Accepting Joe Carter's Challenge: Huckabee
By perico Posted in Republicans — Comments (124) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After publishing two posts that were critical of Huckabee over the last two days, I was not planning on doing another one, but like a bad case of diarrea, Joe Carter pulls me back in, making a challenge to "put up or hush up" about Mike Huckabee's liberal tendencies.
Instead of challenging me personally, this time he makes an open challenge to anyone:
"I think it is clearly time that both sides of the "Huckabee is a liberal" dispute either "put up or hush up." I want to start by allowing others to convince me that I am wrong."
Once again, Tommy Oliver is happy to accept a challenge. In this first part I will only focus on taxes and immigration. First, let's see what Larry Kudlow thought of what would be the worst possible outcome of the Iowa Caucus:
The worst outcome in tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses for the stock market and economy would be victories by Mike Huckabee and John Edwards.
Both are anti-business, anti-Wall Street, and anti-CEO. They would employ government regulation, and perhaps taxes, to work against free-market forces.
Both are anti-trade. Both are tax-and-spend. (Governor Huckabee has tried to inoculate himself against the tax charge with his Fair Tax national sales tax idea that would go nowhere in Washington.)
The key point is that Edwards and Huckabee are the left-wing populists in the campaign on economic policy. Their victories would send up a red-flag warning signal to a stock market already beleaguered by worries about an economic slowdown and the ongoing subprime credit problem.
Challenge to Joe: Can you name any respected conservative economist that actually support Huckabee? (Neil Boortz doesn't count)
Since Joe is not redifining the common definition of conservatism, he is challenging anyone to make this argument on modern conservative points. Fair enough...
Huckabee's problems with fiscal conservatives have been well documented. By now, everyone knows about his career grade of a “D” from the CATO Institute (the same grade another former Arkansas Governor received… Bill Clinton), and most know about his problems with the Club for Growth. So, has Huckabee just been given the short end of the stick? 21 tax increases went into effect, increasing tax revenue by almost $890 million under Governor Huckabee. These increases include the income tax, the sales tax, a cigarette tax, and a gas tax. Not only did he raise taxes, spending “more than doubled under Huckabee. “During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled, from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.”
Fact: 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.
The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration confi rms 90 tax cuts from 1997-2005. All but one required an act of the Legislature. Many were strongly backed by legislators and owe little to the governor’s efforts. The 90 cuts reduced tax collections by $ 378 million, according to the Department of Finance and Administration. Meanwhile, the department counts 21 tax increases that raised collections by $ 883.1 million. Here are a few of the tax cuts, along with the department’s estimate of their impact in the following fiscal year 1997
• Authorized tax-exempt bonds for fi re-ant abatement (- $ 100, 000 )
• Exempted residential lawn care from the sales tax (- $ 210, 000 )
• Exempted Heifer International from the sales tax (- $ 60, 000 )
• Exempted some county fairs from the special-events sales tax (- $ 15, 000 ) 1999
• Exempted equipment used to produce sod, grass and nursery products from the sales tax (- $ 200, 000 )
• Repealed the 20 percent tax on bingo admissions and cards (- $ 200, 000 ) 2001
• Reduced taxes on bets made on horse races at Oaklawn Park (- $ 1, 700, 000 )
• Reduced taxes on bets made at Southland Greyhound Park (- $ 600, 000 ) 2003
• Exempted some health-club services from the sales tax (- $ 160, 000 )
• Gave income-tax credits to biodiesel wholesalers (- $ 200, 000 ) 2005
• Granted an income-tax deduction for organ donation (- $ 76, 000 )
• Exempted Arkansas Symphony Orchestra purchases from the sales tax (- $ 20, 530 )SOURCES: Department of Finance and Administration
FACT: a review of tax legislation passed while he was governor shows a net tax increase of $ 505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth, according to the state Department of Finance and Administration.
