I can see that the Romney/Huckabee slugfest will probably last a few more rounds. Romney is also a socialist. But Huckabee is barely any different on that particular issue, and far more socialist in many other areas.

Yeah, I either read the transcript or saw a video of this speech - I think it was a video - last week. I remember thinking almost word-for-word much of what Colin has written in this article.

I wonder whether Jenny wouldn’t mind explaining why Huckabee isn’t a Socialist and Romney is.

I think Colin has done a pretty good job of fact-checking, don’t you? I mean the transcript is a direct quote. Did he say those things or not? If he has mischaracterized his positions, why don’t you speak to that specifically? In other words, which positions have been misstated and how?

“Huckabee is the only one of the past/present conservatives who’d we’d trust to run this country…”

Maybe you could start by telling us why you think Huckabee is a Conservative. My guess is that you could only define him as conservative in the social sense.

My guess is that you could only define him as conservative in the social sense.

And that, barely. Most of his “social conservative” values is pandering and positive rep for being an evangelical and a former pastor.

I am not arguing that Huckabee isn’t popular. I am arguing that he is a socialist - in that sense, I agree, he is a fairly “new brand of republican” - namely, a socialist “compassionate conservative” like Bush and many other neo-cons.

A new brand of Republican? Oh, so you can keep labels and change definitions and then wonder why people are questioning? He doesn’t believe in less taxes or less government, as Colin eloquently showed in this article. As far as compassion, it’s funny how the “new brand of Republican” sounds like the very “bleeding heart liberals” that are usually eviscerated by the right-wing talking heads on a daily basis. “Compassion” does not involve the ends justifying the means. Calling a bowl of monkey turds a turkey sandwich doesn’t make it any more palatable or edible.

But hey, what do we know? We’re in the minority and obviously don’t “get it” like Huckabee does. Glad to hear that “resonating with millions” is a good enough argument nowadays. Apparently the whole “tyranny by the majority” concept is a fading memory. Tell you what, sweetheart, I’ll hold a hose while you slow dance in a burning room. What was it mommy used to say? Oh yes, “If everyone was jumping off a cliff, would you?” America needs a giant dose of mom wisdom…that’s apparent by the recent comments.

Huckabee is not a socialist, he is not a liberal, he’s an innovator who is trying to help conservatives not get a bad name as people who are mean and want to leave people bleeding in the street. It is possible to “care” and reduce the role of government. It takes a pretty talented leader to explain to the public that it is compassionate to reduce and reform the size of the government to be reponsible and good stewards for the next generations. No one will fix the country’s problems by rolling out JUST an accounting fix. We need a Reagan like leader who can inspire us to dramatically change our government to get out of debt and restore the Feds to their proper role. Knee-jerk conservatives have not thought through the issues and do not have a compelling solution. To solve the country’s problems you have to look at the demographic shifts, the debt problem, the Medicare disaster and the food and energy derailment. Once you understand these, then you can come up with an intelligent answer. The irony is that some of the “hippies” got it right. We need sustainable and local agriculture, we need local energy sources. Most of the modern medicine system should be scrapped. An we need to stop incentivizing people to be fat, lazy, sick and unskilled. It took us decades to make this mess and some Libertarian accounting speech ain’t going to get it fixed. It’ll take decades of compelling, responsible, unselfish leadership to make the sacrifices to get it done. But the conservatives that are not in support of more efficient legal immigration of younger workers, obviously don’t understand the demographic troubles we are facing. The real conservative answer is to do what it takes to preserve that which is good, true and beautiful. We won’t grow our way out of this one just on lower taxes; I wish we could. I don’t know Huckabee personally, but I think he has the political skills to draw broader support to responsible government and I’m convinced that he understands good stewardship. GW had the right theme of Compassionate Conservatism, but he was not a good steward and his Medicare drug program was the most irresponsible governemt expansion by a Republican yet. That one needs to go and someone is going to have to stand up to the public and let them know that our “promises” on Social Security and Medicare are not and should not be met. They are stealing from our children and grandchildren. Watch David Walker’s talks, GAO chief. I think Huckabee can make that speech as I think Reagan could have. No one else out there will take on the real issues.

