"The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair."
- J.B. Lightfoot
Monday, October 22, 2007
This past Friday, a column by David Brooks, of the NY Times, focused on seven reasons why Huckabee might/will win the Republican nomination. He begins:
"The first thing you notice about Mike Huckabee is that he has a Mayberry name and a Jim Nabors face. But it’s quickly clear that Huckabee is as good a campaigner as anybody running for president this year. And before too long it becomes easy to come up with reasons why he might have a realistic shot at winning the Republican nomination:"
The seven reasons, without Brooks' explanation/substantiation are:
1. Voters in Iowa & NH are restless
2. Each of the [media-declared] top-tier candidates make certain parts of the GOP uncomfortable.
3. Mike is the most normal person (of any party) running for President.
4. Mike is part of the new generation of evangelical leaders.
5. Mike is most in tune with the white working class, whom Brooks mentions is the backbone of the GOP.
6. Mike's a former Governor.
7. Mike's a collaborative conservative.
He ends the column with:
". . . 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."
(There is much I've left out, it's best to read the relatively short column on your own.)
Also over the weekend, Arnold Schwarzenegger asserted that the Republican party should, "challenge the questions they were asked in the debates. “Someone has to say: ‘We’ve talked enough about immigration, now I want to talk about healthcare reform’.†The candidates had to “move the agendaâ€, he said."
What better reliably conservtative candidate to center the party than Mike Huckabee, who along with his conservative values including his (lifelong . . . cough cough . . . Romney, Thompson etc.) pro-life stance, finishing the war with dignity, 2nd Amendment Rights, Constitutional Pro-Marriage Amendment, etc. also includes things in his platform like increasing funding for Arts & Athletics in education, and building up renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, hydrogen, etc.
At the FRC Value Voters Summit this past weekend, Huckabee secured first place in their straw poll with 51% of the on-site voting. (Romney, who got 10.4% of the on-site poll won overall, after including online votes.) With Romney in a virtual tie for second in Iowa and mere points behind Romney's first place, The next 45 days could see a major shift in the whole election.
Instead of being like Bob Jones III, who has chosen a candidate for the chief reason of their ability to beat Hillary Clinton (btw - this is some of the more-flawed reasoning I've seen in a while), maybe you should choose a candidate who actually believes what you believe, stands what you stand for and honors God in the process. Forget the fact that he doesn't seem electable now - if you and enough others choose to stand on principle instead of politics, what seems impossible quickly becomes probable.
To hear it from the man himself, here's the last few minutes of Huckabee's speech at the Summit (excuse the lame Elvis joke):
I like Mike.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4188.
Comments on "Brooks of the NY Times on Mike Huckabee":
2. Quaid
- 10/22/2007 10:09 pm CDT
Raindream, there are 100s of videos on YouTube. If you watch 10 or so, you will get the gist of Huckabee's stances on the main issues.
You can also download an MP3 of his interview on the PBS Jim Lehrer NewsHour and you can watch an interview on Glenn Beck from last week on Mike's site.
While I'm certain you can find Thompson's stances on the issues quite easily, you might not want to watch any videos until it's time to go to bed.
3. Mandi
- 10/23/2007 8:29 am CDT
I loved his line, "I want to make it clear that I do not spell G-O-D .... G-O-P."
Also, on his website you can give a "Buck for Huck" -- don't know why that is so funny to me. ;O)
As someone in the daily trenches of the abortion mess I heart Huckabee. He appears to be a very genuine person and none of what he says comes off as fake or rehearsed. I'm excited to see what happens in Iowa.
6. Blake
- 10/23/2007 10:26 pm CDT
"It is unfortunate, however, that Huckabee only has about 1% of the cash that the Clinton Machine has. I don't think he can fight a general election with that kind of money."
If he is able to grab the nomination, he would have the whole of the Republican Party behind him to raise funds. It's just getting the nomination that will be hard. I really hope he pulls it off though.
7. Quaid
- 10/24/2007 9:20 am CDT
"It is unfortunate, however, that Huckabee only has about 1% of the cash that the Clinton Machine has. I don't think he can fight a general election with that kind of money."
You would think that. But considering that he only has 4% of the cash that the Giuliani machine has, yet he's beating him in key states, it appears that Huckabee's message converts those it reaches.
