Gotta pile on the Huckahate, here. Gotta give a reminder of why Huckabee cannot be trusted to lead this party as a coalition:
Former Governor of Arkansas and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said in an interview…that libertarianism is “not an American message,” adding that he considers it to be a “soulless type of economic conservatism” as well as a threat to Republicanism.
And:
The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of this past election cycle: libertarianism masked as conservatism. And it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but render it as irrelevant as the Whig Party…You can see the growing influence of faux-cons in the 2008 election cycle from the so-called Ron Paul Revolution to the economics-only conservatism reflected by some of the supporters of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
Up to half of the party is “faux-con” by Huckabee’s definition. The “real threat” to our party is libertarianism? Surely, he meant rather than religious conservatism, right? Nope. He meant as opposed to liberalism. The entire quote is worth bolding:
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says ‘look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.’ Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly.
Please don’t forget this quote, people. Capitalists are heartless, callous, soulless, and want to kick granny to the curb and see to it that children don’t get education. Classical liberal principles — such as cutting taxes and “eliminating” government — are “not American.”
Close the book on this one.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
It’s a shame Huckabee is so homophobic and theocratic. If he were a social liberal or even a social moderate, he’d probably fit well into the Democratic party.
As it is, I can’t vote for the guy, though.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
There’s a difference between Captialism and Libertarianism. Equating the two isn’t correct.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
#1 I’ve never seen evidence that Huckabee fears or hates homosexuals.
It seems like liberals throw around the term “homophobic” as readily as they pull out the “race card”.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
A bit of projection going on here. I didn’t see capitalism anywhere.
It’s not like this guy is pushing universal healthcare. Which reminds me of another guy…
September 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Any guess who Huck was directing his tirade towards. Would her initials be SP?
September 30th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
4 – You’re right. MassCare wasn’t nanny-state enough for Huckabee’s tastes.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Earlier today in another thread someone was projecting that many of Giuliani’s people would go to Huckabee. I couldn’t believe what I was reading….they are near opposites on social, economic, and security issues.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
#6 Forcing people to spend their money on health insurance whether they want it or not, is nanny-state enough.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Capitalism = Economic conservatism = Heartless, soulless, callous
WTF am I missing?
September 30th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
You missed the whole point of what he was saying. Huckabee is not against capitalism at all. So let’s not twist around his message. If you remember what he said at CPAC, he talked about how social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are the same, and want the same. His point is that you have to go beyond being just a fiscal conservative. He had that Arksansas program for poor kids-think it was called arkkids. Anyway, fiscal conservatives might be up in arms about paying more taxes or the government helping these families. But if a family is above the poverty line, but can’t afford healthcare for the kids, then the kids lose. So the program was set up to help the kids. Not the parents. But the kids who needed healthcare.
So those of you who are against Obamacare, but say that we should just help take care of those 5-6 million who have fallen between the cracks. That is what Huckabee did with Arkkids, but yet he is called a fiscal liberal because he helped the kids.
He didn’t overhaul the healthcare in his whole state. He didn’t require any mandates. He helped those who fell through the cracks.
And again, Huckabee is not against capitalism. Alex, you totally misrepresented Huckabee and we know you did it on purpose because you started it by saying, Gotta pile on the Huckhate.
Bravo, you are a class act.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
9,
Libertarianism =
Social liberalism + Economic conservatism of the heartless, callous, soulless variety.
The qualifiers matter.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Lol, and what is economic conservatism of the heartless, callous, soulless variety?
Capitalism, where the government gets out of a person’s life? “Where the government lets children go without health care”? Reeks of a Democrat supporting SCHIP.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Anyway, fiscal conservatives might be up in arms about paying more taxes or the government helping these families. But if a family is above the poverty line, but can’t afford healthcare for the kids, then the kids lose. So the program was set up to help the kids. Not the parents. But the kids who needed healthcare. So those of you who are against Obamacare, but say that we should just help take care of those 5-6 million who have fallen between the cracks. That is what Huckabee did with Arkkids, but yet he is called a fiscal liberal because he helped the kids.
Sounds like a liberal Democrat: “We aren’t bloating government with new schemes. We’re helping children.”
It’s why he said in the debate that he didn’t raise taxes: “I’ll tell you what we raised. We raised hope.” Aww. So Obama.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Alex-everyone who is arguing against the public option is talking about who is really without healthcare. Then they narrow it down to 5-6 million and say that those are the people who should be helped. Again, Huckabee did not help the parents. They did not get healthcare. The kids did. And I am sure that they did not get some gold plated plan.
Alex-what’s your beef with Huckabee and why the need to dig up some old quote and join in the Huckhate?
