I caught Governor Mike Huckabee's appearance on "Good Morning America" this morning. While he himself was excellent, the fact is that his pre-taped interview was very obviously spliced and diced. It never let him get rolling.
It *SEEMED* to me as though the whole segment on the Gov. was selectively edited. It noted the increased criticism heaped on Gov. Huckabee in the last few days, marking perhaps one of the first times that Good Morning America has approvingly cited the American Spectator (I'm sure they all have subscriptions...)
Also, when answering a question from Matt Lauer, Governor Huckabee said in closing that he would really like to play bass onstage with Keith Richards. Diane Sawyer followed this statement with a smart-alec quip asking what kind of pairing (did she say dichotomy, perhaps? I can't recall the exact word used...) that was, as though Mike Huckabee was OBVIOUSLY some kind of repulsive sea creature who didn't belong with a hero like Keith Richards.
If GMA had done half as much research on the Governor's record as they had on finding every possible smear over the last couple of weeks, they'd know that Richards owes one to Huckabee (he pardoned the rock star for a traffic violation he once committed in Arkansas in the Stones' early days), and that the two have met.
It would be unsurprising if Huckabee had mentioned this story in the interview, but frankly very little of what he said likely made it to the air.
NOTE TO THE GOVERNOR, IF ANYONE FROM HIS CAMPAIGN READS THIS (and even if not):
Don't do pre-taped interviews when you can manage it. They will twist and distort what you say, intentionally or not. You are much more impressive in a live setting, which plays to your strengths.
Anyhow, in response to the critics, another great article has been posted over at "the evangelical outpost" blog, arguing credibly that had the Club for Growth, the economic policy organization attacking the Gov. been around in 1979-80 during the Reagan campaign, they'd have "attempted to derail Reagan's campaign just as they are now doing to Gov. Huckabee," thus possibly depriving themselves of the most sympathetic president to their cause in recent memory.
The CFG frankly doesn't even have kind words for Ron Paul, a libertarian! A libertarian ought to have a just about spotless record on the economy, right? (Rep. Paul certainly does.) Not according to CFG! I'm begging to suspect that their policy papers have more to do with criticizing candidates they don't think can win than actually substantially addressing their economic records.
Also, they never take into account the constraints placed on a politician's ability to enact pro-growth policies. Given Arkansas' long history as a tax-and-spend haven, Gov. Huckabee's accomplishments, including broad based tax cuts on income and capital gains, eliminating the marriage penalty and bracket creep, increasing child care tax credits, increasing standard deductions, and ending taxes for families below the poverty line, should all seem much more significant!
Consider the following:
*When Gov. Huckabee left Arkansas, the legislature had 99 Democrats and 36 Republicans between the two houses. Democrats are notoriously opposed to most tax cuts.
* Gov Huckabee is only the third Republican to be elected Governor since the end of the Reconstruction era.
* When States run out of money, they, unlike the Federal Government, can't just print more money. So Governor Huckabee's tax cuts are all the more bold in light of this fact.
UPDATE: Now John Fund of the Wall Street Journal is comparing Huckabee to Harriet Miers, who claims was "a clear social conservative when Bush appointed her to the Supreme Court but turned out to have very liberal views on lot of economic and other issues."
Huh? Her problem was that she was unqualified, not a liberal on the economy! The American people (and conservatives especially) didn't accept the Miers nomination because she was about as qualified to become a Supreme Court Justice as I am to become the conductor of the New York Philharmonic. The problem wasn't that she had views that were contrary to what conservatives wanted; the problem was that she had no real views at all! By all accounts, Ms. Miers did very poorly in mock confirmatino hearings. She didn't know what she believed about Constitutional Issues.
Yes, her view of the ability of the Court to interfere with the legislative branch's decisions on economic matters was important. But Fund must be just about the only man in America who saw Mier's record and said "Whoa brother, she's not fiscally conservative enough for me!" Perhaps Harriet Miers is something of a Rorschach ink blot onto whom people project their gripes with President Bush.
(Miers may have been an economic moderate; I fail to see how this relates to her failed judicial nomination.)
I think if anything, Mr. Fund has just shown his ignorance here. Fund has been another leading Huckabee critic, who really seems here to lack key critical thinking skills. What a joke! Anything to link Huckabee with a figure who many conservatives rightly rejected for reasons having little to do with the size of Miers' Milton Friedman book collection. Fund must have decided to come up with the idea to link Huckabee to Miers in order to turn people against the Gov. Never mind that his comparison is idiotic and untrue.
