What Crime Has He Committed? "Crucify Him!"

Below is a comment on my last post, which complained about my exasperation with “conservative” critics of Huckabee, and my response.

Some of these “conservatives,” I think may be serious, though misguided. But, some are certainly driven by anti-social conservative, anti-Fair Tax, or anti-humane motives. I say "anti-humane" because I feel some of these critics though probably a relatively small minority, are simply reactive to Mike Huckabee’s expressions of concern for people other than Wall Street and investment professionals. I say “reactive” because Huckabee has no record or intention of the kind of expansive and wasteful government that some conservatives instantly fear because they hear a certain tone of concern for the common man. And, he doesn’t have such a record or intention, not because the concern isn’t genuine. He just knows that this kind of activity is socially destructive: he’s conservative not in being dispassionate, but in principle.

And here is the great irony: Mike Huckabee believes that conservative approaches to governance really are the most productive way to help not just upper, but middle and lower income people as well. He just has the temerity to actually TELL people that he would like to help them that way, which jolts some conservatives to apoplexy. Not Fred Thompson, by the way. Heck, Fred Thompson is WAY more liberal than Mike Huckabee is. For example, unlike Thompson who advocated and supported it, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t have touched the 1st Amendment shattering McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” bill with a ten foot pole. Huckabee has said that contributions should be unlimited, with full and prompt disclosure on the Internet, which I have thought for years. No, Fred Thompson is no conservative or constitutional idealist. He’s just waving a red flag at those conservatives I was speaking of, who can be agitated. None of these critics are as philosophically conservative as I am.

And, speaking of the constitutional oblivion of McCain-Feingold, that’s just one of McCain’s many demonstrations of that disability. I have watched John McCain for a long time: I think he’s a decent and noble patriot. He just has no sense of what the federal government can and can’t do; either constitutionally or practically. Maybe he’s been swimming in the Washington water for so long that he’s gone native enough to really believe that they can do anything.

Anyway, Huckabee obviously can’t and shouldn’t back off on his expressions of concern for the middle and lower classes. Besides that being morally derelict, Huckabee is exactly right that Republicans can expect to lose a lot of elections if they don’t even want to speak to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans. And, that is something that sunk in with me a few years ago. Certainly I was at one point, one of those conservatives motivated primarily by annoyance at what runaway government had done to America. I still don’t like it. But, do we want to sit on the tack and whine or do we want to steer the country in a positive direction? Do we want America to improve or do we want to perpetually scream while it gets worse? If we choose the latter, we will be doing a lot of screaming, because it only will get worse. The model of aggressive combat doesn’t work. I decided that I’d rather discuss what is right with people with whom I disagreed, than work with people on either side who didn’t care what was right, but only cared about power or short-sighted benefit.

Then, last January, I saw a man who had served as a Republican governor in a Democrat state, who said, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” And, as a governor, he worked to actually improve the lives of the people in his state, more than to make political points. And, he did it as a conservative in a prudent and restrained way. Sure, Mike Huckabee is unhappy with the consequence of liberal government, but he isn’t angry at people. A long time ago, a man came to an evil-scarred world and mourned what men did, but he didn’t hate them. He came to serve a broken world, and in fact, they killed him. But, he still didn’t hate them. That’s the model: We should ask how we can serve our neighbors and society, speaking for what is right, but working with and for people who aren’t always right. Similar to how it was the religious people who hated Jesus and turned him over to be killed, it’s his fellow conservatives who hate Mike Huckabee and want his candidacy dead. And, if they succeed, we’ll all have to work not to hate them. But, though I’m a conservative too, I won’t see them as infinitely superior to Democrats.

Here’s a response to my irritation with the anti-Huckabee diatribes of Rush Limbaugh who is nether the neither first nor will he likely be the last to scorn in this way. Tonight I heard Mark Levin misguidedly snarling about Huckabee’s anti-conservatism. Huckabee is the punching bag to be knocked down going into Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Fred Thompson’s been at smearing Huckabee for days, and Romney will join him is he remains determined to play in South Carolina. I don’t know what McCain will do. He may stay decent. But, if he goes after Huckabee as not conservative, it would be being called unfaithful by a practiced heretic. Anyway, the short comment is followed by my short response.

Family Mentors said...
Larry,

I would encourage as many people as possible to engage Rush and the NeoLib Commentocrats, issue-by-issue.

First, today he went out of his way to endorse a threatened boycott of the general election if one of his guys doesn't win (saying the GOP will be destroyed if McCain or Huck wins). Funny how the NeoLibs always tell social conservatives they'll hurt the party if they sit out like they did in 2006.

