As everyone has probably figured out by now, there seems to be a bit of “friendly fire” between Ned Williams and myself over the candidacy of Mike Huckabee for the Presidency. Ned is somewhat of a Huckabee apologist-though I think now that the good Governor is a frontrunner and all of his faults are being exposed, Brother Ned is slowly coming to the realization that Huckabee is not what he initially advertised himself to be.
Today (12/31) over at The World I expounded on the notion that Mike Huckabee is really a pro-life liberal or a so-called “moderate” Republican rather than a conservative, and expanded my thoughts on the American Spectator article exposing Huckabee’s liberal side:
Is Huckabee among those who believe that making a profit is tantamount to greed? I understand that many of my liberal friends subscribe to that erroneous line of thinking, but that is the very problem with Governor Huckabee. John Edwards-a man who made his living from suing people-uses class warfare rhetoric all the time referring to profits as greed. Al Gore referred to those who opposed his economic ideas in 2000 as “the forces of greed.” Hillary wants to “take those oil company profits.” Where does Hillary want to put them, in the federal treasury? If so, we can all rest assured that the price of gas will not go down since the feds will be the ones getting rich off of oil. To these Democrats, economic growth and opportunity equates to personal greed. Apparently, Mike Huckabee shares their view of economics as opposed to the conservative one.
A President Huckabee stands to have plenty of support for his programs-from Democrats. His lead opposition is likely to come from the very party that would have nominated him.
If what Mike Huckabee is trumpeting as his economic beliefs is actually a part of his plan, how is it that he plans to reach out to economic conservatives in the fall? There are three wings of the conservative movement that need to be united in a General Election: Social conservatives, economic conservatives, and law and order conservatives. Right now, Mike Huckabee is showing himself extremely strong with one of those groups (and even then, only one faction of them), and very weak with the other two.
Ned writes charitably of my work:
Before the “vetting” and critical ads and spotlight intensification there was much less to give me pause about Huckabee. And I still am inclined to defend him (and even the primary process, I’d say) from hyperbolic attacks and demagoguery. I don’t think Oatney is guilty of that, really, but his posts here at TNCVA seemed to need some balance.
I’m not interested in demagoguing Huckabee, because I know that there are those within both parties (but especially the other) who believe that because of his religious beliefs he has no place in this campaign-I do not share that view in the least. My problem with Mike Huckabee is that I do not believe his ideas are grounded in conservative reality.
If his performance thus far is any indication, he may be the Republican nominee, but if he is, as I wrote, that presents him with another huge challenge.
The Governor needs to explain if he believes in conservative economics or not-if he does he must explain what his past remarks meant in his mind, and if he does not he should explain to the Party faithful why it is that we should therefore give him the nomination.
If he is nominated and continues to campaign on the ideas that he is presently promoting, Huckabee is likely to be seen as the nominee of the social conservative wing of the party, not of the whole party-and that could equate to his November defeat.
If Ned and others haven’t figured it out by now, I would actually consider myself to be a part of the GOP’s socially conservative wing (the notable difference between Huckabee and myself is that I am opposed to dry laws and gambling restrictions-but that is more a product of my Catholicism and libertarian streak than any zeal for liquor and poker), but I understand that you need all three legs of the conservative movement for the stool to stand up. Mike Huckabee seems determined that he can win by getting all of his votes from one leg and forsaking the other two.
The other issue is that his understanding of the Constitution (and its extreme value in dealing with important questions like abortion) is rudimentary at best and is at worst non-existent. His statement that it is “the logic of the Civil War” to say that States have the right to make decisions about abortion and other matters not mentioned in the Constitution made me wonder if Huckabee had ever read the Tenth Amendment. It is nigh impossible for someone to claim to be conservative without a very strict constructionist understanding of the federal Constitution that values States’ rights very highly. When Huckabee made that statement, I wondered how conservative this “conservative Southern Governor” really is.
