First of all, I want to apologize for my lax in posting. I’ve been out of town running a conference. But I’m back now and should be able to keep up. 
I’ve noticed quite a few attacks on Huckabee’s character in the recent days and weeks. As I was researching them I came across a couple editorials in support of him that address some of those concerns. Definitely read the whole articles, but here are a few excerpts.
Huckabee Hatin’ Could Backfire on the GOP
by Greg Taylor, Real Clear Politics
Rush Limbaugh couldn’t be clearer – supporting former Governor Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign is a really bad idea if you are a true Reagan Republican. In his opinion, Huckabee’s nomination would mark the end of the Republican Party as he knows it. And Limbaugh isn’t alone: Fellow talking head Sean Hannity and a whole host of conservative talk radio hosts love to pummel Huckabee and fellow candidate John McCain. The vitriol formerly reserved for Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Howard Dean is now directed at Republicans like Huckabee and McCain.Why am I interested in the Huckabee campaign? Not because I’m a Republican (though I have voted for Republicans) or that I’m very conservative (although I am more conservative than liberal). It’s because I have something in common with Governor Huckabee- I am, and he was for many years, a vocational preacher. Whether the term is Pastor or Minister or Reverend, my guess is many others in the clergy are certainly intrigued by “the other man Hope.” And while an endorsement would be inappropriate from me or any other member of the clergy, the thought of a preacher in the White House is something I believe merits consideration.
And my guess is I’m not alone in the Evangelical community. Rush and crew should listen up: the Evangelical/Republican marriage could very well be on the rocks. This large and important block of voters who put George W. Bush in the White House twice could well be close to saying bye-bye to the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and conservative talk radio could be the reason why. And don’t let us kid ourselves, without W’s overwhelming support from Evangelicals, Al Gore would be President and the term “Lock Box” wouldn’t be a punch line. Why in the world would Evangelicals bolt? The answer is simple – Rush and crew have demonstrated the values Evangelicals hold dear don’t matter nearly as much as economic and foreign policy positions. No one in the Republican field is more committed to the causes that matter most to the Evangelical community than Huckabee – the former Baptist minister who is pro-life (and always has been), pro-traditional family and even open to amending the Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Huckabee believes in abstinence education and is very pro-states rights.
These positions connect with Evangelicals and frankly are more important to many in these communities than tax breaks for billionaires, border fences or amnesty accusations. The three tenants of the Reagan revolution seem to be dissolving into just two pillars in the hearts and minds of Limbaugh, Hannity and the like. While trickle down economics and strong foreign policy are very important to the posse, strong social conservatism seems to be optional. Many in the world of conservative talk radio seem to care much more about economic and foreign policy issues, and much less about the issues that matter most to the Evangelical community. Read the rest…
Huckabee Presents the Best Choice for Reagan Supporters
by John Linder, Gwinnett Daily Post
I was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives 34 years ago. I have watched this party change for a long time. Some changes have been better than others. Two years after that first election, I went to work on the Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. I was one of the leaders of that campaign in Georgia, and my friend, Paul Coverdell, led the establishment’s efforts to nominate President Ford. It was the typical establishment-versus-interloper campaign. Most of the friends I had made in the party were in the establishment. Most of them thought the nomination of Ronald Reagan was not only impractical, but would destroy our party. Reagan had just served two terms as the governor of California. His record was not all that conservative. He signed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state. He got the best he could get with a Democrat-dominated general assembly. He signed a bill legalizing abortion. But governors have different challenges than presidents. Frankly, most of the establishment couldn’t have cared less about abortion. They thought the discussion of it was, well, tacky. But we were, at the time, the party that Barry built, and the new foot soldiers cared about abortion. Their concern with Reagan was that he just wasn’t up to it. What did he know about foreign policy? How could he stand up to the Soviets? Did he understand detente?
During that campaign, as in all campaigns, the establishment sat at the head table, and the rest of us milled around the small round tables below. Coverdell approached me, after Ford had won the first several primaries, and urged me to switch sides. Paul was convinced that Ford had the best chance of winning. Paul recited all of the reservations mentioned above and then said, “John, Reagan cannot win. No one will take him seriously.” That was also the consensus of the Republican writers and commentators. I said, “Paul, I think politics is all about what you believe. I know what Reagan believes. I have no idea what Ford believes. But you need to watch Reagan connect with the people. He is the best communicator I have ever seen. He is bringing new people into the party. And these are folks you won’t be meeting at the club for lunch. They carry a lunch bucket to work. Or a brown paper bag. Read the rest…
That’s just a couple of them.
