Insight on Huckabee from one who's watched him awhile

John Brummett has seen this movie before.

An Arkansas native and a veteran political journalist in the state, he watched -- and wrote about -- the rise in national politics 16 years ago of Bill Clinton. He knew well Clinton's strengths and weaknesses. And he gave fair -- and prescient -- warning of how they may play out in a Clinton presidency.

Now another ex-Arkansas governor is on the ascent in a presidential race -- Mike Huckabee. Indeed, the political world will be buzzing today with word that Huckabee leads among likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers in a new poll by the Des Moines Register (a particularly reputable survey).

So once again, Brummett has been holding forth about a White House candidate that he once covered up close and personal. And one of his recent columns about Huckabee was especially noteworthy.

Much has been made of Huckabee's past as a Baptist minister. But, Brummett asserts, a more crucial element to understanding him is his background in radio.

Here's the columnist's key sentence: "His superficially likable nature, which provides the essence of his oddly succeeding presidential campaign, comes via a disc jockey's shtick rather than a pastor's."

You can read the rest of the piece here. And in today's Times, Richard Fausset provides a detailed look at some of the controversies that marked Huckabee's tenure as governor.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[JER HENNEN]

He really isnt presidential material and would be a huge embarrassment, I mean, we re taking the President of these united states here.Huck is a small town loser.
I see Clinton winning it all! even if they discover that she is gay.

[Dorothy Hyden]

Don Frederick needs to brush up on his reading skills. His intro to Brummett's article is very misleading. I expected to actually learn something new about Huckabee. Instead, I learned that Brummett has a meanspirited and vindictive side to his persona. The bottom line appears to be that Brummett has his nose out of joint about some perceived insult by Huckabee. I'm not interested in learning about Brummett, so the article was useless at best in my quest to carefully assess the merits of each Presidential candidate.

[Michael Snyder]

Let's see; according to the fourth estate we should be cheering for Hillary and accepting Rudy as the GOP’s sacrificial lamb. Am I the only one out there who’s had the last sixteen years of watching the middle class starved out of existence right up to their eyeballs??
Hillary’s a closet socialist and Rudy’s ties to Wall St. are set in stone. I just want to see some real choices in the upcoming elections and none of the established front runners provide that.
As Americans begin to recognize these “fringe candidates” are the only ones offering anything but more of the same; they’ll be climbing in the polls in spite of their limited press coverage. And the established “powers that be” will be increasingly strident in their efforts to direct the electorate back. Why don’t you (the press) make a token effort to present all of the candidates in a fair and balanced presentation instead of using the only tool for truth we (the people)have to promote your own agenda

[HuckNo]

Huckabee is no where near to being a Reagan Conservative. It would be a huge mistake to think otherwise.

http://www.huckabeefacts.org

[Village]

Huckabee is just this side of a grifter. They don't call him The Huckster for nothing. He is for sale to the highest bidder, and he will double cross his purchaser. The Republicans can't have that. They need somebody who will stay bought, like American's Playa or Mitt.

[Miss Vinay Duggal]

Huckebee comes off as a smalltown hick.

The only viable choice as Republican nominee is Mitt Romney- a man with a winning combination of intellect and education, business acumen and experience, and experience in the religious arena that supercedes that of Mr. Huckebee. Mitt Romney served as an official in the Mormon Church.

[I Like Mike]

I personally find it thrilling to see so many viable candidates still in this presidential race. This is one of the things that makes our country so great--the people have a voice!

I am also thrilled to see Iowa and the rest of the nation embracing the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. People are starting to realize that Mike Huckabee's appeal is far broader than his religious base.

If Mike Huckabee's message has touched you or caused you to reconsider the issues, I would encourage you to take my challenge by visiting: www.abuckforhuck.com.

With your help, he will make a difference!

[Interested Voter]

Small Town Loser? Small Town Hick?

You obviously don't realize that Mike Huckabee is from Hope, Arkansas.

That's the same small town that produced another small town hick named Bill Clinton.

Not that I like Bill that much, but he was a winner.

[Danny C.]

Mike Huckabee: Social Conservative, Fiscal Liberal. According to fastcheck.org Mike raised $505 million in taxes as Governor of Arkansas. Additionally, he fought in favor of giving in-state tuition breaks to illegal aliens. The thing is—Gov. Huckabee still stands by his decision to raise taxes and give illegal aliens our hard earned tax money. Mike won’t be getting my vote in January. When it comes to the issues that a President can have a real impact—Mike is as liberal as they come.

[Erik]

Mike Huckabee was not the evangelical rights first choice. Fred Thompson was. Mike Huckabee is nother more than a product of bigotry against Mormonism. For being a minister who wraps himself in his religion he has quite the checkered past! From his wedding registry lie to meeting Mexican President Vincente Fox to bring in illegals to work at Tyson Chicken in Arkansas. Huckabee has a chance not because he is a great candidate or even because he is conservative which he is not, but because evangelical voters don't care the details only the religion. Romney is a much better candidate based on his private sector CEO experience to help fix Washington spending. Huckabee tells a better joke.

[Wendy 73]

I was impressed with this insightful response to the religious talk going on in a political arena.

This is a letter to Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, written by David during one of his short bursts of internet access. Thought you might enjoy:

Dear Jonah,
Greetings from Iraq. As I sit here just a few miles from the Iranian border, I have reliable email and internet access for the first time in more than a month. I eagerly went to the Corner to get my fix and saw your question to readers about the real effects of a Mormon president. In my civilian life (I’m a mobilized reservist), I’m a co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (www.evangelicalsformitt.org ) and a regular contributor to NRO’s own Phi Beta Cons. Obviously, since I’m now deployed, my political activities are nonexistent. But I did want to say something in response to the emailers who argue that a Mormon president would somehow lead people astray because he would be a great marketing asset for the LDS church.

I’m hardly surprised that you have gotten this response. This, in fact, is the single most common objection we’ve received in the almost 18 full months that we’ve been operating our Evangelicals for Mitt website. In my mind, this line of reasoning is more responsible than any other for the religious-based objections to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. It is also so theologically and intellectually flawed that it almost makes me want to weep.

Do religions really stand or fall based on the attractiveness of their most famous adherents? Or does God perhaps have a say (I would say the decisive say) in the process? I presume that your correspondents would never stay in a Marriott hotel, fly Jetblue, or root for the 49ers when Steve Young was throwing touchdown passes to Jerry Rice. Because, after all, they don’t want to endorse anyone or anything that brings credibility to the LDS church. I suppose God stands helplessly by as religions compete for souls by offering up a series of accomplished, attractive politicians and celebrities. (“I see your Steve Young and raise you a Kurt Warner.”)

In fact, as we know from the Bible, God more often uses the “least of these.” The King of Kings came not as a prince but a carpenter and allowed himself to be executed between two petty criminals. His apostles did not run Roman provinces but were instead chased across an empire, met in caves, and were sometimes torn apart in arenas for public amusement. And yet Christianity has endured and flourished. Why? Because – perhaps, just perhaps – God is in control.

So when I see Christians say that the eternal souls of men are in danger because a Mormon of genuine integrity and real accomplishment is running for president, I wonder who (or what) they have faith in: the sovereignty of a loving God who holds the nations in his hands, or the persuasive power of a Mormon missionary who can add one more celebrity to the list of famous LDSers (“we’re right because Gladys Knight, Danny Ainge, Dale Murphy, Harry Reid, and – yes – Mitt Romney say so!”)

All the best,
David