1

I'm not so interested in ideological purity, so it really doesn't matter to me that the most conservative candidate become president. I have no loyalties to conservatism, my loyalties are to America and the American way of life, so whatever best serves that goal will get my vote.

Like a good Platonist you think that categories like conservatism and liberalism have clearly delineated, non-contingent, objective boundaries. They don't. You can't say you're a conservative unless you say what it is you want to conserve. You yourself said that federalism isn't conservative. But if federalism represents what one wants to conserve, then it does. Conservatism isn't an end in itself, its a means to an end. Socialists who want to preserve socialist institutions already in place are conservative in that sense.

My biggest gripe with Huckabee is with his personal and character related qualities, not his policies per-se. I don't think he's serious about foreign policy. I see a lot of Bill Clinton in him, as well as Carter. He's primarily interested in domestic affairs. He wants to cure Americas social ills, and foreign policy is a distraction. On the foreign policy page of his website he basically endorses what George Bush has done to date in Iraq, and sums up the next steps as follows:

I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government.

He's not even saying he will hold a summit, merely support it. He sounds like a corporate facilitator: he'll set up the conference room, he'll arrange for coffee and bagels and will take meeting minutes. He just wants the State Department wingtips to keep everyone occupied in meetings and summits while he focuses like a laser on America's expanding waistline.

That's my gut feel of the guy. He's the love-child of Carter and Clinton.

2

Robert said:
My biggest gripe with Huckabee is with his personal and character related qualities

What personal- and character-related qualities do you have in mind? Just a lack of commitment to foreign policy? Have you read Huckabee's paper on foreign policy?

3

When all is said and done, nobody is a pure conservative unless you are an anarchist libertarian.

Mike is a pragmatist. He is going to oppose taxes, but he is going to get work done to move America forward.

In my mind there is a vast difference between federal taxes and state taxes. State taxes are generally collected and spent in the same local. They should be used to invest in the infrastructure.

Federal taxes are used differently. They are collected all over the country and spent to bribe the constituents of certain at-risk congressmen into keeping them into office.

So the republican opposition of federal tax and spend program should not translate into opposition to all new state taxes. But desperate politicians will use whatever they can grasp to tear down their opposition.

4

First a story. Then an explanation.

In 2000 Jorge the Younger Shrub was campaigning for President here in Iowa. And the most powerful radio station in Iowa is WHO radio. They are very conservative in philosophy, the hosts are conservative and if your going to reach a conservative audience you have to go there and make an appearance.

Now Jorge made his appearance, and as the Mickelson show progressed Jorge made his claim of being a "compassionate conservative". Asked to explain, he talked about a smarter, less intrusive government, a government that would not tell people what to do, it would respond to their needs. A government that would follow the Constitution.

Now up to this point I was convinced. That sounded really good. That sounds like the opposite of Bill and Hillary care, cradle to grave nannyism. I was ready to buy Jorge the Younger, he was the man.

That all changed in the next sentence. Jorge said, I want to be the education president. Mickelson, said, Please explain. I want to make our education system better, I want our students to learn faster and help those who are falling through the cracks.

And there is the nut of the problem. One sentence, a government that follows the Constitution. The next he wants to be the education president, government giving us a bigger better education system.

Nowhere in the Constitution is education mentioned. Let me repeat that. NOWHERE

Jorge the Younger and now Mike Huckabee have accepted the liberal position that since some other fool violated the Constitution and entangled the Federal Government in the education system, therefore it's his job to make the education system bigger and better.

A conservative/Constitutionalist would close the Department of Education.

Since governor Huckabee has proposed fixing the education system, he clearly does not understand the role of the federal government. Therefore one can only conclude that he is a liberal.

Maybe you doubt my characterizations of Huckabee's ideas.

In an article/chart in the Des Moines Sunday Register Sunday July 29, Mike gave the following answers.

Question, What would you do to ensure U.S fourth graders are competitive in academic achievement with there international peers in math, science, and reading?

Huckabee said he would create preschool programs and implement a program similar to Arkansas' Smart Start, which targets children in kindergarten through fourth grade with increased standards and accountability measures.

Question, What, if anything, would you do to change the No Child Left Behind legislation, and how much, if any, federal money needs to be added to the program?

My comment, this legislation was written by Ted Kennedy.

Huckabee said the legislation should be tweaked to create a level playing field for schools with disproportionately large numbers of children who can't speak English, who live in poverty or who have other disadvantages. He doesn't support increasing federal money for the program because such money often comes with stipulations that don't allow states to make localized decisions about education.

Are you concerned about the amount of college debt young people have? If so, what should the federal government do to help solve this problem?

Huckabee said he would allocate money to federally funded, state-administered scholarships for college graduates who who are willing to go into national service outside of the military, such as teaching in impoverished areas of the country. He also supports similar merit-based scholarships for college students who come from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Want to see how a conservative/constitutionalist answers the same questions?

----- said he would get the federal government out of the classroom and allow states, local officials and parents to make the decisions that are best for their individual situations.

---- said that No Child Left Behind is uncontitutional legisltation that usurped state and local authority over education. He said he would seed to repeal the law and give the money being spent on No Child Left Behind back to America's parents so they could once again be in charge of their children's educations.

---- said he is concerned about college debt, and the best way to combat it is to lower the tax burden on the American family so a person can have more resources to devote to education.

I rest my case. Mike Huckabee is a classic big government liberal, because he has accepted the principle that government can do a better job of managing education or (fill in the blank) than individuals can.

On the other hand the conservative/constitutionalist is more concerned with the individual, with protecting and empowering the parent than expanding or (tweaking) the existing system.

5

Today all the candidates are channeling Ronald Reagan and trying to be more Reagan than Reagan. They would do well to remember some of the things Reagan said, like: "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

The biggest danger to our system of government comes when people no longer believe in it and don't feel it represents them. People don't care about labels; they care about candidates that seem to have an understanding of their problems and seek to help them find solutions. That is Mike Huckabee's greatest asset. He is interested in a civil discourse that seeks to identify and find solutions for the problems that beset us.

At a time when confidence in government is lower than I can ever remember (and that's a long time), maybe it is past time for someone like Mike.

6

I think Huckabee's biggest problem is his take on immigration. He seems to think it's the function of the U.S. government to coddle illegal immigrants in the same manner that Bush does. He also seems to show little concern for border security, and does not support using the military to help stem the tide of illegal immigration. At least in this regard, he's just another Bush.

He also needs to stop wearing his Christianity on his sleeve. We're not voting for a Christian leader here, we're voting for a political one, and his mannerisms suggest that he seems to think Jesus Christ Himself sent him to win the Presidency. Attributing his current success to God might be to him an act of humility and a nod to divine providence, but to the rest of us it comes across as arrogant and closed minded. It's akin to Pat Robertson proudly projecting a Bush landslide victory based on what God "laid on his heart." How many of us though can really presume to know the mind of God?

This also creates an environment where he could easily accuse anyone of disagreeing with his policies as either being un-Christian or racist, if he hasn't done so already. He also has a tendency to shoot from the hip without considering all the facts at hand (such as his initial support in lifting the Cuban embargo.)

Ultimately, I think what turns many conservatives off about Huckabee is not so much that some feel he's the GOP version of Jimmy Carter, but also that he's a Bush clone. His conservative principles may be sound but are still largely untested in several key areas, appearing a mile wide but only an inch deep, and where he vaults into enacting or supporting policies suspiciously liberal in nature, this is explained away by him having to be a pragmatist. Well Bush was a pragmatist too, and when it came time for him to put his own proclaimed conservatism to the test, he failed miserably.

While Huckabee might seek to limit government in some fashion in accordance to conservatism, it also seems to clear that he wants to expand it as well, and in accordance with nothing more than his own personal Christian beliefs. He wants to take back this nation for Christ? No, what he should be fighting for is taking back this nation for the PEOPLE. That takes a political mind which understands that government, in order for it to serve the people's interest, must first learn to get out of their way. It recognizes that the government's function is to enforce the law, not promote Christian charity. Huckabee's heart might be in the right place, but his mind isn't.

