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.

About The Previous Post And Other Provocations

J. Ritterbush at http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/ has written another response to all the accusations that Huckabee is a tax-hiker. You can go here to read the entire article. As I said before, it is clear to me that The Club for Growth and its “Tax Hike Mike” campaign are just acting as mercenary attack dogs with an ulterior motive of contributor(s) or in the interest of another candidate. They couldn’t possibly be as stupid or ignorant as their attacks plainly are if you honestly look at the actual record. They now have zero credibility with me.

A comment on the last post got me to thinking about some things I thought merited mention. Usually I think that because a matter is too rarely discussed by anyone.

Something I saw yesterday was really striking. I have already written that I think that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is perhaps the most serious and sober among the Democrat candidates for president, but has had to throw out the most extreme, “I want all American personnel out of Iraq in a year” rhetoric in hopes of attracting a little attention in the Democratic race.

Yesterday, Richardson appeared on FOX News Sunday and affirmed that that is still his position. When Chris Wallace asked how he could say that in light of the evidence that the violence is way down and the surge is working, Richar5dson could only say “…I don’t believe that the surge is working.” It’s pathetic what that party is demanding of people and it must be painful to be forced to defend these ridiculous ideas.

Joe Lieberman gave a speech last week that described the progress in Iraq and described the Democrats (Lieberman of courser, is a longtime Democrat and 2000 VP candidate who lost his party’s re-nomination in 2006 when he had the audacity to support the effort in Iraq against Islamic extremists, but won reelection running as an Independent) as “vested in a policy of defeat and withdrawal. I can’t find a video of it, yet. Major traditional media didn’t even report the story. The New York Times put the report of the dramatic reduction in violence…ON PAGE EIGHT!

Remember again, Senator Lieberman was the Democrats’ candidate in 2000. He’s still a liberal, but he has a very inconvenient trait in Democratic politics: a conscience. But, here’s Lieberman’s own account of his speech:

Senator Joe Lieberman: News Release

Here are other accounts of recent Iraq news

Iraq: Sharp Drop in Rocket, Mortar Fire

If It’s Good for the American People, Democrats Are Against It
North Star Writers Group, MI - 6 hours ago

Let's Look At "Conservative" Criticism Of Mike Huckabee

One wonders why the air is full these days of “conservative” criticism of Mike Huckabee and why his nomination rivals are resorting to curt falsehoods. Well, many apprehensive conservative spokespeople just repeat claims that have been thrown out. And maybe rivals just simplify and exploit falsehoods because unlike in the record of many of his rivals, there are no truths to politically exploit. I discuss The Club for Growth’s relentless crusade against Mike Huckabee and then balance other general accusations with the specific truths for which Huckabee is responsible.

Most recently in a new ad, The Club for Growth in its yearlong jihad against Huckabee has outright accused Huckabee of dishonesty in representing his inclinations and record. At least, that is a change from the usual exaggeration/misrepresentation of some of Huckabee’s statements. However, these charges have the even worse attribute of being outright false. And, I have previously said that The CFG’s criticism of tax increases to improve inferior state schools and highways, made no sense in terms of The Club for Growth’s supposed highest objectives. You can’t optimize a state’s economic vitality by standing pat with poor public schools and a decaying highway system. So, why would The Club for Growth spend money to propagate falsehood against a Republican candidate who actually poses no threat to their ideals? I have said for a long time that something smelled funny and speculated that either a threatened competitor or a CFG contributor had an axe to grind with Huckabee.

In fact you can read in the reports below under “Taxes and Economy,” of both an extraordinarily large contributor’s old score to settle with Huckabee, and a similarly major contributor’s affiliation with the campaign of Mitt Romney, whom Huckabee poses a huge threat to as a conservative competitor, especially in Iowa. Maybe it smells rotten because it is rotten! The bottom line is that the Club for Growth’s donors, not the economy, are its first priority. Of course it is not new advice to first follow the money. But, the Club for Growth plainly does not merit a prima facie assumption of trustworthiness.

