As my friends and I made our way to the parking lot, we all pretty much agreed that yes, he would make a great President and, what a shame that he didn't have a chance.
I got an invite in the mail recently. 'Pig-Pickin BBQ with special guest Gov. Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate.' Now the name Huckabee rang a few bells but I couldn't quite place him. Republican Governor? Running for president? Hmmm . . .
I asked around and no-one was quite sure who the guy was. Nevertheless, I showed up at Debardeau Plantation in Georgetown County, South Carolina at the appointed time. By asking around I was able to ascertain that Huckabee was the Governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007, and yes, he's running for President. OK.
After an average BBQ dinner at an average political event, host Mike Campbell introduced Governor Huckabee. Average looking, down home and folksy. Not at all what you'd expect a politician to be. As he proceeded to speak, I started sitting up straighter and leaning forward.
I didn't hear any 'talking points' or political double speak. No bland phrases meant to cover all sides of an issue. What I heard was straight talk that, by golly, sounded like it came from the heart.
After a cute joke, Gov. Huckabee started outlining his priories. First up was education. A pretty safe bet and one designed to appeal to the greatest numbers of voters. Looking at his website later, I realized that he wasn't just mouthing words. His record in Arkansas displayed an impressive record of education reform. And RESULTS.
Next came a ringing endorsement of the Fair Tax. Hey, this guy is starting to impress me. Especially when he called for an end to the $10 billion IRS industry. You go, guy!
After a while, every phrase he uttered resonated with me. "Over taxation, over regulation, over litigation . . . " Phrases last heard from Ronald Reagan and in complete accordance with this Reagan conservative.
Other issues important to Huckabee included energy independence. And, lo and behold, he actually proposed America use its buying power as leverage to get Saudi Arabia to step up to the plate at the risk of losing all the oil money we send over there. Sounded like a plan to me.
On Iraq, Gov. Huckabee flatly declared surrender is not an option. "As a country, we would lose our credibility and our honor." He didn't equivocate or mince words. He outlined the consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq and declared them unacceptable. That's good enough for me.
Huckabee ended his speech without any of the usual flourishes. He wasn't staged, he wasn't pandering, he was just himself. Low key, passionate, sincere and straightforward. Very impressive.
As my friends and I made our way to the parking lot, we all pretty much agreed that yes, he would make a great President and, what a shame that he didn't have a chance. Pretty strange . . . our automatic capitulation to the prevailing notion that in order to win the presidency in this day and age, one must necessarily be a staged, pandering, packaged, politico, monied type of guy. Could it be possible that Gov. Huckabee has a chance of being elected President when he has spent all his time governing instead of campaigning?
A check of his website () confirmed and reinforced my first impression. Gov. Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas for 10 1/2 years with a solid list of accomplishments.
He's a former pastor. He's pro-life. He's socially conservative.
He's a strong fiscal conservative with a record to back him up. He cut taxes 90 times as Governor to say nothing of enacting the first major broadbased tax cut in state history. Oh, he also enacted the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.
His welfare reform program cut welfare rolls by almost 50%.
He was re-elected in 1998 with the largest percentage of votes ever received by a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the Democrat state of Arkansas. That's in addition to receiving 49% of the black vote. Remember folks, this is Clinton country and Gov. Huckabee is very much a Conservative.
On top of all that, he had the strength and determination to lose 110 pounds in 2003. He now runs marathons. To me, that indicates strength of character, fortitude, determination and a strong will. Pretty much the traits we need in our next president.
Upon reflection, Gov. Huckabee seems to have all the qualifications conservatives are anxiously looking for and not finding in the current crop of contenders. He stands for all the issues dear to conservatives. He seems to be the whole package. I'm going to keep my eye on him and hope against hope that I'm not disappointed once again. And though I hadn't planned on tuning in to the next Republican debate, I think I've changed my mind. I just want to make sure this guy wasn't a figment of my imagination.
