America Under Obama and a Democratic Congress/Pat Buchanan and Immigration

I like him alright, but I was never a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I particularly differ with his longstanding emphasis on the menace of immigration: with typical reference specifically to Hispanics crossing our southern border. Obviously, immigration needs to be legal and orderly: the first lesson to immigrants shouldn’t be that the law is not a very serious matter. Isn’t it a little ironic that those who most indulge illegal immigration are many of the same who seek all manner of virtue in the words of the law: I find that striking.

But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.

But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.

You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).

During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.

Obama's First 100 Days

Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?

On his radio program Thursday, Michael Medved asked people who dislike or hate Mike Huckabee to call and explain why:

Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?

I have been pondering this, for a month. Conservative regulars, people I have read for years, are almost apoplectic about Huckabee. And if he wins in Iowa, based on experience so far, I would predict that the howling will only get worse, probably accompanied by remarks about the foolishness of Iowa voters.

You understand that competitors will disparage him. But, EVERYONE is lining up: Robert Novak, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, John Fund, Rich Lowery, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh… I could go on. In fact, it’s WAY easier to name the noted conservatives who have not disparaged or complained of Huckabee than the ones who have. I wonder as you do…why is this?

Your callers are typical of the rank & file conservatives who have picked up pop-culture stories about him being “soft” on immigration, a taxer and spender. I have studied his record and his thoughts and words all year. These stories just aren’t true. Okay, you tell a lie long enough…etc.

But, what should we think about these writers, who can’t be so clueless and divorced from the facts? Understand first, that I am a lifelong conservative. I was a Republican activist who left the party and voted third-party for a few cycles (I know you hate that. I disagree, but set it aside for now). Novak, Will, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are quite explicit about what is often implied: that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Honestly, it’s painfully difficult to believe that these sentiments are genuine.

But, NOT a conservative? Compared to WHOM? The Bushes? Bob Dole? Where were these critics with these guys? Dole claimed NO allegiance to the Republican platform. Bush Sr. raised FEDERAL (not state – Huckabee knows and frequently cites the 10th Amendment. Bush Jr. presided over a broader and deeper expansion of even DOMESTIC spending than Clinton had, and WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!

What about Huckabee’s competitors” McCain and Thompson not just voted for, but PROMOTED McCain-Feingold, an audacious defiance of the 1st Amendment. Romney and Giuliani both have defiled the 2nd Amendment. Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Pete’s sake, and doesn’t understand the crucial relationship to American civility of the first assertions of The Declaration of Independence. Romney does…NOW…wait a minute, that isn’t the only thing he’s “changed on, is it? Whatever is driving his postures, it isn’t a well-seated moral and/or philosophical framework.

But, where is all of THAT noise among these “conservatives?” Huckabee would not have done ANY of these things. On campaign finance, he has already proposed what I have always believed: that contributions should be unconstrained, but fully disclosed, now almost immediately on the Internet. George Will hammered on McCain over McCain-Feingold before the 2000 election. But I surely sense that he’s rather see a president McCain than a president Huckabee. What the heck is going on?

Unable to believe that many of these complaints are genuine, I am left to speculate. With some, the animus may simply be reflected in Huckabee’s common statement that, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it” Maybe, these are just disconcerted by a supposed conservative who doesn’t emanate enough anger for them. Maybe they could say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M AS MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE! Ann Coulter, for instance, only likes Duncan Hunter. Actually, he isn’t an ugly guy and he’s very serious. But, he has enough appeal to put him around 1% ‘Nuff said.

Big money traders and managers may not like The Fair Tax: every luxury can be written off as a “business expense,” shifting the tax-burden downward. People accustomed to privilege may not be so hot for a system that is “fair,” taxing everything from jets to paper clips. It’s funny to hear these people despair that The Fair Tax is “regressive.” The wealth will maintain their privilege under Democrats. In fact, creeping socialism favors established business and money. It suppresses aspiring business and money. Will the establishment support the social conservative when the “go-along” shoe is on the other foot?

