As a wise uncle once said, "With great power, comes great responsibility." Such advice is useful not only for superheroes but also for super magazines. National Review Online is, deservedly, one of the most influential online magazines in the conservative movement. But when influence is wielded recklessly, such power has the ability to harm not only honest conservative politicians but also the credibility of the magazine itself.
A prime example is "The Editors" recent hit piece on Mike Huckabee. Some of "The Editors" are boosters of other candidates. Yet I still find it surprising that they would take such a cheap shot at a suppossed "second-tier" contender. Apparently, Huckabee is now considered such a threat by the East Coast conservative intelligentsia that he must be taken out by any means necessary.*
After damning him with faint praise, The Editors' go for the jugular:
Unfortunately, what Huckabee offers by way of solutions is a mixture of populism and big-government liberalism; the common theme of his policies is that they are half-baked. If an ill-considered slogan can be used to justify a policy, he is for it.
Considering the fact that Huckabee hasn't yet released his full policy agenda, such a statement seems premature. But the purpose of the article is not to consider his candidacy objectively--the purpose is to poison the well. The Editors know that most conservatives will take their opinion as gospel and will believe that they have done their research. As we shall see, this is not the case at all.
He is a protectionist, because we need to have “fair trade.”
The link under "protectionist" goes to a post by Ramesh Ponnuru titled "Huckabee's Protectionism"
The Union Leader reports that Huckabee wants "tougher trade negotiations" to force other countries to attain our labor and environmental standards—which is precisely the line that Democratic protectionists who don't want to be called protectionists take.
Let's look at Huckabee's position on "fair trade":
Huckabee also wants what he calls a "Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom" that would include U.S. free-trade agreement partners who are committed to open markets and "playing by the rules." Such an alliance could operate through the World Trade Organization and in other arenas to push trade agreements as well as labor, environmental and other reforms.
Oh wait, that's not Huckabee, that's from Mitt Romney's proposal. Romney also wants to create government-funded "Worker Empowerment And Training Accounts" for Americans that are put out of work because of free-trade agreements. How is that for big-government liberalism?
So Mitt Romney is a protectionist. I'm sure The Editors will denounce him soon.
He wants to put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, because we need them "to do jobs that are going unfilled because nobody here wants to do them."
Let's look at Huckabee's position on "putting illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship":
Gov. Huckabee expressed support yesterday for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship… 'I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country,' Romney said. '[T]hose that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.'"
Oh wait, that's not Huckabee, that's Mitt Romney.
So Mitt Romney is bad on illegal immigrants. I'm sure The Editors will soon be condemning him for this stance.
Energy subsidies and farm subsidies must be increased, because they’re a matter of “national security.
Let's look at Huckabee's position on "energy subsidies":
Support investment in incentives and subsidies for new energy technology development on a scale that the federal government currently invests in defense, space and health research. He has referred to the task of increasing energy independence as needing an "Apollo-scale" initiative.
Oh wait, that's not Huckabee, that's Mitt Romney, who said "I think it’s critical for us to not have ourselves as vulnerable to the economic and strategic implications of foreign oil, as we are today."
And what about those "farm subsidies"?
According to Huckabee, additional reductions in farm subsidies at this time would not be wise. "Europe and other nations continue to protect their farmers with a heavy subsidization program and we're not going to take action which would put us at a competitive disadvantage for our farmers," Huckabee says.
Oh wait, that's not Huckabee either. Again, that's Mitt Romney, sounding especially protectionist.
So Mitt Romney supports energy and farm subsidies. I'm sure The Editors will soon be pointing this out for their conservative readers.
Education policy offers a nice example of what happens when his statism and his social conservatism conflict: He opposes meaningful school choice.)
No, he doesn’t. Here is his explanation, from earlier this month, on the practical concerns that come from trying to implement a voucher program:
Unlike the editors of NRO, Huckabee has actually considered the implications of this policy proposal.
By the way, how did the voucher program in Masschuesetts work out? Oh wait, Gov. Romney never instituted one in that state, did he?
The Cato Institute gave him a D on fiscal policy, noting that spending had increased at three times the rate of inflation during his governorship.
It's rather telling that The Editors couldn't find a fiscally conservative group to bash Huckabee and had to resort to an extremist libertarian think-tank to do the job. (How far out of the mainstream is CATO? Consider: They want to privatize highways.) For what its worth, CATO graded Gov. Romney a "C" and added this explanation:
Romney will likely also be eager to push the Message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax Increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of “loopholes” in the tax code. He announced in May 2004 that he wanted to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent, but that was hardly an audacious stand. Voters had already passed a plan to do just that before Romney even took office. In his budget for 2006, he proposed $170 million more in business tax hikes, almost completely neutralizing the proposed income tax cut. If you consider the massive costs to taxpayers that his universal health care plan will inflict once he’s left office, Romney’s tenure is clearly not a triumph of small-government activism.