I say all this by the way as a conservative Evangelical Christian who believes Huckabee does not qualify to be our President.

7

Joe, I'm getting 500 Errors when I try to send trackbacks to this post.

8

Joe,

While I'm more with you on Huckabee, I think the best thing for you to read has been John Mark Reynolds on Huckabee's "Bull Moose Republicanism". I think he covers Huckabee's differences with the Reagan Republicans quite well, and does it without sneeringly calling Huckabee a liberal. Its a great perspective from a Romney supporter on who Huckabee is and what he means to the current race. Reynolds basically argues that Huckabee is bringing Republicanism back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, not espousing liberal ideology. While I disagree with Reynolds on the nominee (I'm a Huckabee guy), Reynolds showed me WHY I'm a Huckabee guy and doesn't look down on me for being one. I don't mind being called wrong, just don't denigrate me by calling me a liberal when I am not.

Bull Moose vs Reagan Republicans, The Coming Bull Moose Republican Party?, Winners and Losers of the Debate: the Return of Bull Moose Republicanism.

9

Consider the following thought.

"A government should work actively to better the lives of its citizens."

This is a foundational precept of Modern American Liberalism.

What evidence exists in Mike Huckabee's actions as governor of Arkansas and in his rhetoric as a candidate for president that shows he doesn't believe it?

Does Governor Huckabee believe the US Government should work actively against the dangers of obesity?

Does Governor Huckabee believe the US Government should work actively against the dangers of smoking?

From what I have seen and heard I would conclude the answers to these questions are yes and thus Mike Huckabee agrees with the precept above.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

10

I agree with Robert. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are so flexible and amorphous that they can mean whatever one wants them to mean. Is the FlatTax (TM) conservative or liberal? Is it conservative or liberal to support a free market of workers moving across borders?

I'm much more concerned about good vs. bad and right vs. wrong.

I share the concerns about Huckabee's ignorance on foreign affairs. My latest concern is over his policy on Israel and Palestine. According to his website, his main priority seems to be that Israel gets the latest and best weapons. I'm worried that his top adviser on Israel is nutjob John Hagee. Does Huckabee support a two-state solution? Or is his policy to give Israel every piece of land that "God gave them"?

11

"A government should work actively to better the lives of its citizens."

Conservatives do not believe this precept for many reasons. Among them are the following.

1)They don't trust the government to know what is “better” both for the nation as a whole and for each of its citizens. Indeed conservatives believe that frequently what is “better” for one citizen will be “worse” for another.

2)They distrust the ability of the government to achieve its intended goals. Either the government's methods will fail or the unintended consequences of its methods will be worse than any gain realized by the achievement of its goals or both.

3)They believe the government will use this precept as an excuse to institute programs favored by narrow interests.

4)They believe the government will use this precept as an excuse to waste money.

This why conservatives believe in Limited government, a government that is limited both in its responsibilities and in its ability to act.

I don't think that Governor Hucakbee needs to repudiate the New Deal in order to be a conservative.

I wish I could see evidence that he didn't believe it was the government's responsibility to solve our problems.

12

Point of Fact: On MSNBC, Huckabee said that he would sign a bill banning smoking in any place of work anywhere in the United States.
Why this is not conservative: 1) It is an affront to principals of federalism, which is linked to the principal of autonomy, which is conservative. 2) It is an affront to the principal of self-determination, which is a conservative value. 3) It is a burdensome regulation, which is an affront to conservative values.

13

Please take the time to read a very well written, well documented letter from a Christian convervative from Arkansas. I also am a Conservative Christian from Arkansas, and I was a Huckabee supporter when he first ran for office back in 1992 (and worked very hard for him for many years doing much door to door, phone banking, signs, money, etc. etc. etc). Without going into alot of details (David's letter does that) I can answer your question: Yes other than pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-marriage Mike Huckabee is a liberal. He attacked conseravatives in his own party and destroyed the Repulican party of Arkansas. Go ahead and flame us if you want to. But we know Huckabee better than most anyone on this board. I have friends who have been stabbed in the back by him and Mike has ALOT of ethical issues (that will come out in the fall if he is the nominee). I will vote for Mike in the fall if he is the nominee, but I cannot and will not vote for him unless it is between him and Rudy in the primary. Sorry.

http://reasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2008/01/evans-not-hearting-huckabee.html

14

When all is said and done, nobody is a pure conservative unless you are an anarchist libertarian.

What, exactly, do "anarchist libertarians" want to conserve?

Regarding Huckabee's liberalism or lack of, from his "Foreign Affairs" article:

"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad."

How is this rhetoric different in tone from Obama, Clinton, or Edwards? Are they now conservative on foreign policy too?

More from Huck:

The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for achieving energy independence within ten years of my inauguration. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all types of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, ethanol, hydrogen, clean coal, biomass, and biodiesel.

So, the government is going to solve our energy problems? The government has been trying to solve our energy problems for nearly 40 years. One would think that maybe someone would have figured out that the government is not going to be able to solve this one and that maybe we should let the market work; in other words, try the conservative solution, but no; Huckabee, thinks, like all the big government liberals that the problem is too little government involvement, not too much.

More from Huckabee:

Unlike President George W. Bush, who marginalized General Eric Shinseki, the former army chief of staff, when he recommended sending several hundred thousand troops to Iraq, I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice. Our generals must be independent advisers, always free to speak without fear of retribution or dismissal.

Again, this could have come out of the mouth of any of the Democrat presidential contenders. Are Clinton, Obama, and, Edwards your idea of foreign policy conservatives now Joe? And really Joe, do you think that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't meet with and carefully consider Shinseki's advice before making their decision on Iraq strategy? Let's be honest, there is no way that our force structure could have supported Shinseki's advice so it was silly to offer it. Why didn't he just say we can't invade Iraq until we have "sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads"?

15

Trinian writes:

2)They distrust the ability of the government to achieve its intended goals. Either the government's methods will fail or the unintended consequences of its methods will be worse than any gain realized by the achievement of its goals or both.

This is right on. A perfect example of that is our current weight crisis. The government was instrumental in sparking the anti-fat crusade that we've been on for the last 35 years. Yet that is the precise timing of when America's obesity epidemic began. We've been sold a bill of goods that lowfat and non-fat equals healthy, but there have never been any conclusive medical studies proving that. On the contrary, medical science is now beginning to discover the opposite. It has been the low-fat obsession itself that has exacerbated the obesity epidemic.

Anyone who wants the facts should read this article by Gary Taubes from 2002.

Atkins was by no means the first to get rich pushing a high-fat diet that restricted carbohydrates, but he popularized it to an extent that the American Medical Association considered it a potential threat to our health. The A.M.A. attacked Atkins’s diet as a ‘‘bizarre regimen’’ that advocated ‘‘an unlimited intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods,’’ and Atkins even had to defend his diet in Congressional hearings.

Thirty years later, America has become weirdly polarized on the subject of weight. On the one hand, we’ve been told with almost religious certainty by everyone from the surgeon general on down, and we have come to believe with almost religious certainty, that obesity is caused by the excessive consumption of fat, and that if we eat less fat we will lose weight and live longer. On the other, we have the ever-resilient message of Atkins and decades’ worth of best-selling diet books, including ‘‘The Zone,’’ ‘‘Sugar Busters’’ and ‘‘Protein Power’’ to name a few. All push some variation of what scientists would call the alternative hypothesis: it’s not the fat that makes us fat, but the carbohydrates, and if we eat less carbohydrates we will lose weight and live longer.