Huckabee government style has matched Reagan’s quite closely so far; Reagan made many of the same compromises.

I think it betrays something that your comparisons of Huckabee and Reagan are on the ways they reneged on their conservative values. Two wrongs do not make a right. This does not change the fact that Huckabee’s values are completely opposite constitutional conservatism.

We need a Reagan like leader who can inspire us to dramatically change our government to get out of debt and restore the Feds to their proper role… It took us decades to make this mess and some Libertarian accounting speech ain’t going to get it fixed.

Your proposals that we can fix the authoritarian shift of government by more government “inspiration” is laughable. Are you serious? Fixing the budget and getting out of debt by “inspiration”? You don’t think the Federal Reserve or maybe the increased power of government have anything to do with this?

We are in this mess partially because of politicians getting elected by “inspiration” and then failing to do “libertarian accounting” solutions. We aren’t here for lack of inspiration or “change” or some other over-used buzzword from Huckabee’s substanceless speeches.

GW had the right theme of Compassionate Conservatism, but he was not a good steward

More brilliant ideas - make a big pile of free money and power in Washington and when it invariably gets abused it because of bad managers, and not the fact that maybe we shouldn’t have a big pile of money and power in Washington. That’s great that you trust Huckabee (let alone any man) to not give in to any abuse, but I do not. That’s called naivete.

Even if Huckabee is completely trustworthy and above reproach to create all this new government excess - the next guy (or gal) may not be. That is the recklessness this kind of historical pattern leads to. That is why the founders advocated a severely limited federal government. This is why politicians who advocate more government, even if they are good at heart, must be opposed on principle. The long term problems will come back to haunt us.

I could say so much, but Colin beat me to it.

This guy should be the next Sec. of the Treasury, but it’s going to take some courageous and inspirational leadership to get the public to move in the responsible direction.

You guys are funny. I’m not sure I should give you grief on all of it. It’s pretty silly to talk about “government inspiration”? Governments don’t inspire, leaders do. What are you talking about? Reagan was Governor and President, but I wouldn’t call that government inspiration. Of course, leaders inpsire as any review of American history demonstrates.

The logic is all over the place. Of course not all inspiration is aimed at the same goals. Are you recommending that you accomplish the changes that we need by being dull?

It hasn’t worked out too well for Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul, but he can’t lead. He should be a valued principled advisor to the next Administration.
Without leadership you have nothing but naive people that think they can fix things without a compelling plan.

What exactly are you proposing and how do you hope to get it done?
I’d like something radically better!
I think that a vision to “Fuel ourselves, Feed ourselves and Arm ourselves” is a radical approach to drastically change the way the country operates. It addresses a lot of the major troubles we face. I’ve already said I think we need to scrap most of our current overbloated health care system. And wee need to address our demographic imbalance. What are you proposing and how do you hope to get it done?

Open to a better idea here in OK.

Meanwhile, I’ll raise my own food, make my own fuel and will be amply armed.

The fault lies in the public which has been lazy, greedy, selfish and immoral. The politicians just gave the public what they wanted. The Founding Fathers made it clear that Freedom without responsibility and gratitude to God will fail. The morals failed long before the bills came to be paid. We need to get our moral house in order to get to real responsibility and stewardship. At least I know Huckabee reads the Proverbs every day, I recommend you do the same.

Proverbs 3
Further Benefits of Wisdom
1 My son, do not forget my teaching,
but keep my commands in your heart,
2 for they will prolong your life many years
and bring you prosperity.

3 Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
bind them around your neck,
write them on the tablet of your heart.

4 Then you will win favor and a good name
in the sight of God and man.

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. [a]

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.

8 This will bring health to your body
and nourishment to your bones.

9 Honor the LORD with your wealth,
with the firstfruits of all your crops;

10 then your barns will be filled to overflowing,
and your vats will brim over with new wine.

11 My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline
and do not resent his rebuke,

12 because the LORD disciplines those he loves,
as a father [b] the son he delights in.

13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom,
the man who gains understanding,

14 for she is more profitable than silver
and yields better returns than gold.

