Some Personal Thoughts on Mike Huckabee
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (197) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Huckabee "problem", if you will, perplexes me. Not a day goes by lately without someone on the right criticizes him on economics. The New York Times makes the case that he's not that bad, but then I want someone economically conservative telling me Huckabee isn't that bad.
At the same time, I can't really get that worked up about Huckabee supporting a tax increase to fix roads in Arkansas. The only people who could ever get worked up about that are people who have never been through Arkansas. The stark contrast in Arkansas pre-Huckabee and post-Huckabee is compelling. Prior to Huckabee, you might drive down the interstate only to meet your end in a pot hole deeper than your Hummer. After Huckabee, Louisiana had to get a new Governor who would make roads a priority so we could get back ahead of Arkansas on something.
But here's the thing — I don't want to pile on Mike Huckabee. I tend to think he is an economic populist more than an economic conservative or liberal. He's like Zell Miller. Again though, not all these wingnuts bashing Huckabee are committed to other candidates. I have tremendous respect to the Club For Growth and am a member. I do, however, think that Huckbee, at this time, just might be more in tune with the American people than most of the GOP.
Read on . . .
The guy is a real outsider. His campaign is held together with string from last month's rib roast and bubble gum scraped off the side of the road. And he's kicking Romney's butt all over Iowa. Voters are tired of the status quo in both parties and Huckabee, for all his faults, is definitely not part of the status quo.
I give Mike Huckabee real credit for what he has pulled off, particularly in the face of just about every prominent conservative pundit I can think of, save Rush Limbaugh, beating the hell out of him for his ethics, his temper, his economics, his populism, etc. Dude is winning. Let's just accept it. And screaming about his economic plan isn't really hurting him with evangelicals right now who are more interested in saving the pro-life cause from Rudy than in salvaging a coherent conservative economic policy.
Here's the thing though, Huck. You've been nothing but kind to me, despite rumors of your foul temper. I consider several of your supporters and staffers good friends. If you want me to believe you are more than a Gerson [Ger-son' n. a Republican who likes to spend other people's money to feel good about himself in the name of social justice], you are going to need to make the case. Robert Novak, John Fund, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, the Club for Growth, etc., etc., etc. right now beg to differ with you. And you can't muddy them up in my eyes. But you can tell all of us what your fiscal policy would look like.* Heck, come blog about it here. We're happy to have you, Governor. But regardless of where you go, you need to start speaking. Romney is doing a "Come to Jesus" meeting on his faith to shore up support with evangelicals. You best do the same with fiscal-cons, because most of us have known the Club for Growth a lot longer than we've known you. And we trust them.
*Don't say "Fair Tax," because we both know it ain't gonna pass in the next four years with the present make up of Congress.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Return to that Poll as Mitt Goes to Texas — Comments (53) »
Some Personal Thoughts on Mike Huckabee 197 Comments (0 topical, 197 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We do need to have someone with a coherent agenda on values. I completely agree, and Huckabee's got that on lockdown.
However, it doesn't do much good to have a great so-con platform when your economy is in the tank. While it might not be as bad as it would be under Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, it would not be nearly as strong as it would be under Romney or Giuliani.
Furthermore, I haven't seen too much from Huckabee in the way of foreign policy. There's a reason that foreign policy issues are only ahead of crisis management, agriculture, 2nd amendment issues, and "vertical politics." Foreign policy is one of the least of his concerns, IMHO.
And that's exactly where we stand. Huckabee scares us because we believe he would spend us dry and tax us to death. Giuliani scares us because we think that abortion on demand would look quaint compared with what he supports. McCain scares us because...well, have you ever seen the guy? He's not very personable. Thompson scares us because we don't think he has the passion for the job. Romney scares us because (and this is coming from a Romney supporter, so it might be a little biased) there is an completely inaccurate perception that he is John Kerry with an R behind his name.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
I would agree that each candidate has their respective blemishes, but I think all of them (including Huckabee) are solid, especially looking at the Democrat field. If all things were equal, and we weren't dealing with a inherently Democrat-tailored election year, they would all (with the exception of Tancredo, Hunter, and perhaps Paul) be good nominees and go on to win big.
But, I've made my decision for Romney, and I plan on writing a blog post tomorrow highlighting why Romney is the best choice, and quite frankly a great choice.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Your thoughts sum up mine very well.
If Huck was more solid in the fiscal area, I could very easily find my vote switched to his.. but there are a number of hurdles before that happens.
For me, the key appeal is that he is genuine. He has a soul. None of the others - save Fred Thompson - has one of those.
Sorry folks, its the truth. People here at the grass roots see that and its counting.
I'm aware of a certain hit piece, a youtube recording only a few seconds long, that was taken out of context. It's about 15 minutes long.
The long and short of it:
The previous year or two, he had cut the budget by $380 million. But, with a budget downturn (meaning less state revenue) coupled with unfunded federal mandates, they had to raise $270 million.
Who I am and how I perceive Huckabee:
I’m an atheist but, like Mike, I don’t hold a mans religious beliefs against him. I see a man called Huckabee, saying what he thinks and meaning what he says. I see a guy who has his feet solidly on the ground. He isn’t slinging mud, and he isn’t ’side-slipping’ questions as many other candidates are doing.
He recognizes two areas of concern which I completely agree with: The economy and our dependence on oil. For the former, he is fully on board the FairTax idea — the best idea to come along in a hundred years. It will do a lot to grow our economy and keep companies at home. And, he has vowed to get rid of our dependence on oil within ten years. To me, those are national security issues.
I’ll applaud the day Michael Dale Huckabee is sworn in as President of the United States of America.
Brian
Anyone who claims we can "get rid of our oil dependence in 10 years" simply is not a person with serious economic ideas. I haven't heard much from Huckabee ... are all of his economic plans this childishly pathetic ?
Right after he eliminates the income tax, disbands the IRS, and gets the HLA and FMA passed. Then he should have some time to arrange for oil independence in 10 years.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You guys sound like liberals. Can you hear yourself? Since when can America NOT do something?
Setting a goal is a lot better than the lip service the other candidates espouse.
...that had a platform straight out of Fantasy Land, I would be voting for Ron Paul, not Huckabee. Huckabee knows none of this stuff is possible. He doesn't care, because it seems to be working for him.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You must have not watched his This Week with George Stephanopolous. He side-slipped so much that he actually tripped on a couple of questions.
"I’m an atheist but, like Mike, I don’t hold a mans religious beliefs against him. "
That's not the way other Huck supporters have behaved.
Huckabee supporter Rev Tim Rude justified an offensive anti-Catholic email to Brownback supporters with this:
"All I was trying to say" he explained, "is that Protestants should vote for Protestants."
http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/07/rev-rude-confir.htm...
The upshot is that the trolling worked. He got some evangelical Brownback supporters to go with Huckabee, enough to put Huck into 2nd place. The rest, as they say, is history.
A genuine leader, with a genuinely conservative agenda.
Hunter is genuine. And even McCain the RINO is a genuine (leader but also pain-in-rear).
The NON-LEADER in the running? Huck.
Huck talks the talk, but that is all. And his talk is populist pap and not real grounded economic conservative (nope, he bashes big bizness), fiscal conservative (nope, he raised too much in taxes). He got a "D" from Cato on fiscal issues as Arkansas Governor.
"For me, the key appeal is that he is genuine. He has a soul. None of the others - save Fred Thompson - has one of those."
You are confusing 'soul' with "southern drawl".
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, wow, that was a good one. Wait, wait...
...with a genuinely conservative agenda...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Oh jeez. Oh, please don't do that again...
It's annoying to see faux RINOs like Huckabee get called "genuine" and have "soul" when a more real and better example of mainstream Republican conservative leadership is there in Mitt Romney. Yes, I'll say it again, and explain, maybe just to get a real response on this since I respect your opinion. Romney is a more genuine candidate than Huckabee, who is an 'all hat no cattle' kind of candidate.
Compared with McCain "Amnesty's not amnesty" and Huckabee "God is behind my rise in Iowa polls" and Rudy's "911" over-marketed persona, yes, Romney is real. I can honestly and frankly more relate to the venture capitalist high-energy Mormon frmr Gov than the preacher former Gov, the senator and the ex-mayor, all of whom has seriously marketed their bios and positions in ways that would seriously strain any 'genuine' label in one way or another. People are calling Huckabee conservative because he gets up there and says warm, comforting, populist things ... but he's not really SAYING conservative things nor has he DONE any conservative things as governor - he's saying funny, populist, and sometimes liberal things, but hardly real conservative things. because he's NOT a programmatic conservative. He's a prolife bigger-govt populist, and no "I'm a Christian" doesnt count. My Moveon.org-type Mom is a "Christian".
You know Romney's real problem? Maybe he was in private life too long and hasn't been around the block like these lifelong gabbers and politicians like Rudy, Fred (lobbyist in the red truck) Thompson, 27 years in Congress McCain, and preacher-politician Mike Huckabee. So these other guys have had a lot more practice faking sincerity. Romney has figured out what he wanted to say, and he's saying it, but his too-good-to-be-true attempts to woo Republican base turns some off. Well, I'll certainly take it over Huckabee's and McCain's DREAM Act support or Rudy's social liberalism. The beef is flip-flops - well,
has Romney really changed much? His positions vis a vis 1994 changed mainly over abortion, and maybe gay rights; but on gay rights issues he's never been for gay marriage and is against it now. Log Cabin ran ads against him and NARAL hates him. He's espousing my positions. So I am to reject that and go with folks who *dont* agree with me, because they are 'genuine!?! Maybe I should go whole-hog and vote Kucinich then.
