Huckabee Has to Answer These Criticisms
By perico Posted in Archived — Comments (151) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With his win in the Values Voters Straw Poll (the one that really mattered), Mike Huckabee has declared himself a top tier candidate. Personally, I welcome him to the top, but if he has a real chance of winning the nomination, then it is time to treat him like all the other top tier candidates by putting his negatives under the microscope. This isn't meant to hurt Huckabee's supporters feelings, but those who are supporting him better get ready for it, because it's going to happen. Personally, I like Huckabee, but he has a lot of questions that need to be answered. These references are not taken out of context. I included the full passages, where available:
Is Huckabee closer to Clinton than we think? From the Arkansas Leader:
Our former governor might be the GOP’s best candidate against Sen. Clinton, at least among the present and forthcoming challengers, but his strength would be that he is closest to, not farthest from, Sen. Clinton on the issues and their records. Better than the others, he might carve into the middle ground of independent voters who would otherwise tilt toward the Democrat.
We noticed that he was not very specific on their contrasts. It was strange that he vaguely mentioned two comparisons: education and health care. It would be hard to separate the former Arkansas governor and the former Arkansas first lady on those issues, based on their Arkansas records. It was on education and health care that as Arkansas first lady she made a lasting imprint.
[...] You will remember that ArKids First, the great expansion of government-paid health insurance for children, was Arkansas Advocates’ suggestion to the newly sworn in Gov. Huckabee in 1996. He eagerly embraced it and calls it even today his proudest achievement.
[...] As governor, Huckabee sought and won a federal waiver for a plan to have the federal government — that’s you — subsidize health insurance for poor adult workers. Other Republicans, including President Bush, are opposing that remedy as creeping socialism.
What about the Club for Growth criticisms?:
Washington – The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ran an article today confirming what the Club for Growth PAC has been saying for months now: Mike Huckabee is a tax-hiker plain and simple.
According to the Democrat-Gazette, “the average Arkansan’s tax burden grew from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes,” a whopping tax increase of 47% under Huckabee’s tenure. Tax legislation passed while Huckabee was governor totaled “a net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth,” according to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration.
Huckabee likes to wave away criticisms of his economic record by saying he cut taxes 90 times, but the same Democrat-Gazette article points out that the so-called 90 tax cuts included one medium tax cut ($90 million) and 89 tiny cuts. Clearly, Huckabee’s tax increases far outstripped any of his tax cuts, reaching a net tax increase of $505 million. Some of these include:
Higher sales taxes (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/07/96) Higher gas taxes (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 06/29/99) Higher grocery taxes (Associated Press, 09/11/02; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/17/02) Higher taxes on nursing home beds (Associated Press, 06/25/01) “In past debates, Huckabee has dismissed criticisms of his tax record with superficial answers and half-truths,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Hopefully, tonight’s moderators will not let Huckabee off the hook so easily. Voters across America have a right to know the truth about Mike Huckabee’s tax-hiking record.”
Quin Hillyer's (the conservative editor of the American Spectator) has concerns:
On the other hand, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is about as economically conservative as was liberal New York Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller -- which means that on substance at least, Huckabee absolutely stunk up the stage, especially when he refused to back President George W. Bush’s veto of the crazily socialistic expansion of the SCHIP children’s health program. (Huckabee was so liberal overall that Clinton’s lefty former Labor Secretary positively gushed over him in post-debate analysis on CNBC.)
Quote 2
Huckabee, meanwhile, deserves special, negative mention because his populism so often ranged over the line, into sheer demagoguery. In the very same answer in which he talked about how large the hordes of people there are, all spending money, at malls across America, he sang a sad song about how many people are “barely paying the rent” because the economy is supposedly so bad. He refused to directly answer a question on ethanol subsidies while hinting broadly that he would support them. He made it sound as if huge throngs of American manufacturing workers are losing jobs with $70,000 annual salaries and being forced to take ones paying just $15,000. (!!!!) And he continually bashed high executive salaries to such an extent that he sounded almost indistinguishable from liberal John Edwards at full, fulminating pitch about “Two Americas.”
It isn't just the Club for Growth that has problems with Huckabee's record as governor. Here are Huckabee's grades from the CATO Institute for the years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006:
2000
Arkansas
Mike Huckabee, Republican Legislature: Democratic
Took Office: 7/96
Grade: C
Huckabee has been a bigger spender than most governors, though he generally wants to spend less than the liberal-leaning legislature. Last year he backed a controversial $575 million bond initiative paid for by an increase in the diesel tax. He wants to spend the state’s $1.5 billion share of the tobacco settlement on health care and anti-smoking initiatives rather than return the money to the people through tax cuts. Conservatives in the state are losing patience with Huckabee. The Arkansas Public Policy Foundation fumes that “we’re still growing government here more than we’re cutting taxes.” Huckabee has been a better governor than his two more famous predecessors, but the sweeping governmental agency reforms—in a state public sector that is one of the most corrupt and bureaucratically inept in the nation—and the tax relief that conservatives had hoped for have yet to materialize.
Arkansas
Mike Huckabee, Republican Legislature: Democratic
Took Office: 7/96
Grade: C
he infuriated fiscal conservatives by calling a plan to abolish the state’s $1 billion property tax “irresponsible.” He also backed a hike in the state’s diesel fuel tax. Spending has consistently risen faster than personal income in the state during the past six years—with big increases for transportation, health care, anti-smoking campaigns, and early education programs. The recommendations of a state advisory panel that proposed cutting waste and duplication have been mostly ignored. For six years, Huckabee has vacillated between reformist and conventional public policies, and between support for bigger government and pro-growth tax reductions.
Arkansas
Mike Huckabee, Republican Legislature: Democratic
Took Office: July 1996
Grade: D
But by the time he was reelected in 2002, Huckabee was already a member of the entrenched establishment he had fought so hard against in his early years. He proposed a sales tax increase in 2003, but instead the legislature gave him (and he signed) a bill that included a 3 percent income tax “surcharge” and a 25-cent cigarette tax increase. In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase, and the legislature sent to him a smaller sales tax increase with a corporate franchise tax to make up the difference. Hucakbee let it become law without his signature. Huckabee’s innovative idea from 2002—a “Tax Me More Fund” that would accept donations from people who didn’t think they were paying high enough taxes—received national attention. Unfortunately, since 2002 Huckabee has done his share of taxing Arkansans more whether they like it or not.
