I <3 Huckabee

I want Huckabee to win the Republican nomination.

I want him to win, not because I think he’s the most beatable, or for any nefarious purpose, but because I think he’s genuine. I like him. I wouldn’t vote for him, because my views mesh better with any of the Democratic candidates, but because I want his views heard. I want Huckabee to have a seat at the table when policy is discussed.

I know this post is just a rehash of what I said twice before, but then my thought was, “What am I missing?” Now the ideas are settled. I want Huckabee on the national stage. I want his ideas heard, and him to be part of solutions for this country. I want him help make policy.

Huckabee is a man you can work with, and has people’s best interests at heart, even if on some policies he has naïve views. (Regressive 28% National Sales Tax, I’m looking at you.)

If there was some sort of Obama kumbiya unity government, I’d want Huckabee in it. I don’t know how or where, but I want his opinions heard and taken into account.

politics

Permalink

More Detailed Iowa Aftermath: The Republicans

Since Ryan loves his “lib blogistan,” I’ll write up my thoughts that I’ve already put out in a series of emails.

Huckabee is the nominee. It’s a done deal. I already said, Huckabee wins Iowa, loses New Hampshire, wins South Carolina, and the rest of the South and thus the nomination.

So why will this work. Well let’s examine the other candidates.

Fred Thompson’s campaign was DOA. I never understood why anyone thought he would be a serious candidate. He just never cared about running for president, and it showed. I was shocked he finished just above McCain in Iowa.

When he drops out, I can’t imagine him actually making a speech. I figure he’ll just stop showing up to events.

Giuliani’s “national strategy” was dumb and always was. He completely botched the nominating process for the start. Iowa and New Hampshire, and South Carolina are small states that don’t have many delegates, but the whole reason to campaign in them is to get the inordinate and undeserved press coverage they get.

Giuliani forgot that you’re not campaigning for delegates in Iowa, you’re campaigning for the bump. The press coverage, and the aura of inevitability. Staking your campaign on a bunch of retired New Yorkers in Broward County Florida that don’t even vote until four weeks and four lost elections pass, is a losing strategy. You have no buzz, no positive press, and worst of all, you’re a confirmed loser.

Add in his general big city mayor level of corruption, the fact that MSM is based out of NYC and don’t actually like him from his mayoral stint (for whatever reason), and the fact that evangelicals are squimish, he was going to have a rough time no matter what.

Romney is the only one that can knock off Huckabee. He’ll win New Hampshire, with Huckabee finishing a respectable second or perhaps just begin edged out for third. Still the story will be Huckabee because New Hampshire isn’t supposed to go for evangelicals, and New Hampshire likes voting against Iowa to show that they are “important.”

Romney is Huckabee’s main threat because the corporatists candidate. He’s got the money and the machinery. He can outspend Huckabee in every state, but Romney’s biggest problem is Romney. He never got traction in Iowa or anywhere for that matter. His whole appeal was, “I’m the choice if you don’t like Giuliani.” Not a very rousing message. The base doesn’t trust him. They rightfully think he’s an opportunistic flip flopper. He was pro-choice, and now he’s anti-abortion. He was for for gay rights, now he’s not. He is governor of liberal Taxachussets, and they won’t let him forget that.

The idea that Romney will become the nominee hinges on the idea that the corporatists won’t allow Huckabee to become the nominee. The corporatists don’t like Huckabee because he was a baptist minister prior to becoming governor of Arkansas and he has a populist message. However I don’t think they can stop him.

For 20-30 years the corporatists of the Republican party been playing their Southern Strategy of race baiting and stoking the fires of evangelicals. And for all those years, those people has been believing the lie that they can remake America. Well those kids, have grown up, and the corporatists that were running the party are retiring. Do you think it’s an accident that the Justice Department is full of Regent University graduates? The corporatists had to throw bones to the evangelicals to drag them along, and now those people that caught those bones 20 years are moving up in the hierarchy and bringing like minded people with them.

Now I’m not saying that a theocratic state is around the corner, but I am saying that there are true believers in the Christian right that believe that the party is theirs. I don’t think the plan of Wall Street sitting back and saying, “Tell the hicks we’ll protect them from the homosexuals,” is going to work forever, and the Huckabee candidacy is just the most recent crack to show.

The BBC recently reported on the change of the evangelicals from Bible thumping to a more nuanced message. Even the NY Times picked up the “evangelical left.”

So what does this mean? It means the corporatists of the Republican party are losing control of the evangelicals. They used to be able to say, “Here is your candidate. You show up to the polls and you vote for him, and he’ll end gay abortions,” while the candidate winked and nodded, and took up serpents and “spoke in tongues” and then passed a capital gains tax cut and a free trade agreement to move more jobs offshore.

Now, over twenty years later the evangelicals outnumber the corporatists and their grip is slipping. Sure you have some evangelicals like Joel Olsteen and rest of the absurdly materialistic “prosperity gospel” preachers, that say that Jesus wants you to be rich, and so it’s a sin to tax captial gains and what not. (Actually, I’m giving Joel Olsteen too much credit here. He doesn’t have any political agenda. He’s just running a standard confidence game and lining his pockets with old ladies’ social security checks like all the televangelists before him, but the corporatist evangelicals with the whole divine right undercurrent are a very real phenomenon, and the ones the Wall Street corporatists enjoy the most.

Then you have the social only evangelicals that want to keep the sodomites down, but want to keep their jobs as well. In times of economic uncertainty, this is a pretty big group, and this is who Huckabee talks to.

Then finally, you have evangelical left, that for some reason feels compelled to be born again, but is no longer buying into the Republican platform at any level. A small group, yes, but a growing group.

So why won’t the corporatists simply abandon Romney and back McCain and give him the nomination? Because even if the corporatists move to McCain, it won’t matter, because the base isn’t going to vote for McCain, even with, as Ryan put it, “[the media] publicly felating him every step of the way.”

McCain is regarded as a RINO. He’s the Joe Lieberman of the Republican party. Yes he’s backed Iraq. Yes, he backed the surge. And yes, we’re supposed to believe that the surge is “working,” but none of that matters. He’s “John McCain: the Democrats favorite Republican.” This is John McCain, who said called Robertson and Falwell in 2000, ”agents of intolerance.”

In 2000, John McCain ran as John McCain, the “Goldwater conservative” as he described himself, and he learned that there was no place in the 2000 Republican party for that kind of Republican. So starting in 2006, when he decided he’d run for president again, he started courting the religious right.

The christian right may be stupid, but they’re not that stupid. McCain is a poser, and no amount of adoration by the press is going to convince them otherwise. The MSM loves McCain because of the real John McCain. But whenever the Liberal Media Elite™ lavishes praise on him, it just confirms that McCain is not a real Republican. Or as I graphically put it, “[W]henever the Tim Russert et. al try to suck the cum from McCain’s balls, they’re sucking the life from his campaign.”

For Huckabee not to win the nomination, Huckabee has to screw it up. Huckabee has gotten the reputation of being a lightweight when it comes to international events, but frankly that’s not going to matter. It didn’t matter in 2000. It didn’t matter in 2004. And it’s not going to matter in 2008. The conventional wisdom (i.e. what a bunch of New York City news editors sitting around a water cooler think) is that Huckabee’s unpreparedness is a result of not having a staff to keep him up to date. That’s a pretty good insulator. Also, immediately after Iowa Chris Matthews was interviewing Huckabee and mentioned an article in the Jerusalem Post, and Huckabee mentioned that it was actually an AP story that the Jerusalem Post picked up. Matthews was visibly surprised (and said so) that Huckabee knew that. A few more moments like that, and Huckabee is in the clear on being out of touch.

Huckabee is probably already raking in the dough after his win in Iowa. This means he will be better financed to take on Romney and the rest. Huckabee is in this until the end. Huckabee’s biggest problem now is going to be hiring people to help him spend that money. A few bad moves and it can move away from him, but I don’t think Huckabee is going to do that. He’s comfortable with himself and his campaign. He’s got a winning formula and he’s going to stick with it.

Huckabee is going to lose New Hampshire, but place a second, perhaps just be eked out for a close third. This loss won’t matter because he already has the buzz from Iowa, and is expected to do well in South Carolina. Also the press has already laughed about New Hampshire having a habit of choosing someone different from Iowa. New Hampshire doesn’t have nearly as many evangelicals as the south and the midwest, but they might buy into Huckabee’s populist message, and that’s unique twist that differentiates himself from the rest of the pack, and put people that are wary of his evangelical background at ease.

Huckabee can appeal to everyone, and that’s why he’s going to get the nomination.

politics

Permalink

Looking Towards November

With Iowa in the books, it’s now time to project to November.

