Mike Huckabee and the “Shiite Republicans” Updated
posted at 12:00 pm on January 10, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Yesterday in Allah’s post about the Baptist who’s not endorsing Huckabee, I updated with a link to this article that summarizes conservative issues with Mike Huckabee’s tenure as Arkansas governor. The author, David J. Sanders, lists several specific things that Huckabee did that irritated the state’s Republicans, to the point that the Democrats increased their power during Huckabee’s tenure.
In 2000, Huckabee insisted on controlling the state party’s separate Victory Committee, but the committee’s finances were so poorly handled that a Federal Election Commission investigation resulted in the largest fine ever handed down by the FEC to a state party. That same year Republican Rep. Jay Dickey lost the 4th District seat he’d held for eight years.
In 2001, when conservative Republican lawmakers opposed a higher sales taxes and fees the governor supported, he began calling them “Shiites.” Huckabee’s positions on fiscal policy became indistinguishable from Democrats’ positions. A year later, he openly campaigned against a ballot initiative to remove the sales tax on food and medicine. While he and Rockefeller won re-election in 2002, Sen. Tim Hutchinson didn’t.
In 2003, Huckabee not only begged lawmakers for new taxes to make up a budget shortfall, but he rebuffed conservatives’ (Republicans and a couple of Democrats) plan to cover the shortfall by tapping one-time money and cutting pork. In 2004, President Bush won re-election, but Huckabee campaigned for some Democrats – even some who had Republican opponents – and Republicans lost state legislative seats for the first time since 1990.
In 2005, a term-limited Huckabee frustrated conservatives when he pushed a bill to give in-state college tuition and scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. The next year, Democrats swept Republicans in every race for statewide constitutional office and Republicans lost legislative seats for the second consecutive election cycle.
Curious about the lack of specifics in the paragraph about Huckabee campaigning with some Democrats, I followed up with Sanders to get some names. And he provided one and is hunting for more.
As for a race in which Huckabee worked to defeat a Republican, there was a legislative race in Mountain Home, Arkansas, where Huckabee helped Democrat Benny Magness in his race against Republican Shawn Womack. Womack won.
Campaigning for the other party is bad enough, but it’s the “Shiite Republicans” moniker that disturbs me more. He started using it in 2001 and continued using it afterward. It’s the kind of attack that conservatives regularly get from the likes of the Daily Kos and other leftists who gleefully refer to conservatives and particularly Christian conservatives as the “Taliban wing” of the GOP or “America’s Taliban.” It’s a smear, and one that no Republican should lob at others and particularly not at conservatives, who are the base of the party.
I wondered if there was evidence outside Sanders’ article for Huckabee’s smear. There is. Here’s an article from December mentioning it.
There’s a species of Republican true believers right here in Arkansas who’ve always suspected his bona fides as an honest-to-goodness fiscal conservative and social reactionary. They’re largely to be found up in the hills, which tend to be Republican territory in any Southern state because of complicated historical, ethnic, economic and geological reasons having to do with soil, slavery and the plantation system. Back when he was a feisty, hefty pol instead of a walking –– no, running –– advertisement for weight loss, Brother Huckabee used to fondly refer to such critics as Shi’ite Republicans.
That author is joining Huckabee’s smear to pile on fiscal conservatives like the Club for Growth, whom Huckabee calls the “Club for Greed.”
Does Huckabee ever talk about any Democrat group or faction with similar insults? If he has, I haven’t heard it.
These smears get to the root of the problem I have with Huckabee. Instinctively, he is not a conservative. He’ll say conservative things in order to win approval from some part of the party’s base, but when push comes to shove he instinctively goes for the non-conservative side of the argument. I’m not just talking about calling Republicans “Shiites,” a quote that’s sure to get played over and over again if he’s the nominee, or about his raising taxes rather than cutting spending as the Arkansas “Shiite Republicans” wanted him to do, but about his swift shifts on issues like Gitmo and using the leftish “bunker mentality” slam on the Bush administration. It’s tiresome enough to get hit with this kind of rhetoric from the left. Conservatives don’t need one on our own side who is just as likely as they are to smear us.
Some may lob the exact same criticism at Romney, that he says conservative things just to court the conservative vote. There may be some truth to that, but has Romney gone out of his way to smear conservatives as “Shiites?” He didn’t run in 1994 on a platform of Reagan-Bush conservatism, granted, but I haven’t seen any evidence that Romney or any of the other candidates save McCain has gone out of his way to smear conservatives. And instinctively, Romney seems to tack more toward conservative ideas than away from them when he has the latitude. The opposite is the case with respect to Huckabee. The pattern I’m getting from him is that on social issues he’ll tack right, but on everything else he’ll tack left.
Add it all up. Huckabee campaigned with Democrats and hurt the Arkansas GOP, which hurt conservatism in that state. He smeared Arkansas Republicans as “Shiite Republicans.” He raised taxes rather than cut spending when confronted with that choice. He pushed a bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. He would close Gitmo and move the terrorists there to US soil, which is the same position that the ACLU promotes. He’s an Obama supporter’s choice to make trouble for other GOP candidates in the Michigan primary.
The guy may be nice and he may be a good, humorous speaker, but as far as I can tell he’s no conservative.
Update: David Sanders emails with more Democrats that Huckabee assisted.
In 2002, Rep. Bobby Glover, D, over Rep. Randy Minton, R, in a state senate race.
In 2000, He campaigned for Barbara Horn, D, in a Dem. primary against Dennis Young, D, and Spencer Plumlee, R, dropped out because Huck didn’t support him.
Huckabee says he wants to change the Republican party. Running with Democrats isn’t the way to do that.
Update: Dan Riehl looks at the possible roots of “Shiite Republican” slurs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I think we picked up some lefty trolls in the latest open registration.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 3:58 PM
He didn’t use his faith as a major campaign tool either, and I don’t recall that many ethical questions while he was governor. See, I have no problem with the faith part. I have a major problem with the sanctimonious passive aggressiveness and hypocrisy, as in his innocent question to the press about whether Mormons believe Jesus and satan are brothers. He was whipping up some religious bias, but doing it in a sly, sneaky fashion. Huck has used his faith as justification for too many actions in the past to think he would suddenly stop as CiC, and IMO, he taints it with his slyness. I think he’ll use any excuse to avoid military action, and we’ve already seen the one he prefers.
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM
As a christian, I agree completely. Wise Golden should too.
shick on January 10, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Ya think?
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I support Huckabee and I am not a lefty at all.
I am probably more right wing than any one here.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 4:02 PM
We’ve got to get this ‘Shiite Republican’ line to Brit Hume for the debate tonight!!! Let’s see what sort of mealy mouthed answer and what kind of damage that’d do to Mr. Hucklier than thou.
pistolero on January 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Or is it Chris Wallace? No matter, they need to both see it.
pistolero on January 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
uhuh.
If you don’t recognize the Huck’s own leftward bent you’re farther left than you know.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM
In response to a capella:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Slander 101.
As I haven’t been able to find any information for or against those charges, even on Wikipedia (which is quick to have any and all information that belittles a conservative), I’m ignoring them. Let’s look at the top five: Huckabee, who would expand government at the expense of the rich (have you heard anything so blatantly red as his “FOR THE POOR” speeches since 1917?); Thompson, who decided impeaching Clinton for perjury and obstruction of judgment wasn’t a good idea, and who may have kicked the chair out from under Nixon’s presidency; Romney, whose record is extremely questionable and whose stances on social issues have changed since he started running for office; Paul, who’s embroiled in an anti-Semitic controversy and is arguing for surrender; McCain, who has appraised John F. Kerry as a great man (there goes the Vet’s votes), was half of McCain-Feingold, and also spearheaded the shamnesty fight (from the other side; apparently, “Maverick” means “Doesn’t act like a Republican ever” – and by the way, once someone is consistently on the other side, doesn’t he cease being a Maverick? Isn’t he just a liberal?); and Giuliani, whose abysmal gun-stealing, pro-choice positions did reduce crime in New York City, but struck a strong blow to 2nd amendment rights.
And that’s all off the top of my head. So, given Keyes’ stances on the issues (which, though you didn’t mention it, have not changed), your strongest argument against Keyes is he moved and used campaign finances for personal use (neither of which do I have no record of, nor could I find in a quick Google search)?
I note that his stances and commitment to conservatism was never called into question, and I add that Alan Keyes was able to do some serious damage to Obama when they squared off in Illinois despite having a very late campaign.
P.S.
I have to disagree with you, especially on this last point – you can debate about McCain and Mitt’s Judeo-Christian values, but Obama and Clinton have neither. Presumably, the Judeo-Christianity thing means a respect for life – a position that Clinton doesn’t have, and one Obama really doesn’t.
Also, the reason Huckabee supporters have a bad name is this: Christian conservatives realize that there is something wrong in America, and that we need someone to fix it. They hear Huckabee’s job description (Baptist preacher) and immediately their ears prick up and they think, “he must be on my side!”
Well, I’m sorry. But he isn’t. It’s well documented. He’s on their side, and the only thing that’s keeping him from getting the boot is the MSM, who all think he’s a Mark Twain character (”You’ve been accused of likening immigrants to slaves. Would you travel with them down the river, as you did with your friend Jim?”).
As an evangelical Christian (or religious right member, however it’s phrased), I know a bunch of homeschool mothers who are supporting him because they believe he’s on our side. But he isn’t, and I’m not trying to be offensive or rude – he is a charlatan, who is playing with the emotions of genuine, sincere folks who want to believe in his faith and his optimism. He isn’t someone who stands for us; he is someone who will be our undoing.
emailnuevo on January 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Republican Christ Haters? Give me a break.
