Dionne has an interesting take on Huckabee today:

'Huckabee, if he chooses to run for president in 2008, has another asset: While front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have placed large bets on the success of President Bush's Iraq policy, Huckabee has maintained what you might call loyal distance.

There was also this: "The president's plan is one that sort of lays it all out there for him. If it works, then thank God, we may have a stable Iraq and we'll finally be able to start a complete turnover to them. If it doesn't, you know he's really put a lot of things at risk, including the lives of young Americans."

So in 6 months or however long it takes for this particular Operation DoOver to fail, will Huckabee stand up and call for redeployment, for forcing the Iraqis to finally work this out for themselves?

Most interesting [and little discussed among the pundits so far] is the direction of the republcan party and the disarray it finds itself in now. Will they drop the failed theocratic/procorporate/endless war agenda in favor of issues most of us care about? See Huckabee here:

"I'm unapologetic with the conservative evangelicals, and pro-life," he said. "But if people look at my record, what they're going to see is that the focus of my time as governor was education reform . . . transportation . . . health initiatives. . . ."

"When a person is in a Guard unit, two months ago, he was selling nails in a hardware store or he was a police officer on the beat or he was a schoolteacher. . . . And he's probably a little older, and he has kids, and he's well established in the community. When he's killed, the impact has dramatic effect in that community because they didn't expect that this citizen-soldier was going to be subject to that prospect.

"That's why I think that what we're seeing is that there is very strong support for the soldiers," he concludes, "but there's a lot of angst about the war itself." And that's why a faithful Republican with no ties to Bush's Iraq policy could be very popular come 2008.'

I would likely have problems with a lot of this guy's positions. However, I have to say he sounds like a real human being, instead of a politician. Either he's very savvy or he's real. Either way he's interesting.

'President Bush's address to the nation last week outlining a 'new way forward' in Iraq failed to move public opinion in support of his plan to increase U.S. troop levels and left Americans more pessimistic about the likely outcome of the war,"

Why would anyone think that seeing bush on TV looking like a deer in the headlights would inspire confidence?

'The president tends to grin and laugh when discussing deadly serious topics.

The most recent occurrences of the president's giggle-fits happen to have been documented during his 60 Minutes interview Sunday night (video via C&L). The smirking and smiling and laughing [while discussing Abu Ghirab, IEDs and war deaths] was so rampant that I almost completely overlooked not only the substance, but I also nearly missed Scott Pelley's repeated use of the pejorative "Democrat" form when discussing Democratic legislation and Democratic opposition to the war.

But worse, he can't even fake the dignity and tact required to discuss Iraq without the cockeyed smirk of a stoned teenager who's being grilled by his parents after coming home late; the laughter seeming to bubble and tickle just below the surface of a thinly aloof facade. Maybe it's embarrassment. Maybe it's poorly-executed stage direction from his media consultants, i.e. "be more casual than last week's speech, sir." Or maybe he thinks it's all just a game. Maybe the unspoken financial goals of those who are profiting from the war have been achieved. Maybe his own hinted political goals have been achieved (re-election, for example). So other than some occasional ugliness, his mission really has been accomplished, and thus, good times.'

This is funny. Two Republicans running after the endorsement of people in the state that still thinks it's in the Confederacy and that they still have a chance to win the Civil War.
Romney, passed himself off as a liberal Republican to win the Governorship of Massachusetts and now is running to the right of Tom Tancredo.
Senator "Straight Talk" from Libertarian Arizona now trying to out-conservative him. Talk about flip-flops. What a joke.
A Mormon talking about restricting the right to marriage.
And Mr. Straight Talk trying to have it both ways by advocating escalation in Iraq, but, should it fail, will claim the escalation wasn't enough.
What matters, for Republicans in South Carolina, is which candidate better articulates their prejudices without making them unelectable in the rest of the country.
But it makes sense in South Carolina, where flying the flag of the Confederacy at the state capitol makes sense.

Huckabee is SCARY conservative on social issues. I agree that he was pretty reasonable on other issues while governor, but I suspect that if he wins the GOP nominiation his former brand of mild economic populism will be replaced by the typical GOP economic plan. Result? GWB cloned. That being said, if the guy can raise enough money he's a very dangerous candidate. He's intelligent, personable, and can appeal to the center while holding the far-right positions that the christian right demands. I seriously hope the guy gets knocked out by the business community. Otherwise, he could very well be the next POTUS.