But I see this as well in Romney:
1) Someone who's still married to his first wife despite making half a billion bucks. Yup, family values conservative of the heart, not a Trump or Rudy style family.
2) Someone who hasn't just started and ran a business, but helped start many more, creating thousands of jobs.
3) Someone who helped run SLC olympics to success.
4) Someone who managed to beat a liberal Democrat woman in a blue state
5) Someone who has a good fiscal conservative track record (he got much better review by CfG than Huckabee did, and I'd say only Thompson in the field to top 6 is clearly ahead of him).
6) Someone who fought for things like charter schools and abstinence education and can back up his strong family, smaller govt platform with
previous accomplishments.
That's what I mean by geniune.
Not the fact that I know he's not a hard-core conservative as me (niether was Bush, but only on immigration has he truly let me down, and Romney wont let down on that, he was against instate tuition for illegals enve before this was a hot issue). And its not the number of youtube gotchas you can trip him up with (they ALL have enough), not the "he's not real because he's a recent prolifer" as if none of the other candidates have migrated on positions (they all have), but what REAL STUFF does Romney bring to the table as a potential President.
Will the real conservative who has it stand up, then?
No, sit down Tancredo, we aren't allowed to consider real right-wingers. .... Okay, will the real unifying-mainstream-electable-yet-conservative-enough candidate stand up? It's still Romney. Genuine. A genuine leader who can be a credible and winning candidate and govern in a way that will keep most Republicans happy most of the time. As in, a genuine potential good President. Something Huckabee is not.
There, I said it. Give it your best shot.
...the rest of your comment would have represented a model defense of your favored candidate, focused on his record.
However, I almost didn't get that far because you started out by chopping down the other candidates with nasty talking points.
Now I agree that there's been too much of that going on here, and sometime the comments are entirely "hit". So I'd encourage you to stick with your positive advocacy skills.
Mitt has been towards the bottom of my candidates, but unlike many comments here, at least you've given me some actual evidence to ponder. Too bad I had to wade through slop to get there.
"However, I almost didn't get that far because you started out by chopping down the other candidates with nasty talking points."
Point taken. I felt i had to get that in there to point out that if you judge all the candidates on the skewed standard some put Romney against, they *all* come up short and as fakers. Wanted to point the double standard. C'mon guys, it is politics.
That said, we have some good leadership qualities among candidates in the field. I wanted to add that I felt McCain was a genuine war-hero but also a genuine pain-in-the-a**; if not for his RINO deviations, I could get behind him. I cannot support pro-choice Rudy, but wish he ran for Gov or sen in NY. I see little of real leadership skills in Huckabee, just a good gabber, and think he's possibly our worst pick of the litter.
Romney is one who has real leadership accomplishments, and it's usually obscured by the one-liner retorts and issues/mormon/horserace discussion. Either him or Thompson could be good unifying nominees IMHO.
He was able to do that because he professesed to be pro-choice with as much conviction as now he professes to be pro-life.
He promised not to do anything on abortion in Massachusetts (i.e. maintain the status quo) and other than that, tried as hard as he could to avoid the subject ... he was a lot less "pro-choice" than he was in his Senate run in 1994.
If you really want to see a Republican running as a committed pro-choicer, check out Christine Todd Whitman's campaigns for New Jersey Governor.
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
You can't debate someone by saying, "You're wrong, therefore, I win." Prove how Cato (a think tank with impeccable credentials) is wrong, and you are right. Or, if that's too hard, cut and paste from elsewhere.
I'm only now making my return to Redstate, but all I've seen from you tonight in the Huckabee "fiscal conservative v. fiscal liberal" debates is "You're wrong, therefore, I win." I'm not saying this as a slam on you, but you're not bringing an argument to the table that will win the day, or even a point. All you're doing is saying that someone else is distorting the record, and moving on before you clean up the mess.
Vos can't ledo astrum si vos intentio pro clouds
Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
At least the Ronulans were just crazy.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Huckabots have their hearts in the right place anyway. I mean, they're at least arguing from their own special form of Christian charity and whatnot. Or a deep desire to just suck it up the tax issues to get him in there for other issues.
Either way, at least Huckabots are in touch with sanity and American values.
But, frankly, I'll take crazy over pious self-righteousness any day.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I thought you meant "Ronulans are crazy, but Huckabots are crazy AND something else," heh. Never mind.
That's probably on me - my typical English Breakfast Tea with a Diet Coke chaser combination is taking a little longer to work than ususal this morning.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"But, frankly, I'll take crazy over pious self-righteousness any day."
Yeah, it is one thing to be a part of a corporate conspiracy, but being against God's Chosen Candidate, phew ... a tall order.
A freeper linksorama Huckabee file - the more you know, the less you like:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~ob1knob/
http://www.huckabeefacts.org/
http://www.taxhikemike.org
... a long-time policy think-tank with pretty solid cred over a loooooooooooong period of time, and toss them under the bus because a 1-day wonder and overt Huck-a-fan says so.
Gee, that's convincing.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I've already refuted it. Here, for example, is Huckabee's speech when they had to go to a special session. Many people were swayed by a short outtake from that speech, thinking he was begging for more taxes. The fact is, he had already cut $300 million+. But, there was a slowdown in the economy and they had do deal with a few unfunded mandates (Medicare issues, roads, etc), which would require Arkansas to raise $270 million. Since there as no fat to cut, that's what they did. Huckabee insisted that any money left over should to back to the people -- I don't know if the next governor did or not, but I assume so.
And I can confirm the state of Arkansas roads in 1993. They were awful, and you noticed it the minute you crossed the state line.
For 505 million dollars, I hope the streets are paved in gold.
I live in Missouri and can tell you that yes, the roads were greatly improved.. to understand it, one must use the arkansas roads on a annual basis (as I have) to visit loved ones in southern states.
Before hand it was a disaster in which one took their lives into their own hands (at least driving through nw ark).
as another Missourian, I can say that the gas tax increase that was passed here several years ago had a noticeable, positive impact on the road quality in MO. The roads here were outright awful prior to the tax increase, and now they are among the better quality roads of the states where I've traveled. I feel like we got our money's worth...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
simply cannot pay for road improvement projects of any size in any large city.
Gas taxes can't pay for roads in the cities of Texas. They can't pay for roads in Chicago either.
If you want to really improve roads... make people pay to use them.
but gas taxes are almost as directly related to road use as EZ-Tag. Gas taxes "can't pay" for road improvements? Make them $2 a gallon, then. Other than a few farmers illegally using red diesel and sylvatic cults running generators, gas taxes have exactly the same effects as road use fees.
"Gas taxes can't pay for roads in the cities of Texas."
True, but that is because
a) we direct $1 billion of the gas tax for education and DPS
b) we have the same gas tax today in nominal cents as we had in 1991, its not indexed to inflation.
c) we don't increase gas tax rate but cars get more efficient.
d) we give more to the Feds in gas tax than we get back in highway money.
If we fixed the above 4 items, the need for tolls in Texas would be much less.
I would add that Austin wouldn't need tolls if we didnt give a whole 1 cent sales tax to CapMetro for busses and light rail.
That said, I find the praise of Huckabee for building roads definitely not fiscal-conservatism.
http://www.huckabeefacts.org/
Huckabee backed and signed into law a 2001 bill requiring a “quality assurance fee,” which was a $5.25 fee per bed, per day for nursing homes designed to increase funding for the state Medicaid program. Arkansas media outlets and state legislators dubbed it the “bed tax,” and in fact, Huckabee himself has called it that on at least one occasion. In discussing a controversy over the subsequent hikes in prices charged to private-insurance patients (those who personally pay their bills), he said:
Huckabee (quoted in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, July 19) : Many of them told their patients that it was directly resulted from the bed tax. What we have shown you is that is not true; some of these increases are not the result of the bed tax.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html
Fact is this "bed tax" was the only sensible approach for a State put in a box by the various regulations held by Medicaid regarding assisted living. Now you can grip about it all you want, but I'd go on a limb and bet you that your state has a similar tax in order to meet the same regulations.
I'm sick and tired of having excuses made for big Govt Republicans.
Let the tax-and-spend Democrats make their pathetic excuses for big Govt, not Republicans.
this: "And screaming about his economic plan isn't really hurting him with evangelicals right now who are more interested in saving the pro-life cause from Rudy than in salvaging a coherent conservative economic policy."
While I think many evangelicals are blindly flocking to Huckabee because he's pro-life, it's certainly not universal. There are a few of us who are sane and have a slightly wider perspective - one that includes fiscal and defense matters, in addition to social issues. However, if Giuliani somehow winds up with the nomination, even I will be pining for Huckabee.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
But you have to admit there is a large faction of evangelicals who are supporting only because he is evangelical.
there is a large faction of x supporting candidate y for what ever reason.
You know, I am a Christian conservative and could be shoved into your categorization.
I am fascinated by the apparent hatred for "evangelicals" within the apparent gop ranks.
If it aint hatered, then I would at least categorize it as very least fear.
"I am fascinated by the apparent hatred for "evangelicals" within the apparent gop ranks.
If it aint hatered, then I would at least categorize it as very least fear."
It's simple. it's the flip-side to the Rudy-fear of a neo-con takeover of the party. Shutting out *our* issues and our views.
