In Iowa, Huckabee has message for those focused only on 'liberty' and low taxes

[jct74]

In Iowa, Huckabee has message for those focused only on 'liberty' and low taxes
He tells The Des Moines Register in exclusive interview at private event that his 'liberty' comments weren't a dig at Rand Paul

Jennifer Jacobs
August 8, 2014

CEDAR RAPIDS, Ia. – Mike Huckabee says he finds it interesting when well-meaning conservatives say they don't want the GOP to talk about moral issues.

"They say, "I don't want to hear about social issues. All I want to hear is about liberty and low taxes. Well that's just delicious. Let me tell you something," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. "... Liberty cannot function unless there are people who are willing to live with integrity."

Huckabee, who is "very seriously" considering running for president again, is in Iowa today on the heels of liberty movement conservative Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky who is the frontrunner of the field of GOP potential 2016 presidential candidates, national polling shows.

After Paul spent three hectic days in Iowa meeting with every faction of the GOP, Huckabee flew in to give a speech to Christian conservative pastors and community leaders at an Iowa Renewal Project event in Cedar Rapids. It's Huckabee who's the Republican frontrunner in Iowa, riding on popularity he built in 2008 when he won the GOP caucuses here.

Asked if his "liberty" remarks were directed at the liberty movement that sprang from 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign, and the activists who are now rallying around his son, Rand Paul, Huckabee told The Des Moines Register: "No, not at all, it's just the bigger picture. ... It's a word I would use regularly anyway."

...

read more:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...abee/13771421/

[dillo]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

[philipped]

Tell that man i'll put up my set and shoot him the one on sight if he thinks he really isn't gonna loose by less than 10% in a hypothetical match-up with Clinton or anyone from the Dems LMAO.

[CaptUSA]

I think he was trying to say...

[LibertyEagle]

Problem is, Huckabee doesn't offer either; integrity nor liberty.

[Brett85]

Huckabee is going to be really tough to beat in Iowa if he decides to run.

[Crashland]

I think he was trying to say...

Yes, it's Religion and Morality ALONE! Because we all know it is impossible for two people to hold the same principle for different reasons. If you don't hold this principle for *my* reasons, then you can't hold this principle.

[TheTexan]

He loves liberty and freedom. Everyone everywhere just $#@!ing loves liberty and freedom. Empty $#@!ing words if there ever were any.

[jjdoyle]

Huckabee is going to be really tough to beat in Iowa if he decides to run.

There needs to be a path, and if Huckabee runs that takes out most of the southern states. So, what is that path?
New Hampshire, then...? Maine?

For starters, Huckabee would probably win Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Louisiana.

We have New Hampshire, then? There needs to be a plan with a path, before just jumping in with no plan.
It may change depending on WHO runs, like if Chris Christie runs certain norther states may be taken out, but there still needs to be a solid plan/path in place. I'm only seeing one state right now that is up for grabs if Huckabee runs.

[CaptUSA]

Yes, it's Religion and Morality ALONE! Because we all know it is impossible for two people to hold the same principle for different reasons. If you don't hold this principle for *my* reasons, then you can't hold this principle.

Um, what? Two people can have the same moral principles for different reasons. That's what Adams was saying. Liberty needs morality to survive. Whether you get that from religion or some other means. Huckabee may see religion as the only means, but we know better. I think he was trying to put this sentiment into his own words. I disagree with him on many things, but this is not one of them.

[Brett85]

There needs to be a path, and if Huckabee runs that takes out most of the southern states. So, what is that path?
New Hampshire, then...? Maine?

For starters, Huckabee would probably win Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Louisiana.

We have New Hampshire, then? There needs to be a plan with a path, before just jumping in with no plan.
It may change depending on WHO runs, like if Chris Christie runs certain norther states may be taken out, but there still needs to be a solid plan/path in place. I'm only seeing one state right now that is up for grabs if Huckabee runs.

Yeah, I just hope that he decides that he's already making a lot of money at Fox and decides not to run.

[Christian Liberty]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

Well, I'm arguably a fundamentalist, but I don't have a huge problem with what he actually said. I do have a problem with what I think are very likely the intended implications of what he said.

