This all seems eminently sensible to me. Probably it'll kill him with the voters.
« Solidarity | Main | Bilbo and Science Fiction »
Huckabee On Immigration
23 Nov 2007 05:12 pm
Comments (30)
I tend to agree that his approach to immigration is a nomination-stopper, but only in so far as I think every GOP candidate has a nomination-stopper in their resume. Given that, and the weird way the party apparently hands out delegates, and I don't think you can count out Huckabee early. Which is unfortunate, because I think he's the only one that has the skill and candidate traits to win a 2008 general election.
Can you trust what MattY says? Let's see:
a) MattY has fallen for Huck's strawman argument.
b) MattY has apparently failed to research Huck's recent past.
c) Has anyone spotted MattY looking into those with whom Huck is linked (other than the MexicanGovernment of course)? In fact, there's a current lawsuit involving a company with which Huck is linked, and a racial power group with which Huck is linked might be implicated in the suit.
I'll let the reader decide.
Although I'm skeptical Huck will prevail, I wouldn't say never. I and do think he's very likely a slam-dunk for the VP slot. Think about it: McCain, Rudy and Romney will all all be seriously lacking in the southern, evangelical department. I've noticed he's very kissy-kissy with his nomination rivals in interviews, as well. Kinda reminds me of Bill Richardson in that respect.
Kudos to Huckabee, who is definitely the most sane of those running on the right.
Problem tho is not at the border, it's with corporations whose demand encourages the labor migration. Crack down on corporate hiring practices by making it expensive and the problem goes away.
So what do you do with all the people who have been drawn here at get stuck when the corporations get penalized? Grant them citizenship, so that they can vote and pay taxes.
Krugman has in his book Conscience of a Liberal presented the estimate of 14.1% of the labor force as being undocumented. This is a huge number and an election changer if even a third gain citizenship as a result of punishing the corporations.
Re: Problem tho is not at the border, it's with corporations whose demand encourages the labor migration.
But it's not corporations that employ most of these people-- it's small businesses: resturants, janitorial services, lawn services, orchards and vinyards, day labor companies, and so forth.
Not sure whether it will kill him with the voters--maybe some opportunist like Romney will try to make something of this, but Huckabee has framed the issue in such a way that it's impossible to disagree with him, really.
I think I would really, really like to see an Obama vs. Huckabee race. My sense is that they're both decent guys with different philosophies but who are both guided more by reason than ideology or partisanship.
"Kudos to Huckabee, who is definitely the most sane of those running on the right."
Argh. He doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. Gawd, I would venture even McCain believe that Darwin got it about right.
Most sane? I guess.
and a racial power group.
Oh noes!!!!
Maybe snark doesn't cover it for these folks.
I'm going to spell this out as simply as I can. You know how when you apply for a job, it's someone white interviewing you? That helps. On the wierd chance it's someone black or whatever, it helps a bit more, because if they hire the wrong color and they act out it's going to create a maelstrom of problems that wouldn't come up if the HR person was white. They know it so it's still better off to be white.
Shut up and quit bitching about being white, it's embarassing.
Mike Huckabee is the most dangerous man in the race for Democrats. If the Repubs are smart enough to nominate a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I don't see how they can lose. I doubt if even Huck could carry Rudy or Romney over the finish line, but I suppose it's possible if Dems revert to type and form up the firing squad in a circle.
Re: Argh. He doesn't believe in the theory of evolution.
At the moment this is the least of our problems with the insanity on the Right. Disbelieving evolution won't get us into any wars, won't ruin the economy and won't take civil liberties or righst away from anyoenone.
If the Repubs are smart enough to nominate a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I don't see how they can lose.
They're already losing in the head-to-heads. While I agree that McCain/Huckabee might be the strongest general ticket that the GOP can nominate, they're facing a Dem tidal wave in 2008, because of the failed war in Iraq. If McCain and Huckabee run on a campaign of more of the same in Iraq - which they both have explicitly committed to - even their prodigious general election appeal probably won't be enough to win in 2008.
The first commenter at TPM Cafe put it best: "Has Huckabee explained how he will fix the border as president?" Is Huckabee proposing searching every single vehicle entering from Mexico? Is he suggesting building a Great Wall Of China-style barrier along all the entire US-Mexico border? "Securing the border" is a huge and difficult task.