What's really behind these attacks? My honest opinion is that Fund is a Wall Street conservative. Every political party in American history either lives or dies by forming a broad coalition of interests. ("You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".) Within every coalition, the partners vie for influence. Many Wall Street conservatives are wary because Huckabee clearly represents, first and foremost, the Evangelical/Social Conservative wing of the party. So, regardless of his fiscal conservative bent, they are fighting him in the primary stage because the primaries are the time when parties most get to shape their image and their direction. It isn't that they don't see a difference between Huckabee and the Democrats on their pet issues; it's that Huckabee, if elected, won't spend his political capitol on "their" issues.
This is the same phenomen that lurks behind many social conservatives' opposition to Sen. John McCain: while mostly conservative on social issues, he won't be remembered as a champion of social conservative issues because his "big" issues aren't the pro-life cause or opposing gay marriage. Likewise, if he has to pick his fights with a Democratic congress, he will probably not fight as hard on these things as on his "big issues", like cutting pork and executing the war in Iraq.
The fiscal conservatives here are doing the exact thing that social conservatives are doing to McCain and Giuliani: weakening a potentially good candidate through excess criticism. I believe that both John and Rudy have the qualifications to be a great leader for the Republicans, just not the one I'd choose at this stage. But some fiscal conservatives are saying Huckabee shouldn't even be VP, let alone the nominee for the top slot. If anyone in the social conservative movement has publicly made statements like this, I have yet to hear about it. Please, coalition, let's keep it civil; we don't win by threatening to take our marbles and go home.
(As to the threat by some social conservatives to leave the party: this is likewise very foolish).
Mr. Fund and CFG: Maybe you should research some of these things before you make attacks. Could this criticism really be coming because they see Mike Huckabee as a real threat to their favored candidates?
Nah.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Huckabee responds to attacks... a test
I wrote the bulk of the content of the last post a bit over two weeks ago, although I just posted it yesterday.
In the ensuing time, the governor has continued to gain national attention for his impassioned speeches and slow but steady climb in the polls, as more and more Americans tune in to the governor's positive vision for America.
One of the first signs that a candidate is gaining in the polls is that (s)he is attacked by rivals. Just as Hillary Clinton would not be attacked by Republican front runners and Democratic rivals if she stood no chance, so would a Republican contender be ignored if he did not present a serious threat. Which makes the increasing number of negative attacks on the governor's record a milestone.
This is a stage in the campaign which is pivotal for the governor: can he whither the criticism?
I think his letter responding to a critical Wall Street Journal editorial is a good step. It is written by just one of the elites about whom I was speaking in my last post. John Fund is a good man, but in his isolated Wall Street Journal world, he forgets that most average Republicans are motivated as much, if not more, by issues like the right to life and sanctity of marriage than taxes and spending, Mr. Fund's pet issues. While all are important, the degree of venom in the article is indicative of the disconnect between the type of candidates elites favor and the type of candidates voters would favor. All the more reason to be alert and aware of what's happening out there!
Also helpful are posts by independent bloggers, such as this gem by The Roebuck Report.
There are other points in the Gov's favor that haven't been mentioned. I hope to address some of these in the future, if I can.
Finally, I must say that Governor Romney's attacks on Gov. Huckabee for offering scholarship eligibility for children of illegal immigrants is laughable. Governor Romney didn't seem to mind illegal immigrants (let alone their children, who are NOT responsible for their parents' actions) when he was in charge of Massachusetts, and they were manicuring his undoubtedly lavish lawn. (See here.)
In fact, if Governor Romney was smart, he wouldn't provoke fights over which governor, he or Mr. Huckabee, governed as more of a conservative.
I think the words of Sen. John McCain come to mind here: "Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard." Does anyone find this man, the plastic former governor of Massachusetts, credible?
I think from now on we'll just call Governor Romney "The Varmint Hunter".
In the ensuing time, the governor has continued to gain national attention for his impassioned speeches and slow but steady climb in the polls, as more and more Americans tune in to the governor's positive vision for America.
One of the first signs that a candidate is gaining in the polls is that (s)he is attacked by rivals. Just as Hillary Clinton would not be attacked by Republican front runners and Democratic rivals if she stood no chance, so would a Republican contender be ignored if he did not present a serious threat. Which makes the increasing number of negative attacks on the governor's record a milestone.
This is a stage in the campaign which is pivotal for the governor: can he whither the criticism?
