What's Driving Huckabee's Conservative Critics

I’ve wanted to discuss what Huckabee is actually “guilty” of, if you want to call it guilt. But, other natters have dominated the last few days, which have also served to clarify the question, and maybe the answer. But before I get to that, look at the Rasmussen poll results, which make consideration of this question more urgent.

If you hate Huckabee, read ‘em and weep: After attaining a tie with Giuliani on Tuesday, Huckabee moved a few more points into the lead in Rasmussen’s national presidential tracking poll of likely primary voters, on Wednesday. He maintained a 3% lead on Thursday, and on Friday has increased the lead to 4%. And, in other polls, he now leads in South Carolina in addition to Iowa, is second in Florida, gaining in New Hampshire, now leads Michigan, and leads Hilary Clinton in an Arkansas poll, where Giuliani is crushed. I’m guessing Florida goes Huckabee next, which should get Rudy’s guns out with Mitt’s and Fred’s.

As you can read at Rasmussen’s page, Gallup’s lagging indicator is less frequent and measures “Adults,” while Rasmussen’s tracking poll is 1) daily and 2) screens carefully for likely primary voters.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

But, I’ve discussed how Huckabee’s most strident adversaries (at least for the Republican nomination. Where will they be in the general, if Huckabee is the nominee? – as a Republican I was used to having social conservatives asked if they would support the nominee or stay home).

But, I have discussed how many conservative sources have criticized Huckabee on taxes, immigration, and the smoking ban clamor. I have explained with regard to the tax issue, Huckabee has only run a state with an 80% Democrat legislature and a constitutionally mandate balanced budget. Some of the largest expenditures were entirely legitimate and the only options regarding others were not whether to raise taxes, but which taxes to raise. Had the governor adamantly resisted. He would have 1) been overridden, and 2) NOT been reelected TWICE! But yes, Huckabee boosted the sales tax slightly for parks and fish and game. And, he had the audacity to boost Medicare eligibility for poor children. What self-respecting Scrooge Republican would do that? Diesel taxes? A rebuilt highway system that moved Arkansas to most improved from some of the worst highways in the country.

In the last post, we discussed how the smoking controversy was created and misrepresented, and how the Arkansas smoking ban in public places, exempted businesses whose patrons are 21 or over. Huckabee believes that cultivating a culture that discourages chronic disease-inducing behavior will save a lot of both public and private money in the long-run, not to mention improving quality and longevity of life.

And the “weak on immigration” charge is constructed on one little fact: Huckabee calls for a sealed border, no amnesty, no sanctuaries (read his immigration prescription at http://mikehuckabee.com . In truth there is no problem except for the fact that Huckabee’s conservatism flows from principle, not hostile sentiment. BUT, his “sin” with respect to immigration is only having supported allowing the children of illegal aliens WHO HAD GONE THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL in Arkansas, to apply for a merit scholarship for college (the measure failed, incidentally), IF they were drug and alcohol-free and applied to be citizens. As Huckabee says: 1) we shouldn’t punish the children (years later after academic achievement, mind you) for the crime of the parents. And 2) we should prefer an educated and productive tax payer to a permanent lower-wage potential tax taker.

Huckabee is fiscally conservative not out of anger or avarice for himself or “rich friends,” as Democrats like to taunt. He’s fiscally conservative because 1) he respects private interests, 2) He knows that expanding government inclines toward waste and usually is counterproductive even to the interests it is ostensibly said to serve, and 3) (not coincidentally) it is usually unconstitutional. He favors government only as a necessary framework for the function of a healthy society.

I know that some people actually believe these criticisms. But, some of the criticizers are pretty transparently disingenuous. What is the real motivation? Before I offer an answer, let me say that some of the critics are clearly socially conservative. Chuck Baldwin is a Christian pastor and ideologically fastidious third-party campaigner, and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is a longtime social conservative, whose smile seems after decades of battle and much loss, to have worn into a grimace of overwhelmed paranoia.

And Republican blonde brigaders have also dismissed Huckabee. Ann Coulter has recoiled at Huckabee’s so called “populist” statements (which is a matter of interpretation) as well as statements inconsistent with “anyone even related to an illegal immigrant ought to dry up and blow away if they can’t be deported (the animosity stream). And today, Laura Ingraham railed that she’s tired of the Democrats’ coddling of illegal immigrants, and Mike Huckabee who thinks “our kids should compete with illegal immigrants for scholarships…” Again, there was no competition in the program: you qualified or you didn’t. But, now you’re not conservative enough if you don’t want to snuff the ambition of an accomplished high school graduate who wants to actually succeed in America? I’ve always hated having to explain to liberals that common-sense respect and encouragement of individual initiative and appropriate government modesty didn’t mean stuff like that!

Coulter and Ingraham are clearly pro-life social conservatives. But beyond these misguided people, the line is long and lengthening of traditional conservative entities that have taken aim at Huckabee. And, I think these people are too smart to believe and actually fear the horrors that they warn of. These are people I have read and usually appreciated for many years, probably because I am a fiscal, foreign policy (let’s put the Ron Paul-libertarian-paleo-conservative non-interventionism aside, for now), AND social conservative.