Thanks for the info, Colin. Huckabee then indeed sounds like another GWB -- a stealth theocrat who is completely beholden to the american taliban. It sure looks like the GOP base [the movement conservatives] will only elect someone who is so politically correct to their belief system [and hence, so antithetical to the Constitution] as to be repugnant to the mainstream...

Just in: Obama starting exploratory deal. Looks as if he will make the run and announce on February 10th yes or no.

'Top officials at the Internal Revenue Service are pushing agents to prematurely close audits of big companies with agreements to have them pay only a fraction of the additional taxes that could be collected, according to dozens of I.R.S. employees who say that the policy is costing the government billions of dollars a year.'

Is anyone surprised? But if you're a regular joe who makes 30 thou a year and don't pay your taxes, they will of course, nail your a** to the wall, won't they?

Colin, while I agree that Huckabee has very conservative social views the difference between him and president Bush is that Huckabee actually beleives in what he says. He will admit flat out that he thinks life begins at conception, but he will add that it doesn't stop at birth (ie we need healthcare, schools, college education etc.).

Now, I am not voting for him, but I have watched him and he could really play the populist, true 'compasionate' conservative part in the GOP primary.

And from Salon, some Giuliani news:

'Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has hired prominent Iowa Republican Jim Nussle to advise him on his possible presidential run.

Nussle, a former congressman and 2006 candidate for governor, will play "an important leadership on behalf of the exploratory committee both in Iowa and nationally," Giuliani said in a statement.

Nussle lost the governor's race by roughly 100,000 votes to Democrat Chet Culver. The eight-term congressman announced last week that he was forming a political consulting business.

There are deep philosophical differences between the two Republicans.

Giuliani supports abortion rights and gay rights. Nussle took a strong anti-abortion stance in his campaign and wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.'

So Guiliani taps a guy whose positions are diametrically opposed to his own [and who divorced his wife to marry a lobbyist and former aide to Newt Gingrich] so we can plan to watch Guiliani make a sudden sharp dive to the right also.

I just got the email announcement from Barack Obama to supporters. He's in! Chris, write about it...

'Henry Crumpton isn't a household name, but he has a pretty important job: he's the Coordinator for Counterterrorism for the State Department. Crumpton recently announced his resignation, and with about two weeks left before stepping down, he apparently feels less compelled to stick to the party line.

An ex-CIA operative, Crumpton told NEWSWEEK that a worldwide surge in Islamic radicalism has worsened recently, increasing the number of potential terrorists and setting back U.S. efforts in the terror war. "Certainly, we haven't made any progress," said Crumpton. "In fact, we've lost ground." He cites Iraq as a factor; the war has fueled resentment against the United States. (emphasis added)

Crumpton noted some successes, such as improved joint efforts with foreign governments and a weakening of Al Qaeda's leadership structure. But he warned of future attacks. "We don't want to acknowledge we're going to get hit again in the homeland, but we are," he said. "That's a hard, ugly fact. But it's going to happen."

Demonstrating the kind of commitment to counterterrorism for which the Bush White House is famous, Crumpton, a career CIA agent who led the agency's campaign in Afghanistan after 9/11, will be a civilian in two weeks -- and no one has been nominated to replace him in the key counterterrorism position.

Indeed, it's also worth remembering that Crumpton has only been on the job for about a year, at which time the administration has not taken his concerns seriously.

It may have something to do with why he's resigning.

Paul Kiel noted a few weeks ago that Crumpton hasn't had the impact he'd hoped for.

By all accounts widely regarded, he, along with his deputy, have tried to push the Bush Administration toward a more expansive approach to the "War on Terror" - as documented extensively by George Packer in the current issue of The New Yorker. Packer, in his adulatory piece, profiles Crumpton's deputy David Kilcullen, a former captain in the Australian Army who's become Crumpton's chief strategist:

"'You don't play to the enemy's global information strategy of making it all one fight,' Kilcullen said. He pointedly avoided describing this as the Administration's approach [i.e. The War on Terror]. 'You say, 'Actually, there are sixty different groups in sixty different countries who all have different objectives. Let's not talk about bin Laden's objectives-let's talk about your objectives. How do we solve that problem?' 'In other words, the global ambitions of the enemy don't automatically demand a monolithic response.'"

