Comments on: The Pastor of Compassionate Conservatism

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:14:48 +0000

Is it because we are obsessed with the cult of personality? I think Americans have a tendency to trust those they can identify with, over an intellectual or a policy wonk. That certainly explains the last 2 elections. Voters were too lazy to listen to the details, so we ended up with someone with a very poor grasp of them, who has to delegate out and then claim little or no knowledge. Can't we learn from our recent disasterous mistakes?

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:32:37 +0000

Except for Ford's taint of Watergate, we've went with a "friendly candidate" over the "policy wonk or geek" since WW!!. Adlai Stevenson lost to a friendly war hero. But then, Eisenhower didn't turn out to bad. The US has a history of ignorance, even US industry ignored Deming whereas the Japanese almost seen him as a god.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:17:05 +0000

Doubtful. For fiscal conservatives and libertarians, the GOP has no more bona fides. How can we ever trust these opportunists to really stand up for small government, states rights, fiscal restraint, balanced budgets or individual rights? In pandering to the social conservatives, the GOP has become the party in our bedroom, the party in our doctor's office, the party that has the audacity to presume to take over the painful decision of when to give up on a comatose loved one. And the GOP vision of security is the snooping ear on our private phone calls and screener of our emails, the ultimate big brother checking out our NetFlix queue and what we check out at the library, the willful and manipulative violator of the Constitution.

We won't forget those things...

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 03:52:36 +0000

You address one of the things that bugs me so much about what you hear from people being interviewed and the media. How likable is he? Is he the kind of guy you'd want to have a drink with? I like my neighbors. I don't think that one of them should be president. I'd like to have someone brighter than myself as President. Someone who is a much better manager than I or anyone else I know. Please, don't give me an ignorant incompetent who just comes across well personally to lead my country.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:42:10 +0000

“Why does America set the bar so low? ” – Sylny

Therein lies the crux of the biscuit. If you can find a candidate who (legitimately) addresses that question, then you might have a viable president. If you can find an electorate who collectively recognizes that question, then there might be hope for democracy in the USA.

By: Sylny

Sylny — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:17:23 +0000

America's collective IQ and common sense appear to be plummeting. Why do we set the bar so low?

Huckabee's the sort of candidate it would be fun to have as a neighbor, to have a lemonade with (I believe he doesn't drink the hard stuff). He wouldn't be fun for debating or discussing religion. . .he's not that deep. This seems to a guy who's as ignorant and lazy about policy issues as Dubya–although a kinder, gentler version. Why does America set the bar so low? Would it be so bad to have someone who's thoughtful, hard working and informed, someone who doesn't propose that Duncan Hunter would be an excellent Secretary of State or Defense, someone who isn't ignorant of the NIE analysis of Iran 48 hours after the event when the press asks for his comments? If you were submitting yourself to eye surgery, would you prefer a doctor who was a fun drinking buddy and a great neighbor to one with impeccable medical credentials and a great track record as a surgeon?

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:32:39 +0000

Although the evangelical political pitch does nothing for me, I have no problem with presidential candidates making blatant appeals to Christian value voters, religious right, social conservatives or whatever you want to call the faction. In fact, for Republicans, nailing down that constituency it is a necessary if not sufficient requirement to winning the presidency.

It is a simple historical reality that Republicans cannot win a Presidential election without a fusionist candidate that appeals to both "evengelicals" and "libertarians" (using Ryan Sager labels from his book "The Elephant in the Room"). So whatever the candidate has to do: secret Christian decoder rings; floating crosses in ads; or just wearing a crown of thorns and dragging a full size cross to a MTP interview - if it works - go for it.

My problem is that the Republican candidates in general, and Huckabee in particular forget that the evangelical constituency cannot elect a Republican President without the libertarian (fiscal conservative) vote. David Boaz at CATO has documented a libertarian swing vote that is comparable in size to the evangelical vote, but actually swings a great deal more (I guess that is no surprise). The failure of the Huckabee campaign as well as others in this batch of Republican candidates (Ron Paul excepted) is they seem oblivious to the equally necessary libertarian constituency.

If any of these candidate made as strong an effort to pander to the libertarians as they do to the evangelicals, they might find that they actually can muster enough support to be nominated and elected.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:59:30 +0000

I think Mike Huckabee is working hard to portray himself as a likable guy who isn't a threat to anyone, but lets be sure to examine his record and his beliefs before we pass judgement on just how innocuous he might be. We've had some hard lessons this century on how easily the American people can be bamboozled – not to mention steamrolled. I agree, the jury has to stay out until we have a much more complete picture than a smiling guy with a bass guitar.