A Defense of Huckabee
By Erick Posted in Elections — Comments (92) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My friend Josh Trevino continues to make one of the best cases for Mike Huckabee. In light of National Review's pile on, and others, it's refreshing to see a conservative case made for Huckabee by someone not affiliated with the campaign.
with the NR Editors’ denunciation of Huckabee on foreign policy thoroughly picked-apart — what remains is the question of why. Why does Mike Huckabee come in for this bizarre and weirdly strident treatment, not just from NR, but from so many establishment organs and figures within the Republican coalition? Mitt Romney plays pro-lifers and cultural conservatives for suckers, and gets a pass. Rudy Giuliani runs to the left of Hillary Clinton on cultural issues, and gets a pass. Mike Huckabee doesn’t kowtow to the keepers of fiscal orthodoxy within the movement — and we’re told that he’ll cripple America at home and abroad, that his partisans are “idiots,” and that he may destroy the Republican coalition. Now, should he perform that kowtow? Yes. So too should Giuliani move to the mainstream on life and marriage; and so too should Romney be honest on his actual views. The idea that Huckabee’s particular apostasy — which is, let’s be honest, vastly more about style than substance — is uniquely destructive is absurd. But the line gets pushed, and expanded, nonetheless, and the receivers of the conferred wisdom swallow it whole. The intent is to make support for Mike Huckabee akin to support for Ron Paul: a mark of absurdism, extremism, or both. But unlike the motley collection of armchair theorists, fervent undergraduates and alienated nostalgists who make up the Paul base, the men and women propelling Huckabee to front-runner status aren’t a cranky fringe. They’re the churchgoers, parents, local activists, and cultural conservatives who have kept the Republican party nationally competitive for the past thirty years. They’re us and ours. They’re the base.
It really does feel like a elite pile on against Huckabee. Some of it is, I think, deserved. But the level of it -- the hostility in the tone against Huckabee -- is not deserved.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | I'd pray. Then I'd fire everybody. — Comments (5) »
A Defense of Huckabee 92 Comments (0 topical, 92 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
sorry. just do.
I cant remember when any other canidate has recieved such a pile on in the way Huckabee has. That goes for anyone. Even Ron Paul.
That goes for his treatment by just about every single talking head who is conservative who ive seen comment on him.
That doesnt mean huckabee is right, I just think he has been piled on in a manner which would make Reagan roll in his grave.
What makes you say that ? Just because at one point today every recommended blog was Anti Huckabee ?
Maybe there just is an impression we don't want Elmer Gantry in office.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
is :
1) Terrible instincts on big government
2) Terrible instincts on immigration
It's #2 where I think we need to be able to draw a clear distinction with Hillary and why I think Fred presents a much better chance to do that.
And good for us for opposing her because she would have been a complete disaster whereas Samuel Alito is right at home on the Supreme Court and is an intellectual force to be reckoned with.
A position on the Supreme Court is not for everybody. It is a position where the person is one of nine votes on how to apply the law and uphold the constitution. A position where you are one of nine out of 300 million people who are chosen as a figurehead of government is by definition an elite position designed for a person possessing elite qualities.
Given how much more responsibility is vested in one person out of 300 million, how much more elite should we expect the president of the United States and leader of the free world to be?
Huck is not only unconservative, he's clearly not even qualified to be C-in-C. And yet he's being sold to us as being "religious", as if that makes up for the rest. Condescending and disgraceful.
there are a number of issues huckabee is conservative on, starting with being pro-life and a solid defender of our second ammendment rights - more so than at least two other candidates.
while i think he is naive on a number of foriegn affairs, its better than many give him credit for.
...Huckabee is conservative starting with being pro-life and ending with being a solid defender of second amendment rights.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"With absolutely nothing in between"
And that, my friend, was the icing on the cake. Very true. Succinct. I like it.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
We're losing an entire generation of people, and another pro-life liberal/compassionate conservative/Christian socialist will seal the deal with the next generation, and we'll see another few decades in obscurity.
To win, we need someone who at least respects the economic, security and social wings of the party. And honestly, right now, the fiscal side is more important. A President will deal with fiscal and foreign policy issues far, far more often than social issues, and things like the FMA have no prayer of passing right now anyway. If a nominee is solid on judges, which I believe all of them are, then the fiscal and security issues take prevalence.
