Michelle Malkin Recognizes Conservatism in Huckabee...

...but wants to see more.

Michelle Malkin, well known conservative commentator, recently wrote an article titled "Wanted: a 'Suck It Up" Candidate." In her commentary against Nanny State-ism, she both credits Mike Huckabee with a great conservative statement, and faults him for later softening on the same issue. She writes;

Last month, Mike Huckabee told an NPR reporter unequivocally that it "is not the purpose of government to prop people up from every poor decision they make." Amen, Rev. Huckabee. But at the New Hampshire debate, he sheepishly avoided tough pronouncements and instead voiced support for President Bush's Hillarycare-Lite housing bailout approach since it "didn't involve tax dollars." Yet.

There is much more to the article, and it's well worth reading. She goes on to fault every other Republican presidential contender for liberal statements*. I find it particularly noteworthy that she reveals "Fred Thompson, supposedly the conservative's conservative" as only a pretender to the Reagan mantle; pointing to his acceptance of the liberal call for a "fiscal stimulus" package.

OK, so Malkin also faults Huckabee for supporting Bush's "bailout approach." His personal view is still the only candidate statement she finds conservative enough for a hearty "Amen"; at least in her commentary.

As for me, I'm not sure how I feel about Bush's solution for the mortgage situation. I heard Huckabee's statement of "support" myself; and I think Huckabee was trying to make the point that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on a Nanny State solution to personal/corporate bad debt.

As for a "stimulus"; the best economic stimulus I can think of is the combination of lowering marginal rates for everyone (yes even the "rich"), and immediately boosting domestic oil production. If you think you've heard that somewhere before, then you must have been listening to Mike Huckabee.

I'm not ignoring the fact that Malkin finds not even Mike Huckabee conservative enough for her taste. But I was glad to see such a strong conservative as Michelle Malkin willing to give Huckabee credit where it's due.

*[Yeah, she doesn't mention Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul. But Hunter, though conservative, really isn't in the running. Ron Paul on the other hand, not only isn't in the running, but in my opinion should either be running as a libertarian or from the men in "those nice white coats".]

Limbaugh's Logic Proves Huckabee Lowered Tax Rates

The "Talking-Heads" of both talk radio and cable news are at it again. Spurred on by a Mitt Romney talking-point; they are accusing Mike Huckabee of "a net [tax] increase of half a billion dollars," during his time as Governor of Arkansas. This includes some of the most vocal political analysts and commentators from Rush Limbaugh on down.

They base this conclusion on the fact that, even though Huckabee presided over more tax-reductions than tax-increases, there was an increase in taxes collected. Let's remember one of those economic principles that Reagan's opponents called "voodoo-economics", but which have proved to be true. An overall decrease in tax rates boosts general prosperity, which in turn results in an increase in tax revenues.

Yes, when the government takes a thinner slice of the pie, the pie gets bigger; and as a result, even the government ends up with a bigger piece of pie.

I searched Rush Limbaugh's website , and found this specific instance of how the self-proclaimed "Doctor of Democracy" explains the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues.

"You know, they keep calling the Bush tax cuts, 'tax cuts.' They weren't. They were tax increases! The amount of money that roared into the treasury increased after the tax cuts. We had tax rate reductions, but tax revenue increased. You could actually more accurately say that the Bush tax cuts were tax increases. They were just happened by virtue of rate reductions." - Rush Limbaugh: 2007.12.19 "Stack of Stuff Quick Hits page", article #12 (emphasis mine)

Rush is fond of "illustrating absurdity by being absurd," and it's pretty obvious that he's doing just that in the quote above. Who would be so absurd as to actually call the "Bush tax cuts"; "tax increases".

Likewise, those who confuse (or ignore the difference between) tax revenues and tax rates to tar Mike Huckabee as presiding over "a net increase" in taxes can only be called one of three things; Absurd, Mistaken, or outright lying! Even Rush Limbaugh should admit that either he now thinks Reagan's tax principles are "voodoo-economics"; or that Mike Huckabee really did lower overall tax rates as Governor of Arkansas.