The perversity of this alternative hypothesis is that it identifies the cause of obesity as precisely those refined carbohydrates at the base of the famous Food Guide Pyramid—the pasta, rice and bread—that we are told should be the staple of our healthy low-fat diet, and then on the sugar or corn syrup in the soft drinks, fruit juices and sports drinks that we have taken to consuming in quantity if for no other reason than that they are fat free and so appear intrinsically healthy. While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy.
...
It was Ancel Keys, paradoxically, who introduced the low-fat-is-good-health dogma in the 50’s with his theory that dietary fat raises cholesterol levels and gives you heart disease. Over the next two decades, however, the scientific evidence supporting this theory remained stubbornly ambiguous. The case was eventually settled not by new science but by politics. It began in January 1977, when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its ‘‘Dietary Goals for the United States,’’ advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of ‘‘killer diseases’’ supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat had become ‘‘this greasy killer’’ in the memorable words of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter—a dubious feast of refined carbohydrates.

In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. ‘‘It’s an imperfect world,’’ Rifkind told me. ‘‘The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.’’

16

Joe,

I do not want to get hung up on words like "conservative" since so many people want to lay claim to the definition of that word, you included. Instead, i'll just tell you what I do not like about Huckabee.

I don't like his non-answers in the debates. This is covered in a series at Powerline called Charm and Evasion. Examples;

Thompson claimed;

I know the governor is pointing out that he signed the tax pledge. Earlier this year on Tim Russert's show, on another network, he said it'd be a dangerous thing to make a tax pledge because you couldn't foresee what was going to happen in the future.

And Huckabee did not respond to that even though he was given time to respond to that.

Thompson also said in the debate:

He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy and the tradition of, blame America first. He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer-funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights.

And what does Huckabee say in response?

The Air Force has a saying that says that if you're not catching flak, you're not over the target. I'm catching the flak, I must be over the target

Huckabee said more than that, obviously, and I suggest you go and read it at powerline, but he didn't answer Thompson charges. So what about after the debate, how does he answer Thompson?

On Joe Scarborough he says;

I think Fred needs some Metamucil. I think it would help a lot if he gets some. You know, he was in a bad mood last night.

Nice.

So let's look at those issues that Thompson raises (Reminder, i'm not a Thompson supporter i'm a Mitt Romney supporter)

1) Smoking ban?
2) War on Terror?
3) Tax payer funded programs for illegals?

Joe, i'm sure you'd probably say 2 of those 3 aren't even conservative issues. This is why we disagree on what it means to be a conservative. In my mind our next President has to be strong on protecting our nations border in both the War on Terror and on enforcing our border laws. Huckabee seems pretty weak in both of these areas.

I think Huckabee is a lot like President Bush on domestic policy and nothing at all like Bush on Foreign policy.

The thing is, I love President Bush's foreign policy and can't really stand a lot of his domestic policy. So Huckabee has it exactly backwards as to my preferences.

Huckabee also uses a lot of liberal talking points which lead me to believe he will be weak on the war on Terror;

In the former Yugoslavia, we sent 20 peacekeeping soldiers for every thousand civilians. In Iraq, an equivalent ratio would have meant sending a force of 450,000 U.S. troops. Unlike President George W. Bush, who marginalized General Eric Shinseki, the former army chief of staff, when he recommended sending several hundred thousand troops to Iraq, I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice. Our generals must be independent advisers, always free to speak without fear of retribution or dismissal.

And

When we let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, a region along the Afghan-Pakistani border, in December 2001, we played Brer Fox to his Brer Rabbit.

Really, we let Bin Laden escape? Straight out of the democrats talking points.

These kind of statements don't give me much confidence in Huckabee as the leader of the free world.

17

Huckabee supports a "global war on terror" and our empire of military bases. If this is what conservatives believe, I suppose Huckabee is a true conservative then.

Let's not fool ourselves though. None of the so-called liberal democratic presidential candidates will speak out against the military/industrial/corporate complex either. Let's face it, Iraq has oil and those military bases and the "embassy" we are building are very strategically located. It would be hard for any president to give this up. Besides, in our media we don't see the devastating effects of our occupation of Iraq, so as long as the gas prices remain relatively low, who cares anyway? There evil muslims anyways.

Maybe we should all vote for McCain-atleast he is honest about not caring if we are in Iraq for the next hundred years.

18

In order to determine if Huckabee is a liberal or a conservative, we must first understand what "liberal" and "conservative" mean, when used by conservatives. As practiced today, conservatism is an utterly unprincipled movement, based entirely on group identification. A conservative, therefore, is not someone who holds to this or that set of principles, it is someone who is presently in favor with a particular group defining itself as conservative. Huckabee advocates various positions opposed to the interests of the fundamental Republican base - that is, those who use the government to divert public resources to themselves. Therefore, in the views of the Republican leadership and their various apologists, he is out of favor, and is therefore a liberal.

Now, viewed in a more objective fashion, Huckabee is a conservative, because he has proven himself willing to forsake any kind of moral principles to cater to the desires of conservatives. This brings us back to the case of Wayne Dumond, a rapist for whose release Huckabee tirelessly worked, and who then went on to commit a subsequent rape, accompanied by a murder. Huckabee freed Dumond because the Dumond case had become a cause celebre among conservatives. Dumond's victim was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton; therefore, conservatives convinced themselves that Dumond had somehow been unfairly imprisoned. Huckabee, practicing the group identification that defines conservatism, attached himself to this case and became an advocate of Dumond's interest, ignoring the facts of the case as well as the please of Dumond's victim.

Huckabee today has been practicing another precept of conservatism, as he slanders Lois Davidson, the mother of the woman raped and murdered by Dumond after Huckabee succeeded in obtaining Dumond's release. Huckabee says that Ms. Davidson has somehow been "duped" and "used". This attitude of Huckabee is in line with the conservative principle that no one who holds a view opposing whatever position is currently popular with a particular conservative individual or group can possibly have come to that position rationally.

Huckabee does, therefore, adhere to the most fundamental conservative principles:

A lack of respect for the truth.

A willingness to risk harm to others to advance conservative political causes.

A fundamental lack of respect for the rights of citizens to express their political views.

A willingness to use the mechanisms of government for personal gain, rather than for the welfare of the public.

Why, then, are Huckabee's conservative bona fides questioned? It is because conservatives fall into two camps. There is the one camp, the wealthy and powerful manipulators of government, who are able to make sufficiently large campaign contributions that conservative officeholders will repay them by diverting public resorces to them. Witness Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.

Then there is the other camp, the "social conservatives" - the various mouthbreathers and hayseeds who vote against their own interests due to racism, sexism, and a hostility to anyone they define as "liberals". This is the group on whose support the Republican party defends, but its interests are fundamentally opposed to the interest of those who control the Republican party. Anyone who advocates that the hayseed wing of the Republican Party should have a seat at the table is immediately derided and condemned and, referred to, of course, as a "liberal".

Huckabee is, of course, no liberal, because he adheres to the highest conservative principle: a willingness to sacrifice everything - even the life of a young woman (although he didn't KNOW that Dumond would commit a subsequent rape and murder if released, he has plenty of evidence alerting him to the danger) on the alter of political expediency.

Joe is, of course, also a consevative, being willing, as he is, to sacrifice everything to expediency, having proven himself willing to lie in the service of someone whom Joe would shun if his protestations of Christianity had any meaning.

19

His statements about the smoking ban. I can't think of a single thing that any other Republican candidate has said they would support that is more left-wing, nannystatist than this. The very fact that this would even register on his radar speaks volumes about where he stands in general on individual liberty and responsibility.

20

I was thinking of responding, but the rest of you are doing such a good job that I may sit this one out.

Baggi

I think Huckabee is a lot like President Bush on domestic policy and nothing at all like Bush on Foreign policy.

The thing is, I love President Bush's foreign policy and can't really stand a lot of his domestic policy. So Huckabee has it exactly backwards as to my preferences.

This is a point that I have made here in the past, but I didn't say it nearly as well. Right on!

I will only add that President Bush seems to have gotten the message in his second term. Have you noticed how much more fiscally conservative he has become? Just as the President is correcting course, Gov. Huckabee wants to take us back.