But with some people I think it may be a very visceral discomfort with an unshaded evangelical Christian faith. Sure, sit in your pews and recite your liturgies…even offer your personal prayer. But for God’s sakes, don’t TALK ABOUT IT! Eccch! How gauche! It’s so…well, unsophisticated!

Like I said, these people aren’t stupid, and their actual words lack credibility, in light of the available facts. So, I’m left to speculate.

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.

Talk Of The Past Few Days And An Exchange With A Frantic Giuliani Supporter

New polls continue to come out showing Huckabee now tied with or leading Romney nationally, and leading in many state races beyond the early states. Huckabee still trails Romney, McCain, and Giuliani in New Hampshire, but is gaining there, too. Thompson has almost fallen off the map. He mad such as production of a late entrance that the big question now, is how to perform the most graceful exit. Here are a few other interesting links.

Pinkerton: Huckabee's focus: 'broken humanity' http://politicalwire.com/

Stephen Maloney came by wearing slightly new clothes, evidencing that either the old was or the new is a masquerade. But, the content of the exchange was relevant. Huckabee is now of course in a slightly different position, not to be casually patted on the head as a benign no-shotter. Guns now are a’ blazin' in the campaign in general and here as well. It vaguely reminds me of when my pastor father came under attack for political reasons in a church, facing all kinds of accusations. How do I know they weren’t true? Uh, well, I know him better than you: not just his character but his motive and his reasoning. You can see that people who incline to repeat or even believe these accusations have a predisposition to be skeptical or critical based on other factors. In Huckabee’s case, some are paranoid and cynical and others are outright deceitful and hope to manipulate.

This morning, Laura Ingraham had Huckabee on her program, asked her questions, let him go, and then brought on Michelle Malkin so they could basically disembowel him, after the fact. Ingraham asked her audience to rate on her web site whether she had been fair, too soft, or to hard on Huckabee. After listening to her discussion with Michelle Malkin, I would say that she had been too soft on Huckabee: she had not pressed him with her doubts about his answers while he was there. These two fall into the paranoid and cynical category. Their conversation plainly assumed that Huckabee had not been honest in his answers. But, I assume she didn’t press him because she “knew” that he wouldn’t be honest in a follow-up, either.

Why this cynicism? He was obviously soft on immigration because he wanted to permit the children of illegal aliens to apply for a merit scholarship even after they had gone through Arkansas high-schools and qualified academically. They “knew” that the real truth was that he disrespected American law and wanted to coddle illegal aliens. Therefore his announced and published plan to address the immigration problem is obviously a phony cynical attempt to deceive the voters about his TRUE self. He also was really a liberal because he had the temerity to SPEAK to and (gasp) actually get an endorsement from the New Hampshire NEA (these people really are planning on winning elections, right? - just not by telling the wrong people what you think, I suppose) The same pattern followed on other issues.

How do I know they are wrong? Uhhh, because I’ve been watching his record and his words for nearly a year and I not only know his character, but I agree about things like not punishing children for the crime (yes it’s a CRIME) of the parents; especially when they had worked hard to improve and legitimate themselves. Am I to assume that these cynics believe that if I were REALLY opposed to illegal immigration, I would feel other wise, like Tom Tancredo or Mitt Romney is posed? If it’s his real sentiment, Romney is the one who has flip-flopped. But so what’s new, eh?

And others suppose that they “know” that Huckabee intentionally planted a story with a New York Times Sunday magazine reporter, of all places, to plant suspicions with Christians about Romney’s Mormonism. Of the dozen Christians who read the New York Times Magazine, surely a few of them were going to vote for Romney until they suddenly heard that Mormons might have some beliefs that are different from evangelical Christians. (?) On the other hand, I imagine illiterate Christians especially don’t read The New York Times magazine. But, people who think that other people are out to get them, may have a different opinion…

There’s a lot of good information in the over 8000 words other than the 10 that were lifted to create a story. Read the article for yourself. Huckabee was interviewed for hours on Dec. 3, by the reporter, and when asked about Romney’s Mormonism, said (again) that it shouldn’t be an issue. He said he didn’t know much about it, and asked the interviewer who seemed to know some things about it, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” That’s it. That exchange during a long interview, is Huckabee’s “attack.” When it was picked up in media, Huckabee personally apologized to Romney, who unlike Hugh Hewitt, for example, accepted it, graciously.

