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

Narutoboy on February 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I think there’s a difference between Libertarian (big L) and libertarian (little L). A lot of conservatives, myself included, describe themselves as liberatarian-conservatives, possibly to distinguish themselves from social cons. But most of us would not find common ground with the big L Libertarians on matters of foreign policy.

I don’t know why anyone makes an issue of Dr. Paul winning the straw poll. It seems that whatever contingent decides to show up in large numbers is the one who wins. If Palin were to speak there next year, she would win a landslide in the straw poll as well. It’s just pretty meaningless, I think.

NoLeftTurn on February 22, 2010 at 1:52 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

That reminds me-the other fighting point besides fiscal conservatism & less govt is SECURE THE BORDERS.

Badger40 on February 22, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Not all Libertarians are “Ron Paul Nuts” as has been said above. Just like not all Conservatives are “Sarah Palin Nuts”. I’m a right-leaning Libertarian. I agree with some points that Ron Paul makes but I also agree with some points that Sarah Palin makes. I believe Paul’s stance on terrorism and defense is flat-out dangerous and wrong. I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for either Paul or Palin.

I also believe people are getting hung up on wanting to assign people to groups when the average American has over-lapping qualities. I also believe many people who label themselves “Republican” are actually right-leaning Libertarian. They just don’t know they are.

Huckabee seems like a nice guy but he’s too “Huckabee” for me. Seriously, we deserve better than that. I loathe Obama. I loathe Pelosi, Reid, progressives and did not (and would not) vote for a progressive.

So, there you have it. Flame away LOL.

Shiny_Tiara on February 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM

That reminds me-the other fighting point besides fiscal conservatism & less govt is SECURE THE BORDERS.

Badger40 on February 22, 2010 at 1:53 PM

We’d have the resources to do that if we weren’t spending $1.5 trillion on Medicare, Social Security, and Interest on our debt.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM

We will take your votes, just don’t talk that much.

Narutoboy on February 22, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Yup. The foreign policy of Libertarians is, in a word: nuts. A certain degree of isolationism may be important- in that we NEED to be able to manufacture things on our own soil in case of another world war.

The 9/11 Truther part of the Paulians is a no-go. As an engineer, it’s maddening and a testament to our effed up education system that people don’t understand basic physics enough to understand that it’s impossible to engineer a building, effectively, that can withstand catastrophic failure of the upper dead loads, suddenly turned live loads.

Libertarianism is the only response conservatives, left without much of a party, have to the growing nanny statism in both the Prog/Dem and Legacy GOP.

It’s really just about strict adherence to the Constitution. If one party would just propose that, stripping all the unconstitutional entitlement programs and laws like the commerce clause, that party would win in a landslide. Of course grandfathering of the entitlements would be necessary for seniors but NO MORE NEW WARDS OF THE STATE! Down with the Welfare State our once proud nation has become.

NTWR on February 22, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Yup. The foreign policy of Libertarians Ron Paul is, in a word: nuts. A certain degree of isolationism may be important- in that we NEED to be able to manufacture things on our own soil in case of another world war.

FIFY, don’t want you smearing the majority of Libertarian types.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM

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.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM

You’re right. It’s not a natural reconciliation. Speaking personally, 9-11 transformed my principle of ‘live and let live’ from absolute to conditional. Now I’ll live and let you live on the condition that you let me ‘live’. If you threaten my (quality of) living, I’ll warn you first if there’s time, and I’ll kill you first if I must.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:58 PM

FIFY, don’t want you smearing the majority of Libertarian types.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Yeah, that’s the danger of Paul. I think I’m a “little l” libertarian leaning Conservative.

NTWR on February 22, 2010 at 2:00 PM

You’re right. It’s not a natural reconciliation. Speaking personally, 9-11 transformed my principle of ‘live and let live’ from absolute to conditional. Now I’ll live and let you live on the condition that you let me ‘live’. If you threaten my (quality of) living, I’ll warn you first if there’s time, and I’ll kill you first if I must.

petefrt on February 22, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Precisely. 9-11 did that to alot of people who chose to ignore human nature.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Yeah, that’s the danger of Paul. I think I’m a “little l” libertarian leaning Conservative.

NTWR on February 22, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I know what you meant, just pulling your chain a little bit.

Little “l” libertarian leaning conservative works for me. I’m adopting the label!

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 2:01 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.

There isn’t another reason. It’s always about Huck with Huck.

Mark my words, he’ll be a spoiler in the 12′ primary and will throw the entire process into disarray.

BacaDog on February 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Yay…more “GOP Meltdown” articles soon appearing in Politico.

SouthernGent on February 22, 2010 at 2:05 PM

That’s not to suggest that he would have supported what Ryan Sorba said.

He probably sent him a thank you card.

The Ugly American on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

I just emailed huckmail@foxnews.com the link for this thread. I want Huck to know how we feel about him.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Yay…more “GOP Meltdown” articles soon appearing in Politico.

SouthernGent on February 22, 2010 at 2:05 PM

You mean the Democrat Propaganda machine that is Politico is going to start pushing the meme that the Republican Party is in disarray?

Huh. Thought they’ve been pushing that for years. Hows that working out so far?