It will be awful hard for me to vote for Huckabee in the general. Not impossible, just very difficult. He's not absurd or extreme, just the wrong candidate.
One man's opinion.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
A few brief points in response:
1) We have fiscal problems because we have social problems. The two issues are interrelated.
2) There is much more to a President's role on life issues than appointing judges.
3) It is conservative to balance budgets, or, at least, it should be. Huckabee had to do that in Arkansas.
Now I wouldn't describe myself as so-con, however I am as pro-family as anyone here. But I don't see how pro-family policies are going shrink the deficit and the size of government, especially with Huckabee at the helm.
We spend billions on welfare because too many of our children do not have a mother *and* a father. If we strengthen families, we reduce government dependence.
will having a mother *and* a father eliminate?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
simply balancing a budget is not in itself conservative. It is certainly good to do, but you can balance a budget while raising taxes and government size/spending, which certainly is not conservative. Balancing the budget is one side of the coin that is fiscal conservatism. The other of course, being actually conservative on spending and taxes.
The question is how you do it, raise taxes like a liberal, Huck's way, or keep spending in line like a conservative.
The Soviet Union may have had a balanced budget at one point for all I know, that wouldn't make them economic conservatives.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
This is a primary where we're trying to understand the basis and future of the Republican coalition. Each candidate has problems with some part of that coalition. Some candidates just happen to bother factions that control more of our media outlets.
The vitriol is unfortunate, but natural, given this kind of debate. Depending on who wins, the Republican party may not look much like it does now in another 4 years. That is not something that people are going to let happen quietly (if it's not going their way).
Toss in small government cons
Defense Cons
Border Cons
Self Reliance Cons
Law and Order Cons
NeoCons
You'd have at least a partial list of the constituencies that find fault.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Are the claims that Romney is a con-artist and Rudy is more liberal than HRC. Seems like I've seen this kind of "defense" of Huckabee many times before.
So too should Giuliani move to the mainstream on life and marriage
What, and be accused of playing us for "suckers" and be told that he should be "honest on his actual views?"
and so too should Romney be honest on his actual views
What, and be accused of being "running to the left of Hillary Clinton" and told he needs to "move to the mainstream on life and marriage." Then there's the assumption that his actual views have to be liberal. The only right answer is to declare he is pro-choice, I guess. Otherwise he's just making suckers of us all.
He's set up a nice situation where nobody can win (well at least all the people he isn't ignoring). I'm not impressed.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
trevino's whole piece is just a well-written, if over inflated and self-congratulatory version, of what we expect from many supporters of Huckabee - argument by assertion taken to the extreme - with the coup de gras being:
Mitt Romney plays pro-lifers and cultural conservatives for suckers, and gets a pass.
Yeah - even if you believe this (obviously Josh has developed mind-reading powers as well), clearly Mitt's been getting a whole lot of "pass" on this issue. Right. Sure.
Oh, and then to follow it up with...
Rudy Giuliani runs to the left of Hillary Clinton on cultural issues, and gets a pass.
Ah, you mean "we're going to pass on the election and vote for a third party if Rudy is the nominee", right? Joke.
I dissent.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
was after Huck many, many months ago. He was the first candidate they analyzed. (Of course, I was probably the first person at RS to write a detailed anti-Huck piece myself, way back in February.)
A lot of this is concern about his complete lack of foreign policy chops. Added to a sense that Huck hasn't been vetted the way the others have.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Anti-Huck is over foreign policy chops? Do any of our frontrunners have really good foreign policy chops? Huck doesn't look worse than any others except he was a day late in talking about the Iran nuke report.
the others (with the usual exception of Ron Paul) actually make sense when talking foreign policy despite their lack of experience. And yes, John McCain has a ton of foreign policy experience. Fred has some as well.
if you assume that militant Islam will fade away, to be replaced by Wal-mart shoppers that only go to church on Ramadan.
Anyway, Huckabee on ANY issue scares me because he seems so gullible. The FairTax? That's basically dodging the fact that he has no plans to reform or cut taxes (or extend the Bush cuts). I seriously think he would make military decisions based on popular opinion.
