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.

Huckabee (from the article): “Eventually, having shifted public opinion, we can solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes with government actions that define the will of the majority.”

Author’s Reaction: “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 quit reading at this point, as it’s clearly written by someone willing to go to any lengths to make a point. Huckabee did not say, in the quoted portion, anything about making “bad behavior illegal.”

What he did say is that, once a consensus has developed, government should take actions that would “solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes” that had occurred. The author sets up his straw man by claiming that Huckabee is saying “make it illegal” and then goes on to demolish his own straw man.

America is getting fat. Wouldn’t it be nice if a leader not only set the example, but also managed to convince people that they could change their behaviors voluntarily and at least start feeding their own kids better? To hell with themselves. At least try to stop consigning your own kids to years of ill health in the future by stuffing them with McFoods on a daily basis.

Then, after years of effective persuasion has actually begun to show consistent results (that would be good leadership, incidentally) can’t anyone imagine even a single legislative effort that would encourage the positive trend? Here’s just one: No sales taxes on fruits and vegetables. Insidious? I can just see the uproar now.

As I said, I quit reading at that point. Anyone capable of turning what he said into “illegal” is not honest and not worth reading.

“The Huckster is not ready for prime time. Hillary would beat him like a worn out drum.”

Not according to the poll posted on another thread in here where Huckabee leads both Hillary and Obama on one-to-one matchups.

I was surprised, frankly, given the obvious advantage Hillary would have on name recognition at this point. Could Huckabee actually understand how to campaign at the national level after all? Hmmmm...maybe, just maybe.

I think you are being unfair to the author and also not thinking your own ideas through. You are implying that there is a fundamental difference between making something illegal and taxing it. I disagree. What if the tax on a small bag of potato chips is $5 per bag?

Nanny staters always say that their nanny state is reasonable and reflects the will of the people. No tax on apples but tax potato chips. Well, what about Fritos? Doritos? Tortilla chips? Tortillas? Corn meal? Fresh corn?

How many people are you going to hire at what salary to sit around and decide where along the spectrum between fresh corn and potato chips the tax kicks in? And how will you assure that this decision and millions of others like it are reasonable and reflect the will of the people?

There are fundamental issues at play here. I don't think Mike Huckabee understands them the same way I do. I think that maybe you don't either.

“America is getting fat. Wouldn’t it be nice if a leader not only set the example, but also managed to convince people that they could change their behaviors voluntarily and at least start feeding their own kids better? To hell with themselves. At least try to stop consigning your own kids to years of ill health in the future by stuffing them with McFoods on a daily basis.”

America is getting fat. America is also in the middle of a world war for the survival of civilization, so forgive me if I want a leader who is not so focused on trivialities like whether I had a greaseburger for lunch that he doesn’t see the clear and present existential threat to our nation. And based on his frighteningly juvenile foreign policy position paper, Huckabee may know his calorie counts and fat grams, but he has no clue about the nature of the Islamofascist threat.

It is the President’s job as Commander-in-Chief to ensure our security. Conversely, the President has no Constituional authority as Nanny-in-Chief. In fact, the Constitution clearly states that Americans are to be secure in their persons, even if those persons are larger than Huckabee would prefer.

“Mike Huckabee does not need arch-conservatives to win election.”

That is the language of liberals. Liberals use that prefix arch to diss conservatives. “Arch” leads to enemy. It’s an invention of the far left. You bought it and you use it.

Huckabee is another George W. Bush. He will use us and then wipe his butt with us. Your boy is from Arkansas, and this automatically brings him into contact with Clinton and his minions. Ross Perot from Texarkana was another friendly candidate who helped a Clinton win the White House.

This guy is a big spender who loves the illegals, and wants to do a Jimmy Carter impersonation if given the chance. He won’t get it, even if nominated, because the Democrats would beat the snot out of him. I looked at him like everybody else. He is loved by the media. That’s who promotes him. He’s the McCain of this election cycle, a liberal in conservative dress who can be counted on to betray the conservative movement and mainstream Republicans. We already have that in office. Why would we want more of it?

“I think you are being unfair to the author and also not thinking your own ideas through. You are implying that there is a fundamental difference between making something illegal and taxing it. I disagree. What if the tax on a small bag of potato chips is $5 per bag?”

If you don’t see that there IS a fundamental difference, then I guess the author made perfect sense to you. You are making the logical leap to the argument “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” but that is not the issue. (I agree with you on taxation, incidentally.)

For example, just thirty or so years ago it would have been difficult to pass a law establishing a right to work in a smoke-free environment, but now? All Huckabee was saying is that you don’t pass the laws establishing my right to work in a smoke-free environment until most people want that right established. If you can’t get to that point with reasoned leadership, then you don’t just impose your will by edict.

