Congratulations to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee for winning last night’s Caucuses in Iowa. The poll data reported in the Des Moines Register wasn’t as skewed and overblown as experts were recently claiming. The way I see it, candidates can look at yesterday’s election results in one of two ways: 1) Obama has crushed Clinton’s aura of inevitability, and together with Mike Huckabee has shown that Americans crave a departure from a run-of-the-mill Washington candidate, in which case, Hilary is in some trouble, and Huckabee could be on the rise. OR 2) Poll data is accurate and reliable, and poll data leading up to yesterday showed Obama leading in Iowa, while Clinton was leading most other places, and on the national level. In this case, Hilary has significantly less to worry about. This interpretation does nothing to clear up the national picture for the Republicans, because most poll data showed that the Republican primary picture was a closely contested mess, so the nomination could really go to anyone.
Apparently, America sent a message yesterday that we’re ready for change (or at least that’s how every media member I’ve heard or read since the results came out has summarized the results of yesterday’s votes). Given the track record of our current president and his administration, I think that change is a reasonable thing for our country to desire. But how are we defining that change?
Take for example, Mike Huckabee. In my opinion, Huckabee is one of the most charismatic, personable candidates out there, for either party (he may not have the crowd-inciting fervor of Obama, but in one-on-one interviews he is just as likeable, if not more so). In terms of how he is running his campaign, he is very different from Bush, in ways that I admire and respect. He comes off as pensive, witty, articulate, sincere — many qualities that our current president lacks. In many ways, he is closer to Bill Clinton than he is to Bush (not just because he’s from Hope, Arkansas). With multiple appearances on programs such as the Daily Show, NPR, and Jay Leno, he seems to be trying to capture the votes (or at least the attention) of young voters and liberals that Bush never made any effort to reach out to (in spite of his claims that he was a uniter, not a divider). His efforts to avoid mudslinging and negative campaigning (save for his quibbles with Mitt Romney) are a refreshing departure from the Roveian warmongering that Bush showed on the campaign trail.
Although I like Huckabee as a person, and I like his campaign tactics, I sincerely hope in my heart of hearts that he does not win the Republican presidential nomination. In fact, I’m thinking of registering as a Republican so that I can vote against him. Why, you may ask, am I so anti-Huckabee? History does not judge our presidents by their campaign strategies, or their amiable personalities, so neither should we. As voters, we owe it to our country to vote for candidates who we believe will help move the country in the direction we want it to move. Mike Huckabee, I fear, is not that man by a long shot.
In terms of policy, how is he any different from George W. Bush? He is pro-immigration something I actually admire, but the negative comparisons far outnumber the positive. He is anti-gay, anti-abortion (some would say pro-life), pro-death penalty, pro-torture (some would say anti-terrorism), pro Iraq War, anti-Evolution (some would say pro-Creation), anti-gun control, and while I haven’t found anything listing his stance on stem cell research, I would bet he’s against it. Basically everything I dislike about George W. Bush, plus in the 1990’s he wrote a book comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, and he suggested quarantining HIV patients from the general population.
To further the comparison, guess who his strongest voting base is? That’s right, Evangelical Christians. Can you remember our last president who was elected largely by Evangelical Christians? How did that work out? Yeah, that’s what I thought. If you look at Huckabee’s policy, rather than his pleasant demeanor and grassroots background, I really don’t think he’s that far of a cry from “Dubya”.
Now, there are those who believe that Huckabee winning the Republican nomination would be good for Democrats, because he would be a weaker opponent for Obama or Clinton. The “Democrat” pundit on Fox News was outlining this view yesterday night (I have trouble believing that anyone who works for Fox News is actually a Democrat). I couldn’t disagree more. Anyone who wins the Republican nomination has a much greater chance of being elected than someone who loses. As long as there are more reasonable alternatives in the Republican Party, such as John McCain (the only anti-torture candidate in the bunch), I would rather see one of them face off against Clinton or Obama (possibly Edwards). At least that way, no matter who wins, I feel somewhat optimistic about our country’s future direction.
In any case, three of the last four elected presidents lost the Iowa Caucuses, so maybe yesterday’s results don’t mean a whole lot. Heck, maybe Fred Thompson will get elected (in which case I’d have to learn a whole lot more about his political platforms). I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Tootles.