Yes, Club for Growth was after Huckabee when he was polling in the low single digits. Seems strange, until you know that the Club for Growth's criticisms were funded by a political rival of Huckabee's from Arkansas.
See this excellent rebuttal to the Club for Growth's criticisms.
No matter who paid for it, C4G has the governor on tape, on national TV lying about the fuel tax. There's no other way to dice it.
With respect to your "excellent rebuttal", frankly it's a piece of crap. I think Joe used it as a job interview tool, given that he's now working for the Huckabee campaign.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
With respect to your "excellent rebuttal", frankly it's a piece of crap.
You've convinced me!
because the particular blog post at EO to which you refer was pretty violently deconstructed here at Redstate.
Joe Carter has done lots of good work. That particular piece wasn't part of his good work.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Welcome to the arena, Mike. Everyone else is facing the same level of scrutiny. I don't feel a bit sorry for him. In fact, I hope they turn it up a notch or two. People deserve to know the truth about Huckabee just like they do about Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Paul.
Plus, we know you're a bleeding heart Huckabee fan, Erick.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
If this was a closing argument for a man on trial for his life, the defendant, as well as his attorney would be hung. You can't defend someone’s position by question others. Good Grief, the defense makes want to support him less, not more.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
The line that discredited Mr. Trevino for me is the statement that he thinks Rudy runs to the left of Hillary on social issues. RIGHT!!!!
They may view some social issues in the same way, but they would govern differently. Rudy's point would not to have those issues be around. Hillary would try and force pro-abortion agendas (and kids would learn it's okay in schools). Hillary would push for the exact opposite of the FMA. She'd appoint judges that make Ginsburg look like Scalia.
Let's get real here. Hyperbole is not needed.
At least I'm now an elitist of the Republican Party. All it took was the wave of some guys pen who thinks Huckabee is being picked on because people aren't believing his story or his credentials.
He's not an unknown commodity. Was it hyperbole? A bit. But not much.
when did Hillary govern?
And where?
We've seen her policy preferences while Bill was doing her job (at least in her mind). And we know they were socialist to the core. Nothing about Rudy being mayor was him GOVERNING to the left of Hillary's views.
Let's be precise. One clearly governs with her political and social views up front and center. The other clearly governs with fiscal conservatism, a tough-on-crime philosophy, and spent little to no time while mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the country trying to pursue his social views.
If we're looking at records of pushing social change through government, we need to look at Huckabee more than Rudy.
And heck, I'm not even a huge Rudy fan.
Rudy was a mayor with a known record of Social Liberalism. If you look at issues like immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc., and compare Rudy's record to Hillary's, you might notice that he is as Liberal or more so than she is. Now, he's promised to appoint strict constructionist judges, be tough on border enforcement and maybe even fire a gun or two. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I don't care. I'm not voting for him or Huck. My only quible was with the accusation of hyperbole. There's lots of it going around and neither Huck's supporters, nor Rudy's, nor McCain's (I'm one) are completely guilt free.
If tasked with making an overall evaluation of Rudy's record as mayor of New York City, would your conclusion be:
"Rudy is a social liberal"
or...
"Rudy turned around the biggest city in America"
I chose the latter.
If sheer competence trumps symbolism in your appraisal of a presidential candidate, I don't see how you look past Rudy's accomplishments as mayor.
He transformed an "ungovernable" city, one that Democratic mayors let slip into the abyss. What could be a stronger argument for conservatism as a governing principle?
Rudy transformed the most important city in the world in a political climate far more antagonistic than the national electorate. If that means nothing to you, than good luck inhabiting your ideological ivory tower. Given the demographics of this country, prepare to get increasingly lonely up there.
A second point: If you look at how he responded on 9-11 and your conclusion is: "Forget him, he's a social liberal", then I your criteria for a presidential candidate is vastly different than mine.
Don't worry Neil, I'm on my way back to the kiddie table now.
And no, Moe, I'm not a Ronulan.
My apologies if this comes off as a pro-Rudy threadjack...
I too have noticed the hyperbole from elitists and opposition supporters directed at Huckabee. While Mike might not be a pure Barry Goldwater Republican... remember that Goldwater lost.
