What You Can Do From the Comfort of Your Crib

Fifty-one years ago, November 27 was also a Tuesday. I’ve been told that it was a gray and rainy afternoon in Little Rock, Arkansas, but I don’t recall on my own observations, because I was a bit busy being born. It must have been a good day.

That’s Billy Beck, lighting the candles on that cake of his. Yeah, and it was only a year later that the Army withdrew from the Little Rock area, once Little Rock HS was officially integrated.

And if I recall, that was also the day “Sweet Caroline” Kennedy was born. (Yes, the song was about her, Diamond says now…)

Not bad for not even getting your butt outta diapers, yet.

Have a good day, today, Billy.

By the way, I noted the Billy Squier bit you posted earlier. (His site is here.) What the beep happened to this guy?  This is a guy that deserved far better than just the one album making it.

Robert Bindinotto:

The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It’s much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we’re defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters, and stupendous amounts of money, to spread our ideals through force.
— March 28, 2006

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
— April 6, 2006

I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah — yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they come here to attack us because we’re over there.
— May 15, 2007

Now, who is the author of these statements? Some liberal like John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich? Maybe some anti-American filmmaker like Oliver Stone or Brian de Palma? Or perhaps some militant Islamist from a group like CAIR?

No, the author is America’s most prominent self-professed libertarian: GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. And his growing public profile finally merits the small spotlight of my attention.

And pay attention he does.  I’ve written about the subject of Ron Paul’s misguided nonsense enough to fill a CD.  But, Bindinotto speaks with some force here, and is worth noting.. In this case, as regard Ron Paul and his misguided foreign policy proposals…

For a detailed look at Paul’s warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary “The Blame Game,” where he declares, “There was no downside when we left Vietnam.” No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia — and the consequent, devastating loss of America’s credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul’s infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word “empire” to describe U.S. foreign policy aims — which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul’s indiscriminately declared hostility to “war” as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.

Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.

The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic “isolationism” that was still largely possible at the time of America’s founding.

When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC —

— when Chinese rockets can “blind” in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation’s defense —

— when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade —

— when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.

— it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water’s edge. Those days are long gone.

National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.

It’s as I’ve been telling you here, and several other people in e-mail,  Isolationism won’t work, in reality. It never has since the revolutionary times.

And speaking of things I’ve been telling you,  Bindinotto also speaks to another topic I’ve pounded here over the years….the relationship between rights, and a government…

 His is the traditional, platonic view of “natural rights” shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions — as if they are the same.

They aren’t.

At least we have one thing going for us… Ron Paul hasn’t a snowballs chance of  getting to the presidency.  However, as Bindinotto suggests,  and as I suggested yesterday, damage is being done to libertarianism.

The Associated Press.

MIAMI – Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor died early Tuesday, a day after the Pro Bowl player was shot at home by what police say was an intruder. He was 24.

Guns don’t kill,  Intruders do.

I find it interesting that a rumor of Trent Lott having an homosexual; affair is treated as news, albeit for a short time.  Whereas a rumor of Mrs. William Clinton having a homosexual affair is only reported as an ugly rumor.  Why are republican trysts treated a news but democrat one only as ugly rumors?

 (Bit responds)

An interesting point I doubt many will answer.

Boortz, this morning:

Here is the text of an email that was sent to every student at the University of Florida by the vice president for student affairs. Note, please, the hyphenated name. I don’t know about you … but that hyphen tells me a lot.

Indeed…. here goes….

November 26, 2007

To: All University Students
From: Dr. Patricia Telles-Irvin
Vice President for Student Affairs

Re: Official Response to a recent advertisement for the movie “Obsession”

Throughout our country, we have witnessed a rise in offensive behavior and actions taken against others, which has created greater divisiveness and misunderstandings among the various ethnic groups residing in our communities. One of these events occurred on our campus recently with the promotion of an event.

Advertisements for the movie “Obsession” sponsored by several student organizations appeared during the past several weeks on campus bulletin boards and they illustrate the importance of balancing freedom of speech with responsibility.

The ads, which promoted a showing of the movie on Nov. 13 and a panel discussion afterward, entitled “Radical Islam Wants You Dead,” offended many Muslim students on campus. Regardless of its original intent, the language reinforced a negative stereotype, created unnecessary divisiveness and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.

We cannot speak of rights without also addressing the responsibility associated with our actions or statements, including understanding the potential consequences. One of our roles as a learning institution is to teach our students to express themselves freely, and also in a fair and conscientious manner. In an academic setting, differences of opinions are strongly encouraged, yet such opinions must be based on accurate information when describing other members of the community.