Kilcullen's (and Crumpton's) "ideas have yet to penetrate the fortress that is the Bush White House," Packer notes.

And as a result, we "haven't made any progress" in deterring terrorists, and we've actually "lost ground."

Remind me again why Bush thinks counterterrorism is one of his strengths?'

'Tuesday's Post says that after spending like a drunken sailor and giving the treasury over to the wealthy and defense contractors the last six years, Bush will suddenly embrace fiscal responsibility in next week's State of the Union message. The Post says that Bush will challenge Democrats to do what Bush has never done: clean up his own mess and sign on to balancing the budget. And how does Bush want to do it? By making his handouts to the wealthy permanent, continue to drain the Social Security trust fund to pay for those handouts, slash Medicare and Social Security to pay for his party, and continue to shovel money at his never-ending wars.

Fine. If Bush really wants to throw the gauntlet down to Democrats next week and challenge them to balance the budget, Democrats should throw it back in his face by calling for a stop to the Social Security raids, reinstitution of the upper income tax rates of the Clinton era, a rescission of the dividend and capital gains give-aways under Bush, and a cut in the defense department budget of at least $50 billion a year, which is supported by a majority of the American people, including Republicans.

Let the Democrats make the case that as long as Bush is suddenly concerned about cleaning up his fiscal mess, Democrats are more than willing to have that discussion, call his bluff, and go several steps better. Let's ask the voters if they would rather drain Social Security and continue letting the wealthy get a free ride, or make everyone start paying their fair share.'

'So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.
And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.'

Obama's prolonged decision process on his '08 bid makes it imperative that he spring into action against Hillary ASAP
http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2007/01/2008-letter-to-obama.html

At least he's always been against the war and won't have the pesky Edwards hounding him about that.

the presidents endorsement is sorta

like being handed an anvil as you get in a
rowboat

to disembark from a large sailing vessel after having crossed the ocean...

Mc Cain has decided he wants to take the Heart team over...not realizing that parasitic interests have invaded their tribe and Romney

who played the homophobic card like he invented it are the Ralph Naders of the GOP... sinking it forever into a staunchly repugnant and dishonest extension of corporate interests that verge on treason...as a number of the "American" corporations aren't... the steps and opinions that they proffer verge on commiting murder, ignoring and damaging, for our countries citizens best interests.

here is much more informative, and of a dialoguing nature..

thanks for the good work and your contributions to my life.

all caginess and playing the political process aside...

it might be in the citizens best interests to have the front runners give public discussion of issues as a way of informing the public of the choices that the voters face in a couple of year and today...

and giving the candidates as a changing, dialogue ing groups, some face time...as a citizen...

I would like to see them all up there together on a several talk shows, talking, not "staging" a debate, not setting up for best soundbite delivery...

use them to educate the public.

Sounds like Huckabee might admit too much during a debate; life continues after birth for starters. If he goes on and on about that it could definitely turn off the right wing wingnuts who don't want to even think about the increasing disparity between rich and poor, for example. And if he admits the obvious - that the rich aren't taxed enough in this country - what a conservative firestorm that will generate! That'd fly in the face of all the self-serving rationalizations the right has put into place.

Sounds like Huckabee might admit too much during a debate; life continues after birth for starters. If he goes on and on about that it could definitely turn off the right wing wingnuts who don't want to even think about the increasing disparity between rich and poor, for example. And if he admits the obvious - that the rich aren't taxed enough in this country - what a conservative firestorm that will generate! That'd fly in the face of all the self-serving rationalizations the right has put into place.

Having Lindsey Graham on board will definitely help McCain. He's gotten some national press time recently and has shown himself to be very articulate and a good debater.
I have to agree with the previous posters about Huckabee...scary conservative on social issues; Romney falls into the same category IMO.

