Saturday, December 22, 2007

To Be or Not To Huckabee

If Ron Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination I’ll probably vote for whoever the Libertarian Party runs. (By the way, that might just be Dr. Paul since the L.P. has offered him the slot if the GOP doesn’t want him.) But I’m always curious if the Republicans can field someone who could lure me back. Besides “m’buoy” Ron Paul, the only other GOP contenders that have piqued my interest are Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is polling in first place here in Iowa.

A Baptist preacher, I think we can safely assume that he wouldn’t preside over the moral cesspool that the last Arky we had in the Whitehouse did. But how does Huckabee stack up on the issues? Here’s a few of my hot buttons:

Second Amendment- Top Marks! I consider Huck to be second only to Ron Paul on the right to keep and bear arms. In 1998 there was a school shooting at a Jonesboro, Arkansas middle school while Huck was governor of that state. The media and liberals (but I repeat myself) from President Clinton on down to Katie Couric were screaming for the Second Amendment’s head on a pike. This is when most politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, dive for political cover and throw the Second Amendment to the wolves. Not Mike Huckabee! He stood by the right to keep and bear arms, resisted calls for gun control and even locked horns with members of the news media pushing for it. He still opposes gun control, and remains a stalwart friend of gun owners.

Taxes and Spending- Here’s where Huck stinks the place up. According to The Club For Growth, Governor Huckabee increased state spending by 65.3% and supported numerous tax increases on everything from gasoline to nursing home beds. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, gave the governor an “F” on spending and tax policy in 2006. On the positive side, Huck supports the FairTax, a plan to deep-six the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. (If you haven’t heard about the FairTax, read about it here before passing judgment.) However, being a demonstrated real-life tax hiker outweighs support for a good but hypothetical plan that may never come to pass. On taxes and spending, Huck sucks.

10th Amendment/ Limited Government- I’m afraid Mike Huckabee doesn’t smell any better in this category either. The number of state government workers increased by 20 percent during his tenure as governor. His support of a national smoking ban and expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program shows me that he’s not the man to stem the tide of governmental paternalism or slow the march of the Health Nazis in this country. He advocates an increased role for the federal government in local education, fighting global warming, building infrastructure and healthcare. When it comes to the federal government butting out of Americans’ day to day life, Huckabee is a big- government neo-con.

Mike Huckabee is pro-gun and pro-life. He seems like a personally good and spiritual man. I’m inclined to like him. Unfortunately, his record on nearly everything else demonstrates that, as president, he would be George W. Bush sans the tax cut. Too bad. If Huck gets the GOP nod, I’ll definitely be voting Libertarian.


Anonymous said...

I would strongly encourage you, and all libertarians to throw your support behind Fred Thompson.

If you are looking for an economic policy which favors libertarianism, Fred is your man.

Fred is also a HUGE supporter of federalism.

I think I would get along with Mike Huckabee. I think I could sit down with him and have a cup of coffee and discuss Christian apologetics and have a great time. But his record on illegal immigration, crime, taxes etc. are not conservative, libertarian, objectiveist, etc.

I am afraid that Huckabee is another one of these "compassionate conservatives" that I dont want!

I want Reagan conservatism, with Reagan foreign policy, sprinkled with Freidman and Rand economic policy.

So I'm going for Fred Thompson.

He is the only candidate that doesn't force me to compromise on my corps beliefs.

The thing is, that Fred needs support now, or this is going t be a race between which republican will be the most "compassionate" ie. who will use government to "help" people, while lowering taxes at the same time ad subsequently bankrupting us.

Check out

At the issues section you'll find a side y side comparison with Romney and Huckabee.

Anonymous said...

Trollin', trollin', trollin'

Ben said...

Yeah, I can probably live with Thompson, though I'm not going to vote for him.

Jen said...

For what it's worth, so long as Thompson opposes the First Amendment (through his continuing and vigorous support for restrictions on political speech) and Huckabee wants to implement an actual nanny state (through his support for federal laws governing our personal habits), neither will be worthy of support from those of us who favor liberty.

