David Huckabee is in the center of this FR classic photo from the '08 campaign.
Posted on 11/23/2010 4:27:45 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
In late December, 2007, just before the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, I posted the following excerpt from the Wall Street Journal Blog in which the journal noted the fervor with which former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was campaigning against abortion and, in particular, embryonic stem cell research in the lead up to the Iowa Caucuses. The article read, in pertinent part:
"Mike Huckabee was prepared when a voter asked him today about embryonic stem-cell research. He pulled from his pocket a photo of a girl, given to him by a woman at a campaign event.
“This little girl was born from a frozen embryo, frozen for four years, two-cell embryo,” he said. She “became this precious little girl.” He said the girl’s mother told him, “When you think about embryos and stem cells just remember my daughter.” [Mike Huckabee] Huckabee
[snip]
Huckabee praised President Bush for blocking federal funding for research that destroys embryos, saying he rightfully stood up to pressure to cave. {snip}
He added that “now science has proved that he’s right,” noting that recent research suggests that other forms of stem-cell research may hold just as much promise.
In his swing through eastern Iowa this week, Huckabee has hit the “sanctity of life” issue forcefully. He has equated the rights of the unborn to the rights of all humans and said that because abortion is a moral issue, not a political issue, it’s not OK simply to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In that case, abortion will still be legal in states that choose to allow it.
“That’s the logic of the Civil War. Some states see slavery is right. Others can say it’s wrong. I don’t think that’s where we want to be as a country,” he said. “If abortion isn’t wrong then nothing is wrong.”
His staunch opposition to abortion — as well as his strict stand against same-sex marriage — have fueled his rise among evangelical Christians in Iowa..."
It turns out that Huckabee had only very recently pocketed huge consulting fees from one of the largest embryonic stem cell researchers in the world:
"The Cooler has obtained documents that show Mike Huckabee received $378,000 in consulting fees during 2006, while he was still governor of Arkansas. Most noteworthy, $35,000 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure
He also received speaking fees and honoraria from churches while Governor.
It is certainly calls into question whether or not it is appropriate for a Governor to be taking a consulting fee from interest groups, as Huckabee did, when issues surrounding that interest group could come across his desk.
The consulting money was funneled through an organization called 12 stops, a group created in 2004 to handle Gov. Huckabee's book deals. With all the attention Senator Obama received for running a separate PAC and potentially funnelling money from maxed out donors through that PAC, it calls into question whether Huckabee may have done the same.
Update- We never claimed to be math majors. Huck took 2 payments of 17,500 from Novo bringing the year-end total to 35K. Nearly half his governor's salary...
From Novo Nordisk's web site from 2007:
"Novo Nordisk has finding a cure for diabetes as part of its vision and human stem cell research with the potential for cell transplantation, is presently the most promising approach to achieve this goal for Type 1 diabetes."
Mitt Romney had between 100,000 and 250,000 in stock in the same company and, when its involvement in embryonic stem cell research came to light in August, 2007, he sold it (under pressure).
Huckabee chose to keep his $35,000 fee from the company that destroys unborn babies for profit, as well as the rest of the $315,000 he made in 2006 on "consulting/speaking" while he was supposed to be the full time governor of Arkansas.
So when he asks Governor Palin why she resigned as Governor instead of fulfilling her duty to the people of Alaska, she can reply:
"Well, I could have traveled the country earning "consulting fees" while preparing to run for President (and pardoning another hundred or so felons), but I decided to resign and help the Tea Party retake the Congress and elect Constitutional Conservative Senators and Governors from sea to shining sea."
Now, which one accomplished more in the last last eighteen months of their gubernatorial term?
More to the point, which one is the real prolifer, the one who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk?
Yea - he doesn’t seem to skip a beat. A few dead pigs (as I guess he sees it), no big deal...I’ve got a country to run (and reshape).
He’s one of the many people that I’d like to see just “go away.” Worthless and time consuming . . . Hitlery, her sexual predator “husband,” the idiot living in our White House, preachy Hollyweird stars, Michael Moore, etc.
Good catch. This will be a silver bullet as far as many in HIS tribe are concerned, when it gets sufficient exposure.
He apparently has an ethical problem when dealing with money. There are numerous examples of this.