A real coalition requires meeting the needs of all the parties and players:
Social conservatives;
Fiscal/economic conservatives;
national security conservatives.
Two candidates in my mind who can unify the party sufficiently, because they represent the mainstream Republican views on these issues as a whole are Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.
Rudy and Huckabee are unacceptable 'one-leg only' type candidates who saw off a part of the base with their views.
of a Rudy nomination. I think any of the candidates would do a good job.
Let me say this - maybe people can respect Bush and Reagan a little bit more for being able to keep the conservative coalitions together.
While I was typing Ben went and took the words out of my mouth - and said it, well, far better than I ever could.
I'll only add that I find the prospect of the Republican Party abandoning any pretense of championing "small government" principles (however broadly defined) and allowing our fiscal policy to be driven by the same mentality that drive's Judge Judy's ratings to be utterly depressing and demoralizing.
Though it may make Mrs. docj a very happy woman as it would likely drive me out of politics forever. No loss on schemes grand or small no doubt, but there it is.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Missing your point here.
Apologies in advance - it's probably on me. It's late, I'm physically unwell and tired, and I'm trying to get caught-up on the Pats game (10-10 at halftime) - so I'm not really hitting anything that isn't grooved right down the middle of the plate right about now.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
What makes Huckabee a bad conservative also makes him a better candidate. What makes Rudy a bad conservative makes him a worse candidate. It's not quite that simple, but it's close to it.
(BTW, 17-10 Ravens but the Pats are on the Ravens' 12 - going in...)
My only minor disagreement is that I actually do think it's that simple.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
So, are we in mourning today?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I now understand that the Patsies are patsies on defense. Punch it in their face and they fall over crying. Man up on Moss at the line of scrimmage and he doesn't have the moves he once did. The rest of the league should send the Ravens a big bouquet.
(Properly, the dirty birds of the week before deserve the credit for figuring this out, but the Ravens showed that it wasn't a fluke.)
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
This may surprise you, but in spite of my proximity to Foxboro (I could almost stroll there, casually, in an afternoon) I'm not much of a fan of the Pats (Giants, alas - I blame my dad).
Frankly, it's hard to think of a team that's 12-0 as being "overrated" - but if ever there were one, I think this PATS team would qualify.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I feel for ya.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
... that doesn't make it any less depressing
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I totally agree about Rudy... Not so sure about Huck.
Most people who want Democrat-lite on economics will vote for the Democrat every time. Reagan is a guy with strong cross-over appeal that didn't try to do the Democrat-lite thing on economics. Compare him to say, Nixon or Ford, who were very much Democrat-lite on economics. It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I'm not so sure that's the way to go.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"Most people who want Democrat-lite on economics will vote for the Democrat every time."
Lesson of 2006. When GOP lost its fiscal conservative credibility, the Dems ate our lunch.
I guess if Huck does well, it will prove the GOP has not learned the lesson, and we'll suffer in 2008 polls for it.
At the same time, I can't really get that worked up about Huckabee supporting a tax increase to fix roads in Arkansas.
If that were it and he were honest about it, I wouldn't have a problem with him either. His list of tax hikes is long and ugly, raising the state from 30th to 13th place among states. The only problem I have with the gas tax increase is his lying about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But he will soon fall among conservatives - I can only hope.
Let's think about the fights ahead. A social conservative will not have that many fights...um, selecting a Supreme Court justice for nomination. Can't think of really any other as important as this...and as others have pointed out, maybe one or two vetoes to life rights issues. But a fiscal conservative will have fights left and right with a Democratic congress. A social conservative will hold against a few fiscal fights, but let others slide and will actually promote government solutions to social problems...Bush. But, a fiscal conservative will hold the line on these issues. These fiscal issues rise everyday with every bill.
If the fiscal conservative starts to go the wrong way on social issues (justices, immmigration), he will certainly hear from this community on say justices or immigration. And amend the choice - look at Myers. But the fight will be limited - a few bills to sign or veto. This leaves only a couple of times that the conservative community must make a noise. If a social conservative goes the wrong way on fiscal issues, we will be fighting for the next eight (yes, count 'em, eight) years. Every fiscal issue, every time.
What we need is a living, breathing, fiscal conservative who will appoint strict constructionists.... The social conservative won't even fight these things...and if they do, the fight length will be limited and the person will compromise with Congress quickly - NCLB.
There is a personal level on this as well as a conservative level on this. The conservative level is above. On a personal level, would you rather be fighting/advocating against the next President on issues every single day or every so often.
Do you want eight years of fighting against the Republican nominee???
Erik
What you are saying, esentially, is that our values are no longer the values held by majority-America? Either we concede our ideas, our beliefs, and our vision, economically, to the "center," or we are out of power for a generation? Is that how I should read Huckabee?
How bad things become?
In reference to this comment:
Either we concede our ideas, our beliefs, and our vision, economically, to the "center," or we are out of power for a generation?
Well, yes, any movement or faction (right or left) needs to moderate themselves toward the center in order to win elections in a pluralistic, democratic system. Compromise is not a tragedy, it's democracy. Democrats have to be more hawkish than their base to win over middle America, conservatives may have to be more redistributionist. That's how the system works.
Mitt or Fred. Fred or Mitt. Either way is good with me.
Now about the NYT and the rest of the MSM. They are the enemy of the Republican party and conservatism. Can anyone give me a rock solid answer as to why they are fawning over Huckabee.
They are excited at the prospects of him becoming the nominee and are giving him positive coverage. WHY?
Any answer that even hints that they are not trying to destroy the conservative movement I will not take seriously.
I have to believe that immigration and taxes are going to be the issues that gets our nominee elected. Huck doesn't have a leg to stand on for either of these issues and will get tore up by the dems. If shamnesty and tax and spend are what you want, may I suggest another party.
Am I the only one that can't help but notice a similarity between Gov. Huckabee and Pres. Carter? Both are devote and sincere Christians. I in no way doubt that. But what about economic policies? Huckabee's sincere faith simply isn't enough. It can't be. As a Christian I want a moral and principled President too, and if those were the only qualifications that I was looking for then maybe, just maybe, I would take a closer look at Gov. Huckabee. But then again, knowing what a moral and principled man Jimmy Carter was, and knowing where he led this country to for four years, I would probably think twice before I cast my vote. Ever hear of the gas shortages, the embarrassing debacle with the Iranian hostages or the grotesque expansion of the federal bureaucracy (specifically the Dept of Energy)? All this happened when a sincere and faithful Jimmy Carter was the President, and more and more I am seeing similarities between Huckabee and Carter.
If we voted strictly on religion, who would we have chosen in 1980? A Sunday School teaching Carter or a divorced Ronald Reagan? Personally, I am glad we got Reagan. Maybe thats just me.
There is absolutely no connection between being a Christian and driving up the deficit. Huckabee is a fiscal conservative, as he showed in Arkansas. Of course, then he had to balance the books, by law. But the growth in taxes was, I'm sure, slower than the growth of the Arkansas economy over ten and a half years. So, I would think twice before voting for Romney, a guy from Massachusetts -- a state that had more taxes per capita than Arkansas ever thought about having. And Romney in four years added more taxes than Huckabee did in ten and a half years.
In a lot of ways, Carter was an idealist and a liberal. He had the idea that it would be 'nice' to combine members of different special forces groups. Anybody else would've gone with one team that had worked together for a long time, especially if the various teams. I haven't been in the service, but I would have if I hadn't had to take medicine. But I have read enough to know that mixing teams just is not done, for a number of reasons.
Also, he is the type who thinks if we just talk to everybody and come to some understandings, everything will work out. Even now, there are candidates -- Obama for example -- who think we can talk to the enemy.
Well, we do both agree on Reagan. :)
I am not making a connection between being a Christian and driving up the deficit. I am a Christian for crying out loud. I am saying that people are falling all over this guy because he is making himself out to be the "real Christian" and I am asking, is that all that matters? Huckabee has nothing else to offer but his religious devotion, and while its admirable, it doesn't exactly mean he'll make a great President, i.e. the Carter example.
I for one want a real leader in a President this time around. Not another big government conservative, which from as far as I can tell is all Huckabee is. A social conservative that thinks the government is here to cure the world's problems. Give me a break and give me a real candidate.
"Huckabee is a fiscal conservative, as he showed in Arkansas. "
This is blatant and fundamental dishonesty.
Tax-and-spend Huckabee increased taxes significantly as Governor:
http://taxhikemike.org/
"average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. "
If you get the facts instead of reading hit pieces, then you might have a clearer idea of who Huckabee is. I know it takes a little time and effort, but I'm sure you can do it, without my finding every link for you. It took a bit of time, for example, finding the link refuting the little youtube hit piece...not that anybody will take time to watch it.
is calling Club for Growth, one of the best RINO-hunting conservative groups out there the "Club for Greed." That is a liberal Democrat-like rhetoric, that Huckabee used to respond to the CfG criticisms. Not a class response.
Club for Growth and Toomey have been on-target time and time again, and if they think Huckabee's not a fiscal conservative, their judgement is to be favored over Huckabee's self-serving slams.
The more I study Huckabee, the less I like him, not just on taxes:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/
"The world is full of disaffected Huckabee campaign workers, former employees and garden-variety Republicans who love to pass on tips about a governor they'd found self-centered and untrustworthy. If you think he left a well of warm feelings in Arkansas, note that Hillary Clinton had raised more money in Arkansas at last report and that a recent University of Arkansas Poll showed her a 35 to 8 percent leader over Huckabee in the presidential preferences of Arkansas residents. Only one-third of 33 Republican legislators have said they will support him for president.