I’d wager that most non-religious conervatives are still far more culturally conservative than the Dems. The party of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will never placate social conservatives. Their strategy, as you can see from folks like Jim Wallis, is to argue that “social justice” issues should supplant cultural issues in terms of importance to Christians. So essentially you can only join them by rearranging your priorities according to their ideology.
Almost to a man conservatives favor orginalist judges who won’t
phronesis on January 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Wise Golden (and other Evangelical Conservatives/Republicans here), I truly, truly, TRULY feel compelled to ask you a question:
1) Do you think it’s important for the Republican and/or Conservative “tent” to at least large enough to accomodate conservatives of other religious faiths, and expand the conservative movement to greater numbers of people?
2) Do you feel like radio host Mark Levin has begun to obtain at least enough influence to be comparable to his mentors Limbaugh and Hannity?
I’m going somewhere with this. Really, I am. But I’d really like to see answers to those two questions before I go on to make the point I’d like to make. So, can I ask the rest of you to be kind enough to chime in?
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Totally with ya on this!
Brit needs to ask him “Governor, have you ever referred to fellow Republicans as ‘Shiite Republican’? If so, what precisely did you mean by that slur?
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM
He’s not a religous leader. He’s a Govenor. Get it right.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Sorry about the end of that post. What I meant to say is that almost to a man conservatives favor orginalist judges who won’t force their liberal values down the socons throats. That holds true even of those who place a higher priority on fiscon and national security issues.
phronesis on January 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Let’s just remember what happened the last tiime we elected an self-avowed evangelical: Jimmuh Carter. I am all for value in the White House, but Huckabee is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
NoFanofLibs on January 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Actually, I’m laughing my balls off. Is that vulgar? I hope not. I usually think of vulgar as calling someone something like “a donkey-raping sphincter spelunker.” But that’s just me.
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I gotta tell you — I thought the same thing was true concerning his reponse on Mormanism. I learned differently after Huckabee made the mistaken response. That was at one time a part of the Mormon faith, but it’s old.
Fact is though, Huckabee didn’t bring up religion then either — it was a question asked of him.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM
This is the most disturbing and yet revealing statement, to me, you have made yet.
Christianity is not a mere option a person can pick. It is critical. Those that have not been saved by Grace through faith in the Son of God will be cast into the lake of fire.
This is a fundamental principal of Christianity and a commandment you should not take likely. If you do accept it yourself or don’t think it is important to tell others you should question your own faith.
shick on January 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
He’s a Govenor! Not a Minister.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Wise Golden-
I suppose you don’t even realize how much you sound like a liberal. Whining about people who “hate” when they actually are just detailing the obvious.
I’ve met Mike Huckabee, and he was my governor. I like the guy, but he has no business in the oval office. Mike is NOT capable of managing military and international affairs. In regards to those issues he is preciously naive.
Just as important, he is not a conservative in any sense fiscally. Like any proto-socialist acolyte Huckabee believes that “enlightened government” can legislate solutions by wrapping the governments tentacles around the private lives of citizens.
The MOST BASIC TENANT of Conservatism is less government. Huck believes under his consecrated guidance government intrusion will improve OUR lives. The end result is a huckabee administration will be indiscernible in practice from a democratic administration.
Alamo on January 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Exactly.
phronesis on January 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Yes, I do think so. But you only want to talk with people who are exactly like you in every sense. You’re intolerant of thought. You live in a cave.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Coulda fooled me. Are you trying to say he’s NOT a Baptist Pastor anymore? It’s not like being a Catholic Priest, is it? Once a Protestant Pastor, always one, appears to be the way it is…whether one is a full-time (or even part-time) pastor, or not.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
Yeah, he’s a former Arkansas governor. He’s also a Baptist Pastor and he’s made a very big deal of using that as his selling point to Evangelicals.
Even if he IS really JUST a governor: We just had SOOOOOO much success with the last governor from Arkansa we elected. Not to mention the Governor’s wife.
Still haven’t driven to my intended point from before yet. Want to see if people answer my 2 questions first. Otherwise, no point in elaborating.
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.
shick on January 10, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Wow, I need to apologize to csdeven. At least he never threatened to take down the whole party.
It is more like 80% of the Republican Senators who voted against it and more congressmen if they had had the chance.
Your faith one man is disappointing.
Bill C on January 10, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Well-said!
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Man, that’s just mean… errr… vulgar. To Michael Medved.
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Accusing someone of intolerance and then suggesting their a cave-person in back-to-back sentences. Hysterical! Errr… I mean vulgar!
Seriously, Allah? Bryan? It’s been fun, but it’s time to play “flush the troll.”
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Oh, and Huckabee is full of Shiite
NoFanofLibs on January 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Tolerance does not require that I call something conservative that is not in fact conservative. You’re playing a very leftist game when you imply that in order to be open minded I must allow your re-definition of the word ‘conservative’ to stand.
Friend, that’s not tolerance – it’s just muddled thinking.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Winning the war oon terror is my #1 issue.