David Huckabee is in the center of this FR classic photo from the '08 campaign.
You really are going to try to tear down Mike Huckabee as being insufficiently pro-life? Because he consulted with a megacorporation, and was paid by the corporation, and later found out the company also did embryonic research?
This isn’t the same as owning STOCK in the company, which is an investment IN a company. And it’s even weaker than attacking someone for BUYING something from a company, finding out that company gives money to charities like planned parenthood, and throwing out what you bought from them.
If he took their money to advocate the results of research from the ESC, that would be germaine.
But this is just silly.
On a more practical note, if the key for Palin is to get the Huckabee voters, making them hate you by attacking his core beliefs this way is going to do the opposite of what you want.
Palin needs to win over voters, not have her “supporters” chase them all away.
“On a more practical note, if the key for Palin is to get the Huckabee voters, making them hate you by attacking his core beliefs this way is going to do the opposite of what you want.”
Is there such a thing as a “Huckabee voter”? What exactly is that? And why is a Romneybot like you interested in Huckabee? Divide and conquer, maybe?
What you call “Huckabee voters” are prolife voters who felt in 2008 they had nowhere else to go. They couldn’t go to Mittens or Rudy who were proabortion or to McCain who was untrustworthy and supported stem cell research. (Hunter and Brownback never took off) And it is fair to comment when a candidate criticizes over and over again embryonic stem cell research and then takes money from one of the biggest purveyors of this research.
In 2008, Huckabee was the only prolifer and religious conservative in the race. It will not be so in 2012. Palin will suck the oxygen out of the balloon, since she appeals to both those constituencuies, in addition to economic conservatives (like Club For Growth) who detest Huck. The “Huckabee voters”, as you call them are religious conservatives, who are pro-life. They are not wedded to Huckabee. Pointing out his lack of principle on the prolife issue, in hte context of these fess, is just fair comment. It is the only issue on which he has a claim to principled conservatism(given his big government nannystatism and his execrable pardon record) The $35,000 “consulting fee” from Novo Nordisk raises the question whether the principle might be flexible.
After all, even Mittens sold the Novo Nordisk stock when he was caught with his hand in that cookie jar. Huck kept the loot. that may offend someone, but the truth hurst and I retract nothing.
Huckabee has said numerous times on fox news that he’s against ‘repeal and replacing’ of obamacare(just as lisa murkowski has said). He said that he wants to “keep the good parts”, which is completely invalidated because “keeping the good parts” means you’re keeping the law itself in place and giving full authority to the fed govt. to enforce their death panels and whatever they deem necessary to not cover. Of course, huckabee was trying to be clever, going with the flow with charles “leave the room” krauthammer. Huckabee was boldly declaring his opinion on not repealing and replacing obamacare right after it was rammed through into law back before the polls went 25 points against it(50-50 to 75-25 against). Then huckabee scampered into the tall grass with romney, daniels, et al watching Sarah Palin walk to the front line of the battle and take on the entire obama WH, press corps or “corpse” as barry would say, and the entire media and democrat party and many at fox news(the entire fox&friends crew, cavuto, shep smith, greta, geraldo, juan williams, kirsten powers, et al). They were basically cursing her on air as harshly as the crazed haters at msnbc.
Huckabee’s a hypocrite on many levels. He wants to attract the evangelicals by saying that he’s a Baptist minister. Whatever questions the committee threw at him at his ordination, it’s probable that either: (1) he answered untruthfully then, or (2) he has changed his core beliefs since then.
A SBC minister’s ordination can be revoked because of gross sin or gross doctrine. Being soft on abortion should fall under “gross doctrine” violation. Whatever church sponsored him in ordination should consider revoking it.
Charletans pandering to the Christian community just to rake in the votes is smarmy and disingenuous.
Since his ministry has not been recalled he is in good standing and your conjecture is mostly hot air
“Of course, huckabee was trying to be clever, going with the flow with charles “leave the room” krauthammer. Huckabee was boldly declaring his opinion on not repealing and replacing obamacare right after it was rammed through into law back before the polls went 25 points against it(50-50 to 75-25 against). Then huckabee scampered into the tall grass with romney, daniels, et al watching Sarah Palin walk to the front line of the battle”
**********************************************
I read an article by Robert novak once in which Novak observed that Huckabee has a tremendous need for approval from certain “elites”. That need is evident by his response to ObamaCare and many other matters, and a cravign fro approval from elites is exactly what we DON’T need in a President of the United States.
