HUCKABEE--The NEXT GREAT COMMUNICATOR!
By dhannon_pdx Posted in Archived — Comments (52) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After a few days have passed since the debacle debate over at the Clinton News Network, I have been watching the coverage of the performances as well as the tracking polls (which in all fairness mean very little at this point).
One troubling development is this notion from GOP faithful that Huckabee is a liberal. I am shocked that the campaigns are starting to get this ridiculous.
I am a Catholic social/fiscal conservative. When the campaign started last year (way too early if you ask me…) I was a McCain follower for the simple facts that he was a conservative both socially and fiscally who would win the general election. Then the immigration debacle occurred along with McCain’s collapse.
With McCain’s obituary written several months back I had to watch again from scratch. I started watching the debates, unsold on Guliani—b/c he was too liberal and Romney b/c he could not win. When I watched the first one over the summer in Iowa and then in New Hampshire, I saw Huckabee.
When I first heard of his candidacy, I thought he was some conservative/religious nut with no chance of winning a general election. I thought the Baptist minister would be fire and brimstone regarding any and every social issue.
When he spoke, I told my wife (who supports Guliani just to win the White House), that this Huckabee guy had a nice delivery. Then when he continued I was really excited to watch him speak (on TV mind you not in person). I do not agree with everything he espouses. Frankly, I do not agree with everything people here at RedState support. But, I can assure you no one mistakes me for a RINO (I had to look the term up, b/c with the current state of republicans, I never thought people would pretend to be a republican).
Huckabee was a governor in Bill’s breeding ground for 10 years. He did this with a dominant democratic party (not one term—like Romney, but 10 years). That term occurred during the 1990’s when every state created a bloated government on revenues generated through the internet bubble. During that time every state’s tax threshold exploded. However, Huckabee managed to limit that spending and limit the tax implications on Arkansas’ resident. I remember, in hindsight, the problems Arkansas had with their infrastructure and deficit—and I remember the heat the governor their got for increasing taxes. However, he managed to do what other conservatives should aspire towards—balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit. I remember when George Sr. did the same courageous thing, and b/c of it (long with Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980’s) our economy turned around before Clinton took office.
Huckabee enforces the law by executing its prisoners. (I will not deny he made a mistake with the prisoner who was commuted, and I am sure he would admit that was a mistake). He is a man of faith, which is crucial in this country. He is authentic, principled, and conservative on every social issue.
He may not be the candidate for immigration restrictions. But the true candidate who fit that bill was Tancredo. Tancredo was correct at disaster debate—candidates were attempting to “out-Tancredo” Tancredo. However, he would be a conservative on immigration. It will still be an issue to capitalize on against Democrats b/c they are ready to open the borders.
The main reason I converted was because he is the best communicator since the Great Communicator. Reagan was not mean spirited when he sold conservative principles. He did it with sunny optimism. Reagan converted independents and conservative democrats to his cause. Other than Guliani (who is not conservative across the board—at least not as conservative as Huck), no other candidate will bring others across the board. Huck will do that without selling out b/c he has the campaign and communication skills to convince them.
This race will be about change. However, it will be about conservative change. Bush is not a failure for a president. His biggest problem and failure was in communicating. Bush attempted ambitious things that did not come to fruition either because it was misguided (immigration reform) or impossible b/c of Iraq (social security reform). This occurred because Bush did not sell his ideas to the American people the way Reagan did. He did not even sell it to us, the conservatives—the base.
Huckabee will not make that mistake, because he is too good at what he does. He knows how to develop conservative ideas and bring others to our side. That is why he is the most formidable candidate (from obscurity) in the Republican primary and in the general election. We need Huckabee to save this party. He is a fiscal conservative (not as fiscal as others, but efficient enough), conservative enough on immigration reform, conservative enough on winning the war on terror, and finally continuing to push this country sufficiently to the right on social issues.
He is not surging b/c of the media. The media is gushing over him b/c he is surging. He is surging b/c like many undecided conservatives like myself, were drawn to the positive message—that happened to be conservative. Do I agree with everything? No. But, I agree enough to have used an open mind to thow my support to someone whom I never really considered over a year ago.
Sorry for the rambling. I just like this guy.
You underestimate the degree of frustration with the IRS, the disillusionment of the electorate, and the power of the grass roots- three things the Fair Taxers have going for them. I have heard all kinds of distortions on the Fair Tax - read up on it and be sure you know what you're talking about.