All please go here and check ,FactCheck.org 's objective analysis of the candidates' debate distortions. Everyone is guilty of something, but some are more guilty than others.

I will note:

* Joe keeps saying Huckabee supports school vouchers.

* Fervent Huckabee supporter "giggling" says Huckabee does not, and can't possibly support vouchers because it violates federalism (though, strangely his support of the Dept. of Education and No Child Left Behind does *not* violate federalism). Giggling points out that Huckabee supports tax credits instead (at least he said so in the last 10 days or so.)

* The NH NEA endoerses Huckabee because... wait for it...

"The New Hampshire chapter did cite Huckabee's opposition to vouchers as one of the reasons for endorsing him, but the group also praised his positions on student testing and on judging teacher effectiveness as well as his support for art and music education."

Huckabee's real positions seem incredibly difficult to discern.

21

Once again, Tommy Oliver is happy to accept a challenge. In this first part I will only focus on taxes and immigration. First, let's see what Larry Kudlow thought of what would be the worst possible outcome of the Iowa Caucus:

The worst outcome in tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses for the stock market and economy would be victories by Mike Huckabee and John Edwards.

Both are anti-business, anti-Wall Street, and anti-CEO. They would employ government regulation, and perhaps taxes, to work against free-market forces.

Both are anti-trade. Both are tax-and-spend. (Governor Huckabee has tried to inoculate himself against the tax charge with his Fair Tax national sales tax idea that would go nowhere in Washington.)

The key point is that Edwards and Huckabee are the left-wing populists in the campaign on economic policy. Their victories would send up a red-flag warning signal to a stock market already beleaguered by worries about an economic slowdown and the ongoing subprime credit problem.

Challenge to Joe: Can you name any respected conservative economist that actually support Huckabee? (Neil Boortz doesn't count)

Since Joe is not redifining the common definition of conservatism, he is challenging anyone to make this argument on modern conservative points. Fair enough...

Huckabee's problems with fiscal conservatives have been well documented. By now, everyone knows about his career grade of a “D” from the CATO Institute (the same grade another former Arkansas Governor received… Bill Clinton), and most know about his problems with the Club for Growth. So, has Huckabee just been given the short end of the stick? 21 tax increases went into effect, increasing tax revenue by almost $890 million under Governor Huckabee. These increases include the income tax, the sales tax, a cigarette tax, and a gas tax. Not only did he raise taxes, spending “more than doubled under Huckabee. “During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled, from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.”

Fact: the average Arkansan’s tax burden grew from $ 1, 969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $ 2, 902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes.

The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration confi rms 90 tax cuts from 1997-2005. All but one required an act of the Legislature. Many were strongly backed by legislators and owe little to the governor’s efforts. The 90 cuts reduced tax collections by $ 378 million, according to the Department of Finance and Administration. Meanwhile, the department counts 21 tax increases that raised collections by $ 883.1 million. Here are a few of the tax cuts, along with the department’s estimate of their impact in the following fiscal year 1997

• Authorized tax-exempt bonds for fi re-ant abatement (- $ 100, 000 ) • Exempted residential lawn care from the sales tax (- $ 210, 000 ) • Exempted Heifer International from the sales tax (- $ 60, 000 ) • Exempted some county fairs from the special-events sales tax (- $ 15, 000 ) 1999 • Exempted equipment used to produce sod, grass and nursery products from the sales tax (- $ 200, 000 ) • Repealed the 20 percent tax on bingo admissions and cards (- $ 200, 000 ) 2001 • Reduced taxes on bets made on horse races at Oaklawn Park (- $ 1, 700, 000 ) • Reduced taxes on bets made at Southland Greyhound Park (- $ 600, 000 ) 2003 • Exempted some health-club services from the sales tax (- $ 160, 000 ) • Gave income-tax credits to biodiesel wholesalers (- $ 200, 000 ) 2005 • Granted an income-tax deduction for organ donation (- $ 76, 000 ) • Exempted Arkansas Symphony Orchestra purchases from the sales tax (- $ 20, 530 )

SOURCES: Department of Finance and Administration

FACT: a review of tax legislation passed while he was governor shows a net tax increase of $ 505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth, according to the state Department of Finance and Administration.

FACT: Huckabee shepherded through the Legislature one of the largest tax cuts in Arkansas history — a 1997 income-tax reduction totaling about $ 90. 6 million its first full year in effect. But most of the 89 other cuts Huckabee mentions are much smaller. A 1997 sales-tax break for some manufacturing machinery reduced tax collections by just $ 500 a year, for example. Some were narrowly targeted, such as a tax exemption for purchases by the Salvation Army, which reduced tax collections by $ 15, 000 a year. (Northwest Arkansas News)

The Arkansas Leader publishes a comprehensive list of tax hikes by Mike, as compared to Clinton:

Imposed an income tax surcharge of 3 percent on tax liabilities of individuals and domestic and foreign corporations (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003). (It was temporary until revenues improved. The legislature repealed it in 2005.)

Immigration:

In 2005, Huckabee was quite vocal in his opposition to strengthen citizen verification procedures for employers and voting and cut off public assistance to illegal immigrants. He even went as far as describing the plan as “race baiting.” Huckabee said “Companies controlled by overseas corporations could feel they are unwanted in Arkansas if the Legislature approves an immigration measure now before it.” He described it as “inflammatory, race-baiting… demagoguery.” The bill forbade public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants. The Governor also went as far as to say, “(The Bill) inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem… But there’s not.”

From CBS News:

Huckabee's recent strong stand on immigration, including an intolerance toward companies that employ illegal immigrants, runs counter to the image he crafted in his final years in office. He was battling conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures.

Huckabee opposed a Republican lawmaker's efforts in 2005 to require proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren't federally mandated and proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Huckabee derided the bill as un-American and un-Christian and said the bill's sponsor drank a different "Jesus juice."

Roy Beck, the head of NumbersUSA and one of the leading advocates that helped defeat the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill, on Huckabee:

"He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor. Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens."

Peter Gadiel, president of 9-11 Families for a Secure America, on Mike Huckabee:

"Huckabee is the guy who scares the heck out of me."

Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, on Mike Huckabee:

"I would say that Huckabee comes from the same perspective on the issue that George W. Bush came from — that out of a strong sense of compassion, he tries to identify with someone who comes to the United States, even if they came illegally."

James J. Boulet Jr., executive director of English First, on Mike Huckabee:

"Huckabee's worse than Hillary Clinton... When you call someone a racist, what you're saying is, don't listen to that bad man -- you're not engaging the argument, and the argument is there. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says the way God wants us to help the poor is to lobby for the government to spend money on them... Mike Huckabee could very easily be the vice-presidential nominee. He is actually worse than Giuliani on illegal immigration. Huckabee has swallowed the Kool-Aid completely."

Huckabee on the Bush Immigration Plan before it became the unpopular thing to support:

Huckabee said his faith leads him to take positions on issues -- like immigration -- that "tend to be a little unconventional." On immigration, Huckabee aligns himself with President Bush rather than more conservative elements of the Republican Party, favoring a "pathway to citizenship" for those who at one time entered the United States illegally.

That's the end of part I. Will only make a part II if Joe wants keep going.
Crosspost:
http://race42008.com/2008/01/12/here-we-go-again-vs-joe-carter-on-huckabee/

22

This is a bit off-topic, but a new CNN head-to-head poll shows Hillary beating Huckabee 56 to 42 and Obama beating Huckabee 58 to 39. 52% of respondents said they would definitely not vote for Huckabee. 55% said they would definitely not vote for Giuliani and 62% would definitely not vote for Romney. According to this poll, the only Republican with a realistic chance of winning is McCain.

23

Tommy,

Not that you need any advice from me but you're not going to convince Joe of anything about Huckabee by quoting folks who disagree with or do not like Huckabee. Both Joe and the Huckabee campaign have framed his campaign as the common man vs the "elites". So Joe can easily dismiss Kudlow and the rest as "elites" who aren't appealed to by Huckabee's populism.

