The limits of Huckabee’s outrage

December 27, 2007

Way back in May, at the first debate for the Republican presidential candidates, there was an interesting exchange that signaled what we could expect from Mike Huckabee.

Q: Governor Huckabee, this question comes from a reader in New York. In light of the scandals plaguing the current administration and its allies, involving corruption and cronyism, which mistakes have you learned not to repeat?

HUCKABEE: The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we’re not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who for 20 and 30 years have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a hundred-million-dollar bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension.

That’s criminal. It’s wrong. And if Republicans don’t stop it, we don’t deserve to win in 2008.

You’ll notice, of course, that Huckabee didn’t even try to answer the question asked of him, but nevertheless surprised some people with a response that at least paid lip service to the concerns of working people. It even led some to believe that Huckabee had something of a populist streak.

He doesn’t. For one thing, it’s hard to even take the notion seriously given Huckabee’s enthusiastic support for a 23% national sales tax. For another, his rhetoric about how “criminal” it is for CEOs to reap a windfall while workers are losing their jobs is just pleasant-sounding rhetoric, which he has no intention of taking seriously.

Huckabee made this abundantly clear during an interview on Monday night.

John Harwood, on CNBC, asked the former governor about his populist-sounding rhetoric.

HARWOOD: Governor, let me ask you, which is the criminal part, the loss of those jobs and the loss of pension, or the golden parachute for the CEO? And what would you do about either one?

HUCKABEE: It’s a combination. It’s when one person is losing his job who helped make the company successful and the person who steers the company either into bankruptcy or selling off it in pieces has that golden parachute of $700 million. There’s just something wrong about that and everyone American knows it whether he’s at the top or bottom. What the government ought to do is to call attention to it, put some spotlight to it. I don’t think it’s about coming up with some new regulation. Corporate boards ought to show some responsibility. If a board allows that kind of thing to happen, shame on that board. […]

HARWOOD: So you wouldn’t actually do anything about it as the head of the government. You would simply use the pulpit to talk about it?

HUCKABEE: That would be the first line and then what I would like to see is that corporate boards start showing responsibility with an understanding that if they tonight start showing some responsibility, then they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually shoves it.

So, in May, Huckabee insisted that it was “criminal” to see CEOs cleaning up while workers are losing their jobs, and said Republicans have no choice but to intervene and “stop it.” But in December, Huckabee believes the government should do nothing more than “call attention to” the problem, and any efforts to regulate the “criminal” behavior would make matters worse.

I suppose it’s the difference between a long-shot in the spring, and a credible challenger in the fall. In May, Huckabee could pretend to care about working people, because few knew his name, and about as many thought he had a chance. In December, Huckabee wants to win, so he’s dropping the pretense.

Something to consider the next time the media mentions Huckabee’s “populist” streak.

He needs to put more bully in his pulpit. Corporatecons love a politician who thinks he can shame them. This is the fallacy of “limited” government. Big Bueiness is a quasi-government just waiting to take over.

  • I’ll trade typos. Mine is bueniss for Business.

    Huck’s is “and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually shoves it.”

    They need to shove it.

    When a big stick is needed, all the Republicans have is a big schtick.

  • Mike is suggesting he can, as President, shame the corporate boards into behaving.

    While at the same time Republican’t members of the FCC are allowing corporations to control more and more of our media.

    How exactly is old Huck going to get his message to the American People if the corporate media refuse to carry it?

    Morons!

  • Huckabee can be funny. So now the requirements for the presidency are that you’d want to have a beer with the guy and he can make you laugh while you pay for his beer?

  • then they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually shoves it.

    I wish someone would ask these arsehats why, if government is the worst thing EVER, they are so eager to be in charge of the whole boiling. It’s like an anarchist running for Chief of Police.

    I’d also like to know what he means by “rather than actually shoves it.” Huh?

  • I’m guessing “shoves” is a poor transcription of “solves,” which is the only word that makes sense there.

