Wednesday, November 19, 2008

PJTV: Interview with Mike Huckabee

The Glenn and Helen show comes to PJTV! We interviewed governor Mike Huckabee about his new book, Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America. Huckabee describes those of us who are right-leaning libertarians as "faux-cons" in his book--what does that mean and are we still welcome in the Republican party? I ask him on the show and he answers. Also, Instapundit readers send us their questions for Mr. Huckabee--making our job easy. Huckabee was an excellent guest (he has a lot of practice with his own tv show on Fox) and is definitely worth watching. If you haven't checked out PJTV, do so.

Labels: ,


Blogger Trust said...

I've grown very fond of Mike Huckabee. He's also very right that many of our (most expensive) government problem are the result of the breakdown of individual responsibility. Of course, I'm sure he'll get blasted for preaching his values (usually by people who take our tax dollars to legislate theirs).

8:18 AM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger HMT said...

I like Mike Huckabee. He seems like an honest stand up guy. He represents one of the hard choices the GOP is going to have to make. I don't think the GOP can move forward effectively with it's "big tent" strategy. Far right social conservatives who want to legislate morality don't mix well with "small government" conservatives. There's plenty of common ground between social and fiscal conservatives but the far right social conservatives seem to be the loudest in the tent. Where are the loud fiscal conservatives? Where are the voices of the common ground conservatives? Huckabee seems like he might be a good candidate for mending the split personality of the GOP but some of his ideas still seem a bit overreaching for "small government"

10:13 AM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Well, I don't care much for Mike Huckabee, never have, never will. But I will admit that he said very little in this interview that I could disagree with.

I think the problem with the Republican party is that it too quickly became the establishment, which is to say indistinguishable from Washington. How else can you explain how the party that advocated smaller government oversaw the largest expansion of government since the New Deal? Or how the party that advocated fiscal restraint oversaw the largest increase in spending and the largest budget deficit ever?

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I'm even more for governmental responsibility, which I haven't seen any of lately from either party.

I believe in freedom, but I know that you can't have freedom without responsibility. I believe in free people, but I know that you can't have free people without the rule of law. I believe in free markets, but I know that you can't have free markets without regulation. I believe in free enterprise, but I know that you can't have free enterprise without transparency and accountability.

What I don't believe in is self-serving idiot politicians and over-reaching incompetent government. Does that make me a "faux-con"? I really don't care if it does or not. Like every other label anyone tries to put on me, it doesn't fit.

I'm an American and a Libertarian. There's nothing faux about being that. And if there's no place for me in the Republican or Democratic party because of it, so be it. I'll just keep voting against every incumbent regardless of party and writing myself in for President.

I still carry in my wallet the Social Insecurity card that was given to me in the late 70s by the Libertarian party. My Social Insecurity number is 000-00-0000. On the back of the card it reads:

"Keep this card, if you wish. It entitles you to absolutely nothing. However, it has several advantages over you Social Security card:

1. It does not force you to invest money from your paycheck or profits in a fraudulent and financially doomed retirement scheme.

2. It will not be requested or required on any school or job application, tax form, or in any business or financial transaction.

3. It cannot be used to find you, audit you, intimidate or investigate you, or otherwise invade your privacy."

Words to live by.

Incidentally, what I found most amusing in this interview was the look on Dr. Helen's face for much of it. So serious. But then these are serious times, and serious times require serious attitudes. I'd stand on the front line and fight with her any time, seriously.

10:38 AM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Joe Martin said...

Are there any chances that the new PJTV enabled Glenn & Helen show will come to iTunes? I normally listen on my commute ("free" time at home being limited these days), but it doesn't look like I can get this interview on my iPod.

10:50 AM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...

Gawains Ghost,

The Social Insecurity card is hilarious. I keep a copy of my old registration card from the Libertarian party. I used to belong and was a campaign manager for a Congressional candidate in 1996. I don't agree with most of their take on national security but for the most part, am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You know, I noticed that I looked very serious in that interview also, not sure why, I think I was squinting to see the monitor! I am serious at times, which is annoying, to say the least.


