Posted on 12/05/2007 11:26:48 PM PST by ellery
Over in the Corner, Mark Levin points to a Powerline post, wondering about Huckabee's readiness in the area of foreign policy.
Beyond Huckabee's skepticism about the benefits of free trade and the "moralism" discussed at that link, there are a couple other areas where his foreign policy views are unorthodox from mainstream conservative thinking. One can agree with them or disagree with them - I think he makes a stronger case for these policy changes than those who agree with him on the left do - but they are worth noting. From his address at the Council on Foreign Relations in September:
He seems a bit critical of European societies for their treatment of Muslim immigrants: "It is also difficult for us, with our culture of assimilation, to understand that life for European Muslims is different from life for American Muslims. Muslims in Britain or the Netherlands or Germany are second-class citizens because those countries have more homogenous populations that don’t readily integrate outsiders. Instead of melting pots, Europe has separate pots boiling over with alienation and despair. In some countries, like France, it is more a lack of economic integration, while in others, like Britain, it is more a lack of cultural integration, but whatever the reason, Europe is a much more fertile breeding ground for terror than the United States. Unintentionally, some of our closest allies are producing some of our clearest threats."
He appears to support reestablishing diplomatic relations with Iran: "The wisdom of Sun-tzu from almost 2,500 years ago is relevant today: keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."
"We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost thirty years, my whole adult life. A lot of good it’s done us! Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling or a friend, it’s impossible to accomplish anything, impossible to resolve differences and move the relationship forward. The same is true for countries. Our experience in Iraq provides a valuable lesson for Iran. We have since learned that when we overthrew Saddam, we invaded an “imaginary country” because our information was so out of date. We relied on exiles who had long since fled the country, who exaggerated the condition of Iraq’s infrastructure, the strength of its middle class, and the secular nature of its society. If we had had diplomatic relations with Iraq and an ambassador in Baghdad, we obviously would have had better information. So before we put boots on the ground in the future, we’d better have some wing tips there first."
He appears to support limited military action in Pakistani territory without that government's permission: "We have no desire whatsoever to ‘invade’ Pakistan, fight its forces, or harm its citizens. But we have an urgent need to pursue non-Pakistani terrorists who have declared war on us into this no man’s land. I greatly prefer to do it with Pakistan’s blessing and cooperation, but, one way or another, it has to get done. If we have to step onto their soil briefly to protect our own, so be it. As a child sometimes goes into a neighbor’s yard to collect a baseball hit over the fence, so we may be forced to go over the fence. As commander in chief, our president must constantly balance risks and threats in calculating how best to protect the American people. We know we are living on borrowed time against the next terror attack. That risk is far more likely and far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against Al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan."
I would note that Obama proposed more or less that idea earlier in the year and got knocked around for it.
The Huckster is the choice of narrowly focused religious conservatives who will sell out to anyone who preaches and claims to be a conservative. Didn't these idiots learn anything from Clinton's charismatic preaching?
Foreign policy is an area he needs to work on. A few weeks ago he stated that if a Palestinian state is established, it should be in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I don’t think that is a realistic plan. He needs some advisors with foreign policy credentials.
liberal....did you know that Arkansas’s state percentage of tax burden on it’s citizens was down considerably after Huckabees last term? He had cut the state income tax rates and now has the fairtax as part of his platform. That is awesome and hardly liberal.
Mitt Romney: Seems by far to be the most professional, focused, prepared and 2nd most experienced. I'm not a fan of "businessmen" that the GOP is so often fond of, because that often means a lack of principle and a drive for deal-making that gives the store away to the liberals. His change of opinion, or flip-flopping on abortion doesn't bother me. He reasoning for it doesn't make much sense. He just seems unwilling to be really straight. As a marketing guy, he seems to anxious to put out some dubious claims. I'm concerned about his willingness to stand up to the leftwing media/democrat party pressure. He doesn't seem to have the spine to really secure the border and take on the immigration issue.
