Posted by Mike O on: 01.04.2008 /
The headline in Today’s Minneapolis newspaper reads, “Huckabee, Obama Lead The Way.” Here’s a link to the online stories. Frankly, I’m not that surprised about Obama - he and Hillary both seem to be leading democratic candidates - but it is surprising to me to see Huckabee bubbling to the top.
I’m not sure where I ran across this link to OnTheIssues.com - probably here on this blog. But I’ve been looking at it and it seems like a pretty good source for seeing how the politicians compare to one another.
I especially like the graph at the bottom of each candidate’s page that plots them as a whole. For example, Obama is classified as a “hard core liberal” and Huckabee comes up as a “hard core conservative.”
I wonder if we’re seeing a polarization of views where whoever wins will be a “hard core” whatever.
Comment by: Siamang
1Kind of like in the last election where suddenly Kerry and Edwards were the first and fourth most liberal senators.
I was like “what? more liberal than Ted Kennedy? More liberal than Boxer?”
That’s polarization.
I’m not surprised about Huckabee’s showing. He came off personally very well in the last debate. The cynic in me says “well, finally the religious right has nominated a minister. I can at least be thankful he’s not a televangelist.”
Comment by: Mike O
2So can we! :)
Comment by: Stephan
3I don’t think it’s polarization at all. I think it has more to do with their style than their stances on the issues. I’ve always been a Republican and I don’t agree with Obama on all of the issues, but I would vote for him in a heartbeat because I believe he is a person of integrity who will lead with integrity. A nice change from the last 8 years.
I think Huckleberry is also a person of integrity, and after 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton before him, personal integrity is something that people now see as important. I am actually less likely to vote for Huckabee because he is a minister. If he screws up (which, of course, he will, because everyone does eventually) it will reflect poorly on all Christians because he is supposed to be a leader.
I read this today, and I think it is relevant here. Sullivan does not agree with Huckabee or Obama on the issues, but he sees why they are appealing as candidates.
Comment by: Karen
4I wasn’t surprised by Huckabee’s popularity after I saw him on The Colbert Report a few months back. He’s funny and comes across as a genuinely nice guy, and I knew his “moral values” stance would appeal to evangelicals like crazy.
The NY Times points out today that Pat Robertson surprisingly won second-place in Iowa in 1988, but wasn’t able to keep the momentum once he got to states where evangelicals are fewer. They also made the point that Huckabee has very little in the way of campaign infrastructure in NH, SC, etc.
However, I think the media has underestimated his appeal - and Obama’s for that matter. I wouldn’t count Huckabee out by any means. Last night I heard someone call him the “Christian revenge” candidate, because for most of 2007 the religious right was told they’d have to hold their noses and vote for a pro-choice candidate like Giuliani, and now they’ve found a candidate that doesn’t require that. That’s a powerful incentive for them.
I’m actually thrilled about Obama. I even got a little choked up listening to the coverage on NPR and realizing that less than 50 years after MLK’s march on Washington an overwhelmingly white state was actually nominating a black man for president. How great would that be? What a signal it would send to the world if we elected this young, forward-thinking black man with an international background to be our leader.
Comment by: Mike O
5I sort of agree with Stephen - I’m too conservative to actually vote for Obama, but if he ended up winning, I think he would make a good president. Like Stephen, I may not agree with him on much, but I think he would lead with integrity and I’d be OK with that.
I can’t put my finger on why, but I just don’t trust Hillary.
Comment by: cautious
6As a political junkie,
…well, basically all of us on the liberal side are really happy to see Huckabee win any election, since he is not the kind of conservative who national Republicans actually want. The national Republican party is willing to let the South elect (to be glib) Christian yokels into office, but it knows a Huckabee or Romney has no chance to carry the whole country. Well, unless all the blue states stay home on election day.
Christian conservatives make up a very vocal political minority in this country, but they are a minority, and having a candidate who only appeals to them is a great way to lose an election. Huckabee is flying high right now, but is very likely going to tank in New Hampshire and other primaries to someone more moderate (Thompson? McCain? Rudy?!!?).
On the other side of things, if Edwards doesn’t win the nomination, I hold my nose and vote for Hillary/Obama in November. Also, this year, two Dem candidates dropped out of the race after faring badly in Iowa, making it a “five” person race much more quickly than in 2004, where it took until “Super Tuesday” for the Democratic field to narrow down to a handful of candidates.
Also, where’s Nader?
Comment by: benjamin ady
7I don’t think it’s super helpful to characterize obama as a “hard-core liberal”. The term sounds a lot … worse, somehow, than what ontheissues.org seems to mean by it.
I was stoked that huckabee won iowa for a totally different reason. To me, (oh dear, I’m going to get in trouble now), he’s a bit of a … wingnut. A presidential candidate having a direct line to god kind of creeps me out. But my thought was “Well, wouldn’t it be yotta kewl if the Republicans actually nominated Huckabee, because that would make it that much easier for Obama to win the general.” Actually,Huckabee performs the worst of the top republican candidates in head to head polling against any of the three democratic front runners.
But I mean he really doesn’t stand much of a chance of winning the nomination, unfortunately (from my perspective). He’s only trading at 15 cents on the iowa electronic markets, with mccain and gulianni both way in front of him.
Huckabee:
-he’d outlaw abortions including in the cases of rape and incest (which is just out there coming from a man).
-he said “It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS — it is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population …” (yikes)
-he’s against allowing even civil unions for gays.
-and this “Though often demonized because of its immense size and extraordinary growth, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart is a case study in the genius of the American marketplace.”
-and this “Our problems do not result from economics or deficiencies in education. They result from the selfish decision to ignore God’s standards [er ... that is, *Huckabee's* take on "God's standards"] of integrity. Standards based on anything else are relative, and relative standards are meaningless.
A person with a biblical world view says humans are by nature selfish. We are basically self-centered & look out for ourselves first. Only two things will change this: either our nature will be changed by a supernatural experience with God through Christ, or we will fear the consequences of not doing the right thing.”
Sorry–I’ll stop now. I just think he’s a little frightening. I know some really kewl people who are gay, and others who are atheists, and it seems to me that huckabee just … mischaracterizes and is willing to institutionally mistreat them.
BICBW (and probably am somewhere in there, either content wise or attitude wise =)
Comment by: Karen
8Shhhhh, man! Keep your voice down…