Huckabee slams CPAC: It was too libertarian for me this year

posted at 12:29 pm on February 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m resisting the idea that he said this purely out of personal pique but I can’t come up with a good alternative strategic explanation. What political benefit is there, in this year of all years, to knock CPAC for being “more libertarian” and “less Republican”? Libertarianism has never had more cachet within the GOP than it has right now; it’s not perfectly synonymous with the tea-party movement (of which Huckabee is predictably complimentary) but it’s close enough, especially with Beck in the role of TPers’ patron saint. Maybe Huck thinks finding any reason to knock an “establishment” event like CPAC will burnish his brand as an outsider? That’d be a goofy read on a conference whose straw poll was won by Ron Paul. Or maybe he thinks there’ll be such a scrum for the libertarian vote among the GOP field in 2012 that he’s better off staking out a position slightly to the left and letting Palin, Paul, etc fight it out for the small-government right. (America’s Greatest Patriot is reportedly undecided on a bid.)

If so, he’s conceding a lot of grassroots energy. Patrick Ruffini:

While I won’t necessarily be rooting for a Paul 2012 candidacy, I *like* the fact that CPAC was shaken up, for two big reasons.

First, it shows that Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty are engaging constructively in the conservative movement. In 2007, the Paulites were an oppositional force trying to submarine the GOP’s commitment to the war on terror, thus threatening traditional conservatives. Today, libertarians and conservatives have come together against Obama’s endless expansion of the State, with Ron Paul supporters supplying creative organizing tactics and boots on the ground.

This leads into my second reason: in terms of grassroots organization, Paul supporters are some of the best — if not the best — that we have. The iconography of the tea party movement is heavily libertarian (think the Gadsden Flag) and that’s no coincidence. If you broke down the organizers and even those in attendance, you’d find more than your fair share of Ron Paul supporters.

Exit question: Is this just Huck’s way of criticizing the lower priority given to social issues this year at CPAC? That’s not to suggest that he would have supported what Ryan Sorba said, but it does make me think that social conservatism will play an even bigger part in his next campaign (if there is one) than we thought. Call it triangulation: Palin takes the small-government grassroots, Romney takes the centrists, and Huck takes the Christian conservatives, banking on the fact that his niche in a three-way race is slightly bigger than the other two. But in that case, why slam a brand like libertarianism that’s glowing right now? Why not just say, “I liked the way they’re heading but think we need to pay more attention to values”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM

STFU conservatives are just responding to an all out liberal attack from people like you for the last 45 years.

cjk on February 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I am a Christian and a conservative and I never much cared for Huckabee.
.
.
Once he landed a show on FNC I have grown to actively dislike the pompous windbag. Steadily.
My contempt for him grows daily…

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I guess I just realized I am more libertarian than Republican if Huckabee is Republican.

I liked Ann Coulter’s comment poorly recalled, “I like everything Ron Paul says, except on foreign policy. I would like to start on all his smaller government initiatives before we go to the social initiatives. I want the government changed before I have to pay for the dope smoker to stay home.”

barnone on February 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM

I hope Huckabee thinks the 2012 primaries are too libertarian for him, too. He needs to just go away.

chunderroad on February 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

the paul wing is also in bed with neo-confederates.

Spend sometime reading lew rockwell’s blog, unreal some of the things that goes on there. Reads like Democrat Underground, except with a different Economics foundation.

They are vile, nutty and graceless. They also basically worship Paul.

jp on February 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I like Huck – but after he freed 200 inmates – one then killed multiple policemen – well he’s finished in politics – this new mess with CPAC makes him as dead as Romney with RomneyCare in Mass. Dead Men walking is all I can think off………..Rick Perry, Mitch Danials could be lining up soon to be VP’s for Sarah Palin………..

Cinday Blackburn on February 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Huckabee Begs For New Taxes

Huckabee & Libertarian conservatism=oil & water.

He’s an old time Democrat with a bible.

Speakup on February 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Johnnyreb on February 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM

And Gopride should have been kicked out the back door! (pun intended)

cjk on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

The press has a strictly hands off approach to Gov. Huckabee and Rep. Paul. If they thought either were a threat they would be trashing them at every opportunity.

