My Problem With Mike Huckabee
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 Presidential Campaign | Mike Huckabee | Republicans — Comments (137) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Economist spells it out and the following excerpt speaks for itself:
. . . Mr Huckabee calls himself a free-trader, but on the stump he does not sound like one. He rouses nativist crowds by fretting that America cannot be secure unless it is self-sufficient in food, energy and military hardware. "I don't want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia," he says. "There is so much foolishness in that one sentence it is hard to unpack," comments Rich Lowry, a conservative columnist. America hardly imports any food from China. Mr Huckabee's promise of energy independence within 10 years is impossible. And cheap imports benefit precisely the cash-strapped folk Mr Huckabee purports to champion.
[. . .]
. . . The Club for Growth, a lobby for economic conservatives, assails him for hiking sales and petrol taxes in Arkansas, and for his attacks on industries he accused of "price-gouging". The Club says that nominating him would be "an abject rejection" of the free-market, limited-government principles for which the Republican Party stands. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, gave him a "D" grade for fiscal policy.
The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of free markets, capitalism, free trade and private enterprise. It is supposed to be the party that takes seriously the views of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Milton Friedman. When it comes to economics, I trust the ideas of Smith, Hayek, Bastiat and Friedman more than I trust those of their diametrically opposed counterparts. Pity that Mike Huckabee chose to identify with this latter group of people.
Although I find Huckabee to my liking from a social perspective, I do find his positions on economic issues to be problematic, and these keep me from supporting him during the primary season. I can see him, however, as a fine counter to a Rudy! nomination, or, providing some social conservative bona fides to a McCain run (perhaps even supply some ooomph to McCain's semi-conversion to enforcement first). I don't see him with Romney, but, I am not excited by a Romney run. (Maybe I just haven't seen enough of Romney, but he just seems too contrived - sorry, best word I can think of).
I know this will drive social conservatives nuts, but, the Republican party is first and foremost the party of fiscal conservatism and smaller government and Huckabee's positions run counter to that. (good National Review commentary here). We must retain those principles, and can't have a Populist who's positions (and record) aren't much different than Hillary Clinton's on these issues. The GOP is the last, best hope for our culture, and, for that, I think socons must remember that even a Rudy! candidacy will result in much more pro-Constitution judges than any of the D's. And, I am tired of the focus on Abortion in judicial appointments, decades of liberal judges have brought us plenty of other outrages, from eminent domain abuse to handcuffing of law enforcement to plenty of other rotten decisions in addition to Roe, which is not only morally deficient, but legally contrived as well. But, I digress.
The point is, ANY of the GOP nominees will bring judges that are Scalia and Thomas-like, while a Huckabee presidency, coupled with a protectionist and tax-loving Democratic Congress, will bring us trade, tax, and fiscal policies that will serve to increase, not decrease, the influence of the nanny state. So, while I like Huckabee and find him an articulate and thoughtful spokesman on the issues, I don't find him palatable for our party.
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep
Any chance either of you has a realistic, workable plan to be energy independent in ten years?
Mike Huckabee is quickly becoming the patron saint of totally lost causes. There's energy independence, there's the FairTax, and the HLA. What's next?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Through advances in technology, and making use of other sources (e.g. nuclear)
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=21
With apologies to bs.
I'll let Vlad or one of the other energy pros address his line about alternative energy, except to comment that if you started today you couldn't have an operational nuke or a producing well in ANWR or off the coast by the "end of Huck's 2nd term",
The paragraph that give the Huckster away as a complete fool on the subject of energy is the one on ethanol. He wants to convert a major source of the world's food into fuel. Why doesn't he address the fact that we will either be importing corn and probably wheat and that, while you'll be able to drive your E85 SUV to the Safeway, a loaf of bread will be $15.00 and meat will require a home equity loan.
Thanks for the link. I wouldn't have thought the man was that utterly stupid but we learn something every day.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Everything else I agree with. Its okay to look at alternative fuel sources, but they will take awhile. But drilling for oil can be accomplished within months.
Kripto, a proud Romneybot.
in a matter of days. However, after you hit oil, the problem begins. How do you get the oil to the refinery and from the refinery to the market. Building the necessary infrastructure to get the oil from the wellhead to market will take years.
An, in todays environment, the physical construction is a minor part of the delay. The major part will be the fight to get the project approved. Requirements to show environmental impact alone can add months, if not years, to the project.
Entergy independence can only come when we allow the entergy companies to go after the oil whereever they can find it without any restraints by the "Tree Hugging Dems" and eliminating the permitting and environmental redtape on building new plants.
The two critical issues facing our country are entergy and immigration and neither party is addressing and trying to solve either issue.
Common Sense
How about if your next door neighbor struck oil? Would you like an impromptu industrial zone across the fence, without all those pesky legal restraints getting in the way of what the developer can dump in your groundwater or spew in your air? Or maybe you could simply have your property seized by eminent domain?
I'd like to see more plants and less red tape as well, but don't dimiss environmental concerns as being entirely trivial or wrong-headed. We have to balance development with cancer rates, respiratory disease, chronic illness and other costs of externalities. It's a cost benefit analysis that seeks a balance between protection and development. I think it's past time to put a thumb on the scale, but certainly not to bust it entirely.