The only name I think I recognized from your quotes is Larry Kudlow but the others, by virtue of disagreeing with Huckabee, must also be "elites" along with the news organizations you cite.

24

There is only one thing Huckabee said (that I know of) that strikes me as patently liberal: Something hinting at the government setting some sort of arbitrary limit on CEO pay.

As a conservative I think the government needs to stay out of what a company pays someone. To this very day, I do not comprehend that statement coming from a conservative.

In all other respects, I'm a Huckabee supporter all the way. I have even donated to his campaign.

I cannot comprehend National Review Online's hostility to Huckabee (Wait, shouldn't they be called Nominate Romney Online?). Or NRO's support of the Robotic Romney. The idea that Romney has a better fiscal record in the cathedral of liberalism known as Massachusetts where he was governor (the state of gay marriage) is laughable.

25

To Arkansas Christian Conservative

- Lucas Roebuck writes social and political commentary from a conservative, Evangelical perspective. Roebuck is professor of journalism for Northwest Nazarene Univeristy. He is the former managing editor of the Siloam Springs (Ark.) Herald-Leader and the Northwest Arkansas Times. He is a contributing editor to ComputorEdge Magazine. And he supports Huckabee.

http://roebuckreport.blogspot.com/

26

Joe,

The last time I commented about one of your posts, I criticized you for misrepresenting what Gov. Huckabee had said about Pres. Bush's foreign policy.

So I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on this challenge of yours to tag the governor as a liberal. It is a very good example of your open-mindedness and willingness to adjust your position when appropriate. Gov. Huckabee is fortunate to have you on his side.

It is very hard to pin someone down as a liberal or a conservative. You could say a "real conservative" wouldn't be working in the government in the first place, unless he had explicitly promised to scale it back as much as possible. You could say a "real liberal" would eschew worldly pursuits and self-aggrandizement altogether, and go set up health clinics in a third-world country. So to put presidential candidates on a liberal-conservative spectrum is going to be a difficult and very subjective project.

Are Hillary and Barack true liberals, or just opportunists wearing a cloak of liberal rhetoric? Is a social liberal like Giuliani disqualified from being considered a conservative, when the responsibilities of the president are mostly managing the federal budgets and bureacracies and supervising our national defense? Even if he pinky-swears to appoint conservative judges?

As for Gov. Huckabee, he is a very smart, personable, and funny person, qualities that I tend to associate with conservative people. On the other hand, he can be very evasive, if not downright dishonest, especially about his own record, which is something I tend to associate with liberal politicians.

What about the governor's policy positions?

Well, he's against school vouchers in Arkansas, because the geography and logistics of doing it there wouldn't work. But he's in favor of vouchers in other states that are more urban and where people are more dissatisfied with their public schools.

This reminds me of nothing more than Giuliani being in favor of gun control in New York City, but not in other places. It's called having your cake, and eating it, too. It's also called, don't believe what I've done, just listen to what I have to say about it instead.

I'm sure Gov. Huckabee is liberal on some issues and conservative on others, just like everybody in the world, including Joe Carter and myself, is. Heck, even the most partisan Democrats found some nice things to say about Pres. Reagan when he passed away a few years ago. I'm not really concerned about what's liberal and what's conservative.

I'm more concerned whether someone might be too much of an inflexible ideologue, one way or another, and whether or not someone has good, trustworthy character. Aside from the potential honesty problem, Gov. Huckabee scores well on both these counts.

On the other hand, so does Barack Obama. If the race in the general election came down to Barack versus Mike, that raises an interesting question for me. Who would I really like to see win? The charismatic African-American, or the funny evangelical?

Sen. Obama, like all the other Democratic candidates, is personally repulsive to me because of the very dishonest way he tears Pres. Bush down to build himself up. But Gov. Huckabee has been tempted to do exactly the same thing himself, albeit on a much more modest and defensible scale.

So the end result for me is that the one built-in advantage that all the other Republicans have in retaining my allegiance in the general election, their rhetorical fealty to Pres. Bush and his foreign policy (excluding Ron Paul, of course), is the one thing that I almost kind-of resent about Gov. Huckabee. Almost to the point of wanting to vote for Senator Obama instead.

Gov. Huckabee and Sen. McCain are the only Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul, of course) whom I am not 100% sure I would vote for in a head-to-head match with Sen. Obama. If Huckabee did end up winning the nomination, it's possible I would like him better as I got to know him better, and would support him without reservation over Obama. But that is not how I feel about him right now.

27

1) Smoking ban?
- This seems to be the best argument that Huckabee is not a very good conservative. It smacks of both nanny statism, a distrust of individual freedom and basically shreds Federalism. On the other hand, it's a relatively minor issue in the big scheme of things. I would like to ask critics harping on this point if they agree with the Bush administration that the Fed. gov't has a right to overrule states that allow pot use for medical purposes? If they do then why wouldn't the Fed. gov't have the right to regulate smoking?

2) War on Terror?
- The essence here seems to be if you disagree with Bush about everything you are ONE WITH THE TERRORISTS. It's stunning that of all the things Republicans demand orthodoxy too it's hitching one's wagon to one of the biggest failures in foreign policy in the last 50 years.

For example, Baggi writes:

Really, we let Bin Laden escape? Straight out of the democrats talking points.

I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's complaint that 'facts have a left wing bias'. Yes we did let Bin Laden escape. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. He escaped to Pakistan in Tora Bora. It amazes me that many Republicans seem to think that going after Bin Laden is some type of left wing idea. I'm sorry, I forgot, we have to fix every other country in the Middle East before we can get back to Bin Laden.

I notice that the idol worship of Bush has gotten so bad here that it's considered left wing to even assert that more troops should be or should have been used in Iraq. I'd like to see a list of these 'democrats talking points'...more troops in Iraq, pull out of Iraq, and so on.

3) Tax payer funded programs for illegals?

- The charge here seems overstated to me. From what I understand Huckabee simply supported state colleges charging lower rates to residents of the state than out-of-state residents. This is pretty standard and makes some sense as residents pay local taxes and generate local economic activity. There is no special 'program for illegals' here. Simply a decision not to be a tool to enforce Federal immigration law. That is actually keeping with Federalism. To see the difference, imagine if state gov't decided to enforce Federal income tax law and demanded college applicants and their families submit to an intensive audit.

28

Boonton,

It's stunning that of all the things Republicans demand orthodoxy too it's hitching one's wagon to one of the biggest failures in foreign policy in the last 50 years.

I don't demand orthodoxy from Huckabee, Obama, or anyone else. I demand honesty and a modicum of consistency, although I am willing to settle for just honesty.

I've listened to all the criticisms that the candidates have lobbed against Pres. Bush, and the only honest ones seem to have come from Romney, Giuliani, and Ron Paul. Sen. Huckabee's criticisms have mostly been, "President Bush should have done the following", where the following turns out to be almost exactly what Pres. Bush had done in the first place.

If Bush has really been anything like the disaster the Democrats and you say he is, then Hillary and Obama should be able to criticize him without lying through their teeth. I've been paying close attention, and so far they haven't done that yet.

29

Oops, in the second-to-last paragraph, I put Gov. Huckabee in the Senate.

30

It's stunning that of all the things Republicans demand orthodoxy too it's hitching one's wagon to one of the biggest failures in foreign policy in the last 50 years.

Bigger than Vietnam? Bigger than Carter's fecklessness in dealing with the Soviet Union? Bigger than Clinton's failure to deal with OBL and Al Qaeda for 8 years? Bigger than the George H W Bush's failure to be clear with Saddam on Kuwait in 1990? Come on, Boonton, a little historical, as opposed to hysterical, perspective might be in order here. Even if we accept that GWB has been a foreign policy failure, which I don't, he hasn't been the biggest failure or even one of them.