Unfortunately, in the case of the “Obsession” ads, that did not happen.  I believe the groups that posted them owe the campus, and particularly campus members of the Islamic faith, an apology and a clarification.

At the University of Florida we have embraced a set of values, one of which is diversity. Diversity is not just about having representation from various cultures on campus, it also is having each member contribute to an inclusive and safe environment and collectively enhancing our understanding and appreciation of the richness brought by such differences. The University of Florida is committed to being an institution of excellence, where all members are valued and feel safe on our campus. Our role as an institution is to create opportunities for students to learn in an open and accepting environment; one that emphasizes respect for all. Let’s remember that part of our mission is to prepare each other to be effective members of a global community. With that in mind, I encourage each member of our campus community as a start to learn more about the religion of Islam and some of its tenets of peace, hard work, charity and compassion.

There is little room for divisiveness in our world if we are to find peace and understanding among us. We all can win if we focus on greater inclusion and understanding as well as the delicate balance between our rights and responsibilities.

So, Doctor Telles-Irvin seems to be upset over the “Radical Islam wants you dead” phrase. She says it “offended many Muslim students.”

Frankly, Doctor, I don’t give a flying you-know-what that many Muslim students were offended. Know what? I’m somewhat offended that radical Muslims call for the death of America and as many Americans as possible with every passing day.

Well, apparently, Doctor Hyphen isn’t.  I’m offended by that. I’m more offended yet that so many supposedly ‘peaceful’ Muslims are not calling for the ouster of the radicals from heir midst and working toward that end. I’m more offended still that they have such as Doctor Hyphen, being a willing idiot for them.
Neal goes to some length in his reply… and it’s worth a look.  But I answer with one line:

Dear Doctor Hyphen… Quick… find me a terrorist who isn’t Muslim.

When you find one get back to me. Until then…. Shadddduuuupppp.

The “Rightosphere Temperature Check For November: Special GOP Primary Edition” is now up at RWN.

John Hawkins says in mail this morning:

 In this poll, right-of-center bloggers ranked the top 5 GOP contenders on everything from electability to fiscal conservatism to foreign policy issues.

PS: A few things that caught my eye include…

* How poorly Mitt Romney did across the board.

* Conversely, how well Fred Thompson did across the board.

* Another big shocker — well, a surprise anyway — is how poorly Mike Huckabee did. He’s the one 2nd tier candidate who caught fire and yet, the Rightroots likes him even less than McCain.

* It’s also a bit of a surprise, just a bit, that conservative bloggers don’t seem to consider Rudy to be a conservative, but gave him pretty good rankings anyway.

Among those responding:

The Absurd Report, David All Group, AtlanticBlog, The American Princess, Betsy’s Page, Bit’s Blog, BizzyBlog, Blogs of War, Blonde Sagacity, Bluey Blog, Boi From Troy, Bookworm Room, Keith Burgess-Jackson, Cassy Fiano, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Cold Fury, Conservative Grapevine, Damian Penny, Dispatches from Blogblivion, Argghhhh!, Ed Driscoll, Eckernet, Musings, Fraters Libertas, Ian Schwartz, Jeff Gannon – A Voice of the New Media, Ghost of a Flea, (Michael) GOPUSA Northeast, (Hank) GOPUSA Northeast, GraniteGrok, Gocinatlanta, Guardian Watchblog, The Hedgehog Report, Inside Larry’s Head, JackLewis, Liberty Pundit, Likelihood of Success, Moonbattery, Newsbeat1, The Nose On Your Face, Pal2pal, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, Pirate’s Cove, PrestoPundit, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Wing Rocker, Matt Sanchez, Sane Nation, Screw Loose Change, Don Singleton, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan’s Site Of Schtuff, The Smallest Minority, Solomonia, Stolen Thunder, Suitably Flip, Don Surber, dcthornton.com, Trying To Grok, Vox Popoli, WILLisms

I should say, that none of the responses were a surprise to me.   The lack of positive response for Huckabee is directly in line with what the man deserves, given his statements of late, and its political record.  He simply doesn’t warrant the office in my opinion, and it looks like most of the people in the list above, agree with me.

As to the positive showing that Rudy Giuliani came up with in this poll, I think what we have here is the recognition that he’s probably going to be the nominee , all things being the same, and while he’s not exactly the favorite of the conservative bloggers,  Giuliani is still far better than any of the Democrat hopefuls, and better than about half of the Republican hopefuls.