Let’s say that the tickets are Obama and Huckabee. So what does this mean?

Well for first, it means populism is back in 2008. Why? Well the economy is starting to suck, and Cheney’sGeorge W. Bush’s crony capitalism is being rejected, and and dare I say it, a backlash against free trade. The American people are afraid, and not in the way that Republicans want us to be (i.e. afraid of gay muslims getting married), but rather of the nation’s place in the world.

Huckabee is genuine. He represents populism. Different from Obama’s and Edwards’, but not that different. It’s policy differences, but not fundamental differences. They agree on what the problems and the goals are. (Which is saying something given the last few elections. Immigration? Abortion? Gay marriage? Puh-leeze!) We could (but sadly won’t) have REAL debates between Huckabee and Obama. Real change, that could actually help the country could be on the way.

Scary. Good thing I’m a pessimist, or as Garak said on Deep Space Nine, “I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me to expect the worst.”

politics

Permalink

Last Minute Iowa Predictions

I already filed my predictions for the national nominations, but with 1 hour 25 minutes and 51 seconds left before the caucusing according to MSNBC, I feel the urge to post my predictions for Iowa.

Republicans
  1. Huckabee
  2. Romney
  3. McCain
Democrats (Dream Outcome)
  1. Obama
  2. Edwards
  3. Clinton
Democrats (Greatest Fear)
  1. Clinton
  2. Edwards
  3. Obama

I’m leaning a bit towards my greatest fear for the dem side since Joe Scarborough rightfully pointed out that every campaign that depends on young people and new voters turning out fails spectacularly, because those people simply don’t turn out. Edwards is playing it smart by focusing on rural Iowa and gaming Iowa’s mini electoral college for all its worth. I also think senior Clinton advisor Ann Lewis was playing it smart when she talked about all the old women they were going to truck in. Old folks are who shows up to vote. However Clinton isn’t the second choice for anyone, so that could hurt her. Also boding ill for Clinton is the the whole lowering expectations that her campaign is putting out, so I’m going to say:

Democrats (Final Prediction)
  1. Obama
  2. Clinton
  3. Edwards

But I’m hoping for my dream outcome.

politics

Permalink

Election Predictions

GOP
Huckabee wins in Iowa. Romney wins in New Hampshire because he’s a New Englander, but Huckabee has all the buzz. Huckabee wins the confederacy, and thus the nomination.

Giuliani? Never places above third.

Dems
Don’t know. Whoever wins Iowa gets the buzz, and cascades across the entire nation. Just like in 2004, rural Iowans pick the nominee. Since I have to predict something, uh… Obama in a tight one. Edwards won’t take the veep position two elections in a row. Hillary won’t take veep either. Like on the GOP side, the veep is no one in the race.

If Hillary manages to coast by on name recognition to the nominee, Obama is the veep.

Take away: Huckabee is the real deal, and could easily win the presidency.

politics

Permalink

<3 Huckabee?

So what’s up with Huckabee? I heard a Huckabee speech on NPR recently, and it came off as a populist message.

He talked about healthcare and creating a a system that covers more people and emphasizes prevention more than just intervention. (He blamed the fact health insurance is provided through employers and that for preventive medicine to become profitable for insureres you have to stay 8 years with them, but people change jobs (and thus insurance companies) before then so there’s no profit motive for one insurer to essentially lower costs for a competitor.)

He talked about energy independence as a national security imperative.

It was a positive message. Nothing divisive. Sure, he’s a conservative and so there would be policy differences, but I got the impression that we agreed with on the problems and the goals.

Of course he supports a national sales tax that is just a backdoor way of eliminating taxes on corporations, cutting taxes on the wealthy, and imposing a regressive income tax. That’s bullshit. He also said he didn’t believe in evolution, which makes my skin crawl, but even his answer that boiled down to “I can’t believe in something that eliminates god” struck me as a widespread belief. He just never bothered to try to shoe-horn evolution into religion, like a lot of people that want to avoid the issue.

So the knocks against him for me is “supports crackpot tax policy, that won’t happen” and “fear of him trying to ‘teach the controversy’ over evolution.”

The talking heads are making this big deal that he represents the born-agains usurping the leadership of the gop from the corporatists if he gets the nomination, but is that true? Sure he’s not the corporatists’ candidate, but he doesn’t strike me as Falwell or Dobson either.

So what am I missing?

politics

Permalink