So we find that Gov. Romney is not only a big-government protectionist but he's a fiscal liberal. Why don't we hear more complaints about this? Gov. Huckabee didn’t raise taxes nearly as much as the governor from Masschusetts. Yet the Club for Growth ran ads in Iowa against him rather than Romney. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Perhaps there was not a big-donor that was willing to bankroll a hit job on Romney as there was for Huckabee. (By the way, is there anyone that still thinks the Club for Growth has any credibility?)
Huckabee is the one Republican candidate who flinched when President Bush vetoed the Democrats’ proposed expansion of S-CHIP.
Here is the response Huckabee gave Hugh Hewitt on this issue:
Hewitt: If that SCHIP bill is on your desk, do you sign it or do you veto it?
Huckabee: Hugh, it sounds like an easy question, but I’m telling you, I wouldn’t have allowed that bill to get to my desk in that form. It needed to be vetoed financially, because it was a terrible bill from the standpoint of $35 billion dollars. Politically, it was a very unfortunate thing to have to veto, because it only makes Republicans look like they don’t care about kids. That’s the mistake. The political mistake of getting there was a disaster, and the Republicans have to accept responsibility for that.
And since we're comparing Huckabee to NRO's preferred candidate, what was the reason that Romney believed the veto was necessary?
Yeah. Yeah, I sure would. I’d veto it out of my belief that we should have every citizen insured. I put forward a plan in my state that gets every citizen insured. I put forward a program for the nation that gets every citizen insured.
So the reason Romney opposes this big-government solution is because it conflicts with his favored big-government solution.
He says he is against socialized medicine, but don’t look for him to resist the drift toward it.
This is an embarrassing strawman that is beneath the dignity of NRO's editors. If they want to take a cheap shot, why not aim for the Governor who actually implemented a program that drifts toward socialized medicine?
Several of the Republican presidential candidates share Huckabee's views on abortion and same-sex marriage. On domestic-policy issues, however, he stands alone. Thankfully.
He stands alone? As we've seen, Huckabee's positions have been matched by Romney. Why then is he singled out for such vitriol? I'm not saying that because some candidates are equally bad that Huckabee should be given a pass. Rather I think that the standard should be applied to all candidates so that legitimate concerns can be brought to light. NRO is an important outlet and should be responsible for how it portrays conservative candidates.
Earlier this week, NR Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru warned about pundits being too enamored with a particular candidate:
That conservative writers are increasingly identifying with particular candidates may be an inevitable development. But it brings with it a temptation to boosterism. The moment an opinion journalist says to himself, “This is my guy” — as opposed to some cooler assessment, such as “Given the alternatives and on balance, I prefer this guy” — he increases that temptation tenfold. He may soon find himself yielding to it, if only subconsciously.
Ramesh was writing about the Giuliani supporters but he may want to point a finger at the Romney boosters in his own office. This cheap hit piece would have been a mere embarrassment had it appeared on a lefty blog; having it appear on NRO is simply inexcusable.
Addendum: Let me clarify that I'm not attempting to bash Romney. My point is simply that the selective criticism of Huckabee is unfair and borders on dishonest. As governor, Huckabee was far more fiscally conservative than Romney. He was also more fiscally conservative than Giuliani. So it is surreal to constantly hear the bogus attacks on his record and his positions.
*Originally I claimed that "The Editors" were boosters of Romney. I changed the sentence to reflect that the broader diversity of opinion.
Note: I'm hearing rumors that the Romney campaign is starting a whisper campaign against Gov. Huckabee on the anti-Mormon "push-poll" calls. Romney is currently my second-choice candidate. But if this turns out to be true then I want nothing to do with him.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/4044
1
Your illegal immigration quote is missing.
Great post!
posted on 11.20.2007 2:01 AM2
Oops. Sorry. That quote is in there now.
posted on 11.20.2007 2:55 AM3
Thanks, Joe!
