Everyone seems to be going crazy over Huckabee not knowing about the NIE report at a dinner last night. I'm not sure it's going to mean much beyond those of us who follow both politics and the War on Terror so closely. Between his regular guy approach and his probably being completely consumed in playing catch up campaign-wise now that he's had a sort of break out in the polls, it likely wasn't seen as a priority by those around him. That may be a dumb move, but it isn't like he needs to be contemplating bombing Iran next week, or anything.
In another sense, the criticism almost strikes me as the way people often went at Reagan, dumb, and or disengaged. I say that because I was thinking about the horse race last night relative to some past years.
If you go back to Reagan and every president since, the person with the friendliest, or most folksy and engaging image has won - sort of the, would you like to have a beer with them factor. While some of us who follow politics closely obsess over minutia, the people who elect presidents don't.
One thing is certain, he has shaken up the Republican race and the knives are out for him from a few directions. That's understandable. What I remain unsure of is, are the attacks going to resonate with the supporters he seems to be drawing? And is this guy going to simply back into the nomination because people have been dissatisfied with the rest of the field for so long?
If nothing else, it's going to be interesting to watch it play out over the coming month.


I really think that Huckabee is a plant for John McCain because before Huck started getting traction in the pole I use to think anybody but John McCain. Now I think anybody but Mike Huckabee.
Posted by: Shtetl G | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 10:47 AM
When bringing up the name Huckabee the past several days,I am hearing, McCain and Huck as VP. Still a Thompson fan myself ;). I like em'rough. Honestly, have yet heard anything that has really moved me to the point of.....he's the guy I want for POTUS. Kind of boring.
Posted by: Cindi | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 11:21 AM
All those "Anybody buts..." Man, back in '04 we were using "Anybody but..." on the opposition candidate. Now the Republicans are saying it about their own. Tough times.
That said, NPR had a debate yesterday in which 1/3 of the content revolved around the NIE report. I don't know how anyone who is serious about "the terr'rists" and the threat they present can dismiss Huckabee's gaff so cavalierly. When "Bomb Iran" has become a Republican Party Platform Plank, you would think every candidate would have an eye on that ball.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 11:22 AM
I really agree with you Dan. Folksy wins every time. Bill Clinton included. Ah Shucks is what he would say when caught with his hand in the cookie jar or somewhere else it wasn't supposed to be.
I haven't hear much about Hucklebery Finn's wife. What is she like. I feel the importance of the spouse is highly underated. Kerry lost for many reasons but one of the MAIN ones was because of his wife. Nobody and I mean nobody wanted her as first lady.
Huck really does come across as a Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn. But how is it possible for 2(TWO)of these smooth talking pols to come out of HOPE, Arkansas. What are the odds? Jimmy Carter rode that folksy Baptist act all the way to the White House. Maybe Huck will too. ABH. Anybody but Hillary. I seem to get the impression the Democrats are beginning to feel that way themselves now.
Posted by: joeb | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I think Huckabee may one day make a good President, but instances like this tell me he's just not ready for prime time.
Posted by: Pistol Pete | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I do wish IslamoMoe would run for President (he is so honest and smart and true and feeling and caring)...of Iran after someone gets rid of Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I hate to agree but I think you're right: Its charisma and not policy that is going to get someone elected. Now, I think and I HOPE that the internet and increased availability of information - as well as the increasing voter dissatisfaction - is going to contribute to changing that dynamic. Regardless of the criteria we use to elect politicians, we're still stuck with their policy. Hopefully, that moves up in important when it comes to elections.
Posted by: underground | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 12:28 PM
"--- Its charisma and not policy that is going to get someone elected. ---"
Interesting that... and if that is correct formula, than Fred! hasn't got a chance (unless he changes his tactics and stat).
Fred!'s got some great policy ideas, but so far, the MSM has painted him as slightly less boring than shoe leather.
Posted by: seekeronos | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 12:57 PM
It seems that GOP pundits are not only late in recognizing the electability of Governor Huckabee, but also late in realizing that EVERY ONE of the attacks against him this past couple of weeks (save the Gitmo thingy...which concerns me) have been overcome by him in a State SWARMING with political rivals each with their steely knives out to end his political career.
Guess what? Huckabee won...was re-elected.
No other state has higher moral-values than the voters in Arkansas, IMHO...and that is NOT to say all others have worse moral-values. Huckabee was vetted both by minority Republicans in the state...as well as majority Democrats.
If you Rud-Roms keep rubbing your hands together hoping this is going to de-rail Huckabee's run to the nomination, you'll wear blisters on your palms.
Posted by: Al-Ozarka | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 01:14 PM
I assumed the only way to get elected President was through the power of Jesus.
Maybe I'm confusing that with "the elect". Meh. Whatever.
"No other state has higher moral-values than the voters in Arkansas, IMHO"
Wow. Really? Really? That's just a knee-slapping statistic right there. I'm not even sure how you go about measuring "moral-values [in] voters", but I guess if you use the same fundamental theorems that lead to "Iran is going to nuke America if we don't stop them quick!" cries coming from the White House, it's not a big stretch.
Either way, if accusing a Presidential contender of not following the news constitutes a "long knife", I can only imagine that Republicans have really thin skin.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 01:36 PM
I'm sorry ... but someone who is running for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States should have known about this. It was all over the news for almost a full day before this dinner. He needs some handlers, or something.
Posted by: scott | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 02:26 PM
"....Iran is going to nuke America if we don't stop them quick..."
Who at the White House said that? I follow the news closely, and I've never heard anyone at the White House say that. You should at least have a semblance of truth in your comments, or you just come off looking like a stupid troll, IslamoLlama.
Posted by: jj | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 04:28 PM
No need to play coy, JJ. Just say what you really mean. Word Parsing for the win. All the saber rattling about Iran being a "threat to the region" and "sponsoring terrorism" and "developing nuclear weapons" was in no way ment to explicitly suggest that Iran planned on using an atom bomb in such a manner as to harm or kill US citizens. Is that what you are implying?
I'm not sure how I come off looking stupid, when you're the chump playing dumb.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Uh...Islamo, saying Iran is a threat to the region is hardly a declaration of war. Are you suggesting Iran is not a threat to the region? Because Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt and a number of other nations are saying Iran is a threat.
Speaking of chumps....
Posted by: jj | Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 07:21 PM