Cindy Munford on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

I’m resisting the idea that he said this purely out of personal pique but I can’t come up with a good alternative strategic explanation. What political benefit is there, in this year of all years, to knock CPAC for being “more libertarian” and “less Republican”? Libertarianism has never had more cachet within the GOP than it has right now; it’s not perfectly synonymous with the tea-party movement (of which Huckabee is predictably complimentary) but it’s close enough, especially with Beck in the role of TPers’ patron saint. Maybe Huck thinks finding any reason to knock an “establishment” event like CPAC will burnish his brand as an outsider?

Because, Brainiac, you just declared war on SoCons.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

This from a man who ran Ads in the Boston/NH market that were indistinguishable from the economic/social justice Ads being run by John Edwards at the time…

TheBigOldDog on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Why won’t socons use government based social engineering to enforce the beatitudes? I mean, if things like gay marriage are fair game for government, as a means of enforcing a christian social construct on the nation through policy…why not go all out? Why not FORCE us to be poor in spirit, or meek…or forcibly prevent us from amassing wealth? I mean, if christian doctrine is something the government needs to be enforcing…why not do it right?

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Struck a nerve?? Hotair comments are getting nastier. Nice comments.

balkanmom2 on February 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Charlatans and phonies are hard to stomach for thinking people.

ndanielson on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Shut up you hoser!

- The Cat

MirCat on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) is Libertarian. Should we exclude people like him?

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Glenn Reynolds is a liberal. He says he’s Libertarian because he isn’t a socialist/communist. He believes Roe VS Wade was rightly decided on the merits and that we should have Space Law which controls what happens on the Moon and other planets. Should he be excluded? No, he’s a great guy. But he ain’t conservative.

Rocks on February 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Call it triangulation: Palin takes the small-government grassroots, Romney takes the centrists, and Huck takes the Christian conservatives

I don’t think Christian conservatives across the board would vote for Huckabee. He has shown suprisingly good poll numbers in the south, but I believe that is primarily Southern Baptists who support him for cultural identity reasons. Just like LDS members tend to support Romney.

Both trends are quite discouraging. People should select their nominee based on political philosophy, not religious affiliation.

While Huckabee is pure electoral posion in LDS states (Utah, Idaho), Romney is pure electoral poison in much of the Baptist South.

Palin could appeal to both, and would be a much better choice.

Norwegian on February 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

“A Republic… if you can keep it.” Jefferson was right. I am beginning to see that the pundits who call us a democracy are right. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes and “mob rules.” Will it be the liberals (tyranny) or the libertarians (anarchy) who eventually win? Or will we finally acknowledge and return to the only One and moral source for our rights?

PrincipledPilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Police officers, Sgt. Mark Renninger, Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold, and Greg Richards could not be reached, to get their impressions on the 2010 CPAC.

RBMN on February 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Rocks on February 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

+1

PrincipledPilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Schmuckabee.

radioboyatl on February 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I thought it not possible but this creepy man annoys me more every time I see him.

Go kiss Michelle Obama, Mike and get out of our party.

What a used car salesman he is.

stenwin77 on February 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

What a used car salesman he is.

stenwin77 on February 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM

No reason to slander used car salesmen, is there?

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM

jp on February 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Oh I agree. Paulians have some kooky ideas. I’m just cautioning against defining all Libertarians monolithically and excluding the group as a whole like Huckabee. I say that as a Conservative who disagrees with most social positions of Libertarians. I’d rather focus on the non-fringe elements of Libertarians and what our country needs right now.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:04 PM

I find it hard to beleive you correctly relayed what Rush said. To seriously think that a rat-bastard traitor like Paul is a legitimate candidate is not good.

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I think you misunderstood me. Rush was basically saying that it’s not a good sign that the winner of the CPAC straw poll was Paul. I think he’ll have more this hour.

Weight of Glory on February 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I mean, if things like gay marriage are fair game for government, as a means of enforcing a christian social construct on the nation through policy…why not go all out?

if you think Sexual Perversions where there is actually a Source and Standard to condem from are “out of bounds”

Then…

Why are things like, First Cousin Marriage, Pedophillia, Mother/Son or Father/Daughter sex, Polygomy, Animal Sex, Prostitution, and Cannibalism to name some things we still use Govt. Force to forbid, not on the table to Legalize?