FACT: Huckabee shepherded through the Legislature one of the largest tax cuts in Arkansas history — a 1997 income-tax reduction totaling about $ 90. 6 million its first full year in effect. But most of the 89 other cuts Huckabee mentions are much smaller. A 1997 sales-tax break for some manufacturing machinery reduced tax collections by just $ 500 a year, for example. Some were narrowly targeted, such as a tax exemption for purchases by the Salvation Army, which reduced tax collections by $ 15, 000 a year. (Northwest Arkansas News)
The Arkansas Leader publishes a comprehensive list of tax hikes by Mike, as compared to Clinton:
Imposed an income tax surcharge of 3 percent on tax liabilities of individuals and domestic and foreign corporations (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003). (It was temporary until revenues improved. The legislature repealed it in 2005.) Increased the sales tax by 1/8 of one percent by initiated act (but it was a personal campaign by Huckabee, who campaigned across the state for it and took a celebrated bass boat trip for 4 days down the Arkansas River holding press conferences in each river city to urge passage of the act) Increased the sales tax by one-half of 1 percent (Act 1492 of 1999) Increased the sales tax by 7/8ths of 1 percent and expand the sales tax to many services previously exempt from the tax (Act 107, 2nd special session of 2003) Collected a 2 percent tax on chewing tobacco, cigars, package tobacco, cigarette papers and snuff (Act 434 of 1997) Levied an additional excise tax of 7 percent on tobacco (Act 38 of 1st special session of 2003) Increased the tax on cigarette and tobacco permits (Act 1337 of 1997) Increased the tax on cigarette and tobacco – cigarettes by $1.25 per thousand cigarettes and 2 percent of the manufacturers’ selling price on tobacco products (Act 434 of 1997) Increased the tax on cigarettes by 25 cents a pack (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003) Levied a 3 percent excise tax on all retail sales of beer (Act 1841 of 2001 and extended by Act 272 of 2003 and Act 2188 of 2005) Revived the 4 percent mixed drink tax of 1989 and added a 4 percent tax on private clubs (Act 1274 of 2005) Increased the tax on gasoline by 3 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999) Increased the tax on diesel by 4 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999) Note: Contrary to what Huckabee has said repeatedly in debates, speeches and TV shows, the 1999 gasoline and diesel taxes were not submitted to the voters and approved by 80 per cent of them. It was never submitted to a vote. It was the governor’s bill and it became law without a vote of the people. What the voters did approve in 1999 was a bond issue for interstate highway reconstruction but it did not involve a tax increase. Existing taxes and federal receipts were pledged to retire the bonds. Increased the driver’s license by $6 a person, from $14 to $20 (Act 1500 of 2001)
Immigration:
In 2005, Huckabee was quite vocal in his opposition to strengthen citizen verification procedures for employers and voting and cut off public assistance to illegal immigrants. He even went as far as describing the plan as “race baiting.” Huckabee said “Companies controlled by overseas corporations could feel they are unwanted in Arkansas if the Legislature approves an immigration measure now before it.” He described it as “inflammatory, race-baiting… demagoguery.” The bill forbade public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants. The Governor also went as far as to say, “(The Bill) inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem… But there’s not.”
From CBS News:
Huckabee's recent strong stand on immigration, including an intolerance toward companies that employ illegal immigrants, runs counter to the image he crafted in his final years in office. He was battling conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures.
Huckabee opposed a Republican lawmaker's efforts in 2005 to require proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren't federally mandated and proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Huckabee derided the bill as un-American and un-Christian and said the bill's sponsor drank a different "Jesus juice."
Roy Beck, the head of NumbersUSA and one of the leading advocates that helped defeat the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill, on Huckabee:
"He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor. Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens."
Peter Gadiel, president of 9-11 Families for a Secure America, on Mike Huckabee:
"Huckabee is the guy who scares the heck out of me."
Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, on Mike Huckabee:
"I would say that Huckabee comes from the same perspective on the issue that George W. Bush came from — that out of a strong sense of compassion, he tries to identify with someone who comes to the United States, even if they came illegally."
James J. Boulet Jr., executive director of English First, on Mike Huckabee:
"Huckabee's worse than Hillary Clinton... 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. 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... Mike Huckabee could very easily be the vice-presidential nominee. He is actually worse than Giuliani on illegal immigration. Huckabee has swallowed the Kool-Aid completely."
Huckabee on the Bush Immigration Plan before it became the unpopular thing to support:
Huckabee said his faith leads him to take positions on issues -- like immigration -- that "tend to be a little unconventional." On immigration, Huckabee aligns himself with President Bush rather than more conservative elements of the Republican Party, favoring a "pathway to citizenship" for those who at one time entered the United States illegally.
That's the end of part I. Will only make a part II if Joe wants keep going.
Crosspost:
http://race42008.com/2008/01/12/here-we-go-again-vs-joe-carter-on-huckab...
After that whole liteny of garbage, 1 question remains...IF the Pastor Clown Huckabee is a Conservative, Why is he out there talking about what Government is going to do for the 'little guy'? So people who want something from the Govt. should vote for the Clown Pastor, and he'll fix everything...Some of you Braindeads out there will never listen. The stupid Govt. is NOT a charitable church organization! Only a Big Govt. Liberal will tell you that he is going to solve all your problems and 'care' about the little guy. Clueless Huckabee supporters are not Conservatives, but lazy Wellfare Socialists waiting for that Clown Huckabee and the Damned Govt. to fix all of their problems. --Unbelievable.