There's no doubt in my mind that there's some measure of integrity that is going to be necessary for liberty to flourish. And, while I completely agree with the NAP as a legal principle and as a moral principle, I don't think JUST the NAP is enough in the integrity department. In other words, if people totally lack integrity except for the fact that they don't steal or kill or engage in other explicit NAP violations, I'm not sure that society would last either.

But, for someone like Huckabee, "integrity" probably means government control of what you do in the bedroom, government control of what substances you use, and government imposed "integrity" in other parts of the world because "America needs to set an example" by bombing the crap out of people who don't do what we say.

And THAT is something this evangelical Christian isn't interested in. I'm proud of those of my brothers and sisters in Christ who also want nothing to do with it.

I won't be voting for Huckabee.

[Peace&Freedom]

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not long after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

While Huckabee doesn't acknowledge these connections, he does bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc he culls by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but we need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.

[Christian Liberty]

Um, what? Two people can have the same moral principles for different reasons. That's what Adams was saying. Liberty needs morality to survive. Whether you get that from religion or some other means. Huckabee may see religion as the only means, but we know better. I think he was trying to put this sentiment into his own words. I disagree with him on many things, but this is not one of them.

Well, I won't say its the ONLY way, but I do think a Christianized society that has a high regard for the Bible is the best way for liberty. The problem is that modern Christianity has fallen for the whole "God and Country" nonsense, which often makes country INTO a God, and it has utterly failed to hold its leaders accountable.

In 1 Kings 21 we see the story of Naboth. You can look it up on your own if desired, but basically, King Ahad (a wicked king) asked Naboth to sell him his vineyard, and Naboth refused. So Ahab killed him and took it from him. God (through Elijah) condemned his wickedness and said he would punish him.

King David (a man after God's own heart who nonetheless fell into serious sin more than once) took another man's wife and purposely had that man killed in battle. God responded by taking one of David's sons and promising that the rest of them would fight for the rest of David's life.

Later on, (End of 2 Samuel IIRC) David took a census for the purpose of conscripting people into his army. God judged him again.

Modern Christians generally allow their modern day kings (with the exception of the adultery part) to do all of the above and they think its OK as long as its the law.

Christianity is not the problem. Nationalism is the problem.

[CaptUSA]

Oh, now stop it. Before this thread gets moved to the contentious religion forum.

[Christian Liberty]

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not log after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

This is a good point, actually. Although, there is one issue I see with the connection (note that I am VERY sympathetic here, and I don't think abortion should be legal.) Abortion is mostly something the government permits. Now, they'll pay for it to, but that comes along with a number of welfare programs that government provides. By contrast, the government doesn't "permit" torture, drone assassinations, and infinite detention. If you do any of those things to any of your neighbors, you will be prosecuted. Government is ACTIVELY doing those things.

And I guess my question, from one Christian to another, is this: Certainly abortion should be legal, but should that be our first priority? Is it even conceivable that the kind of government that will torture and murder could ever protect life? I mean, theft is illegal now and its not like the victims ever actually get compensated. I was reading LRC recently and Bob Wenzel pointed out (I don't care if you love him or hate him, just consider the statement for what it is) that if you call cops after getting robbed, you will almost never get your property back. Can a government like this protect the unborn? Should we even want it to, or should we just want to get rid of it? Would we really care that Nazi Germany did nothing to stop abortion, or would we want to stop it from actually killing people itself before we do that?

Mind you, again, I want abortion to be illegal. And if it were put up to vote, I'd vote for the law provided no good reason not to. But I'm getting to the point where I tend to think a "pro-choice" candidate who doesn't want the government itself to commit murder is superior to a "pro-life" candidate like Mike Huckabee who is all for torture and drone murders. Now, I'm not saying you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and I am perfectly OK with "none of the above" but where should our priorities be? I'm questioning the purpose of trying to stop legalized murder when the government ITSELF is murderous. Its like unleashing a dragon to get rid of a swarm of street thugs.

While Huckabee doesn't acknowledge these connections, he does bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc he culls by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but we need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.

I actually agree with Huck, I just think he's a scumbag who should practice what he preaches and stop advocating murder and fascism. I'm not saying that prostituting oneself or smoking crack is something that is helpful to maintaining liberty (And while I disagree with the social conservatives who want to ban such activities, I do recognize that they are harmful and don't believe people should do them) but I think the crimes politicians commit every day, and even cops commit every day, are far MORE indicative of how messed up our society is than sexual libertinism and so forth.

