The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Huckabee's Bad Week gets Worse
DuMond and his clemency record, the flip-flop on Gitmo, the NIE fiasco, calling ICE “INS” in his new immigration plan, attributing his poll surge to a power that’s “not human,” and now this — and that’s just the past week. Tuition breaks for illegals, the “Christian leader” ad, the 2003 any-tax’ll-do speech, and his support for the Fair Tax were all already a matter of blogospheric record.
Whatever they’re paying their new research guy to deal with all this crap, it’s not enough.
As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.
“If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,” Huckabee wrote.
“It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”…
When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.
He supports public funding for AIDS now, as the AP notes. The last paragraph is the key: Was he so ignorant as not to know as late as ‘92 that AIDS wasn’t communicable through casual contact or was he so vindictive that he did know and supported a quarantine anyway, just because? Given the misinformation under which he’s been operating about the “INS” and the new NIE that he thinks was four years old, I’m not so sure it’s vindictiveness. The guy simply may not know what he’s talking about a lot of the time. Or (or perhaps because) he may be easily swayed: That was Jonathan Chait’s theory for Huck’s conversion to the Fair Tax (a more charitable interpretation, incidentally, than Rich Lowry has) and it also seems to explain Huck’s reversal on Gitmo, which came after meeting with a group of retired generals. Which brings us to a second key question. Are these notable flip-flops the product of naked pandering to the base, as seemed to be the case in adopting Krikorian’s immigration plan after having described opposition to Bush’s amnesty bill as “nativist” in 2006, or is Huck just a soft mark for ideologues trying to bend him to their side? Whatever the answer is, it’s extremely worrisome.
Read the rest. And then hope the voters of Iowa are beginning to finally see the forest for the trees... If they really want a conservative in the White House, then Fred Thompson is clearly the best choice. Or possibly even Mitt; but definitely not this charlatan.