Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Huckabee and small-government.
By Paul J Cella Posted in 2008 | conservatism | Mike Huckabee | the state — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’m pretty much in agreement with Josh Trevino on Mike Huckabee. The criticism of him on small-government grounds has solid merit, alright, but what of it?
We’re nearing the end of two terms of big government Republicanism from George W. Bush, which was basically advertised as such from the beginning, and during most of which time small-government criticism was muted. I can remember contending against No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bill years ago, in the online presence of many good small-government men, to no avail. They stonefaced me. Back in about 2003 I even repeated a traditional Republican argument about how war, according to an old saw, “is the health of the State.”
The context of that 2003 argument might be worth revisiting:
The Hitchens brothers are a prominent instance of the decay of modern political allegiances — or, as some would aver, a mere recovery of the old allegiances which antedate the ideological bloodletting of the twentieth century. Peter is a conservative, and an opponent of the Bush administration’s hawkish attitude and (more sharply) its readiness to deploy military force; in short, he is a conservative in the pre-Second World War mold; and isolationist, if you insist. Christopher is a socialist and admirer of Leon Trotsky, an occasionally contrarian critic of the Left, and, most of all, a fierce and often crankish antagonist of religion is all its forms; in particular, its Christian form.
Ignorance of history is widespread, and so a great number of people are stricken with befuddlement at the idea that conservatives can oppose the very idea of military interventions absent direct and manifest provocation; forgetting, as we [ahistorical] people are prone to do, that for a very long time, right up until World War II, conservatives did just that. The case they made was strong, I think: interventions abroad mean an expansion of state power over private enterprise and personal liberty at home; a republic will not long endure imperial responsibilities [italics added].
Ultimately, conservatism’s antipathy for Revolution won out over its principled stance against foreign adventures; and, facing the marching might of the Soviet Revolutionary State, it reconciled itself at home to a consolidated federal State ready to act militarily against Communist aggression. I have a hard time questioning this judgment, despite my natural sympathy for what is often called the Old Right. Self-serving analyses since the fall of the Soviet State have adopted the attitude that, Communism being unworkable as a political economy, the USSR’s fall was inevitable. Perhaps it was, in some strict and indefinite sense; but despotism need not be “workable” to subjugate, and tyranny can certainly endure its own widespread internal folly. The Communists had to be opposed with vigor and ferocity. They had penetrated virtually every Western government with agents, were actively subverting Western institutions while operating under their rubrics of equity and openness to conceal their efforts, and were fully prepared to overthrow each of these governments, no matter what the cost in misery and blood.
In this context one must read the strange and illustrative demarcation symbolized by the Hitchens brothers. It should, I think, give any serious and historically-minded right-winger pause to discover that he agrees with Christopher against Peter on a large issue like war; as it should a left-winger who finds himself in agreement with Peter against Christopher. It is telling then, and further evidence of the truth of the old dictum about conservatives as “the stupid party,” that while leftist opponents of the war in Iraq haven’t given Mr. Peter Hitchens so much as the time of day, right-wing supporters of it have gone out of their way to laud his brother and cite him as an authority. I recall an editorial paragraph in National Review some months ago [this was 2003, remember] celebrating the alliance forged between C. Hitchens, despiser of things Christian, and “America’s Conservative Magazine.” I am not holding my breath for any similar tribute to P. Hitchens, despiser of things huge and despotic and cumbersome, Christian enthusiast of things humble and sane, in the pages of The Nation.
To summarize: I am foremost a social conservative, but I have always been sympathetic to small-government principles. I view progressive income and property taxes as morally indefensible. I am possessed by an undying hatred of the Great Society. I dream of dismantling entire departments of the federal government. A firesale of fussy bureaucrats! I regard federalism as perhaps the single greatest American contribution to republican political theory. Etc.
But why oh why is George W. Bush acceptable to the fiscal conservatives, while Mike Huckabee is fatal anathema? Why?
