Thats pretty much the only way I can read this
In an interview with 1200 WOAI news during his swing through Texas, longshot Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee outlined a strategy which has him not winning the GOP nomination outright, but pushing the nomination to the September Republican National Convention, which he says will turn to him as the most ‘conservative alternative.’
The ‘brokered convention’ plan is in stark contrast to Huckabee’s previous sunny predictions of a sweep to victory in the primaries and caucuses on the shoulders of adoring family values conservatives.
So in a pathetic last ditch effort to get the nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to completely ruin any possible chance of the GOP winning in November. The American people are sick and tired of the incompetence and pandering to the nut-jobs of George Bush, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, and Rick Santorum (see: 2006 Elections). Obama can attract 22,000 people to a rally at Georgia Tech. Mitt managed to get about 1500. The GOP’s only shot of beating the Democrats is to rally around McCain – who unlike Hillary or Barack will continue to actually fight the jihadists.
So, if any Ron Paul Supporters in Texas are reading this, if you want to make sure that the US is out of Iraq this time next year, vote for Huckabee. And all those who voted for Huckabee here in Georgia, Osama Bin Laden thanks you for your support.
{ 84 comments }
← Previous Comments
So, a vote for anyone other than an aging RINO with temper control issues and a solid neo-con voting record is a vote for Al-Qaeda?
I hope the GOP has better arguments than that.
“I hope the GOP has better arguments than that.”
Not many and not much.
Posts such as this one are good illustrations of why the Republican party is in shambles. The Rockefeller Republican wing of the party has reasserted itself since 2000, setup the 2008 primaries to allow their “independent” and Democrat friends to dilute the strength of conservatism in the Republican primary process.
We have the Orwellian spectacle of Rockefeller Republicans like McCain, Romney, and Guiliani being inaccurately called conservative while a real conservative like Huckabee is falsely painted as a liberal, and conservatives like Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson are dismissed altogether.
It is grossly Orwellian when Rush calls Huckabee a “Huckster” and says he is not conservative.
It is grossly Orwellian when Hannity and Laura Ingraham refere to Huckabee as a “tax and spend liberal”.
Fortunately, conservatives are not mind-numbed robots waiting for their daily marching orders from anybody. I must admit we are no longer the dominant voice in the Republican party, but we aren’t quite ready to shutup and sing the party line.
Huckabee is doing the right thing. He is giving conservatives the option of voting for him to hopefully take the issues of conservatism to the convention (which is what the convention is for), or to put their tails between their legs and obey the Rockefeller Republican call to get in line and support a liberal candidate as if he were to be anointed rather than selected.
Whether Huckabee bows out gracefully now, or stays in to the convention has no bearing on whether McCain can beat Hillary or Obama. McCain is a weak candidate, no different than Ford in 76, Bush in 92, or Dole in 96.
Republicans win when they have a candidate that is conservative across the board. Bush fooled people in 92, and his son in 2000, by pretending to be conservative when they had no intention of governing from conservative principles. With McCain (or Romney or Guiliani) Republicans have no such conservative candidate.
Conservatives are able to be conerned about more than one thing at a time. Conservatives can want to see abortion be the decision of the States, to see our enemies destroyed, to see illegal immigration stopped and reversed, and to see government’s immoral levels of taxation and interference in private lives reduced significantly. Huckabee certainly stands conservative on all these. We can’t be so sure about McCain, given his flip-flopping.
Any loss of the Presidency in November by McCain is due solely to what the Rockefeller Republicans have done in neutering the once powerful, once admirable, and once believable, Republican party.
Why did Republicans lose so badly in 2006? Because, thanks to the Rockefeller wing of the party, they did not get rid of unnecessary programs, like the Dept. of Education, did not reign in spending, and did not hold each other to acceptable personal moral and ethical standards, and went right back to “nation-building”. The Republicans of 1994 had 12 years to get it right, and did not keep their word. The losers got booted. Plain and simple.
Good post MSBass
I love the overblown stereotype Farris. If you want to believe that Huckabee’s supporters are a bunch of backward idiots go ahead, it just isn’t true.
Also, so much for competition breeds excellence belief that the GOP used to believe in. As long as Huckabee stays positive and points to the political differences that they have, I believe he will only help McCain.
The only way we go to a brokered convention is if some major scandal breaks about McCain.
