Thinking About The Perpetually-Heating Criticism Of Huckabee

I got an email from a friend today:

Huck has been getting hammered on liberal behavior when it comes to illegals and taxes based on what he has said and done. What do you say to that.

Of course, the criticisms get worse and probably will continue to until Huckabee wins or loses. Why might that be? Lacking a crystal ball, here are my speculations.

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

I have written about the fact that this criticism comes not from liberals, but from conservatives. Of course, I understand it coming from Republican competitors and their supporters. But, what is bothersome is when it comes from ostensibly conservative sources. The fact that it comes from acknowledged smart people highlights to me that it is frantic grasping at everything but the kitchen sink by people who otherwise would know better than what they are saying. So, why are they so agitated?

I’ve only come up with a few possible factors, which I’ll list and qualify. But first, anyone who knows me might ask why I would support such a supposed conservative infidel? I wrote about this in my last post: If I thought these accusations were valid, I wound not support him. But, I don’t think they are true or totally sincere. Some of these conservatives say that once Republicans get informed about what Huckabee is really about, his support will fall. But, the fact is that 99.9% or more of even the active and engaged Republicans are not as informed about Huckabee, his competitors, and even conservatism in general, as I am. Am I just stupid? Well, I guess people will decide for themselves. If so, I have read a lot on all sides of many questions, for nothing.

Let me emphasize that a lot of this criticism comes from people who are certainly smart enough and should be informed enough, not to throw out the things that they are. So, I would ask anyone who says or repeats these things what, specifically, they are referring to relative to immigration and taxes; and I hope we can dismiss the nakedly politically motivated assertions of Romney and Thompson. Speaking of that, consider this: why do I not support Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, or McCain? In the simplest terms: because they are not conservative. They have some propensities in a conservative direction. But, they have no clear view of the proper role of government at its various levels and about human nature, in general. That is clear with respect to every one of those I mentioned. I’m not mad at them, personally. You aren’t mad at someone for their incapacities. I am not near in the position that I can determine intentions. But, I can say that there is a problem either with intentions or perceptions and the facilities to form them. As I have said before, if they are serious, I don’t want these incompetents as chief executive charged with defending American principle, anymore than I would hire an honest carpenter to perform surgery.

So, set aside the politicians. What about the conservative writers? They are saying things that literate people (and some of them are very literate) are plenty able to find invalidating information about. If you know what you are talking about, you know that the charges are inaccurate and/or unfair. And again, the suggestion of insincerity is underscored by the fact that many of these are vested in other candidates, all of whom as I said, are eminently vulnerable to criticism on conservative grounds. So, what might be an unspoken motivation for these criticisms?

First, I’ll mention the most nakedly visceral possibility: There are a few public observers who simply have a sentimental reaction to the fact that they do not see enough fury from Huckabee about things that they are themselves all in knots about. That’s why it’s easy to fall for the immigration criticism. If you look at Huckabee’s immigration plan (at his website), I see nothing to object to: immigrants should leave the country within 4 months and get in line for legal entry, if they want to come back.

But!: the process for legal entry should be streamlined for people who plainly want to be law-abiding and work. And in Arkansas, he supported a failed proposal to allow children of illegal immigrants who have attended Arkansas public schools for years, to apply for a merit scholarship program IF they are drug-free and apply to become citizens. Huckabee said 1) that we shouldn’t punish children for the crime of a parent, and 2) we should want them to become productive tax-paying citizens rather than being long-term low-wage potential tax-takers.

I entirely agree with that. But for some people whose anger is not just with the legal chaos that government has allowed, but extends to people who like ordinary human beings have exploited chaos to provide for themselves and their families. And, that does extend to the children of illegal immigrants. And, they often don’t want them in the country, under any circumstances: Tom Tancredo proposed a moratorium on legal immigration, which is basically to redefine America. All you can do is state what you believe. Mike Huckabee says, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” There are some people who could say, “I’m a conservative, and I’m mad as hell at a whole lot of people!” (and I’m not gonna take it, anymore!)

Ann Coulter for instance, though she is bright and her books are usually well-documented (never mind the snide and provocative comments) has blistered Huckabee about even accommodating statements toward people who disagree, previously criticizing Huckabee’s comments about immigration, among other things. Last night she took another tack: like Alan Keyes the night before, she credited Huckabee on things like abortion. But then, flipping the liberal criticism about not believing in evolution, she suggested he was “backing down” because when pressed in a debate, Huckabee said, “I don’t know how God did it…I wasn’t there. But, I believe that God did create.” Coulter’s last book heavily criticized the lack of evidence of the case for evolution, and I agree with her. But, I think Huckabee is absolutely right that that argument is only a distraction and has nothing to do with the business of being President of The United States. Ann Coulter likes Duncan Hunter: a serious and decent guy, last polled at 1% in Iowa and between that and nil, elsewhere.