Huck's rhetoric is focusing on what Republicans/Conservatives can do for the "little guy", not what the federal government can do.
I challenge you to come up with one specific federal program Huck has proposed to help the "little guy."
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
indistinguishable from John Edwards. So that makes me wonder does he really believe in class warfare or is he cynically manipulating voters? Either way, I want no part of him.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"If you're looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He's completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you're looking for a real conservative?" -- Rush Limbaugh (1/7/08)
You don't make people rich. People make themselves rich.
Give a bum a million dollars and in a couple of years he will be a bum again.
Sorry Mr. Ed, no sale. Huck is not just being a better mouthpiece for conservative ideas. He's contrasting his ideas against them. He's saying we need to "change the party" to be "more concerned" about the little guy and the poor. Then you think he gets a free ride when he doesn't tell us exactly what that "change" is.
I'll go so far as to say John Edwards is actually better than Huck here. At least John tells us what he plans to do about the "problem".
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
I believe the reason Huck isn't more specific on how he plans to help "the poor have a better opportunity to get rich without making the rich poor" is because there is no plan to implement big government to do it. I believe he is trying to expand the conservative tent with his populist rhetoric.
It's not that he wants to change the substance of the party, he wants to change how the party is perceived by the poor and middle class. And to the extent he's successful, he IS changing the party.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
This is what Huckabee said:
I am a Republican, and I'm out to change the Republican Party. It needs changing. It needs to be inclusive of all of those people across America for whom this Party should stand. And it's not just the people on Wall Street, it's the people on Main Street.
Obviously, Mike thinks that we aren't inclusive enough to the people on Main Street. He did not say we need to get the message out better, he said we need to change the Party. What I want to know is, what are his plans for changing the Republican Party? What's he going to do to make it more inclusive? So far he's said nothing. Enquiring minds want to know.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
"It needs to be inclusive of all those people across America for whom this Party SHOULD (emphasis mine) stand"?
I don't believe most poor and middle class Americans believe the GOP stands for them. That's not because our conservative principles don't stand for them, it's because of an image/perception problem.
I don't think the problem is us getting the message out better so much as it is having the best messenger. The message is best delivered by a messenger with whom the audience can identify with, or connect with.
If Huck can bring in higher proportions of the poor/middle class, without sacrificing conservative principles, he WILL have "changed the party."
Have to board a flight. Can't respond until later today.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
"The Republican Party DOES (emphasis mine) stand for all people across America."
The poor and middle-class people that think it doesn't, think that way because of class envy. They think they deserve to have more even though they haven't earned it.
Mike Huckabee plays on that envy, stokes the fire, and says, "I agree with you, I'll be your President too". He just doesn't say how he'll do that.
IMNSHO, Mike Huckabee will ultimately send more people away from the Republican Party than he will bring in. I say that because either he'll act like a Democrat (which is what I expect) and give them handouts, or he'll act like a Republican and once they realize they aren't getting the handout they'll go looking for someone (a Democrat) that will. They won't go for the bait-n-switch for long.
What Huckabee should be saying if you're right is, "The Republican Party stands for all people. Here's why..."
Have a safe flight.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
The Clown Huckabee wants to change the party into Socialism, where he can 'take care of everyone'. So what is the Clown Pastor going to do for the 'little guy'? Pass around the plate? How in the world is somehow remebering the 'little guy' going to make life easier for the 'little people'. The Pastor Clown Huckabee is just trying to start a socialist movement within the Conservative party, and these Shmucks that are supporting him think that they'll be remembered or benefitted somehow by socializing and changing the principles that have made this country what it is! There is no substitute for hard work and doing things FOR YOURSELF, and having the FREEDOM to do the things YOURSELF.
- It's not that he wants to change the substance of the party, he wants to change how the party is perceived by the poor and middle class.
So you agree that Huckabee is a silver-tongued devil who wants the "poor and middle class" to believe that he feels their pain, even as we conservatives can rest easy knowing that he has no intention of actually doing anything.
I see that you agree with Mike™ that no one but the rich (rich = population - (poor + middle class)) currently support the Republican Party (in the view of those who support the Huckabee Party). It's a good thing we found that out now.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
so as to spur small business formation.
good
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
______________________________
"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
give me a freaking break GC. That's all the idiot does is hint! He's yet to be specific about anything other than he is THE Christian Leader.
