Each of them makes some sense. Especially worth hightlighting are the intensity of Huck’s support, the lack of scrutiny of Huck’s record in the Iowa press, and Mitt’s less than compelling public personality. Let me add that it’s in everyone’s interest that the new man for Hope’s record gets hyper-scrutinized rightly now, before he becomes the only alternative to Rudy or even Hillary. I also share the author’s judgment that it’s just plain unfair that Mitt is judged to have to win in Iowa to have a chance.
I don't understand why people seem so afraid of Huckabee. The argument that he is a tax and spender is tired when you consider his Fair Tax is incrediably friendly to the economic conservatives who critize him. He wants to end all taxes on productivity, who else has such a pro-growth plan. Imagine the what would happen to the stock market when individuals can keep
%100 of their capital gains. Why don't you address the merits of his policies instead of wringing your hands about his "message."
Jamie, 'cause he's a wimp. That's why I've concerns over "Pastor" Huckabee.
It's the wimp factor, he even has a weak face. I subscribe to Solzhenitsyn's view, "it's all in the face," and Huckabee's has wimp written all over it.
I agree with Dan - at least partially (I don't see the "whimp face"). Still, he's too sunshine and lollipops for my taste. And for the record, the Fair Tax is complete crap. If I'm a parent of five kids, between groceries, back-to-school clothes, and Christmas, I pay WAY more in taxes than the childless yuppies in the condo down the street. Nice and fair? Here's some olde-timey advice for Huckabee supporters: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."
FYI, I believe the link is too the wrong article.
For the record, I realize it's spelled "wimp". My apologies.
Click on the Weekly Standard Blog to get to the original Atlantic article.
I think Ben, by the way, makes some sense. On the other hand, in my class last night we concluded that the only issues Rudy is really conservative on are Iraq etc. and health care. And on both those issues the conservative position is very unpopular. Softness on taxing and spending in Huck's mode is not, in fact, unpopular. And really being anti-ROE is ambiguously popular, popular if you can really articulate why in a populist way. The right kind of pastor can be very therapeutic and inspirational. I tend think there's no way either Huck or Rudy can win.
So where does that leave us? Maybe Giuliani or maybe Romney.
It's interesting and distubing that long before a single voter casts a single ballot, the race can be essentially decided. All that guff about "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is looking increasingly silly.
Of course a lot of the blame lies with the citizens themselves, who meekly pull the lever for whoever they are told to.
It apparently leaves us with a Huckabee with some juice, and Giuliani in need of spending some money and running some ads. During most of Huckabee's surge and during most of the campaign heretofore, Giuliani HASN'T been running ads.
Romney has spent a fortune on organization, and endless ads, on radio, television, print and Internet. Romney has spent a fortune setting the table for Huckabee. The more Romney has spent, the more slick Romney appears, the better Huckabee looks in comparison. Poor Romney, all is turning to dross for him. American voters simply can't bring themselves to genuinely support a Mormon, let alone a flip-flopping Mormon, which is simply asking too much for ordinary Americans.
Something to look for is whether or not MONEY starts flowing towards Huckabee. That should provide some HARD information on Huckabee's traction, whether it's a mirage, whether it's real.
Time will tell.