I read that editorial yesterday and it seemed very out of character for NRO.
posted on 11.20.2007 6:46 AM4
Over at NRO it was Fred Thompson for months -- now it's Romney. I'm with you, I"m not against Thompson or Romney, but I don't understand their clear bias against Huckabee. I wish they'd be would calm their boosterism!
posted on 11.20.2007 7:16 AMI spoke with Ramesh at an event - he said given Guiliani or Huckabee he'd have to consider Huckabee. Also said his collegues are BIG Guiliani fans, that's why I'm surprised you are identifying NRO as Romney supporters. I think they may be pushing Romney so Guiliani it can be a Guiliani-Romney contest. Given no other competitors, Guiliani would win. (they think)
5
I've never had the impression that NRO is backing Romney. It does seem that there are one or two people there supporting him, though not without some reservations, but the preferences of most writers there seem all across the board. I mean, Ramesh, who is mentioned frequently here, seems to be leaning towards McCain. Anyhow, pointing out flaws in Romney's platform doesn't exactly address criticisms towards Huckabee's positions, other than to say that someone else may be worse.
posted on 11.20.2007 7:42 AM6
Joe, you make valid points about Romney's faults ... but saying Romney's worse than Huckabee doesn't mean that Huckabee is therefore a good candidate.
posted on 11.20.2007 8:40 AM7
Oh wait, that's not Huckabee, that's from Mitt Romney's proposal. Romney also wants to create government-funded "Worker Empowerment And Training Accounts" for Americans that are put out of work because of free-trade agreements. How is that for big-government liberalism?
Perhaps its big gov't liberalism but it's not protectionism. We've had a similiar program for those who were supposedly going to lost their jobs from NAFTA but very few people bothered to apply for it.
It's rather telling that The Editors couldn't find a fiscally conservative group to bash Huckabee and had to resort to an extremist libertarian think-tank to do the job. (How far out of the mainstream is CATO? Consider: They want to privatize highways.) For what its worth, CATO graded Gov. Romney a "C" and added this explanation:
I don't understand why privatizing highways is some type of unspeakable taboo.
So we find that Gov. Romney is not only a big-government protectionist but he's a fiscal liberal. Why don't we hear more complaints about this? Gov. Huckabee didn’t raise taxes nearly as much as the governor from Masschusetts. Yet the Club for Growth ran ads in Iowa against him rather than Romney. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Perhaps there was not a big-donor that was willing to bankroll a hit job on Romney as there was for Huckabee. (By the way, is there anyone that still thinks the Club for Growth has any credibility?)
Well that's because the whole fiscal argument is a big lie Joe. You guys were trying the same joke on Clinton when he first ran (I remember what was it, "50 tax increases" or whatnot). I showed you before how you can massage the numbers to make anything you want appear either impressive or wimply. For example, you cited how Romney cut the top rate from 5.3% to 5%. But I can call that a 6% cut in income tax rates if I was a Mitt press spokesman. No doubt in many people's minds they might imagine that means a cut of 6 points (as in 16% down to 10%).
But the jokes on you Joe if you thought those attacks actually were based on reality. Now your guy is getting speared by them you're coming to a revelation.
This is an embarrassing strawman that is beneath the dignity of NRO's editors. If they want to take a cheap shot, why not aim for the Governor who actually implemented a program that drifts toward socialized medicine?
The core of Mitt's MA plan was a requirement that everyone buy insurance if they didn't already have it. For those who were too poor to buy insurance the gov't offered subsidies. That's socialized medicine? Why? My state requires all drivers have car insurance. Is that socialized auto insurance?
Ramesh was writing about the Giuliani supporters but he may want to point a finger at the Romney boosters in his own office. This cheap hit piece would have been a mere embarrassment had it appeared on a lefty blog; having it appear on NRO is simply inexcusable.
Too bad you do the same thing. You've excused Huckabee's additional spending because "it was on roads" (I guess that might tie into your odd fetish against anyone who would suggest privatization of roads). Well fact is it was additional spending as was his additional taxes and this sort of way of conducting an election by smearing your opponant by reading isolated factoids out of their larger context was perfected by the Republican party over the last 20-30 years. Now all in the sudden you want the system changed to accomodate your favorite guy?
posted on 11.20.2007 10:00 AM8
Mr. Bontoon,
I believe that Mr. Carter was not necessarily trying to defend Huckabee and put down Romney. He just merely pointed out the fact that the NRO is biased towards Romney in this article—especially if they never point out Romney’s flaws in future articles. What disturbs me, and indeed what I believe disturbed Mr. Carter, is that this article was a bash of Huckabee not a real analysis of the issues.
Your point about statistics is true, you often can make the numbers look impressive or not. The disappointment with the NRO is the fact that they stooped to unfairly bash one candidate while not mentioning the same things in another. They did some of the completely deceptive reasoning that you did in your example.
But the jokes on you Joe if you thought those attacks actually were based on reality.
That’s the problem. Politics is about twisting the facts not addressing the problems. That needs to change. And be exposed like it was by this article.
The core of Mitt's MA plan was a requirement that everyone buy insurance if they didn't already have it. For those who were too poor to buy insurance the gov't offered subsidies.