Thanks to such unhappy people, we've broken numerous stories about Huckabee, from the first early word of his destruction of state computer hard drives (more fully reported by the Democrat-Gazette); to the time and place of his announcement for president; to his sale and purchase of homes; to his infamous "wedding registry." About the last: Three decades after the Huckabees' wedding, his wife registered at department stores so their new home, post-governor's mansion, could be stocked with gifts of linens, toasters and other suitable furnishings. In early 2007, our reporting also prompted the former first lady to decline dozens of place settings of governor's mansion china and Irish crystal that had been purchased with tax-deductible contributions to the Governor's Mansion Association, nominally set up to improve the mansion, not to buy going-away presents for former occupants. (Huckabee's governorship ended on Jan. 9, 2007.) "
Erik, you are right, Huck could explain his plans going forward to better calm the fears of fiscal conservatives.
I really do not think they have much to fear.
For me "fiscal conservatism" is just one giant compromise anyway... I do not believe in involuntary taxation. Sticking with you "fiscal conservatism" just reduces the burden; it doesn't take the sting of the injustice out of it.
So if Mike vs. Rudy vs. Fred is the difference between a few percentages one way or the other... one is no more a "socialist" (as others on RS have called Mike) then the other.
But, I will not compromise on human life. I'm not a single issue guy, but abortion trumps all the rest -- no retreat, no compromise -- take my money by force if you will, but don't kill babies with it.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
If you ever want to build an electoral coalition that extends beyond hard-core single-issue abortion opponents, you might want to drop this sort of rhetoric.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Those strongly held convictions are the soul of the Republican party. They are the ones calling, writing, and getting out the vote. The social cons are the only reason the GOP has won so many presidential elections and took over congress for over a decade.
That sort of rhetoric is why the party is pro-life and every Presidential nominee has been since Reagan. You want to try to win without the social cons go ahead, enjoy minority status.
If I may suggest you don't dump the gal that TOOK YOU TO THE DANCE.
... where some factions huff and puff, hoping to influence others by promising to wet their pants if they don't get their way. It's just part of the entertainment in American politics' three ring circus.
All the less religious, non-religious, anti-religious fiscal cons have to do is not stab the social cons in the back. You can give us Fred or Mitt or Huck or McCain and the social cons will have the GOP's back. If you give us a pro-choice Presidential nominee you've got problems.
Give us Fred and everyone is happy. True conservatism works everytime it's tried.
if Rudy wins... who do you vote for or do you sit it out?
And if you are so interested in having socially conservative policies enacted, how can you even come close to that with a Democratic President?
A lot can happen in four years, just look what happened to our national values during the eight years of Bill Clinton.
Look what America was willing to "overlook" because he quote-kept the economy strong-unquote.
I'll vote for Rudy if he gets the nod, but very, very unenthusiastically. And anyone who chooses to sit this one out or vote third party won't get any flak from me. Because it's a very close call.
Reasonable people can think that Rudy will move the country in the wrong direction. I happen to be one of them. Will he move it as far as Hillary or Obama would? I'd hope not. But I wouldn't blame anyone who wanted no part of voting for someone moving us in the wrong direction.
We have a social conservative as President right now. Who supported this effort by the social conservatives last time? Wouldn't that be the fiscal conservatives...
Erik
GWB is the most SoCon guy EVER to run for President. He's a committed Christian, makes no bones about it, is pro-life with creds that nobody here would question.
So what happened in 2000? The Dems roll out a DUI that was 20+ years old, well before his conversion and sobriety. He didn't try to deny it or attack the people who pointed it out, he just noted that he wasn't the same man today he was then (an overt reference to his conversion and his years of sobriety). He was five points up when the D's rolled out the DUI and the SoCons got their panties in a wad and stayed home. Five point national lead went to losing the popular vote and coming to within a couple of hundred votes of losing the election.
As far as this certified member of the VRWC, who also happens to be an evangelical Christian, a licensed Baptist preacher, and a guy with 20+ years of work in the crisis pregnancy movement is concerned, you guys can take your snotty attitude and go start a third party. You wouldn't know a "true conservative" if one punched you in the nose and you are clueless - based on the people who've been posting lately at RS - about how to implement the pro-life agenda. Feel free to depart, but make sure you understand that any sway you've got will be forever gone. Think Whig.
FWIW, I've got no dog in this fight yet. Franz still hasn't announced and I've not chosen a back up candidate. I'm good with Fred or Rudy. I don't like Romney, I detest McCain. And then there's Bubba Jr. BJ is a budding socialist, a serial liar and will not be able to actually accomplish any of your hot button agenda items. He's the worst candidate I've ever seen, and I lived through McGovern.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
it was the timing that did him in. Had he sat down in August and told the story in his own words, instead of allowing the Dems to spring in five days before the election -- he would have walked away with the election and the entire SELECTED NOT ELECTED cr*p would never have gotten started.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
How, if at all, history would have been any different had that course been followed.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
... precisely when it was that "take my money by force if you will, but don't kill babies with it" became part of the "soul of the Republican Party". I mean, I'm totally down with the whole "don't kill babies" thing - but when did "take my money by force if you will" become part of the conservative mantra?
Must have missed that VRWC meeting when it happened - I'm sure Franz will let me have it at the next one.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
will not work at the 908's house. If I can figure out how to upload a video from my private collection, you'll get a kick out watching a seven pound dog take down a 220 pound SWAT guy, bite the barrel of his MP5 so it won't fire and chew his way through body armor before the whole team surrenders.
It's a thing of beauty.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Hmmn... To paraphrase:
All the fiscally apathetic social cons have to do is not stab the fiscal cons in the back. Oh wait... too late - they already did that with Bush. Well, maybe this time they can give us Fred or Mitt or Rudy or McCain and the fiscal cons will have the GOP's back. If you give us another even worse fiscally liberal big government GOP Presidential nominee you've got problems.
the only reason the GOP has won so many presidential elections and took over congress for over a decades.
Really? Then why was there not ONE word about abortion, life, guns or gays in the Contract with America? The GOP gained control of Congress because it was able to hold the Norteastern suburbs and increase its share of congressional seats in the South. The last election they lost the Northeastern suburban seats. They lost Northern VA and guess what? The GOP is in the minority.
Huckabee believes life is precious, though it may make an exception to vicious criminals where the death penalty is concerned (I disagree slightly on that, because I think it costs more than it is worth), and I am opposed to abortion.
But Huckabee is very opposed to the government "sticking it to us." The alternative is the FairTax -- and it is much fairer than the current income tax. If you like, I'll expound on it. The AFFT, the group that created the FairTax, designed it to be revenue neutral, it supposedly would bring in the same amount of revenue as the income tax. I disagree. I believe it would bring in more. Now if that's not a teaser, I don't know what is...
Seriously though... there are soooooooo many reasons why the fair tax has such a slim chance of passing...
Does political reality and the political landscape EVER come into play when the Hucksters are out there huckin' for Huckabee?
...would stop trying to pass off his support of the Fair Tax as proof of his fiscal conservatism. If anything, it proves the opposite to me.
I think the idea of a national sales tax over an income tax has potential and could be investigated. But the Fair Tax as written goes farther than that -- it contains this little thing known as the prebate, which, IMHO, is, by far, the worst entitlement program ever seen by this country. It makes Social Security and Medicare look fiscally conservative by comparison.
Add to it the near impossibility of passing it any time in the forseeable future, and Huckabee's support for it becomes nothing more than a cheap gimmick to convince people that he's not the fiscal liberal he really is. It doesn't work.
George Allen quip
Huckabee wants to get rid of the IRS. With what, the FairTax Revenue Collection Agency?
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
The Fair Tax isn't going to happen, so Huckabee's support for it is a sham and says nothing about his big government tendencies.
It would be like Giuliani saying he'd appoint justices who'd support Roe V. Wade but don't worry, he supports a Human Life Amendment.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
There is a lot of grassroots for the Fair Tax.
By coming out in support of the Fair Tax it had the effect of giving Huck a partial innoculation from his past record as a politician on video as begging his legislature to raise taxes.
Watch the video:
http://arkjournal.com/2007/10/exclusive-video-huckabee-whatever-tax.html
And it allowed him to tap into the Fair Tax Grassroots as an instant campaign organization. Those folks are going to be feeling fairly used if he gets elected because Huck won't spend much political capital trying to pass something that won't pass. A token effort is the best they will get.
FT has a very dedicated bunch of followers. The problem is that they are utterly clueless about getting it implemented. Even if I thought it was a good idea, I'm not wild about it, I do know that there's no way it will get through the Congress anywhere intact.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Something like: leave the income tax as it is now, then lets add this FairTax (with the prebate) on top of that to pay for universal health care. Sounds like a deal Huck would go for.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"Erik, you are right, Huck could explain his plans going forward to better calm the fears of fiscal conservatives."
Huck has already explained enough.
In the October debate, he was asked about S-CHIP. He could have stood with President Bush and against Nancy Pelosi. He didn't. He waffled, and made it clear he wanted a bigger S-CHIP program and claimed Bush shouldnt have let it come to a veto. Waffle House special.
When he couldn't even answer that basic fiscal conservatism question, I knew that Club for Growth was dead-on right about Mike Huckabee.
He will out-do the 'compassionate conservative" G W Bush, and give fiscal conservatives very little to support.