For what its worth, I'm not without my sympathies to the social conservatives. I started out as one. I'm still pro-life and extremely so at that. I still share most personal level morals (ie. non-political morals) with social conservatives. Sometimes I feel alienated from my fellow libertarians as much so, if not more so, than social conservatives because many libertarians have a liberal view of culture and I have a very conservative view of culture. But, honestly, as far as the decline of our society goes, I'm far more concerned with I guess the "high level" moral issues like drone warfare, the lying and spying, the wars, the torture, abortion* (another kind of murder), this whole idea that mass redistribution of wealth and fraud are fine, this whole idea that its OK to control other people's personal lives, heck, the idea that "law enforcement" is "just another job" and that "just following orders" is morally acceptable... maybe I'm too politically focused, but I'm more concerned about that kind of stuff than I am about stuff like gay marriage, prostitution, drug use, and so forth. And again, I'm not saying those things are good, but I guess... I know unbelievers are going to live lives of sin, at the very least I wish they'd pick non-aggressive sins, if that makes sense.

*Abortion would be one point where I put high priority on an issue just as the social conservative does, though even then I'm not sure it is the single most important issue, I am open to being convinced.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, now stop it. Before this thread gets moved to the contentious religion forum.

I'm not telling you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. But I think its completely valid to discuss what the Bible actually says about politics.

[Crashland]

Um, what? Two people can have the same moral principles for different reasons. That's what Adams was saying. Liberty needs morality to survive. Whether you get that from religion or some other means. Huckabee may see religion as the only means, but we know better. I think he was trying to put this sentiment into his own words. I disagree with him on many things, but this is not one of them.

Rand has also said basically the same thing in his speech at faith and freedom in Iowa earlier this year. However, the quote "liberty needs morality to survive" -- if by "morality" one means their morality, then the statement is incorrect, and if by "morality" one means anyone's morality, then the statement is meaningless.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand has also said basically the same thing in his speech at faith and freedom in Iowa earlier this year. However, the quote "liberty needs morality to survive" -- if by "morality" one means their morality, then the statement is incorrect, and if by "morality" one means anyone's morality, then the statement is meaningless.

The way I take those types of statements is that there's no liberty without responsibility. To paraphrase Rand Paul, if everyone just "ran around naked and smoked pot" I don't think that would necessarily be the greatest society to live in, or that that society could necessarily sustain itself. Now, of course, it should be legal to do that in a free society, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I don't think it means we all have to have the EXACT same morality, but I think the point is that libertines aren't exactly helping liberty, and I tend to agree.

[Crashland]

The way I take those types of statements is that there's no liberty without responsibility. To paraphrase Rand Paul, if everyone just "ran around naked and smoked pot" I don't think that would necessarily be the greatest society to live in, or that that society could necessarily sustain itself. Now, of course, it should be legal to do that in a free society, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I don't think it means we all have to have the EXACT same morality, but I think the point is that libertines aren't exactly helping liberty, and I tend to agree.

I can kind of agree with that. I don't really see the point of the statement though. Does it mean to say that we should not or can not have liberty if everyone was irresponsible all the time?

[Peace&Freedom]

And I guess my question, from one Christian to another, is this: Certainly abortion should be legal, but should that be our first priority? Is it even conceivable that the kind of government that will torture and murder could ever protect life? I mean, theft is illegal now and its not like the victims ever actually get compensated. I was reading LRC recently and Bob Wenzel pointed out (I don't care if you love him or hate him, just consider the statement for what it is) that if you call cops after getting robbed, you will almost never get your property back. Can a government like this protect the unborn? Should we even want it to, or should we just want to get rid of it? Would we really care that Nazi Germany did nothing to stop abortion, or would we want to stop it from actually killing people itself before we do that?

Most rapists are not caught or convicted, most homicides are similarly unsolved, etc. Should we forego having civil laws against them as well? The point remains that innocent life has basic rights to life, liberty and property, and even a minimum government is required to provide protection of their basic rights. If you want to argue that the US is a failed state in terms of its incompetence in suppressing crime, that is one thing, but it does not follow that it does not have an obligation to protect basic rights because of that incompetence.