Myths:
1) The Fair Tax is associated somehow with Scientologists (Critics who say this are confusing the FairTax with another group)
2) The Fair Tax would bring the price of new homes through the roof (embedded costs from business taxes would offset much of the difference, not to mention the lower interest rates that would ensue from the fairtax's passage)
3) It has no chance of passing
If the FairTax is passed, no subsidies or tariffs would be necessary to keep domestic industries happy, thus delivering union and blue-collar support without the usual problems of pandering that this would normally bring.
The FairTax alone is worth fighting for this term, IMHO.
Huck's positions on those amendments (FMA, HLA) is no small deal to a VERY large portion of the Republican base. The fact that he is alone in his steadfastness of this makes him the ONLY choice for many.
Judicial appointments would be another area in which Huck will excel.
He has recently stated he wants to use his bully pulpit as the main way to get music & the arts in place (as opposed to federal mandates, which I know he mentioned once, but until there are more specifics, we'll see)- a second-term Clintonesque measure that will not cost a lot but could win over moderate suburban parents and artsy types, two traditionally non-Republican constituencies.
Good luck running a national campaign on a 30% sales tax.
It will make Goldwater 1964 seem like Reagan 1984 by comparison, but at least y'all will feel better about yourselves for sticking to a going-nowhere, sounds-OK-on paper proposal that can never, ever see the light of day.
Yep, heck of a selling-point for the Huck-a-campaign, that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
True this doc.
It doesn't sound attractive until you get to the details - but in a national campaign of soundbites and headlines, you will only ever hear that first line and nobody will know the details.
Second, to the original point - are you really serious that the Fair Tax is worth fighting for to the exclusion of all else? First, on the merits, an overhaul of the tax code, while important, does little to fix our current mess - the inability to do anything about runaway "mandatory" spending, the unwillingness of Congress (or anybody along Pennsylvania Ave.) to do anything serious about spending, and the penchant everybody (especially Huckabee) for new programs that will cost even more than we currently waste. If I had a choice between a candidate that promised the Fair Tax by any means necessary, or promised a wholesale reform and reduction of the entitlements that are suffocating the budget by any means necessary, I choose the latter.
Huck has also PLEDGED PROMISED to not raise ANY tax as President...
...and has always been a man of his word and has shifted not one position in 11 yrs as governor to this day as he runs for Prez.
How many lies has he been caught in so far, just during the campaign? Yea I'll take him at his word, just like I took Bill Clinton at his word.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sorry, lived through that script once already. Ain't interested in a re-run.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
...politics in our generation, and the Politician in Mike Huckabee knows that when he goes farther than Bush I and makes an actual formal PLEDGE rather than merely just "saying" he wouldn't raise taxes (as Bush I did) would be item #1 on his political grave.
Furthermore, despite the idiocy of people calling Huck a "liar" because he has characterized things in political past in ethics campaign in a certain way that they reasonably could be characterized more than one way (e.g., only one ethics finding was ever found in any court or credible legal finding as 'illegal' and it was overruled, but the Huck detractors want to accept the "finding" of a overwhelmingly DEM Ark. legislature that found a few more gifts technically improper by the rules out of the MANY that were put forward by his political enemies... sorry guys, thats not a 'lie', and I think your slander of an ordained minister is pretty weak considering he's been in public life for his adult life)...
...Huck has not changed his position or been caught in any other 'scandal' (all the ethics stuff was well-vetted in all his previous elections in a DEM state against the political machine of the Clintons where he has always won handily, there is NOTHING new being thrown at him) and as a man who has also kept his personal vows in life, can be trusted in his most public pledge ever to keep it.
Please respond to one of us at a time. I'm trying to eat and it's difficult with all these words people keep trying to cram in my mouth for me.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
They ran them against Bachmann in 2006 to make her look like a big time tax hiker. "Bachmann supports a national sales tax that will add 30% to the price of everything you want to buy!" It is a ready-made issue for attack ads.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Have been around a while and have gotten a sum total of nothing done. Huckabee endorsing the idea is the most effective they've been. Where is all this "natural blue-collar support?" The Fair Tax has been out there on talk radio and in book defenses for years - I don't see popular support you're talking about.