McQ gets into a fairly well detailed examination of our energy policy woes:

We hear (and have heard) political promises to make the US “energy independent” by x number of years coming from all the current presidential candidates. And they’re also concerned with breaking the hold of foreign oil dependence. Two worthy goals – if they allow what we have already available to be exploited. And what we have available is massive:

In a massive new multivolume report on energy strategy in the United States, a high-powered federal task force puts “peak oil” into perspective. On the one hand, it says, the country has already consumed, in 150 years, 446 billion barrels of its own fossil-fuel endowment. On the other hand, it says, the country has 8.59 trillion barrels left – or more “oil equivalent” than the rest of the world combined. More than 95 per cent of America’s oil reserves, in other words, are still in the ground.

Key phrase?  “Oil equivalent”.  Wrap your head around that – “more “oil equivalent” than the rest of the world combined.”

At the end of the day, what has to happen is no energy policy at all.

I know… shock and dismay on the part of some, so let me repeat that… what has to happen is the removal of any energy policy. PAW, All that really has to happen is government has to get the heck out out of the way. 

One troubling point about the post, which I alluded to in the comments over there… (Once the damned dictation, here, started working again… I had to start a new voice profile this week…) …is that even the report that Bruce cites, plays the game of “sustainability ” …. (Spit) When you see that code word, you know that what they’re really arguing for is the continuance of an energy policy based on the power of government.  Not good, and here’s why:

The point that I made, essentially, is… Who is it that gets to decide what is and is not “sustainable”?

For some reason the responsibility for those determinations always seems to come down on some international agency or other, usually made up of people who live outside of the developed regions, who would just as soon that the developed regions of the world… IE; the US… weren’t quite so developed.  Yes, we’re talking about the ‘United Nations’ mentality…

Certainly, the accuracy of these agencies is left in question with recent developments… for example…

We just got through being told, recently, about how the international organizations responsible for such things have been lying to us about AIDS. The suspicion almost immediately cropped up that AGW was being similarly “stretched”. That was soon confirmed. On what basis do we make the assumption that the pronouncements of such people as regards what kind of energy policy is going to be “sustainable” has any more credibility than these?

I believe, in fact, we have much that indicates exactly the opposite ; that they will be exactly as credible. Or, more correctly as incredible)

To the point; We have been told on almost continuous basis for most of 100 years that our energy policies are not “sustainable”. Even leaving aside that these are the same people who’ve been telling us about how our energy use is contributing to “global warming”, it seems to me their credibility as regards what is and is not “sustainable” is severely strained, based on the length of time alone. Add to that how many times their gloom and doom forecasts have been revised another 25 year into the future, as our technology for drilling improves, and you could hardly have a less dependable source for such pronouncements.

If the idea is in fact to limit our energy use, as I suspect it is, they could hardly have engineered it better; their simultaneous insistence on both seriously limiting our domestic drilling capacity, and insisting that we “wean ourselves off foreign oil”, tells me that what’s really going on here is there trying the limit our energy use altogether.  I will leave it to your own fertile minds as to why they might wanna do that. But these mutually conflicting policies, have resulted in the price structure we see today. Certainly, a limit on energy use.

I note with some degree of amusement the comments regarding shale oil meeting today at $310.00 a barrel to be profitable enough to bother with. This attitude disregards the improvements in retrieval technology. It is those improvements, which kept the naysayers looking like fools these last hundred years. And to that recent finds and Brazil and in Mexico, and the projection for “unsustainability” gets pushed down the road further still.  to back that point, I note that another commenter there brought up the figure of $40 or $50.00 a barrel for shale oil being profitable.  Quite a swing from the $310.00 quoted above, huh?

What I am suggesting is that the free marketplace will make these determinations. Assuming, of course, that the eco-energy nazis will actually allow the free market to occur.

Domestic drilling being increased would be a start. For that we need to get government out of the way.

More locationally diversified refining capacity would also be a help. For that we need to get government out of the way. (how much of our energy instability is caused by refining capacity which is in majority centered on tornado alley?) Again, getting government out of the way. Stop empowering the NIMBY monster that’s held us back as a nation for so long.

Getting government out of the way in terms of energy policy, really should be the goal, here. In the end, it will be the only solution possible.  The question is, do any of the presidential candidates actually have the stones to say such thing as aloud?

Fred? Are you listening?

The echo hadn’t died on Trent Lott‘s resignation announcement, when the left started pushing this “Trent Lott is Gay” rumor.  A little strange that such a rumor should be quashed by HuffPo of all places.

Not very strange and all however, that the place where the rumor started has a history of dropping this kind of nonsense on people Says HuffPo:

Big Head DC’s founder, Rob Capriccioso, is no stranger to allegations of sloppy sleuthing.