Frankly, I can’t help but suspect (the slight deceptions enhance this smell) that the underlying animus is the fact that though they are fiscally and often defense conservatives, they are not so much social conservatives. Even if they can remark on some of the barbaric aspects of abortion or even submit to a pro-life confession (what’s to lose if they can have social conservative votes? Most of these guys are 50 or 60 or beyond), they are a little queasy about these openly expressive Christians. They don’t want to be outright religious bigots, which is a particularly awkward prospect when most favor the Mormon investment manager Romney.

Perhaps it is a matter of an establishment decorum that is ill-at-ease with a freely confessed faith: “OK, I’m an Episcopal Christian but geez, you don’t have to TALK about it!” And, here we have this guy who says things like, “My faith not only influences my decisions, it defines me…” Ick! It’s just so CREEPY! And this guy wants to be the leader of OUR party? It’s presidential nominee? Something just isn’t RIGHT about THAT!

So, the traditional conservatives line up to take their whacks at Huckabee: The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, John Fund, George F. Will, Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, talk show host Hugh Hewitt and other newer, smaller conservative luminaries who drink these peoples’ columns for breakfast: it’s an irony because even most of the old social conservative “leaders” have swallowed this gruel and either joined in the harping or endorsed other candidates, all of whom are now swooning. What was Richard Land, the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberties official, doing on an investor show with Larry Kudlow, playing stooge for his panel’s nods and “amens,” praising Romney’s speech and ignorantly criticizing the Fair Tax that Huckabee supports (Land said it’s “regressive.” Others call Huckabee a “populist.” Go figure) The way Huckabee’s polling keeps rising; it looks like social conservatives are telling these old leaders to go “lead” themselves.

The old establishment Republican journalist warhorse, Robert Novak was pretty barefaced about this cultural discomfort a few days ago in his criticism of Huckabee The False Conservative , in which he said,

“The rise of evangelical Christians as the force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.”

It’s funny, because I noted a while back, the irony it would be if these establishment conservatives were faced with the decision to support one of those guys, just like the social conservatives have always been asked to do. Believe me; I’ve lived it, both as a citizen and as a Republican activist in the past. Our state conventions, dominated by social conservatives who were thrown the bones of writing rules and platforms, only to have them ignored or outright violated. Many have heard me tell of a conservative leader friend who was slandered and mocked by the party establishment in order to blunt his influence.

So yes, it is rather a novelty and an irony to imagine the shoe on the other foot: “Are you going to deliver your support or let the Democrats run the country?” It’s an amusing prospect, until you consider the possibility that they might not support a social conservative. People with established business interests are not going to be the great sufferers when taxation and regulation expand. Rather, what is dampened is the potential new competition. Once you have a foothold in the market, the creative dynamism of the economy is not so important. Sure, they want to minimize their taxes and maximize their shelters (the Fair Tax that Huckabee advocates would chloroform that angle, by the way. Remember the old 3 martini meals, vehicles, and trips that were “business” write offs? Not anymore). But having power to control that, may not override the indignity of that gauche Christian running our party!

And by the way, Hillary Clinton is up to her neck in corporate subsidy and endorsement. What Democrats takes with one hand, she’ll give back double with the other to the moneyed establishment in market constriction. That’s what socialism is: corporate money, government power. With Novak’s article, I did also ask who was going to be the Bob Michel lackey minority leader in the new permanent Republican House of Representatives minority.

The good news so far is that though these attacks keep piling up, Huckabee’s numbers keep going up, so far. Maybe some sheep are learning to look at the truth for themselves and walk on their own without the traditional guides.

Dick Morris: Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative

Dick Morris has published an article today respecting the false attacks against Huckabee. Here is the article and a comment I left at another blog:

Dick Morris: Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html

You should bear in mind that Morris is not a social conservative and was a Giuliani supporter last time I checked. Hugh Hewitt and the Hewittettes will say that’s why he is defending Huckabee: to hurt Romney and help Giuliani. But Morris has watched Arkansas politics for a long time. He worked for Huckabee and this other guy before him named Clinton.

I responded on another blog that conceded Huckabee might win Iowa but couldn’t carry on in New Hampshire and would drop out after losing in South Carolina:

“What happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa, finishes 3rd in NH, and wins SC? A poll yesterday, showed him moving into 2nd in Florida. If he wins SC and gets to 20% in MI (I predict around 19% in NH, right now), he can still compete strongly in Florida.

He definitely has to have an answer to the conservative critics. But 1) the people in Iowa don't seem to be buying it. And 2) they are mostly untrue and disingenuous. There is plenty of information available online to refute this stuff, including an article today by Dick Morris: Huckabee Is A Fiscal Conservative. Of course, Morris is not even a social conservative and in fact got into this contest as a Giuliani supporter. He did, however, work with and observe Huckabee in Arkansas and cites that experience in his case.

To me, that is the question: can the establishment Republicans make some mud stick to Huckabee? Maybe the old political strategy of throwing mud and expert endorsements is weakening with the facts immediately available on the Internet.”

What's With Novak And Other Conservatives Resistance To Huckabee?

