Colin Powell Another Well-Meaning Disoriented Republican Counselor

I got a reference to an article at Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out at Colin Powell 'Turncoat'

The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.

Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.

Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.

Star Parker: The unfair rap against Mike Huckabee(2) and More On A Smoking Ban With Jonah Goldberg

I have corrected the Star Parker commentary. I posted it, last night. But, after I had left the editor, I saw that I must have accidentally clipped a bit and that I did not present the true statements and sentiments about Huckabee that have been misconstrued or distorted.

AND, I saw a C-SPAN video of Jonah Goldberg discussing his discomfort with Mike Huckabee, whom he said seems to think that anything he thinks is a good thing to do, he should use government to do it. He calls this a progressive and liberal disposition, and says two important things:

1) He prefaces this assertion with “as far as I can see”: Huckabee “sees no first principle dogmatic reason why government should not do good when it can, where it can at the national level.” The prefacing clause was the important part of that statement because the fact is that he can’t see and the statement is false and, I’m sorry, poorly informed. Huckabee is quite aware of both the general limitations of what government can do and, of the specific constitutional distinction of federal and local powers in The 10^th Amendment. Though I have not followed the other campaigns as closely (other constitutional problems preclude others from deeper scrutiny), I would guess that Huckabee respects and cites the 10^th Amendment more than any of today’s candidates.

2) Goldberg immediately follows his misstatement about Huckabee and appropriate government power with “…so, he wants a national ban on smoking which…a constitutionalist would burst into flames before proposing something like that…” I returned again to the smoking ban matter in the discussion of Star Parker’s article, linked below. In a courtroom, they would simply call this “he wants a national ban on smoking” hysteria, hearsay. As I say below, there’s something of a misunderstanding and an impetuous reaction.

But hey, I consider myself something of a constitutionalist. And Goldberg is right: a constitutionalist would reject or contest something like that. I would. But, there’s a very important difference between myself and Goldberg and the other anxious complaining constitutionalists: I actually SAW the context from which Huckabee’s statement has been simplistically misconstrued! There are video links to this Goldberg interview and Chris Mattews’ provocation of the smoking ban hubbub, at bottom.

This is just one more example of what will be a soon or next post: The Old Political Dogs Are Behind on the New Tricks. We don’t need to rely on hearsay. We can usually find the details and fairly quickly. In fact, in getting the two videos below, I also looked up a report of the legislation passed in Arkansas while Huckabee was governor. I watch the Internet closely and even I learned something. In fact, the workplace ban enacted in Arkansas does affect all workplaces with more than three employees.

But, if Huckabee endorsed a government sanction of any place where adults could not congregate to do as they please, that would have been a disappointment and a surprise, as I would disagree with that profoundly. And after watching Huckabee for a long time, I have disagreed with a few approaches (I usually say that that’s why he is electable and I would not be), but never in a way that I would describe as profoundly. And how could such a ban pass in Arkansas anyway, which mostly harbors a slightly different brand of Democrat than California, for example.

But, looking through the report from The Arkansas News Bureau http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/04/08/News/335457.html , I found this segment and added the emphasis:

The bill as amended directly affects Rep. Phillip Jackson, R-Berryville, who owns a 15-room lodge in Berryville. Jackson said the amendment was not an effort to crush the bill, though he was one of 32 House members to vote against the amended version.

"I had fundamental problems with the bill," he said. "I didn't have a problem with restaurants, particularly, because that is a place where the public is going to be allowed, but I thought it overstepped."

The act prohibits smoking in most public places, including all workplaces with three or more employees. Establishments open only to people 21 and over are exempt.

So, the only restriction on an establishment that wants to indulge smoking is that it be closed to people under 21. I can live with that. We already have such restrictions on tobacco purchasing and on drinking alcoholic beverages. I’ve never been a habitual smoker and it wouldn’t affect me. But in principle, I should be able to associate with who I want. It’s exactly the distinction that Goldberg supposes to make between Huckabee and more libertarian conservatives. It’s not about me: it’s about principle and appropriate liberty.

Goldberg is not stupid. He just isn’t fully informed. Skip the hearsay. Here’s Goldberg’s ill-informed C-SPAN interview and Huckabee’s response to Chris Matthews question at the Lance Armstrong cancer forum. In the future, we should do our much easier homework before we go off preaching, half-cocked:

Here is Jonah Goldberg on C-SPAN, discussing Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.

And, here are Matthews and Huckabee and the smoking ban question.

--------------------------

Star Parker: The unfair rap against Mike Huckabee

Star Parker explains how the attacks against Huckabee are inaccurate and unfair. As she did in her original announcement of support for Huckabee, Parker concedes that there is some legitimacy to the complaints, before saying much of it is illegitimate. I’ve always loved Star Parker and have been to a few pro-life banquets where she spoke. Her article has the signal qualification of being sincere. However, her concessions still bear the great liability of being inaccurate. I will excerpt the paragraph in which she allows these, concessions, insert corrections, and then discuss what Huckabee is guilty of, if you still want to call it guilt. I don’t, incidentally.

“There's some justification, of course, to these labels. Huckabee invites them when he expresses reservations about free trade, which he does,

Mike Huckabee is for free trade that’ fair trade. That is, imported goods should be subject to the same safety standards as the American products they will compete with. And by the way, if a Fair Tax were implemented, the tax/subsidy inequity would be eliminated: imbedded taxes would be eliminated from American products, and the sales tax would apply equally>

…when he talks about energy independence, which he does,

It’s more than unclear how talking about energy independence translates to big-government, unless you reflexively translate to government regulation of private interests, which liberals almost always do and many conservatives appear to reflexively fear. But, Huckabee has proposed no such thing. From what he has said, I would speculate that the extent of government involvement that Huckabee would offer would be tax incentives for the achievement of energy alternatives in which private industry might invest. The development of alternative energy technologies not only seeks cleaner energy production but enhanced national security. As Huckabee says, we could tell Middle Eastern oil producers that their oil is no more important to us than their sand. Incidentally, Huckabee supports expanded domestic oil exploration in the interim.

…and when he endorses ideas such as a nationally mandated ban on smoking in public places.”

I’ve been over this: Huckabee never introduced such an idea. At Lance Armstrong’s cancer forum, while discussing the law passed in Arkansas, Chris Matthews asked Huckabee if he would sign a smoking ban as president, if Congress put one on his desk. Huckabee said he would, but NOT as an intervention in places like bars and restaurants (he later explained that that would (implied improperly) impose on the public. But, rather he would endorse it as an OSHA sort of workplace safety regulation. As I have now noted above, the Arkansas workplace ban exempted public places not open to people under 21, or with three or fewer employees.

In a world where the federal government has (unconstitutionally, but nevertheless) assumed a liability for an enormous bill for health care services. To discourage poor diet, inactivity, and smoking is just bare economic prudence, beyond the potential life benefits.

But read Star Parker’s article. She’s a good lady. Star Parker: The unfair rap against Mike Huckabee

I want to write something about how a conventional approach to information is leaving ole political hands behind the ordinary person who can and will scour the Internet.