Huckabee will never be accepted by them and his quest for acceptance (if he were President) would be very costly to us all.
“craving for approval”
This is what happens when you try to twist the facts that are right in front of you to fit your preconceived notions of the world. A good analogy would be the guy who is certain that it won't rain on his golf day, so when he's standing on the green getting wet, he keeps asking, "how did they make a sprinkler system you can't see, and why are they running it while we are trying to play?"
In 2008, I disliked Huckabee as a candidate. Nothing has really changed my opinion, but there's no reason to automatically assume that people keep the same end-choices from election to election regardless of circumstances. For example, if the tea party tide keeps rolling through 2012, and the public mood stays negative toward the liberal takeover of government, I would expect conservatives would be LESS LIKELY to compromise on a candidate than they were in 2008, where there was a limited choice, and a grave threat of losing the election.
But that's just common sense, and explains the source of your confusion.
Is there such a thing as a “Huckabee voter”?
I'm not particularly concerned with polls this early, but they are what we have to measure with, and others like them. A recent poll showed that the four "front-runners" split the vote pretty evenly with "other", all 5 groups getting 20%.
Some have speculated, including some serious Palin supporters here at FR, that Huckabee and Palin split a common demographic, and that if Huckabee dropped out, "his" voters would naturally gravitate to Palin, giving her 40% of the vote to the 20% of the other three groups.
I use the term "Huckabee voter" to indicate that 20% of the polled electorate who express a preference for Huckabee. The polling does suggestion Huckabee and Palin are somewhat drawing from the same demographics, but not nearly as much as some have suggested. That's why I said "IF the key", rather than "Since the key" -- I'm not sure I buy the premise.
What you call “Huckabee voters” are prolife voters who felt in 2008 they had nowhere else to go. They couldn’t go to Mittens or Rudy who were proabortion or to McCain who was untrustworthy and supported stem cell research. (Hunter and Brownback never took off)
Rudy was a no-go for the pro-life group. Fred Thompson was the candidate who actually got NRLC pro-life endorsements. But Romney and McCain both picked up significant pro-life support, much to the chagrin I know of many. And I don't think the pro-life vote is wanting for candidates this time around, as many of the names suggested, including all 4 front-runners, have been pushing pro-life positions and are expected to run on pro-life platforms.
I don't think it is "pro-life", it's evangelical that seems to be the distinction. In the recent Quin. poll, Romney was actually the favored candidate among Cathlocs, while I believe Huckabee and Palin had the strongest support among voters calling themselves evangelical (I'm not arguing the poll is right or wrong, just saying what the poll said).
I would also expect that there are other social issues on which distinctions might be made; gun rights for example might well split more favorably to Huckabee and Palin, rather than other candidates who were late to the game.
And it is fair to comment when a candidate criticizes over and over again embryonic stem cell research and then takes money from one of the biggest purveyors of this research.
That is the point we are arguing. I have offered reasons why it is not rational or fair to do so; your opinion that it is relevant, while not to be dismissed, was already known (you already said you thought it was), but is not an argument in response to the dissent.
I have seen too many good conservatives smeared on these guilt-by-association arguments, and this one is weaker than most. You might as well say that since Huckabee was Governor, and took money from the state, that he is therefore a hypocrit any time he says the state shouldn't do something. Unless he "consulted" with them on how to sell their research, the fact that he was paid for a job, BEFORE the connection was made, says NOTHING about hypocrisy. And attacking a good evangelical christian man that way, questioning his integrity and beliefs on that matter, without any real connection, I think is wrong.
So why do I defend Huckabee, when he's not "my candidate"? The same reason I defend any candidate against an attack -- if I think the attack is unfounded, and thus constitutes a personal attack against their character that is unwarranted, I will respond. I think we can elect a great president without falsely tearing down the other candidates, at least those who are mostly on our side.