Anonymous said...

I'll join the choir for Thompson, and I urge all of you to get your friends on board as well. Thompson has to do well in Iowa to stay viable. People need to realize that between Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson; Thompson is the best chance to beat any Democrat.

Ben said...

I agree with Jennifer whole-heartedly. That's why I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul.

Bawb said...


Ron Paul is the only horse in the race who will abide by that oath, which all of them have taken, and the only who who has consistently defended that document in word and vote.

Fred may look like a "Tennessee Stud", but he's a Globalist CFR member who's voted for such odious bills as the McCain-Fiengold Incumbent Protection Act to squash the 1st Amendment, the Lautenberg Bill against the 2nd, and for Federal wire-tapping (Amendment 4).

Sounds like another four years of business-as-usual to me. This election could be our last chance for any real reform in an out-of-control Federal behemoth sliding down the slippery slope to a police state.

Anonymous said...

Ok Bawb, but I think you are misrepresenting Fred's record.I agree with you that McCain/Feingold was a bad choice, but even Fred has admitted to this.

Lautenburg inst exactly good policy, but I don't think this can really be used to tear down his record on the 2nd amendment which has been exemplary.

The points you bring up are valid, the question is, are you really going to get a candidate who agrees with you 100%?

Ron Paul's foreign policy would be disastrous. I cannot believe that it is taken seriously This is not to say that we shouldn't implement SOME of his ideas, but a complete and total withdrawal from all over seas bases? A immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

This might have been a fine policy in 1807, but with modern technology, and the global market being what it is, to pretend that the role we play in global stability isn't a legitimate form of national defense ignores reality.

And foreign policy and national defense are the two primary responsibilities of the executive branch.

What exactly do you mean "business as usual"?

If you mean like the Bush administration I think you couldn't be more wrong.

One more quick look at reality, Ron Paul will not get the nomination...sorry, but there it is.

If you vote Libertarian, you might as well vote for Hillary.

So Libertarians have to make a critical decision. Will they help the Republican party find their wy back to traditional conservatism and libertarian economic policy, or will you insist on supporting candidates who have not been winning since 1971?

Im not trying t be jerk here. I have a great deal of respect for libertarians, mainly because I see a great deal of value in their platform, and because I think they are intellectually honest; but lets face facts. You could have a great deal more influence as a wing of the Republican party, especially in this election, then you can by staking it out on your own.

Thanks for letting me sound off.

Ben said...

Nick, I have to disagree with your assessment of Dr. Paul's foreign policy. I believe that our intervention with and aid for foreign governments makes us less secure.

Whenever we help one group of people, we are helping someone else's sworn enemies (Israel, for example). When we aid a corrupt gov't, we infuriate their people (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). When we support an oppressed people, we infuriate their gov't (Iran, N. Korea). Our "friends" that we arm today, we will fight tommorrow (Afghanistan).

The "role we play in global stability," as you put it, lights a hundred more fuses for every one that we stamp out. People aren't flying half-way around the world to suicide-bomb buildings in Switzerland, which is as free and rich as we are.

Here's a little bit in Dr. Paul's own words: "Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage."

Jen said...

Nick F. -- You assert that Mr. Thompson has repudiated, changed, or somehow admitted to the error of his previous ways in regard to McCain-Feingold. My understanding based on news reports, etc, has been that Mr. Thompson continues to embrace "campaign finance reform" a/k/a incumbent protection schemes a/k/a an aversion to the first amendment.

Please provide the citation or reference link to Mr. Thompson's change of heart, as an attorney who litigates against such disastrous reform laws I would be very interested to read about it.

Thank you.

Ben said...

Jen, I think Nick is right about Thompson backing away from McCain-Feingold.

From a piece titled "Is Fred Thompson a Small-Government Conservative?":

"On the other hand, [Thompson]supported McCain-Feingold, although he has now backed away from that position, suggesting the law has been overtaken by events. He told John Fund that he was now willing to consider scrapping campaign finance in favor of full disclosure."