Why Did We Waste So Much Time on Huck?

Reactions pour in after he airs decision not to run
By Evann Gastaldo,  Newser Staff
Posted May 15, 2011 3:48 PM CDT
Former Arkansas Gov. and potential GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee gestures as he addresses students at the business school at Mississippi College in Clinton, Miss., Monday, March 28, 2011.   (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)

(Newser) – “Now that we know that Mike Huckabee isn't going to run for president, it's worth pointing out that all the time spent reporting, writing, and reading about his intentions over the last several months has been totally wasted,” writes Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic. He proposes a solution: The media should “mostly ignore potential candidates for the presidency until they actually declare.” (Just think: no more Donald Trump coverage!) More reactions:

  • “I spoke to him a couple of months ago during his book tour, and while he seemed to be enjoying the attention of political reporters, there was no sign of the requisite fire in the belly,” writes Howard Kurtz on the Daily Beast. “You have to be a little crazy to run for president, and he just seemed, well, sane.”
  • So who does this help? On the Daily Beast, Mark McKinnon’s money is on Ron Paul, but in Commentary magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin writes that “if you assume … Sarah Palin will also stay out the race, the chief beneficiary has to be Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann.”
  • The Atlantic rounds up the reactions from other 2012 hopefuls, who are of course now vying for Huckabee’s endorsement. Rick Santorum’s was the only statement to align the two politically, noting their “shared commitment to fight for traditional values.” Newt Gingrich’s statement, meanwhile, is so “ingratiating” it “almost reads like a eulogy,” writes Ujala Sehgal.

My Take on This Story
Show results without voting  |