Did it just seep out of the ground or did he actually have to drill for it first ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...you need the services of a good engineering consultant.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I'd need a geophysics department to start rewriting the textbooks. Then there will be much headscratching about how oil formed in corals and recent mangrove swamps.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A large field at Sunniland, found in the 40's by Exxon's predecessor. In Collier County, south Florida, practically in the Everglades.
Also Jay Field, outside of Pensacola, also developed by Exxon.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I never knew that florida had oil production except for offshore and in bad movies.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If I couldn't find my own oil, I could open a store to serve the workers. It was the merchants who came out ahead in the Gold Rush.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
...you don't know what you're talking about: "But drilling for oil can be accomplished within months."
If ANWR had been opened to exploration early in GWB's first term, it might be on production today. Maybe.
Same goes for opening new offshore areas.
There is a lot more involved than just moving a rig & drilling a well.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
to the story that oil was struck in ANWR but the wells were capped, pending authorization to develop? I guess they'd still need to build the facilities and connect to the pipeline, anyway.
As far as I know, ANWR has never been drilled.
There have been discoveries (small by AK standards, but large by lower 48 standards) that have not been developed due to economics.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
in ANWR, NPRA, and off the Arctic Coast. All are capped since there is no authorization for further drilling or there is no permitting for bringing the oil to the pipeline grid. Perhaps with the majors' grip on Alaska politics loosened by some strategic jail terms, the State will work with some independents to develop some of the oil on State lands, but there would still be permitting issues for pipe to get it to the TAPS, and the majors, who own TAPS, aren't likely to be very cooperative in either the connection or the tariff. Alaska can afford to do it, but then there is the fact that the Legislature is on the auction block every two years.
In Vino Veritas
and I just assumed would be understood, you've gotta get the the oil & gas from the well head to the refinery. Gotta build a pipeline. Actually, you should build new refinery capacity. That's the lead time.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I have studiously avoided taking sides in the Presidential sweepstakes. Except for the Wing Nut Who Shall Not Be Named, I have been considering all the potential Republican candidates voteworthy. Now that I've read Huckabee's "energy policy", I must reconsider.
That document brings "vague" to unprecedented heights. What, pray tell Candidate Huckabee, is "energy independence"? Independence from all furriners? Even the Mexicans and Canadians?
Even the more modest and achievable goal of "energy security" would be a very ambitious goal in an 8-year time frame, even without all the legal, environmental, bureaucratic, permitting and logistical obstacles to conventional energy development. And all of the alternative sources would have to grow ten-fold (i.e., double every two years) in an eight year period to have much of an impact.
Just to promise "energy independence" by the end of his second term shows that he is either 1) grossly misinformed; 2) grossly misadvised; 3) dangerously naive; 4) a promise-them-anything populist; or 5) a liar. Take your pick; combinations are OK; personally I'll guess that it's about 50-50 between #2 and #4.
Anyway you slice it, these are not the attributes that you look for in the leader of the Free World.
Scary.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Virtually all the candidates take the same position on the need to be energy independent. Romney believes we can be energy independent. McCain pushed for energy independence in his CSIS speech. And Giuilani makes virtually the same claim as Huckabee on energy independence:
Rudolph W. Giuliani said tonight that weaning the United States off foreign oil must become a national purpose, that doing it within 10 to 15 years would be a centerpiece of a Giuliani presidency, and that he will have much more to say on the subject as the campaign wears on.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/giuliani-focuses-on-energy...
From your link about Guiliani's energy position:
The goal, however, over the next 10 to 15 years is to reduce, and then eliminate, our reliance on oil from sources that are enemies of the United States. We can’t do that today. We can’t do that today because we’ve been talking about energy independence for over 30 years and it’s been, well, really, too much talk and virtually no action.
Rudy's talking about "energy security", not "energy independence". Let's stipulate that all the candidates suffer from the same sloppy verbiage. At least Rudy has defined his terms, and doesn't offer to deliver within two presidential terms.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I've read. Any politician who says "I have a plan to solve that problem, and I'll tell you what it is after you elect me." is a phoney. The only thing I got out of the statement is a promise for a lot more fed funding for research. We know how successful that would be by 2012, don't we? The bureaucrats would barely have stopped arm-rasslin over the new money-pot by then.
OK, at the risk of sounding like a big-government person, here goes:
I believe government can play a role in breaking that dependence; and yes, it probably will take years, but you have to start some time. I would rather not wait for market forces to comes up with a solution to our current and future energy needs because of it's significance to our national interest. Many of today's technology advances are a direct result of government research (the internet anyone?). Market forces are great for moving from point "A" to "B,C,D", but are not particularly good in moving from "nothing" to "A" because of the financial risk involved.
Yeah, government is good at dumping money down a rat hole, and that can be an argument against government research, but again I argue that energy is so vital to just about everything we do that maybe government can play a role in reducing the risk by starting the research, which can then be used a springboard for the market forces.
Personally, I think we should have already started.
The only thing left after that will be the mess in the middle east that will result with oil having little value. Oh well, you can't your cake and eat it too.
I will trot out five ways the government stopped advances.
