"George W. Bush has resolutely led our nation on a new course, a course not sought by America on September 11, 2001, but a course that rightly affirmed the value of honor and liberty and life. I thank God for his wise leadership and his calming and steadfast policies, policies that in some ways with hindsight could have admittedly been improved, but policies all too quickly attacked, and now being vilified despite the best news from Iraq in over a year." These are the sentences that should headline any foreign policy apologetic by any mainstream conservative seeking the Presidency.
Unfortunately, Governor Huckabee has sunk disappointingly to the level of others who've forgotten the GOPs Eleventh Commandment. Not only has the lightly regarded pseudo-Commandment been breached, far more Huckadamage has been done with his patently fact-challenged attack on the Bush Administration's "arrogant bunker mentality." I say patently false because of those pesky things, facts, that get in the way of a good poll-tested focus group opinion. Never mind the support of England, Poland, Australia, and numerous other countries. Military personnel of these countries are fighting and dying, not because they're stupid, but because their nations' leaders see the same Islamofascist threat that Bush sees.
I don't think a man of integrity ought to be so driven for personal gain that he impugns his own President in time of war and energizes those opponents of our nation's success, both foreign and domestic. I especially believe this when the President has plainly stated his case for his actions, and when after hard times his plans seem to be beginning to work.
Huckabee's poll numbers took a noticeable dip a couple of days ago, a timing coincident with his "arrogant bunker mentality" quote. That Huckabee would write such a screed gives one pause to reconsider other claims of ethical lapse against him. My point is not that the other accusations have merit, nor would they have any traction absent "arrogant bunker mentality," but it is that this whole blunder was completely and totally avoidable, and is even now fixable with a simple apology. I pray that an infection of good sense will gently waft throughout Huckabee headquarters, and that said apology will be forthcoming.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Huckabee's Mistake
Here's a quick post on a wonderful snuggly rainy Saturday. Family games in front of the fire and Miracle On 34th Street are on tap for later. I wanted to post today because I'm concerned about the first real mistake I've seen the Huckabee campaign make.
Mike Huckabee's decision to write an article for a respected (ie mainstream elites) foreign policy magazine was probably necessary, but he's made a pretty severe tactical error by his forceful criticism of the Bush Administration's so-called arrogant "bunker mentality." What, pray tell, would Huckabee have had George Bush do in a post-9/11 environment when the consensus of the intelligence community pointed toward Irag's possession of weapons of mass destruction? Remember that the leadership of France and Germany based their foreign policy on opposition to America's interests. Remember the noxious corruption of the UN, evidenced in the Oil For Food scandal. Remember that, conversely, many nations, including England, Australia, Poland, and others have been staunch allies of Bush Administration policies. Remember also that, pre-9/11, candidate George Bush campaigned on a platform of "humility" in American foreign policy. The recognition of the civilized world's mortal danger from Islamic terrorists forced the change in Bush's foreign policy approach, and thank God for George Bush's willingness to face the threat. I certainly don't agree with everything the President has done, but it's helpful to no one at this point for Republican Presidential candidates to use such incendiary rhetoric.
Not only am I disappointed in Huckabee for making these statements, but it raises legitimate questions about his willingness to stand up to the liberal elites' conventional wisdom on any number of other issues. I've been a huge Huckabee supporter, in part because of his willingness to stand up for social and cultural truths unpopular on the East and West Coasts. Huckabee allayed my initial concerns about his commitment to limited government and personal liberty with his Second Amendment support and his advocacy of the FAIR Tax. If his purpose in writing this article was for short-term media approbation, his character is not as strong as I'd thought. If he actually believes such silly claptrap, his judgment and philosophy are suspect. I admit I haven't read Huckabee's article, but only seen excerpts from it, but even if the reporting on the article is incorrect, Huckabee should have had the good sense to see how the article would be portrayed.
None of the exogenous attacks on Huckabee that I've seen could harm him significantly, in my opinion. Unfortunately, this unnecessary and self-inflicted blunder has the potential to stall the enthusiasm of his supporters and his appeal to those voters for whom national security is the paramount issue. Even if Huckabee survives the Romney and Thompson attacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, this article supplies Rudy Giuliani with plenty of ammunition to use against Huckabee later in the nominating process. What a big mistake! I hope Mike Huckabee has the good sense to back away from these comments, and the quicker the better.
Mike Huckabee's decision to write an article for a respected (ie mainstream elites) foreign policy magazine was probably necessary, but he's made a pretty severe tactical error by his forceful criticism of the Bush Administration's so-called arrogant "bunker mentality." What, pray tell, would Huckabee have had George Bush do in a post-9/11 environment when the consensus of the intelligence community pointed toward Irag's possession of weapons of mass destruction? Remember that the leadership of France and Germany based their foreign policy on opposition to America's interests. Remember the noxious corruption of the UN, evidenced in the Oil For Food scandal. Remember that, conversely, many nations, including England, Australia, Poland, and others have been staunch allies of Bush Administration policies. Remember also that, pre-9/11, candidate George Bush campaigned on a platform of "humility" in American foreign policy. The recognition of the civilized world's mortal danger from Islamic terrorists forced the change in Bush's foreign policy approach, and thank God for George Bush's willingness to face the threat. I certainly don't agree with everything the President has done, but it's helpful to no one at this point for Republican Presidential candidates to use such incendiary rhetoric.