His support for FairTax is proven to be a gimmick, in the context of his many many tax increases as Governor and his support for a bigger Federal Government and zero leadership on entitlement reform.
It all adds up to a zero as a fiscal conservative.
As NRO said:
" Unfortunately, what Huckabee offers by way of solutions is a mixture of populism and big-government liberalism; the common theme of his policies is that they are half-baked. If an ill-considered slogan can be used to justify a policy, he is for it. He is a protectionist, because we need to have “fair trade.” He wants to put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, because we need them “to do jobs that are going unfilled because nobody here wants to do them.” Energy subsidies and farm subsidies must be increased, because they’re a matter of “national security.”
When he was governor of Arkansas, these instincts led Huckabee to move farther and farther in a statist direction. (Education policy offers a nice example of what happens when his statism and his social conservatism conflict: He opposes meaningful school choice.) The Cato Institute gave him a D on fiscal policy, noting that spending had increased at three times the rate of inflation during his governorship. Not surprisingly, Huckabee is the one Republican candidate who flinched when President Bush vetoed the Democrats’ proposed expansion of S-CHIP. He says he is against socialized medicine, but don’t look for him to resist the drift toward it."
No, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. If you want to back up these baseless assertions, I'll refute them one by one. Otherwise...
Out of curiosity... if Huck was so much in favor of a fair tax, why didn't he push for the elimination of the income tax in Arkansas and push for more sales taxes in Arkansas to make up for the loss in revenue?
I have a good idea why...
Instead he was spending his time telling the legislature if they pass a income tax "surcharge," he would sign it. Yea, sounds like the guy really hates the income tax to me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It's well known that Huckabee did well in Iowa straw poll and since because he leveraged the Iowa FairTax organization.
It's also well know that Huckabee raised taxes as Governor in ways that strain credulity wrt tax reform ideas. He had 10 years and he mainly raised taxes:
* Sales Tax, 1996 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/07/96)
* Gas and Diesel Fuel Taxes, 1999 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 04/02/99, 04/25/99)
* Sales Tax, 2000 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 09/25/02)
* Cigarette Tax, 2001 (Associated Press, 04/02/01)
* Nursing Home Bed Tax, 2001 (Associated Press, 06/25/01)
* Sales Tax, 2002 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/15/02)
* Income Surcharge Tax, 2003 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10/09/07)
* Tobacco Tax, 2003 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10/09/07)
* Internet Taxes, 2004 (Bond Buyer, 02/24/04)
http://taxhikemike.org
Third, there are significant real questions about where our tax laws are going. The AMT, making Bush's taxes permanent, and the Tax Choice Act idea. Fred Thompson is coming out in favor of Tax Choice Act. Romney pledged to cap domestic spending and make Bush tax cuts permanent. Rudy has plans. Others have plans.
Fourth, Fair Tax will never pass a Congress in Democrat hands or even GOP hands. It is too radical.
An easy conclusion is that Huckabee got a free ride of support by supporting something that will never pass anyway, meanwhile ignoring harder questions of what we really should do about entitlements, spending, taxes, etc., and ignoring his real record which is not at all fiscally conservative. The gimmick assertion is not baseless.
And he is not even taking a fiscal conservative stand right now...not even willing to say look, I was wrong, I have changed my position on that issue. I had a Democratic controlled congress that I had to deal with and so I tried to hold the line.
Erik
....other than "I'm a Christian pastor evangelical"? As far as I can tell, his campaign is strictly about appealing to Christian conservatives who 1)want "one of their own" in there, 2) consider abortion/gay marriage to be the most pressing issues of the day.
I can sympathize with #2 (I don't feel abortion is the most pressing issue, but I can understand those who do). But aside from those two points, what does Huckabee stand for? He stands for the FairTax, which is a lost cause pipe-dream, and "energy independence". "Energy independence" is nothing more than a cheap slogan that politicians use because it has been focus grouped and apparently people like the sound of it. Nobody who is knowledgeable about energy/oil will say that oil/energy independence is possible in 10 years like Mike Huckabee claims it is.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
It's not a cheap slogan. We are making strides in that direction. The most recent I've seen is this. We are also making strides in biology. For example we have the capability of growing plants with more leaves, but with no extra fertilizer. If we can send men to the moon in relatively primitive equipment compared to what we have today, then why can't we become energy independent inside of ten years?
The FairTax started with a few guys in Texas griping about the amount of time they spend in boardrooms talking about tax implications of almost every decision they made. Now, we have seventy-two who are on board -- sixty seven congressmen and five senators. The grass roots are making sure it continues to progress.
Let's see... geothermal energy... which requires a lot of what.... water. And we know that large parts of the country like the South East have an abundance of that natural resource. This is exactly why ethanol is a real non-starter.
And let's see... we are closer today to being anti-GM foods than we were a few years ago. I for one am willing to pay a couple cents more for organic food. Last week I bought milk that was organic and it'll last until January 8th. Americans are more interested in non-GM foods than ever before... regardless if it'll have two extra leaves instead of engineered food.
And finally the fair tax is very regressive and has about as much chance of passing as those wind farms have of being built in Massachusetts while Ted Kennedy is still alive.
I don't know how they are going to utilize it. If it uses water, it can use the same water, repeatedly.
I wasn't talking about GM foods, I was talking about biofuel plants. We've already found that certain grasses are better than corn. So now all we have to do is grow grass with more leaves. BTW, maybe your milk was irradiated...
You must have read about some other kind of consumption tax. The FairTax is progressive, and it is progressive because there are prebates that untaxes goods and services up to the poverty level. It has a very broad base, twice as large as that of the income tax, and includes the underground economy (which is estimated to be between $1 trillion and $3 trillion dollars). Also, since there are $11 trillion sheltered from the income tax in offshore accounts, it would have no reason to remain there once the income tax is gone. I believe we'll have surpluses. Sure, we have a ways to go, but we are getting there. At some point, it wouldn't matter who is in Congress or in the Senate, because they won't have any choice. It'll be passed before then, though.
Here's how geothermal works... it's just a giant steam engine... and where does that water go? It evaporates. When water is scarce how much water can we sacrifice to building a turbine?
Second, I'll accept you aren't talking GM-Foods... but you are talking about growing yourself (using even more water) out of using oil... This also is a non-starter. Exactly how much land would you need to grow enough source material for bio-diesel to effectively end our use of foreign oil?
And finally, sales taxes are remarkably regressive. The poor still buy stuff, and taxing their purchases even more is going to hurt their ability to survive WAY more than some rich fat cat paying 23% more for the 60" plasma TV.
And what exactly are you saying by the underground economy? If you're talking about those who don't pay income taxes will now have to pay a sales tax? Maybe, but you also are going to be handing out prebate payments... seriously... that's just ridiculous. Let's advance a bunch of people when we don't know what they'll make. I imagine that government agency will look to be about the same size as the IRS, after all, someone will have to figure out if people are lying about their incomes.
Consider this when thinking about the fair tax: Americans will notice that it now costs 25% more to buy EVERYTHING... they'll note that money coming out of their pocket much more than they notice the income tax coming out of their paycheck before they get it.
I'm actually in favor of a VAT, but you ain't going to see it in this country anytime soon. Too many people are wedded to what we have... and those who aren't are not going to take the word of someone they don't trust to get it done.
It has about as much chance of passing as the HLA. But if the fair tax does pass... I'll pay the tax on your 60" plasma.
Re Geothermal: Water can be a self-contained system. There is no need to waste it through evaporation.
I'm not suggesting we could end our dependence on oil, alone, with bio fuels. I think it could help. On the other hand, geothermal has a lot more potential. It, by itself, could mean we wouldn't even need nuclear power, eventually.
The poorer people already face the most regressive tax in the world: Withholding. That, plus embedded corporate taxes and cost of compliance all adds up. Prices will go down. Used items aren't taxable, and nothing is taxable below the prebate.
Source:FairTax FAQ
Nope, the agency which handles it will be smaller, in fact it may be the SSA. BTW, only people who apply will get prebates, and that is already figured into the formula. People in the underground economy won't be applying. I doubt many rich people will, because to them it's pocket change. There are checks and balances built in to the system, so fraud will be minimized. Nobody is saying it will be a perfect system, there's no such thing. But it is a huge improvement.
A lot of smart people worked very hard on this, it wasn't dreamed up in somebody's basement in the backwood hills of Kentucky (my apologies to Kentuckians...).
I've gotta hit the sack, for now.
Geothermal:
I understand how a steam engine works... it's also just a lot of water (even if it's enclosed and there is zero loss, which is impossible) to be taken away from consumption and for all those great big mutant biofuel plants we'll be growing.
Further, not only will I pay the tax for your 60" plasma, I'll also personally start the campaign to call it Huckfuel if these mutant plants can solve our energy problems WHILE not leading to drought. (I am only being snarky about calling it Huckfuel and mutant plants)
Smart People and the Fair Tax:
Yet all those smart people didn't get together to see how it's going to get passed a majority Democratic Congress... the federal employees union at the IRS, and of course, the lobby of accountants.
Again. I have no problem with changing our tax structure... but do you understand that by definition, a sales tax is regressive as the poor pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes than wealthier people do.
Further, I am 100% against the Federal government be in the business of prebating for anyone. People shouldn't be paid to buy anything.
What would be even easier, ending all tax rebates and tax credits and simply have the same tax rate across the board... that's fair.
But I will let you go to sleep and we can discuss it in depth more if you want.