2006:
Arkansas
Mike Huckabee, Republican Legislature: Democratic
Final-Term Grade: F
Final Overall Grade: D
Thanks to a final term grade of F, Huckabee earns an overall grade of D for his entire governorship. Like many Republicans, his grades dropped the longer he stayed in office. In his first few years, he fought hard for a sweeping $70 million tax cut package that was the first broad-based tax cut in the state in more than 20 years. He even signed a bill to cut the state’s 6 percent capital gains tax—a significant progrowth accomplishment. But nine days after being reelected in 2002, he proposed a sales tax increase to cover a budget deficit caused partly by large spending increases that he proposed and approved, including an expansion in Medicare eligibility that Huckabee made a centerpiece of his 1997 agenda. He agreed to a 3 percent income tax “surcharge” and a 25-cent cigarette tax increase. In response to a court order to increase spending on education, Huckabee proposed another sales tax increase. Huckabee wants to run for the GOP presidential nomination next year. He’s already been hailed as a viable big-government conservative candidate by some. That seems about right:
Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.
Some of his specific tax hikes:
Signed a sales tax hike in 1996 (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98). Supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Reuters, 02/23/04). Publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 09/11/02). Signed a gas tax in 1999 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 06/29/99) Signed cigarette tax hike in 2003 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07) Signed a bed tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Associated Press 06/29/01). Proposed a sales take hike in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02). Opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03). Allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law in 2004 (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).
The pardon he gave to a convicted rapist could be easily used as a Willie Horton Ad:
Huckabee, whose self-deprecating humor and easy candor have charmed many on the campaign trail, bristles when asked about the case, in which Dumond - now dead - was paroled from an Arkansas prison, with then- governor Huckabee's endorsement, only to sexually assault and kill a woman in Missouri.
Dumond's case is notorious in Arkansas. In 1984, he raped a 17-year-old girl. While awaiting trial at his home, he was castrated by, he said, masked intruders. Later, after Dumond went to prison for life, some people in Arkansas saw the sentence as excessive, especially given his mutilation.
Huckabee was one, and, after becoming governor in 1996, he announced his desire to commute Dumond's sentence.
The parole board - following a closed meeting with Huckabee - decided to let Dumond go. The following year, Dumond committed the Missouri slaying. He died in prison in 2005.
He has some serious questions about his record on immigration.
ARKANSAS Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) said last week that he believes racism is fueling much of the anti-immigration feeling in the U.S. “If I were to say some of it is driven by just sheer racism, I think I would be telling you the truth,” Huckabee, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, said during a lunch meeting in Washington DC with a collection of regional and national media members. “That is not to say that everybody who is really fired up by immigration is racist. They are not,” he added. Huckabee also questioned what he called the “irrational anger” of some anti-immigration advocates, saying “What some people want is unrealistic, unreasonable and undoable.” He also praised President Bush’s immigration proposal, saying that “This is an issue that’s not going to satisfy everyone no matter what he proposes.” (Arkansas Democrat Gazette.)
Little Rock (AP) - Governor Mike Huckabee is speaking out against federal agents who raided an Arkadelphia Chicken plant. Huckabee said it appears the arrests of 119 workers at the plant were terribly planned and that federal agents gave little thought to the consequences for children of those arrested.
Families and churches in the Arkadelphia area have been caring for about 30 children left behind after the July 26 raid. Huckabee has joined Hispanic civil rights leaders to ensure the well-being of the children. Immigration officials said they raided the plant after auditing the company's records.
The raid followed the February identity-theft conviction of an Arkadelphia woman who admitted she unlawfully sold identity documents and Social Security cards.The agents said many workers illegally purchased the documents and used them to obtain employment.
LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee got to speak directly Wednesday with Arkansans who don't like his positions on immigration.
He also criticized Senate Bill 206 by Sen. Jim Holt, R-Springdale, that would impose new restrictions on illegal immigrants in Arkansas. The governor's comments were in response to a caller who expressed concern about the bill's effect on plans for a Mexican consulate's office in Little Rock.
"I don't think that bill is going to pass," Huckabee said. "If it were to pass, it might have an impact but ... the impact would be greater than even the Mexican consulate."
He said the bill could hurt the state's ability to recruit industries based in countries outside the U.S., such as Toyota or Nestle, a Swiss company."If we send a message that essentially if you don't look like us, talk like us and speak like us we don't want you, it has tremendous economic repercussions," Huckabee said.
An English language advocate says former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is worse than his GOP opponent Rudy Giuliani when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.
Jim Boulet, executive director of English First, recently released his report cards for the presidential hopefuls of both parties. While Boulet says Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and other Democrats not surprisingly received an "F," he is more concerned about Huckabee -- who once challenged the Christian values of the sponsor of an enforcement bill presented to the Arkansas Legislature.
"When you call someone a racist, what you're saying is, don't listen to that bad man -- you're not engaging the argument, and the argument is there," he emphasizes. "I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says the way God wants us to help the poor is to lobby for the government to spend money on them," says Boulet.
For the record, I like Huckabee quite a bit, but those of his supporters calling out Governor Romney for flip flopping would have to take a long look at their own candidate. If they think Romney's a liar, how can they excuse Huckabee's record when compared to his rhetoric? It's a true case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm a Fred Thompson supporter, but would like to be able to support whoever the GOP nominee is. If Mike Huckabee is that nominee, he must be fully vetted. His actions and rhetoric as governor must be explained, and put to rest. Bluntly speaking, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered if he wants to be an alternative to Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson has survived the vetting process. Mitt Romney has survived the vetting process. Rudy Giuliani has so far survived the vetting process. John McCain's negatives have been known for years. For Mike Huckabee to be considered on the same level as these other candidates, he must survive the vetting process as well.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I provided this snippet before:
In an interview with The Hill last week, Norquist said he was led to believe by Thompson’s economic advisers that Thompson would sign the pledge.
“I think he will,” Norquist said. “However, he did not sign the pledge when he was in the Senate.”
Norquist added that Thompson’s hesitance to sign “makes me nervous.”
Perhaps sensing that Thompson would rule out signing the pledge, Norquist said such a decision could come back to haunt Thompson’s campaign in conservative areas.
“If he decides not to [sign], it wouldn’t end his race tomorrow,” Norquist said. “But over the next several months, I think it would be a tremendous drag on the ticket.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/thompson-wont-sign-norquists-no-tax-...
Fred is willing to raise taxes as President!
This is this the best you've got. He hasn't signed a pledge so he's gonna raise taxes? He has consistently voted to lower taxes. What pattern can you show that would cause ANYONE to believe that he would raise taxes? Let me help: None!
But Fred has said consistently (and voted the same) that lower taxes are key to our country's success. He said the tax cuts are the reason we have the lower annual federal debt and the reason our economy is booming. If we would cut spending, as Fred wants to do, there would be an annual surplus or even further tax cuts.
