"You don't have to read a book to have an opinion," said Tom Townsend in Whit Stillman's brilliant comedy Metropolitan. The same seems to hold true for articles in foreign policy journals: you don’t have to actually read the article to have an opinion on it.
For example, in a post examining the field of Republican Presidential candidates my friend Jeffrey Collins made the following comment about Governor Mike Huckabee:
Joe Carter's efforts aside, I just can't take [Huckabee] seriously. Putting aside for the moment that I'm afraid they may have permanently damaged Joe's ability to intelligently defend his positions (the quality of Joe's discourse has been in steady decline), there numerous reasons I have trouble supporting Huckabee.
I have to admit that Jeffrey has a point. Too often I take for granted that people have accessed the same facts and information that I have and that our disagreements are merely a matter of interpretation. For example, one of the areas that Collins highlights is Huckabee's foreign policy which he considers to be "truly naïve…"
The basis for the criticism appears to be Governor Huckabee's recent article in Foreign Affairs. But rather than link to that article, Jeffery links to a blog post by Justin Higgins that selectively quotes from the article and concludes: "The War on Terrorism is the most important issue of our time, and Mike Huckabee is wrong on the issue."
My problem in trying to defend Huckabee on this issue it that I have been working under the naïve assumption that people have actually read the article that they are criticizing. Like most people, I suspect that neither Justin nor Jeffrey has read the piece in its entirety. If so, I'd be curious to hear what they dislike.
(I'll confess that I thought the style of the paper was lacking while I find the substance quite meritorious. The "arrogant bunker mentality" line made me cringe, though just about ever foreign policy expert agrees that there is some truth to the criticism.)
Since there is no chance that people will bother to read the entire 5000+ word article, I've cut it down to the key policy statements. I think this will help make it easier to debate the merits of Governor Huckabee's position on America's Priorities in the War on Terror.
[Overview] -- American foreign policy should not be focused on squabbles with other nations but rather united with other countries in our global fight against the terrorists.
[Overview] -- The U.S. must never surrender any of our sovereignty.
[The GWOT] -- The Commander-in-Chief has an obligation to clearly communicate to the American people the nature of the war we are fighting, especially the goal of the jihadists: to kill every last one of us, destroy civilization as we know it, and to establish a theocratic caliphate without national borders.
[The GWOT] -- The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism. Although we cannot export democracy we should nurture moderate forces that present an alternative to the jihadists.
[The GWOT] -- The goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. We must not act too hastily but we must act. Specifically, we can help by aiding or promoting basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, and fair court systems within these areas.
[The GWOT] -- We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil if we are going to defeat jihadism.
[The GWOT] -- Supporting Islamic moderates and moving toward energy independence, however, will not protect us from the terrorists who already exist. We must strengthen both our human intelligence resources and our military assets in order to eliminate the current threat.
[The Military] -- Our current active armed forces simply are not large enough. We have relied far too heavily on the National Guard and the Reserves and have worn them out. We must increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops within two to three years without lowering enlistment standards.
[The Military] -- The U.S. currently spends about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level.
[The Military] -- Active-duty forces should not be used for nation building. We must return to our policy of using other government agencies to build schools, hospitals, roads, sewage treatment plants, water filtration systems, electrical facilities, and legal and banking systems.
[The Military] -- If we are required to undertake a large invasion we must use overwhelming force.
[Iraq] -- We should not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. Troops must be brought home based on the conditions on the ground, not on artificial timetables.
[The Kurds] -- We must encourage Turkey to continue to improve life for its Kurds, and we must encourage the Turkish Kurds to address their grievances through the political process, including through the 20 deputies currently representing them in parliament.
[The Kurds] -- We should be willing to provide the Turks with actionable intelligence to go after the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) with limited air strikes and commando raids. A even better method would be to train and equip Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK and rid themselves of this menace.
[Iran] -- The military option for dealing with Iran should not be taken off the table.
[Iran] -- Iran is a nation that has to be contained, just as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. In order to contain Iran, it is essential to win in Iraq. We cannot allow Iran to push its theocracy into Iraq and then expand it further west.
[Iran] -- We must be as aggressive diplomatically as we have been militarily since 9/11. We must intensify our diplomatic efforts with China, India, Russia, South Korea, and European states and persuade them to put more economic pressure on Iran.
[Iran] -- Despite the protestations of Congressional Democrats, we should support and continue President Bush's new sanctions against Iran, his decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and the classifications of al Quds force as a supporter of terrorism. We must also encourage our state and private pension funds to divest themselves of Iran-related assets.
[Iran] -- Despite the protestations of Russia, we should move forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.
[Iran] -- We should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran but only after the Iranians have made concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship.
[Iran] -- Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. However, a range of incentives (e.g., trade and economic assistance, full diplomatic relations, and security guarantees) should be offered before moving forward with military action. Before we put our troops at risk in Iran, we should exhaust all diplomatic and economic options.
[Pakistan] -- On September 12, 2001, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to sever his relationship with the Taliban and let us fight al Qaeda inside Pakistan. But distracted by Iraq, we have since allowed him to go back on his word. We should pressure him to remain firm in his commitment to us.
[Pakistan] -- Because the next attack on the U.S. will have been planned in Pakistan, we must go after al Qaeda's safe havens in that country. The threat of an attack on us is far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.
[Pakistan] -- Musharraf has spent far more energy and enthusiasm sidelining the moderate Pakistani forces (like former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) than he has in going after religious extremists and terrorists. We must have a "Pakistan policy" rather than just a "Musharraf policy."
[Pakistan] -- We must use our friendly ties with India to encourage and help it improve its relationship with Pakistan and to push for increased trade and cooperation between the two countries, all to bring greater stability to the South Asian region.
[Conclusion] --- The fight against global jihaism will be punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment. As president, Huckabee will ensure that "America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker."
I'd be interested in hearing what my fellow Republicans find so abhorrent about the plan. Also, I'd be curious if they are familiar with the articles by Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani and how they differ (Thompson never bothered to write an article on for the journal).
Joe,
I read the entire Foreign Affairs article, all 5000+ words of it. I reread numerous times, and to be honest, I came away with the exact same conclusion... hopelessly naive. Your bullet points sound better upon first glance, but that wasn't what Huckabee seemed to be implying in the article.
And don't even try to use the "thompson never bothered to write an article for the journal" line, when in fact, he wasn't in the race until September. These essays have been planned by the candidates months in advance, and Thompson has spoken at great length about foreign policy, and out of all the televised responses I saw yesterday (I wasn't able to see McCains), Thompson was the only candidate who didn't seem lost on the issues of the last few days.
McCain and Thompson both have considerable foreign policy credibility, where I find Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee lacking.
Yes, I know, everyone is using the "Reagan didn't come into office" with any cred on the issue, but... a) that is debatable. b) Even if he was lacking in that area, this is 2008, not 1980. We live in a different world than the one Reagan came into. Threats were great then, and Reagan handled the Iran Hostage Crisis with great skill, but the world has changed since then and the War on Terror has made this a different era of warfare.
I'll probably write a long diatribe later on my site that you can feel free to defend against, if you feel it is worth it, but please...
Joe,
I have to concur with Tommy's comment. Huckabee's foreign policy positions read like he copied the answers from a smarter person's paper. He is no more suited to address foreign policy issues than the last Arkansas governor we had for a president. That said, he is not necessarily the worst candidate running, and would arguably be better than any of the Democrats running.
Your bullet points sound better upon first glance, but that wasn't what Huckabee seemed to be implying in the article.
Every bullet point is taken directly from the article. Which part do you find to be "hopelessly naive"? What particular position to you find objectionable?
And don't even try to use the "thompson never bothered to write an article for the journal" line, when in fact, he wasn't in the race until September. These essays have been planned by the candidates months in advance,…
Huckabee started working on the article in November. Thompson had plenty of time to write one-- he just didn’t do it.
Thompson was the only candidate who didn't seem lost on the issues of the
last few days.
Perhaps, but since he doesn’t have a shot at becoming President what does it matter? I can understand the enthusiasm for Thompson. I once shared it myself. But the guy doesn't want to be President. He'll drop out after NH, if not after Iowa. Supporting him now is about as naïve as supporting Ron Paul. It's time to move on and choose one of the candidates that may actually be elected.
Reagan handled the Iran Hostage Crisis with great skill,
Reagan had nothing to do with the Iranian hostage crisis. They were released the day he took office.
I'll probably write a long diatribe later on my site that you can feel free to defend against, if you feel it is worth it, but please...
I look forward to reading it. Hopefully you'll address some of the actual concerns you have with Huckabee's positions.
"On Thursday night he [Huckabee] told reporters in Orlando, Fla.: “We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”
On Friday, in Pella, Iowa, he expanded on those remarks.
"When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,” he told reporters in Pella. “And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.”
Joe, I was an early - and avid - Huckabee supporter. However, comments like these have begun to give me real doubts about him. The statement he made - quoted above - is clearly and demonstrably false. According to DHS statistics, there are for more illegal immigrants coming from far east Asia countries than from Pakistan.
He claimed that 660 Pakistanis crossed the border last year, a figure that is only reported in one Denver Post article, and even there states that it was the total number of Pakistani illegals from 2002 to 2005, not just last year. Even that article is incorrect, as last year DHS cites that 721 illegals came from Pakistan - but even so, Pakistan doesn't rank in the top 10.
In many ways, I like what Huckabee's positions are, as listed on his web site. And I'm desperate to find reasons to continue supporting him. The problem is, he keeps making statements like this (and the statements about Cuba) that concern me regarding his foreign policy chops, as well as his understanding of illegal immigration solutions.
It's getting hard to keep trying to support him....
Joe,
Don't give me the "he doesn't have a chance" crap. In the end, I probably wouldn't care if he had a chance or not. I vote with conviction, not odds makers.
#2, you're bullet points might be the points Huckabee was trying, but didn't make in the article.
#3- Let's see. He doesn't have a clue about the NIE. He seems to think Pakistanis are 2nd only to those coming from the country south of the border immigrating to the United States, which is of course, wrong. He makes some unintelligable comment about border fences that had nothing to do with the situation. He even blundered the directions of the Pakistani borders. He had to backtrack on an apparent apology. He's endorsed by an Iranian newspaper.
In his article, he compares foreign policy to high school bullies, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Brer Rabbit, and Brer Fox. Where's Uncle Remus? His article was nothing more than a bunch of incoherent rambling. He insults President Bush. He makes Iranian policy sound like a 3rd grade backyard football play drawn up in the dirt.
