WHY HUCKABEE?

Mike Huckabee seems like a decent guy, and as far as we can tell, he did a good job as Arkansas governor. Yet his lack of knowledge about what is going on in the world is appalling. As we reported Saturday, he doesn’t seem to keep up with the news very well, and he doesn’t even know where Pakistan is geographically in relation to Afghanistan. So why is he moving up into front place in Iowa ahead of the three former top-tier Republican candidates?

The answer is that Republicans are greatly dissatisfied with the men who are fighting for top spot. One of New Hampshire’s newspapers called Romney a phony, and he seems to twist and turn every time the wind changes direction.

Joe Biden said of Rudy Giuliani that everything the former New York City mayor says contains a noun, a verb, and 9/11. The man seems to be a one-issue candidate. You can almost see him practicing the George Bush swagger. Some of his neo-con advisors fill us with dread.

Among the Republicans John McCain is the most qualified by virtue of experience and character, but lately he has more and more become a supporter of George Bush’s policies. He has never wavered in his support for Bush’s war, and now he is saying it would be a good idea to keep Bush’s tax program that helps the rich to the disadvantage of everyone else. It’s no wonder that Huckabee looks good to some Republicans, but as we reported on Friday, not to all of them.

Compare any of these guys to Democratic candidate Dr. Carl Perrin. Perrin grew up on a farm. He worked in a factory. He served in the army during the Korean War. He belonged to a union. He spent nearly fifty years teaching English to young people. And Perrin is the only candidate of either party who has come out clearly in favor of cheap beer.

IS RUDY ON THE WAY OUT?

Rudy Guiliani has been the Republican front runner for a while now, but things may be about to change. He is in favor of gay rights and abortion rights and gun control. When more Republicans discover his stand on these issues, they will have second thoughts about supporting him. In his campaigning, he doesn’t talk about these liberal issues. He focuses on his position on national defense. He is the one who can beat Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton. To bolster his national defense stance, he has signed on neocon Norman Podheretz.

The problem with that strategy is that the country is fed up with the neocons and the damage they have already done. Then there is Guiliani’s pretegé Bernie Kerek who has been indicted on various charges. Does Rudy have the judgment to be entrusted with running the country?

The event that is really going to throw the monkey wrench into Guiliani’s campaign is the endorsement by super kook Pat Robertson. Why would Robertson endorse a thrice-married candidate whose positions on social issues are so far from his own? Why wouldn’t Robertson endorse fellow-evangelical Mike Huckabee? Maybe he offered to endorse Huckabee, and the former Baptist minister said, “Thanks, Pat, but no thanks.” Maybe Huckabee knew that an endorsement by Robertson would be the kiss of death. And somehow he persuaded Robertson to endorse that closet Democrat Rudy Guiliani. Any sane people who had been thinking about supporting Rudy would wonder, What is wrong with him that Pat Robertson thinks he is the best candidate?

THE GUILIANI ADMINISTRATION

Rudy Guiliani really knows how to pick them. Still, you’ve got to hand it to him. He likes to give a guy a chance. Even though his friend Berny Kerik was suspected of having mob connections, Rudy didn’t let that stand in the way of appointing Berny New York City police commissioner. Now one of his advisers is “Let’s bomb Iran” Norman Podheretz.

If Rudy is elected president, maybe he could find a job in his administration for Al Gonzalez, something that doesn’t require congressional confirmation. Come to think of it, Dick Cheney will be out of work then. Maybe Rudy could find something for him to do.

CLINTON LEADS IN POLL

But this is not good news for the New York senator. An AP-Ipsos survey asked which of the presidential candidates would be the scariest. Thirty-seven percent chose Hillary Clinton. Rudy Guiliani was next with 14 percent.

We assume that Republicans considered Hillary to be the scariest, while Democrats would give the title to Rudy. We are getting scared of Guiliani since his association with neocon Norman Podhoretz, who thinks it would be a nifty idea to bomb Iran. (Haven’t the neocons done enough damage already?)

But really, it is not the Republicans who should be afraid of Hillary Clinton. The Democrats should really be frightened. There is no denying that Mrs. Clinton is very intelligent and well qualified. The problem is that there are so many people who are in favor of “anyone but Hillary.” Sure, a lot of Democrats are in favor of Clinton now, but when she goes to the election against Guiliani, how many Independents will vote for “anyone but Hillary”? Guiliani with his neocon adviser Norman Podhoretz could be the next president. Now that is really scary?