Sign the pledge
=> Promise to not raise taxes
Don't sign the pledge
=> Don't promise to not raise taxes
=> Promise to consider raising taxes
and just avoid talking about Fred excellent record on voting to cut taxes or what he has consistently said on the topic. The ONLY way he will not raise taxes is if he signs THAT pledge. Otherwise, he's raising them. Great logic! What a powerful piece of paper it is.
I'm not a Fred Head (I'm not against him), but this is a logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. A very logical explanation could be that Fred doesn't intend to raise taxes, but he simply cannot make a pledge that may come back to haunt him later (IE, George HW Bush.)
--------------------------------
Christian Conservative First
Patriotic American Second
Dedicated Republican Third
Yes, the order is important.
And he hasn't even been nominated yet. His support of the FairTax can't be squared with a pledge to not raise taxes. You cannot scrap our current system of taxation and replace it with something else without raising some people's taxes. Even if you do it in a revenue neutral way (which is impossible to do with any precision since we don't know how much either kind of tax will collect over the next 1, 5, and 10 years), you are changing the distribution of the burden and some people will pay more.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It's a gimmick. We all know his record in Arkansas. So now he's trying to sign on with the Fair Tax folk to counter the argument that he's bad on taxes. Problem is, the Fair Tax is not practical - there is almost no chance that it will become law. And Huckabee has offered nothing to indicate that he would fight for it and more than W fought for Harriet Miers.
Once the Fair Tax goes by the wayside, which it certainly will, Huckabee will be free to play fast and loose with taxes and nobody will be able to say boo. And even with the pledge, what have we accomplished? The pledge is not enforceable legally, so if Huckabee wins and decides to take a page from his Arkansas big-tax, big-spend book, the only think we can do is try to defeat him in a primary in 2012.
As far as I can tell Huckabee is only narrowly different than Hillary - the differences being he goes to church, and has a penis.
of the Flat Tax becoming law....
or the death tax being abolished...
or earmarks being eliminated....
or the line-item veto being enacted (and held constitutional)...
or the trade deficit being erased...
So, I guess we shouldn't try, right?
of the Flat Tax becoming law....
I don't know - we came pretty close in my adult lifetime - who's to say it couldn't happen again?
or the death tax being abolished...
Really? Wouldn't count that one out - remember, dead people tend to vote Democrat. They're eventually going to get sick of being taxed after death.
or earmarks being eliminated....
Well, maybe Huck could get elected to the Senate and do something about that.
or the line-item veto being enacted (and held constitutional)...
Oh, so that 2% of spending that would be subject to the LIV will go on unchecked - terror.
or the trade deficit being erased...
So?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Those individuals most at risk in this country would receive a prebate check each month to cover costs up to the poverty line to compensate for an increase in the tax on consumption. Drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens and all others that don't currently pay into the tax system at all would end up contributing with each purchase of a NEW item. As a matter of fact, illegal aliens would be punished because they would be paying tax into a system that they are unable to benefit from! It would no longer benefit the ultra rich to "hide" money offshore; each purchase they made would pay into the program regardless of where they keep their money. The FairTax is only on NEW items so if you buy a used car it's not taxed! You have control to some degree as to how much tax you pay by purchasing used items. Families on a budget can really save. You bring home your entire paycheck. The current tax punishes us for working harder but not the fair tax, so if you work overtime, you aren’t punished! The FairTax completely eliminates all federal income and payroll taxes. All personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. If the FairTax became law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.
The FairTax will instantly make American products 12 to 25% more competitive because the cost of those goods will no longer be inflated by corporate taxes, costs of tax compliance, and Social Security matching payments. When we buy products now, those taxes are built into the cost, so all of us pay corporate taxes indirectly on top of the personal taxes we pay directly. Compliance costs are just make-work with no real added value, yet they consume as much as 3% of our gross domestic product annually. These costs are an especially heavy burden on small businesses, which generate most of our jobs. Companies will be able to afford to produce in this country again, jobs will return here! This country would see prosperity like we never have before! Providing for our elderly on Social Security would no longer be a problem as well as other issues that we face! This idea was designed by leading MIT economists. They have really thought this through! Look at the details yourself at www.fairtax.org.
I can’t imagine having my whole paycheck to work with and spend it as I see fit, college, health insurance and things that are difficult to deal with now would be possible. My whole life would change. We need to support candidates who back the FairTax!
NeoCon by Nature
It will raise taxes on dead beats, people visiting from other countries, drug dealers and prostitutes and on products and services from other countries.
Yeah, you're right, Huckabee would raise taxes with the FairTax on some people. It's about time.
Jim Tomasik
I don't think he was evasive at all. He answered the question directly, and rightly pointed out that Planned Parenthood was calling him into question because he was their enemy in the Senate.
absentee
Therefore he wasn't their worst enemy in the senate? He says he'll oppose it, he backs it up with a voting record ... What more could you possibly need?
He did some legwork for his law firm. Time to get over it. He's made up for it. It's more than silly to try and paint him as some kind of closet pro-abortionist.
absentee
How is that evasive? It's absurd to intimate that Fred is weak on abortion. He voted to maintain the ban on Military Base Abortions, voted to ban human cloning, voted to ban partial birth abortions.
At every opportunity he opposes them. He openly opposes Roe v. Wade, he supports strict contructionist judges. What more can you possibly ask of him. He isn't going to have the opportunity to make a few phone calls or photocopy some paperwork for the law firm representing Planned Parenthood while in the oval office. He will have the opportunity to be an anti-abortion politician and executive, and he has a proven track record of doing exactly that.
Honestly. I agree with many of your posts here but ... Seriously, what else could you possibly require of him? If he's not your candidate fine. But you need to find some other ground to impeach him on, because there's nothing here.
absentee
There's a reason why Fred was behind even Romney at the FRC event. He is simply wrong on gay marriage (even Rudy is better), and there are big question marks about his stance on abortion in the past.
Anteater--you must be way, way behind on ants, it seems your brain is grossly starved and needs help--eat ants and begin again--your remarks tend to be ignorant, and unlearned: time to study-up bug-eater and find the facts. FRED IS the BEST for '08.
But I'm not THAT Italian :>)
Huck is appealing. But do we really need a FOURTH contender for the "the true conservative" title?
Every time I call Giuliani a liberal, I get challenged. Every time. Apparently being hated by New York Democrats is a defining characteristic of conservatism.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
No way Giuliani is a movement conservative. He's a centrist.
McCain is close enough for government work.
Is splinter off even more SoCon votes so Rudy will get the nod. A 2 way split was bad enough. A 3 way split would be even worse.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't trust Rudy on his judges promise. But I saw the effect of the Miers nomination, so I think the movement will keep Rudy honest there.
Given that, I know that judges are the biggest (and almost only) way that a president is going to have an effect on most of the social platform. I doubt Rudy would veto conservative bills on social issues, and I doubt that liberal bills would get to him in the first place (Senate filibuster).
All that said, I would feel imminently better voting for Rudy than for Huckabee. At least Rudy will be good against crazy liberal fiscal policies. I have no faith in Huckabee issuing veto threats on spending bills like W has. He would certainly have signed the SCHIP bill. He would be working against conservative solutions to the immigration problem, and I don't have confidence that he wouldn't take the first opportunity to cut a deal with Democrats on taxes.
In other words, Huckabee is likely to take money out of my wallet, while Rudy will keep it there. And while Huck might be better on the social platform, I don't think Rudy will be as grossly costly in that arena as many might think (ps-I'm not a Rudy guy).
Just as I am happy with everyone else's last night. They showed we have some serious candidates.
Anteater, that's about the weakest attack on Fred. Fred's tax record is as solid as you can get. CATO is extactic with his tax record. He's gotten top marks from Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, etc...
McCain, Thompson, Romney, Giuliani; all of their records have been put under the microscope. Thompson supporters have defended his record. So have all the other candidates. Huckabee has to answer for his as well.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
But being an executive is a totally different matter. And that is what makes the pledge even more important. By not signing it, Fred is promising to consider higher taxes.
According to some people, Ronald Reagan's '86 tax plan would have broken that pledge, but Fred Thompson wants to leave himself open to significant tax reform.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
READ MY LIPS!!!
Come on. This is the weakest line of attack I've ever heard. One reason Thompson and Giuliani haven't signed some pledge is because we don't know what is going to happen in the future. If we get nuked, the president might have to raise taxes, breaking their "pledge."
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
Strictly speaking, if one were to replace the income tax with a national sales tax, even though the net change may be neutral, one would still be raising sales taxes, which might technically be construed as a breach of promise.
Read this: http://www.redstatenetwork.com/blogs/bananarepublican/2007/oct/09/tax_hi...
And Romney did the same thing.
You realize that this blog entry is almost a month old, right?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Apropos of nothing:
“Though Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, McCain tough enough to fight terrorism and Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee,” Norris wrote on the conservative Web site World Net Daily.
Here's the CNN link as well.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Because I was feeling my midday masochism, I read through some of the comments on CNN about the Chuck Norris endorsement and came to this one...
"unfortunatly I think this isnt news, who cares who this D-lister uis supporting. Any one who votes for the prez based on what an actor or director picks is a ****ing[I edited that word] moron who should be shot and have all of their kids spade or nudered. Yes I know my spelling is off.
Posted By joseph, austin, tx : October 22, 2007 12:24 pm"
Really and for truly, his concern is that his spelling might be off.
First, you must keep in mind that Huckabee was governor of a state that (a) has a balanced budget amendment, (b) is run by a legislature that is comprised of 80-90% democrats, (c) cannot print money, and (d) has a state supreme court that likes to mandate certain expenditures. Moreover, the roads in Arkansas were in desperate need of fixing, thus necessitating a bond issue, which was cheaper than the one advocated by Gov. Tucker (and for which Lt. Gov. Huckabee opposed).
As for Wayne Dumond, the great one, Rush Limbaugh was lamenting the plight of Dumond back during the Clinton administration. Dumond was castrated by a Sheriff's deputy, who gave his family jewels to the Sheriff, who in turn put them in a jar of formaldehyde for display on his desk. Because the Sheriff was a Clinton-cronie, Limbaugh used Dumond to describe the excesses of the Clinton machine. (Are we going to castrate--I mean, castigate--Limbaugh for his support of Dumond?) Beyond this, the parole of Dumond was voted on by a parole board comprised exclusively of Clinton and Tucker appointees. If I am not mistaken, the Governor had no choice but to sign his release documents in light of the ruling of the Board.
As for immigration, he simply noted that some--BUT NOT ALL--opponents of illegal immigration are racist. I oppose illegal immigration, but I am not a racist. Therefore, I am not offended. However, there are some who simply hate Mexicans. If we ever intend to stop the problem, we are going to have to distance ourselves from those who have allied with us for less than noble reasons.
As for raiding the chicken plant... What are you going to do with the children when Dad and Mom are deported without them? In a perfect world, we would get the children, too. But ICE didn't get the kids. ICE left them in Arkansas for the Arkansas taxpayers to tend to. This is what enraged Huckabee.
As for the anti-immigration bill, I don't see how anyone can castigate him for being weak on immigration simply because he opposed a particular immigration bill. The devil is in the details. I don't know the text of the bill. So, for all I know, the bill may have been written in such a way that more than illegal immigration was covered. To criticize the Governor for disliking this bill is like saying President Bush hates children because he refuses to sign the SCHIP bill--no the President just doesn't want to pay for the health care of entire families making less than $80,000 a year. Likewise, the Governor may have disliked the bill for a specific reason for which neither you or I am familiar.
As for Example D from the English First person... that's hearsay. You have cited nothing that Huckabee has said. So the whole argument is bunk.
****
As for the vetting of Huckabee... I agree, he needs to be vetted just like everyone else. What's good for the goose...
I'll just be there to help defend him.
Your point about Arkansas's balanced budget amendment is especially valid. Republicans in Congress have the luxury of getting to lower taxes without having to cut back spending at all; Gov. Huckabee didn't have that option.
And yes, if those federal immigration agents had no freaking clue what to do with the children besides separating them from their parents and leaving them in Arkansas, Huckabee was right on that count.
Hmmmm, I don't get it. If Dick and Jane went and robbed a bank, would Huckabee bemoan their arrest if they had a 5-year-old at home?
Maybe the folks here illegally should have thought about their kids before they BROKE THE LAW. Getting detained because you are here illegally is no different than getting arrested for any other offense. Maybe Huckabee should start worrying about all the kids left parentless because their parents were arrested for any other crime.
I'm am totally anti-Huckabee. He is, truly, the one serious candidate (this gets rid of Ron Paul) who I would absolutely, positively NOT vote for in a general election.
I have him on the second tier with McCain because of it and Guiliani because of abortion ... getting closer to Fred though still thinking of Romney.
Thanks, Perico. It's clear you put a whole lot of time and effort into researching Huckabee's tenure as governor. Primary voters definitely need to see this, if they're not doing their own research.
