OK, if the anti-Huckabee FReepers buy this graph, would they please explain how this is distinct from Arkansas, as explained by one author on another thread a while back?
When former Democratic Arkansas Governor Jim "Guy" Tucker committed so many crimes I don't have time to list them here, Huckabee--who was Lt. Governor at the time--took over Tucker's job. Remember, this was in a state controlled by the Clinton machine and 87% of its General Assembly were Democrats. Arkansas had the worst roads in America, according to many trucker magazines; and its school system was ranked 49th out of 50 in the nation after Bill Clinton and Tucker had left. Now Arkansas' roads are rated some of the best in America and its public education system has its head above water and children are learning. Huckabee brought Arkansas back from the brink of oblivion. Yet groups like the Club for Growth have been on his case, claiming Huckabee would tax and spend Americans to death. But nothing is as simple as the Club for Growth would make it seem. Arkansas' public schools had been decimated by corruption, someone had to fix them and Huckabee did so. [Source: "First Huckabee is Attacked: Then Huckabee is Blamed for Attacks, Misquoted, etc., etc." --placed at ttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1956099/posts ]
Why is it that so many folks' estimate of Romney the $ administrator doesn't seem to match the Cato Institute's eval of Romney? (The Cato Institute gave him a "C" rating for his MA guv years...the same rating it gave NM guv Bill Richardson)
Why is it that so many FReepers are harder on Huckabee's current economic stances (I'm not talking about his track record) when he has promised not to raise taxes, if elected, whereas McCain refused to sign President Bush's tax cut which put billion of dollars back in the pockets of Americans.?
Why is it that so many FReepers harped on Huckabee's current economic stances (again, I'm not talking about his track record) when he has promised not to raise taxes, if elected, whereas Fred Thompson would not make such a promise? (Why the free pass for Thompson when he was running?)
If the Huck crit-ters keep insisting that you can't size up him economically by excluding his track record, then if they are pro-Romney, why is it that Huck's poor track record on taxes is relevant but Romney's poor track record on abortion & social issues is not?
It just seems politics as usual: Double standards galore.
You don’t know a damn thing about the Cato Institute, do you? If it was Heritage, I’d believe it.
Btw, Romney was able to cut spending more than Huckabee. More, even, than was actually claimed.