Another point I used to make, ‘round about 2004-05, was this: it is vital for the health of the Republic that right-wingers unabashedly criticize President Bush. He must feel the pressure from his right. We must never forget that much of his base of support is well to his right; nor ever forget that the pressure from the Left is exaggerated by the prejudices of the media. In other words, we cannot lay off him simply because the Left has been driven to lunacy by his mannerisms. Failure to criticize him from the Right is a kind of mirror image of Bush Derangement Syndrome. And by golly, the whole merit of this view was vindicated in the Harriet Miers debacle.
But mostly this argument fell on deaf ears. Until the whole horror of the “thumping” we Republicans were about to take in 2006 was clear, there was still a silent edict of censorship against open reproaches of the Bush administration.
I have no desire propound some similar edict on reproaches of Mike Huckabee. Let the fiscal conservatives sound the tocsin. Let the full specter of the Huck-a-Nanny State be portrayed in garish light.
Just be careful lest you remind us that the same garish light might have thrown on the governance of the last seven years to wholesome effect, but largely was not.
« The Netroots Are Angry — Comments (11) | Hillary's Not So Charming Side — Comments (17) »
Huckabee and small-government. 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Good points
by Paul J Cella
But I think if we discharge our responsibility as Conservatives to constructively criticize even our own (which we largely failed to do with Bush), we can force Huckabee to toe the line on fiscal matters more easily than we can force Rudy to adopt a whole new line on social issues. Already Huckabee is grudgingly conceding to the weight of opinion on immigration. And recall that he has embraced a fairly radical anti-tax proposal, whatever its merits or potential for enactment.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I Think Conservatives Learned Our Lesson
by RainbowRepublican
I agree that many of us were wrong to "discharge our responsibility" to criticize our own. I think that the nomination of Harriet Meirs and the grueling treatement that this cycle's presidential candidates are going through as they are forced to make promises and pledges to prove their bona fides is evidence that many conservatives have learned our lesson.
The mantra used to be "no more Souters" on the Supreme Court. Now the mantra is "no more Souters" and no more big spenders in Congress or the White House.
Huckabee is a squish, sadly
by CheyennePress
But that's just it. I don't think you can trust Huckabee's basic instincts. I think he's probably a worse example of a "Compassionate" conservative than Bush has been.
Look at his record when it comes to clemencies. Something was fueling that. And there was a time where he was overturning entire criminal proceedings at the rate of one every other day. The man decided that he was going to show compassion, that he knew better than all those there at the criminal proceeding.
In addition, look how he responded to raids by immigration officials in his state. His response was one of outrage, calling those actions un-Christian. He used the ridiculously lame "But what about the children!" argument. And further take his support for giving scholarships to children of illegal immigrants. Huckabee says to do otherwise would be to punish the children. Excuse me? Not giving someone a bonus is not punishing them. And further, when other parents were here legally trying to save money for their children's college expenses...
Huckabee, by nature, is softbatch. I simply see him as squishy in every way, all too willing to cave, too willing to use government to do the job of charity.
I see two quality candidates on our side: Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I could stomach Giuliani squeamishly. Mike Huckabee is just wholly unacceptable in my eyes. And that's ignorning the fact that the MSM is uttterly going to destroy him if he is to be the nominee (which is but one reason I think they're so fond of him at the moment).
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
But why oh why is George W. Bush acceptable to the fiscal conservatives, while Mike Huckabee is fatal anathema? Why?
First off, let's junk the term "fiscal conservatives" and use, instead, the term "economic conservatives" or perhaps "free market conservatives. A fiscal conservative could, presumably, support more government regulation over business since it doesn't increase government spending. Also, some people think that balancing the budget is the only item on the agenda for fiscal conservatives. But semantics aside......
George W. Bush has been a tax cutter. In some ways, Bush has been a more consistent tax cutter than the Great Ronald Reagan. While Reagan raised taxes many times, including a large tax increase on social security and medicare payroll taxes in 1982-1983 to postpone the insolvency of social security, Bush has raised taxes even as he has cut capital gains and dividend taxes.