Linda D, Henderson NV
Please don't take that as harsh, but up until now, not many people were even noticing Mike Huckabee. All the while others have been asking these questions and he has been answering for his side. He wins on some of them and he loses on others. Overall, he still has my support.
I'll answer to the best of my knowledge on a few of these things.
The one thing that jumps out at me first is the nursing home bit. Do you know the whole story? What on earth was his alternative? He was the Governor and it was his job to handle it. How would you have handled it? Shut all the nursing homes down? Whats better taxed beds or NO beds? "taxing nursing home beds" is just a smear. Maybe shutting them down is the proper Republican thing to do but it not the Christian thing to do.
Did you happen to ever drive south on I-30 back in the late 90's? That will answer the question as to why he ok'ed the state raising taxes to fix the roads. That was also a mandate via referendum that got 80% positive support from people in Arkansas. Was he supposed to say, "No way! I might choose to run for president and that would come back to haunt me!" Of course not.
Arkansas has been a mess for as long as I can remember and Huckabee took action to fix a lot of things that needed fixing. A lot of what club for growth hangs on him are not even things that he had control over.
Arkansas is better off for having Mike Huckabee for Governor. If he was as bad as all that, why did he get re-elected?
Mike Huckabee is a human of unwavering integity. You may not like everything about him, that's fine. At least you know where he stands and that he will not go into office and be anything different.
You can investigate more on your own by looking at his blog on his website. He addresses many of these concerns, especially "Club For Growth".
Does club for growth talk about his "Tax Me More" plan? Probably not.
According to many on this site he is a Nanny State Republican so why did he not just raise those taxes. His point was that all those people gripping that he would NOT raise any more taxes only wanted OTHERS to pay those taxes. Pretty much no one gave voluntarily so he shut them up.
Again, that is what I have learned by listening to both sides of these arguements. If I have errored, by all means, let me know.
And just how many times did the good folks in AR reelect William Jefferson Clinton?
Huckabee's good on pro-life issues. Period.
On everything else he's a lightweight and or totally off the reservation. Like it or not, his record on taxes sucks. I don't care if the legislature was 100% Democrats, HIS record stinks.
He's a Compassionate Conservative. He thinks the purpose of government is to "help" people. We do not need another opportunity to reelect GWB.
I don't question his integrity, I just don't care about it. I care about his stance on the issues, and in that realm he is worthless. Immigration? Yeech. Judges? Who knows. GWOT? Who knows. Expansion of Govt? Not as bad as Hillary, but worse than probably any of the other R candidates. Experience? Well, in AR he learned how to be bipartisan and work with Democrats. No thanks.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I don't know if I could elect a preacher as POTUS. Why? Well I have a few reasons. Let me preface this by saying that my grandfather was a Southern Baptist pastor for over 20 yrs, and I respect the profession.
1. Christianity teaches us to take care of the poor, and as evidenced in some of the data above, he may be too ready to hand out entitlements.
2. I am a secular fiscal conservative, and although I probably won't see an atheist or agnostic POTUS in my lifetime, I think that electing a spiritual leader as POTUS, is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
3. I advocate no federal taxation, so in my eyes, the fair tax is just another regressive replacement tax, that provides a large income stream for more central economic planning, and the expansion of our empire. Cut taxes and replace them with NOTHING!!
All that said Huckabee is still my second choice, considering we have one of the worst crops of candidates ever...
I'm still for Ron Paul...(yes I expect flak for that)
################################################################
If you want to levee taxes I say apportion them so I can sit on my @$$ and collect a check too...
who claims to take the Constitution so lierally, you exhibit a rare ignorance of that document:
I think that electing a spiritual leader as POTUS, is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
Exactly WHICH "separation of church and state" are you referring to? You mean the one that starts with, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof;"
different things to different people...
And what of the 14.5 percent of Americans who don't believe? I never said you couldn't practice, run for office, or anything of that nature. I just said I would have trouble voting for you as POTUS. And I also didn't say I would not vote for him. I have personal reservations about it. It's ideological not law. I have trouble believing that a man who doesn't even believe in evolution is going to be fair with my right NOT to practice religion... I have a hards time believing that...
###############################################################
If you want to levee taxes I say apportion them so I can sit on my @$$ and collect a check too...
I have trouble believing that a man who doesn't even believe in evolution is going to be fair with my right NOT to practice religion... I have a hards time believing that...
I think that says a good deal more about you than it does about Mike Huckabee.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Why don't you come out and say what you mean rather than employing a snarky comment and "thinking" you had a snafu. Debate me point by point of keep to yourself...
##############################################################
If you want to levee taxes I say apportion them so I can sit on my @$$ and collect a check too...
ANGER! You are such an angry mob! Aren't you glad, living in this fascist nation that Amerika has become, that you still have the freedom to speak hatefully about your government without the fear of jackbooted thugs smashing down your door and dragging you off to be renditioned to Romania?
Wait! I hear someone outside my door! OH NO.....
1. There is nothing in the Constitution about a "separation of church and state". Don't come back to this topic until you can produce a link to the Constitution referencing it.
2. The Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". If the POTUS wants to discuss his faith, whether he be Christian, Mormon or former Hindu, that's his right and you can just get over it.
3. With respect to a "point-by-point debate", you have no points.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Your post above says that that would be a serious violation of "the separation of church and state." We all know what you meant by that, so answer that question instead of a vague "freedom of religion" non-answer. If it is ideological now instead of legal, why did you use that phrase in the beginning?
I have no trouble with you choosing to vote or not vote for anyone you choose. I'm the opposite of you - I would have a hard (although not impossible) time voting for an atheist or agnostic, but if he were a staunch believer in the Constitution, I could do it.
Americans have been arguing about the separation of church and state for centuries, and I suspect we will for a few more... I prefer a literal interpretation of separation of church and state. To me a religious leader, as the leader leaves no room for separation...
Look, I like you guys, I know we won't agree on religion, I just want you to respect my position and my right to cast my ballot accordingly...
##############################################################
If you want to levee taxes I say apportion them so I can sit on my @$$ and collect a check too...
You definitely have the right to cast your ballot by whatever standards you wish.
Separation of church and state is not part of our government, not in our founding documents.
Ironically enough, the group of Americans that hold separation of as one of their distinctive beliefs - Baptists.
The only time anyone connected to the founding fathers used the term, he was writing a letter to - you guessed it - Baptists. Jefferson, the stalwart of separation of church and state who granted federal treasury funds to missionaries for Bible purchases.