I think his letter responding to a critical Wall Street Journal editorial is a good step. It is written by just one of the elites about whom I was speaking in my last post. John Fund is a good man, but in his isolated Wall Street Journal world, he forgets that most average Republicans are motivated as much, if not more, by issues like the right to life and sanctity of marriage than taxes and spending, Mr. Fund's pet issues. While all are important, the degree of venom in the article is indicative of the disconnect between the type of candidates elites favor and the type of candidates voters would favor. All the more reason to be alert and aware of what's happening out there!
Also helpful are posts by independent bloggers, such as this gem by The Roebuck Report.
There are other points in the Gov's favor that haven't been mentioned. I hope to address some of these in the future, if I can.
Finally, I must say that Governor Romney's attacks on Gov. Huckabee for offering scholarship eligibility for children of illegal immigrants is laughable. Governor Romney didn't seem to mind illegal immigrants (let alone their children, who are NOT responsible for their parents' actions) when he was in charge of Massachusetts, and they were manicuring his undoubtedly lavish lawn. (See here.)
In fact, if Governor Romney was smart, he wouldn't provoke fights over which governor, he or Mr. Huckabee, governed as more of a conservative.
I think the words of Sen. John McCain come to mind here: "Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard." Does anyone find this man, the plastic former governor of Massachusetts, credible?
I think from now on we'll just call Governor Romney "The Varmint Hunter".
Friday, October 26, 2007
My choice in 2008
The 2008 election is sneaking up on us.
The Republican Party is teetering on the brink of collapse, in no small part because of its own ignorance. We need to start paying attention to the upcoming election, before our best options are gone!
So far, most of the people paying REAL attention to the presidential race are the "elites" in the Republican party- the ones who make the decisions, call the shots, the "kingmakers" if you will. They are the gatekeepers. They decide which candidate they like and then use their various platforms to sell the candidate to the American public, who do the heavy lifting for them. These include state party heads, talk radio hosts, news columnists, and others of a conservative bent, who have influence over the Republican Party.
These elites are not as socially conservative as the party's base. They care more about taxes and business interests. The problem is, the candidates they like and the candidates their party's base would enthusiastically support are vastly different. Their "frontrunner" is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a man who supports abortion and "civil unions" and illegal immigration, and who lived with his a gay couple before divorcing his second wife for his mistress. Any conservative who ever argued that Bill Clinton's behavior made him unfit for office has no right supporting Giuliani's candidacy based on his character. And Giuliani is a negative campaigner's dream - the man has a checkered past, not only in his "family life" (if you can call it that), but also in a history of shady business dealings. Rudy is corporate America - give the little people what they want as long as it doesn't get in the way of business. Rudy does bring some solid things to the table, but given his shady past, it’s questionable whether he would win a seat at that table.
Then there's Mitt Romney. I do not wish to come across as a bigot, but the fact that this other frontrunner for the GOP nomination is a Mormon might be a nonstarter for many voters. Would he be able to overcome that? Maybe, but not if the videos from 1994 (or even 2002) in which Romney insists he's pro-choice and a better champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy (!) make the rounds. He'd be sunk. The timing of his conversion to conservative principles is transparently opportunistic. The fact that he has changed so many of them so quickly wreaks of an all-too-apparent willingness to abandon whatever his "beliefs" are as soon as his situation changes. If he's elected with a Democratic congress, would he really be willing to cling so fervently to those beliefs? Already, president Bush has compromised on several of his beliefs- on illegal immigration, on global warming, on the RU-486 abortion pill. How would a President Romney sell out his base if he were president? And putting all that aside, the fact is, the man is just...odd. While some praise his charm and wit "on the stump", they must be seeing what they so badly want to see in Romney, because he comes across as alternately weird and phony to me. FINALLY, Romney is exactly what so many working class swing voters hate about Bush - he's a phony, son-of-a-politician business man who either pretends or genuinely thinks he knows what the average guy wants. This will not help the Republicans' chances in 2008. Is this the best we can do? Because these are two of the main candidates most Republican elites support.
Those elites who ARE socially conservative (James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, all those guys) are all in disarray, unsure of whom to support. Now we hear that they are considering a third party candidate if they don't like the Republican nominee. This would be political suicide for conservatives, since they would not make a majority on their own terms. The vote would be split, leaving the White House open for the Democratic nominee, whoever he (or she) may be. While many voters are open to voting for a social conservative, not as many vote based just on issues like abortion and gay rights, and such a candidate would almost surely lose. However, equally ugly to a is the possibility that the elites will decide the social conservatives are useless anyway and abandon them, saying "Vote for our candidate or become irrelevant." In other words, they feel that pro-life, anti-gay marriage voters should just ignore their consciences and potentially vote for a Romney or Guiliani.