Generally, it has been said by others, often parroting The Club for Growth, that Huckabee is a big government liberal. A simple disproof of that would be the fact that I support him, and wholeheartedly so. Anyone who knows me knows that I would not support a “big government liberal” and in fact have called out and rejected Republicans who were. But since you likely aren’t familiar with me, I would first direct you to the issues page of Huckabee’s web site: http://mikehuckabee.com . Also, you can search the web for all the history and evidence that is readily available: we are no longer confined to broadcast media reports and should get over it.. And, I can sincerely tell you that I have watched politics for forty years and Huckabee and his words very closely all year. He not only is uniquely truthful among this year’s candidates, but among all politicians in my lifetime, which frankly is an attribute that is more important than his mirroring of my own sentiments, which frankly occasionally differ.

Paul Weyrich when endorsing Romney a few days ago, said that Huckabee had wavered on so many issues that he couldn’t support him. I simply have no idea what he is talking about and I suspect that neither does he. Paul Weyrich is not a liar, but he apparently relied on the reports of dishonest or similarly misinformed people.

And Phyllis Schlafly said that Huckabee “destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas and left The Republican Party a shambles.” When Huckabee took office in 1996, Republican state legislators were outnumbered in Arkansas by more than 5 to 1. At least by the time he left 9 months ago, Republicans had more than doubled their number, and most Arkansas Republicans support Huckabee’s candidacy. What is Schlafly talking about? Again, she’s obviously offering a second-hand assessment.

A few days ago, Chuck Baldwin wrote Chuck Baldwin -- Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee. By all means, read Baldwin’s article. But then, do what Baldwin didn’t do: dig up the facts to substantiate the claims.

Again, I don’t think these people are lying. Let me try to describe a thin sheet to cover these people that might have motivated the critics they rely on. I’ll list common accusations and the slightly different facts that lie behind them: what Huckabee is and isn’t “guilty” of: Afterward are some links to criticisms and some responses defending Huckabee.

Huckabee Is A Populist

Falsehood: Conservatives cringe and squeal at “populist” rhetoric which, strictly speaking, is appealing to the entire populus, not just the particularly wealthy and powerful. Think about it: in terms of ordinary diction, should we consider this a “bad” thing? I fully understand and so does Mike Huckabee, that liberals have bolstered populist rhetoric with proposals and actions that have expanded the size and intrusiveness of government into the private realm, which is particularly odious and dysfunctional at the distant, inefficient, and unconstitutional federal level. But in recent years it has even gotten through my thick head that conservatives long ago lost the battle over whether the public will judge federal representatives on their expressions of concern for individual lives and not just the constitutional province of federal government action. Conservatives can’t be the advocates of expanding and intrusive federal government, though in case you haven’t noticed (in which case you’ve paid scant attention) Republicans while calling themselves “conservative,” have done precisely that. Mike Huckabee is quite aware of the 10^th Amendment distinction of federal and state powers. And he not only cites it frequently, but somewhat ironically does so much more often than any of his competitors in this campaign, or in fact most Republicans on a national stage in many decades.

Truth: It is quite true that Huckabee has wisely spoken of the interests of ordinary Americans and deigned to speak to groups that have traditionally been dominated by Democrats like unions and minorities. Honestly, what if he hung out with tax collectors and drunks and harlots like someone else did? What was his name?... But isn’t the Republican Party closed off from the majority of America if it hasn’t the confidence of its principles to explain how they are a benefit to everyone? This is a wise course in merely political terms. But given the public’s appetites and evaluations, it is the morally proper thing to do.

Huckabee Supports a National Smoking Ban

This is where I first ran into a den of conservative hounds. After this suggestion broke into the public, I encountered a web site headed by a constitutionalist guru, howling about Huckabee’s unconstitutional audacity. As much as I tried to explain, it was like trying to reason with a swarm of wasps after their nest had been rattled with a stick.

Falsehood: This is most often simplified to the assertion that Huckabee seeks a national smoking ban. In fact, I called in to a national radio talk show after a guest voiced just such a charge as an example of Republican heresy from limited government.

Truth: As I had tried to do at the web site, I explained that in the misconstrued statement, Huckabee had set aside public businesses like bars and restaurants. But, Huckabee had never volunteered such a proposal. What had actually happened was this: at Lance Armstrong’s Presidential Cancer forum (at which in fact, Huckabee and the now-departed Sam Brownback were the only Republican candidates to attend), Chris Matthews asked Huckabee whether as president, he would sign a smoking ban if Congress passed and put one on his desk. Huckabee said yes, BUT not as a regulation of businesses like bars and restaurants, but as a workplace safety measure, like an OSHA regulation.