In the case of the internet. Yes it was developed by the government and then pretty much stopped by the same.
Recall the 80's ? You could only get on the net through university accounts, any commercial use was forbidden. Government granted monopolies are still screwing up the telco market.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"We know the government is inefficient and wasteful. But energy independence is so important that we need the most inefficient and wasteful organization to do it!"
==== 13 ====
right; there is absolutely "nothing" that government can do right.
We might as well pull out of Iraq then because all the weapons developed by joint government/private sector ventures are worthless; you know, like the Abrahms tank, or the Stealth bomber, the Raptor, the F-16 Strike eagle, Tomahawk missles, and don't forget about that waste of metal Apache AH64.
What would you say if I told you that the noise you are making is at least 30 years old; that everything you propose here was done; and that "dumping money down a rat hole" is an excellent, succinct description of the results?
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Capture all the hot air coming out of Washington, turn it into a source of endless energy.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party ! Pastafarianism anyone?
However, government has spurred private R&D with great effect in the past by offering directed tax credits for new technologies.
Tax credits can soften the blow for new and marginal technologies that just might turn into something big.
For the companies that stumble onto something that really works, there is a big reward. The reward is proportional to the success of the technology. Zero success, zero reward.
By 2010, 40% of America's natural gas production will come from sources that are considered "unconventional". It was the production tax credits of the 1990's that encouraged producers to develop new technologies to turn "potential resources" into "producing reserves".
The downside is, some capitalists might make some money in the process. Ouch. We can't have that.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
And by "energy independence", I mean drilling for oil and natural gas.
When the Democrats use this term, they use it as a code-word to their supporters. It means that they will shove money at windmill operators and companies that manufacture solar panels and, supposedly, this will decrease the amount of oil we need to import from outside the U.S.
"Energy independence", get it?
Except what they don't tell the meatheads like Rob Reiner, is that all of this money they're giving away to solar panel manufacturers, etc., only decreases our overall need for oil by less than .01%. They have yet to invent a car, house, or dishwasher that can be run effectively on solar, wind, geothermal, or other similar "power" source.
It's a big con game by the Dems.
Romney/Thompson 2008
The problem for me is that if you look at politicians. Conversions on social issues seem to stick... conversions on fiscal issues don't.
Maybe if he had a bit of a track record showing that he'd oppose federal tax increases...
I mean, a sales tax replacing the income tax isn't insane or anything... it would probably have the benefit of encouraging savings over consumption....
I also have to admit that the anti-free trade rhetoric worries me.
We really need to keep pushing the understanding that eliminating our own trade barriers is almost always beneficial to us- even if our trade partners don't reciprocate.
I'm upset at Huckabee's open borders stance, probably more than anything.
I don't think that Huck favors open borders.
But his stance has been abused by the liberal media who are CALLING it an "open borders" stance as part of their on-going campaign to bash all Christians in public life.
To the original poster: please stop spewing this rhetoric. Huck does not favor "open borders". He favors immigration reform. Every sensible presidential candidate favors some type of reform for the immigration laws in this country.
Romney/Thompson 2008
Can you provide me with one instance where Huckabee has stated or has shown that he wants to end immigration law and allow illegal aliens to walk over the border?
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Either defend your baseless comment about Huckabee's so-called "open borders" position or begone to the land of wind and ghosts.
Romney/Thompson 2008
California Conservative is not a moderator of this site and doesn't have the authority to make this call. And he won't be making remarks that lead to that sort of confusion again.
Apologies for any confusion that may have been caused, again.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
But my preferences are as follows:
1. Romney
2. Thompson
3. Huck
4. Giuliani, and finally
5. McCain
My biggest concern is that GOP conservatives will split their votes between Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain and Giuliani will walk away with the nomination simply by carrying the socially moderate vote.
Romney/Thompson 2008
get 50% plus one of the delegates, so for any candidate to win, even Rudy, they must get a substantial share of the so-con vote.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Thank you. You just made my day.
Now, my new concern is that after McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee drop out of the race, they will jump on the Giuliani bandwagon out of fear of Hillary.
Giuliani is to be feared, people. If he called himself a Democrat, none of you would be backing him. Because he's calling himself a Republican, you are viewing him through rose-colored glasses.
He is not a Republican at heart. He is a pro-government, gun-swiping, anti-business, anti-child, anti-family liberal.
I realize that this is strong rhetoric (especially given my upthread warning to the San Diego character), but Giuliani merits it.
I can't think of a single issue, other than Iraq, where he disagrees with she-who-must-not-be-named.
How are you going to tell your crusty-old right-wing uncle that he has to show up on election day if he has to choose between two different pro-choice liberals who happen have different brand names?
If pepsi changes its flavor to an exact copy of coke, who will continue to buy pepsi?
Romney/Thompson 2008
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I can't think of a single issue, other than Iraq, where he disagrees with she-who-must-not-be-named.
What type of judges should be nominated for SCOTUS. They differ there too.
==== 13 ====
He eats babies and drinks the blood of puppies!!
LOL
"anti-child"??
C'mon.
Rudy is the one man on the list of candidates who I completely trust will protect this nation from her enemies. I think many others also feel the same. We are at war, and we need a man who take the war to our enemy and defeat them.