I agree with you on your points 1 and 2. I know that Scientologists floated a sales tax once - but one that has almost no resemblance to the Fair Tax other than that both are sales tax-sytle plans. I also know about embedded costs. My problem with the embedded costs issue - it's not intuitive, and it's not obvious. It's something that economically savvy people know but that lots of people don't understand. And so far the fair Taxers have done nothing to make it easy to get for people - it's still conceptual and "trust me, prices would go down so that even with the tax your house and your loaf of bread will still cost the same." People don't study balance sheets and see how income and other payroll taxes get built into the price scheme.
Huckabee endorses the Fair Tax. I read his website page on it - it's pretty much a cut-and-paste from the Boortz book. That's fine - Boortz wrote a good book. But while I hear about his support, nobody is telling me that the Fair Tax is even going to get the attention from Huckabee that social security reform got from Bush. Is he going to hit the campaign trail after the election to sell the plan? Is he going to get the labor unions on board (all that blue-collar support), is he going to be willing to spend political capital against a likely hostile (Democrat Congress)? His site seems to show that he is much more passionate about his education issues and he has promised to spend his political capital on his energy independence plan.
Without any sort of even lip service for how Huckabee plans to go from Fair Tax - the idea, to Fair Tax - the legislative proposal that has any chance, I can't believe that the Fair Tax would remain any more than a nice idea a President Huckabee trotted out now and again in a speech to the party faithful. And if that's all it's going to be, I'd rather go with one of the other candidates - one that's pushing for actually achievable reform that people can understand and that could get through (the RSC "dual-system" plan that Fred picked up isn't bad - puts Democrats in the position, again, of having to tell us why Americans shouldn't have choices).
You went from McCain to Huckabee, talk about going from RINO to RINO. McCain Amnesty, McCain-Fiengold. Huckabee, Pro-life Liberal. I noticed this is your first blog, so hat makes me suspicious. I know have to start somewhere, but?
y'all are just paranoid. There is a natural inclination for many Hucksters to want to post here, because there is a sort of group-mindset (which is NOT always bad, especially in the interest of fiscal conservatism) which has sort of blown anti-Huckabee arguments into hysterical proportions. So the reason many of us sign up and comment is because there is a dearth of suggestions that Huckabee could be any good at all. And he could be quite good, if the base engages him and wrestles him down and holds him to solid fiscal principles, instead of treating him (and many evangelicals besides) with utter contempt and calling him (and them) crazy.
....if only your fiscally conservative group-mindset hadn't been hoodwinked by the most fiscally liberal candidate in the pack.
Even with all of McCain's shortcomings (and there are plenty), you still couldn't call him a liberal. I can't say the same about Huckabee.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
My story is somewhat similar to yours, though I've never been much of a McCain fan.
A year ago, I was worried about the GOP Presidential prospects, not feeling comfortable with any of the apparent frontrunners.
I thought Fred could be a savior, but he waited and fizzled.
Watching Huck speak at length, not just in debate and interview soundbites, is truly an inspirational experience. If he can win the nomination, I predict another "Morning in America" movement.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
My main distrust of Huckabee is on his instincts to go big government and pro-amnesty (I'm with Fred instead). However, I do think that you list some good reasons to support your guy and they are reasons (communication style) that resonate well with voters.
Reagan made some changes after he was elected President (and no I'm not saying he was pro-choice before). Let's hope Huck, if elected, listens to the base.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "What is Thompson's path?" on First Cut Politics
You mean the "anti-immigrant borderline racist" base or the "Club for Greed" base? Which base are you inclined to think Huckabee is interested in listening to?
Considering that he's not even willing to admit to anything in his record in order to find common ground with his critics, I can't see him inviting them all over for a slumber party. The man's response to criticism isn't to address the issue, it's to deny that there is any issue, claim the critic is lying about Huck's record, and then to attempt to discredit them through name-calling.
He hasn't shown any interest in listening to portions of the base during the campaign. Well, unless it's the part of the base that believes that the most important thing in a candidate is support for a constitutional amendment that has been proposed for 30 years and never even seen the light of day on the congressional floor.
Huckabee will be like Bubba, he will listen after he gets beaten in an election. Unfortunately, he's not the one that will lose. He will set up Republicans to look disunited (again) on fiscal issues and while pushing his big government agenda will further alienate fiscal conservatives to the point where 2010 will make 2006 look like a good Republican year. Unfortunately, that would probably only make Huckabee think that the answer is to move further left.