If you fall for this line of bull I've got a bridge you'll just love. Cheap.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
standing. And you wrote a defense of him the other day that solidified his support beyond convincing and handed the Hinter a gameplan to win.
not me
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
It would be a good read to see something like this done for Romney. Either to show that his record was conservative or liberal. I actually hope Joe puts on his blinders and tries to counter so that we can get more from you. Expertly done!
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Gee I don't know about all this, it comes down to who are you going to believe.
You're own lying eyes or Mullah Huckaboob and his spin cycle.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
The Huckabots, among whom Joe is Chief, will be spilling their KoolAid all over you in their effort to tell you that Romney raised fees in MA, etc.
Good job...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I don't even like Romney. Actually, I take that back. I like him, but he's not my candidate of choice.
Thanks to everyone
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
....business challenging anybody to argument or debate, given some of the tripe he's spewed on his site and this in the past. Further, we've seen on this very site what happens when any belief of his is challenged, or when he is shown to be wrong; if he had any sense of self-knowledge whatsoever, then he'd avoid challenging people to (or engaging in) debates of any kind, seeing as how he is long on temper and insult and very, very short on intellect, reason, and argumentation skill.
I've felt the same way for some time - like about the time Huck's lies about the fuel tax surfaced.
I haven't followed Joe closely, but it seems that he was a whole lot more rational before he got involved in flacking for Huck. Now, he seems to be totally incapable of stringing two rational thoughts together.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...told by very trusted sources that he's an extremely influential evangelical who is usually rock-solid on issues.
I think it's an issue of leaving the comfy position as an evangelical "leader" where everybody oohs and aahs over your wisdomous statements and never, ever questions them, and venturing into arenas (waterboarding/other national security commentary, politics, etc.) where people not only disagree with you, but call you on the carpet for being wrong, naive, dishonest, etc.
It seems the last few months have revealed who Joe Carter really is when the chips are down and everybody isn't praising you all the time. At least, that's my take -- I know people who would disagree; however, of the folks I know who knew of Carter before this waterboarding/Huck shilling period, and never heard of him until now, those in the latter group share my take on it exactly.
...works for the Family Research Council. This organization and many other organizations have spent a lot of time promoting issues important to social conservatives, like FMA and Schiavo-related issues. There's a reason why Joe stopped supporting Fred Thompson and started supporting Mike Huckabee.
Mike Huckabee is the only social conservative running. It would be irrational for a social conservative like Joe to support anybody else.
that it'll come true and people will believe it, don't you?
You are becoming a parody of yourself.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
...FMA and Schiavo-related issues are not important to prominent social conservative organizations? What I said in my comment was true.
about what makes one a social conservative? Give me FIVE points that describe such a person. Oh, and if you include any litmus tests of supporting specific legislation, then you're disqualified.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
According to the wiktionary which I swear I didn't just edit, a social conservative is generally in favor of public prayer and the right to own guns, and opposed to abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the teaching of evolution in public schools.
I personally would emphasize the first 3.
Was that link to the lousy dissection of the CFG case against Huckabee that the Huckabots were pasting into every thread for a while... with stellar arguments like the sales tax rate should increase at the rate of inflation. It takes a serious case of botting disorder to even attempt to make an argument like that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: More Than $700 Million Per Year In Increased Fees And Taxes Under Romney. “Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday. Michael J. Widmer — president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances — said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as ‘closing loopholes.’” (Brian Mooney, “Analyst Puts Increase In Fees, Taxes At $700m,” The Boston Globe, 9/27/06)
Mbecker was predicting that the Huckabots' response to this Huck entry would be to talk about Romney.
What did you do? Talk about Romney.
Gawd the bots' actions are easy to predict.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/12/video-clemency/
I've been wondering where all of this has been for the past several months...
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
him from the Presidency.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I have read so much stuff on Huckabee like this but I never remember the sources so it's difficult to give authority to that through citations - you have made my life much easier.
Someone else who is impressive is Huckabee; I mean, you have to work really hard to be that liberal and still convince people somehow that you are a conservative.
"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
...if you're pro-life. The drive-bys immediately stick you in the pigeon-hole "conservative". I'm from Pennsylvania; our former governor, Bob Casey(his son the senator is a mere shadow of his father) was described as a conservative Democrat. He was as big a liberal tax-and-spender as any other, but he was pro-life, so the drive-bys called him conservative. If Mike Huckabee is anything, stupid isn't it, so he knew his pro-life credentials would carry him far as a "conservative", because he knows the drive-bys set the terms of the discussion.
