Good Morning America and continued response to critics

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.