Oh, so if I don’t want health insurance because I feel that there are better ways to pay for health care I am forced to buy health insurance? This reeks of the beginning of socialism. I would appreciate it if the government got their fingers out of my pocketbook; whether they take it or tell me how to spend it. I really do want to be able to spend my money the way that I believe is the wisest.
Now all in the sudden you want the system changed to accommodate your favorite guy?
Mr. Bontoon if the system is corrupt, we should endeavor to change it. I would not like to see any candidate unfairly misrepresented. As much as I dislike her, I would not misrepresent Mrs. Clinton, nor support someone who does. It is much better for America for voters to see and accept or reject the candidate as they are. If there are facts that would hurt a candidate, bring them up, but don’t twist facts to make a candidate look bad.
J Patrick
posted on 11.20.2007 11:23 AM
9
In sports we call it East Coast bias. NR is based in New York so the writers are naturally more familiar and comfortable with guys like Rudy and Mitt.
posted on 11.20.2007 11:33 AM10
Looking thru the NRO editorial, I'll say this more:
1. On protectionism I think Joe is more or less right. It's impossible to tell anything because every politician talks in terms of 'fair trade', 'even playing fields' etc. I wouldn't say asking China to revalue their currency is in itself protectionist, but it would be if it was backed up with measures like tariffs or other threats.
2. On energy NRO is dead on. Huckabee shoots right for 'energy independence'. Get this straight, the only way to make the US 'energy independant' is massive deindustrialization and depression of our economy.
3. On farm subsidies the NRO is again dead on. Huckabee's website puts him square in the center of the bogus 'farm policy' arguments made by agribusiness collecting billions in gov't checks. He says the gov't needs to subsidize food to keep it cheap for national security reasons. Well why not electricity, gas, cars and just about everything else? He says the gov't needs to run an insurance program to protect farmers against price drops. What exactly are the private future's markets for? Granted I don't expect any Presidential candidate to clearly stand against farm subsidies, especially when the early primaries happen in farm states but Huckabee acts like a true believer in them rather than someone going along out of political necessity.
4. On illegal immigrants I don't understand the NRO's obsession with driving all Hispanics except Bush's last discredited AG out of the Republican Party.
5. Joe neglects to mention the core of NRO's beef with Huckabee which is that he sounds more like a crackpot than Mitt. Perhaps the core of this is the "Fair Tax" that he advocates:
It's kind of amazing you're so upset tht people are going after Huckabee when Ron Paul embraces the same 'pipedream' of eliminating the IRS.
As we went through before, the problem with a sales tax is that at the levels necessary it would create massive incentives to evade the tax which in turn would require massive gov't oversight of just about every transaction in the economy making today's IRS look like a puppy. The NRO's fear that we would end up with both is probably a good thing since we could have use a little sales tax to lower income taxes but Huckabee does indeed sound a bit crackpotish over this.
Unfortunately, this isn't just rhetoric. Huckabee has a track record of being taken in by crackpot ideas. Wayne Dumond had raped a 17 year old girl and was sentenced to life. Huckabee let himself get taken in by some tabloid TV reports that implied he was either innocent or the sentence was excessive as well as anti-Clinton crackpots who alleged he must be innocent because his victim was a distant relative of Clinton. Huckabee refused to meet with the victim and ignored his own law enforcement advisors who reported that many of the alleged 'facts' in the tabloid reports about the case were false. As a result of his intervention, Dumond was released and received congratations letter from Huckabee. Unfortunately Dumond then went on to sexually assult and murder a woman.
So how off is the NRO really here?
posted on 11.20.2007 11:40 AM11
Your point about statistics is true, you often can make the numbers look impressive or not. The disappointment with the NRO is the fact that they stooped to unfairly bash one candidate while not mentioning the same things in another.
Stooped, though, implies that they are normally upright. They are not, though and neither is Joe. The crying foul over statistics in the case of Huckabee is whiny because all the analysis from an outfit like NRO is in the same mold. It's also like that with Joe. Why does Huckabee alone deserve a 'fair analysis' of his tax and spending policies when its denied everyone else?
That’s the problem. Politics is about twisting the facts not addressing the problems. That needs to change. And be exposed like it was by this article.
Except it wasn't. The core of Joe's point is "how can they spin against Huckabee when I can spin against Romney". If NRO had endorsed Huckabee I doubt, really doubt, Joe would have gotten upset at an identical editorial attacking Romney while singing Huckabee's praises. In fact, I suspect Joe would have embraced it!
Oh, so if I don’t want health insurance because I feel that there are better ways to pay for health care I am forced to buy health insurance? This reeks of the beginning of socialism.