The talk show guest said that that would include bars and restaurants, but I replied that Huckabee had explicitly set such aside. Now, I know that there is a live and animated debate about the extent of the dangers of second-hand smoke. And, I know that an employee can choose where he wants and doesn’t want to work. I tried to say this at that conservative blog, but the wasps were in full attack mode. I conceded that there was no constitutional license for the federal government to regulate private commerce. HOWEVER, rooms full of such regulation are already on the books, including many billions of dollars of assumed health care liability! Given that fact, encouraging a non-smoking ethic on the front end to dampen expenditure on the back end is just bare prudence, never mind the reduction in human suffering. This got me called self-contradictory: conceding it was unconstitutional but defending it, anyway.

But, these liabilities are a bare fact carrying a moral obligation. Suppose someone runs up an enormous credit card bill without informing a spouse of the spending. Because a spouse shouldn’t have done that, is there therefore no liability for the accrued balance? Of course not! Payment is due all the same. And payment is due for the promised health care liabilities. On this point, ideological debate is moot!

Huckabee Soft On Immigration

Falsehood: Some conservatives have repeated the same sort of stories charges made by Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson: Romney said Huckabee favored “special tuition breals” for illegal aliens, and Thompson said that Huckabee had wanted to make Arkansas a “sanctuary state.”

Truth:

Mike Huckabee opposed a bil to deny the children of illegal aliens the opportunity to apply for a specific college scholarship program, after they had progressed through the school system and done the work to qualify. Huckabee says, do we want a permanent low-wage tax taker, or an educated and productive tax payer? As for a sanctuary state, there’s nothing to that suggestion. Huckabee says we shouldn’t have sanctuary cities! Others have complained about a Mexican consulate that was established in Little Rock to expedite the process of legal documentation!

By the way, either Romney and Thomson are guilty of serious ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Either disqualifies them in my book.

Huckabee Weak On Foreign Policy

Falsehood: America needs a president with “foreign policy experience.”

Truth: 1) America has always favored governors with executive experience over legislators with

posturing experience for their presidents.

2) What is “foreign policy experience, anyway? Serving on a congressional committee?

Being a UN ambassador? Being mayor of a city that is attacked by terrorists? J

3) Governors deal with foreign companies and foreign governments in establishing

Commercial operations..

4) But what is needed is not this nebulous notion of “experience,” which is a guarantee of

nothing, but a foundation and outlook of principle that will be applied to whatever situation arises. Really, what is it someone fears from this “lack of experience” Frankly, there’s plenty of experience outside of that critical principle that I’d prefer that an American president not have.

You can look at All of Huckabee’s issues positions at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home

The New York Times just published an interview that asks about some of these criticisms and Huckabee’s faith. Chatting With Huckabee New York Times - United States Part of his answer to the faith question is:

“What is it that matters at the end of our lives? And it’s not the jobs we hold, it’s not the money we make, it’s not the people who know us. At the end of our lives, we need to listen to six words from the creator: ‘Well done good and faithful servant.’ If we get that affirmation, what the editorialists write and what the cartoonists did to us is immaterial. That’s what we live for. Six words. And that’s what I’m living for. I’m living for those six words.”

Mike Huckabee Not Conservative Enough for Some

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272616960.shtml?ref=rss

Taxes And Economy:

Campaign web site

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5

Chris Celizza of The Washinton Post’s “The Fix” column: Club vs Huck

Nuke's News and Views posted an old WSJ article, http://conservablogs.com/nuke/2007/11/06/more-on-the-club-for-growths-smear-of-mike-huckabee/ and http://conservablogs.com/nuke/2007/11/04/what-is-behind-club-for-growths-attack-on-mike-huckabee/ about a large Club For Growth Donor’s anti-Huckabee vendetta and another donor’s affiliation with the Romney campaign. In the interest of full disclosure, Nuke is a Huckabee supporter, but the Wall Street Journal he citers isn’t and the facts are objectively verifiable

And here again, is the Evangelical Outpost rebuttal to the Club For Growth

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004053.html

On Immigration:

Campaign web site immigration document here

The Truth on Huckabee and Immigration

Video: Huckabee on Immigration

Mike Huckabee :: Immigration FACTS

Roebuck Report on Mike Huckabee and Immigration

Huckabee tells Brody File: "I'm Stronger Than Most People" on Terror and Immigration http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/266712.aspx November 8, 2007