'And if he admits the obvious - that the rich aren't taxed enough in this country'

Aah, judge, but that is the one thing NONE of them will ever do. The core belief of the GOP, sancrosanct above all, is that the rich are above taxation. The only one who ever actually said it out loud was Dan Quayle, who opined that the wealthy shouldn't have to pay taxes, as they 'created jobs' -- although he didn't mention in which country.

Whether they honestly believe this, or it's just self-serving cynicism -- they all accept as an article of faith that neither they nor anyone else in their class should be burdened by taxation. As Leona Helmsley, a staunch lifelong repug, put it so memorably, 'only little people pay taxes.'

Drindl that's my point: if Huckabee is his own man he might say things that none of them want to hear. I am reminded of that Alabama governor Bob Riley who stated 'It is immoral to charge somebody making $5,000 an income tax.' Certainly that's true but that didn't hold water with the 'Christian' groups in AL. Why? They were bought off by commercial interests who didn't want to pay a higher tax rate to keep the poor from having to pay taxes on the niggling amount of money they make every year.

Huckabee seems a lot more like Riley than he is like Bush.

"Aah, judge, but that is the one thing NONE of them will ever do. The core belief of the GOP, sancrosanct above all, is that the rich are above taxation."

And the core belief of liberals is that the masses are too stupid to take care of themselves, so govt. needs to step in and do it for them...aren't generalizations grand!!!

I had never heard of Huckabee until I found this blog and then I saw his appearance on the Daily Show the other day. I was impressed. Given I usually feel like vomiting when I hear a republican speak, he came across as refreshing, moderate and not interested in pandering to the evangelical base (see McCain). On top of that he's a governor, who have great records in presidential elections, albeit of a small state (didn't stop the comeback kid I guess). I still hope the Dems take the white house in 08 but on the small amount I've seen so far, Huckabee would at least be a republican I could stomach. Far better than the 'compassionate' conservative currently in the whitehouse.

Let's turn that one around, FH: "And the core belief of conservatives is that the rich are too stupid to take care of themselves, so govt. needs to step in and do it for them...aren't generalizations grand!!!"

Amen to the grandness of generalizations.

Another Governor of Arkansas Presidential candidate? C'mon, guy and gals, do you really want to go down that road again?
We are headed into a recession that will only get better when we decrease the budget deficit and slow the driving up of interest costs. That means bad times for the Republican party, as everyone knows who's to blame. It will be another "It's the economy, stupid" election. It won't matter who the Republicans put up, they will lose.

How I find myself in the position of defending a Republican I do not know, but Capeman the fact that it's Arkansas isn't really important. Why should that matter? I did want to ask - did he grow up in Arkansas? Because even though I'm an Aussie I can usually tell a southern accent and that ain't much of a southern accent to my foreign ears.

Capeman,

I sincerely hope you're right about this next election being another "It's the economy, stupid". The current fiscal situation is sickening. I could go on and on about budget deficits, earmark spending, etc, but I suppose it would be preaching to the choir.

Incidentally, if this next election focusses to any degree on fiscal policy it will be good for the two stars of this article, McCain and Romney. Huckabee and Giuliani are very poor performers in this respect, both presiding over ballooning debt in their own spheres of influence.

You are right that being from Arkansas (or South Carolina, etc) shouldn't exclude you from being President, it was a reminder of where he is from.
He was born in Hope, Arkansas. Sound familiar? He got his bachelor's at Ouachita Baptist University in Arkansas.
He also has had 4 jobs in his post college life, director of communications for Evangelist James Robison, Governor, Minister and selling a diet book. Which one of these jobs makes him fit to become President?

hello again, murph:

so, would the fiscally responsible Romney raise fees on the entire country? or would he cut national education funding? based on his track record in Massachusetts, what he says in a campaign is really no indicator of what he will do if elected. Imagine the voters' surprise!
______ ______ ______

"so, would the fiscally responsible Romney raise fees on the entire country?"
-------------------------------

If he says he won't, then he wont. He didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts just like he said he wouldn't. And somehow, someway, they went from $3 billion in red to $1 billion in black. Just think what he could do with the US Federal Government.

-------------------------------
"or would he cut national education funding?"
-------------------------------

He cuts "hack" jobs. These are government jobs created by government bureacrats where you are "appointed" by a friend of yours to sit in a cube somewhere, push papers around, and do nothing. Romney would wipe these jobs out because he doesn't owe any favors to anyone. So these people have everything to lose if a Washington outsider is elected President.

