Lousy debut for Kristol
I expected better than to see Bill Kristol--in his inaugural op-ed piece --being dazzled by Mike Huckabee's personality. Being a rookie on foreign policy is a serious issue. Raising taxes 21 times while governor (for a net overall increase) is a serious issue. Using the language of "fair trade" instead of free trade, and talking like a labor union Democrat in the process, is a serious issue.
More below the fold...
What is it with East Coast media and their swooning for Arkansas politicians? We all get it that Huckabee comes across as an ordinary American, but the more relevant question is whether Huckabee is an extraordinary candidate for the GOP nomination. Perhaps none of them are, but for Huckabee the answer is a clear no. Yes, he is a social conservative, but his economic populism and foreign policy inexperience are (or least should be) automatic disqualifiers for members of the party where social conservatism is not a top priority. Coming into the election, the top two issues will be the economy and the War Against Militant Islamism. As I see it, there are four viable GOP candidates who can run circles around the Arkansas governor in those categories.
Likability is a factor in any election, and dislikability is one reason why Hillary's campaign is running off the rails. But at some point, the content of the candidate's issues is just as important (or more) than the pleasant way the candidate communicates them. All of the candidates, except perhaps Romney, have good likability quotients, and all of the candidates are strong and able communicators, which is in exceptional contrast to our current president, who can barely talk his way through a Burger King drive-through lane. But at the end of the day, the nominee is going to have to present a message that brings all party segments together. I just don't see how Huckabee can do that. What is Kristol thinking?
Comments :
I think it's clear
Kristol is trying to keep the coalition together. The GOP establishment sees the fisures developing and they are now moving to try and keep it from all coming apart.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Populist response from RS, of all places
What Huckabee should have said
on taxes:
Redefining the GOP brand. As a liberal, I like it, admittedly partially because I see liberals winning when the battlefield is defined in this fashion. But Huck connects with conservative voters, there's no denying that, and in the end what pundits and bloggers think of his conservative creds may not matter all that much.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just imagine... investing in your own town
What a novel idea, running a government for the people's needs! Shocking!
Driveable roads..... that is crazy. What was he thinking!!! That Huck is such a populist!
Kristol's as a writer, has always sucked.
Maybe it's a case of reverse psychology and he's trying to scare people into voting for the well qualified CEO President, the MIttster. I hear tell Mitt's all about change as of a couple of days ago :)
It is the economy, stupid.
The tinfoil hat theory I heard
is that the media wants McCain to win, so they boosted Huckabee to hurt Romney. Who knows!
Huck was pretty popular in Arkansas, wasn't he? Romney wasn't by the end in Massachusetts, but he was a Republican trying to govern a very blue state.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm so confused
There are about twelve different theories out there!
ONe thing is certain, it looks like Americans aren't that happy with the track the country is on.
It is the economy, stupid.
It kind of fizzles for me
such staple and mundane "public goods" are hardly a strong argument for taxation in large context.
Roads are mostly maintained with user fees via gas taxes and schools via local property taxes. Federal Supplementals come through in some appropriations but again, if the Federal Government taxed and spent less and deferred to the States on these matters (as they should), each State government would better decide how to handle this in the context of citizens paying less taxes to DC.
But back to my original point, these basic services, regardless of whether we feel the government should handle them, are small expenditures for the Fed in the larger scheme and are not even that dependent on federal income taxes or corporate taxes.