Ron Paul Attacks Mike Huckabee
At the bottom of this post is a video of Ron Paul criticizing Mike Huckabee over the latter’s last Christmas ad. What’s most interesting about this clip isn’t that Paul repeats the words of Sinclair Lewis (“when fascism comes to this country it’ll be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross”). Instead what’s interesting is that we see a true clash between two voting blocs, two groups that are part of the conservative alliance that has brought the GOP to power.
On the one hand we have the religion right, personified by Mike Huckabee. To many of these voters, life is all about religion, thus so is politics. They’re conservative in many ways, but their conservatism is based on a (protestant) Christianity, hence the name Christian conservatives. On the other hand we’ve got libertarian conservatives and libertarians as personified by Congressman Ron Paul. Their conservatism is based on a small government philosophy combined with a ‘live and let live’ approach. They tend to believe that people are free to express their faith, but they don’t want to mix religion and politics.
These two sides are now clashing with each other. They were part of the GOP for decades, they were part of a major alliance, but now – for the first time – both groups truly have their own candidate. One of the candidates is doing great in the polls – thus has a chance of winning the nomination – the other is a great fundraiser which could very well result in a great many votes.
In other words, they’re lined up against each other. James Joyner spent some time to this clash earlier today in a post in which he compares Huckabee to Harriet Miers. The comparison is accurate, at least in so far that powerful conservative groups rebel and actively go after a fellow Republican. As James notes, however, “[t]he opposition to Miers was that she seemed to have been picked for her loyalty to President Bush rather than her legal mind, whereas the reaction to Huckabee is much more multifaceted.”
The question then is who will win this internal battle? It’s not only a battle between the two groups already mentioned, there are also traditional conservatives, for instance, who panic at the very idea of Huckabee being the nominee, but who also oppose Paul strongly (calling him crazy and all that). This means that the groups that formed the conservative alliance are no alliance any longer. At least not at this point in time. Will the nominee, whomever he will be, be able to reunite the party?
Here’s the video for you to watch. Note that Paul explicitly said that he doesn’t think that the comparison is accurate, but that the ad reminded him of what Lewis said. Note also that he didn’t attack Huckabee by calling him a fascist, but that he, instead, said that religion shouldn’t be used like this and that he would never shoot a video like it.
Video comes through Hot Air.
Incomiiiiiiiing!!!!!! (takes cover, lest any Names or Initials hit me)
"raped in the flag"? Well, that’s a disturbing image, you may want to correct that little error, Michael.
If I may, I’d like to add a little detail, something I’ve been learning lately. Libertarians and Christian Conservatives have another sticking point. While I’d say that the majority of atheists lean liberal, there’s a strong libertarian component within many of them as well. In fact, I’d say that the more anti-theist, the more probable it is that you are libertarian, as distrust of organized religion is simply one aspect of distrust of large, centralized authorities generally.
I am glad to see you got it right, unlike a lot of stories which claim that RP said in response to Huckabuckle “When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross’…
As you stated. RP actually said that he does not think the comparison fits, but that it reminded him of the saying and that he would never use his religion that way.
I really don’t like huckadopey using religion and Christ as his pulpit and if he wins, God really will have to help america because huck will f’ it up even more. Although he would act as if he had God on speed dial, I am pretty sure he only think he does.
LOL! Changing "raped in the flag" to "rapped in the flag" is a step forward. And I really love the mental clash of picturing Christianist conservatives as rappers. But the word you are after, Michael, is "wrap" as in "wrapped in the flag."
I had to watch the video again after seeing the claims that Paul didn’t imply what he implied with that statement, or that he specifically said he didn’t mean it that way. On what basis do you support that? He said the ad reminded him of that quote, then said "I don’t know if that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about it…"
Then Steve Doocey is the one who said that it isn’t fair to compare Huckabee’s use of religion to a guised attempt to introduce fascism. As he says this, Paul says nothing in response. If he really didn’t want to make such a strong condemnation with obvious implications, that was his opportunity to distance himself from that implication and he specifically chose not to do so.