Yes we did let Bin Laden escape.

"Let" implies intent. When I "let" my little girl have a cookie, the implication is that I gave her permission to have one, not that she took one without my knowledge. You don't really think we "let" OBL escape do you?

31

Yes ucfengr, bigger than all those things.

32

Joseph
...And he supports Huckabee.

Sorry Joseph, but that's a pretty tepid endorsement. All five points are about what Huckabee says (personal responsibility, limited gov't) or him as a politician (handles pressure well, is a great communicator). None of the points really dealt with what he has done. Someone who is pardoning or commuting on average 100 people a year as governor strikes me as someone who is irresponsible. The Arkansas poster's linked article actually ties into what Huckabee has done and it's not conservative. He's just another Bill Clinton and evangelicals supporting him are going to regret it.

33

Yes ucfengr, bigger than all those things.

Sigh, I am sorry to see you lose all historical perspective, with respect to GWB, but why just 50 years? If your going to go all bat-sh*t crazy why not just say "the biggest foreign policy failure in all recorded history throughout the known galaxy"? It makes about as much sense as your prior statement. Just out of curiosity, which US President in the last 50 years as had what you consider a successful foreign policy?

34

Boonton,

I'm going to have to agree with Ucfengr-George W. Bush is not the sole creator of America's greatest foreign policy crisis.

Bush had some help from greedy defense contractors, a lap dog press cheerleading for war and spreading fear, and spineless democrats.

35

Ucfengr,

World War II was an unmitigated disaster.

14,000,000 military fatalities just among our allies.

Over 62,000,000 total fatalities world-wide.

FDR was just a big, loser chimp fascist. Churchill was even worse. And we still have troops stationed in Germany!

Boonton, thou art an ass. Maybe I am one, too, but there's little doubt in your case. Unless you're just lying.

36

Boonton:

Let me explain something to you. You know how when you go to a party and you're speaking with great eloquence and with more intelligence than the ordinary folks around you, and then you stop expounding long enough to see that everyone's staring at you as if only the tail and hind foot of a rat were sticking out of your mouth?

Of course you do, and that's why you come to this blog: nobody stares at you here.

JohnW:

Since neither you nor Boonton, nor the Democrats can admit that the war is not quite the foreign policy failure you want it to be, I wonder if you'd care to reevaluate your incredibly stupid statement that some 650,000 thousand Iraqis were killed in the war:

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

You can find the rest of it here in that authoritarian, Bush-loving rag from England, the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study - Times Online

37

Matthew Goggins

I know that you are an atheist, so Boonton doesn't come here to sling mud at you: he has given up his day job just to sling mud at us evangelicals.

In fact, I have long admired your restraint in your patient dealing with those of us who disagree with you on many issues. You have put many of us Christians to shame with your magnanimity. I have also long been amazed at your excruciatingly fair treatment of the kooks who post here.

So it is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the dark side, just for this brief time, and I second and support your above description of Boonton.

38

In response to Chris Lutz.

Your criticism of my post does not concern me. I was simply stating that not all Arkansans agree with the post a previous poster mentioned.

By the way, I am not an Evangelical. I haven't even been to church in over 6 years. I could not care less if Mike was a Baptist Minister or not. I happen to like him for other reasons. For you to arbitrarily lump all Huckabee supporters into the Evangelical group just demonstrates your ignorance.

39

JD,

I have to admit that Iraq is not a total foreign policy failure. We will have permanent bases strategically located in an oil rich country in the Middle East-in this regard our invasion and occupation of Iraq is a masterful success. And we got all this without very much cost: if you spread a trillion dollars out over 100 years it doesn't really amount to much. Also, we've lost less than five thousand soldiers (that's hardly any lives and most of the soldiers are not anybody we know).

In terms of loss of innocent life and morality though, Iraq is a failure. I know the magnitude of the numbers presented in the Lancet study is something that is hard for you to accept. It's been months since I mentioned it and now you come back with this "proof" that discredits the results of a scientific sampling. Where did you find this info about Soros and the Lancet study-freerepublic.com?

Do you accept The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people died as a result of our invasion of Iraq? Does the smaller number make you feel better about the morality of what was done?

It doesn't bother me that Soros helped fund the Lancet study. Have you read any of his books? Forget what Fox News says about Soros, try reading some of his books. They make a lot of sense.

40

JohnW wrote:

Where did you find this info about Soros and the Lancet study-freerepublic.com?

I told you in my comment where I found it, you gullible Paulbot. Try reading it again.

41

JohnW:

The more I think about your comment the more angry I get. You ask if the 151,000 dead makes me feel better than the 650,000 dead. Of course, it doesn't make any difference to me at all, because as you and others like you know, we who don't hate George Bush don't care about the deaths of anyone. It's obvious we don't care, because we don't condemn George Bush for doing what he thought was right. We don't think he lied to get us into Iraq. Therefore, it's obvious we don't give a damn about the number of people who die in war.

That is essentially your argument.

People on your side are in the position of calling all of us monsters. Did you EVER stop to think of that?

Since you brought it up, does it make any difference to you that 151,000 died instead of 650,000? I ask as if I didn't already know your answer.

42

Huckabee's statement that Bush is demonstrating "an arrogant bunker mentality" in regards to foreign policy. That is ridiculous. He needs to state specifically what he would do differently?

Okay, lots of people have listed a ton of reasons that Huckabee is not conservative. How about a response from the owner of the site?

43

Yes JD, If 500,000 more people died in Iraq, it would make a difference-greater loss of innocent life equals greater tragedy.

I don't hate George Bush and I do not assign sole responsibility for the tragedy in Iraq to him either. Bush had help from spineless democrats, and a media that cheerleaded for the war.

I don't think you are a monster, I just think you are not getting a true picture of the scope of the tragedy over there and then you get all hostile when someone expresses a viewpoint you don't see on the TV.

44

Your answer shows your shallowness. You do not see that your long held position with regard to the war makes us monsters. Simply saying you don't think so isn't good enough.

45

ucfengr

I suggest you read up on the Battle of Tora Bora, while it will probably be decades before all the information is declassified but high level officials have argued that the US did not committ enough troops to the engagement and as a result many high level Al Qaeda fighters escaped to Pakistan where they are now almost untouchable, bin Laden probably being one of them.

It's a perfectly respectable position to argue that this was a blunder and I suspect even Bush himself would have done it differently if he could do it again. Likewise it is well documented that many people argued the occupation needed manpower immediately after the invasion and they were shouted down by neocons arguing that a high tech military could carry out a successful occupation without many boots on the ground.

Taken as a whole, though, Bush's foreign policy has been one horrible blunder. The arguments for the invasion were essentially lies, everyone except the true Kool-Aide drinkers like ucfengr admit now. While we've gone through nearly half a dozen explanations for what we are doing in and with Iraq the fact remains we have a huge cost, huge. Dollars and men. Why is it whenever someone says we should put more troops on X ucfengr jumps up saying there isn't enough manpower? Because we've tied it up in Iraq.

Whoever gets the GOP nomination is going to have to grow up and accept that the majority of the country sees the policy as a failure or at least deeply flawed and for good reason. You can huff and puff at me all you want, go ahead and keep going like your idol is flawless and see what it will get you.

46

I see a few, but not many citations. It might be helpful to back up asserted facts with citations so folks can't dismiss your "evidence" as inaccurate paraphrases or simply made up. Just a suggestion.

47

jd, JohnW didn't say he thought you were a monster, but if the shoe fits. . .

The fact is that you advocated a war that would inevitably result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of noncombatants, against an imaginary threat, and the reason you advocated the war was that you faced no personal risk or hardship from it. Many advocates of the war act as if their advocacy of the war represents some sort of personal courage, ignoring the fact that a willingness for others to die while shunning any personal hardship for oneself doesn't represent courage, it represents cowardice.