Our government was founded on the idea and ideals of Christianity. From the Declaration stating that our rights come from our Creator, to the 1st Amendment, which grants all Americans that the government will not infringe upon their right to worship freely.
The 1st Amendment does also say that there may be no Establishment of Religion(Federal State Church), but should be noted in context that this obviously didn't apply to the states themselves, several of which had state churches for years after the Constitution was ratified.
Here is a link on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Catholic_colonies
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Like I said, I don't care why you choose to vote or not vote for someone. Make your pick because you like their hairstyle or whatever. That is part of being an American and, while I may not agree, I'll respect that decision.
What bothered me was that you used the phrase "the separation of church and state." You were implying that that phrase was Constitutional, as liberals like to imagine. That is what I wanted you to explain since that phrase is meaningless in a legal sense and that is the way you were using it.
... the "theocon" meme is by far the most idiotic.
Not that its idiocy keeps certain supporters of a certain nominally-Republican Presidential candidate whose name shall not be mentioned from pushing it, mind.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
that you are a witness for the defense? Or prosecution?
Sorry, I'm probably just a little slow today. RedSox Nation kept me awake well past my bedtime last night.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I can't read his heart, so only God knows that. I'm also one of the few on here who actually like the man. I just find it interesting that so many that claim to follow him seem to have an dislike of religion (especially Christianity) since he says that he is a Christian.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Cheers -
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
between Ron Paul and John McCain but in the world of reasons I can find to oppose the guy, his being a theocrat or the fact that he's an ordained SBC minister aren't on the horizon.
That's just stupid.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Because if so you are putting words in my mouth.
###############################################################
If you want to levee taxes I say apportion them so I can sit on my @$$ and collect a check too...
I think that electing a spiritual leader as POTUS, is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
Pray tell then, if I'm "putting words in your mouth" why do you think electing a "spiritual leader" as POTUS is a "violation" of this mythical "separation of church and state"?
That said, I wasn't necesarily replying to you in particular.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"All that said Huckabee is still my second choice, considering we have one of the worst crops of candidates ever..."
I actually think we have a great slate of candidates, all of them are thinking people(HWSNBN excluded). They are all conservatives of one sort or another, and combined they have a truly impressive range of experiences. I think the real problem this time around is that with great candidates for each slice of the conservative coalition, we are having trouble getting behind just one. Although both Huckabee and Giuliani have problems that will hurt them with portions of the base, I think any of the top 5 would make a great President. I would be willing to be this is the first time since 1984 that just about any Republican could find someone on the primary list that he could not only vote for but enthusiastically support.
My vote is for Thompson (all around great, and Federalist to boot), Romney (if he can convince me he isn't just selling a bill of goods), or McCain (despite his antics in the past, he has always voted solid conservative).
I don't know if there has ever been 3 people in the R primary I would be perfectly comfortable voting for.
Don't say we have a bad slate, it knocks the socks off of anything the Democrats can find.
I am a secular fiscal conservative, and although I probably won't see an atheist or agnostic POTUS in my lifetime, I think that electing a spiritual leader as POTUS, is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
Classic. It's not exactly a novel argument on the Left actually. This has a lot support on Kos and other Left-Wing sites. i.e. the argument that religious people (except for "Reverends" Jackson, Sharpton, et al.) being elected to public office is Unconstitutional.
I'm still for Ron Paul...
Why am I not surprised?
I'm still for Ron Paul
...
I think that electing a spiritual leader as POTUS, is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
I'm not sure how you can support the spiritual leader of the Ronulan cult without running afoul of your own guideline.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He has the perfect word to describe you and your bias against religious people.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I think that electing a spiritual leader as POTUS, is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
That's ridiculous. First, what is the difference between a former preacher and just a very religious person? Second, do you expect people to completely divorce their faith and values from how they make decisions? It's impossible. Non-religious people have values and beliefs that affect how they view policy as well, so it is completely discriminatory to deny people with religious values in public office but allow secular values to run wild.
I do oppose theology as law, now if you wish to disagree with me then that is your right, but who is the one being religiously intolerant in that case...
#######################################################
If you want to levee taxes I say apportion them so I can sit on my @$$ and collect a check too...
Was this implemented as part of the Patriot Act? I know you Ronulans can find just about anything you want in there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You just don't think them folk are good enough to hold office; oh no, you'd rather a government entirely run by "Brights," wouldn't you?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
See my comment to your buddy Dale, and understand that it moRons and other liberals don't get to wield Pointy Sticks™ against the "Theocons," either.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Just wow.
The quality of the Ronettes™ is just going to hell in a hand basket.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
you cannot separate theology from law. If your theology is that God doesn't exist, and therefore humans are just evolved animals with no special value that is going to affect how you think about abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc. If you believe morality is relative, that affects your policy decisions. If you believe marriage is just an arbitrary societal construct that affects policy decisions.
Do you think the fouding fathers wanted to keep pro-God values out of the public square and surrender policy to anti-God values?
For instance how can you claim to "know" that God did it but not know how he did it? It doesn't seem to logically follow. Wouldn't you know how he did it along with knowing that he did it unless you claim that he just told you after the fact in which case is Huckabee claiming God spoke with him about the issue? I'm confused as to how he knows God did it.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute seperation of Church and State.
I'm generally content to ignore your attempts at "commentary," but I have to ask why you give a crap what Huckabee thinks about evolution?
I also have to ask why you think your comment would be persuasive, or even relevant, to anyone trying to make up their mind on the underlying issue of evolution?
I also have to point and laugh at you, along with all other people who think they are smarter than the hoi polloi, but can't spell basic English words.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Yeah that was pretty boneheaded actually. I don't know how I got that wrong.
I do find it odd though that Huckabee denies the basic fact of evolution. That is troubling. We wouldn't consider a president that doubts gravity.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute seperation of Church and State.
Must've missed that.
Was that the one about settled science (ala AGW) or the one about primordial ooze accidentally stumbling into building space craft and producing Coco Puffs?
There is no scientific alternative presented. Creationism or Intelligent Design if you prefer is not science at all because it offers no testable hypothesis.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute sep"A"ration of Church and State.
It is the science community's best guess at the moment, but it is still just a theory. There are also plenty of unanswered questions surrounding it. We have yet to see life spontaneously pop out of a pile of random organic sludge, so that is kind of an issue.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Science doesn't deal in absolutes. A scientific theory is the highest level a hypothesis can reach. It requires extreme vetting and evolution, like gravity has reached that level. As of yet there is absolutely no scientific evidence in any field to challenge evolution and there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support creationism.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute sep"A"ration of Church and State.