So your children, and their children, don't have to...
At least you are wrong if you mean literally "can't" as opposed to you think it is unlikely. Actually, there is a real chance that Rudy could win in a divided field.
While the eventual nominee needs 50%+1 of the delegates he doesn't need anywhere near that number of votes. Most states allocate the bulk of their delegates - and in many cases all - to the winner of their primary/caucus - ie the candidate with a plurality. In principle, a candidate could win every state with 35% of the vote in that state with the second placed candidate getting 30% each time. Without checking the details, I am pretty sure that winning every state with a plurality gives you more than half the delegates.
Of course, in practice candidates are likely to drop out along the way. This has always happened in the past. It often narrows down to two candidates pretty early on, or one leading candidate and a group of trailers.
But the number of states voting on 05 Feb 2008 means that the field might not have narrowed by then. There is a real chance that three or more candidates could each win several states on that day, and all of them will try to continue. In that scenario, there is a strong chance that the eventual winner, with over 50% of the delegates, will not have receieved over 50% of the votes.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
As so-con candidates drop out their delegates will switch. It is much less likely that they go to Rudy than the remaining so-con.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The fact that a candidate drops out does not necessarily unbind their delegates. Delegates are only unbound if it goes to a second ballot.
But that is not really the point. Rudy could win an outright majority of the delegates with a plurality of the vote. Then it would not matter if some of the delegates switched, he would still win.
In any case, 'so-con' is only one label. There is no reason to be sure that all the delegates from candidates dropping out would then gang up on Rudy. Some of them would switch to him.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
of votes. But Rudy can't win a majority of delegates without significant so-con voter and delgate support, imo, given the large plurality, if not even a majority that social cons are in the GOP. I see so-cons in the South, where I live now and always have, for whom Rudy is their first choice, and he's my 2nd or 3rd after Fred and Mitt (tied), and my definition for s-cons is broader than some here at RS who i consuder to be quite ignorant of the South and christians. Most s-cons are war hawks as well.
more later, but I generally agree with you
I just think that a majority of delegates from candidates that drop out would not go to Rudy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
But Rudy can't win a majority of delegates without significant so-con voter and delgate support, imo
Agree that this is unlikely. Obviously my scenario that he wins each state with 35% while the remainder of the vote splits several ways is mathematically possibly but practically silly.
But he has significant support from people with so-con values. He has diminishingly small support from people who are so-cons first and other things afterwards.
I just think that a majority of delegates from candidates that drop out would not go to Rudy.
Not sure that that is true. People support candidates for a variety of reasons. Some of McCain's supporters are hawks first. Others think of him (not all that accurately) as 'moderate'. Many of Romney's supporters see someone with outstanding executive and leadership experience. Many of Thompson's supporters are federalists first. I can see reasons why some in any of these groups would switch to Giuliani as second preference.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You don't want oil from Saudi and goods from Europe, I don't want another big government President from Arkansas who doesn't understand economics.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I think Willy had a better understanding of economics than Huckabee does. At least he seemed to pay attention to Greenspan.
that wanting America to be self sufficient and being a free trader are mutually exclusive ideals.
I am not going to pretend anybody's record is perfect here, but I find it hilarious that Huck is being portrayed as the big spender next to Mr. Government Healthcare, Mitt Romney, and the guy who thought a health initiative meant signing as many New York citizens up for medicare and medicaid as possible. And as far as Fred and McCain, both of whom would make good President's in their own right... Are you telling me that they have accepted any less pork for their own state than anyone else in Washington? And what exactly have either of them managed at an executive level before?
These are politicians folks, and not a one of them is ideologically consistent. What I like about Huckabee is that he lies about it less than the rest of them. I think he is right to say that the knock on Pro-life Republicans these days is that we seem to care about life before birth, but not after it. Huckabee isn't a big government liberal, but he is someone who believes that government can play a role... Good and efficient government rather than small government, if you will. I think a prime example of this is the network he setup in his own state to help Katrina victims, which he received much credit for and deservedly so.
I have said it before... I am a conservative because I believe for this nation to succeed it must be a moral one. Huck believes that at times this means spending public funds to help those in need. Yes, that has also meant he has spent money that special interest groups who have never had to be responsible for lives in their own community, like the Club for Growth, have used against him to prove their own vague and somewhat unrealistic points of view. What Republican Presidentail candidate lives up to their holier than now standards anyway?
Vote for who your consience guides you toward, I will support any one of them before a Democrat, but let's not pretend Mike Huckabee is anymore of a spender or ideologically inconsistent than any of the others. That is just silly.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
You can either give them a fish, and then they will be hungry later, or you can give them a fishing pole and let them get their own fish. I am with the later. Wealth re-distribution tends to make everyone equally poor. Wealth creation make the poor richer. The poor in america would be the rich in almost any other nation.
When it comes to Huckabee, he wants to make everyone equally poor. IMHO.
Kripto, a proud Romneybot.
single issue voters is how clueless you guys are.
In the last couple of weeks you've migrated from Huck is the only moral, ethical candidate and the "true" conservative (where have we heard that before) to a place where everybody lies about something and we need to help the "average Joe" and show some soft edges on hard policy and children shouldn't have to pay for the sns of their illegal immigrant parents, etc.