15 She is more precious than rubies;
nothing you desire can compare with her.

16 Long life is in her right hand;
in her left hand are riches and honor.

17 Her ways are pleasant ways,
and all her paths are peace.

18 She is a tree of life to those who embrace her;
those who lay hold of her will be blessed.

19 By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations,
by understanding he set the heavens in place;

20 by his knowledge the deeps were divided,
and the clouds let drop the dew.

21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment,
do not let them out of your sight;

22 they will be life for you,
an ornament to grace your neck.

23 Then you will go on your way in safety,
and your foot will not stumble;

24 when you lie down, you will not be afraid;
when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.

25 Have no fear of sudden disaster
or of the ruin that overtakes the wicked,

26 for the LORD will be your confidence
and will keep your foot from being snared.

27 Do not withhold good from those who deserve it,
when it is in your power to act.

28 Do not say to your neighbor,
“Come back later; I’ll give it tomorrow”—
when you now have it with you.

29 Do not plot harm against your neighbor,
who lives trustfully near you.

30 Do not accuse a man for no reason—
when he has done you no harm.

31 Do not envy a violent man
or choose any of his ways,

32 for the LORD detests a perverse man
but takes the upright into his confidence.

33 The LORD’s curse is on the house of the wicked,
but he blesses the home of the righteous.

34 He mocks proud mockers
but gives grace to the humble.

35 The wise inherit honor,
but fools he holds up to shame.

We’ll only get our ideas into practice if we can explain how to implement the reduction of government in relation and for the sake of saving people’s lives. The point isn’t less government; the point is the welfare of the people. Ideology is the road to destiny; but let’s not confuse the colorful rainbow with its pot of gold. No one will embark on a journey with us to look at a rainbow all day; they want a pot of gold. Liberals seek the pot of gold in a desert’s mirage. If it is true that we really have the roadmap to bettering people’s lives, then let’s proclaim it with gusto! It’s not about less government; it’s about compassion.

You’ve got to take on the mantle of compassion if you are going to win the argument. If you throw humanity to the wayside, you’ve just got a dogma, an elaborate rainbow. It may be true; it may lead to great things. But no ones going to embrace the dogma and no one’s going to follow the rainbow unless they know the pot of gold really lies at its end.

Also, be careful of using the word fascist. That’s more name calling than informative. If you choose the name at all, be sure to remove it from its Nazi connotation. (Hitler’s legacy is evil because of its view of humanity, not economics.) However, since it is hard to remove the label from its past, you may want to drop the word. If you use it, explain why fascism is bad (again, be sure to either remove it from its Nazi past–OR–prove that Huckabee is a Nazi).

God Bless,
Jonathon

No, less government IS better welfare of the people. “Compassion” is a buzzword, much like “Happiness”, which isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The point indeed IS less government, because THAT is the welfare of the people.

Also, Colin is using the correct definition of fascist. Just because the definition has been linked to Nazism, doesn’t mean that Colin is saying that Huckabee is a Nazi. Which is probably why I’m so confused by your comment…Colin did indeed remove the Nazi connotations by using a true definition of the word. If the shoe fits…

Apparently: Huckabee = Compassion, Obama = Change, Neither have any actual idea what that means.

The accepted elements of fascism are:
A dictator with complete power.
Extreme nationalism.
Racism or ethnic nationalism.
Total social regimentation.
Forcibly suppressing with extreme violence criticism and opposition.
Severe regimentation of all industry and commerce.

Love him or hate him, no rational thinking person can attribute these views to huckabee. At least not any person who has actually bothered to research the horrors of a real fascist government. I can certainly see were you would equate exterminating millions of people because they were allegedly racially inferior with banning smoking. Well maybe not.

What exactly is a characterization of fascism as opposed to a definition anyway? I used oxford, webster, and random house (the books not the web pages) not whikipedia.

The accepted elements of fascism are:
A dictator with complete power.
Extreme nationalism.
Racism or ethnic nationalism.
Total social regimentation.
Forcibly suppressing with extreme violence criticism and opposition.
Severe regimentation of all industry and commerce.

Love him or hate him, no rational thinking person can attribute these views to huckabee. At least not any person who has actually bothered to research the horrors of a real fascist government. I can certainly see were you would equate exterminating millions of people because they were allegedly racially inferior with banning smoking. Well maybe not.