September 30th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Won’t someone PLEEEEAAASE think of the children?!
September 30th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
6 – no, I think it really got Huck’s goat because it failed to outlaw smoking.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
This isn’t news, it political barf. It would be like me posting about Romney only selecting 9 GOP judges in 36 appointments and posting that over and over.
If Huckabee says something new, talk about that but this is just a low use of this site.
“I think it really got Huck’s goat because it failed to outlaw smoking.”
–Huckabee never wanted to outlaw smoking. Where you people get this lies? He wanted a workplace ban on smoking which many states have done.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Libertarianism is like being given unlimited cotton candy. Good in theory but not good in the long term. In theory it sounds great but then why are all the libertarians freaks like Paul and Beck?
September 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Texas, you seem to think everyone should just love Huck the way you do, and ignore everything he’s done and said. You always seem surprised when he is criticized, and you end up chalking it up to some irrational Huckhate.
But, consequences have actions. People don’t like the Huckster because he is a big gov guy who does sound like a lib, and he has done some less than honorable things.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
GOP candidates: Ramp up cancer fight
Huckabee, for his part, argued that the United States can afford to fight the wars in Iraq and on terrorism, as well as a war on cancer and all chronic diseases. He also said that if he were president, he would sign a bill to outlaw smoking nationwide in public places, and said he would go further to say “no smoking in any indoor area where people have to work.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-28-cancer-forum-gop_N.htm
Huckabee Calls for National Smoking Ban in Public Places
http://www.breitbart.tv/?comments=1&p=4958
Huckabee the Health Nanny
In 1992 Huckabee supported an AIDS quarantine, despite the lack of any real public health justification for such a step. Today he supports a federal smoking ban in public places. This causes me to wonder: Is Huckabee willing to throw the idea of limited government out the window any time there is a plausible (or even not so plausible) public health argument for doing so?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjM0NWE4N2FkZGEwMjY5ZTc0YTEyNzY1YmM2MmRlNDc=
Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative
If you liked George W. Bush’s brand of big-spending, big-government conservatism, you’ll love Mike Huckabee.
by Michael D. Tanner
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838
Pandermania! Huckabee no longer supports federal smoking ban
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/15/pandermania-huckabee-no-longer-supports-federal-smoking-ban/
Arkansas: Governor Rejects Smoking Ban
Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, overruled the state health board and rejected a ban on smoking in restaurants. The board had voted 15 to 4 to ban smoking in public establishments that earn more than 30 percent of their income from food sales. Mr. Huckabee, a nonsmoker who has received tobacco industry campaign contributions, said he could not act based on personal preferences. ”The issue is not whether smoking is good or bad,” Mr. Huckabee said. ”Restaurants are privately owned. No one is forced to be a patron or an employee.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/us/national-briefing-south-arkansas-governor-rejects-smoking-ban.html
September 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Martha, don’t you find it a bit funny that you are so high on Romney but think Huckabee is a big government person. Romney supported TARP and I seem to remember a little thing called MASSCARE. I am not saying everything Huckabee did was the best ever but really to call him big government while praising romney is a bit ridiculous.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
#20 Do you have a point or are you just wasting bandwidth?
September 30th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Dems against Obama on Health Care
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/09/dems-against-obama-on-health-care.html
September 30th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
This sort of crap from Huckabee is why I literally lost it when he won the Iowa primary. I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again, but if Huckabee wins the Republican nomination in 2012, I will go out and friggin’ campaign for Barack Obama. I can wait till 2016 for a good President if I have to.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:11 am
#24 – The Other Seth — “I can wait till 2016 for a good President if I have to.” Well, if I get my way, you will have a great president in 2012 — and, if not, I can wait a long, long time, too.
Leave a Reply
October 1st, 2009 at 12:17 am
24 – are you snorting blow with Patrick Kennedy?
I have a lot of policy disagreements with Huckabee, but he would be a much better President than Obama.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:24 am
Huckabee is absolutely the last person I could support for the nomination. But if (god forbid!) he should get it, I will vote for him against Obama.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:58 am
LET me sayt this again Huckabee is a pro gun prolife LIBERAL who happened to support the Fair Tax to try and get elected he has absolutely no clue when it comes to reducing the size of gov. I would rather Clinton back in office than Huckabee.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:17 am
Huck or Palin on any ticket results in me voting for Obama, unless Mitt is at the top.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:17 am
And by vote “for” Obama, I obviously mean abstain.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:22 am
I think Huckabee is trying to get a legitimate point across, he just fails to deliver it because he can’t set aside his dislike of economic conservatism in general. It’s certainly one thing that leads me to shy away from him as a candidate, as someone who is not fiscally conservative simply won’t do and he’ll probably be far too permissive in bloating our government further to the point of crisis because he doesn’t see the problems that will result, and that won’t do, but I do admire him for bringing up something that pretty much no one else will.
