Huckabee's Reagan-like persona worries me. Yeah, he's a zealot, but he DOESN'T come off

as such in the MSM.

I've watched him before being asked about his religious beliefs and he's good at dodging and deflecting the subject--yet look at how he managed to "pull" that offensive anti-Romney ad off of the air--and managed to get the press to show it for free and talking about it. Thus, he appeals to the zealot vote--and yet he comes off as "responsible" and a voice of reason.

I watched Olbermann interveiwing him last night and despite Olbermann's admirable effort to draw out his religious zealotry, Huckabee managed to dance around the questions, all the while appearing charming and dad-like.

Like Ronnie Raygun--and Ronnie didn't have an idea or agenda of his own. Huckabee DOES. And remember, W managed to appear the voice of moderation and reason, too.

I don't think Huckabee will win in NH, but still, he worries me a bit. He's far more than he appears and we know where that can get us.

He does have a very folksy, likable persona. I watched his speech last night and the man does a nice job in front of the camera. I can't tell if it's phony or genuine, but he has a nice presentation that will appeal to a lot of folks. So I agree -- he has to be taken seriously.

Romney looks like a car salesman -- too polished and coiffed.

Guiliani has nothing but 9-11 to talk about.

If it's between the three of them, Huckabee could be the one people most gravitate to.

That ad thing was nothing if not cunning. This guy also has a mean streak. He scares me because I think he'll be the next President.

Hucklenuts has got like a repeating 5 step facial routine
and the melody of his voice follows the same pattern.
He is VERY trained... and excellent at that "feel good" thing.
Personally I think he's a slimy as a used car salesman
and his schtick becomes very transparent on the 2nd or 3rd viewing.
We'll see if his idiot act holds up or not.
It did for Bush and Reagan.

I'm glad to see that at least a few other people agree with me on that. I think anybody with an (R) after their name is going to be tough to beat just because the media will not challenge them nearly as much as they'll challenge a Dem.

Willie Horton got media coverage for a month back in 1988. The same for the Swift-Boat lying liars in 2004 - a month of media coverage.

Will the far more egregious Wayne DuMond issue get a similar amount of coverage this year?

Will anybody ask Huckabee if he thinks women should graciously submit to the leadership of their husbands, like he endorsed in 1998?

I never thought Reagan could win yet I watched it happen even as I worked my ass off to prevent it. No one paid much attention to W's past as a governor, either, IIRC.

I don't know how successful Huck will be in the long run, I just know from my history of campaigning--and Huck is stealthy. If he wins the nom, we've got to be prepared, because the MSM won't be.

I thought McCain would have been a much more formidable candidate in the general election.

Who knows, he might have been... but Bush was still close enough to steal it.

As someone else said upthread, he has an agenda. Listen closely to the code words he uses.

He and his would establish theocracy. Hucjabbe must be beaten. I really do think this represents our "one last chance".

Rudy is BY FAR the most dangerous R ...

Not even close ...

My biggest concern with Huck is if his win takes Romney down and lets Rudy in ...

The only people that will be willing to vote for him will be that same 25-30% fundie base. The difference between Huckabee and the psycho-in-chief in 2000 is Huckabee doesn't have the Repuke machine behind him. The people in the WH and RNC detest these religious wackos and the ONLY reason they have kissed their asses all these years is because it's the only way they can ever win elections! The RNC is NOT going to let this guy get very far, trust me. They want Willard or Rudy.

Been saying this for months. The typical American dumbass will love him, just like Bush.

Although Bush apparently knew how to talk to and assuage social conservatives while not alienating (or scaring) the general electorate in 2000, I don't believe that Huckabee will be able to spin his views as skillfully as Bush and Huckabee's views based on his past public comments are rather extreme and probably not going to go over very well with the general public (certainly not with women and AIDS victims) should he actually win the nomination (the current low overall opinion of the Republican party notwithstanding). Bush has never publicly articulated and probably does not even believe a lot of the things that Huckabee has been on the record as supporting such as female submission to their husbands and isolation/quarantine of AIDS patients. In fact, Bush probably doesn't really believe in a lot of what the social conservatives stand for but he knows how to "speak" to them and obviously hasn't minded giving them unfettered access and support during his time in office even if it has only been "lip service", in return for their votes/loyalty. Also, at this point, nothing is assured in terms of who is going to win the nomination. There are a lot of evangelical voters in Iowa and Huckabee apparently did the best job of "speaking" to them but his appeal may be much more limited in other states and I would not discount the strong possibility that the corporate wing (i.e. Romney) of the GOP is now going to launch an all out assault on him so as to ensure that he does NOT get the GOP nomination. In fact, I would imagine that his victory in Iowa might be good (for us) as it may hasten the collapse of the corporate/social conservative alliance within the GOP and possibly depress the evangelical turnout in the general election if Huckabee is not nominated and/or lead to an independent bid by Huckabee or another evangelical endorsed candidate that would siphon votes from the GOP. Whatever happens, I imagine that we will be seeing some very interesting developments within the GOP based on the outcome of the Iowa caucus and certainly if Huckabee continues to gain momentum.

It happened in 2000 -- and it seems to be resurfacing again, though not in those exact words. There was an interview with a voter on CNN last night, and she was saying that "he just seems to be such a nice guy".

Now, I don't pick candidates based on whether I think they'd be fun to hang around with, and I know you folks don't either. I'd been hoping that the rest of the electorate would have learned something from that last experience (especially when it comes to falling for someone with a flimsy manufactured "affable" image, that conceals some unpleasant ideology). But I guess not.