Theory of Evolution vs Law of Gravity. We are a lot more sure of gravity than we are of evolution... and there's even some big question marks related to how gravity works that we don't know the answer to.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There is only a scientific theory of gravity. Science uses laws in a theory therefore if you pick up an apple and drop it, the apple will fall. That is a law within the framework of the scientific theory of gravity. You don't upgrade a theory to a law. Laws are within theories.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute sep"A"ration of Church and State.
your blog on Separation.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'll try not to use the phrase "you idiot", but you are pushing it.
Back to the basics, and I mean fifth-grade science basics.
In science, a LAW is settled science. A theory HOPES to become a law. Those are the DEFINITIONS of the words, pal.
Gravity is perhaps misnamed as a law since Einstein's theories (and pretty substantial corroberation in empirical scientific research calls it into question NOT for its veracity but because it now seems that gravity is behaves according to principles more basic than itself.
Nevertheless for you to describe EVOLUTIONARY THEORY as having equal status with gravity is nonsense.
And your statement up-thread that "science does not deal in absolutes is STUPID. Or to put it another way, STOOOOOOOOOOPID.
You do not know basic facts, and perhaps you should consider playing in the kiddie end of the pool (like Kos).
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
A law is an axiom. for example the Laws of Gravity. They are simply postulates that describe an effect. They have no more stake to accuracy than any theory that exists. (for example, Newton's "Laws of Gravity" are not entirely accurate once you get into relativistic velocities. Hence the need for the "Theory" of General Relativity.
Just as in law, you cannot use Laypersons terms to define something in a scientific setting.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
I thought that I had stated rather plainly what you said about the Law of Gravity (not Laws, there's only one) as having to be revisited once Einstein came along.
But you are INCORRECT about law = axiom, as in They have no more stake to accuracy than any theory that exists.. Where the BLOODY HELL did you get a notion like that?
A law is a statement that has been accepted as placed beyond debated because it has survived scrutiny and experimentation
The 3 laws of thermodynamics are, quite literally, the FOUNDATION of all science.
Your last statement I am in complete agreement with. This entire conversation is above certain people.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
E-A theory HOPES to become a law. Those are the DEFINITIONS of the words, pal.
That is patently false. Scientific theory is the highest level a hypothesis can reach bar none.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute sep"A"ration of Church and State.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
You know, your name gets used alot around here, especially when the trolls come out to play.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
Scientific theory supersedes scientific laws. Theories explain, laws describe. Both are can conceivably proven wrong as well. Science always leaves the door open that there are things we don't know. Even with laws.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute sep"A"ration of Church and State.
an idiot. That's not my fault.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Nevermind if you aren't interested in learning the terms.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Absolute sep"A"ration of Church and State.
How about probability/statistics? You should try reading up sometime, or calculating for yourself, the probabilities of the following events occurring:
1) Life developing from amino acids.
2) DNA developing as a carrier of genetic information.
3) The development of ATP as an organic energy carrier.
4) The evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes.
5) The emergence of intelligent life, without any readily apparent environmental pressures.
I'm sure others can add to this list.
Assuming evolution is true for the purposes of this argument, science has explained the materialistic side of the process. Science cannot explain how this process came to be, against all odds. The sheer level of complexity reduces the chance of a purely naturalistic cause to zero.
Science is silent the question of first cause, but when scientific results are studied using probability and statistical analysis, the necessity of a designer is evident.
-
NARF
_Note: When I say evolution, I mean that exceptionally stupid theory that things keep mutating and when a mutation is beneficial to the species, all the others want to breed to the mutant because it is obvious to them that this will help their offspring survive._
If evolution really worked, women would really have eyes in the back of their heads and ears like owls. And every time a woman produced a child, she would grow a new arm. And twins would get you three.
We'd all be wearing ponchos, but just think how nice it would be to hold the hand of three children and still be able to push the cart as you walk across the Wal-Mart parking lot.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
"I do find it odd though that Huckabee denies the basic fact of evolution. That is troubling. We wouldn't consider a president that doubts gravity."
Reply:
"A law is an axiom. for example the Laws of Gravity. They are simply postulates that describe an effect. They have no more stake to accuracy than any theory that exists. (for example, Newton's "Laws of Gravity" are not entirely accurate once you get into relativistic velocities. Hence the need for the "Theory" of General Relativity.
Just as in law, you cannot use Laypersons terms to define something in a scientific setting."
-
NARF
why God would create somebody as stupid as you obviously are. It's obviously one of those "mysteries" that will be revealed when I get to heaven. Or not.
Just for fun, I am kind of intrigued by Absolute seperation of Church and State. You should write a blog about that one. I'm sure it would be edifying.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Please, do such a diary for us. I am absolutely dying to hear all the ways in which church and state should be kept seperate.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
and a lot of your rhetoric is kind of funny, but sometimes you take it too far. Tell me when Christ called someone a idiot and was mystified why God created them, tell me when Christ called someone a brain dead idiot, a raving lunatic, or any number of insults you have hurled at those creatures made in God's image. I figure some of it is just humor, but when you get the name of God involved in it and claim that you are always right you are simply going to far and you bring Christianity into disreproach.
You missed my snark tags on this whole thread with you.
Second, if me is all it takes to "bring Christianity into disreproach" in a political blog, Christianity has bigger problems than me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
1. Okay sometimes I supose I'm just too serious
2. Yeah unfortunately it does have bigger problems, but none that the founder won't take care of.
1. Sometimes I "AM" just stupid.
2. Aren't we both thankful for that. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
He doesn't think he's had some special revelation from God. In Christianity God speaks primarily from the Bible, and so all he is saying is that in his opinion the bible clearly states that God created but not how.
Quite arrogant of you to think that you have the universe figured out. Humans are but specs of dust in terms relative to the size of the universe, yet we have ALL of the answers! You want proof that there is a God? How about we turn the tables and you prove to me that there’s NOT?! The vast majority of our founding fathers were Christians, were they cooks too?!
Who says Huckabee would have a different posture than they did?
I'M SO SICK OF THE CHRISTIAN BASHING GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY! I EXPECT IT FROM THE RADICAL ISLAMIST, BUT FROM OUR HOME AS WELL? What has happened to this country...
NeoCon by Nature
Wow! What a hit piece on Huckabee. It only confirms one thing: Huckabee is becoming a real threat to people who hitherto thought he didn't matter.
The simple fact of the matter is that this guy is clearly the best administrators in the nomination field --- Democrat or Republican.
He has a proven track record of competency. Time magazine a few years ago recognized him as one of the best 5 governors in the nation.
He has a proven track record of fiscal discipline and he most definitely is on record as wanting an immigration policy that puts the security and economic interests of the nation first.
