Posted on 12/04/2007 8:13:17 AM PST by Petronski
With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucuses, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Rudy Giuliani has fallen back in the pack in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Giuliani’s support has fallen to 18% and four other candidates are within six percentage points of the lead. Mike Huckabee is enjoying an amazing surge and now shares the top spot with Giuliani at 18%. Close behind are John McCain at 14%, Fred Thompson at 13%, and Mitt Romney at 12%. Ron Paul attracts 7% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide and no other Republican candidate reaches 2% (see recent daily numbers).
Your “willing vessel” just openned the scuttling valves...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934660/posts
Come on! Romney/Thompson. It’s more like the Bush/Cheney set up. The president needs a lot of energy, you know? No slight intended.
“Performing maintenance on roads is not tax and spending.”
A non-sequitor on multiple levels.
Most of Tax Hike Mike Huckabee’s tax and spending was not on road maintenance. Do you not know about Tax Hike Mike’s call for giving scholarships to illegal aliens students? His running on expanding state health-care spending, ie the ArKids program?
Huckabee ran on higher spending, increased *total* state budgets (not just roads), and when the budget crunch came, he did what other big-govt RINOs and liberal tax-and-spend Democrats (remember Jim Florio) did, he cried ‘uncle’ and demanded a tax hike. You are merely repeating Huckabee’s fraudulent and phony explanations by pretending this is about roads, when it’s not. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOTAL SPENDING THAT WENT UP BY 65% IN UNDER 10 YEARS AND A SALES TAX BURDEN THAT WENT UP BY 37% AS WELL. This is why Cato gave him a “D” grade. Not because they have a particular ax to grind, but the facts are plain - Mike Huckabee was a tax and spend Governor.
Fact check.org has seen through Huckabee’s responses, and they have called his responses misleading and incorrect:
* 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.”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html
“Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform. The massive increase in government spending is due in part to the number of new programs and expansion of already existing programs initiated by Governor Huckabee, including ARKids First, a multimillion-dollar government program to provide health coverage for thousands of Arkansas’ children (Arkansas News Bureau 04/13/06).
These large increases in government borrowing and spending significantly impede economic growth.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php
“By using a balanced budget requirement to defend Huckabee’s support for tax increases, Carter raises an uncomfortable question. How did spending in Arkansas under Huckabee get to the point that a tax increase was the only way to balance the budget?
Fiscally conservative Republicans believe in balanced budgets, but we expect Republican officials to get to a balanced budget by controlling spending, rather than balancing the budget on the backs of the taxpayers. Surely Joe Carter understands that there is no causal relationship between spending more money on education and seeing an improvement in results. Surely he understands that even within the budget of an essential state government function like education there can be fraud, waste, and abuse.
Carter says that nearly 90% of the Arkansas state budget is entitlements. Is this a fact a true fiscal conservative would shrug off? Shouldn’t there be some effort to find and eliminate wasteful programs and to eliminate waste within useful programs?
Back in the ‘80s, Newt Gingrich had a description of Sen. Bob Dole. It captured the attitude that kept Republicans in the minority in Congress for many years, a defeatist attitude that Ronald Reagan upended. Gingrich called Bob Dole a “tax collector for the welfare state.” Dole’s approach put Republicans in the unpopular position of calling for tax increases to pay for government goodies that the Democrats enacted and take credit for.
A good example of the right way to do meet crucial governmental needs is former Oklahoma State Rep. Mark Liotta’s successful effort to increase dramatically the amount of money available for state roads and bridges. He did it without raising taxes, but instead by reprioritizing spending to free up money that could go to roads and bridges.”
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/11/is-huckabee-a-republican-but.html
” *
By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07), garnering a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute. While he is on record supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he joined Democrats in criticizing the Republican Party for tilting its tax policies “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale” (Washington Examiner 09/13/06), even though objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax burden to higher income taxpayers.
Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa conservatives (AP 09/17/05). On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on Meet the Press and then at the National Review Conservative Summit. The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php
I was looking out for conservatism and the country.