Dear Politico,

Nice job.

Regards,

Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersy

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 2:11 PM

I just emailed huckmail@foxnews.com the link for this thread. I want Huck to know how we feel about him.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Good thing he isn’t in the WH. We might get our names on a watch list. Oh wait…

conservative pilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Oh so many conservative social engineers…y’all should really think about opening up a school, rather than co-opting government for Christianization.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Oh so many conservative social engineers…y’all should really think about opening up a school, rather than co-opting government for Christianization.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

This thread is dominated by people basing Huckabee. You focus on the few holier-than-thou types. Sigh.

If you want to lecture people about social engineering, I’m sure you could head over to Kos or DU for some fun.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 2:22 PM

basing = bashing

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Candidates like Huck, McCain and Romney personify why the GOP is doomed to Presidential failure until it nominates a candidate with true principles and vision.

This was yet another pathetic swipe by Huck.

But it shouldn’t even be newsworthy anymore, because his wanton pardons of dangerous felons, in the face of virtual begging by the Arkansas DA to reconsider such nonsense, has effectively bars him from qualification for national office.

Huck is old news.

molonlabe28 on February 22, 2010 at 2:25 PM

McCain Lite, fewer calories less filling

the socialist preacher from Arkansas, give it up Huckleberry and keep the good day job you have at Fox cause this country not ready for your sell-out ASS

bluegrass on February 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Oh so many conservative social engineers…y’all should really think about opening up a school, rather than co-opting government for Christianization.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Do you really think your words can generate respect anywhere amongst adults when you choose to adopt the given, Christian name of a mass murderer?

And shave off that silly goatee, jackass.

Doorgunner on February 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM

If you want to lecture people about social engineering, I’m sure you could head over to Kos or DU for some fun.

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 2:22 PM

They aren’t interested in arguing over prerogative or governmental philosophy…they’re just a bunch of feel good sycophants. At least here, I can accept a few premises for the sake of argument (ex: constitution = good, taxes = bad), and have a logical discussion about what conclusions conservatives draw. Over there…its just mindless. But don’t think I don’t give the other side any grief…im an equal opportunity pot-stirrer.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Do you really think your words can generate respect anywhere amongst adults when you choose to adopt the given, Christian name of a mass murderer?

And shave off that silly goatee, jackass.

Doorgunner on February 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I didn’t adopt the name, it’s my actual name…it was given to me by my parents.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Rush Limbaugh does not seem to be real happy about CPAC either. Rush said he would have spent this time building up the conservative movement and encouraging to keep moving forward. Perhaps the idiot Glen Beck could have spent more time promoting conservatism instead of bashing any and all Republicans who are currently the only thing standing between all out socialism and the freedoms our constitution guarantees us.

The Republican Party is being defined as the party of “no”. Thank goodness somebody is telling this administration “no”!

kcarpenter on February 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Riiiigghht. You didn’t take it from Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and your not a skinny white-boy with chin fuzz, an awesome mountain bike, and you’re not between 19 and 28 years old.

Riiiiigghhht.

Doorgunner on February 22, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Doorgunner on February 22, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Well you’re right about my age (im 23). But I’m actually a skinny puerto rican with no chin fuzz at the moment, and certainly no mountain bike. Sorry man.

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Hate Huckabee, but he is right this time. Good thing we Palin, Romney and Huckabee are religous and stand up for religous issues. McCain and his ilk don’t and he lost.

PrezHussein on February 22, 2010 at 2:34 PM

“A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.” — Thomas Jefferson

Bullhead on February 22, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I just emailed huckmail@foxnews.com the link for this thread. I want Huck to know how we feel about him.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

I was just castigated via email by a cousin for emailing the link to Huck. Guess it never occurred to me he may be sensitive and these comments may hurt his feelings…
Geeeeez.

OmahaConservative on February 22, 2010 at 2:48 PM

kcarpenter on February 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM

I am a big fan of Rush, and a big fan of Beck. Today was one of the rare times Rush was disappointing…he’s upset because Beck isn’t as optimistic and as much as a cheerleader of the Republicans as he is….even though Rush has said the same things.
Beck is trying to remind people this issue goes beyond 2010, 2012. Beck isn’t convinced that Republicans get it. He recognizes that Democrats stab our eyes with a screw driver, but Republicans use a needle.
Rush’s big issue is he is very anti-third party, and so perceives Beck’s anti-party stance to be threatening. Beck’s point is to not get caught up with party politics, but to ground yourself with an education and to guard against progressive thought that has contaminated both parties. To deny that Republicans have cancer supports Beck’s theory that Republicans haven’t had their come to Jesus moment.

Conservative Voice on February 22, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Huackabee? What this was was a big government hack who is solely concerned with using the government to enforce his ideas on social issues, watching the Conservatives coalescing on the focus of limited government and national defense. Huckabee is miffed he isn’t a rising star and the nation isn’t interested in his brand of well-intentioned tyranny. That being said I think having Beck as keynote speaker was a mistake. Maybe as a speaker, but not keynote. Beck doesn’t seem to get that sometimes people don’t need the angry Nun rapping knuckles with a ruler and teaching off a blackboard. Sometimes people need the Priest giving the Sunday sermon. It shouldn’t be so narrow and focused. It should be big picture, spiritual and uplifting. Rousing us to battle in the realm of politics.

chicagojedi on February 22, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Shouldn’t social issues be decided at State level? Isn’t Huckabee a former Governor of a State?