Not only am I disappointed in Huckabee for making these statements, but it raises legitimate questions about his willingness to stand up to the liberal elites' conventional wisdom on any number of other issues. I've been a huge Huckabee supporter, in part because of his willingness to stand up for social and cultural truths unpopular on the East and West Coasts. Huckabee allayed my initial concerns about his commitment to limited government and personal liberty with his Second Amendment support and his advocacy of the FAIR Tax. If his purpose in writing this article was for short-term media approbation, his character is not as strong as I'd thought. If he actually believes such silly claptrap, his judgment and philosophy are suspect. I admit I haven't read Huckabee's article, but only seen excerpts from it, but even if the reporting on the article is incorrect, Huckabee should have had the good sense to see how the article would be portrayed.
None of the exogenous attacks on Huckabee that I've seen could harm him significantly, in my opinion. Unfortunately, this unnecessary and self-inflicted blunder has the potential to stall the enthusiasm of his supporters and his appeal to those voters for whom national security is the paramount issue. Even if Huckabee survives the Romney and Thompson attacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, this article supplies Rudy Giuliani with plenty of ammunition to use against Huckabee later in the nominating process. What a big mistake! I hope Mike Huckabee has the good sense to back away from these comments, and the quicker the better.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Quick Political Round-Up
I'm writing tonight after a several week period of being too busy for my own good, and too busy to post. Tonight's subject is political prognostication. I'm gratified to see, in the GOP race for the Presidential nomination, that my favored candidate, Mike Huckabee, is surging. Huckabee has succeeded in courting the mainstream media, who do not understand that a big-time pastor has the same skill set as a major corporate CEO. I now believe Huckabee will win Iowa, and he is approaching an even money shot at winning the nomination. I do not believe any of the attacks on Huckabee I've seen so far will stick, and the attacks may actually serve to legitimize him.
I still think Giuliani is the national front-runner. Romney will probably be crippled after New Hampshire, and finished after South Carolina. Here's why Romney will fade: John McCain will exceed expectations in New Hampshire, probably finishing a close second to Romney. A narrow and fading victory by Romney in New Hampshire will further shred an image that will be in tatters after Iowa. I don't think McCain has enough mainstream Republican support to capitalize on what I expect to be his New Hampshire success. Huckabee will dominate South Carolina, forcing Thompson's withdrawal. This will set up the February 5 battle which will probably decide the nomination, with the advantage to Giuliani over Huckabee on the basis of money and organization. This scenario should not be surprising, as I've for months predicted the GOP fight would wind up being between EITHER Huckabee or Thompson and Giuliani or Romney. Thompson's fizzle is the direct result of Huckabee's fire, though I had expected a better campaign performance than Thompson has thus far shown. It's all thrilling to watch for a political junkie like me. We'll see how my predictions turn out, but right now Huckabee is riding his wave, and I'm right there with him.
On the Democratic side, it's fun to watch Hillary squirm. Can you imagine the staff meetings with Hillary over the past two weeks as her internal polling has tanked? I have written before of Hillary's political tin ear, which I've hoped would doom her general election prospects. Until recently, I've never thought, though, that she could lose the Democratic nomination. Her organization looked too strong and her competition too weak. I've had to rethink this over the past two weeks, but I still cannot credibly imagine the Democrats handing their nomination to a candidate as weak as Obama or Edwards. If Hillary does indeed lose Iowa, and five days later does not win strong in New Hampshire, look for crisis-management mode among the Democrat muckety-mucks. It will likely manifest itself in the form of a major Draft Al Gore movement. All bets would be off at that point, with a major dogfight between Gore and the Clintons. In any case, I believe that scenario unlikely, and I still think Hillary is likely to win the Democratic nomination. Never underestimate the Clintons. They are capable of anything.
I still think Giuliani is the national front-runner. Romney will probably be crippled after New Hampshire, and finished after South Carolina. Here's why Romney will fade: John McCain will exceed expectations in New Hampshire, probably finishing a close second to Romney. A narrow and fading victory by Romney in New Hampshire will further shred an image that will be in tatters after Iowa. I don't think McCain has enough mainstream Republican support to capitalize on what I expect to be his New Hampshire success. Huckabee will dominate South Carolina, forcing Thompson's withdrawal. This will set up the February 5 battle which will probably decide the nomination, with the advantage to Giuliani over Huckabee on the basis of money and organization. This scenario should not be surprising, as I've for months predicted the GOP fight would wind up being between EITHER Huckabee or Thompson and Giuliani or Romney. Thompson's fizzle is the direct result of Huckabee's fire, though I had expected a better campaign performance than Thompson has thus far shown. It's all thrilling to watch for a political junkie like me. We'll see how my predictions turn out, but right now Huckabee is riding his wave, and I'm right there with him.
On the Democratic side, it's fun to watch Hillary squirm. Can you imagine the staff meetings with Hillary over the past two weeks as her internal polling has tanked? I have written before of Hillary's political tin ear, which I've hoped would doom her general election prospects. Until recently, I've never thought, though, that she could lose the Democratic nomination. Her organization looked too strong and her competition too weak. I've had to rethink this over the past two weeks, but I still cannot credibly imagine the Democrats handing their nomination to a candidate as weak as Obama or Edwards. If Hillary does indeed lose Iowa, and five days later does not win strong in New Hampshire, look for crisis-management mode among the Democrat muckety-mucks. It will likely manifest itself in the form of a major Draft Al Gore movement. All bets would be off at that point, with a major dogfight between Gore and the Clintons. In any case, I believe that scenario unlikely, and I still think Hillary is likely to win the Democratic nomination. Never underestimate the Clintons. They are capable of anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