Also consider that Bush, like Reagan, has not advocated more government regulation over business. On issues like the minimum wage, unionization and other similar issues, Bush has been nearly as conservative as Reagan. (Both Reagan and Bush signed into law an increase in the minimum wage once they had to face a Democrat Congress - Reagan in 1988, Bush in 2007).
One big blemish on the Bush record is the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has put a burden on initial public offerings in the stock market.
Bush has also advocated free trade agreements with Australia, the Central American Free Trade Agreement and trade with Peru and Columbia.
Even on the spending side of things, consider that despite the Bush tax cuts (or because of them), and despite the Iraq and Afghanistan war expenses, the annual budget deficit has been declining to the point where, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, the George W. Bush deficit is lower than the Reagan deficit.
The bottom line is that the larger economic record of President George W. Bush is a bit more complex than either the Leftish Bush critics or the Rightish Bush critics let on. This is part because it makes for a simply 30 second sound bite to simply rattle off the obvious problems with the Bush record:
No Child Left Behind
The 2003 Prescription Drug/Medicare entitlement expansion
Sarbanes-Oxley
McCain-Feingold
The 2002 Farm Bill
But let's not let the desire for simple debating points blur the differences between George W. Bush and Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee is to the Left of George W. Bush on every issue except government spending. On minimum wage, trade, tax increases, Huckabee makes George W. Bush look like Milton Freidman.
Bush is a credit card conservative
by pichu
There's a break down of Bush's spending in the context of previous presidents here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/09/27/presidential-spending/
The current absolute focus on tax cuts as THE sign of being fiscally conservative is a mistake. Bush showed how someone can be for tax cuts and be completely fiscally irresponsible. He helped to establish the category of "credit card conservative", those who believe in spending more than the democrats while passing the bill off to future generations rather than even making the gesture of paying for it.
The problem is that everyone loves tax cuts and everyone loves more spending so it's the easy choice to just give them both. Politicians aren't known for turning down the easy choice.
Sure, under Bush we have had tax cuts and more government spending. Still, how do you explain the fact that the annual budget deficit is smaller, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, than it was at this time during the Reagan administration?
Most people think of Reagan as more conservative than George W. Bush. And I agree with that. Still, we have wonder why we have a smaller proportional deficit than under Reagan, if Bush is doing such a bad job by conservative standards.
Starting point
by pichu
Bush entered with a large surplus. Reagan started with deficits coupled with massive inflationary pressure.
I didn't vote Bush in 2000
by Neil Stevens
I didn't vote Bush in 2000. I've criticized him from the right since he started running for President. The only, and I truly mean the only, reason I voted for him in 2004 was the war. And Mike Huckabee isn't even any good on that. So I have no use for him.
Now, if you think a RiNO like me is an aberration, so be it. But why risk it? Why not just nominate someone who has a decent shot at unifying this party?
Neil:
by Paul J Cella
Why not just nominate someone who has a decent shot at unifying this party?
I'm all for that. This post is hardly an endorsement of Huckabee.
On the war, I see little evidence to suggest that Huckabee will be worse than Bush. Bush has been (keeping my particular emphasis in mind) pretty durn bad on the war. He was a fine leader in the aftermath of 9/11 right through the war in Afghanistan. But he never grasped the nature of the enemy, and his contribution on that count has largely been crippling confusion.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Sorry then, heh
by Neil Stevens
I guess I misread your allusion to Josh's position, since he seems to be endorsing Huckabee, even if that endorsement comes with a truckload of reservations, heh.
As for the war, I can buy that Bush isn't great, but when I see Huckabee essentially suggesting that we need to alienate Pakistan, and making a full-throated endorsement of the Powell Doctrine, I see a guy who doesn't look like he'll be able to do more against terrorists than Bill Clinton did.