I think America is becoming a weak,secular and morally bankrupt country.
How will we like this defeat global jihad?
The answer is we won’t.
History provides our solution. The way we defeated the islamic invasion last time was… Europe experienced a major revival and the church launched the Holy Crusades.
The Holy Crusades were the only thing that prevented an islamic conquest of Europe! What we need more than anything is a major Revival in America. Mike Huckabee is the man for the job.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Of course :-). This thread is suffering horribly from an excess … dare I say a “vulgar excess” of seriousness somewhere. With someone. I’m trying to raise the spirits here. Maybe it’s my caveman side.
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM
1) Yes — most definately. It’s us that’s being kicked out of the tent though. I stated earlier that America was founded on the basis of religious freedom which includes the right to not believe.
2) I have never listened to that radio show.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Man, I’ve been trying to inject some levity into this thread, but I can’t compete with this.
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I hope that was a joke.
phronesis on January 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Ann Coulter showed in one of her books that Christians don’t vote as a block, they vote in the same proportion as the general population. The only real voting block are black Americans, who vote 90% Democrat.
Witteman on January 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Last time was GWB43, not Jimmy Carter.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Sheesh, someone hasn’t been paying attention! Could you describe Mike Huckabee for me please? Because I think you have him confused with someone else.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Wrong. Some are called to be evangelical. Others simply are not. I am in the former.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Go back to DU. Conservatives largely view the issue of religion in politics as informing moral issues like abortion, but otherwise informing only the founders’ intention that we be free to observe our own faiths.
Wallis is one of the leftard Christians who are unable to leave anyone alone to observe their faith, and utterly unable to keep their religious beliefs apart from public policy. This contradiction is overwhelmed by liberals who would declare that killing unborn children is the right of a woman, but that having free health insurance is a God-given right for all Americans.
Jaibones on January 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Holy Shit! One of Huck’s supporters just finally came out and said it!
They are supporting him FOR PRESIDENT because they want him to lead a REVIVAL!
Its gonna take a hell of a big tent…….
Alamo on January 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
You’ll get a lot further with this type of an argument than you will by attacking faith. Too bad you used the poor judgement of insulting prior to making the point.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I haven’t confused him with any one else I’ve watched all of his speeches and actually know what he thinks and stands for. Many of his detracters haven’t and are simply reciting what the establishment media(who support Mccain and amnesty and opposed Reagan)spout.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Yeah, time for me to find another thread. This stuff is starting to scare me.
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
You’ll get a lot further with this type of an argument than you will by attacking faith. Too bad you used the poor judgement of insulting prior to making the point.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Are you suggesting you won’t listen to a substantive argument because it contained an insult? Hmmm. And only moments ago you were accusing me of being an unthinking cave person.
Need to get both your feet on one side of the fence before you try to take a stand.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:29 PM
That’s it in a nutshell.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
If you actually study history you will find things happen over and over again unless you learn from mistakes and correct them
a capella on January 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Why is it scary…because the liberals who took over the education system 40 years ago keep insisting that the Crusades were a horrible atrocity and was an example of Christian aggression against the poor innocent peace loving muslims?
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Touche. I now ask that you accept my apology for calling you a cave man.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Harald, yer fergettin’ one leeeeetle detail: To carry out a crusade, you need ENTIRE POPULACES behind you. The libs ain’t buyin’ into the whole Crusade-Jihad thing and still think the jihadis hate our guts because of W and his policies. They still think that if we just become a kinder, gentler, nicer USA run by a buncha socialists (if not outright communists) will make the jihadis love us.
Electing Huck will NOT make the libs follow along and support a US Military action being publicly branded an actual Christian crusade.
DING!
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Sadly, I’ve often commented to friends that if it weren’t for the abortion issue, a large portion of evangelicals would not be republicans. This just illustrates it.
I’ve also hoped & prayed that it would be the coalition of dems that broke up before the coalition of republicans, but that may not be the case, unfortunately, at this terribly important time in our history.
It shows extremely bad/ short-sighted thinking on the part of evangelicals who are supporting huckabee too. A– he won’t win, b– they’ll break the only coalition that they had a voice in & c– they will further drive a portion of Americans away from Christianity, hurting ALL of their own causes they claim to care about.
If this plays out like I think it may, in 10 years, the evangelical political movement will be a non-existent, but the other two legs of the conservative stool (security/ fiscal, plus the portion of evangelicals who aren’t sheep) might have a shot at building a coalition amongst those independents who have naturally belonged in the “small govt” conservative coaltion (and those who recognize the islamofascist threat), but were turned off by the vocal & holier-than-thou nature of some of the soc con wing.
Sometimes you can’t save people from themselves. Too bad my kids are going to suffer due to others’ idiocy.
Security Mom on January 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Apologies to Mr. Medved.
Frozen Tex on January 10, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Forget what the media conspiracy is tagging him with. Just see what Huck himself has said.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Harald-
You apparently don’t know what he thinks. I’ve set down at a table and talked to the man. He possesses less knowledge on foriegn affairs and military matters than just about any candidate since JEC. We cannot afford that degree of fecklessnes in th Whitehouse.
Wise Golden, I am sorry your are so easily offended, but governor Huckabee believes exactly what I stated- careful Christain oversite will finally make socialism efficacious. It is a stupid proposition.
It is the same principle followed by your standard liberal nanny stater. They believe thier inherent superiority grants them dominion over the personal lives of citizens. Huckabee believes he must meddle in our lives because God would want him to. Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same.
Alamo on January 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Well said, but compromise is two way.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I don’t believe for a moment that you have sat down and talked with him.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Accepted without any animosity!
Now, back to the subject:
It is not objectionable that Huck is running under the GOP tent. However, it is eminently arguable that he is an “authentic conservative” (as he claims).
That’s what this whole thread is about. Many of us – I dare say the majority of the commenters here – recognize that more than a few of Huck’s positions align more closely with the Democrat’s than with the GOP’s. We’re just not going to let him get away with saying they don’t!
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Huckabee is not a socialist whatsoever, he is a supply sider like us. He says small businesses are the backbone of U.S. economy provide 80% of jobs and have way too much gov’t regulation. He is the only candidate out there who talks about the American dream in almost every speech.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I’m 200 some odd comments behind this, and I’m sure this has been mentioned, but why aren’t the attack ads on Huck’s Shiite remarks all over the airwaves in SC right this very second? Don’t any of you Fredheads have some kind of inside track to Fred to get him this info? I cannot believe that as connected and savvy that Jeri is that she doesn’t already have her eye on it.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Two words. Parallel universe!
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:50 PM
The socialist liberals not only don’t talk about the American dream they actually think it is a bad thing and people should be punished with extreme taxes once they achieve it.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 4:50 PM
The Fred Heads are aware. What they’re going to do with it, I have no idea. But they are aware.
Bryan on January 10, 2008 at 4:52 PM
To quote Allah, “Dude”.
500M in net tax hikes in Arkansas.
Class warfare rhetoric about Mitt being “the guy who lays you off” while he’s “the guy you work with.”
The attacks on the “club for greed.” and the “Wall Street republicans”.
phronesis on January 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Believe it or not, yours is the kind of question I quit asking myself a few weeks ago. Evidence says, not so connected – not so savvy.
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Hope springs eternal!
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Socialist liberals talk about “the American Dream” all the time! They just mean something entirely screwed-backwards when they say it. (as usual.)
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Well Wise Golden, I doubt that I will be able to “prove” to you that I have, but I will tell you the circumstances. I was an invitee to a fundraiser because of a close association with one of the governor’s state board appointees. The governor had written and published a brilliant response to the Clinton justice department when they requested that state governments should give S&W special consideration on state contracts because that company had aquiesced to some administration demands on national gun control legislation. As an NRA “guy”, I was very appreciative, and fortunate to have an opportunity to thank the Governor. Because I was sitting with a friend who was a successful Republican politician in AR, and as stated earlier, a current appointee, Huckabee sat down and spoke for about twenty minutes. Yeah, I’ve talked to him. He’s a good guy, and on some fronts solidly conservative- Just not the most important ones.
Alamo on January 10, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Somehow I sensed this was coming . . .
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Who cares if he called some phony republicans shi’ite republicans in 2001 and says wall street republicans derogatorily?
He probably had good reason to and it also shows that he knew what shi’ite means far before most republicans.
I am what most would call a wall street republican (investment banker in Los Angeles) and I am convinced Huckabee is a sound fiscal conservative. He signed no tax raise pledge and wants to enact the fair tax which would be a great thing for the U.S. economy.
Many wall street republicans are not conservatives at all and are very much so social liberals.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Exactly – he talks a good game, but his actions are exactly the opposite. I care far less about what he says rather than what he’s done. He’s belittled fiscal conservatives with slurs (hardly the act of a Man of God). Unfortunately, his supporters are hypnotized by the Jesus-fish and floating cross.
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Jalbones, what is this DU of which you speak?
Wise Golden, I appreciate your reply below of:
On Q#2, all I can say is “Too bad”. I enjoy listening to him as much as I enjoy Limbaugh, Hannity, and my local personal fave, Chris Plante. Levin is both staunchly conservative AND Jewish. His perspective is not that of the Evangelicals but his growing popularity and influence as a talk show host, and his expertise in constitutional law and experience working with the Reagan campaigns, and the Reagan administration, makes his perspective interesting to listen to. And I brought him up because, like me (and probably for similar reasons), Levin doesn’t seem particularly supportive of Huck. And I understand why.
On Q#1, your answer actually reveals something to me: Are you saying you Evangelicals feel like YOU’RE the ones being pushed out of the Republican party, by non-Evangelical yet still conservative-values Conservatives??? Wow.
