After The Debate -Still Behind Huckabee. Not Encouraged About Paul

I support Mike Huckabee based on his disposition. As you should hope from the pastor that he was, it tries to represent the character of Jesus. There are a few points that I would respond to, differently. But, I think he honestly and soberly holds those positions. There wasn’t much time to speak, of course. But, he did alright. But, I’d be surprised if “alright” is going to kick him to great national attention. Huckabee’s off to New Hampshire nest. Hopefully, the grassroots work in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, where he won a big couty straw poll of activists, and finished second in another, will bring a boost. I did read some slightly startled comments about his good presentation. A Duncan Hunter blogger called Huckabee and Romney “winners.” Below is a response I left at the blog of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=181424 (though I left it, they didn’t post my name), after irresponsible comments about Huckabee, and some comments from John Podhoretz and Peter Robinson at National Review.

I I have a towering respect for Ron Paul’s consistency and depth of thought. But, I desperately needed him to give an explanation for his assertive opposition to intervention in Iraq and an explanation of how the old, conservative isolationism of another world is safe and morally responsible. I did agree with his point that if we wanted to act in Iraq, we should have “gotten a declaration of war…and we should win it.” I said that, at the time. Bush did not pursue a constitutional path. He should have and I think, at the time, would have gotten a declaration of war if he’d said it was needed. If Congress refused, they’d own it. If a refusal hurt us, they’s lose security and defense credibility for at least a generation. I don’t think they have would have had the spine to refuse, then. But A) none of that answers questions about security and moral responsibility, and B) Paul knows all too well that unconstitutional impulse and process are the rule in Washington DC, and it has been for foreign policy since WWII.

Paul was too heavy on the “trumped up justification” line. Most conservative bloggers called left-wing, which is ignorant. But, since I can get no clarification, either here or through his campaign workers, I have nothing but speculation. As I’ve heard him do before, Paul talked about “no real threatening army, navy, and air force.” A brief reaction: Al Quadea has no army, navy, or air force. But two towering skyscrapers are down and thousands are dead. I can only speculate that Paul prizes constitutional scrupulosity more than concern about our people and our cities. Speaking as someone who once left The Republican Party for The Constitution Party, I’m not going there, without a more compelling contention than that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck Todd's credibility and judgment went right out the window on this! http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=181424

Not because it isn't forgivable to be ignorant about something that isn't in the center of your radar. But, to charge someone with a "lie" when you don't have documented, indisputable truth of it, is just irresponsible. Todd certainly has nothing of the sort. 1) He doesn't offer any and 2)There ISN'T any, because there was no lie.

Chris Matthews was also typically unable to even imagine anything other than the image he has, himself, burned onto his consciousness. Matthews spoke to Huckabee of "backing down."

In the interview with George Stephanopoulis under discussion, Stephanopoulis asked whether a comment Huckabee had made about faith was an attack on Romney. And Huckabee said he didn'r think Romney's religion should be a disqualifier.

But, what DOES matter about the SUBJECT of religion is that one's faith is not segregated from one's actions and beliefs. These guys are either unprepared or perceptually lost if they don't know that this candidate is the LAST one who would have an interest in or a justification for lying to them. Perhaps, it's just the cynicism of always dealing with politicians.

Mike Huckabee... [John Podhoretz]

...is really terrific. It's hard to know whether a debate watched only by a few million people can really launch someone, but I'd say halfway through that he is far and away the most likable and eloquent candidate on that stage.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

JPod, Just As Right As K-Lo [Peter Robinson]

I promise: I'd started typing a post on Huckabee when I saw that JPod had beat me to it. But here's what I wanted to say: Only one man in this debate so far has really helped himself: Mike Huckabee. Relaxed and funny—he got off the only really funny line when they were all asked whether they'd amend the constitution to let Schwarzenegger run for president—Huckabee is also articulate and determined. Giuliani is proving fascinating, but not in an altogether reassuring way. But Huckabee? This guy is coming across as likeable, smart, and maybe even up to the job.