Isn’t the argument of the Tea Party Movement, that the present Administration is trying to centralize power in the Federal Government? Huckabee is no Progressive, he is no secular humanist.

So what problem does Huckabee have with fiscal conservatism?

Dr Evil on February 22, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Huckster no longer wants to be Prez, he want to sing,dance & play guitar.

la.rt.wngr on February 22, 2010 at 2:58 PM

After looking at the list of speakers, not sure which conference Huckabee was talking about.

RightOFLeft on February 22, 2010 at 3:00 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.

But Palin appeals to Christian Conservatives too so I don’t get where Huckabee has a lock on that demographic?

Dr Evil on February 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Dr Evil on February 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM

He doesn’t. allahpundit just can’t force himself to admit Palin has a decent shot at pulling down 2 of the 3 points of his “triangulation” strategy.

cs89 on February 22, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Social Conservative here, who never voted for Huckabee and never will. I’m also a fiscal conservative.

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”?

Just distinguish between libertarian and libertine. Sadly, I think most are libertines but there are some moral libertarians…aren’t there?

uknowmorethanme

If your moral compass isn’t calibrated to the truth, then it is not going to point you in the right direction. And yes, there is such a thing as universal truth whether anyone accepts it or not. Moral relativism is a farce and means that there are a great many broken moral compasses.

The Truth…it is what it is. Or in the words of the great Chesterton, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

I typically take a live and let live approach. I want abortion outlawed, because it doesn’t let the unborn live.

Regarding homosexuality, unlike Muslim countries, I’m more than happy to live and let live. I don’t care what adult consenting homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes. (Well, I do care, because I don’t like seeing anyone jeopardize their immortal soul, but you know what I mean.) However, I don’t want immoral behavior normalized by government mandated diversity education in classrooms, or to be forced to recognize the farce of a homosexual ‘marriage’, thereby denying me my first amendment right of freedom of religion.

Libertarians (of the libertine variety) like to accuse us social conservatives of wanting to legislate morality and force our version of it on others, based on some personal relative moral view, but the fact is, abortion is the intentional taking of a human life, aka murder. Moral relativists can groan all they like, but it doesn’t change the facts. Any civilized people should legislate against murder.

And you can’t legalize something like homosexual ‘marriage’ without infringing the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the vast majority of people. It leaves no room for religious freedom, or the rights of parents, etc… In Massachusetts and Maryland, parents are not allowed to opt out of homosexual indoctrination in their children’s schools. Catholic adoption services have already had to be abandoned. There are already lawsuits on the books against wedding photographers who didn’t want to photograph homosexual ‘weddings’. In Canada, a couple was sued for not renting a room in their home, a bed and breakfast, to a homosexual couple. And on and on….

Homosexual activists don’t want a live and let live society. They want an I live the way I want and anybody who doesn’t like it shut up and do as you’re told society.

There is no liberty in that. Libertarianism doesn’t appear to work in this case.

If these views makes me holier than thou, so be it.

DCJeff on February 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM

I’m thinking the voting age should be raised to 25 unless on active duty. It should also be limited to taxpayers. It’ll never happen, of course, which is why we are doomed. One of those things I’m starting to fear is a universal truth. :(

ernesto on February 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Are you actually foolish enough to believe what you are writing or is this just your way of stirring the pot? We all know that it is the modern liberals/progressives who are trying social engineering. Those forcing aberrant behavior on a society that has, up until less than 40 years ago, held a certain view would be considered social engineers, not those who hold to traditional values.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.~John Adams

Yep…we are doomed.

pannw on February 22, 2010 at 3:12 PM

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

It’s pretty hard to take someone seriously who throws around charges of treason like he was Joseph McCarthy on a bender.

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM

One by One the potential Republican presidential candidates are disqualifying themselves!

Soon their will be only one man standing

The Lovely SARAH PALIN/2012

dhunter on February 22, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Obamacare is wrong because God forbids it, very clearly.
jp on February 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Been getting radio transmissions from god again, eh?

Maybe you could post a link to the Almighty’s web page, so we can all verify that claim.

JohnGalt23 on February 22, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Huckabee probably commented after commiserating with Michelle Obama on America’s obesity program. Or is it the problem of childhood hunger? Way to tackle the big issues, Huck. I think everyone in the GOP is eager for Uncle Sam to tackle our children’s eating habits.

What would Huck have said if he’d come in first in the straw poll?

hawksruleva on February 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Why not just say, “I liked the way they’re heading but think we need to pay more attention to values”?

While that would have been better than what he said, it would still be out of touch. Reducing the size of government and its expenditures will get government off people’s backs, leaving values to families, the way it should be. If you want your values dictated to you by the government, look no further than the mid east.

EconomicNeocon on February 22, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Huckster no longer wants to be Prez, he want to sing,dance & play guitar.

la.rt.wngr on February 22, 2010 at 2:58 PM

If only Arsenio Hall still had a show on which the Arkansas Gov. could play saxaphone, I mean bass.