    I’m still trying to get over some of the things he said while killing pheasant. From the AP:

    “The truth is hunters are the ones who preserve the species,” he said, since hunters have an interest in preserving wildlife and their license fees pay for conservation efforts. “In many cases extinction comes from not having some level of hunting. It’s the hunters who actually keep the wildlife alive. A lot of people think that when you hunt you’re destroying the wildlife.”

    [snip]

    Of four birds flushed by the party, three were felled. Huckabee claimed the third with his .12-gauge shotgun. He proudly displayed the birds and said jokingly, “See that’s what happens if you get in my way.”

    [snip]

    “It’s an opportunity to experience Iowa at its best,” he said. “Hopefully we’ll just shoot pheasants and not each other. We’ll name the pheasant for the other candidates. It gives us a real incentive.”

    And from NPR:

    Ina Jaffe: “What does hunting pheasants have to do with running for President?”

    Huckabee: “It has everything to do with running for President. Because that way you prove that you can shoot and if somebody really messes with you with negative campaign ads, they just need to be prepared…I have mentioned nobody’s name. I’m just talking about, you know, taking care of business.”

    And from The Baltimore Sun:

    “You like to speak in metaphors, governor,” one reporter asked. “What’s the metaphor for this?”

    “Don’t get in my way,” Huckabee said. “This is what happens.” He looked down at the three lifeless birds, now laid out in the snow. Someone asked which bird was named Romney. “Each of these three birds made a sacrifice for the campaign,” Huckabee said. “We’re just asking Iowans to make much less of a sacrifice on caucus night.”

    Ah, yes – the culture of life. It’s just so…beautiful.

    I suppose he thought it was funny – jovial and affable fellow that he is – but I found it disturbing. Kind of falls into line with his bragging about the 16 death-row inmate whose executions “he” carried out.

    But women having reproductive freedom? Full access to birth control?

    Perish the thought.

  • I wish someone would ask these arsehats why, if government is the worst thing EVER, they are so eager to be in charge of the whole boiling. It’s like an anarchist running for Chief of Police.

    That’s always confounded me as well. Sorry, but if someone thinks that government can’t work, why the hell should I vote for them to have a place in — or, worse yet, be in charge of — the government?

    Although I think it’s like someone telling you how horrific driving while drunk is, then asking for the keys to your car after they just downed a bottle of tequila.

    But whatever metaphor and/or simile gets the point across.

  • Regardless of Huckabee’s fate in the nomination sweepstakes, you are looking at the most probable future of the Republican Party.

    When low-information reactionary voters, crushed by the housing decline and the continued decline in manufacturing, are hurt enough to, maybe, blame the Republican moneycons, who are their worst enemies, Huckabee will be there to feel their pain.

    If the Republicans are, indeed, crushed in 2008, as I fully expect, the moneycon appeal will be blamed, corruption will be blamed, insufficient religious appeal will be blamed. And, Huckabee’s formula will be looking might good to the rump of the Republican Party.

    The money boys of the Republican Party are unscrupulous thieves. They may find Huckabee distasteful, as long as a Giuliani or Romney seems marginally viable, Huckabee is not that different: an eminently corruptible liar, with a song and dance suitable to hard times.

    Huckabee’s tax proposals are not the only indications of his essential moneycon bonafides. His proposals on health care are similarly designed to completely screw the people he’s sympathizing with.

    Huckabee is well-positioned to become the desperation, go-to model of the thoroughly modern Republican, post-2008. This is the future, folks.

  • That’s a 30% sales tax, but calculated in such a way as to obscure the real cost. The “Fair Tax” calculates the rate inclusively, so if something cost $100 before tax, you would pay $130, and $30 is 23% of $130. The Huckster calls this a 23% tax.

  • Although I think it’s like someone telling you how horrific driving while drunk is, then asking for the keys to your car after they just downed a bottle of tequila.

    Congratulations! You have crafted the perfect metaphor for the BushBrat Presiduncy.

    • Comments are closed.