I say “Wow” because this is how the Evangelicals who are so strongly pushing for Christian values…not just “Judaeo-Christian values”, but CHRISTIAN values…as being the MOST important part of the conservative platform…make ME feel, like deeply conservative JEWISH republicans like myself are left totally, TOTALLY out in the cold. And makes ME feel like deeply conservative Jewish republicans of my ilk simply have increasingly less room in the Republican Party
(and we conservative republicans are clearly STILL a definite minority within the Jewish-American population, which is also something that that makes no sense to me, since many of the libs are obviously a bunch of blame-America-first, jihadi-lovin’ apologists).
I’m not AGAINST Christian values. I applaud them. My own religion is the wellspring from which they came. But when they are given TOP priority and even GREATER importance over other well-established conservative values, it makes me EXTREMELY nervous.
I’m with some of the other folks who’ve chimed in here today. I’m all for non-religious conservative values such as:
-protecting national security and maintaining a strong military, law enforcement, and intelligence infrastructure to protect our country,
-balancing government budgets and shrinking the size of government to the extent feasible (increasingly harder as the need for greater national security increases, unfortunately),
-reducing taxes and crafting tax policy to facilitate growth in the private sector as opposed to taxing it to death
-letting people keep more of the money they earn instead of trying to “redistribute wealth” and have government play some Robin Hood by stealing from the socioeconomic strata that actually has the resources to grow the economy and giving it to other people the Government deems more worthy of your own hard-earned money than you
As for the religious values, I’m far, FAR more comfortable with previous presidential elections where a deeply religious Christian takes office but has never been nor claimed to be a pastor, yet still makes issues such as abortion important ones to fight for.
In other words, I support Christian values being an important PART of the Republican platform. I don’t agree with their being the MOST important part of the platform, to the point where if you don’t get everything you Evangelicals care about, you’re ready to walk away and implode the Republican party. It doesn’t strike me a logical way to win politically against the libs. Who DEFINITELY won’t support many of the values Evangelicals hold dear. It’s not a strategy for long-term success in getting the policies and results you want. All it does is guarantee the LIBS WIN.
Which I don’t think ANY of us here at HA want.
My basic point is this: The campaign that Huckabee is waging, and the nature of the comments I see here from his supporters, truly makes me, as a deeply committed conservative Jewish Republican, feel just as much like there’s increasingly less place for people like me in today’s republican party, as you suggest Evangelicals feel.
Now how do we get past this breach in the party?
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Harald,
Go read some. Christian or religious socialism is one of the most prevalent movements in the world.
Huck declares class differences, talks about “fairness”, and the difference between the guy working on the line, and the guy who fires people. All of these play into the socialist meme. It is directly counter to free market philosophy. Federal government intervention has never and will never improve business economics, or the individuals standard of living. Its hogwash and an assault on personal liberty. He should know better.
Alamo on January 10, 2008 at 5:05 PM
OK. Willard Romney talks a good game too.
Huckabee cut taxes 94 times and left a 850M surplus which he tried to give back to the citzens(not talk).
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Thanks for accepting. And you bring me back to my point of saying that “true conservatives” might just differ on a few points. Some of us certainly were in favor of the “amnesty bill” as you would call it. In fact it was originally proposed by the American College of Catholic Bishops, and it was thier intention for an Amnesty. The bill might well allow for that, but I’m not trying to take us of coarse — I’m just saying that plenty (don’t know the percentage) of conservatives, including the President, McCain and the majority of our Republican elected congressmen supported the bill. They thought it was conservative and you don’t. Who right?
I don’t see that Huckabee has been the man bringing up religion constantly. Others have and he’s responding (same with me.)
I like his ideas on energy security — I think that is very important. I like his idea of a flat tax, but I agree that it’s almost impossible to make it happen. But it causes me to believe that he would take steps to reduce taxes. He talks very much about small business and family — why is that not conservative?
To continually bring up his status as a Minister is like calling Romney a Billionaire. One, it’s flattering if you have the right idea about either title, but two, it places a simplistic stereotype upon a complicated person.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 5:08 PM
This is just what we need, a Nelson Rockefeller with a guitar and a Bible.
dean_acheson on January 10, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Somehow I sensed this was coming . . .
The Ritz on January 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Sorry Ritz. Even though you know its probably futile, its hard not to defend yourself when called a liar. I have to say I still prefer to engage in my political discussions in a bar when stating such calls for honorable fisticuffs. Of course in a bar, participants are much more circumspect about calling a man’s word into question- for obvious reasons.
Alamo on January 10, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Christians believe in the Bible and are the number one allies of the jewish people and always will be.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 5:11 PM
He was referring Republicans in his state legislature that were fighting him on his tax increases. This is phony?
Last I checked, Wall Street wasn’t in Los Angeles. That is unless you mean this one, which is the type of neighborhood that might respond well to the sort of anti-capitalist populist garbage that Schmuckabee spews.
As straw-men go that’s pretty weak. You must be a troll.