Fred is older, and it would be good, if Mitt did indeed show cause to merit such, to hand off to the younger man to keep the office as long as possible in Conservative hands.
Agree. They didn’t fear him until he got in.
Huckabee surged too soon.
Now people will find out about him.
Fred has staying power.
“Huckabee is, unquestionably, the most Christian and socially conservative candidate in the race. “
Disagree... look at how dishonest Huckabee has been in describing (or misdecribing) his tax-and-spend record. Does that make him ‘more Christian’ than the others, or just a slick preacher-man trying to run away from his record? Isn’t there an ethics angle to being the uber-Christian?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html
And as for ‘social conservative’, he’s not as conservative on *all* the social issues as others.
I’ll give one example: Charter schools and school choice. Romney fought for more charter schools while Huckabee did nothing for school choice in Arkansas and goes to the NEA, calling for more dough for the monopoly school system for arts education, dissing merit pay, praising NCLB, etc. (”In an interview afterward, Huckabee said he would be skeptical of merit pay for teachers unless there were a more thorough way to measure student progress than standardized tests.”)
On the prolife issue, I thought he was more conservative, but then found out he was in the group in 1996 that wanted to water down the platform. So no different from Thompson, and he’s done less for prolife issue than Fred Thompson.
And current positions of Romney, Thompson and Huckabee on these issues are the same. Anti-Roe-v-Wade and “Federalist” on it after that.
“I cannot and will not vote for an ordained minister of any faith to hold public office.”
Interesting point. I don’t agree with this principle, but you’re not the only one expressing it and it will be an issue in the general election.
Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that “I believe that every child in America has the right to a quality public education”?
Was he preaching the Gospel or something else when he went in front of the NEA? This blog post raises some questions as to where he stands on those issues.
I have subsequently been made aware that Governor Huckabee has been specifically against many of the HSLDA’s positions on education. The HSLDA website says the following, “It is HSLDA’s firm belief that federal government spending on education is unconstitutional and must be eliminated. While we support the position that the federal government should not be involved in education at any level, we also support measures that incrementally reduce the control of the federal government over education.” This is in complete contradiction with the quotes stated above, in addition to Huckabee’s initiation of the Smart Start program in Arkansas that increased funding to the public schools. He also has supported mandated testing, which the HSLDA has been against. Governor Huckabee said, “You wouldn’t go to the football game or the basketball game or the baseball game and say, ‘Just turn the scoreboard off,’ and neither could we realistically say we’re really interested in improving the quality of education, but we’re not going to keep score. So do we need tests? Yes.”
At this point in my research into Governor Huckabee’s history on education I came to the conclusion that although his support of public education goes against my personal views and the views of the HSLDA, perhaps his support of homeschooling was what matters. I read with keen interest the news stories about Huckabee’s home school legislation, and when he appointed a home school mom to the school board. I have immense respect for those actions. Yet, once again, some more frustrating information came to my attention. There is an article on the HSLDA website from around the year 1999 when Arkansas gained the “unique distinction of becoming the first state in the nation to add restrictions to its existing home school law….The new law, among other things, establishes notification deadlines and imposes a 14-day waiting period before parents are allowed to withdraw their children from public school to begin home schooling mid-semester.” * The article commends Mike Huckabee’s original work to support home schooling, but clearly points out his support of Act 1117 (the legislation mentioned above), which he signed on April 5th, 1999. Even Mike Huckbee’s true commitment to home schooling is questionable.
I think it is also noteworthy, though possibly grasping at straws and/or coincidental, that before your organization’s endorsement, Mike Huckabee’s position paper on his website stated that “I believe that every child in America has the right to a quality public education”
You are correct when you make the point that a moderate nominee can not win the 2008 election. The Republican party MUST elect a consistently conservative candidate if they are to have any chance to win the 2008 election. In my investigation into Mike Huckabee’s prior actions and positions, I continue to be convinced that Mike Huckabee could be more easily exposed as a moderate liberal than even Rudy Giuliani. Could Hilary Clinton be just waiting for Huckabee to get the nomination, knowing how easy it would be to beat up on him?