I don't trust Huckabee. I don't feel inspired by him. And his hard-core SoCon supporters have so far made me distanced myself from that label.
Yep, that's just what we need.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
CAPS for the title.
Tell me, why in the world would I want someone that's great at communicating the wrong message?
==== 13 ====
I am a Democrat, but I support Huck for a lot of the same reasons that you stated, along with the fact that he's extremely knowledgeable on health care--which will be a huge issue in the next election. Not to mention, Huck seems to me to be an genuinely kind and compassionate person. Welcome to RS. :-)
Huck appeals to Democrats. I wonder why? Maybe it's because he shares their worldview that there isn't a problem that can't be solved by a new program, a new bureacracy, and a few million dollars of my money.
generation. Can't equate appeal to DEMs and moderation of conservatism, Huck is also the most consistently conservative serious Prez candidate we've had on guns, life, and tax reform in modern political GOP campaigns at this point.
These ain't your Daddy's Democrats, chaplain.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Sorry, but I'm not sure that I understood you right--it's a bad thing to appeal to conservative and moderate Democrats? I'm no statistician or political consultant, but I don't see how it's possible for a Republican candidate to win the general election by just appealing to the conservative base, or 30% of registered voters. In other words, the candidate that can't appeal to moderates and independents loses every time.
I hear it's hanging out with Elvis and Bigfoot at the latest convention of "Conservative Democrats".
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Although, I hear that Big Foot throws way cooler parties--I Just have to find a way to get on his guest list. :-)
You're officially an endangered species. Critically endangered, I hear.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Why does it not surprise me that the democrats would like him?
==== 13 ====
I'm going to figure out this "Reply To" thing.
Really.
I am.
==== 13 ====
...for not using "Reply To" when you're beating yourself up for not using "Reply To"?
I'm going back to my homework. My brain is mush again. Oh how I miss those classes where a 10-12 page paper was all I had to do...
==== 13 ====
for the Presidency considering that Huck is now nationally 5 pts ahead of him, and in IA is beating him and in all polls Huck's committed voters are much higher (many more say they are definite) and all Huck's poll trajectories are surging rather than stagnating nationally and in states overall?
Mike is now:
1st in Iowa
2nd in Texas
2nd in Florida
2nd/3rd in New Hampshire
2nd IN THE NATION
...and the nation has only begun to consider him seriously as a top tier candidate who can win, and he's only begun to spend a little bit.
For all his tens of millions spent all year and all his hi level establishment endorsements (probably also bought off in some way), people just don't want to buy the Romney product.
What is it with you people and Romney's money?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
RCP Average has him 5th nationally. Even if you cherry pick one of those polls, he's no better than 3rd.
Go ahead. I know you have a poll that has him 2nd. I can't wait to see it.
==== 13 ====
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1...
"In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead nationwide with 24% support. Surging Mike Huckabee now attracts 15% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide, Fred Thompson earns 14%, John McCain is the top choice for 13% and Mitt Romney remains in double digits at 10%. Ron Paul attracts 5% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide and no other Republican candidate reaches 2%"
These numbers change daily, but the 4 behind Giuliani are always within percentage points of each other. They have been in a statisical tie for over a month now.
...the reason Mitt's money is VERY relevant in a political analysis is that he has spent at least 10 to 1 more than Huckabee and is now losing in Iowa, losing nationally to him... ESPECIALLY when all Huck boosters like me have heard all year mocking laughter how it is SO impossible for Huck to do ANYTHING without money.
As a much less important issue, Huck has come from NO money, Mitt born into a rich family, which is nothing bad at all about Mitt but only says that Mitt had at least a little advantage in getting where he is today, Huck has had none of the privileges, in his lifetime or for the past year, and has now surpassed Mitt on pretty much pure power of his own communicative talent and message.
But if you are trying to imply we are egalitarian anti-rich populists socialists... please, spare us the continuing slander.
And what appears his supporters complete willingness to overlook reality and facts and make statements that are patenly false in an attempt to sell their candidate.
Huck would be destroyed in a general election campaign. It's why CNN wants him so bad.