Related posts:
"Can a Populist be Conservative?"-2008.01.04
"Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism"-2007.12.14

Rush Limbaugh Sawing a Leg Off Reagan's Stool

Many credit Ronald Reagan (and I think rightly so) with building the "3-legged stool" that is the modern conservative movement. The three legs being Defense Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and Social Conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh needs to realize his own marginalizing of moral and social issues (at the root of his attacks on Mike Huckabee) is in danger of cutting off the Social Conservative leg. A leg that the leaders of the Republican party have been doing little beyond rhetoric to shore up in recent years.

I think there are two basic reasons Rush is attacking Mike Huckabee. Number 2 is that Huckabee does, admittedly, often lead with a populist sounding attention getter up front and one often has to sift for his solutions; which ARE CONSERVATIVE.

The Number 1 Reason is the one area where RUSH IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Rush strikes me as having become too much of a hedonist (or at least giving a wink to hedonism) to be able to support anyone who takes issues like fighting homosexual mainstreaming seriously. As one who has listened to Rush for years, it's obvious that he thinks homosexual mainstreaming is no big deal. For me, it's the biggest.

We can recover from a temporary tragic bout of liberalism in fiscal areas. All but the most extreme far-left liberal loons become "Defense Conservatives" when our nation is obviously threatened. But a governmental sanction of homosexual practice would shatter our basic culture to such a degree that we would never recover.

Huckabee needs to put his conservative solutions more up-front in his speeches and answers. This would help put those at ease who, after hearing Rush's false charges that Huckabee is liberal in the Defense and Fiscal areas; and may not look deep enough into his record and statements to see Huckabee's firm support for all three legs.

Although it's apparent that Rush does believe in God as the Creator (see his "Undeniable Truths of Life" #s 20&23); he seems to worship at the altar of the "Almighty Dollar" first and foremost, and seems incredulous that any candidate mentions any subject more often than money.

Rush has enough staff and history of deep research that he either knows his charges are false, or he is predisposed to believing the worst about a candidate who is dedicated to supporting the Conservative stool by three firm legs even if he has carve a replacement for the fragile Social/Moral leg himself from a tree of basically Biblical values. I have enough reason not to doubt Rush's honesty that I believe it's the latter, and therefore he simply hasn't bothered to get all the facts about Huckabee.

In either case, it seems to indicate Rush believes more in a stool supported by two legs and a broom-straw, than the 3-legged stool of Ronald Reagan. [note (2008-01-03): My opinion of Rush's intention have changed after a statement Rush made the night of the Iowa caucus. I now think he believes Huckabee would be very likely defeated by the Democrats, and his loss would marginalize "the Christian right." Look for a more in-depth post on that subject later today.]

Huckabee Doesn't Have Time for the Whole Sermon

I'm getting a bit frustrated with hearing from conservative talk show hosts, that Mike Huckabee sounds too liberal. This is especially true of THE conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. However, I can't fault Rush too much for that. I have to lay it at Huckabee's doorstep.

I'm not agreeing with those who say Huckabee is too liberal, just that he sometimes sounds too liberal in the media sound-bites. After reading and listening to many of the former baptist minister's whole speeches; it seems he often starts with a "centrist"/liberal sounding introduction, and then develops a case for his conservative solution.

I suspect this is the result of both having to deal with a heavily Democrat legislature in Arkansas, and the "sermon" format he was used to in the pulpit. In those situations, he had to make the message sound appealing to the listener he was trying to engage; and then as the speech developed lead them to the details of the real solution.

A perfect example of what I believe Huckabee is doing is found in the Bible itself, in John 3:16-18; which begins; "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Most Christians can quote John 3:16, but how many remember that in verses 17&18, Jesus makes the point that he didn't come to bring condemnation to those who wouldn't believe in Him, but that all were already condemned before He came; and His sacrifice offers the chance to escape that universal condemnation. Now how many would recite that passage if John 3:16 began with; "He that believeth not is condemned already"; even though that's really the reason Christ came to begin with. If we were not in peril we wouldn't have needed saving.

