“If Republicans in this election vote in such a way as to say a candidates personal life and personal conduct in office doesn’t matter, then a lot of Christian evangelical leaders owe Bill Clinton a public apology.”
— Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), quoted by the Wall Street Journal, alluding to some of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.
Well, that’s throwing down the gauntlet. I’m not sure if that necessarily redounds to Huckabee’s advantage — even considering that he’s a fairly evangelical guy himself. Any number of Giuliani- or McCain-leaning Religious Right folks may just tell him to go pound sand.
Please share widely!
Guiliani- or McCain-leaning Religious Right folks?
<
p>
Huckabee ’08!
Dobson seems to favor Newt Gingrich, Serial Adulterer.
but men who cheat on their wives while they are dying of cancer are not electable. This a fact that is lost on my colleagues.
if they are, then your assumption about newt’s electability may be incorrect. here’s to hoping that’s not the case!
But they’re putting their eggs in the basket labeled “here’s to hoping the public won’t care about politicians private lives”.
<
p>
Which is Huckabee’s quote coming full circle.
Some irony that the Mormon candidate has had fewer wives than most Republicans in the field…
that Dobson doesn’t like Fred Thompson. That was a relief, I was getting a bit squirrel-ey thinking that Thompson might come out of nowhere and unite the party:
I have no reason to doubt these numbers. He’s really not my cup of tea but Guliani is taking off like a rocket ship.
He’s leading everyone (southern states including FL and western states by double digits) R and D.
MIke Huckabee is absolutely the strongest candidate the Republicans have, in my opinion. I disagree with him on pretty much every issue, but he has a common sense and a honesty that I appreciate, and would definitely worry about him if he one the nomination, but also would appreciate seeing a competitor that I could respect.
There isn’t one politician democrat or republican that is worthy of my vote because of their low positives and high negatives.
<
p>
I think there is a big difference between a serial adulterer and a rapist, although it appears that one of our former presidents covers both bases. Newt Gingrich is a buffoon.
<
p>
Character means a lot, however it isn’t everything. A very shrewd poker player who understands right from wrong, and knows that doing the “right thing” is best, but not always
prudent makes a good president. No tyrants and no goody two shoes. No thieves and knaves and no social engineering agendas.
Huckabee may just want to try and define things on his terms, obviously, rather than explain why the Cato Institute gave him an “F” last year and an overall grade of “D”. I don’t suppose that’s what he wants to discuss in the GOP debates.
on meet the press. That was like Tim Russerts first question. He lowered 95 taxes during his tenure and raised 5. According to the cato institute, this raising of 5 was 5 too many.
I’m not sure that explains it, you can make a lot of little cuts and a few big increases. Cato is pretty succinct in describing Huckabee as a “big government conservative candidate” and that under Huckabee, “has left taaxpayers in Arkansas much worse off”. Romney got a better overall grade on that basis, and we know all about his revenue enhancements.
<
p>
Then again in 2006, Bill Richardson got a better grade than both of them 😉