The False Conservative
Written by Brian on November 26, 2007 – 6:48 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Robert Novak has a must-read on Mike Huckabee. The money line, in terms of geo-political interests, may be: “Any Republican who does not sound much like a Republican is bound to get friendly press, as Sen. John McCain did in 2000.” This helps illustrate exactly why Huckabee is receiving the fawning of the mainstream media that he is: he divides conservative interests and in the end would be an easy candidate to topple by a liberal opponent.
Here’s a little more of Novak:
Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of “growth” with “greed.” Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute about his record as governor. On “Fox News Sunday” on Nov. 18, he called the “tactics” of the Club for Growth “some of the most despicable in politics today. It’s why I love to call them the Club for Greed, because they won’t tell you who gave their money.” In fact, all contributors to the organization’s political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.
(H/T: Justin Phillips, who emailed, “It’s like you and Bob Novak are the same person.” Well, Justin, have you ever even seen us in the same room together?)
Last 5 posts by Brian- Simon Harak's September 2003 Speech at Marquette -- And My Official Introduction to Jesuits - June 12th, 2008
- "How Al Gore is Getting Fat off of a Starving World" - June 1st, 2008
- Best column I've read so far on Scott McClellan - May 31st, 2008
- So in other words, you have no leads or suspects at this time? - May 30th, 2008
- RITA GAHAGAN - May 24th, 2008
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage |
November 26th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
This raises a bigger question: What does STEVE Novak think?
November 26th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
yep…exactly the same
November 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Huckabee isn’t too different from Bush — social conservative, eagerly supports the war on terror (from the Huckster’s website, “Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror”), supports reducing the federal tax burden while simultaneously supporting increased spending, particularly on national defense and social welfare.
It seems that Novak and other Republicans are scared by Huckabee because of the Christian populism he preaches. He’s signed the ATR pledge and has not indicated any desire to increase federal taxes — but he has shown himself all too willing to increase federal expenditures. A Huckabee presidency might be very similar to a GWBush presidency, but with larger deficits and many more plans like the Medicare prescription plan (remember that “conservative” boondoggle?). Having been swindled by one big government conservative, Novak doesn’t want another one inside the White House and is taking steps to push the Huckster out of our Big Tent.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10179986
November 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“This raises a bigger question: What does STEVE Novak think?”
Actually, I think the bigger question here is this: are there any REAL conservatives left in the Republican Party? I highly suspect the answer is no.
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
I think everyone is looking for the “perfect” candidate. I don’t think its possible. What is being missed here is that Huckabee had a Democrat Legislature much like Mitt Romney did. Also… Arkansas was a backward state with serious need for education and road improvements. Taxes were bound to be raised in that scenario.
Kat… I think you’re wrong about what you said. You’ll never get a 100% Conservative unless all the planets align and the sun shines every day. There are many conservatives in the Republican party, the ship hasn’t sunk yet–the platform looks pretty conservative to me!! Ronald Reagan was not the idol he is today when he ran– and he was not the perfect conservative however the great things he did overshadowed some of the weaker points. Huckabee has a lot of strong points and so does Romney– not to mention Fred Thompson when his campaign gets some traction? It will be matter of performance rather than campaigning to prove my point. Reagan taught us to be optimistic… many of these posts are pretty negative lately and that isn’t a good sign.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Kat, are you a Democrat. I would love to see you define what you think a Democrat is. I am a fiscal conservative first and foremost, which is what initially brought me to the Republican party, but now makes me weary of them.
I have never really considered what constitutes the basis of being a Democrat, and now that I am trying it is a little more difficult than say “commitment to reducing the scope of government.” Care to share your thoughts?
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“Care to share your thoughts?”
I am indeed a Democrat, and I’d be happy to. To me, what a Democrat should be is a person with a commitment to social equity for all and fair play in our courts, our schools, and our businesses.
“Ronald Reagan was not the idol he is today when he ran– and he was not the perfect conservative however the great things he did overshadowed some of the weaker points.”
Ronald Reagan’s administration was the death of the real conservativism of fiscal responsibility and personal choice and the birth of the neo-conservativism of religious pandering and ballooning debt. His iconic status today is more due to his “cult of personality” than any real accomplishment in office. Personally, when it comes to our nation’s highest office, I would sooner have a pessimist who makes real improvements to a cockeyed optimist who merely builds Potemkin villages.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I guess it seems more ambivalent to me still than “commitment to smaller government.” I just feel like Republicans spend a lot more time trying to find the next Reagan than Democrats spend trying to find the next JFK or FDR. Maybe it is because we are still in the direct shadow of Reagan, but it is a difference that I think has not been necessarily helpful to Republicans.
I don’t hear Democrats accusing their less favored Presidential candidates of selling out their party’s legacy nearly as often as I hear Republicans leveling that charge. A part of me wants to chalk that up to a more ambivalent set of standards for Democrats as well as less holier than thou views of people’s social lives. Whatever the difference is I think it is clearly real and an interesting one. Thanks Kat,
December 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“I guess it seems more ambivalent to me still than “commitment to smaller government.—
I wouldn’t say its more ambivalent, but it is indeed more vague. The problem with encapsulating the ideal Democratic platform is that it is really a platform of social issues, whereas the ideal Republican platform is a platform of financial issues, which are far easier to sum up in a sentence. Social issues present a far broader spectrum of issues, and thus are hard to really capture briefly and still have an accurate summary.
“I just feel like Republicans spend a lot more time trying to find the next Reagan than Democrats spend trying to find the next JFK or FDR. Maybe it is because we are still in the direct shadow of Reagan, but it is a difference that I think has not been necessarily helpful to Republicans.”
I agree with that–although I’d say that’s because the Democats are trying to find a new Clinton rather than a new FDR. I think part of the problem is that what makes any specific president great is whether or not he was the right man for his time. Even the greatest past presidents, I believe, would be ill-equipped to handle the time we’re in right now. A modern Reagan would, in all likelihood, be a disappointment to Republicans even if they could find one, just as a modern day FDR would be to Democrats. (Or, for that matter, another Clinton.) Both political parties would do better to assess what the country needs right now, and find a candidate to fill that need.
“I don’t hear Democrats accusing their less favored Presidential candidates of selling out their party’s legacy nearly as often as I hear Republicans leveling that charge. A part of me wants to chalk that up to a more ambivalent set of standards for Democrats as well as less holier than thou views of people’s social lives.”
I would agree with that as well, but I would also chalk it up to the Reagan legacy among Republicans. The “11th Commandment” was, after all, a Reaganite precept.
“Thanks Kat,”
Anytime.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
vague is better than ambivalent, good point.
Part of the finding a new Reagan can be chalked up to the current Reagan regime I think so maybe for Democrats their are just trying to find an other right now because they are in opposition to the current regime whereas Repbulicans are in favor of continuing the current (ie Reagan’s) regime so they have a more easily identifiable standard to judge candidates against. I think I agree that if RR walked into a room now he still might not pass the test for some Republicans because the times have changed while the message of Reagan, and all the candidates auditioning to be the next Reagan has not changed to face the issues of the day.
It all seems like a strong case for a cyclical presidency like Skrownek argues for for anyone familiar with his work. I am just getting through an assignment that tangentially referenced his work so this has been an interesting thread for me.