Huckabee is All things to All People

Not so much.

Donald Lambro, in his "latest article", follows the Novak Line from last week, suggesting that Huckabee isn't a traditional conservative.

The Club for Growth has also examined his tax and spend record and found it wanting. Its verdict: Huckabee could not be trusted to hold the line on taxes, let alone push it back.

Huckabee of course rejects the charges and said they do not take into account the many taxes he also cut. He insists he is a committed tax-cutter who could be trusted to shrink the size of government.

But seeing is believing, and the visual record backs the Club for Growth up; . . .

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, on the other hand, think that Huckabee's star is on the rise.

The fact is that the only two things holding Romney aloft in the early states were the fact that he was the only alternative to Giuliani and that he was spending a bundle on campaign advertising.

For many months the other campaigns were not on the air in Iowa or New Hampshire. Why Giuliani didn’t advertise is a mystery and likely the subject of future political science classes. Huckabee, of course, was broke, and Thompson couldn’t get his act together in time.

But now that everybody is on the air, Huckabee is emerging as a new alternative to Giuliani for socially conservative voters. Reliably pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is now emerging as the real thing — a social conservative alternative to the ersatz Romney version.

And, of course, he’s not a Mormon. Many Republicans remain fearful that nominating a Mormon would be tantamount to handing the election to the Democrats.

It raises the question - do Republicans, if forced to choose, prefer low taxes and conservative fiscal policy or would they rather have their values questions addressed?

Romney's Faith

Apparently Mitt Romney is going to make a big speech on his faith this week; the Carpetbagger explains why this might not pan out the way Romney would like it too.

I hate to say it, but when it comes to religious freedom, we might have gone backwards over the last few years.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Ron Paul

I'm afraid Wayne Wilson does appear to have run for the hills. Pity.

Anyway Ron Paul is the odd man out among the Republicans when it comes to Iraq, which is, of course, a big part of his appeal.

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

Ron Paul seems to be a libertarian isolationist. Nothing wrong with that, but his opposition to the Iraq war is on different grounds than many of the Democratic candidates (and much of the Liberal Base (although many are successfully fooling themselves otherwise)). Still it is nice to see a Republican admitting the obvious, even if he is kind of no - hoper.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - John McCain

I'm listening to Dust Galaxy's "Sons of Washington" right now. Seems bizarrely relevant. "They say to turn the other cheek / as the fire their guns right down your street / Winter judgment comes on the Sons of Washington."

Anyway McCain has a detailed plan on winning the war on Iraq. He wants to see us bolster the troops, implement a new counterinsurgency program, strengthen the Iraqi armed forces and polices, create the security necessary for political process and stability, accelerate political and economic reconstruction in a secure environment, keep senior officers in place, call for international pressure on Syria and Iran, and win the home front. Very long plans.

Winning the home front has an interesting statement, exposing one of the weaknesses of how this administration has pursued this war.

The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a constitution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope.

The fact is, however, that if the American people had had a firm idea of what this war would cost, they might well have preferred a more measured response to Iraq, something that didn't involve the lost of thousands of American Troops. It was only by disguising the cost of the Iraq war that the Bush administration could get us to fight it.

I was about to complain about the lack of rational for why we had to make these sacrifices, but he put it in a block next to his very long plan.

"In Iraq our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. Faced with similar challenges, previous generations of Americans have passed such tests with honor. It is now our turn to demonstrate that our power, ennobled by our principles, is the greatest force for good on earth today. Iraq's transformation into a secure democracy and a force for freedom in the greater Middle East is the calling of our age. We can succeed."

I don't know if this is convincing myself; it's a lot like saying we need to test ourselves in the arena of greatness. But the truth is that real people, both Iraqi and Americans, are dying in this test. I think he'd be better of explaining how a secure democratic Iraq, however unlikely, would be good for the United States, rather than just saying, in effect, "Buck up, America - this is our chance to be a "Greatest Generation."

A short break

Sorry - today is proving kind of crazy. Be back tomorrow.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani's position on the Iraq War isn't much of a secret - he's in favor of it, and he is pretty sure we are winning. And of course Democrats are foolish for not wanting to continue it.

Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism.

Maybe President Bush should have thought a bit more about the consequences of failure before invading Iraq.

The Iraq war does present a problem for both Republicans and Democrats, because it involves the future and there's no real way to know what will happen. You make your best guess and go with that. My best guess (and the guess of many Americans, according to polls) is that Iraq isn't likely to succeed. But, since the Republicans are committed to Iraq succeeding, they have to pretend like it can. The reverse is, to a certain extent, true as well.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Duncan Hunter

I am a bit disappointed that Wayne Wilson's website appears to be down - hopefully this is just temporary. In the meantime let's see what Hunter has to say on Iraq.

I also strongly support U.S. efforts to establish free societies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest protection of human rights in this decade has been the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Religious freedom is part and parcel of any free society the U.S. stands up.