As this applies to Huckabee's speeches and answers to press questions; he's got to realize that they're only going to report the conservative details of his speeches if he makes them an integral part of the quotes they are going to pick. Most voters will not look for, nor pay attention to, the extended details contained within sermon-length speeches or articles.

One example I can think of is Huckabee's view that arts and music are an important part of a well rounded education. He makes statements such as "Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable - I believe they are essential." But in more extended articles and interviews has also said things like "education is a function of the states, not the federal government".

The latter, more conservative statement is not in conflict with the former; but one would certainly not expect the latter from hearing only the former. Now which of those statements do you think a liberal media is more likely to report? And which part will conservative commentators see, especially if the second is buried ten or more paragraphs into the story?

I'm no political speech-writer; but let's try something like this:
I believe that education is a function of the states, not the federal government; just as strongly as I believe that music and the arts are an essential part of education. So as President, I would use the "bully pulpit" to emphatically recommend that the States include these in their education programs. But I would not make this a Federal mandate nor create a new Federal program for this purpose.

Get the idea? I'm sure Mike Huckabee will do a much better job of articulating such; if he will just realize he doesn't have time for the whole sermon.

Huckabee Shows Fiscal Conservatism

I was just listening to a Mike Huckabee interview on BlogTalkRadio with Ed Morrissey, and heard him say something I think all of us Fiscal Conservatives have been waiting to hear said so plainly from one of the current Preasidential candidates.

Morrissey asked questions about the size and role of the federal government. Here are some of my favorite parts of Huckabee's responses in this area:

• "What government really ought to do is to provide a sort framework in which we can live our lives with as much liberty and freedom and with as little government as possible."
  
• "Essentially my attitude would be that Government should protect it's people but shouldn't provide for them. It's up to us to provide for ourselves."
• "I'm a big believer that education is a function of the states, not the federal government. If there is any role at all; and there doesn't have to be one; but if there is one, it's to be a clearing-house for the best-practices of the states."
• "The concept is that we have a limited federal government, with power pushed to the states and to the local communities."
  

Please don't take these quotes out of context and think Huckabee has some secret plan for ending all social programs and taking a slash-and-burn approach to reducing the size of government. These are general statements on his philosophy regarding the role of government, and as such this is the heartbeat of fiscal conservatism!

One thing Huckabee desperately needs to do, is to say these things more often and louder. By louder, I mean he needs to fight to make space for these statements whenever he has a higher profile interview or event. ( such as those Hannity and Colmes hit-pieces where all they seem to want is to bring up the smears against him)

He needs to be really careful when sharing his views about what "we" should do in regard to things like education, health care, are helping the poor. Having spent a good deal of time watching and listening to Huckabee; I understand the "we" of these statements to range from State government to Federal government to Local Government to the collective effect of individual actions; as appropriate to the subject under discussion.

But there is a tendency to think the "we" must mean the Federal government when coming from a candidate for the highest Federal office. This is especially true for those whose only exposure to the candidate in question has been "drive-by media" sound bites. It's this misunderstanding that has allowed some to erroneously pin a "big-government liberal" label on him. This has served as a weapon of mass distraction for social liberals who don't want voters to notice Huckabee is the only candidate (among those getting serious attention) who is serious about social conservatism.

So Huckabee needs to make clear who the "we" is when talking about the need for social action. And while he's in no danger of joining the teeny-tiny-government-libertarian camp; he needs to be much more insistent about sharing his smaller-government-conservatism. Because when you hear Mike Huckabee say these things, you can tell he means them.

Who Do You Trust?

With the new Rasmussen "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll" showing Mike Huckabee in a tie for first place with Rudy Giuliani; I'd like to offer my opinion on how the new "Man from Hope" has made such gains on the Golden Boy of the NYC news elites. I think it has a lot to do with the attacks made in recent days, including in the CNN YouTube Republican debate , against both Huckabee and Giuliani on their respective perceived weaknesses.