For Huckabee to win in November, he has to answer these questions effectively. Thus far he has been unable to do so. If he cannot, then it is best not to nominate him.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Blue Collar Muse (15 comments) // Dec 31, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ahhh … yes!
More evidence that the Right is not the marching in lockstep, getting our talking points and orders from Limbaugh and Hannity, theocracy advocating, environment hating, blabbity-blabbity-blah that the Left would have folks believe.
To the contrary. Here are two intelligent, articulate, well read and knowledgeable men who have differences and yet both of the are on the Right side of the spectrum.
This is what makes our ideology healthier than the alternative.
Glad to have you both here and defending yourselves without profanity, name-calling and ignoring the issue to insult the party with whom you disagree.
Imagine that, adult behavior in the political realm … You only find it one place folks!
Blue
2 Ned Williams (9 comments) // Dec 31, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I agree, BCM–you described me to a T. Ha. But I am proud of how Conservatives (generally speaking) conduct ourselves in debate.
David,
I agree with you 100% in respect to what a GOP candidate must do to win. I probably need to read that Spectator article (you know, I went over there to do so at your suggestion this a.m., got distracted by some other articles and forgot about the Huck article.) but the criticism of Huckabee (from Romney and Thompson, about fiscal issues) is less impressive upon close analysis.
And the rhetorical dimension of Huck’s seeming populist themes shouldn’t be lost on political junkies. I, too, bristle at Dem-sounding rhetoric (by which I mean Liberal ways of framing certain issues) such as criticism of CEO salaries; however, I also realize that our tax policies and “corporate welfare” policies change what would otherwise be private, free-enterprise business concerns into pertinent policy issues.
I am really going back and forth in my mind about who I would vote for if I were in Iowa. The data/info is flying back and forth as the closely-contested caucus approaches. Maybe all this “sifting” could or should have happened long before today, but I doubt it. The Bhutto assassination, for example, provided another opportunity to evaluate these candidates (Huck didn’t do too well on that count, frankly). An increase in negative campaigning, in my humble opinion, helps to clarify candidates’ positions and values. Dang this makes my head hurt.
3 oatney (5 comments) // Jan 1, 2008 at 2:17 am
Ned;
Remember, rhetoric is a reflection of belief-or at least it should be. If it isn’t for Huckabee, that would make him not quite genuine.
That isn’t unusual for a politician…but Huckabee is also supposed to be a minister of the Gospel, remember?
4 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 1, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I agree, integrity demands that ones rhetoric match ones beliefs, but interpreting rhetoric isn’t a precise science, AND I don’t see how the rhetoric in question is patently contradictory to anything Conservative, much less, anything Christian.
Can you spell out how you think it does? I’ve addressed how I think it doesn’t above.
5 David Oatney (6 comments) // Jan 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Ned;
It is very simple-if you believe in conservative economics you do not refer to one of the groups that is among the leading expounders of those philosophies as the “Club for Greed,” and you do not refer economic libertarians as “greedy.” Rather than say “I disagree with the Club for Growth on this or that particular issue” Huckabee has, in Democratic fashion, called economic conservatives greedy. I have no trouble buying in to the notion that he believes this, because if he didn’t he would not use that kind of rhetoric, and if he didn’t believe that he would not have pursued many of the anti-business and pro-tax policies that he DID pursue as Governor of Arkansas.
You seem to be of the opinion that his rhetoric does not mean what it appears to mean. I think it is clear that it means exactly what it appears to mean and that this anti-conservative economic message is precisely what Huckabee intends to convey.
I am a realist. I know this man may be our party’s nominee. I think we have to be honest with and say that he is a social conservative, and that is all that he is. He is a man of character, but is simply not very schooled in conservative thought.
I think you are trying to grasp at straws to support Huck and rationalize some of his ridiculous statements. You don’t need to do that-his economic ideas aren’t conservative, we ought not pretend them to be to give ourselves some reason to support him if he is the nominee.
If Huckabee is the nominee, the only reason I need to vote for him is that he is a Republican with a brain who is not Clinton or Obama.
