6 posts tagged “mike huckabee”

The Fox News folks have now joined in the Sarah Palin-bashing, which is a surprise. Some cynics who smell a rat say that the Murdoch-owned network is merely ensuring that Gov. Palin does not have a chance at another run because she alienated too many moderate Republicans. But having Republicans as friends, I know that many supported the Governor because they shared her value system, and some even said they only voted for Sen. McCain because Gov. Palin was on the ticket.
   The GOP might well be a divided party and we have seen these divisions before, with George Bush (the 41st president) who appealed too much to the moderates, and with the primaries this time around that saw former Govs. Huckabee and Romney only managing to get partial support from the party.
   Before some say that the Murdoch Press has covered this up till after the election, there does seem to have been some agreement internally to not reveal a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff till the day after on both sides. Even Newsweek is now revealing a lot and I am told its video has then-Sen. Obama swearing.
   Whatever the case, I’m not sure if it’s wise for the Murdoch Press, if it is a GOP instrument as its critics say (its boss has always denied this) to be doing something that might divide the party.
   Or, was K. R. M. always right and that it’s being ‘fair and balanced’?
   I am always concerned when one politician is vilified to this extent. I have seen it in other countries, against people on the left and on the right. It’s dangerous stuff, and contributes to revisionism.
   I might not agree with the Governor on some of her positions, her lack of humility, or even her campaigning technique, but if some things sound too much like a tall tale, then they probably are. I don’t think we have seen the last of Gov. Palin; we might indeed see, and I know there is a lot of Bush fatigue out there, John Ellis Bush or even George Prescott Bush make runs somewhere down the line.
   Democrats might hope not—or they might hope so, if this will help ensure them a victory.
   Less likely things have happened. Remember, Marvin Bush once said of his eldest brother, ‘George is the family clown,’ and that he was unlikely to run for office.
   You just never know.

The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
   He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
   Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
   In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
   While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
   I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
   The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
   I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
   I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
   This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
   The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
   In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
   They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
   They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
   Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
   Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
   If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
   Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
   This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.

I was at GinBaby’s Vox blog and noticed she had done the Glassbooth poll on which potential presidential candidate is closest to our own views. I decided to try it out and it was a huge surprise what my results are.

66%, Barack Obama (i.e. Sen. Obama shares a 66 per cent similarity with my beliefs)
64%, Hillary Clinton
64%, John McCain
61%, Mike Huckabee
58%, Ron Paul
55%, Mitt Romney

   Mind you, this is based on their stated and reported values—not what they might actually do. It is also based on the issues that I found most important (economy, education, social security, health care, foreign policy).
   As with all these political quizzes, what I believe as my ideal and what I believe must be done right now to get to that ideal are two different things. I am Confucian, which is closer to libertarian, yet right now I think the US needs a mixture of policies from left and right ends of the political spectrum.
   I also compared myself to some of the people who have left the race:

68%, John Edwards
66%, Dennis Kucinich
55%, Fred Thompson
55%, Rudy Giuliani

   This is great, isn’t it? I am scoring more closely to the folks I don’t like.
   I redid the quiz and used up all the issues (including abortion, drugs and other matters), but still with an emphasis on education, trade and foreign policy, which most Americans might be most concerned about.

69%, Mike Huckabee
66%, John McCain
64%, Hillary Clinton
63%, Mitt Romney
61%, Barack Obama
54%, Ron Paul

Again, with the former candidates:

64%, John Edwards
61%, Rudy Giuliani
59%, Fred Thompson
56%, Dennis Kucinich

   John McCain and Hillary Clinton might figure highly in this quiz, but it reveals one extra thing about it all. If I was an American, I wouldn’t support either. Their characters are lacking in my book, they both come across as smarta***s, and what they say now might not be what they will do in office. They seem like politicians.
   Similarly, a Toyota Corolla might do everything you need it to do, but I sure as heck wouldn’t buy one. Character means an awful lot and I believe that Americans want someone they can trust to do the right thing.

What was your reaction to the results of the Iowa caucuses?  