I believe that Mike has all the right fiscal conservative instincts, but the circumstances of his governorship - because of the political reality of Arkansas - combined with his populist rhetoric, scares some (but not me).
The tact (or lake of tact) taken by some here reminds me far too much of leftist rantings. I challenge anyone to read the Trevino article and not be convicted in their conscience concerning your harsh words.
From a blogger who has been here a total of 27 minutes. Not worthy of any other response.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
the newly engaged electorate that the pundits say don't pay attention until a month before the election.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
In Defense of Botting I Like: A Treatise
by Mr. Ed. :P
Seriously... you'd be asking the same question if it was a newbie doing the same thing for Romney or Rudy.
It'd be great if people registered to be part of the community, not part of a campaign.
if it was a newbie spamming for RP, he would be flamed and then banned by Moe. The post would be sterilized with boiling oil. Partly for good reason.
Is this the same reason Huckabee to not acceptable? He's a newbie? Says things that elitist conservatives have ridiculed in the past? The poor, the environment, CEO salaries...?
... the poor or the environment?
NOTE: I personally don't care about CEO salaries - no one is poor because Steve Ballmer is rich. I doubt any true conservative cares in so far as the shareholders (i.e. owners of the company think he/she is worth what they're paying him/her.
Six weeks and six days. Practically hoary.
He seems to have very thin skin.
Every candidate with much more than asterisk support gets hit with a lot of attacks. Giuliani, Romney and McCain have all been slammed as harshly and more so than Huckabee. Thompson would be too if he became a contender.
Typically candidates and their supporters rebut the attacks and/or respond with some of their own attacks on opponents. The difference with Huckabee is that he and his supporters whine about it far more than the other candidates.
Lousy defense of Huckabee The criticisms leveled on Huckabee are, in Trevino' words, "vastly more about style than substance." Really, Huckabee routinely gets credit for his style. It's precisely his substance that worried people.
And who is Trevino to insist that Romney is no being truthful. Talk about being unfair. According to Trevino, "Mitt Romney plays pro-lifers and cultural conservatives for suckers... and so too should Romney be honest on his actual views." Think Trevino is bitter? I assume Trevino looked into Romney's eyes and can tell he is not being honest? EVERY single candidate has modified his position for the primary election. Romney is no different. Trevino sounds like an agenda driven anti-Romney loon.
Lastly, Huckabee (and his hubris) did this to himself. Every time he speaks of being a Christian leader and divine intervention, he insults a lot more than the over two million Mormons in this country. For example, Catholics make up the largest single denomination in the US with over 75 million people. Huckabee and his supporters must live in a culturally isolated little world if they can't understand why Huckabee's smarminess and Christian condescension make us want to puke.
....there's no question but that he's flipped, in pretty short order, on a number of issues. And while I'll take it at face value that he's had a sincere change of heart, it's just not hard for somebody to be cynical about such a declaration.
He's run for major office 3 times and all 3 times he's taken stances on views that conveniently enough happen to square with the stances of voters' he needs to prevail.
That's fine with me -- and I fully understand why he'd need to take the positions he took in Massachusetts and why he'd take the ones he's taken now for a national run as a Republican.
I, for one, think Romney would be hard to beat right now if he'd taken all the positions he's espousing now throughout his entire political career. But, then, he wouldn't have had a political career had he done that...not in Massachusetts, anyway.
It's no secret that I'm a Giuliani supporter. I differ with him on a lot of issues. But I've been admiring his willingness to stick to his guns on contentious matters. But then that, too, may be coming to an end....hearing his latest talk about illegal immigrants.
Rudy had any guns to stick to.
Oh, that's ME who won't have any guns to stick to...
JOKE!!! ;o)
I prefer to believe the candidates are who they were prior to declaring or at least positioning for POTUS. Lets face it, a great deal of these position shifts are an artifice, aimed at building a coalition that will get them the nomination. This is the somewhat distasteful reality, no? Moreover it is especially true of their most recent shifts, which are not all that abstruse and should be seen as the metaphorical political eructation they are. But alas, this is a political arena and irrespective of party these moves are perforce a modus operandi.
