Some are wondering why Mike Huckabee is getting fairly positive coverage, for a conservative. I have to admit I've pondered it myself.
Robert Novak takes brief note of this in his piece at Human Events today.
Marc Ambinder bounces off Novak's column and has this to say:
Certainly, Huckabee knows that the press still cricks its neck toward conservative evangelicalsm and so he plays against type: he knows that the press doesn't like to hear about the evils of homosexuality or the perils of abortion, so he rarely talks about those subjects. (He's a "pro-life for the whole-life" kind of guy.)
Could it be that the media doesn't think he's electable by the general public, or they want Republicans to spend more energy tearing each other apart before the general campaign, so they want to give him a leg up so he can burn up the resources of more viable candidates? Hard to say.
In any event, while there's a lot to like about Huckabee, some of his ideas give me pause.
For instance, I posted last month on comments he's made which indicate he has an unbalanced view of grace and righteousness (and many political philosophies flow out of theological issues). Those same comments also indicate he might have a little too much good will for socialist policies (again, some well-meaning but flawed socialist ideas flow from a misunderstanding of the Bible).
Would he be better than a Clinton or Obama? Undoubtedly. But you have to watch carefully anyone who minimizes doing the right thing, and believes government has a role to dispense charity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment