Huckabee, the False Conservative

RealClearPolitics ^ | November 26, 2007 | robert novak

[Ol' Sparky]

Huckabee obviously does have significant support among social conservatives in Iowa and could win there.

That is completely the fault of the GOP for not presenting an acceptable candidate that can unify the party and the fault of Fred Thompson for not embracing social conservatives.

[Ol' Sparky]

I hope that when Chuck Norris realizes he’s been had

He and other social conservatives know exactly what they are doing -- supporting a candidate that is the strongest on the issues they care most about.

It's not much different than those believing national security is the most important issue are doing in supporting Giuliani.

It isn't surprising given the lack of compelling conservative candidate that can unify the base and pull the party together.

[matthew fuller]

"Add to that the simple truth the best people for the job have no interest in the suffering the slanderous nastiness they would endure in the process of seeking the job. "

I agree with that completely- If I believe that if any candidate is obsessed with winning an office, that's scary. That's one reason I like Fred. As far as finances as a limitation, that might be right- I was originally thinking that a good candidate with good ideas could find a rich supporter, but there might be legal restraints on that. It may be that many supporters are needed because of campaign finance laws. But the system as is sucks, MSM has control of all pre-primary candidates. Also, the public cannot make an informed choice based on corrupt media. It should be remembered, not everyone has access to cable TV, or even computer ISP's without long distance charges.

[2ndDivisionVet]

dano1:

If you think that the other GOP candidates are not going to drop fact bombs on Mike “Open Borders for Jesus” Huckabee’s head like post #24 above, think again!!

[LowCountryJoe]

That really is just about the only economic policy that Huckabee is correct about — he is an economic populist in every other aspect. But, he is correct about what he had said [they generally pay into social security and will draw none; they provide domestic producers with profits that either would not exist or cause the producers to employ their efforts differently and with less net benefit to society; and their future generations add to the prosperity of the country through productivity and for demographic reasons]. Whether or not you and others choose to believe this or not is another matter.

[LowCountryJoe]

It isn't surprising given the lack of compelling conservative candidate that can unify the base and pull the party together.

The problem with the base is, is who gets to define it or pigeon-hole it. There are two very different factions [SoCons Only and FisCons Only] and then there are others that fall into the middle somewhere. The FisCons (I profess to be one) think that their views are the only ones which are truly limited government in nature.

The only reason why I develop unity with the SoCons Only is because I am personally sympathetic to their values [only I do not wish to legislate them] and because without them, our faction -- the fiscally conservative faction or libertarian leaning faction -- does not have the numbers for victorty without the SoCons. It is a marriage that I enter into begrudgingly and one where I'm compelled to hold my nose more often than I would otherwise care to. It is for this reason that our field of candidates have to do campaigning gymnastics to appease the existing factions. The one who can do it best and most convincingly gets the nod. It is sad, but that's the process until some major political realignment happens that brings each faction to the point where we each get what we truly want. But such a day will have its consequences because any departure from the alignment as it is currently composed will mean that the Democrats will also have realigned. If the day comes, one group or the other will be changing party identity and will have to take a whole new set of baggage into the new marriage: for better or for worse!

[Lexinom]

Hunter is for tax breaks for American manufacturers and for making President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Given his views on the border, on the WOT, on trade, his military experience, his strong pro-life convictions - all in all, this is a "gnat" type of excuse not to support him, and if anything mirror-image trade is something Americans should be supporting, not opposing.

[AmericanInTokyo]

We are poles apart.

[LowCountryJoe]

Let me ask two questions. The first one is: other than Huckabee’s foray into the immigration matter, do you otherwise support his economic policies? The second is: is legal immigration also harmful to our economy and American prosperity?