This post is just more meaningless mush and drivel. Bubba Jr may get out of Iowa in one piece but by SuperTuesday he will be a bad memory.
For a while I was part of the charge to get him to run for the Senate. All I want him running for now is oblivian. Let him go try and find a real job in the private sector, maybe he'll figure out what the real world is like because he's utterly clueless now.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
my guess is he can be making a seven digit salary within two years on the outside.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Are you talking specifically to me, because I've never said that "Huck is the only moral or ethical candidate", and I have never stated that "Huck is the only true conservative" either. What's more, I'm not even a hardcore conservative--I'm more of a moderate, really. I don't recall writing that we should help the "Average Joe", but it's a sentiment that I would agree with, and that probably most of the candidates for POTUS would agree with as well. I mean, I can't imagine someone running for POTUS--liberal or conservative--saying that he doesn't want to help the "Average Joe", and being successful. I have written that we shouldn't punish the children of illegal immigrants for the sins of their parents. However, that sentiment is not exclusive to Huck supporters. In fact, I've read posts from many supporters of all of the candidates (except for Tancredo supporters) who, also, say that children of illegals shouldn't be punished for their parents sins.
By the way, I'm hardly a single issue voter and everyone who has read my posts at RS knows it.
but I am not sure you even care to understand it.
We are arguing that helping "the average Joe" is moral and ethical, and that because Huckabee seems to be the only one who gets this he is the true authentic conservative in the race. He is the only candidate with the exception of John McCain that didn't adopt his principles months before he announced his candidacy.
And respectfully, get off the one issue voter mantra... This isn't just about abortion. It is about conservative values, getting rid of the IRS, securing our borders but being realistic and compassionate in regards to illegal immigrants, protecting the 2nd Amendment, ending American dependence on foreign oil, doing the moral thing in Iraq, and caring for life before and after birth by understanding that even as fiscal conservatives some of our spending priorities need to be aimed toward helping those in need.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Helping "the average Joe" is NOT the government's job. History shows they do a really lousy job of it. It's socialism. If I want that, I'll vote for Hillary. Individuals and private organizations do a pretty good job of it. See, I can be a "compassionate conservative" without wanting my government to give handouts.
I'm all for simplifying the tax code, but trying to sell "getting rid of the IRS" as a conservative issue is a non-starter.
Amnesty is not compassion. It's dangerous. And he can say he's against amnesty all he wants, but past performance and current answer show that's where it'll end up.
I'd really be interested in hearing what you mean by "doing the moral thing in Iraq".
"Caring for life before birth" is "the one issue".
For "spending priorities", see above (Helping the average Joe).
==== 13 ====
1. You are preaching to me that the Republican Party should state that helping the average Joe is not government's job and then on the other hand arguing that abolishing the IRS is a non-starter? Huh!?!?
2. Mike Huckabee nor I have ever said that Amnesty is the answer. I think twisting his position by calling it amnesty is inconsistent at best.
3. Doing the moral thing in Irag means staying and winning IMO.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace,
because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
the only way to cut government social programs is to abolish the IRS? Is there any other way this could be accomplished?
2. You can call it what you like. We all know what it is. And using liberal scare-tactics does not help our party. It just reinforces their talking points. We get to hear things like, "why can't you be the kind of Republican that Arnie is?"
3. Good, we agree.
==== 13 ====
It is about conservative values...
Yes, but then there's a schism between the values you outline and what I consider "conservatism."
...getting rid of the IRS...
I have no personal problem with getting rid of the IRS, but I'm not sure that conservatism itself prescribes "getting rid" of any agency. Conservatism as I see it would have a goal of rendering unnecessary every component of government not specifically mandated by the Constitution; thus, making the natural end result the elimination of all of them.
...securing our borders but being realistic and compassionate in regards to illegal immigrants...
That's not "conservatism," that's "compassionate conservatism," which is a completely different animal that is far more prone to accept (even promote)socialistic solutions. Straight Conservatism looks to see what's best for The People...CITIZENS...firstly and lastly...based on what history offers as prescriptive. It does not consider what is best for any alien, or what is best for any entity (such as a corporation) that is not imbued with the moral capacity for taking action based on concern for the nation and its continuity.
...protecting the 2nd Amendment...
Protecting the Constitution as it was originally intended includes this. I always have problems when one section is deemed more salient for concern than others.
...ending American dependence on foreign oil...
Obviously there are plenty of areas in which we would be well served if the people who make up American corporations would return the "national interest" to their marketing and other business planning functions.
...doing the moral thing in Iraq and caring for life before and after birth...
While I sort of agree, these lines have been so often repeated, I don't know that they actually mean anything in political context any more.
...by understanding that even as fiscal conservatives some of our spending priorities need to be aimed toward helping those in need...
This betrays a most decidedly un-Conservative mindset.
When you start by saying, in essence, "I'm all for conservatism, but...," what ends up happening is a lot of action on the "buts" with an ever lessening concern for the conservatism. We end up with insults to Conservatism like No Child Left Behind, bigger Government, disjointed governing and a fertile field for the continued expansion of the nanny state.
