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.
January 19, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
Yes, Huckabee is certainly worrying (as is many people’s support for Ron Paul, although he is a completely different candidate who happens to be running in the same party). I’m particularly concerned about the so-called “Colbert Nation” throwing support behind him just because Colbert’s character has … although I suppose if it splits the vote between Huckabee and, say, McCain or Romney that could be okay. He is definitely charismatic but I too am suspicious of his appealing to people our age, yet espousing policies which certainly a large number of people in this country would support, but (I think) also attracting a lot of those who really wouldn’t. It seems a lot of his answers to pretty straightforward questions are charming but evasive. I think although he makes a good point about pro-life being the entire lifespan and not just prior to birth (something which adamant pro-lifers tend to ignore, as if you’re kind of on your own after birth and if you screw up badly enough, you can get the death penalty), but this isn’t a strong enough point for me to vote for him.
Anyway, I think Huckabee is a good guy but a bad choice. And more generally, I would say that a Republican (right-leaning conservative, I mean) is a bad choice for the country – the fervent activity of some and more or less apathy of the general public has caused the US to move more toward the right than what accurately represents general opinion, not to mention what is needed right now, which (I think) is much more attention to domestic programs and infrastructures, and backing off foreign military activity. Unfortunately, no matter who we elect will have to deal with those foreign policy issues, and it won’t be easy.
January 27, 2008 at 1:07 am |
Well…I voted early today, and I did as you said you might do––I voted for John McCain because I’m more concerned about which Republican loses than about which Democrat wins. I did have to request a Republican ballot, though, which felt gross. I wish I could have voted Green, which is truer to my beliefs than either Democrat or Republican, but I have only one chance to keep the next evil buffoon from becoming president.
March 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
I’m shocked and disappointed that Huckabee would take money from struggling, hard-working Americans in order to fund his campaign. He said in his drop-out speech that it was…”the sacrifices of a truck driver in Michigan, of a housewife who sold her wedding ring on eBay and gave the contribution to the campaign, a janitor in Alabama who has a wife in a wheelchair who gave $20, not out of his abundance, but out of his poverty, so that our campaign could stay on the track.” In a bad economy, why would someone running for President take their money to fund a campaign that was clearly going to be fruitless? What would become of the economy if selfish Huckabee were President?
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com