Stay Classy, Mike
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Fred Thompson | Mike Huckabee | The True Conservative — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mike Huckabee has decided to try to defend his conservative credentials against an attack by Fred Thompson. How does Huckabee do this?
Huckabee said Friday that the lawyer-turned-actor-turned-politician had little to show for his time in the Senate.
"Eight years is a pretty long time to get a check from the federal government and not be able to say" he passed a major bill, Huckabee sniped.
You know, most conservatives would look at this "criticism" and think instead that it was a compliment. I mean, unlike Huckabee, who has decided that he wants to play the role of national nanny and legislate blanket smoking bans into law, Thompson actually wants to keep the government out of people's lives to the greatest degree possible. We could do with more legislators who think that we have enough laws on the books and that there is no need to expand government's reach still further. We could certainly do with a President who feels that way.
Read the whole thing and you will find that Huckabee attacks Thompson for supporting Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan in 1976 and Howard Baker over Reagan in 1980 (Thompson worked for Baker and the two remain close friends--Baker urged him to run for President this year. Thompson's support for Baker seems to stem from a certain personal virtue many people believe is outdated; I hear that this virtue is commonly called "loyalty"). He then sniffs of Thompson, "I appreciate his recent conversion, but some of us were for Ronald Reagan back in the early days; our legacy goes back a little further." Of course, there is little record of the alleged pivotal role that Mike Huckabee played in getting Ronald Reagan elected President, but in the current campaign, it is clear which candidate has remained true to Reaganesque principles and which one--among other things--employs a consultant who has joyfully declared the Reagan coalition "gone."
Then he'd quite attacking the only two candidates that represent it. Not to mention the glaringly obvious populist/socon coalition that he is trying to create himself.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Well so does Rudy and Big John for that matter.
Tell you what Ed, you can keep the silverware and alliance to the Potentates of the Moral Majority. The rest of us will take Law and Order, Lower Taxes, Strong Military and keeping the Federal government out of people's lives as much as possible. You can have Pastor Huckaboob too if it makes you feel better.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Huck frequently makes references to how different the candidate Reagan was, versus the President Reagan. The problem is that he doesn't agree with what Reagan actually did as president.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Is this the best defense of his record Huckabee can come up with? Howard Baker served as Reagan's Chief of Staff in 1987. Baker was considering running for President himself in 1988, but set his own political aspirations aside when Reagan asked him to become Chief of Staff.
How dare Fred support his political mentor in the primary? While we're at it, I bet George W. and Jeb Bush were supporting their dad in 1980 - that must put them on the wrong side of the Reagan revolution too.
Perhaps Huckabee should explain why he supported Democrats in contested elections against Republicans in Arkansas.
Mike is right to say that Fred did nothing significant in the Senate (except for probably McCain-Feingold). Nothing! Mike should also bring up these points:
* Fred is the absolute "worst" on taxes, according to the influential tax man Grover Norquist.
* Fred is terrible on the protection of marriage, according to the most influential social conservative.
* In the Senate, Fred voted for amnesty for certain groups (Cubans and Nicaraguans, which may be justified), guest worker program, and reducing fines for employers of illegals.
* Fred was pro-choice back in the day and has no regrets even until now about his lobbying to reduce restrictions for a pro-abortion group.
So Mike can definitely stay classy and still paint Fred as a liberal (and as one who has no record of accomplishment in the Senate) based on the facts.
yeah, that makes perfect sense..... Bwahahahah! (sniff) (sniff) hahahahehehe
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
rebutted on all of these items so many times before that it has become tiring to get into it again.
Any effort to call Fred "liberal" by ANY standard is ludicrous. The list that can be used against your bud is as long as your arm in 8 point type.
Note when he tries to defend himself, Huck ends up creating so many factual problems, that FactCheck is threatening to just save template text so that every time he talks about his tax cutting, they have the facts ready.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I can only conclude that there must be some truth to liberal stereotypes about Republicans.
Whats next Huckabee rediscovers the velocity of money or starts using Heinlein's early work to formulate campaign positions (Oops seems he already has on that first one)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Okay I was very concerned about this tax pledge that is out there that this group wants signed -- so I went to their web site and read the tax pledge
Okay the first paragraph was not so bad -- and thought that a candidate who wanted to cut taxes should sign it
then I read the second paragraph and started laughing.
Did Grover et al write it in crayon?
Now I might not know much about the tax code -- after all I am just a CPA and Attorney with an emphasis in tax -- but I have not practiced tax law outside of preparing income tax filings.
All the same -- did they use one of the Crayola retired colors or one of the new ones?
Because the second paragraph is STUPID. YES -- pure an simple it is stupid. Not only will only vote for a candidate who refuses to sign the pledge -- I will never vote for a candidate who does sign the pledge because they are either (1) just as stupid, or (2) too slick.
Now someone may ask what is wrong with the second paragraph.
After all the it only provides that if any deduction or credit is eliminated so that the tax rate would go up then the candidate pledges to either cut a tax rate or provide another deduction so that the change is tax neutral.
Does anyone else see what is wrong with this?
Now most do not know this but buried in the tax code are any number of provisions that apply to a very small group and were placed there by Congress to provide a tax benefit (lower taxes) to that small group. In some cases application of the provision is so narrow that the group consists of 1 taxpaying entity.
Now under Grover's pledge -- the candidate who signs the pledge has promised that if any of these tax "loopholes" are closed thus creating an increased tax event -- that it will be replaced with another provision of equal tax reducing benefit.
Again --- Grover Norquist -- please tell me what color crayon did you use to write this pledge.