Blecchhh!
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
- "I'm all for conservatism, but...,"
That's not what I see happening. What I see is more at, "I favor traditional social values, therefore I am a conservative. Because I am a conservative, everything else I favor is also conservative. Hence real conservatives favor government anti-poverty programs."
That buzz is becoming increasingly loud. The only thing I can see coming from it is 20 or 30 years of Democratic Party hegemony.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
and maybe that's what the general public needs to hear to buy drilling in ANWR, Nuclear Power, and the other expensive and controversial things we're going to need to do to lessen our dependence on middle-eastern oil.
As for taxes, I am personally very wary of changing to a consumption tax UNTIL the income tax is repealed. Otherwise I am quite sure we will end up with both. And, how wonderful will THAT be when democrats figure out they can tax our income and consumption at the same time! I suppose, like the "energy independence" phrase, Huckabee is on fairly solid ground with me on this one, since he seems to understand the 16th amendment needs to be repealed first, making his goal of the Fair Tax years in the future. Of course, some do believe that the Fair Tax will have to be much higher than it's proponents say today to cover the government at current spending levels.
As for trade, he's talking a protectionist game right now. Maybe that's for show, too. I don't know.
I appreciate that at least Huckabee's giving some fresh ideas life...
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep
Gimme a freaking break.
Energy independence was an old topic when I was sitting in odd/even gas lines in 1973. My dad wanted a fix for the "damned income tax" in the 50's. I thought Senator Smoot put a stake in the heart of protectionism in the 30's, but Bubba Jr might have missed that. (Hint: it was called the "depression").
What the Huckster has - and all he has - is RHETORIC that would make Huey P. Long proud.
Again, all this is is crap without a plan & he ain't got one. Not for the FairTax, which BTW will take 5-10 years to pass - what's he going to do in the meantime? Not for energy independence. And not for the HLA. Or anything else Bubba Jr is blathering about.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Oops. I meant to say "giving old ideas fresh life."
Anyway, are other candidates full of detailed plans?
But, be that as it may, no candidate is going to achieve these goals by the end of his term, but, if they are able to, they may be able to change the trajectory so that we're on the way towards them.
And, no candidate is going to be able to sell the general electorate using details we all so crave. Because, what happens when you have details is that some interest group will latch onto them, and those details will become the story. For example, if Huck said, "I am going to ease regulations and work with Congress, and get ANWR opened up, and I am going to put pressure on governors to allow more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, or California, or anywhere else" the story will become how anti-environment he is. This way, he gets to use a platitude, Energy Independence, and after being elected with that goal, then he has a mandate to go do the things necessary to achieve it. At least, that's the theory.
I'd like the candidates to actually engage in substantive debates and publish detailed positions on HOW they would do what they propose, but, it just ain't going to happen. Instead, we're left with Powerpoint-worthy talking points, where we have to fill in the gaps.
Nothing Huck wants to do of any significance is going to be completed in 8 years. Heck, repealing the 16th amendment may take that long, as could the HLA, and certainly, energy independence will take much longer.
I admit to having looked little at the candidates positions on these (I will research it now, I promise!), but, help me out here and point to someone who has these details you so crave??
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Every other major candidate is unreliable/wrong on social conservative issues, and voters are beginning to notice. That's why I think Huck will win it all next year.
are using the label "pro-life" doesn't mean anything either. I have been reading articles where anyone who doesn't sign onto the HLA is not pro-life. So I agree that "Labels mean nothing", though I disagree that "every other major candidate is unreliable/wrong on social conservative issues."
If voters are noticing that Huck is the only guy, it is because he is doing a good job of confusing the issues.
support of HLA and FMA are minimum standard litmus tests. For them, if you don't fully support these, you aren't "pro-life". As far as I know, only Huck supports both of these.
==== 13 ====
I'm quite happy to see Republicans say that this party is about small government and fiscal conservatism first and foremost. I've been saying that for years, unfortuntately GWB and company fanned the flames of the SoCon utopian idea that we can have big government so long as we are running it.
Huckabee is of that populist Christian sector that is growing every day and they think the Republican Party is their sandbox. Rudy may be pro-choice, but that issue doesn't affect my wallet. Rudy may be pro-choice, but that doesn't affect the border. It is high time people realize that the social issues ought to be on the bottom of the priority list because they don't affect us personally. Who cares if someone is pro-life if they are also spending us into bankruptcy?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
The fact that he is a religious populist doesn't excuse him. He should be a televangelist or something, but not the POTUS.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
He's a socialist.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm just not sure how.
Actually, most of us arguing against Huckabee are SoCons. I certainly am. The difference is that most of us understand that the only way you advance a SoCon agenda (pro-life, pro-family) is get the courts fixed and move the fight out of the courts and back to the states.
Fixing the courts not only advances the SoCon agenda, it kills the ability of liberals to advance their agenda, because they can't win in the court of public opinion.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
In fact I would say he is the surest one to nominate pro-family, pro-life judges. Rudy or McCain could very well nominate O'Connors to the bench. Even Thompson, IMO, is questionable on this matter.
