Posted on 10/26/2007 8:37:20 AM PDT by pookie18
In some quarters, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee appears to be the flavor-of-the-month Republican candidate for president. Given his folksy charm, social conservative credentials, and embrace by the mainstream media, it is not surprising that some are increasingly enamored with him. But this flirtation does a great disservice to the conservative movement if it overlooks Huckabee’s stunning record of big-government liberalism.
During Huckabee’s tenure as governor, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. A dyed-in-blue tax hiker, Huckabee supported raising sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even nursing home bed taxes. He virulently opposed a congressional moratorium on taxing Internet access, and sat on the sidelines while his Democratic legislature pushed the largest tax hike in Arkansas history into law. What’s more, on his watch, and frequently at his behest, state spending increased by 50 percent, more than double the rate of inflation, and the number of state government workers rose by 20 percent. Yes, as a presidential candidate, Huckabee has signed on as a supporter of the Fair Tax and pledged against raising taxes, but when a candidate’s long and clear record flies in the face of his election-year symbolism, you can chalk it up to politics every time.
Of course, there is little actual chance of Huckabee winning the presidency — at least not in 2008. Notwithstanding his improved polling in Iowa, Huckabee isn’t really running for president — not with a near empty campaign treasury. Rather, the second iteration of the Man from Hope is trying to parlay his social conservative credentials and aw-shucks congeniality into the vice-presidential nomination next year. Before conservatives jump on that train, however, they should consider the likelihood that the presence of such a big government backer on the ticket would hurt the party’s prospects more than it helps.
In 2006, Republicans suffered a severe lashing at the polls in retaliation for years of out-of-control spending and government expansion. In the final days before last year’s elections, the Club for Growth commissioned a poll among voters in the 15 most competitive congressional districts across the country. The results showed a remarkable and painful erosion of the Republicans’ fiscal branding among these key swing voters.
For example, we asked voters whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.” Sixty-six percent of voters in these key districts agreed with the statement, including 72 percent of Independents.
In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the “party of Wall Street,” will only reinforce the image of Republicans as “the big spenders that they used to oppose.” A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.
Huckabee makes no secret of his desire to turn the GOP leftward, calling himself a “different kind of Republican,” adopting protectionist positions, and peppering his campaign speeches with the kind of class warfare rhetoric one expects to hear from John Edwards. No doubt, this is the reason that the liberal media is so smitten with him.
Instead of talking about curtailing government spending, Huckabee refuses to endorse President Bush’s veto of a vastly expanded S-CHIP. He is an unabashed fan of No Child Left Behind and an opponent of private school choice. Huckabee is also quickly becoming the labor unions’ favorite Republican, recently gaining a union endorsement along with Hillary Clinton.
In frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, the GOP is well on its way to nominating a candidate for president with a strong fiscal record. Each of them would provide a great opportunity for the GOP to reestablish its vitally important brand as the party of pro-growth tax policy and smaller and more affordable government. But no Republican presidential candidate can effectively claim that mantle with Mike Huckabee standing by his side.
Beyond those currently running for president, the eventual nominee has any number of strong across-the-board conservative prospects for vice president to choose from within the GOP ranks. Surely, he can do so without assuming the tax-and-spend baggage Mike Huckabee would bring.
In 2006, Republicans paid a steep price for big-government conservatism’s record-setting domestic spending spree. That is a lesson we should take to heart as we consider the choices facing us in 2008.
— Pat Toomey is the president and CEO of the Club for Growth.
Good analysis. I think you’re exactly right.
*Crickets*
Dittos on that comment. Neither Toomey nor Huckabee are 'sold out', but Toomey and the CfG are true fiscal conservatives while Huckabee's record is one of someone who clearly is not.
We cannot have another tax-and-spender at the top of the ticket.
How so? Go back to the original context of my post. His factually-challenged lip service to Giuliani and Romney destroys his credibility.
Selling out refers to the compromising of one’s integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, ‘success’ or other personal gain. How, in you opinion, did Toomey do this?
Perhaps you’re right. I retract the “sell-out” label.
Paying lip service to Giuliani and Romney as somehow being paragons of virtue when it comes to economic conservatism isn’t direct evidence of a sell-out. It’s just stupid and ignorant and galling, especially coming from someone with as much power as Pat Toomey has available at his service.
“Paying lip service to Giuliani and Romney as somehow being paragons of virtue when it comes to economic conservatism isn’t direct evidence of a sell-out. It’s just stupid and ignorant and galling, especially coming from someone with as much power as Pat Toomey has available at his service.”
I don’t know if you can realisticly accuse Toomey of portraying Rudy and Mitt as “paragons” but both governors left their respective states better off fiscally than when they entered office. Both governors got spending under control. I agree with Toomey that if republicans are going to reclaim the public’s confidence, its going to have to be in the area of fiscal responsibility. Toomey believes we can do that with either Thompson, Giuliani or Romney(in that order). I agree. Huckabee and McCain get CforG’s worst marks btw.
A) Giuliani was never a Governor.
B) You’re just plain wrong. Any indication of fiscal conservatism from any of these liberals is nothing more than a product of their campaign’s myth-making abilities.
“Any indication of fiscal conservatism from any of these liberals is nothing more than a product of their campaign’s myth-making abilities.”
Well I wouldn’t accuse Club for Growth for falling for any supposed “campaign myth making abilities”. These guys focus on the candidates records and arrive at solid opinions and advice. This is the Club for Growth, not the New York Times.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/09/fred_thompsons_record_on_econo.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/05/rudy_giulianis_economic_record.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php
I don’t form my opinions of any candidate based on the opinions of the Club or anyone else.
I’ve seen the CfG come down on the right side many times, for which I’m always grateful, and I’ve seen them blow it.
But, again, I’ll say it: Anyone who thinks Giuliani or Romney are any sort of conservative, fiscal or otherwise, is either very naive, or blowing smoke themselves.
He’s down below his pre-announcement highs already, having lost his entire announcement bounce and back down to where he was before he even started campaigning, participating in debates, and running ads, etc.”
Sadly, the more voters see of Fred, the less they like him. Not exactly the sign of a winning campaign.
Romney is still leading Iowa”
Today, Romney has finally dipped below Huck in Iowa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.