Both were questioned, in the YouTube debate (an obvious far-left-leaning assault against Republicans), about their history regarding illegal immigration. Mitt Romney accused Giuliani of a sort of passive amnesty for illegal immigrants in running New York as a sanctuary city; and accused Huckabee of what is basically leniency regarding the children of illegals applying for scholarships in Arkansas.

Although a hard-liners on immigration like me don't agree with Huckabee's position on children brought here (possibly born here) by parents who broke our immigration laws; it's a far cry from giving sanctuary to the lawbreakers themselves, as seems to be the case in Giuliani's record. Still, this is at least a perceived weakness for both candidates.

Apart from immigration, each has been labeled as lacking in conservative in a different area. For Huckabee, some have questioned his credentials as a fiscal conservative, primarily over a few tax increases he agreed to as governor of Arkansas. For Rudy his long standing positions of supporting abortion-on-demand, gun control and gay-unions are a challenge indicate a lack of social conservatism.

In Huckabee's defense, he offers statistics of having cut taxes over 90 times, reducing discretionary spending, and balancing the Arkansas budget. Meanwhile, Giuliani offers to "nominate strict-constructionist judges" when asked about abortion; says gay-unions should be a matter for the states (as does Fred Thompson); and pays a weak lip-service (it seems to me) to the Second Amendment by claiming the Federal Government doesn't have the same authority cities (and possibly states) do in the area of gun control.

I think it all comes down to a matter of trust. Do you believe those making the accusations, or do you believe the candidate's defense? This is where character really counts in the public eye. I think today's Rasmussen poll results are a good indication of who people think more likely to live up to promises to secure our border; and that people trust Mike Huckabee to be a Fiscal Conservative more than they trust Rudy Giuliani to be a Social Conservative.

The Perfect Conservative Presidential Candidate

I'll admit that in my view there is no "perfect" candidate in the current field of Presidential hopefuls. Nevertheless, I want to list some characteristics and issue positions that I think would make my "perfect" candidate. I'd also like to see comments on what others would like in a candidate.

Moral Values Issues:

• Human life is sacred, from the earliest moments in the womb until the last breath leaves the body. While I see potential for some "gray" area in extremely rare cases such as detectable fetal abnormalities that would be fatal outside the womb, or pregnancies almost certainly fatal for mother and child; abortion as a convenience absolutely must end. It's nothing less than murder. Likewise, "euthanasia" is an abomination. Therefore, I demand a candidate that will actively work for a sanctity of life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Good examples of this are the one passed in Arkansas under Governor Huckabee, and the one currently under consideration by the Georgia state legislature. "Overturning Roe-vs-Wade" on grounds of sloppy adjudication (which it was), is desirable, but not enough at this point.
• Homosexual unions cannot be government sanctioned at any level in any form. No "gay-marriage", no "civil unions", and no supposed "anti-discrimination for sexual orientation" laws. Any governmental stamp of approval on the practice of homosexuality would not only be supporting a religious abomination, but would be nothing less than a powerful weapon for anti-Christian activists to use in attacking religious free speech, is the guise of slander and "hate-speech." A candidate must support a federal preservation of marriage amendment, as between one man and one woman. While homosexual unions do touch on a religious issue, this is not particular to just one sect ("an establishment of religion" in the Constitution) or a small subset of religious bodies. Plus is has widespread consequences if we allow general disruption of our basic social structure.
• Religious Free Speech is not only a long-standing tradition in America; it is absolutely demanded by our Constitution. While I can't think of additional legislation required, a candidate must firmly express the importance of this value and a return to a proper view of the First Amendment. That view is for freedom of Religious and Political speech. It is not for suppression or religion and promotion of vulgarity and pornography, as modern liberals have successfully misused it in our courts.
  

National Security:

• The USA is a sovereign nation, owing no higher allegiance to any international governing body
• The USA absolutely must do it's utmost to become energy independent as quickly as possible; otherwise it will be at the mercy of other oil-producing nations for the remainder of it's needs.
  