We may have to be willing to suffer through four years of HillBillary or Oprahbama in order to be heard. I hope not, but the NeoLibs are hell bent on preventing any social conservative from succeeding. Their opposition to McCain will evaporate if Rudy continues to fade. Flag this post and flog me if I'm wrong ;-)

Blessings,
Quiverdaddy
Larry:
I have remarked on the irony of the possibility of others being asked to suck it up and support a social conservative. I don’t know, in fact I tend to doubt, that that is the ground of Rush’s problem. Maybe he’s just a sentimental conservative who has inhaled the scuttlebutt and failed to do his homework. Anyway, I do think it’s true that social conservatives have to be prepared to watch Democrats win. If they watch a social conservative actively destroyed and turn in their votes, the message will be that it really doesn’t matter to them. Their leverage (and respect) in the party will be destroyed; and with it, much of the potential to heal American society. Believe me: I was an activist in the Republican Party and I’ve been saying that for years, and suffering scorn for it.

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 Conversation On Huckabee And A Smoking Ban

My last post drew a comment that was insistent about the illegitimacy of a national smoking ban of any sort. After my response became somewhat expensive, I decided to post it. Here is the comment, followed by my response:

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

No matter how we dress it, endorsing a national ban on smoking is still the nanny state interfering with [some] business' ability to operate.

For non-smokers, a smoking ban may seem like a reasonable restriction on liberty. However, others also think Christmas traditions should be banned... and smoking bans in private homes (maybe eventually christmas celebrations too?) aren't far behind.

I am a non-smoker who supports Huckabee, but I think it's foolish for us to try to disguise his bigger government leanings as "having the government do good". The soul of conservatism is the recognition that while the government can do good, it rarely does so better than the free market and liberty for people of conscience.

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

You're absolutely correct: the federal government not only constitutionally shouldn't, it practically CAN'T do a better job than a free-market approach. I’m a lifelong conservative and a constitutionalist.

But, I don't see at all that Huckabee has "bigger government leanings.” He is very explicit that the federal government doesn't need more money, but just needs to control the way it spends it. He has signed the “no new taxes” pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. And he’s very cognizant of the enumerated federal powers and the appropriate realm of state and popular powers, as per the 10^th Amendment. And, he favors an overhaul of the tax system to return control over expenditures back to individuals and their localities; put the thousands of bribing federal lobbyist into another line of work. The critics are eithe4r misinformed or disingenuous. The percentage of tax burden actually declined over Huckabbe’s ten years as governor, unlike in Massachusetts under whom it increased over his four years. And of course, Romney has been a most vociferous critic. But as a competitor, it’s understandable for Romney: not so much among many others, who are disingenuous with another agenda or have just failed to do their homework.

As I said, public places that are open only to those 21 and over are exempted in the Arkansas law, as are places with 3 or fewer employees. I argued (futilely, mind you) with a web site of constitutionalists with a guru blogger. It was like trying to fight off a swarm of bees.

I conceded what is patently obvious: that there is no constitutional license for federal intervention into private commerce. But, I also pointed to what is equally obvious: that, constitutionally or not, Congress has for many decades imposed libraries of unconstitutional law, such that most people can no longer distinguish that fact. So that focus on complaining about it at any single point is something like standing up to one's neck in a swimming pool and grousing about a light shower. This acknowledgment of facts, only got me accused of self-contradiction: conceding what was unconstitutional while defending it, anyway.

But what I said was that in the course of this unconstitutional freer-wheeling, the federal government has taken on a huge liability in present and future medical expenses. With respect to that liability, constitutionality is irrelevant. So, what? It is a liability, nevertheless. As I said in a previous discussion, if a spouse wrongly runs up a huge credit card debt, can we ignore the debt because it was accrued wrongly? Try it and see what happens.

As a quite stark example of of our unconstitutional disposition, and my reverence of The Constitution: can you not say that the entire enterprise of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Social Security, ever-expanding Medicare, and Medicaid) are unconstitutional intrusions into the private realm? To me, it’s rather a trick to try to get around that one. But, perhaps only a percent or two of Americans, and fewer politicians, are prepared to even entertain such a question.

But, my question to you is: if we acknowledge that the imposition of the Social Security system was unconstitutional in addition to being foolish (not entirely coincidental), can we therefore default on the commitments that have been made to pay benefits” I hope you are like even most all of those who concede that the system must be modified, who say that The United States CAN NOT unilaterally default on the commitments that it has made to those who are vested in the system and want to retain their promised benefits.

In similar fashion, those medical liabilities are an inevitable fact. And the discouragement of unhealthy and disease-inviting behavior on the front end is bare fiscal prudence. Huckabee points to smoking as just one formerly widespread behavior, that social disapprobation has modified in our lifetimes. I was so resentful of government presumption that I resisted another such government action: what business is it of government’s to require at pain of penalty that I wear a seatbelt in my own car?! None I thought, and still do. But, marriage cured me of that. My new wife would not allow the car to move before everyone was buckled in. Today, I don’t even think about it, and most people seem not to. But at 50, I’m more keenly aware that we are all safer with our seat belts fastened, than I was in my 20’s. I can still let it bother me that the law has the gall to presume upon my personal conduct. I’m enough of a libertarian to feel I have a right to be a fool. But, the seat belt etiquette probably has preserved many live fools.

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.

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.