Bush IS unacceptable.
by mbecker908
I voted against Gore and the institutional Democratic Party on 2000. In 2004 the only issue was the war and I couldn't justify turning it over to a traitor and his synchophants (thank you John O'Neill), but I had no use GWB in '04.
I probably won't live long enough to see how history treats him, but depending on the outcome of the war (another 5-10 years) and the state of the economy in a couple of years, GWB will either be an above average POTUŞ or he'll be in Jimmy Carter territory.
SCOTUS aside, GWB has been a disaster for the Party. Republican governance is hard to distinguish from Democratic governance with the notable exception of the war. Turning the Party over to Bubba Jr. would make the current situation even worse. There would be no "small government" party and the concept of Federalism would be as dead as the Founders.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Eh?
by zuiko
But why oh why is George W. Bush acceptable to the fiscal conservatives, while Mike Huckabee is fatal anathema? Why?
Who says that he was acceptable? Because they voted for him over Gore and Kerry? Or because they voted for him over McCain, who was running to the left of W, during the 2000 primary? Bush is not acceptable. But he's what we got. Luckily for us, this time we have better options than W. That's something we didn't have back in 2000.
Now as far as comparing Huckabee to W goes, you are comparing someone with a horrible record on taxes to someone with a perfect record on taxes. The comparison pretty much fails there. Huckabee is the furthest from W on taxes out of all the contenders. Taxes are a very important piece of the puzzle.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There was no viable small-govt conservative in the 2000 race. It was a choice between Bush and McCain. McCain, for all his good anti-spending work, is not a small-govt conservative.
W is/was at least for free trade and low taxes. Huck has all of Bush's negatives and none of his positives (wrt to fiscal policy).
Not to mention the Fair Tax: it may well be an economically acceptable way to reform taxes, but it would never pass and his support of it would doom Huck in the general.
Huck's facile populist rhetoric is apalling to me. Railing against CEO pay and responding to the CFG by calling it the Club for Greed doesn't sound like a Republican nor a conservative.
Its phony support
by Joliphant
The only reason he supports it is he knows he won't have to enact it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Huck does have 2A
by Doc Holliday
although his 2A rhetoric is great, I can't understand why he is so pro liberty on one issue and anti liberty on so many others. However, Huck is better than Bush on this issue, Bush has been terrible on 2A. It has not been a "big issue" because he has basically done nothing that has made headlines.
Yet, his administration has ignored millions of Americans that have petitioned for the extension of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. One example is the petition to include 2A rights in National Parks. Bush'es Interior Sec. could have done this with a stroke of a pen, but the petition of MILLIONS has been ignored for years. In fact, pro gun rights people have been treated like lepers by this administration.
Anyway, that is one area where Huck is better than Bush, not saying there are many others.
Molon Labe!
Man I hadn't noticed
by Joliphant
And I bought a new pistol not to long ago.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
hmm
by Doc Holliday
maybe we have different expectations. The only thing Bush has said about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in 7 years is that he would sign an assault weapons ban. I did not say he was like Chuck Schumer, I said he has done NOTHING to enhance our rights.
Molon Labe!
After living most of my life in NYC
by Joliphant
I am happy to be able to own and use my weapons legally.
Let me put it to you like this, air rifles are illegal there.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I am happy for you
by Doc Holliday
but Bush had nothing to do with it. Look at the biggest 2a issue today, the DC gun ban case. Did the federal government take DC to court? no, citizens did this with grassroots support.
Bush has been poor on 2A issues, every gain over the last 15 odd years has come from the states. Republicans always use this issue in campaigns, but it has been a long time since a President has actually increased our rights in this vital area.
The NRA endorsed Bush, trust me, the realize they got zippy from it. Maybe they stopped the gun grabbers, but they did not gain a friend in the White House.
Look at our present candidates, Huck and Fred are WAY better than Bush, so maybe that is a start.
Molon Labe!