Obviously, money is extremely important. Still, money only carries a message, it doesn't create the message. Huckabee's message is obviously the MOST POWERFUL of all candidates if he has so little money, but so much support.
I suppose there isn't a reliable way to measure support relative to money raised, but if there were, it appears that Huckabee would be the leading candidate in the nation.
Also, as Blake mentioned, the Republican Party money will kick in, if he receives the nomination. The GOP has four times the money the Democrats do in terms of cash on hand.
Lastly, I think many Republicans are waiting to see who pans out of this muddled mess of candidates. They're waiting to give when it's obvious who will win. When it becomes obvious that Mike will take the primary, the cash will start flowin.
8. Joseph D. Walch
- 10/24/2007 6:41 pm CDT
That all is true, but there is a reason why he has very little money: see this response to Brook's Article:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12205
Now, I know I am biased, I am a Romney fan, but take that for what it's worth. I know people look askew at Romney's 'conversions' but I've studied Huckabee as well, and I just don't think we should put somebody up against the Clinton's unless he has the skeletons cleared out of his closet.
At least Romney never used Government for personal gain (even donating all of his $250,000 x 2 year Olympic salary to charity as well as his salary as governor).
Actually, Romney hasn't earned 1 penny in government, and he is willing to spend half his net worth to win the chance to serve as President (without pay probably--it's a principle of his church), What does that tell you about his morals?
9. Joseph D. Walch
- 10/24/2007 6:55 pm CDT
Actually I just found where Romney has vowed to donate all his salary if he is elected President.
If you really want to see where a man's ambition lies, just look at where his treasure is; and for Romney (whom I've met) it isn't in money or power. I think he actually doesn't mind if he loses the Presidency because for him--his life is not his own. He serves at the will and pleasure of his Lord (even though you all probably don't believe that).
Just trying to do my job as part of the Texas Romney campaign team, sorry for hijacking the thread.
10. Quaid
- 10/25/2007 10:45 am CDT
JDW,
When standing up for a conservative candidate (by tearing down another candidate), it's probably helpful to not link to a publication whose article's main thesis is supported by links of stories and blog posts(!?!) written by the Arkansas Times. After all, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Times, "is noted for its opinion columnists and feature articles that take a decidedly liberal stance in comparison to the larger, daily Democrat-Gazette. As of this writing (mid-2006), the Times typically advocates such causes as gay marriage, preservation or expansion of legal abortion, and elimination or tighter regulation of gifts to elected officials."
While I know that Romney used to agree with some of the Arkansas Times' positions, such as legal abortion, I don't think he'd liked to be attached to such a publication while running for the Republican nomination.
I won't start attacking Romney - trust me, it wouldn't be difficult - as you've done with Mike. Instead I'll focus on the article you linked and your comments:
"see this response to Brook's Article:"
The article you linked to doesn't respond to any of Brooks' points. Not one. It just said that Brooks thinks Huckabee is a nice guy (words that don't even exist in Brooks' column) and then attempts to bash Huckabee.
"At least Romney never used Government for personal gain"
That's great. (no sarcasm, here) But don't make Huckabee out to be a lesser candidate because he cashed his paycheck. That, frankly, is stupid.
I'm willing for our tax dollars to pay the $500,000 Presidential salary to Huckabee than to Romney's random, unnamed charities if it means a better USA. It's quite the bargain, actually.
If Romney hadn't jump-started his own campaign with his own finances, I believe he might even have less money than Mike does right now. Mike doesn't have a background in venture capital. He has a background as a pastor and Governor of Arkansas. Big diff, dude. I'm not condemning Mitt for financing his campaign, you just can't consider him a better man/candidate for having more money. (Bill Gates for President? He probably wouldn't take the salary, either.)
"I think he actually doesn't mind if he loses the Presidency"
Lastly, I'm pretty sure that Mitt minds if he loses. I don't think he'll jump off a cliff, but if a man fighting to be the leader of the country doesn't mind if he loses the fight, I don't want him to be our commander in chief, EVER.
Would he mind losing the fight in Iraq? What about against the terrorists? Does he mind losing the moral fabric of the nation to cultural whims?
I have a problem with a candidate who doesn't mind losing.
If I had to vote today, I'd be comfortable voting for Mike. I need to look at him and Thompson more closely--well, and look at a couple others too.