January 22, 2011
It had been quite some time since Mike Huckabee had insulted, crossed, and otherwise annoyed limited-government conservatives. As one of the very few high-profile Republicans to openly oppose TARP, he had a tremendous opportunity to rebuild bridges.
Today, at King’s College (NYC), Huckabee not only refused to rebuild those bridges, but he set fire to a few more (Brian Stewart – NRO: The Corner):
Huckabee flatly denied being a “pro-life liberal,” an accusation often made in certain quarters on the right. Not a trace of defensiveness could be detected on this point. To the contrary, the governor gave an all-out defense of his tax hikes while governor of Arkansas on the grounds that they were the only responsible course of action to repair state roads. He snorted with derision at “libertarians” who fail to recognize that “we don’t have a health care crisis in this country, but a health crisis.” He spoke with passion and knowledge on the need for preventative care to bring down exorbitant costs. And then, without the least amount of prompting, he mustered a vigorous defense of Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity. This was the “art of governing,” he argued, rather than the cheap “science of campaigning.”
Where to begin!
For starters, the tax-hikes-for-roads nonsense is a common feature here in Virginia, at least until Speaker Bill Howell and his fellow Republicans in the House of Delegates finally got over their HB3202-induced tax-fever. The rest was just Huckabee’s typical drivel. In fact, his last line about the “art of governing” – citing a First Lady campaign – would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragically ignorant.
He then digs himself even deeper with this:
Invited to plea for cuts in defense spending, he delicately declined, but noted that combat operations in Afghanistan were futile and therefore constituted government “waste.”
Let that sink in for just a minute: fighting the Taliban is now government waste to Mike Huckabee.
Stewart called Huckabee “The Face of Conservative Populism.” That Huckabee can still manage to get “conservative” attached to himself is all the more reason I call myself a right-wing liberal.
Also cross-posted to Virginia Virtucon
June 15, 2010
The head of Mike Huckabee’s political action committee (HuckPAC) has informed the world that his boss “should still be included on the list of possible Republican presidential candidates” (Des Moines Register). Later he “sent a statement from Huckabee saying no decision about his political future will be made until after the mid-term elections.”
In other words, the Huckster wants to be back in the 2012 conversation.
If that’s what he wants, that’s OK. However, if he’s back, well, then so are we.
May 28, 2008
The man’s ignorance knows no bounds (NRO – The Corner, emphasis added):
More from that Huckabee Interview [Ramesh Ponnuru]
The former governor and presidential candidate also says:
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.
He goes on for a while in this vein . . .
For us locals, the Huckster is just an Arkansan Emmett Hanger, but I’m curious to see what John McCain thinks of his rival bashing the best decision he ever made (his opposition to Medicare Part D).
If McCain notices this, we can rest assured that Huckabee will never become McCain’s running mate.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
February 8, 2008
We have compiled many, many reasons over the past few months why you should not vote for Mike Huckabee on Tuesday.
Here is one of them, that led us to dub him as the Republican Mike Dukakis — “Mike Dukakabee.”
But that is not the only reason. He also:
And this is all just the tip of the iceberg.
Read the rest of the blog for more. Much more.
Mike Huckabee belongs no where near the presidency, not as McCain’s running mate and not even in a cabinet post where he is in the line of succession. He is a big government Republican who just happens to be a social conservative. Some label this as being a “Christian Socialist.” Whatever you want to call it, it is NOT what any Reagan conservative should want this party to become.
So, on Tuesday, vote for John McCain. Vote for Ron Paul. Vote for one of the candidates who has already dropped out. But by no means vote for Mike Huckabee.
January 7, 2008
Mike Dukakabee supports the so-called “FairTax,” claiming that it will do away with the income tax and the IRS in one fell swoop — no more income tax, Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes, alternative minimum tax, capital gains tax or estate tax. What he DOESN’T tell you is that the “Fair Tax,” which is actually a 30 percent sales tax, double taxes your savings on which you have already paid taxes by taxing you again when you spend it. And without a constitutional amendment abolishing the income tax, the threat that we will wind up with both an income tax and a national sales tax exists.
Not at all surprising that Dukakabee would support such a bad idea and try to cloak it in Reagan clothes.
January 3, 2008
I have just heard on Fox News that Mike Huckabee will spend the next five days in New Hampshire. This isn’t news, of course; Huckabee is hoping to build on the momentum from his big win in Iowa tonight.
Well, let me say this: Mike Huckabee could win New Hampshire, but I wouldn’t bet any money on it.
Now, finally, after weeks of watching his record of tax increase roll off like water off a duck’s back, Huckabee will come face to face with voters who actually care about limited government.
The fact is, economic conservative policies were never popular in Iowa. When the state was a Republican bastion in the early part of the 20th Century, it was because the Republicans were the big-government party; the isolationist, dovish party. The Republicans have changed, but Iowa hasn’t. Thus, for a Republican to win in Iowa, he had to trumpet his social conservative views and hide his economic conservative ones.
Huck had no economic conservative views, so Iowa was relatively easy for him. One could even say the place was tailor-made for a candidate like Mike Huckabee.
New Hampshire is not. Republicans in New Hampshire care about taxes and spending; they care about limited government; they care about a governor who said one thing on taxes and did another.
So Congratulations, Governor; you pulled out of the second tier and as such, did very well in a state where you can do well. Just don’t expect the same reception in New Hampshire.
December 11, 2007
Mitt Romney had this to say about Mike Dukakabee (Mark Helprin, ABC – emphasis in original – h/t Spectator (UK) Coffee House):
I’m convinced as people take a good hard look at Mike Huckabee’s record, they’ll see this is a guy who is soft on criminals, soft on illegal aliens, but hard on taxpayers. And that’s not what’s going to lead the Republican party to take the White House.
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.