Fair Tax is the BOMB DIGITY!!!!

He hasn’t “bashed” any Mormons

Golly, don’t Mormons worship Satan?

Oops, sorry ’bout that. Don’t know nuthin’ ’bout them Mormons (even though I gave a speech at a Southern Baptist convention in Salt Lake in 1998 specifically targeted at Mormons.)

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 10:13 AM

That’s a great point. I think I actually agree with you here.

Buy Danish on December 21, 2007 at 10:40 AM

If his history and positions were like Thompson’s he wouldn’t need to hide behind his Christianity, because vertually everyone to the right of Rudy would be backing him, instead of having every conservative in the country who pays attention coming out against him.

Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Nessuno on December 21, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Well said!

We need to get past the faith issue and move directly into the liberal on wheels that Mike Huckabee the politician really is and why he really is a threat to the Conservative movement.

Most of the disagreement with Huckabee, especially on the Republican side, has been substantive and related to issues including immigration, pardons, the war, etc.

But the idea that this guy hasn’t been attacked because of his faith just doesn’t hold up. The “fascist” thing is an obvious example. So is the Hitchens piece (“an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is.”). So is the Rolling Stone piece (“full-blown nuts, a Christian goofball of the highest order.”).

Typing “Huckabee Taliban” into Google yields 448,000 results. I agree he’s overplaying it, but there’s some fire under all that smoke.

I dare say we’d be calling him the new Reagan, totally regardless of his faith.

I think you have a point there, AP. My problem with Huck isn’t his faith, it’s the fact that he’s a screamin’ Tax-n-spend, capital-L Lib. Makes me wonder if he’s a Republican simply because the Dems wouldn’t tolerate an Evangelical pastor running for high offices like Governor and President.

Plus he’s a total hypocrate. He gets all up in arms whenever someone critisizes him as an attack on his faith, and then turns around and bashes Mormonism. I’m neither a Baptist nor a Mormon (I’m Catholic), but the “feud” is totally one-sided. Mitt’s definitely taken the high road on that one.

Hey what’s wrong with the Fair Tax?

digitalintrigue

Well that’s easy enough. For this to work, you have to get Congress on board, and repeal the 16th amendment.

Somehow, from a Republican who ran Arkansas after Clinton, decided Clinton hadn’t raised taxes enough, and oversaw a tax raise higher than Clinton’s; I’m not sure I trust his tax savvy.

And the much more likely outcome is to add the “national sales tax” onto the current situation, instead of replacing everything with the FairTax setup. Congress will let more taxes through, but won’t give up any of the existing ones. Which is exactly how Huckabee ran taxation in Arkansas. Add new taxes, never get rid of old ones.

Now, you might believe that his history, over a decade in Arkansas as Governor is no indication of how he’d lead as President. Maybe his record is misleading, and he’d never do as President what he did as Governor.

If you take some of the comments above, Huck’s record (even from 2006) is out of question, and only his recent comments and his claims on his website should ever be mentioned. His actual actions should be ignored, because they don’t match his recent words and “current plan”.

Why would I focus on recent words and ignore past actions as a gauge for what his future actions will be?

Actually, bj1126, why do you believe Huckabee’s current position when it’s the exact opposite of how he lead, and what he did as Governor? has he had a complete reawakening and change of heart on all fiscal issues?

And how can we be sure he won’t have a re-re-awakening and go back as soon as he’s elected? Why would we trust someone who’d “reawakening” to fiscal conservatism seems directly tied to his realizing that this would help his poll numbers?

MB4 on December 21, 2007 at 11:43 AM

They’ve stolen all the curtains
Obscenities they’re spurtin
Conservatives they’re hurtin
The Huck’bee Family.

Jose can work their gardens
They’re always granting pardons
and welfare gives them *&%7ons
The Huck’Bee Family

(They like God)
(Spoil the Rod)
(And they’ll kill us with the nod)

So worry ’bout your backses
They’re gonna raise your taxes
so nobody relaxes…
The Huck’Bee Family

I dare say we’d be calling him the new Reagan, totally regardless of his faith.

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Yes, I think you’re right. I’d venture to guess that we’d even tolerate him occasionally using his faith as a bludgeon if he were a good conservative leader in every other way.

Fred Thompson with Huckabee’s charm, delivery style, and friendly demeanor would be unstoppable.

Their back yard is a dead dog museum
Where people come to see ‘em
They really will a scream
The Huckabee Family

(They’re not Neat)
(They’re not Sweet)
(And they’re sure not Petite!!!)

So get a gift givers shawl on
A collection plate you can bring contributions on
We’re gonna pay a call on
The Huckabee Family

I’m not saying you can’t attack his policies but attack his current ones.

That’s a fair response, but it glosses over the fact that we can and must evaluate the sincerity of the new positions. Mitt takes heat on the sincerity of his flips, and Hucks are even more problematic for a number of reasons.

First, they are more recent. Huck’s debates were ripe with pro-illegal “help”, but after all the debates are done he adopts the Krikorian/NR plan whole cloth. And as Mark Levin has pointed out, he has taken two positions on funding illegal immigrant education in a single day. At least Mitt has the benefit of having flipped 2 years ago rather than 2 weeks ago.

Second, it is the manner in which is makes his policy changes. All indications are that Huck adopted the Fair Tax after a single conversation. He decided to close Gitmo after a conversation with a group of former generals who have spoken with all the candidates. And Frank Gaffney, who evidently is a source of the man’s foreign policy, managed to be influential after only one conversation.

Someone who is comfortable and proud of their faith is not beating you over the head with it or using it as a wedge issue.

Mike Huckabee: “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican party. They wanted us to be a part of it, and then one day, one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh! Now they’re serious.’”

That is Huck using religion as both a shield from policy criticism and a wedge diving the party based on religious identity.

This would make for a solid topic of comment discussion. Does anyone else here think that if Huck’s policies were in line with, say, Fred Thompson’s that he’d be getting bashed on right-wing blogs? Or would it be more a case of “Thank god someone’s emerged who’s not only a true conservative but can communicate our values expertly”? I dare say we’d be calling him the new Reagan, totally regardless of his faith.

As for my own supposed anti-religious antipathy towards Huck, here’s a post from June — way before we started looking at his record — where I said I liked him instinctively and was perfectly willing to consider him for VP notwithstanding his creationist beliefs.

Allahpundit on December 21, 2007 at 10:13 AM

To answer this I’ll probably answer a lot of other comments as well. The problem is not that his policies aren’t in line with Thompson’s, they are on most issues, it’s that you’re attacking his past positions not his current ones. Instead when his policy changes to be more inline with what you want, you discredit it with ridiculous things like him calling ICE, INS. A lot of people still do that.

I’m not saying you can’t attack his policies but attack his current ones. Otherwise all people do is head to his website to read about what he says and it is not only opposite of what you are saying they really like what they see. You distorted his positions so much and worked everyone up over them so badly that there are literally people who regularly read this board saying they will vote for Hillary over Huckabee. On what planet do you think that is helpful?

As far as Reagan goes, I read in a column the other day that he couldn’t get the nomination in the current GOP. I agreed with the assessment but not with the reasons. Reagan wasn’t half as tough on border enforcement as we would like. In fact the case could be solidly made that the problems we have today on that issue stem from him.

Lastly the reason I say I see people getting upset over his faith is because so much is being made over so little. He puts out one ad with the words “Christian Leader” on it and people lose their minds. Fact of the matter is that is his history. He was a big shot in the Southern Baptists and a pastor and leader of a church. Then you get the craziness about his Christmas ad with talk of a floating cross subliminally hidden in the background. I can pretty much guarantee you that during the production meetings there was never a conversation that started with, “Hey you know if we light this right we can make it look like a cross floating in the background!” Someone who is comfortable and proud of their faith is not beating you over the head with it or using it as a wedge issue.

