Bush 2000 v Huckabee 2008: An Open Question

There is no question that the Republican "establishment" is having serious trouble getting excited about Mike Huckabee's run for President.

To put it mildly.

But in 2000, most of the same folks who are now trying to stop Huck by citing his "inexperience" quickly got behind George W. Bush's run for President.

Why?

We don't personally dislike George W. Bush but let's be honest - In 1999 the sum total of George W's qualifications for President were 1. I'm a successful manager of a weak executive office (Texas), 2. I beat alcoholism, 3. I've found God, 4. I never really ran a successful business and 5. My daddy was President.

That's it. No matter what Rove/Hughes/Bartlett and company said.

Noted: We laugh at Will Ferrell's portrayal of candidate Bush because it's so damn funny (read: accurate). Not because we're a sniveling liberal who doesn't take anything seriously.

But seriously, even folks who don't like Huck must (should) admit that Huckabee's qualifications to be President are at least as strong as Bush's were.

So why did the GOP establishment that now slams Huckabee get so quickly behind Bush in 1999?

We think that if your answer (prominently) includes Bush's bloodline, Bush's money and his family's connections well, you're on to something.

Which shows the raw hypocrisy (and elitism) of the Republican Party's leadership.

Which is pure poison for the long-term health of an organization that is spread out across several economic and social demographics.

We're just saying.