But among many other things, the article also contains this on Huckabee’s supposed “liberalism”: “Huckabee’s affability and populist economic and social views have sometimes been misinterpreted as a moderate brand of evangelical Christianity. In fact, as he wrote in his book ‘‘Character Makes a Difference,’’ he considers liberalism to be a cancer on Christianity.” But, read the article, yourself: The Huckabee Factor - Zev Chafets, New York Time

What’s so blatant to me is that these attackers suppose not only to divine the intents of Mike Huckabee. They also suppose to know more about conservatism than I do, when I was conservative before most of them ever got on a bicycle. And throughout my life, I have read real philosophical conservatives, not just sentimental hyper-reactionaries.

Anyway, here’s the exchange with Maloney, who once only seemed to be suffering from some odd and intractable obsessions, but now appears to be blowing a gasket:

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I read the piece below (no, I didn't write it but a politically of mine did), and I thought it might be a relief from Larry's continual "Mike didn't say what he said, nor did he do what he did" dissertations. I agree with it.

It's getting a little scary out there. With about a month between now and the Iowa caucuses, Iowa GOP voters seem well on their way to losing their minds and giving Mike Huckabee the win.

Have these voters been paying any attention to the Democrats? Obama and Hillary aren't just annoying they're flat-out scary. The thought of the United States being run by the devious and despicable Hillary or the ultra-liberal, pathetically inept Obama should cause any sane Republican voter to think very, very carefully before pulling the lever for their nominee.

And yet, a large portion of Republican voters have jumped on the bandwagon of an underfunded, inexperienced, out-of-touch politician who has no chance - none - of even being competitive, much less beating, the Democratic nominee.

It's one thing to make a statement, for whatever reason, but quite another to flush your party, and your country, down the toilet to make that point. If Iowa goes on to give Huckabee the nod, then I think it's time to admit the Iowa voters are just plain stupid. The GOP should take measure to ensure that "first-in-the-nation" Iowa Idiotfest is given the relevance to future Republican primaries that it deserves - NONE. Deny them delegates, punish candidates for campaigning there, whatever it takes, make Iowa irrelevant.

Voters who would rather "make a statement" with Huckabee than elect a leader of the free world don't deserve to have their votes count more than voters in other states who are actually sane. This should have been done in 1988 after Pat Robertson came in second. Why are we still listening to these Iowa Idiots?

This election is serious business. Yes, morons like McCullough sing Huckabee's praises while claiming to speak for all Evangelical Christians, but serious Republican voters have to realize that Huckabee, aside from being a poor conservative on any assize aside from abortion, does not have what it takes to defeat the real villain - not Giuliani, but Hillary or Obama.

To argue that a tax-raising, pro-immigrant, criminal-coddling, big government-loving pro-lifer is more of a contrast to Hillary than a tax-cutting, Mafia-busting, pro-GWOT fiscal conservative whose pro-choice is ridiculous, but to push the liberal pro-lifer despite the fact he will certainly lose to Hillary is nothing short of insane.

Nothing helps restore one's sanity better than staring true terror in the face. Spend five minutes listening to Hillary or Obama. Then tell me the virtues of "making a statement" in a primary during this election year.

Time to wake up, voters. This election is not a joke.

Larry said...

"To argue that a tax-raising, pro-immigrant, criminal-coddling, big government-loving pro-lifer"

Mr. Maloney, is this politically practical smear-my-opponent talk, or are the clothes coming off of your fax posturing of earlier?

That was a stunning diatribe: "The people of Iowa are idiots." Count me in. I'm such an idiot that I'm not for unrestrained tax-raising, I do not favor or encourage illegal immigration, and I do not favor criminal coddling, but I support Huckabee enthusiastically. I've seen enough of you to know that I am more conservative than you are in every respect: fiscal, defense/foreign policy, and socially. To get a lecture on those things from YOU is the height of irony.

