Uncategorized

Huckabee Supporters Behind NO-Mitt Ad

Some supporters of Gov. Mike Huckabee’s failed presidential bid are taking out ads threatening Sen. John McCain not to pick Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate. The Government is Not God PAC insists, “Governor Romney[‘s] recent ‘conversion’ to conservative and pro-life principles is not credible.” And, yes, they have a point: Gov. Romney’s recognition of the sanctity of life is recent and convenient.

But Gov. Huckabee is far more liberal. And while many are justifiably suspicious of Gov. Romney’s fledgling pro-life conviction, Gov. Huckabee has stubbornly rationalized his liberal record. Blurring the roles of the state and of the Christian, he undermines the civil government’s function of enforcing justice. The tax-and-spend Governor slurs the pro-freedom Club for Growth as the “Club for Greed”. He touts tax-paid tuition breaks for the children of illegal aliens, insisting, “You don’t punish a child because a parent committed a crime or committed a sin.” He supports parole and pardons for violent felons, citing “the concept of Christian forgeiveness”. If he isn’t trying to remake civil government into God, he’s at least trying to make it a Christian nanny. And he shows no evidence that he’s intellectual enough ever to grasp the tremendous harm that this misuse of the state causes.

A Vice President Huckabee would be disastrous for the Republican Party and for the United States of America.

Sign up for our monthly newsletter with travel tips, home ideas, new recipes, and more delivered straight to your inbox!

* indicates required

11 thoughts on “Huckabee Supporters Behind NO-Mitt Ad

  1. No, I never read anything previously about The Murphy Commission: me and millions of other people, obviously.

    Why was Tim Hutchinson campaigning with Huckabee? Is he a bad guy, too? What turned Huckabee bad? Was it just a supposed socialist residual from his Democrat upbringing, which remained despite his conversion to Republicanism? Other Arkansas Republicans supported Huckabee, also. Only a couple didn’t.

    Really, are you angry about something?

  2. Larry,

    IF you don’t know that Huckabee’s first, let me say it again, first official proclamation as Governor was to empower the Murphy Commission, then your knowledge of Huckabee has a significant hole.

    Let’s be specific. For example, highway maintenance funds were, according to the 1998 Murphy reports, misallocated with 50% of the funds going to roads with 10% of the traffic. That means, Larry the interstates, with 90% of the traffic, were falling into disrepair with only 50% of the state maintenence funds allocated. When the interstates got so bad 6 years after the report, Huck just raised fuel taxes. He never tried to redirect spending as the Murphy Commission recommended.

    Larry, I know that you won’t take the time to read the reports so I gave you a taste of the Murphy findings and recommendations. I live in Arkansas with the consequences of Huck’s poor choices and having read your blog, realize that you have too much invested in Huck to see his record as it is.

  3. I went to the page and the Murphy Commision section, but found nothing specific to Huckabee. In general, I’m still unclear on what you are making a case for. “He became a tax and spend governor…” Is “tax and spend” a basic predisposition independent of the demands on the state? It sure seems to me that if that was his primary animus, he could have found a lot more ways to exercise it, especially with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature.

    “Bluster?” I take “bluster” as describing an intentional obfuscation of an objective situation. If that is the case, then the charge is mistaken. Did I say something untrue? Would you say that, even if you grant the highway and education demands, the Arkansas tax burden relative to income and state product, grew more than the tiny spot I said it did and at a relatively large rate among the states?

    Please understand, I am a 51-year-old lifelong conservative who followed someone assiduously for a long time and saw someone that I not only agreed with usually on specifics, but on the principals that directed them. Is there something that you are angry about?

    “Insinuate?” All I did was speculate. You might be a Ron Paul guy, for all I know.

  4. Larry,

    Go to http://www.arkansaspolicyfoundation.org and read the Murphy Commission Reports. Those remarkable reports seem to have escaped you in your “awareness” of Mike Huckabee. Consider after reading those reports that Huckabee failed to enact 99% of the recommendations and then tell me he is a conservative. If he had followed a few of these recommendations, tax hikes would not have even come up. What about that is so hard to understand?

    I say to you that Mike Huckabee became a tax and spend governor unlike any before including Bill Clinton. I back it up and all you have bluster and insinuation that I support Romney.

    The Club for Growth did what they always do–tell the truth and in this case they went easy on Huckabee.

  5. Oh yes, as for the general question, just to be explicit and clear, is “Anonymous suggest and/or supposing that genuinely, Huckabee had not primarily the interest of the state and its constituents at heart, but rather took a perverse glee at signing tax-increases for the mere liberal satisfaction of watching the state grow and liberiy shrink” Just checking. Such a belief would be strikingly cynical and I’d guess at bottom animated by support for another candidate (Romney?)

  6. Anonymous

    I’ll make s few specific points, then ask a more general overall point.

    First of all, I’m sorry, but I have been aware of Huckabee for a decade and have studied his words, actions, and record for nearly a year and a half. If I don’t know what I’m talking about, how in the world do you suppose any relatively casual American observer is supposed to have any idea what to think about Mike Huckabee?

