I don't usually post on political topics, but I have been intrigued by Mike Huckabee and the fallout of the Iowa Caucuses (Cauci?). One thing I have not yet figured out is the general loathing of Huckabee by the Republican establishment. From Rush to Hewitt, nobody seems to like this guy. Medved blogged about the spin the establishment is trying to put on Iowa.
I am not there yet, but I am leaning towards voting for him. The main reason is that I see more positives in him than any of the other candidates. His main negative was that he went along with tax increases a couple of times in Arkansas. There are two main increases people talk about: (1) one was a small sales tax increase to fix the road/infrastructure system (which was dilapidated; the increase was actually approved by the voters of the state), and (2) the other was mandated by the court system to fix the educational system. In addition, Huckabee cut taxes and fees over 100 times while in office and pushed through the first broad-based tax cut in Arkansas history. He says he is against raising taxes and believes that the biggest problem we have is government over-spending.
Most of the other Republican candidates who have had any level of governmental responsibility can be faulted at one point or another on the no new taxes or fees issue. Why is Huckabee getting beat up so bad on this and the others get a free pass?
3 comments:
Fred Thompson addressed some of the problems in the debate last night.
Basically Huckabee is a populist who seems to believe that the government is there to solve various problems. He also is against school vouchers, has a weird flip flop policy on illegal immigration and also has a similar type of flip flop policy on fighting terrorism.
I also frankly don't like the fact that he is so evangelical, and he sounds like a baptist preacher.
His main appeal is his social positions.
I was intrigued by him earlier, but the more I hear from him, the less I like what I hear.
I've also heard he's soft on illegal immigration. And now that I've wrote that it appears that Will already pointed that out. :)
But I'm also intrigued and I'm planning on finding out more about him because I'm still undecided.
Amy
Interestingly, most of the bad things I have heard about Huckabee are exactly that, things I "have heard." Quite a few radio talkers have picked up the gauntlet against him, mostly because that's what all the other one's are doing.
He doesn't say all of the right things and I'm not a huge fan of the populism twist that he puts on things. However, when I hold him up to the other candidates I don't see anybody who is better.
Go through the other candidates (in no particular order):
1. Thompson: What has he done? Where is the experience? One-term senator. Doesn't seem to want to be president. Has problems with his positions on a few social issues. Personal life is not exactly exemplary.
2. Romney: Elected governor in incredibly liberal state. One term governor. Had to say a few things that maybe he doesn't really mean to get elected there. Disavows those things now. He's probably second best.
3. Guiliani: Atrocial personal life. Liberal on social issues. We have one of these now as our governor in California. We call them RINO's. Ahnold got elected on a fiscal responsibility platform, but that quickly disintegrated. Now, we have neither fiscal nor social conservatism.
4. Paul: I like some of the things that he says, but then he comes out with absolute crazyisms.
Then, we look at Huckabee:
- Accusation that he is populist that thinks government can solve all of our problems: just about everyone but maybe Ron Paul and Thompson are going to fall into the same problem. G.W. Bush has the same problem. I don't really like it, but who is really better (considering the other problems of those other folks).
- Weak on illegal immigration: This was completely based on a few things he did as governor. I am not sure I agree with the few things he did, but I think just about every other candidate would have to answer for similar problems in their record, if they have a record (except for maybe Ron Paul). If you look at his campaign position on this issue, I think he has an excellent position.
- Liberal tax and spender: He was part of raising taxes in Arkansas because a court ordered them to do so for education and because their roads were the worst in the country. Well, it seems to me that roads are one of the few legitimate purposes for taxation. He also cut taxes numerous times. He has taken the "no new taxes" pledge and complains loudly about spending.
So, my question is "who is better?" I don't see anyone better at this point.
Post a Comment