Yea... well...
by zuiko
Look at the biggest 2a issue today, the DC gun ban case. Did the federal government take DC to court?
I think we are going to regret ever having this thing go to SCOTUS. I'm expecting a loss here that will enbolden gun grabbers everywhere.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The Rove factor
by Bon
I think you misinterpret Bush’s success. It has a lot less to do with a sea change in American conservatism and a lot more to do with having a recognizable name and Karl Rove at the helm. Remember, Karl Rove made sure that the 2000 primary was a lot more about John McCain’s flaws and not George Bush’s assets.
Once the guy was president, there was not much we could do about it. Hopefully we will think better of it this time.
-Ben
And I'd love to have Karl Rove
by kowalski
And I'd love to have Karl Rove in the war room of any Republican who wins the nomination. His job was to help the President win, and he did a very effective job. I want someone like that on my team, every single time.
But we've got a *much* different election this time around, and all of our candidates are *much* different people than GWB was. Mitt Romney and GWB are as different as night and day in a lot of ways, just to poke fun at one overused and I think completely illegitimate, sophomoric parallel.
In any case I'd love to have Karl Rove on any team, for whichever candidate wins the nomination. And in fact I think he will be, at least in an advisory capacity.
I am not saying he wasn’t
by Bon
I am not saying he wasn’t effective. What he did for Bush was masterful. I am just saying that small government conservatives did not overlook Bush’s big government tendencies so much as Karl Rove played a bit of bait and switch on them.
Whomever is running Huck’s campaign is not that slick… and even if they were, they do not have the money that Rove needed to pull it off.
-Ben
Well I don't think it's that simple
by kowalski
I don't think Bush (or by extension, Rove) played a "Bait and Switch" on anyone. I know that the President flew all around the country trying to advance his Social Security reforms and was hobbled from Day One by people at places like The Washington Post. But even Robert Reich admits that the Social Security system needs changes. Instead that strong domestic policy initiative had the kind of cold water and bad faith thrown all over it that only people at our largest and most infamous media outlets can do.
It would have been better for everyone if Bush had been successful in reforming Social Security. Instead that ball got punted down the road *another* few years.
Social Security is the *smaller* of the two entitlement program debacles and he couldn't even get anything substantive done there, while giving the Donks a sop with the largest expansion of Medicare in history. The American people will suffer for both.
Bush campaigned on "compassionate conservatism," which, in the words of National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg, was one part a principled set of ideas (liberal ones) and one part marketing slogan.
We forget that back in 1999, when George W. Bush began running for president, the Republicans in Congress were called "mean spirited" people who wanted to kill the children, the disabled and the elderly. One Democrat US Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, actually said during the government shutdown debate in 1996, "We aren't going to let Newt Gingrich hurt the elderly."
So, if you are a Republican running for president in 1999-2000, you have to find a way to appeal to the mushy-middle of the electorate. "Compassionate conservatism" was the marketing slogan designed to bridge the divide between conservatives and swing voters.
But look at it this way. If Bush was such a big government type, why is it that it took him so long to raise the minimum wage? Why did Bush push for private accounts in Social Security? Why did Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan include Health Savings Accounts? Why did Bush push and get reductions in the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income. Why did Bush push for free trade agreements with a whole host of countries (like Australia, the Central American nations, Peru and Colubmia)? Why is Bush opposed to price controls on gasoline?
The bottom line is that Bush isn't in favor of big government when you compare him to the average person in Washington DC or even if you compare him to Richard Nixon or the original President Bush (his father) or Gerald Ford.
It's only when George W. Bush is compared to Ronald Reagan that he looks like he isn't that conservative. But even with that comparison, Bush is better on taxes, since Reagan raised Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes by a boatload in 1982-1983. We need to put things in perspective.
Fair enough
by Bon
I am certainly simplifying it (a lot went into Bush’s win, not the least of which was McCain losing it in SC) but I feel like Paul is getting the wrong message from the GOP electorate choosing Bush. Bush did not win because he was ‘compassionate’, he won because Karl Rove made sure ‘compassionate’ was the best adjective associated with any of the candidates.