With that noted, it's actually nice to see a political candidate showing some compassion for the less fortunate. The world could use a lot more of that.
If the Repubs are smart enough to nominate a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I don't see how they can lose.
That might be the strongest ticket but I'd see them being beaten rather handily by Hillary
I am more interested in who she'll pick
"If the Repubs are smart enough to nominate a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I don't see how they can lose. That might be the strongest ticket but I'd see them being beaten rather handily by Hillary.
I am more interested in who she'll pick."
I wish I could be so sure. I'm supporting Hillary, but I think this will be a close one no matter who runs on the GOP side. For all the talk of disgruntled Republicans who might vote Democratic or stay home, people tend to return to their ancestral loyalties, and that will give the GOP candidate a good floor to start with. I'd love to see Hillary (or any other Democrat) crush the GOP in a landslide, but I think the country is probably too evenly divided and firm in its partisanship to let that happen, even after the fiasco of the Iraq War and Bush 43's administration in general. I'd love to be cruelly corrected by history on that point, however, and have the Democrats win with 325+ electoral votes.
That having been said, I also am more interested in who Hillary will pick than who the GOP candidate will pick for the VP slot. My bet - Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh or Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. Both are white male moderates who can win votes in the Midwest. Rack up the Kerry states plus Ohio and/or Indiana and it's happy days are here again for the Democrats.
Jonf wrote
Re: Argh. He doesn't believe in the theory of evolution.
At the moment this is the least of our problems with the insanity on the Right. Disbelieving evolution won't get us into any wars, won't ruin the economy and won't take civil liberties or righst away from anyoenone.
****
But in that disbelief in evolution does have real world implications for education, it follows that it does have implications for our economy, serious ones at that.
Frankly, his abstinence-only sex ed is probably more dangerous than anti-evolutionism. Worst thing he could do with the latter is to push for teaching of intelligent design. That's small potatoes, and unlikely to get passed; and like Huckabee himself said, he wouldn't be writing the biology curriculum himself in any school district.
Disbelieving evolution won't get us into any wars, won't ruin the economy and won't take civil liberties or righst away from anyoenone.
No, but Huckabee's pro-Iraq-war stance, coupled with his fundamentalist Rapture-obsessed background, could get us into plenty of wars. The rings he'd have to kiss to keep the moneymen and the Club for Growth on board would mean bad news for his economic policy, to say nothing of the fundamentalist base, which hates progessive tax policies (See, e.g., the beating the Republican Baptist governor of Alabama took when he tried to help the poor via the tax code). And that's without getting into his enthusiasm for the "Fair Tax" nonsense, also known as "Tax Breaks for Rich non-wage-earners, combined with bankrupting the Treasury." And Huck is certainly a fan of taking civil rights away from pregnant sluts and stinking homosexuals. Nor has he expressed any interest whatsoever in rolling back the unitary executive. But at least he's not a complete shrieking fascist about illegal immigration, and he's so goddamn folksy. Good god, I've spent as much time as anyone trying to push back against irrational Ron Paul love, but if the alternative is everyone rushing to lick the ass of a thin-skinned corrupt warmongering young-earth creationist theocrat who's just been endorsed by Tim LaHaye, then what's the point?
Re: But in that disbelief in evolution does have real world implications for education
Nah. It just means that various Fundamentalist Christians will smile and say "See, he agrees with us" and so feel good about their deliberate ignorance. The president has no role in setting educational policy at the local level and experience has shown (See: Dover PA) that the voters have little tolerance for efforst to smuggle creationism into the classroom. And also, hard creationism has always been quite common in this country, but it has had no discernible effect on our economy for the simple reason that very little that is learned in scholl (beyond the basics, and not counting stuff learned in the post-graduate level for MDs, etc.) has any bearing on the real world of work.
rE: ...to say nothing of the fundamentalist base, which hates progessive tax policies
Is this really true? I don't doubt it's true of the leadership who, after all, are part of the oligarchial class themselves, with fortunes to protect. But of the rank and file middle and working classes? Here I doubt it. Many progressive socioeconomic policies (such as universal healthcare) poll quite well with the average pew-sitter on the evangelical right. We are even see a slow move toward making global warming a central issue among these folks despite the leadership fighting against it.