Total surprise. I thought I wouldn’t care but I do. Last time, the Democrats had a clear front-runner in the form of Sen. John Kerry and I found that sparked a greater interest for me, to see how he would fare against President Bush. This time, the interest comes from how unpredictable the fight is.
   I would not have predicted Obama, Edwards and Clinton for the Dems, and I would not have predicted Huckabee, Romney and Thompson for the GOP.
   Go back two years and most of my GOP friends were pessimistic because the only candidates they could foresee were John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Others, perhaps prescient, said there would be a surprise candidate that must emerge closer to the end of 2007. They were right.
   I thought Fred Thompson might have been that man but there certainly has been a lot of attention surrounding Gov. Huckabee. That momentum continued.
   Among my Democrat friends, the hope a few years back was that Al Gore would consider running. Back in 2004 I had good friends who felt Edwards supported their values more and were disappointed that Sen. Kerry emerged as the front-runner in Iowa. Through 2007 I had next to no Democratic friends who felt Sen. Clinton was right for them.
   I am glad the usual rule of “who spends the most wins” did not apply for either party here. It is another example of branding: a good consistent brand that taps in to the consciousness can outweigh huge spends. And that’s something I hope will buoy smaller parties in New Zealand as we face our General Election this year.
   Now that the Iowa caucus item is over, the BBC is running a Britney Spears–K. Fed. story.

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential nominee hopeful Mike Huckabee released a 30 sec ad in the US talking about Jesus Christ, which appears to have got some Americans upset.
   The Murdoch Press quotes from the commercial: ‘Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you’ve been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don’t blame you. At this time of year sometimes it’s nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends.’
   Sounds good to me.
   I like a planet where we saw Hanukkah a few weeks back. I enjoyed seeing Muslims make pilgrimages for Eid ul-Adha on al-Jazeera. And, by all means, Gov Huckabee, a Christian, should proudly invoke his faith and talk about Jesus Christ.
   I thought the true meaning of political correctness was accepting everyone’s beliefs, not undermining those of the majority in their nations. In fact, I didn’t imagine political correctness equated to godless communism. Or maybe it does?
   Gov Huckabee told a congregation in San Antonio, ‘Sometimes in the middle of Christmas, Jesus is the one person who’s tough to find. You notice that? I can find Santa at every mall, you can find discounts in every store but if you mention the name of Jesus, as I found out recently, it upsets the whole world. Forgive me but I thought that was the point of the whole day.’
   I agree.
   With so many people sending holiday greetings this December from the western world, have folks noticed that many have missed Hanukkah? The ‘Happy holidays’ greetings I received are largely timed for Christmas and were sent after the Jewish festival this year. A number of Muslim friends have sent Eid greetings.
   When I know the sender does not follow Islam or observes Kwanzaa, then saying ‘Happy holidays’ doesn’t diminish the fact that the greeting is for Christmas, a day during which I can bet they are not working.
   My point is that there are a lot of people celebrating specifically Christmas, whether they proclaim a belief in Jesus Christ or not. In Mike Huckabee’s case, he’s celebrating it his way by going back to basics.
   I think he has a right to do that—and if he is a Christian, I am glad he is proud to proclaim his faith, rather than hide it because he’s so scared about offending parts of the electorate.
   I’d write a similar post if another candidate proclaimed another faith: if this is what one believes, then why hide it?

Hillary Clinton has upset over the anti-Obama comments made by one of her reps.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iviufLueJCRqiUapUAxXQ3yACUqAD8THFBOG0

So he’s gone from her campaign.
   There are two interpretations:

• if you mess with Hillary over expressing your own free will, then the Patriot Act is going to look like a walk in the park;
• Barack Obama is her choice for running-mate. So leave the man alone.

   And a Clinton–Obama ticket is going to be hard to beat in marketing terms because both candidates have had a huge MSM build-up.
   Who does the GOP have? Romney–Huckabee? Now that I say it, it sounds pretty good, but it also sounds like it belongs to an episode of Bewitched as a rival agency to McMahon & Tate. Damn, Obama is just an exotic surname in an age of internationalism. A marketer’s dream.
   Thompson and another yet-to-emerge Law & Order cast member? Somehow, I think we won’t see FDT in the vernacular with Fred polling so low in New Hampshire—except maybe as a typo when someone is trying to type FDR.
   Giuliani and someone that the Democrats will rip into? McCain and … um … well, heck, just McCain?
   We are talking a lot of lost ground in terms of publicity here for the Republican Party. It needs to wake up and stand united, and with someone very, very credible that will beat the Democrats on substance—then brand it all correctly.