Personal Characteristics:

• Has a history of demonstrating achievement in line with his positions
• Has lived faithfully in marriage and never divorced
• Demonstrates a belief in the God of the Bible (the government is constitutionally prohibited from making this a test, but I as a citizen am not)
• Is an articulate and engaging speaker, able to clearly and honestly state his positions, be convincing to those who are undecided, and firm but respectful when standing against those with whom he disagrees.
  
• Is not given to displays of temper, nor outbursts of vulgar language. (A President must be even-tempered to wield such power)

I'll be adding more to my own list as time allows, and hope to see yours. (Please no comments that are just "I think {candidate name} is the perfect candidate" although you may feel free to include the name of your current choice.

A Candidate with Moral Clarity

On the Glenn Beck radio program today, he and Bill Bennett were discussing the Presidential race. After immediately dismissing the current field of Democrat candidates, Bennett said what we need most right now is a President with "moral clarity".

The Zig Ziglar endorsement of Mike Huckabee certainly describes a man who has moral clarity. Among other praise, Ziglar calls him "a man who's word is his bond." He also says Huckabee is; "a good person that knows where our country needs to go, and I believe he's been preparing all of his life, to take us right there."
-----

-----

When the presidential race initially started, I was somewhat distressed that while I saw a few who showed some degree of fiscal discipline; I didn't see a candidate who also had a clear record of integrity on moral issues. But that was before I discovered Mike Huckabee.

Now I urge you to take a look at Mike Huckabee; and if you also find him to be that man with moral clarity, please give him your support. Pass on this blog and the Huckabee website to those your friends. Please also use the "widget" at the top of this blog to go to the Huckabee website and contribute to his campaign.

Faith First!

I was reading a recent blog post on www.MikeHuckabee.com, when I came across the comments of a Romneyite acting in a way that obviously marked him as what Rush Limbaugh would label a "seminar caller". (i.e. "I really agree with you but in this case you should change your mind")

To begin with, I found it amusing, that someone would try such an obvious tactic as wait until next election for Huckabee and support Romney now; But as I entered my own comment on why I found his suggestion unacceptable, I grew more passionate in my response. Part of this probably came from my feelings about recent unfathomable announcements by supposed religious/moral leaders who chose to endorse candidates that either are or have been supporters of abortion-on-demand and/or government sanction of homosexual-unions. Although probably not the most eloquent writing (even by my poor standards), I thought it worth copying here as a post:

WOW, Romney and/or his supporters must be worried to try and distract us with comments like those of "AZ, RHR".

To me it's simple. The two issues that are most import right now are Sanctity of Life and stemming the tide of Homosexual-mainstreaming.

I only trust 3 candidates on these two issues; Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo. I will not vote for a ticket with anyone but one of these three at the top. Period, that's it.

I've come to the point in my absolute revulsion with the moral direction our country has been drifting that, if the Republicans nominate a candidate soft on moral issues, I'll take it as a sign we need to "hit bottom".

No insult intended to the other two candidates, but I think Mike Huckabee has the most passion on those two subjects. It doesn't hurt that I also really like his take on FairTax, National Sovereignty, Energy Independence, etc. So he's my first choice.

I don't agree at all with RHR's claim that Romney is "more fiscally conservative". The accusation about Huckabee's supposed "big government" spending seem to be all infrastructure issues. Hate to tell you, but that IS a function of government! The challenge in those areas is not elimination, but managing them in a responsible way, which Huckabee has done.

Again to my bottom line: try reading Matt 6:24-34, about making God or money your main concern. To quote verse 33; "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

I would rather live in a tent in a nation that upholds Godly principles and honors God, than a mansion in a nation that holds life cheep and holds perverse sexual practices in the same light as the marriage of one man and one woman. I am also absolutely confident that seeking God first, including voting for candidates upholding Godly values, will make it less likely that we suffer financial ruin than if we neglected God to focus on chasing money. (Let me make clear, I'm not talking about choosing God to get money, but the idea that blindly choosing money over God will eventually lead us to ruin; including financial ruin.)

Now can anyone tell me how I could possible in good faith accept Romney, McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani; or why I would conceivably choose any other candidate above Mike Huckabee?!?