Now, let’s consider these other people like Robert Novak, George Will (who attacked again, today), Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes and others. For one thing, I think a lot of wealthy people don’t like The Fair Tax that Huckabee is proposing. They are doing fine with accountants writing off most of the luxuries in their life, thank you very much. Under The Fair Tax, they will pay for everything new that they or their businesses purchase, from paper clips to vehicles for road, water, or air or for real estate and developments. The net effect of all of those tax write-offs is to shift the tax burden toward less wealthy Americans: people accustomed to being special, may not be happy about a system being “fair.”

But larger than that, and this is admittedly speculation encouraged by what seems to be hollow and unnecessary criticism, I think a lot of establishment people are just ill-at-ease with someone at the head of their party who is an undaunted evangelical Christian: “EEEuuuww!” To quote Frank Costanza: “This guy…he’s not my kinda guy!” They’d prefer a flip-flopping and posturing plastic man like Romney, a social liberal Mario-Cuomo-endorsing cosmopolitan who doesn’t understand bedrock American principle like Giuliani, or a muddled-headed infidel to constitutional principle like McCain or Thompson. “Evangelical Christians are great for delivering us votes, but not for sitting at the head of our tables: Ick!”

This noise gets ever more frantic, the longer Huckabee sits at the top of the polls. On the blogs of course, particularly the viscerally conservative ones, you read al the people who in their zeal have picked up and run with these charges about Huckabee’s supposed fiscal liberalism and illegal immigration friendliness. I ask as a lifelong conservative and intense observer of the process, “Never mind what you’ve HEARD. Can you tell me what you have heard Mike Huckabee SAY that tells you that he favors illegal immigration, or even amnesty or sanctuary? Or why would you think that he just loves to spend government money without constraint and would do so as an American President?”

Mike Huckabee has opposed amnesty and sanctuaries all along. He opposed the “comprehensive” immigration bill that would have defined a path to citizenship for illegal aliens (amnesty with a slap on the wrist) and which gave John McCain’s campaign a huge blow earlier this year. And on taxes, Mike Huckabee governed a state with a Democrat legislature and a constitutionally mandated balanced budget. At one budget shortfall, he consented to the legislature’s choice of tax hikes to balance the budget AFTER the legislature had rejected spending cuts. The Club for Growth’s mercenary attack-Huckabee campaign made an ad of this special balance-the-budget session of the legislature, splicing together Huckabee’s listing of the tax options left available, to make it appear that Huckabee was inviting taxes.

Huckabee signed on early to the no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. He correctly says the federal government doesn’t need more money. And unlike his relative dullard competitors for the Republican nomination, Huckabee perfectly well understands and respects the 10^th Amendment distinction of federal and state jurisdiction and power, and cites it, frequently. That’s why I suspect that there is underlying motivation: many of these critics are not so silly and incompetent as to not understand these facts. I think their words are a way to try to spook conservatives from a cultural interloper.

Here’s what Huckabee is “guilty” of. He doesn’t let differences of opinion drive him to either scorn or to neglect of a problem because he can’t unilaterally impose the solution. And yes, he would use the bully pulpit of the president to verbally admonish Americans to strive for morally prudent behavior in their commercial operations (from this is derived criticism of his supposed disrespect of free markets), and he would ask foreign imports to meet basic American standards of safety (from this arises criticisms of his supposed disrespect of free trade) If you prefer spite and dysfunction, then yes, perhaps he isn’t the candidate for you.

Huckabee Foreign Affairs And Response To Attacks/The Testimony Of An Ideological Conservative Who Supports Huckabee

Here are links to video of Mike Huckabee’s appearances Sunday on CNN’s Late Edition and FOX News Weekend Live. In these videos, he responds to some of the attacks which, now that he’s leading in Iowa and other early states, and contending with Giuliani nationally, are all the news on Huckabee. The foremost matter was his second-guessing of this administration’s policy in one line of this extended article in Foreign Affairs magazine Foreign Affairs - America's Priorities in the War on Terror ... , which is linked below. And of course, as with the question asked of the New York Times reporter about Mormonism, that is the single passage lifted out and made an issue of in most media. Indeed, that is the very statement abstracted at the introduction of the article in Foreign Affairs, itself.

