Mike Huckabee is a conservative, period, end of discussion, over and out. He may not toe the line on every issue that Rush Limbaugh would like him to, in quite the way Rush would, but puhleeeze, Rush…you can’t be serious. But it’s interesting how conservatives can be just as guilty sometimes of working off “talking points” as they like to portray liberals as being. Joe Carter makes some nice points on how if Huck is a liberal, financially, Flip Flopney is a flaming one, and Rudy is off the charts.

Conservatives are Sheeple Too

5 responses »

  1. Jack Brooks says:

    Why do you believe that Rush is wrong in his opinion?

  2. Byron says:

    Jack,

    I’m going to answer by placing a link here to a great piece I just read by Joe Carter, over at Evangelical Outpost, who worked for the campaign for 30 days:

    http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004158.html

    Joe has an insider’s view, and he doesn’t question that Huck is a conservative. Particularly, his words about the “soundbite age” in which we live resonates with me on this subject. Oh, and be sure to read his semi-scathing words on the silly “cross in the background” non-story.

    I think that Rush is, for whatever reason, choosing selective evidence. Among the candidates (with any chance), who is clearly more conservative than Mike Huckabee? Not McCain, not Flip Flopney, certainly not Rudy. You could make an argument for Fred Thompson, I suppose, he who was a sponsor of McCain/Feingold. Maybe he’s to the right of Huck, maybe he isn’t, but I don’t know, I’m just not convinced of his conservative cred, particularly in light of McCain/Feingold, and I’m not interested in throwing my weight behind a somnambulent candidate. And I don’t see Fred Thompson as having any chance to beat the Dems, as lackluster a campaign as he’s running.

    Huck is a social conservative. Huck wants to end the IRS. Huck has come out with a strong plan for the border/immigration issues. He wasn’t perfect on taxes, but neither was Flip, and McCain refused to take the “no new taxes” pledge that Huck has. I feel pretty certain he’ll nominate only constructionists to the Supreme Court (maybe it’s just that I trust him—some might say “undeservedly”—but I feel more strongly about him in this regard than any other candidate out there, and that is a massive conservative issue, one that never makes headlines but is always on the short list of important issues in every campaign).

    The whole “pardons” thing strikes me as much ado about nothing, particularly since it’s backed up with the kind of “reasoning” that people who want to lie with statistics tend to use. He admits that foreign affairs aren’t his strongest suit, and he says, and I believe him, that he’ll put people into the right spots who can help him with that (McCain for VEEP!).

    I listened to Rush a little today, and then flipped to Mike Gallagher, and they both were working off the same talking point: “Mike Huckabee is no conservative.” Rush took off on a caller’s comment about Ronald Reagan, put words in the guy’s mouth, and commenced a monologue. Gallagher nearly broke his back jumping to an unwarranted conclusion about something Huck said on Jay Leno last night. Neither guy impressed me with his reasoning, let’s just put it that way.

  3. Jack Brooks says:

    I read the article, and he doesn’t supply any actual refutations of anything.

  4. Jack Brooks says:

    Let me follow up with these comments, though:

    1. I’ve removed the “I won’t vote for Huck” post at my blog, because I’ve decided that was premature on my part.

    2. I’ve also realized how much the GOP establishment (e.e., Club For Growth) is throwing out clouds of dust and fog about Huckabee, reflecting their own purist ideologies. Raising the state sales tax 1 penny in ten years doesn’t make you a wild-eyed spender; neither does raising taxes through voter referendum to improve the state’s park systems (when a state’s park systems do a lot to bring in tourist dollars, as we know here in Kentucky. We get all the Ohio people because our parks are really nice, and theirs are lousy).

    3. If saying goofy things occasionally meant you shouldn’t vote for somebody, none of us would have voted for Reagan. Trees cause pollution?

    4. The record of gubernatorial commutations only matter on a case-by-case basis. If it was mostly Huckabee clearing somebody’s record of some old traffic violation, or a marijuana possession charge from 1978, or because there wasn’t a single space left in the state’s prison system so the system had to be purged of “X” number of prisoners, then none of that bothers me, and it’s another example of how statistics can mislead you.

    I want to know Huckabee’s actual record, not what other people who have a favored dog in this fight claim his actual record was.

  5. Byron says:

    And that’s fair. There’s no politician on earth who gets it right all the time, and Huck is no exception. I just don’t see a candidate I trust as much as I trust him, who is also electable. To call him “not a conservative” is just a stretch; to say that, perhaps, he goes off the “conservative plantation” from time to time isn’t, but I go off the conservative plantation from time to time. So what? I’m still a conservative, and believe that sometimes, “conservatives” aren’t really “conservative”, and that’s sometimes why I go off said plantation!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s