That was Rove’s (and the Bush campaign’s) genius. Your guy could be an unpleasant choice and campaign as a domestic liberal in a GOP primary… but so long as the other guys look worse, you win.
-Ben
Bush played too nice
by kowalski
He tried to do a modest reform of Social Security, expanded government with Medicare, and lost at both. He actually goverened domestically as a moderate and got absolutely no credit for it.
The next Republican President is going to suffer because he didn't play harder.
He's going to be a moderate on fiscal matters -- which the Democrats will willingly accept and even welcome -- and he's going to present an enormous target to them socially, and they will destroy him in the first 180 days. Disaster!
he should have ended the death tax and capital gains
by Doc Holliday
the soc sec. thing was a bust, he blew all his capital.
Molon Labe!
If people would look at President George W. Bush's entire record, they would see that his record is much better than conventional conservative wisdom says it is.
For example. Which President didn't raise taxes? Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?
Answer: George W. Bush.
Which President imposed wage and price controls during peacetime? Richard Nixon or George W. Bush?
Answer: Richard Nixon.
Which President has a better record on budget deficits (in terms of a annual budget deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product) in the 7th year of his presidency? Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?
Answer: George W. Bush.
Don't get me wrong. Bush did sign an expansion of Medicare (so did Reagan, but it was quickly repealed), increased federal education spending and signed other pieces of bad legislation.
It's just that people forget about all of the positive things that Bush has accomplished for those of us who support the free enterprise system.
With Huckabee, it's clear that he is fairly hostile to the free enterprise system, at least by Republican standards.
Price Controls
by RainbowRepublican
Quotas are a form of price manipulation and Dubya did institute steel quotas.
In general, your point is well taken. Dubya's economic record is a mixed bag.
One line pops into my head: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Big Government and George W. Bush
by PoliticalWizard
It is true that President Bush is a big government conservative, but Gov. Huckananny makes him look like a true limited government conservative.
Bush spends money like it's nothing, that's what makes him a big government conservative. But he at least supports tax cuts, free trade, deregulation (for the most part) and other fiscal conservative positions. Gov. Huckananny has a liberal record on taxes, spending, regulation. And Gov. Huckananny supports cap-and-trade, and "fair trade" (which is code for protectionism).
Gov. Huckananny would be FAR worse than President Bush on fiscal matters.
"Huckabee is no worse than Bush"
by Cicero
Is not going to sway me.
I think we need something better than Bush- particularly of fiscal issues.
I continue to march in lockstep with Bush because of the War- but that's about it.
Don't mistake my loyalty to the Presidency during conflict with my support of his fiscal policies.
With respect, Paul...
by docj
I was a "hold-my-nose" Bush voter in 2000 precisely because I feared the effects of "big-government Republicanism" on the party and the nation.
I was, however, more than willing to give him a pass after 9/11 (in 02 and 04) because, well, we had bigger battles to fight and the alternatives were shockingly worse. Additionally, I don't think even the supporters of "compassionate" "conservatism" would have suspected the depths that would be plumbed under this shotgun wedding of policy misfits. I'm pretty sure we saw the unhappy end results of that in 2006.
Put differently, I never want to suffer through another election whereby it is the Democrats who can credibly run on a platform of "fiscal responsbility".
No mas.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The Buck Starts Here
by Contrarianistic
Ignorance of history is widespread, and so a great number of people are stricken with befuddlement at the idea that conservatives can oppose the very idea of military interventions absent direct and manifest provocation; forgetting, as we [ahistorical] people are prone to do, that for a very long time, right up until World War II, conservatives did just that. The case they made was strong, I think: interventions abroad mean an expansion of state power over private enterprise and personal liberty at home; a republic will not long endure imperial responsibilities [italics added].
Ultimately, conservatism's antipathy for Revolution won out over its principled stance against foreign adventures...