I do agree though that many of Huckabee's positions are dangerous; his creationist beliefs however are not.
I was thinking of science education more generally and long term, but then I live and teach in Texas.
After eight years of Bush, has Roe v. Wade truly been under any real threat of nullification? Other than by his Supreme Court appointees. And as for gay marriages- wasn't that more of the fault of state and local legislatures/courts than by the federal government? Bush's attempt for a marriage constitutional amendment was about as successful as his attempts to privatize socials security.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8636094d-a1c8-4c48-b57a-e990a1f26a91
Unhelpful TNR article on illegal immigration consulted with dem political strategists -- either they didn't accept that it was a big issue, or advised to evade the question. One insightful and angry commenter takes them to task:
Posted by teplukhin2you
"Messrs Greenberg et al - some free advice from a loyal Dem who's probably the last person any of my friends/colleagues/neighbors would expect to be agitated by this issue: 1. The issue is not "immigration". It's not even illegal immigration. It's our broken relationship with _Mexico_, pure and simple. So start reframing the issue accordinagly, every single time it comes up. 2. The broken relationship with Mexico is the ECONOMIC one. Again, the issue is not primarily a legal one, or border security-- as if we could ever police that border. It's all about finally delivering on the bill of goods that was used to sell NAFTA over a decade ago: _creating jobs in Mexico_ so that desperately poor, hopeless Mexicans would not come here and swamp the low-end US labor market and social services in the blue-collar neighborhoods. 3. Consistent with #2, focus on FIXING NAFTA and HELPING WORKING FAMILIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER. All the border enforcement in the world won't help if we continue to dump $1b of subsidized US corn into Mexico each year, thereby destroying over a million rural Mexican livelihoods. Close the loopholes that were left open for Cargill and ADM. 4. Bottom line, this issue is 100% about economics. It's one of standing up for workers' rights, of helping working US families and working Mexican families, and putting Mexico on a path to follow Ireland's successful transition from third world backwater and exporter of desperate people to a wealthy, dynamic, super-educated first world tiger. If our party can't do better than ~35% or so with working-class white families across the nation, we should abandon the fiction that we are the workingman's party. No issue more clearly demonstrates the confusion and bankruptcy of the Democratic Party than its bizarre, and infuriating, inability to stand up, cry BS on and put an end to this insane importation of an underclass from Mexico-- when we haven't even begun to address the problems of our existing underclass. Messrs Greenberg et al -- do you men realize how central this issue is to our party and our nation? Do you understand that you and your clients can't just kick the can down the road again?"
(I'll add that the subtext is that Bill Clinton is responsible for bringing us NAFTA. Hillary cannot bring up the NAFTA/immigration connection because she is running on Bill's record. When folks understand how the Clinton administration sold them down the river, Hillary's candidacy is doomed. As I see it, on the democratic side, only Obama is a strategic position side to make the case.)
James Gary: With that noted, it's actually nice to see a political candidate showing some compassion for the less fortunate. The world could use a lot more of that.
Doesn't it hurt being so clueless? While Huck might be "compassionate" to a certain degree, I'll bet if you do some research you'll see that something else is involved.
I reckon we should all close the borders. All nations, all states - even most cities should close their freakin borders. In fact - don't leave the house! We have the internet!!!
Let us also regulate trade on the city level. We know what globalization can do - there is some good in it for cooperations but lots of bad stuff for normal people. If anything only neighboring states should be allowed to trade.
And let us, finally, prohibit poverty (and maybe the rich too)! America for Americans and not the other way around...
Hugo -- thanks for your sarcasm. I posted the TNR response because I think the issue of illegal immigration is huge among many voters and the dems are not effectively addressing it. If the democrats do not find a way to reframe this issue, I fear we are going to see a xenophobic populist third party emerge that will end up benefitting the republicans. I am not a trade policy expert -- and I have no idea how to fix the imbalances that have developed as a result of NAFTA, but I can certainly sense that many people feel this is the number one problem in the country. Perhaps it is serving as a distraction to the war -- which actually makes it even more urgent that one of the dems addresses it a credible manner.
Is this really true? I don't doubt it's true of the leadership who, after all, are part of the oligarchial class themselves, with fortunes to protect. But of the rank and file middle and working classes? Here I doubt it.
Dude, I even made explicit reference to the governor of Alabama in my comment. Governor Riley was convinced by a student of theology that Alabama's regressive nineteenth-century tax code was un-Christian, due to its burden on the poor. His voter referendum on reforming the code to provide greater progressivity was soundly defeated by the "rank and file middle and working classes," marching in lockstep with the shrieking misrepresentations of the Christian Coalition of Alabama. If a Southern Baptist Republican governor gets shot down by poor fundamentalist Christians for trying to help them, how's "Huck" going to manage it? Assuming he wants to, and the flat tax bullshit he espouses strongly suggests he doesn't want to.
I do agree though that many of Huckabee's positions are dangerous; his creationist beliefs however are not.
Indeed, the past 6-7 years have told us that there are no ill effects whatsoever in having federal science policies set by anti-science theocratic loons. Whatever.
Re: Dude, I even made explicit reference to the governor of Alabama in my comment.
Yes, you did, but I am not convinced it was the Religious Right that did him in. More likely it was simnply the Alabama middle class (religious or not) stampeded by Grover Norquist style rehtoric into thinking they were going to be fleeced to the skins. That, sadly, is a tactic that has worked in altogether too many states and religion has nothing to do with it.
Re: Indeed, the past 6-7 years have told us that there are no ill effects whatsoever in having federal science policies set by anti-science theocratic loons.
Um, are we talking specifically about evolution or about federal science policy in all aspects? First off, I am not aware there is a federal science policy involving evolution. Secondly, the one area where you and I will both agree the Bush administration has done vast damage-- climate science policy-- has nothing to do with creationism or religion at all. And it isn't would-be theocrats who sabotaged things there, but a gang of very secular lobbyists and lawyers from the energy corpporations and some other business interests whose religion begins and ends with their balance sheets.
No, the strong correlation between young-earth creationism based on Biblical "literalism" and other fundamentalist Christian beliefs such as hostility to "secular science" in general, and family planning in particular, has no effect whatsoever on, e.g., the decisions of Health and Human Services appointees. And we haven't just had years of back-and-forth on embryonic stem cells, where federal policy has been driven by religious fundamentalists. Nor has "abstinence-only" been the primary recipient of federal largesse for sex education of late. At least on Earth Gamma. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't have a portal to it, JonF.
For reasons that escape me, you're refusing to note that young-earth creationism is not usually some isolated belief held by otherwise socially progressive rationalists; it is part and parcel of the doctrine of fundamentalist Christians who hold all manner of other ideas antithetical to civil rights and human progress. Huckabee is not an otherwise rational humanist who just happens to hold a wacky idea about the origin of the earth (like Kucinich and UFOs). Young-earth creationism is an entirely reasonable shorthand for what tends to come along with it: homophobia, hostility to reproductive rights, and an agenda where science is subordinated to an outside agenda.
Oh, and:
but I am not convinced it was the Religious Right that did him in. More likely it was simnply the Alabama middle class (religious or not) stampeded by Grover Norquist style rehtoric into thinking they were going to be fleeced to the skins.
According to Auburn's polling right afterwards, 72% of those with incomes under $20,000 voted against Riley's plan (as compared with 56% opposition from $100,000+). 71% of rural voters voted against it. 25% of opponents were influenced by the Alabama Christian Coalition or by their churches; 23% were influenced by the opinion of family members. I dunno, I see a significant role for both the poor and the Religious Right (which has a fairly strong overlap in Alabama) in there somewhere. On the other hand, the plan had bare majority support by African-Americans, so religious conservatism per se was certainly not the whole story. But that's different from saying it had nothing to do with it.
But isn't Huckabee a lot more pro-environment than Bush?
Comments closed December 07, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
That Huckabee seems to get better and better...
Maybe he can threaten to have "Chuck" pay a little visit to any pundit or rival candidate who criticizes him too much over this...
Posted by RKU | November 23, 2007 6:17 PM