Huckabee for President

Iranaeus, you seem to be in Huck's inner circle. I'm down here in South Carolina, our Republican primary's next Saturday, and I'm leaning toward Huck, but am still undecided. Do you know of any chance I might have to hear him speak live? I live in Beaufort, on the coast... what they call "the Lowcountry."

Good point, Irenaeus.

Why not Fred? (1) I don't trust senators in general (but that doesn't mean I absolutely won't vote for them). Huck's been a governor. (2) His campaign is lackluster in the extreme. I'm not looking to swoon or be wowed or what have you, but I'm not sure he wants to be president (and I know what he said about fire in the belly; I just don't agree). Maybe what this means is I'm not aware of what he's saying and proposing because he's being drowned out by others who are campaigning energetically. (4) I just don't trust him, for whatever reason. Can't put my finger on it. Although the NRLC endorsement of him gives me pause; maybe he is the candidate I should be supporting.

Now, I'd love to see Thompson as a VP pick, and if he's the nominee I've few, if any, qualms about voting for him.

PS @Rod: On the subject of economics and tax policy, check out Brooks' column in the NYT today: on how the GOP is aiming at the middle class in a new way.

Hi Rod - I had similar concerns about his immigration about face, and maybe I've been completely hoodwinked by the man, but I believe his Arkansas policies were made with the best of intentions. When he offered a route to citizenship and college scholarships to illegal immigrant students, I believe he did so out of genuine concern for those people. While it was not, perhaps, the wisest policy choice, I think it was done with good intentions. As opposed to many who supported Bush's policy because the big corporations want cheap labor to pick lettuce for them. Then again, maybe I am misreading this. I believe he is a man of strong moral character.

As for Iraq, while I did not support the war initially, I believe as a nation we have an obligation to leave it in better shape than we found it. Contrary to what you might hear in the newsmedia, there are at least SOME Iraqis that want us and need us there. We can't just make a mess of the place and then wash our hands of it. A lot of our soldiers have done and are doing great things over there for the people of Iraq. We might disagree about that. But I also believe we have a responsibility to the people there not to "cut and run."

Secondly, I don't like where Huckabee is on the Iraq War. But none of the Republicans, save Paul, are where I am. And after this week, he's no longer an alternative.

So, you'd rather continue supporting a demonstrably failed foreign policy because it comes from someone who mouths some socially conservative platitudes? Amazing how fast you flip-flopped on Paul. I'll give you two months with Huckabee, or until he starts his version of the 'stay the course' mantra.

Obtaining new data that causes a change of heart is not flip-flopping. It's called rational thought, also worthy of respect.

I understand, Franklin. I just wish Rod had similar sympathy for Ron Paul. Paul has said he did not, or does not, agree with the content of those newsletters now. Is that not worthy of respect? And Paul is the only candidate who really seems to understand how horribly wrong our occupation of Iraq really is.

Is getting on the bandwagon now all that matters?

Yeah, I keep wavering between Huckabee and McCain. ESCR is my biggest problem with the latter.

Rod: Glad to see you make a decision. First time poster here. Loved your book. The reason I gravitated to Huckabee was I guess I perceived him as crunchy (w/o checking here)and genuinely concerned with people other than country club repubs. It's a struggle I have had my whole life-phliosophically. Glad to see there's a place for the rest of us. I thought before the huckaboom he was the best choice, but didn't get behind him right away until he started surging.

Here in MI, we're being bombarded, naturally. Romney now all of a sudden is trying to be a native son again-please. I'm sticking w/huck. There have been rumblings that some dems are going to cross-over and vote for Huck to stir up trouble. Careful what you wish for I say. What do you and the others think of a Huckabee/McCain or McCain/Huckabee candidacy(either is possible)?

Insane Kitten:

Remember, we can't SAY we're for Obama on here anymore with all those off-the-cliff rightist bloggers watching Rod like hawks.

We're the evidence of his secret liberalism, after all ;-P

Even his tax plan may not be all that bad: http://www.slate.com/id/2181833

Hey Rod;

There you go. You did it. And you sound pretty convinced. Good for you.

I have to say I went with Huck too in NH. But it was a toss up until Monday night when I went to a Huckabee town hall. (I decided he needed my vote more than McCain and I wanted to get Guiliani out of the race with a 4th place finish.)

But at this point I'm still open to either Huckabee/McCain or McCain/Huckabee. That'd be the best ticket.

I think McCain has earned it; is more electable in the general; has more bi-partisan support; and is a little left of Huck and more to the center.

So why didn't I vote for McC? Beside Guiliani?

Huckabee did a better job of communicating the concerns of the middle class. I gave Johnny plenty of chances. And looking back, their policies have alot of similarities - energy independence!! But McCain just kept saying that 'overall the economy was doing fairly well'. This in spite of questions to the contrary.

