Huckabee's rise

Huckabee is now in a dead heat with Romney and Giuliani in Florida. He's in a dead heat with Giuliani nationally. Romney is flailing away with attacks which smack of desperation, and more than likely won't change anyone's mind. Establishment Republicans are also desperate.

New York magazine compares the Huckster to Pat Buchanan:

In 1996, after all, the economy was in the midst of a historic boom, one that was on the verge of kicking into overdrive. Today, the situation is the reverse: Recession looms, the Dow sags, the housing and credit markets buckle. The economy has elbowed aside Iraq as the central locus of voter anxiety.

Hence the reason why the rise of Huckabee is causing so much consternation, even panic, among his fellow wannabe nominees. Though nobody sober believes that, even if he emerges triumphant in Iowa, Huckabee can win New Hampshire, his prospects in the next two contests (Michigan and South Carolina) are considerably better. Both are states whose industrial bases have been ravaged by foreign competition. Both have seen their property markets hammered by the credit crunch and the recent wave of foreclosures. And at least in South Carolina, the state that is often the sine qua non for securing the GOP nomination, the Evangelical vote is nearly as significant as it is in Iowa. If Huckabee wins there—and he currently leads—his momentum could prove unstoppable.

There are, naturally, a raft of reasons to doubt this scenario. Huckabee’s lack of money might trip him up on Tsunami Tuesday, February 5.

My prediction has always been that Super-Duper Tuesday is going to be about free media, not advertising, so I don't accept that last part.

Huckabee is starting to look like Buchanan in another area: foreign policy. He has written an article for Foreign Affairs magazine that's very interesting. In it he has strong criticisms of Bush's foreign policy and leadership style. Here's the highlights:

The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.

The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick.

Although we cannot export democracy as if it were Coca-Cola or KFC, we can nurture moderate forces in places where al Qaeda is seeking to replace modern evil with medieval evil. Such moderation may not look or function like our system -- it may be a benevolent oligarchy or more tribal than individualistic -- but both for us and for the peoples of those countries, it will be better than the dictatorships they have now or the theocracy they would have under radical Islamists.

If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms.

[On Iran:] Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.

The conclusion:

Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.

"The peacemaker" is the image the campaign would like to portray. Some strong rhetoric against Bush's policies from Huckabee, and it is earning him more denunciations from establishment Republicans. But it's precisely the establishment Republicans that messed up big-time in Iraq. Despite their declinations, that was precisely the reason for the 2006 result. After the primary race is over, whoever the Republican nominee is, he will have to start shifting on Iraq towards a better general election position. Huckabee is doing that right now. He could be playing towards Ron Paul supporters as well.

The rise of Huckabee should, in my opinion, help John Edwards. Huckabee is a dangerous commodity for Hillary to run against. The likability factor could be exploited against her. Huckabee's liberal-leaning positions would triangulate well against Hillary's liberalism. Edwards and Obama are another story. I think Huckabee might beat Hillary, would have less of a chance against Obama, but wouldn't beat Edwards. They are too much alike so that voters would just vote for the party (Democrats) that they want to control the White House. Edwards himself is now talking about his electability.