Actually socialism is gov't ownership of the means of production. The UK would be socialism where every doctor essentially works for the gov't. Saying you must be covered by health insurance is not in itself socialism.
posted on 11.20.2007 12:06 PM12
Mr. Bontoon,
I believe that Mr. Carter was not necessarily trying to defend Huckabee and put down Romney. He just merely pointed out the fact that the NRO is biased towards Romney in this article—especially if they never point out Romney’s flaws in future articles. What disturbs me, and indeed what I believe disturbed Mr. Carter, is that this article was a bash of Huckabee not a real analysis of the issues.
Your point about statistics is true, you often can make the numbers look impressive or not. The disappointment with the NRO is the fact that they stooped to unfairly bash one candidate while not mentioning the same things in another. They did some of the completely deceptive reasoning that you did in your example.
But the jokes on you Joe if you thought those attacks actually were based on reality. That’s the problem. Politics is about twisting the facts not addressing the problems. That needs to change. And be exposed like it was by this article. The core of Mitt's MA plan was a requirement that everyone buy insurance if they didn't already have it. For those who were too poor to buy insurance the gov't offered subsidies. Oh, so if I don’t want health insurance because I feel that there are better ways to pay for health care (like I actually do) I am forced to buy health insurance? This reeks of the beginning of socialism. I would appreciate it if the government got their fingers out of my pocketbook; whether they take it or tell me how to spend it their fingers are still in my pocketbook. I really do want to be able to spend my money the way I see is wisest. Now all in the sudden you want the system changed to accommodate your favorite guy? Mr. Bontoon if the system is corrupt, we should endeavor to change it. I would not like to see any candidate unfairly misrepresented. As much as I dislike her, I would not misrepresent Mrs. Clinton, nor support someone who does. It is much better for America for voters to see and accept or reject the candidate as they are. If there are facts that would hurt a candidate, bring them up, but don’t twist facts to make a candidate look bad. Thanks Joe for a great article. J. Patrick posted on 11.20.2007 12:07 PM
13
Sorry about that accidentally posted twice.
posted on 11.20.2007 12:09 PM14
Mr. Bontoon,
I don't have time for a lengthy response, but I do want to mention the socialism. I did not say that government mandated medicine would be socialism, I said that it indicated the beginnings of socialism. It is essentially not much better than government health care. The government mandates that I have to have health insurance and instead of a social security system gives me a few options. Where is this in the constitution? I don't want the government telling me how to spend my money. (i. e. more government involvement, and moving on a socialist route.)
As for the slandering opponents, I would rather we left that off. Lets rather than trying to bash each other down with false facts try to press through to the real. I agree Huckabee was involved in releasing the rapist, but not in the way you said. Give us the whole facts and let us make the call on him; don't say "Huck is a bad fellow and here's my evidence to prove it".
Again, sorry for the double post. I hope we can endeavor to see which candidate would lift America up and unite it, rather than stoop to playing the insane game of 'lets twist numbers'.
J posted on 11.20.2007 12:24 PM
15
I'm not sure about Romney yet. I'm torn in so many ways, but I have serious problems with Huckabee. It's not even so much how he governed in Arkansas, which is obviously relevant, but his inclinations that bother me. I till take two quotes I came across that illustrate this:
“The far left and the far right curse the ground on which I walk,” Huckabee told me Monday. “That is a great place to be. I am where far more of the country is.”
I always cast a jaundiced eye toward a so-called conservative who claims moral equivalence between the far left and something called the far right. To me this is an out and out pander. Who exactly is he talking about? Birchers who don't even exist anymore? Neocons? Theocons? Libertarians? To compare any of this to the far left is simply inexcusable in my book. This is a window into the soul of the man, and I don't like it.
“I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street,” he says. “CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder-working, and that is wrong.”
Let me count they ways how this annoys me. This could have come right out of the mouth of the recently radicalized John Edwards. What business is it of a president what the head of a publicly traded company makes? Is he going to champion legislation to limit CEO pay? Democrats would love that. What's the limit, Mike. 300 times? 150 Times? 20 times? And do we not need both Wall Street and Main Street? Shouldn't a president be a president of both, instead of pandering with a politics of envy. This is inexcusable. Ever heard of capitalism, Mike, free enterprise?
