I couldn't think of a more perfect thing for Huckabee to say to demonstrate why I have a problem with him.
He's just really likable when you watch him, as a person. I think that's what people respond to. Apart from extreme content here and there, you just get a good comfy feeling with him as a person. I'd been thinking "what a nutjob!" until I watched the last Repub. debates (last Thursday I believe). He was by far the most likable charismatic guy, as a human being, removed from his policies. It's sort of like that GWB thing: We'd like to have a beer with him. Not a good way to chose a leader, but we're still mammals in the end. (Though not too related, according to Huckabee!)
Understatement. I never understood the "likability" argument. It makes no sense. You are electing a man to uphold the consitution as the supreme executive, not run your neighborhood sports bar. Hell, I like a lot of people, but that does not necessarily mean I'd trust them to change a lightbulb, nevermind run the most powerful nation on earth.
Really? Okay, Spock. The population of US America is over 99% human. For an example of human animals reacting to one another in irrational ways, look at teaching evaluations of university profs. A Harvard study showed the following. If you show a bunch of students a 30-second silent video of a professor, and ask them to rate, from 1 to 5, how much they would want to have that person as a professor, you get nearly the exact same number as that professor's average student evaluation ranking, after years and year of classes. So people who spend an entire term and course with a professor pretty much give the ranking they would have given after 30 silent seconds. We react to people in a very animal, irrational way, and the reaction is immediate. It is not conscious, and it is very much something to be expected. My 2 cents anyway. Not a Huckabee fan, a politics fan. A fan of considering the 30-second silent test when nominating candidates. Can you imagine how much you'd want Kerry to teach a class? Blech. As long as we're humans... it matters. May you post long and prosper.
Not balls, but an incurious mind that sees the world through the lens of his religion, and believes the rest of this country should see the world through the lens of his religion, as well. A man who knows almost nothing about foreign affairs. He doesn't know nearly as much as I do, which is rediculous. You really want a man as President who knows less about the world and foreign affairs than your resident Blade Runner? Allegedly an android? Good grief. This is becoming high comedy. It's no wonder Republicans are gravitating towards John McCain. The man may have already sold a chunk of his soul to get the nomonation, but he looks like a genius next to the rest of the Keystone Cops. Impeach Bush.
What more could one ask? I appreciate the olive branch, here in political high season no less. Let me say, if you were my student, I could give you a good solid B+ for recitation and participation.
Anybody who's itchin' for the end times should be kept as far away from the nuclear red button as possible.
Ah, but does he know how to spell ridiculous? I was leaning toward supporting Huckabee, but this may have clinched it for me. Alan Keyes has made similar statements, but he's never been close to be considered a contender for the nomination, whereas Huckabee is, at least so far. This makes me excited that I might have someone to truly campaign for. Hug Bush.
I read about similar studies in the book Blink by Malcom Gladwell. It's a good read about instantaneous perception and the power of the mind's instinctual reactivity. Incidentally, sections of the book are devoted to how this "quick-hit" though process in the brain can be incredibly wrong at times... True. But what does that have to do with listening to positions for over a year before casting a vote? You seem to be implying that a 30s "likability" factor should hold more weight than a voluminous amount of data that may (or may not) indicate that your likable candidate is, in fact, a giant turd (see Guiliani). Consider it? Sure. Vote based on it? Please. I am dumbfounded that some people would espouse likability as a suitable replacement for integrity and intelligence. (not refering to you here, as I understand you only consider it).
I'm just curious on if there's really a distinction between religion and political ideology. I mean, I don't think I want to see the world through the lens of the Democratic party, and any Dem who becomes President will also believe that the rest of the country should see the world through his political ideology.
Oh, I wouldn't say I'm advocating it. I try to put the likability out of my mind when I decide *my* vote, but for us to ignore this likability in politics, IMO, is unrealistic and detrimental. I'm just saying it's smart to accept that it's an important factor for a large swath of voters. I mean, I held my nose, voted for Gore and then voted for Kerry. I can clearly separate likability from what I thought was best for the nation.
And republicans don't? If you aren't with us, you're against us? It's the same on both sides, whether you like it or not.
I don't have a problem with someone elected by the people leading the country by running it through their political ideology. I have a HUGE problem with someone basing their leadership of the country based solely on what their particular god says. Those of you who are alright with this let me ask you this: Would you be alright if Huckabee said he wanted to change the Constitution to more closely match his Mormon views? Muslim? Hindu?
What are you talking about? We all know this is a Christian nation and that no other faith matter. We should have country similar to those in middle east where bibles instead of laws rule the country (why have a constitution when you have the holy bible?)
