Huckaboom Boom Boom Boom!

Drudge reports that Huckabee is now tied nationally with Rudy Guiliani for the lead!  We are talking nationally here folks ... not just Iowa ... but the United States.

This is by far the most interesting development of the 2008 presidential race.  Forget the Hillary implosion or the Oprah effect ... Huckabee's surge to the top is the number one political story of the year bar none.

Any fellow registered Republicans wish to discuss this?

Libertarians, Demmies, Communists and Apathists (a made up word) are not invited to this discussion.  :)  Resist the urge.  This is an intramural conversation only.  Don't make me whack your comments ;)

If you voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election, you are invited to comment...

Comments

[Joe Guarino]

Mr. Dawn Treader, Huckabee has been my choice since the summer. I have misgivings about some aspects of his profile. But he is clearly right on the most important things.

I think some in the conservative movement who are not conservative Christians are beginning to get very concerned. We are seeing more endorsements of Romney and McCain. And Giuliani has been in "free fall" over the last couple of weeks.

I think one of the big questions about Huckabee's candidacy obviously is money. He may be doing somewhat better on this score over the last month or so; but sooner or later this problem may catch up with him in a significant way. The February 5 mega-primary day comes to mind.

[Steve]

Mrdawntreader,
Your term "apathists" is not a made up word. Maybe it used to be, but it is a real word now. Dinesh D'Souza uses that term regularily in his book, What's so Great About Christianity.
Have you seen the video of Huckabee and Chuck Norris? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
It is hilarious. I may vote for him just based on that. I am registered Republican, btw. I'm just one of those early-Reagan, Libertarian-leaning Republican's.
Anyway, in this video he says that he wants to eliminate the IRS, so if he gets the nomination I'll vote for him.

[Steve]

I've been on the Huckabee bandwagon for awhile now, and it's clear he's making an impact when the conservative press starts taking its shots at him. I just hope he gets enough momentum from some of the early states to actually start raising some money.

[Carl Holmes]

I recently jumped from the Thompson band wagon to the Hucabee one. I must admit I did not know he was running until not to long ago when he started to push on the big guys.

I think it is time for a "dark horse" candidate to come into government. Someone who appears not to be phased by big money and big government. I am ready. Hucabee 08!!

[gid]

What a mess guys! Have you done your research on this guy? Seriously!

Let me give some links:
First for those homeschoolers:
http://thegidcumbs.com/dblog/archives/000406.php

Huckabee and Taxes
http://www.taxhikemike.org/
[quote] Huckabee called No Child Left Behind "the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime." (Washington Times 03/01/05) [/quote]

George Will on Huckabee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLpLfQqjRDU

Please Read This Article! Huckabee was sanctioned 5 times by the Arkansas ethics board. He also crushed the hardrives of all the computers before he left office! Why would he do that?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/

My presidential voting record is Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, so I think I qualify to respond.

[Rachael]

gid,
You quoted that Huckabee said No Child Left Behind is "the greatest education reform effort in my lifetime."
Don't forget the word "effort." He isn't saying that No Child Left Behind is perfect, but it was an effort. The government is trying to reform education, but they can't please everyone. As time goes on, it can be tweaked, but at least it has been put in place and the government cares about the education of American children.

[oclarki]

Rachel,

Whenever I see the words "government cares" I start to get concerned. When someone who is ostensibly a republican is swayed by intentions over results, I worry for the future of the nation.

I'm a conservative and an evangelical. Huckabee's rise has shown me that there are plenty of evangelicals whose conservatism starts and ends with being pro-life. Huckabee's progressive populism seems attractive to many evangelicals who consider themselves conservative. This is not a positive development.

[Susannah]

Spunky's back, blogging about education "reform" and Huckabee:

http://www.spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/

I think she's absolutely right that this sort of federalizing of education makes for a difficult environment for homeschoolers. It affects us whether we like it or not.

I have to admit, this (among other things) gives me pause. I was sort of inclined to Huckabee or Thompson, but some of the things I've heard from Huckabee make me wonder how principled a conservative he is.

I do like his sense of humor, though.

[gid]

Rachael,

Education is not a federal issue. The only true fit for federalized education is in a socialistic paradigm. It floors me that fellow conservatives are so willing to view this as a necessary evil vs. trying to change it. Education, at best, is a state issue. Less than 20% of public education is funded on the federal level. Most people do not know that. The department of education needs to be dismantled. The issue with Huck is he is socially conservative with all the progressive leanings you would expect from a serious progressive.

Also, what about his pandering the evangelicals vote. This should make us sick. Images of Christ and the money changers come to mind.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

re: "I have misgivings about some aspects of his profile."

For example? (question directed at Joe)

re: "I think one of the big questions about Huckabee's candidacy obviously is money."

Money is tied to electability. The biggest strike I have always held against Huck was that this guy could never get elected. Who gives money to someone who has no chance? Huckabee is suddenly starting to look more electable. The money will follow, IMHO. People like a winner.

re: "Your term "apathists" is not a made up word."

You are right! I backed into that one ;)

re: "Have you seen the video of Huckabee and Chuck Norris?"

I had not ... but now I have. This is thing. Huckabee is funny. Huckabee is quick with one liners. Huckabee is likable. .... BUT .... he comes across as flippant in this video. He almost seems too loose and relaxed. The presidency is arguably one of the most serious jobs in the world. It is no joking matter. Being likable and funny are nice, but ... I am more impressed by integrity, decisiveness, clear thinking under pressure, and humility.

re: "I'm just one of those early-Reagan, Libertarian-leaning Republican's."

Someone help out Mr. D here ... what exactly is a Reagan Republican anyway? I always associated that term with Dems who voted for Reagan ... to me it means a center left person who is not too proud to vote Republican. What is the real definition?

re: "What a mess guys! Have you done your research on this guy? Seriously!"

Uh, no :) That is why I opened a thread and am keeping out Demmies. Huckabee, to me, was a funny guy who delivered a great joke about Edwards hair cut in the 1st debate. This thread proves that I don't know squat about him and I need to hear some conservatives yammer about him. Gid, thank you for all of your links!

re: "Huckabee's progressive populism seems attractive to many evangelicals who consider themselves conservative. This is not a positive development."

Progressive populism? Ok, unpack that for me.

So far I have seen a claim that Huckabee is anti-homeschool, anti-school choice, and pro-public school education. This would make him a favorite over at Lean Left. ;)

What else?

re: "Also, what about his pandering the evangelicals vote. This should make us sick."

Pandering does make me sick. However, politics is all about pandering, is it not? The guy is trying to get groups of people to vote for him after all.

As much as I don't like Huck's apparent views on education, who can hate a guy that has the guts to say that we need to shut down the IRS and institute a fair tax? This does not seem like progressive populism to me ... is it?

Can someone tell me Huckabee's views on national defense and the war on terror? How about the military? How about Huck's judicial philosophy?

President's run the military, pick judges, and stop the Congress for doing stupid things.

I want to hear more about those things.

[Steve Clarke]

I could go on and on about Huckabee and his substantive viewpoints, and I realize that I probably come across as something of an apologist, but here goes:

As to the FairTax - I think it's a great idea that has no chance of being implemented, because to do so would probably require a constitutional amendment. Yet if you were designing a tax system from scratch, a consumption tax would be the most logical way to fairly tax citizens at all income levels. Regardless, the fact that Huckabee recognizes that there is something seriously wrong with our current tax system is undoubtedly a good thing.

As to his views on foreign policy, there is very little that is known, and he came across in a recent NY Times piece as being astoundingly ignorant of foreign policy. I chalk a lot of that up to his not having any money, and therefore not having the people around him to help him get educated, but also not having the people around him to polish his image. I can't imagine how much time and money Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have spent working to perfect their image, which leads to, inter alia, (a) better reception from the newsmedia and (b) better talking points. Huckabee just doesn't have the funds for that at this point, so he has to rely on his charisma and likeability in place of substantive points for now.

When all is said and done, he sounds a lot like George W. Bush does, especially on terrorism. Whether you think that is a good thing or not will probably influence whether you support Huckabee or not. Of course, what I don't want him to be is like George W. Bush on government spending, and that is what most troubles me about some of his views. Altogether, though, I'd much rather have Huckabee than any of the other Republican candidates, especially since Fred Thompson appears to have not lived up to the hype.

[Steve Clarke]

Also, take it with a grain of salt, but here is Dick Morris's article about Huckabee and fiscal conservatism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html

[tgirsch]

what exactly is a Reagan Republican anyway?

I know I'm not invited, but I understand the term to mean a small-government, more libertarian-leaning Republican, as opposed to current Republicans who have massively expanded the federal government and its power.

I always associated that term with Dems who voted for Reagan

That term is "Reagan Democrat."

[tgirsch]

This would make him a favorite over at Lean Left. ;)

Hey, wait a minute! No bringing him up if I'm not invited!

(Seriously, Huckabee does have some progressive leanings on issues like health, education, and poverty.)

who can hate a guy that has the guts to say that we need to shut down the IRS and institute a fair tax?

Anyone who knows anything about the so-called "fair tax." It's maligned by liberals and conservatives alike. Whoops, I'm supposed to be staying out of this. :)

EDITORS NOTE: I let one lefty in the house temporarily. It was only fair after referring to his blog ;)

[Joe Guarino]

The parts of his profile with which I am concerned are the fair tax proposal, which cannot be passed, and his history of supporting tax hikes in Arkansas; the soft stance on illegal immigrants in his home state; the record on crime with respect to commutations; and the overall sense of big-government conservatism.