6 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 2, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Good points, and–upon reflection, I think that comment is troubling. And like McCain’s notorious “agents of intolerance” comment, it is indicative of what his core values are.
That being said, I definitely think that the CfG singled out (at the time third-tier) Huckabee for exceptional criticism. And, along those lines, I think his conduct as Governor of Arkansas–when viewed in context, is not onerous.
But I can’t deny that I admire his (perceived) consistency, his (perceived) forthrightness and his ability to communicate. The question for me is whether I should consider all of the negatives about him in the most generous light.
The couple of things which concern me the most about Huckabee are,
Believe it or not, his alleged siding with Liberals in the struggle within the SBC is a significant issue for me.
His seeming pragmatism in rolling-over for or compromising with Democrats in Arkansas in regard to any and every taxing/spending issue.
The potential–as evidenced by his SCHIP debate comment (seeming to say he would not have vetoed the Dems’ bill), to act the same way if he were to get into the White House concerns me.
Nevertheless, I have similar concerns, on a variety of issues, with all the other legitimate candidates, so I’m stuck. Now maybe this dog (me) should start chasing the car that is Fred Thompson’s candidacy . . .
7 Blue (33 comments) // Jan 2, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Ned -
If the CfG criticizes anyone, it tends to be exceptional. They have a specific focus and they are just as lavish in their praise of Dems that do well as they are in their criticism of GOPers who don’t.
Or so it seems to me.
Blue
8 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 2, 2008 at 6:03 pm
No doubt, BCM, and they’re to be commended for their willingness to pick fights in primaries–I’m not sure singling one candidate out of 12 to eviscerate is as legit as picking one to support.
Here and here are the reasons their criticism of Huckabee seems suspect (exceptional, extraordinary) to me. This is a pretty moderate group of candidates, folks; not just on “social” issues or 2nd Amendment issues. Mayor of NYC? Governor of Massachusetts? Erstwhile critic of Bush tax cuts? Ideological buddy of erstwhile critic of Bush tax cuts?
All that being said, I’m working on a “big announcement” . . . I think.
9 David Oatney (6 comments) // Jan 2, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Club for Growth’s criticism of Huckabee isn’t exceptional for the very reason Blue said-they single out people who tend to be the darlings of conservatives in an election year and put them under the microscope. I think we can fairly say that this year, the “darling” of many conservatives in the early going has been Mike Huckabee.
Knowing that, he should have expected CfG attention. His inability to answer that attention effectively really exposes is glaring flaws for all to see.
As for chasing the Thompson campaign, you probably should have been on board a long time ago with the rest of us!
10 Ned Williams (9 comments) // Jan 2, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Come on, CfG had that white paper in the bank before_Huckabee_even_announced. An unknown governor of a small, southern state; former preacher; hardly a “darling,” especially at that juncture when he was in the single digits.
I think it’s pretty established that the CfG has traditionally targeted darlings OF THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT who were, typically, incumbents.
And I think–given his polling numbers, that Huckabee has been able to deflect the criticism, frankly . . . whether or not he should have been able to deflect it. The CfG has often/always done good work . . . in this situation I think they’ve gone too far in acting as if Huckabee–in such a crowded field, is so bad as to be single out.
I’ll readily concede that–as someone sympathetic to Huckabee’s campaign, I have an interest in discrediting their whitepaper on Huckabee (and decision to expend hundreds of thousands in negative ads in Iowa). At the same time, I think staunch supporters of other candidates need to acknowledge that they have an interest in defending CfG’s actions.
Incidentally, my wife just alerted me to Huckabee’s appearance on the Tonight Show and he just–amidst some populist blather, made a great joke about Clinton–”It wouldn’t have worked to have said ‘I believe in a place called Hot Springs.’”