Sorry, but the notion that Huckabee is a conservative is quite laughable.
“Opportunist” and “hack” politician come to mind.
Conservatives never had a chance in this race, none at all.
The only way we go to a brokered convention is McCain was to die tonight and unable to get any more delegates.
The Huckster needs to drop out and allow McCain to begin preparing for the general election. Keeping the Whitehouse will be an uphill battle for the GOP. We need every advantage possible.
By staying in, the Huckster is helping the Democrats…
Huckabee needs to stop being so egotistical and self serving.
He won’t be VP. 2/3rd of the GOP base despise the Huckster. 1/3rd still follow him like mind numbed robots…
debbie0040, should we just skip the convention and go ahead and anoint McCain?
You need to understand that the party – GOP or Democrat – is far less important than the nation. There is no benefit to the nation or the party by having the last conservative candidate withdraw before the convention.
McCain is sufficiently liberal and untrustworthy that his term as President will be barely distinguishable from Hillary or Obama.
Like I said earlier, “Any loss of the Presidency in November by McCain is due solely to what the Rockefeller Republicans have done in neutering the once powerful, once admirable, and once believable, Republican party.”
Although I do wonder why my reply to “IndyInjun” was removed. I didn’t notice anything untoward in it.
The last conservative candidate? Huckabee is not conservative. Huckabee is an evangelical not a conservative.
He might have some social conservative views, but he is a fiscal LIBERAL. It takes more than being pro life and against gay marriage to be a conservative. Huckabee also changed his views on illegal immigration when he decided to run for President.
The Huckster can not win.
John McCain is not a liberal. Tell me, point out areas where McCain is liberal.
debbie0040, you may be right that Huckabee cannot win. The liberal wing of the GOP has had the process sewn up since 2004.
But there is no rational argument for Huckabee not being conservative.
First, your statement makes it sound like evangelicals are not conservatives. Traditional American conservatism came from applying Scriptural teachings to civil society without having a theocracy. Did you notice that the Founders were largely Christian from different Protestant sects? Social, fiscal, and defense conservatism all comes from that.
Don’t believe the propaganda you’ve heard about Huckabee. Look at the facts.
He, having to work with a heavily Democrat legislature and years of neglect from Clinton, lowered taxes in Arkansas, and lowered the tax burden. He has always been for lower taxes and lower government regulation. He is for the Fair Tax, which is the most conservative tax plan out there.
Huckabee is and has been 100% for taking the war to our enemies and winning the war. He is properly hawkish in the defense of our nation.
It is McCain, not Huckabee, who is the liberal here. McCain is the nominee of the Rockefeller Republican wing, the liberals.
“John McCain is not a liberal. Tell me, point out areas where McCain is liberal.” Au contraire, madame.
McCain pushed for amnesty for illegals.
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts (2001 and 2003) on the basis that it unfairly helped the rich (the Democrat line).
McCain pushed for and passed the McCain-Feingold Bill that helps Democrats, hurts Republicans, and restrictsd free speech.
McCain has spoken harshly of, and insulted, Christians – the very people who have strongly supported his party.
McCain, in 2005, opposed a federal gay-marriage ban.
McCain opposed overturning Roe v Wade (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99).
MCain’s ACU rating teh past 7 years has been below 70%, and currently at 65%.
McCain believes in man-made (anthropogenic) global warming, which is a hoax.
The proposed McCain-Lieberman energy bill would raise taxes on gas by 50 cents per gallon.
McCain opposed drilling in ANWAR.
McCain opposed interrogation techniques that have already saved American lives.
McCain wants to shutdown Gitmo, bring the prisoners to the US, and give them rights to our court system like any criminal.
MCain is rated with an “F” from the Gun Owners of America (GOA).
McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows.
Is that enough for you? All this has been readily available in the conservative media.
A true conservative is conservative socially, fiscally, and on defense. Huckabee is, McCain is not. McCain fits the Rockefeller Republican mold, Huckabee does not.
If being a Christian who walks the talk is something you find distatsteful in a President, I am glad you weren’t around for Presidents like Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Madison. If that point of view is yours, you would have detested them.
Perhaps you don’t believe this, but there was a piece of propaganda going around when Romney was still running that Huckabee and evangelicals in general want to turn our nation into a theocracy. I’ve been an activist Christian for a long time, and I have never heard any reputable Christian advocate that. The Constitution we have is just fine – and we need to go by it much more closely than we do.