I am less concerned about the stance he has taken with respect to globalism and economic "populism", because I think we are due for a correction in this regard. As Christians, we need to be concerned about wages, and the ability that men should have to support their families. One of the other uncertainties is how he will manage the war on terror, but I hope he would get that right.

[SteveC]

tgirsch is correct... that is what I meant. Some call it Goldwater Republican, but Reagan was more successful.

[SteveC]

What does everyone think of Huckabee's "fair tax"? According to my math, it could easily double or triple the cost of most everything we buy. There are at least 3 or more transfers of goods from origin (farm, mine, oil well, forest, etc.) to consumer (raw goods manufacturer, finished goods, distributer, retailer... at least, often more). Take 23% off the top of each transaction and you can see that the price will double, triple... or more. Am I thinking about this correctly?

[tgirsch]

SteveC:

Hopefully Mr. D continues my exemption. I'm being nice and avoiding flames. :)

The correct figure is actually closer to 30%, but it depends on your perspective. About 23% of the total cost of anything you buy will be tax under a fair tax, but we're used to viewing sales taxes as a value-added tax, which we generally represent as a percentage of the pre-tax amount. This puts the figure at something like 30%.

Maybe Mr. D can open up another thread to discuss the Fair Tax specifically, but one of the most common criticisms is that it really isn't all that fair. People at the lower end of the income scale tend to spend a much higher percentage of their total income, so even after you factor in the "rebate" checks -- themselves a messy bureaucratic nightmare -- the tax winds up being highly regressive.

The other problem with it is that we are a consumer-driven economy, so implementing a highly punitive VAT would serve to discourage spending (i.e., consumerism), which could have disastrous effects on the economy. Now factor in something like wartime or a depression, when people tend to limit their spending at a time when government involvement is most needed.

All in all, the "Fair Tax" is one of those ideas that sounds good superficially, but loses its luster when you dig into the details.

[tgirsch]

Added note: Tennessee (where I live) has not state income tax, instead choosing to use a VAT. Our sales tax -- 9.75% here in Memphis -- is one of the highest in the country, and our state is consistently ranked as having one of the most regressive tax structures in the nation. So a lot of what I wrote in the previous comment is not just theory.

[Deb]

I voted for Bush in 2000 and for the Constitution Party in 2004. I already knew that the Bush Administration had taken the Evangelical vote for granted and was set to betray our trust. I could see where things were headed way before the re-election, when VP Cheney declared their "mandate."

In any case, I tend be skeptical of any single-issue, one-dimensional candidate, as well as conservatives with a legalistic based ethics and values system. Being in the military, I am all too familiar with folks who are non-Christian, conservative republicans, and that, in my opinion, is a terrible mix that leads to strict relativism. In other words, compassionate conservativism is still the most attractive approach to me, even though I do not believe George W lived up to the label coined by his admin.

Also, Justin Taylor had a really good post last week on the "Conservative Intelligentsia Spite" against Huckabee at: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/12/conservative-intelligentsia-spite.html
I'm trying to sift thru rumor, innuendo and facts, as well as keeping in mind that supporters of Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney are fighting hard to get points back from the Huckabee surge and will run with anything they can get their hands on.

Alex Chediak also posted a good piece about untrue Romney attacks on Huckabee at:
http://www.alexchediak.com/blog/2007/12/romney_attacks_huckabee_with_f.php
He links to a Newsweek article and a factcheck.org study, which clarifies the issues.

As far as the fiscal issues, I am concerned that Huck could be like Bush in the spending department, but as governor he did have a balanced budget in Arkansas.

I can't imagine any of the other candidates on the Republican side being a better choice than Huck. IMHO

[SteveC]

Okay, so you guys have got me investigating. There is an informative FoxNews.com article on Huckabee, which is quoted by Cato.org: www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838
Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative.
Some quotes:
• On net, Huckabee increased state taxes by more than $500 million. In fact, Huckabee increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did.
• But Huckabee doesn't just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program. And one of the most disturbing to me:
• Huckabee is, incidentally, the only Republican candidate for president who opposes school choice.
Huck has a lot of back-pedaling and clarifying to do before I vote for him.

[Sherry]

I think we conservative Republicans, values voters, are prone to the half a loaf syndrome. We want the whole loaf or nothing. I like Huckabee. I tend to be a little less conservative on economic issues athn your typical Republican, and I actually think some guns shold be controlled. Not that Huckabee agrees with me on those issues, but he is pro-life, pro-family, interested in tax reform, willing to stay in Iraq until the job's finished, and gaining momentum against Guiliani. I think if we don't get Huckabee, we will get Guiliani. And that's what our demanding a whole loaf will do for us.

