Reconsidering Huck

Mike: It’s your old buddies in the conservative movement here. We know the Iowa caucuses are only two weeks away but we’ve got to talk. We know you’ve endured the slings and arrows of some establishment folks and to a certain extent the piling on hasn’t been terribly fair. Many of your critics — George Will comes to mind — seem far more comfortable with the idea of Rudy Giuliani as president despite the fact that he’s pro-choice, and has an overall troubling record on social issues that seems about as bad as your fiscal record.

Furthermore, nobody has given you credit for the conservative stands you have taken. As only the fourth Republican elected to statewide office in Arkansas since Reconstruction, you held your head up proudly as a Republican. Certainly that took political courage. Further, it needs to be said that most of your tenure as governor of the state involved having to work with one of the most Democratically lopsided legislatures in the country. Given what you were up against, it’s hard not to admit that you did some good in difficult circumstances.

We were perusing your most recent book, and you even seem to have done a good job of anticipating the complaints that would be leveled against you. "Some of the most hostile things said to (but more often about) me have come from those who claim and proclaim that they are more conservative than I am and their particular and self-proclaimed brand of conservatism is more pure than mine," you wrote. [emphasis yours]

That said, what is all this poppycock about how you’re not owned by the “Wall Street-to-Washington axis,” and how you really represent the people? Is that really the way to respond to substantive criticism from us?

Of course it’s hard to sort out what criticism is substantive and what is not just the mud that slings in the midst of a political horserace — with people groaning about floating crosses in your ads and all. (By the way, props to you on the “Paul is dead” bit. That was a great response.)

But, bottom line, Mike: We’re concerned about our relationship here. You want to claim the mantle of a conservative, even if you’re vying to be the “anti-establishment” guy. So as part of our review for your application for renewed membership in the conservative movement, we read your two most recent books — Character Makes a Difference, and From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 STOPs to Make a Difference. Given that both of these books contain your undiluted personal and religious worldviews, as well as how they impact specific policy prescriptions, we decided to confine our evaluation to them.

We here in the conservative movement are happy to have you, but first we need to try and get a few things straight.

Mike, you have some pretty disturbing views about the role of government. You desperately need to explain yourself here. Anyone who calls himself a conservative should be deeply suspicious of those who wield power or aspire to. As such, true conservatives wouldn’t elect anyone dogcatcher who is capable of writing the following paragraph on page 64 of From Hope to Higher Ground:

There are those who believe that America cannot break or shake its addiction to fried, sugary or over-salted foods. These people believe that we are incapable of shifting our unhealthy culture, which is making us fatter, unhealthier, and more likely to die prematurely. History shows that we can, in fact, help Americans to change, not by force-feeding them government restrictions or requirements but by first changing the attitudes and atmosphere in which we live. Eventually, having shifted public opinion, we can solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes with government actions that define the will of the majority.

Emphasis ours. So just to review here, you think that as a politician it’s your job to 1) determine behavior bad for us, 2) build consensus that it’s bad and 3) once you have a majority, make that bad behavior illegal.

I know that personally you’re not big on coarse language, but are you *&@!'*# kidding us?

It also doesn’t help that you have some serious nanny-state tendencies and your books show you to be disdainful of those who don’t share your moral views. You brag about making the Arkansas governor’s mansion smoke-and-alcohol free; you further crow about making it illegal to smoke in private workplaces in the state; you lament “celebrities like Dean Martin building their routines around the hilarity of being falling down drunk”; and you’re proud that you set up a toll-free line where people can anonymously rat out their fellow citizens for littering (with fines for the offenders to follow).

You’re free to have your opinions about what is unhealthy, Mike. Just don’t pass laws based on them and shove them down our throats, mmkay? Besides — it’s an objective fact that after about seven 7&7’s Dean Martin was hilarious!

Second, you’re just not serious about governance. Mike, you’re GREAT on the big picture. Really, you’ve got some of the best rhetoric around. The Baptist preacher in you can speechify like no other Republican candidate.

Based on your books you do seem to have an excellent grasp on budgetary issues in Arkansas, but come on! You’re playing for keeps now. Trying to get a grasp on the policies of a potential Huckabee administration is nearly impossible. Your book From Hope to Higher Ground is particularly egregious — it’s clearly written for the lowest common denominator, but we expect a bit more. You should probably educate the voter, not try to talk down to him.

In each chapter you take on a particular political issue or (God-forbid) moral abstraction and explain why “stopping” it will help the republic. There is “Chapter 2: STOP Thinking Horizontally.” And, “Chapter 9: STOP the Heat and Turn on the Light for Hot Issues.” Each chapter concludes with “12 Action Steps” for the citizen reading the book to do his part to remedy that particular problem.