At least Huckabee got over his love of fattening foods. But otherwise, he sure does remind me of that other Arkansas guy…

hawksruleva on February 22, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Huck. Please go away. You and Palin should just sit comfortably at Fox Studios and comment. Frankly, the religious right turns me off the republicans. I know democrats are religious too, but they aren’t in your face about it. That’s why people go after the religious right so hard when they falter. They rarely live up to how they want others to live.

Religious issues about gays, and abortion, and god this and god that is really off-putting. Guess that’s why I’m more libertarian and am glad that CPAC was more like that then hard line right. I like Beck, but we starts up with the religious stuff, I tune out.

76United on February 22, 2010 at 3:28 PM

pannw on February 22, 2010 at 3:12 PM

You, Sir (or Madam), are correct.

I’ll post these again because they are such worthwhile reading.

Classic Liberalism (or Libertines) Has No Place to Stand

The Only Possible Defense

PrincipledPilgrim on February 22, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Huckabee either has little knowledge of history, if he thinks that Republican Party was founded on social conservatism.

Anyone who can read, or at least can look at electoral maps, can see the southeast used to vote hardcore Democrat, and those are the most socially conservative people.

I mean who did social conservatives vote for in 1976 in the presidential election? :)

firepilot on February 22, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Buh Bye Huck.

Like Joe Scarborough and John McCain, it’ll surely occur to you soon that straddling the political fence ultimately yields nothing more than a sore ass.

Progressive appeasement is a lose-lose formula.

BJ Phisch on February 22, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I take it the Huckster has decided to close the political chapter in his life. If. He had not done so before making the comments, he has now.

R Square on February 22, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Hucka who?

Mikey’ll eat it…he’ll eat anything…

The Huckster uses Christians, just as he uses the Republican Party, conservatives, moderates, Fox, his governorship, pardons, and anything else he thinks will get him another rung up the ladder.

Fark Harkabee.

hillbillyjim on February 22, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Huckabee is the Christian Right’s candidate. He is not the candidate of those who want to curb Washington spending policies.

He appears to be a Christian Progressive.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM

hawksruleva on February 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM

LMAO!

bitsy on February 22, 2010 at 4:26 PM

He appears to be a Christian Progressive.

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Spot on!

bitsy on February 22, 2010 at 4:26 PM

America’s Greatest Patriot, as Allahpundit put it, is running for President in 2012 because our country needs him. He needs to deliver the final blow against Obama and his evil ilk. The country may not have been ready for the Doctor’s perscription last time, but we are this time.

The Dean on February 22, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Huckabee wrong again. It’s not Libertarian until Starchild shows up.

curved space on February 22, 2010 at 4:42 PM

It is not just Huckabee, I heard Rush Limbaugh saying something kind of like this today. He even made the point that the CPAC is for conservatives and not libertarians. He also said that Republicans deserved more credit than they were getting from a lot of the speakers there. He went on about third parties, I got the feeling he was miffed with Beck. And Bill Bennett said a lot of the same things today.

Personally, I think that Ron Paul winning the straw poll bothered some conservatives because the man is a loon.

And Beck refuses to accept the fact that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and that bothers some conservatives too.

I think Beck is full of it on this subject. Obviously there is a big difference, trillions of dollars worth of differences.

Terrye on February 22, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Maybe Mr. Beck just wanted to show real bipartisanism by blaming both sides. Don’t be accused of bashing Pres. Obama and don’t mention any shining lights on the Right. All in all his was a very politically correct speach.

Cindy Munford on February 22, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Wow, for once I agree with Huck.

jarodea on February 22, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Dear Huck, go Huck yourself. You are a head case. The first chapter of your book tells readers how evil Mitt Romney is because you were supposedly “snubbed.” Get over yourself. I’ve met you, I’ve shook hands with you. I’ve looked into your eyes and something inside of me tells me that you are nothing but a snake oil salesman. Stick with your boring tv show and average bass playing.

CPAC is about Conservatives, not about “pay for play.” Capitalism is necessary for conventions like this to survive. And don;t get all wee-wee’d up about Ron Paul winning the straw poll. It is about as useful as the Heismann Trophy. WHO CARES. almost half of the attendees at CPAC were students, and most of them were Ron Paul bots. OF COURSE the poll is skewed. Even if it wasn’t, SO WHAT? Romney won the past three polls, what good did it do him?

Stay away from politics Huck. Go back to Arkansas and work on getting illegals in-state tuition. The Far Right like you are the reason we have Obama in the White House in the first place.

End Rant. Over and out.

cannonball on February 22, 2010 at 5:51 PM

And Beck refuses to accept the fact that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and that bothers some conservatives too.

I think Beck is full of it on this subject. Obviously there is a big difference, trillions of dollars worth of differences.

I think a lot of people agree with you Terrye, but I respectfully disagree. My interpretation of Beck’s point is that politicians on BOTH sides have sold their souls for power and have forgotten why they ran for office in the first place (assuming they ran to help their constituents instead of just for power).