As a much less important issue, Huck has come from NO money, Mitt born into a rich family, which is nothing bad at all about Mitt but only says that Mitt had at least a little advantage in getting where he is today, Huck has had none of the privileges, in his lifetime or for the past year, and has now surpassed Mitt on pretty much pure power of his own communicative talent and message.
with
But if you are trying to imply we are egalitarian anti-rich populists socialists... please, spare us the continuing slander.
Apparently you do have an issue with Mitt's money or you wouldn't have written that paragraph about Mitt leading a privileged life compared to Huck (it isn't the first time I've heard that spiel from a Huckster, either).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mitt born into a rich family
You sound like a democrat, and maybe you should do some research first. Mitt Romney made his money the old fashion way, he earned it.
He probably earned it as one of those rich "wall street" fat cats that gets rich only by taking advantage of the poor "main street" types that Huckabee cares about.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I mean, given your guys' problems with FisCons and penchant for sounding-off on Rich People™ (a la Mr. Two Americas, himself) I'd think you might want to clam-up about that - but that's just me.
Oh and by the way, one poll does not a lead make. There's one Iowa poll showing Romney leading, one showing Huck, both within the MOE. Jump ball - 4+ weeks to go.
National polls are meaningless.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
How come a Southern Baptist minister from Arkansas is doing so well in the Iowa polls? The cynical news media wants you to believe that Huckabee is appealing to Iowa's Religious Right, but Iowa is not in the "Bible Belt. Huckabee is charming, but his popularity in Iowa is based mostly on the weaknesses of the other Republican candidates. I grew up in this state and I think I know these people. Among the candidates, Guiliani is considered to be a mean and corrupt New Yorker (Iowans are not fond of mean and nasty politicians, or New Yorkers), Romney has a nice personality, but he is a complete phony (his huge expenditures to buy the Iowa caucases are resented), Thompson is a good old boy, but he started his campaign in Iowa way too late, and McCain has alienated everybody on the immigration issue. McCain has run a pitiful Iowa campaign (If he isn't smart enough to hire a good campaign staff, he isn't bright enough to run the country). I think that Thompson would have done well if he started sooner and spent some time in Iowa. Unless Hillary gets nominated (her husband insulted the intelligence of Iowa voters, recently), none of these Republican candidates will carry Iowa in '08. Huckabee is not another Reagan. But, a firefly seems bright in the darkness.
Some searching of the site will pull-up the demographics but I seem to recall something along the lines of 40-50 percent of GOP caucus-goers are self-identified evangelical Christians. In addition, populism has, in the past, played very well there (Johnny-boy on the Demo side in 2004, for example).
I'm sure Adam has the numbers more or less at his fingertips and I've got a Christmas Tree to put up or I'd look myself.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
HUCKABE - - NEXT GREAT TAX RAISER!
A local Arkansas paper just released an editorial stating that Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years. Dudley Do-Right sure loves big brother.
http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialswhos-biggest-tax-raiser....
Huckabee vs. Romney
State+Local Tax Burden
Summary
As a percent of income, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee & Arkansas: 0.11%
Romney & Massachusetts: 0.175%
In terms of actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee and Arkansas: $70.98
Romney and Massachusetts: $139.19
Analysis That Yields These Statistics
Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
The following charts demonstrate the comparison between Huckabee and Romney with respect to tax burden as a percent of total income during their tenures as governor.
Arkanasas' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html
Using 1996 and 2007 for Huckabee, we see that the state+local tax burden for Arkansans went from 10.1% of income to 11.3% of income for an increase of 1.2% over 11 years (Governor Huckabee serving for 10 and a half of those), or an average of .11% per year.
Massachusetts' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html
Using 2002 and 2006 for Mitt Romney, we see that the state+local tax burden for Massachusettsians (?) went from 9.8% to 10.5% over 4 years for an increase of .7% over 4 years, or an average increase of .175% per year.
Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of .11% per year.
Under Romney, increase of .175% per year.
Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden in Actual Dollars (inflation adjusted to the year 2000)
http://www.pnreap.org/United_States/com ... ita_Income
(choose Arkansas then Massachusetts on the right, then click on "Generate & Display Output"; when the next screen appears, scroll down to the graph at the bottom: "Arkansas and Massachusetts: Per Capita Income, 1969-2006")
Arkansas' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation adjusted to the year 2000:
1996: $20,232 per capita income * 10.1% state+local tax burden = $2,043.43
2006: $24,804 per capita income * 11.1% state+local tax burden = $2,753.24
Increase over 10 years = $2,753.24 - $2,043.43 = $709.81
Increase per year = $70.98
Massachusetts' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation adjusted to the year 2000:
2002: $37,536 per capita income * 9.8% state+local tax burden = $3,678.53
2006: $40,336 per capita income * 10.5% state+local tax burden = $4,235.28
Increase over 4 years = $4,235.28 - $3,678.53 = $556.75
Increase per year = $139.19
Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of $70.98 per year.
Under Romney, increase of $139.19 per year.
Furthermore, in 2002 Romney fought tooth and nail against the citizen's initiative Proposition 1 which would have abolished MA's draconian state income tax (9%).
Over 300,000 of his fellow Massachusetts citizens signed the petition demanding that the issue be put to statewide vote. Libertarian Carla Howell, with very little money, founded the idea and pushed it all the way to ballot status in a gubernatorial election year. All of the major candidates were against it including Romney plus all of the state's powerful news papers and major media was against it, along with almost all of the state's legislature. Mitt helped raise millions for a "Vote No on Prop 1" campaign along with his own campaign for gov.
When the dust settled, the no money people's initiative failed by less than 4% (46% to 53%)... and Romney preserved a tax that cost the average Massachusetts taxpayer over $3000 each year.
At LEAST Romney (like Huckabee) has signed the no-new-tax pledge of Grover Norquist's organization, something the other major candidates refuse to do. You people are silly to trust the other candidates won't "work with the Dems" (like even Reagan and Bush 1 were tempted to do) to raise taxes without a specific pledge not to do so. A FairTax would go further and make very evident how much we are paying for entitlements and all taxes put together, while also taking away alot of the tax policies that make our free market system less efficient and more costly.
Maybe you should take a course in statitics. Your post is irrelevant. You don't know what built in taxes were, who raised , and when.
For instance, George Bush lowered tax rates, but if congress doesn't renew them, we will get the highest tax increase in history.
If a man is walking down the street, and two cars get into an accident, does that prove the walking man caused the accident.
Massachusetts has a 9% income tax. Whoa is me. All these years and I've only being paying 5.3%. If you can't get a simple statistic like that correct... well that just speak for itself.
That turns out to be far from the whole story. The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration found that 90 tax cuts were enacted in legislative sessions from 1997 through 2005, while Huckabee was governor, and those cuts reduced tax revenues by $378 million. But Huckabee fails to mention the 21 tax increases that occurred under his watch and that raised revenues by substantially more. The total net tax increase under Huckabee's tenure was an estimated $505.1 million, says the Department of Finance and Administration's Whitney McLaughlin, adding that the figure has been adjusted for inflation.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html
You are at least half right. Populism is huge in Iowa. Iowans love the kind of "simple decency" that Huckabee displays. The religious factor is much more complicated. In Iowa, I would differentiate between Evangelical Christians, as a group of believers, and the Religious Right, a a political movement. I don't know if the latter will support Huckabee, unless they think he is a winner, who can increase their power and influence. There is a pretty persistent tradition of keeping religion out of partisan politics in Iowa. You can identify yourself as a "Christian leader," against abortion, but that's not enough, or even remarkable to the majority of Iowa Republicans. I still think it is a combination of charm and the weakness of the other candidates, not Huckabee's religiosity, that has raised his poll numbers in Iowa.
Huckabee is no Reagan. He is not a Reagan conservative. He is barely a conservative.
The only thing he has going for him is that he supports the FMA and HLA - two worthless positions since the HLA is going nowhere (and has been going nowhere for 30 years), and the FMA as written is lucky to get 2/3 suuport from Republicans - forget about anybody on the other side of the aisle.
The Fair Tax is doomed - it has no chance of going anywhere. Only a landslide win in the general where the Fair was the singular and most prominent issue would create the kind of momentum needed to get it serious consideration.
So we're left with a bunch of policies on domestic issues that probably have The Great Communicator rolling in his grave. If you think Huckabee is a conservative you either end your inquiry at abortion or haven't bothered to look at the record he accumulated in those 10 years as governor.
The only thing that Huckabee has in common with Ronald Reagan is the gift of gab. Unfortunately, Huckabee is trying to sell all the wrong policies.