How? How can he spew all his lies about his record and not be called out on it."Now let me tell you what I have done...." or some lame comparison or a joke he tells over and over.And if he quotes the Bible one more time during a serious discussion of issues or to get out of answering a question,,I'm gonna scream!He's evasive, vague,and just plain wrong on a lot of things my kids know.Where did he ever preach and how come none of his church members have out singing his praises?Answer that next please.yes I'm a Fredhead.
Huckabee, charm and evation.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
during the debate, I screamed at the TV "YOU DIDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO HIM". Charm and evasion - perfect description. That PowerLine article is dead on.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
There's no mention of how the money was spent. Huck was a governor, and governors have to get things done. He's not like those Senators that don't have any accomplishments.
When conservative Republicans in the Arkansas state house opposed Huckabee's increases in taxes and fees he called them "Shiite" republicans. Did the Republicans in Arkansas not want to get things done?
Really they had very different political interests. Reps have a very small presence in the leg (25 of 100 in House; 8 of 35 in Senate) and are regionally isolated in the NW corner of the state. To some extent they could never really break out of the "party of opposition" and "local interest" mindset and I can't blame them much. Huck had to build his own alliances through logrolling and patronage which really ticked them off. It wasn't pretty but I don't think you can really lay it off as Huck's problem alone.
Huck had very high approval ratings in Arkansas. Voters (Republicans) there still like him too -- Huck leads everyone else in the Republican primary by 50%. That's an insane lead right there.
Wonderful. If the Huckster gets nominated, he wins Arkansas in the general. Whoop-de-freakin' do. At least Mondale won two states. Well, I guess there is Iowa...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Unfortunately Huck doesn't have the proven multi-regional consistent conservative appeal of Fred Thompson.
He lost to "Other" in New Hampshire. He will lose to Ron Paul in Michigan. I predict that Fred will not win one primary.
Huckabee probably wouldn't win Iowa in a general election.
Consider that Iowa barely preferred Al Gore over the evangelical Christian George W. Bush in 2000 and barely preferred Bush over Kerry in 2004. Also consider that Huckabee didn't even win the majority of the evangelical Chrisitans who participated in the Iowa Republican caucus (he did win a higher percentage of any other candidate in a crowded field).
Huck came in 4th among non-evangelicals. Over all, he won 34 percent. It's safe to assume that in a general election, he would get clobbered. More people voted in the Iowa Democrat caucuses than in the Iowa Republican caucues.
The issue differences between the Democrat candidates are minor compared to the issue differences between the Republicans. So, Huckabee could end up losing Iowa by 10 percent easily.
By the way, Walter Mondale won Washington DC easily and Minnesota (by less than 10,000 votes) in 1984 against Ronald Reagan.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
1) You miss my point in bringing up that statistic
2) Many objective national polls show McCain being the most electable with Huck the 2nd most electable. Fred Thompson consistently ranks among the bottom in terms of electability (despite being a well-known actor).
A conservative would look for a way to avoid raising broad based taxes to find the money. Romney trimmed the 'fat' from the Massachusetts' state government, one reason many MA politicians don't care too much for him. Romney also update fees for services, the idea that fees for a service should cover the cost of said service. Instead of taking a conservative approach to funding the money Huck just taxed-and-spent.
Huck was a governor, and governors have to get things done.
So "get things done" is Huckabot speak for "raise taxes and increase the size of government." I certainly don't want to see the guy trying to "get things done" in the White House.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You see, standing on principle of not interfering with government, that's just Shiite (???) Republican obstruction of pragmatic progressive reform.
1) Balancing the budget.
2) Making sure that you don't get a flat tire every time you drive on Arkansas roads.
3) Aligning the state to absorb Court-imposed spending.
1) The conservative way to balance the budget is to jack up spending and jack up taxes at the same time.
2) Paying for stuff with borrowed money (that the people authorized...) is really something they should give an award for.
3) And raising taxes is the way to deal with that, right?
Is there any problem raising taxes and borrowing money can't solve? Seems to me that Huckabee's answer is NO.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
cutting as much spending as possible and fighting Democrats on tax hikes with all the muster politically feasible in an 86% Democrat legislature:
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
... Huckabee getting on state television and asking for tax hikes and raising state spending from $6 billion to $16.1 billion?
Romney had an 87% Democratic legislature and he only raised fees (and not taxes) to cover for the cost of the services provided (which is as Conservative as it gets) and spending went up by a lot less than 166%.
By the way, Huckabee raised fees as well so if you include them as tax hikes as you do for Romney, he raised taxes by more than the 47% he gets dumped on for.
Ultimately, I gotta ask ... why is having an 86% Democratic Legislature a good excuse for Huckabee, but not for Romney? Are your only standards of the "double" variety?
Perico writes a great blog on Joe's challenge, well documented, linked and through.
