DaveG is exactly right in his post immediately prior to this one:? One of the 6 candidates currently polling in the top 3 of their?party in New Hampshire is going to be the next POTUS.
Which is why the continuing fascination with Arkansas Mike Huckabee continues to confound — particularly the mistaken notion that he is some kind of “authentic” conservative as this Cox News Service/Star Tribune piece from yesterday would imply.?
The Governor seems like a genuinely nice fellow but his conservative credentials are, to say the least, tarnished.? If there is one piece of conservative orthodoxy that remains intact, it is a belief in No New Taxes.? Even Senator McCain understands that he can not advocate a tax increase if he is to secure the nomination.?
All of which should serve to remind conservatives that Gov. Huckabee scored an “F” for his fiscal policies in Arkansas from the CATO Institute.? And just yesterday afternoon the influential Club for Growth noted that Huckabee’s tenure included “numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation.”
January 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
My two favorite things about the Huckster are the weigh-ins at schools that he instituted to see if kids were getting fatter or not, and the fact that he thinks the government has a right and a responsibility to care for my children.
Just say no to big government “conservative” values. Huck is the last guy we need running right now.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Did Governor Romney or any of the other Republican candidates (especially the Big Three) receive “grades” like these from CATO? If so, what are they?
January 30th, 2007 at 10:02 am
My understanding is that he was under state Supreme Court order to raise taxes. That might not be for all of the tax hikes he considered, though.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Romney received a C from the CATO Institute, which put him on par with Jeb Bush, Bill Owens, and Tim Pawlenty — only one governor got an A from the Institute (Matt Blunt, who, by the way, recently endorsed Mitt). He got the C mostly because CATO didn’t agree with his health care plan.
I haven’t found a grade for McCain, Giuliani, or any others yet but will continue looking.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
NARAL released their 2006 ratings some time ago and Arkansas got an F. Massachusetts got a C+!
January 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Huckabee is not a big government tax raising leader. He is a leader who saw the largest tax cut
in state history and worked hard to streamline governement. However, he was stopped by the democratically controled legislature on some of his biggest plans. The interesting thing to me is that most of the tax increases were voted on by the people of the state to address the needs of the state. Not only did they pass but they passed by overwhelming landslide victories.The people voted to raise their taxes, it wasn’t Huckabee
shoving them down their throats. Then there was the court ruling saying that education had
to receive more money. I don’t blame him for not signing a pledge for no new taxes ever, that is something that is unforseen and just not a smart move. However, if you look at what he says about it he is not
advocating new taxes and says there is plenty of room for spending cuts so taxes never have to be raised. I like the guy and can’t understand why people on this blog think the Cato is the shot caller on taxes.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Because CATO and the Club for Growith are very serious conservative groups. They are the fiscal equivalent to Focus on the Family and the NRA. If these people HATE Huckabee, and they absolutely do, then this should be a serious concern to conservatives. The fact that some people are willing to ignore their disdain, something they would never do were Focus on the Family and the NRA bent on destroying a candidate, reinforces my belief that most in the Republican party no longer care about fiscal conservatism. Everyone uses Romney as a barometer, but not one serious socially conservative group has expressed any anger towards Romney. The NRA gave him a B for heavensakes. And yet, a B makes Romney totally unnacceptable, while Huckabee receives F after F from fiscally conservative organizations and he’s given a free pass. It’s nerve racking.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Matt,
Definitely a sign of how willing some social conservatives are to trample over the other planks of the GOP platform, eh?
January 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“Everyone uses Romney as a barometer, but not one serious socially conservative group has expressed any anger towards Romney.”
You’ve got to be kidding, right? The AFA is practically dedicating their entire existence to defeating Romney in the next year.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Matt, I think the problem is that to people who have decided on a candidate don’t want to see the negatives of that candidate. For example, you mention Focus on the Family, who has denounced McCain (and I can’t ever see them even coming close to saying Giuliani is okay), or the NRA, who has denounced Giuliani and McCain both as well.
In the past, these would have been serious warnings to primary voters. Not now, though, not in 2008 when people have been blinded by the star power of these candidates. That’s the scary thing. They are ignoring conservative ideals for a chance to win in 2008, as is evidenced by the Ohio poll in another thread. “If we nominate a moderate or a liberal, then we could have a better shot at keeping Ohio!”
January 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
HeavyM,
“If we nominate a moderate or a liberal, then we could have a better shot at keeping Ohio!”
If we nominate Romney, we lose it all. Given that it would likely cause Hillary, or even worse, Edwards to have complete Democratic control of the government, that’s too much of a risk for me.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
LJ,
I expected better of you. Surely you haven’t adopted the line of argument that says “Only my candidate can win, because I say so?” Right now, Romney is a veritable unknown. His polling numbers reflect the generic polling preference for a Democrat over a Republican. In fact, Romney actually performs as well against WELL-LIKED specific Democrats like Obama and Edwards, then does the generic Republican vs. the generic Democrat. We have to face it. At this point, 50% of the country wants a Democrat in the White House, while just under 30% of the country wants a generic Republican in the White House. There’s a 20% gap or more. There are indications that Romney, despite being virtually unknown, is viewed as a better then generic Republican at this point. Thus its reasonable to assume that the people who actually know who he is (and these polls ask everyone) view him as a better then generic Republican. Until his name recognition increases, and he actually starts presenting himself to the American people like he did on Nightline last night, we won’t know exactly how better then generic he is. But its simply ridiculous to assume that Romney, a charismatic, central casting, articulate Republican governor from Massachusetts, who’s done nice centrist things such as passing a consensus universal coverage bill, isn’t going to be capable of winning crossover es. Go take a gander at 79′ poll numbers of Reagan vs. Carter. I’m not terribly skilled at searching, but I’ve heard repeatedly that Regan trailed considerably.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Are you saying that opposition to abortion, gay marriage and gun control are no longer intact conservative orthodoxy?