The sad thing is the way in which these social conservative elites seem to accept the inevitability of their choices. Isn't this America? Aren't presidents elected by the people and not "elites"? Conservatives must stop fooling around and ignoring the race until their candidate has been "selected" for them. Just because Romney and Giuliani can raise money (or can bankroll their own presidential campaigns), that doesn't mean a majority of the American people will (or even should) elect them. Even the most far-reaching ad campaign can't sell a message to which people are simply unreceptive. In other words, you can put lipstck on a pig like Mitt or Rudy, but don't expect the American people (especially conservatives) to pucker up.
It isn't that neither man has anything going for them, and against Hillary Clinton, either of them looks good to most Republicans.
But people, this is A DEMOCRACY. There is NOTHING that says we have to buy either one of these guys just because we are told they are "electable". Power to the people! Let's pick a candidate who represents what we want, not what the media and political "talking heads" tell us to accept!
What if I told you there was a Republican candidate who is unashamedly pro-life, whose entry into politics came because of his pro-life convictions?
Who opposes gay marriage in all its forms, yet because of his background as a southern Baptist minister could lovingly communicate a firm position on the issue without scaring away non-conservatives?
A candidate who strongly favors the second amendment right to own a firearm and who has received the endorsement of America's foremost pro-homeschooling group, and of the Machinists' trade union?
What if I told you that candidate won 48% of the African-American vote in and twice won re-election in a heavily Democratic state?
That this was a candidate who can appeal largely to both "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads", both of whom are key swing voting constituencies who have helped shape the last several elections?
That this candidate favors the elimination of the IRS?
That this candidate is scaring Bill Clinton, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and Rolling Stone magazine, all of whom recognize him as the biggest threat to a Democratic victory in 2008?
There is such a candidate.
He is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee? Yeah, I know, funny name. Yet as he himself says, ""My last name has never opened doors for me because it's not the name of a prominent, wealthy, or heralded political family, but the Bible says that "a GOOD name is more to be desired than great riches," and my name represents the sacrifice, hard work, and old fashioned discipline that my Dad gave me when he didn't have the education, wealth, or position to give me anything else. It's a name I wear proudly--not just for myself, but all those who like me have fought their way beyond poverty to live and love the American dream." Yes, he's usually at least that eloquent. He gets universal rave reviews from folks of all political persuasions as an excellent communicator.
He calls his style of politics "vertical" - he doesn't want to move people left or right, he wants to build them up rather than tear them down. So why hasn't he caught fire? Because not enough people know about him! This has to change. Go to his website mikehuckabee.com, read about his positions on the major issues, watch some video of him on YouTube, and if you feel that electing a pro-life, pro-family conservative is as important in 2008 as I do, help out by donating, giving money, or even just spreading the word among your friends and family.
I'll be posting more about Mike in the days and weeks ahead.
The Republican Party is teetering on the brink of collapse, in no small part because of its own ignorance. We need to start paying attention to the upcoming election, before our best options are gone!
So far, most of the people paying REAL attention to the presidential race are the "elites" in the Republican party- the ones who make the decisions, call the shots, the "kingmakers" if you will. They are the gatekeepers. They decide which candidate they like and then use their various platforms to sell the candidate to the American public, who do the heavy lifting for them. These include state party heads, talk radio hosts, news columnists, and others of a conservative bent, who have influence over the Republican Party.
These elites are not as socially conservative as the party's base. They care more about taxes and business interests. The problem is, the candidates they like and the candidates their party's base would enthusiastically support are vastly different. Their "frontrunner" is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a man who supports abortion and "civil unions" and illegal immigration, and who lived with his a gay couple before divorcing his second wife for his mistress. Any conservative who ever argued that Bill Clinton's behavior made him unfit for office has no right supporting Giuliani's candidacy based on his character. And Giuliani is a negative campaigner's dream - the man has a checkered past, not only in his "family life" (if you can call it that), but also in a history of shady business dealings. Rudy is corporate America - give the little people what they want as long as it doesn't get in the way of business. Rudy does bring some solid things to the table, but given his shady past, it’s questionable whether he would win a seat at that table.