Romney charged him with insulting Bush (like a Democrat) and Romney radio-host henchman Hugh Hewitt has been using this article as his latest cudgel with which to bludgeon Huckabee, in this case with the assertion that Huckabee is naïve and simple. When challenged about having Huckabee on, Hewitt says that though invited, Huckabee refuses to appear. As far as I know, this may be the case and it may not. If it is, Huckabee may be certain that there is no way that he will be treated fairly, which I’m sure, is the case. But, I can’t determine what is true because it is evident that he’s dishonest in some cases and I don’t know of a clue that will indicate when. I usually want to leave open the possibility that a person is mistaken OR deceitful. But, I know that Hugh Hewitt is not as completely ignorant as many statements suggest, and his ignorant statements ONLY serve a single agenda. It is also clear that if Hewitt treated Romney’s inconsistencies with the same scorn that he does Huckabee’s statements, he would have nothing to do with Romney. I wonder what Hewitt has of such value vested in Romney, that he is willing to discredit himself for the possibility of doing damage to Huckabee.

Last week, there was one day in Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll in which Huckabee’s percentage dropped, putting him back into a first place tie with Giuliani. But, his margin returned on the following day, clearly illustrating the imprecision of the system. However, tonight there were suggestions that the surge has leveled off, with Scott Rasmussen himself appearing and citing a drop to a tie with Romney in South Carolina, and saying he expects to see the same in an Iowa poll, later this week. If this doesn’t snap back as well, are we seeing results from these attacks as the commenters suspect? I would certainly incline to think so, as broad and fierce as they have been, except for the long time that the rise continued as the attacks mounted, which made me think that perhaps the Internet has become a new buffer. After all, there is more information on all sides available on any question than could ever have been delivered through conventional media. Maybe, Huckabee’s version of Mitt Romney’s religion speech should be: “I’m a conservative and here’s what I mean and don’t mean by that…”

In any case, I want to present my case as a lifelong conservative who in fact, has been considered extreme by some, for Mike Huckabee, which I will do following the mentioned links.

Gov. Huckabee on Late Edition - 12/16/2007 - Part 1
- Gov. Huckabee on Late Edition - 12/16/2007 - Part 2
- Gov. Huckabee on Weekend Live - 12/16/2007

Rockin’ Huckabee posted “Why Not Huckabee?” Could not have said it better myself!

from Human Events: Social Conservatives Ask: Why Not Mike Huckabee? - HUMAN EVENTS

Also, be sure to investigate Huckabee’s official web site’s policy statements (there are also plenty of videos – also at HucksArmy.com - [Unofficial] Grassroots Headquarters for Mike Huckabee) and responses to the attacks

An Ideological Conservative Who Supports Huckabee

In the past 12 years, I have supported Alan Keyes in primaries in 1996 and 2000, and third parties in the general elections of 2000 and 2004. Fred Thompson has labeled Huckabee “a liberal.” Tonight he simply said, “He’s not a conservative.” Of course, Thompson is running for the same nomination. But, Alan Keyes also appeared on the same program, saying of Huckabee that (unlike some of the others mentioned) “…he’s good on the moral issues, but he’s liberal on everything else.” Keyes is a brittle ideologue: an able and cultivated mind that never set practical foot on the sullied ground after his work in the Reagan administration. He now makes of lucid conservatism, a caricature. A Christian, he makes of the attentive Christ, a scolding Jeremiah.

But anyway, if Huckabee is not conservative, why would an extremist like me support him? I’d say that I wouldn’t. But, I will say that my ideals have not changed, but in the past few years, my disposition has and perhaps consequently my approach to those ideals has shifted. Before the US engagement with terrorism, I might have been enthused, if futilely, by Ron Paul. My difference with him on that matter is one H-U-G-E and insurmountable difference. Unlike many posturing Democrats, I think Paul is sincere, but ideologically blinded to a grave reality: the world is a different place than it was in 1800. Terrorism today has been a bracing slap in the face. But frankly, our security and moral obligations have not been the same for a century or more. And also, like most politicians, Paul has little or none of the facility I am about to describe in Huckabee.