For me, that leaves Huck as who he was before all this started. Where does that record leaves him? Certainly not top of the heap, but certainly worth considering.
By the way, I hope Josh is speaking directly about NRO when opining the other candidates get a pass. That may be the cosmopolite view, but I have seen much consternation amongst ordinary folks that appears to be exactly the opposite.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
and the way the attacks are going can show us all why we can't find good leaders, and good, solid potential leaders would never throw their hat in.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I don't think it's a good case for Huckabee at all.
"Mike Huckabee doesn’t kowtow to the keepers of fiscal orthodoxy within the movement"
He describes every other candidate with things like "runs to the left of Hillary Clinton" (which is just inaccurate) and then sugar coats Huckabee's economic liberalism. It's not particularly convincing at all.
"So too should Giuliani move to the mainstream on life and marriage; and so too should Romney be honest on his actual views."
So Giuliani should start switching positions and Romney should stop? What!?
"The idea that Huckabee’s particular apostasy — which is, let’s be honest, vastly more about style than substance — is uniquely destructive is absurd."
It's about his style? Everyone has always praised his style. It has absolutely nothing to do with his style. He raised spending from $6 billion to $16 billion, raised taxes, and has at least a dozen other liberal positions.
...because the heart and essence of conservatism is, first and foremost, a commitment to limited government. Mike Huckabee has not only not made that commitment, he's run a positively populist campaign. He's probably not too far off from starting to declare it "The People vs. the Powerful" as Al Gore did in 2000.
Well, that's code language. When populists talk about things like "The People vs. the Powerful", what they're really saying is that power needs to be shifted to the public sector and away from the private sector...away from private citizens.
His nanny-state things like smoking bans are just indicative of a mindset -- the mindset that typically drives people to become Democrats...that government knows best, that letting people to their own devices isn't in the best interests of society, etc.
And a big problem Huck has, frankly, is George W. Bush. He never really campaigned as a big government conservative. But he's governed as one and I just don't think the conservative movement is in the mood for another one like him.
Yes, the other candidates have their flaws, too. But they aren't fundamental flaws like Huckabee's. I think he's probably the least desirable Republican candidate -- and I'm most certainly not an elite.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He splintered from them because he felt that they had become corrupt and when Taft won the Primary he created his own Party.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I wouldn't have liked it any better when he did it.
I think populism is, so far as substance goes, a complete load of garbage. It's always been a proven vote-getter to pit average joes versus the rich guys. But, substantively, it's hogwash. The true aim of most populists is to expand the power and scope of government, though they'd never phrase it that way.
Of course, there's conservative populism, too (such as talking about "Hollywood elites" or "big labor", etc.). I think that's just as substance-free as the other kind. But it seems to me to be a rhetorical fight-fire-with-fire kind of thing.
Glass Jaw indeed. If he can't deal with legitimate questions about his record, what's gonna happen when the Clinton machine uleashes its attack dogs? Sorry, but if your record is 80% liberal, then conservatives are going to have a lot of questions. If he wants this pressure taken off, it is HIS responsibility to give us clear, transparent answers to these issues. However, he seems to be unable to talk out of only one side of his mouth at a time, so the cycle continues.
Furthermore, how does basically saying "everyone else gets a pass" (which could not be more false; anybody remember "I won't vote for Rudy no matter what") constitute a conservative defense of Huckabee?
I am simply a Christian. I have serious concerns about life issues and the Courts in general. That leaves me with 3 possible options - Huckabee, Fred and Mitt (because he will know who got him there and who will keep him there). McCain? I hope he would do good things with the courts, but who knows the heart of the maverick? Rudy? He thinks strict constructionists could uphold Roe. Whatever...
But I don't tunnel-vision on life issues alone. I also use my brain when it comes to economic issues and security issues. That's where the pro-life side of me says oh so practically, "If I want a pro-life winner, I need someone who will govern towards life who ALSO has a clue about the other issues important to conservative governance.
That tosses Huck. It is that simple.
Just like Rudy is a no-go for socons, Huck is a no-go for fiscons and seccons. Get over it, folks!
Just because Huck is 110% life doesn't make him the best candidate. The best candidate is the well-rounded candidate who will not rhetorically saw off one (or more) of the legs of the stool!