What exactly is a characterization of fascism as opposed to a definition anyway? I used oxford, webster, and random house (the books not the web pages) not whikipedia.

I wouldn’t personally characterize Huckabee as a fascist, but a book definition of this ideology as opposed to a characterization is simply that one offers a very abbreviated description while the other offers a broader overview of the philosophy. Neither your “definition” not Colin’s “characterization” are wrong. And the question of whether books or wikipedia are better sources of information on this topic is a moot point, since the information on wikipedia comes from books.

I would say that the current administration definitely exhibits the fascist tendencies of militarism and corporatism with just a tinge of neo-patriotism/nationalism, which has become a vehicle for quelling dissent - you know, the whole “unAmerican” accusation an so forth. When supporting the troops is equated to supporting the war in Iraq, that is fascist language.

Fascism is a political philosophy first. The effects which you list are merely possible ways that philosophy manifests itself. This is like saying my neighbour (who loves cars) is not actually a car lover because car lovers watch racing, own mustangs and change their own oil.

Aside from the Nazi brand of fascism (which is a small, small minority or how it is articulated) there have been gobs and gobs of fascists and fascist plans to pick from: from Lincoln to Mussolini to FDR, and even this current administration has argued for a fascist interpretation of government. Just because Huckabee and Bush can’t get away with the excesses does not absolve them of fascism. The fact is that wherever these people have had power, they have sought philosophically fascist solutions. And where they haven’t had power, they have wanted more of it.

Here is an excellent (but long) exposition of what fascism is:
http://mises.org/story/2903

If you like audio/podcasts, here is an excellent lecture series from several historians and economists on fascism:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=82

Governments don’t inspire, leaders do. What are you talking about? Reagan was Governor and President, but I wouldn’t call that government inspiration. Of course, leaders inpsire as any review of American history demonstrates.

A review of American history demonstrates that so-called “inspired” leaders (Wilson, Lincoln, FDR) did some of the worst things possible to this country.

Without leadership you have nothing but naive people that think they can fix things without a compelling plan.

What exactly are you proposing and how do you hope to get it done?

Mike, this mentality right here is the problem. The idea that we need grand plans and management from government is ruining our economy. What we need is an anti-leader for president (or at least gridlock): a person who says, we need to stop trying to plan from Washington and pull back.

I agree with you that the moral compass of society is gone, but again, does this mean we need moral bosses and managers to whip us into moral shape? Is it not truth that this country gained morals not from government imposition, but by setting up private institutions and being responsible for our selves? Did our founders not flee such a country as people like Huckabee would like to create?

“Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain parties and regimes.[13] Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents.”

Some reasonable level nationalism exists for almost every country, that does not mean that they’re all fascist. Unfortunately our language is not used with a great level of discipline, as most are not trained in even basic principles of logic, so their meanings have been allowed to drift. Also fallacious arguements are so common place that most people don’t know the difference between a proper arguement and common every day fallacies.

Here are the basics. Usually it starts with no recognition of universals from particulars, and mixing a matching to “rationalize” a poorly thought out position.

The classification of material fallacies widely adopted by modern logicians and based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows:

Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)–makes a generalization that disregards exceptions (e.g., Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.)

Converse Fallacy of Accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)–argues from a special case to a general rule (e.g., If we allow people with glaucoma to use medicinal marijuana then everyone should be allowed to use marijuana.)

Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi)–diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. This is sometimes referred to as a “red herring”. Subsets include:
purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum–appeal to the majority),
fear (argumentum ad baculum),
conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam–appeal to authority)

Fallacy of the Consequent–draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion (e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.)

Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando–arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)–demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. This statement assumes the violent crime rate will fall when the death penalty is imposed.)

Call to Perfection is committed when one argues to postpone some action or policy until some unlikely event or impossible change is achieved. (example: I’ll do it the day that pigs can fly. Since pigs do not fly and will probably never be able to, the action or policy will probably never take place.)

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”)–incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great.)
A special case of this fallacy also goes by the Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc–the fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
Another special case is given by the Latin term cum hoc ergo propter hoc — the fallacy of believing that happenstance implies causal relation (aka as fallacy of causation versus correlation: assumes that correlation implies causation).

Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)–groups more than one question in the form of a single question (e.g., Is it true that you no longer beat your wife? A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to wife-beating.)

To be clear, which of these fallacies is Colin guilty of an why?

I agree that the word “fascist” is a loaded word and often used incorrectly in political discourse. That does not mean that it cannot or should not be used to describe those who hold fascist ideas. I believe that would fall under “Irrelevant Conclusion” since you have not directly disputed whether Huckabee is a Fascist or a Socialist, but instead have made a general statement about how the word is used incorrectly.

Now it’s starting to sound more like a dialogue. No, I’m not easily offended by names, Huckabot etc. I certainly don’t fit into a stereotypical mold. Your creative use of terms are interesting, so I’m trying to understand where you’re going with them.

You seem to equate leadership and inspiration with larger government and have to come up with a word, anti-leader to describe someone who would “promote?” reduction in government. Help me out, have you thought this use of the language through. Was Reagan an anti-leader?
I think Leadership and inspiration and even hope can be used for both good and bad things. People with charisma have an ability to cause people to action. This can be very good and very bad, depending on where that person is going. George Washington had charisma and he had a role in the formation of government, albeit one that had a lot more individual freedom than the prior one. The apostles had charisma as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit on Pentacost to spread the Good Word without fear.

The word charisma (from the Greek word χάρισμα (kharisma), “gift” or “divine favor,” from kharizesthai, “to favor,” from kharis, “favor”: see also charism, Charis) refers to a rare trait found in certain human personalities usually including extreme charm and a ‘magnetic’ quality of personality and/or appearance along with innate and powerfully sophisticated personal communicability and persuasiveness.

I’m bothered by your reference to Leadership as equating to someone who wants to expand government. I don’t disagree with your examples, but using those particulars to prove a universal is a classic fallacy.

The word leadership can refer to:

Those entities that perform one or more acts of leading.
The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission.
Influencing a group of people to move towards its goal setting or goal achievement. (Stogdill 1950: 3)

It’s just not part of the definition. If we can’t agree on our terms the arguements are mostly hot air, so to speak.

My proposition is that absent leadership the public will drift with the status quo, which in this case is bloated government. Maybe be we’re caught up in words here, but I think you want to reduce government and reduce our debts along with getting back to the intended role of the Federal government. In my book you are going to need a President with some talents to “motivate” a reduction in the government and a persuasive plan to get it done. I don’t know what you would want such a person to be called, but for sake of discussion let’s call him “Colin’s Hero” who will “lead” or is it “anti-lead” the country back to it’s righteous roots.

If you could elaborate on what kind of man “Colin’s Hero” would be, it would help me understand a coherent intention. What qualities would this man need to have to be successful in this endeavor?

It seems if Ron Paul had Huckabee’s gift of the slogan and the soundbite along with the ideological principles, he would have gone much further. I do think Huckabee is much better than the caricature his opponents have tried to paint him with.

My own quote is “quick to judge, slow to learn”
It takes a while in the political arena to study the forces in play and they are often not what they seem at first blush. I think you misjudge Huckabee substantially. I don’t know him well enough to be sure, but I’ve observed him more than most with an objective eye.

Here are a few things that I am confident about him:
- He is genuinely Pro-life and can make a compelling case about the dignity of human life (I’m a staunch pro-life Catholic)
- He is an original thinker and natural strategist with a gift for details and ability to get the upper hand in an arguement. His humble persona may make him affable, but his intellectual grasp of the issues and vision are very strong. His skills and grasp of issues is not unlike Bill Clinton, with one clear difference. Bill had no other ultimate objective than self gratification. Huckabee is driven by a sense of purpose and genuine Christian faith.
- I am confident that Huckabee believes deeply that we should be good stewards and that would include “fixing” the overwhelming debt issue the country faces ans well as the energy and food risks.

I don’t think he would want to dismantle the government to a level that would satisfy you, but I doubt you could build enough of a coalition to do more than blog about it.

Now it’s starting to sound more like a dialogue. No, I’m not easily offended by names, Huckabot etc. I certainly don’t fit into a stereotypical mold. Your creative use of terms are interesting, so I’m trying to understand where you’re going with them.

My goal is not to “namecall” as such, but to merely indicate that mention certain presidential candidates and suddenly there are spammers, many of whom aren’t interested in discussion.