OF COURSE both parties are drastically different from a policy perspective Beck, to me, seems to be talking at a more strategic level. Power corrupts. Political games are not necessary. Return to the founding fathers. s

cannonball on February 22, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I’ve always thought Huckabee has a liberal-fascistic streak to him. While the impulse to employ coercive force to compel others to do what suits one’s own moral values is a tentative that typifies the Left, it’s by no mean exclusive to the Left. A guy like Huckabee would fall straight for the totalitarian temptation, I think. In the struggle between liberty and tyranny it’s hard to trust anyone. Though I like Sarah Palin, I’m not sure I trust her fully either. The price of freedom, I guess, is uncertainty.

year_of_the_dingo on February 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Oh brother!!

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.

Beck is NOT the patron saint of the Tea Party.

uber-con on February 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM

People should select their nominee based on political philosophy, not religious affiliation.

Norwegian on February 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

I agree with you.

I would simple add common moral values. We might all be of different faiths, but there are moral values that everyone holds and used to be promoted and upheld in our society. Not any more.

Focus on common values and political philosophy. Not the religion that a politician belongs to.

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

Norwegian on February 22, 2010 at 1:01 PM

I would disagree. I don’t think Mitt is pure electoral poison in the south. SoCons aren’t the only people that dominate that area. There are alot of fiscal conservatives as well.

But Huckabee wouldn’t stand a chance in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Arizona where there are lots of LDS people in those states.

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

I agree. I can’t stand Ron Paul. But I can’s stand Mike Huckabee either.

I like the other names you listed. I just won’t support Huckabee or Ron Paul. Ever.

Conservative Samizdat on February 22, 2010 at 6:41 PM

IF Huck runs, this will come back to haunt him.

How can you have too much Liberty? And how can too much Liberty be bad?

Holger on February 22, 2010 at 6:58 PM

The most dangerous thing in the world to Progressive Socialists and the Obama administration are Barry Goldwater conservatives. You, Governor Huckabee are no Barry Goldwater conservative…..Don’t Tread On Me……….

adamsmith on February 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Off topic, but I just watched Congressman Thaddeus McCotter tear Chrissy “Tingles” Matthews and some Obamabot Dem Congressman a couple of new ones. Mr. McCotter is a future star. His intellect is great, and boy oh boy, can he rope-a-dope. The man is intellectual murder on his feet…….

adamsmith on February 22, 2010 at 7:18 PM

I am a big fan of Rush, and a big fan of Beck. Today was one of the rare times Rush was disappointing…he’s upset because Beck isn’t as optimistic and as much as a cheerleader of the Republicans as he is….even though Rush has said the same things.
Beck is trying to remind people this issue goes beyond 2010, 2012. Beck isn’t convinced that Republicans get it. He recognizes that Democrats stab our eyes with a screw driver, but Republicans use a needle.
Rush’s big issue is he is very anti-third party, and so perceives Beck’s anti-party stance to be threatening. Beck’s point is to not get caught up with party politics, but to ground yourself with an education and to guard against progressive thought that has contaminated both parties. To deny that Republicans have cancer supports Beck’s theory that Republicans haven’t had their come to Jesus moment.

Conservative Voice on February 22, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Spot on.

All I would add is to say that Rush, for all his tactical brilliance, hasn’t done a tenth of the historical investigation that Beck has done into the political philosophy that Beck identifies as Progressivism and Rush insists on calling “liberalism”.

I listen to both daily, and the disconnect between Rush and Beck is that Rush’s expertise is in the daily political battles between the Democrats and the Republicans, specifically over the last 30 years; Rush sees the policies embraced by the Democrat party as the greatest threat to the country.

Beck, however, is looking beyond the parties to the undergirding political philosophy that motivates individual politicians to overstep their Constitutional authority and incrementally reduce our God-given liberties while swelling their own coffers. The name of that political philosophy is Progressivism. And — just like Socialism, Fascism, and the communisms of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao — it is a descendant (or heresy, if you will) of Marxism.

What Rush doesn’t understand/know/believe (but Beck does) is that Progressivism is the uniquely American form of Marxism, where the Marxist coup occurs by slow, incremental, evolutionary steps rather than by a bloody, violent revolution. With either revolutionary Communism or evolutionary Progressivism, the end goal is still the same: the complete dismantling of the existing system and its replacement by a totalitarian tyranny. As Levin points out in his excellent book, tyranny is always the logical conclusion of the Statist.

In America, the existing system that the Progressives have been trying to replace for over a century is our unique experiment as a Constutional Republic.

Beck’s whole message vis-a-vis the parties is that the problem — Progressivism — transcends the party label; he is arguing that political principles are more important than political parties (Levin also makes this point implicitly in Liberty & Tyranny).

Rush and Beck are fighting the same fight — to save the country — but Rush is more interested in cheerleading for the Republicans (who are rightly our best hope and easiest target for reformation) than in trying to fight the underlying cause of the problem that is merely embodied by the modern Democrat party.

Rush is good, but he’s treating the symptoms; Beck is trying to fight the cause.

Both are good and essential warriors to have on our side.

Harpazo on February 22, 2010 at 7:43 PM

yuckabee

whiskeytango on February 22, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Both are good and essential warriors to have on our side.