You want to tell me to jump off and support a candidate who wants to win? The democrats would have an absolute field day with Huckabee. The guy is notoriously thin skinned. With the exception of cute debate one liners, I have yet to see any ad or debate performance that highlights anything he wants to do policy wise. He's running on his personality and social issues during a time of war, and frankly, that's frightening.
Joe, just because someone is a man of faith and a good, decent human being doesn't mean they are the right person to lead the nation in a time of crisis. I'm voting for someone who has a clear and consistent record and vision. Huckabee is pure on social issues, but besides that the record is mixed. He's even a bigger flip flopper than Mitt Romney on immigration.
Besides the fact that he's pro life and supports the marriage act, What makes Mike Huckabee stand out?
The most important question facing this cycle is:
Is he the candidate who is most prepared to deal with the War on Terror?
Answer: No
OK, let's look at the other issues based on his record, and not rhetoric:
Is he the best candidate on taxes? No
Is he the best candidate to protect the borders?
No
Is he the best candidate to deal with out of control spending? no
Joe, the guys another George Bush, and as much as the Commander in Chief has done right in certain areas, I think its time for a serious change.
BTW, I am not criticizing Huckabee for taking the appearent funds that he did, but I do find it a little hypocritical that some people who criticized Thompson over his lobbying/consulting aren't doing the same here. Some of you should take a long hard look at the overall process.
I know that you were an early Fred supporter, and personally, I don't care if you came back or not. It's up to you. However, I think some of your criticisms have been downright shallow. Vote for whoever you want, but don't tell me that I am wasting my vote. Thompson isn't perfect, but he doesn't pander, and he doesn't compromise his fundemental principles and values concerning democracy, and to me, that is an admirable trait that no other candidate has demonstrated on a regular basis.
Your post vis-a-vis Huckabee's foreign policy knowledge could hardly be more timely. Just a few hours ago Huckabee delivered a speech wherein he makes a strained segue from the turmoil in Pakistan to illegal U.S. immigration. The speech is variously being called "bizzare" and a "gaffe." Even the Fox beltway boys didn't know what to make of it.
I was just about to update that
Here's the Youtube link to the video of Huckabee's advisor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-BOgBan-Fc
I don't really care if someone has "foreign policy credentials" when voting for President. President Bush, prior to becoming President, didn't have any "foreign policy credentials" and he's doing a superb job in my estimation.
Besides, what sort of folks would have any "foreign policy credentials" in the first place? It seems like in this race its only Senators and their credentials in that area seem to be along the lines of State Department Credentials. Which, if you know anything about State Department employees and their credentials, it would make you shudder.
As to Huckabee, i'll vote for him if he gets the nomination. He's not my first choice though.
I find him, Thompson and Romney all to be acceptable. McCain I might be able to vote for if I close my eyes and can swallow the bitter pill. Rudy, no thanks.
And another statement Huckabee made that seems to be incorrect:
In recent days, Mike Huckabee has tried to answer long-standing questions about who is on his foreign policy team. On Friday morning, he listed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has “spoken or will continue to speak.”
Seriously, this is really, really starting to look bad. Joe, if you want to get Huckabee elected, tell him to al least memorize the names of the people who are actually on his campaign advisory committee.
Tommy,
Don't give me the "he doesn't have a chance" crap. In the end, I probably wouldn't care if he had a chance or not. I vote with conviction, not odds
makers.
Well, why vote for me then. ; )
Seriously, it doesn’t bother you that the reason he doesn't have a chance is because he never really tried? Thompson has played his supporters (including me) for suckers.
#2, you're bullet points might be the points Huckabee was trying, but
didn't make in the article.
Again, those are exact statements from his article. If you think that his policies are "hopelessly naïve" then you should be able to point out examples from the article.
#3- Let's see. He doesn't have a clue about the NIE. He seems to think
Pakistanis are 2nd only to those coming from the country south of the
border immigrating to the United States, which is of course, wrong. He
makes some unintelligable comment about border fences that had nothing to
do with the situation. He even blundered the directions of the Pakistani
borders. He had to backtrack on an apparent apology. He's endorsed by an
Iranian newspaper.
True, he did make some gaffes. That's likely to happen when you actually bother to campaign and the media reports on--and scrutinizes--every word that you say.
The guy is notoriously thin skinned.
Really? According to who?
With the exception of cute debate one liners, I have yet to see any ad or debate performance that highlights anything he wants to do policy wise.
That's part of the problem right there. Rather than reading a 5000 word article on foreign policy people expect to get something substantive from a 30 second ad or a 1 minute answer in a debate.
I'm voting for someone who has a clear and consistent record and vision.
Oh, I thought you were supporting Thompson?
The best thing about Thompson was that he had the virtue of not being Romney or Giuliani. But let's not pretend that he had an inspiring record. He was a lackluster Senator who never supported a substantive piece of legislation. He can talk a good game because he doesn’t have a record of actually doing anything.
As President he probably wouldn't be a disaster but he wouldn't be another Reagan either.
He's even a bigger flip flopper than Mitt Romney on immigration.
How so?
Besides the fact that he's pro life and supports the marriage act, What makes Mike Huckabee stand out?
Let's see: the longest executive experience of any candidate; the toughest immigration plan; the most conservative tax plan; a strong plan for helping veterans and improving the military, etc.
The most important question facing this cycle is: Is he the candidate who is most prepared to deal with the War on Terror?