Then there's Mitt Romney. I do not wish to come across as a bigot, but the fact that this other frontrunner for the GOP nomination is a Mormon might be a nonstarter for many voters. Would he be able to overcome that? Maybe, but not if the videos from 1994 (or even 2002) in which Romney insists he's pro-choice and a better champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy (!) make the rounds. He'd be sunk. The timing of his conversion to conservative principles is transparently opportunistic. The fact that he has changed so many of them so quickly wreaks of an all-too-apparent willingness to abandon whatever his "beliefs" are as soon as his situation changes. If he's elected with a Democratic congress, would he really be willing to cling so fervently to those beliefs? Already, president Bush has compromised on several of his beliefs- on illegal immigration, on global warming, on the RU-486 abortion pill. How would a President Romney sell out his base if he were president? And putting all that aside, the fact is, the man is just...odd. While some praise his charm and wit "on the stump", they must be seeing what they so badly want to see in Romney, because he comes across as alternately weird and phony to me. FINALLY, Romney is exactly what so many working class swing voters hate about Bush - he's a phony, son-of-a-politician business man who either pretends or genuinely thinks he knows what the average guy wants. This will not help the Republicans' chances in 2008. Is this the best we can do? Because these are two of the main candidates most Republican elites support.
Those elites who ARE socially conservative (James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, all those guys) are all in disarray, unsure of whom to support. Now we hear that they are considering a third party candidate if they don't like the Republican nominee. This would be political suicide for conservatives, since they would not make a majority on their own terms. The vote would be split, leaving the White House open for the Democratic nominee, whoever he (or she) may be. While many voters are open to voting for a social conservative, not as many vote based just on issues like abortion and gay rights, and such a candidate would almost surely lose. However, equally ugly to a is the possibility that the elites will decide the social conservatives are useless anyway and abandon them, saying "Vote for our candidate or become irrelevant." In other words, they feel that pro-life, anti-gay marriage voters should just ignore their consciences and potentially vote for a Romney or Guiliani.
The sad thing is the way in which these social conservative elites seem to accept the inevitability of their choices. Isn't this America? Aren't presidents elected by the people and not "elites"? Conservatives must stop fooling around and ignoring the race until their candidate has been "selected" for them. Just because Romney and Giuliani can raise money (or can bankroll their own presidential campaigns), that doesn't mean a majority of the American people will (or even should) elect them. Even the most far-reaching ad campaign can't sell a message to which people are simply unreceptive. In other words, you can put lipstck on a pig like Mitt or Rudy, but don't expect the American people (especially conservatives) to pucker up.
It isn't that neither man has anything going for them, and against Hillary Clinton, either of them looks good to most Republicans.
But people, this is A DEMOCRACY. There is NOTHING that says we have to buy either one of these guys just because we are told they are "electable". Power to the people! Let's pick a candidate who represents what we want, not what the media and political "talking heads" tell us to accept!
What if I told you there was a Republican candidate who is unashamedly pro-life, whose entry into politics came because of his pro-life convictions?
Who opposes gay marriage in all its forms, yet because of his background as a southern Baptist minister could lovingly communicate a firm position on the issue without scaring away non-conservatives?
A candidate who strongly favors the second amendment right to own a firearm and who has received the endorsement of America's foremost pro-homeschooling group, and of the Machinists' trade union?
What if I told you that candidate won 48% of the African-American vote in and twice won re-election in a heavily Democratic state?
That this was a candidate who can appeal largely to both "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads", both of whom are key swing voting constituencies who have helped shape the last several elections?
That this candidate favors the elimination of the IRS?
That this candidate is scaring Bill Clinton, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and Rolling Stone magazine, all of whom recognize him as the biggest threat to a Democratic victory in 2008?
There is such a candidate.
He is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee? Yeah, I know, funny name. Yet as he himself says, ""My last name has never opened doors for me because it's not the name of a prominent, wealthy, or heralded political family, but the Bible says that "a GOOD name is more to be desired than great riches," and my name represents the sacrifice, hard work, and old fashioned discipline that my Dad gave me when he didn't have the education, wealth, or position to give me anything else. It's a name I wear proudly--not just for myself, but all those who like me have fought their way beyond poverty to live and love the American dream." Yes, he's usually at least that eloquent. He gets universal rave reviews from folks of all political persuasions as an excellent communicator.
He calls his style of politics "vertical" - he doesn't want to move people left or right, he wants to build them up rather than tear them down. So why hasn't he caught fire? Because not enough people know about him! This has to change. Go to his website mikehuckabee.com, read about his positions on the major issues, watch some video of him on YouTube, and if you feel that electing a pro-life, pro-family conservative is as important in 2008 as I do, help out by donating, giving money, or even just spreading the word among your friends and family.
I'll be posting more about Mike in the days and weeks ahead.
Hey all
Welcome to my new blog! I'll be using it to write about all the things that get to me, that I just have to make known somehow. Please, if you like what you read, and/or know someone else who might be interested in what I have to say, I'd really appreciate you letting them know about my blog! Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