Choose between the feasibles - Thompson or Romney. Anyone else is a waste of your vote and an attempt to divide the party.
The bummer is... now Huck has hurt his chances for AR Senate...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I should learn not to hit the enter key until I am done.
What struck me with this post is that Erik only compared Mr. Huckabee with candidates that have been through the wringer regarding their stances on SoCon issues.
He did not, I note, compare him with a more conservative candidate, Mr. Thompson. Why would that be, I wonder?
Answer (Mike Huckabee): "Because I'm now running for president."
I was eating a bowl of Raisin Bran when he said that last night on H&C (I prefer cereal to dessert) and I nearly shot a raisin out of my nostril.
I have to admit, I can't even stand to look at the guy. I think his campaign is based on ignorance. Whenever someone tells me they're impressed by Huckabee, or, moving towards Huckabee; I just ask them to tell me about some of his policies. All I get is that he's a solid Christian - "Anything else" I ask - "he's anti-abortion", okay anything else - "He's funny," okay anything else - "ummmmm........ I've personally yet to run into a Huck supporter that knows anything about the guy.
Talk about taking his comment out of context. Did you ignore when he said that when he was Governor of Arkansas he was more concerned about his constituency rice farmers than overarching policy issues?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Thanks for showing us a great reason to oppose Huck.
It shows he is willing to put his own interests ahead of the greater good of the country. He says the embargo is good for the country now because that is the stand that earns the most votes today. To hell with his rice farmers.
This is the same arrogance he shows when it comes to pardons.
1000 times Mike knew better than a judge and jury. He's not copassionate. He is a power freak.
You believe that state governors should worry more about national issues than state issues?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
But it was illegitiment when he wanted to sell rice?
Arkansas first and America second? We can't have 50 different policies. It seems to carry over to the courts as well. He knows better than judges, juries and parole boards as well.
so this conservative mom is not one of the us so quoted in the article.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
>>>The idea that Huckabee’s particular apostasy — which is, let’s be honest, vastly more about style than substance... <<<
that Mr. Trevino needs to go out and purchase a clue.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
candidate, and this is certainly not an endorsement from me, then clearly your choice would be John McCain. I have not heard, nor do I believe, that any of the other major candidates from Guiliani to Huckabee are going to "shrink goverment" anymore than I belive (nay know!) that the past Republican Congressional majority and George Bush "shrunk government". If by national defense you mean stay the course in Iraq and "finish the job", then just as clearly your choice is McCain when it comes not just to talk, but action. Granted none of the other major candidates have outwardly criticized Bush's policy in Iraq and certainly Guiliani rails against Islamic terrorists, but that seems to be more in the 9/11 context than specific to Iraq. On Iraq, McCain has been the most clear in terms of supporting the current policy (while criticizing PAST actions in Iraq, McCain is clear that he wants to stay and finish the job).
I believe the criticism of Huckabee (who I am close to pledging my support to) is about the fact he doesn't whore for corporations who like social liberal policies particularly when it comes to homosexuals and wants to be free to outsource jobs (i.e. free trade) and keep corporate tax rates as low as possible. Personally, I get alot more fired up about homosexual marriage and the fact the Fortune 500 is supporting their agenda 100%, than I do fighting raising the minimum wage at McDonalds. When I look at all of the major corporate sponsors for "Gay Days" and other homosexual-related functions, I lose whatever support and sympathy I had for "corporate America".
The intent is to make support for Mike Huckabee akin to support for Ron Paul: a mark of absurdism, extremism, or both. But unlike the motley collection of armchair theorists, fervent undergraduates and alienated nostalgists who make up the Paul base
Ron Paul gets more campaign donation money from active duty military than all Republican candidates COMBINED. What a motley collection of armchair theorists and alienated nostalgists, hahahahahaha
oh my goodness, it's hard to type when you're laughing as hard as I am right now.
the best part of this is what comes next. who will post an "armchair theory" rationalizing the military's support for Paul?
Well, I'm waiting....
Ah hell, I'm sure the boys in Iraq on Stop Loss don't know anything about foreign policy right?
-Dave
1) Most of the Republicans who support Ron Paul do it because he's so 19th Century on Fiscal issues. That includes a good chunk (minority though) of his military voters. Of course, the rest are Dems/self interest voters.