We simply can’t just be for limited government. Libertarianism is one of many means of the Republican Party, and it has an important place. Reagan recognized it as such when things were just getting started for the new party. But its not an end in and of itself. I feel sometimes that the Republican Party is now making the move I did back several years ago around the 2004 elections when I started called myself a libertarian Republican and set aside my social conservatism to have an almost exclusive preference for libertarian doctrine. That lasted a couple of years, but the infeasibility of the libertarian agenda was never something I could overcome in one part, and secondly I found that sometimes, libertarianism simply didn’t have all the answers. Its philosophy borders on being nearly a religion really, and it wasn’t a complete one. I lived in the gaucho countryside of Argentina for a couple of years as a missionary, so I had plenty of time away from American politics, and really got to think, and to see just how inadequate a libertarian philosophy is. In the end, there’s more to life than just material goods. And there’s more to leadership than just cutting government and sending dividends back to the taxpayers. So I did what no self-respecting libertarian would ever do, and backed John McCain happily in the primaries.
Those things are important, so I’ll always have much in common with libertarians, which I think even Huck can appreciate for himself. But every Republican needs to recognize, as I know Huckabee does, is that our party can never be just about limiting government because that isn’t always the solution or proper course. There are many things, frankly, that it is wonderful that our government, local, state, and federal take care of. In all those capacities we should enforce among our elected officials care and frugality with our tax dollars and punish rapidly the offenders, but must avoid the temptation to focus only on squeezing more money out of these programs, cutting taxes again and again. As we recognize in matters of national defense, sometimes its better that the government does something, even if not perfect, than nothing at all. Sometimes, the urge for restraint needs to be saved for when there’s actually something to restrain.
What Huckabee is aiming at is legitimate, even if he’ll never be my candidate, so don’t just blow off entirely what he’s saying because it came from his mouth. Now that I just defended Huckabee, y’all can go ahead and attack me
October 1st, 2009 at 5:06 am
I got to go with Huckabee on is this, the Libertarians are hurting the Republican party. Libertarians don’t believe in the Republican Platform.
They figured they couldn’t win elections running on the Libertarian party brand so they become Republitarians….at the same time, the GOP has also been taken over by the Religious right who have a hard time voting for anybody that is not one of them.
The true Republicans are the ones being left behind by their own party, The GOP used to be made up of a mix of Conservatives and right to center folks, with a few moderates in the mix, now the far right Republicans want to start throwing people out, by making sure moderate and center Repulicans don’t get reelected
October 1st, 2009 at 5:12 am
I think what Huckabee is doing here is a little turf protection……I wondered how he would handle Palin, I just didn’t think it would be this soon.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:52 am
Huckabee will win the 2012 Presidential Elections.
Two Ivy league university students use high tech statistical Algorithms from two centuries of Presidential voting results. Their calculations shows Huckabee dominating the poll results. The Republican party can’t afford to lose again in 2012, all Republican camps must unite around Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee’s popularity continues to soar to new heights, only 3 more counties needed to reach 400 counties in America of Huckabee Fans. Check it out for yourself: Huckabee Fan Club
October 1st, 2009 at 5:53 am
Huckabee didn’t mean it. He was just asking …
I mean, don’t capitalists believe in stomping on the throat of the poor and starving?
October 1st, 2009 at 7:31 am
Super dishonest post, Alex.
Huck said “libertarianism,” not “capitalism.” Your headline implies an actual quote, when it is just you editorializing. And Huck did not even say that libertarianism is a greater threat than liberalism.
You are the one who equates “libertarianism” with “capitalism,” not Huck. He was not attacking capitalism and you know it. It would be akin to me writing a post that says “Alex Knepper attacks motherhood and apple pie” because you attack religion.
October 1st, 2009 at 7:42 am
More dishonesty from you, Alex:
“Capitalism = Economic conservatism = Heartless, soulless, callous”
But that’s not how Huck presented it in the quote you said we should never forget, but have apparently already forgotten. Huck said, “it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism.”
So Huck never used the word “capitalism,” never equated economic conservatism generally with heartlessness, but that’s your banner headline. In fact, Huck calls himself an economic conservative, whether he qualifies in your book or not. His quote implies that NOT ALL economic conservatives are of the heartless type .
I know you are smart enough to know this when you wrote it Alex, as you are good with words. But since you decided to inject your OWN definitions- instead of Huck’s- to conflate the issues and distort his meaning, you lose 37 respect points on intellectual integrity.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:18 am
34. Suckabee has about as good of a chance as Michael Moore to become president.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am
Huckabee is right about social libertarianism – its just social liberalism with a name that sounds more appealing to a thin slice of GOPers.
As for capitalism, no – capitalism is good, and most capitalists DO take an element of social responsibility.
We need both Social and Economic conservatism, because, quite frankly, thats what works.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
LOL — I’m very impressed. Can I see the study?
How did Thomas Jefferson do in the New Hampshire primary and what conclusions do they draw from that on Huck’s chances there?
October 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
So long as Mike only draws 8% support from non-evangelicals, he isn’t going to be anyone’s nominee. And the organization Pawlenty is assembling exceeds Mike’s from ’08 already. But, let’s keep true to him because that will split the so-cons between Mike, Tim, Sarah, Rick.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Why does everyone assume that libertarians are all just social liberals? It’s a question of policy. Most libertarians, especially of the sort that participate in Republican politics, tend to be fairly socially conservative, but they just don’t believe in using the federal government as a tool for creating social cohesion.
Don’t like homosexuality? That’s great! But saying that two people who are committed to sharing their finances, living together, raising children together, etc., can’t have ANY legal protection of that relationship just because of the kind of sex they have is pretty ludicrous.
Don’t like drugs? Neither do I! But sending people into a criminal justice system where there’s violence and sexual abuse and pervasive gang-culture just because they were in possession of small amounts of a drug that even the past three fricking PRESIDENTS have admitted to using without harm to themselves or others is cruel and unusual.
Oh but what about the evils of prostitution? I agree that prostitution is disgusting. But in a culture where you can pay third parties to have sex with each other for your sexual pleasure (as in pornography), how does it makes sense to ban payment for a direct service that amounts to the same thing? And why would we criminalize this aspect of the sex industry when it would be much more in the interests of public health and safety to decriminalize it and regulate it, so that it doesn’t become a hotbed for venereal disease and drug abuse and money laundering?
I don’t think those are socially “liberal” positions, I just think they’re socially realistic. It’s not the government’s job to create and ideal society. That’s the problem with liberals in the first place! And these are issues that are almost always secondary to libertarian Republicans. I don’t have such a deep-seated political opposition to allowing prostitution to remain illegal, but the fact that so many of you just want to cut people like me out of the Republican Party altogether over a disagreement on a non-issue shows how small-minded and exclusionary certain factions of the Republican Party are.
And Huckabee is increasingly becoming the spokesperson for that straight-and-narrow type of Republicanism that’s so revolting. And it’s precisely why I mean it when I say I would CAMPAIGN for Obama if Huckabee were the opposition. I would rather see the Republican Party remain in a somewhat longer period of exile than sell-out to the worst kind of Republicanism just for an electoral win.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
And it’s worth pointing out that economic conservatism – “soulless” capitalism – is about more than Ayn Randian Objectivism. It’s not about denying services to the poor, or favoring corporations. It’s about the most effective and efficient way to address those needs. What’s “soulless” is the monopolization of social services by an expansive and expensive federal government that’s inflexible, prone to corruption and distortion of services, and that fails to accomplish its stated goals. Students can’t have school choice because it would mean a loss of money for those employed in the public education system. Charitable organizations are heavily regulated in the types of services they can provide so as not to compete with or duplicate government services. It’s not “soulless” to say that wealth creation should be a primary goal of economic conservatism, but it’s precisely that type of policy that leads to better standards of living for the needy by removing the barriers that keep people in poverty.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Huckabee suffers from Hoof in Mouth disease.I cannot imagine him running this country over Mitt Romney. Mitt has so much more respect here and globally…He is a genuine gentle….man…Kind, honest, loyal, a doer, his knowledge is breathtaking…His 63 yrs. of experience is so valuable..Huckabee is only 52…..he still has lots of time…to get it right….like T-Paw and Palin….
October 1st, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Governor Mike Huckabee
You are the man that I would like to see elected as our next president.
I am now living in Florida but when you were Governor you saved my home state of Arkansas from going bankrupt.
You support the FairTax Bill HR25/S296 and I have been working with our local “American For Fair Taxation” Group for the past 3 years. I think when this bill is passed and in effect it will answer many of our problems in Washington DC by allowing the American People some control over their own income.
I am a great Grand Father and have a great Grand Son who just got his driver’s license.
This is why I am working to help get the FairTax Bill passed. Otherwise it is hard for me to believe taht my childrern, grand children & great grand children will have the opportunity to in the future to achieve the American Dream as I did.
Thanks Governor & keep up the good work.
Go FairTax
Billy Joe Cate
Orange Park, FL.