Over at my favorite group blog, Quaid (whom you might call a quasi-Thinkling) has been beating the drum for Mike Huckabee for a while now. (An Arkansas governor as President? Can anything good come out of Nazareth? Does lightning really strike twice in the in the same place? Anyway . . .) He’s managed to convince De in the process, but others have been more dubious that Huckabee has any real chance—me included, I’ll freely admit. The thing is, though—as Quaid has pointed out—Huckabee’s an extremely effective, engaging and winning candidate, and his supporters are fervent and committed, two factors which are doing a lot to overcome his tiny budget; he may not be able to spend much of anything, but he’s continuing to climb in the polls, and the big names are starting to notice. Dick Morris, for instance, has been pointing this fact out for a while, even betting Bill O’Reilly that Huckabee would crack 10% in the national polls, which he now has; and Morris is now saying that Huckabee can win Iowa. If he does—or even finishes a strong second, which looks at this point to be the worst he’ll do—then he will have established himself as a frontrunner. Should that indeed happen, he has a good chance to come out of New Hampshire as the leader, with second place behind Rudy as probably the worst likely outcome; and with that, the money will start to come, and the difficulties will start to fall away, leaving Giuliani as a very beatable opponent.
Huckabee’s not the greatest candidate the GOP has ever put up; his record on social issues is strongly, consistently conservative, but his fiscal policies as governor of Arkansas have led to strong challenges from the likes of Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. Still, he’s clearly better on both fronts than George W. Bush was, to say nothing of Dole or the elder Bush; and even if he’s no Reagan, he’s still the best option we’ve had since then (as Romney would also be if he manages to recover and win the nomination). That’s not everything, but then, as Mal would say, it’s not nothing, either; and in fact, it’s good enough. Huckabee for President.
I like the way you think.
As far as tax reform:
Huckabee has consistently put forth the idea of instituting the FairTax.
For more info, go to http://www.fairtax.org
It is a nonpartisan solution to the bloated sick that is the IRS. It’s a national sales tax, but slightly progressive, offering aide to the poor in the form of monthly checks.
The tax record isn’t ideal (although the bulk of what bugs people regarding his record have pretty decent explanations), but promising to not raise taxes in combination with his support for the FairTax should be enough to quell any grumbling for fiscal conservatives who aren’t in the pocket of some corporation (or their lobbyists).
Thanks. I agree that Huckabee the candidate should be given a fair shake to be better than Huckabee the governor on taxes; but then, I’ve said the same thing about Romney on abortion. One pretty much has to do that with this crop of candidates, since there’s no one whose record is strongly conservative across the board.
As regards Huckabee’s particular proscription on taxes, I have to say that I’ve never liked the idea of a national sales tax. For a simplified tax code, I prefer the solution implemented by Stockwell Day when he was treasurer of Alberta: iirc, it was an 11% tax on all income above the poverty threshold, with no deductions (except maybe a per-child deduction).