Category Archives: Elections 2008

Huckabee’s Hardcore On Israel

Elections 2008, Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I’ve been extremely critical of Huckabee. See “Ron Paul’s Electability” and “Huck’s For Huck—Paul’s For America.”

But I think I’ve just come across the only policy position Huckabee has professed that I rather like. Dr. Daniel Pipes disagrees:

“[T]rue connoisseurs of the Republican candidate for president are still wrapping their arms around this foreign policy insight delivered in a September interview:

‘If there is going to be a Palestinian state, it needs to be on land that doesn’t threaten the existence or security of Israel. There is a lot of available real estate around the world that would not be a direct threat to Israel’s security.’

James D. Besser, who conducted this interview, added that ‘Huckabee declined to offer suggestions about where that [real estate] might be.’ Uganda or Birobidjan, perhaps? (December 24, 2007)

Here Huckabee sounds just like the Likud Party once sounded. That may not be very pragmatic, considering that the Right in Israel perished a shot time ago, but why is it a bad thing?

Huckabee is certainly in line here with evangelical thinking—and my own. Come to think of it, I think I’ve just stumbled on the first Huckabee-held policy position that I like: quit pushing for statehood for these radical people.

Paul’s Peddling Liberty Again

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Constitution, Elections 2008, Foreign Policy, Ron Paul

Watch Meet the Press. Contemplate the following points:

* Selling liberty is tougher when free people morph into pliable sheep. But there are still very many buyers—since October Ron Paul has raised more than any other Republican: $19 million!
* If not for Dr. Paul’s run for president, can you imagine Tim Russet ever seriously addressing the elimination of the income tax?
* Is anyone other than Ron Paul repeatedly reminding the unreceptive leaches that form the Media-Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex that they’ve bankrupted us? Who other than Paul is telling Americans that America is a debt nation?
* If not for Dr. Paul, would anyone know that it costs a bankrupt America over a $1 trillion annually to police the world?
* There is no doubt that war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne warned. In her more recent tedious, socialist screeds, Naomi Klein has seized upon and run with this thesis, which libertarian economist Bob Higgs has empirically verified. Why is she listened to but not Paul?
* As you know, while I concur with Paul about the need for the US to leave its posts across the world, I do not agree that that will eliminate Islamic terrorism—just as I don’t believe Israel giving back its well-deserved, disputed territories will make the Palestinians “hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.” However, although I think Paul’s understanding of Islam’s impetus is limited and reductionist, his foreign policy is the right one. What’s the problem? If we are attacked on our soil, Paul will not hesitate to retaliate.
* As for earmarks and term limits: this is the first time I’ve seen Russet challenge a politician for real.
* With respect to Russet’s challenge vis-à-vis the 14th amendment, and the elimination of birthright citizenship, Paul retorted: “Amending the Constitutional is constitutional”: A great line.
* The Civil Rights Act: Paul reiterates that any objection thereto is rooted in respect for private property rights and freedom of association, not racism. We’ve said as much, and frequently.
* In the interview, I heard a great deal more of the gradualist approach specified in my critique of Dr. Paul’s strategy. Pragmatism is unavoidable.

See also:
On Idiot Ideologues Who Pan Paul
Huck’s for Huck–Paul’s For America
Ron Paul’s Electability
The Pauline Gospel at Its Best
Some Advice For Ron Paul

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul (But Still Loves McCain)

Elections 2008, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Before doing the right thing and endorsing Rep. Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan gives us a glimpse as to why he’s been so misguided over the years (he’d never admit to learning by following those of us who’ve gotten it right). Sullivan first slobbers over McCain:
“I admire McCain in so many ways. He is the adult in the field, he is attuned to the issue of climate change in a way no other Republican is, he is a genuine war hero and a patriot, and he bravely and rightly opposed the disastrous occupation policies of the Bush administration in Iraq. The surge is no panacea for Iraq; but it has enabled the United States to lose the war without losing face. And that, in the end, is why I admire McCain but nonetheless have to favor Paul over McCain. Because on the critical issue of our time – the great question of the last six years – Paul has been proven right and McCain wrong. And I say that as someone who once passionately supported McCain’s position on the war but who cannot pretend any longer that it makes sense.”
Andrew has always done proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. And since when has the mummified McCain’s opposition to Iraq been anything but tactical? At least Sullivan doesn’t pretend he wasn’t once firmly in the McCain camp with respect to Iraq. Why would he need to pretend? When the American punditocracy is wrong, which is almost always, it doesn’t incur adverse effects. Being a party to the neoconservative-Centre-Left coalition means never having to say you’re sorry (or being dismissed).
Another indictment of McCain came today in the form of an endorsement from Joe Lieberman. Ideologically, very little distinguishes neoconservatives such as McCain, or other big government, open-borders Republicans from the center-Left.
Sullivan doesn’t make much more sense when he gets to Dr. Paul, although the overall endorsement is a good thing:
“The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration,” he salivates.
The current Republican Party is based in freedom and toleration? It has not stood for these principles in many decades, and, as some argue, never, since this is the party of Lincoln.
Andrew improves when he praises “Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government…”

Derb’s Da Man

Elections 2008, Politics, Ron Paul

National Review’s John Derbyshire, once a skeptic (and here too), finally endorses Ron Paul:

“If you think that our efforts against jihadist terrorism constitute World War Four (I don’t), you will not want Ron Paul for president. (Jonah Goldberg’s article “The Tradition of Ron Paul” in the Dec. 17 issue of National Review is key reading in that context.) If you think there would be a whole world of difference between what Hillary Clinton would accomplish in the Rome-of-the-Borgias down there on the Potomac, by comparison with what Rudy, or Fred, or Mitt would accomplish, you won’t be supporting Paul.

If, however, you think that much of the underbrush that has grown up around our national institutions this past 40 years needs to by pulled up by the roots and burned, before it chokes the life out of our Republic, then Paul’s your man.”

As I said, Paul isn’t perfect, but he’s very good indeed.