Bass – I’m confused. You defend Huckabee’s tax-increase and massive spending as conservative yet condemn Bush 42’s tax-cutting and massive spending as not conservative?
Both are liberals for massively increasing spending. Bush just happens to be a supply-side liberal.
should we just skip the convention and go ahead and anoint McCain?
YES! because no one else is going to get the nomination, and the longer the GOP Primary goes on, the harder it will be for McCain to win the general.
I don’t think that Phuckabee, the Suckabee Huckster’s decision to stay in the race matters.
There is no mathematical possibility for him to steal the nomination and the organizational and fundraising support is lining up behind McCain.
Indeed, McCain is only going after Obama in his attacks.
In other words, Phuckabee is having as much impact on the GOP race as Gravel is for the Democrats.
Just because party activists are worried about Phuckabee prolonging the race doesn’t mean there is anything to be worried about.
Chris
Why do you support McCain?
MS, I am a Christian and preachers kid so I don’t find the fact the Huckster is a Christian distasteful.
What I do find distasteful is the fact I believe the Huckster is using his Christianity to obscure his bad fiscal record of raising taxes, increasing spending and pardoning/commuting the sentences of murderers and rapists. When it comes to raising taxes, the Huckster makes Clinton look conservative.
Being tough on crime is part of being conservative.
The Huckster also advocated amnesty for illegals and even supported the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Bill in May of 2006 and also supported a path to citizenship for illegals.
It is not Christian to mislead and lie about your record like the Huckster has.
I would not vote for Tax Hike Mike Huckabee if he were the only candidate in the race..
debbie0040, I have no problem with you voting any way you believe is right. I am glad that you aren’t one of the secular conservatives that detest the involvement of Christian conservatives. You might be surprised how often I encounter such people.
I am fully aware of the points you raise against Huckabee, but the facts just are not there. Huckabee lowered taxes more than he raised them – in fact, one of the tax increases was voted on by the people and he had to go along with it. He never supported McCain’s amnesty bill (McCain-Kennedy). There is absolutely nothing in Huckabee’s record or his platform to indicate he is for higher taxes or pro-illegal immigration.
I don’t expect you to suddenly support Huckabee. But you should at least stick with the factual truth. One could think what you wrote is bearing false witness since the facts are so contrary to the assertions. I don’t think so, though. I think you just haven’t looked deeply enough at the facts, and are unintentionally taking the propaganda as fact and forming your heartfelt opinions from that. At least you are engaged in the discussion and not sitting back and doing nothing.
Although I never supported Romney or McCain, I did do the due diligence to go to their websites and read their stands on issues and the accusations made about them. I would hope you would at least do the same for Huckabee, and search the web for 3rd party discussions of the anti-Huckabee propaganda.
Don’t forget that both Romney and Reagan, as governors, raised taxes more than Huckabee.
BTW, I served 5 years as a local pastor, and my kids (now grown with their own kids) were PKs.
Chris,
You wrote: “I’m confused. You defend Huckabee’s tax-increase and massive spending as conservative yet condemn Bush 42’s tax-cutting and massive spending as not conservative?”
Fortunately, I get to say what I wrote and what I meant. Your version is incorrect.
Huckabee supported tax raises in a few areas, one of which was voted on by the people, and lowered taxes in a lot more areas. The overall effect was to hold taxes down. Huckabee is and has been, for the Fair Tax, which not only reduces taxes, but eliminates income taxes, corporate taxes, and cap gains taxes – while cutting spending. There is nothing more fiscally conservative than that.
Bush’s tax cuts were miniscule compared to Reagan’s, and were too little too late. Apparently you and I agree that Bush has governed as a fiscally irresponsible liberal.
Since Huckabee raised taxes and spent money as governor less than Reagan or Romney, and is clearly for tax and spending cuts now at the Federal level, I can come to no other logical conclusion than Huckabee is indeed conservative.
Now, please educate me as to why McCain, who appears to be your guy, is conservative. (No, I am not being facetious – I am open to hearing why someone thinks he is conservative).
“He is for the Fair Tax, which is the most conservative tax plan out there.”
Says who?
The GOP has never adopted it as part of any platform and a lot of conservatives think that it is nuts.
Debbie
Why do you think your postings are Christian like?