He is prepared in the only way that really matters: he understands the threat of jihadism and will do whatever is necessary to fight it. To be honest, I think that every GOP candidate (with the exception of Ron Paul) meets that criteria.
Is he the best candidate on taxes? No
Yes. He has a tax plan that is the most conservative of any candidate.
Is he the best candidate to protect the borders? No
He's better than Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. And Thompson had eight years in the Senate to do something about protecting our border and did…nada. So I guess that means he's better than Thompson too. ; )
Is he the best candidate to deal with out of control spending? No
Again, he's better than Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. And Thompson had eight years in the Senate to do something about spending and did…nada. So I guess that means he's better than Thompson too. ; )
BTW, I am not criticizing Huckabee for taking the appearent funds that he
did, but I do find it a little hypocritical that some people who criticized
Thompson over his lobbying/consulting aren't doing the same here. Some of
you should take a long hard look at the overall process.
There is a huge difference between (a) giving a speech for a company that is known for producing diabetic treatments and happens to support ESCR and (b) actively lobbying the government for a pro-abortion group. It was a long time ago so I can overlook Thompson's bad decision. But let's not try to claim that the situation is similar to Huckabee's.
However, I think some of your criticisms have been downright shallow.
Criticisms of Thompson? I'm not sure what I've said about him that is "shallow." The guy just doesn’t want to be President. That's about the most I've hit him on. (I never even got into the underhanded, negative campaigning that he thought was so clever but only caused him to sink further in the polls.)
Vote for whoever you want, but don't tell me that I am wasting my vote.
I admire your standing on principle. I just wish the candidate wanted to be President half as much as you want to vote for him. I take a lot of flak from Fredheads for jumping ship. But the real ire should be directed at their candidate who has done everything he can to secure a fourth place finish in Iowa. I admire his supporters. It's the candidate that isn't worthy of such admiration.
Thompson isn't perfect, but he doesn't pander, and he doesn't compromise his fundamental principles and values concerning democracy, and to me, that is an admirable trait that no other candidate has demonstrated on a regular basis.
I know the "Fred doesn't pander" is a staple of the Fredhead talking points. I just don't see why sneering at voters and refusing to address their concerns is considered some admirable quality.
The guy is on a job interview and he's acting like the snot-nosed kid who comes in, put his feet up on the HR reps desk and says, "Hire me if you want, I don’t really care." His too cool for school schtick was amusing at first but now it's just lame.
As soon as he drops out of the race (which will be any day now) you can expect a huge backlash from the Fredheads. They are going to realize as I did that they were being played for fools.
I'd be interested in hearing what my fellow Republicans find so abhorrent about the plan.
I don't find anything particularly abhorrent about the plan, but let's be honest, there's nothing all that compelling about it either. It looks like somebody "cut and pasted" it from "Foreign Policy for Dummies". No "outside the box" thinking is in evidence. It looks like something you would expect an O-5 at the Pentagon or a GS-14 (Do they use GS ratings at State?) at Foggy Bottom to write. A nice piece of fluff that won't hurt you at your next performance review or promotion board, but less than I hope for in a potential President. I must admit, I have a hard time squaring this (from the Foreign Affairs article):
"The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad."
with this (from Joe's bullet points):
we should support and continue President Bush's new sanctions against Iran, his decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and the classifications of al Quds force as a supporter of terrorism.
This one always bugs me:
"We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil if we are going to defeat jihadism."
because it generally comes from somebody who has no concept of the technical or economic challenges involved.
And so does this one:
"If we are required to undertake a large invasion we must use overwhelming force.
Does he mean like Ike at Normandy? No wait, Ike invaded France with a total invasion force of about 150,000 against German forces approaching half a million. He wrote a letter anticipating the invasion would be driven back into the Channel (fortunately he didn't have to send it). Maybe he means like the overwhelming force we brought to Vietnam. No wait, we lost that war. So what does he mean? My guess is that this is just boiler plate and that neither Joe nor Huckabee have really put any thought into what they mean by this.
Hey Joe, I hope Huck is paying you overtime for this.
This video of Huckabee decrying lack of relations with Iran rules Huckabee out for me:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5QwX_rds2DY
There's a reason we don't have relations with Iran. They kidnapped our diplomats and held them hostage the last time we had relations with them. One of those kidnappers is now President of Iran. Should we give him more hostages?
This video of Huckabee decrying lack of relations with Iran rules Huckabee out for me:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5QwX_rds2DY
There's a reason we don't have relations with Iran. They kidnapped our diplomats and held them hostage the last time we had relations with them. One of those kidnappers is now President of Iran. Should we give him more hostages?
Joe-
I'm personally a fan of Huckabee, but I think that his recent gaffes are more serious than you make them out to be. If a President Huckabee said similar things we'd have foreign diplomats rather than campaign staffers trying to cover his tracks and clarify statements.
These are worse than calling Greeks "Grecians" of which so much was made in 2000.
Joe, you asked about Huckabee's immigration flip-flop: here it is. To use his own words, he's "gone to seed."
Joe,
I'll have a full response up after awhile, but just to let you know, after all these comical gaffes while we're in the middle of an apparent international crisis... If Thompson does lose and drop out, and then Huckabee blows it and we end up with one of the gun grabbers, then there won't be an outpouring of Fredheads angry at their candidate, but an outpouring of real conservatives angry at Huckabee and his supporters for completely blowing their opportunity for absolutely nothing.
