistic a candidate than anyone else due to his fundraising as seen from the link in my previous post (things may change in this quarter).
To revisit your “honest-seeming, non-political-sounding, and realistic-ish” quote, it reminds me of a quote I’ll leave you in response.
“The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
- Mark Twain
4 MikeTheActuary // 13 Dec 2007 at 5:28 pm
It seems kind of sad to say this… but in the absence of a viable candidate with whom I agree enough, when looking at the candidates, appearance has an effect.
That doesn’t necessarily govern my voting. In the primary I’ll be voting for Paul for strategic reasons previously stated. In general elections I follow a personal algorithm that, for the ‘08 Presidential race will lead me to vote for the leading third party candidate if Connecticut isn’t competitive, and for the GOP candidate if Connecticut is competitive.
But as for my recent interest in Huckabee — he comes across as a nice, humble guy with whom I disagree with, who seems likely to act based on his principles rather than out of pure political strategery. I’d likely have to hold my nose (at a minimum) to vote for any other major candidate. With Huckabee…perhaps nose-holding isn’t necessary (although I might accidentally be selling my soul to a Baptist convention by doing so).
There’s a funny thing about looking at percent changes — they tend to mask the absolute dollar changes.
When Huckabee took office, Arkansans had the 42nd highest tax burden in the country. They now have the 32nd highest.
Yes, the magnitude of the increase is troubling. However, I’d argue that it’s mitigated a little when you put the starting and ending points in perspective. And, I’d take that over spending increases without revenue offsets.
That’s true, and that is definitely a risk. The potential of the two parties keeping each other in check doesn’t preclude them from consipiring to commit mischief. I still think it’s better than giving either party a virtual monopoly.
Ah well. The original post was actually intended as an apology, or at least an explanation for my having spoken of my intrigue with Huckabee in light of his being almost diametrically opposed to my own views. Yes, it’s inconsistent….but I find myself liking his manner anyway, and understanding how others could really like him.
5 USpace // 17 Jan 2008 at 4:27 pm
Huckleberry is too conservative on religion and too liberal on criminals and the economy and immigration.
Huckabye? Huckabee wants to have adulterers, homosexuals and rape victims stoned to death. He also wants to make alcohol and music videos illegal, and make women 2nd class citizens and to take all girls out of school.
Oops, my bad, that’s another ‘religion’.
Hey, anybody but the PIAPS!
if you’re MAD
punish your country
VOTE for Hillary
http://haltterrorism.com/
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.bl…d.blogspot.com/
.