A poll in Iowa this week showed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) a close third, right behind Fred Thompson and only seven points back from Mitt Romney, who’s in the lead. A day later, another Iowa poll also showed Huckabee in third, and closing in on second. The notion that Huckabee, who also fared well in the Ames Straw Poll several weeks ago, could finish second in Iowa suddenly seems quite plausible, if not likely.
And today, the NYT’s David Brooks pens a gushing love letter to Huckabee, describing why he “might have a realistic shot at winning the Republican nomination.”
First, Republican voters here and in Iowa are restless. That means that there will be sharp movements during the last 30 days toward whoever seems fresh and hot.
Second, each of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable. Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions.
Third, Huckabee is the most normal person running for president (a trait that might come in handy in a race against Hillary Clinton). He is funny and engaging — almost impossible not to like. He has no history of flip-flopping in order to be electable. He doesn’t seem to be visibly calculating every gesture. Far from being narcissistic, he is, if anything, too neighborly to seem presidential.
Brooks kept going — by the time he got to “seventh…” I started rolling my eyes — but you probably get the point. The NYT columnist sees a conservative Baptist minister who seems to have a genuine understanding of the plight facing American families who are struggling financially.
Fine. Then, there’s the flip side.
First, I’d argue that Huckabee is not, Brooks’ claim to the contrary, “acceptable to all factions.” Club for Growth, which does a fair enough job representing the all-tax-cuts, all-the-time faction, hates Huckabee, and created a website devoted to attacking him relentlessly.
Second, while I agree that Huckabee does a fine job expressing concern for working-class families, he’s also an enthusiastic supporter of a national consumption tax, which is ridiculously regressive.
Third, his position on Iraq is a bit of a joke. He’s still arguing that “we broke it, so we bought it.”
And fourth, there’s no gentle way of saying this, but Huckabee is a bit of a nut.
During a house party in New Hampshire over the weekend, Mike Huckabee was asked if his Christian values would prevent him from supporting funding for safe-sex programs. Huckabee then replied that it would be more important to ask people to simply not engage in reckless behavior.
“The best thing to do is to encourage people to make good choices,” Huckabee said. “For example, if we were really serious about stopping a problem, whether it’s drunk driving, we don’t say, ‘Okay, don’t drive as drunk,’ do we?”
Huckabee offered another example: “We don’t say that a little domestic violence is okay, just cut it down a little, just don’t hit quite as hard. We say it’s wrong.”
Moreover, just a few weeks ago, Huckabee added he’s “reluctant” to support programs that promote condom use in combating AIDS in Africa.
Huckabee clearly has his media admirers. Brooks sounds smitten, and David Broder recently described himself as a “Huckabee fan” on Meet the Press. Media adulation like this can help sustain a candidate who is otherwise struggling.
But I’m really not feeling the Huck-mentum.