ErikTheRed on January 10, 2008 at 5:14 PM
EriktheRed: How dare you insult your cousin by calling me a troll. My mom’s family traces their side to Leif Eriksson while my Dad’s goes back to Harald.
FYI L.A. is a close second as far as major U.S. financial centers go.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Harald, I do believe that when Evangelical people say this, in general, they mean it.
Unfortunately, history…not just of my people in general, but me personally…makes it pretty hard to TRUST it.
I myself at the tender age of just 7 years old was pushed to the ground walking home from elementary school one day, leaped on, and held with my back to the ground to have fists rain down on my face by an older, much larger boy I didn’t even know. When I regained enough of my senses after the shock of realizing I was gettin’ the stuffin’ knocked outta me and put my hands up to block a bit, and yell at him the question “What are you beating me up for?”
His answer?
“You’re JEWISH, aren’t ya?”
I said “Yeah, SO?”
He says “My dad told me the Jews killed JESUS!”
I think that was the first time in my life I felt abject shock and astonishment. If he hadn’t been whoopin’ on me, I’m sure my mouth woulda dropped wide open, since I’d never heard that before.
I told him “Look, I wasn’t there. I didn’t kill him!”
At which point he stopped, and let me up, enough to pick up my schoolbag, go home, and ask my dad about it when he got home from work.
This incident, and incidents like being made to feel extremely targeted when I expressed some discomfort in elementary school about singing Christmas carols along with the other kids…let’s just say they haven’t been builders of trust.
Would I join arms with Evangelicals in the fight against Muslim Jihad? Absolutely.
Am I convinced Evangelical (and other) Christians would be as supportive of us, if Islam and Jihad did not exist? It’s hard to trust that notion.
Harald, I do believe you when you voice your support for the individual-level and ethnic-group level troubles of my people throughout history (some of which even I MYSELF believe have been self-made!!!).
I believe it…but it’s hard to 100% TRUST it.
Not sure if you fellow conservative gentiles out there understand…or not.
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 5:27 PM
If Fred hoists Huck on this petard, I will add him to my top 3 choices. AND I’ll send him that $2300.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 5:28 PM
So in LA you see what is happening to the housing market. Now add 30% to the price tag of all new homes via the fair tax when several homebuilders and mortgage companies are already near bankrupcy.
Then say hello to the next great depression.
phronesis on January 10, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Huckabee, with a record of supporting Democrats over Republicans in 2004?
Well, I agree. Should he get the Nomination I also, to show my support; will prefer a Democrat over a Republican.
That’s fair, right? I mean, supporting Democrats over Republicans for a political position, and in fact campaigning for said Democrat. If its good enough for Huckabee, why wouldn’t it be good enough for me?
gekkobear on January 10, 2008 at 5:31 PM
The 23% tax is only on the new construction items not the land value…plus home builders will not have to pay the dealer tax rate like they do now. In case you didn’t know home builders do not pay the 15% capital gains rate.. they pay the unfair ordinary income rate now. It will not collapse the home building business at all in fact it will be a positive for them.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM
In L.A. a tiny 1,100 square foot house costs $650,000… you must remember $600,000 of that is the land value alone.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 5:38 PM
It would be a short-term positive, Harald. By providing a strong disincentive to build and sell new homes to 1st time homebuyers, it would help decrease the existing homes inventories that are currently weighing the real estate markets down cross-country.
But what about when those inventories, eventually, finally all get bought up? Translates to me as INTENSE upward home price pressure, once demand finally outstrips supply.
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Yes, I’m saying that our guy is not getting a fair shake at the moment and that people are pigeon holing him into his status as a Minister and using that as reason to simply disqualify him. Furthermore, I’ve not seen a bunch of Huckabee supporters saying that they would not vote, or would vote Democrat if their guy doesn’t get the nod. I’ll vote for McCain or Romney or Rudy if Huckabee doesn’t get it. Non-Huckabee supporters are saying the opposite though. They have even run sarcastic polls on HA to prove that Republicans will not support Huckabee in the end.
As for Christian Values vrs Jewish Values – well, they are the same things. Most of our value statements come from the Tora (the Old Testament,) and some come from the New Testament, but those involve our perspective on salvation and I’ve got to push back because Huckabee is not really talking about any of this.
Heck, all of the other conservative values stem from Judeo-Christian principles if you want to get technical, including FISCON – that stuff is found first in the Old Testament before anywhere else. All of the points that you mention are Judeo-Christian principles. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s implies that you should not give more. That means 10% in Gods’ words, but I’m forced to give nearly 40%.
How do we get past the breach in the party? It’s simple – you HAVE to be willing to say that you will support Huckabee if he gets the nomination. I’ve already said that I would support the others if they get the nomination. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to vote for him in the primary. You can even work to get someone else the nomination, but you don’t get the option of saying that I wont vote for Huckabee against a Democrat. Not if you want to keep us around for some future election.