If you really believe what you just wrote, you were misrepresenting yourself a few months ago. If you DO believe those things, then you haven't done your homework: you are swallowing the pre-digested baby-food that someone else has tossed out, hoping to deceive the dumb masses.

Social conservatives are the largest identifiable interest group in the country, of either party, and since Reagan they have done the lion's share of the campaign work for The Republican Party. Even Robert Novak admitted that social conservatives sprung The Republican Party from several decades of shuffling in the minority in America.

Rudolf Giuliani has NO chance - NONE - of beating anyone that the Democrats put up, unless you think they might nominate Kucinich or Gravel. I predicted a few months ago that Giuliani would have no choice but to begin to talk down Iowa. Now, he's wavering on whether that is a good idea. Admittedly, he is counting on Huckabee to knock Romney off-stride. But, you clearly are into talking down Iowa with both feet.

Dick Morris said that Romney doesn't have a prayer in hell of beating Hillary.

You can see a few posts down, that I raised the question of whether establishment Republicans would, in fact, rally around and support Huckabee if he were nominated, like they have always asked social conservatives to do. They may not.

So, it is THEY, not social conservatives who would be ready to watch Democrats take control. The truth is that the established money people are not the ones who will be hurt by the expansion of socialism. The established corporate interests are rewarded with the constriction of markets. The direction of the investment of the Warren Buffets of the world will be made easier: go with the pre-established market winners. The ones who will be the middle and lower class aspirants who will be denied entry into markets unavailable to those not extraordinarily wealthy.

I don't know what drives you, but it is plainly not an understanding of basic classical economic principle. But, THIS is the great irony: if Giuliani or Romney is nominated, they will be defeated by DEMOCRATS. If Huckabee is nominated and loses, he will have been destroyed by establishment Republicans. Huckabee beat the Clinton machine in Arkansas FOUR TIMES. Establishment Republicans have beaten the Clinton machine...NEVER!

BS Laid Bare, This Year

Mitt Romney launched a new ad yesterday in Iowa Choice: The Record , comparing himself to Mike Huckabee. On the staple social issues, he says, the two are the same, sharing the same values (at least in hetoric). But on immigration, the ad says that Romney opposed driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens, while Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Romney is stretching it, of course. But, he has to: it’s desperation time. Huckabee supported a failed bill to let he children of illegal aliens who had gone through Arkansas high schools and qualified academically, apply for a specific merit scholarship program IF they were drug-free and applying to become citizens. Huckabee says, 1) that we shouldn’t punish the children after years of work, for the earlier crime of their parent(s), and 2) that we should prefer a productive tax-paying citizen to a lower-wage potential tax-taker.

Also yesterday, Huckabee introduced his 9-point Immigration: Secure America Plan . You’ll see there is nothing objectionable about this plan. And, the desperation accusations of Romney and Thompson aside, the more important thing is that there is nothing inconsistent with what he’s always said: Secure the border, immigrants must return home and if they wish, initiate the process of legal immigration. I will say that if you are a Tom Tancredo conservative who wants to punish and/or purge Hispanics from The United States, Huckabee does not say that, and he doesn’t intend it. If that’s what you want, he isn’t it. And really, it does not describe anyone in this nomination race, but Tancredo and a not-so-strident and curt Duncan Hunter.

But, Bill Cli…err Mitt Romney will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear, as in he aforementioned commercial, for instance. Also, to put a cherry on Mike Huckabee’s posture on immigration, Jim Gilchrist who started the Minuteman program to monitor the border, endorsed Mike Huckabee, today: Jim Gilchrist Endorses Mike Huckabee . That flush you hear may be the sound of Mitt’s money going down the toilet. And Fred Thompson’s campaign aid Mary Matalin appeared on Hannity & Colmes Tuesday night, saying vaguely that Huckabee is a tax-raiser and weak on immigration.

