It appears that former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) is forming an exploratory committee (here) to consider a run for president.
Frankly, I think that conventional wisdom is often wrong, and that a fresh/unknown face with substance can rise to the top tier in such a large field whose "front-runners" have mainly "soft support" (read: support based on name ID) in general, and only tepid support from the GOP base.
Hello world!
7 years ago
6 comments:
Now this is good news for your side.
I got a call last night from someone connected with him telling me they are going to make it official, but I was told Huckabee was going to say something on Meet The Press tomorrow.
I've said it several times, but this is the guy that the Christian right can get behind without alienating more moderate republicans. Huckabee is constantly looking for ways to bridge the gaps without compromising his core values.
Actually, I shouldn't be touting him so much. When Republicans figure out what they've got in this guy, he could actually do very well, so I need to shut up about him!
I agree, and thought of your past generous comments about him when I read that.
But in my opinion, Republicans as a group (than Democrats as a group) seem more interested in a candidate's accomplishments than a candidate's "authenticity" or charisma. I don't think the same is true of "moderate" voters (Dems/Repubs) who aren't as impressed with a resume (read: "qualifications").
For example, I think a Bill Clinton would have had a much more difficult time winning a GOP primary in 1991 than he did winning the Dem primary. I guess part of it is I'd say because early "investors" in a campaign are more inclined to go with the "known" strengths of candidate than potential strengths such as charisma and how well they will appeal to the right side of the brain ("right" in the physiological sense, not political).
However, you can claim to be the opposite of a "shill" by candidly assessing the candidates (and being more likely able to say "I was right" later on).
Sharon is being kind. President Huckabee? lol... another 'great white hope' of religious conservatives. Give it up, we will never again elect a born again anti-abortion rights president , especially after this one. No chance / game over.
Pam,
You may be right, even if it is only by coincidence. But you said "we" will never elect; did you vote for Dubya . . . either time?
I hadn't paid attention to Huckabee's race. Though I'm not sure of the intended angle on that dagger . . .
Sharon can speak for herself, and generally does.
I make no secret of the fact I can't stand Bush. But comparing Bush to Huckabee just because they are both pro life Christians is apples and oranges. I think Ned would agree with me that it's unfair to categorize all conservative Christians as being the same just as it's unfair to say all liberals are the same.
Mike is nothing like Bush. Mike works well with Democrats and has a reasonable plan for a child once it is outside the womb, which what we lefties have been asking for.
He is pro environment, and he lost 100 pounds and is sort of on a health kick for the country, which isn't a bad thing. He doesn't pound anyone over the head with his personal beliefs; he shares. Therein is the difference between really annoying and narcissistic(Bush) and Mike Huckabee. Mike seems reasonable. He has a plan. He can form complete sentences.
The skeleton in Huckabee's closet.
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2006/12/higher_ground.aspx
Post a Comment