Friday, January 04, 2008
Iowa gives M. Hucksterbee and B. Hussein Obama a try
According to Rich Galen, nobody had "predicted what actually happened last night at the Iowa Caucuses." Galen, of course, is 100 percent correct. I damn sure didn't see Huckabee and Obama winning. Historically, Iowa's caucuses have been all about organization: who can identify their supporters and get them to their polling, er, caucus places. John Edwards and Mitt Romney had been organizing and campaigning in Iowa for the better part of two years. I assumed - wrongly - that the two-year efforts of the Edwards and Romney campaigns would pay off in the form of an Iowa victory.
As far as Mike Huckabee is concerned, I tend to agree with the Club for Growth:
"The Club for Growth PAC urges New Hampshire voters to reject Mike Huckabee and his big-government policies next Tuesday. Republican voters should nominate a leader who will return the Party to the principles of economic conservatism, not an economic liberal who wants to be the John Edwards of the Republican Party.”
"Mike Huckabee has a proven track record of increasing taxes and spending as governor of Arkansas, opposes school choice, engages in protectionist and class-warfare rhetoric, and wants to impose a slew of new government regulations. New Hampshire has long been a state that appreciates economic freedom and limited government. Mike Huckabee does not represent those values."
As for Obama, I think if he wins the New Hampshire primary, his campaign will be a juggernaut that HillaryRodham (Clinton) and John Edwards may find impossible to stop.
That said, I'll be honest and state for the record that the prospect of an Obama nomination scares the hell outta me. Why? Well, he is the candidate the GOP will find hardest to beat. Indeed, he's the only candidate in the race who'll be able to run a campaign, from start to finish, on a platform of platitudes and feel-good Oprahisms. Think about it: how many people have you heard say that they're for Obama because of legislation he introduced in Senate or some policy position he's taken? None, right?
Obama has spent the last 12 months mouthing vague references to "hope" and "change," while cagily dodging questions on specifics, and the media has abetted him at every turn. Furthermore, no one - and I mean no one - has asked him about his left-wing voting record; and if the GOP tries to make an issue of Obama the Liberal, he and his surrogates will play victim by decrying partisanship and dirty politics. And, again, the media will play along.
What really scares me about Obama, though, is that I see in him shades of Jimmy Carter. Carter was an undistinguished one-term Governor of Georgia; Obama has served half of one term in the U.S. Senate, and he hasn't distinguished himself as a legislator in any way. Carter was prone to moralizing and bouts of self-righteousness; Obama ... well, just pay close attention to an Obama speech (or read one of his wretched books); Carter's failed foreign policies were the result of a great deal of naivete; Obama plans to protect America's interests abroad by holding gab-fests with every tin pot dictator on the planet. Carter played down his liberal past by talking endlessly about his religious faith; Obama has played down his liberal past by talking endlessly about his religious faith.
Obama could very well be the next president of the United States. He'll no doubt enjoy a six or eight-month honeymoon period; however, it won't take long for him demonstrate that he's in over his head. The presidency ain't the place for on-the-job training. I fear that when Americans figure that one out, it'll be too late. Way too late.