So NRO or anybody else can say what they want about Huckabee, but these two statements tell me all I need to know about the man.
posted on 11.20.2007 12:50 PM16
You know, I agree with the general criticisms of NRO but I think you are way off on tying this to a comparison with Romney. It's unfortunate that we are in a place where Mitt and Huck are fighting each other for Iowa right now because both the Mitt and Mike bloggers have become supercharged towards each other. Right now I'm leaning toward Romney as my #1 and Huck as a close #2 choice. I'd be happy with either and both are leagues better than any of the other choices we have. You do realize that NRO is anything but a Romney outpost right? Witness the absurd Hemingway hit the other day claiming that Romney push-polled himself. Entirely based on non-existent evidence and they didn't even contact the folks for a response before they published it. NRO, with the exception of K-Lo and Ramesh is in the tank for Giuliani just like Fox News, the WSJ, George Will, and the rest of the "conservative" establishment that discredits itself a little more each day.
posted on 11.20.2007 12:52 PM17
As for the slandering opponents, I would rather we left that off. Lets rather than trying to bash each other down with false facts try to press through to the real. I agree Huckabee was involved in releasing the rapist, but not in the way you said.
Feel free to supply facts you think are missing. The one fact that I left out was that while the man was awaiting trial for raping the 17 year old cheerleader, he was castrated. He claimed men broke into his house and attacked him, although some law enforcement have countered that he might have done it himself (self-mutiliation does happen with certain types of sex offenders). Regardless, Huckabee has already begun the process of lying about this...see http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialshuck-distorts-dumond-fiasco.html for example:
What he failed to mention was that he personally meet with the board and demanded that they free him.
I did make a mistake, I misread a Boston Globe article as saying Huckabee refused to meet with the victim. Actually he did meet with the victim but only after he anounced his decision to get the man released:
My issue here is that this fits right in with a post Joe did a while ago about modern conservatives. In that post he, half-jokingly I suspect, said modern right wingers appreciate confirmation over facts. In other words, they would rather hear someone confirming their views rather than obtaining the actual facts of case or situtation. While this is great if you're just looking for someone to listen too on the radio as you drive to work this is a diaster if you actually let people who think this way get power. Huckabee liked the crackpot story he heard....'enemy' of the evil Bill Clinton gets railroaded by the justice system. He didn't bother to listen to anyone he should have listened too until it was too late. As a result a woman was brutally murdered.
The problem is not that the woman got killed, though. Ultimately only a portion of criminals can be held for life so yes many will get released and some of those will go on to committ horrible crimes. No one has a crystal ball so its impossible to predict who but we can at least try to have sensible policies. Huckabee's policy appears to have been to latch onto some crackpot theory and let the facts be dammed. While the NRO hasn't used that as an example I think they have a point that we should worry about his other statements that have elements of crackpottishness being more than just campaign bluster.
posted on 11.20.2007 1:00 PM18
Boonton:
My state also requires me to have auto insurance in order to drive a car. Where your analogy falls apart, though, is that my state does not offer to subsidize it if I don't have the money to buy it. I'd guess that your state doesn't either. Instead, they tell you not to drive.
So stating that the requirement to have car insurance is similar to the requirement to have health insurance is a misleading analogy. That's why subsidizing people's health insurance is heading toward socialized medicine, but simply requiring people to have car insurance isn't heading toward socialized driving.
And saying that roads should be privatized isn't somehow taboo. What it does do is mark someone as pretty far out of the mainstream. (This is not to say that privatizing roads is necessarily an invalid position, just that someone who holds it isn't necessarily the best barometer of what "normal" or "mainstream" positions are - which was precisely Joe's point.)
PS: You have some valid points, Boonton. But for some reason, you feel the need to launch into vitriol and ad hominem attacks in about 80% of your posts. It makes us a lot less willing to listen to the valid parts of what you have to say.
posted on 11.20.2007 1:29 PM19
I think NRO very much nails the Huckabee I knew from my days in Arkansas politics. In addition, I won't vote for the SOB because:
A) He refused to use any of his political capital to campaign on behalf of GOP legislative candidates, and in fact was too chummy with the Democratic establishment;
B) His statement in the 1990s that the Arkansas Governor's Mansion funds were "his money" showed an ethical sense comparable to convicted ex-Arkansas AG Steve Clark;
D) He's Bill Clinton, except his weakness is money, not women.
posted on 11.20.2007 1:33 PM20
Now, I've been a long time reader of Evangelical Outpost, and I'd like to take a second to thank you for running it. But...
I don't think your editorial here does a good job of telling us readers why we should give Mike Huckabee a shot.
Agree with it or not, the NRO editorial you're responding to was a list of issues on which NRO disagrees with Mike Huckabee. As far as I can tell, your response is neither to a.) argue that NRO is misrepresenting Mr. Huckabee's position, nor to b.) argue that Mr. Huckabee's position is the right one. All I see is you arguing that Mitt Romney holds positions similar to Mike Huckabee's. Taking this approach may be useful in helping me decide whether to vote for Mr. Romney, but I don't think was your goal.
