"He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," another of Huckabee's countless conservative detractors told the Wall Street Journal's John Fund. "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate."
"[Huckabee] was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," reveals Betsy Hagan. The Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum was a key backer of Huckabee's early runs for office, and was once "his No. 1 fan," explains Fund. Hagan now cautions that, "Just like Bill Clinton [Huckabee] will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."
So too has Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator been out-and-about chatting to folks in Arkansas. A fair number of them describe Huckabee disdainfully as "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics." For instance, Huckabee used public money to fund his family's Falstaffian appetites, and "tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor's mansion." He was also in the habit of scolding "the media for reporting [his] transgressions rather than demanding that the transgressors make things right." Consequently, Huckabee had been investigated 14 times and reprimanded five times by the ethics commission.
(Column continues below)
Like Michael Dukakis, Huckabee waded into the moral miasma of penal abolition. Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988, fought to secure a prison furlough for convicted murderer Willie Horton. Horton went on to assault a Massachusetts man and rape his fiancée during his recreational weekend off. Wayne Dumond, the recipient of Huckabee's helping hand, raped and murdered a Missouri woman. When asked about his difficult-to-defend role "in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board lobbying on behalf of a rapist," Huckabee has offered a thesaurus of excuses.
On economics, Huckabee is also a habitual offender. The Club for Growth, which is dedicated to promoting a "low-tax and limited-government agenda," has few good things to say about him. Apparently, there is nothing invisible about Huckabee's heavy regulatory hand. His consistent contempt for the taxpayer has earned him "a lifetime grade of D from the free-market Cato Institute." "By the end of his 10-year tenure," writes the Club's Andrew Roth, "Gov. Huckabee was responsible for a 37 percent higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16 percent higher motor fuel taxes, and 103 percent higher cigarette taxes." State spending under Huckabee increased a whopping 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation.
GDP growth declines as the government's share of the GDP rises. Huckabee, that economic wrecking ball, inaugurated new programs and expanded existing ones so that "the number of state government workers rose 20 percent during his tenure, and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion."
Needless to say, Huckabee hopped for joy when George Bush, his evil ideological twin, passed a prescription-drug benefit that would add trillions to the Medicare shortfall. But not even Bush stooped as low as to support raising the minimum wage. As someone possessing "zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," Huckabee obliged. Understandably, he was incapable of grasping that fixing the price of labor above market rate or the employee's productivity increases unemployment among the poor and the unskilled.
Huckabee's philosophically limp conservatism led him to slip between the sheets with the Democrats in his support for expanding the SCHIP health-care program, and favoring the "cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions." The last is a scam that'll cause massive job and income loss.
"F" for immigration: That's how Roy Beck, president of "Numbers USA," has graded Huckabee on that front. It's only fair to point out that by sheer fluke Huckabee reversed his left-liberal stand on illegal immigration when he decided to run for president.
The CAFTA and NAFTA so-called trade agreements are not free trade, but managed trade. This is why Rep. Ron Paul, Mr. Liberty himself, has rejected these usurpations. The Hegelian Huckabee, however, has sided with the statists who'd sooner subordinate America's sovereignty and allow powerful, unaccountable bureaucracies to dictate the terms of trade.
Indeed, Ron Paul is the gold standard for personal and political principles. "When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Rep. Ron Paul," vouches the Club for Growth. "On taxes, regulation and political free speech his record is outstanding."
Who other than Dr. Paul has "voted nine out of nine times against raising his own pay"? Who other than Dr. Paul has refused to partake in the obscene congressional pension scheme, a veritable shakedown of the indentured taxpayer?
Nicknamed "Dr. No" for voting against all legislation that isn't expressly authorized by the Constitution, Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to increase the power of the executive branch; and never taken a government-paid junket.
And he voted no on the Iraq war.
Huckabee, on the other hand, is as wasteful about lives and limbs as he is about material assets not his own. During a recent presidential debate, he recommended goose-stepping Americans into supporting the Iraq war: "We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America." How convenient; Huckabee wishes to collectivize the responsibility for the wrongs he went along with.
To this fascistic folderol, Dr. Paul replied: "No, when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake."
And it is the obligation of evangelicals to heed Mrs. Schlafly and refrain from "selling" Americans on another confidence trickster worthy of a P.T. Barnum circus, not of higher office.
Ilana Mercer is the author of "Broad Sides: One Womans Clash With A Corrupt Culture." She is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an independent, nonprofit, economic policy think tank. To learn more about her work, visit IlanaMercer.com. If you would like to comment on this column, go to Ilana's blog.
