The Mike Huckabee For President Campaign: Where Knowledge Of World Affairs Comes To Die
I realize that Presidential candidates are under a lot of stress and pressure and from time to time, they make a gaffe or two. But this is ridiculous and indicates quite clearly that Mike Huckabee is not the most well-versed foreign policy candidate around . . . to say the least:
Explaining statements he made suggesting that the instability in Pakistan should remind Americans to tighten security on the southern border of the United States, Mr. Huckabee said Friday that “we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities, except those immediately south of the border.”
Asked to justify the statement, he later cited a March 2006 article in The Denver Post reporting that from 2002 to 2005, Pakistanis were the most numerous non-Latin Americans caught entering the United States illegally. According to The Post, 660 Pakistanis were detained in that period.
A recent report from the Department of Homeland Security, however, concluded that, over all, illegal immigrants from the Philippines, India, Korea, China and Vietnam were all far more numerous than those from Pakistan.
In a separate interview on Friday on MSNBC, Mr. Huckabee, a Republican, said that the Pakistani government “does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists.” Those borders are on the western side of Pakistan, not the eastern side.
This is embarrassing. This is unsettling. And this appears to indicate that Mike Huckabee is not ready for prime time. Add all of this to Huckabee’s past foreign policy errors–including his disastrous Foreign Affairs article and his complete lack of preparedness in discussing the recent NIE on Iran’s nuclear capabilities a full 24 hours after the NIE was made public–and you have a Presidential candidate not ready for prime time.
I measure my words carefully when I write this: If Huckabee can’t be bothered, during an era of consequence when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national security–to learn the basics of foreign policy, then he has no business running for President. And if he persists in running, he will have no business being surprised once the electorate makes clear that they will not take him seriously thanks to his lack of knowledge.
Originaly from Source
05.30.08
Getting the Story Straight
Q: (Courtesy ABC News) My only problem with you and why I havent thrown all my support behind you is that I dont know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?
That is a very good question, not because its difficult to answer, but Im gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.
In the first place, I got into the race about the time people normally get into get into it. The fact of the matter is people get into it a lot earlier than they used to. For some of them, they were juniors in high school.
The first place, I wouldnt be here if I didnt. I wouldnt be doing this. I grew up in very modest circumstances. I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I havent had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, youve got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show. I had a contract with abc radioand so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didnt want to do it.
I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I dont do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.
When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better form a distance.
But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably aint going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide its going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.
Im offering myself up. Im saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. Im not particularly interested in running for president, but I think Id make a good president.
Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.
I dont know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I dont know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, its all about fire in the belly. Im not sure in the world we live in today its a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how Ive been as successful as Ive been in everything that Ive done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. Ive never had an acting lesson. I guess thats obvious by people whove watched me
When I did it, I did it. Wasnt just a lark. Anything thats worth doing is worth doing well. But Ive always been a little more laid back than most. Im only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.
If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I aint that guy. So I hope Ive discussed that and didnt talk you out of anything. I honestly want I cant imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.
Originaly from Source
That Infamous Foreign Affairs Article
The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.
Right away, the essay starts out badly. Comparing the United States to a successful high school student who might have a tendency to lord it over the dullards is simplistic, to say the least. There is, of course, no mention of specific examples in which the United States has sought “to dominate others.” Politics ain’t beanbag and international relations is even less beanbagesque than is the practice of domestic politics. As a superpower, the United States holds tremendous sway in diplomatic, military and financial circles and as a nation-state acting in conjunction with the expectations and predictions of realist theory, the United States will indeed seek to push for its preferred policies overseas–whether that occurs in bilateral or multilateral settings. As power is a zero sum game, it stands to reason that when the United States prevails in pushing for one particular position and another country–or a group of countries–fails in the advocacy of a competing position, there may be some hard feelings. But from the outset, Huckabee fails to give voice to the fact that America’s allies feel an attachment to the United States and a need to keep up a friendship with the U.S. because of mutual interests in a whole host of areas. Moreover, Huckabee fails to take note of the fact that in Germany and France, anti-American governments have given way to significantly pro-American ones and that in Britain, Gordon Brown–whatever his other faults–has sought to keep the special relationship between Britain and the United States intact, going so far as to authorize his Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to smack down the insufferable Mark Malloch-Brown when the latter pompously declared earlier this year that Britain and America were no longer “joined at the hip.”