He is starting to look like an absolutely horrible nominee. This foreign policy BS is absolutely inexcusable. If I end up having to choose between the gun grabbers because Huckabee one over an audience with a speech and a Youtube debate, then Lord help us, because we're going to be in for a long few years ahead of us.
Besides apparently you, he has no team. He has no organization, and he can't get anything right on issues that matter most.
Are you blind?
He mangles responses worse on matters where our troops lives are on the line worse than Bush mangled foreign names in 1999. This is 2008 and understanding the psychology of the jihadists ain't cutting it. For the sake of my relatives serving overseas with their lives on the line, OPEN YOUR EYES. He has absolutely NO CLUE.
In other words, if Huckabee screws this up, which looks more and more likely, we're going to end up with the gun grabbers instead of a candidate who satisfies conservatives across the board.
Why don’t people get that all of this is completely irrelevant. Romney is the only one who will be capable of winning the general election. The various reasons behind this truth would fill up too many pages in blog to expound. I invite anyone doubting this to please revisit this blog in November after Huck or McCain get STEAMROLLED by the dems.
Anyone here defending Huckabee as a presidential candidate is actually defending Hillary.
When are Huckabee and McCain supporters going to finally realize what most of us can CLEARLY see: They are unelectable Period.
Stop supporting Huckabee, your Huck/McCain primary votes are going to put Hillary and Obama in office. Seriously, just vote for Hillary now and save us time.
Follow up to my previous comment:
I said I would not expound on the MANY reason they are unelectable.
Can’t resist. Here are a few revealing ones:
Why did the Concord Monitor Newspaper attack Mitt Romney so ruthlessly? These people are as liberal Democratic as they come. What about Romney scares them enough to lash out like that? Hmmmm….It sounds like these Hillary lovers really want Huck to be the nominee in November. I wonder WHY?
Rush Limbaugh. The guy lives and breathes for the Republican party. He’s spent his career defending and promoting the GOP, through thick and thin. I wonder why he has come out so vocally AGAINST Huckabee??? Hmmm…He’s obviously protecting his beloved GOP from something….Could it be ignorant Huckabee supporters who don’t understand that Mike Huckabee will NEVER be elected by the general population outside of the Bible Belt. Rush knows it, so should Huckabee supporters.
Can you sense the frustration level?
Here's one more thought to keep you up at night (no, it’s not Huck sitting across a table from Ahmadinejad). The supreme court is ONE judge away from overturning Roe v Wade. Romney will appoint a pro-lifer, Hillary Won’t. Given that Huck/McCain can’t win, it appears that Huckabee voters are really in favor of abortion. Think about it.
At first I thought it was sad that you had gone to work for Huckabee's campaign but now I'm grateful. I have mad respect for your blog and your work with the FRC so if there is one person who could convince me to support Huck it would be you.
So far you haven't. I appreciate your effort but there are too many things (some of which others have commented on here) that make me nervous about this guy. I'm supporting Romney.
My best to you and yours Joe and Happy New Year!
I agree that it's only fair to look at what the article actually said. And the statements in this article look perfectly fine. Well within the pale of where a Republican candidate should be.
As for electability--that's a judgment call right now. If Romney gets nominated, I'll certainly give him my vote; I feel no animus toward him. But in my opinion Huckabee is more electable.
On foreign policy, one difference between Huckabee and Bush-McCain-Romney-Thompson is a difference in tone. No, it's not merely a difference in tone, but the difference in tone is there. And it's a difference that is meaningful to people who are not full-time participants in the media seminar conducted by conservative pundits. And that includes most voters. (I have thoroughly bought in to the hard-line conservative consensus on the GWOT--but most voters aren't like me, and I can never force them to be clones of me, and I recognize that.) So, on the one hand, Huckabee is well within the pale of where a Republican needs to be on foreign policy issues, while on the other hand he truly is an outsider who can appeal to voters who are just worn out with the unrelieved hunt-them-down-and-kill-them tone that is current Republican orthodoxy.
"The guy is on a job interview and he's acting like the snot-nosed kid who comes in, put his feet up on the HR reps desk and says, 'Hire me if you want, I don’t really care.'"
Joe, I want to appreciate Huckabee - remember, I said that I was an avid supporter before he announced, and for quite a while afterwards. I really like that he's embraced the fair tax approach, which makes a lot of sense to me.
And I agree with your assessment of Thompson, which is why I'm having a hard time switching my vote to him. Mitt and Rudy are barely conservative, in my opinion, and to the degree that they are, they seem to be johnny-come-latelys to the movement. Ron Paul? Anyone who says Iran has no army, navy, or air force should be confined to a rubber room for his own sake. McCain? Please.... I live in Arizona; I've had enough of this bozo just in the Senate.
On the other hand, Huckabee is also on a job interview - and he's beginning to sound like someone who's applying for an accounting job who doesn't know the difference between accrual- and cash-based accounting.
Like I said, I would really love to like Huckabee, and maybe he's the best of a sorry lot. But I can't just vote for him because he and I are both evangelical Christians, and because he supports the fair tax. I need more - I need a presidential candidate who doesn't make the kind of gaffes Huckabee has been making lately. If I'm going to hire him as the leader of this country, I need to be absolutely sure he knows the score. And the only way I have to do that is from what he says.