In bounces the Huckabot and threadjacks us into a discussion of Romney and Fred and McCain.
Tell ya what Anteater, try to stay on topic and refute any of perico's points without a reference to another candidate.
You're almost as smooth as The Dope from Hope but you will no longer get away with this crap here. By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about which version of the HLA the Dopester supports.
Either stay on trak or shut the hell up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Regarding HLA, the specific version of HLA that a candidate espouses is orthogonal to whether a candidate supports any version of HLA at all.
Your answer, like all of the Huckbot - and Huck - answers is complete and total bull sh*t and a complete evasion of the question.
There have been seven versions of the HLA introduced into Congress. Which one does Huck support? If he does not expressly support one of those, precisely what wording would he propose for the Amendment?
It's only a difficult question if the Dope from Hope hasn't bothered to be specific about what you idiots seem to think is the most important issue in the campaign.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I can't seem to find any specifics as to which one he would support but I can find clips like this.
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2007/12/21/huckabee-human-lif...
or the wording of the Unborn Child Amendment he helped push through in Arkansas
Both indicate he wouldn't be opposed to the Hogan ammendment, but he also appears prepared to take something less than that as his work in Arkansas would indicate.
Maybe I missed something you wrote, but why is it so important to know which one he supports? Any one of them would be better than what we have today.
Disclaimer: While I ain't a Huck supporter myself (1: Hunter, 2: Thompson, 3: Romney...), abortion is tied for 1st on my priorities list.
1. Understand that trying to pass ANY version is utterly impossible. He won't get 2/3 of either house and hell will freeze over when 3/4 of state legislatures pass it.
2. Just the act of introducing an HLA will take up significant time, will focus all legislative effort on it, and will use up significant political capital of a new administration.
3. The act of introducing the HLA will light a huge fire under the far left and elected Dems. It will be the polar opposite of what happened when the Ds introduced the ERA.
4. If you look at the various versions of the HLA, four of them do not outlaw abortion, they simply declare that it is an issue that must be decided by the states which is the same result of overturning Roe. It's also a result which is supported by 4 candidates and which the Huckabots keep insisting isn't enough.
5. This issue is the poster issue for Huck, he makes a big deal out of his support for it and will not give any specifics about what he is proposing. All smoke and mirrors.
6. He, like RonPaul, has no plan for this. It's a "bully pulpit" thing for him. He won't even be able to sell this turkey to the Republican caucus, and he'll lose 100% of the Ds.
7. By winding up the abortion lobby, you can expect that every judicial nominee will come under significantly more scrutiny and no nominee will be approved if they can be thought to be opposed to Roe.
8. All of this to promote an amendment - actually a group, because the FMA falls in here too - that has less chance of passing than a snowball in hell.
9. And BTW, these amendments will become a major issues in the fall and will mobilize the left. You can expect to see ads showing the "bedroom police" showing up and kicking down the door of a doctor's office and hauling off the doctor and a woman. Republicans will get painted as the Taliban Party who don't care about your healthcare but do care what you do in the privacy of your own home.
Bottom line, the Ds will have veto proof majorities in both houses of congress. They will replace two SCOTUS justices with young radicals and Roe will be the law of the land. There will be no check on judges "legislating" outcomes. The SoCon movement will be relegated to hiding in caves in the Colorado Rockies outside of Colorado Springs and will have the dubious distinction of having stood up for their "principles" and by doing so will have given the opposition everything they could never have accomplished on their own.
____
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
I would compare Huck & the bots to cockroaches. They just don't respond to any known poison. The most effective way to stop them seems to be a framing hammer and a block of wood.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
when you turn on the light(s) and illuminate things, they scatter and crawl back into the woodwork.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The posting rules for redstate.com are as follows:
No profanity.
No personal attacks.
No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.
The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals. This is our home, and we ask you kindly not to track mud into it.
Do posts like this really advance any argument except the one that R's will be so bloodied by their primary that they can not compete in the general.
Please - let's not become Kos
accident.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I lament that the Republicans lost control of both Houses in 2006 and further mourn my conclusion that sites like Red State are currently hindering more than helping in the re-establishment of a majority alliance of shared conservative interests.
Besides no self-respecting Southerner can suffer the slander "cockroach." Cockroaches are ****Yankees. We have Palmetto Bugs!
And another thing. Only rich Carpetbaggers and Scalawags have tractors in Arkansas. I was kicked by a spavined Jenny.