Huckabee:
“We respect those who want to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren. For decades, we treated our state’s African-American population poorly. The Hispanic influx gives us a second chance to prove what kind of people we really are.”
He is referring here to the illegal aliens. The man is neither a fiscal nor a social conservative. He is a good old-fashioned liberal of the “Look at how generous I can be with the public fisc” sort.
Huckabee is pro-amnesty. He may call it by a different name, but it is amnesty? No chance his support for amnesty, which is grossly out of touch with the conservative base he is courting, has anything to do with Tyson Chicken and Wal-Mart that are headquartered in his state? Both big utilizers of illegal labor. And he dares to cloak his support for amnesty in Christian rhetoric. He once made some asinine comment that the country could redeem itself on civil rights by how it treats immigrants – meaning granting them amnesty. He has openly insinuated that opposition to immigration is motivated by “racism.”
I do agree, however, that he has performed well in both debates.
Ron Paul is clearly the choice for conservatives who are serious about their conservatism.
Obviously the comments listed above are from some sort “Ron Paul Cabal”. Good one… But if you remember back in 1991, at roughly the same stage in the game, there was another no-name Arkansas governor trying to get traction in the national spotlight. I would not count Huckabee out just yet…
“…remember back in 1991, at roughly the same stage in the game, there was another no-name Arkansas governor trying to get traction in the national spotlight. I would not count Huckabee out just yet…”
In case you missed it, this website is dedicated to CONSERVATIVE discussion. The no-name Arkansas governor gaining traction in 1991 was a raving liberal who would later go on to redefine the word “is” and become the second impeached-but-not-removed president in U.S. history. If Huckabee can serve us as equitably as he did, then thank you, but no. You don’t have to be a member of any cabal to be opposed to a candidates stance on a major conservative issue.
I must need new glasses, because I didn’t see the word “immigration” once in this column. I know that Mike Huckabee is an amnestisiac; apparently the writer is, too.
And to mpm2h, I’m not part of a Ron Paul cabal; I’m part of a Tom Tancredo cabal.
Huckabee:
“We respect those who want to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren. For decades, we treated our state’s African-American population poorly. The Hispanic influx gives us a second chance to prove what kind of people we really are.”
Um, no. In the USA theres something called a GREEN CARD. I suggest that Mr Huckabee do a little research on it, and the problems that illegal immigration cause. To anyone whatever they might call themselves, liberal, labor, leftie, righty, conservative whatever, anybody who supports illegal immigration… Um, no.
As for being fiscally conservative, cutting taxes doesnt necessarily make you fiscally conservative, nor does it automatically put you in the good books of those who are genuinely fiscally conservative.
“On top of all that, he had the strength and determination to lose 110 pounds in 2003. He now runs marathons. To me, that indicates strength of character, fortitude, determination and a strong will. Pretty much the traits we need in our next president.”
I had to laugh at that one. If that kind of determination is the traits you need to be president then Kieren Perkins will be our next prime minister.
Sorry nice try.
It’s not difficult to cogently deduce that Huckabee would be an infinitely better public servant than the “raving liberal”. I’m not supporting the guy. I just believe that out of the 10 that are currently in the race, he is one of the last that should be counted out. Ron Paul on the other hand is the first that should be counted out. He’s done. His take my ball and go home “foreign policy” is everything but conservative. We are envied and hated because of our liberty and prosperity, not because we are “over there”. He is as big a joke to national politics as Kinky Friedman was to Texas politics. As a CONSERVATIVE, I’m always open to honest, rational debate about candidates and ideas. It’s awful LIBERAL of you to think that I don’t belong, simply, because I disagree.
mpm2h,
“Ron Paul on the other hand is the first that should be counted out. He’s done. His take my ball and go home “foreign policy” is everything but conservative.”
You are simply wrong. Non-intervention is the INHERENTLY small government, conservative position. Interventionism is globalist, Wilsonian and inherently big government. Read George Washington’s Farewell Address. Was he a flaming lib?
“We are envied and hated because of our liberty and prosperity, not because we are “over there”.”
