HUCKABEE ATTRACTS A DIVERSE BASE OF SUPPORT

[GET THE "FRESHEST" HUCKABEE AND "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" POSTS HERE]

Governor Mike Huckabee's detractors (mainly the slash-n-burn negative campaign artists affiliated with Fred Thompson and the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney and the Eastern elites of GOP "attack" radio) have repeatedly attempted to frame "Iron Mike" as the "Evangelical candidate" or someone who only appeals to "religious right Evangelicals."

[Of course, these many of these same attackers would also charge that Governor Huckabee wasn't a "real" conservative -- notwithstanding his 10.5 years of solid Reagan-style conservative governance in Arkansas.]

Huckabee's supporters know better.

The Values Voter Blog has an "essential" post anecdotally rebutting the myth that Huckabee's supporters are all extracted from some right-wing Southern Baptist clone factory.

While the whole post is recommended reading for the well-informed, the most compelling reasons for why Governor Huckabee garners enthusiastic support (despite all of the "headwinds")from many diverse corners:

"Of all the 2008 Presidential Candidates, Mike has the most experience of actually running a government. I deeply respect the work of a U.S. Senator, but there is a significant difference in literally making decisions 'by committee' and being the person who is solely responsible for making sure that things get done. Mike is the only remaining candidate who actually has that experience."

"We all want a President who will bring us together instead of dividing us further. Mike was a popular Republican governor in a heavily Democratic State. He became governor just four years after Bill Clinton left office. In a state that was largely run by Democrats, he was re-elected until term limits made him ineligable for further re-election. In a country where most blacks will not vote for a Republican, Mike received 48% of the African American vote. And in a highly divided, "us vs. them" country, many people who held very different views on social issues than Mike still found themselves liking him and believing that he is a good man and an effective leader."

These comments highlight "Iron Mike's" clear RECORD of being able to "disagree without being disagreeable" and of accomplishing strongly conservative objectives against the "headwinds" of Democratic opposition.

In short, that's leadership!

A lot of candiates talk about being "uniters."

Barack Obama claims to be some sort of a post-partisan candidate. Yet Obama's website is loaded with radical left-wing proposals that, if pushed for adoption, will drive deep wedges into our political system.

Once Obama actually has to start actually pushing some of the radical details of what he apparently stands for, "Obamamania" will morph into just another partisan war lead by a glib, but vastly inexperienced commander. If fact, once Obama disposes of Hillary in the primaries, a fair level of his alleged "Republicans for Obama" support will evaporate almost instantly.

Nothing in Obama's anorexic record remotely suggests that Obama can jawbone through a radical leftist agenda without becoming a de facto partisan.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman reminded his readers today that even Jimmy Carter adopted this rhetoric. Governor Huckabee's shoestring campaign, Iowa upset victory and background as a Southern Governor has prompted a few GOP elites to falsely suggest that "Iron Mike" would be "another Jimmy Carter."

Yet nothing in Jimmy Carter's hyper-partisan career suggests that he somehow transcended the partisan divide.

John McCain is criticized by some conservatives as a "maverick" for his abandonment of many points of the Bush Agenda after the brutal 2000 election campaign and his open attempts to court Ted Kennedy and other Democratic liberals for a number of controversial bills.

While McCain is clearly a better choice for "Commander-in-Chief" and "Leader of the Free World" than a neophyte such as Obama, and even likely a stronger leader than the malaise-prone Carter, McCain neither has the record of executive success, nor the natural speech skills of Mike Huckabee.

That's why Mike Huckabee is attracting such enthusiasm from across the GOP, even if they've already told us the "fix is in" for McCain.

Adam's Blog points out some "Huckamath" problems with the conventional "McCain-has-it-wrapped-up" spin.

And "Voteforhuckabee" has the following brilliant rebuttal of the Romney-ian/Elite GOP/McCain chorus for Huckabee to quit:

Quit urging Huckabee to drop out! If he is 100% dead as you claim, then tell McCain to start his national campaign - why worry about some insignificant washed up nobody? But thats not the case is it? The fact is, Huckabee could very easily rack up another 5-7 states before this is all over. Huckabee isn't McCain's problem, THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP VOTING for Huckabee are McCain's problem! The thing is, you can't make people stop voting for the other guy, you can only ask the other guy to quit."

"McCain's supporters are literally shouting from the rooftops that their candidate is incapable of winning the required amount of delegates without Huckabee dropping out."

Huckabee, of course, as this blog has pointed out in several posts, is performing a valuable function for the process of selecting a nominee as well as holding fast to his promise to his loyal supporters.

Doing what you promise--now that's a novel concept for politics!


A BRIEF WORD ON "THE ICEMAN AND THE ISEMAN"

The pundit world is marveling at how the McCain spin machine outmanuvered the New York Times on the VickiIseman tale of innuendo and unidentified sources. And certainly the "movement conservatives" were correct to point out that the New York Times story was virtually unsubstantiated and from a source dedicated to promoting a left-of-center, anti-Republican agenda.

But the real questions surrounding the tale of the "Iceman (McCain) and the Iseman" involve the McCain camp's prior suppression of the story. John McCain's handlers apparently believed that GOP voters were not "adult" enough to evaluate the Vicki Iseman situation during the early primaries. If all the facts are on McCain's side (which Speedzzter has no reason to doubt) why wouldn't McCain want these facts to come out at the earliest possible time.

Another curious detail is that Vicki Iseman, according to reports linked to the Drudge Report, had "lawyered up." Hiring a lawyer, of course, is hardly evidence of any guilt and the right of any citizen. And having a lawyer help navigate highly politicized waters is generally a good idea. But if Iseman really has nothing to fear from the whole truth coming out, is a lawyer filtering the truth really necessary?

The apparent fact that Mr. McCain may have put himself into a questioned situation with a young, relatively attractive lobbyist may have been a lapse in judgment. And some on the left have already jumped at the chance to rip the Republicans for more "family values hypocrisy", based on McCain's reputed tumultous personal life and the wisp of smoke from the Vicki Iseman story.

But, anyone who has spent any meaningful time at all in legislative politics realizes that it is almost impossible to avoid casual associations with lobbyists and constituents with less-than-sterling records. After all, legislators are "public persons" and the work of policy-making should be a mostly public affair. Assuming that there is no "hanky-panky" between "the Iceman and the Iseman," McCain probably should have been a little more circumspect in avoiding an appearance of impropriety.


Trackback linkhttp://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!325.trak and Trackback link http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/trackback/203