Fred said that he's "not particularly interested in running for President." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/29/thompson-not-particularly-interested-in-running-for-president/
So the main criticism of Fred Thompson is that he hasn't enough "fire in the belly" or "he doesn't want the job bad enough." I guess his detractors would be happier if he were more power-hungry like Hillary. There is much to be said for studied reflection and perhaps actually viewing the job as 'public service.'
It wasn't an easy decision, but I'm with Fred until he's dead (figuratively speaking of course.) The other candidates are just too unpalatable to force down the gullet. I truly believe you have it backwards Joe. One day in the not-too-distant future you will realize - like Phyllis Schlafly - that it is you who have been huckstered, so to speak.
The MSM is on the Huckabee bandwagon for a reason. They believe he is an easy target to play the fool.
Christians—Beware Of Mike Huckabee!
Judge Paul Pressler - one of my personal heroes for turning the SBC around - is likewise suspicious of Mike Huckabee saying "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."
Wake up.
Bruce,
Re Iran: Spreading democracy is a good thing, right? Imagine how things would be now if Iran had a fully functioning democracy for the last fifty years? Things would possible be a lot different between our two countries.
Mohammed Mosaddeq was Iran's first democratically elected leader and in 1953 he was overthrown by a CIA supported coup and the Shah of Iran was installed. Yes, the same Shah overthrown in 1979.
Christ tells us to remove the beam from our own eyes before pointing to the speck in our neighbor's. Actions and attitudes have consequences.
Mohammed Mosaddeq was Iran's first democratically elected leader and in 1953 he was overthrown by a CIA supported coup and the Shah of Iran was installed. Yes, the same Shah overthrown in 1979.
Wow, that happened 55 years ago. Maybe it's time somebody moved on. But I must admit it is great fun to blame all the problems of the Middle East on the West, but why stop 55 years ago. Let's blame those nasty old French for attacking a kindly old bunch of Islamic missionaries at Poitiers.
Christ tells us to remove the beam from our own eyes before pointing to the speck in our neighbor's. Actions and attitudes have consequences.
You're right John. I sincerely apologize for my role in the overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq.
I am no political know it all, and don't pretend to be. I am not an Evangelical, especially considering I have not been to church in more than 6 years. I am, however, a concerned citizen. I have strong beliefs about what a President should represent and what he shouldn't. Below are my thoughts regarding some of the things people have posted above.
I have not seen any candidate, Republican or Democrat, demonstrate their knowledge of Foreign Policy. Some just happen to have enough money to hire advisers to construct answers for them in response to questions asked by the media. When a President is elected, correct me if I am wrong, they have a group of advisers which bring him up to speed on the facts. The President then makes a decision based on that advice and his own personal beliefs about right and wrong. The question really should be, not who knows more about Foreign Policy, but who do you trust to make the "Right" decision after having all the information laid out in front of them. For me, that is Mike Huckabee.
I don't trust Mitt Romney because he seems to change his positions on everything depending on who his audience is. That, or he distorts the truth to serve his own personal gain. Either way, he is not someone I trust to make the "Right" decisions.
Guiliani is someone I would give the benefit of the doubt to in regards to National Security since he has a record of reducing crime in one of the most, if not the most, crime riddled cities in America. Some of the ethical questions regarding exactly how he did it are a little worrisome though. That being said, I have yet to figure out how this makes him anymore qualified in Foreign Policy.
John McCain is an American hero anyway you slice it. His views are sometimes out of step with the majority of Conservatives but they are his views and he stands by them so you have to respect that about him. While I disagree with him on several issues, I know where he stands and that is important. His years in Congress and being a member of various panels have probably given him the necessary experience to be better equipped to handle Foreign Policy affairs because he has been exposed to information that the other candidates have not seen.
Fred Thompson is the guy I supported up until he actually formerly announced his candidacy. That was the precise time I noticed Mike Huckabee. From what I can gather, Fred does not have any more or less Foreign Policy experience than anyone else, except for maybe John McCain. To me, Fred seems as though he would rather be spending time with his young family rather than leading a country, and I don't blame him for that. He seems as though he would rather take down Huckabee than actually win for himself. I wonder if his only reason for staying in the race at this point is to help Mitt Romney?
Uncenger,
Glad I'm giving you a chance to display your rhetorical skills.
Happy New Year.
Does he mean like Ike at Normandy? No wait, Ike invaded France with a total invasion force of about 150,000 against German forces approaching half a million.
Yes 'D-Day' involved 'only' 150K men or so but by the time the Normandy Campaign ended over 1 million soldiers were involved on the Allied front.
Joe:
Yes. He has a tax plan that is the most conservative of any candidate.
Remind me again, why is a 33% sales tax conservative (actually a sales tax approaching 40% or more using honest numbers)?
Joseph
Guiliani is someone I would give the benefit of the doubt to in regards to National Security since he has a record of reducing crime in one of the most, if not the most, crime riddled cities in America.
You forgot that the guy he pushed to run Homeland Security has just gotten himself indicted. You forgot that his "Guiliani Partners" 'consulting firm' seems to have been a front to pay off Rudy to sell political influence. You forgot that he seems to have turned 9/11 into his own little money machine cashing in on it at every opportunity. I suppose we should be thankful he hasn't opened a 9/11 theme park....yet.
Joe
True, he did make some gaffes. That's likely to happen when you actually bother to campaign and the media reports on--and scrutinizes--every word that you say.