Harpazo on February 22, 2010 at 7:43 PM

+1

phineas on February 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Huck you are a fraud, and all your pandering on radio and television has gotten you absolutely nowhere with conservatives. Of course you don’t like CPAC, becuase id doesn’t like you.

paulsur on February 22, 2010 at 10:00 PM

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

That’s why you don’t have a chance at the 2012 nomination, Huck.

Don’t quit your day job.

disa on February 22, 2010 at 10:11 PM

NoLeftTurn on February 22, 2010 at 1:52 PMI think there’s a difference between Libertarian (big L) and libertarian (little L). A lot of conservatives, myself included, describe themselves as liberatarian-conservatives, possibly to distinguish themselves from social cons. But most of us would not find common ground with the big L Libertarians on matters of foreign policy.

I doubt that it is a matter of big ‘L’ vs. small ‘l’ but rather big ‘L’ Libertarians from the Murray Rothbard school vs. big ‘L’ Libertarians from the Ayn Rand school. The former are riddled with conspiracy theorists and isolationists. Many of those are Paulians. The latter fog of conspiracy theorists as mentally unhinged and generally favour the ousting of any tyranny provided no conscription is involved. We admire Ron Paul’s Austrian economics but reject his foreign policy.

Tony.

FierceGuppy on February 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM

For all of you idiots who say Huckabee will run in 2012 just to be a spoiler haven’t been watching the polls have you? He was the only Republican candidate to beat Obama one on one in the PPP poll in January, 2010. He was within 2 points of Romney (within the margin of error) in the February poll, and WAY AHEAD of Sarah Palin. So if anybody would be the spoiler, it would be Sarah Palin. Mike Huckabee has much better numbers with Independents and Democrats, which you have to have, to win the general election, but Sarah could win the Republican nomination, but lose badly in the general. Do you think SHE will not run so SHE won’t be the spoiler???

Whether the people on Hot Air like Mike Huckabee certainly doesn’t matter according to the polls. It just shows how ignorant you are and biased.

VFT on February 23, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Anybody who thinks the Republican Party can win without the Social Conservatives is crazy. They may not pay attention to us after they win, but they better pay attention when they are running for office in the South and Midwest. Social Conservatives are the base of the Republican Party lest you all forget!!! The reason John McCain lost is because he was a moderate who didn’t care about the base. If we get a moderate like Romney, the base will not vote again just like in 2008! If the Republican Party hasn’t learned anything from our loss in 2008, they should pay attention. We need to get back to our roots of fiscal conservative, less government but also good social conservative values. This is part of the Republican Party platform in case any of you Libertarians have forgotten. Go start your own party and leave the Republican Party alone!!

VFT on February 23, 2010 at 1:28 AM

I agree with Rush and Huck’s just echoing that. Doesn’t make Huck a fiscal Conservative for stating the obvious. Doesn’t mean I agree with any policies he espouses. The Libertarian Party has taken over CPAC. But based on quite a few things that have transpired lately, it’s not surprising. What Rush gets is that when the infiltrators take over the direction of the Party that leaves the original players feeling that they have no other option than to leave and start anew. Reminds me of a few politcal movements across the global over the last 200-300 years.

Sultry Beauty on February 23, 2010 at 3:25 AM

Harpazo on February 22, 2010 at 7:43 PM

I also agree with this. Glenn and Rush believe the same thing they just have different ways of expressing it. Glenn clarified and chastised those who said he was calling for a third party. He used Rubio as his quantifier, saying that without Tea Party folks and people like him the GOP would be business as usual. Rubio is an example of what we are capable of achieving whether the GOP apparatus wants to follow or not.

Sultry Beauty on February 23, 2010 at 3:37 AM

Huckabee is a good example of what is WRONG with the Republican party, not what is right with the party.

{^_^}

herself on February 23, 2010 at 3:38 AM

Social Conservatism is as poisonous as Progressivism. They both tell the individual that they are too stupid to lead their own lives and need the government to tell them how to think and live. I’ve noticed Hannity leaving out “life” as an issue Republicans have to push among the real issues of fiscal conservatism and a strong national defense. It’s not an oversight. Even Hannity knows that won’t go over with anyone outside of the evangelical community….

adamsmith on February 23, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Rush, for all his tactical brilliance, hasn’t done a tenth of the historical investigation that Beck has done into the political philosophy that Beck identifies as Progressivism
Harpazo on February 22, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Nor have Hannity, O’Reilly, Levin, et al. Beck is a completely new phenomenon.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 9:26 AM

In all due respect guys, he is only voicing what you’ve been lamenting here in the blog. That too many libertarians are infecting the party. (Remember the whole Beck thing?) It only hurts because you were on the other end of the barb this time.