Well that's kind of non-specific, I have to say. Except the bit about religious freedom, which presumably means that Christian Missionaries should be accepted into Iraq and Afghanistan to teach the good work. As for the rest of this, he's in favor of Iraq but doesn't present any real plan on helping Iraq to succeed.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo doesn't have a lot of energy to spend on Iraq, given how focused he is on immigration. But he makes an effort on his website to cover the basics.

America's noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.

So basically, tell the Iraqs we are leaving and force them to solve their own problems? That doesn't sound very Republican to me - most Republicans are following Bush's plan of telling the Iraqis we are staying and not expecting them to fix the political situation.

Tancredo must be too distracted by illegal aliens to focus on this issue.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Fred Thompson

Thompson also doesn't spend a lot of time on the Iraq War on his issues page, although he does mention it.

We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks.

Pretty brief, but not much of a plan. That said, other than supporting the President's plan, what else can Thompson say?

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Mitt Romney

Romney doesn't wear his position on Iraq on his sleeve. Probably a smart move. He has three pages on the war on terror (one on the War on Terror, one on how bad Islamofascism is, and one on curbing Nuclear Proliferation (by which means Iraq)), but none of them talk about Iraq (well the page on Global Jihad mentions how we shouldn't focus simply on Iraq and Afghanistan, but realize this enemy could be anywhere). A recent press release covers his position on Iraq in a somewhat truncated way.

First, We Must Succeed In Iraq And In Afghanistan. At a minimum, success means not leaving behind a safe haven in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, from which they can finance, train and launch devastating attacks on America, Israel, and the world. In Iraq, the Surge's success has been vital to ensuring that Al Qaeda is denied a safe haven from which to launch attacks.

Good plan, but of course it's a long way from free and stable, isn't it? I mean wouldn't a Saddam style dictatorship that was in our back pocket achieve these ends?

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee is in favor of continuing the war in Iraq to victory. His Iraq Page says that this war is very important and generational.

Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. The Democrats delusionally deny that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even as we fight Al Qaeda there.

. . . General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors. The surge has only been in place since the middle of June, but progress has already been made. It's way too early to write an obituary for the surge as the Democrat defeatists are doing.

Huckabee is a skillful politician, but usually he doesn't come off as didactic as this. The Republican gamble is this - right now people aren't keen on the War on Iraq, and think it was a mistake; but a year from now they might realize how great it is. A year from now Mike Huckabee chastising Democrats for lacking faith in our glorious success in Iraq might play very well. Today it is a gamble, necessary to hold the base (who loves bashing Dems), but not certain to play with the larger electorate.

At any rate, it certainly does seem that where Iraq is concerned, electing Huckabee is a lot like more of President Bush.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Alan Keyes

This should be an interesting day. Alan Keyes believes the war in Iraq to be a mistake, but once the mistake is made, we have to support the mistake. He does spend a lot of time on his issues discussion on the United Nations, and how they should be involved in Iraq.

Having, however, determined that we were going to go to war, and what we said was the best interest of defending the American people against weapons of mass destruction and other terrible elements of terrorism, somebody explain to me why it is that we see fit to then take the question to the United Nations?

When we respond to an attack on the United States and are moving forward with a strategy necessary to defend ourselves, we don't have to ask a "by-your-leave" from the UN — especially not when the regime established by the UN to keep Iraq under control had collapsed, without any effective action from other member nations.

Now, after we won the military victory in Iraq — which, thank God, everybody assumed we would — what should have happened? Well — and this is not the wisdom of hindsight either, because I said so at the time — what we should have done at that point was to keep the security aspects to ourselves and turn all the political junk over to the UN. That's part of why it's there.

Is it just me or does Keyes see the UN as kind of a trash removal specialist? He makes it clear that he doesn't respect it as a body, and that we should ignore it when it comes to us, but they should still be happy to come in and clean up our messes? I'm not sure Keyes has an understanding of human psychology.

I'm not There

Went and saw this movie on Saturday, and I quite liked it. It's the story of Bob Dylan (sort of) as told by six different actors, playing six different versions (visions?) of Dylan.

The movie has a sort of familiar surrealism, particularly in the section about Jude, the version of Dylan brilliantly played by Cate Blanchette.

There seems to be some division on the value of the Billy the Kid section; some reviewers describing it as tedious and pointless, and others key to the whole movie. I am more in the second camp; the quiet humanity of Billy the Kid is necessary to offset the nihilism of the Jude Section (which it interrupts). And the Billy the Kid section has the funeral sequence which has stuck with me more than anything else, set to a gorgeous version of "Going to Alcupulco."

Speaking of which, the Soundtrack is also well worth picking up - it only contains one song performed by Dylan (the movie uses mostly versions by Dylan, but a few of these versions show up there too).

At any rate, if you have any interest in Dylan or just want to see a thoughtful interesting movie, check out "I'm Not There."

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Joe Biden

And finally we get down to Joe Biden, who, coincidentally, has an editorial on Iraq at the top of his website.

I am seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for president because I believe the people of Iowa are looking for a president who reflects their values, who speaks the truth and who will restore America's moral leadership.

We must start by ending the war in Iraq.

Iraq is the boulder in the road. The billions we spent have prevented us from tackling critical issues at home - making health care affordable, providing access to quality education and ending our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels.

Last month, I convinced 74 of my Senate colleagues to adopt the Biden exit plan for Iraq. As you know, my plan would keep Iraq together by giving the warring parties local control over their daily lives - their jobs, their police and their religion.

My plan would allow our troops to come home without leaving chaos behind.

I don't think Biden's plan is perfect, but it is a starting point. And like Dodd, he seems dedicated to doing what he can, as a Senator, to stop the war.

His page on Iraq has more details on his plan. His plan is to Federalize Iraq, by creating three regions that would run their own affairs - Sunni Iraq, Shi'ite Iraq, and Kurdish Iraq.

The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues.

There's a lot to like about Biden's plan, although it has some detractors as well. I think the catch is what gives us to right to tell the Iraqis to federalize, as well as details about who actually owns what land. That said, this is one of Biden's strong points, in that he has a more detailed and seemingly realistic plan for Iraq.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Hillary Clinton

Now that I think about it, I wrote that last one before looking at Hillary Clinton's page on the Iraq War. So perhaps a Mae Culpa is coming.

I'm mostly OK. Clinton does call on Bush to bring the troops home, but does not speak to what she as a Senator can do to pull the troops out. And her plans are for what she will do, once she is elected President.

The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

Like other candidates she believes that a commitment to bringing our troops home will lead to less violence and more reconciliation. I am not sure of this prediction, but it would certainly be nice. Clinton also favors an increase in diplomacy and humanitarian aid to those hurt by this conflict.

As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

That last bit is interesting; particularly in the repeated assertions of Conservatives that Liberals don't want to fight terrorists. But I suspect you always knew that was nonsensical.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Chris Dodd

There's one thing that's been niggling me all day, and Chris Dodd has finally brought it out into the open, with his page on the Iraq War.

Chris Dodd understands that making America more secure starts with ending the Iraq war responsibly. It’s made us less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated. Our country’s men and women in uniform have performed heroically – but George Bush’s policy has failed.

But to end the war, we need clear, bold actions, and leadership that has the experience and judgment to recognize there’s only one way to responsibly end this war:

To set a firm deadline tied to funding.

It may not be an easy thing to say – but it’s the right thing to do. For our troops. For our security and standing in the world.

Now here's my problem with this. While this is indeed a smart position, it is not a Presidential position. This is a way for the Congress to stop the war. And as a Congressional approach, it's very good. And it's a bit of a mystery why Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and other Congressional Candidates aren't pursuing it further.

Clinton, Edwards and Obama told us what they would do if they were president, or what they will do if elected President. One is hypothetical; the other is more than a year away. Dodd is telling us what he wants to do, right now, to end the war. I don't know, it kind of makes Dodd look good in comparison.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Barack Obama

Obama is trying to sell himself as the next best thing to Dennis Kucinich. Kucinch would probably like you to know that it's one thing to oppose the war quietly when nobody is paying attention to you and another to oppose it from the House of Representatives - the Belly of the Beast, as it were. Still Barack has a point when he notes that of the top tier candidates he's the one who didn't vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences." In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

Not bad stuff, all told. And I like the quote he leads off his page with.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

Not a bad statement, presumably designed to comfort people who don't want the Democrat party to be the party of wusses.

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - John Edwards

John Edwards isn't going to go out as far on the limb as Kucinich or Richardson, but he's pretty emphatic in his statement on the war as well.

We don't need debate; we don't need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving.

He wants to pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops immediately and the rest within 9-10 months, save for a small guard for our embassy. Seems like that could cause trouble.
Edwards also favors returning to a previous policy of making sure troops were ready to go to war before sending them to war.

We should prohibit funding for any new troops that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped. American tax dollars should be used to train and equip our troops, not to escalate the war.

Now, I'm no military genius or anything, but doesn't that make sense?

Candidate Review - The Iraq War - Bill Richardson

I like how Richardson starts out his issues page on Iraq.

I have a one-point plan on the Iraq War -- END IT.

Nice. He has several planks of his plan, several of which seem to be removing all troops from Iraq.

Only when the Iraqis know we are leaving will they start seeing us as partners, instead of occupiers. A complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. The Iraqis must take responsibility for their country, and only a complete withdrawal gives them the incentive to kick out al Qaeda and heal their country. Any plan that leaves troops behind will allow the war to drag on, and will cost more American lives.

Again, while I think this is the right plan, I worry that it might be too optimistic to assume that our departure will get the Iraqi people working together. That said, I understand that you can't tell the American people that a plan won't work perfectly - we expect perfection here in the United States.

A brief pause

I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. I mean I wasn't before, but now I'm really really not voting for Mitt Romney.

Apparently Mitt Romney publically stated he wouldn't consider members of the Muslim Faith for cabinet positions.

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”

So you get a position in the Romney campaign based not upon your qualifications but on how many people like you there are in the United States? Seems like a bad policy. And dubious, given that at least a portion of Romney's campaign is built around convincing evangelicals that they shouldn't judge him on his heretical (in their eyes) faith.

Got this from the Carpetbagger.