Like his decision to get a violent rapist released so he could go on to murder an innocent women, this seems like something more than a gaff. There are many intelligent reactions to have to the assassination in Pakistan but it's quite a stretch to see how giving Pakistani immigrants more scrutiny or even a special focus on illegal Pakistani immigrants is one of them.
To me it smacks of a person who is a little too focused on domestic issues (ahhh another excuse to go on about those illegal immigrants!). The 'energy independence' line reinforces that (ahhhh more tax breaks for ethanol & my buddies, the corn farmers!).
Now perhaps I should read the 5k word article but I'm not Joe. You're supposed to distill that article for us and sell us on your man...or at least sell us on his article. I'll agree someone shouldn't write an article criticizing Huck's article without reading it but I've yet to see anything to indicate Huck has produced anything that insightful to make the next 5,000 words I read his as opposed to someone else's.
Yes 'D-Day' involved 'only' 150K men or so but by the time the Normandy Campaign ended over 1 million soldiers were involved on the Allied front.
Which doesn't alter my point that Ike didn't invade Normandy with overwhelming force. It also points out the fact that the amount of force we are able to put in any one place is largely independent of the amount of manpower available. The reason we couldn't put overwhelming force in Normandy was because of logistics issues driven by available transportation and port facilities. There is an old military aphorism that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics. Huckabee, and apparently Joe, should note that before tying our hands with unwise military policies.
The analogy breaks down ucf because Iraq today is more like the entire Normandy campaign while D-Day would have been more like day 1 or so of the Iraq campaign. The reason we lack 1 million troops in Iraq is not because they won't fit or because Iraq just doesn't have enough airstrips to land them but because we don't have 1m men to put there.
The analogy breaks down ucf because Iraq today is more like the entire Normandy campaign while D-Day would have been more like day 1 or so of the Iraq campaign.
It would, if I was analogizing the Normandy invasion with our current conflict in Iraq, I wasn't. I was pointing out that people who use terms like "overwhelming force" really don't have a clear understanding how wars are fought and won. With the possible exception of Grenada, we have never had "overwhelming force" in a war. The reality is we win wars with superior training, tactics, logistics, and communications, not with superior numbers.
The reason we lack 1 million troops in Iraq is not because they won't fit or because Iraq just doesn't have enough airstrips to land them but because we don't have 1m men to put there.
This is what I mean when I say "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics". Even if we had 1 million troops to put into Iraq, we don't have the logistics to support them. It's not just having enough airplanes to transport 1 million men, we could do that, given enough time, but it's also having shipping and port facilities and road networks and vehicles to get supplies to 1 million men. Even if we had the shipping and road transportation (which we don't), I doubt that Iraq has the roads and port facilities to get supplies to 1 million troops especially under combat conditions.
In response to Boonton about my Guiliani assessment. You did not read my entire thought. The next line after the one you quoted said this:
Some of the ethical questions regarding exactly how he did it are a little worrisome though.
In regards to the conversation about overwhelming force, how can you say that an additional 120,000-150,000 troops would not have made a difference? Someone said:
"we win wars with superior training, tactics, logistics, and communications, not with superior numbers."
While I agree with most of that statement, I believe manpower plays a part. In the early stages of Iraq, we simply walked through each town and went to the next and the next and so on. We did not leave any troops in those towns to maintain order. Then when our convoys came through to supply the front, they were attacked. Seems pretty simple to me that more troops in the beginning would of fixed this problem. Another problem with a light footprint, who was securing the borders of Iraq while our small force was taking a B-Line to Baghdad? No one was but if we had, had another 120,000-150,000 we could of covered the borders and in essence stopped the insurgency before it even started.
As for Huckabee and his role in the Wayne Dumond case, the only thing you can fault Huckabee for was the kind words he wrote to Dumond in the letter denying his clemency for the forth time. Other than that, you would have to talk to the parole board that voted to release him. There is nothing else factual to that story.
No one was but if we had, had another 120,000-150,000 we could of covered the borders and in essence stopped the insurgency before it even started.
Maybe, or maybe not. You are really proving my point about amateurs vs. professional. You just assume that more troops is a good thing, but it is not necessarily so. It is conceivable that more troops could have made things worse.
Maybe, or maybe not. You are really proving my point about amateurs vs. professional. You just assume that more troops is a good thing, but it is not necessarily so. It is conceivable that more troops could have made things worse.
Keyword was "could". You said yourself, "Maybe, or maybe not". The question is not whether it "WOULD" have worked, the question is "COULD" it have worked. My point is, it couldn't have been any worse, really. I would of given the benefit of the doubt to the Generals that would be running the war when they clearly asked for more troops. It is interesting that the current surge appears to be working now which basically puts more boots on the ground to cover areas as they are cleared and to keep those areas from becoming infiltrated with more insurgents. Sounds to me like something that should of been done from the beginning, as I said in my previous post.
Then again, I am just a Systems Administrator, what do I know, besides computers...LOL
Joseph,
I agree with you on troop levels. A large force at the start of the occupation would probably have kept violence a lot lower. Experienced generals said this but were kept down by neocons who thought that Iraq would be a 'cakewalk' and a new age of high-tech military equipment had eliminated the need for large numbers of boots on the ground.
As for Huckabee and his role in the Wayne Dumond case, the only thing you can fault Huckabee for was the kind words he wrote to Dumond in the letter denying his clemency for the forth time. Other than that, you would have to talk to the parole board that voted to release him. There is nothing else factual to that story.
