The Candidates
Featured Archives
Before I get started, I wanted to respond to a commenter who said I would force readers to go through all 27 chapters of Huckabee’s book.
That’s impossible as:
1) The book has 12 chapters (which actually seems to be a Standard for a Huckabee book as “From Hope to Higher Ground” and his weight loss book also had 12 chapters.)
2) Readers can read an entry or not. Their choice. But, if we’re going to talk about the book, let’s talk about it, not just rumor and innuendo about it.
Chapter 1 of Do the Right Thing is called, “Dude, Where’s My Candidate?” and focuses on a base that wasn’t enthused with the Rudy McRomney Trilemna (my term, not Huck’s.) Huckabee lays out a set of signature issues.
Huckabee makes a succinct case for staying a socially conservative course in the GOP, writing, “Having lost our reputation as competent managers and fiscal conservatives, we can’t afford to lose our credibility as social conservatives. If we do, they will point to us and say, ‘The Emperor has no clothes,” and deservedly so.”
Huckabee’s book gets a bit awkward grammatically. He put the book to bed in June, when the question of who would win the Presidency was an open issue. His book reflects it with warnings of why 2008 is a bad year to elect a Democrat. By the time of publication, it would have already happened or not.
Huckabee lists five reasons a Democratic administration would be bad: Health Care, Taxes, Protectionism (instead of education reform), and that “Democrats still don’t understand how viscerally, obsessively, and fanatically, the Islamo-fascists hate us, and how determined they are to kill us and destroy our Judeo-Christian culture and civilization.”
Huckabee then lays out the reasons that prompted his campaign. He laid out a sensible foreign policy, his belief in energy independence, his pro-second Amendment stance, support for the sanctity of life, and support for traditional marriage as issues that prompted his run.
This section on core issues strengthens my belief that, if Palin runs, she will probably not have Mike Huckabee as an opponent. Except the Fair Tax, on the core issues that made Huckabee’s core platform, he and Palin are in agreement.
Huckabee also uses this section to explain the difference between him and the-then big three. Contrary to news reports, Huckabee talks about all three. As I stated in my previous piece, I think this is book is geared towards people who may not have followed the nominating process with rapt attention.
He’s generally quite short with his comments on McCain: “I consistently supported President Bush’s tax cuts, John McCain voted against them in the Senate and then changed his mind to support them as he prepared to run for President.”
Giuliani elicited some longer responses: “Rudy Giuliani said that his gun-control policies didn’t affect hunting. I’m an avid hunter, but I know and you know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting: it’s about tyranny. The Founding Fathers weren’t worried about being able to bag a duck or a deer; they were worried about us being able to keep our fundamental freedoms…” and went on another two paragraphs.
Romney was hit hardest in this section on flip flops, the whole flap about whether Romney owned a firearm. Asks Huckabee, ” Any of you there not sure if you own a gun? I didn’t think so.” Huckabee concludes Romney offered a flip flop too many.
“He said he never really thought about when life begins until he was in his late fifties. I would be more inclined to accept his change as genuine rather than politically expedient if he hadn’t changed on so many issues at once–abortion, homosexual rights, gun control, the Bush Tax Cuts, campaign finance reform, and his appreciation for President Reagan’s legacy, which he ran from in 1994 and clung to in 2007. He spent more time on the road to Damascus than a Syrian camel driver.”
Given the overall tone of the chapter, introducing the central conflict with Romney and explaining the key issue conservatives had with Romney really wasn’t out of sorts.
As a post-script, a lot of folks seem to feel that Huckabee shouldn’t be releasing this book now because it’s time for the party to close and ranks and unify. May I ask behind whom and for what? We have no effective national leadership and no agenda. Huckabee timed the release of his book so that it was after the Presidential elections and well before the next Congressional Session. I’d argue that this is the time to go ahead and have our fights. Other than helping out in Georgia, there’s really not much to do.
For crying out loud, there seem to be some Republicans who believe the best time to discuss differences and issues is-well, never. Yes, the perfect model for political parties: dysfunctional families.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:31 am
Mike Huckabee is freaking worthless.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:55 am
I would love to negotiate with you, Adam, on majority-party-building, but there’s so much of this my-way-or-the-highway attitude that I’m getting where you want your issues to be emphasized everywhere or you’re going to ship on out of the party.