Let’s examine some of those steps shall we? In order to “STOP Being Cynical” we should among other things, “Watch TV Land and Nick @ Nite more; network TV less.” In order to “STOP Moving the Landmarks of Liberty” — whatever that means — three of the 12 steps you recommend are “Don’t watch TV during dinner,” “Avoid Reality TV Shows,” and “Watch the History Channel or the Biography Channel Often.”

You watch a lot of TV, don’t you Mike? But the coup de grace has to be in “12 Action Steps to STOP the Loss of America’s Prestige at Home and Abroad.” Number nine is “Eat at the International House of Pancakes (just kidding — wanted to make sure you were really reading the list!)”

Mike, I can assure you that we are reading the list — at least when we’re not, at your recommendation, glued to reruns of Joanie Loves Chachi on the upper reaches of basic cable. And we’re not laughing. As a former governor of a state of only two and half million people, you might want to seize every opportunity to convince us you can handle America’s current foreign-policy challenges.

Your recent article in Foreign Affairs was widely panned, and justifiably so. It is also no surprise. The chapter in your book on restoring “America’s Prestige” may be well-intentioned, but, as you might put it, “Where’s the beef?” The chapter is ten pages long — the word “Iraq” appears on only three of those pages. Meanwhile, you talk about hunting rifles and dish out useless pearls of would-be wisdom such as “A true leader shares his power rather than shows his power.” Get serious, Mike.

In chapter 7, “STOP Robbing the Taxpayers,” you approvingly quote Ronald Reagan saying, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on earth is a government program.” But on page 72, you describe the passage of a new sales tax for management of natural resources in Arkansas as one of your “proudest moments” as the tax “forever dedicates a small but vital revenue stream to the conservation of our state’s vast, valuable, and irreplaceable resources.” Is it a good idea to create any government revenue stream in perpetuity?

In fact, your whole chapter on “Robbing the Taxpayers” devolves into a defense of your record of tax increases as governor, which you blame on court-ordered increases in education spending. “I was not the only governor forced into a corner when it came to tax increases,” you write. Defensive much? Conservatives look to leaders who can fight tax-and-spend liberals, not kowtow to them.

Mike, your gifts as a speaker are not in question. When you talk about education, health care, and the environment you can be really convincing. Your explanation of how you consider yourself a conservationist rather than an environmentalist is compelling and other Republicans would do well to emulate it. You’re also the only Republican articulating a good defense of charter schools.

But far too often you paint your word pictures with very broad strokes and there’s little policy substance behind your demagoguery. If you really care about the poor and disadvantaged — and we’re not convinced you do, despite your pleading — outcomes should matter more than rhetoric. Unless you get serious, you will quickly reach a point where your silver tongue won’t save you.

There’s a lot more, but for the sake of expediency we’ll leave it at that. (We thought it unfair to discuss some visceral objections to the way you invoke religion and your cornpone persona, just know that a pretty significant percentage of the electorate is going to groan in disgust when you say things like “Faith is like a bass boat…”) Your renewal application for membership in the Movement is still pending, awaiting your response to this assessment report. And we can assure you, we will take into account your outstanding track record on social issues before any determination is made.

We really doubt it will come to this, but if we decide to kick you out, remember you signed a nondisclosure agreement when you joined. There are legal penalties if you let anyone in on the secret handshake. (Though I can’t even remember if the scissors come after the fist pound or vice versa.) But if you do get expelled in the meantime, don’t sweat it. Gerson seems to be thriving since we gave him the boot.

The guy thinks Dean Martin is a menace to society? Damn. Not only do I absolutely LOVE Dean Martin (one of the funniest men ever!), most of today’s “youth” couldn’t tell you who Martin, Crosby, Sinatra, or Lewis were. Seriously.

As I suspected, the Huckster is nothing more than a nanny state politician, with no core conservative principles. Other than his social conservatism.

But Huckster, “LEAVE DEAN MARTIN ALONE!”

Mike Huckabee on Fox News December 9, 2007 making clear his amnesty approach will be for illegal aliens to go back home and come back legally within days or maybe weeks.

…a pathway that sends people back to the starting point but this idea of waiting years, no I don’t agree with that in fact look if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the internet anyplace in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously. It’s our government that has failed and is dysfunctional. It shouldn’t take years to get a work permit to come here to pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders, you don’t have amnesty and sanctuary cities, you do have a pathway that gets you back home. But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years, it would talk days, maybe weeks and then people could come back in the workforce. Let me tell you one thing that is important, two things, number one, the American people say do something, do it now, we don’t want to have this country ignoring the illegal problem. I get it. Second, I want people that are in this country to hold their heads up high. You know right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they are trying to feed their families. I don’t begrudge them that. I say everyday, I say thank God I live in a country people are trying to break into, not out of, but lets give them the means by which they can get here thru the door, legally, and when they’re here they don’t have to hide, they don’t have to keep their heads down and hope nobody catches them. They have their heads held high. Everyone living within the borders of the United States ought to be able to do so with dignity and with a since of pride, not a sense of fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOKe9RSEyM8

You have not been looking very hard.