Huckabee strong armed the parole board to release Dumond meeting with them privately and essentially telling them that if they didn't release him he was going to use his clemency/pardoning power to let him go. Yes he denied clemency but by then the issue was only a technicality as Dumond had already gotten out so his application had to be technically denied.
It's especially bothersom that Huckabee and his supporters refuse to take responsibility for his actions and indicate he learned anything from them. Instead he has been backpeddling and trying to pretend he didn't campaign on releasing Dumond, didn't refuse to listen to his own advisors who actually got the facts of the case and didn't refuse to listen to Dumond's victim until it was too late.
Huckabee strong armed the parole board to release Dumond meeting with them privately and essentially telling them that if they didn't release him he was going to use his clemency/pardoning power to let him go. Yes he denied clemency but by then the issue was only a technicality as Dumond had already gotten out so his application had to be technically denied.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=TruthSquad.Huffpo
The account you talk about above was already disproved by Olan W. "Butch" Reeves who was at the meeting. His story is linked above. Also of relevance is the link below.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=TruthSquad.DumondRes
You could also bring up the same line that everyone else does which quotes one line out of the letter Gov. Huckabee wrote to Dumond but then I would reply with the whole letter to counter that as well.
The bottom line is, from my own perspective, Gov. Huckabee agreed with Dumond's release. He thought since he had completed his sentence and was considered time served based on the commutation from the previous Governor Tucker, that he should be eligible for release. He thought it would be better to be paroled than pardoned because under parole restrictions, he would have to comply with certain restrictions/conditions and they would be able to keep track of him. Governor Huckabee has expressed his regrets and feels badly for what happened afterwards. If you truly believe that Huckabee forced them to release Dumond and then turn around and not care about what happened afterwards, then I suspect there is no convincing you otherwise so it is a mute point. However, I firmly believe in the accounts Gov. Mike Huckabee has put forth and I support him.
Keyword was "could". You said yourself, "Maybe, or maybe not". The question is not whether it "WOULD" have worked, the question is "COULD" it have worked. My point is, it couldn't have been any worse, really.
Of course it could have been worse, but we don't know because history doesn't come with a rewind button. The reality is this could have been the best possible outcome, but it certainly isn't the worst.
I would of given the benefit of the doubt to the Generals that would be running the war when they clearly asked for more troops.
In the military, like any large organization you have a lot of different viewpoints. Some generals thought we needed more troops, some thought we needed a lot more, but some thought we went in with the right amount, some probably even thought we could do it with less. Who's to say who was right? We only have the scenario as it has played out. We can try to surmise that things would have gone better if we had done x or y, but all we are really doing is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
It is interesting that the current surge appears to be working now which basically puts more boots on the ground to cover areas as they are cleared and to keep those areas from becoming infiltrated with more insurgents.
It is probable that the additional troops had an impact, but remember we aren't talking about a lot of additional troops, about 10% more. I would argue that a bigger impact is that after doing counter-insurgency for 4 years, we are just better at it.
Joseph,
Your links are a nice attempt to salvage your man but they fall flat:
So:
1. Dumond's sentence was already commutted by Gov Tucker.
2. The people whose jobs it is to actually determine the facts recommended against a pardon for Dumond.
Then
So
3. Why did the Huckabee need to be presuaded to NOT grant clemency to a violent rapist who had a history of other sexual assaults and was even involved in a murder for which he escaped prosecution by becomming a prosecution witness against his accompliace?
But your man can't even keep his side of the story straight, his general counsel says:
So a whole article is devoted to questioning whether or not Huckabee meet with the board to advocate parole, or for the board to advocate him not to grant clemency or for some other inexplicable reason (in an unusual move, the meeting was not tape recorded nor were minutes kept as they usually are so we will have to rely on what people say they remember).
What's undeniable here, though, was that Huckabee was advocating clemency which would have been a get out of jail free card for Dumond. At least with parole law enforcement would have been able to put conditions on him to at least make it a bit harder for him to victimize more people.
Indeed because his intent to grant DuMond clemency/pardon based only on the word of anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists raised such a ruckas among law enforcement, women's groups and the relatively sane portion of the population that he had to back off. Sadly he was able to do enough damage to get an innocent woman needlessly killed while also increasing the trama of Dumond's rape victim who had to endure the Governor telling people she was a liar and that DNA evidence had proven her attacker innocent when there was no such evidence. Something that could have easily been established to Huckabee if he had simply had an aid review the actual case record rather than relying on talk radio to make such an important call.
Again this might be excusable if Huckabee took responsiblity for this call, apologized and indicated that he might have learned something. Instead he continues to pass the buck and pretend it was everybody else's fault.
I may, and probably am, wrong about it but I believe in an interview on FOXNEWS, Gov. Huckabee did take responsibility for the entire event because it happened on his watch and did state his sorrow for the victims. Might want to search for that on YouTube, maybe Hannity & Colmes.
From every piece of publication I can find, there is no fact to link Huckabee to anything other than kind words in a letter that denied clemency. I guess the meeting that is in question would be the only bad thing but then again, you are taking the word of a democrat that didn't get reappointed to his cushy $75,000/yr post. Oh, and the fact that it took him two years, or something like that, to complain. Forgive me for giving the benefit of the doubt to Huckabee on that one.
Not sure if my previous went through or not but here is the link to the video I was talking about. The story in question is talked about starting at the 2:30 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Pl3bqJS1Y