Incidentally, is Huckabee unaware of the degree to which America is “generous in helping others”? Apparently so. His first paragraph implicitly suggests a false dichotomy; America has “attempt[ed] to dominate others” instead of being “generous in helping others.” Er . . . no. Huckabee would have reassured at least a few people if he gave a nod to American efforts to lend support to international aid programs. Instead, he made it clear that he is unaware of the scope of American aid overseas.
American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests.
This paragraph is demagoguery in action, pure and simple. Talk about the Administration’s “arrogant bunker mentality” is taken straight out of Democratic talking points and has about as much accuracy as do laser blasts from the guns of Imperial stormtroopers in the Star Wars saga. It is not an argument. It is, rather, a shibboleth, as is the discussion of pitting us against the terrorists instead of against the world. Would that the great Jeane Kirkpatrick were alive to comment on Huckabee’s poorly aimed rhetoric, it might cause her to be reminded of a certain speech she gave about a group of people who may well have given Huckabee the inspiration he drew on in choosing his words. I realize that Presidential candidates need to write catchy lines to attract the attention of the public, but catchy lines need to have a semblance of truth about them. It is nice to see that Huckabee opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty. So do I. The difference between me and Huckabee is that I spelled out my opposition and the reasons for it. In his essay, Huckabee never does.
A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity — religious, ethnic, racial — it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “know your enemy,” and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad influenced Osama bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore the “pure” Islam of the seventh century through a theocratic caliphate without national borders. He saw nothing decadent or sinful in murdering in order to achieve that end. America’s culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists’ culture of death.
I am pretty well prepared to predict that in the event that Mike Huckabee wins the Presidency (stop laughing), the White House Press Office in a Huckabee Administration will not devote oodles and oodles of time to discussing the writings of Sayyed Qutb. And indeed, if there is a problem in America with the understanding of the ideology behind radical Islamism, that problem lies with those who refuse to believe–despite the mounting evidence–that radical Islamism and its ideology are a clear and present danger to American interests and the interests of America’s allies around the world. The fault for this lack of understanding does not lie with the Administration, which sought to move Heaven and Earth as early as September 20, 2001 to awaken the public to the danger:
Americans have many questions tonight.
05.29.08
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
FRED THOMPSON ON FNS. First up on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace was the candidate most dismissed by MSM pundits and news reporters, Fred Thompson. Wallace asked him about the headlines in Iowa about Fred allegedly telling a crowd that he lacks fire in the belly and does not even want to be President. Smiling, Thompson responded that this was a case of “journalistic malpractice,” creative reporting. He said that he had said that he did want to be President and that is: “why I’m doing what I’m doing.” [See Erick’s story from yesterday.]
Wallace asked Thompson about his standing in the polls in Iowa. The Real Clear Politics average has him a distant third, behind Huckabee and Romney by a 2-1 margin. Thompson explained that RCP included an outlier in their average, one which had him at about 5%. Thompson is confident that it is much closer than this.
Thompson pointed out that the Rasmussen national poll had him six points from the lead.
Wallace asked Thompson if Mike Huckabee is prepared to be President. Thompson didn’t take the bait, but he declared that America needs someone who “understands the world we live in.” We do not need someone with a “blame America first” mindset, he said, adding that Huckabee had sent an apology to Pakistan for Benazir Bhutto’s death.
Wallace asked Thompson if Mitt Romney is prepared to be President. Thompson didn’t take the bait, but he reminded us that Romney has changed his mind on matters which are core to conservatism. Romney, he said, has “changed his basic philosophy,” offering the examples of taxes and immigration. Thompson added that “it’s hard to pin Mitt down on what he actually believes.”
Thompson discussed his own national security bona fides.
Wallace asked Thompson if he should have entered the race earlier, as the pundits maintain. Thompson said no, he got in the race when people traditionally get into the race. When this process is over, he said, we can all second-guess, adding that right now, “it looks like the timing is really good.” This was the way they did it in Tennessee, he explained.
DAVID YEPSEN ON FNS. David Yepsen is the political guy at Iowa’s Des Moines Register, and the networks dust him off every four years to talk about these caucuses for a few weeks, with Chris Wallace and FOX being no different on this score.
Of note, Wallace pointed out that Mitt Romney is running the only negative ads in Iowa. He asked if there were any truth to the “truism” that negative advertising backfires in Iowa, and Yepsen shot that one down: “Negative ads do work.” He added that Huckabee is “taking a pounding” not just from Romney, but also from some 527s.
Yepsen said that there were “three tickets out of Iowa,” and he thinks John McCain might take the third ticket out. Then he suggested: “Ron Paul is the wild card.”
