suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

HUCKABEE: THE DEMOCRATS’ FAVORITE RINO

180wde_SnowShovels.jpg This headline may be a bit harsh but so are the stakes in this Election 2008.

I am not a fan of Mike Huckabee for a number of policy and track-record issues, just as I am not a fan of Obama, Hillary and Edwards, et al. for similar reasons: when they are evaluated as to what their positions on issues are and how they have used public office to-date, they don’t meet my expectations and requirements as a voter and I can’t (and don’t) support them. Same goes for McCain. And to a great degree, also as to Giuliani.

Which is why I do support Romney, Thompson and Hunter: they’re the only candidates in the running who represent — believably — most of the important issues most important to me.

These three supported candidates — Romney, Thompson and Hunter — also disappoint me in some areas but overall, the issues that I place as higher priorities for the Presidency are most met by Romney, Thompson and Hunter. Comparatively, the other candidates (in both parties) disappoint me, fail to fulfill even my basic requirements, or, in some cases, utterly contradict and oppose even the few issues I regard as the most important ones.

But as to Huckabee, he’s the guy “on the right,” so-called, with the affable personality, that “likable” factor and polished ease with public speaking that draws people in socially. Thus, many people — me included — have been willing to listen to what he has to say, watch how he behaves in his campaign, watch what the people he’s aligned with as a campaign organization do and why. That he speaks out as a Christian is, has been, of course, up to recently, a very appealing and supportable aspect to his candidacy.

So here we go, to the contrary: Huckabee’s lost my good faith in his good faith as a politician, what with the recent emergence by Huckabee as victim.

First there was the “I’m being attaaacked” erosion point, followed by the negative “attack” campaigning (“I’m being attaaacked [and therefore I’m attacking]”), which very much offended my sense of what should and should not be among Republican candidates. We all saw what happened in the last Election when the Democrats went into this destructive personality territory, and it’s just a failed method altogether, so to see Huckabee engaging in this was both surprising (“how can he be so foolish”) and off-putting (“how can he be so offensive and insensitive”).

I’m no Mormon but I find Huckabee’s reliance on a certain method of speak about who is and who isn’t “a real Christian” — in this context — to be either nonsense or cruel or both. As a Protestant minister, I’d think it was relevant to a sermon that he’d discuss his perceptions about Christian theology, but as a politician, him functioning as Protestant minister sermonizing does not only not work, it is offensive and creates an air of doubt about Huckabee as to his intelligence and intents.

I have to ask: is he aware that he’s running for the Presidency or is he not? It’s a reasonable question when presented with a candidate who appears to blur the lines and confuse the context, such as has Huckabee, in this particular regard and as he has focused the negativity (the “attack” ads) on Romney as Mormon (and as “not a real Christian” or so many affiliated with his campaign express — and it leads me to consider that Huckabee is indeed, himself saying these same things among more private appearances, such as “faith based” supporters not covered by the media — again, a blurring of the lines of what Huckabee’s perceptions are as to what the job is he’s seeking and how).

And while I very much appreciate any candidate sharing what their religious beliefs are — it’s important to have a frame of reference on any candidate inorder to recognize what influences their moral character, so it’s even fair to ask a candidate to explain what his theological beliefs are, partiucularly in relationship with the Presidency — I find the Huckabee and campaign emphasis from an antagonistic point as to their Christianity to be at the expense of the Christianity of others. Which leads me to wonder just what Huckabee and supporters mean by Christianity, since they don’t think the rest of us know what it is and they’re selecting out political opponents to criticise them on this basis…for the Presidency, not for their respective Protestant groups as ministers

After I read earlier today what Ed Rollins (hired on by Huckabee to manage Huckabee’s campaign) had to say about Romney — that he’d “like to bash his teeth in” — it was too much to even continue to consider Huckabee as remotely “nice guy” material because whether or whether or not Rollins is responsible for this particular “attack” advertising upon Romney, Huckabee’s the candidate and they’re both chalking one another up to be a bad message.

“A bad message” as in, “not right.”

500wde_HuckabeesCampaign.jpg

I agree with Rush Limbaugh — about Huckabee, about McCain and certainly about Hillary, to state the obvious — and that is that Huckabee is “not a conservative.”

I have long said that the candidate who wins my vote of confidence in ’08 for the Presidency, as also my standard of voting for all public office otherwise, is the candidate who has a proven and reliable record on the issues of discouraging if not discontinuing illegal immigration as also all areas of immigration enforcement — those who have participated in advancing amnesty for illegal aliens, aided foreign governments in exploiting the U.S. taxpayers via foreign illegal alien populations in the U.S., enabling illegals to gain access to and use taxpayer-paid social services in the U.S., all of these are no-vote legacies as to my vote.

The only candidates speaking frankly about these issues are Romney, Thompson and Hunter. The rest — they’re using the same tired phrases and terms they appear to think works well politically while their track records (particularly McCain’s, Huckabee’s and Giuliani’s, among the Republican candidates) reveal a dedication to servicing the problem/s if not opposing nearly all solutions.

Us voters continue to express these perspectives and the politicians in both parties continue to try to run contrary to these perspectives and the voters notice. Some of these politicians are supported by the interests that fuel illegal immigration, or, they “retire”. Or, in Huckabee’s, McCain’s and Giuliani’s case, they lose.


C O M M E N T S : now closed