December 19, 2007
Huckabee is Confusing: Maybe because he sticks to his guns

I just read a great article from Opednews.com: Limbaugh, Hannity Irk Base on Huckabee, Highlight Top-Down Clash (it's a 2-page article)

Apparently major conservative talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity think there is something more sinister (liberal?) to Mike Huckabee than he is letting on. Rush has even compared the Huckabee following to the Ross Perot "cult-like" following.

Bottom line: they're confused, and they're trying to confuse you, as well.

How does this happen? Well, lack of real, honest-to-God people running for office, I'd say. We are all so used to career politicians who always have something(s) to hide. Pander here, pander there, pander a little bit every where... (sound familiar?) Limbaugh and Hannity have been caught off guard by Mike Huckabee, a regular guy who happened to be governor of Arkansas for ten years, a guy who grew up washing with lye soap and thanking God he had food to eat, a guy who sticks to his guns no matter what others think. Mike Huckabee is surprising--he actually comes across as an honest guy, a guy with integrity and a gut: not your typical candidate for president. In fact, Huckabee is atypical. He refuses to run attack ads--he values the importance of running on one's own merits instead of the demerits of one's opponents. So some conservatives assume there must be a catch, right?

Wrong. Here's the thing: there is no "catch" to Mike Huckabee. Love him or hate him, he is who he is, and he's not going to change who he is or what he believes to pander for your vote.

From the linked article:

Well, what's the problem? Mike Huckabee is actually an authentic Evangelical Christian, who may even have a conscience.

...

Huckabee is different, and the Republicans who represent the values of Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard simply can't stand the fact that there is finally an authentic Christian in the presidential running.

Rush Limbaugh, who likes to use "bending over and grabbing its ankles" in tandem with a invocation of the Congress of the United States of America (on a national broadcast that reaches children), attacked Huckabee today hiding behind the commentary of William Gheen to do the hit job. Gheen is the vitriolic president of Americans for Legal Immigration..

Limbaugh quoted Gheen and by extension warned his listeners that with regard to Huckabee, "A major deception is underway here."

"This is one of the attacks on Huckabee, one of the many one of the complaints is that he is disingenuous, and sort of Clintonesque. Will say whatever he has to say to whatever audience he is speaking to."

Of course Limbaugh could say he is simply reporting what is already out there for public consumption, but attacking Huckabee fits a pattern. Just the day before, Limbaugh fielded a caller who liked Huckabee--many do.

...

He then compared Huckabee and his "cult-like" following to the 1996 presidential campaign of Ross Perot. This time, Limbaugh hopes his listeners will heed his warnings: things are not always what they seem.

Rush and his allies are wrong. Huckabee is the man for the Republican Party ticket, and as Iowa draws near, more and more people are realizing this.

-Cydney

Cross-posted on The Celebrity.

Posted by Cydney at December 19, 2007 01:05 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Cydney, I have not yet decided which GOP presidential candidate to support. A major part of my decision will be based on which candidate has the best victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism, including blocking the war drive of the Iranian dictatorship and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

While I agree with and respect Mike Huckabee's position on some issues (such as support for a human life amendment), I am concerned about his foreign policy views, and would appreciate feedback and clarification.

I read his Foreign Affairs (Jan/Feb 2008 issue) article very carefully, and I am concerned about the following statements he makes:

#1 "The main difference between these two enemies [al Qaeda and Iran] is that al Qaeda is a movement that must be destroyed, whereas Iran is a nation that just has to be contained."

#2 "[W]e have not had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years; the U.S. government usually communicates with the Iranian government through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries."

#3 "When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the 'axis of evil,' everything went downhill fast. Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran."

Again, Cydney, I would appreciate any feedback or clarification about these very recent Huckabee statements on foreign policy.

Thank you.

Posted by: Steve Beren on December 20, 2007 11:33 AM
2. Huckabee will turn his cheek at the first terrorist act. And the second and the third, and ad infinitum.

Posted by: swatter on December 21, 2007 02:08 PM
3. What makes you say that, Swatter? Would you care to cite your sources that makes you think that about Huckabee?

Posted by: Cydney on December 21, 2007 02:53 PM
4. Just what we need tax hike Mike, the man that many proclaim to be Willie Jr when it comes to finances in the state of AR.
Yes all we need is another republican that can't contain fiscal matters, even though that is much more worthy then a democrat, but voting the lessor of the two evils is beginning to make me tired of voting.