If you have no moral source, which most libertarianism does not, then there is no rational reason why all of those mentioned above shouldn’t be legalized, along with gay marriage, abortion and others society has chosen to suddely accept the last 30 plus yrs.

Levin had it right by the way, the Founders were NOT LIBERTARIANS, they were CONSERVATIVES.

jp on February 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I didn’t watch the interview with Michelle, ma’ belle, but Laura Ingraham played enough clips today to let me know that Huck was a fawning sycophant.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 12:42 PM

The whole transcript is on the FNC website but it doesn’t begin to capture how disgustingly cozy they were. Huckabee defended it on his radio spot today as treating her like a guest. Well, if that were true, he was treating her as a guest who had just finished off a second bottle of wine and heading for the bedroom.

Michelle Obama for her part put out socialist talking points:

Childhood Obesity is something the community needs to fix together.

“most of our kids get the majority of their calories that they eat in school. So we have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how do we make those meals healthier. You know, how do we take out fat, sugar and salt and put in more fruit vegetables and whole grains.” So essentially more federal regulation of lunch programs.

On food deserts: So that means that if a mom in that area wanted to make a salad for their kid — right? — even if she was geared up to do it, that means she would have to get in a cab, take a bus, get on a train to get to a grocery store to do that. And you’re just sort of — think of families that are busy, they don’t have resources, they just don’t do it. So we have to eliminate food deserts, and one of the goals of Let’s Move is to eliminate food deserts in this country in seven years. So essentially Safeway and Vons are going to be taken over by the government or forced into putting stores in areas where they know half the merchandise will be stolen, the employees are routinely robbed, and the irony is that the mom still won’t feed her kid a salad!

And finally this little gem:

I’m doing everything I can everyday to make my country proud, so that when I go abroad and represent us, I want America to know that I’m thinking about doing it the best way that I can. And that my intentions are to help, truly. And if helping means being quiet or sitting down or standing up or, you know, working a little harder

Well Michelle, we aren’t proud of you, your racist world view, your socialism, the filthy lying coward you married, or anything else about you and all that Chicago thuggery you smeared on the role of First Lady. You are an embarrassment to Americans and we would rather you stay home and tend your garden than going out in public ever again. We just don’t like you.

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Further proof that CPAC has become the Circus/Zoo that the Tea Party Convention was supposed to be but wasn’t.

1.Romulan’s hijacked it
2.Gay Bashing/Intolerance on display
3.Fighting

Boy, the Tea Party looked pretty timid & mainstream compared to CPAC ’10.

portlandon on February 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM

But he ain’t conservative.

Rocks on February 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Then we agree.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Call the WAAAA-bulance…Never much cared for Huckie, but as other posters have said, the more he talks, the less I like!

Parade on February 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM

“There’s a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that’s fine with me; I will very happily sign that …Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that’s acceptable; I’m fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that’s fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of those various ideas, and if that’s the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks.”

- Huckabee, to the Arkansas Legislature

Too “libertarian”?

Huckabee is a liberal.

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Smarm just drips off this man.

bloviator on February 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Why won’t socons use government based social engineering to enforce the beatitudes? I mean, if things like gay marriage are fair game for government, as a means of enforcing a christian social construct on the nation through policy…why not go all out? Why not FORCE us to be poor in spirit, or meek…or forcibly prevent us from amassing wealth? I mean, if christian doctrine is something the government needs to be enforcing…why not do it right?

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Because no one can force a change of the heart, which is all the beatitudes are about. Being poor in spirit doesn’t mean you have to be poor. That’s a complete misreading. Every single one of them is about changing the way you view something, and that’s something that couldn’t be done through the government no matter how much someone wanted it.

As an ends justify the means stance, forcing everyone to become a Christian sounds nice, but it’s completely impossible. Because being a Christian isn’t about legalism. It’s about freely accepting a gift and a change in your heart and a relationship with God.Besides, not allowing gay marriage is no more enforcing Christian doctrine than not allowing multiple spouses.

If you’re arguing for the government to get out of the business of saying who can and who cannot get married, then fine. But so long as you’re saying some people cannot get married, based purely on social taboos, you’re no different.