Guiliani: Tough, but is he ruthless and willing to abuse power. I remember him in the '80s arresting bond/stock traders at their offices, hand-cuffing them and making them do perp walks in front of the media. Destroying people's reputation to puff up his own PR image? He also seems willing to say almost anything. Running for mayor, he says he's not really a Republican. Weak on securing the borders, can we afford another 4 or 8 years of open borders? Seems to be the toughest in the war on terror.
Thompson: Seems to be the most Reagan-conservative. I thought he completely failed and caved into Clinton, while he headed the Campaign Finance investigation. Chinese intelligence funded Clinton, the American Spectator found that out, but Fred couldn't? He looks older than he is. I think the media's been doing a blackout on him, but Fred hasn't been taking advantage of the opportunities he has to get his message out. Fire in the belly? Wrong on Campaign Finance Reform, because he went along with his friend McCain?
McCain: For me with McCain, it's a character and temperament issue. McCain is too angry, to bitter and too brittle to be entrusted with the Presidency. I don't like him, because he's used the media and they've used him as a stalking horse to attack fellow Republicans. McCain (R-Media) hits close to the truth. McCain has been wrong on Campaign Finance Reform, helped provide cover for Clinton. McCain has been wrong on immigration. He now says he understands, but has done zero to secure the border. McCain has damaged this country, helped liberals, even helped the commies and the Jihadis with his obsession on the "torture" issue. McCain has be great on the war, but I have no idea what he'll do about Iran, etc.
Huckabee: I thought he won the first two debates. I liked him. Is he an economic populist or a tax-cutter? I've heard plausible cases for both. I don't like his (liberal-like) tendency to 'moralize' policy issues and paint anyone, who opposes him as immoral. We had 8 years of that with Clinton. I don't know enough about Huckabee, but the more I learn, the more I've fallen away.
Ron Paul: As a libertarian and former Libertarian, I like Paul on the economy, taxes, Federal Reserve, hard money, guns, etc., etc. I never fully bought into non-interventionism in foreign policy. Yes, Washington said to avoid entangling alliances, but that was for a small, weak country separated from the great powers by an ocean that took months to cross. His foreign policy prescriptions would lead to more war, death and destruction world-wide, not less. Paul hasn't roped in his Paultard supporters and that hurts his reputation. Paul also has a tendency toward conspiracy theories.
Tancredo: Great on the border and immigration, but that's all I know.
Duncan Hunter: Seems to be the complete package, border, immigration, defense, war, power of government. He hasn't put together a campaign team. Let's just say, charisma-challenged and a stiff communicator. Bush, the nice, decent guy, was a reaction to the divisive Clinton. The next GOP candidate is going to be someone, who can communicate persuasively as a reaction to the clueless Bush administration.
Right now, my vote is on Hunter, but that has changed and may change again.
Huck sounds more *compassionant* than our current prez. His nomination would change the face of the Repub party for the worse and Hillary would likely wipe the floor with him.
The base has made it clear, even to the point of threatening a 3rd party, and vowing to stay home or vote for Hillary.
So be it.
And since a wartime President obviously is not important to the base, we must bring the troops home ASAP.
It will to too dangerous for them without a strong and ruthless hawk in the WH.
Bring the troops home now!
In your heart, you know he's right a Jimmy Carter wannabe.
In this age of Islamofanatical terrorism, Huckabee's warm and fuzzy approach to foreign relations just doesn't cut it. We need a strong president, not a milquetoast compassionate conniver who would seem more comfortable pining from Oprah's couch than from behind the President's desk in the Oval Office.
Huckabee's recent contention that Gitmo should be closed because it is a bad symbol [awwwwwww] in the rest of the world [i.e., liberals in Europe, the UN, and the Islamic world] is a prime example of the kind of foreign policy that makes the US appear weak in the eyes of the rest of the world. The next president will have to deal with an increasing dictatorial government in Russia, with and increasing military from China, with continued Islamofanatical terrorism sponsored by several Islamic nations, etc.
Ironically, some of Jimmy Carter's policies are what lead us to much of the Islamist terrorism of today -- his support of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran which lead to Carter's impotence in dealing with the 444 days of American hostages at the US Embassy in Iran.
