The Rage in Huckabee's Voice

American Thinker ^ | December 22, 2007 | James Lewis

[neverdem]

Foreign policy is about national survival. That's why we need a president who has really thought about rising Islamist nations with nukes.  All the more reason to appreciate the calm and mature thinking of Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. They are adults.

That's why I feel so bothered by Governor Mike Huckabee's slick spin about terrorists and Iran. Huckabee's Foreign Policy article makes a totally imaginary distinction between the two:    With regard to Iran, we just haven't been nice enough to them for the last thirty years. With regard to terrorists, we should "eliminate them." The only trouble with that is, Tehran is the very home base of Islamist terrorism.  Huckabee has just cooked up a mishmash between dovish and hawkish positions. Like the holiday turkey-duck-chicken combination, this one smells like a Hawkodove, but it sure ain't gonna fly.

What's worse is hearing Huckabee's rage when he talks about these things.

'We haven't had diplomatic relationships with Iran in almost thirty years, most of my entire adult life. And a lot of good it's done.'

His voice becomes ragged with anger, as if he's been personally dissed along with the mullahs.  But as President Bush pointed out, the mullahs can pick up the phone any time they like. They can even call collect.  We'll pay for the call. Condi Rice suggested that Huckabee should "look at the facts." Frank Gaffney just called it "cockamamie."

Said Gaffney:

"This (Iran) is a country run by megalomaniacs bent on an apocalyptic outcome, who believe that bringing about a world without America is their god-given obligation. And you know, just talking with them, you know, "can't we all get along," Rodney King style, is not a prescription for a serious foreign policy, I'm afraid."

Jimmy Carter tried (desperately) to talk to the mullahs for ten months while our diplomats were held hostage in 1979. That's why Carter lost the 1980 election to Reagan. Ronald Reagan himself had his Iran-Contra fiasco when he was trying to talk with the mullahs. (Remember the famous chocolate cake?) Other presidents have been eager to find common ground. The idea that we haven't tried to communicate with Tehran is beyond absurd. It is ignorant.

For three decades now, Khomeinist mass rallies have echoed with the chant "Death to America! Death to Israel!" They are still chanting it today.  It's the equivalent of the "Heil Hitler!" chants at the Nuremberg rallies.

Which makes me wonder where Huckabee's anger is coming from  when he talks about Iran.  Just listen to him say it.

Either Huckabee's rage about our Iran policy is real, or it's faked. If it's real, he is so badly wrong that he's just disqualified himself. If his anger is faked, then Mr. Huckabee can't be trusted to talk sense to us about the biggest threats in the world today.

It's just not good enough. Arkansas governors can do fine without a deep understanding of foreign policy. Presidents can't.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

[rmlew]

Don’t confuse prty trimming with personal belief.

[Yossarian]

I generally agree with you, European FRiend, but if I may educate you on one point: Duncan Hunter isn't a protectionist, he merely (and properly) thinks it is dumb to flush your critical manufacturing base to places that don't share the same freedoms, values, and standards, and that even arm your enemies.

There are a great many places where I'm sure Duncan Hunter would love for the US to trade with, including your beautiful Iceland. Icelandinc Vodka for Chevys sounds good to me....

Merry Christmas all!!

Merry Christmas back at you! And you have a great home page, too.

Tell me - are Icelandic women all that they're cracked up to be? I might need to make a ski trip the FR Iceland chapter if so....

(And how is the skiing there, by the way?)

[Berlin_Freeper]

RAGE Boy!!!

Thank you very much! :)

[Kevmo]

Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.

.

.

.

According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

[Freee-dame]

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

I agree more with Thompson than any other candidate. Unfortunately, leadership qualities are of utmost importance. During the above-mentioned hearings, Fred allowed himself to be completely rolled by Sen John Glenn (who sold out his country for another ride in space) and the Dem's lawyer, who may have been Richard Ben Venista IIRC. Thompson was the chairman, but did not have control. It was infuriating how often he was outwitted. Clinton's anti-American-interest behavior re the Chicoms should have been exposed to the world.

I can see Rudy or Romney standing up to offensive and lying dems or heads of state, but not Thompson. We simply do not have one candidate who has all the qualities we want in a President. Hopefully, we do not keep having infighting for so long that a 'rat gets into the White House.

[mc5cents]

Hunter is a social conservative AND conservative on everything else.

I agree but I just wish he could get some traction. As Rush says, it is up to them to make themselves stand out. So far, not much from Hunter, sorry to say. Get that man a good campaign manger!!

[mc5cents]

On the other hand, the Huckster as a nominee would give us a chance to try that third party conservative candidate we've all been wanting to find.

Third party is doomed to failure. The Democrat/socialists/communists are united and will vote in a block--about 43-49% of the vote based on the last few elections. Just read a portion of Whittaker Chambers book "Witness" about the devotion of most communists. They stick together.

[bruinbirdman]

"Do you have a link proving Bolton is the Huck’s policy advisor. I rather doubt that."

It's like the guy said, "Huckabee's lying about that was a mistake. He just thought he could get away with it."

yitbos

[Defiant]

You don't have to tell me, I usually argue against Republicans voting for third party candidates, as it only results in the victory of an even worse Democrat candidate. There is always the struggle with wanting to punish a stupid GOP party versus the rational part of the brain that realizes in a two-party winner take all system, you have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils.

However, if presented with a situation where the GOP nominee has no chance, as we would be if Huckabee somehow got the nomination, then I would consider using this as the opportunity to send the message. There would be no damage from my vote, and maybe it would help reform the party for a better run the next time.

I think Huckabee's chances of getting the nomination are very slim, though, so it is merely a hypothetical. I am a Hunter 1st Fred 2nd no one else third voter. If Hunter can't do it, then I sure hope Fred pulls it out in South Carolina. I would accept and vote for Romney or Giuliani in the general election, but not gladly. They have a shot at winning, so I would not support a third party candidate against them, as it would only ensure the election of Hillary or the Obamanation.

[mc5cents]

Pretty much the way I think Defiant. Thanks.

[SoCalPol]

Thanks, I didn’t think Bolton and Gaffney were tied into the Huckester.

Bolton and Gaffney have to much self respect to get involved with such a dufus like the Huckester.

[txrangerette]

Yes, not only do their views vastly differ from Huck’s, but they have their reputations to consider.

:o)

They would be ruined for life, both going back over the years and looking forward. Sort of like Roger Clemens being accused of using steriods. Only they would be volunteering their own demise, instead of, like Roger, being harmed by another...

[maica]

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

&&&&

And after his committee had identified connections with the Clinton admin, it turned into a big “oh, well” as John Glenn, the ranking member for the dems, talked rings around Fred. It was excruciatingly painful to watch day after day. I have no confidence in his ability to stand up to dems, nevermind foreign enemies.

[pray4liberty]

Huckabee....pffft

I will not vote for this man. He's a fake and he's from Arkansas, he'll only protect Hillary and Bill.

[Sun]

Duncan Hunter has been on interview after interview, and imo, Rush should help Hunter out.

As a congressperson Hunter isn’t that well known, so could use some help from the conservative media. And it wouldn’t hurt if Hunter was a multi millionaire, and could use his own money like some, but he’s not.

We the People aren’t Rush, but we can help Hunter out by calling talk shows, donating to his campaign, and/or calling conservative talks shows.

Here’s one of the things that I did:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1938073/posts

[syriacus]

A pre-9/11 Presidential candidate

Who would have thought that we would see
A choice as weak as Huckabee?
Another Clinton, who when pressed,
Will not defend the brave, free West.
“Fools rush in,” it’s often said.
But wimpy men can make us dead.