Esthier on February 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

I believe the changes the Left has made in society through controlling “acceptable” speech, taxing things they decide are bad for people, liberal brainwashing through the school system, and outright lying about global warming will stack up unfavorably to anything the Right has put into law when they held the majority.

Cindy Munford on February 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

The big philosophical question at the source of all this: The “One and the Many” or “Diversity within Unity”

that age old question has been answered for a long time.

jp on February 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Seriously, the guy was for taxes on fast food in order to force people to eat differently. That’s employing fiscal policy to enlarge the government while restricting trade and choice. How does that make Huckabee conservative?

MadisonConservative on February 22, 2010 at 1:08 PM

libertarians = stingy liberals.

They’re both lying, manipulative dirtbags otherwise.

Darth Executor on February 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Huckabee has always been a big government/populist social con. The current libertarian swing of the conservative movement has little room for his ilk. And good riddance, too. Much as McCain kept many social cons at home during the 2008 election, a Huckabee candidacy would keep libertarian-cons like me at home.

Huckabee’s political career is over, anyway. No opponent will let the public forget his grant of clemency to the Washington cop-killer.

SWLiP on February 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM


What political benefit is there, in this year of all years, to knock CPAC for being “more libertarian” and “less Republican”?

Very poor choice of words by Huckabee. He should have said conservative instead of Republican. Some will say it’s just semantics but there is a world of difference between to two to many people. Also, it’s important to remember that while there is definitely a libertarian streak within conservatism, libertarianism is not synonymous with conservatism. My guess is that Allahpundit is correct in saying that Huckabee is not too happy with seeing the social issues given less priority recently. With that said, I doubt Huckabee agrees with the like of Sorba. Even if he does in principle I bet he doesn’t agree with how Sorba acted and handled himself at CPAC.

keepinitreal on February 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

AP, you’re going to have one kick butt thread tonight with some of these Rush quotes on CPAC.

Weight of Glory on February 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Bleecccccchh!!!
Did you watch the interview? Hope you showered good, afterwards.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I do agree with a lot of libertarian concepts…but the Huckster does nothing for me. I don’t think he’ll be a factor anyways.

search4truth on February 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

I agree that the Ron Paul flavor of Libertarians is disconcerting. Their stand on national defense is ridiculous and dangerous. Libertarians are not monolithic.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

My bet, cp, is that most libertarians (not the Paulnuts, of course) have pretty much abandoned their foreign policy pacifism, largely as a result of 9-11. That’s certainly what happened to me. Nowadays I’d describe my foreign policy views as basically Cheney neo-con, and I feel political community with most Christian conservatives as well as classic liberal libertarians, few though they are, through principles of self-ownership, individual exceptionalism and personal responsibility, limited government and 10th Amendment Federalism, and free markets.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

However, I think the younger generation will be more libertarian.

terryannonline on February 22, 2010 at 12:52 PM

I don’t really think that is the case. More than anything it won’t be our parent’s social conservatism.

Even self-professed Social Cons like me from the younger generation are what the older generation would call Libertarian. But only because the older generation cared more about the Letter of Social Conservatism rather than the Spirit.

A Social Conservative from my generation would likely condemn a homosexual for promiscuity but not violating a Religion because we are for the most part secular or our approach to Social conservatism is secular or broad-faith. And we are secular as it should be, not as the Progies want it which is little more than Public Atheism. And we wouldn’t point out Hellfire but HIV, Syph, Gonorrhea and Herpes as reasons to exercise restraint.

The Older Conservative can’t see that we are still much like them, just the exterior shell is different but the values when you distill them and strip them of Religion are still there. And we know from talking to people of other religions that they share the exact same values and some we don’t.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

I am a Christian conservative, and I can’t stand Huckabee. He is a democrat in disguise, judging from the way he governed AR. He certainly is no conservative.

squeek71 on February 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM

It’s nice you insist values be left to the states…meanwhile liberal federal judges will order the states to respect the 9th Amendment argument made by liberals to do it their way. Then what?

