Why this committed Democrat intends to vote for Huckabee in NH on January 8 (updated)
Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:54:04 AM PDT
I've been telling my buddies I intend to vote for Mike Huckabee in the primary on January 8; today I decided that I'm actually serious about this. Let me explain why (this is only my second dKos diary, so bear with me; I promise I won't mind if you decide to troll-rate me in the end).
Bottom line:
I think Mike Huckabee would probably be a lousy president. But I think he should be the Republican nominee (somebody has to be, right?).
And I can't decide which Democrat to vote for. Perhaps I should start with that part, and then explain why I'm thinking that voting for a lovable clown (a mistake a lot of people have made in recent years) is the best thing a New Hampshirite can do next week.
(continued below the fold)
The Democrats
Each of the three leading Democrats has an important flaw that is making it hard for me to vote for her or him.
Atrios did a good job summarizing the Democratic front-runners' stances:
Shorter Candidates
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
edit: I think Atrios intends these summaries fondly, and I know that I do.
Obama
* Krugman and Kos are right about Obama's tactics.
I was shaken by Obama's choice to demagogue Social Security, however mildly, in order to distinguish himself from Clinton when it looked as if she was locking the nomination up. Social Security is so incredibly important, and while Obama told no lies he showed a lack of political foresight in focusing on its weakness rather than its strength. As Krugman says, "He’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform."
I believe that if he can learn from this mistake, Obama will probably make the best president of the current field.
Edwards
*Of the three major candidates, Edwards is the most vulnerable to fresh media ridicule.
Anyone who pays attention if Edwards wins the nomination will be treated to a zillion jokes about his hair, his accent, and his supposed hypocrisy. He's got Carter's mild sanctimony, Dukakis's wonkiness, Gore's pedantic streak, and Kerry's wealth (note: sentence edited slightly for precision). He gets on a lot of people's nerves, for no good reason. This is by no means his fault, but I worry about how he would do in the general election.
Edwards's focus on poverty makes him the best choice, for my money, of the three, in terms of policy priorities.
Clinton
*Clinton has a very unfortunate reputation among low-information voters that could poison her candidacy
She's proven that she can beat the media's tendency to run indefinitely with nonsense stories about her. But that doesn't mean that she can overcome the unfavorable opinion of her held by lots of Americans who don't pay attention to politics (but are still mobilized by church-based or other GOTV efforts). The right wing has proven that it does not get tired of attacking her with lies and sexist innuendo, and I'm afraid of what their tenacity means for her chances in the general.
Clinton's experience with the nitty-gritty of politics (policy and practicalities) makes her the best choice pragmatically for those who believe we should vote for the candidate who can get the most done as President.
What does saying 'no,' for the moment, to each of these three outstanding Democrats say about the future of the Democratic Party?
I don't know. The future of the Party is uncertain. But we know it has a lot of work to do, and at the moment I'm not comfortable with any of the three choices. Fingers crossed!
What Huckabee stands for
*As many others have said, Mike Huckabee looks like a human self-destruct button for the three-legged Republican Party coalition of the last thirty years.
The big money hates Huckabee. The financial support he would have would be the worst of any Republican.
The rank-and-file voters of the religious right love Huckabee, and for good reason: he's a Baptist minister who has lived a clean life. This is why he's running so strong despite general media disdain for everything he's done and said on the campaign trail.
The neocons, with their think tanks and their army of talking heads, can neither help Huckabee with their praise nor hurt him with their criticism. His ignorance about important foreign policy matters means they can't endorse him, but he's proven that he will go along with the conventional wisdom they spout in that area if he thinks it will help him win.
*Huckabee has almost all of Bill Clinton's weaknesses (and none of his real strengths)
In many ways Huckabee is the anti-Clinton. He has lots of ideas about domestic policy, but hasn't worked with experts on refining or implementing them. He has an attention-getting scandal on his record from his governorship of Arkansas (the DuMond affair) -- and although he seems to have made it in good faith, it was a very real mistake with very real consequences. He is from the same home town and has many of the same mockable Southern idiosyncrasies as Pres. Clinton did.
As a bonus, there is attached to his family (though not to him personally) an anecdote about the same kind of senseless cruelty to animals shown in the underexamined anecdotes about Romney and Bush. (Please keep in mind that the junior Huckabee in question might not have actually done this thing, and that he was young enough that he might not have known any better.)
Moreover, he has terrible political instincts that offer outstanding parodies of the most cynical GOP tactics of the last twenty-five years. The press seems to get the joke and treats it with the disdain it deserves -- even when, as in this most recent case, the candidate is at his most sincere. (I think he really did decide on New Year's Eve that going negative just wasn't his thing.)
*Huckabee seems like a good man who would do his best to learn what he needs to learn if by some freakish series of events he gets elected President.
In other words, he's the anti-Bush.
(Note that NONE of the other Republican candidates can be fairly described this way.)
update: It's also true that Huckabee is just like Bush in some important ways, which, for those of you who savor just a little bit of spite, might be a plus. Karl Rove and all his cynical minions, who packaged Bush falsely as a tenacious, brave man of faith, might get saddled this time around with just such a guy to carry on their legacy, and it would serve them right.
*What does voting for Mike Huckabee in the New Hampshire primary say about the future of the Republican Party?
It says that the GOP has a legitimate role to play in the future of the country: as the loyal opposition. People of faith, sincerity, humility, and tenacity -- people, that is, like Mike Huckabee (edit: and indeed, all the Democrats in the field) -- will always have important work to do. They can be great American patriots in the right context.
Why this plan will work
New Hampshire is small enough that a few voters who vote for Huckabee for the above reasons can make a real impact. The media, which has been ignoring the Huckabee surge for a long time, will have to pay attention to it if he outperforms expectations here, where Romney is strongest (they can ignore it in Iowa, since they don't respect the opinions of Midwestern Christians). And if Huckabee survives New Hampshire he stands a decent chance of keeping the Iowa momentum into South Carolina, Florida, and so on.
Why this plan will not work
Apparently you can't change your party affiliation at the polls in New Hampshire.
(Money quote for New Hampshirites: "If you are unsure of your party affiliation, you should contact your town or city clerk, as they have the records of party membership.")
That's my thinking at the moment, for what it's worth. Please recommend this diary, as I think it makes pretty good sense.
God bless America!
Jim von der Heydt
Edit: I might be deciding that if I can't change my affiliation at the polls that I'll vote for Chris Dodd. He's been doing outstanding legislative work for the country even while campaigning, including an incredibly underreported, heroic, and effective one-man filibuster of the pernicious bipartisan telecom-immunity bill.
Permalink | 92 comments