Kavon and Sean have both taken me to task over my views on the damage that a Huckabee nomination would do to the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and to the country. Both make interesting points, but ultimately, I can’t agree with either of them. Here’s what Kavon has to say about my recurring theory that Mike Huckabee is a modern-day William Jennings Bryan who will crucify the GOP on a cross of gold:
For my part, I find myself in the rare position of disagreeing with Dave, for I just cannot find in Mike Huckabee the kind of firebrand persona that is capable of molding a new Republican Party into something resembling the Democratic Party of the early 20th Century.
At the worst, Mike Huckabee would turn out to be simply more of the Big Government/Compassionate Conservatism of George W. Bush. I am simply not seeing William Jennings Bryan or perhaps Huey Long kind of personality that would be required to fashion such a sea change embodied in Mike Huckabee.
I don’t disagree that Huckabee is basically another George W. Bush, or, more specifically, GWB on steroids: a more communicatively-gifted Southern evangelical who is also a former Baptist minister and who lacks all of Bush’s Northeastern corporatist instincts. But that’s exactly why I fear him so. Kavon underestimates the power of a president to change the composition of his party through the force of his mere presence. Bill Clinton didn’t spend his two terms in office plotting to construct a long-term Democratic majority. He spent most of that time just trying to survive. Yet by governing as a fiscal moderate and a social liberal, he invited lots of like-minded voters, who had previously self-identified as Rockefeller Republicans or Independents, into the Democratic Party. The result? Two terms of Clinton turned states like California and Connecticut from swing states into the new base states of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, many of the old Democratic base states — states like Minnesota and Wisconsin which voted for Dukakis in 1988 — became the new swing states. That’s because lots of Midwestern populists were displaced from the Democratic Party by the Northeastern DLC types that the Clintons invited in. Bill Clinton didn’t set out to change the base of the Democratic Party, but he did, and he did so simply by being at the party’s helm for eight years.
And what of George W. Bush’s impact on the GOP for the past eight years? The fact that 44 percent of Republicans who watched last night’s debate deemed Huckabee the winner, even after his fiscal liberalism and liberalism on immigration were exposed for all to see, is a testament to the manner in which George Bush has transformed the GOP from the party of Buckley and Will conservatism to the political arm of Evangelical America. Andrew Sullivan said it best in his reaction to last night’s Huckabee win:
But among the crowd on stage, Huckabee seemed by far the most congenial candidate. Paul is much clearer; McCain soared tonight, in my view. I think McCain’s experience, independent streak, fiscal responsibility, moral core, and national security mastery make him easily the best viable candidate on stage. Yes, I am immensely proud of Ron Paul. And after Iraq, I find his non-interventionism far more credible than McCain’s full neocon jacket. But experience does count; and McCain is in a class of his own in wartime.
Nonetheless, it’s clear that today’s Dixie-based, pro-torture, anti-immigrant GOP will find it very hard to accept the bipartisan, anti-torture supporter of comprehensive immigration reform as its candidate. Romney really is a tool. Giuliani is just too urban for the party Rove has built. So you can see why Huckabee is rising. I bet he’s on a roll now. As “Richelieu” puts it, he does have the most important qualification of anyone on stage:
“A degree in Bible Studies from Ouachita Baptist University of Arkadelphia, Arkansas.”
Think of tonight as Rove’s Frankenstein moment.
Like Andrew, I thought that McCain was the clear winner last night as the only candidate on stage with the demonstrated ability to be a competent wartime leader whose sole interest on the domestic front was to cut a government that has exploded over the past eight years. If this debate were held in 1977, 1987, or 1997, a plurality of Republicans would have agreed with Andrew and I that McCain won the night. But in 2007, in a post-Bush Republican Party, McCain garners a mere 10 percent of the vote among debate-viewing Republicans, while Huckabee takes nearly half. This is not because Republicans have changed. This is because the people who now call themselves Republicans are not the people who called themselves Republicans 10, 20, or 30 years ago. As a Democratic friend of mine asked me today, what happened to the other wings of the GOP? Apparently, they’ve already headed for the nearest exits. All that’s left are, as Andrew put it, the folks who want a president who has a degree in theology. And this massive sea change took place solely due to the presidency of George W. Bush.