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Levin had it right by the way, the Founders were NOT LIBERTARIANS, they were CONSERVATIVES.

jp on February 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Conservatives who left no governmental mechanism for enforcing any arbitrary social construct. As for first cousin marriage, it IS legal in many southern states. The others have very easy ethical reasons for their prohibition…whether involving minors unable to act as adults, or people killing others to eat them, there are ways to reason an justified ban. With polygamy, I’ll admit, there IS no justification for banning, as it is as arbitrary familial association as regular marriage.

Either way, if constitutional government is the goal, you cannot act through government to enforce a christian social construct. Either dispense with the constitution or your propensity for social engineering. The 2 don’t mix.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Why won’t socons use government based social engineering to enforce the beatitudes? I mean, if things like gay marriage are fair game for government, as a means of enforcing a christian social construct on the nation through policy…why not go all out? Why not FORCE us to be poor in spirit, or meek…or forcibly prevent us from amassing wealth? I mean, if christian doctrine is something the government needs to be enforcing…why not do it right?

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Ernesto–you need to get out more. There IS a group of Christian SoCons out there promoting the Beautitudes, as they see it. Funny thing though, they aren’t from FOTF, fully support Obama and his agenda, and actively lobby for government to change our lives.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Conservatives who left no governmental mechanism for enforcing any arbitrary social construct.

any clue to what the founders position on gays were?

Jefferson had the moderate view, which was Castration, just a hint…

and it aint ‘arbitrary’ in fact its the only source of Fixed Law that can be Rationally Justified.

jp on February 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM

If you have no moral source, which most libertarianism does not, then there is no rational reason why all of those mentioned above shouldn’t be legalized, along with gay marriage, abortion and others society has chosen to suddely accept the last 30 plus yrs.

It’s possible to have a moral compass without trying to force it on the rest of humanity.

Your moral compass is not calibrated the same as mine, I can pretty much guarantee you.

Does that make me less of a man than you? Or does it make you less of a man than me?

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Huck is highlighting where evangelicals will run into problems with the Tea Party. We don’t want people telling us what is ok OR what is not okay for us to do in our personal, private homes!!! It’s called freedom and it doesn’t allow for laws about what your thermostat can be set at, how or who you can or can’t live with, what kinds of guns you can or can’t have, or any of that!

Liberals want to force behavior and acceptance through laws, social cons want to do the same, in the other direction.

Tea Partiers just want to be left alone to succeed and have a nice little personal, private life. No Nannying, from the left or the right!

NTWR on February 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Count me as another Christian who does not like Huck, and never have. I too see him as a phony. A flim flam man trying to manipulate the faithful to give him their votes. Elmer Huckabee needs to be gone and soon. Huck has been a pox on the GOP and conservatism since he emerged as a candidate in 2008. I agree with those who called on him to go over to the Dems. That is where he will feel more at home.

JimP on February 22, 2010 at 1:16 PM

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Same thing happened with Dennis Miller after 9-11. Huckabee is playing politics with the word “Libertarian” and trying to demonize the group simply because Ron Paul won the straw poll. I think that’s unfair and shameless of him.

Rush is talking about this now—Huckabee can be against Libertarians, but what is he FOR? Why not promote Conservatism and the positives of that position? (yes a rhetorical question)

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Does that make me less of a man than you? Or does it make you less of a man than me?

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Or how about you’re just both men with different standards?

Esthier on February 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Call it triangulation: Palin takes the small-government grassroots, Romney takes the centrists, and Huck takes the Christian conservatives, banking on the fact that his niche in a three-way race is slightly bigger than the other two.

If this is the way it shakes out, then the enthusiasm and momentum is behind the Cuda.

NoLeftTurn on February 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

I am a Christian conservative, and I can’t stand Huckabee. He is a democrat in disguise, judging from the way he governed AR. He certainly is no conservative.

squeek71 on February 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM

You are correct on all counts. He is many things but he is not a conservative and I resent the way he uses his faux-populism and faux-evangelism as political tools. The way he attack Romney based on faith was downright disgusting.

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Huckabee is just a tax and spend liberal democrat who claims to be a Christian. I don’t see how he can be both at the same time!

flytier on February 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM

…and we CARE about what Mike Huckabee says because…because…(Pssst! Collie, why do we care about what Mike Huckabee says, again?)

My collie says:

We care about what Mike Huckabee says because AllahPundit can use it to generate traffic.

Oh yeah. That’s right. Carry on.

