Excuse me, but excepting their espoused faith, and Carter did not bring it up all that much, if ever, on the campaign trail, I would like to know what other criteria you use to make such an incredible comparison.
The Jimmy Carter comparisons are manifest and many.
Casting big govt policies and naive foreign policy prescriptions into Christian terms was a hallmark of Jimmy Carter and is a hallmark of Huckabee. The petty ethics issues that Carter brought, ie the Billy Carter factor, is alive and well with Huckabee.
But overall there is the fact that Huckabee is pulling a fast one on people. Clinton + Carter = Huckabee.
There are many problems with Huckabee:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1955592/posts?page=15#15
Huckabee is a terrible choice, perhaps the worst choice, in the nomination race for many reasons:
1. Soft-on-crime Governor who went on a pardon/commutation spree that included freeing a dozen murderers and hundreds of other felons from jail early
2. Pro-instate-tuition for illegal aliens and for other giveaways
3. A liberal Tax-and-spender who increased taxes by 50% as Governor
4. Dissembled about his record when challenged
5. Not a conservative, but hurt conservatives in Arkansas, and called them “Shiites” when they opposed him
6. Had numerous ethics violations, including issues of taking public money for private use
7. Has flipflopped on immigration, on tax pledges, on Cuba, and other issues
8. Is an incompetent Jimmy Carteresque boob on foreign policy who even joked about his ignorance on the topic
9. Will get beaten easily by the Democrats
10. Is a nanny-stater in favor of smoking bans and CO2 caps
All have some Carteresque flavor. Now, on point #8 ....
Huck is completely ignorant on foreign policy, and when he gabs about it, he sounds like Jimmy Carter; closing Gitmo and stopping waterboarding is not the toughness we need:
“This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”
This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.”