For one thing, while Governor in Arkansas, Huckabee initiated and supported the ARKids First program. This program was a child healthcare initiative that has been compared to the S-CHIP. Similarly, when the candidates were asked if they supported President Bush’s veto of the S-CHIP, Governor Huckabee kept his hand down. Once, in Arkansas, Governor Huckabee stood side by side with John Tyson of Tyson foods applauding our government’s ‘open door policy’ and joking about the fact english speaking, white men would soon become a minority because of all the hispanic workers we NEED. He also believes that there is not a problem with mexican workers taking our jobs. He was against legislation in Arkansas that would deny public benefits and the right to vote to illegal immigrants, saying it “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.” He also made it clear that he did not think the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was amnesty. He has also supported allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, smoking bans, food content regulations, and public funding for alternative fuel sources.
“Until someone asks him that (and he WILL tell us if he’s asked) all the “close Gitmo” comment does is carve out more of the center’s votes for himself.”
Yes, Huck is moving to the ‘center’. It’s called the RINO shuffle. Egads, another McCainiac.
Not wanting to ‘punish’ illegal alien kids.
Cap-and-trade CO2.
More pork for ethanol.
Banning smoking.
Over-fund SCHIP the Pelosi way.
And close GITMO and apologize to the world for being a meanie to the poor widdle terrorists.
so, other than maybe a conservative USSC Justice and not letting Bill terrorize the interns, what exactly will Huckabee do differently from Hillary?
“Current positions of Romney, Thompson and Huckabee on these issues are the same. Anti-Roe-v-Wade and ‘Federalist’ on it after that.”
That’s simply false.
Huckabee has always supported a Human Life Amendment both to his state constitution (which passed) and to the U.S. Constitution.
Romney has recently revealed, after allowing it for months to be reported to the contrary, that he too now supports a Human Life Amendment.
Only Fred opposes constitutionally protecting life and the definition of marriage, thinking federalism is more important on both points. Wonder how he justifies a universal constitutional ban on slavery, rather than letting individual states decide that one too.
What I find fascinating is we basically have a “battle Royale” between two of the strongest bases in the Republican Party.
On one side we have the social conservatives with Huckabee, and on the other we have the WOT conservatives with Rudy.
The problem is-the Huckster isn’t a conservative. Tax lover, plus a firm believer in big government can solve all problems/the nanny state. That way lies socialism. It’s Hunter or Thompson for me.
Point taken, I should have added the HLA , but I find the factoid of Huckabee’s being on the side of watering down the 1996 platform interesting. He’s a good gabber, so maybe he’s said things that interpreted both ways. I found this which indicates he’s flip-flopped on the states rights for abortion issue, maybe just in time to attack Fred Thompson on it:
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/11/mike_huckabee_for_states_right.aspx
I find Huckabee’s sucking up to the public school monopolists a more disturbing trend, inasmuch as issue #1 for the future of our culture is education. Hence this link:
The fact is that there is not much consequential difference between Romney, Thompson and Huckabee on abortion, but on other key social questions - family, education, 1st amendment, even immigration - there may be. Huckabee’s fiscal RINO tendencies spill over to these social questions as well, and for that I question if he will be more effective social conservative overall.
“All things said he made difficult decisions [to add spending]”
Was Huckabee’s pushing for a brand new expansion of Govt with the ArKids Govt funded healthcare program an easy or difficult one for him?
Once you see Hunter and Tancredo drop out (and I am a big Hunter fan-as is Bennett and Coulter) Fred will pick up a point or two to close the gap. The Huckster won’t survive the sunlight. It’s Fred’s to lose. I thought it would come down to Fred vs. Rudy, but Rudy is getting banged up badly. He won’t make it.
Exactly. To be avoided at all costs.
Me too.
Honest effort.
Well I don’t understand this Huck surge deal after Rush told us all who the real conservative was last week.
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.