I hav sent e-mails and letters to your office but no one has bothered to answer me.
Does anybody trust anything Norquist does anymore? I mean, after his proven ties to Islamic radicals, I don't think I trust anything the guy says anymore.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I had already posted several things at my blog arguing against the use of this pledge to knock Fred. In particular, I argued that Fred has a wonderful tax record (http://infredheads.blogspot.com/2008/01/fred-on-taxes-ie-more-of-why-ame...).
But I like your argument not to vote for anyone who signs it. It is stupid. And what I find more ridiculous is that they are supposedly for "tax reform" but this pledge prevents real tax reform.
Fred is the absolute "worst" on taxes, according to the influential tax man Grover Norquist.
The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily, among many others, gave Fred’s tax plan rave reviews.
Fred is terrible on the protection of marriage, according to the most influential social conservative.
Fred refuses to waste time and political capital on the FMA, which has zero chance of ever being ratified. He would rather work to overturn Roe
In the Senate, Fred voted for amnesty for certain groups (Cubans and Nicaraguans, which may be justified), guest worker program, and reducing fines for employers of illegals.
Can’t prove a negative. Give me a reference and I’ll get back to you.
Fred’s law firm assigned him to lobby for a pro-abortion group. Do defense attorneys support crime.
I HOPE the Huckster brings some weak stuff like this.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Thanks for the link. I think the evidence provided shows a couple of things:
1. Since 1996, Fred has become increasingly tougher on ILLEGAL immigration. His votes from 2000 on were pretty consistently anti-illegal
2. Fred has a heart for LEGAL immigrants.
This all fits with Fred's "High fence and wide gate stance."
but it is an attack that could gain traction if Fred becomes more popular. It's one of the major problem that just about any senator has that runs for president. Chairing committees, participating on task forces, "helping" push legislation through, doesn't translate as easily to worthwhile experience for the average voter when compared to that of a governor. In addition, many times, compromise has to occur for legislation to get passed and this chips away at conservative credentials.
When Huck attacks Fred I don't think it works. If Rudy, McCain (because he accomplished many things - horrible, horrible, things - LOL) and Mitt attack his lack of accomplishments it is likely to gain more traction.
I know for me, one of my biggest concerns with Fred is that he may be more like McCain than we know - I hope not and I'm willing to believe him but if he withdraws in the future and throws support behind McCain I will never trust the man again.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Too many candidates. The vote split amongst the competent is so great that somebody like Huckabee can come in and pull an identity politics play. Thanks to our incredibly front loaded primaries this year, there won't be an opportunity to winnow down the field.
The net result will be. We get the candidate that is absolutely the worst on foreign policy (Not only does he insult Pakistan, he doesn't even know where it is on a map(A trait he undoubtedly shares with many supporters)). We get the worst candidate when it comes to fiscal conservatism. We get a candidate that has only advocated for the most pointless of conservative positions. Finally we will get a candidate who's idea of leadership is telling people whatever he thinks they want to hear.
I begin to look forward to a brokered convention, even though it likely means we will lose the general. At least Huckabee wont be representing me.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If this was a 2 man race, Huck would be getting blown out. He probably wouldn't have even won Iowa. The only way a lousy conman like Huck can get traction is in a very crowded field.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Huckabee is what happens when you have Too many candidates. The vote split amongst the competent is so great that somebody like Huckabee can come in and pull an identity politics play. Thanks to our incredibly front loaded primaries this year, there won't be an opportunity to winnow down the field.
I'm confident we "winnow down the field" to a two man race, in plenty of time for Huckabee to get decisively thrashed by whichever Republican is the alternative to Huckabee. Whoever the is that alternative will definitely go to the convention with a majority of the delegates.
After Florida there might be just one credible alternative to Huckabee left, in which case Huckabee is roadkill after Super Tuesday. If instead the vote is still being split on Super Tuesday, that day will settle who Huckabee's one-on-one opponent is, and that candidate will win all but a fraction of the delegates after Super Tuesday.
There's no way Huckabee will be the Republican nominee. The only worry I have about Huckabee is if he lasts long enough to convince many swing voters that RonPaul! levels of kookiness are common among Republicans. That could unfairly tarnish their perception of whoever the Republican nominee is, resulting in Clinton or Obama winning the general election.
No really.He doesn't have a clue and what he does know he ain't tellin.He's as scary as Billary.Go Fred!
Fred treat immigrants like human beings and is despised by Norquist? I knew there was a reason he was my #2 pick.
because he had no accomplishments, how is that for Fred not getting anything accomplished is an advantage.
On Huck. I think Fred having a campaign centered around Huckabee is apt to hurt. Of course considering he is just a little ahead of Ron Paul in his only good state it may have been his only good option. However, Huckabee would do well to just ignore Thompson. Unless perhaps Thompson is surging in South Carolina, and then Huck's attacks would make more sense. Perhaps Huckabee's internals are showing a Thompson surge - I look forward to seeing the upcoming South Carolina polls. If the South Carolina polls are the same as what they were then it makes sense for Huck to ignore Thompson and therefore add the perception that Thompson is not viable. Attacking Thompson is going to make him seem viable.
Pej
In 1976, there was a huge Christian summit in Dallas which formed the basis of the Moral Majority movement. Huck served as the Director of Communications for one of the major Christian organizations involved in the event, which drew thousands of participants.
Reagan was the keynote speaker, if I recall correctly. This event is widely noted in evangelical circles as the "beginning" of the conservative Christian-Reagan marraige.
Huck apparently discusses it quite a bit in one or more of his books.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth