Friday, October 19, 2007

Huckabee, Another Jimmy Carter?

David Brooks of the New York Times has discovered the former Arkansas governor in his column today.

“He is a solid conservative who is both temperamentally and substantively different from the conservatives who have led the country over the past few years,” Brooks writes. “He’s rising in the polls, especially in Iowa. His popularity with the press corps suggests he could catch a free media wave that would put him in the top tier. He deserves to be there.”

Brooks may be right, although there are few signs that the Conservative Establishment is ready to embrace him for qualities that many non-Republicans respect. In the unlikely event that they do, another question arises: Could he be another Jimmy Carter?

In the wake of Nixon’s traumatic tenure, voters turned to a sincere man of faith who promised “I will never lie to you” and then proved to be too naïve to deal with the complexities of international affairs.

Carter floundered during the Mariel boatlift when Castro sent criminals and mental cases to us along with legitimate political refugees, and he was at a loss when Iranian militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 70 Americans hostage for more than a year. He ended up puzzling over a “national malaise.”

Now Brooks notes about Huckabee, “His foreign policy thinking is thin. Some of his policy ideas seem to come off the top of his head.”

In the relief to be rid of Bush and escape the likes of Giuliani, Thompson and Romney, it’s possible that Republicans may turn to someone as apparently sane and sensible as Huckabee, but if they do, the rest of us will have to look very closely about what lies under that attractive surface.


Anonymous said...

Sorry this is off-topic but I noticed Crooks & Liars in your blogroll and I feel I have to warn you about them. Be wary of Crooks & Liars. Crooks & Liars is what's known as a left gatekeeper blog; their job is to pretend to be leftist (earning their "credibility" with plenty of Bush-bashing) and then use that "credibility" to manage discourse, diverting discussion away from areas most harmful to the regime. They will take things right up to the edge but they know how much they can say and what they can't say. On the most important issues they are obfuscators and distractors, discourse channelers, not genuine leftists. Just like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MyDD, Democratic Underground, Moxie Grrrl, Educational Whisper, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, Salon, The Nation, Sadly No!, My Left Wing, etc. These kind of sites, though appearing to foam at the mouth with vitriol against the right wingers, are actually doing the regime a favor by limiting discussion on matters to keep it within parameters safe for the regime. If you don't believe me, try posting something on for example Crooks & Liars that says: People in the reality-based community should have no problem whatsoever in realizing that the uppermost portion of a skyscraper is not going to be able to "fall" into and THROUGH the remaining vast majority of solid building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly as falling through air without something else (i.e. explosives) reducing said majority of building to such a state of offering no more resistance than air. Can we all agree on that? Sounds pretty straightforward; solid things offer vastly more resistance than air. Anyone who graduated elementary school SHOULD be able to grasp this, and SHOULD be able to therefore grasp that the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 building had to have been controlled demolitions. It is literally COMMON SENSE.

See what happens. I'll tell you what happens: Anyone posting on Crooks & Liars who says anything that in any way questions the impossible official myth of 9/11 gets banned from commenting.

Want to see how Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame has ties to the C.I.A.? Read here:
Want to see how Kos does the same shit as Crooks & Liars, covering up for the mass murdering clique who brought us the 9/11 inside job? Check here:

So just because a blog APPEARS to be leftist, don't assume they are genuine. Finding out where they stand on 9/11 truth and election fraud will let you know if they're for real or just part of the cover-up.

StealthBadger said...


Oh dear...

anonymous = "Realist" = "Thinker" = rude.

I guess he's like junk mail - no matter how much or how little truth it holds, you know you're going to get it, that it's going to annoy you, and that the first thing you'll want to do when you see it is throw it in the trash.


If anything, I suspect Huckabee is even more disconnected than Carter - at least Carter had the experience of what bureaucratic infighting in the Navy while Adm. Rickover was running his fiefdom, and a slightly less restricted world-view because of the life experiences involved.

Then again, I'm a cynic.