Earlier this month, Radar Magazine dropped Capriccioso as a freelancer after he reported that veteran newsman Sam Donaldson‘s phone number was in the records of infamous DC Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey.

What Capriccioso failed to note, Radar wrote in an online post, was that Palfrey insisted that the single telephone call to Donaldson had nothing to do with prostitution, and was simply a wrong number.

Capriccioso defended the Lott piece, telling The Huffington Post “Big Head DC stands by our quotes and item 100 per cent,” but he declined to share any of the emails Nicholas allegedly sent to the blog.

Clearly, this was a fabricated story, from someone who has a history of such things. And that probably would’ve been the end of it.  Trouble is, the left is so desperate for anything to throw out the Republicans… they started lapping it up like a dog laps up anti-freeze… with similarly disastrous results. … They, too, have a history with falling for fabricated scoops…. Ask Dan Rather, for more info on that point.

One piece of feedback that came in this morning with some links and information on this story, came with a postscript: “Why does this kind of nonsense keep happening? Why do these kind of false rumors keep popping up?”

A fair enough question.  The answer, in reality, is quite simple; there’s a market for it. I’ve already remarked on this as regards Glenn Greenwald this morning, so long as it sounds good, and it tilts left, it’ll sell, because there’s a voracious market for it.  It doesn’t have to be true, to sell.  It just has to tilt left.

The amazing part of it all, is that apparently it doesn’t matter how many times the left comes up with thick brown goo on their faces, and stuck between their teeth.  They will continually knee- jerk themselves into this kind of corner, time after time after time. I guess that’s what desperation will do for you.
Check Memeorandum and see which bloggers jumped on this rumor before they recognize the credibility problem this causes them, and they pull it down.

Glenn Greenwald…

Joe Klein has just posted yet again about his FISA confusion, and it has now moved well beyond farce into an almost pity-inducing realm. If Time has any dignity at all, someone there will intervene and put a stop to this. It’s actually difficult to watch.

We’ve been saying the same thing about you for years, Glenn… and nobody’s stepped in to prevent you from making more of a fool of yourself. Certainly, knowing what you’re talking about was never a requirement for YOU to spout repeatedly… So long as it tilts left, Salon will print it for you.

So, then, why all this for Klein, suddenly? Is your complaint, in the end, that in this case, Klein doesn’t tilt left far enough to suit you? Do you really think nobody noticed that this is your usual treatment for anyone who dares to question Democrats?

Methinks thou dost protest too much….

Addendum:  (David L)

I find it rich that Glenn Greenwald, a.k.a. the Unhinged Mind, of all people would be talking about dignity.  Glenn might have seen the word in a dictionary, somewhere.

Have I mentioned lately, that I miss reading Cathy’s World?

I don’t think I have.

Tonight, I stumbled across  an archive I made of her site a few months ago, thinking they might take it down, and started reading. When I looked up again, it was hours later. Been a while since I’ve been that absorbed.

As I said the night she died….

 Not that she had any particular political insight. I disagreed with her occasionally. Usually not. But that wasn’t her focus. Rather, I think, it had to do with her ability to allow the reader more directly into her thoughts than most writers can do. It’s a rare gift.

(Sigh) And alas, not to be indelicate about this, assuming no changes, it’s about to become a little rarer.

For a while there, that least until midsummer of this year, I would spend an occasional evening waltzing through some of the older stuff that got left out on the site.  Not so much, anymore. It’s been quite a  while since I’ve dug through some of her older stuff, as I often do with a lot of the blogs I read.

Aside, for background:

This will perhaps sound obsessive.  One thing I’ve noticed with interest is the ‘time capsule’ function of blogs… at least the ones that have been around long enough to fill the role. Such archives give one the chance to look back at one’s writing style, how they’ve grown, certainly, they serve as a reference work for current postings, and of course the look and feel of the site, and how that has grown over the years.  That kind of comparison over time for some of the longer lived Blogs interests me.

So….

Within that context,  one thing I’ve noticed  about Cathy’s archives, is she either came by the talent naturally, else she hit blogdom fully developed as a writer….either way, thus not changing a great deal over time, not needing to go through the growth process most of the rest of us did.  I mean, look, I know she was working for UPI, for example, but that’s an altogether different style of writing from the style of writing that kept her on my “regular reads” list.

Nobody could ever accuse Cathy of being a geek about this stuff, particularly early on…. (Post #6, for example, from March of 03, “Too bad I don’t know how to do links”…) so her whole thing was her ability to drag the reader in.

