The AP has a story entitled, “Republican Huckabee says don’t denigrate Obama” (see here). The article states: “Former US presidential contender Mike Huckabee urged his fellow Republicans on Wednesday not to denigrate Democrat Barack Obama, saying they should celebrate the historic moment of a black candidate.”
Later, the article says: “Huckabee, who won the first nomination contest in Iowa on the back of support from evangelical Christians, said he hoped Republican John McCain would defeat Obama but urged his party to highlight policy differences and not race” (emphasis mine).
I have a mixed reaction to Huckabee’s remarks. My response was initially quite negative, and it went like this: “What do you expect McCain to do, Mike? Fawn all over Obama? Should Obama get a free pass because of his race? And why do you encourage the party to highlight policy differences and not race? The G.O.P. hasn’t made an issue of Obama’s race. McCain has hit Obama on the issues. The one making an issue of Obama’s race is you, Mike.”
And I still feel some of this, especially the part about the Republicans not focusing on Obama’s race. But, after some thought, I have some sympathy for what Huckabee is saying. Huckabee always struck me as a positive candidate. He didn’t really attack people that much, if at all. If he were the nominee, he would come across as so…NICE. He’d celebrate how far America has come while praising Obama on certain things. Yet, he’d point out policy differences between himself and the Democrats.
The political atmosphere would be so different. Right now, McCain attacks Obama, and Obama attacks McCain. And here Obama is supposed to be a unifier, someone who’s above such bickering. Things would be much more civil if it were an Obama–Huckabee race.
James' Ramblings 
Obama is not above anything…just ask the people in Chicago whose petitions he protested to get them off the ballot so he could run unopposed. He protested things like when people wrote in handwriting where it said to be printed. But, the Obamabots believe him and the hopey changey thing.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand what he did in Chicago. Did he try to get Hillary off the ballot?
LikeLike
It really says a lot about the political climate in the country over the last twenty years, really, when somebody can urge his party not to base a campaign on attacking the opposition candidate, and that’s perceived as “fawning.”
If I said, “I believe James Pate is sincere and has only the best intentions, but I disagree with him on many important questions and urge you not to vote for him” would you perceive that as “fawning?”
I don’t think there’s any need to worry about Republican fawning on Obama, though. The Republicans actually have an attractive candidate this time around, but nobody’s paying attention to him. It looks as though the real issue will be whether people feel sufficiently comfortable with Obama. The Republicans will simply have to go on the attack, and they’ll be all the more comfortable doing that since it’s a tactic that has served them so well in recent years.
Whether it works remains to be seen. There is obviously something of a sea change coming in the political world that will mean not only a new dominant party but a revolution in political tactics as well, but we don’t know how soon and how fast it’s is coming. By the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November, maybe we’ll know more.
Whether it still will work remains to be seen. Nothing is permanent in politics, not even the “permanent Republican majority,” but while it’s obvious something of a sea change is coming in the political world, we don’t know how soon it will arrive.
When it does, the Republicans’ tried and familiar tactics will not work any more but they’ll go on practicing over and over again, out of habit and for lack of a better alternative. They won’t behave that way because Republicans are particularly stupid, but just because that’s the way peopel behave.
LikeLike
Not Hillary. When he was running for state senate in Illinois, his campaign protested the signatures on the petitions of opposing candidates to get them off the ballot. This way he ran unopposed. The excuse he offered was something like if you can’t run your petition drive, you can’t run the office.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,2228553,full.story
LikeLike
Thanks for the information, Yvette. Did you read today how Obama will not take public financing?
Yeah, Anomymous, I can picture Huckabee saying what you had in those quotes, only Obama’s name would be there instead of mine. And there’s something admirable about that. But, at the same time, aren’t criticisms of the opposing candidate–questioning his qualifications and positions–a legitimate part of the political process? I mean, I don’t think anyone has said Obama is the scum of the earth (anyone defined as McCain and the Republican establishment–I don’t mean those who say he’s a covert Muslim). McCain just says that Obama makes bad judgments. Also, I don’t think Republicans have a monopoly on attacking people. Democrats have done it too–for years.
LikeLike
Yes. I read about the public financing. “Hope. Change. Change my position that is.”
LikeLike