"Ron Paul is neither conservative or Republican. Discuss."
Posted on 11/22/2007 9:29:45 PM PST by jdm
AS THE HOPELESS but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, some conservatives are beginning to attack him in earnest. A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisers have hooves instead of feet. Jonah Goldberg column logo
Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't. One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul. What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.
Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, Paul's dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles.
As for Huckabee -- as with most politicians, alas -- his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional. This isn't to say he -- or Hillary -- is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension -- and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" -- has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he'd lose in a rout not seen since Bambi vs. Godzilla). But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
Huckabee has no chance.
“We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.”
In my opinion those are words of profound truth.
However, Huckabee is nothing but a socialist with a bible. The only issue he is right on is abortion. He is no friend to conservatives, libertarians, or anybody but socialists. Given the choice between the two of them, I would have to pick Paul. Unfortunately for Paul, there are other options like Thompson and Hunter. Neither are perfect, but their foreign policy positions are very sound and they both believe in limited government, which should be a high priority for conservatives and libertarians alike.
And he's an open-borders socialist idiot to boot.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929163/posts
Slightly different title. Same article.
In my opinion we should knock the little f**kers off our shoulders and vote for Duncan Hunter.
Problem solved.
I bet this guy is a smoker. lol The thing that rubs me wrong about Huck is that I do not think he would fully address the border issues in strict enforcement and is to compassionate to do what is necessary in deporting illegals. Most of the issues I care about he is some what good on but I question is he tough enough on the hard issues. At this point I am anyone but Rudy G so I guess I could vote for him if push comes to shove.
Well, he does have a bit of a chance in the sense that Huckabee could catch up to/beat Romney in Iowa...
I think the GOP frontrunners are locked in a debilitating battle without a clear front-runner. The wind has gone out of Thompson’s sails and he is sinking faster than a little 470 yacht in a hurricane. Rudy has some broad but lukewarm national support, but he cannot charm the stalwart GOP party base who stand solidly against him. McCain is shopwarn and, these days, comes off as increasingly unlovable. Romney will never win over the majority of the fundies, ‘nuff said. Huckabee is a fleeting flash-in-the-pan in Iowa who has just single-handedly alienated all smokers...
I will stick with Dr Ron Paul whom I respect and who will make a truly great candidate. I even believe that, mirabile dictu, he could defeat Hillary!
Christmas is coming up so I am dreaming of a Paul/Hunter ticket. What a balance. Domestically they just about see eye to eye. Hunter, with a quick “come to jesus meeting” could open Paul’s eyes on foreign policy.
I would support a Hunter/Thompson ticket as well, but not vise-versa.
Hunter needs money. However, I do think, as I have written before, he is going to surprise a lot of people in these early primaries. IMO
I agree. Not everyone in the Democrat party is a communist - though you wouldn't know that to listen to the media. RP would pull votes across party lines like no one since Reagan has been able to do.
Huckabee rubs me the wrong way, just as Paul does. I’ll take either Hunter or Thompson.
a Paul/Hunter ticket. What a balance. Domestically they just about see eye to eye
-
umm I don’t think that’s the case
If I had to choose between Huckabee and Paul (which I don’t), I would choose Huckabee. Although he’s a socialist with a bible, that’s not as bad as caving in to the Jihadists and selling Israel down the river, which Paul would do.
Thankfully, there are other choices.
he’d have to beat Hillary without MY vote. The difference between Paul and Hillary is that Paul would cut and run even faster!
he will embolden the terrorists and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
But hey, while we or our allies are nuked at least we’d have a big tax cut so that won’t be so bad, right?
Remember wars end, but government programs never do. Huckabee is to the left of the Clintons on most of the nanny state issues.
Mike Huckabee disses Americans, Mexicans, promotes illegal immigration
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005609.html
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in
order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this
“racists”..
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off
social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill,
“anti-Christian” and “un-American”...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html
Huckabee’s opposition to the illegal aliens bill:
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html
I think Thompson is a fading star. I'll vote for Hunter if he gets the nomination; but I'd rather have Paul. I don't think Hunter can actually beat the pair-shaped woman.
To tell you the truth I kinda suspect Israel would have whacked Iran a long time ago if we hadn't been holding them back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.