I also think the Christophobic wing of the Reublican party is scared by Huckabee and trying to throw anything and everything at him in hopes that something will stick. I have a couple of questions:

1. Are taxes in Arkansas higher than they are in NYC or Arizona or Tennessee? I doubt it. Not how much did Huckabee raise taxes, but what were they before he became governor?

2. If not Huckabee, then who? And don't tell me to vote for Ron Paul. Talk about unelectable.

[SteveC]

Sherry,

I guess what I want to know is whether Huckabee is even half a loaf. Another problem we face is that candidates represent themselves as half a loaf and they are really half a snake (to use a Biblical reference). An understanding of economics and liberty is very important to me as a Christian and a citizen- and I am not convinced that Huck has sufficient understanding of these things. Maybe I am wrong, but it is helpful to discuss these things in a forum like this. So, regarding Guiliani, he reigned back an oppressive government and made it more efficient and market-friendly. Huckabee did the opposite in Arkansas, according to a couple conservative economic think tanks.

* mgmt note: original comment was edited at the request of SteveC

[Deb]

Steve: I don't agree with supporting a republican candidate (Guiliani) simply because of his economic record. In fact, several conservative Christian commentators have interestingly said the Hillary is more pro-life and pro-family than Rudy. Hillary wants to limit/diminish the demand for abortion, whereas Rudy is an advocate for abortion rights. Rudy is also for gay marriages, while Hillary has said that she would support civil unions, rather than outright marriage, which she believes is a religious insititution. Just thought that was an interesting insight for our conversation.
Of course, these are not the only issues that I would vote on, but they are relevant indicators that could really change the whole flavor of the election if it comes down to those two. Go Huck!

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Re: “Regardless, the fact that Huckabee recognizes that there is something seriously wrong with our current tax system is undoubtedly a good thing.”

Amen. The more I learn about the fair tax, the better I like it.

”As to his views on foreign policy, there is very little that is known, and he came across in a recent NY Times piece as being astoundingly ignorant of foreign policy.”

This is my main Huckabee concern. There is a lot of noise coming from the Huckabashers. I filter through most of it, but naivete about foreign policy is a big, big deal. If he does not understand worldviews and seriously understand the threats arrayed against us, then he is the wrong guy for the job. We don’t need another Jimmy Carter.

Re: ” Take 23% off the top of each transaction and you can see that the price will double, triple... or more. Am I thinking about this correctly?”

You are thinking about it incorrectly. It is not a value added tax. It is a retail tax. All of the business to business sales are tax free. The only tax is at the retail level. This will lower the cost of goods and make American manufacturing super competitive globally.

Re: ” The other problem with it is that we are a consumer-driven economy, so implementing a highly punitive VAT would serve to discourage spending (i.e., consumerism), which could have disastrous effects on the economy.“

VAT? Bzzzt. Wrong. Highly punitive? Wha? By making business to business transactions tax free, you are going to unleash economic growth in the supply chain. The cost of doing business will drop, and the free market will take over and wholesale prices will drop. The prebate checks will easily offset the tax burden to the poor. Handing out prebate checks will not prove to be any more of a burden then handing out welfare checks or social security checks. Americans below the poverty line will have no trouble in knowing where to go to get free money. All in all, it is an effective progressive tax system that helps the poor, helps business, and has no negative impact on government revenues. And, it is easier to regulate than the current nightmarish system which basically hammers the middle class ... the poor get off, and the rich get off. The tax accountants make a living off trying to wade through the 40k pages of tax code. I can't believe anyone is defending the current system.

[tgirsch]

VAT? Bzzzt. Wrong.

Mea culpa. I was using the wrong term. Sales tax only.

Highly punitive? Wha? By making business to business transactions tax free, you are going to unleash economic growth in the supply chain.

For the most part, business-to-business transactions are already tax free.

I can't believe anyone is defending the current system.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the current system is perfect, or even close to it. They are (and I am) merely arguing that the "fair tax" wouldn't be any better, and would arguably be worse. The problem with the current tax code is that it's too complicated, and that it isn't progressive enough -- that is, too much of the tax burden falls to the working class.

Of course, the problem with simplifying the tax code is that everyone wants the code simplified as long as you don't touch MY deductions. In this way, the "fair tax" faces the same problems that the "flat tax" does.

Anyway, you should read more about the Fair Tax. It's not even close to being everything its proponents claim it's cracked up to be. Note in particular Figure 9.4. Under the "Fair Tax" system, people with incomes from $24,000 per year to $200,000 per year would shoulder a bigger share of the tax burden than they do under current law. The people at the ends would shoulder less. So your complaint about the poor getting off and the rich getting off would be even more true under the fair tax.

Further, in order for the tax to be truly revenue-neutral as compared to the current tax code, it would have to be a 34% rate, not the proposed 30%. Imagine a 34% sales tax when you went to buy that new car...