Posted on 01/06/2008 9:11:08 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
They're back, the out-of-state media types who want to know who this guy is, this presidential candidate out of Hope, Ark.
This year the subject is Michael Dale Huckabee, who's not just a highly effective preacher but a populist. He has a knack for reducing complex issues to simple terms.
There's a species of Republican true believers in Arkansas who've always suspected his bona fides as an honest-to-goodness fiscal conservative and social reactionary. Much the same anti-Huckabee line is now being repeated by the high-powered Club for Growth, which has launched an all-out effort to dub the Huck just another tax-and-spender.
The Club has a point - but only on paper. When you compare the dramatic tax cuts enacted early in the Huckabee administration with the later tax increases, you come up with some $500 million in additional taxes.
But some $400 million of that went to carry out the state Supreme Court's order to keep Arkansas' schools constitutional. Huckabee had little choice.
And as governor, Huckabee did more to improve education than pour money into it; he's been interested in improving outcomes, not just raising inputs.
There were other tax increases in his more than a decade as governor. But should he have left highways in miserable condition? Should he have left the poorest children without health insurance? He left Arkansas a healthier, wealthier state - economically, educationally, physically.
The Huck has his failings as a policymaker. He's got a weakness for untested schemes like the national sales tax he's supporting as a substitute for the income tax. His experience in foreign policy is a vacuum.
But his usual, practical approach to pressing problems isn't anything Huckabee need be ashamed of. Quite the contrary. If he's failed the Club for Growth's litmus test, he didn't fail his state.
What's I'm not seeing from Huckabee is any sense of federalism. While his positions and policies while he was governor of Arkansas might be all well and good, do they appropriately translate into federal policy?
You are misunderstanding the term corporatist. It was not meant as praise a Huckabee. Google the terms corporatist and Mussolini and you’ll see.
Nobody is attacking Huckabee because he is a Christian. They are attacking him for wearing his religion on his sleave and cynically using his religion in the service of a statist agenda, a different thing entirely. He is like both Carter and Clinton in this respect.
A good question. Now, I support Duncan Hunter and haven't looked at Huckabee as much as I'd like. Huckabee's taxes/economy position page states he's for the fairtax and he cut taxes. I think that works wonderfully as federal policy.
Huckabee thinks the government over spends, he wants a line item veto, he believes in free trade and he's for globalization (done right). (I'd like to hear more about his ideas on globalization.) I think that works as federal policy as well, although as I said, I need more info on globalization.
Then again, perhaps I didn't quite understand your post.
Start with this. He thinks Congress spends too much money, and the solution is a Presidential line-item veto. All that does is try to mitigate the symptoms. Does he have any idea what needs to be done to actually address the problem?
Perhaps he sees the line-item veto as a start. What are the other candidates proposing?
For the most part the other candidates aren't saying much specifically either. Thompson at least appears to consider federalism when discussing what federal policy needs to be.
Huck appears to have accepted the New Deal proposition that Congress can assume control of anything they can find that "substantially affects interstate commerce", and thinks the Executive veto pen is what's supposed to keep Congress from over-reaching their authority. If he has then he's not likely to appoint SC justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas.
They went from 50th to 49th.
The last couple of debates is all I need to see (and hear) from the Huckster. He’s out of his league. He was sliced and diced by Romney (and Fred) on the tax issue and illegal imigration.
From what I've heard about Huckabee, he would most likely appoint SC justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas. I'm not sure what makes you say otherwise. I realize you said "Huck appears" and "If he has", and I write much the same way for various reasons. Still, at this point I definitely disagree with you in regards to SC justices and who Huckabee would appoint.
What makes me say otherwise is his talk of things like federal tinkering in the health care issue. Under what enumerated power does he submit the federal government has the authority to do this? If not under the Commerce Clause, then what? If he does think it’s appropriate under the Commerce Clause, why would he appoint someone like Clarence Thomas, who would consider this an abuse of that power?
According to his health care page, he states:
"We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes."
And he would
"advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services."
There's more at the above link. I just pasted what I thought was interesting. Perhaps I'm not following your train of thought, but I don't see the connection from Huckabee's website.
What federal policies is he advocating, and under what enumerated power would such policies be enacted?
When the Huck came in I-30 and I-40 were rambling wrecks that would jar your teeth out and destroy your suspension. Now they are smooth easy rides. That alone is a job well done for those of us who run those roads on a regular basis.
I believe I now understand from where you're coming. I can't speak for Huckabee myself and from what I can tell, the answer isn't listed anywhere on his website. Still, just about everybody I talk to has a strong opinion that health care needs reform. It's not really something I've followed.
I have found Huckabee to be much more acceptable now that I've looked at his website in some detail, and at the same time, I'm glad you're asking some thought provoking questions.
What’s his position on federal involvement in issues like internet gambling and pornography?
My primary interest is in reducing the size and scope of the federal government, and returning the appropriate powers back to the States. None of the candidates seem to address this directly. The only way I can infer thier views is to look at what they’re proposing and weight that against an “original intent” interpretation of the legitimate role and powers of the federal government.
I think your primary interest is quite interesting and is also one I share, but just not with the same level of interest at this time.
Personally, I don’t see “rolling back decades of federal government largesse” being accomplished by tinkering at the periphery or palliative measures that just cover up the symptoms.
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.