Taking your tax example, taxing cigarettes out of use is actually being tried. I think this is an unreasonable approach. If someone wants to kill themselves smoking, and they’re an adult, so be it. I’m just glad we got to the point where laws have been passed that keep them from taking me along for the ride. See the difference? Because this is what Huckabee appears to be getting at.

Look, it’s easy to twist anything someone says if you try hard enough. Clearly, that’s what the author was doing, and so I quit reading. If you can’t see the difference, possibly it’s because you’ve made up your mind that anyone badmouthing Huckabee has to be listened to, regardless of the merits of their argument. Or possibly, I’m just twisting what you’re saying....

“Imagine Huck and Hill the nominees. What do you expect the MSM to do to Huck? What evidence is there that he will be able to handle it?”

In all seriousness, managing to become an elected Republican in Arkansas, and getting re-elected, shows that he at least has a chance of handling Democrats and their arguments. (I know, he got in originally because Tucker was bounced, but he did still manage to get elected to the highest office in a heavily Democratic state.)

Contrast that with Romney, who would almost certainly fail to be re-elected in Massachusetts despite his efforts to curry favor with Democrats. I’d say that contrast speaks to your concern, wouldn’t you?

“I love all the mudslinging that Huckabee is a con man.”

..oh, the fact that he’s a con man isn’t as bad as the act his son did with a poor, defenseless animal. Or how about the fact that his son felt the need to carry a gun to the airport? You forgot to mention the over 1000 pardons of felons. Is this the kind of family we want in the White House? We don’t need any more scandals. I pray this guy doesn’t get the nomination.

“It takes legislation to legally move the government to actions. I know of no other way to conclude that Huckabee’s vision wouldn’t rely on legislation to curb behaviors of individuals through reduction in choices, more regulations, or both. How else can you walk away from that and conclude something different than outright paternalism/statism?”

Easily. Just pick one law that constrains you now in a manner that you perceive to be injurious. I’ll let you pick it, since you obviously spend a lot of time worrying about how government is boxing you in (as do I.)

Then ask yourself if an effective leader (possibly even yourself) might not be able to get people to see how that law was injurious, and build a consensus over time to abolish that law, or modify it so that it didn’t cause the harm it is causing you, and then, in the end, pass the new law abolishing or modifying the old.

I’d probably start with the Department of Education, if the choice were mine. Old Law: Massive federal interference. New Law: No Department of Education...education is a local issue. Take some real leadership to get us to the point it could ever be passed though; even Reagan couldn’t get there, and Bush? As they say around here, “uff da.”

I read you post twice and it just doesn't make sense to me.

So, do you agree that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" or not? I do. Do you? You seem to want to have it both ways on this point.

I keep hearing about fiscal conservatives from our esteemed talk radio hosts and columnists, but I challenge them to name names. Who EXACTLY are they talking about?

Try the National Taxpayers Union.

They rate Senators and Representatives based on how often they vote against big spending.

Some people rage and rage against government and Washington all the time.

I don't. I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that there are some things that Washington can do.

But one can't be too naive about these things.

Something that sounds like a "good idea" may turn out to produce a real mess.

Some things goverment can only muck up -- however "well-intentioned" the politicians claim to be.

I don't think Huck quite gets that. He wants to get government involved in matters that it can only make a mess of.

In all seriousness, managing to become an elected Republican in Arkansas, and getting re-elected, shows that he at least has a chance of handling Democrats and their arguments.

You are sidestepping my point. Huck has never felt the full wrath of the MSM. If he becomes the Republican nominee he will. We have seen how Huck has responded to the relatively mild criticism he has received from conservatives in the last few weeks and he has been brittle and defensive, and he has lashed out at his conservative inquisitors. The nation as a whole is a quite different playing field than one tiny podunk state. What has Mike Huckabee ever done in his life that makes you think that he can prevent the MSM from portraying him as an ignorant, goofy hillbilly?

Yes, your reply makes total sense...but how in the world would you conclude that Huckabee’s vision of the use of legislation is one which would protect liberties rather than strip liberties. You’re the one, in post#41, who came rushing to the dfense of Huckabee, saying that the author of this piece is taking Huckabee’s own thoughs — from he’s own book — out of context.

I can’t figure out what Norseman is saying, but if he is trying to say that the Huck, if elected, would be good for us by acting as our nanny, I’m totally against it. That’s what wives are for. I don’t need somebody telling me I can’t eat French fry’s, drink, smoke, skydive, scubadive, ride a dirtbike or buy a gun.

I do believe he is electable…… by Democrats.

The guy is a liar! To put on his website that he will make all the illegal aliens go home and then use doubletalk that almost needs interpreting to figure out he intends for the illegal aliens to get in front of the line to become legal.The guy makes me sick.

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.