Not even close. The per-capita tax burden for Arkansas citizens went up 47%(!) under Huckabee. Arkansas was number 30 among the 50 states for per capita state and local tax burden when Huckabee took office. When he left office, Arkansas had the 13th highest per capita tax burden in the country.
The Cato Institute gave Huckabee a "D" on taxes and spending for his tenure in office. In 2006, they ranked Huckabee at "F" -- with the worst governors in the nation on tax policy.
His record is not just so-so on tax-and-spend issues -- it's awful.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/nov/14/taking-stock-tax-hike-mike/
National security is one of the most imporant issues of today. Border security and illegal immigration is the other. Huckabee has a terrible history on policies for illegals and NO national security experience. He is a MSM creation with quick lines. It takes more than staying at the Holiday Inn Express to be a Commander in chief.
FRED THOMPSON (true Conservative Federalist) - NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE (I’ll do whatever it takes to stop the bastards) - 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATE (arm everyone and the criminals will back off) - SECURE THE BORDERS (starve the bastards and they will go home) - LAW AND ORDER (enforcement first and foremost) - SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM (the program can’t sustain itself) - DEFEAT THE DEMOCRAT (any fool they put up) - PING!
DUNCAN HUNTER<Accept no substitutes.
Romney would certainly be a better choice than Huckabee, however, he too has no national security experience and a history of sanctuary cities in Massachusetts. It is such a critical choice for President at this time in our history, I would prefer someone with real national security experience and proposals for border security.
Romney is a good man. I can’t say anything bad about him either, however, his history of changing his positions on a variety of issues really bothers me.
Beyond Huckabee’s skepticism about the benefits of free trade
-
For whom, exactly?
Seems like so-called “free trade”, as currently practiced is mostly nothing more than trading with the enemy.
(He already knows the breaks he will be cut if Hilary or O(s)bama get in.)
When their political intelligence and personality analytical reports on Huck come back to the Chia Pet, I doubt he will be quaking in his 4 inch heeled zip up boots.
LOOK FOLKS. Take it from me. I have seen these two bit, laughable Governors from minor states out on the road attempting to conduct foreign policy, and I can tell you. This Huckabee is going to be benevolent Jimmy Carter on the world stage for us, ALL OVER AGAIN. And we KNOW what such benevolence, naivete, backwoods/hick lack of global savvy and misplaced Christian hospitality got us.
We need somebody firm, who will not take shiite from our enemies, like Duncan Hunter. You can see it in his face, you can hear it in his voice.
I know it seems as though FRED is falling in the polls, however, like Hunter, the MSM is totally freezing him out of any coverage. I feel that as soon as the public starts to see Huckabee for what he is, FRED will rise in the polls because he truly is the most realistic Conservative to knock off Rudy, which is what I think it will come down to.
It is very hard to find yourself backing a candidate that just can’t get going. I know how you feel. I am very discouraged that people don’t see in FRED what I and many other see. Duncan is in the same boat. A very fine man and far more deserving than Rudy or Romney or McCain and certainly Huckabee.
There are days I wish I could bury my head in the sand and become neutral and say anyone but Clinton. I just can’t. I have to continue to fight for the candidate that I feel would be the best suited to lead this Country in this very important time in our history, and FRED makes me very comfortable.
Part of the problem here, is that the few mainstream media alternatives to the liberal MSM oligopoly, have themselves sold out to the one-worlders.
Perhaps that’s an unforseen problem, with letting an Australian control most of the conservative news voice in America.
Though, Rush has been no help either. He’s been a real disappointment.
Unless Rush can somehow be convinced to stop his studied neutrality, and FNC (especially Sean Hannity) can be shaken free from shilling for Giuliani, Huckabee might be the best alternative.
Rush has taught me a great deal about Conservatism. When Rush says FRED is the only true Conservative, I truly understand what he means. If you have listened on a regular basis, he explains Conservatism completely. Without hesitation, I truly believe FRED is the right leader for the right time in our history.
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.