I would never vote for Gov. Huckabee because I disagree with him on many policy issues. But that’s the extent of my problem with the guy. I actually think he would govern lawfully, and with sincerity, if not toward the ends I would choose. He just seems like a nice guy who wants to do what he thinks is right. The kind of person you’d be friends with even though his policies are deeply misguided.
But does it only seem this way because of his position in the race? He’s not top-tier so he has the luxury of not sacrificing his integrity like McCain and others have done? I don’t really feel that, but I don’t know the guy that well. I just know what I’ve seen of him in the debates and on news shows.
So what say you? Would Huckabee govern the way he has run the race so far–that is, more or less on the level and without a bunch of lies, demagoguery, and tricky bullshit?
I don’t know much about him, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why he hasn’t caught on. He’s reliably conservative and religious, he isn’t demonstrably insane, he has a great inspirational story with his remarkable weight loss, and unlike the rest of the GOP slate, he’s likable. He’s the only one of the lot that I’d like to have a beer with, even though he’d probably tell me I was going to hell for drinking it.
I mean, he’s far too wingnutty for me to vote for him, but I don’t get why people who like that sort of thing aren’t finding him to be exactly the sort of thing they like.
I’m still calling him the dark horse for the nominee. TradeSports has him at 3.3 for the nomination (that is, $3.30 wins you $100 if he’s nominated), and I’d almost take a little of that.
At this point, given a choice between Huckabee (who appears to sincerely hold views that I disagree with drastically but also appears to understand the importance of rule of law, etc.) and another candidate like the current holder of the presidential office (who doesn’t appear to actually hold any view sincerely and also appears to despise the rule of law, etc.), I’d vote for Huckabee in a heartbeat. Hell, if Huckabee were on the ballot in 2008, and Clinton (who appears to be as bought and paid for as any of the others on both sides) was as well, I’d have a hard time of it in the little booth…
I know it’s shallow, and I wouldn’t vote for him in any case, but that name drives me insane. Huckabee. Huckabee. It sounds like a cartoon character or something.
Still, he seems like a pleasant enough guy, but his views are pretty much opposite mine. Given the choice between someone I disagree with who sincerely holds those views and someone I disagree with who is up for grabs, I’ll go with the latter. At least then he might be up for my grabs.
Let me lay it on the line, actually. Given a candidate who was diametrically opposed to my views on social issues, but who was committed to returning the government to the position it held prior to 2001 vis a vis Constitutional checks and balances and the idea that even the President isn’t above the law, I would vote for that candidate. Pro-life, anti-gay, women-barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen, whatever. It’s not Bush’s principles-for-sale that are dangerous. It’s his disregard of the way this country is supposed to be and has been run for 200+ years.
Personally, I have no information and no opinion about Huckabee’s political integrity, but it’s only fair to note that some detractors disagree with the OP’s characterization of him as “on the level”. E.g., from the National Jewish Democratic Council:
I have been thinking for a couple of weeks that Huckabee will end up as Rudy’s running mate. Think about it…he balances out Rudy with conservative positions, and geography among other things.
I also think he’ll pick up Thompson supporters as Fred continues to fade. Who knows? He may catch on, but he needs some more money and exposure before the multi-state primaries start next March.
Just because he’s from Arkansas doesn’t mean he’s dumb enough to sell out the [longshot, and merely potential] office of the President for some “$2 … napkins and place mats [or a] $250 … 12-piece Kitchen Essentials cookware set.”
The laundry list that’s on that silly blog is full of examples similar to Huckabee using weasel words to describe his position wrt hot topic issues [in AR anyway], like evolution. Of course, the blogger chooses to ignore the actual meaning of what Huckabee says in favor of an alarmist interpretation.
Well, like I said, I have no personal knowledge of or opinion about Huckabee’s political integrity. But just going on the general principle that few if any national-level politicians are free of scandals about corruption and/or abuse of power, I’m somewhat skeptical about the OP’s view of him as “a nice guy who just wants to do what’s right”. It may be true, but I think it’s worthwhile to get the opinions of the other side too.
If you don’t like the blog piece I cited above, here is part of a more detailed critique from a different source, which does not mention the “giftregistrygate” controversy that you consider trivial:
So are many people.
I don’t think he’s a YEC. From the little I’ve heard him say he may have an opinion more akin top that of the Vatican than Jack Chick.
It is trivial. I see no reason to doubt the story that Janet Huckabees friends had the idea for the registry.
How very unfortunate that the person who put together the new piece you have linked to fails to provide links to the stories cited. Thus, unless we’re willing to take their word we have to repeat their research.
I certainly have opinions about posters who employ such tactics. I’m tempted to hold the same opinion about the author of the piece you linked to.
He’s showing the honesty and integrity of any candidate who’s hopelessly out of the running and has nothing to lose. I don’t see any substantive difference in that regard between him and the real contenders, who have to be more measured in what they say lest they offend any interest groups or wealthy supporters. Is there really any more to him, or to Paul or Kucinich’s attractiveness either, other than being outside vs. inside the bubble?
When, or rather if, he gets out of the single digits, then we can discuss his character more seriously, okay? Meanwhile, let’s compare his record of achievements and statements to those of the real contenders before they entered the bubble, if we want to be fair to any of them.
This list is silly too. http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/01/huckabee_brings.php
Huckabee Defended Parole of Convicted Rapist Who Later Committed Murder. Governor Huckabee found himself defending the “parole, during Huckabee’s governorship, of convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, who later committed a murder in Missouri. Huckabee said he regretted Dumond’s actions but denied playing a proactive role in the release decision by Arkansas’ parole board, and claimed that most of the board’s members had been appointed by his predecessors.” [New York Times, 1/29/07]
… Bill Clinton pardoned him for “humanitarian” reasons…
DuMond had been accused of raping a Clinton cousin in 1984 and was hog-tied and castrated before he even went to trial.
He used to be enraged about it, especially when the cracker sheriff, who was a pal of the rape victim’s father, scooped up DuMond’s balls, put them in a jar, and showed them off.
<snip>
As Clinton was abandoning Arkansas for national politics, he stymied DuMond’s release from prison, ignoring the judgment of his own parole board in June 1990 that DuMond’s continued incarceration was a “miscarriage of justice.”
Huckabee’s part consisted of “defending” the parole by saying he didn’t have anything to do with it.
**When this is the kind of misleading stuff that the Dems are having to resort to to get dirt on the guy… **
He’s one of the three that claimed disbelief in evolution (at least, human evolution) during one of the debates (differentiating him from, say, the Vatican, at least as I understand their position). He later “clarified” his position; the scare quotes are because I couldn’t determine any substantial change from his original statements. I’m pretty sure he laid it all out in an Op-Ed in the NY Times that appeared shortly after the debate.
This was, of course, the point I made in my OP. But what is your reason for thinking that? How can you tell the difference between someone who looks good by circumstance and someone who is good and happens to be in a circumstance that allows everyone to look that way?