A few years ago, I submitted to the reality that social obligation was more than an ideological standoff. It came home clearly to me that the MOST significant division of men was not an ideological but a moral one. For the improvement of society, it is more important to work with those of noble intentions, even if they are mistaken, than with those who ideologically fall on this or that side of an ideological fault line with no necessary commitment to virtue: better to deliberate on the definition of goodness than to plant inflexible barriers to discussion. This is plainly so when your erstwhile ideological allies are more concerned with their own satisfaction than they were about social betterment, as was often the case in every y group that I had identified with, including Republicans, among whom I had clearly seen selfishness and deceit at work, just as I do, today.

The same is true of course, among Democrats. And that unfortunate truth is more alive among the activists in both parties, than it is among the many voters on the street who are immersed in their lives and only voting their consciences, whether judging productively or not. I would rather disagree and discuss what is right, than argue tactics with someone who agrees more closely on objectives but is indifferent on the virtues of the tactics by which those objectives are pursued. The old saying says that if you are not liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you are not conservative at forty, you have no brain. That’s harsh of course, and obviously popular among older conservatives. But, it brushes on a noble element on both sides.

Many years ago, I fretted having to explain to liberals that conservatives are not necessarily the selfish derelicts that they may be defined as. I believe that The United States is deep in defiance of the constraints of its founding documents. The Constitution was devised as a constraint on government power and a very rudimentary restraint on social morality. And it certainly was not to license government’s usurpation of the exercise of a supposed social morality. However the fact is that that is a battle long lost in a society of pervasive mass-communication. If I am going to communicate about American policy with many people, I have to acknowledge what their concerns are, even if I believe they are not in the province or capacity of the federal government to solve. We need to try explain and support what we believe ARE legitimate concerns, even if we don’t accept their prescriptions. There are many on both sides who are more concerned with power than with principle, however it is defined. There are THOUSANDS of them and among them are most with platforms or microphones. Forget them! Let’s focus on the MILLIONS who are pursuing goodness with their votes. And in order to get their ear, we must embody goodness in our actions and attitudes. If you insist that that has no place in government discussions: welcome to a lifetime of standoff and no prospect for the betterment of society. But, I wondered however ideological antagonists might ever be brought to practical cooperation. Now, that would be a mean and perhaps unattainable trick. Perhaps it was only a dream?

Then early this year, I saw Mike Huckabee engaging a partisan of the other side, who was disarmed because Huckabee was not the caricature he expected of a conservative. I probably saw for the first of many times, Huckabee’s statement that, “I’m a conservative but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” I bought Huckabee’s latest book and began tracking his moves relative to the presidential campaign that he was then only considering. I saw that he WAS a conservative, not only socially but in terms of both foreign and domestic policy. Huckabee cited the Constitution and social and fiscal government prudence more frequently than any major party candidate that I had seen in my lifetime. And that was particularly notable as this year’s field of infidels developed. That was particularly notable when he came under attack from people who claimed that they gauged him not “conservative” enough. First, The Club for Growth was clearly deceitful with an unseen agenda. (It turns out that money and alliances explained a lot of that). And of course it was remarkable as Huckabee gained ground on the pre-anointed “frontrunners,” who attacked his lack of conservatism irrespective of their own inconsistencies and posturings. The only one with any extraordinary character was John McCain, and his philosophical deficiencies were evident in both his rhetoric and his history. All of this made the criticisms of they and their supporters ring all the more hollow.

Especially given the manifest weaknesses of the other candidates, I can only account resistance to Huckabee to either dissatisfaction with his lack of anger or discomfort with his unshielded evangelical Christian faith: “My faith doesn’t just influence me, it defines me.” Bah! What kind of talk is that for the GOP establishment? Again, I’ll just describe it as “Icky!” But that is the foundation for not being angry. That is the disposition that would be adversaries find disarming. And, that is the unique potential spotted by new campaign Chairman Ed Rollins and Doug Patton in this article Huckabee Confounds Elites as Reagan Did , both of whom liken Huckabee’s engagement of the public to that of Ronald Reagan. Rich Lowry’s despairing of “Huckacide” if Mike is nominated, could not be farther from the truth. Huckabee alone can engage and lure voters of the sort I’m talking about who mean well, but incline to be Democrats, just as Reagan won the unifying support of “Reagan Democrats.”

I have written how, a few months ago, I came across a web site of constitutionalists with a blogging constitutional guru. I had come upon them because they had picked up on the story about Huckabee’s reception of the idea of a smoking ban, and were busy about trashing him. As I have previously said, Huckabee sad he would agree to such an idea as a workplace regulation, not as a regulation of the public. Checking the law that was passed in Arkansas, I saw that it exempted businesses open only to adults and/or employing 3 or fewer people.