It is only viable in limited areas and you DO deplete the resource (heat) when you extract this energy. There are quite a few dead and dying geothermal installations that were built back in the 70s. They have to be extremely carefully managed so as not to destroy the resource and even then they have a pretty limited lifespan.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yet all those smart people didn't get together to see how it's going to get passed a majority Democratic Congress... the federal employees union at the IRS, and of course, the lobby of accountants.
As support grows, they will have no choice. I realize it is a paradigm shift for many out there who are entrenched in the old way of doing things.
Again. I have no problem with changing our tax structure... but do you understand that by definition, a sales tax is regressive as the poor pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes than wealthier people do.
Sure, if it is a simple sales tax. But really, there is no good way to compare a sales tax with an income tax. But, if a family of four spends $27,380, there is no tax. Keep in mind the breadwinners will be taking home their whole check, too.
Further, I am 100% against the Federal government be in the business of prebating for anyone. People shouldn't be paid to buy anything.
It's not welfare, it's just untaxing necessities, like food, medicine, and so forth. This is built into the system. Though their assumption is that everybody who applies will get a prebate, I believe many will not -- especially those in the underground economy.
Has rebuilding the roads of Arkansas had a positive impact on the state's economy?
If so, he's made atleast one wise decision spending taxpayer's money.
Will he make similar infrastructure improvements on a nationwide scale? We've got plenty of bridges to replace---one of the few programs most voters can understand and support.
Call it Practical Populism.
The Federal Highway Administration says it would cost $375 billion dollars just to fix what's bad.
So how much are those gas taxes going to go up under Pasto... I mean President Huckabee?
Or is he going to tax smokers? Or drinkers? Or fatty food?
over $400 billion on the Iraq War without a tax increase I am going to guess we could afford to rebuild these bridges too. Especially when one considers the increased revenues that would result from the income tax and corporate tax generated by those that build the bridges.
He could form an organization to build the infrastructure called "WPA" and make it part of his "New Deal."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Don't be too surprised.
As I've said before, Huckabee reminds me of a perfect Depression-era president. He'd be ready with comforting platitudes and sermonettes to help us through the tough times.
With an unsteady economy predicted for '08, I can easily see voters choosing Huckabee.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I do, however, think that Huckbee, at this time, just might be more in tune with the American people than most of the GOP.
I guess if one is simply interested in winning elections, Huckabee being "in tune with the American people" is enough. For me, I'd rather run someone I agree with on the issues of free enterprise and risk losing to a Democrat than run a Democrat-lite candidate as the Republican nominee.
Why should the Republican party nominate a John Edwards clone? If Republicans only care about winning and don't care about the issues, maybe I need to leave the Republican party. I thought the Republican party actually cared about what's good for the country, not just accepting any popular idea that come along.
- I'd rather run someone I agree with on the issues of free enterprise and risk losing to a Democrat than run a Democrat-lite candidate as the Republican nominee.
Consider the possibility that those are not your only two choices.
There is something fundamentally flawed about the idea that our options are limited to Democrats spending enormous sums on feel-good programs that do not work, and Republicans conserving funds so that there will be plenty of money available the next time the Democrats get in to spend enormous sums on feel-good programs that don't work.
Nothing in this note shall be construed as an endorsement of anything Mike Huckabee has done or probably will do. I merely note that the American people are on record as wanting smaller government only until you threaten to give it to them, at which point they vote for The Other Guys. It took us 40 years to learn that. We should not forget so soon. If our only strategy is to use our time in power to conserve borrowing capacity for Democrats to spend on stupid stuff when they get in, then we deserve to lose.
If it's smaller government we want, we have some persuadin' to do. Trying to deliver it to a public that doesn't want it is nothing more than putting speed bumps in the Road to Socialism. We can do better than that.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Yes indeed, conservatives are going to have to sell the case for small government, pushing water uphill against the allure of "something for nothing". It doesn't help to close the salesale that many elected Republican officials have practiced big government when in office.
Just like the "Moral Majority" lost credibility when it became clear that the majority of Americans didn't support many of their positions at that time. Top-down proclamation didn't work, but bottom-up labor has strengthened the pro-life movement substantially in the past decade, for example, and that shift in public opinion is gradually being recognized in the political realm.
In the long-run, it's winning the battles in the marketplace of ideas that leads to winning the battles in the political realm. In the short-term, you can coerce with minority support from the public, but in the long-run, the people's voice will be heard unless we fall to tyranny.
No. For all his supposed "SoCon" creds, Huckabee spends too much time talking about how to blow money on short-term expediencies that ultimately cause cultural rot. In particular, way too many of these "For the Children" programs are little more than thinly-disguised subsidies for single parenthood. In the long run that can only result in more single parenthood. We need that like a hole in the head.
The point of my note above is that if the voters want "action" on "problems" and will vote us out of they don't get it, then let's give them "action." In the process let's try to reverse cultural rot instead of greasing the skids for more of it. If it is to have any effect, conservatism has to mean more than merely biding time until the Democrats get back in to install more liberalism.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
"No. For all his supposed "SoCon" creds, Huckabee spends too much time talking about how to blow money on short-term expediencies that ultimately cause cultural rot. In particular, way too many of these "For the Children" programs are little more than thinly-disguised subsidies for single parenthood. In the long run that can only result in more single parenthood. We need that like a hole in the head."
Well said!
Ultimately fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are the same thing, just different facets of the same principles of:
Family,
Responsibility,
Taking care of yourself and your own,
being a contributing citizen, and
minding your business while respecting others' rights.
Socialism, in its economic and cultural forms, attacks these values in various ways.
That's why we cant/shouldnt have a non-fiscal or non-social conservative. We need both. They are two sides of the same coin. Freedom plus responsibility.
I think Huck is better than Rudy. If I am FORCED to choose my priorities are National Security, Social Conservatism, and then Fiscal Conservatism. I'm voting for Fred so I don't have to choose, but come the general Huck is another Bush. I voted for Bush I guess I could again. At least I get the Supreme Court pick right.
If Huck throws the federalist bone out there, it would help. Just tell me you'll leave new spending up to the states and for goodness sakes get right on IMMIGRATION. It's about National Security and the Rule of Law.
deeds over words.
Isn't that something the Good Book mentions.
If only the Pastor would be honest with people about what he's done versus what he's now saying.
The more and more people just say this man isn't wrong on ANYTHING... the more and more I am beginning to believe EVERYTHING is wrong with this man.
Don't Hucksters respond the same way that Ronulans do to any criticism of their boy, with blanket denial of obvious reality?
Or are they in fact the same people returning under new user names? Like Ronulans, a lot of Hucksters are one day accounts, which makes me wonder if they're the same Kossaks who spammed for RonPaul! but with a new tactic for trying to sow chaos.
I think these are genuine Huckabee supporters.
Most Kossacks can't "say" God without their head exploding unless it's included with "should be banned from EVERYTHING."
The problem is the same. They are completely unwilling to listen or accept ANY criticism of their candidate.
From an interview with Real Clear Politics:
I don't want to have an amnesty program.
...
You make them pay something, you make them go through a process, you may put them in the back of the line for the process, but you create a process that's realistic. You don't say the back of the line starts and for the next 12 years you're going to be filling out paperwork.What you do say is you're going to pay the fine, we're going to have a system that can be done in an orderly fashion, and you'll be able to be legal but we're not going to let you off scot free.
The funny thing is that Huck used to have the same quote at the immigration page you linked on his own website, but removed it when he saw that his own words didn't play well with Republicans.
President Bush says he is against Amnesty too.
Both Bush and Huck are probably correct from a strict dictionary perspective but they are engaging in Clintonesque parsing. They claim to be against amnesty but then they support something that amounts to the same thing and has all the negative effects of amnesty. It is legalization with a slap on the wrist followed by citizenship. They are being blatently deceptive and has resulted in the word "shamnesty" being coined and becoming part of the common lexicon. Good thing most Americans have caught on and aren't letting them get away with this word game anymore.
There were a number of people who just did not trust the government to do the job, regardless of what they said they wanted to do.
For example, the very first thing they said they wanted to do was to stop them at the border. The People said, "NO! I don't believe you are going to do it...why don't you just use the existing laws, for crying out loud???" And their unsupported suspicion was that this was going to be amnesty. I don't know who started that part of it.
I personally wrote my Congressman and Senators, suggesting that they forget about a comprehensive plan, and tackle one thing at a time. I figured the time factor was too short, and there were too many senators and congressmen trying to put their own amendments in. On top of that, there were people who said they wanted to do something but were in fact, trying to sabotage the effort.
As such he has a great appeal to a lot of Americans, as GWB did.
He has a very good chance of being the Republican nominee -- more so than Giuliani or romney in my opinion. I think the nominee will be Huckabee, McCain or Thompson. The latter two I would be happy about.
and unfortunately, the majority of Americans aren't interested in another four years of GWB (even if he has a different name from the same town as another "compassionate" man was from).
This is exactly why Huckabee can only appeal to those he currently appeals to.
How many people in urban areas and suburban areas near major urban areas is Huckabee going to attract?
I agree.
You can't win an election without carrying a big share of the independent voters. The independents are typically socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
The opposite of Huck! Huck will get the evangelical vote and not a lot more.
I think its important to realize when analyzing Huckabee's record that it necessarily him "raising taxes" as much as it is the legislator raising taxes. Huckabee just approves and vetoes and has to pick his fights given the super-majority democratic status in the general assembly.