You seem to equate leadership and inspiration with larger government and have to come up with a word, anti-leader to describe someone who would “promote?” reduction in government. Help me out, have you thought this use of the language through. Was Reagan an anti-leader?

No, Reagan was not. I would say an anti-leader is a person willing to facilitate the freedom of individuals to lead themselves and their own lives. Reagan espoused these views, but did not act on them in many cases.

I’m bothered by your reference to Leadership as equating to someone who wants to expand government. I don’t disagree with your examples, but using those particulars to prove a universal is a classic fallacy.

I am not trying to inductively prove my case (which is not a fallacy anyway)
by past presidents. I am in fact responding to your vague assertion of what American history “proves” - it is not as clear-cut as you indicate.

My proposition is that absent leadership the public will drift with the status quo, which in this case is bloated government. Maybe be we’re caught up in words here, but I think you want to reduce government and reduce our debts along with getting back to the intended role of the Federal government. In my book you are going to need a President with some talents to “motivate” a reduction in the government and a persuasive plan to get it done. I don’t know what you would want such a person to be called, but for sake of discussion let’s call him “Colin’s Hero” who will “lead” or is it “anti-lead” the country back to it’s righteous roots.

If you could elaborate on what kind of man “Colin’s Hero” would be, it would help me understand a coherent intention. What qualities would this man need to have to be successful in this endeavor?

Pragmatically, to move this system back, you would need such a man as you describe - and that in perfection. But also pragmatically, this is not possible for any man because our system of government has become so corrupt and bloated that I suspect a return to a modern incarnation of the original intent of the founders would lead to complete civil war.

My ideal leader would basically be a community/local leader (such as a pastor, businessman, or intellectual) who leads by using his gifts to promote individual liberty in word and deed. His life would be a reflection of independence, morality and self-reliance. He wouldn’t compromise his values to obtain his goal.

I can never see “Colin’s hero” being a national figure who seeks to use the very power we are supposed to be wary of to accomplish our goals. A man who will justify the means by the ends is philosophically unstable and unfit for leadership.

Rather it would be “Colin’s Heros” who would rise up absent of an overarching state as community and family leaders. These men and women would “inspire” and “lead” the country without the use of national government.

It seems if Ron Paul had Huckabee’s gift of the slogan and the soundbite along with the ideological principles, he would have gone much further. I do think Huckabee is much better than the caricature his opponents have tried to paint him with.

No question - Ron Paul looked more like a grumpy old man at times, than the statesman he is. But I’m not sure why Ron Paul is being brought up?

I think you misjudge Huckabee substantially. I don’t know him well enough to be sure, but I’ve observed him more than most with an objective eye.

Here are a few things that I am confident about him:
- He is genuinely Pro-life and can make a compelling case about the dignity of human life (I’m a staunch pro-life Catholic)
- He is an original thinker and natural strategist with a gift for details and ability to get the upper hand in an arguement. His humble persona may make him affable, but his intellectual grasp of the issues and vision are very strong. His skills and grasp of issues is not unlike Bill Clinton, with one clear difference. Bill had no other ultimate objective than self gratification. Huckabee is driven by a sense of purpose and genuine Christian faith.
- I am confident that Huckabee believes deeply that we should be good stewards and that would include “fixing” the overwhelming debt issue the country faces ans well as the energy and food risks.

I am sure that Huckabee is pro-life, although he has not been as consistent on abortion as you let on. Moreover, he will not endorse practical solutions (such as HR 2597, HR 300) but instead favours the “conservative judges” approach, with is both ethically reprehensible (judges should be impartial) and ineffective anyway.

Richard Nixon had many of the same intelligence and strategic qualities. Milton Friedman said he was the smartest president. But think about this realistically - do you think such a strategist would not find it tempting to use the massive power and money in the federal government (even for good ends)?

I don’t think he would want to dismantle the government to a level that would satisfy you, but I doubt you could build enough of a coalition to do more than blog about it.

Quite frankly, I don’t care if my views aren’t popular or I can’t do anything about them. They are right and they are biblical - that is the most important thing - not whether they are popular. But this is Huckabee’s whole appeal - that somehow popularity is going to translate to success. This is a logical fallacy.