When I say that we shouldn’t emphasize abortion, gay rights, and euthanasia in Rhode Island, you tell me to take a hike. I never said to run pro-choicers or pro-gay marriage candidates. Just people that wouldn’t emphasize those issues.
But I can turn around and say that we should indeed run people like Sarah Palin in the South, and as long as they’re economically conservative, I’m cool with them emphasizing social issues.
So I don’t know what to offer you.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:21 am
Excellent, balanced and fair summary of chapter two. It’s a shame that there are so many on this site who consistently deride Mike Huckabee. Whilst some may feel he lacks fiscal conservative credentials and others may feel his lack of foreign policy experienced leave him a less than ideal candidate, no-one should challenge his sincerity, consistency, social conservatism and integrity. Huckabee would have energised the base in a very similar way to Palin, had he been named VP candidate – and whilst I have no beef with Palin, I think she will continue to be maligned, mis-represented and caricatured by the MSM for the next few years, which will damage her standing with independents.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:35 am
Huckabee is a mixed bag for me. There are areas I completely agree with him and others where we completely diverge. I’m right there with him on gun control and energy independance. As for foreign policy, the Holiday Inn Express candidate was mostly lacking in that category. I won’t even get into the whole Romney feud as I’m sure others will.
Though, I don’t feel the need to put Huck down too much since I don’t feel he will be a major player come 2012. As I’ve said before, he’s going to be most like Patrick Buchanan, running his mouth off over the airwaves in between unsuccesful presidential runs.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:50 am
Huckabee would have energised the base in a very similar way to Palin, had he been named VP candidate
And we all saw how that worked out.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:32 am
I think his star has faded. He doesn’t have the money or the networking to continue to be a major player player in presidential politics. Also, he’s an idiot. I like him personally, and I think he has a valid approach to things that we need to include in the party, but he’s no visionary. He’s not ready to lead in any way. Put him in the Senate. Keep him away from the Presidency.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:48 am
Why doesn’t he act like an adult?
He continues to attack other Republicans. Who’s side is he on? This guys is a loser and should just go away. The party is dead without fiscal conservatives. And is lies and his follows lies about the records of his other opponents during the primary are just plan wrong.
He is very, very dis-honest about his record, and I find it hard to truelly believe that his follows are truely Social Conservatives after his dismal record.
http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html
What is particular bad is the fact that he let a rapist out of jail, who then when to another state and Raped again. And Huckabee supports claim to be Social Conservatives, give me a break. He let out a child rapist and murder, so does pro-life only count for the unborn, how about the living.
In my opinion, his followers are not social conservatives, they are religious zealots who would drive the party off a cliff.
We need all parts off conservatism, not just the religious zealots parts. A real man, especially one who calls himself a christian, would take this time to bury the hatchet and work toward the common good, not try to settle old scores. Huckabee has not chance at ever getting elected president, and he is attempting to drag the rest of the party down into the mud with him.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:56 am
How dare this man making idiotic claims of flip-flops on the part of Mitt. Mitt flipped on one issue, and readily admitted it, and even on that one, he governed 100% pro-life. He never took any action that did anything other than thwart having abortions. Huckabee flipped on illegal immigration right in the middle of the campaign. If you’re going to pen McRomney, then some of us will go back to our Huckaliar type labels. Is that what you’re after? This guy is the one person most responsible for our not having a Republican Presidential nominee right now, and will never, ever be acceptable for the Republican party. PLEASE, for the love of Pete, give up on these stupid Huckabee postings; you’re just making yourself look like someone who will not contribute to party unity. And to your query as to who to rally around, the answer is Mitt Romney.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:21 am
Mitt flipped on one issue, and readily admitted it, and even on that one, he governed 100% pro-life.
What are you going on about? Of course he governed 100% pro-life; the Massachusetts governorship has nothing to do with abortion.
And to your query as to who to rally around, the answer is Mitt Romney.
Shocking. IllinoisGuy thinks that everyone else should shut up and rally around his candidate.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
How about everyone shut up and rally around Mark Sanford?
Or better yet, how about everyone shut up and worry about 2010 and the fact that we’re down by almost 20 seats in the Senate and by approximately eight billion in the House?
November 21st, 2008 at 8:39 am
Alex says: How about everyone shut up and rally around Mark Sanford?
He will need to earn it. Until I see him on the campaign trail and look closer at his record, he is a non issue and not a guy to rally around. But I leave open the possibility. Right now, Romney is the only one who has earned it.
Alex Says: Or better yet, how about everyone shut up and worry about 2010 and the fact that we’re down by almost 20 seats in the Senate and by approximately eight billion in the House?
100% correct. Best thing I have seen in a long while.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:57 am
Alex, btw, Adam queried who to rally around in his posting. I was only providing the obvious. And, actually, Mitt did deal with the subject matter of abortion several times while governor, always pro-life. I’m open to Sanford, and would like you to be open to Mitt.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:14 am
Adam, does Huckabee mention any missteps he made in the primaries that might have contributed to his defeat? Such as his bunker
mentiality charge aganist the president, his denail of hundreds of commutations and pardons for convicted felons, his flip flop
on immigration, his raisng hope, I mean taxees in AK. His having been charged with unethical practices on several occassions as governor, and so on? Does he express any regret for those things or does he find it more productive to slam Romney, Christian leaders, stupid voters
and conspiracies? If he is indeed a flawless candidate, why doesn’t anyone else see it outside his religious following?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:17 am
#13 – Right on! Excellent questions.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Alex, btw, Adam queried who to rally around in his posting. I was only providing the obvious. And, actually, Mitt did deal with the subject matter of abortion several times while governor, always pro-life. I’m open to Sanford, and would like you to be open to Mitt.
I’m not open to Mitt or Huckabee. I can support anyone else in the general election if they win me over.
Right now, Sanford is my top choice (barring Giuliani running again), then Gingrich, then Jindal (his vote against CAFTA disturbs me profoundly, though), then Pawlenty, Palin, Romney, Huckabee.
Absolutely love Jeb Bush, but he ain’t runnin’.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Mr. Sanford may be a nice guy and I will certainly vote for him should he somewhow become our nominee. However, at this point, I do not see him as a 1st tier or even a second tier candidate. Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Romney, Mrs. Palin and Mr. Pawlenty all have better chances than Mr. Sanford.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Are you kidding? I think you’re gonna be surprised when Mr. Sanford, the only candidate currently in contention that opposed the bailout, unequivocally, from the start, is in a good position in December 2011.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am
Well, Good luck Mr. Sanford.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
And the strategy continues: “If I keep posting lots of sunshine PR about Huckabee, they’ll all forget those numerous slip-ups and dumb moments.”
November 21st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Alex: Until we see Sanford on the stump, its impossible to judge, but I wouldn’t call him in good position. He has no name recognition except for those who are more into politics.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Is this Groundhog Day or what, Adam? Do we really need to re-live the Huck nightmare every day now for the next 4 years? My, you Huck’s army folks have a slow learning curve! No matter how many times you are presented with the truth about The Huckster, you just keep waking up every morning hoping that Huck will turn into a guy he can never be. I noticed it during the primary. You all seemed to be living in a parallel universe where Huck wasn’t ethically challenged, had a conservative record, and actually behaved like a Christian Leaders.
I’m not going to repeat all of Huck’s debilitating character flaws – AGAIN – but there’s a boatload. The American people know it, Adam. Your efforts here are entirely in vain, and getting real annoying real fast.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:08 am
If this is going to turn into a Huck farce blog every day, I can’t come here anymore. Seriously. I love this site because the people here are reasonable for the most part. What a pathetic waste of time propping up the most despicable guy to ever run for the GOP nomination who has no shot for any future national office. No shot.
Move on Adam.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:42 am
With respect Martha M, I think you have annoyed many camps yourself.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am
No. She’s right. The amount of attention Huckabee has gotten lately far outweighs what is warrented. He’s still more than likely not going to be the nominee and just because he wants to whore himself out for money and attention doesn’t mean we need to play along.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:53 am
The voters will eventually decide this one way or the other.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Just for the record, there is only one Republican that can make me vote for Obama in ‘12. That is Huckabee. Although I was (and am) a Romney supporter I would still be thrilled with a Jindal, Palin or perhaps Sanford nomination. I just hope we don’t see a repeat of ‘08, where there was a field of conservatives and one moderate. I also hope we can prohibit Independants from selecting our nominee.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:14 am
As one Romney supporter to another, Martha M, I can respectfully say I wish you’d tone it down.