As far as Romney's outlook on education goes, that is where he is PRO immigration. Romney want as many PhDs, Engineers, Doctors, and International Buisnessmen to migrate to the United States and help build our economy. He is very much AGAINST illegal immigrants mostly because they add very little economic value to this country and when they are old and no longer able to labour, we must support them and even pay for their burials.

Not to mention, he has his MBA and Juris Doctrorate from Harvard University. I guess one could say he is quite PRO education, even if he isn't PRO government education spending.

-------------------------------
"based on his track record in Massachusetts, what he says in a campaign is really no indicator of what he will do if elected. Imagine the voters' surprise!"
-------------------------------

Name just ONE PROMISE that Romney backed out on in his 4 years at the helm in Massachusetts? Name one? You wont find one because the ONLY time he couldn't deliver something, was because the super majoriy of House Democrats over-rode his veto. That is it. It isn't for lack of trying, but he even admitted that his vetos counted for NOTHING. He never tried to initiate any legislation that he said he wouldn't, and he fought tooth and nail against everything that he said he would.

He said he was Pro-Choice just to get elected in Massachusetts. BFD. So he is Pro-Life. Who cares? Did his position prevent even one woman who wanted an abortion in Massachusetts from getting one? The answer of course is "no." But he knew he couldn't be elected if he said he was pro-life. It is all just rhetoric.

"so, would the fiscally responsible Romney raise fees on the entire country?"
-------------------------------

If he says he won't, then he wont. He didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts just like he said he wouldn't. And somehow, someway, they went from $3 billion in red to $1 billion in black. Just think what he could do with the US Federal Government.

-------------------------------
"or would he cut national education funding?"
-------------------------------

He cuts "hack" jobs. These are government jobs created by government bureacrats where you are "appointed" by a friend of yours to sit in a cube somewhere, push papers around, and do nothing. Romney would wipe these jobs out because he doesn't owe any favors to anyone. So these people have everything to lose if a Washington outsider is elected President.

As far as Romney's outlook on education goes, that is where he is PRO immigration. Romney want as many PhDs, Engineers, Doctors, and International Buisnessmen to migrate to the United States and help build our economy. He is very much AGAINST illegal immigrants mostly because they add very little economic value to this country and when they are old and no longer able to labour, we must support them and even pay for their burials.

Not to mention, he has his MBA and Juris Doctrorate from Harvard University. I guess one could say he is quite PRO education, even if he isn't PRO government education spending.

-------------------------------
"based on his track record in Massachusetts, what he says in a campaign is really no indicator of what he will do if elected. Imagine the voters' surprise!"
-------------------------------

Name just ONE PROMISE that Romney backed out on in his 4 years at the helm in Massachusetts? Name one? You wont find one because the ONLY time he couldn't deliver something, was because the super majoriy of House Democrats over-rode his veto. That is it. It isn't for lack of trying, but he even admitted that his vetos counted for NOTHING. He never tried to initiate any legislation that he said he wouldn't, and he fought tooth and nail against everything that he said he would.

He said he was Pro-Choice just to get elected in Massachusetts. BFD. So he is Pro-Life. Who cares? Did his position prevent even one woman who wanted an abortion in Massachusetts from getting one? The answer of course is "no." But he knew he couldn't be elected if he said he was pro-life. It is all just rhetoric.

The comment that the earlier reader made about Huckabee maintaining a distant loyalty to Bush is a good one.
I saw him on Road the White House last night and Huckabee presents himself very well.
His presentation was essentially apolitical and he stressed his personal qualities of caring, attentiveness, hard work and his abiltiy to work with Democrats and create bipartisan comity.
I think Huckabee will be a formidable presence in the GOP primaries and if he is able to continue to downplay his strict religious/conservative orientation may be a creditable candidate in the general election if nominated for the Presidency in 08.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

meuphys,

I'm not keen to rehash the conversation from the several days ago on this same topic, in which you generally resorted to gross exagerations or got your facts wrong. It felt awfully pointless.

Perhaps you would answer innocentbystander's question...name a campaign promise that Romney backed out on.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.