And so now you see why I fear Mike Huckabee so. Huckabee will do to the Republican Party what a communicatively-gifted, charismatic George Bush would’ve done to it. Want a GOP that is basically the political arm of fundamentalist Protestantism? Vote for Mike Huckabee. He won’t consciously set out to change the party in such a way, but I guarantee you that a million little Inquisitors will pop up at GOP town meetings throughout the nation with the sole goal of purifying the ranks. Want a high-tax, big-spending, nanny-state, big-religion, soft-on-everything GOP? You know what to do.
But would such a transformation of the Republican Party actually relegate it to minority status? After all, the red-state, economically populist, religion-based Democratic Party of the early 20th Century ruled the South and the Interior West, which now comprise a much larger proportion of electoral votes, and by extension, congressional seats that they did a century ago. Shouldn’t we welcome a Bryanized GOP? Absolutely not, and I have three words for those who disagree: two-thousand-six.
In the 2006 midterm election, the GOP basically saw what happens when it runs as an economically liberal, socially conservative party. In 2006, the GOP won the Deep South and Plains States, but lost everywhere else. Contrary to the claims of many, Midwestern states like Ohio and Pennsylvania rejected this populist GOP by a landslide, giving double-digit victories to Democrats in senatorial and gubernatorial races in both states. In fact, Democrats won statewide races across the Midwest by similar margins. The Midwest, you see, likes centrist politicians. But it rejects the extremes. And that includes the combination of extreme economic liberalism and extreme social conservatism that the GOP of 2006 represented, and that Huckabee’s GOP would tout.
Also in 2006, the border states of Virginia and Missouri rejected the same formula, though only by a hair. Even the South cannot be trusted to stay solid for such a party. And the libertarian Mountain West would surely drift slowly but surely into blue territory when faced with a populist GOP. Republicans would lose Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. What the GOP would be left with would be a minority of House seats, a minority of Senate seats, and a minority of electoral votes. That’s a minority party. And lots of pragmatic Midwesterners and pro-freedom Westerners would be displaced from the GOP and would invade the Democratic Party, pulling it closer to the DLC center, thus making it more palatable to yet more swing voters and leaving the GOP with even fewer votes.
As such, I maintain my belief that a Huckabee nomination would be a political and policy disaster for the GOP, and that it must be avoided at all costs. I can only hope that the Bush-era transformation of the GOP isn’t already so significant that Huck’s nomination becomes inevitable after his probable win in Iowa. Otherwise, as Yoda once said, matters are worse…
November 29th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
It seems like we all read each others mind when coming up with posts today.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Heh.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I think it is premature to conclude that Huck’s nomination becomes inevitable after his probable win in Iowa. I envisage a three-way race in FL resulting in a win for Rudy. Primaries are low-turnout affairs aiding the best GOTV operations and I doubt that Huck can overcome the advanatges of Rudy and Romney in funds and organization to compete in FL and Feb05 states.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Dave, you and Tommy continue to put out top notch, thought provoking posts. You guys are part of the reason why I’m proud to be a Republican. Keep up the good work.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I have a post in the works dealing with Governor Huckabee as well, though with a vastly different focus. “Success” breeds buzz, both positive and negative.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Huckabee will do to the Republican Party what a communicatively-gifted, charismatic George Bush would’ve done to it.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
“I doubt that Huck can overcome the advanatges of Rudy and Romney in funds and organization to compete in FL and Feb05 states.”
Huckabee is already ahead of Romney and tied for second place (with Thompson) in the Feb 5th states(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/in_february_5_states_clinton_and_giuliani_still_on_top).
November 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Time to change the Power Rankings?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Can somebody explain to me how Huckabee is any more liberal than Reagan? As a governor, Reagan raised taxes. The position that Huckabee has committed to for immigration as President is more conservative than what Reagan did.
It seems to me that people have forgotten history. If you follow the liberal blogs Huckabee has come across repeatedly as the one they fear the most. With his conservative positions he strikes me as a good choice for the GOP nomination.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
ha ha..love it. First you ignore him and say he has no chance. Then when Huck finally emerges from the candidates, everyone writes that it’s the death of the party! This is great…sore losers at their finest.
To be honest, you can write about all the theories you want. The reason why Huck is winning, and the reason why this New York, socially liberal republican is going to vote for him: he is a real person, not the sum of PR recommendations. What he believes in, he actually believes in.
The other reason? He gets things done. People see a guy with next to no money running a great campaign. People see a guy who balanced a budget for 11 years as governor. People see a guy who raised some taxes, but to build roads and schools — the things we expect our tax dollars to go to.
When Huck talks about vertical politics he means it. People want a president who is genuine, who tells the truth, who doesn’t change opinions every month, who unites instead of divides, and who does more than just shout at the other side.
I support him because I think he will do more good than bad; he will change the debate on healthcare, he will put desperately need arts and music programs in schools — real, tangible things. This is not a change in the party…the emergence of Huck only speaks to the personality of the candidates. The social cons have the best PERSON as a candidate this time around. Next time, the we may get a great foreign policy PERSON. But make no mistake: Huck will be better on immigration, terrorism, taxes, and healthcare than Hillary. You should all be happy that the Republicans are putting up a candidate who can beat Hillary because people of all parties like him. REPEAT: he is genuine.
Time to coalesce and stop whining.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
To be honest, you can write about all the theories you want. The reason why Huck is winning, and the reason why this New York, socially liberal republican is going to vote for him: he is a real person, not the sum of PR recommendations. What he believes in, he actually believes in.
What exactly he believes in, I guess, is supposed to be irrelevant?
Time to coalesce and stop whining.
I agree. Let’s coalesce around someone remarkable and accomplished, though, like, say, the former mayor of New York City. (No, not Ed Koch!)
November 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
ha ha..love it. First you ignore him and say he has no chance. Then when Huck finally emerges from the candidates, everyone writes that it’s the death of the party! This is great…sore losers at their finest.
Why are these two items contradictory, by the way?
I still don’t think he has a chance at the nomination.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Er. Those two sentences, in 12, aren’t related. The items aren’t contradictory. But I still don’t think he has a chance at the nomination, regardless.
Are you people forgetting that to win the nomination, a candidate has to win enough delegates?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Huck’s going to win Iowa. From there, anything could happen.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
10-If you want to see how “honest” Huck is–check out Fred Thompson’s site on Huck’s Fox News apprearance. He’s not honest he either lies or comes up with a joke to dodge the question.
Time to wake up and stop dreaming
November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I’m not convinced that Huckabee is anything more than the flavor of the month. Let’s see how long he keeps this lead.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
TarheelRepublican,
You cannot be serious….
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
TLG,
Nowandlater gives the perfect reason in #14 why the power rankings can’t be messed with… Nobody has any idea what is going to happen. This race is so unpredictable that even Alan Keyes could make a run. (well, that maybe an exaggeration)
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
#7. But as I said primaries are low-turnout affairs and those who selected Huck may not turn out to vote on Feb05 and here is where the GOTV operations will make the difference. If the primaries were spread out Huck could easily compete in a state by state basis and win the south comfortably but that is not the case in 2008.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Mark-
Did it look like a joke?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I said it in the previous post and I will say it again. Huckabee is rising for one reason and one reason only:
Because of the Evangelical Christians who monopolize the party.
If Romney was Baptist he would be winning Iowa and it would not be close. Evangelicals hate Mormons with a passion and always
will.
Give me someone who can solve real problems, Romney or Rudy would be great. Thompson and McCain next.
I am tired of the guy that mentions Jesus every other sentence and “did I mention I’m a baptist minister” schtick.
Give me a guy that can solve social securuty, Medicare and the national debt.
Please no GWBush part 2.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
TarheelRepublican,
Yes.
You cannot expect accurate and balanced reporting about the truth or untruth of a candidate from a competing candidate. I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed. I think that was very clearly articulated in the immigration exchanged between Guliani and Romney last night.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Ben,
I think you overestimate the ‘hatred’ of Mormons. The fact is that Romney has flipflopped on key conservative issues. He admits he was wrong before, but that does not change the fact that he has done so. I personally believe him in the positions that he claims to hold to, but for many to doubt him because of this is understandable.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I agree that it’s lazy of me to refer to a competing canidate’s website. I’m currently at work and don’t have the time to search for relevant sources (that I’ve already read such a Novak’s recent article).