Huckabee is the surest way to "fix" the courts to a pro-family agenda. He is just horrible on every other issue. I think to oppose him shows at least some inclination that pro-life isn't the only issue that matters. Which is a huge leap forward from the past 20 years in the party.
BTW...what does "pro-family" mean exactly? Is there anyone that is against families?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
BTW...what does "pro-family" mean exactly? Is there anyone that is against families?
Check out SB777 in California which seeks to undermine the concept of a traditional family:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/bob_frazier/2007/oct/15/mom_and_dad_banned...
:-) Just joshing you.
As for pro-family, does that really mean "pro family as far as how I define it"?
I mean other people could have different views on family.
I'm serious about questioning this. Does pro-family mean no divorce, and the requirement of children? Which tradition of marriage are we talking?
For me, I don't really care what consenting adults do. Does that mean I'm anti-family?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Fred would nominate federalist judges that would overturn Roe ("bad law, bad medicine"). McCain should, Rudy & Mitt would or he'd never be re-elected ("read my lips") and they know it.
IMO, Huck actually has less of a chance. The dems would scuttle every one of his nominees because they'd be convinced they had to pass a litmus test.
As far as I can tell Hillary "it takes a village" Clinton is against families. Her policy positions show she believes the government is better equipped to raise children. I'm sure if I looked into the positions of the other dem candidates I would find the same thing.
==== 13 ====
Someone's life is much more important than my wallet.
Call me greedy though. I want both (and I believe I can get both with some of the current candidates).
==== 13 ====
He is much more apt to wreck your wallet however.
Would you rather have Huckabee and all his pro-life credentials over Rudy and all his small government credentials?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Where did I say I want Mike over Rudy? I've been saying the opposite for quite some time now. My order of preference is Fred, Rudy, Mitt, John, Mike.
That doesn't change the fact that I think pro-life issues are just as important as fiscal ones.
==== 13 ====
Fiscal issues are more important in voting for president because the POTUS has much more power over the purse than he/she has over life issues. Voting for the president based on abortion is like voting for the president based on their stance for prohibition. They have little chance of affecting the matter.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Staunch- I'm new to this so I wonder if you could tell me why Tanner at the Cato Institute said, back in May, that Rudy is big government. I had not heard that anywhere else. You can read the link or just the last sentence below:
"But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an opportunity to seize the small-government mantle."
I considered making this a blog but like I said, I am new here. If this has already been blogged to death I apologize.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
That isn't a knock on Cato. I'm just saying that in this day and age few Republicans challenge the size of government. We saw with a Republican president and Congress that spending only increased along with government size.
So in a strict sense of small government, there are no major candidates supporting small government. Not even Thompson, to my knowledge wants pure small government. They talk about cosmetic cuts more than anything, IMO.
So in a pure sense, Rudy could very well be called big government along with all the top tier.
So...touche. :-D
And I'm new here too. Do you post at TheologyWeb? I saw a moniker there of the same name.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Thought it was original. I coined it thus:
Fred, if you are thinking about using a red pickup truck again, I say go for it. Somehow it seems to be having a red-flag-to-a-bull-like effect on some of your detractors.
As an ad gimmick or campaign symbol, I kind of like it-if for no other reason, it points a comforting contrast to the lear-jet liberal mindset. Having been a resident of several parts of the country over time, I have no problem with a candidate who parades his roots. Anyone with enough brain cells to strike a match on should know a pickup truck is just a symbol.
I suppose it is unwise to start a red neck versus hippie controversy. Having been both at various points over time, I guess I am a hybrid. Now that I think of it, forget the pickup. The red white and blue is just fine with me. Your Friend [Redneck Hippie]."
I searched the web site, and Cato has not updated their question, is Fred the only small-government conservative. I, as a FredHead through and through, naturally take this as an admission that yes, he is the only small-government conservative in the race. When that changes, I am sure y'all will let me know.
Thanks!
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
that will select constitutional judges who will overturn Roe. That sends it back to the states (where it belongs).
All five republican candidates have said they'd do this, so it takes that particular issue off the table. I can now evaluate the candidates on the other issues.
That does not make it any less important than fiscal issues.
Let's say for the sake of argument that one of the candidates said he would only nominate judges that would affirm Roe. He'd be off the table for me regardless of is fiscal positions.
==== 13 ====
I'm going back to my homework. Computation Theory (computer state machines) rots your brain, in case you didn't know.
==== 13 ====
there was a time in my life when every thing I did was done in binary. I ate, slept and drank 1's an 0's. I'd start converting hex to binary (before calculators were invented to do it for you) then screw it all up, because I'd unintentionally switch to octal (the brain would actually go numb, no feeling, you could slap it, stick it with a pin...no feeling at all).
Then, my boss asked to explain machine language to a group of programmers. It was the single most frustrating thing I had ever done, and I still don't think anyone as successfully explained it to a programmer, when said programmer didn't come from a hardware background.
I've taken a couple of hardware classes. I've never done any in-depth programming (I'm a sysadmin), but I agree with you. Taking those introductory hardware classes really opened my eyes.
==== 13 ====
Its hard to think of anyone voluntarily subjecting themselves to that.
