« Previous | Next »

Thoughts on Huckabee
Posted by tgirsch

I sympathize with Kevin’s thoughts on Huckabee, but at the same time, I’m left to wonder: Would Rudy or Romney really be any better? Mind you, I’m not saying that Huckabee would be a great president — far from it — but when you look at the viable GOP candidates, he certainly seems to be the least of evils.

At heart, I’m a pragmatist. I’d much rather have any of the viable Democrats (and even most of the non-viable ones) than any of the GOP candidates, but if you were going to get stuck with another GOP president, Huckabee seems to be the least of evils. Of course I worry about his fundamentalist religious views, but he doesn’t want to double Guantanamo, either.

I only mention this because Huckabee’s getting the brunt of liberal attention right now, and as much as this stuff needs to come to light, I’d hate to do Giuliani or Romney any favors by discrediting their closest competition too early.

The Dumond affair is reprehensible, but I still think Rudy or Mitt would be objectively worse.

December 7th, 2007 Politics | 6 comments

6 Comments »

  1. Volunteer Voters » Helping Rudy writes:

    […] Tgirch wouldn’t mind terribly if liberals would give Mike Huckabee a pass on criticism for the time being: At heart, I’m a pragmatist. I’d much rather have any of the viable Democrats (and even most of the non-viable ones) than any of the GOP candidates, but if you were going to get stuck with another GOP president, Huckabee seems to be the least of evils. Of course I worry about his fundamentalist religious views, but he doesn’t want to double Guantanamo, either. […]

    Pingback 12/7/2007

  2. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator writes:

    Romney says his White House bid not defined by Mormon faith…

    GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivered a passionate speech Thursday in defense of his Morm…

    Trackback 12/7/2007

  3. Ted writes:

    I agree. I found Romney’s speech chilling. Examples:

    “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

    and

    “Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

    followed later by

    “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

    Comment 12/8/2007

  4. tgirsch writes:

    Ted:

    I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. While I have no quarrel with the middle statement you quoted, I have serious problems with the other two. As a non-religious American, I’m surprised to learn that I can’t have freedom simply because I don’t have religion. And I’m sick and tired of the “religion of secularism” bullshit.

    In any case, I’m not sure how Romney’s speech is relevant to this particular topic.

    Comment 12/8/2007

  5. Ted writes:

    it is relevant because it indicates what life might be like for non-religous people if romney is prez. which seems to be worse than huckabee. whic is what you said.

    my point with the last two quotes is to show inconsistency. tolerate all religions except those with which you really disagree - the religion of secularism.

    sometimes i’m too brief when on keyboardless laptop.

    Comment 12/8/2007

  6. tgirsch writes:

    Ted:

    Understood, and agreed. :)

    Comment 12/8/2007

Leave a comment