That is pure talking point boilerplate. Please back that statement up with evidence. Good luck. The CIA disagrees with you. The 9/11 report disagrees with you. And OBL disagrees with you. OBL is VERY clear what he is upset about. And it ain’t our “liberty.” It is our troops over there. It helps if you actually read a little. Perhaps start with the 9/11 report, or try Tony Blair’s White Paper that he released shortly after 9/11.
I am a very proud member of the “Ron Paul Cabal.”
Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans.
As quoted in Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden (2005) by Bruce Lawrence ISBN 1844670457
We say our terror against America is blessed terror in order to put an end to suppression, in order for the United States to stop its support to Israel.
Video statement broadcast on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera TV station. (26 December 2001)
OBL hates us because we are American, because we are Christian, because we are Jewish, because we support Israel. Those who blame our foreign policy are fools.
If it was about us being agressive, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. If it was about freedom, and about getting us out of Iraq…they’d target us, not civilians.
Al quida is fighting hard against us setting up a democracy in Iraq. They fight against us because of who we are, not because of “our aggression.”
Ron Paul doesn’t get that, and that makes him not worth anyones vote.
I agree with the others that have posted. Mike Huckabee may be a good person but his support of illegal immigration and of the Bush Administration’s Iraq War may him unsuitable for President. As a paleoconservative, I will continue to support Ron Paul for President. He is the only hope to save America.
Wolven Bear,
He hates us because we support Israel, but yet he doesn’t hate us because of our foreign policy?
Supporting Israel IS OUR FOREIGN POLICY.
Your quotes prove my point. OBL does not say he will make war on America until we all convert. I have never seen a statement remotely close to that. If one is out there I would love to see it. Why does he single America out for hate and not 100 other Christian or otherwise “infidel” nations?
Oh yeah. I forgot to check my mindless group think talking points. He hates us because we are free. In the Bizarro World that is the pro-War “right” talking points trump real evidence. Only in the real world do intellectually serious people allow pesky things like evidence to confuse them.
Dan,
Please remain in the “Ron Paul Cabal”. That is where you will have minimal influence on the future of this great nation. It is absolutely astounding that someone who calims to be an “intellectually serious person” would actually cite the 9/11 REPORT. Are you kidding me? Wasn’t that a “bipartisan commission” that included the likes of Jamie Gorelick?
Small government is conservative, but not so small and impotent that it cannot defend. Washington, in his time, was accurate. But that obviously cannot be absolutely applied to the world today. Some “talking points” are worth repeating, especially if they are true.
So because the report was bipartisan then it is absolutely unreliable? If it had been written only by Republicans would it then be reliable?
Just a little taste of the evidence. You do know what that is don’t you? It is often used by people to actually back up their arguments. Won’t see this in GOP liberal interventionist talking points.
“Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. “The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people,” Scheuer said in a CNN interview. “We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there’s a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people.”"
But he is just a CIA expert. What does he know? He should just listen to Rush and Sean and they will bring him up to speed.
The sound you hear in the background is the little fantasy world you have created tumbling around you.
There is plenty more where that came from, if you are interested in learning.
Here’s my problem with Ron Paul. His presumption is that just because OBL hates us for our foreign policy, there must necessarily be something wrong with our foreign policy. It totally excludes the possiblity that maybe there is something wrong with with OBL.
To further illustrate the point, imagine we did follow Dr. Paul’s advice and immediately extricate ourselves from all Middle Eastern affairs not essential to our vital national interests. Imagine that is, that we stopped supporting Israel. Then imagine that, as a response, pro-Israel Jewish terrorist began setting off bombs in New York and Washington. Would Dr. Paul then say, “They attack us because we don’t help them. If only we intervened on their behalf, they wouldn’t hate us so.” This philosophy gives violent and deranged people a veto power over any foreign policy we might choose.