So, if you have a second, could you tell us what Mr. Huckabee's position is on the following issues
, and why these positions are a good reason to vote for him?
posted on 11.20.2007 2:00 PM21
My state also requires me to have auto insurance in order to drive a car. Where your analogy falls apart, though, is that my state does not offer to subsidize it if I don't have the money to buy it.
A subsidy is not socialism. Sorry you are correct at nitpicking the differences between two situtations that are analgous but you're missing the point. Socialism means gov't ownership of the means of production...period. If the gov't said it was going to open a hospital and employ doctors to work there that would be socialized medicine...even if the hospital took private insurance or only accepted payment in full. Likewise if the gov't brought a hot dog stand and started selling hot dogs on a street corner that would be 'socialized hot dogs'.
This isn't nitpicking, it was/is the core idea of socialism. Instead of a private company providing a good at a profit the gov't could take over and split the profit between the workers & customers.
What you could validly say is that the insurance requirement is gov't regulation, or big gov't or even big government liberalism. But get real about this, something like 50% of healthcare money is already flowing through the gov't and gov't is a huge influence on the 50% 'private' healthcare market. If you want to advocate a libertarian approach you're free to do so just like the virginity advocate can sing the praises of purity to the girls in the brothel but don't pretend you're preaching to a finishing school.
posted on 11.20.2007 2:06 PM22
Actually socialism is gov't ownership of the means of production. The UK would be socialism where every doctor essentially works for the gov't. Saying you must be covered by health insurance is not in itself socialism.
Whether or not it exactly fits some wooden definition of this or that totalitarian scheme is beside the point. Government mandated health insurance is, however, something that is not a question for a free society. Call it socialist, call it whatever, it's an affront to liberty.
posted on 11.20.2007 2:23 PM23
Joe, the Blue Jays have never been the same without you!
posted on 11.20.2007 2:26 PM24
JJ
Government mandated health insurance is, however, something that is not a question for a free society. Call it socialist, call it whatever, it's an affront to liberty.
That might be an argument where gov't does not implicitly gurantee you healthcare. Unlike other goods, if you get sick you will be cared for even if you have no money or insurance. Given that's the case, requiring people to buy insurance is hardly an affront to liberty. In essence what you're saying is that they must provide for themselves before they are allowed to tap the taxpayer. What you're saying is 'liberty' means the liberty to choose to tap the taxpayer first rather than last.
posted on 11.20.2007 2:53 PM25
My first reaction to this post was similiar to others' - it does not defend Huckabee against any of the charges, it merely says that Romney is just as bad.
I don't think it reflects particularly well on Huckabee that two of the proposals that he's touting most heavily - the national sales tax and constitutional prohibition on abortion - have almost exactly zero chance of passage. They are both proposals that get certain fringe groups really excited, but neither has any chance of gaining the support required for changing the Constitution. As a resident of Arkansas I can also say that I never heard him mention either of these ideas until he started running for president.
One of his biggest issues as governor from 1996 to 2006 was improving health and the health care system. He made a number of positive changes such as outlawing smoking in all work places, removing junk food from schools, and most importantly, establishing ARKids First - an excellent program for insuring poor kids with S-CHIP funds. Also important was his own personal example of losing 110 lbs and running in marathons. Sadly, the recently released study quoted below shows that his efforts did not do enough. (Note: Arkansas was 45th in health when Huckabee became governor.)
- - - - -
LITTLE ROCK (AP) _ In a ranking of states by healthiest, Arkansas ranked near the bottom at 48th, according to the 2007 report of the United Health Foundation.
The nonprofit group said the healthiest state was Vermont, followed by Minnesota, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Connecticut. The bottom five were Tennessee at 46th, followed by Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
The annual report said Arkansas' strengths included a low prevalence of binge drinking and a moderate rate of high school graduation. Weaknesses included a high percentage of children in poverty, a high premature death rate, a high rate of cancer deaths, and low immunization coverage.
- - - - -
Thank god for Mississippi! And Louisiana!
posted on 11.20.2007 4:08 PM26
I did not say that government mandated medicine would be socialism, I said that it indicated the beginnings of socialism.
"Conservatives" such as yourself can -- and do -- say exactly the same thing about ANY government attempt to regulate ANY human activity to ANY degree for ANY purpose. It's nothing more than a throwaway talking-point used to dodge any serious thought about the issue(s) being discussed. Labelling something does not change its nature, or its consequences.
Whether or not it exactly fits some wooden definition of this or that totalitarian scheme is beside the point.