Posted by: tom on December 26, 2007 07:46 AM
5. I can understand your frustration with voting lesser of two evils, believe me, I've been there.

But calling him Tax Hike Mike isn't very fair. Yes, the tax burden went up 47% in Arkansas during his 10 1/2 years as governor (quite a long time), but the burden increased at a much slower pace than the rest of the country, leaving Arkansas in 44th place for tax burden in the nation, down from 37th when Huckabee became governor. Yes, he raised taxes 21 times, but he also cut taxes 94 times.

At least one of the tax increases was a mandate under the supreme court of Arkansas, and one was already on the table when he took over after the Jim Guy Tucker scadal. There was one increase that he did not agree with and refused to sign it into law--nevertheless, the mostly democrat legislature overruled it, and the tax passed.

You have to remember that Gov. Huckabee was in the minority in Arkansas--his legislature was heavily democrat, and lots of his constituents were as well. A governor alone cannot hike taxes.

Posted by: Cydney on December 26, 2007 08:53 AM
6. Cydney, I wonder if you could respond to my concerns expressed at #1 of this thread regarding Mike Huckabee's foreign policy views.

Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 12:43 PM
7. I'm sorry for not responding sooner, Steve.

I'm not sure exactly what worries you about the comments in the article.

I think Huckabee was trying to distinguish the different ways of dealing with a country versus an organization (i.e., terrorist). Iran itself isn't necessarily a terrorist organization, and we can't treat it as such.

It is possible to have diplomatic relations with country, but nearly impossible to have such relations with a terrorist group.

Mike Huckabee wants to try diplomatic avenues with Iran that maybe we haven't tried, or we haven't bothered to give them a chance. (Granted, they haven't done much to earn the greatest trust.) But diplomacy really ought to be the first resort, and armed conflict the last. Huckabee doesn't think we've tried hard enough--I believe he thinks we've unnecessarily alienated Iran.

I hope that clears some things up for you.

Please feel free to check out Huckabee's Issues section on The War on Terror: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=20

Posted by: Cydney on December 26, 2007 05:06 PM
8. Cydney @ 7:

Thanks for the reply. I believe you have presented Mike Huckabee's position accurately and fairly.

While I admire Mike Huckabee on some issues (for example, his support for a human life amendment), and while I agree with some of what he says on foreign policy, I do have concerns, and I do feel that his foreign policy proposals don't match up to other candidates such as Hunter, Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani.

It is correct to consider the Iranian National Guard - an important component of the Iranian army - to be a terrorist organization. And the government of Iran itself is a pro-terrorist government. President Bush was correct to name this government as part of the "axis of evil," and it is clear that they are an outlaw regime, an enemy of the United States.

My views on Iran are expressed in a recent article, available online at http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/1568-Steve-Beren-Iran-moves-towards-war,-but-McDermott-blames-America.html

The Iranian dictatorship is on a war drive, seeking nuclear weapons, threatening Israel, interfering in Iraq, and brutally oppressing its own people.

I don't doubt that Mike Huckabee is sincere in believing that (as you say) "we haven't bothered to give them a chance" or "we've unnecessarily alienated Iran." But I feel he is very mistaken in this regard.

At any rate, Cydney, thank you for your response and for your efforts and activism. I am sure more will be revealed over the course of the next several weeks, and I am sure you and I will communicate again.

Posted by: Steve Beren on December 26, 2007 05:41 PM
9. I totally understand what you're saying, Steve, and I agree.

I believe that Iran IS a terrorist-sponsoring nation, and it is highly probable that they are up to no good. But I do think it is a good idea to kind of put the feelers out there, in a sense, to assess the situation before taking military action, and we definitely have a schema with which to use caution while doing so.

I really am no foreign policy buff, but I do think a lick of common sense goes a long way, and I like a lot of what I see in Huckabee's foreign policy plan (including immigration).

Posted by: Cydney on December 26, 2007 10:18 PM
10. Steve and Cydney,
Why don't you both ship out to Israel and use some of Israel's money from banks all over the world to stop radical islamic factions,instead of using American money and lives.
I am willing to invest in some well placed laser guided missles,But I am not willing to put boots on the ground.
If you fear radical islamic factions so much go ahead and ship out.
Why should America go broke while Israel collects interest on its holdings.

Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 26, 2007 10:24 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?