Huckabee is exactly what the Republicans don’t need right now, a right center version of Bill Clinton. I’ll never vote for him or Romney- they are all part of the same McCain/Graham clique and will sell you out in exchange for big government in a heartbeat. (As long as They are in charge)

How’s it feel being called too conservative?

archer52 on February 23, 2010 at 10:59 AM

It may be to Libertarian for you Gov.but no speaker at cpac this made them self look silly by fawning all over Mrs Obama in a interview and then telling Hannity that she and Pres.Obama were not bent on destroying this country and they just had a diff.set of ideas but both just wanted to do good for the country.You are one first class jerk you Huckaphony.

thmcbb on February 23, 2010 at 11:04 AM

adamsmith on February 23, 2010 at 9:06 AM

complete and utter B.S. The majority of the people in this nation share conservative social values, it is hardly poisonous and a social conservative is much less likely to partner up or sympathize with the left than secular Libertarians who were so easily taken in by Obama and the Legalize it lefties on the left coast.

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2010 at 11:05 AM

If I were a politician I’d stay far away from CPAC and the ACU and David Keene.

Keene’s “pay for play” scandals indicate to me that Keene has an integrity problem. It’s only a matter of time before the fit hits the shan and spews stinky stuff on anyone close by.

HondaV65 on February 23, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Social Conservatism is as poisonous as Progressivism.
adamsmith on February 23, 2010 at 9:06 AM

I’m more worried about hardcore Libertarianism than Progressivism. The problem with socialism is the self-righteous government bureaucracy; if you rally against it early and often then it just sulks. It can’t explain why people would be angry with such obviously utopian bounty. It falls back on pop psychology to explain our disorders. Our minds don’t work right!

Hardcore libertarian voters are themselves, the problem. They are utilitarians. And the moral lessons of utilitarians are based on what pays off, and what they can get away with. And the moral growth of utilitarians is about getting away with more. That is the maturity they talk about. And being mature enough to tolerate it in others. So if a politician campaigns on fiscal prudence, and wastes $15,000,000,000, he was mature enough to know when it pays to lie. And you gotta be mature enough to look the other way. Just as we all have to be mature enough to profit from rampant drugs, and if kids OD, that was the fault of their parents for not preparing them. And if you daughter is made pregnant by a teenager, you have to be mature enough to blame yourself for not teaching her the sexual mores of a 40-year-old divorcee–cause if she’d been more mature, she’d never sleep with an unemployed kid. There’s no such thing as absolute right and wrong, and no such thing as punishing others when they violate your standards. That’s not being mature.

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Social Conservatives are the base of the Republican Party lest you all forget!!!

As Ronald Reagan said to Carter, there you go again.

I wonder are social conservatives trying to rewrite history to pretend that they are the ones that invented the Republican Party? For a group that pretends to be the base of the GOP, they sure supported Democrats for a very very long time.

Hello, they gave us Jimmy Carter too. And LBJ. Republicans like Gerald Ford and Barry Goldwater. Hell, Social Conservatives even didnt like Eisenhower either for President. If he had only just said he was “born again”, that would have worked, that was all Jimmy Carter had to do in 1976 to get their support.

And while it looks like the GOP is going more libertarian than before, it just looks that way in comparison to the social conservatives. The GOP still has a long ways to go to get back to the small government ideals it has a generation or two ago.

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Republicans like Gerald Ford and Barry Goldwater.

I meant that Republicans like Gerald Ford and Barry Goldwater were not good enough for them.

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 1:29 PM

uknowmorethanme on February 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Bingo. And I know I’m not seeing any SS when I’m retired.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 1:38 PM

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM

If everybody who opposed drugs, gays and abortion is the dread SoCon Peril, you’re gonna find that EVERYBODY in American politics prior to 1970 was either a Social Conservative, or a Communist.

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Whether the people on Hot Air like Mike Huckabee certainly doesn’t matter according to the polls. It just shows how ignorant you are and biased.

VFT on February 23, 2010 at 1:19 AM

No, it’s just that we’re smart enough to understand that polls taken a full year before the primary season begins aren’t terribly relevant.

Well, most of us anyways.

Hollowpoint on February 23, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I am not surer how the Liberatarians are now trying to dictate the course of Conservative Republicans, don’t they have their own party? Especially since there are only a few areas that I agree with Libertarians and those are: Limited Federal government, limited Federal spending and cutting off all foreign aid. Everyone knows you cannot buy friendship, so why doesn’t our Govt?

SGinNC on February 23, 2010 at 1:57 PM

If everybody who opposed drugs, gays and abortion is the dread SoCon Peril, you’re gonna find that EVERYBODY in American politics prior to 1970 was either a Social Conservative, or a Communist.

Chris_Balsz

I would add in there too, civil rights in things social conservatives fought against too. That was the early start of the exodus of social conservatives from the Democratic Party, when they thought LBJ betrayed them.

Not every place in the country was ever cursed with moral busybody laws either, and the GOP had been more of a small government party, that did not focus on finding every present ways to get into peoples lives. The Democratic Party was doing just fine with that, and Social Conservatives supported that. (FDR and the New Deal).

And pot had been legal in the US, until such things like “Reefer Madness” and outright racism in regards to MJ, with the government telling people that black men smoking pot were going to come rape their white wives unless MJ was eradicated

The GOP used to be based out West and not Southeast. The last thing that people moved out west for, was to have government telling them how to live.