Good question. I will have to check with the PJTV staff and see if it is possible to put the audio on iTunes.

1:56 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

Since my employer paid into SS, I see no reason to give up what I now have not just for me but for my children. But thanks: if more people would not take SS it would make sure I continue to get mine.

I have never been sure--perhaps some nice soul will help me here--do Libertarians vote for a Libertaian candidate or end up with GOP? If GOP, the Am public thinks most poorly of them in post-election study:

2:06 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Joe Martin said...

It depends, nathan. Some libertarians feel more strongly about civil liberties than they do fiscal conservatism. They tend to vote Democrat. The libertarians that feel more strongly about fiscal conservatism are more likely to vote Republican.

But don't worry -- libertarians are pretty disgusted with both parties right now. I think you'd have to look for a long time before you'd find a libertarian defending current GOP policies.

Oh, and that SS money that you're investing -- it has a negative rate of return. You'll get yours back, it will just be less than you put in. Even if your employer "paid" it, you're the one that put it in. After all, that's money that your employer wasn't paying you.

3:29 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Alex said...

He is exactly what is wrong with the GOP and must be purged if they ever want to win again. His kind of theocratic style is what is killing the GOP!

3:56 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

jmartin: thanks but I come out way ahead! how? I am an older guy who married a very young woman. We had two children. SS pays each child a neat sum monthly till each turns 18. Now that is on top of what I get monthly, and the only requirement, fair enough, is that I fill out a form from time to time showing that the money bought them food, clothes etc. Actually,that 18 deadline was put in place by Pres Regan. Till he changed it, SS went to children in this situation (a parent collecting SS while kid(s) very young) till age 21 or completion of college.

Now you can rightfully argue that SS stinks because old goats like me get subsidized for proving Malthus right.

4:54 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Lester Hunt said...

Excellent interview!

5:12 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

@ Alex said... "He is exactly what is wrong with the GOP and must be purged if they ever want to win again. His kind of theocratic style is what is killing the GOP!"

I don't see where anything was theocratic. Could you elaborate on what you are talking about?

6:28 PM, November 20, 2008  
Blogger M. Simon said...

I was looking for an opening to send you some links on abortion.

This is it. And right on top too!

The Jewish Position On Abortion

The Jews And Partial Birth Abortion

What Is A Fetus Worth?

I think the above amply prove the the Republican position on abortion is a theocratic one.

However, if we have to have a religiously based policy may I suggest the Jewish position?

11:02 AM, November 21, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

My beef with Huckabee is that he is not a small government kind of guy, at least not according to his record as Governor.

Sgt. Ted called him and Bush Christian Socialists. While I admire the phrase, I might change it to Christian Governmentist, someone with broadly Christian values who seeks to use government to meet those ends.

Using the government to do anything other than fix the roads and kill the bad guys sounds like a problem to me, so that is where I part company with Bush and Huckabee despite sharing much of their world view and values.

Allen Keyes was much closer to me in terms of small government and similar values.


11:06 AM, November 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never liked Huckabee. He comes off as smugly self righteous and quick to condemn and the way he dealt with Romney was not how I expect a Christian to act. It was Romney who was truly gracious in defeat.

Small government is at the core of conservatism and is not at all at odds with the Church. Christ Himself made the distinction with "render unto Caesar .." A good question for Mike is why is he, a former minister, so worldly? Does he image he can create the Kingdom through politics? Where is his respect for his fellow mans God given free will? There's an excellent case for Christian Libertarianism built on respect for neighbors and the humility to let others decide for themselves how to live. Huckabee is a nanny want to be who pushed weight loss programs and other top down "we know whats good for you" tripe. If there is Christian meekness in Huckabee he hides it well. Say what you want about Bush, but he was quick to admit he was a sinner in need of grace. Recall the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican praying in the Temple. It was the repentant sinner who was justified, not the confident Pharisee.

11:08 AM, November 21, 2008  
Blogger Mister Wolf said...

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Please, while I believe that hashing out differences within the party is great, calling people character into question without ample proof is just sophomoric. Character assassination is the tool of the Democratic party, not us Conservatives and Libertarians(though, I am not saying that there are not reasons to question any of our leaders, but they should be based on facts, not a gut feeling).

Second, we need all the wings of the party in order to survive as a party. One wing of the party even being partially trimmed would result in a half century of rule by Democrats. No, removing anyone from the fold wouldn't be wise at all.

No, instead we need to find a candidate that can suit all of us. The irony is, McCain got the nomination exactly from infighting like this. The economic conservatives wanted Romney, The social conservatives wanted Huckabee. The foreign policy hawks and moderate Republicans wanted McCain. McCain had a larger base and therefore won. If either Huckabee or Romney wasn't in the race, we would of probably had a different nominee than Senator McCain.

We must remember, The Republican Party should stand for Freedom, Life, and Liberty. Furthermore, it should also stand for the party of civil and logical discourse, common sense, and manners. However, we should have open discussions about politics, religion, and philosophy and furthermore be unafraid to argue publicly with members of our own party or of an opposing party.

Remember, to treat your neighbor like yourself. You wouldn't allow yourself to vote for the democrat, so why let your neighbor do something that would hurt them in the long run?

Forgive me for rambling on, I just hope I made it clear that we should have disagreements but in a cultured way.

1:20 PM, November 21, 2008  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

I watched a very good interview with Ron Paul on YouTube the other day, in which he discussed the fallacy of fiat money and the necessity of a sound monetary policy (i.e., a return to the gold standard).

I like Ron Paul. In fact, I voted for him when he first ran, as a Libertarian, for state representative in Central Texas. He consistently advocates constitutional government and fiscal responsibility.

There is an interesting article on one of my other favorite blogs, Financial Armageddon (, about the real Great Depression, the panic of 1873, which bears much more similarity to the current crisis than the stock market crash of 1929. I highly recommend it.

In a similar vein, there is a fascinating exposition of everybody's favorite movie, The Wizard of Oz, over at the Big Picture Cafe ( Barry Ritholtz argues that the original book, by L. Frank Baum, is actually "based on an economic and political commentary surrounding the debate over 'sound money' that occurred in the late 1800s."

Written in 1900, and following the unrest in the agriculture arena that resulted from the panic of 1873, Baum's book deals with the debate between gold, silver and the dollar standard. It is an allegory of historical events.

Dorothy represents traditional American values. The Scarecrow represents the American farmer; the Tinman the American worker. The Cowardly Lion represents William Jennings Bryan, who was the standard bearer of the "silver movement" and the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the Presidency in 1896. Ritholtz notes, "Interestingly, in the original story Dorothy's slippers were made of silver, not ruby, implying that silver was the Populist's solution to the countries economic woes." Toto represents the Prohibitionists, who were part of the silverite coalition.

The Wicked Witch of the West represents Republican President William McKinley--"I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!" The Wizard represents Mark Hanna, chairman of the Republican Party, who made promises he could not keep. The Yellow Brick Road represents the gold standard, and Oz is of course an abbreviation for "ounce."

I bring all this up not only because it bears heavily on the current situation, as it pertains to monetary policy, and to give everyone something to think about the next time they watch the Wizard of Oz. But also because of how it weighs in on the ongoing debate among the Republicans.

Ron Paul, a Libertarian, can speak intelligently on the most serious issue facing this country. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, couldn't talk his way out of prayer rival.

That's the real difference between a conservative and a faux-con.

2:57 PM, November 21, 2008  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

*revival* Sorry.

3:35 PM, November 21, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

Memphis Aggie asked "Does he image he can create the Kingdom through politics?"

A sage and cogent question pal. Thanks for asking it.


3:44 PM, November 21, 2008  
Blogger Ken said...

I'll have to watch the video. During the primaries Huckabee came across as a hybrid of Elmer Gantry and Jimmeh Peanut.

I voted for Ron Paul in the Ohio primary after Fred Thompson dropped out. I think Thompson was the one guy who could have drawn on all the Republican constituencies, but since he didn't pant hard enough after the job, the media and the electorate dismissed him. Says as much about the electorate as it does about Fred.

5:39 PM, November 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

6:34 AM, May 20, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home