In a more than ¾ Democrat state, Mike Huckabee pushed through the largest (the only) broad-based income tax cut in Arkansas history. He cut and clipped at scores of other state taxes. But yes, under Mike Huckabee, sales and fuel taxes were raised to do extravagant things like…oh, rebuild the most dilapidated highway system in the country (with the state’s full approval) and fund an improvement in the Arkansas education system in response to a state Supreme Court order. But, Huckabee didn’t just throw money at the education system as is usually done. He implemented measurable accountability standards, which were met because they had to be, with student performance improving. And the roads went from the worst in the county to the most improved.

So, what we have here is demonstrated flip-floppers accusing a non-flip-flopper of flip-flopping That’s an ambitious strategy. But like I said, there is no choice: Romney is a wealthy man who has big-time investment tied up in Iowa, and Thompson has done nothing but fade since his late entry into the campaign. Rigorous and compelling campaigning isn’t Thompson’s style, anymore than is the strident conservatism that the 1^st Amendment infidel (McCain-Feingold sponsor) now feigns. But wealthy men like Romney watching his huge investment slip away, don’t like it when they can’t buy what they want. Just ask The Club for Growth’s huge benefactor, billionaire Jackson Stephens Jr., who didn’t get the cooperation he wanted from Governor Huckabee in Arkansas, and so has had The Club for Growth on a dishonest jihad against Mike Huckabee all year.

One of the things The Club for Growth has harped on all year is that during the 10¹/₂ years of Mike Huckabee’s governorship, the overall tax burden on Arkansans went up 47%! Pretty scary, huh? They leave out the fact that in that time period, the average tax burden in all states went up twice that much! And, it increased more than Huckabee’s 47% over 10¹/₂ years in 4 years under Governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Both had Democrat legislatures, by the way. But, Huckabee’s record looks pretty good now, doesn’t it? And, where are The Club for Growth’s attacks on Mitt Romney?

Remember that I called The Club for Growth’s campaign dishonest? It isn’t about growth and economic vitality. Besides Jackson (Steve) Stephens Jr.’s vendetta, big money people don’t like The Fair Tax that Mike Huckabee supports, which eliminates income, corporate, fuel, capital gains, death taxes…everything, and replaces them with a 23% sales tax on new items.

You might say that a simple explanation for their dislike is right in the name: people accustomed to being on top, don’t like to just be treated “fairly.” They have teams of financial advisors who get most everything written off from taxation as “business” expenses. The net effect of this is to shift the overall tax burden downward. Under The Fair Tax, they won’t have to pay their accountants to prepare their taxes. But, every extravagant expenditure will have an equally extravagant tax. You aren’t taxed according to your production minus write-offs. You are taxed according to your lifestyle.

The sad irony is that there will be some people who buy all of this blather and vote for a manifestly more liberal (or elastic, in Romney’s case) candidate over a genuine conservative one. And, there’s more attacks to come: desperation time, remember? Everyone knows that negative ads will be run right before the Caucuses: probably about Wayne Dumond, the rapist who the parole board released after 30-some years of a life sentence, while Huckabee was governor, who then raped and killed someone else. Yes, Governor Huckabee had agreed with the release and had expressed so. But, 6 years afterward, during a campaign, when some of those Democrat appointess hadn’t been reappointed by Huckabee, Huckabee’s agreement was called “pressure.” Huckabee of course, now regrets the release, but he had denied clemency so a parole board could parole Dumond with oversight, a few years later. But, those details will not be the point of a negative campaign commercial.

And, if you really care about the sanctity of life, Mike Huckabee’s conviction about that, isn’t just words. I’m pretty confident that the others would pass their terms as president without moving the country away from its socially deadly indifference to the sanctity of life. We’ll see how many people buy the noise in Iowa. A significant part of Huckabee’s positive reception has been that when voters see and hear him, they don’t see and hear the manipulation and deception of the accusations. That is natural for most politicians and journalists take it for granted in all of them. And with widespread Internet access today, the truth can usually be found. BS is getting harder to sell.

What's Driving Huckabee's Conservative Critics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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