Posted on 12/22/2007 6:36:25 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Reconsidering Huck Membership issues.
By Mark Hemingway
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 20, 2007
TO: Mike Huckabee
FROM: The Conservative Movement
RE: Membership Renewal Application
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.
And sometimes, Governor, you are just plain baffling.
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.
Stay warm on the campaign trail — it’s cold in Iowa this time of year.
Regards,
Your Friends in the Conservative Movement
If our party nominates that malicious little goober Huckabee, we deserve to lose. We will have confirmed the worst stereotypes about conservatives.
"Don't be cynical--trust me"...the siren song of con artists ever since...well..the sirens.
"We're sorry... your call did not go through. Please hang up and do not try again later."
As Rush accurately points out, judging someone by his intentions is the hallmark of the liberal. If you want to know what his real intentions are, look at the effect of what he has done, not what he says.
Bingo!
I trust my instincts. They screamed at me to “watch out for this guy.” To quote a favorite author: He looks fair and feels foul.
Yea unlike the others ? Rudy had a sanctuary city, they got EVERYTHING they wanted at the cost to state taxpayers..same for Mass, Romney had them working for him, McCain wanted amnesty .
At least Huck wants the fence and the parents to go home..
Get a new excuse
“At least Huck wants the fence and the parents to go home..”
ears_to_hear, and a blind eye. Huck says to go home for an hour, weeks at the most and come back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOKe9RSEyM8
Rush is right. But Huckabee is nowhere near as bad as your average Lieberal. He’s actually good on social issues. Still, I’d vote for Joe Lieberman before I would Huckabee since Lieberman is at least good on the issue that matters the most.
Rush is right. But Huckabee is nowhere near as bad as your average Lieberal. He’s actually good on social issues. Still, I’d vote for Joe Lieberman before I would Huckabee since Lieberman is at least good on the issue that matters the most.
“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.”
Yes, I agree with you, as would most reasonable people.
My point, though, was that YOU were the one that made the leap to turn this into a taxation issue. That isn’t what we were discussing at the time. We were discussing whether addressing something legislatively necessarily meant that we were declaring it illegal, as the author of the original piece stated in setting up his “straw man.”
You wrote: “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?”
You say he’s been “brittle and defensive.” How about “he’s been quite effective at defending himself,” instead? “Lashed out”? Again, he’s making his case. What would you have him do instead, just take it? Show me one YouTube clip where he’s lost it while making his case. It might be out there, and I’d like to see it if it is, but I’m betting he’s remained in control the entire time...not so easy when Rush himself is taking you on.
As for the “ignorant, goofy hillbilly” that’s easy. He’s not, as any educated person can tell by just listening to him speak. How do you think he’s doing so well, anyway? When he gets in front of a crowd, he has a way of connecting. This is the main reason he’s outrun his opponents. By the way, that “ignorant hillbilly” graduated from college in a bit over two years, I believe.
The mainstream media ALWAYS thinks conservatives (yes, Huckabee is a conservative) are weak-brained and easy marks. They’ve way underestimated every Republican presidential candidate since Nixon, and even he managed to win twice in spite of them. They show respect for Reagan now but when he was president, they considered him an ignoramous suffering from Alzheimer’s.
Reagan won easily because he had communication skills. Bush I only got elected because he followed Reagan. Bush II barely got elected, stuggling because he lacks the ability to effectively communicate to a crowd, regardless of his ability to connect on an individual basis. Huckabee connects, but more important, he’s got Reagan’s ability to say what needs saying in an effective manner. The guy has terrific speaking skills, period. He’s certainly no “ignorant, goofy hillbilly.”
“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.”
The man carries his concealed carry permit in his billfold right next to his duck hunting license. It’s the Romney/Guiliani/McCain/etc. supporters in here that keep telling you Huckabee’s a liberal. He’s not. The other guys, though? It’s them you should be concerned over.
Romney a conservative? Give me a break. And Guiliani will sign your guns away the first term given the chance, and he’ll get the chance. McCain has already shown you what he thinks of liberty with McCain/Feingold. Thompson would be fine, but he doesn’t seem to be able to mount a campaign, something that’s sort of important in getting to the highest office in the land.
Huckabee is one of those rare conservatives who can state conservative principles in a way that can be accepted by all but the extreme liberal part of the population. This is the key to demonstrating that this country is basically conservative at the core.
In fact, let’s run Obama vs. Huckabee with neither one playing “gotcha” and both making their respective cases. Huckabee will win in a walk because, as I said, this country is conservative at the core. To prove this, though, we’ve got to run a candidate that can get significant black votes, Hispanic votes, teacher votes and union votes.
Huckabee has already proven that he can do that, and I don’t believe it’s because he’s promising to sacrifice our liberty. It’s because he’s not writing these groups off at the outset, as so many conservative candidates are prone to do. I’ll say it again...Huckabee understands all this.
I’m glad someone loves his Robin Hood spirit with our tax money. And I don't compare someone hiring a lawn service without scrutinizing every employee to the setting up a state wide system to give out taxpayer money to citizens of a foreign country.
I’m sure he will get the Hispanic votes, teacher votes and union votes. The people that normally vote Democrat.
If it walks like a Huck, talks like a Huck…
Your response proves my point. About 10 Senators TOTAL qualify for a phony A rating with a 70% score. I am sure the numbers are worse since 2005, the last year listed.
Wrong. Here's what you posted:
...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.
It was you who first mentioned taxes. I was responding to you.
How about this:
Second, the quickness with which Huckabee conflates criticism of his record and his policy statements with antipathy towards evangelicals is telling. Although Huckabee exudes charm and humility, I've heard Arkansas Republicans complain of his thin skin and vindictiveness. His statement on the Today program tends to confirm that assessment.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019321.php
Here's a detailed analysis with supporting documentation regarding Huck's vindictiveness. The author holds:
Reporters recall Huckabee as combative, even malicious, in response to critical coverage. He was known to attack reporters, fire off scathing e-mails to newsrooms, and complain to editors about probing questions. "I was just astounded at how vindictive he was," says Joan Duffy, who covered Huckabee for The Commercial Appeal of Memphis in the '90s. "He took it all so personally. . . . You're either with him, or you're a mortal enemy."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0f9a4c7e-8215-47ca-8847-4beeaf747b8e
And finally, here's an analysis of the Huckster's ethical lapses:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110011021
The MSM is laying off Huck now hoping Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him. If we do, Huck will be shredded to ribbons instantly. It is ignorant and foolish in the extreme to think otherwise.
I consider myself a conservative in every fiscal and social way. Who created this dichotomy and why? If I hold social conservative views dear, if I dare to make them a priority, am I just a useful idiot whose first, second and third choice in the primaries can't win the general like Rudy McRomney can because all the Festivus celebrators out there have no respect for Christianity? I'm getting a really sick of the "convention" and the establishment, MSM or otherwise that spins it.
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.