If Dr. Paul could be reasonably certain that the cessation of American intervention in the Middle East would satisfy the jihadists and end the jihad, he might have a reasonable argument. But to believe that this would be the outcome, rather than invention of new demands to feed the would-be successful jihadist movement, would be to completely ignore everything we know about how Muslim terrorists operate. When, for instance, have concessions ever helped the Israelis?
I also want to comment on Dr. Paul’s recitation of conservative intellectual history. It’s very weak. The “conservative wing of the Republican Party,” he argues, had a long, rich tradition of non-interventionism. Would that have been when Benjamin Harrison intervened in Hawaii? Would that have been McKinley in Cuba, and his successors in the Phillipines? Would that have been the Republicans urging Wilson to take on Germany even before 1917? The only period of Republican isolationism was during the inter-war period of Harding-Coolidge-Hoover.
In fact, a case can be made that non-interventionism has a much better history in the Democratic Party of Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Bryan, both of whom vociferously opposed our imperial adventures in the late-19th and early 20th centuries.
As for Robert Taft, he was not joined by most other conservative Republicans in his opposition to NATO. (Which he opposed, by the way, on the grounds that it violated the spirit of the UN Charter, which he supported.) But Taft was not a Ron Paul-style non-interventionist. He supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, opposed immediately pulling out of Korea, and urged American support for Taiwan. I don’t have the link for this, but Jonah Goldberg recently wrote a very on-point piece on National Review Online.
In short, I think both Dr. Paul’s substantive argument and his recounting of the history of American political thought are weak.
My critique aside, Ron Paul would be very smart to seek the Libertarian Party nomination when he fails to win the Republican Party nomination. Or rather, the Libertarian Party would be very smart to recruit Ron Paul. People know who he is now, which distinguishes him from every candidate the LP has put up. (When they last ran Paul, nobody knew or cared). I suspect that the LP would attain its highest ever percentage of the national vote if they nominated Ron Paul.
Katzen,
When Paul traces the history of the Republican Party’s support for non-intervention, I do believe he is stopping at the inter-war Old Right. Lincoln was clearly not a non-interventionist. And you are right that the Democrats used to be more aligned with non-intervention prior to WWI, because the Democrats were really the more conservative party prior to then. It is more accurate to say that non-intervention is more the historical conservative position than the historical Republican position.
But America’s history is definitely tainted by expansionistic wars such as Spain/Cuba, Philippines, Hawaii, etc. I am not sure that is a mantle anyone wants to claim. “We are the party of imperialism and empire.” Do you?
Also, the Muslim terrorist want us to stop intervening in the Middle East. They want us to stop doing something we shouldn’t be doing anyway. That is not the same thing as your example of Israeli terrorist demanding we start paying aid again. There they would be wanting us to start doing something we shouldn’t be doing. I can guarantee you that Paul or any other non-interventionist would not go for that.
“If Dr. Paul could be reasonably certain that the cessation of American intervention in the Middle East would satisfy the jihadists and end the jihad, he might have a reasonable argument. But to believe that this would be the outcome, rather than invention of new demands to feed the would-be successful jihadist movement, would be to completely ignore everything we know about how Muslim terrorists operate. When, for instance, have concessions ever helped the Israelis?”
Concessions from Israel don’t satisfy some of them because they want Israel pushed into the sea. They see Israel as illegitimate. Some are on record about that. There is very little that I have seen to back up the contention that America’s destruction is their endpoint absent our interventionist policies. They commit terrorist acts against us because of our foreign policy. If our interventionist policies changed, there is substantial reason to believe that we would stop being as much of a target. There is really very little to suggest otherwise. Those who say they would keep it up or come up with new demands don’t base that on modern intelligence. They base it on extrapolations about Muslim theology.
I find the ease with which some people routinely engage in two-minute hate against Muslims to be quite creepy. It is the demonization of the other. As I have pointed out before, there are some people on this forum who should realize that this kind of fear and hate mongering against a group of people is profoundly troubling.
For the record, as a Christian I obviously think Islam is a false religion. I am not arguing from the standpoint of ecumenism. But I am not sure it is inherently Jihadist, and even if it is, if they are over there and we are over here then it is not our problem.