Truth to tell, perhaps Lileks is the closest thing we have left, in terms of the combination of content, and style.   I think they’d both take that as a compliment, while each being uneasy with the heady crowd that comment places them each in.

Hmmmm.

Yes, I got honorable mention at today’s Caption Contest at OTB

I expect I’ll be doing better next week.

In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.

I’m not buyin’ this load, Pat. Sorry.

You’re quite right that Paul’s antics raised the profile of libertarianism, but he’s done so in the same way that Michael Dukakis raised the profile of people from Massachusetts. If you’ll remember, the biggest question on the minds of the American people after that particular profile raising was “How in the world for the people of Massachusetts elect such an idiot to the state house?” The man almost single handedly killed off the Democrats as a party for the next decade.  (Later, our questions about Dukakis were answered completely when John Kerry showed up on the national scene.)

The depiction of country folks by Mortimer Snerd was more positive than the image Ron Paul cast of libertarians. At least in the Ol’ Edgar’s case, people laughed. In the case of Ron Paul, people have been taking him as deadly serious, and were invariably been looking around nervously for the exits.

Ron Paul is probably one of the few people on the planet that could make Dennis Kucinich look sane, by comparison. (Are you getting all this?)

Ron Paul most certainly doesn’t represent all libertarians, or even most. Certainly, he doesn’t represent THIS libertarian… I suspect I’m not alone.

Here’s one libertarian who doesn’t believe that America was responsible for 911, for example, as Ron Paul is on record as saying.  I suspect I’m not alone in this.  Here’s one libertarian who is thoroughly annoyed at our troops being called murderers, as Ron Paul is on record as having done. I suspect I’m not alone in this. Here is one libertarian who thinks there are few people in the country which can damage the libertarian movement more than Alex Jones can… and Ron Paul embraces the guy, yet refuses to show up on mainstream talkshows.  Here is one libertarian who is outright disgusted with Ron Paul’s ties to Stormfront… ties he should have had the spine to disavow, yet did not.  I suspect I’m not alone in this.  Here’s one libertarian who is disgusted with Ron Paul’s’ being a cheerleader for the PLO.  I suspect I’m not alone in this. Here’s one libertarian who is disgusted with Ron Paul’s’ stance on Israel… and so on. The list of these is easily longer than the list of his rabid, non-thinking supporters.

If as you seem to suggest, we now have a situation where Ron Paul is the image of libertarianism in this country, then libertarianism is doomed. And given the number of people from the left who’ve jumped on Ron Paul’s bandwagon, one wonders if that wasn’t the plan, all along.

Frankly, I’d like to think that the American people are not quite so stupid as to accept Ron Paul is the image of libertarianism, but given the resurgence of Hillary Clinton, I have much reason to think they’re EXACTLY that stupid. So, I’d say the damage is done. Because of this guy being propped up front and center, the libertarian movement, such as it is, has been partially defused, at least for this election cycle. One wonders if we as a country will be around for the next one, given that situation.

More, Memeorandum. Pay particular attention to Flopping Aces

 “I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,”

Barack Obama, read entire article.

Two items from the Washington Post:

Central to the new Clinton push will be the argument that only she can beat the eventual Republican nominee, a claim Obama is also seeking to make to voters here.

Advisers said her message will be: “You can’t have change if you don’t win.” Her rivals, meanwhile, are moving aggressively to capitalize on Clinton’s weaknesses in Iowa — and, they hope, block her path to the nomination.

And:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Memo to Mark Penn, find a new campaign mantra than Mrs. Clinton is “inevitable.”    The public is not falling for it. 

Hat tips:  Sister Toldjah; Paul, Powerline.

Bob Novak:

Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the “Club for Greed”? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender — definitely in Iowa and perhaps

nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate.

We’ve posted on this subject before. All Novak has done, here, is confirm our previous postings on the subject.  Frankly, Huckabee is less of a conservative than George Bush, who is at best a centerist. Which, as you’ll know if you’ve been reading here for any length of time, is a major problem…. the biggest problems Bush has ever faced was centered around his lack of conservative creds.  Without question, he is still better than any of the Democrat candidates, but lord knows, it’s not by much.

Here’s a clue to Fred Thompson’s people; if you really want a start making some inroads in Iowa, start banging on Huckabee’s less than stellar, un-conservative record. Do it now.

To the rest: I’ll commend Novak’s column to you, but also, Don Surber’s, today, on the kind of leader America needs…  IMV, Huckabee doesn’t quality.

There’s lots more discussion about this on Memeorandum.