According to Eve Fairbanks at The New Republic, Huck's new immigration plan is massive flip-flop. Earlier, Huck attacked those who opposed comprehensive immigration reform as driven by "racism or nativism."
To be sure, I like the Superbadass Huck immigration plan, because I side with Mark Krikorian on the issue. But I find it alarming how quickly and how thoroughly Huckabee flip-flopped on the issue. How can conservatives trash Romney for his finger-in-the-wind approach to abortion and gay marriage, but give Huck a pass on immigration? Answer: we can't. In that sense, I find this point of Eve's troubling:
Last point: maybe even worse than being flip-floppy, Huckabee's new immigration plan adds fuel to Jon's point that he seems to make policy decisions in a highly alarming manner, like when he was "asked about the [FairTax] by fair-tax supporters on the campaign trail, bought the book touting it, and was persuaded." Huckabee says his immigration plan is "partially modeled" on Krikorian's proposal, but if you comb through the whole National Review piece you'll find the Huckabee plan simply IS Krikorian's proposal, with a few extra points about the border fence, the greatness of the American dream, and the FairTax (again: !) tacked on. The echo doesn't inspire a ton of confidence. Compare it to the leading Democrats' health-care plans, which oodles of policy people slaved over to get just right on the details; it kind of feels more like Huckabee's people Googled "conservative plan to fix immigration" and went about posting the most promising thing that popped up. They didn't even ask Krikorian about it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It's Wikipediocracy!
Damn. Just as I was warming up to Huck he goes and panders to the immigrant-bashers. 'Nuther one for the reject pile. Hell, even if you're anti-immigrant you ought to hate Huck for pandering.
On the other hand, a lot of pro-life conservatives seem willing to support Mitt Romney despite his rather late turn away from being pro-choice in Mass. I'd rather have a convert than a foe; if Huckabee says that while campaigning he encountered voters who made him aware of their concerns and it changed his perspective, then that's good enough for me. Not only that, this plan is stricter than he'd previously been but is still devoid of some of the harshness others have expressed.
There's a difference between a convert and a panderer. A convert will admit the mistake and explain the reason for the conversion. A panderer simply goes with the wind. Mitt is the former, Huck is the latter.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.