CyberCipher on February 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM

jp at 1:05 pm:

The Founders believed in morality as a necessary component of a free society. But they drew their inspiration from ancient Roman notions of civic virtue, which were based on objective, rational expressions of moral standards that have their bases in reason, not Bible verses. At its most simple, libertarians believe that your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins.

Government is sometimes needed to impose order, but in doing so it must be constrained to do the least necessary. A virtuous society, one in which the rights of others is held in high regard, requires the lightest touch. A corrupt society requires a firmer hand. And a society that capriciously imposes the moral beliefs of those in power on everyone else is more likely to be corrupt.

It is silly to say that libertarians have no guiding moral philosophy. One can believe that, as a personal matter, gay sex is wrong while, as a civic matter, it bears no detriment to the rights of others.

SWLiP on February 22, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Same thing happened with Dennis Miller after 9-11.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Yup, 9-11 caused much soul searching among us libertarians. It wasn’t easy to decide that your entire framework for foreign policy was unrealistic and dangerous, being based on the world as you’d like it to be, instead of the world as it is.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Sour grapes

Domino on February 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I am wondering what you guys think about what Rush just said on his show about CPAC? I wonder if you will be as harsh against him as you are with Huckabee? They said pretty much the exact same thing. Go ahead, bash Rush about the head and shoulders now.

jparks1972 on February 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Or how about you’re just both men with different standards?

Esthier on February 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

That’s exactly my point.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Huck & Grraldo have ruined FNC weekend evenings for me.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I am wondering what you guys think about what Rush just said on his show about CPAC? I wonder if you will be as harsh against him as you are with Huckabee? They said pretty much the exact same thing. Go ahead, bash Rush about the head and shoulders now.

jparks1972 on February 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

It’s obvious that people are reacting more towards Huck as a potential candidate than his actual words.

Esthier on February 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Libertarians are almost as bad as liberals. No, not because of social policies. I don’t care about that. It’s their insane views on foreign policy and the fact that they don’t really stand for anything besides drug use. They’re also annoying. Have you ever heard a libertarian speak without saying something about neocons, the military industrial complex, nwo, imperialism, or drugs? We will take your votes, just don’t talk that much.

Narutoboy on February 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

SWLiP on February 22, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Historical revisionist.

cjk on February 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

That’s exactly my point.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:26 PM

That’s what I thought, which is why it just seemed odd that your either or comparison didn’t include it.

I agree with you that these kinds of discussions are generally ridiculous. Not being religious doesn’t make one immoral anymore than being religious makes one moral. Jesus made this same point arguably more than any other point.

Esthier on February 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Analysis paralysis. It seems clear to me, anyway. He fared poorly in the voting straw poll.

AnninCA on February 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Exactly why Huckabee has no chance this year.

It’s a libertarian year.

Thanks Obama!

iamse7en on February 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) is Libertarian. Should we exclude people like him?

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM

I would vote for Reynolds over both Romney and Huckabee. While I disagree with his social stands, I think he is great advocate for fiscal conservatism/gun rights.

Norwegian on February 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Huckabee is just a tax and spend liberal democrat who claims to be a Christian. I don’t see how he can be both at the same time!

flytier on February 22, 2010 at 1:21 PM

What does Christianity have to do with political fiscal policy?

That’s a head-scratcher comment.

AnninCA on February 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM

any clue to what the founders position on gays were?

Jefferson had the moderate view, which was Castration, just a hint…

and it aint ‘arbitrary’ in fact its the only source of Fixed Law that can be Rationally Justified.

jp on February 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Their opinions on the matter are quite irrelevant, given that they afforded us no governmental means for expressing their opinions, or ours, on those matters.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Huckabee was actually supposed to be at an event…not an official CPAC speaking role but at an event…and cancelled…sounds like sour grapes to me…

DCJeff on February 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Why are the socons acting like Hot Air all of a sudden has become a hotbed of libertarian Republicanism? Thats one of the reasons I abandoned Free Republic for this place. If you want nonstop social conservatism go there. They also have plenty of Praise Palin threads so the Palinites should love it too.