Whatever your feelings on Huckabee’s Christian message, I think Paul’s deserves at least equal condemnation IMO. You don’t just drop a line like that and then pretend that you didn’t mean to imply what would be the obvious inferrence, especially when handed an opportunity to clarify and you chose not to.
One thing I’d like to point out. Both these men are Christians, both are actually of the same denomination, Southern Baptist I believe. As a Christian I look up to Ron Paul because he has lived out his faith through his actions and hasn’t used his faith for political advantage. Remember how Jesus attacked the Pharisees for the same reasons.
My impression when I saw this was that Paul was really pulling his punches and not really making all that strong a case for keeping religion out of politics. Of course we are talking within the GOP, and therefore any question of this trend is something radical for them. Considering Paul’s previous writings in which he shows lack of respect for separation of church and state I pretty much see Huckabee and Paul as being on the same side on this one, with Paul at least being less objectionable than Huckabee.
Bellinghammer: I’m open to hearing that message, just not in the way that Paul expressed it here.
I think what people are missing here is that FOX hit Paul with this as the first question in his interview. He went on there to talk about his big fundraising day and the first question they ask him was about Huckabee’s ad.
Paul’s response isn’t a slam on Christianity – he is a devout Christian himself and even has his own ad out that tells everyone "Merry Christmas."
What Paul is saying is that we need to be wary anytime anyone is overly patriotic or overly religious, sometimes those things are used as disguises for other agendas. He went on to say that he wasn’t sure if that implied in that situation, but he didn’t know – the ad just reminded him of that quote.
Huckabee pushing his religion on people to garner votes is not very Christian in my opinion. If you are a true Christian, you shouldn’t have to shout it to the world for people to know it. Your actions and character should reflect that. Christianity isn’t intended to be used for secular gains.
How does that matter?
Because they caught him off guard with the question and as he stated he hadn’t really thought about it.
He just said that seeing an ad like that reminded him of that quote and whether or not it was relevant he wasn’t sure, but that’s what it reminded him of.
It wasn’t a personal attack on Huckabee or Christianity. If people want to make it into one that’s their business, but anyone that knows Paul’s personal beliefs knows he’s not attacking his own religion.
Yeah, I hate it when I’m caught off guard and the first thing that comes to my mind is a reference to fascism. And then in case someone might take that the wrong way, I always follow it with "I don’t know if we should be concerned about that in this case, I was only sayin’…."
For some reason some people don’t believe me then that I didn’t intentionally raise the concern.
To be clear, J Bradford, obviously this isn’t an attack on religion, but I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn’t believe it was an attack on Huckabee’s use of religion in his campaign. And I don’t find anything wrong with Paul ‘attacking’ that, just in the use of the Sinclair Lewis quote about fascism to raise the concern. That’s way over the top.
He’s campaigning for the office of President of the United States of America.
that was way over the top, but his point aobut Huckabee presenting himself as the only true Christian is right on the money imo.
Fascism comes in all forms. Most people equate fascism with Mussolini or Hitler – but the things that make up fascism are happening out our country today.
Fascism uses constant use of patriot symbolism, mottos, etc…
Fascism uses fear of ones enemies as a need to give up personal liberties…
Fascism uses enemies to rally everyone together for a patriotic cause…
Fascism gives preference to the military even when there are widespread domestic problems…
Fascism uses controlled mass media, especially during wartime….
Fascism has an obsession with national security – fear is used as a tool to motivate people…
Fascism intertwines religion and government – religion is used to manipulate people’s opinion…
Fascism protects corporate power – the government protects the businesses who put them in power
I can keep going, but if you don’t think these things above are happening in our country today your are sadly mistaken. Now knowing what our government does, and knowing what the foundation for fascism is, what Ron Paul said is exactly right. "when fascism comes is will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross…"
C Stanley, you may not think fascism as your first thought, but for someone like Ron Paul, who has spent his life trying to protect liberties at home, when he sees a political ad using overly religious tones, this makes perfect sense why it would be his first thought.