11 David Oatney (6 comments) // Jan 3, 2008 at 1:54 am
Ned;
Huckabee wasn’t unknown to the GOP’s evangelical wing, many of whom seemed predisposed to ignore his awful record as Governor of Arkansas (which isn’t exactly considered a backwater anymore) and support him because of his background, even trying to justify his words and actions when there was no justification for them. Because he replaced Jim Guy Tucker after Whitewater, few GOP insiders (those who vet potential candidates) were unaware of who he was. He became a known national commodity within GOP circles in very short order because of how he landed in office-indeed, that is what got him to the present point.
The Club for Growth knew all this, because they are insiders too, and they felt the need to issue a white paper. Even if you question their motives (I personally do not), it is hard to question what is in the white paper-the document is damaging not because of when it was released, but because the things that it says are essentially true.
If Huckabee is the nominee, he must assuage conservative fears that he will govern America the way he governed Arkansas-he can’t do that, or he will lose conservative support. Rather than make excuses for Huckabee, why not get him to answer these criticisms effectively (which he has never done), rather than do as the Party Opposite does and call his critics greedy?
He doesn’t want to answer his conservative critics because it will expose his economic ideas as quite un-conservative, and you can rest assured that in a heated Primary season, he wants to avoid real questions of his record like the plague.
12 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 3, 2008 at 11:49 am
Fair enough. I know that I and most other evangelicals were aware of him, but we only knew a little about him at the beginning.
And I disagree that the GOP establishment is–on the whole, as fiscally conservative as CfG–indeed, that is part of CfG’s mission, so if they were trying to nip his candidacy in the bud, that is a motive in and of itself. I am as Conservative as the CfG and sympathize with their mission, but the political machinations are disturbing because they aren’t transparent, and I just think it is silly to put forth that he is/was less fiscally conservative than each of the other (especially “top-tier”) candidates to warrant that attention at the start . . . we’re talking about such small margins of difference between these particular candidates on this issue, that all the CfG’s “judgment calls” that had to go against Huckabee to warrant their treatment are suspicious, that’s all.
But regarding the merits of their criticism, Huckabee has given his defense, so I don’t think the “ducking” charge is legit. His answers may not be satisfactory (to an Economic Conservative standard) but I don’t think he has ducked stuff. And the credibility of the CfG’s reports are rather relevant when they are the starting point for the argument.
Reducing or resisting spending (and/or governing efficiently) in the incredibly fiscally Liberal NYC or MA looks different than the same challenge in a Southern Democratic-controlled state. “Tax burden” is a relative term, thus “raising taxes” needs to almost by necessity be judged relatively. Again, Huckabee might still fail in this analysis (even in my mind), but I think/thought that CfG’s criticism (and that of supporters of other GOP candidates) is often simplistic and unreasonable.
13 oatney (5 comments) // Jan 3, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Ned;
He most certainly has “ducked,” because he refuses to explain how it is in his mind that these policies are conservative. Instead, he’s just accusing his opposition of “greed.”
You write:
But regarding the merits of their criticism, Huckabee has given his defense, so I don’t think the “ducking” charge is legit. His answers may not be satisfactory (to an Economic Conservative standard) but I don’t think he has ducked stuff. And the credibility of the CfG’s reports are rather relevant when they are the starting point for the argument.
The CfG’s papers are not the starting point for the argument against Huckabee. Have they energized the debate? Sure, but the starting point is Huckabee’s own record. His gaffes over the last several days are liable to come back to haunt him tonight, and I read a very good Politico piece today interviewing some evangelicals in Iowa who are really beginning to doubt the man’s abilities.
I have no doubt that Huckabee (as one of the people in the Politico article said) is a good moral man. It doesn’t mean that he is fit to be President. I think some evangelicals want badly to ignore Huckabee’s sour points the way that some “Catholics” tried to ignore the problems with the Kennedys.
14 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 3, 2008 at 1:26 pm
All that being said, we can probably just agree to disagree. I understand your position, and I’m not sure there’s anything else that needs to be said about my position. Wouldn’t be nice (at least we can tell ourselves that) if Ronaldus Magnus was in the race?