Indy,
To add to what you said… The very definition of conservative is to maintain the status quo, or resist change. How is a drastic overhaul of the tax code “conservative”.
I was once a supporter and I still would support it, if we started from scratch with no tax code, but the change is too drastic for a one time thing. Anyone who suggests that it could happen on a single date is a madman. That means it will have to co-exist with the income tax, which means the income tax will never go away, leaving us with another way for the Feds to tax us.
Instead, we need to attack the real problems, Overspending and complexity of the tax code. If the government did not want to spend a hefty chunk of the GDP, we would not really care about the tax code in the first place.
The sad fact is that everyone wants their tax bill to be 0, and wants everyone else to pay for all the services and perks that they receive. Until there is a philosophical change in the mind of the people, nothing will ever work.
IndyInjun, in what universe is something conservative only when GOP approved? The GOP was not a conservative party (in modern times) until Reagan, and soon after the 94 Congressional elections, the Rockefeller wing of the party seized control again.
The Fair Tax is built on conservative principles such as:
What you tax more, you get more of. What you tax less, you get less of. If you tax income (incl. cap gains), there is less incentive to generate income. If you remove taxes from income, then you get more of it and the economy grows.
The use of income taxes for social engineering is a liberal concept, not conservative.
Taxing income is immoral. Taxing sales at one and only one point is more in line with how taxation was done from our country’s start.
The only conservatives that think the Fair Tax is nuts are 1) those who never bothered to read it and understand how it works, and 2) those who see the removal of income taxes as a loss of political power. The former is inexcuable, and the latter is understandable, if they would only be honest about it. Some are at least honest enough to say they just don’t think the DC power structure will ever permit it. That, too, is understandable. But, to call it “nuts” is either uninformed or greedy for power.
MSBassSinger
Did you know Indy is an expert on tax?
MSBS
You lose. I have read the bill and now both books. I will gladly debate either FT book author in any neutral forum. However, they have surrendered, saying in the new book that they don’t want to debate the actual legislation, just their ‘concept’ of it.
I would make a fortune if the FT passes. Call me neutral. Never let it be said that I did not try to warn folks not armed with my research.
Every IRS agent in the USA and every tax accountant is salivating over the FT, that is why there is not much outcry against it from those quarters.
Isn’t it great that a person’s degree doesn’t change the facts? If a person with a PhD in astronomy told me the sun appears to rise in the west, then should I just agree?
For example, DougDeal talks about the Fair Tax co-existing with the income tax. That is not the plan nor what HR 25 says. The Fair Tax ONLY takes effect when the 16th amendment is repealed. I sure wouldn’t support it any other way.
I would agree that it is a huge challenge to BOTH repeal the 16th amendment AND implement the Fair Tax. But since when do conservative Americans shy away from big challenges when it is the right thing to do?
So, IndyInjun, let us assume I am wrong. It’s happened before.
Show me some factual, reasoned example of how I am wrong to support the Fair Tax.
And I would pay good money to watch you debate Boortz on the Fair Tax. I am not that big a fan of Boortz, but the debate would be entertaining.
I don’t think I was clear on how I would support the Fair Tax. So here goes, even if you disagree:
No parallelism. The Fair Tax takes effect ONLY after the 16th amendment is repealed.
Until the Fair Tax takes effect, taxes should be lowered, corporate and capital gains taxes eliminated. A flat tax rate should be used until ther is (if there is) a Fair Tax.
An increase in the FT rate must be passed by 2/3rds of the House and Senate. A decrease would require only 50% + 1.
Real federal spending should be decreased by eliminating non-essential (that is, those programs, agencies, and departments not fully in keeping with the Constitutional requirements) spending. For example, but not limited to: Dept. of Education, NEA, farm subsidies, unfunded federal mandates, foriegn aid to countries who stand against the US or provide (by their govt or citizenry) aid to our enemies, etc.)
Eliminate the death tax and tax on social security income.
Limit spending on existing programs to no more than the true CPI and increase in legal population, with the exception of defense related spending for men, material, and R&D.
The bill for the FT, whether HR 25 or a future bill, must have a detailed plan for the transition period, including inventory and undelivered but sold items, as well as some degree of transparency for how the COGS decreases when the hidden taxation goes away.
I am for the Fair Tax, but not in a way that leaves us open to worse taxation. To do all that is a tall order, and if it fails, it fails becaause we were not up to the task. But it is worth attempting. There is a 100% chance it will not happen if we don’t try.
Indy,
Do you oppose any move from an income tax to a consumption tax, or are you just opposed to the specifics of the Fair tax?
The Fair Tax ONLY takes effect when the 16th amendment is repealed.
I’m not sure about that. Boortz and Linder have said that a sunset provision would have to be included if a repeal of the 16th Amendment didn’t happen, I don’t think it exists as currently written.
MSBS:
The other Peachpunditeers ridicule me for explaining in depth and I have done it many times.
My approach has been to study it like I was representing a client and researching the Bill for the first time. Doing this from a sales tax perspective – nobody else has done so, as far as I can tell – led me to conclude that the people are being sold a grand deception.
Joe: I actually like a national sales tax at low rates with NO exemptions and no ‘prebate” The rate might be in the 8 to 10% range, but would have to be coupled with spending cuts.
One day I might just do a web site to lay my case out so folks can see what they are being lead into by Boortz and Linder.
“I actually like a national sales tax at low rates with NO exemptions and no ‘prebate” The rate might be in the 8 to 10% range, but would have to be coupled with spending cuts.”
I agree except I would add a low flat income tax at 5% or less with no writie offs. I would than lower the national sales cost tax if we got spending in line.
The biggest problem is spending!
“I actually like a national sales tax at low rates with NO exemptions and no ‘prebate” The rate might be in the 8 to 10% range, but would have to be coupled with spending cuts.”
I agree except I would add a low flat income tax at 5% or less with no write offs. I would than lower the national sales cost tax if we got spending in line.
The biggest problem is spending!
“MSBassSinger // Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I am fully aware of the points you raise against Huckabee, but the facts just are not there. Huckabee lowered taxes more than he raised them – in fact, one of the tax increases was voted on by the people and he had to go along with it. He never supported McCain’s amnesty bill (McCain-Kennedy). There is absolutely nothing in Huckabee’s record or his platform to indicate he is for higher taxes or pro-illegal immigration.”
Maybe YOU should do the research, I can assure you I have. Was this Mike Huckabee’s clone that gave this interview and supported the Senate/Whitehouse – McCain-Kennedy
amnesty bill and advocated a path to citizenship for illegals? Man, cloning sure has come along way…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201237.html
“Where are you on the debate that rages here between the House approach on immigration and what seems now to be a consensus approach in the Senate, particularly on the issue of a path to legal status or citizenship for at least quite a few of the 11 to 12 million who are here illegally?
I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. You shouldn’t ignore the law or ignore those who break it. But by the same token, I think it’s a little disingenuous when I hear people say they should experience the full weight of the law in every respect with no pathway, because that’s not something we practice in any other area of criminal justice in this country.
We have everything from plea bargainings to suspended sentences to probation to clemency. There’s a whole gamut of ways in which there are lesser than the full penalties applied for a whole variety of reasons — everything from jail overcrowding to non-violent offenses.
To think that we’re going to go lock up 12 million people, or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go, might make a great political speech, but it’s not going to happen. What should happen, however, is exactly what I think the president has proposed, and that is that we create a process where people make restitution for the fact they have broken the law. ”
As for Huckabee’s tax increases,
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html
Under fire from conservatives, the former Arkansas governor misrepresents his tax hikes, and cuts.
Summary
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been hit with criticism over his record on taxes as governor of Arkansas. The faultfinders have been members of his own party, who take issue with tax increases he enacted. In recent interviews on Fox News, Huckabee responded to some of these questions, but we found him to be misleading and incorrect on several points:
Huckabee claimed that a speech in which he implored the state Legislature to raise taxes was in response to a state Supreme Court order to increase education funding. But he specifically said in that speech that he would address the education matter at a later date.
He said a tax on beds filled in nursing homes was a “fee” not a tax, despite the fact that he himself has called it the “bed tax.”
Huckabee claimed a gasoline tax was only passed after 80 percent of voters approved it. Not true. The tax was enacted before a referendum vote on highway repairs.
He frequently says he cut taxes “almost 94 times” but leaves out the 21 taxes raised during his tenure. In the end, he presided over a net tax increase.
Does this thread dare to dream?
it has the right first word.
Debbie
You rip Huckabee on immigration and support McCain?
WOW you have taking being partisan hack to a new level!
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.