I just can’t see Huckabee winning the nomination. Especially once the campaign moves to New Hampshire and two things happen:
1) Negative campaigning really takes off. There are a lot of skeletons in Huckabee’s closet, and he’s already made several notable flubs. (especially in foriegn relations, very important to Republicans)
2) The evangelicals, so important to Huckabee in Iowa, will not be nearly as important.
So now the key question….who gets the support that Huckabee got?
Wait until the negative campaigns come out against Obama. He may act like a moderate Democrat, but his record is vastly different. Also, wait until the fact that he attended a Madrasa (sp?) school as a youngster.
“Wait until the negative campaigns come out against Obama. He may act like a moderate Democrat, but his record is vastly different. Also, wait until the fact that he attended a Madrasa (sp?) school as a youngster.”
I think negative campaigning is going to hurt Hillary a lot more than Obama, though.
Who’s referring to Bush I as Jimmy Carter? I’ve certainly never heard that.
Even taking it at face value though, somehow, presumably based on the domestic mediocrity and lack of re-election (but you still have to deal with the fact that Bush I’s foreign policy successes dwarfed Carter’s), the rest of it doesn’t make any sense.
Reagan as FDR? If FDR had taken the initiative w/r/t Hitler the way Reagan did w/r/t the USSR, WWII might well never have happened, at least not on the scale that it did. Meantime, FDR is almost single-handedly responsible for the fact that the federal government no longer recognizes any constitutional limits on legislative or regulatory power, whereas a cornerstone of the (alas, all-but-extinguished) Reagan Revolution was to roll that back.
W as LBJ? This actually makes the most sense of any of these comparisons — engagement in an increasingly unpopular military conflict coupled with massive expansion of intrusive federal government spending on social problems at home. Of course, LBJ wound up so unpopular he didn’t run for reelection, whereas W was solidly reelected. And in terms of personal style — LBJ was the consummate horse trader owing to his experience in Congress, whereas W, for good or ill, sticks to his guns and rarely if ever compromises.
Huckabee as McGovern? I cannot possibly see how this makes any sense. McGovern was the Dems’ ultra-left-liberal reaction to Nixon, right? Who is Huckabee supposed to be the ultra-right-conservative reaction to? There’s no parallel. Maybe — *maybe* — the notion that Huckabee is as right-wing-unelectable as McGovern was left-wing-unelectable stands to reason, but to predicate it all on a fanciful notion that Bush I equals Jimmy Carter and extrapolating from there just brings this entire house of cards crashing down into nonsense.