2) Posting about RP will get you flamed and banned from the site. Not necessarily in that order.
Thank you maniacprovost, finally someone with a spine.
1. He is 19th century on fiscal issues
We left the gold standard in 1971 - that's 36 years ago, just 3 years before i was born. i certainly don't feel that old. But he's 19th century, huh? The federal reserve was created in 1913 - same with legalization of income tax. A dollar today is worth .04 cents compared to when the Feds took over. Great job!
2. self interest voters
That's what capitalists do. They act in their own self interest. It's what makes them great.
3. nice try on the military donations theory. very "armchair" of you.
4. banned from the site
It's obvious that Redstate.com is afraid of reasoned discussion.
-dave
It's obvious that Redstate.com is afraid of reasoned discussion.
Okay. Yes, we are.
You may go now.
Ronulan is one my favorites.
The need to demonize and categorize me is curious.
Who is John Galt?
Elmer gantry would blush in his presence
Uriah Heep could learn from this guy .
He and Pat Robertson were separated at birth.
He is Tammy Faye without make-up.
He is Willie Sutton looking for a bank.
He is Tom Sawyer with a bucket of white wash.
He is Bill Clinton's clone.
He is the Wizard of Oz in front of the curtain.
He is Al Sharpton in white face.
He is Vicente Fox without a green card.
He is, well you get the drift.
currently kicking some serious R butt!...no?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Are you kidding me? This guy advocated quarantining AIDS patients.
HELLO?????
I am a very serious conservative, but a neo-conservative, so I am an ex-Democrat. Maybe it's my old age or maybe I finally saw the light, but I am not stupid. I am not going to just ignore something like this which frankly tells me this guy is either a sick and bigoted individual or he lacks serious judgment.
And the fact that he must be lying about not understanding how AIDS was transmitted in 1992 only makes it more of a problem.
Please stop crying for this loser.
Nothing like a little Huck populist lingo, borderline class warfare. Perhaps the "elites" are the people like National Review and others who have been in the trenches for years on this stuff and know a general election train wreck when they see one. They know what the DNC knows as Drudge is reporting, "glass jaw" Huck is an easy kill in the general election which is whey they're laying off him. The "elites" know if we don't take him out in the primaries the Dems will in November.
Just when Obama and HRC and showing they aren't the sure thing in November everyone thought they were going to be we are giving life to the one guy they can mop the floor with and taking out the one candidate that has a chance of solidifying all three conservative camps along the way. Nice.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Starting To Doubt the Huckabee Rise. I live in Mass, so I just assumed it was a Southern evangelical boost, which made sense. But I'm online all day and I just don't feel it. Now there are national polls and polls in places like Nevada and Michigan, which also showing him getting a big bump. All one has to do is read a SoCon blog like this to see just how much opposition he has from all sides. I just don't get it. Something smells fishy here. I can tell you for sure, that any bump he gets in New Hampshire is pure fiction. Ron Paul may finish higher than him out here.
Huckabee's appeal is very regional, and can be traced to the percentage of Christian evangelicals in the population. You won't find one in MA or NH unless you know where to look. You won't find anybody EXCEPT a Christian evangelical in my part of the Texas Panhandle and north up into Kansas and Nebraska. Huckabee does have a strong core of support, but I doubt he can expand it. I don't see any reason to get hysterical over it in any event ...
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
or else RP will be doing a victory lap in November. Most of the voters out there aren't constantly consuming every news blip that comes out the way many of us are.
That's what's scary about this. We can see how Huck will look to voters after they start paying attention. But, it's possible, especially with the front-loaded primary, that he could cruise through on slimy charm and church support until it's too late and we're stuck with him in the general.
enough of the banter. the real question remaining is who mike should select for vp. wake up people.
Or perhaps Karl Rove.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
will not be a VP, especially for Huckabee. He is too old to waste his time losing to Hilary behind liberal minister.
McCain is not going to take a VP slot. He wields a lot more power in the job he already has. The only reason to take it would be to run for the top job again in 8 years, and he will be far too old then.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...than Romney or Giuliani. I don't feel sorry for him one iota.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”