- left-wing, right-wing, in-tandem, shadowy conspiracy ring leader
Democratic LEGISLATURE too...
and his was far more to the left than the Dems in the Arkansas Legislature.
Look at the vetoes of the two and you can see how different the two candidates were in comparison to their legislative counterparts.
At the end of the day, Arkansas looks a fair sight more conversative than Massachutes. Universal health care was implemented in Mass under Mitt Romney. I can't hardly think of anything less conversative.
- left-wing, right-wing, in-tandem, shadowy conspiracy ring leader
what is a conversative?
And we all know that Universal Healthcare isn't what Mitt signed... rather it was mandatory healthcare... just like having to have auto insurance to get a license.
But again... look at the vetoes and you'll see that there is a reason Mitt was overridden more than Huck was... quitely simple.... Huck agreed with the Democrats in Arkansas than Romney did the Democrats of Massachusetts.
But if this is hard for you to understand... well... read your post again, and try to understand that Arkansas by it's very nature, is going to be WHOLLY more CONSERVATIVE than Massachusetts again... just as Republicans from the Northeast are often more moderate than the Republicans from the South.
You can go without the prielidge of driving if you don't want auto insurance. If you don't get health insurance in Mass, you lose your property, your liberty, or your life. (All laws carry that threat.)
You are right on one thing. An Arkansas Democrat is more likely to govern like a Massachusetts Republican.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Baad Spelarz Uv Tha Wurld, Yunyte!
again... do you not realize how crazy it is to tear down another candidate in an attempt to build up yours. I have now listened to Huckabee and his supporters do everything short of question Mitt's commitment to his wife.
Seriously, you have no grasp on taking an issue and settling for what you can get. Romney did that in order to keep it within reason. Look at the current governor, he's no where near as fiscally responsible as Mitt was.
And Huckabee, well he certainly didn't have a hard time getting all the tax increases HE wanted passed. These weren't tax increases forced upon him or over his veto pen. He asked for them.
If you don't see the difference, then just vote for Hillary because a Huckabee Campaign is nearly going to ensure it.
Wait a second.
Huckabee begged for higher taxes to solve a 'crisis',
and that's why the lege passed the taxes they did.
It's called mis-leadership.
The video on the Tax hike Mike website:
http://taxhikemike.org
that the Huckabee surge is a plot by the GOP to get certain Republicans to support Giuliani or Romney. Let's say you were a nut who was totally anti-government, and you were going to vote for a lower-ranked candidate like Hunter or Tancredo or somesuch... Huckabee would scare you to death. You might be willing to abandon your protest vote just to keep a populist bobblehead doll out of the white house.
For the record, I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. It's just a thought.
Firstly, if the gas taxes were the only taxes involved in Huckabee's substantially raising the burden on Arkansas taxpayers, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Secondly, if Huckabee hadn't lied about the gas taxes, we wouldn't be talking about those taxes in particular.
Thirdly, if we're going to just bend the party to where populists lead, then we may as well cross off the 'conservative' part of Red State's mission.
Since "GOP" is the same as "Republican Party" your first sentence translates to "...a plot by the Republican Party to get certain Republicans..." What is this "Republican Party" that is supposed to be able to exert external control of its party members? The statement just seems logically inconsistent. Not to mention the minor question as to just how such a secret plot could be carried out.
Now if you had said the "Democratic Party" that would have been mildly humorous - especially if it started a free-for-all as to just how this "plot" was being carried out (strictly for fun, of course, since the folks at RedState don't subscribe to conspiracy theories either).
One other problem with your scenario is that a "totally anti-government nut" would be in bed with Ron Paul and wouldn't be fazed one bit by Huck (even if Huck were to come into the room with a shotgun and a Justice of the Peace in tow). He certainly wouldn't be a Hunter or Tancredo supporter.
I guess your title was quite fitting: strange feeling. That's easy to feel at this time of night, even without your help.
[NOTE: I'm a Rudy supporter]
I see the whole Huckabee/Giuliani fracture as part of a inevitable generational changeover.
Conservative-Evangelical political pressure [as characterized during the current Presidency] has peaked. Within the SBC, the new guard is as interested in social and economic justice as the culture of Life. In addition, they're much more cautious about being involved in partisan politics. A recent Barna Group report even showed that they're more accepting of gays and lesbians.
Meanwhile, there is growing awareness that the war on terror can not bring victory when our allies are propagating the very worst in Islam. Naturally, I think this means Rudy has the best chance in a general election. But more importantly, it means the GOP is changing once again.
At times like this, it's helpful to look back at who and what the GOP represented over the last 150 years; from Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower to Reagan. The 2008 elections are pushing apart the factions, suggesting a near-to-mid future realignment of the party to better reflect the next generation.
Trying to stop this from happening is like trying not to vomit when you're sick. It's only delaying a necessary but unpleasant process that's actually a healthy part of recovery.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
Many are still trying to put together the old Reagan coalition despite the fact that he left office almost 20 years ago. Since then a lot has changed in this country and the world. The GOP needs to form a new coalition. The younger generation is fiscally conservative but socially moderate. I believe this is the direction the GOP needs to go or it will be stuck in the minority for years to come.
After all we went through with the Senate and Bush trying to pass amnesty, why on earth should we support a pro-illegal guy like Huckabee. If anything, he is to the left of Bush on this.
Immigration is THE issue for Republicans to actually win in 2008. Yes, I said win. But Huck takes that off the table completely. And we conservatives would end up at loggerheads with President Huckabee on the second most important issue of our time (after war/terrorism).
The news gets better every day:
And screaming about his economic plan isn't really hurting him with evangelicals right now who are more interested in saving the pro-life cause from Rudy than in salvaging a coherent conservative economic policy.
What a fine mess. Let's imagine that even the premise is true, that voting for Huckabee over Giuliani will "save the pro-life cause" -- which it won't -- because the pro-life cause has very little to do with the President in the final analysis. So the Huckabots are asking us to to vote for their guy to save something that's in no danger from Rudy Giuliani, and scuttle a coherent conservative economic policy in the process. I'd say that's a bad bargain.
Now, as far as the clashes between Club for Growth and Huckabee are concerned, it's true that he raised taxes and it's also true that Arkansas had some of the worst roads in the country (I've driven on them also) and money needed to be raised and spent in order to fix them. In Arkansas, more than most places in the country, that tax increase seemed justifiable to me -- as long as it went to the intended purpose, which it seems it did.
So take that away and the case against Huckabee gets a little thinner. I'd also like to point out that Huckabee was *another* Republican governor from a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature. Unlike Mitt Romney, however, Huckabee's Conservative credentials have centered around his religion, where for Romney his religion has been a sore point.
FWIW I think Romney's more of a Conservative right now than Mike Huckabee, sorry Jeff. I think what you're seeing is a large outpouring from the evangelical groups in favor of Mike Huckabee, but I don't think it's enough to win the general election and I don't think he should be the nominee.
And anti-abortion, and the reason that I say it has little to do with the President is because I don't see the President as a spiritual leader of a religious movement: I see the President as the elected leader of a pluralistic Republic.
I would be pro-life regardless of who the President was. It's a question of conscience and reflection, not alignment with the President.
I think a far more important thing for the pro-life cause going forward is that the next President works each day to strengthen the United States by strengthening the family, but the real strength of the family comes from having a secure and economically-vibrant society in which families can succeed, rather than going on the government dole. It also hinges on appoint justices to the Supreme Court who can make it on their mertis and record and *also* be faithful to the Constitution, but not necessarily designated a "Christian Judge."
The Elephant in the room, I think, is that a significant fraction of the people supporting Huckabee really do want the lines between church and state to disappear -- as long as the President is a Christian. But I'm not looking for a sermon from the next President:
I'm looking for an aggressive budget hawk who will actually shrink the size of government and really give the country back to the people.
I'm looking for a President who will appoint qualified, originalist Justices to the Supreme Court.
I'm looking for a President who will spearhead a real alternative energy policy for America -- one that relies on exploring for more of our own resources, while promoting the *real* alternatives (and as I've said ad nauseum there are only three real alternatives: nuclear fission, thermonuclear fission, and exoatmospheric solar.)
I'm looking for a President who can wield soft diplomatic power backed up by a Big Stick on the world stage, and stand alongside any leader from any country of the world and not be diminished.
I'm looking for a President who will articulate to the American people that we're in Iraq until the primary objective of the invasion has been satisfied: the establishment of a functional, Democratic state in the mess left behind by Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
I'm looking for a President who will be responsive and eager to work with pro-life groups around the country but who will not be easily portrayed (and smeared) in the media as their lapdogs.
I'm looking for a President who will be able to bridge the coming demographic shift -- and Adam has mentioned it: The current 18-24 demographic is the most liberal cohort since FDR.
I'm looking for a President who will be honest with America about reforming entitlement programs, not just social security but *especially* medicare.
I'm looking for a President who will really get to the root of why I have to pay $1,700 a month for health insurance for a family of four in Massachusetts, and fix it.
These are just a few of my wishes. Being the elected representative of the pro-life movement is not high on my list of priorities, because I see it as a social issue, and I don't want the Government any more involved in social issues than it already is.
won't stay so liberal once they get off mommy and daddy's dole and start paying back their student loans and all those good liberal taxes. You should have heard the howls of outrage from my oldest stepson, 24 and a recent college graduate, when he saw what little was left of his first real paycheck. On the other hand, if they make enough money, the liberal starts to ooze out again. My daughter with Wife 1.0, now 36, is living the "Starbuck's Life" in the Seattle computer industry and can afford to be insanely liberal. Any talk of politics makes for a VERY unhappy visit!
