Monday, August 6, 2007

Huckabee In A National Election

Stephen Maloney’s ( ) comment on the last post considered how Mike Huckabee could fare in the general election, citing how Giuliani and Romney seem already to be aiming at the general election, in opposition to Democrats.

I actually strongly believe that Huckabee is the best Republican candidate to face a Democrat, particularly Hilary. He’s from Arkansas, remember? He knows the Clintons and he doesn’t underestimate Hillary.

But first, we all know that Huckabee like anyone else who is nominated by them, will have one BIG media disadvantage! He’s a REPUBLICAN! They’ll go after him. Questions will rise about whether he can be objective, given his religious biases. which will sometimes be portrayed more as delusions. But, Huckabee explains his faith straight out as not a mere private comfort, but as the driving force that compels concern about things that Republicans don’t speak enough about:.

His faith is what calls him to his concern for life, not just unborn, but afterward as well. In Arkansas he acted to provide health care coverage for children whose parents couldn’t afford it, and to structure a program of accountability in Arkansas (at effective and the appropriate state level. His faith called him to maintain Arkansas’ environment and parks and forests. He always cites the Boy Scout’s duty to “leave the place in as good or better condition than you found it. His faith calls him to highlight the immorality of corporate officials who reward themselves with great treasure while driving the corporation into bankruptcy and hanging thousands of employees out to dry. CEOs deserve to make a lot of money, but we should call evil what it is when they not only don’t reward, but punish “the employees who helped them make that money. Government can’t take control of corporations, but it can call out what is immorality.

I initially interrupted this response to listen to a brief radio interview with talk show host, Greg Allen in Iowa who has been strongly supporting Huckabee, in which he discusses a few of these things. It’s a good short listen, and it will be replayed on the web this afternoon. The campaign web site often puts these interviews up in audio (in this case) or video in the “Newsroom” Here’s the information on the show and where to find it:

10:50 a.m. CT – Guest on “The Right Balance” nationally-syndicated radio program with host Greg Allen. To listen to the program, check out: and (The show airs from 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. CT at

I want to say one other thing about what Huckabee would contend with, though again, I think any Republican would face something similar. Do you think everyone was crazy about Mitt Romney in Massachusetts? I watch the feeds from the web on Huckabee, and a good percentage of it appears to be sour grapes from leftward publications that never got over losing elections to Huckabee, in this traditionally Democratic state. There are old accusations (poorly founded unless you have an axe to grind) and cynical comments, usually when he males any sort of a wave in the national discussion. Bur if Huckabee is nominated, this stuff will be golden to the national media. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC will be demanding a resignation before Huckabee is signed in.

But I also think Huckabee is best equipped to respond to things with grace and dignity. Will that please everyone? Of course, not. This is America, where partisanship has come to resemble religious conflict like Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan, or at least Yankee and Red Sox fans.


Stephen R. Maloney said...

Larry, I think you make a very good case for Huckabee, as I expected you would. I would agree that the criticisms of Huckabee as a governor border on the shameful. Obviously, he was a very good governor. Republicans get held to a much higher standard (by the media, by Republicans, by just about everybody) than Democrats. I had someone tell me once that what Bill Clinton did in terms of sexual immorality wasn't significant because Clinton never made a point of stressing the importance of marriage, fidelity, and honesty. So . . . it was okay, right? I mentioned the Terri Schiavo case, which developed in a way (with her being starved to death) that surprised me greatly. I also realize that if Mike doesn't (somehow) win in the caucuses and primaries his views on the general election don't matter greatly. That case is something of a warning signal for candidates who are strongly pro-life, suggesting that most American may regard some life and death issues as "family" matters. Giuliani's comments at Drake were along those lines. I believe Mike should hammer hard on the issues you mentioned, such as the environment and corporate greed, and put them in terms of moral and social obligations. On the evolution issue -- a "trap" set for people like Mike -- I collected fossils as a small child (with the help of my mother). I STILL don't know how I stand on evolution, and it's not for lack of thinking about it and puzzling over the various inconsistencies in the issue. Like Mike, I don't accept the purely naturalistic view of life, and there's no reason why either of us should. It's a non-issue. We aren't choosing a Biologist-in-Chief.

Larry Perrault said...

Steve re evolution:
"We aren't choosing a Biologist-in-Chief."

I largely agree, and that's of course, what Mike Huckabee said: "I'm not applying to write an 8th-grade biology textbook." But I will say that from the other side: a candidate who was not even uncertain or at all immodest in asserting the "factuality" of evolution might suggest to me that he has a problem with modesty in construing the data, perhaps a personal problem with modesty, and maybe even an apriori hostility toward the many people, educated and literate, who do not agree with him.

In fact, I have read quite a bit and written often about evolution. Go down not too far back in this blog, and you will find a reference to the unrefined, "evolution is a fact" howling as an example of an immodest while shallow mindset.

I don't believe in, certainly a spontaneous natural evolution, not because unbelief is absolutely critical to my belief in God. Rather, because I find the evidence and the case uncompelling and have no a priori need to embrace an uncompelling argument. It is not unacceptable to think that God could create any way He wanted to.

But yes, in political terms it should be a non-issue and I have only discussed it in that context when the know-nothings at MSNBC dragged in into the process.