The evidence is clear that Bush lied to get the US into war, and your refusal to recognize that fact arises not from any rational analysis, but from group identification. Bush was held up as someone in favor among conservatives, therefore everything he did was right. So you ignore the evidence of his wrongdoing, and attack those who point it out. Not only are you too much of a coward to go down to your local recruiting office and sign up to fight in the war you advocate, you are unwilling even to honestly engage the arguments of your opponents. You are willing to countenance the deaths of numberless thousands of men, women and children. The fact is that the Iraq war has harmed the United States immeasurably, has threatened our security, and has weakened us economically. But you don't care about any of that, just as you don't care about the dead, wounded, and displaced Iraqis. All you care about is creating a group of war advocates so that you can define yourself by membership in this group, and disparage those who are not in this group. You defend yourself not by any rational argument, but by disparaging those who are not in "your" group, even though every event of the past 5 years has proven that "your" group has been wrong and the group of "others" has been right.

As I've said before, conservatism is an utterly unprincipled movement. If you had any principles, if you were willing to stand behind your advocacy of the war, you'd be in Iraq. But for you, advocacy of the war is nothing but a mechanism for achieving group solidarity.

48

I notice the relativists have come out of the closet to moralize, using words like

imaginary threat
cowardice
principles
wrongdoing
wrong
Bush lied
failure

My personal favorite, as its an attempt at relativism even while engaging in condemnation:

essentially lies

All the code words one needs to make any self righteous lefty argument against the liberation of Iraq.

What's missing from all this ranting and raving?

Any indication that they've read the topic of this thread or an attempt to answer the question, "Is Huckabee a Liberal?"

My suggestion to ucfnger and the folks who want to discuss the question is, ignore the trolls until they are spent. It's not as though you can teach the self-righteous anything.

49

I posted some info in regards to your "Is Huckabee a liberal?" question here: http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/01/huckabees-liberal-tendencies.html

50

Jd,

Thank you for your generous words. I appreciate your support.

I don't like being on the dark side, not even briefly. I like Boonton a lot, he has a good heart.

Maybe he is right, too. Maybe I do demand a little bit of orthodoxy. I demand a little respect for the tremendous progress our soldiers have made under some of the hardest circumstances imaginable. I demand just as much respect for the bravery and sacrifices of our freedom-loving Iraqi allies.

I myself respect the arguments he raises against the war, and I even agree with a few of them. I just wish he wouldn't indulge in sweeping characterizations that are unfair to many of the parties involved in the war.

That doesn't justify my being mean and potty-mouthed, however. So I hereby retract my personal attack in comment 35:

Boonton,

Please forgive my boorish name-calling. You are not an ass, and I was wrong to say it. I was also wrong to imply that you might be dishonest too.

Thank you for sticking to your guns. I am glad I didn't offend you enough to persuade you to stop contributing, to abandon the conversation.

Barack and Hillary, on the other hand, are certifiable liars and B.S.-ers. They bring dishonor to their careers and their campaigns with their cynical accusations which contradict the record. They know better, but let their ambitions trump their consciences.

Peace,
Matthew

51

1. He raised taxes.
2. He paroled violent felons.
3. He's weak on educational choice.
4. He imposed socialist health care for children.
5. He favors plundered tuition benefits for illegal aliens.

52

I suggest you read up on the Battle of Tora Bora, while it will probably be decades before all the information is declassified but high level officials have argued that the US did not committ enough troops to the engagement...

So, are you trying to make the case that Bush purposefully didn't commit enough troops for the expressed purpose of letting OBL, etc. escape or are you trying to make the case that some tactical errors were made that allowed OBL to escape? It is certainly possible that some tactical errors were made, but it is hard to personally blame Bush, because Presidents don't make tactical decisions. Ultimately, as Commander-in-Chief he gets the blame or credit, but in reality he doesn't make decisions at the tactical level. What is not 100% clear, however is whether or not OBL was actually at Tora Bora. From the WSJ:

"Start with OBL. Gen. Franks, on the campaign trail in Florida for George W. Bush, this week, said it's wrong to assume that bin Laden was hiding out in Tora Bora. Some intelligence reports put him there, he says, but others placed him in Pakistan, Kashmir or Iran--or at a lake 90 miles northwest of the Afghan city of Kandahar. Gen. DeLong (Frank's deputy) concurs. "Was Osama bin Laden there?" he said in an interview. "I don't know."

Taken as a whole, though, Bush's foreign policy has been one horrible blunder.

You still haven't said which President of the past 50 years has had, in your opinion, a successful foreign policy.

The arguments for the invasion were essentially lies

What is an "essentially lie"? Is it one of those things where I deliberately say something I know to be false or is it something different?

Why is it whenever someone says we should put more troops on X ucfengr jumps up saying there isn't enough manpower?

I have argued in many places that Bush made a mistake in not expanding the military in the wake of 9/11. That said, recently I have been making the case that there may not be the logistical infrastructure to support a big increase in troop strength. Logistical infrastructure includes things that we can control, like ships, trucks, and planes, and things we can't control, like port facilities and roads.

Whoever gets the GOP nomination is going to have to grow up and accept that the majority of the country sees the policy as a failure or at least deeply flawed and for good reason.

Which is largely irrelevant. I would argue that in the mid-1980s, a majority of the country saw the Reagan foreign policy as a failure or at least deeply flawed; now Reagan is pretty much universally lauded. Furthermore, in 2004, based on election results it's pretty easy to argue that a majority thought Bush a foreign policy success. A majority may think differently know, but who knows what they are going to think 10 or 20 years down the road. Foreign policy success or failure is not based on what is in today's paper, it's a longer term prospect.

Of course, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand, whether or not Huckabee is a liberal.

53

Baggi

All the code words...

There's no code words there at all, the words mean what they say. Bush lied means that Bush lied. I didn't call anyone a coward but if I did that too would mean someone is a coward.

Any indication that they've read the topic of this thread or an attempt to answer the question, "Is Huckabee a Liberal?"

I have. Have you?

Matt
Maybe he is right, too. Maybe I do demand a little bit of orthodoxy. I demand a little respect for the tremendous progress our soldiers have made under some of the hardest circumstances imaginable. I demand just as much respect for the bravery and sacrifices of our freedom-loving Iraqi allies.

I would hope 'demanding respect' isn't a code word for supporting Bush.

Thank you for sticking to your guns. I am glad I didn't offend you enough to persuade you to stop contributing, to abandon the conversation.

No problem Matt, you'll find I have a very thick skin.

Leslie
5. He favors plundered tuition benefits for illegal aliens.

As we looked at before, this is a false statement. He favored lower tuition benefits for in-state residents only. Illegals from out of state would have the same higher tuition as everyone else.

ucfengr
So, are you trying to make the case that Bush purposefully didn't commit enough troops for the expressed purpose of letting OBL, etc. escape or are you trying to make the case that some tactical errors were made that allowed OBL to escape?

I never said that Bush decided he wanted bin Laden to get away and therefore instructed the military to provide him an escape route. "Let escape" does not mean one had to have escape as a policy goal. One could 'let him escape' simply through following bad policies or in this case ignoring the policy recommendations of those in charge of chasing him.

What is not 100% clear,

True he might have escaped Afghanistan before Tora Bora but at the time he was thought to have been with the Al Qaeda fighters who were temporarily trapped in Tora Bora. It's perfectly valid for a Presidential candidate to say he would have applied more force there...as I said I'm sure even Bush would say he wished he could have done Tora Bora differently.

What is an "essentially lie"? Is it one of those things where I deliberately say something I know to be false or is it something different?

At this point its very clear our intelligence agencies were told to produce evidence that Iraq has wMD's and were told to bury any evidence or conclusions to the contrary.

Which is largely irrelevant. I would argue that in the mid-1980s, a majority of the country saw the Reagan foreign policy as a failure or at least deeply flawed; now Reagan is pretty much universally lauded.