The claim is that Islam wants to convert everyone at the point of the sword. But what many are arguing is that we essentially unconvert them at the point of a gun. Flips sides of the same universalist coin.
Mr. Phillips,
“They want us to stop doing something we shouldn’t be doing anyway.”
What I object to, mainly, is Ron Paul seemingly saying that we shouldn’t intervene because they don’t want us to. If he said what you said–that irrespective of what other people want, intervention is wrong–and then made the moral case for this position, I’d be much more receptive.
But I emphasize that the proposition that we shouldn’t be intervening as a matter of principle isn’t self-evident to me, and it requires an argument. Elsewhere, I asked you if you believed that the United States has any positive moral obligations to other peoples at all. My own position is that such obligations do exist, but they are difficult to define. Sometimes I favor intervention, and sometimes I don’t. One has to balance many considerations (national interest, the principle of sovereignty, effect on relations with other countries, the gravity of the moral wrong we seek to right, the cost to us in righting it, etc.)
I am still curious as to your position on this.
Katzen,
If I said it is unwise to poke a hornets’ nest, would that be allowing the hornets to dictate my actions? In reality, how the other guy feels about it is an inevitable part of the equation. It is part of the assessment of the risks and benefits. It is within the very nature of man to object to rule by others and to desire rule by one’s own. There is good reason to believe this is encoded in the DNA. Part of the very nature of man. Part of the natural (and Divine) order. Most people would rather be governed poorly by their own than well by an unwelcomed invader. This was the lesson of imperialism. It is without a doubt that many places were better governed in many respects by the Imperial powers, but they were never happy about it. (Except those people that benefited directly.) They were less well governed when the Imperial powers left. But if the Imperial powers offered to come back and take over again, how many would say OK? None would, of course. Understanding this absolutely essential element of the human condition is essential to understanding the flaw of American foreign policy esp. the neocon expression of it.
Americans are a particularly patriotic group. As someone who has lived overseas, courtesy of Uncle Sam, I know this is true. This is especially true in some conservative circles. The idea of America the super virtuous and American exceptionalism is enshrined dogma. Many conservative can not fathom that other people don’t agree with us or question our motives. When the neocons babbled that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, paleos just scoffed. All that is required to know that would not be true is a basic understanding of human nature. The Sunni’s wouldn’t like it because they had a good deal under Saddam. The Shiites might like that we overthrew Saddam, but they would then expect us to immediately leave. And the Kurds liked it because they don’t like being governed by Arabs, even fellow Muslim Arabs. Go figure. But we have basically left them alone and Kurdistan is basically governing itself. If we went in there to set them right, then we would immediately become the enemy.
So interventionism, especially the “exporting democracy,” “nation building,” “creative destruction” aspects, is inherently destabilizing. I don’t think some neocons would even object to that statement. They want to destabilize first in order to bring about liberal democracy later.
I object to interventionism on moral, practical and constitutional grounds. I will try to answer your other question more thoroughly later.
But I understand the temptation to get your back up at the suggestion that we should change what we are doing because they told us to. That is part of the same instinct that I mention above. But one way to look at it is that we change policy because of how they reacted. Another way to look at it is that how they reacted is a predictable consequence of our flawed policies, so we should change course and try to correct the policy.
Mr. Phillips,
I don’t think our disagreement amounts to one of principle, but I’ll hold off final judgement on that until I understand your position on whether intervention, when the moral benefits are high and the costs low, can be justified. You say, “how the other guy feels about [our actions] is an inevitable part of the equation.” I agree that it deserves a good deal of consideration–but it should not, by itself, be determinative.
To play around with your metaphor, is there nothing we can do about hornets’ nests? “Poking around” is only one method of intervention.
Just FYI. Wasn’t aware of Huckabee’s immigration stance, but did see this article from New Hampshire>seems pretty isolated, though. If he’s adamant about securing the border, then that helps. This comment seemed more related to free and fair trade then immigration.