Or perhaps the agenda is really the state expanding its power and control, in which case these "failures" may be the government exercising competence in achieving its real goals. Coarsening the morality of the culture (by acclimating it to such things as legalized child killing, for example) leads to more compromised people, with weakened backbone to resist further extensions of government force.

The Nazi's actions in this regard (demonizing the Jewish population, etc) led to its later atrocities. So focusing on the dead canary in the coal mine is relevant to dealing with the greater evil down the line. The point is, you can't just get rid of the total state or other grad level concerns, if you failed the kindergarden test of resistance, by allowing for such things as legal abortion. We need to appeal to the social conservatives by acknowledging moral decline is part of the reason we are in the jam we are in.

[Matt Collins]

Anyone else remember this?

[Christian Liberty]

I can kind of agree with that. I don't really see the point of the statement though. Does it mean to say that we should not or can not have liberty if everyone was irresponsible all the time?

]

I would say "can not." Liberty is a moral good in and of itself, but I don't think it would be sustainable in reality without responsibility.

And I think Christian morality is a part of the equation as well, or at least Christian culture. I know there are some atheists who are completely dedicated to liberty for whatever reasons, but atheism leads to utilitarianism as a pure default.

Most rapists are not caught or convicted, most homicides are similarly unsolved, etc. Should we forego having civil laws against them as well? The point remains that innocent life has basic rights to life, liberty and property, and even a minimum government is required to provide protection of their basic rights. If you want to argue that the US is a failed state in terms of its incompetence in suppressing crime, that is one thing, but it does not follow that it does not have an obligation to protect basic rights because of that incompetence.

Or perhaps the agenda is really the state expanding its power and control, in which case these "failures" may be the government exercising competence in achieving its real goals. Coarsening the morality of the culture (by acclimating it to such things as legalized child killing, for example) leads to more compromised people, with weakened backbone to resist further extensions of government force.

The Nazi's actions in this regard (demonizing the Jewish population, etc) led to its later atrocities. So focusing on the dead canary in the coal mine is relevant to dealing with the greater evil down the line. The point is, you can't just get rid of the total state or other grad level concerns, if you failed the kindergarden test of resistance, by allowing for such things as legal abortion. We need to appeal to the social conservatives by acknowledging moral decline is part of the reason we are in the jam we are in.

I agree that moral decline is part of the issue. But my issue is more where do you start? I don't think allowing the killing of the unborn is the root of the problem. I think the tolerance for aggressive violence is the root of the problem (which includes abortion but isn't limited to it.) So, I think at least a large chunk of the State's institutional violence may have to be removed first. And I do fear that if abortion were banned right now, no abortion doctors would be targeted but it would be used as an excuse to institute a police state. Even still, I support anti-abortion laws on deontological grounds. I'm just not sure that that's the absolute first issue we should be trying to change.

[jjdoyle]

Anyone else remember this?

Few will care. The same voters lined up behind Mitt Romney in 2012, and John McCain in 2008. They had HORRIBLE records.

[Henry Rogue]

If Huckabee's issue with Liberty is integrity. I have to wonder, how do you go about legislating integrity?

[anaconda]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

And are willing to "live with integrity."

[Matt Collins]

Few will care. The same voters lined up behind Mitt Romney in 2012, and John McCain in 2008. They had HORRIBLE records.

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

[fr33]

Huckaby will never be president.

[jjdoyle]

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

The ignorance of the average GOP voter is not to be forgotten. John "Amnesty" McCain won it. Mitt "Healthcare" Romney won it. Mike "Pro-Common Core (that flipped to negative now)" Huckabee is the same.
And as for fundraising, that doesn't matter, as much as a candidate that is hand picked to win it by TPTB.

McCain's 2008 campaign had serious fundraising issues early on, and still won it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...july-15/49978/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McCain had no GOOD record to run on.
Romney didn't either.

Records don't matter a hill of beans, because if they did, Ron Paul would have walked into the White House with 120,000,000+ votes in the general election.

And in 2008, I think Huckabee wanted it to be Clinton vs. Huckabee. Both with Arkansas connections (Governors). Both being able to make that "play" in the general election.
Will Huckabee use it to raise speaking contracts, book contracts, TV contracts? Probably. They all apparently try to do that.

[cindy25]

Huck is backed by Fox, so don't underestimate him. he will win Iowa, Rand will win NH. SC and FL decide it