I will probably be voting Libertarian. Bob Barr is drawing many Huckabee supporters who feel like they have been disinfranchised by the GOP, So be nice to Huckabee Bob Barr becuase lots of your supporters are coming from the Huckabee camp. That said I know of about two thirds of the people I know that where voting huckabee will be voting Barr if Huckabee is not the veep. I learned quite a bit about barr at www.BarrRoot.com I didnt know much about Barr or The Libertarian Party pick for vp Wayne Root until about a month ago. You can learn more about wayne root at
wwwBarrRoot2008.com My second pick to Huckabee was Ron Paul. Too bad he didnt run on the LP ticket. Im sure he would of done extremely well. Maybe even had a shot at the office of the president. To see how Ron Paul feels about Barr watch this video at www.BarrRoot08.com
Please be nice to Huckabee Libertarians. Theres alot of us thinking about making the switch.

As a socon Huck supporter I am very impressed with your ability to speak the language of the ficon/libertarian branch of our disfunctional GOP family.

If you care to write it, we would be happy to have you guest blog over at the Huckabee Blog Alliance www.huckabeealliance.wordpress.com as well as link to your post if you have your own blog, from our Team Huck website where Huck’s Army is busy laying the groundwork to make the case for a VP Huck. www.teamhuck.com

You could also blog over at thenextright.com on Mike’s behalf if you were so inclined.

Thank you for your thoughtful defense. We need more soldiers like you in the field. Stop on by hucksarmy.com if you’re not already enlisted!

Thanks for your responses. It looks like we agree on more than I was first aware. Our attention is better focused on local communities and real leadership. It seems you’ve made a compelling case why national politics is mostly meaningless. Given that national politics is nearly impossible to navigate without corruption, there is little you can do to make major corrections. There in lies a big part of my defense of Huckabee. Even if every major candidate will not be able to withstand the institutional corruption you have a vote to make in any case. Even if it be minor there is some measurable and significant difference between a Obama, Clinton, McCain or even a Huckabee administration. On the Pro-Life reason alone you’d pick Huckabee with no other hope to correct the Federal Government fiasco at least you could save a few innocent lives in the mean time. Seems like you talked yourself into accepting the least of poor choices until the real solution takes hold:

“Rather it would be “Colin’s Heros” who would rise up absent of an overarching state as community and family leaders. These men and women would “inspire” and “lead” the country without the use of national government.”

I’m a political junkie so I enjoy the entertainment of the political process, but I don’t have a lot of hope there for a complete solution. The explosion of Home Schooling is more likely to change the country. I agree with your sentiments that our real focus should be within our families and our communities.

I have seven children and we moved to Oklahoma from CA to farm, ranch, homestead and live in a simple non-materialistic fashion. I’m teaching my sons how to mill lumber, build their own cabins and we’re working to get bio-diesel here. We have 200 acres of beautiful farmland in the rolling hills of NorthhEast Oklahoma. We’re raising cattle, goats, chickens, bees and pigs. We heat with firewood, skip AC and know how to live without electricity. I’m not really a Doomsayer, but I see a clear lack of ability for most folks and the infrastructure to sustain itself. I also like real food, because I think it is key to real health and it tastes better too.

I think this guy has a big part of the answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-t-7lTw6mA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFpjskn3_Pc&feature=related

My primary defense of Huckabee is in these quotes:

“A country that can’t feed itself, fuel itself and arm itself is not free”

“One thing governors feel, Democrats and Republicans alike, is that we have a health care system that, if you’re on Medicaid, you have unlimited access to health care, at unlimited levels, at no cost. No wonder it’s running away.”

” I’m a Conservative, I’m just not angry about it”
That last one is where we need to start if we don’t want to be irrelevant.

I gotta run and get back to milling lumber. Take it easy!