15 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 3, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Dang, I was content to let it rest–I should’ve hit refresh before I posted my “agree to disagree” comment. But I guess it is the personal (or even the psycho analysis) angle of your comment. Either I (as an Evangelical who purports to be an economic conservative) am naive or disingenuous or a theocrat or possessed of some other motive because I am not flatly rejecting Huckabee.
I can’t speak for other Evangelicals, but I’m not trying to ignore anything . . . just weighing all the variables. And believe me, I’ve considered a lot of variables. Does the fact that Huckabee is an Evangelical (by which I mean the theological, not political, category) appeal to me? Sure, but not to the exclusion of other things. Ron Paul is professing Evangelical, too, and I’m not considering supporting him.
Huckabee’s position (it appears) has been that certain spending was mandated/required/necessary and he had to work with a Democrat legislature to make it happen. Which is credible if you acknowledge that some gov’t spending (and therefore taxation) is necessary (and schools and roads are two pretty fundamental obligations of state gov’t, wouldn’t you agree?).
And I’ve just viewed the “Greed” line as more of a turn of phrase a rhetorical thing–an appeal (”red meat”) to the “disaffected middle class,” than anything else. EVERY candidate does that (throws out rhetorical red meat), and I’m–frankly. more comfortable with someone using such rhetoric in reference to (a) a SINGLE organization, (b) which appears to have a personal agenda, (c) concerning the less black- and-white sphere of economic policy than in something like whether or not the Constitution says what it says or whether or not an unborn human is a “person.” I also factor in that he hasn’t waffled on the policy position. I have more trouble trusting a candidate who changes his rhetoric AND substantive position than with someone who tweaks with rhetoric.
And I understand that rhetoric can be revealing about a candidate’s values, but the funny thing about rhetoric is how easy it is to change it or morph it or tailor it to a situation.
I guess a helpful exercise is to consider what Romney or Giuliani or Thompson would have done as governor of a state with bottom of the barrel ratings in schools and roads and a >relatively< light tax burden. (It’s also fair to consider what Huckabee would have done in their positions as well.) I personally don’t care about a lot of those ratings–people are free to move to NC if they think it is so swell and want a state income tax, but I’m not sure that any of the present folks would have governed Arkansas any differently than Huckabee on_this_issue.
“Conservative” is on a continuum. And it is to Huckabee’s credit (even if I disagree with the substance of his position) that he appears to be standing by his past decisions and not trying to act as if he has repented. I’ve commended Giuliani for the same thing frankly and I think it is the type of quality that attracts support . . . and what has made a significant portion of Evangelicals comfortable enough with Giuliani: (perceived) candor coupled with an assurance of what you’ll do on a given issue.
16 oatney (5 comments) // Jan 4, 2008 at 7:21 am
I will give Huckabee great credit for standing by his decisions when they are wrong-I don’t think he believes them to be wrong, but he has been quite man enough to speak for himself.
I don’t think you are a theocrat at all, Ned-least of all me, since I am a social conservative, too. I do think that many evangelicals-perhaps not you, but others, certainly-are ignoring the serious questions about Huckabee. I’ve talked to a lot of good folks who have told me flatly that their reason for supporting Huckabee is that Huckabee is a good Christian man-I don’t doubt that in the least, but it does not mean you are fit for the White House, even if you are fit for the Kingdom of God.
All that said, I don’t think we can doubt that Huckabee’s operation did a wonderful job in Iowa, and they deserve both credit and congratulations for their performance there.
17 Blue Collar Muse (15 comments) // Jan 4, 2008 at 7:28 am
Given the comments on this post regarding the Club for Growth I thought to include this link here when I read this post this morning.
The CfG: Slouching Towards Irrelevance
18 nedwilliams (16 comments) // Jan 5, 2008 at 11:33 am
Interesting perspective, BCM–thanks for the link> And the article is indicative of the challenge in discerning motives and interpreting actions of a given organization over time as needs and membership (not to mention the political landscape) changes.
Leave a Comment