After a brief perusal of a few sites, I think that I would like to put out a positive message to Iowans.
A huge number of people showed up to speak their minds the other night, to participate in the caucuses. In return for that, they’re being called corrupt, they’re being accused of stealing votes, of not thinking; of running on emotion without thinking. On my way to Henniker yesterday, I was listening to Limbaugh’s show, and a caller was furious with Iowans for voting for Mike Huckabee, and said that they were doing it out of pure emotion. Limbaugh encouraged such thinking. One of the comments on my own blog derides Iowa as a state full of welfare queens.
I’m sure that there are many more examples. I don’t care to find them. It sickens me to see people act like this. (In Limbaugh’s defense, I think that I heard him defending Huckabee from the charge of being a religious bigot from one caller … I couldn’t really hear the whole thing well because I was in a bad spot for radio reception, but I think that the caller said Huckabee was a bigot and Limbaugh was actually pointing out that Huckabee was trying to avoid those conversations. If I heard what I think I did, I want to make sure to give him that credit.)
For the record: if Mitt Romney should manage to win NH, I don’t want to see a single Huckabee or McCain supporter say that NH voters have shown that they were for sale to the highest bidder, or stupid, or anything else of the kind. If it happens, and I see it, I will denounce it as strongly. (If I don’t see it, and someone points it out to me to call me on it, you’ll see what I mean.)
It isn’t true, and it isn’t right. Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus because his ideas and his campaign resonated with the people of Iowa. Mitt Romney lost ground because his campaign did so less and less, but he came in second because he had some strong supporters. John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul showed that they had support among a smaller group of people. Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter weren’t able to connect with large numbers of people.
Insulting people because they didn’t vote your way isn’t the American way. You can regret a decision, you can say you disagree, you can say people were wrong … but to belittle people because they disagreed with you is just plain wrong on a fundamental level. Our republic is based on the idea that people have the right to disagree with each other. To belittle dissent is to try to silence it. And that, frankly, is almost un-American.
So, please, before you go insulting Iowans because they didn’t vote your way, think about the larger message you’re sending. Also, give a thought to how you sound, and how you make your candidate sound. What kind of arrogance is it that makes a person presume that the only logical, well-reasoned, or even legitimate vote is a vote cast for his/her own candidate? While your candidate shows up and says how much s/he loves and respects the people of NH now, what’s he going to say after he leaves, if he doesn’t get what he wants?
The caucuses are a big deal. Iowans took the time to come out and speak their minds. I thank the people of Iowa, not only because they gave my candidate a big win, but because I know that they didn’t have to come out at all. I would hope that we can respect people even if they disagree with us. Maybe that’s too much to ask.
I have seen some gracious but disappointed people, as well. I would expect that. I would certainly not be thrilled if Mike Huckabee had lost in Iowa … but I’d like to think that I wouldn’t be putting the people of Iowa down. Bear in mind … the point of the nomination process is to choose a candidate for the general election. If you burn bridges, then you’re hurting yourself in the long run. If Mitt Romney is nominated, those 34% of Republicans who cared enough to come out and caucus for Mike Huckabee might remember hearing that they were accused of doing so only because they’re religious bigots, because they were fooled, or because they weren’t thinking. It might be challenging to motivate them to come out to vote for you, after your people have said that kind of stuff.
January 5, 2008 at 11:51 am
Since you are an avid Huck supporter and endorser, I was wondering if you could account for his questionable economic track record and apparent disregard for federalism?
I’m not trying to make accusations or say anybody is right or wrong, but I am interested in seeing the other side of the story.
I put together a list of concerns of mine here:
http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/iowa-part-2-the-huckeye-state/
And as a conservative first and a republican second, I think they are legitimate concerns.
January 5, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Well, first of all, your issue that he supports a federal abortion ban is more than a little peculiar … that’s been viewed as a conservative position for almost 30 years now, and has been the Republican plank since 1980. If you view that as an attack on Federalism, fine … but there we are.
As for the economic track record — I’m still waiting for someone to say what he should have done, instead. Given the federal pass-throughs and court orders, he had to spend money. I haven’t heard any of his critics manage to say what he should have cut instead.
Gov. Huckabee did impose an income tax surcharge, then had it eliminated when it was no longer needed. The charge that he casually raises taxes really is baseless. Bear in mind, that while he did raise taxes more than his predecessors, he also inherited a deficit from those predecessors. He was responsible enough to deal with this.