Actually Reagan's policies were never considered the failures that Bush's has. There might have been individual policies that were considered deep failures (Iran-Contra, the bombing of our troops in Beruit) but none of these policies were as big interms of Reagan's whole presidency as Iraq is to Bush's.

54

Mike Toreno:

I'd call you a name, but none are adequate. You don't resemble anything remotely familiar to me, though I think in one of my past lives, further back on the evolutionary trail, there was this thing with six legs and compound eyes crawling head first down a tree...

55

Baggi, The "LIBERATION OF IRAQ"?

Mike Toreno, could you respond to this? You seem to have a good grasp of the thinking right-wing authoritarian followers. What's an effective way of communicating with people who care more about some imaginary battle between true blue God fearing Americans and secular progressive members of "the left" than they care about reality?

56

I would just note that while I think Huckabee has been largely misconstrued as a 'liberal' I personally do not have a problem even if there is a certain liberality about him. All ‘liberal’ policies (as described by typical Washington pundits) are not wrong, and all conservative are probably not right. Being Biblical is most important to me. And if this means that in the interest of pragmatism taxes rise slightly or certain charities are extended those making the least, I am quite unopposed. It is important to note that criticism for not being conservative enough is only valid where the ‘conservative’ ideals in dialogue are correct.

57

This has been an interesting discussion that seems to have gotten far from the original question and for me, raises a new question ... that of whether it is profitable for evangelicals to be involved in politics at all.

To go back to the original comment: "True conservatives do not believe that taxes should ever be raised for any reason whatsoever." If that is true, can anyone really be a "true" conservative?

I think we get far to fond of our labels and it has ill served us in the past and will continue to do so. There are bigger questions that beset us and our support of any candidate should be based on that candidates ability to solve the problems we face.

58

Joe,

I sincerely hope you begin addressing our concerns before the South Carolina primary is history.

59

Alo I sincerely hope you begin addressing our concerns before the South Carolina primary is history.

I'm going to put them all together and answer them in a post on Wednesday. I want to give people time to come up with some solid concerns. So far, there is nothing I haven't seen before--which is fine with me. Makes my job easier. ; )

60

My contribution to this debate:

http://www.brainshavings.com/2008/01/is-mike-huckabee-a-liberal.html

61

Boonton,

Your complaints about Tora Bora highlight your ignorance of all things military. Let me give you a little breifing to get you up to speed. You fall into the trap of many armchair military strategists, you talk about troops levels and tactics, but neglect the most important consideration in military operations: logistics. Look at a map and tell me where the deep water ports in Afghanistan are? There aren't any. Every soldier on the ground must be supported either via air or by land through Pakistan.
The campaign in Afghanistan couldn't have been done with an appreciably larger invasion force than was used. It takes at least a month to move a heavy division into theater via sea lift. The war in Afghanistan was over in less time.
We cornered bin Laden with all the available forces we could, because it would have been impossible to support any more than that logistically. In the end its impossible to say that even with more forces, the out come would have been different. Try fighting on the top of Pikes Peak and see how easy it is even for the best equipped, higest trained force in the world.

Mike Toreno,

Does every post you make contain some variation of: "define yourself by membership in this group". If you repeat something over and over it doesn;t mean it makes anymore sense. What is it with you and your hang up about people identifying themselves as part of a group?

62

Hi Joe,

Mind if I suggest a slightly different approach? Your invitation brings out diehard Huckabee opponents. No matter what you say, they won’t listen. Indeed, there’s a kind of ink blot mentality in which thye project all—and I do mean “all”—of their grievances with domestic or foreign policy onto Huckabee, whether or not that corresponds with reality.

Let’s take a more representative case. Take a conservative voter who is not a news junkie. He’s undecided. He’s heard some good things about Huckabee, but he’s also heard some bad things about Huckabee. He goes to a source like the following (see before) for his basic info:

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm

This may or may not be a reliable source, but I imagine that it’s the sort of thing that a lot of voters who aren’t news junkies turn to in sizing up a candidate.

If he were to form his impressions of Huckabee from a source like this, what items might strike him as “liberal”?

BTW, I’ll be voting for Huckabee this Saturday in the SC primary, so I don’t think he’s a liberal. And I’m not saying that these sound bites do justice to his positions. But first impressions often stick.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Is he opposed to racial profiling? How does he define racial profiling?

Does he support the ERA?

CRIME & PUNISHMENT

Opposes 3-strikes laws

Seems inconsistent in the so-called war on drugs

ENERGY & OIL

Does he support or oppose the Kyoto Treaty?

FOREIGN POLICY

Bush’s “bunker mentality.” (Yes, I know you did a whole post on that.)

HEALTHCARE

Ban smoking in public places

NATIONAL SECURITY

Ban waterboarding and other forms of “torture

Investigate/fire (?) whoever destroyed the taped interrogations

Close GITMO

Go the diplomatic route with Iran

IMMIGRATION

Scholarships for students of illegals. (Yes, I know—it’s so been there, done that)

Pathway to citizenship. (Many would take this as a euphemism for “amnesty”)

Opponents of amnesty are bigots

BUSINESS

CEO salaries

FAITH & VALUES

Dislikes “law” Christians

63

Boonton,

I would like to ask critics harping on this point if they agree with the Bush administration that the Fed. gov't has a right to overrule states that allow pot use for medical purposes?

The federal government has no power to regulate the distribution or use of drugs in a state's borders, except on federal land. The Constitution's only explicit grant of economic regulatory power that covers the drug trade for civilians outside the employ of the federal government is the interstate commerce clause. The Congress pulled a sophistic load of crap on us, by arguing that since intrastate commerce is tied to interstate commerce, Congress can regulate any drug use or sale that states inside a state's borders.

64

Your complaints about Tora Bora highlight your ignorance of all things military. Let me give you a little breifing to get you up to speed. You fall into the trap of many armchair military strategists,

I suppose then the top CIA officers charged with finding and capturing bin Laden are likewise armchair strategists who are woefully ignorant of logistics. That would then beg the question of why Bush would allow such dopes to be in charge of probably the most important task the CIA has had during his administration.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, though, is this criticism of our military strategy at Tora Bora really liberal then? Even if you think it displays ignorance by Huckabee & myself of the battle of Tora Bora I don't see how that would make those mounting the argument liberal....unless you're definition of liberal is anyone who happens to disagree with your idol, George Bush.

MikeT
The Constitution's only explicit grant of economic regulatory power that covers the drug trade for civilians outside the employ of the federal government is the interstate commerce clause. The Congress pulled a sophistic load of crap on us, by arguing that since intrastate commerce is tied to interstate commerce, Congress can regulate any drug use or sale that states inside a state's borders.

Actually it wasn't Congress that pulled the "sophistic load of crap" on us but the Conservatives on the SC along with the administration that supported their decision that even a medical program explicitly limited to inside the state's borders is really 'interstate commerce'.

Again, most Republicans seem fine with this with only a few notable exceptions. If this is the case then why get all uppity over a Federal smoking ban at work? That clearly falls within interstate commerce much more cleanly & the medical arguments for it are a lot stronger than were used against pot use by those with terminal illnesses.

65

Boonton,

"I suppose then the top CIA officers charged with finding and capturing bin Laden are likewise armchair strategists who are woefully ignorant of logistics"

That doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say? I shouldn't expect anything different, but is it possible for you to concede a point when you are arguing from ignorance? Spell it out for me, what are you saying?

66

Oclarki,

I'm saying that two CIA officials who should be quite knowledgeable not only of military strategy but the specific logistical problems of fighting in the Tora Bora area have charged the US did not apply enough force there and as a result bin Laden probably escaped.

Your answer to this is to cry 'logistics' and accuse critics of being armchair strategists who have no military knowledge. Well what do you think you are? Do you have specific military expertise regarding Tora Bora that you can say we had applied all possible force there and it would have been logistically impossible to have done anything more? How amazing, not only are decisions made during this administration unquestionable (unless you're a 'liberal')...they are actually textbook perfect decisions that cannot even be improved on with hindsight.