Huckabee Rising — to a VP Pick?


"Yes, I think he'd make a great vice-president," Senator Mel Martinez of Florida told one of the MSNBC talking heads, speaking of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has done extremely well thus far, especially in the South-as of this writing, he is ahead of both McCain and Romney in Georgia, the winner in the W. Virginia and has done well enough in other states to cost Romney victories the latter would have otherwise had. All this has led to increasing speculation, by politicians and non-politicians alike, that McCain owes Huckabee bigtime, and will make him his vice-presidential candidate. For progressives, in the reproductive justice movement and elsewhere, this is a terrifying prospect.

Huckabee of course would help McCain where he is weakest–among Republicans who identify as evangelicals, about one third of the Republican electorate. Unlike McCain and Romney, who have changed their positions to one degree or another on abortion, Huckabee has been consistently and fervently anti-abortion. He has also a long record of opposition to gay marriage. Most pertinently, he will not avoid speaking about these issues that still have considerable power to mobilize an important bloc of voters.

Is there a downside to McCain choosing Huckabee as his running mate? After all, Huckabee is on record as not believing in evolution, as wanting to abolish the IRS, as wanting the Constitution to more accurately reflect "God's law," — not positions held by most Americans. So yes, there are some negatives.

But recall that the vice-presidential candidate doesn't usually play a very high profile role in national elections. There will be likely only one vice-presidential debate, i.e. only one time where Huckabee would have to spin for voters his disbelief in evolution and various of his other controversial statements. Bottom line, McCain would probably gain more than he would lose by such a choice. And if the Republicans are victorious, we would have a 71 year old president and a vice-president–the proverbial one heart beat away from the presidency–who might well make Bush's policies on reproductive and sexual health look reasonable.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    In virtually every poll I’ve seen, the majority of American’s believe that God created humans as they currently are.

  • invalid-0

    the statistical samples are so small, and the responses depend on what questions are asked and how they are asked. You are liable to get similar results just by sacrificing a goat and interpreting the steaming entrails.
    It’s more than belief in evolution for me, I KNOW evolution happened because of the preponderance of physical evidence collected. Plus, because of the total lack of physical evidence for creationism, I KNOW God didn’t create the earth – or me. Nor anyone else.
    My parents having sex was wholly responsible for that! LOL.

  • invalid-0

    Agreeing with the THEORY of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with a person being educated or not, and it has nothing to with being President. You people treat it as though it were fact. It is not; it is a theory. Huckabee knows all about it. He knows what the theory is. He just doesn’t buy into it. So? Who cares? Let’s move on!

    And, by the way, the size of the polling sample and the questions don’t matter when virtually every poll has the same result.

  • invalid-0

    Well to the extent poll data means anything, it appears that it is true that a majority of Americans believe in some form of creationism–BUT more Americans (28 vs. 15, with the rest unaffected) also would view unfavorably a presidential candidate who did not believe in evolution–bottom line, Huckabee’s views are not mainstream views on this issue, though clearly in line with selected groups he would be sent to court if he were the v-pres nominee. the following is from Gallup:

    “If a presidential candidate stated that he or she DID NOT believe in the theory of evolution, would that make you much more likely to vote for that candidate, a little more likely, not make a difference either way, would it make you a little less likely, or much less likely to vote for that candidate?” Options rotated

    .

    Much More
    Likely A Little More
    Likely No
    Difference A Little Less
    Likely Much Less
    Likely
    % % % % %

    6/1-3/07
    8 7 54 13 15

    .

    “Which comes closer to your view? A presidential candidate’s views on evolution are a legitimate indicator of whether he or she is qualified to be president. OR, A presidential candidate’s views on evolution are not really relevant and therefore should not be discussed as part of the campaign.” Options rotated

    .

    Legitimate
    Indicator Not Really
    Relevant Unsure
    % % %

    6/1-3/07
    25 70 5

  • harry834

    where would living organisms come from, if not evolution?

  • invalid-0

    the laughingstock of the scientific world. How evolution happened is still a theory, but evolution’s occurance is a scientific FACT. OTOH: Creationism doesn’t pass scientific muster, both it and it’s successor, intelligent design, are FAIRYTALES in bright religious wrappers. The level of Huckabee’s education isn’t being questioned, but would you be comfortable with a believer in a fairytale one heartbeat away from the Presidency?

  • invalid-0

    You know, just like Gravity is just a theory; Electro-magnetism? Theory! Fluid Dynamics? Theory! Germ Theory! get a flu shot recently? Thermodynamics? THEORY! Get it?

    Theories are just frameworks we use to explain all the facts we see. Current evolutionary theory EXPLAINS the facts/evidence we find in the fossil record, in the genetic record, etc… And, if something turns out to be wrong with the theory, we tweak it to match the facts which makes the theory that much stronger! That’s how science works! And all of us benefit because of scientific theories! That flu shot you get every year is the direct result of applied evolutionary theory! Cheers!

  • harry834

    So if a candidate doesn't "buy into" evolution, and instead thinks that "god created the heavens and earth" (as he said on Bill Maher somtime ago), should that make us question his committment to science?

    I've often wondered to what extent, people can believe the "wrong" thing and still do their job. Was Kucinich not a good pick because he believed he saw a UFO? Do people have to have the "right" thoughts in their head to be trusted?

    Definitely I'd disqualify Huckabee to be any type of biology teacher. Can the same scientific ignorance justify him being disqualified for President?

    Would Kucinich's UFO belief be the same?

    I consider that a serious question, though its worth noting that those who want to re-write the constitution to fit their extreme views are believers in "God" rather than UFOs.

    When the UFO lobby gains power, I'll re-think.

  • invalid-0

    Huckabee also:
    1) wants to amend the Constitution to conform to [quote]“God’s standards”[unquote].
    2)criminalize abortion providers. But not women who have abortions, because he sees women as [quote]“victims”[unqoute]
    3)tax pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers
    4) wants Americans to be “soldiers for Christ” in “God’s army”
    5)believes women should “graciously submit” to their husbands
    6) has called for the quarantine of AIDS victims
    7) has called for a federal abortion ban
    8) claims to speak for God, and to God.

    By just those examples, Huckabee sounds nutty as a fruitcake. His constitution comment alone suggests he wants to turn America into a Christian theocracy.
    Sources:
    http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000863.htm
    http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000854.htm

  • invalid-0

    Huckabee also:
    1) wants to amend the Constitution to conform to [quote]“God’s standards”[unquote].
    2)criminalize abortion providers. But not women who have abortions, because he sees women as [quote]“victims”[unqoute]
    3)tax pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers
    4) wants Americans to be “soldiers for Christ” in “God’s army”
    5)believes women should “graciously submit” to their husbands
    6) has called for the quarantine of AIDS victims
    7) has called for a federal abortion ban
    8) claims to speak for God, and to God.

    By just those examples, Huckabee sounds nutty as a fruitcake. His constitution comment alone suggests he wants to turn America into a Christian theocracy.
    Sources:
    http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000863.htm
    http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000854.htm