Robert Novak published another conservative denigration of Mike Huckabee today, The False Conservative .

The Huckabee campaign web site posted a response by a Huckabee-supporting K-Street lobbyist:

Robert Novak is trying to stir the waters against Governor Huckabee. Well K Street Mole has set him straight.

I must say that all of this supposed conservative disparagement of Huckabee has been something of an eye-opener for me. Were it not for the fact that the lines of rhetoric are transparently fictitious, I might feel rather insulted. As have others, Novakdepicts a problem of the competing interest of social and fiscal conservatives. There are obviously potential competing interests if you assume the horses act to pull the conservative sled in diverse directions.

However, as I have said before, I was conservative before there were adjectives or prefixes to conservatism. Social, fiscal, defense…I’m all three. I was born under Eisenhower and my first political consciousness was of Barry Goldwater, whom my family supported in all quarters in 1964. My cousin is not named Barry for a relative. We were fiscal conservatives before adolescent baby-boomers introduced a need for social conservatives. And as Novak acknowledges, the reason that Republicans gained power in America in my lifetime is because all three have tended to pull in one direction.

I refer to transparent fiction promulgated by these howling fiscal conservatives: The unsubstantiated sloppiness of Novak’s piece is not typical of his reporting or writing. I said I could be insulted because the tone of his rhetoric suggests that as a social conservative, I have been unable in a near year of intense observation, to recognize a fiscal liberal when it hits me right in the face. I’m not stupid and neither are the many millions of us who were unaware the supposed potential dissolution of our fiscal conservatism by our social conservatism.

I suppose we’ll see just how strong the fiscal conservatism is among social conservatives. Because in my case, many of these people are in the process of discrediting themselves: not because my social and fiscal conservatism cannot dwell together as they always have. Rather, it is because Mike Huckabee presents no strain between the two. And contrary to what Novak suggests, it is clearly not the social side, but the fiscal side that is fomenting division. To consider why, drives me into the realm of speculation.

Oh, I understand that Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson must create contrast because they are competing for the nomination. As a Huckabee supporter, to me this points up the distinction between personal on their part and social ambition on Huckabee’s part. You may disagree. But, consider Huckabee’s explanation that the course is easier for him, because he does not have to consider what he once said or how strategists have coached him. His Republican convictions have not changed since he formed them as a teenager in a Democratic fishbowl: family, town, and state. As he has said, you won’t find YouTube video of him taking positions contradictory to those he takes, today. I beg you to look at all of the candidates... Giuliani and Romney have sung different tunes in the past. And, though Thompson’s charges sound desperate in his waning campaign, I won’t criticize the character of him and McCain, though they clearly haven’t a crystal clear view of the fundamentals of America’s founding, and shouldn’t be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution. Neither should Giuliani. Romney may have had a recent epiphany?

But, back to the non-competitor critics: You can search this blog for comment on The Club for Growth’s criticism, which I think is motivated by political and contributor ties, and for links to others’ meticulous combing of Huckabee’s record, for which Novak only offers a broad rake. Radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt has something large vested in Romney and has been talking Huckabee down, though today he said Huckabee will be on his program this week, which airs daily at 6pm ET, 5pm CT. Hewitt’s comments also seem shallow and contrived. For example, today when a caller asked why Duncan Hunter has not fared better with conservatives, Hewitt said that he doesn’t have the money to get his message out…Huckabee is now getting it out because he’s finally getting some money. Hugh Hewitt doesn’t strike me as a stupid man. But, anyone can clearly see that it’s the other way around: Huckabee’s now getting some money BECAUSE he’s gotten his message out. Hewitt also said the Huckabee boomlet is over once word like Novak’s column, which he repeated twice before I tuned out, gets out. He was also asked about the Zogby poll that showed Huckabee beating Hillary Clinton by the widest margin. “Well, that’s Zogby,” Hewitt said dismissively.

So, what’s up with these fiscal conservative critics? Honestly, I can’t say, but something isn’t straight up. Is it just jealousy that money conservatives might not be distinctly primary in The Republican Party? Who would they like to be the Bob Michel in a new permanent House minority?

Novak was raised Jewish but began attending Christian services in the 1990’s and was baptized Roman Catholic in 1998. So, I wouldn’t expect a violent reaction to social conservatism. Or are his fiscal roots just older and deeper? I don’t know. But Novak isn’t known for specious reporting, and this looks weak to me. Again, I’m a conservative who has been called an extremist by other conservatives. I argued with liberal teachers in junior high-school. The only Democrat I ever voted for was a South Texas judge that a fellow conservative recommended to me. The great irony of all of this is that Huckabee represents the best opportunity to firm up the conservative divisions. In fact, I have the most confidence in Huckabee to press forward fiscal conservatism!

I will add this: I’m not a fiscal conservative because I don’t care about the non-wealthy, but because I feel strongly that a fiscally conservative system bodes best for everyone in America. I have always hated having to explain that a fiscal conservative is not just an avaricious and heartless derelict. Have I been too confident in some cases? I hope that’s not the case. Anyway, these people at least make me confident that I’m in the right boat.