Though I have the sneaking suspicion posting this article now is like mailing an invitation after the date of the event has already passed, nevertheless…

 

In “Why I Like Mike, Part 1”,  I outlined why Mike Huckabee was the most consistent, principled conservative running for president this election season. After making a positive case why I want Huckabee to be president, I thought I would respond to a few of the negative attacks (some justifiable, others totally baseless) unleashed against him by the members of the media over the past couple of months. 

 

As a conservative, I am used to defending my favorite candidates, politicians, preachers, authors, columnists, and, well, just about everyone else I like in the public square. After all, liberal bias from the mainstream media is a well-established fact these days. What makes most of these attacks against Huckabee so amazing, though, is that the vast majority of them have come from the right-wing press, or the “new media.” Sadly, we have taken it upon ourselves to aim our weapons of rhetoric and propaganda at our own candidates. Even more amazingly, these attacks are largely groundless.

 

Earlier this month, I wrote in “Finding Meaning in Iowa:”

 

Remarkably, the injuries Huckabee sustained during his Iowa campaign were mostly caused by “friendly fire” – from those who were supposedly on our side of the political spectrum…Needless to say, these attacks are mostly baseless and have applied unfair, biased tests which leave conservatives two options to consider: either the conservative press deliberately misled conservatives about Huckabee or they simply didn’t know better. Neither option is pretty or desirable to contemplate. 

 

I stand by those comments. Mike Huckabee is the most consistent conservative running in the presidential race; I find it inexcusable and outrageous that he might not get the nomination because conservative pundits (who have made very nice livings for years off the right-wing base) decided to abandon their principles and sell him out during the middle of a political campaign.

 

These attacks must be addressed before more ill-informed Republicans vote for other, less-desirable candidates in their own states’ primary elections. Let’s start with…

 

 

 

The comment then lists two Ann Coulter columns written before the end of last year that heavily criticize Huckabee. I was familiar with the articles but did not think they really needed to be addressed due to their outrageous nature and dumb arguments. Apparently, I was wrong.  

 

In Coulter’s column, “There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute,” she leads off with this claim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The smear that Huckabee is “pro-sodomy” is outrageous to even the casual political observer. 

 

 

Coulter’s second article contains much of the same – groundless attacks, biased reporting and a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.   I do not have time to address every single one of Coulter’s egregious claims; we’ve seen enough to recognize Coulter failed to do her homework this time around.

 

 

National Review has been one of the leading conservative publications for decades. So, when the editors released a scathing critique of Huckabee’s foreign policy positions in December, I listened. Here’s an excerpt from their editorial:

 

This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register the other day, “You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.”

This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S. president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.

 

Other than the general impulse to be nicer, Huckabee’s views are the uneven grab bag to be expected from someone who hasn’t thought much about foreign policy.

 

Before we address the specific claims made in the publication, let’s first give a little history lesson about the magazine. Unfortunately, over the past few years, the magazine’s once-sound conservative positions have shifted - left. Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost brands their new right wing stances as “Manhattan Conservatism.” He explains:

 

 

 

 

Little wonder, then, that the magazine finds the prospect of a former Baptist preacher and southern governor so unappealing! They also repeat the now-common tactic of comparing Huckabee to former President Jimmy Carter. So are the accusations of NRO accurate? Are Huckabee’s foreign policy positions nothing more than misguided-golden rule-inspired notions? A close look at the claims made in the hit piece reveal another vast misrepresentation of the facts. 

 

On the global war on terrorism, Mike Huckabee states:

 

 

Hmmm…Sure doesn’t sound much like someone who thinks of the world as a “Sunday church social.” 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, National Review’s claim that this sounds like “someone who hasn’t thought much about foreign policy” just doesn’t ring true when the facts are actually examined. Does Huckabee plan to exhaust diplomacy before pursuing military options? Yes, but that makes him responsible and discerning, two qualities desperately needed in Washington; not a misguided country bumpkin with no clue how to handle international crises. 

 

For more egregious examples of over-the-top attacks against Huckabee by the conservative establishment, see Matthew Anderson's excellent post on Mere Orthodoxy.