Speedwagon82 on February 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh both are criticizing “the end” of CPAC. Mark criticed Beck by name and Rush did not. He said an opportunity was missed, however, to openly criticize Obama, Reid and Pelosi and to praise those Conservative Republicans that are doing good things: DeMint, Pence, etc. (Can’t remember who all he cited.)

Oink on February 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM

“There’s a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that’s fine with me; I will very happily sign that …Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that’s acceptable; I’m fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that’s fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of those various ideas, and if that’s the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks.”

– Huckabee, to the Arkansas Legislature

He was also fine with a tax on groceries. In one of the poorest states in the union, this fine Christian man resisted repealing this burdensome tax on one of the necessities of life. After we elected a Democrat, we at least got it cut in half.

Huckabee is a big fat phony, and he is definitely not a conservative.

NoLeftTurn on February 22, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I am wondering what you guys think about what Rush just said on his show about CPAC?
//
Yeah,Rush would have been more positive and praised the guys who are working hard for us up there.Glenn was okay but he was negative,not that their isn’t alot to be neg. about but you have to insert the positive especially at the close of the conf. to inspire to keep on keeping on.

ohiobabe on February 22, 2010 at 1:37 PM

As someone who was part of a libertarian editorial board for over 20 years, I will tell you that libertarians have as many arguments between themselves as conservatives or liberals do.
I think most libertarians would love to live under the original intent of the U.S. Constitution but some are actually anarchists. As a libertarian,(NOT Libertarian as in Libertarian Party) I have more in common with conservatives than liberals, especially versus progressives. So let’s not attack each other over our disagreements, but unite on our free market, small government beliefs against the Left.

I don’t always vote, but when I do, I prefer Republicans. Stay free my friends!

cartooner on February 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Huck & Grraldo have ruined FNC weekend evenings for me.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Agreed.

myrenovations on February 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Isn’t CPAC young?

I thought it was the “young” group. It would make sense that they aren’t interested in going back to social/cultural issues.

AnninCA on February 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Yup, 9-11 caused much soul searching among us libertarians. It wasn’t easy to decide that your entire framework for foreign policy was unrealistic and dangerous, being based on the world as you’d like it to be, instead of the world as it is.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM

And from there straight into the truthers nonsense that is the hallmark of a Ron Paul supporter. Libertarians are going to be disappointed in November. There is sincere desire for smaller government but not all the other crap the libertarians hold as inalienable rights be it decriminalizing pot to making it possible to finally making an honest hamster out of one’s cross-species domestic partner.

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM

It’s their insane views on foreign policy …
Narutoboy on February 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Not so much after 9-11, I think.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM

and

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Also, ever listen to Dennis Miller, another libertarian who revised his foreign policy views after 9-11?

Glenn Beck, Larry Elder and Neal Bortz describe themselves as libertarian, yet their foreign policy views are probably more in line with mainstream GOP than Democrat.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM

BTW I’ve been involved with CPAC for years…the straw poll is just a fun thing for the college kids and means absolutely nothing…of course Ron Paul won it…no one over 25 takes time to vote in it…

DCJeff on February 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Hmm, no clemency for CPAC from Huckabee.

Saltyron on February 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM

“There’s a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that’s fine with me; I will very happily sign that …Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax; that’s acceptable; I’m fine with that. Others have suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that’s fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from any one or a combination of those various ideas, and if that’s the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks.”

– Huckabee, to the Arkansas Legislature

He was also fine with a tax on groceries. In one of the poorest states in the union, this fine Christian man resisted repealing this burdensome tax on one of the necessities of life. After we elected a Democrat, we at least got it cut in half.

Huckabee is a big fat phony, and he is definitely not a conservative.

NoLeftTurn on February 22, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I challenge you and the person you were responding to, to watch the entire video of that speech and not just the 20 seconds that Club for Growth cut out of it. The entire speech is about 45 minutes long. You should be ashamed of yourself for not only drinking the kool-aid but passing it around as well.

jparks1972 on February 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Huckabee, hmmm, let me see — I recall the name from somewhere, but can’t seem to recall where.

tarpon on February 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM

you have to insert the positive especially at the close of the conf. to inspire to keep on keeping on.

ohiobabe on February 22, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I thought Beck did that but it was done with honesty. The GOP is in a much stronger position if they openly admit they have screwed up in the past. Compare with giving oneself a grade of B+ (an A when healthcare gets passed).