But it’s not hard to find if you care to look. Just watch the Fox News appearance where Huck said his tax hikes were required by the state supreme court and Huck’s campaign, in the same segment had to confess that that wasn’t true.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
this is a MUST-post…
Clinton (D) 54%, Giuliani (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 59%, Romney (R) 35%
Clinton (D) 61%, Huckabee (R) 31%
Clinton (D) 50%, McCain (R) 45%
Obama (D) 46%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Obama (D) 54%, Romney (R) 37%
Obama (D) 57%, Huckabee (R) 27%
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 44%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=56c7136d-0bae-4729-91d8-3a764d8aa5da
November 29th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
First off, I hope top never disagree with Dave again. It just feels… strange!
My point is that I just feel that I think folks are confusing a magnetic personality with an charismatic ideologue who is bent on molding a party into an new animal by the sheer force will combined with his persona.
To me, Huck is just not that animal. At his worst, he will simply be Dubya’s 3rd and 4th term.
Which, of course, to us Fi-Cons is not the best of news. But Huck would likely learn from Bush’s mistakes in this area and govern much farther to the right on economic issues.
Huck has embraced the Fair Tax for goodness sakes! He gets it.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
TarheelRepublican,
If you actually look at what he claimed, he claimed that the state Surpreme Court required them to increase spending on education. Huckabee has clearly articulated that they had cut spending by 11% and had no additional room for spending cuts without cutting into essential services, leaving him little choice.
I’ll bring up what I said above, which nobody has responded to. Most are looking for a conservative to follow in the footsteps of Reagan. As a governor, Reagan raised taxes too. If you could go back in time would you have opposed him in light of that fact?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
The Democrats are becoming the party of the socially liberal upper-middle class (e.g., Hillary Clinton from Park Ridge, Illinois).
The Country Club Republicans of yesteryear are becoming the Country Club Democrats.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Kavon,
Can you please answer my question about comparing Huck to Reagan? Maybe I’m too young to know otherwise, but Reagan was fiscally conservative as President, was he not? Yet did not Reagan also raise taxes as a governor?
Thank you
November 29th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
just thinking how cool would it be for the GOP to nominate a republican who calls them the club for greed… HA.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I can’t see Huck losing Iowa. That 30% number that he has going for him is not going to move. Historically that block of votes have been very loyal. The quest becomes, can Romney garner more than 30%? Well, if there were less candidates he could get more than 30%, but by virtue of the crowded field, he will not. So bottom line, Mitt loses to Huck in a close second. The question becomes does that end Mitt or does he rebound in NH? Does Huck get traction or does he have to wait till S.C.? What happens to Rudy when he comes in 4th in Iowa? What about McCain? What about Thompson? Atleast two of these guys will cease to relevant after Iowa — that’s my prediction too.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Kavon is spot on….
November 29th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
I also believe it a highly dubious assertion that economics first voters will find any home in the Democratic Party.
As Sean remarked early. The Democratic Party is the party of people that believe that spending 1 out of every three dollars on social programs in not nearly enough.
DLC or no DLC, the Democratic Party is simply not an option for economic conservatives, and it likely never will be.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Mark,
Reagan not only raised taxes, but was pro-choice and signed a very liberal abortion bill as governor. He had been president of a labor union (I think actors) as well.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Fletcher,
Exactly my points, yet I continually hear about how we need a Reagan-like president again. That is what people are looking for and I agree that is what he need. Not entirely because of policies, but because he was able to energize the nation and get things done. I think Huckabee has the ability to do that better than anyone I’ve seen. Romney is too stiff, Thompson is too slow and casual, and Guliani… well he just doesn’t energize me at all.
When it comes to conservatism though, it seems to me that all of them are the same or more conservative than Reagan, overall. With that in mind, I find it absurd to attack them on these historical points. People need to look at the positions that people are taking for the Presidency. We need to look at who can unite people and energize the nation to more forward in order to get things done.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Flat tax for middle class
by Harold Ford Jr.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/COMMENTARY/111290014/1012&template=printart
November 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am
My point is that I just feel that I think folks are confusing a magnetic personality with an charismatic ideologue who is bent on molding a party into an new animal by the sheer force will combined with his persona.
No one who brags about calling the Club for Growth the “Club for Greed” can seriously be considered a viable candidate for the Republican Party.
For all of the so-cons’ whining about Rudy, he’s done nothing but try to appease them in little ways. He would never slur the National Right to Life Committee or Focus on the Family. If he were doing that, I would see why so-cons would be concerned about Rudy pushing an anti-so-con agenda. Rudy’s secular, sure, but he’s no social liberal.