Pointing out his lack of principle on the prolife issue, in hte context of these fess, is just fair comment. It is the only issue on which he has a claim to principled conservatism
Again, as much as I don't support Huck, I think pro-life is NOT the only issue on which he has such a claim, although there are many issues for which he does NOT have a claim. But your statement I think explains WHY you have launched this attack, but not how the attack is a valid one.
I already knew WHY. It was clear that pro-life is a Huckabee strength that might threaten YOUR chosen candidate -- and so you decided he had to be attacked on that issue to help your candidate. I just don't think we should be falsely accusing candidates of lack of principle on issues they clearly HAVE principle on just to try to help our own candidates.
I doubt Sarah Palin would question Huckabee's sincerity on the pro-life issue, nor would she sanction her supporters doing so. I say that because I see her has being much more principled than that.
“Since his ministry has not been recalled he is in good standing and your conjecture is mostly hot air.”
Not conjecture, Honey. He is what he is. What he is does not comport with basic Baptist tenets and doctrine. You want to see actual “hot air”? Expect there will be plenty of that when phony baloney Huck has to ‘splain to his Maker why he made certain decisions, and how he lived his life... as will we all.
The SBC can let it pass, but the SBC is an eartly organization.
I’m curious why the quotes about Novo Nordisk refer to “human” stem-cell research, while the quotes about Huckabee’s pro-life convictions refer to “embryonic” stem cell research. Did Novo Nordisk research embryonic stem cells or not? Is the article merely poorly written, or are they playing 3-card monty with readers’ ignorance about the difference between “human” stem-cell research and “embryonic” or “fetal” stem-cell research?
(Stem cells are undifferentiated cells. As a human ages from embryo to fetus to child to adult, more and more categories of cells differentiate. However, there are a few places where adults do have undifferentiated cells. These cells can be collected from adults, rather than from aborted fetuses and discarded embryos, and therefore the harvesting of such cells is completely moral.)
I’m curious why the quotes about Novo Nordisk refer to “human” stem-cell research, while the quotes about Huckabee’s pro-life convictions refer to “embryonic” stem cell research. Did Novo Nordisk research embryonic stem cells or not? Is the article merely poorly written, or are they playing 3-card monty with readers’ ignorance about the difference between “human” stem-cell research and “embryonic” or “fetal” stem-cell research?
(Stem cells are undifferentiated cells. As a human ages from embryo to fetus to child to adult, more and more categories of cells differentiate. However, there are a few places where adults do have undifferentiated cells. These cells can be collected from adults, rather than from aborted fetuses and discarded embryos, and therefore the harvesting of such cells is completely moral.)
Novo Nordisk has finding a cure for diabetes as part of its vision and human stem cell research with the potential for cell transplantation, is presently the most promising approach to achieve this goal for Type 1 diabetes.The moral problem with using stem cells derived from IVF (in-virto fertilization) is that it creates a market for discarded IVF embryos, thus greatly lowering the cost of IVF, in turn making IVF more common. IVF is a barbaric procedure which kills several babies for every one baby brought to term; most supporters and even many patients of IVF are unaware of the incredible Nazistic destruction of human life associated with it.Novo Nordisk has extended its research on mouse embryonic stem cells to include human embryonic stem cells, in order to be able to move forward in our efforts to direct human embryonic stem cells into mature insulin-producing beta cells, which can be further developed for transplantation.
Novo Nordisk will only use human embryonic stem cells when it is not anticipated that the same scientific results can be obtained by the use of adult stem cells.
Novo Nordisk will only work with human embryonic stem cells derived from spare embryos from IVF treatment that are obtained with freely given informed consent.
Novo Nordisk does not support IVF-treatment of women, or the creation of human embryos, solely for research purposes.
Novo Nordisk does not see any need for therapeutic cloning in the foreseeable future, as alternative methods of creating patient specific stem cells such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) are available.
Novo Nordisk finds cloning of human beings (reproductive cloning) unethical and supports initiatives aimed at a global ban.
Novo Nordisk supports the position that human embryonic and adult stem cells, as such, can not be patented. However, the research-based protocols used to develop stem cells into therapeutic cells as well as the mature cells and tissues developed by these specific protocols should be patentable.
Novo Nordisk supports a legislative framework around the use of human embryonic stem cells that adequately protects the human embryo and at the same time secures that the knowledge obtained can be used to help patients with serious diseases such as diabetes.
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.