State native now residing in the Tar Heel State, whatever the proximate cause!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Points 1,2,3,6,7,8,9 don't really have anything to do with which one he is in favor of. Points 4 and 5 are the only ones that actually make his choice of HLA an issue, and a reason why I tend to agree that he pays lip service. But I don't agree about the "energizing" dems bit. They've been insanely energized against Bush for the same reasons. I don't think leftist groups like Planned Parenthood have any other modes than Turbo. I see a bigger drop off in socon support when it comes to "not energizing the left". I think the socon support can actually offset the left bit. A lot of people know those "govt in your bedroom" stuff is bunk.
please remember: I'm a Hunter, Fred, Mitt... guy
your KoolAid.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Have I written anything to indicate I'm voting for Huck, or are you just plain hostile to Socons (who happen to be Fiscon Defcons too)? Or do you have some secret knowledge about the libs that they've been holding back all this time but will finally unleash their full force once a pro-HLA candidate emerges? I'm not unreasonable but I am principled.
my point. And well.
My frustration is not with you, but I'm more than fed up with the idea that the amendments will do anything but fire up the far left in the way I described.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember the '70's but it was the introduction of the ERA that really gave birth and traction to the SoCon movement. It was an easy target to show people what a "liberal society" would look like, and the number of over-the-top examples that got pounded at people killed the ERA and really did in radical feminism as a movement.
The same thing will happen if the Dope from Hope makes the amendments a centerpiece (or even a tangental part) of his campaign. It's just a soft target and it's virtually impossible to defend in the ad wars, and it will kill any credibility the Party has. Not to mention the fact that even pro-life & pro-family Members of Congress will run from it (and Huck) like the plague.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Will probably steal it.
______________________________
"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
I did. I just can't remember where.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
No I'm not old enough technically (I was born in 1980), but I have a better memory for the 70s than most of my generation (which I guess ain't saying much).
It is such a hot topic that you can't put forth a reasonable incrimentalist approach that actually has a chance of being ratified or just passed when you run against a guy promising the whole sha-bang (trust me, I've tried that). It's probably about as hard as educating the electorate on Reaganomics.
I just don't agree on it necessarily being the downfall. I'd really like to see some numbers on people coming out in droves to protect abortion based on a candidate's stance. I just hope this election doesn't prove those numbers.
The ERA wasn't just a target as Mbecker described it. It was a big slow moving target that died the death of a million tiny cuts. The legislation had provisions and outcomes that even its natural constituency didn't like. You couple that with the way the amendment process works, most of the states got the chance to beat it down at their leisure. Every few months you would hear about the ERA being voted down by one or more states. It kept doing that right to the time it could no longer be approved.
Truly a horrendous blunder on the part of the left. They could have just stuck to court cases and had deniability all the way.
______________________________
"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
I just looked it up, and you are right my memories are too short. I hadn't really heard of that legislation. That's actually quite a good history lesson on what not to do. No wonder they went back to stacking the courts.
If Huck is for a version of the HLA that only sends it back to the states, then he's no different than Fred, Mitt & McCain. The Hucksters say those three aren't "pro-life enough" because they don't support HLA. They're beating everyone else with a paper hammer if he in fact supports the same thing.
The problem is that Huck won't say which one, so we just don't know. It's the same for his class warfare statements. He doesn't have a plan, so he just gets to beat everyone else up and no one can point to anything specific about what he wants to do.
Does this remind you of any particular political party?!
I'm with mbecker. Tell us which HLA Huck supports or shut up about it.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
I appreciate the response. I agree that if he's not in favor of the Hogan amendment then he probably isn't any "more pro-life" (an accusation I've been accused of to my face) than all but Giuliani. I personally don't get that nit-picky about degrees of pro-lifeness. I was just answering what appeared to be a pointless question. Thank you for adding meaning to it.
And, yes he does remind me of a democrat.
Not to step on his toes, but I think he pulled his idiot stick out when it wasn't needed.
The reason we don't trust Huck on the FMA/HLA or whatever alphabet he is promoting is that he is non-specific. There are alternatives out there for him to support that absolutely do not do what anteater expects them to do. Why doesn't he come right out and say what one he endorses?
Because he doesn't want to really put an alternative out there. The way it is, he gets full credit for opposing abortion and gay marriage, and yet doesn't have to tie his political fortunes to an amendment that is absolutely not going to pass.
Think Slick Willy with a different face.
As for energizing, yes the leftist base is energized, but all those silly squishes in the middle that don't really pay attention to any of it are right now coasting along feeling pretty comfy. Nothing is changing at the moment, and therefore they don't have to consider any repercussions of anything. Back to American Idol.