Huckabee openly shows disdain for economic conservatives.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I also believe it a highly dubious assertion that economics first voters will find any home for them in the Democratic Party. As Sean remarked early. The Democratic Party is the party of people that believe that spending 1 out of every three dollars on social programs in not nearly enough. DLC or no DLC, the Democratic Party is simply not an option for economic conservatives.
We’d be without a home for a while, unfortunately. I’d be voting Libertarian for quite some time if Huckabee assumed the GOP mantle and ran with it.
He might make a fine catalyst for party realignment, though.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Mark #29,
Well, Ronald Maximus is a good example of someone who grew in public service-and I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense.
Reagan ran for Governor of California basically as a “throw the Hippies in Berkley in jail and get the bums off of welfare” candidate. He was, of course, rabidly anti-communist, but that was not a huge part of his campaign to be Governor (although his “Time for Choosing” speech played an definitive role in his ascension in the Republican ranks.
A good example of just what the heck I’m talking about is his signing of the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which resulted in millions of abortions in California.
After realizing his folly, he declared himself publicly Pro-Life and became the man who submitted an unsolicited op-ed to the National Review entitled “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” which is the most eloquent Pro-Life statement ever issued by an America President.
So I would give Huck the benefit of the doubt on fiscal issues. He has already started to show me he gets it by his campaign rhetoric and his endorsement of the Fair Tax.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I’ve maintained since the beginning that Huckabee is electable. You can go back and search my old posts on Google for that. He wouldn’t be like W, though, who gets a bad rap (people don’t dislike W’s policies so much as they dislike W himself): can you imagine Huckabee coming out publicly touting partial privatization of Social Security as one of his major policy advancements? Sweeping tax cuts? How about an aggressive, hardline stance against terror?
He keeps the bad aspects of W — hardline social conservatism and being pro-amnesty for illegals — and ditches all of the things that make W a decent President. He wouldn’t be like W. No way.
(PS, OT: By the way, Kavon, I’d like to point out that while you were a little flustered earlier that I took offense to Fletcher’s comments about Internet safety to me, I got the last laugh when he asked someone whether they “felt silly arguing with a child.” So, yes, he did mean it in a condescending way.)
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
So I would give Huck the benefit of the doubt on fiscal issues. He has already started to show me he gets it by his campaign rhetoric and his endorsement of the Fair Tax.
You and I both know that he only endorsed the Fair Tax to try and gain political momentum when he was lagging — and to always have that ready to be deployed against fiscally conservative doubters.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Huck is going to win Iowa. I am glad a quality candidate is going to win.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Just trying to keep the peace TLG. Just trying to keep the peace…
November 30th, 2007 at 12:30 am
ThatLibertarianGuy,
I hope you’re not claiming that Huckabee is pro-amnesty. He has come out expressly against it.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:31 am
To expound upon 40 — If you’d watch the debates, it’s quite obvious that Huckabee doesn’t even understand the FairTax, as he’s at a loss to explain its good points when it’s attacked. Sometimes I’d sit there, mad at him for not knowing a better response than a one-liner, when the FairTax is a legitimately good policy proposal.
But, yeah, that just goes to show that he only endorsed it for political reasons. He’d drop it the day he was elected.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am
I hope you’re not claiming that Huckabee is pro-amnesty. He has come out expressly against it.
So has McCain, Mark.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Being “for amnesty” is always something someone else is, like a son of a bitch. But in reality, Huckabee and McCain are for amnesty.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
ThatLibertarianGuy,
The difference is that McCain has double talked on that one, saying that he is against it while advancing a policy for it. Huckabee has not done this, but he has clearly articulated that the border must be secured and that employers must be held accountable and that sanctuary cities must be punished through the removal of funding.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I just had an incredibly bizarre thought pop into my little mind. Up until now, we were all pretty much agreed that there was some likelihood of Iowa supporters of Rudy caucusing for Huck, in order to take down Romney. I think we would all pretty much agree that if (at this point) Huck doesn’t win Iowa (now that his expectations are so high) he will fade away, in much the same manner as Fred’s fade has happened.
Might it make sense then (in Iowa only, obviously), for those same supporters to caucus for Romney? My point being that we’ve seen another candidate from Hope catch fire after trailing badly before the caucuses. If Huckabee is the danger to the party that many here believe him to be, it might be necessary.