Adam’s 12 chapter posts on Huckabee’s book are bound to end within two weeks. I doubt Huckabee has written any new books in the meantime, so we can hopefully phase the discussion of him out with time. I seriously doubt that Huckabee wants that to happen, though. I don’t think he ever ran into a video camera/tape recorder he didn’t like.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:19 am
Adam Graham,
I think it’s pretty darn flip-floppy of you to quote a Time magazine article slamming Romney on firearms when you’ve typed yourself into oblivion here recently defending Mike Huckabee against a Time magazine article.
I think it’s safe to say that Time magazine is in the Democratic/Liberal corner of our country’s political boxing match.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
For the most part, I agree with your view of Time magazine, ogrepete.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I agree that now is the perfect time to hash out our differences. The election is just concluded and there is plenty of time to argue about which direction to head. That said, is quote gets in my craw:
”Having lost our reptation as a competent managers and fiscal conservatives, we can’t afford to lose our credibility as social conservatives.”
The hell? You, Mr. Huckabee, were no small part of the reason that reputation was lost in the first place. This is an argument against rejecting Huckabee’s form of leadership, not digging our hole even deeper.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I’d also add that the full-throttled embrace of social conservativism in the Bush years (of which Huckabee was a supporter) was the #1 reason for the party’s fiscal conservative agenda being thrown under the bus. Senior citizens (a very socially conservative group) were bribed with a perscription drug bill, farmers (another socially conservative group) were bribed with pork laden farm bills, West Virginians were bribed with steel tariffs, and so on, and on and on. Time to get our priorities back, not perpetuate this madness further.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
That is exactly why I supported Huckabee over Romney. Anyone that changes positions on that many of the issues I care about, isn’t worth my time when running for president. If he were running for senate or some other office on the other hand, maybe I could see it his way.
We need to get past these clowns from 2008. We need to move away from all of them, as far as running for president goes. They can have a voice in the party, and be an influence….but I don’t think we should push Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or any of the others that ran for president this year. Old ideas, old fights and worthless to the electorate.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#26
“where there was a field of conservatives and one moderate.”
What in the hell are you smoking. If I count them off conservatives consist of:
Duncan Hunter(DOA)
Tom Tancredo(he cared more about pushing agenda than running for president)
Fred Thompson(he was just a weak candidate)
Ron Paul?(This one is arguable slightly)
Who else was there. The top tier of candidates were all moderates. I think a lot of times we define conservative as being the candidate that is conservative on our issue and that’s all….instead of who is conservative acrossed the board.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Martha M
Don’t tone it down. From one Romney/Jindal/Sandord/ et. al. supporter to another. And don’t leave this site, that is just what Adam Graham wants.
He’s modeling his approach after the waterboarding technique, don’t succumb.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
wateredseeds.#32,
The problem is that Romney has not changed that many positions. In fact, the only position that he has definitely changed is his position on abortion. All the others, he has been very consistent in steering a course between two extremes. Because he does that, his opponents label him as a flip-flopper.
Let’s take just one example — gun control. The second ammendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. Seems straight forward, yet arms range from pea-shooters to thermo-nuclear weapons. Obviously we don’t want just anyone running around with an H-bomb. A line must to be drawn. The question is, where?
Romney chooses to draw the line somewhere between sporting uses and self-defense, and so-called assault weapons. Is he right to draw it where he does? Perhaps. I personally think he is a little too restrictive. But that is where Mitt Romney chooses to draw it, and he has been very consistent on that. As governor, he worked to both streamline hunting licenses and home permits, and to strengthen laws against assault weapons.
Was that a flip-flop? I’ve read more time than I care to count that it was. What do YOU think?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I have no problems with Mike Huckabee releasing a book, although I don’t know whether that particular was aimed at me.
My personal gripes are more what he says about certain segments of the party. He is free to write whatever he wants, but if I think it’s horse crap, then I’m free to call him on it.
BTW, people really need to let up on Adam writing pro-Huckabee posts. He has every right to post this, and personally, I think it is a great idea for him to review the chapters of the book. It gives the readers a chance to see the whole picture, and considering the amount of negative coverage he has gotten recently (I’m guilty), then it is only right that the other side has a legitimate forum to praise the man.
It also gives people who would never read the book a chance to see what it’s about.
I actually plan to read it. Who knows? Maybe I’ll post my own chapter by chapter critique of all that I think is wrong with it. Just kidding. But I do plan to read it because the man deserves to have his chance to answer his critics like me.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
and if it says something that I think is stupid, you can be sure you will hear about it. And if I think it is brilliant, I’ll gladly say so as well.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“BTW, people really need to let up on Adam writing pro-Huckabee posts. He has every right to post this,”
And others have every right to oppose the points made, the opinions expressed and the water boarding technique Adam G. is using.