    And secondly, if you feel overtaxed, welcome to the world, and again, specifically with reference to highway funds, misallocation of funds is endemic to government agencies. It’s very simple human nature: less accountability equals less efficient allocation of resources. And, government agencies are naturally less directly accountable to service consumers. Nevertheless, the maintenence of state highways and the state public education system for that matter, are necessary responsibilities for the state government, as is the collection of revenue to do so.

    Frankly, something smells fishy to me, here. It certainly looks like you are saying both that enhanced revenues were not necessary to renew an obsolete highway system and that the education expenditures did not, in fact, improve the performance of the education system in Arkansas.

    Before and after, an independent trucking periodical rated Arkansas’ highways as moved from worst to most improved in the country. You say this required no new revenue in the state heretofore rated as having the worst highways in the country. And in fact, this was not a mere filling of potholes and repainting of road markings, but an entirely new statewide system of highways. No new funds required? That’s a remarkable statement, to say the least.

    And, you say that: “The AR. student scores did not improve on nationally standardized tests and the taxpayers paid much more under Huck.” I can’t speak specifically to “nationally” standardized test performance, but I have read of dramatical improved standardized test performances as well as grade performance. One can look it up. It was admittedly, a Huckabee-supporting Arkansas resident gave a general case with various references and links. You can find it as “More Eye-Popping Education Results For Huckabee” under an “Arkansas education under Huckabee” Google search.

    The truth is that under Huckabee, over 10 years, mind you, there was a much-publicize increase in tax-dollars (I dare say as in every state) which you describe as “devastating,” but the tax burden RELATIVE TO INCOME AND THE STATE PRODUCT, BOTH OF WHICH DRAMATICALLY EXPANDED, INCREASED ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF 1%, which I’m confident would be near the bottom of state increases over that period.

    Also, you appear to be saying that, unlike Huckabee, this billionaire’s primary concern was for the welfare of low-income people. Gee, what a swell guy!

    You describe Huckabees concern as only for himself. Well, if that had been so, it didn’t work out too well. It was arguably Fred Thompson’s “Huckabee’s a liberal” act, that caused Huckabee to lose South Carolina to McCain by 3%, sapping momentum going into Florida. Anyone who knows the relative records of Huckabee and Thompson, knows that that act was a ridiculous charade, as was the whole idea that Thompson was a principled conservative: the McCain-Feingold co-sponsor was a constitutional infidel.

    Now, I’m not telling people that I’m an aggrieved Arkansan, but one assessment of our relative credibility might begin with the fact that I post under my full name with email address and web-site while you post as “Anonymous.”

  7. I am an overtaxed Arkansan who suffered through Mike Huckabee’s liberal tax and spend ways. Larry has not a clue as to Huckabee’s record and the Club for Growth only scratched the surface of the devastating effects of Huckabee in Arkansas While Huck is pro-life he is definitely not pro-family.

    I spent several years serving on the Murphy Commission in Arkansas and I know Huckabee’s record. So Larry, on roads, Huckabee was warned 7 to 8 years in advance of his tax hike that highway dept. misallocation of maintenance dollars would, if reallocated properly, eliminate the need for an increase in taxes to repair the already existing problems.

    On k-12 education 50% of the state budget, Huckabee did nothing except window dressing until the AR. Supreme Court inspired, not ordered, a tax hike for schools. The AR. student scores did not improve on nationally standardized tests and the taxpayers paid much more under Huck.

    Huckabee opposed the initiated act for removal of state sales tax on food and medicine. That act, sponsored by the billionaire, was not some pet project, but rather a real tax reduction for people who spend most of their money on food and shelter. What kind of “conservative” favors that tax and for that matter what kind of man omits the details of which the truth is composed like you did? The sales tax on food was just halved by the new Dem. Governor cementing the Dems as tax cutters for the working man.

    Huckabee was only out for himself and the sooner social conservatives outside of Arkansas realize it the better off the country will be.

  8. Let me be straight up: I’m a yearlong Huckabee supporter and blogger, AND I’m a lifelong conservative who has been derided as an extremist: a social conservative yes, but I was conservative before there were socia or any adjectives and prefixes. I cut my teeth on Buckley, Sobran, Will and others. The “liberal” charge against Huckabee is misguided.

    The Club for Growth was on a mercenary campaign for a few HUGE contributors who were Romney supporters or, in one case, a billionare in Arkansas for whom Huckabee didn’t snap to attention on a pet project: the kind of person who might think the world exists, like a butler, to do a he tells it.

    Huckabee’s Arkansas raised taxes to repair dilapidated highways and to actually dramatically improve (with Huckabee’s accountability measures, from near the bottom to near the top in the country. Ditto with the highways. How does a Club for GROWTH, GENUINELY expect to see economic growth with lousy roads and schools? Anwer: The attacks were disingenuous. It wasn’t about economic growth for Arkansas. It was about economic growth for The Club for Growth!

    There were no “special tuition breaks (a Ronmey locution). Huckabee supported a bill (which failed, BTW) to allow the children of illegal immigrants who had gone through high school in Arkansas and academically qualified, to apply for a merit scholarship…IF THEY APPLIED TO BECOME CITIZENS. As he said, do we prefer that a high-achieving student be held down and become a low wage-earner, dependent, or criminal, or to become a productive citizen?

    Huckabee wanted prosperity for the entire society (The Fair Tax: check it out) Romney wanted prosperity for high-volume traders.

Comments are closed.