Whether you're a ficon or socon, Huckabee is the guy for you.
Doesn't that imply that there are substantial things, erm, incorrect and/or made-up?
And if so, would you care to point them out to all of us?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"He has a proven track record of competency. Time magazine a few years ago recognized him as one of the best 5 governors in the nation."
The MSM loves him. Hmmm, well in that case he must be a solid well rounded Conservative.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Time magazine a few years ago recognized him as one of the best 5 governors in the nation.
An endorsement by Time {spit} Magazine is NOT an argument to make in favor of any Republican. What next? Would you be touting an endorsement by the New York Times?
He has a proven track record of fiscal discipline ...
Now you're contradicting yourself. No properly fiscally disciplined Republican will ever win favorable recognition by Time Magazine - therefore he must have raised a tax, or instituted/expanded a useless feel-good government program.
The one thing they had in common was that all 5 raised taxes.
And their bottom 5 had all resisted such efforts, including Gov. Sanford in SC who fought pro-tax Rs in his legislature.
It was almost like their criterion was whether a GOV would raise taxes, the higher the better.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
But I think it was the same one that featured an article on how "brave" Bob Riley (R-AL) was for wanting a tax hike, right?
There's a guy upthread who will jump ALL over you with that one. You know, separation of church and Redstate and all that stuff.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That is a lot of tax increases. Thanks for the article.
This weekend is proving to be a big bounce for Gov. Huckabee. Sen. Brownback dropping out, winning the Washington Briefing poll and then haivng another stellar debate. All of thse have all resulted in a big boost for Gov. Huckabee. He has raised alomst $100,000 TODAY and will likely reach that mark. He apparently is having a lot of traffic at his webiste, for there have been many times when I was unable to get on because "the server was busy". There are also many blogs just like this one coming out. People must be getting scared.
Just for full disclosure, I am on the Huckwagon. I do not agree with him on all issues, but he is a Socons dream.
My impression has been that he is our only candidate who doesn't in some way or another support school vouchers. This may seem like a minor issue to all you guys and maybe it is for a president, but I think one of the greatest threats to conservatism and more importantly to Christianity is the fact that the Government provides a strong financial push for kids to be educated in secualar humanist, liberal schools. Public shcools don't allow the free comptetition of ideas and by their nature give a slant towards liberalism. This issue has an effect on generation after generation and it effects every other issue- okay I know I'm starting to sound like the Tom Tancredo of education.
Huckabee lack of suport on this issue is why he isn't in my top one or two candidates. I really want to like Huckabee, and if he changes on education to at least the same place the other candidates are, I would probably about support him, though I might still support McCain.
Did Huckabee oppose vouchers in Arkansas? If so, shame on him. Huckabee is the candidate I most trust to make a SCOTUS nomination, but I do have some concerns about him on other issues.
the issue of school vouchers has hardly come up at all in the debates and I would like to know where everyone stands. The only person I know for sure is for it is Rudy.
it was constitutional, but I haven't quite developed all my views on federalism yet.
1) Those that hurt him in the primary.
2) Those that hurt him in the general election.
I think his positions on healthcare and immigration can only help him in the general, but can only hurt him in the primary. I would argue that there's a big difference between Hillary's "American Health Choices Plan" and Huckabee seeking government health insurance for children and some poor workers. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think most Americans view the Democrat's SCHIP boost as a "crazily socialistic expansion". (Even if it is a little crazy.)
His tax record isn't great, but in the context of a balanced budget amendment, I don't think the record would destroy him. Dumond is the albatross around his neck, but he had enough support from other people at the time (including talk radio and, most importantly, the parole board) that I don't think it would reach a Willie Horton level.
I agree that Huckabee must be vetted, but I think he passes the test. What do I know though? I probably would have liked Nelson Rockefeller.
I like Mr. Huckabee's great attitude in the debates. 2 things about the article. First, I can't say that I can be too hard on Mike showing mercy to that castrated man for he certainly did already pay a sad price. Secondly, I do NOT want to vote for anymore tax hikes. We need to remember if we want taxes lowered we are going to have to have a balanced budget and we haven't seen that in a LONG time. Especially with us borrowing about a trillion a year from China, Japan, and Arabia.
If you weight all of the issues together, Mike Huckabee is the most liberal person running for the Republican nomination.
Huckabee is a liberal on immigration, taxes, spending, health care, education, and practically every domestic issue. Forget about splitting the Republican base, although he would do that, nominating Huckabee would be a body blow to the conservative cause.
Maybe now that people are trying to include him in the top tier (even though he has no money and no organization), the media and other campaigns will start to break out the attack material.
Huckabee is Bush-heavy in a year where Bush-lite would have trouble winning.
Mr. Huckabee strikes me as someone whose politics is defined by his religious beliefs.
As such he likely is in favor of many social programs designed to help the poor.
That doesn't make him a Liberal. He isn't advocating for government solutions because he believes that the government is the best solution. He advocates for government aid because he believes that inefficient help from the government is better than NO HELP at all.
Now I suspect that you are calling him the most liberal Republican as a deflection away from criticism of Giuliani's liberal tendencies. But cherry picking issues to paint a portrait isn't very fair.
I would like to know how Huckabee has become a liberal on taxes. The guy is advocating that we switch to a FairTax. Now personally I think the FairTax is a lark but it is hardly a Liberal lark.
But of course for those that embrace the Club for Growth's views ALL tax hikes are ALWAYS bad. It doesn't matter what the tax hikes were for or what the alternatives were. Tax hikes always bad.
I think the Republicans are going to take a hit because of SCHIP. While oppositon to SCHIP may be strong on RedState.com, across the country it is far more popular even in redstates. This is a third rail topic for Republicans and they would be best served by not letting the debate be about health care.
I would like to know how is views on Education are Liberal. Based on what? His tenure as Governor? Aren't governors SUPPOSED to be involved with education? Considering that 50% of public education money comes from the state I would hope a governor be involved in education decisions. And unless you are a true believer libertarian who thinks that the government should not be involved in education in any way, I don't see how you can claim he is a liberal on this issue.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
He suffers from a severe case of White Guilt, as evidenced by his ridiculous comments on the issue, especially in saying we can make up for slavery by treating Hispanics well.
Overall his comments clearly betray a guilt-ridden mindset, and that should give pause to his supporters. Its bad enough when a liberal lets a guilty conscience lead them to support one feel-good, but ultimately disastrous policy after another, but it is even worse when a conservative falls prey to it.
He is still very evasive on the service he provided to the abortion group. Did you watch last night's debate?