MIKE HUCKABEE ON MTP. On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert began by talking to Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee. The candidate had dropped nine points in an MSNBC/McClatchy poll of Iowans. Huckabee offered that the polls were “all over the place,” some have him leading, others trailing. To his credit, he did not burst into laughter when Russert, with a straight face, uttered the name “McClatchy.” Let alone MSNBC. Russert asked if the commercials regarding Huckabee’s record might have had some influence. Huckabee said that with the relentless attacks “and they were relentless” and the fact that he was outspend 21-1, “it’s pretty amazing that I am where I am.”
Russert asked if Mitt Romney had said anything about Huckabee which was untrue. Huckabee started the list. Mitt claimed that Huckabee had reduced Meth sentences in Arkansas when the truth is that he signed a bill in 1999 which doubled Meth sentences, which are four times greater than those in Romney’s Massachusetts. Huckabee said that Romney accused him of giving “special breaks” to illegal immigrants. Actually, it was a bill concerning the children of such people who had “earned” scholarships, and it never made the legislature. Romney accused Huckabee of increasing spending “by some ridiculous amount,” and even the New York Times “took him apart” on this false claim. Huckabee said that Romney’s claim about tax increases was wrong because the tax increases in Arkansas were either court ordered or approved by the voters, such as the one to improve roads. Huckabee said that he left Arkansas with good roads, while Romney’s “were a mess” in Massachusetts. Romney claims that he did not raise taxes, when actually he did raise taxes in the form of fees by a half-billion dollars.
He said that he raised taxes for “educational purposes” and for roads. (I take it, then, that he opposes abolishing the Department of Education.)
Foreign affairs. Huckabee said that in light of the events of the past few weeks, some of his remarks regarding Pak seem “almost prophetic.” Russert grilled him about his pledge to use military strikes within Pakistan to rid it of al Qaeda. Russert averred that he would then destabilize the Musharraf regime and turn Pakistan over to the Taliban. Huckabee said the strike would not an effort to destabilize Musharraf. He predicted that the past week’s activities would lead to a greater accountability of how our aid checks to Pakistan are being spent.
Russert asked him if it was worth destabilizing Musharraf to capture Osama bin Laden. Huckabee challenged the assertion that the U.S. strike would destabilize Musharraf. He said that if he were President, he would weigh all the information to determine whether it were worth the risk of destabilizing Pakistan if we could possibly “save American lives” and “take out al Qaeda’s number one operative.”
Huckabee explained his “close the borders to Pakistani illegals” comment in reaction to Bhutto’s assassination by saying that he was trying to make the point that what happens in the world affects us here in the U.S. and that he wants to stop Pakistanis from crossing our borders with shoulder filed missiles in their briefcases.
When asked for an example of the President’s “arrogant bunker mentality,” Huckabee said it was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ignoring the advice of the generals and “arbitrarily” sending too few troops into Iraq. Huckabee pointed out that he’s been more consistent in his support of the President when they agree, such as with the Surge. He said that Mitt Romney has been a “latecomer” in supporting the surge.
Huckabee defended his faith nicely against Russert’s attacks.
It went on for a while. Russert’s questions, while not softballs, were not as tough as some of the questions I’ve seen asked here at RedState. Huckabee did not implode, by any stretch, and handled himself well.
OBAMA ON MTP. Russert next grilled Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. Russert showed the Olbermann/McClatchy poll, and Obama said that he’s getting great crowds. Obama said it is understandable if the Pakistani elections “are delayed slightly.” He said that “we” should reinstate an impartial judiciary in Pakistan. By “we,” I’m sure Barry means the United Nations and not the United States, and Russert did not ask Barry how many Blue Helmets he would commit to this reinstatement. Barry said that the government of Pakistan must “appear legitimate.” To whom? Maybe the U.N., maybe the U.S., perhaps France.
Russert asked Obama if he believes that Hillary’s vote to invade Iraq led to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan last week. Barry answered no. “Of course not.” (Team Barry had evidently said of Hillary that by going into Iraq, we were distracted from Afghanistan and fighting al Qaeda.) Russert formulated that the war in Iraq had distracted us from Pakistan which led to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Obama said he’s not drawing a causal relationship.
They went over that old stuff about Bill Clinton telling Charlie Rose that a vote for Obama is “rolling the dice” because of his inexperience. Obama pointed out the similarities with Clinton in ‘92.
Obama didn’t hurt himself, I don’t think. Ask a Dem.