Consider a alternative, less ideological thesis. Prior to WWII, war was not especially profitable, if at all, for business. WWII taught business, especially big business, how to make money from war. The culmination then becomes
"Ultimately, business-led conservatives' desire for profit won out over their principled stance against foreign adventures..."
Your question makes an incorrect assumption...
by steve962
But why oh why is George W. Bush acceptable to the fiscal conservatives, while Mike Huckabee is fatal anathema? Why?
He's not, and never has been, from my point of view. (And Huckabee is, IMHO, significantly worse...)
"Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself." - Rudy Giuliani
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Waziristan, here we come? <nt>
by jonlesterIf he hasn't found grounds to "make a point"
by jonlesterOn penn
by dglennI watched it a few times.
by FlagstaffTrying to think of a successful Democrat tough-guy
by jonlesterLean Dem according to CQ Politics
by dglennHaven't heard much about the PKK lately.
by jonlesterthnaks guy, agreed - nt
by gamecockInnovators aside, that's a good idea <nt>
by jonlesterAnd if FARC said, "it's on,"
by jonlesterAnd giving Caesar what is Caesar's
by jonlesterObama's Feeding Nader Material
by buckeyeAs some of my more hip
by porterjervisDitto me
by aceintxMakes me think of this boy's peers
by jonlester
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
After 8 years of Bill Clinton, Republicans were hungry to get back into the White House. Our most viable choices were Gov. George W. Bush of Texas and Senator John McCain. Of the two circa 1999, Dubya was embarrassingly more conservative accross the board than McCain (who used left-wing talking points to oppose tax cuts and was probably already promoting rolling back our free speech rights at the time - although I don't personally recall.) And there is little doubt in my mind that Dubya's governance has been more conservataive than McCain's would have been on all matters, including economic matters.
Is it a shame that Dubya was the most conservative candidate we had in 2000? Yes. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to vote with the field of candidates that you have.
For years, many conservatives held their fire while a brave few tried to call him and Congressional Republicans on the carpet for their wayward spending. I have to confess that while I agreed with the fiscal detractors, I was one of the guilty silent ones. When I did speak up, it was usually to agree with the dissenters but also point to the political merits of taking issues off the table so as to make the path to re-election over John Kerry easier.
But enough is enough. Republicans have held the White House for the past 7 years and have achieved some notable gains under Dubya including tax cuts, free trade agreements, and some really great appellate and supreme court judges and justices, respectively.
Well, now conservatives are frustrated that we haven't achieved more and want a candidate who can deliver more - especially where Dubya has failed. So this field is being held to a higher standard, fairly or unfairly. We still want someone who can win - but we want someone who will win and govern like a conservative.
There are two candidates that I think we can be comfortable that they would - Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. John McCain is stridently moderate but never in the middle. He seems to be hardcore conservative on some issues and a hardcore liberal on others. He's spotty though. His conservative and liberal positions don't neatly fall into camps so you can label him economically liberal but socially conservative or socially liberal but economically conservative.
Then we have two candidates whose positions are easy to categorize. Rudy is economically conservative and socially liberal. Huckabee is econmically liberal and socially conservative. Rudy is basically right where Hillary is on social issues, and Huckabee is basically right where Hillary is on fiscal issues.
What we seem to be finding is that much of the GOP is the same way - as evidenced by their competing poll numbers - with the two ideological party uniters and the one who both sides would probably qualify more along the lines of "acceptable" than "preferable" fall somewhere behind them.
So the question is who is going to win? One of the candidates who will split the Republican Party in two - the economic liberal or the social liberal - or one of the party uniters, or at least "keep the party togetherers?"
I really fear for the party and for the united message of conservatism if either Huckabee or Giuliani wins the Republican Party primary.
I haven't felt this paranoid since Dubya nominated Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court. Then, however, the decision was out of our hands. Here, the decision is in our hands. Now what are we going to do?