This Guy/Girl as president? Part 1: Mike Huckabee

This is a reaction to the New York Times article(along with many other articles and interviews)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22365097/. There is not much extra evidence given, mainly because I didn't want to write 3 pages. This is more all heart no fact, and I think Colbert would be proud. I am planning to write up my feelings on the other candidates as well as other random thoughts in no planned order.



I'm not quite sure what I think about Mike Huckabee yet. He seems to be a very strong leader with a clear picture of how his faith defines him. On the other hand, he can let his temper and emotions get the best of him. Unlike what I think happens with Bush/Cheney sometimes, these do not seem to affect his policy decisions. Huckabee has made some very public outbursts through the years, but I have not read of any serious policy changes the came of them. Even so, it could be a cause for concern if he loses his temper in any kind of international diplomacy meeting. A small outburst could have larger implications. He may also expect too much in terms of obedience of the population/media/legislative branch and may not react well to the larger microscope of national politics.



If we were to have a baptist minister become president, I think his attitude towards religion and government is the best we could hope for. He has the strongest religious credentials, yet I have never detected animosity towards other views on religion or a superiority of his own. Romney's Mormon speech was the exact opposite for me, I felt that those with similar beliefs were invited to one big group whose job was to protect against those on the other side. He has had some misteps though. I felt that the floating cross in the Christmas ad was out of character for him, but I do feel that it was deliberate. It was also a mistake and unnecessary, there is no doubt that Huckabee is a man of faith, and there is no reason to cast doubt on his ability to let the public know exactly what he is thinking.



What worries me the most is his ends justify the means policy of lawmaking. He seems to get his mind set on something and then does whatever necessary to achieve it. Luckily, his ideas tend to be on the intelligent side. I think he could be a hugely polarizing president, but not in the traditional partisan way. This could work out and break down some ideological walls by creating strange bedfellows out of the camps that oppose/support the policies he tries to strongarm through. He could find out very quickly that his previous way of pushing out legislation doesn't work in the big leagues of DC politics. Based on his recent history, I think he can stay light on his feet and adjust accordingly.



His willingness to publicy compromise himself by accepting gifts seems to fit his personality. He feels so strongly about his issues that he feels that he cannot be compromised. The NYT article called the gifts he received "Tribute." I think that is the perfect term.



I think Huckabee is much smarter that many give him credit for. To borrow a line from Guliani, he would not be a "perfect president," but he may make a very good one in terms of policy decisions. However, his style of government may even be more secretive than the current administration's and he does not like being questioned. It might be best for a more open group to come in for a couple years. It seems like a national trust in the president needs to be built before we are ready for one who can't take "no" as an answer. I haven't decided against him, but I think there might be a better option.