I’m just sayin’ …
November 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/new-sc-poll-oba.html
Was this poll posted?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Irish Right,
The interesting thing is that the left is more scared of Huck than anyone. Check their blogs… even tonight on Countdown as much was articulated by one of Olbermann’s guests… yes I was one of the two people who watched it in part.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:39 am
The difference is that McCain has double talked on that one, saying that he is against it while advancing a policy for it. Huckabee has not done this, but he has clearly articulated that the border must be secured and that employers must be held accountable and that sanctuary cities must be punished through the removal of funding.
It’s just silly rhetoric. He has called people that opposed a path to citizenship “racist” and just the other night said that to not have a government-subsidized scholarship for children of illegals would be “punishing children for the actions of their parents.” That is the talk of a nanny-stater.
I hope you’re fine with Giuliani on illegal immigration, by the way — leaping for joy, in fact, if you like Huckabee.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:40 am
The interesting thing is that the left is more scared of Huck than anyone. Check their blogs… even tonight on Countdown as much was articulated by one of Olbermann’s guests… yes I was one of the two people who watched it in part.
Huckabee is very electable. Anyone denying this is deluded.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I think Huck will be a very effective president.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:46 am
ThatLibertarianGuy,
I do not think that you have fully thought this through. As a governor Huckabee had to deal with a federal policy that has failed to address the issue, so like it or not he has these children in his state that he only has so much power to deal with (the parents). So having illegal children he can do something to turn the brightest and best into tax payers, or he can leave them be. What is better for the economy? What is more conservative? The fact is that while Huckabee did use taxpayer money to assist the children of illegals who were on the path to citizenship, who had been in the schools since young childhood and who had excelled, he was turning them into tax payers, bringing that money back into the state instead of just having them as consumers of state money through other services.
It is necessary for the federal government to address the immigration issue and Huckabee has put for clear policies that will address that by securing the borders and penalizing employers who hire illegals and sanctuary cities.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:47 am
I could not agree more with this post. it is one of the most insightful analysis of the Republican party today.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I do not think that you have fully thought this through. As a governor Huckabee had to deal with a federal policy that has failed to address the issue, so like it or not he has these children in his state that he only has so much power to deal with (the parents). So having illegal children he can do something to turn the brightest and best into tax payers, or he can leave them be. What is better for the economy? What is more conservative?
Ugh! Whether it helps the economy is irrelevant! The economy is none of the government’s concern. It’s not the job of the taxpayer to subsidize other peoples’ educations — especially the education of non-citizens.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Of course that begs the question TLG… Will YOU be accepting federal financial aid when you go to college next year?
November 30th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I will, but only because I am 100% sure that the government will be taking as much money from me in the future, so I figure that I might as well take advantage of the system that’s there. Also, in my hands, I at least know that the money will go to good use.
I don’t think that the government should be involved in financing college educations; however, given the price of such an education today (in part thanks to the government, in part thanks to ludicrous campaigns to get more people to college: too many people are going today), it’s not exactly on the priority list of programs to be axed.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Kavon, I’m with DaveG and Matt Miller on Huckabee.
Talking to my network of supply-siders, Club for Growthers, libertarian Republicans, Ayn Randists, etc, most of them would vote for Hillary if Huckabee were the nominee.
If you’re right on econonics, left on cultural issues, and right on security…. then you get 0 of the 3 with Huckabee, and 1 of the 3 with Hillary.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:03 am
You know, TLG, there’s another option. You don’t have to sacrifice your principles to afford college. Just go to BYU! Great education, church subsidized, requisite theology classes…you’ll fit right in!
November 30th, 2007 at 2:25 am
You know, TLG, there’s another option. You don’t have to sacrifice your principles to afford college. Just go to BYU! Great education, church subsidized, requisite theology classes…you’ll fit right in!
Of course! What was I thinking?
November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
If you’re right on econonics, left on cultural issues, and right on security…. then you get 0 of the 3 with Huckabee, and 1 of the 3 with Hillary.
I am completely convinced that Hillary will let us win in Iraq and that she will try and balance the budget. So at least there’s that with her, in addition to the social issues.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Huckabee is pro-free-market, pro-tax-cuts, anti-excessive-spending, pro-military, anti-SCHIP, anti-DREAM-ACT, etc.