FROM:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html

WALLACE: Let's turn to immigration, because you put out a new immigration plan this week. You called for building...

HUCKABEE: Yes.

WALLACE: ... a border fence, for cracking down on employers, for telling illegals to go home.

But last year in an interview, you said something somewhat different. You said this, "I think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship."

Governor, in your new plan, the only path is to go home and to get on the back of the line, which, of course, would mean years of waiting. Why the change?

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think there's an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn't say what the pathway was.

I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept — and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense — is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point.

But this idea of the waiting years — no, I don't agree with that. In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously — it's our government that has failed and is dysfunctional.

It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home.

But that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.

I understand very well that you cannot believe one word the huck is saying.

It’s not so much Huckabee’s personality and past stances I don’t like.

It’s what he represents to the body politic, whether fairly or unfairly perceived.

In the minds of most voters, Huckabee would respresent the dogmatic judgemental Preacher type of leader who subliminally wants to inject his will on Americans.

That is NOT what I believe about Huckabee, being a fairly strict Baptist church-goer.

But I am certain others will see a self-righteous moralist minister when they look at Huckabee — which would mean a 50-state sweep for the Democrats.

Huckabee was divisive before anyone else.

Being visibly and genuinely Christian is one thing--and a very good thing. Using the sacred name of Jesus Christ as political currency and implying by words or choice of speaking venues that the world is divided between true Christians and false Christians (Catholics, Mormons etc), is another thing--and a very bad thing.

Reagan won because he created a conservative coalition that included all good conservatives who shared the same core virtues and values. Their respective religious doctrines were not considered. Huckabee has demonstrated contempt for that coalition. Many Evangelicals might not think so, but a lot of us "false" Christians feel the sting of Huck's contempt and disdain quite acutely.

Apparently Huckabee responded to Condie Rice's criticism of his Foreign Affairs article by suggesting that she hadn't actually read it, and that he hadn't himself written the offensive phrases (although he put his name to the article). Not classy, not at all.

Having an Ayatollah Khomeini in charge of Iran gave us enough grief...we don't need to elect an ayatollah as President of the United States. And I don't think the Republican Party will want to give its nomination to someone who applies Hitler analogies to the President of the United States, particularly when that President is a Republican...not unless they take leave of their senses.

I think Huckabee was registered on Free Republic for a while...was he on DU at the same time?

Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.

According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts

The recent level of animosity towards Mike Huckabee from the Republican establishment, and conservative talk radio hosts and columnists in particular, is simply amazing. It manifests itself in a daily waves of distortion and half-truths concerning Huckabee’s record and positions. They have obviously learned their lessons well from the mainstream media and Clinton Inc.

HEY BROTHER, YOU GOT A LOT OF BUNK GOING THERE. So the people speaking out against Huckabee are offering up distortions and half truths? YOU ARE WRONG.

Rush pointed out yesterday that the New Hampshire chapter of the NEA has endorsed Howard Dean (2004), Hillary Clinton (2007) and Mike Huckabee (2007). Can you get a clue what kind of losers they support?

I live in the Central Valley of California. I read the SJ Mercury News — one of most liberal newspapers in the country. Any idea why they’re giving Huckabee shining, positive press?

The DNC has issued dozens of attacks on other GOP candidates. Why only four on Huckabee? DUDE, GET A CLUE, THEY ARE LICKING THEIR CHOPS FOR THIS GUY.

Huckabee raised spending 65 percent in Arkansas — 3X the rate of inflation. He has VICIOUSLY attacked President Bush on the war on terror — just like the former French government and the Democrats. Sorry, but Huckabee DESERVES EVERYTHING HE’S GETTING. He’s a Republican Jimmy Carter and he would be a loser like Mike D. in 1988.

Yes, I feel the same way. I am frustrated.

At this point who is looking like they are ready for this battle?

Not Fred.
Hunter? No one has even heard of him outside of the posters here.

The two that have the charisma, at least some of the stances I’d like to see, the energy, the strong stand on terrorism are Rudy and Mitt.
They aren’t exactly what I’d like on social issues, but I am not going to vote strictly on abortion. That to me, would be sacrificing many other things I find very important.

McCain would even do, but I don’t think he can beat Hillary.

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.