However, these same people react very negatively when some moron on TV says something about Radical Right Wing Republicans™ doing anything. And the media would immediately bring out the theocracy argument causing those squishy middles to pay attention, which they don't like. This energizes them to oppose us so they can go back to the previously scheduled programming. I think this is the energizing effect Becker was talking about.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I agree he is vague as heck, and I don't like the way he plays word games like being against "the guy who laid me off". I got the feeling the comments above were attacking him for supporting ANY of the HLAs. But I agree, if he supports the "return it to the states" versions of the HLA, he is any "more pro-life" than most of the other candidates.
It's hard to tell what he supports really.
I've never seen statistical proof of the energizing effect being a net loss for us. I kind of think it's mythical or Bush would have got hit harder in both elections.
and the Defcon/Fiscons who might not really care about social issues who will feel the desire to shiv Huckabee. I particularly think that the right-libertarians, a group that can sometimes be stridently pro-choice, could be easily convinced to help out the Dems on this particular social issue. Also, it would be easier to mobilize the base when there is an imminent threat--somewhat like the reaction from the conservative base when an amnesty bill was attempted.
Your answer, like all of the Huckbot - and Huck - answers is complete and total bull sh*t and a complete evasion of the question.
You denigrate my answer without challenging or rebutting any part of my argument. Let's elevate this discussion with cogent argumentation.
"answer", because it's not an answer. It is Huckabot deflection and bullsh*t. Pure and simple.
You've NEVER made an argument on this issue, you've never given me a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question. You're just playing Huckabot games. You're every bit as dishonest as your master on this and any number of other issues.
STOP DEFLECTING. STOP WITH THE EVASIVE ANSWERS.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"answer", because it's not an answer. It is Huckabot deflection and bullsh*t. Pure and simple.
You've NEVER made an argument on this issue, you've never given me a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question. You're just playing Huckabot games. You're every bit as dishonest as your master on this and any number of other issues.
STOP DEFLECTING. STOP WITH THE EVASIVE ANSWERS.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
trapped again. Good thing I brought snacks this time.
a direct question with a simple non-bot answer. The only "points" you attempt to make are so splashed with Huckabee/Carter KoolAid their unreadable.
It's obvious that you have no ability to produce rational thought or make a cogent argument on an issue.
I'm done here. I'm done dealing with idiots & your picture is is the definition. When (if) you ever get your meds squared away and can manage rational thought maybe I'll deal with you again. I'm not expecting to.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
.. that you didn't see any reason to answer the question, on just what change to our Constitution is that Huckabee is proposing.
Huckabee just tells us he will solve our problems by changing our Constitution, but we're not supposed to know until after the election what that change is.
There's no problem that can't be solved by changing the Constitution. Just ask Hugo.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Hey, I know it may get boring cornering a Huckabot and getting the same evasion back from him over and over again. But think of the great entertainment value of seeing the Huckabot going into contortions in response, and that only happens if somebody asks them a simple question they don't want to answer.
Then again, look at it from the Huckabot's point of view. If somebody running for President wants to amend the Constitution, isn't it petty to ask just what change to the Constitution they're proposing?
sentence upthread Flawed Analysis comment, that was weak, even for you. "You're not looking at what the money was spent on...". Give me a freaking break. The question is not where the money was spent, it's whether the BoyWonder is a tax & spend liberal.
Again, you get a straightforward, simple question and just like Huckafool you deflect and evade.
Disgusting. You and Huck are really making Ron Paul and the Ronettes look pretty good. I'd rather deal with racists and apologists than liars and fools.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Or the money from tax hikes used to hire more government employees?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Arkjournal.com put this new ad out called "Clemency" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faKzzgXVAv8
The evidence presented is outstanding. But look at what just happended. Why should we, true conservatives, have to spend the time telling a liberal he is not a conservative? Shouldn't he be the one trying to convince us that he IS a conservative? The strategy alone should throw up a red flag. That is how liberals work. They make fusses about the truth they find themselves surrounded by and make us waste time continually rehashing the argument for why they are not what they portend to be.
While I appreciate all the hard work and facts presented, I think we need to force the Huckabee campaign to really talk about his conservatism and ensure he does not attempt to "redefine" what a conservative is. He is already heading down that path. His answers, when held up against true conservatism, will be all we need.
Sometimes its nice to come back to Red State, pick out a blog, and see the same folks arguing about the same things. The worst thing would be to see someone post...My God you are right...I have changed my mind. Fortunately that doesn't appear likley. consistency is good. Go Cowboys.
shut up
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
there was a really dark period which began in January of 1997 in Charlotte that has been hard to overcome. Ask me after the game.
Any chance Joe has responded? Or anyone else respond with a rational argument? We have exactly none here & I didn't see any when I scanned the comments at "Race..."
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.