In Vino Veritas
I agree with your opinion of this, but here's the question: Do we have anything beyond anecdotes to show that each generation shifts right as it gets older?
I really have only anecdote and observation, but my observations is something along the lines of, wherever you are, there you are. Once they hit the wage earning years, it is in their interest to be economically conservative just because they naturally want to keep as much of their earnings as they can. As has been the case with my daughter, at some point they may make enough money that they can "care" again.
To my own situation, it becomes difficult to hew to the conservative line when you know it is in your interest not to. My retirement isn't predicated on a Ponzi Scheme like SS, but it is certainly in my interest for the State of Alaska and its younger employees to keep "those cards and letters coming in." If there is a choice between the State spending money on keeping the Retirement System fiscally sound and doing something else with the money, where do you think I should line up?
In Vino Veritas
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/c6692253-551a-45e4-ba9f-37e740f...
"According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged--- from 30.3% (39th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32nd place).
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, saw sharper increases in taxes during his single gubernatorial term (2003 to 2007) in Massachusetts. The state-local burden rose from 9.8% the year of his election to 10.5% his last year as governor. Meanwhile, the total tax burden went up from 31.2% to 33.9% -- vaulting Massachusetts from 9th place to 7th place in the nation."
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/c6692253-551a-45e4-ba9f-37e740f...
The truth will come out
If the state burden was 11.0 in Arkansas, and the total burden was 30.5, then that leaves a federal burden of 19.5.
And yet at the same time, the 10.5 Massachusetts state burden combined with a total burden of 33.9 laves a federal burden of 23.4.
It sounds like someone's not adjusting for cost of living somewhere...
Some of the difference is explained by cost of living differences (COL and incomes higher in MA than AR), but I suspect the AMT has more of an impact than even that - and I suspect there are substantially more folks in MA subject to the AMT than in AR.
What any of this has to do with either Romney or Huckabee is a mystery to me - it's not like either of them had any impact on federal tax policy during their governorships - but any port in a storm for the Huck-a-bots, I suppose.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Used to be the Huckabots scoffed at polls by and large, but now that they've shifted, you can't wave your arm without hitting a Huckabot talking about polls, heh.
When a guy starts the race from a standing start, and catches the lead horse, then that's when the rooster can crow. So to speak... :)
So chaplain, you and Medved are going to hold Romney responsible for changes that impacted the federal tax burden of Massachusetts residents? Is that how desperate y'all have become?
Oh, and nice try on "the year of his election" - that would be 2002, not the first year he had any power to do anything about the budget - that being 2003. Slick. Clintonesque, even.
The truth has already come out. Long ago.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Romney isn't responsible for local tax increases anymore than Huckabee can claim credit for local tax cuts.
They need to be judged against the other governors that were governor at the same time. The size and scope of government went up under Huckabee and to pay for it he raised taxes. You can't hide from that by trying to attack other candidates.
As far as Medved, that is where I stopped listening to him and won't ever again.
This is like asking why Lou Dobbs still has his job on CNN. Lou is one of CNN's big draws. They would never fire Lou, even though the CNN high command consider Lou to be a fascistic Neanderthal who beats up on innocent Mexicans with a verbal truncheon.
After all, some of these people do their lawns, doesn't he know that?
Mike Huckabee is doing what Ronald Reagan tried to do-connect with the Middle Class. Democrats would like to pretend that they are doing this, but they are not. They are concerned with much more arid issues, as Kotkin and Siegel point out in their ground-breaking article in the L.A. Times over this past weekend.
Hillary and Obama can't fool the voters. The reason why Democrats aren't the vast majority they were under the Roosevelt/Truman/JFK coalition is precisely because they lost touch with the Middle and Working classes. There are lots of reasons with this, most of them having to do with the seizure of that party by the Antiwar Movement in the early Seventies. But the larger lesson for Republicans is that it is the Middle Class that moves this country at the ballot box, not MoveOn.org.
The converse, if true, would be that the Club For Growth isn't what makes the country go, either. Reagan understood this; he connected with average voters and they understood that he cared about their concerns.
Huckabee is rising at a time when voters believe that the elites in both parties don't care about the Middle Class. They want government to work for them, and work well, but not necessarily drain their wallets. They are attracted to Democratic rhetoric but are smart enough to get that Hillary will tax them and nanny them to ruin. So they are not sold on her, despite her best efforts at a makeover.
Rudy has come close, but he's not closing the deal with the rank and file. Fred has the potential, but if he were the next Reagan, he would have made his move in the polls by now. I'm just saying that Huckabee is moving because he gives people in the Middle the impression that he cares about their issues and concerns.
Republicans stopped speaking to the Middle Class during the Bush years. The Immigration Fiasco is proof enough of that pudding. Huckabee's insight is that he understands this and is trying to get this connection back. What Democrats and too many Republicans don't get is that we're a Middle Class party, primarily.
Huck could win in that environment.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Huckabee's position on immigration puts me in the "no" column.
So, when did Huckabee morph into a Tom Tancredo?
Huckabee will stop illegal aliens by, wait for it, passing the FairTax!. Freaking. Classic.
Aside, y'all have a whole lot of nerve calling Romney a flip-flopper.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
McCain is the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton. The campaign surge continues. Also watch this video as to why Democrats are worried about McCain. Huck would make a nice VP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqnnhXW4SQ
IMWITHMCCAIN
I wouldn't mind if Huckabee were a populist in an economically conservative sense. Actually, that'd be a plus for me, and IMO the party as a whole. Being tagged as the party of the rich isn't good for us.
But what such populism means isn't government handouts. It means making sure that the rich don't take improper advantage of the not-rich in their economic contracts. That's it. And not in the Marxist sense where all corporate profit is exploitation. Rather, it'd be a review of bankruptcy, foreclosure, and labor laws.
The problem is Huckabee hasn't been convinced the government shouldn't be doing more than that. He seems quite comfortable with being generous with what's essentially other people's money. When it comes to economic policy, immigration, and the environment, he's taking a lot of his ideals from the religious left. And I don't see why he'd be any less firm about these than his other convictions.
I'd love it if Huckabee would turn here. Certainly there's reason for him to turn. The free market has proven advantages. And in terms of Mosaic law, there's much more about fair dealing than about handouts. Unfortunately, I don't see much reason for optimism.
Since we discovered Mike Huckabee a few months ago, there has been no doubt that he will receive our votes. In well over 25 years of voting we have never contributed to a campaign and have never been so excited about a candidate. We have now made three contributions. If you go to his website you will find out there is a LOT of first time contributors (even crossover dems and independents). Mike Huckabee is authentic, gives honest answers and a hope for unity in America. He has a remarkable record in Arkansas (my grandfather lives in that state). You may also want to visit the Dick Morris website and check out his article on Mike Huckabee.
Some excerpts:
“let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.”
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
You've got to be kidding me. They let him back into the country? I thought he was banned to political handicapping in Kenya. Regardless, that's the last person I'd consider to be a reliable call. That guys got more ethical problems than Clinton.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
The argument that the FairTax may not get passed in the next 4 years as a reason to NOT vote for Huck is not valid.
Voters who only vote for a President who is Pro-Life doesn't meant that they think that Roe v. Wade will be overturned within 4 years either.
It is about making the issue part of the national debate. FairTax supporters KNOW it isgoing to take lot of turnover in Congress to get FairTax passed. How better to do it than show that supporting FairTax can help your electability? If the President supports it, then it isn't quite as risky for a Senate candidate to support it.
FairTax is THE reason I am supporting Huckabee rather than Fred Thompson. Fred had his chance to openly support FairTax, but he refused to do so. Fine, now we have solidified behind one candidate.
Go look at the date when Fred introduced his tax "reform" plan. Then go look at polling and see Huck's uptrend and Fred's downtrend. I was a FredHead, but have now dumped him for Huck.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
You know I'm pretty sympathetic to the FairTax, but I can't see why someone who obviously cares about taxes would support a guy with his kind of record on taxes, especially given the chances the FairTax has of actually becoming law. If Hillary Clinton came out and said she supported the FairTax would that be enough to vote for her over any of the non-Huckabee candidates? I really don't get it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
In Arkansas, the government can only spend money than it has.
The Federal government has absolutely no hard connection between what it spends and its tax revenue; therefore the idea of Huck raising taxes to pay for any new spending increases is unlikely.
IMO, the FairTax is the best way to clearly show Americans how much a program will cost every time they spend money. The idea of getting something from the government "for free" will lesson by the uneducated masses because the tax will obvious to anyone who can read a sales receipt.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
It's what makes the tax progressive. Note that the 20 million illegals paying the tax will not be able to apply for the prebate. Also, the current withholding in the income tax we now "enjoy" is about as regressive as it gets.
There is a hit piece taken out of context which has been very persuasive to a number of people. Once people see the context, the picture changes drastically. Before this speech, Huckabee had already cut spending by over $300. With a slower economy and unfunded mandates, he was forced to come up with more money, but still less than he had cut. And, he wanted these proposed taxes to be temporary, with anything left being returned to Arkansas citizens.
"evangelicals . . . are more interested in saving the pro-life cause from Rudy than in salvaging a coherent conservative economic policy."
This is the problem with Huckabee. He is as dangerous to conservatives as Giuliani - both of them are missing one of the legs on the conservative stool.