Huckabee is finished in his run for president. It may not be official yet, but with the Southern Baptist preacher’s loss in a South Carolina primary full of conservative Southern white Christians… he ain’t got nothin’.
Literally.
Not only does he not have the votes of what he has tried to form into his “base,” he also has no momentum, no money and no campaign organization to compete on the national level with giants like McCain and Ward Cleaver Romney. However, what Huckabee can say is that he energized the Christian conservative base like no one else has in this campaign (although that is not saying a lot), and this will likely win him a the number two spot on the ballot when McCain leaves Romney in the dust saying “Golly gee whiz! What happened?” and Giuliani… wait, who? Oh, nevermind…
McCain is a suspicious creature to the religious right, and his pandering to them went over about as well as his friendship with Bush. If he wants to shore up their support in November, McCain will have to run with someone with some more credibility on the Republican’s issues - God, guns and gays. Not only does Huckabee provide this, he also manages to do it while wooing the crap out of bleeding hearts like me, who rarely meet Baptists that seem trustworthy.
A McCain-Huckabee ticket hits all the right Rovian wedge issues on the head, but with a twist of compassion.
War on Terror? Check - Mac’s a war veteran and former prisoner of war that everyone respects.
Experience? Check - McCain’s been in Washington since Lincoln was shot.
Fresh face of change? Check - We’re not sure if Huckabee has even been anywhere in Washington besides Russert’s studio.
Hate-mongering religious issues? Check - Huckabee is a Southern Baptist, BUT he manages to take the GOP’s edge off these issues and make you realize he has actually put some deep soul-searching into them (AND, he supports the major aspects of Christianity that got dropped from the GOP platform because they didn’t meld well when the Sons of Confederate Veterans made a change and decided to leave the Dems and join the GOP). Double whammy - ridicu-liberals will continue to despise him for comments he made 15 years ago (no matter how irrelevant now), and moderate Christians will feel all warm and fuzzy inside about him.
All other wedge issues? Check - Huckabee is southern and white and Republican. No matter what he might have done with taxes as governor of Arkansas, those three qualities will turn enough good ol’ boy heads away from whoever the Dems run that it won’t matter.
You heard it here first. McCain-Huckabee versus… someone… in 2008.
Be sure to check back in July when I pry my foot out of my mouth.
1 Jason // Jan 20, 2008 at 09:14 AM
You’re right: xenophobic overreactions to perceived threats have no relevance to a person’s ability to act responsibly as the President. Sign me up for the next car on the Huckabee express!
2 Thomas // Jan 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
In 1992, before knowledge of AIDS was widespread, I would bet more than just the xenophobes were mulling over quarantine for victims of the spreading and terrifying disease. While it would clearly be wrong to say today, due to the time period in which he said it, I think it’s irrelevant.
For comparison, I would point to Bob Byrd’s membership in the KKK a thousand years ago. Should we continue to hold that against him, one of the most progressive politicians in Washington? I don’t. I attribute it to a lack of worldly knowledge at the time, and I think we need to forgive him for it.
As for other “xenophobic overreactions to perceived threats,” there are some much bigger examples from sitting president whom we have deified in the American pantheon - Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus (wrong), and FDR’s internment camps for the Japanese-Americans (also wrong). While we shouldn’t trample on their memories for these acts, they have to be put in context. Neither is excusable, but they have to be remembered in context.
3 Jason // Jan 20, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Asking for context is fine. I think by 1992 when Huckabee made his statement it was already well known that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease; that one cannot get it by sitting on a bus or working next to someone who is infected. Wikipedia cites an article from 1988 that investigates heterosexual (sexual) transmission of AIDS, which indicates that the scientific community certainly knew by 1992 that one could only contract HIV/AIDS through unprotected sex. A booklet was sent to every American household in 1988 that stated that HIV/AIDS can not be transmitted through casual contact.
Now, I may have overly high expectations (I don’t think so, in this case), but someone in the position to make policy decisions regarding a disease (or who is contemplating what policy decisions he or she might make, such as a quarantine) should seek the advice of experts on the given topic. If the scientific community knew, in 1992, that AIDS is sexually transmitted, why didn’t Huckabee?
The most egregious part of it, however, is Huckabee’s more recent statements about what he said. He does not apologize, he does not admit that he was wrong to advocate sequestering Americans. Huckabee simply says ”would I say things a little differently in 2007? Probably so.”
But this one little issue is not what’s wrong with Huckabee, and this will be the last time I harp on it. He has demonstrated that he is willing to make decisions without (or, perhaps, even worse ignoring) important information. He is proud that he is ignorant of world affairs, a trait no world leader should possess. And I think we’ve had enough with regards to Presidents who are unwilling to admit that they have made mistakes.
4 Thomas // Jan 20, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Despite the facts that existed in 1992 about HIV/AIDS, I think you are highly exaggerating public opinion at the time. George Bush was still president, after serving as v.p. under the man who did absolutely nothing to promote AIDS awareness and in fact ignored it. I don’t want to continue this argument, but as an example consider global warming today. Scientists and educated people have known since the 1990s (at least) that global warming was an issue, and there has been scientific evidence to prove it. However, with the exception of places like Boston, San Francisco, and to a lesser extent New York, no one started paying attention to global warming as a real issue until Al Gore began his crusade in the early 2000s.
Huckabee’s lack of international knowledge is a major concern to me. As a former governor of an inland state, he has had no real experience internationally (although I am about to make a post about this). I don’t blame him for this, but it is a concern and the reason I would not vote for him, despite my opinions about him otherwise. But, I would question your statement that he is “proud that he is ignorant of world affairs.” That’s a pretty loaded statement and doesn’t seem to be backed up by anything other than a personal distaste for him in general.
5 Jason // Jan 20, 2008 at 03:11 PM
You’re right and I apologize for that. I thought I remembered him being rather cavalier about, and insinuating that he was proud about, his ignorance of the NIE about Iran until reporters alerted him to his existence. I can’t dig anything quite that damning up ;) Mea culpa.
6 Brendan // Jan 21, 2008 at 09:51 AM
I’m going to be really aggravated if this comes true and he wins the VP nomination.
7 Mike W // Jan 21, 2008 at 06:06 PM
This “ridicu-liberal” has a big problem with someone who wants to amend the constitution to be in ‘God’s’ standards.
I have one thing to say to him. Keep your dogma away from my country’s foundation.