This is the third in a series of posts about a conversation I had this morning with Mike Huckabee (here’s post one and post two).  Huckabee called into the Radio Iowa newsroom to send a message to Iowa Caucus-goers. He’s involved in the One campaign (You saw the F-word video, right? The F word is famine)  and Huckabee argues U.S. aid to the African continent pays dividends now and will in the future.

Cutting foreign aid “would be a disaster not just for the African children, it’s really a disaster for America,” according to Huckabee.

“If America wants to be known only as a country that puts bombs in neighborhoods, then that’s one thing,” Huckabee said. “But I think America also wants to be known as a country that puts food in the mouths of children in extreme poverty.”

AUDIO of that portion of the interview.

Here’s a transcript of part of his answer:

“One of the things that conservatives need to do is be on the front end, not the back end, of showing leadership when it comes to what true conservatism is really about. I can’t think of anything more worth keeping than the lives of human beings and so what the One campaign is all about is just simply saying this is consistent with conservative values and principles, not only for the obvious benefit to the recipients but for the strategic benefit to the United States so that as children grow up their image, their vision, their understanding of who Americans are is that Americans are the ones who saved our lives and Americans are the ones that our friends.

“That’s important because Africa is going to be the largest continent in population within another generation or so, eclipsing China. When that happens, I think Americans would have enough sense to realize it’s best that we have good relationships with these African nations, not relationships where they wish that we didn’t exist.”

This is the second in a series of posts about my conversation this morning with Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee asked me for my Caucus-finish prediction.  I closed by saying Santorum’s crowds were not quite “Huckabee sized” (a reference to the closing days of the 2008 Caucus campaign), and said if tonight’s turn-out doesn’t wind up setting a record, Republicans may have to answer for “an enthusiasm gap.” Here’s Huckabee’s response:

“I think that’s right. It’s very fascinating. If I had to predict, I’ve been saying I think it’s probably Romney, Santorum and Paul, maybe not in that order — but probably.  And I agree with you about the Santorum thing. I’ve seen some interviews in which people have said, ‘Oh, it’s very much like that.’ But, you know, even on my own network at FOX I was very frustrated when I saw some of the chattering class talking-heads last night talking about that, ‘Well, you know Huckabee, he did well in Iowa, but then he sputtered.’

“I’m thinking, ‘Excuse me!’ You know, I qualified for the ballot in every state. I came in second. I won a lot of states after Iowa, but it wouldn’t have happened had it not been for Iowa and that’s why I’ve always argue that Iowa is a very important place for candidates to play. It’s not going to be the entire campaign, but it’s the make or break and if you can’t play there, chances are you’re probably not going to go much further and if you think you are, ask Rudy how that turned out for him four years ago to wait for us all in Florida.”  

AUDIO of response above.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, victor in the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, called into the Radio Iowa newsroom this morning for a chat.  I’ll be posted snippets over the next few hours.  Here’s the first question and response to get things started:

Henderson: “What are your thoughts on the 2012 race that you decided not to enter? And you live in Florida, where this race ultimately may be decided. Are you going to remain a celebrity observer, I guess I’ll use that phrase, or will you wind up endorsing somebody before the Florida primary?”

Huckabee: “I don’t intend to endorse anyone before the Florida primary and perhaps not even after, until we settle on a nominee because I want to maintain a level of objectivity. Quite frankly, Kay if I walked in the booth today I’m not sure who I’d pull the lever for. Nobody has so persuaded me that I’m ready to get a yard sign and put out in my yard, so I’m watching and waiting to see, you know, which of these candidates come forth with what I would consider a broad and balanced message  and that shows the capacity to lead and not just campaign.

“One of the reasons that I was so frustrated and decided not to get in the race was because it appears to me, and it still does to a large degree, that many of the Republicans are more interested in just defeating Barack Obama than they are in rebuilding America. Well, defeating somebody without a plan to really resolve problems, to me, is a worthless endeavor.  You know, I want to see us really focus on how to get the country back to work. We’ve got 15, 16 million people that don’t have jobs that would like to have them. Let’s talk about that, not: ‘Let’s spend our time talking about what’s wrong with one of the candidates we’re trying to defeat,’ and that’s unfortunately been the focus of this primary.” 

AUDIO of exchange above.