Interested wrote:
He’s campaigning for the office of President of the United States of America.
You’re exactly right, he is campaigning for President of the United States – he got asked a question about a religious ad in a political race, and he gave a political answer.
You have to understand what facism even is to understand why that ad would seem that way to Dr Paul.
I already have a preacher at my church, I don’t need my political leaders preaching to me. When they start doing that, you should wonder what their motives behind it are.
J Bradford: So which defense do you want to pick here? That he made the comment innocently, without thinking it through, or that his whole mindset would lead him to make such a statement even after thinking it through? And that mindset is exactly why he’s not my choice for a candidate. Some people may be blind to the dangers of fascism, which is not healthy- but seeing it around every corner isn’t particularly healthy either.
Why do I suspect the same people forgiving Ron Paul for his "off-hand" response to an unanticipated question were also dead certain that Huckabee was intentionally slurring Mormons when he asked that nastily-phrased question recently?
C,
I’m saying that Paul quoted that without thinking how it would be taken by people like you and I. He got asked the question about the ad, hadn’t really thought much about it, and said the first thing that came to his mind.
He’s been in politics for 30 years. He studies economics and history, so of course that’s his mindset.
It’s not like asking you or I the question and the first thing that pops in my head is "oh, I thought it was a great ad" or "oh, I’m not sure he should’ve used religion in a political ad."
I don’t think in terms of fascism when I watch a tv ad – but after hearing Dr Paul bring light to it, to me it does make sense how he could perceive it that way – especially when caught off guard.
If you honestly think he had any ill-intentions toward Mike Huckabee then you don’t know much about Ron Paul. He was on 10 interviews later that day stating it wasn’t a personal attack on him, that is was just the first thought that came to his mind and anytime he sees an ad like that he questions the motives behind it, because it’s not something he would do. He doesn’t have to use his religion for political gain, his views speak for themselves.
Rather than just give a knee-jerk response to the word facism, why don’t we analyze if it makes sense in this case?
Aww geez. It was probably not an offhand remark. If it WAS that, then he still owns those comments. He’s a grownup, one running for the biggest job in the country. Still, I find curious that someone would use the word "fascist" so casually. That’s fine when you’re drinking with your buddies, less fine when you’re on TV. I, like many Europeans, find the careless use of the word Fascist and Nazi very offensive.
That said, I don’t really think RP was calling Huckabee a Fascist per se, but simply criticising the exploitation of religion in politics using what he thought was a memorable quote.
C Stanley wrote:
"And that mindset is exactly why he’s not my choice for a candidate. Some people may be blind to the dangers of fascism, which is not healthy- but seeing it around every corner isn’t particularly healthy either."
The mindset that he is wary of people that do the very things that brings about fascism – is that what you don’t like? If you don’t have people like Dr Paul, what is there to stop things like fascism from spreading?
The very people we have running our country today are doing the exact things that bring about fascism. People get all freaked out about that word, but you have to look at what it is. Those things I listed above – those are characteristics of fascism. Can you honestly say those things aren’t happening?
If you agree that they are then you should be wary of it yourself. Otherwise you’re just "blind to the dangers of it" yourself.
Oh but wait, that can’t happen here, this is The United States of America, right?
Too bad, he owns the words. Period, end of story. He is running for President of the United States of America. There are no mulligans.
If you asked him the question again today, I imagine he would say the same thing. He’s not afraid of those words – no one should be.
I’m glad he said it, all it’s doing is getting people talking about him and anyone with an open-mind will hopefully see that what he was saying has truth to it. Those offended by it would never have voted for Paul anyway, so it doesn’t matter. All it does is give him an opening to talk about his views.
People should want someone in leadership to be cautious of things that bring about harmful change.
I bet the people of Italy and Germany wish someone had spoken up against it.
J Bradford: I can honestly say that none of the things you describe happening are occurring to the degree that they happened prior to rise of fascist states, and that none of them are in the least bit unprecedented in our own history or the history of other liberal democracies (particularly during wartime.)
So for most of it, it boils down to having an honest debate about whether or not we ought to currently consider ourselves a country at war, and if so, how far freedom can be tested by war (because it’s survived much more testing than this in the past- can you imagine if Bush had instituted a federal beaurocracy called the "Office of Censorship" as FDR did during WWII?)
People certainly can have honest differences of opinion of whether or not that state of war should even exist today, and concerns about use of war powers in an open ended engagement such as the current global war on terror. For those on one side to hype the fears of fascism isn’t helpful toward convincing those on the other side of the debate.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable point out that Huck’s ad is another step towards religion gaining such a foothold in politics it could be used in a fascist way. His statement can be taken as a suggestion that Huck’s ad is one more step in the wrong (in this case fascist) direction, and he would be right. Anyway, the ad is insidious and Huck loses even more of what little respect I had for the man – politically and otherwise.
C Stanley wrote:
" I can honestly say that none of the things you describe happening are occurring to the degree that they happened prior to rise of fascist states"
So you think those fascist states just happened overnight? They had to start somewhere… Your comments make you one of the ones who are blind to the dangers of it.
Do I think we will turn into a fascist state? I have no idea. Do I think the signs are there that it could happen? Certainly. Turning a blind eye to the warning signs and being afraid to speak out about it is exactly what leads to its coming about.
Hey there you go CS. Your not a Paulist, so you must be blind
Those are C Stanley’s own words – not mine.
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion ‘Interested’ or are you here to just instigate?
J: Interested is absolutely right in pointing out the way you attempt to make your point. You won’t accept that I could possibly be arguing in good faith, having a different viewpoint than yours and Ron Paul’s. Instead, I HAVE to be blind, because I couldn’t possibly see things from any viewpoint other than yours.
And you only took one part of my argument, out of context, when you criticized it. Not only do I see that things are not nearly at the crisis point (the point of no return which WOULD warrant making rash statements), but I also pointed out that we’ve been much farther down the road of wartime restrictions on freedoms in the past and we weathered that just fine.
No they are your words, your post, your comment. Like Paul – own up to your own contributions.
You state that it is dangerous for people to be blind to fascism, then turn right around and say it’s not near to the point that that is was in other fascists states. And for anyone to make a statement about it is "rash." To me, you contradict yourself in that statement and in essence lump yourself in with the "blind" crowd. I’m not saying we should be so hung up on fascism and whether we’re heading there or not, but to ignore the signs is irresponsible.
If you look at history, and you look at what’s happening in our country today, it is dangerous, and you have to be BLIND not to see that. Every time in the past that we’ve had "wartime restrictions" we have lost some of our personal liberties. Those are never fully regained – just like the liberties we have lost this time will never be regained. That is dangerous. When you give up liberty for security you have neither.
And ‘Interested’ - yes those are my words, I quoted someone, just like Ron Paul did. I’ll stand by them anyday. If you, and C, and whoever else want to ignore what’s happening in the US that’s your right. But as someone who’s concerned about my personal liberty, I don’t want to wait until it’s at "the point of no return" before we do something about it.
At least C brings intelligent, thoughtful discussion to the table – I’ve still yet to see you offer anything of substance.
Ahh yes, so clearly evident when you stated.
and onto today’s comedy block.
That is clearly a self deciding object. I see your comments to be nothing more than normal paulists. And easily confused with Liberal speak given it’s I said – didn’t say, but meant I said’s. In addition, do not confuse it with my caring, and do not take my words to infer that your statements hold logic.
You do realize that we are talking about a permanent wartime? A bloody war against a tactic…
The only thing I take your comments to be are childish. And until you offer up something other than criticism that is how I’ll continue to take them.
It’s easy for anyone to criticize a position without offering anything of substance to back them up. Good job.
J: Let me put it this way…I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss concerns about loss of liberty, and to ask Americans to carefully think about whether we ought to voluntarily give up freedoms for security. We should all consider whether or not we think that is appropriate and necessary at all, and if so, to what degree and under what specific circumstances.
But when people engage in hyperbole (regardless of whether or not the real intention is to imply a direct comparison), it turns off the very people that you ought to be engaging in the discussion. That’s why I don’t think that Ron Paul will succeed as a candidate, although he adds something to the dynamic by forcing these issues onto the scene. I welcome that, but to be honest, I also fear that his provocative manner will cause his points to ultimately be marginalized.
Christine: the problem with ‘are we at war or not?’ is that the war against terrorism will last some 30-50 years according to experts.
You think that the government will give up the power it received 30 years before the end of the war
Here is the full unedited quote with sensationalist spinning by those who would like to stirr up some s**t for their own purposes:
<< It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, ‘when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ Now I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don’t think I would ever use anything like that.” >>
When I read this in it’s entirety, what I see is a thoutghtful, highly educated man who is
1. Fearless enough to aknowledge a literary connection which comes to his mind upon seeing the ad;
2. Considerate enough to immediately aknowledge that this connection may be unfair [his words!];
3. Generous enough to point out that the impression it creates may be detrimental to his competitor and he would therefore avoid such symbology himself.
Now where is the fault in that?
You are all wrong here.
According to retarded Jonah, the liberals are fascists.
But seriously, I would rather have true man of faith as president, then authoritarian( I would not use Jonah’s term here out of respect for Goodwin law)-Giuliani, or multiple choice Romney, or bomb Iran McCain.
TYPO:
Here is the full unedited quote without sensationalist spinning
Michael and Chris: I think those are legitimate concerns, and that’s why I already mentioned it:
I WANT people to consider this concern and discuss it. That’s why when people who have already decided that they think, "no, we shouldn’t accept wartime powers during the current engagement" start engaging in hyperbole, my concern is that other people won’t listen to their real arguments. It’s analogous to a war hawk saying that anyone who doesn’t consider terrorism to be a real threat is acting like Neville Chamberlain. As soon as you start using provocative analogies (and lets face it, the real underlying motive in doing so is to shock people and to, in a sense, make it sound as though those who disagree with you are fools), you lose your target audience. They won’t listen to your real arguments, because you’ve turned them off with an insults and hyperbole so they dismiss you altogether.
I’m not a Paulist,though I do like his forthrightness on many issues, including his perspective on the Huckabee ad. If there was no one to raise these types of issues in a provocative way, there would be no analysis of whether we are headed in a fascist direction. We don’t have to be just like Nazi Germany to note that this is happening. Its certainly a fair concern to bring up for those concerned about the permanent loss of personal freedoms and privacy, and overemphasis of religious values by our candidates.
Amuse us, what exactly have you offered other than unthinking support for Paul and immediate critisism of anyone that may have a divergent view? You already clearly shown that you do not expected to be taken for what you say.
How exactly are you and others of your ilk furthering Paul’s chances of election with the people that matter – the ones that go to the polls.
Conversely, look at Robert E’s comments. His are reasonable, thought out and he rarely waivers off of his comments. There was another fellow – Andy I believe who also held similar principals of views. And their methods tend to let someone warm to Paul on their own terms. Of course that work is often countered by Paulists.
C Stanley,
I think that’s a big cop out on your part. Instead of focusing on the real issue, you’re focusing on the wording and style you don’t like. It’d be like dismissing everything Bush says because his condescending smirk detracts from his ability to convince people.
You’re using his style to dismiss all of his views. It’s an easy way to avoid engaging in any real debate.
Interested, thank you for those kind words. You make me blush. Consider yourself hugged. :-)
Why not? Why can’t people bring up this discussion without making comparisons like that? If you’re talking strictly about religion and politics, for example, you have people like Senator Danforth who have made well reasoned arguments for a greater separation, without coming across this way at all. Similarly, I’ve already mentioned that I think people should talk about drawing limits to curtailment of freedoms during current conditions- but not by accusing anyone of veiled attempts to usher in fascism.
Chris: that’s outrageously absurd! I’m doing the exact opposite- trying to discuss the points where I’d find some agreement, and explaining that I think these are valid enough concerns that we shouldn’t focus on words like that. I’ve expressed concern that there will be a tendency for his views like this to be dismissed because he expresses them that way- and I don’t want his views to be dismissed because I think there is an important discussion that should take place.
If you say so C Stanley
I just think there has been a pattern of that kind of behavior on this site. Not a big deal, but I’ve noticed it. At least towards Ron Paul.
Well, I can’t speak for others on this site, but I can say that if my general reaction to Paul is like that, it is for the very reason I just explained. I think he adds some important topics to the discussion but then does it in a way that ignites strong support among people who already agree with his stance on those topics and simultaneously pushes everyone else away. He’s polarizing- not in a partisan manner, but polarizing according to where you stand on small government/big government. And since I tend to want to support small government, I wish someone would defend those concepts in a less abrasive manner. I also, of course, disagree with the way he translates small government concept into a non-interventionist foreign policy, because to me the two aren’t necessarily tied together and with the US’s role in the world, I don’t believe we can be ’small government’ in that sense- our footprint is too large.
"You are all wrong here.
According to retarded Jonah, the liberals are fascists."
Don’t use that word as insult. There should be a difference between the medicinally/genetically/whathaveyou inhibited and the under-educated, ignorant and mindless.
I thought that word was too insulting, so we are supposed to use mentally handicapped or differently able, or whatever. If that’s the case, then why cant we use retarded as a general insult? Is it just totally banned from our vocabulary now?
"If that’s the case, then why cant we use retarded as a general insult? Is it just totally banned from our vocabulary now?"
I dunno. I mean, there are so many words one can use for Goldberg and his ilk one might as well stay away from the gray areas.
Fair enough
Dr. Paul did not attack Mr. Huckabee. He was simply commenting on the use of substanceless symbolish.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
Ron Paul was answering the question about the cross in the advertisement and the use of this "symbol" and as such was reiterating the warning of Sinclair Lewis. He was not attacking Huckabee. He lets the viewer draw his own conclusion in the context of Sinclair Lewis’s quote . Anything more is extrapolation!
Whatever else one might think of Paul, he has one of the most impressive records of integrity of any of the candidates running. He is scrupulously honest — he votes against every pay raise, returns part of his salary ever year and refuses to participate in Congressional pensions and has never taken a single government-paid junket.
h/t to G.Greenwald
sashal: I agree- those votes and actions are extremely praiseworthy and exceedingly rare.
Not quite accurate. He returns part of his budget every year – not his salary. Which IMO – is better anyway.
Huckabee will continue to feed the military industrial complex and does not have an Iraq withdrawal timetable.
I think men like Huckabee are especially dangerous because they pretend to know what God wants and pretend they have a red-telephone link to God.
I find most invocations of God in politics offensive because :
- The God of the old testament has no form and is not characterizable.
- The God in the new testament is shown to be more loving and accepting through Jesus, his **only** son. Accepting Christ and his teachings is one thing, but God has a short list of proxies on earth, and that would be Christ. As in, not the Pope, not the King/Queen of England, not the President, not a Pastor/Reverend/Priest/Monk/Preacher/etc, not Mike Huckabee.
This is astonishing. It seems like even some of Dr. Paul’s most fervent supporters don’t really understand him yet. He would have said the same thing if it costed him the election. Dr. PAUL TELLS THE TRUTH AS HE SEES IT. No "political" dancing around the issue or saying nothing while sounding good. He’s NOT going to let some little jack-booted Fox hooligan force him to make religious quotes in a political context. THAT was what the question was all about – to try to force Dr. Paul away from his principles and his position on Church and State. Next time you want to see what COURAGE looks like, you just google Ron Paul.
Ron Paul haters will stoop to pretty low levels to try to discredit the man. Keep on doing it, the more you hate the more you awake people to vote for Ron Paul. Americans are not stupid, they now know propaganda when they see it.