Huckabee's strengths and weaknesses

This Weekly Standard article (here) about the Sunday shows reveals some of Mike Huckabee's political skills, and it has this tongue-in-cheek observation

Two things might hurt the governor with Republicans: He's the second man from Hope to hold serious aspirations for the presidency (the first was, of course, Bill Clinton). The other? He's the official Republican pick of the Daily Kos.

And don't forget that Sharon Cobb has said some kind things about him.

Also, Bill Hobbs (over at elephantbiz.com) has a great commentary on criticisms (from some Conservative quarters) of Mike Huckabee's decision to raise a gas tax to pay for road improvements in Arkansas. Obviously, some taxes are necessary; providing roads and defense are the two most legitimate governmental services; and it is very desirable and Conservative--in my estimation, to designate tax revenues for a specific purpose. Characterizing Huckabee as a taxandspendthrift on this basis? That dog won't hunt.

Huckabee is exploring

It appears that former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) is forming an exploratory committee (here) to consider a run for president.

Frankly, I think that conventional wisdom is often wrong, and that a fresh/unknown face with substance can rise to the top tier in such a large field whose "front-runners" have mainly "soft support" (read: support based on name ID) in general, and only tepid support from the GOP base.

Squishyness doesn't attract

This article, from Congressional Quarterly (here) is interesting in its presumption that voters prefer squishy candidates. Rather, I'd say voters are attracted to candidates who are principled, consist, authentic, candid and magnanimous, among other things.

Of course, casting someone as an "ideologue" undercuts the magnanimity aspect, so look for more such profiles on any non-moderate GOP candidate.

Huckabee and having a Washington address

Interesting NYTimes blog post, 2008: Huckabee's Hopes, about former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR); one paragraph that resonates is,

He said he had a great deal of respect for conservative candidates like Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who is expected to announce on Jan. 20 that he’ll attempt a 2008 bid. While the two share similar concerns, Mr. Huckabee described himself as an outsider, adding, “I don’t think having a Washington address and being in Congress will be an asset.’’

Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart

Frankly, I don't care if Jon Stewart likes the Republican candidate for President, and I'm not sure that anyone who drinks Daily kool-aid can imagine voting for a Republican.

That being said, these two Daily Show clips (here) (and here) --that Sharon Cobb alluded to recently) reflect well on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is contemplating a run for president in 2008. Huckabee seems to have the charm of Bill Clinton without the greasy feel (that's my opinion, not Sharon's).

But Sharon writes:

Saying he is 100 percent pro life, Huckabee is the first pro life politician I've heard talk about the need to take care of that life once it is out of the womb. I've been saying that for years to people who consider themselves pro life. Huckabee seems to get that every child deserves to have food, shelter, education and health care.

I think Sharon commits a false dichotomy, that, or she only reads the hit-quotes from "Pro-life" pols which can be found on "Pro-choice" websites, or she really believes that I--as a staunch "Pro-lifer," really don't care about children after they're born.

There are a variety of ways to provide for a child's welfare, and it is only arguable that bigger government is the way to do it. I bristle when a talk-radio host ascribes an evil motive to a Liberal politician when said Liberal politician simply has a different view on a particular policy. Let's judge policy by its fruit . . . wisdom is vindicated by her children. And I think too often Liberals think it is enough that they have a virtuous motive for advancing a certain policy.

Abramson and ACK know a social conservative when they see one

What is a Social Conservative and who's to say? These questions are being raised in light of the unexceptional (except to Adam Kleinheider--at VolunteerVoters.com) and Roger Abramson--at flanktwoposition.com)) assertion that the "Pro-life with exceptions" position on abortion (or the Pro-Life with Asterisk position) is not the "social Conservative" position on abortion.

I'm still kind of astounded at the reaction (and it is clearly no rebuttal) to my point, though. Are Roger and ACK insulted that someone has the nerve to make "bold" pronouncements? Not likely, if you read their stuff on any regular basis.

Is it that--for the sake of "the cause," they are concerned about stigmatizing the "Social Conservative" position? Not likely, as Abramson and ACK seem careful not to become to ideologically-paired with a party.

Is it because they personally hold an asterisked position on abortion and would like to consider themselves "socially Conservative"? I doubt it, but who knows.

I might be wrong about their answer to the above questions about motives, but I guess I'll have to go with the paranoid Social Conservative conclusion . . . they don't want to expand (though I think acknowledge would be more accurate) the influence of Religious Conservatives or the Religious Right within the GOP.

But, again, what does the term mean and who defines the term?

ACK wrote, "The Religious Right does not determine what social conservatism is, neither does Ned Williams," but I--and most pols, would view the terms as synonymous. "Social Conservatives" is a term that has always been used to distinguish between the more Libertarian, "Economic or Fiscal Conservatives" within the GOP and Religious Conservatives.

Well, I think it is clear that organizations like Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, etc. have classically been the "Social Conservative" organizations.

As far as the meaning of the term, there is not necessarily unanimity on every policy issue. But regarding abortion, these organizations are not--in principle, "Pro-life with exceptions." And I think it is fair to say that the above "socially Conservative" organizations--not Adam Kleinheider or Roger Abramson, are the ones who best define their positions.

Certainly, terms--and movements, can "soften" or (d)evolve over time. But until these organizations are lacking in number, or influence, or significance--until they are a mere "fringe" element of the "non-Libertarian Conservative" faction in the GOP, it seems that they would be the authority on what is a "Social Conservative" position.

**Roger is asserting that an exception for "life of the mother" is an exception like rape or incest; in that case, as long as one doesn't define "life" as "quality of life," there are two competing lives to consider. Imminent danger of death for a mother, for example where a fertilized egg hasn't implanted in a mother's womb, is one example where efforts to ensure survival of at least one of the lives isn't contrary to the sanctity of life.

***Also, Bush's murky position on exceptions can be interpreted as an effort at magnanimity toward those Americans who disagree with the non-asterisked Pro-life position, and the fact that he--in competition with John McCain, was supported by Social Conservatives doesn't mean that his position on an issue defines the Social Conservative position, right?