He is not a Federalist purist, I’ll grant that. Since I’m not, either, that doesn’t necessarily bother me. Purist Federalists didn’t support the abolition of slavery, either. They wanted to wait and let it wither. I would argue that slavery has no place in the civilized world, and I’m not willing to shrug my shoulders and accept it somewhere else for a philosophical notion, even Federalism.
Gov. Huckabee recognizes moral obligations and sticks with those.
As to the smoking thing … I think Huckabee’s wrong, but I really don’t care. This is about as low on my list of priorities as I can imagine.
January 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mike Huckabee has not asked for, nor does he support a federal ban on smoking!! The following is from my blog, Sept. 6, 2007 – a blogger conference call:
OneMom: There’s some concern about your statements regarding tobacco regulation from the Lance Armstrong forum. As a Public Health Professional, I fully support any and all tobacco regulation, but others felt your comments meant you would be building big government and forcing behavior on individuals. Could you clarify your views on tobacco regulation.
Mike Huckabee: Certainly, I don’t believe that we as a govt have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety … the same reason that the govt regulates the exposure of radon and other toxic gases in the work place. In AR I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not. So, in the work place, if we regulate smoking, it is an issue of worker safety. Even though I think it’s an unhealthy habit and is terribly expensive to the country, but when that smoke reaches my nose, that right ends. The responsibility initially lies with the states of course. The only way this would be a federal responsibility is for it taking on that roll as part of OSHA as it regulates other work place safety.
thank you.
January 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm
You know, that was sort of what I thought, I knew he supported the workplace smoking ban (so do I), but I’ve heard that he promised one broader than that.
I haven’t cared enough to look into it, but I took people’s word for it. Thanks for clearing that up.
The reason that I haven’t cared to look into, of course, is that smoking just doesn’t work up any passion in me — unless you count loathing for the industry.\
Again, thank you.
January 5, 2008 at 5:59 pm
No problem … I’m in public health and my father died from smoking, so for me I’d be glad to just be rid of it (but I’m not the one running for President, so what I think is irrelevant). There is also a video of Mike addressing this … when I find it I’ll drop you the link for future reference).
January 5, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for standing up for the Iowans, Wickle. It is sad the way they are being put down the road for the way they voted. It seems that is a prevailing attitude in this country. The first thing a lot of people want to do when someone disagrees with them is to start calling people names and running them down. Instead, they should be discussing the issues and trying to come to an agreement.
January 5, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I have removed a link to the Axis of Right blog.
I misread their title “It’s Only Iowa” as being more insulting than Mike intended. He meant that the Iowa caucus is only one contest out of many. By the time I read the title, I had already read so many other, really insulting, pieces that I took his title to be belittling, as well.
I think that this is my first retraction, so I hope that this works.
It comes with my apologies to Mike and the Axis of Right for my misunderstanding.
http://axisofright.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/its-only-iowa/
January 6, 2008 at 11:30 am
There are two points of interest with this: first off, it is certainly a Republican talking point but I would shy away from calling it a Conservative issue. Second, it came about when the evangelicals really started to become a force in the GOP and I really fear that people lost sight of what conservatism means as there was a horrible blending that occurred at that time. A true conservative should uphold the concept of a limited central (federal) government, which a federal ban on abortion really violates.
As for taxes, the overall number to look at is the tax burden on the state. This has been a point of contention here in Minnesota lately too, as people choose to look at certain elements of taxation and claim that Minnesotans are lower than average etc etc, but when the entire tax burden on the state is ranked objectively, it always paints a starkly different picture. I look at overall tax burden when I judge, not on individual tax cuts or increases. The goal should be a reduction in a state’s overall burden.
Huck doesn’t need to necessarily be a federalist purist, as there are certainly issues that need federal oversight, but there is a certain degree of federalism that needs to be present in Conservatives, and I just don’t see it in Huckabee.
As for the smoking ban, I have seen him flip flop on it which concerns me a bit. Whatever is most recent opinion on it is, it wasn’t always that way which I find a bit unnerving. At no time should he have ever though a smoking ban is a good idea, nor should he have alluded to it if he didn’t.
As for the spending, I’ll have to look into it some more, but at least what I see right now makes me uneasy and paints him as a big government conservative much more than a limited government conservative.
January 7, 2008 at 1:32 am
Thank you for that post Wickle!
And I will tell you, one reason why Huckabe got so much of the Iowa vote was becuase he, his campaign staff, and supporters understtod and connected with us.
There was a lot of “stereo-typical” thinking and condesending thinking from the other campaigns that put many off…