No, it's not "beside the point;" you're twisting the meaning of words, which can easily be seen as a dishonest act; and it's perfectly relevant to point this out.
posted on 11.20.2007 4:25 PM27
Re, the socialized medicine bugbear:
We've already got socialized medicine, because as a society (though perhaps not every individual), we're unwilling to let the uninsured bleed to death on the sidewalk. Instead, they're treated in emergency rooms, and the cost is eventually passed on to everyone who does pay for insurance. We won't pay for relatively inexpensive routine preventative care, but when the chips are down, we do pay for tremendously overpriced emergency care that results from lack of prevention.
So, what we've got is wildly overpriced, stupidly inefficient "socialized medicine." If some form of real, live, eeeevil socialized medicine would be slightly less stupid than what we've got, I'll support it.
posted on 11.20.2007 4:35 PM28
Joe, thanks for writing this article. I wrote NRO an email too:
------------
Dear National Review,
Thank you for writing an editorial about Mike Huckabee. I would like to comment on a couple points:
1. Huckabee would have vetoed SCHIP (http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/huckabee-on-the-michael-reagan-show/)
2. Huck's fiscal record is not as bad as people make it out to be. Ed Fuelner, president of Heritage Foundation, praised Huckabee in 2002 for standing against tax hikes and for cutting spending (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032602a.cfm). Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform thinks that Huckabee will be fine on the issue of taxes, and he compared Huck's record to that of Ronald Reagan. In contrast, Grover Norquist called Fred Thompson the "worst" candidate on taxes (http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Kessler_Thompson_taxes/2007/11/08/47885.html). Mitt Romney refused to support Bush's tax cuts when he was governor of Massachusetts, while Huckabee has consistently supported Bush's tax cuts. Also, it has come out that the Club for Growth attack ads were financed by Huck's personal political rival (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004079.html).
3. None of the candidates have been consistently against abortion and gay marriage like Mike Huckabee has been. Huck supports the Human Life Amendment and the Federal Marriage Amendment. The only other candidate who takes the same positions on these issues is Romney, but Romney has been very inconsistent on abortion. Huck is the only choice for social conservatives. (McCain and Thompson both oppose FMA, McCain supports ESCR, and Thompson opposes HLA).
4. I also saw a comment that suggested that Huck is not presidential material. Huck has more executive experience than all the other candidates combined. He was elected 4 times in a Democratic state (unlike Romney, who has never been re-elected).
All the best,
posted on 11.20.2007 5:25 PM29
This Bible-believing social conservative jumped on the Fred Thompson bandwagon earlier this year. I didn't care for Rudy, McCain, and Mitt. Didn't think Mike Huckabee had a snowball's chance of winning the nomination. So I was pleased with Fred entering the race.
Now I think I'll vote for Huckabee in the primary. And I'll vote for the GOP candidate in the presidential election, whoever that might be. Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Fred, Huckabee, whoever.... any of them is better than Hilary.
posted on 11.20.2007 5:33 PM30
Mike Huckabee was my governor in Arkansas -- believe me, he's no conservative. The NRO editorial might not have been fair on every issue, but it was accurate in its conclusion. Huckabee is a big-goverment Republican -- a Bush but with tax increases -- and electing him would be another step in moving the party to the left. We can't out democrat the Democrat party folks. Down that path lies the political wilderness.
posted on 11.20.2007 6:15 PM31
I am dismayed by Huckabee's comments about CEO pay. I think it is an astounding bit of anti-economic freedom to suggest some arbitrary limit to anyone's paycheck. This is extremely upsetting. I wish he would make it clear that he's not a communist/socialist.
But, on social issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion, Huckabee is my candidate. And he is the Only one with the right views on these things that has a record to prove it and could win an election. So, I believe those who value traditional marriage and the life of the unborn child must choose Huckabee.
posted on 11.20.2007 10:06 PM32
So you're off to Little Rock to work the Huckabee campaign. Nervousness comes with the territory, you'll do just fine.
posted on 11.21.2007 1:00 AMHave fun!
33
I also like Huckabee and am suspicious of Romney, but if the only way you can defend Mike Huckabee is by serving up Romney quotes, you're in trouble.
posted on 11.21.2007 8:02 PM34
Nixonian? You mean like taking quotes out of context?
posted on 12.12.2007 12:10 PMhttp://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1207/Romney_to_hit_Huck_on_immigration_in_Iowa.html
35
Scribes, Pharisees and Huckabees! Hypocrites!!!
What a bigot is Huckabee! He pretends to now know much about the Mormon faith (probably sponsored his own anti-Mormon cult classes), and then naively questions a doctrine out of context that he knows would be incendiery!
He is alienating the very people whose support he needs if he somehow gets the nomination! That is 6 Million less votes he should have in a general election!
posted on 12.16.2007 1:51 AM36
Great post. Thanx for sharing.I really enjoy this blog.
posted on 02.06.2008 12:44 AM