Does anyone else here think that if Huck’s policies were in line with, say, Fred Thompson’s that he’d be getting bashed on right-wing blogs?

If he hid behind his religion as a shield to protect him from criticism? Yes.

All I see here is people getting really upset because someone genuinely committed to their faith is running and winning.

bj1126 on December 21, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Comments like these confuse me to no end.

When “all you see” are criticisms of faith, you are blinded by your own biases or sensitivities. Everything feeding the antipathy toward Huckabee is his liberalness on taxes, immigration, crime, foreign policy, terrorism, etc etc etc. Those are ISSUES.

When you knee-jerk and say “[t]he more these posts pop up the more I’m leaning towards him,” you are the one who is making it clear that his Christianity is more important than all other issues combined. And it is this reaction that is splintering the party.

You insinuating that you can’t criticize even the man’s policies if they are inspired by his faith. How then can we conservatives engage in a dialog with Huck and his supporters if they adopt this position? We can’t. And then when we criticize this reaction to criticism, or Huckabee’s cultivation of this mentality, the objections get even louder.

The man and his politics (n.b. not his faith) are driving a very dangerous wedge between conservatives at the worst possible time.

Either you like this jerk or you don’t, and I don’t, and my belief in Christ as my Lord and Savior has nothing to do with it either way. He is a false prophet, and an unethical politician, and the second coming…of Bill Clinton.

All I see here is people getting really upset because someone genuinely committed to their faith is running and winning.

This would make for a solid topic of comment discussion. Does anyone else here think that if Huck’s policies were in line with, say, Fred Thompson’s that he’d be getting bashed on right-wing blogs? Or would it be more a case of “Thank god someone’s emerged who’s not only a true conservative but can communicate our values expertly”? I dare say we’d be calling him the new Reagan, totally regardless of his faith.

As for my own supposed anti-religious antipathy towards Huck, here’s a post from June — way before we started looking at his record — where I said I liked him instinctively and was perfectly willing to consider him for VP notwithstanding his creationist beliefs.

LtE126 on December 21, 2007 at 9:54 AM

(LtE, I say we make a break for it over the holidays. The Indiana border is unprotected near Lowell; I know some people there…)

Also, anyone looking for another excellent article taking on Huckabee, see Kimberley Strassel’s piece in the WSJ today (via realclearpolitics).

Noonan’s column was great as well, but I can’t say I object to her use of “Christianism”. When Sullivan uses it, he labels anyone who uses Christianity as basis of morality, philosophy, or policy as a “Christianist”, which is absurd and hateful.

On the other hand, if you move in the other direction, of policy towards spreading Christianity or using the levers of government to promote Christianity exclusively or if you believe Christianity is the sole legitimate source of authority in politics, then you might be a Christianist. And Huckster might….

He has been accused by some in the conservative press of tearing the party apart, but it was being torn apart before he got on the scene. His rise is not a cause of collapse but an expression of it.

Yes at this point, I’m pretty much for anyone but Huck. In a perfect world it will be Fred, but, that just may not be in the cards.

As for the video, unfortunately, none of the Youtube links are loading for me this morning. Must be a router thing.

Bryan on December 21, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I understand that, and it’s a pretty good short-term political strategy, but I agree with Noonan’s column – the longer-term repercussions to the GOP coalition are troubling.

Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Huckabee has successfully spun his opposition on policy as opposition on faith. He probably actually sees his opposition as being opposed to his faith, not his history and policy stances. And some of the attacks on him have been attacks on his faith, not his policy history. Some of that has even left me angry, and I don’t support him but I am a Baptist like him so I naturally want to defend him from attacks that are aimed at his faith. I’ve been trying to warn people to hit him on policy and mention his faith as little as possible, but he’s not leaving that possibility open and no one is listening to me. So that’s why I think some folks see the attacks on him as unfair and thus gravitate toward him.

That’s brilliant.

“God’s own endorsement” XD.