And at the end of the day, I think a lot of people are really missing the point that Huckabee will draw more Democrat votes than any of the guys running against him.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Bush has shown that’s exactly the way to change the GOP- if you want it devoid of conservatism.
Valiant on January 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM
We really did need some Huckabee supporters in here.
We will educate them eventually. It’s kinda interesting to watch them try to hide their religious preferences for Huck by claiming he is a true conservative.
We all know that 80% of Huck’s Iowa votes were from evangelicals. Many of whom claimed Huck’s religion as the reason why they voted for him. This is the ignorant evangelical that we need to educate or purge. Having said that, most evangelicals split between the other candidates.
So, if an evangelical like wise golden can make a rational reason to vote for Huck, then I say let him make it. But he should make it without defending the ignorant evangelicals that voted for Huck because he is the Jesus candidate.
Also, to all you Huck supporters, don’t claim Huck isn’t running as the Jesus candidate. He is, and he does it on purpose. That fact alone makes him unfit to serve this country.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Ignorant evangelicals. You really know how to sweet talk don’t you? Ignorant. Hmmm.
Well I know that I speak for nobody when I say that we are thrilled by the prospect of learning from your great wisdom. By the way–I’m not evangelical. I’ve already said that. I suspect that you don’t know what the word means because you keep mis-using it.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 5:58 PM
I apologize to those who have already seen this, but this would be my response to Huckaclasswarfare when he uses his dem talking points….
Franklin Pierce Adams
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 5:58 PM
So, there are no ignorant evangelicals?
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Also, to all you Huck supporters, don’t claim Huck isn’t running as the Jesus candidate. He is, and he does it on purpose. That fact alone makes him unfit to serve this country.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I liked Huckabee since the beginning of the race (before he was the Jesus candidate)and thought he won almost every debate but still supported Giuliani because I bought the MSM garbage about Rudy being the most electable(apparently wearing a dress and marching in the gay pride march with the man boy love association=electable to MSM)
(BTW I still like Rudy’s plan for a new NATO to fight islamic terrorism though)
Now that Huck is both the Jesus candidate and is hated fiercely by the establishment republicans/liberals I completely support him!
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Wise Golden, I HAVE seen at least one Evangelical supporting Huck tell me that if Rudy got it, he simply wouldn’t vote. Or if there was an Evangelical 3rd party candidate, he’d vote for him.
Who was this person? My own boss!
You say “How do we get past the breach in the party? It’s simple – you HAVE to be willing to say that you will support Huckabee if he gets the nomination”.
Except I’ve already said that I really don’t like the way he’s campaigning. I’m not a supporter of Mitt, but the underhanded way he’s using his Baptist faith very overtly to both destroy Mitt and to collect as many Christian faithful as possible to vote for him – - claiming he’s the REAL Christian candidate – - it smacks of underhandedness and deceit to me, and way beneath what true Christian values really ought to be about.
At which point it goes beyond my support of my party, and BECOMES a matter of it meaning that supporting my party would equate to supporting a man who, at least at this juncture, to me gives the appearances of being dishonest and possibly even DANGEROUS.
Which forces me into making a decision based upon the kind of man I think he is MORE than simply voting my party.
You also say that “Huckabee will draw more Democrat votes than any of the guys running against him.”
I’m not seeing a uprising of democrats, even conservative ones, clamoring to make sure Huck gets nominated. All the ones I know are so busy swooning over Obama they’re not even taking notice of Huck.
Thus far, my bottom line is: With everything he’s done, the bookstore-cross (can’t tell me that wasn’t deliberate and fully intended), the claim he’s he only real christian candidate, the level of effort he’s taken to destroy Mitt for his own Mormon religion…the bottom line is Huck scares the S**T outta me. Bringing myself to vote for the man, unless he does some things to calm those fears…FAST…is not a precipice I’m prepared to leap over.
At this rate, I don’t see how we can keep the party together.
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Placing the two words together leads one to believe that you feel that being evangelical is an act of ignoranance. I think that what you mean to say is that some people who voted for Huckabee, who were also evangelical, were ignorant of certain facts. But that’s not what you said, nor how you said it.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I think you may be right. I think our Party is disolving fast. I would not be quick to blame Huckabee though, nor the Christians. We have not changed. Something is changing around us. Maybe it’s the ruler of the world that is causing it. Do you know who that is?
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Try reading what I wrote.
You are coming off as overly touchy. There are ignorant evangelicals and no one should be afraid of calling them them such.
csdeven on January 10, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I believe that Huckabee is the best chance at winning the white house. Let me break it down simply.
Huck: Best speaker..most likeable…most honest…the change candidate.
Complete opposite of Hildebeast.
The MSM will bombard the country with anti-Christian rhetoric and continuously refer to Christians as simple minded idiots.
This will infuriate all Christians and Christian sympathizers!
150 million Christian republicans democrats and independents will vote for Huckabee and he will win in a landslide victory!
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »