What is Mike Huckabee Thinking?

Lots of Mike Huckabee news, and though the former governor/minister is leading in Iowa, he continues to display his naivety, intolerance and disorganization. Thanks to the Carpertbagger Report for all the tip-offs.

First, an update on his stance on LGBT issues. Huckabee, who can't decide if homosexuality is a choice or natural, is for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the quarantining of AIDS patients, and is against civil unions and gay marriage. He is now expressing his displeasure with gay sex. On "Meet the Press," he said, "But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior…."

Well...why? I assume Huckabee is speaking as a moral leader--he can't possibly legislate against gay sex, as that is forbidden under Lawrence v. Texas. Does he know that? He may not enjoy the idea of sodomy, but since it's behind closed doors, it's none of his business. Since he's about as anti-gay as any candidate, it's assumed that he's against participation in the gay lifestyle. He's intolerant, and he wears it on his sleeve--another way to prove to the Republican base that he's the true conservative, "moral" candidate. He went out of his way on "Meet the Press" to explain his disgust with gay sex. It was unwarranted, and a cheap political tactic, especially because he dodged the question asked of him ("Do you believe you’re born gay or you choose to be gay?"). How does this benefit him? It doesn't. I doubt he's going to get any converts because of his stance on gay sex--those so opposed to it are probably in his camp to begin with. It doesn't hurt him though, despite it being outrageously stupid. As CBR says, "So, Huckabee doesn’t actually care if someone is gay, he cares whether or not gays are celibate. “Tendencies” don’t matter to Huckabee, whether gays act on those tendencies is what counts."

Then, Huckabee ran into disaster when he held a press conference ostensibly to denounce the negative campaigning from the Republican front runners, and to emphasize that he would no longer participate in it. You might recall that, in a move to discredit Mitt Romney's beliefs, Huckabee wondered aloud if Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Anyway, at this same press conference, Huckabee had five easels up and a clip prepared that all attacked Romney. I'll let the Huffington Post take it from here:

In what is likely to be remembered as one of the more bizarre moments of this campaign season, embattled GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee renounced negative campaigning today by unveiling an attack ad to a ballroom full of reporters and dozens of TV cameras.

Standing before a banner reading "Enough is Enough" and flanked by five large charts attacking the record of rival Mitt Romney, a haggard-looking Huckabee said that the fight to win Thursday's Republican caucus had gotten "out of hand" and "out of control" and that he would refrain from any more negative campaigning.

Huckabee's unorthodox media event comes as a barrage of new polls has battered his lead in Iowa and put his campaign at risk of crash-and-burn. Some of those surveys now show Romney regaining a lead he had maintained over most of the year until Huckabee began to surge ahead in recent weeks...

Huckabee explained that he, indeed, prepared and produced a TV spot attacking Romney, sent it to local TV stations but had just given the directive to pull it from airing. "This morning I ordered them to hold the ads," Huckabee said. "From now we will run only ads that say why I should be president not why Mitt Romney shouldn't be president."

Then, amid loud gasps and laughter from the more than 150 reporters on hand, Huckabee announced he would show the assembled press the same ad. As dozens of TV cameras whirred, and after two false starts, the 30-second spot assaulting Romney's record was shown in full. The tag line of the spot ended with the narrator saying of Romney: "If a man's dishonest trying to get the job, he'll be dishonest on the job"

The room then exploded into a cacophony of questioning from the press memorializing this event as a moment that might be remembered as campaign meltdown for Huckabee.

What is going on in the Huckabee camp? And if these two issues aren't bad enough, Huckabee still has yet to recover from showing his blatant ignorance in regard to foreign policy when asked about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. I was in the midst of finals and papers that week (early December), and wasn't paying much attention to the national media, but damn, all I had to do was go to any news service's main page and I could view dozens of articles about it. This naivety from a presidential candidate is inexcusable.

I've said it many times in private, and I'll say it publicly: Although Bill Richardson is my main guy, by far, if it came down to it, I'd be fine if one of the front runners from either party became president. Some I like more than others; few are great. But I don't think most would make any monumental mistakes. Huckabee is the exception--these are three of a multitude of examples why (others include FairTax, the most ridiculous modern tax plan I've heard). That man absolutely can not become our president.

--Wyndam

Richardson Picks up Key New Hampshire Endorsement

Bill Richardson received a belated Christmas present today: the endorsement of the Conway Daily Sun, a newspaper in the Mount Washington Valley area of New Hampshire.The full editorial is below--overall, it touches on his foreign affairs experience and political clout at home and abroad.

--Wyndam

Bill Richardson, the only heavy-weight in bout for Democratic nomination

Sen. Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a recent interview that if it weren't for Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidate with the most money would always win.

Retail politics works. And it's not overstating it to say that because N.H. voters see, hear and meet the candidates in person, we are better informed than voters in the rest of country, who rely primarily on electronic media.

The result: N.H. voters often pick winners, and if not winners, candidates who, in hindsight, should have won. How much better off would the Republican Party-and the United States-be today if the rest of the country had followed New Hampshire eight years ago and elected

Sen. John McCain?

In 2000, the Sun was the only newspaper in New Hampshire to endorse McCain in the Republican primary. In 2004, we supported Gen. Wesley Clark over Sen. John Kerry in the Democratic primary. Granted, neither won, but we feel as good about those selections today as we did then.

We live in a world where Russia's leader may rewrite his country's constitution to maintain power, and where violence is often the political tool of choice, as in much of the Middle East. It is remarkable, and a testament to the strength of this country, that the next leader of the free world understands the real power of this country is in its people, and the path to the White House includes running the gauntlet at little N.H. newspapers like the Sun.

The editorial staff of the Sun is extraordinarily fortunate to have had exclusive access to the candidates. Without handlers at their sides or the national media butting in, most of the candidates have given our eight writers and editors an hour to engage in freewheeling question-and-answer exchanges.

Our staff takes seriously its bit part in selecting the next president. It is impossible to completely discount the "electability" factor and screen out mainstream media, but each of us weighs heavily what we observe in these editorial board interviews.

In our opinion, this year's Democrats are stronger than we've ever seen, and out of three that we believe could be good presidents, we endorse N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson.

It boils down to this: Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are clearly highly principled people of integrity, and in another race the Sun would have supported one of them.

While Obama and Edwards have the big media budgets, neither has the experience of Richardson. And as for Hillary Clinton, this is what fringe candidate and straight-talking former Sen. Mike Gravel says.

"The Clintons should read the Constitution, eight years is all they get."

A handful of years as senator for each of them simply does not stack up to Richardson's powerful resume as a former congressman, energy secretary, U.N. ambassador, and now, governor of New Mexico.

Like our own Gov. John Lynch, Richardson is a big hit in his home state, where he is considered one of the nation's most environmentally-conscious governors. In New Mexico, he has raised the minimum wage, given all children under 5 access to health insurance, cut taxes and is pro-business.

On the national level, his experience negotiating with bad boys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and the North Koreans is world-renowned. Richardson gained the reputation as Pres. Bill Clinton's top international troubleshooter, and during the '90s humorously referred to himself as the "undersecretary of thugs." His success as a negotiator also earned him four nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Richardson has heavyweight credentials for a heavyweight job; Obama, Edwards and Clinton, by comparison, have barely found their way into the ring.

The knock against Richardson is that he doesn't have the dynamic personality of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, although in person he's funny and engaging. Asked about this rap and to compare himself to Bill Clinton, Richardson says, "Yes, Clinton can electrify a room, but I can get it done." We're convinced he can, and we ask you to join us in voting for him.

On Gaffes...

The United States has made a number of what I consider foreign policy mistakes in the past, and many of them were based around acts of rashness. The Bay of Pigs and other misguided CIA-funded coup attempts; supporting Shah of Iran; Vietnam; Iraq; the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (it counts in my book).

But few if any of these mistakes were caused by a President standing up and saying something that went against the grain of the political establishment. The big ones occur when information doesn't flow and ideas are not challenged.

So when someone tells me that my candidate gaffed on foreign policy, I wince. Most recently, both Bill Richardson and Barack Obama have been accused of destabilizing Pakistan by openly discussing policy options there. But we need open, challenging thinking now more than ever before. Cowardice and ambiguity will only lead us towards the same mistakes we've made in the past.

Read the excellent speech on Pakistan Richardson gave on Friday. Look up what he's said about Bhutto in the past, in almost every single debate. If you disagree, write exactly what you disagree with, in policy terms. Send it to either Wyndam or me, and we'll post it.

But don't expect us to listen if you try to tell us that Richardson is naïve. I'm quite sure you are far more so.

--Alex

Criticism of Richardson's comments on Bhutto misguided

Michael Lipkin's thoughts on Bill Richardson's statements after the death of Benazir Bhutto, and the subsequent criticism that followed them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m sure most of you heard the terrible news this morning, but for those that haven’t, former Pakistani Prime Minister and Parliamentary candidate Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at a political rally. Bhutto was an active voice for more democracy and openness the Pakistani politics and someone who fought against the Taliban and valiantly stood in the face of repeated attempts on her life.

Since nothing happens in a vacuum, by the end of the day, all the major candidates for president released statements expressing their dismay at the attack and their sympathies for Bhutto’s plight. In addition, Governor Richardson made some statements that some right-wing bloggers have used to attack him. He said:

“The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence. We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.”

Parallels have been made between this quote and other “unsound” comments made by Barack Obama about how he would deal with Pakistan. Others have criticized Richardson for implying similar tactics to what has happened with Bush and Iraq (the overthrow of a dictator) or America’s involvement in the removal of the Shah of Iran.

Just to take a step back for a second. While these words seem harsh, a lot of people have been reading in to them and misconstruing their intention. Richardson at no point mentions military action. Yes, he says “force”, but precedes it with “diplomatic leverage”. What he is suggesting is what he has always suggesting: to use peaceful means to bring sides of the argument together and reach a diplomatic solution. He also mentions having international support, again consistent with his views, and what is viewed as one of the main flaws with the second invasion of Iraq. These were not slips or gaffes on Richardson’s part.

Let’s be serious here. This is not a fully fleshed out, specific plan for what to do with Pakistan once brought into office. This is a general idea of what direction Richardson would take. So it’s not fair to critique his comments as if they were in fact a detailed foreign policy. But the main idea here is a solid one. Supporting dictators just because they sometimes help us with the Taliban is not the right path, especially if there were politicians like Bhutto who was in support of America, against terrorism and a popular, freely-elected leader. A firm, but fair hand in these situations can become necessary. While we should avoid making the mistakes of the past, that does not mean we should shy away from any strategy that may evoke failed policies. Bill Richardson knows this and made a valid, if blunt, statement to that effect.

Go on, Ask Bill!

More fun with videos!

Governor Richardson has a neat part of his site where he directly answers questions sent in by the public. It is called "Ask Bill." His responses are concise (about one to three minutes long), but remain insightful.

Here's a game: compare our videos on Richardson's stances with Richardson's own:
The governor discusses health care here, and issues we have yet to touch on fully, but he does discuss the "Heroes Health Card" and other veteran bonuses, which we talked about here.

And in this clip, he discusses equal rights and domestic partnerships for homosexuals. We elaborated on LGBT rights in this video.

Finally, Bill Richardson touches on two issues in this clip, energy initiatives and foreign relations. We discuss his energy policy here. He also skims over the need to focus on Africa (we talk about that here), build coalitions through respectful diplomacy (in the middle of this video, after my rant), and throughout, he displays some of his vision for the presidency (discussed further, by us, here).

Have an issue you care about? Send in your own questions to Ask Bill!

Fun game part two: identify the books on Richardson's shelves. So far, I can only make out "My Life" by Bill Clinton--it's well known that Governor Richardson is a big fan of the former president, and vice versa. If you recognize any others, add them to the comments below. It'd be interesting to know what's on that shelf--you have to believe they've been strategically placed. And as a diehard Yankee fan, I'm trying my best to look past the Red Sox hat...

--Wyndam

On Principles...

The manner in which a president conducts himself is important. Are they condescending? Elitist? Do they view others--no matter their ideological background--as equals? While we shouldn't necessarily be choosing the candidate we would most like at a dinner party, it is important to explore the morals of the candidates, because they will surely influence the way each person conducts themselves in office.

In this new video, Wyndam and Mike (a special guest host) discuss Bill Richardson's moral background and the way he has handled himself as a public figure, no matter the office he has served in.

On Darfur...

The genocide in Darfur has killed close to 500,000 people. 2.5 million more are now refugees. This massive violation of human rights must be stopped, and the only candidate with a cohesive plan to do so is Bill Richardson. There are a lot of factors at work here--The U.S. must not only deal with Sudan, but the U.N., A.U. and China, amongst other, as well. Only someone with immense diplomatic experience will be able to navigate such tough international politics. Bill Richardson is, again, the one candidate with the qualifications and strategy needed to instrument change in the area.

Wyndam and Alex explore his proposed tactics and past successes in regards to human rights issues in this video.

On Iran...

American foreign policy for the foreseeable future will be dictated by Iran. As the 2008 election approached, America needs a president who will work with the Iranians to ensure a safer world. We must cut through the current bluster and posturing on the issue and begin to work toward reasonable solutions. Bill Richardson, with his vast foreign policy and negotiating experience, is the only candidate suited to take on this monumental task.

Wyndam and Alex examine the issue further in this video: