April 10, 2006


An Interview With Governor Mike Huckabee Of Arkansas (John Hawkins, 4/10/06, Right Wing News)

John Hawkins: Let's switch gears a little bit - foreign policy. Let's say that the President came to you and said, "Mike, I need your advice. As you know, we believe Iran is building a nuclear bomb. We've attempted to deal with them diplomatically by having the Europeans negotiate with them and by going through the UN. Unfortunately, that hasn't solved the problem and the CIA is telling us that if we don't bomb the Iranians soon, we could risk having Iran develop a nuclear weapon. So basically, we feel that either we bomb Iran militarily, with minimal support from our allies around the world or we stand back and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. What do you think I should do, Mike?"

Mike Huckabee: Well, first I'd make real sure that we had not been able to secure some interest on the part of allies around the world of the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon -- and frankly it's far more dangerous for the people in the Middle East and Europe than it is for us. It's more dangerous for China and India than it is for us -- and I think the first thing we should do is not necessarily worry about the UN, because I'm not sure how effective the UN as an organization is or will be -- but I think it's in the best interest of many of those nations in the neighborhood to think very seriously (about) whether they want Iran with that kind of capability. [...]

John Hawkins: Let me ask you about the hot issue of the day, illegal immigration. When it comes to illegal immigration, do you think we should allow illegal aliens currently in the country to become citizens or at least give them the opportunity to or the opportunity to stay as guest workers, or do you think they should have to leave the United States?

Mike Huckabee: Well, I'm not as sure that leaving and then coming back is as important as it is to acknowledge that what they've done is illegal, pay a fine, and then get in line behind the people that are going through the process of being here legally. It's important that we have a legal process.

We can't just ignore our laws. We either change them or enforce them for clearly this land is a land that is dependent on more workers than we currently have for many of the jobs that Americans honestly don't want. So there is, I think, a reality that we shouldn't just sort of look the other way. I don't believe in amnesty. That's not a good idea, but creating a pathway where people can have a form of restitution to make things right, to understand that laws have to be obeyed or some consequences have to be applied.

Governor Huckabee is the more available version of Jeb for John McCain to add to his ticket.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 10, 2006 8:34 AM

Senators are the emptiest of suits, McCain included. There will be no McCain ticket, just like there was never going to be a Bush electoral landslide.

Posted by: Palmcroft at April 10, 2006 8:54 AM

Had the Administration followed its own plans to draw down troop levels in Iraq by the end of '03 he'd have won in a landslide. As is he won big enough to carrpo in congressional seats, making his victory more of a landslide in political terms than Reagan's.

Posted by: oj at April 10, 2006 8:59 AM

Predicting who the Presidential nominees will be two years from now is already more speculation than forecast; predicting the Vice Presidential picks is the very definition of "castles in the sky".

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2006 9:30 AM


The expected nominee has won every Republican nomination since the Ike coup. Given that McCain will be the nominee we know what he needs to balance the ticket in classical terms: a governor to offset his lack of executive experience and someone liked by the Religious Right to make sure they turn out. Jeb would be best but if he's serious about not running even as the VP then Huckabeee makes much sense.

Posted by: oj at April 10, 2006 9:34 AM

OJ makes a good point. The GOP is very predictable in it's prez nominations.

I remember the dread of Dole in '96: such an obviously terrible national candidate, too caustic; such an obviously untelegenic candidate, forced smiling at best and haggard. A good man, a good senator with no business running in the glitz-o-rama of prez politics.

Sound like anyone? My only hope is that the southern primaries will vomit him out of the GOP's mouth.

Posted by: Palmcroft at April 10, 2006 10:26 AM

No one was going to beat an incumbent Clinton with the Peace Dividend booming our economy--that's why 1992 was the most important election of our lifetimes. The remarkable thing is that W took down Gore despite all the advantages of the latter.

Posted by: oj at April 10, 2006 10:36 AM

I like Huckabee but it should be noted that his comments on Iran are stupid.

"More dangerous for Europe, China, and India" -- obviously China doesn't think so, they've been helping Iran acquire nukes through their North Korean proxy and protecting their nuclear program at the UN. There's no strategic value for Iran in taking on India anytime soon, India will never regime-change them, and doesn't have oil. Similarly Europe is virtually neutral; if the US doesn't lead them, they'll never take on Iran, and even if the US does, they'll only contribute half-heartedly. If Europe truly believed that Iran was going to go after them ahead of the US, they would be much more aggressive about dealing with Iran. But everyone knows Iran will go after the US before Europe.

True, there's some strategic value to acquiring oil revenues, and perhaps some militant-Islamicist-inspirational value in hurting Israel, but the US is their great rival and the only one that's dangerous to them. So the US is either their #1, #2, or #3 target (after oil-producing nations around the Persian Gulf, and Israel) for a nuclear attack, and I wouldn't bet against #1.

If we do nothing, they'll wait ten years till they have a large arsenal, and then start smuggling nukes into the US. And the more nukes they acquire, the less inclined we'll be to go after them. If we're ever going to stop them, it has to be now.

Posted by: pj at April 10, 2006 10:54 AM

Hello, I'm BSR, editor of the Mike Huckabee President 2008 blog. Thank you for posting this, Mr. Judd. I'd like to invite you and your readers to visit our blog to learn more about this fantastic leader. Just click the "BSR" link below.


Posted by: BSR at April 10, 2006 11:22 AM

Sure, Huckabee is a possible VP, but we can all list twenty people who would make a suitable VP for one reason or another.

Did anyone predict Ferraro, Bush, Quayle, Bentsen, Gore, Kemp, Cheney, Lieberman, or Edwards, two years out ?
Most of them weren't even on anyone's long list.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2006 11:42 AM

The difference is that Huckabee is actively positioning himself in the McCain camp, is something of a hero after Katrina, and gives McCain the southern conservative credibility he needs. Whether or not he *will* be picked, he would be a wise choice.

I wasn't paying that much attention at the time, but HW Bush and Lieberman couldn't have been particular surprises. Edwards certainly wasn't, since we all knew he was running for VP from day 1.

Posted by: Timothy at April 10, 2006 12:00 PM

Ferraro & Quayle weren't listed and were disasters. Cheney wasn't and was a fabulous success. The rest were short list.

Posted by: oj at April 10, 2006 1:20 PM

If the dems retake power - there will be no Maverick ticket unless President Cheney appoints Maverick to VP.

He's too old. And the stupid party doesn't change.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 10, 2006 4:07 PM

A tad hysterical.

Posted by: oj at April 10, 2006 4:13 PM

I believe that Jack Kemp was the odds on favorite to be Reagan's selection in '80. I remember the rumor that spread around the convention hall that it was going to be GR Ford.

Posted by: Dave W at April 10, 2006 10:51 PM

And then the Ford people put out word that it would be a sort of co-presidency so Reagan shot it down himself. High drama.

Posted by: oj at April 10, 2006 10:56 PM