And how do some of you plan on opposing gays? Gonna put them in jail? Gonna get Anita Bryant back out, or resurrect California Prop 6 for that matter (that Reagan opposed)? Were social conservatives on the right or wrong sides of those? Maybe bringing back Sodomy laws will really show those gays!

Gonna fight drugs by prohibiting the biggest one, Alcohol? Maybe expanding an unsuccessful war on drugs? Maybe we can just lock up all pot smokers in prison too!

A lot more people, including a lot more Republicans just arent going to lose any sleep over someone in their city being gay or knowing that somewhere out there, someone is smoking pot.

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM

How the hell can you can speak of the social conservative vote, when it has only recently been tracked? Social Conservatism does not have a long history of being a voting block. Carter got Southern votes because he was a southerner, many of which happened to be social conservatives but they didn’t vote for him solely because of their social values. And how can you say they gave us Gerald Ford, when you just accused them of voting for Jimmy Carter, his opponent? Make up your mind.

The whole social conservative voting block, be it Reagan Democrats, the Evangelicals or the Christian Coalition has been pretty recent, as in the last few decades. Bush won in 2004 over Kerry because he tapped into and awakened an otherwise dormant Evangelical vote, that is the first real mass mobilization of the social conservative vote I can see other than the Reagan Democrats. Those Reagan Democrats and social conservatives also played a big role in the 1994 revolt cleaning up the whole Ross Perot mess of the ’92 election.

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM

wait, wait, so Social conservatives are a bunch of bigots who left the Democratic party over the Civil Rights issue to…join the Republicans who SUPPORTED Civil Rights? you make so much sense.

You sound like your typical “legalize it” nut who supported Obama in the last election because of some irrational fear of a moral dictator which has never come close to happening. Most social conservatives just want to be left alone, so get off their ass and just vote for a small government candidate with them.

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2010 at 2:12 PM

And how can you say they gave us Gerald Ford, when you just accused them of voting for Jimmy Carter, his opponent? Make up your mind.

It’s true, a large chunk of Carter voters supported a ban on gay marriage, a ban on abortion, free exercise of religion and criminalization of marijuana.

It’s also true large chunk of Ford voters supported a ban on gay marriage, a ban on abortion, free exercise of religion and criminalization of marijuana.

Supporting gay marriage, abortion, decriminalization of marijuana and hostility to religion are such fringe issues that its only lately you find either major party desperate enough to embrace it, rather than sack the first bench.

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 2:28 PM

And how can you say they gave us Gerald Ford, when you just accused them of voting for Jimmy Carter, his opponent? Make up your mind.

I claried that in the next message, when I had forgotten to put that Gerald Ford was not a good enough Republican apparently, to the Social Conservatives who seem to think that they should own the GOP.

Social Conservatism does not have a long history of being a voting block. Carter got Southern votes because he was a southerner,

Yeah, that was a great reason for voting for that disaster of a President. Apparently voting for someone just based on where he was from, and not over the issues, did not go over so well there. Maybe go ask the Iranian hostages what they thought of you all voting for him was like.

I think him playing the Social Conservative/Evangelical card, got him a lot of votes down south, and the Southeast had definitely voted very solid Democrat for a very long time.

Bush won in 2004 over Kerry because he tapped into and awakened an otherwise dormant Evangelical vote,

Bush barely won, and Kerry committed his own share of mistakes. Kerry would have been a Carteresque disaster too, but Kerry could have won if he had not done his own Coakley type mistakes.

Bush is not as social conservative as Evangelicals hoped. He even recently admitted he isnt opposed to gays getting married.

wait, wait, so Social conservatives are a bunch of bigots who left the Democratic party over the Civil Rights issue to…join the Republicans who SUPPORTED Civil Rights? you make so much sense.

Well it is a bit true and ironic. That was the start of the Social Conservatives leaving the Democratic Party, when LBJ signed civil rights act. And yes, more Republican Senators voted for it, but there was a backlash against LBJ and the Democrats for it, partly why LBJ did not run again.

I am not going to label anyone as bigots, but the most socially conservative party of the country, was the most against any kind of civil rights laws.

You sound like your typical “legalize it” nut who supported Obama in the last election because of some irrational fear of a moral dictator which has never come close to happening. Most social conservatives just want to be left alone, so get off their ass and just vote for a small government candidate with them.

Left alone? I thougth that was the libertarian ideal which social conservatives equate with leftism. All too many social conservatives see the government as a way to fight cultural battles with legislation. Social Conservatives are not exactly known as live and let live types.

firepilot on February 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Seems like 4:20 came early today.

Chris_Balsz on February 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Firepilot, when you spend your time obsessing over Social conservatives and attacking them, I question where your true political loyalties lie. I am a social conservative, I do not feel the government should legislate morality but I do support people who share the same moral values as me as well as those who share the same political philosophies as me. That is human nature and perfectly logical. I support a small government, the smaller government is the less likely it will be able to legislate it’s morality onto you. If we support this common principle, why do you insist on attacking people like me? I hate seeing conservatives attack each other, it makes no sense and only plays into the left. Many of my friends are true Libertarians and they never target social conservatives the way you and other so called “libertarians” on this board do. If you feel the need to attack the “SoCons” I suggest you go to LGF where that sort of thing is celebrated.

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4