I just want to say one more thing before we put this whole Huckabee nonsense to bed.
Looking at my blog stats – and by the way, today was my highest traffic day ever, since I started blogging again in August – I am getting a lot of hits from Google searches on homeschoolers for Huckabee.
What this tells me is that the voters are checking into the Huckster.
This is a good thing.
The search is leading them to the post I wrote referring people to a series of very persuasive and illuminating posts exposing Huckabee’s record, written by a conservative Christian homeschool mom. (No not me.) And the out-clicks are going there.
The word is getting out there that Huckabee is not a conservative.
In the beginning, people took it on faith that because he is conservative in his Christianity, he is also conservative in his politics. Not so.
I think that by the time they vote, people will have found out the truth.
My prediction is that Iowa was an anomaly and Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee.
That is all. I am not posting another word about Huckabee until after the New Hampshire primaries.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I haven’t read your posts on Huckabee, however I fail to see why Huckabee isn’t a conservative just because he doesn’t tow the line on neoconservative foreign policy or the libertarian line on economics? Am I missing something else?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
By the way Peggy Noonan has recently changed her tune and Rod Dreher is seeing Huckabee as a “traditionalist”.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It’s quite simple, N.P. The Huckster breaks rule one of the FisCons.. “Thou shalt not speak of the poor.” and rule two, “Thou shalt not invest in public works such as school and infrastructure.” (also known as “Thou shalt not raise taxes for any reason, no mater how noble or beneficial it may be.”
He still meets the other criteria by being a total sleazebag and a Godidiot. But that’s not good enough for the REAL GOP base, the mega-rich.
Oh, and the fact that he’s a young-earth creationist and a clueless dolt on foreign affairs undoubtedly turns off what few moderate, thinking people may be left in the GOP. Those usually aren’t pluses to people with functioning brain stems.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Thou shalt not speak of the poor”
Hmm…ignore the troll or feed him? If you were anyone else, JD, I would have to ignore you, or say something very unladylike and unchristian, but since it’s you I will attempt to engage in a dialogue.
Government is not the only way to help the poor, JD. While you are out there blogging for progressive candidates, some of us are actually trying to help the poor in person.
I guess I shouldn’t assume that you do not help the poor in person or with your own money, but it is not uncommon for people who care about helping the poor with other people’s money to not do a darn thing for the poor with their own resources.
Take Bernie Sanders. While everyone was saying that he is the one who cares about the poor and “working” class, his charitable contributions, last I knew, were zero, whereas, his evil rich opponent, not only created jobs for this state, but also runs a charity.
Caring about the poor is not limited to using other people’s money.
Speaking of the poor, I couldn’t help but notice that over on GMD, you said you did support helping the poor “victims” of the predatory lenders, who are going to end up losing their homes, because you won’t be getting a point shaved off your mortgage.
How are you any different from some business owner who doesn’t want his taxes to go up because it is not going to help him?
The one thing that bugs me about you is that you are a total hypocrite. At least I support a consistent philosophy, even if sometimes it doesn’t directly benefit me. Your beliefs are just a patchwork of conveniences.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Nate, it’s good to hear from you. I was thinking about you the other day when I heard Huckabee’s speech in Iowa and he quoted GK Chesterson. (I’m not reading anything into that. It was a simple mistake.)
So, what it seems like you are saying is that conservative means simply religious conservative. Am I right?
You do realize that alienates a large swath of other kinds of conservatives. That kind of stinks for them.
So, fiscal conservatives (actually called fiscal liberals, as you know) can just sit this election out, while we choose between two big government candidtes?
So, too bad for people who want a strong national defense, because this election is between two people who have no foreign policy experience?
And, just so you know, I am not a neocon, but with the current situation we are in, we do need a president that has some clue about what he is going to do to get us through it.
Personally, I think Ron Paul probably lines up best with my kind of conservatism, but he shuts out some of the other traditionally Republican groups. That is why I do not support him in the primary.
I think Huckabee is the same way.
I don’t like him because of his big government philosophy. I think he is right to talk about helping people, but forcing benevolence does not make one the more caring person.
Government is not our savior.
Oh, and to answer your question, yeah you are missing something else. He’s also soft on crime.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Almost had me there, Charity.. but then I realized that being against a government bailout for people who made poor choices is nothing like “helping out the poor”. I’m not for the gov’t bailing out people who made poor choices. The reference to my own mortgage was simply to point out the ridiculousness of it.
So why hasn’t the private sector or individuals stopped or at least reduced poverty? Are they going to wait until the Norquist brigade has stopped all public assistance programs (increasingly unlikely) and then take over?