And he’s a social conservative, unlike the rest of the field.
Sounds Reaganesque to me.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:50 am
WiseGuy,
I just heard that Huckabee was one of the only Republicans to NOT oppose the SCHIP legislation. Are you sure about that?
And it really isn’t truthful to say the rest of the field isn’t socially conservative. Why not just say that Huckabee has been socially conservative the longest on abortion, instead of misrepresenting the other candidates?
November 30th, 2007 at 3:04 am
murphy: Absolutely sure. Huck said it on the Michael Reagan show and also on Hugh Hewitt I believe. He would veto SCHIP due to the massive government expansion:
http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/huckabee-on-the-michael-reagan-show/
And it really isn’t truthful to say the rest of the field isn’t socially conservative.
Only Huckabee supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Human Life Amendment (maybe Mitt takes these positions too). I am not sure where Mitt is on HLA — I believe that Brownback’s negative attacks in the summer may have forced Mitt to support HLA. But Mitt is not socially conservative — for instance, note his answer regarding gays in the military.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:26 am
WiseGuy,
I’m no Huckabee expert…but this took me exactly 50 seconds to find on google.
MAYBE Mitt supports the FMA? Come on, man! Do 10 seconds of research! As for HLA, Romney supports overturning Roe now, HLA later once it becomes anywhere close to feasible with support of the states.
Calling Mitt “not socially conservative” is just silly. He’s pro-life, pro-FMA, anti-ESCR, etc. He and Huck are the only guys still on their original wives, the only guys willing to make the importance of the family unit a major component of their campaigns. His answer regarding gays in the military? He is leaving this one completely up to the discretion of the generals, and you would use that to disregard all other issues?
I try to give Huckabee a fair shake. If you want to say that Huck has been pro-life longer, that’s fine. But what’s with the misrepresentation? Is that the only way you can strengthen the Huckster?
November 30th, 2007 at 3:34 am
murphy: did you not look at my link? Huck criticized Bush for letting Democrats frame the issue in a politically advantageous way. Huck would have never let it get to this point. If forced to give a yes/no answer, Huck would definitely give a “no” answer to SCHIP due to massive government expansion. You can listen to the audio of the Michael Reagan show yourself if it is still available.
MAYBE Mitt supports the FMA? Come on, man!
The “maybe” was in reference to HLA. So Romney’s current position is that he does not currently support HLA? But that he might support it later?
His answer regarding gays in the military? He is leaving this one completely up to the discretion of the generals, and you would use that to disregard all other issues?
Mitt had a chance to clarify himself at the debate, but he clearly stuck to his original statement.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Let me add that I have a high view of Romney as a person: he works hard, he plays by the rules, he is a family guy who is faithful to his wife, he is actually close to his kids, etc. These attributes are to be lauded.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Look at you so-cons, arguing over whose candidate is more bigoted toward gay people.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:41 am
TLG,
I hope your not “bigoted” against polygamists and polyandrists.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I suspect TLG may be bigoted against necrophiliacs. You nannystater!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Huck is buying signatures in Virginia and appears to be trying to hide that fact.
http://mittreport.com/hucks_buying_signatures.html
November 30th, 2007 at 10:53 am
73: Paying signature-gatherers is common.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:02 am
73, yes, but he is always accusing romney of ‘buying’ his support. he is doing the same types of things.
and it is also noteworthy that romney collected over 15,000 without paying a dime, pure volunteer support.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
DaveG, this one is the best post I ever read from you. Thank you.
Wow, Huckabee wins the nomination, we could see a third party splint, composed of fis/def conservatives. Rudy wins, and soc conservatives jumps out. I think the choice is clear — get rid of either one by not voting for them, and we can ensure the survival of the Republican Party.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
And the libertarian Mountain West would surely drift slowly but surely into blue territory when faced with a populist GOP. Republicans would lose Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.
I can’t tell you about the rest, but I know for a fact that New Mexico is not even close to being ‘libertarian.’ That’s a pipe dream. I think Huckabee would destroy the GOP like you say (I think the same thing about Giuliani) but he’d stand a great chance of winning in New Mexico, unfortunately.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
[...] comparing Mike Huckabee to William Jennings Bryant’s traditionalist populism. His latest piece does just that. While I’m inclined to agree with most of DaveG’s arguments, it occurs [...]