The only times I have ever had to deal with that, was with an old Imsai, thats only because it only had toggle switches on a front panel, and a few singleboard embeded systems. Even so pencil paper, assembler, then hand translate. Never direct.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Candidate A: Is firmly pro-life and pledges to only nominate judges that will overturn Roe and hold firm on banning gay marriage. Meanwhile his economic platform is heavy on populism, government spending, and raising taxes. etc.
Candidate B: Is pro-choice, and will nominate moderate judges that respect settled law and precedent, but may or may not overturn Roe with respect to cases that will be brought up. Meanwhile his economic policy is pro-growth with tax cuts and cutting of entitlement spending.
Which candidate would you vote for?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Candidate A: Is it Fred Thompson, who refused to sign the no-tax pledge?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2I1NTQ1MzUwYTQ4MmY4YWEzZWFhOWZ...
The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of free markets, capitalism, free trade and private enterprise. It is supposed to be the party that takes seriously the views of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Milton Friedman. When it comes to economics, I trust the ideas of Smith, Hayek, Bastiat and Friedman more than I trust those of their diametrically opposed counterparts. Pity that Mike Huckabee chose to identify with this latter group of people.
The Republican Party does stand for free markets and free trade. Unlike some European conservatives, that is not all they stand for. We also stand for specific American values, and I reject the idea that those values are negotiable but our trade policies are not. The Economist is a conservative magazine, but they are not friends of the Republican Party, and certainly not of the religious conservative movement in this country.
Ask Mike DeWine what happens when a good free-trader goes up against a hardcore protectionist in a state that's lost some jobs. Better that we show some moderation on the issue than lose to the extremists.
keep that in mind when the nominee of the party is NOT Bubba Jr.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Maybe these guys positions are buried on their web sites, but, they certainly provide nothing beyond the talking points on their "Issues" links (and no links from there to further positions), so, if it's there,it's going to take some digging. I admit, the sites I sampled were Fred's and Romney's, so that's not a complete look.
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep
The "issues" tab for Fred brings up also "principles" and "papers"
Try it or to help out, here you go:
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
You just need to put you cursor on "principles" or "papers" at the top to bring up the correct lists, then click in the lists for the topics of choice. Clear? There's plenty of "devil" there. Have at it!
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
My problem comes not from his rhetoric, but from his nanny state positions. I'll take him at his word if he says he's a free trader, but his "nationwide smoking ban" and stance against school choice are just no good. It's not just the positions themselves, it's what it says about his outlook.
I'd vote for him for Senate in a heartbeat, but not for President.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
in the senate?
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
in the Senate. We don't need another big-spending republican there. We have enough of them already.
==== 13 ====
Theres only one true conservative, and he goes by the name of Ron Paul.
Bring our troops home! Secure our borders! Withdraw from NAFTA!
Stop the American empire overseas! Restore the Constitution!
Vote Ron Paul 2008!
RonPaul2008.com
Thats so last millennium.
Can't you come up with something equally funny but original ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Ron Paul may be "Conservative" BUT I seriously doubt you are.
There's a mighty wave of Blam acomin' be prepared. I hear it only hurts for a little bit.
that's gonna piss off both the Ronulans AND the Hucksters!
I gotta say that Huckabee (or at least his supporters) are a bit more "mainstream" Republican than the Ronulans.
Huckabee's a bleeding heart liberal. Paul's a kooky libertarian. Neither shows any signs of a conservative philosophy.
Huckabee may be politically aligned with conservatives on select social issues, and Paul may be politically aligned with conservatives on the size of government, but policy is no philosophy.
It's clearly right... except I don't think most conservatives want to shrink government to the extent that Paul does.
Hmmm Goldwater's brain, Lincoln's Height and Hat, Roosevelt's (Teddy) fortitude, Eisenhower's disingenuous folksyness, and Calvin Coolidge's reserve and small government ways.
Yes we will have the Franken Candidate.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Clintonian opportunism to that recipe ;-)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
(nt)
We get it... you support Huckabee.
(and just so you know, I'm not trying to be rude... but can't we just stop the Bot'ing for a day or two on ALL sides for ALL candidates)
We have
McCainiac Mondays
Thompson Tuesdays
Mittsdays
Hunter/Tancredo Thursdays
TGI Rudy fridays
RP gets the second tuesday of the week
And saturday is supposed to be off.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you're so "conservative", may I ask who you support in the upcoming election?
Why aren't you supporting Wayne Allyn Root ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not that you'll be around long enough to respond to... FOR YOUR INFORMATION.... It's
REPLY TO THIS
REPLY TO THIS
REPLY TO THIS
REPLY TO THIS
Since my state probably won't matter in the primaries, I will tell you I will vote for WHOMEVER the Republican will be.
And that won't be Ron Paul.
Alrite then, who will you be voting for?
to figure out Reply To This
Reply To This
Reply To This
Reply To This
Reply To This
Reply To This
Reply To This
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Can you back that statement with facts?
He will use the federal government to solve all your problems.
Richardson cut taxes and Huckster put them up. Not only that, Richardson inherited rates from a GOP governor, and cut them, while Huckster inherited Democrat rates and put them up.
You defame the nearest thing the Dems have to a decent candidate by comparing him to the worst of the Republicans.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)