I have limited time, but sometimes can’t resist the urge to get into a conversation on the blogs. I’ll take a look when I get a chance. I’d love to get a chance to share some thoughts/strategies with the Huckabee folks. My sense is that Huckabee is able to pick up on big trends and dial it into an effective political strategy. If he’s not already up to speed on the “Crunchy Con” sentiments, Michael Pollan’s work and the ground level revolution of farming from Joel Salatin in Virginia. I’d like to get the message to him, that these things are part of a big undercurrent that’s more powerful than just what Ron Paul was able to tap into. I’m into trends and discovery. There is a lot to rediscover that can play a part in getting this place back on track. It all starts with the families and back on the farms. This country is hungry for things with real susbstance and we’ve been sold fake and imitation so long, that the average person doesn’t even know where to start to look. “Crunchy Con” is the tip of the iceberg, but Colin is right this country is changing from the bottom up and I believe the process has already begun. What I think a lot of people miss on the political analysis if that Ron Paul and Huckabee both were propelled by this undercurrent, not the other way around. Huckabee would have no where if not for a groud swell hungry for something other than fake Romney. Huckabee seems glad to go with that flow and hopefully use it for good.

Homeschooling, Homesteading, real sustainability concepts, Family Sundays and Family Dinners, Cooking your own meals, Gardening, Self Sufficiency, No TV or Video games, anti-materialism, natural healing and health and above all faith and gratitude to God. Read and follow the Proverbs!

That’s my platform !
And I ain’t running for office. A lot of these would be attractive to Huckabee, we’ll see what happens. I do see McCain winning if he picks Huck, but Huck needs to lead a friendly revolution in the way we live and govern.
As long as we know who’s really in charge, it’s fine, because he’s got plenty of money and plenty of power, we need to just stop insulting him. God’s ways are not our ways! We need to discover and do what God pleases God and the rest will take care of itself

His supporters such as Jonathon are soooo compassionate — their government sponsored “compassion” is bankrupting out country and is going to impoverish us. The government has no magical ability to make things cost less (e.g. pharmaceuticals, health care, biofuels) by taking over spending on them. To the contrary, the administrative inefficiencies and lack of profit motive mean that gov’t intervention makes them cost more.

Mike, “feed, fuel, and arm ourselves” isn’t a reasonable strategy for a country. It’s fine if an individual chooses it as a lifestyle, but everywhere it has been tried as a national policy, it has led to economic failure and poverty (N. Korea, S. Korea pre-1960s, India pre-1991, New Zealand pre-1984, for examples). An “outward-looking” economy is essential if the goal is to avoid being left behind by the rest of the world. Huckabee’s antipathy to free trade is enough reason to condemn him.

It’s Huckabee whom I should attack for phony compassion, with his inanae comment about “elderly people” unable to “get their Medicare drugs.” The Medicare drug benefit alone will do terrible harm to America and Americans, when the bills come due. We’ll *not* have saved anything by having gov’t take this over.

I can’t believe I failed to mention Bismarck! Arg!

Bismarck really is a huge contributor to American-style fascism (having gotten many of his ideas from the US). Huckabee does sound a lot like him especially with this nationalism-to-give-us-independence talk.

Checked out your blog. Love it.

starting to make me miss having all those RP guys dropping in.

RON PAUL 2008!!! please donate at ronpaul2008 . com

Check out pledgeronpaul . com, dailypaul . com (great site)

“rEVOLution”

I’ve been a free market conservative my whole life. And I’m not advocating that the government solve these things. When the country encouraged “Victory Gardens” in WWII was that a government program? We are very vulnerable in the International markets. You don’t know me, but if you did you would see how ridiculous it would be to make the assumption that I was referring to government run food, energy and arms. I have no interest in that at all, but that doesn’t mean that as a country we couldn’t move in that direction. We can have a policy, a preference and possibly incentives, but the momst important thinng is to recognize that while free markets are incredibly effective it is not a God to bow down before, especially in the International markets. These are national security issues as well. You can take the free market ideology all the way down the drain if you want.

There used to be a shop USA tag on clothes. I advocate a shop USA on Food, Energy and arms. And absolutely right, I’ll vote with my dollars to shop those items locally for the benefit of the country. And I apologize if I wasn’t charitable enough.

Sorry if I’m being too mean. I need to work more on that compassion thing

I need a few more Huckabee lessons.

I’m a Conservative, I’m just not angry about it.

Happy in OK

As far as I am concerned, Mike Huckabee is C3PO–Commonsense Compassionate Conservative Populist Orator. Wish we had more like him!