I conceded that there is no constitutional license for such a thing. However, I said, we live in a society that is waist deep in libraries full of unconstitutional laws and government involveme4nt with the private sphere. Prominent in this relative ocean of reality is the fact that government has assumed liability for trillions of dollars worth of medical expense. Constitutional or not, those commitments were a bald and inevitable reality. Given that reality, ideological intransigence is a socially meaningless posture. And, it is mere prudence to encourage or discourage behaviors that will both heighten both expense and diminish quality of life. Recognizing these realities, Huckabee is the one to lead the country to a more unified course of social improvement. He isn’t conservative because he’s selfish or dispassionate, or angry or ideologically inflexible to the point of dysfunction in reality. He is conservative for the right reason: because unconstrained liberal government does not improve but only diminishes a healthy society.

Why did Mike Huckabee, from a Democrat family, in a Democrat town in a Democrat state, become a Republican? Not because he hates Democratic PEOPLE, but because Democratic philosophies are socially detrimental. When Republicans care more about their party or their feelings than they do about America, they deserve to lose, and they probably will. Huckabee refers to a preference for vertical policy that reaches upward than horizontal politics that divides. His modus operandi and the source of the acrimony in his own party are all right up front in his repeated aphorisms and stories. And he is what I set up as a worthy ambition f a few years ago: a conservative of the mind (frankly more so than any of his competitors or any president of the past 30 years, at least) and a liberal of the heart.

More Curses From The Damned And A Christmas Look At The Rebublican Presidential Candidates

Mike Huckabee appeared on CNN's Late Edition on Sunday, discussing the latest in the endless string of desperate accusations. The indefatigable Mr. Maloney screeches on, ever more shrill and clawing as his candidate sinks over the horizon. Giuliani started with just a media profile, and whatever profile they preserve for him is about all he has left. But, he raises an opportunity to discuss the Candidates for President of the United States, with Christmas just over a week away and the primary season less than 3 weeks away.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

It's true that I think Larry Perrault is a model of verbosity and dishonesty. If you cut through the endless layers of crap that he dispenses, you find an adult mimicking a two-year-old. Larry's point since the beginning has been: "My way or the highway," that is, if Mike Huckabee doesn't get the nomination, then I sit home with my pacifier and blanket. But at the same time he believes traditional Republicans, a group three times the size of the evangelical group has some sort of obligation to support Huckabee if he gets the nomination. Well, Larry, this is politics (imperfect as it is) rather than the theological absolutism you prefer. If Huckabee gets the nomination, he will perform about as well as Goldwater in the 1964 election, when Barry carried five states and got roughly 34% of the vote. Mike Huckabee seems to be a decent guy, but he is clueless about foreign policy and military affairs, which is rather an important limitation. In short, he's no Giuliani and no McCain.

Some of the people endorsing Huckabee, such as Dr. Laurence White of Houston and blogger Larry Perrault, are America-haters who have no comprehension of what it means to live in a diverse and free society. Basically, they're theocrats who would be more comfortable in John Calvin's era than in 21st century America.
As this becomes clear to people, the support for Huckabee will sink like a rock. Who would be a better President of the U.S., Mike Huckabee or Hillary Clinton? My frank view is that Mrs. Clinton would be far superior. That's a problem for Mike because I've never voted for a Democrat for President, and in all modesty, I believe I speak for a lot of people. I do predict, however, that Huckabee would carry Mississippi, although not Arkansas, New York, California, or Illinois. As the Rev. Rudes (and trust me, he is no along) and Larry Whites surface, Mike might have to start worrying about carrying Mississippi. Meanwhile, I wait for Larry Perrault to denounce his favorite pastor (and Mike's?), Dr. White, and his garbage-laden piece in "God and Caesar." If Mike agrees even in part with Dr. White, then what is he doing running for President of this country? To Larry in Houston, I ask: have you ever considered Venezuela?

Larry

Mr. Maloney, who showed up months ago as a nice guy, has gone all ugly now that his money (or whatever it is) horse has fallen from his perch even in his erstwhile "firewall" of Florida. Call me wrong, but if anything, I’m honestly wrong. I’m also not the slightest bit tempted to “correction” by Stephen Maloney. Man, you’re too old to act that way! Don’t meet God in a bitter snit! Oh, and though I haven’t seen him in a couple of years, Laurence White is always smiling and pleasant to speak with. But, this conversation raises the opportunity to take a look at the Republican presidential field, as it stands.

Maybe you want to take a look at Mitt Romney, Steve, who at this point still holds forth in New Hampshire, though he's flailing in Iowa, where he should get 2nd, but if he doesn't win Iowa, he WON"T win South Carolina or Florida or probably not even his papa's stomping grounds in Michigan. But, he looks better than Giuliani. And btw, I might vote for Romney if he wins, though it's looking like I won't have to face that awful choice. It's bad enough that he is just a political opportunist who uses polls as a tuning fork for his rhetoric. But, the really awful prospect is that he poses another eight years of relative inaction on restoring the American spirit: he has more than adequately demonstrated his incompetence in that regard. Romney would be another establishment Republican administrator. George H.W. Bush confessed that he wasn’t much on “the vision thing.” But even he had the substance of more integrity and resolve than Romney. But, Dick Morris said that Romney “doesn’t have a prayer in Hell of beating Hillary.” Maybe he could beat Barrack on resume and plain o’ life experience.

But, it’s correct that I WON”T be voting for Rudolph Giuliani for a job for which he is definitionally unqualified, but for which he looks unlikely to even attain an opportunity to contest a Democrat for. John McCain is also demonstrably philosophically opaque and unsuited to be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution. But, it’s conceivable that he could finish strong in New Hampshire and the public forgive him and turn back to a known quantity after rejecting everyone else: in some ways, he looks more likely than Giuliani or Romney. But, I think he’s a good man and an honorable patriot and would be happy for Huckabee to give him a suitable post in an administration, which doesn’t seem unlikely. Fred Thompson is also philosophically ambiguous and one might raise the same question about whether he should be in an administration but…WHY and WHERE? Anyway, if he doesn’t gain a respectable 3^rd in Iowa, he can probably start looking for acting jobs, again.

??What is Rudy Giuliani's experience in foreign policy? I ask not because it’s such a sober question: it isn't. America has, in fact, elected mostly governors as president. Governors don't have the kind of "experience in foreign policy" that Maloney is talking about. It doesn't take this vague idea of "experience in foreign policy," which surely people have who are all over the map in terms of ideology and wisdom. It takes principle and resolve. In fact, probably the two 20th century presidents with the most resolute and successful accomplishments had none of this prior "foreign policy experience": FDR and Reagan. Neither did G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Though Giuliani’s “foreign policy (in)experience” doesn’t dazzle me, he would rely on military strategists and thinkers like Norman Podhoretz, like any defense-responsible president would. (Come to think of it, Thompson might first need to hire someone to assemble a cabinet) Do you seriously think President Huckabee would leave the world untended and America undefended? In addition to McCain, he’s lean on people like Duncan Hunter and Frank Gaffney and others.

There are still 3 weeks for Romney, Giuliani, and McCain to smear Mike Huckabee with something that the public perceives as terrible and they will surely mightily try, so I won’t count them out, yet. At least it would be interesting to watch the Republican voters return to sniffing around the reject pile. Thompson looks like the longest shot, but his best chance might be if he’s the only remaining candidate that the voters can stomach. Hunter and Tom Tancredo I like some things about. But, they definitely lack a leadership quality for uplifting America that Mike Huckabee plainly has. Have you really not looked at the Democrat blogs and seen the expressions of either electoral fear or personal admiration, or are you just too proud to admit it? I have conversed with such people on the ‘net and in person. Huckabee definitely weakens one of the strongest sentimental motivations that Democrats have on their side: that Republicans are rich guys only looking out for rich guys. Never mind how true that sentiment is or isn’t. The perception is an indisputable reality. And, it is plainly untrue of Huckabee.

Oh, and what about Ron Paul? He has the money and the intensity (his own and his followers”), so that I don’t think he’s going away. But, I don’t see him getting less than 5% or more than 15%. Look for a melee from his followers at The Republican National Convention

I hope Huckabee faces Clinton, who has unprecedented negatives. There are a LOT of Democrats who wince at the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton. Oh, well: at least she might have YOU. Hillary’s brightest potential is that her gender might draw out voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote. Otherwise she’d probably need a third-party or a great population of stay at home Republicans protesting social conservatism “stealing OUR party!”

Any Republican nominee would ride the youth and inexperience angle against Barack Obama, and appropriately so. Give him credit for belting out syntactically correct sentences. He needs them, because substantively, there isn’t a lot there.

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.