McCain would say 'Tell your friends who are skipping groceries I'm sorry for their difficulties.' Huckabee would say "This situation has to change and we've got to get going on making the change." Both political fluff I know. But Huck seemed to be in for the fight and McCain seemed to be observing and not seeing much to be concerned about. That's my take.

I am going for Huck too. Maybe everything about him isn't perfect, but I can name imperfections in ALL the candidates. The more the main street conservatives knock on him, the more I like him. I am tired of "Conservatism, Libertarian Lite" I also like the fact he doesn't want to go to war over everything. The modern political world is like a Civil War battle where everyone comments about the glorious charges, noble defenses, etc, and ignores all the dead and wounded on the battlefield. How bout we parley with the other side for a while, before we haul out more artillery. I am even tiring of Rush Limbaugh, something several years ago seemed impossible. Even Obama is better than Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton... are we building an aristocracy, or what?.......

I did become more interested when you mentioned his concerns for sustainable food infrastructure.

What a shock. The Quisling who wrote the "Illegal aiens are the Texan of the year" essay is for the RINO who rented Arkansas govt. office space to the Mexican govt. for a dollar a year, who supports free everything for illegals, and who will grant shamnesty after a "touchback."

With "conservatives" like Rod, who needs liberals?

Hewitt wrote something like "McCain or Huckabee as nominee would shatter the Reagan coalition." To which I say, "Good, how can I help it shatter?" This coalition as it now exists is full of con-men, statists, and unChristian attack machines. Let it shatter in many pieces, and let conservatism become temperamentally conservative and decent again.

You fell for a smear story that's over 10 years old. In fact, this newsletter story came out earlier in the campaign and was debunked ...

Ron Paul never wrote anything racist in his life and had nothing to do with the content put out in that newsletter. He was too busy practicing medicine and delivering babies. But when a shameless smear piece comes out you drop the ONLY candidate with any principles like a bad habit ...

Setting aside the question of whether Ron Paul wrote, saw in advance, or in any way personally agreed with the racist-leaning material, is it not the case that they appeared in newsletters or other publications to which he lent or rented his name? Yes or no, please.

Only if the story is simply a lie, and this ugly crap appeared completely disassociated from Ron Paul (or in publications that illicitly used his name), do I think the story irrelevant. But the connotation of "debunked" is "literally true, but not as bad as you think." Sorry, Magister Aurelius; I'll be the judge of how bad is bad when it comes to my vote.

But if the crap appeared associated with Paul's name - under his nihil obstat, so to speak - Dan's plea that "had nothing to do with the content" overstates the case to the point of dishonesty.

I don't think that the poor judgment of lending or renting one's name to Aryan troglodytes ever becomes completely "old news." "Old news" is still news if, unlike the Paulistas, one hasn't encountered it before. It can be "the straw that broke the camel's back" or, in the case of Ron Paul (since I like his ideas quite a lot) a tragic and disqualifying flaw. It will be a factor in my decision-making no matter how much the Paulistas carp about the Unfairness of It All.

Huckabee's obliviousness to the confidence-eroding appearance of accepting individually- or collectively-lavish gifts while in office will be a factor in my evaluation of him and of his electability. Fair's fair.

You know, I like Huck, I really do. He is funny and plays a mean bass guitar. But I don't think he's the guy for me.

He is really a liberal prolife Democrat if you look at the sum total of his record. They didn't call him "Tax Hike Mike" for nothing. He's sort of the "Big Government for Jesus" guy.

He's not too good on immigration. He has flip-flopped and now is trying to steal Ron Paul's idea of ending birthright citizenship for "anchor babies".

I am still a Paul supporter. He used bad judgment in not giving more oversight to the newsletters written in his name. But anyone who has followed his career knows he is not a racist. Race doesn't even appear in his radar. He sees people as individuals with God given rights, not members of some ethnic or racial group.

Huck has had his own lapse in judgment, and his ended much worse--a woman was killed by the rapist that he paroled after a campaign by the Right because the guy had raped Clinton's cousin. Incredible! Huck's boo boo gets a woman killed and you drop Ron Paul like a hot potato because of some smear that's been debunked over and over.

And then there's the war. Not just the war but our foreign policy. I think I object less to Huck than the other Repubs because he has come closer than anyone except Paul in admitting that the whole Iraq thing was a serious blunder. He was excoriated by Thompson for saying Bush had an arrogant bunker mentality. Well, duh, Fred, everyone can see that except for the most brainwashed Bushbots. He also had that famous exchange with Paul where he said that if we make a mistake, we all have to stick together as "one nation under God". Well, it was a grand setiment but Paul rightly observed that if our government has screwed up royally, we have no obligation to follow it over the cliff like lemmings.

One thing I do like about Huck is that he really really makes the Beltway and Manhattan Republican types nervous. Rush Limbaugh has been going after him. Rod's old colleagues at National Review are having cows about him. He beat out their man the Android in Iowa.
They don't really want some hick from the South to run. They want us hicks from the south to fall in line and vote while they make empty promises about prolife and profamily and send our kids to die in stupid foreign wars. Hicks are not actually supposed to run! That alone probably makes Huck my 2nd choice after Paul.

I just can't STAND Giuliani. I would vote for Hilary over him. Not that there'd be much difference. He has Norman Podherentz as a foreign policy advisor. The guy who wants to bomb Iran yesterday. Scary. He also seems like one of those authoritarian nanny state guys who wants to manage our lives. Kind of like Hilary. And he's awful, just awful, on abortion. And then there's the 9/11 radio thing, the Kerik thing, the pedophile expriest as a campaign advisor----ugh!!!!

Anybody but Giuiliani!!! The Android (Romney) is too slick and I don't trust him. McCain's idea of having us in Iraq for 100 years is crazy, though I think he is an honest and honorable man and don't understand conservative animus towards him. Besides, he looks like the sort of guy who could go off at any minute and lose it big time. Thompson, I dunno, anyone who is so clueless as to think we don't have an arrogant foreign policy is too dumb to be president. Didn't Richard Nixon say Thompson was the dumbest sob he ever saw?

Well, this should be an interesting year, no doubt.

Fair enough, Will. But aren't you at least implying 20-20 hindsight in your critique?

IIRC, Rod doesn't let himself off the hook for voting for Bush twice. At least, he's expressed regret about it. Doesn't that count for anything? Heck, I voted for Nixon in November '72! I had just turned 18 in March. I totally embarrassed myself and the political education I received from my elders... but only in hindsight, eh?

Perhaps I'm quibbling, but aftermath criticism is not equivalent to a forward-looking rational application of logic. Surely, every candidate must be judged on past performance, statements and associations. What I'm offering respect for is the balanced application of logic, rationale and personal reaction (feelings, if you wish). I laud the attempt, even while I might join you in criticising the decision in light of later events.

Take a step back with me here. Let me show you the primary target of my contempt: the vast, unwashed masses who start and stop with an emotional basis for their decisions. They are all right or wrong mostly on random factors having no connection to their original decision process. Rod can be (and has been) spectacularly wrong, but no way can I lump him into that mass. When I write that I don't care what his decision is, I do not waive my right to lambast him for it later. I just care that he is thinking as well as feeling. I will not hesitate to question his judgment of facts in that thinking, but I can still be happy that he is thinking.

"I claim extenuating circumstances: Youth and inexperience, plus long and faithful service."

-- Robert A. Heinlein, The Number of the Beast

;-D

You have a good point, Will. Just one more quibble: I never accept (at least, not soon) excuses for the unwashed along the lines of your critique of the DMN editorials. I never offer the benefit of the doubt to people who believe what they read without even a token effort at critical thought.

There are some messages that make the messenger worthy of a shooting... but it is so rare, and requires -- for me -- proof of willful and egregious deception, that I always dig my heels in when the gun is aimed.

Huckabee is a nanny state big government statist with a bible in his hand, in his pocket, and held up in front of every camera he can find.

He wants to spend my money on illegal aliens. He wants to put me in jail for smoking on the public sidewalk.

Why would I be surprised that he's your guy?

You're smoking something, Dreher. Huckabee can't be trusted on any of the issues that matter. He will continue to do for the GOP what Bush has sone - thoroughly destroy it. A Huckabee or McCain victory would be worse for the GOP's fortunes than a Clinton or Obama victory.

Huckabee will do nothing for the social issues, because he's shown he's not willing to fight for them, and there's not enough support in Congress for them. He will continue to expand the government because that's what he's done in the past and there's enough Democrats and Republicans to do that.

As for the claim that we know where Romney "really stands" on immigration, that, too, is wrong. Romney's reputation as a flip-flopper - and his use of the issue in the primaries - means that he can't afford to flip-flop again. If he did his support, pre- or post-election, would evaporate like the desert rain.

Romney the flip-flopper is really, truly the only one we can trust.

I'm very disturbed by this report about Romney and immigration.

It speaks deeply to the core fear that people trying to save this country have: that those who wish to subsume us in a tidal wave of unassimilable or difficult-to-assimilate aliens have the smug knowledge that their work is like rolling downhill, with the institutional culture of the media, academe, government, and big business, as well as the Catholic Church and the nonprofit world all on their side. Even worse, we fear that Republican candidates' carefully parsed rhetoric on this issue is a cynical pander; that the candidates are in the pocket of big business and the ethnic lobbies, and that they will pull off a rejiggered 1986 scam on us, eventually transforming the country beyond recognition, ruining it, but profiting their short term political careers.

Your post is so on-target and damaging that I suspect, Rod, that you are deliberately trying to undermine Romney on one of the two signature issues he's been using against Huckabee and McCain (the other being, of course, taxes).