It is detrimental to party unity and to the credibility of this site to uphold such a goof ball as a standard bearer of the Republican party.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Huck doesn’t care about the party, he cares about himself. He released the book to make money.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Actually, Shawnie, I think “waterboard” is not the best word. Try “water torture”. The slow and steady application of a minor irritation that builds up over time to become a major annoyance.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
#40 – Gotcha – thanks
November 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Shawnie,
Yes. Everyone has a right to express that they can’t stand anything Adam says, but that doesn’t mean they should tell him to quit writing pro-Huckabee stuff on this site.
And they shouldn’t blame the site for posting anything pro-Huckabee. I don’t particularly agree with much of it, but the goal of this site is not to alienate republicans by turning into an exclusively anti-Mike site.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Huckabee is a total joke and he is only dividing the party not unifying it. I would totally vote for Obama over Huckabee in 2012 if he were our nominee.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’m sick and tired of people calling for Party unity. The Party is in the toilet and we need to have a real civil war in order to figure out the direction of the Paty.
The Party has been driven into a ditch by Bush, who governed like a Socialist for eight years and will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.
Will we be a Neocon Party or a Traditional Conservative Party? Nationalists or Globalists?
Will Ficons accept we need to be a Socon Party, and will Socons accept we need to be a Ficon Party?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
#44
And after this “civil war” and the party figures out the “direction” – would they then be divided or united?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
#45
We will be united because winners will emerge and there will be one coherent direction. The loosers will have to decide to stay or walk.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Rafael,
You have no comprehension of what you are advocating. There is nothing more devastating than a civil war. Countries that undergo them are set back for years, even decades. Countless lives are lost. Untold treasure is wasted. Families are torn up. Close friends are divided. Hatred and enmity rage unchecked. The wounds take forever to heal. There are STILL some unhealed wounds from our civil war, and that was over 140 years ago.
And you want all of this for the Republican Party?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
#47
There is a cancer in the Party, namely NeoConservatism or Big Government that has led the Party to ruin.
To get back to Conservatism, traditionalism, and the party roots, requires that the Party get rid of the liberals and Neocons.
If the Party does not get back to its roots or purity, don’t be suprised when many Socons and Ficons walk from the party. Many Conservatives, like myself, care more about Conservatism than allegience to a party. Many will leave for third parties.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
#48.
Abraham Lincoln, so the story goes, was once confronted by a woman who demanded to know why he was being friendly to his enemies when he should be destroying them. He responded, “Madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
Rafael, if you wish to do away with all the “liberals and Neocons” in the Republican Party, may I suggest you attempt to convert them to your way of thinking through logic, persuasion, patience, and long-suffering? You will likely find that if you drive them out with the point of a sword, you will only succeed in making the party smaller, and will have created an enemy where once you had a friend.
Are you familiar with the twelth chapter of 1 Corithians? Here is just one small quote:
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
Food for thought.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“If this is going to turn into a Huck farce blog every day, I can’t come here anymore. Seriously. I love this site because the people here are reasonable for the most part. What a pathetic waste of time propping up the most despicable guy to ever run for the GOP nomination who has no shot for any future national office. No shot.
Move on Adam.”
I’m sorry… but I think a blog is about ALL SIDES BEING HEARD. If it weren’t for Adam Graham, where would a person like me (who supported Huck more than Mitt in the primaries) go???? Adam Graham is one of many reasonable voices on this site on all sides of the Republican tent (Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Jindal… on and on). I personally think you should MOVE ON and accept that every Republican is not a Huckabee-hater like you. Just cause this site is by all accounts anti-Huckabee doesn’t mean I am prepared to jump off this site.
“Martha M
Don’t tone it down. From one Romney/Jindal/Sandord/ et. al. supporter to another. And don’t leave this site, that is just what Adam Graham wants. He’s modeling his approach after the WATERBOARDING technique, don’t succumb.”
Real harsh language, there Shawnie. Geez. What Adam Graham wants is to give a perspective for the 80% of Republicans (according to Rasmussen) that approve of Mike Huckabee. Calling his techniques WATERBOARDING should warrant an apology from you. I’m absolutely serious.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
#50
I’ll keep that in mind.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
1,
yeah, you are absolutely right pal !