Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Monday, February 11, 2008 6:14:08 PM
Just read through the transcript of yesterday's Meet The Press interview of Tim Russert with Mike Huckabee.
I am not a great fan of his, but I do have to admit, Huckabee can defend himself.
Huckabee was able to avoid the charges of political expediency Russert brought up by essentially saying his views on some things had "matured," that it was the difference between being the Governor of Arkansas, and looking at what it meant to be President of the United States.
I find myself agreeing, in part, even if he did take a shot at Mitt Romney a week or so ago for being in political puberty most of his life for doing some things much the same way. Apparently it's not okay to not know where government should be involved when it comes to life, family, marriage, and guns, but there's wiggle room when it comes to a nationwide ban on smoking, lifting the embargo in Cuba, or signing a no tax pledge.
It is true that governors have a different set of mandates than the President has. Their sole concern is their state. They're not looking to benefit anyone else but their state. They're constituency is also relatively closer, and the levels of bureaucracy smaller. It's easier for the people of the state to be heard, though it's not impossible to ignore.
The President, on the other hand, should be primarily staying out of the way when it comes to such domestic policies.
Regardless of the health risks, people do have a right to smoke. Whether they are permitted to do it in a public place or not, should be left up to the respective companies, groups and entities, not the president, and not the federal government, except where they're jurisdictions lie with their own workforce or public areas.
Huckabee's framing of the ban in the context of protecting the rights of those who don't smoke to clean air is clever, and thoughtful, but I don't see how it can be a conservative viewpoint. Besides, I thought it was the Democrats who were going after Big Tobacco with lawsuits and smoking bans?
I don't smoke. I think it's a very unhealthy habit, and I go out of my way to avoid people who do smoke. I wish more people would stop and less people would start. Still, the federal government should not be involved in such matters.
Huckabee's answer to his letter sent to George W. Bush urging the president to lift the embargo with Cuba because Huckabee thought it would help aid his state's ailing rice industry is another dodge. He notes that his mind has changed on that issue because he's now "running for president." (Huckabee's words, not mine).
Foreign policy has not been a strong suit for Mike Huckabee. His world view, at best, has been found wanting on a number of issues. If he needs to mature anywhere, it's on foreign policy, and with how we deal with terrorism being a major issue, if not the issue, of our times, it's hard to give him a pass on this. It shouldn't be that hard, even as a governor, to realize that Cuba's embargo is for a higher purpose, and that Arkansas' rice industry should not trump it.
As for the tax pledge, I find this to be the silliest of it all. First, what makes a tax pledge binding? Huckabee seemed to think it would be, or he wouldn't have refused to sign it in the first place. "I think it's a very dangerous position to make pledges that are outside
the most important pledge you make, and that is the oath you take to
uphold the Constitution and protect the people of the United States." Yet, weeks later, he's signing it, because it's dealing specifically with marginal taxes, and Huckabee cites his support of the Fair Tax.
So, framing it that way, Huckabee escapes from the flip-flop issue, just as John McCain has by employing "the people have spoken and I'm listening" gambit.
Still, whether it's on social issues--life, family, marriage, guns, immigration, and environment--Huckabee troubles me. These issues drive him. Without fiscal constraint on the federal level, such drive would result in more social program initiatives--even with a conservative slant.
Charities, churches, families, extended families and communities should be the ones battling to raise and properly educate children. They should be the ones offering opportunities for the homeless, the single parent, the orphaned, not the federal government. Arguably state agencies shouldn't be involved either, but they are certainly closer to the ground than the federal government is.
If so much of our taxes weren't going to aid someone for this or that, more of those dollars would be available for the average taxpayer to give more to a charitable organization of their choice. Whether they did or not should always be left up to them. The government shouldn't dictate how we feel or act, either way.
When social issues trumped economic issues, we got George Bush. So goes, it seems, Mike Huckabee. When foreign policy issues trumped economic issues, we got Richard Nixon. So goes, it seems, John McCain. When economic issues trumped both social and foreign policy issues, we got Bill Clinton. When all three are trumped, we will get Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
I guess as far as conservatives are concerned, the first of the five is the lesser of the evils, which is why Huckabee, the social conservative, obliterated McCain in Kansas, took Louisiana, and is fighting for the votes in Washington state.
Regardless of who becomes the nominee, we will get who we pay for.