How come it seems that the Republican field of presidential hopefuls is rife with RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Of course, the Republican party itself has abandoned its principles of old.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Arbilad asked "How come it seems that the Republican field of presidential hopefuls is rife with RINOs." This occurs when we feel that Republicans of today do not measure up to Republicans of the past. That, in turn, occurs when we look at the past through rose-colored glasses. When the RINO term started being used, it referred to Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and a few others who bucked the party. Nowadays, the definition has expanded to include everyone that ya disagree with on at least one issue. Which is everyone.
Well, Randy, that's not the definition I used when I mentioned that, by and large, the Republican presidential candidates are RINOs. I think that Mirk made a good case for Huckabee being a RINO. If you dispute the assertions made in the article, please expand on your statements. Rudy Giuliani is another obvious example. I don't even have to prove that he is a RINO. He admitted himself that for the most part, he is not a Republican:
McCain has a voting record of breaking with the party on many issues and siding with the liberals. So, the assertion can be made on a factual basis. I could go on for most of the candidates, but you get the point.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
If you cherry pick for the worst possible interpretation of every action or policy enacted by an individual, everyone is a RINO. Ronald Reagan was a RINO. Dole was a RINO. Nixon was a RINO. Ford was a RINO. When Pat Toomey ran against Arlen Specter, conservative stalwart Rick Santorum became a RINO simply because he made the political calculation to support Specter because he thought he had a better chance to win. Although that made me as mad as a hornet, still I don't think that one event overturns a man's entire career. The term is overused, and is a handy substitute for thoughtful analysis.
The column that Mirkwood quoted did have some devastating claims against Huckabee, about destroying the Republican Party. I tend to think, though, that that claim is overblown, since the Republican Party appears still to exist. Also, since I've seen some hysterical articles about Mitt Romney that have a lot of factual errors, I need more convincing, even when the author is quoting Phyllis.
Huckabee is pro-guns and pro-life, and has the right to run as a Republican. I would not be enthused about him due to some of the reasons in the article, but I disagree with some of the reasons given in the article as well. Huckabee did have to deal with unfunded federal mandates. Another bone I have to pick over this is that, although it is true that you can justify small federal government based on the Constitution, the Constitution and as far as I know, and the founding fathers too, never intended to mandate any limits on state governments. And Huckabee's mistake of releasing that man who had been convicted of rape on evidence that thoughtful people could reasonably question--after that man had been violently castrated by bad men--he admitted to, and in my view can be forgiven. Obviously, Huckabee had no wish to let a man out of prison who would later murder a woman.
I have a harder time forgiving Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour, Republican governor of my state of Mississippi, for having decided to never ever consider using the powers that the Constitutions of their respective states gave them to consider whether a conviction was unjust and exercise their power to commute or pardon. Five years ago, a man not far from here, was awakened in the middle of the night by a group of men who broke the front door down and rushed in with weapons. Confused and frightened, and wanting to protect his little girl, he killed one of the intruders before he found out that they were policemen who were after the man who lived on the other side of his duplex. This man, with no prior record, was sentenced to death. Although he was recently resentenced to life in prison without parole, that is still too harsh, and the governor, who was just overwhelmingly re-elected, won't even think about doing anything about it. Oh, the man was black. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that he was convicted. Liberals love to help minorities, but since they hate guns they are probably no more interested in helping the man than conservatives seem to be. This does not help with the widespread perception that Republicans don't like black people.
Anyway, that was a side issue, triggered by that article about Huckabee. I'll try to stay more focussed now.
Although McCain has taken positions that I disagree with, including some where I feel that the Constitution itself was ignored, I'm not ready to agree with the idea that he is a RINO. I have always been on board with his ideas on pork barrel spending. I also agree with him on military matters. I know that you do not, and your disagreement with him on that probably plays into your opinion that he is a RINO. If you disagree that the war in Iraq is essential to defending the United States and is therefore completely unconstitutional, then you disagree with many Republicans. On this basis, you could dismiss every one of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul of course). But whether you are right or wrong about that, the fact that Republicans tend to support the president's claims to the right to wage war disallows you the ability to call Republicans who agree with that view to be RINOs.
It's not clear to me on what basis you would say that Romney, Thompson, Hunter, Tacredo, Paul, or any of the others (other than Rudy) are RINOs. There were many conservatives and Republicans that were aghast at Ronald Reagan's candidacy for the president, feeling that his positions were entirely inappropriate. But today, Ronald Reagan is considered to be the gold standard of Republicanism. And yet as governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion law in the country at the time.
Recently, we've had a Republican senator who voted for John Kerry for president. To me, that would fit the definition of RINO. When the meaning of RINO is spread to encompass so much, though, it really loses any practical meaning, mostly becoming a bludgeon. I prefer to leave the verbal bludgeons empty of meaning to the Democrats.
I don't like the term RiNO. And even less now. If they choose to identify themselves as members of the Republican party, why dispute it? If you disagree with them, then don't vote for them.