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Why are the socons acting like Hot Air all of a sudden has become a hotbed of libertarian Republicanism? Thats one of the reasons I abandoned Free Republic for this place. If you want nonstop social conservatism go there. They also have plenty of Praise Palin threads so the Palinites should love it too.

Speedwagon82 on February 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I think you have that backwards.

Echoing what Esthier said above–the reaction is against Huckabee as a viable 2012 GOP candidate.

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Well, I’m a libertarian who could care less about legislating social issues, and I like Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Brown, Bachmann, Rubio and even Gingrich, but I cannot stand Ron Paul.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM

As a libertarian,(NOT Libertarian as in Libertarian Party) I have more in common with conservatives than liberals, especially versus progressives. So let’s not attack each other over our disagreements, but unite on our free market, small government beliefs against the Left.

cartooner on February 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Hear! Hear!

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I challenge you and the person you were responding to, to watch the entire video of that speech and not just the 20 seconds that Club for Growth cut out of it. The entire speech is about 45 minutes long. You should be ashamed of yourself for not only drinking the kool-aid but passing it around as well.

jparks1972 on February 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Honey, I live in Arkansas. No one has to educate me about Huckabee and his record; I lived through it.

NoLeftTurn on February 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM

This lifelong Southern Bptist will never vote for “turn ‘em loose” RINO Hackphoney!

bill30097 on February 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM

That’s what I thought, which is why it just seemed odd that your either or comparison didn’t include it.

I agree with you that these kinds of discussions are generally ridiculous. Not being religious doesn’t make one immoral anymore than being religious makes one moral. Jesus made this same point arguably more than any other point.

Esthier on February 22, 2010 at 1:30 PM

The poster I was referring to hadn’t thought of that option, which is why it was omitted.

Morality is an internal question. The problem with legislating morality, is eventually you start stepping on someone else’s version of morality.

Nobody can claim a superior morality and be correct except to himself. And that is why it is such a touchy issue, for the right and the left. The left has always played to that angle. Emotion should not be a factor in legislating, and that is what got Republicans in trouble throughout the 90′s and 2000′s, and it’s what has the Democrats in trouble now.

The overall problem with Libertarianism, is that it’s a live and let live principle, and reconciling that with the murderous thugs and dictators that run many of the countries in the world is hard to someone who has a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” attitude. That’s almost as bad as “Can’t we all just get along?”

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Why are the socons acting like Hot Air all of a sudden has become a hotbed of libertarian Republicanism?

The sudden declarations that if you’re not libertarian, you’re not only not really Republican, you’re not a real conservative.

Thats one of the reasons I abandoned Free Republic for this place. If you want nonstop social conservatism go there. They also have plenty of Praise Palin threads so the Palinites should love it too.

Speedwagon82 on February 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM

If you didn’t want a war you shouldn’t have started one.

Chris_Balsz on February 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I challenge you and the person you were responding to, to watch the entire video of that speech and not just the 20 seconds that Club for Growth cut out of it. The entire speech is about 45 minutes long. You should be ashamed of yourself for not only drinking the kool-aid but passing it around as well.

jparks1972 on February 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Only takes 20 seconds to recognize a RINO. And I don’t listen much to the OPEN BORDERS Club for “Growth”.

bill30097 on February 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM

You should be ashamed of yourself for not only drinking the kool-aid but passing it around as well.

jparks1972 on February 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM

So what does Huckabee have to offer as a candidate?

The faux-evangelism aside, I have a problem with any chief executive that either rubber stamps parole recommendations or otherwise has twice put killers out on the streets to kill again. I have a problem with the nanny state programs Huckabee implemented as Governor. And, frankly, all that “aw shucks” downhome populism grates on me because it affirms all the worst stereotypes that Northerners have about the South.

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM

And from there [soul searching] straight into the truthers nonsense that is the hallmark of a Ron Paul supporter.

highhopes on February 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Interesting. Never thought of that, there’s probably some truth to that… Trutherism as denial.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Bubba the Love Sponge does a great job of lampooning John McCain as a doddering old fool, and Huckabee comes off sounding the same way; like a doddering old fool. Lets hope Bubba and Manson catch this.

RWLA on February 22, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4