HILLARY ON TW. On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos first talked to his former boss’ wife, Hillary Clinton. Hillary took credit for many things which happened during the Clinton Administration, such as the peace deal in Northern Ireland and keeping the peace with the PRC as a “spokesman in Beijing.” She said that though she did not sit in on all of her husband’s national security meetings and did not have a security clearance, she was privy to “classified information.” (This is a violation of federal law.)
So she played a major role in the Clinton Administration, she said.
If elected, though, she promised that her husband Bill would not be allowed in on any meetings and would have no formal role. She promised that she would rely on him only as a wife might rely on her husband.
So he would play no major role in the 2nd Clinton Administration, she said.
She’s not afraid of a loss in New Hampshire, she said, because her husband did not win a primary until Georgia’s.
JOHN MCCAIN ON TW. Steph opened the interview by playing a Romney ad attacking John McCain, followed by a McCain ad attacking Romney, both airing in New Hampshire. McCain’s ad pointed out that New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor had referred to Romney as “phony,” and Romney angrily accused McCain of a personal attack. McCain answered Steph by pointing out that he was only quoting an important New Hampshire paper and by welcoming Romney to national politics.
McCain added that, despite what Team Mitt claimed in its attack ad, he had never supported amnesty for illegal aliens. He pointed out that Romney was also attacking Huckabee “a fine person” in Iowa.
McCain would not himself say if he thought Romney were a phony, allowing only that the “voters will decide.”
McCain did not predict a victory for himself in New Hamsphire this morning, though he has done so in the past.
JOHN EDWARDS ON FTN Over on CBS, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer interviewed 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards. Schieff asked Edwards about Bill Clinton’s assertion that Hillary’s the only Dem with the necessary crisis experience to handle the world today. Edwards disagreed. When he found out that Benazir Bhutto had been assassinated, he talked to the Pakistani ambassador to the United States and demanded to talk to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf called him several hours later, and Edwards says he demanded this and that. He said that Musharraf gave in to each demand except for the bit about an international investigation into the murder.
Edwards wants the Pak elections to be held soon and be legitimate.
Schieff asked Edwards if it would be possible for Bill not to have an official role in a Hillary Administration. Edwards pointed out that Bill, on the stump for Hillary, talks about his views rather than hers. Edwards thinks Bill will play a role and suggested that Bill could play a role in his own hypothetical administration.
John Edwards thinks 527’s should be illegal, even if they air only positive advertising like the ones supporting him and run by his former campaign manager. He added that he has no control over any of this.
Schieffer accidentally called Hillary, “Senator Hilton.” You figure it out.
Edwards believes that corporate greed and corporate power have a hold on the soul of our democracy.
Asked what he’d do if he didn’t finish at least second in Iowa, Edwards said he’s moving and he’s moving in a positive way.
FRED THOMPSON ON LE. On CNN, host Wolf Blitzer first talked to Fred Thompson. First topic: Pak. Blitzer asked Thompson if he had confidence in Musharraf. Thompson explained that we had to have confidence in him in the short term, for stability’s sake in a nuclear-armed country. He said that “ultimately, the people of Pakistan are going to have to decide” about Musharraf, adding that things had been moving in the right direction there.
Thompson said that our foreign assistant to Pakistan should continue for the time being. “This is not time to be parsimonious about it,” he said.
Thompson expressed confidence in Pakistan to investigate the death of Bhutto, adding that he believes al Qaeda when they claim credit for the assassination. He thinks that Pak can handle this investigation without any outside nations coming in to “tell them how to do it.”
Blitzer played the quote “I’m not particularly interesting in running for President, but” and asked about it. Fred said that the media, but not Wolf, likes to pick out bits and take it out of context. Fred said that he was not interesting in the process of running, but then he listed the reasons why he wanted to be President.
Fred said that he has “a decent chance of coming in second” in Iowa. He’s touring 60 towns and villages, getting a chance to “spend time” with people. This has created “on the ground activity” and generated contributions.
Thompson is not going to change strategy or message. “There’ll be no change in Fred.” He said that he fills “pretty optimistic right now.”
HILLARY ON LE. Blitzer next spoke to Dem Hillary Clinton. She demanded that an “independent, international investigation” be launched into Benazir Bhutto. She demanded free and fair elections be held immediately, adding that she understands that it will take time for Bhutto’s People’s Party to select a successor. (Not really. It’s her son, Bilawal Bhutto. It is probable that her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, is pulling the strings. It should surprise few if Zardari is the eventual candidate, despite his criminal record.)
She will put conditions on U.S. funding to Pakistan, accusing the Bush Administration of giving a “blank check to the Musharraf regime.” She thinks Musharraf is not reliable.
——————-
Have at it!
Originaly from Source