With this post I am declaring my support for Gov. Mike Huckabee in his candidacy for President of the United States. Gov. Huckabee is running a positive campaign, talking about what he wants to do for the American people. He is solid on the issues most important to me, and he has the communication skills and personality to get his message across to the American people and to the world.
He is solidly pro-life and pro-marriage. He has been consistent and firm on these issues vital to our society and the future of our nation.
He has signed a no new taxes pledge and supports the Fair Tax, which would abolish the Internal Revenue Service.
He is responding like a gentleman to the savage attacks against him now that he is ahead in Iowa. In short, Mike Huckabee has the kind of positive leadership ability we need to fundamentally change the culture in Washington D.C.
I will be ramping it up on this blog, Right Politics USA, in the days ahead as I seek to get the message out about Mike Huckabee and why we need him as our President.
Friday, December 21, 2007
A Postive Man for a Positive Future
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Mike Huckabee:
is unprepared to be president, on both domestic and foreign policy. For example, check out his stance on Cuba.
doesn't understand the dangerous world that we live in.
is more of a populist than a fiscal conservative.
has lobbied to let dangerous people out because they converted to Christianity.
The fair tax sounds nice, but a flat tax is better. My biggest problem with the fair tax is that people are going to import stuff from other countries to avoid the tax. Many countries are moving to a flat tax.
I support Rudy. He is pro-life in many ways like Mike, from the Mexico City policy, to the Hyde amendment, to being against partial birth abortion. And his stance on guns and gays is quite a bit more conservative than he gets credit for. Rudy is quite socially conservative.
Rudy also has great communication skills, is very intelligent, a proven leader, very well versed on the many issues, and has a very long and distinguished career in public service.
Thanks keif, for your comment. I like Rudy Giuliani in many ways, too. If Huckabee cannot gain the nomination, I would greatly prefer Giuliani to Romney. But I believe Huckabee is preferable because of his strong conservative stands on social issues. He does have a populist strand in him that will appeal to many independents and conservative dems, making him a strong candidate for the general election.
You should do more research about the FairTax idea. On the surface, who wouldn't be for abolishing the IRS? But, as with many things, the devil is in the details. The only way to implement a Fairtax across all income levels will be to subsidize the lowest income brackets in what would amount to the creation of the largest welfare system ever. Which would require an equally large new burocracy to run it. And does nothing to address govt spending. Not the result most of us want.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942089/posts?page=150
I'm all for ideas, but they have to makes sense.
Plus, as a woman, there is NO WAY I will EVER vote for Huckabee (and it is not about abortion).
Huckabee's populism is so much in the corner of promoting government as a solution-imposer, he's really nothing better than a Right Socialist.
While you may agree with him on a couple of key issues, I sense you're gravitating to him out of desperation. Quite frankly, the HLA is a big government solution to the problem. The same with a marriage amendment. Yes, both issues are horrific, immoral and must be stopped, but the only prudent, realistic way to get there is through state legislatures. So, the Supreme Court is key. Thompson and Romney both have a better grasp of how to get a real result here than hUck.
Add these errant solution concepts to the socialism inherent in his "compassionate conservatism" and what you have is a recipe for disaster, perhaps even the permanent estrangement of traditional conservatism's influence in the GOP.
Bush's version of compassionate conservatism has been co-opting religion for socialistic government use. Faith-based initiatives are the best example of this, and Huckabee's ideas appear to go far beyond Bush's in this regard.
The more I look at hUck's work, listen to him speak and ponder how he might govern, I become more convinced that there's also more than a hint of some scary form of liberation theology in his proposals.
Add all this to the fact that Huckabee's immigration proposal still includes a cleverly-worded amnesty...a version of Mike Pence's idiotic hokey pokey amnesty...and there really isn't anything a true conservative should like about the guy as a politician.
It's really sad to see so many conservatives conned into buying the gussied up socialist pig this guy is selling and labeling it somehow conservative.
Mike Huckabee is the biggest potential disaster of a nominee the GOP has ever seriously considered in my 48 years on this earth.
Yes the Fair Tax would be better for people with more money, but the increased economic growth will give help people with less money too. If you want to take a look at some of the economic benefits of the Fair Tax check out this article.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2007/12/the_fair_tax_is_about_economic.html
Mike Huckabee pleaded to his state legislature to raise taxes while Governor. He raised taxes more than Bill Clinton did while Governor. He pardoned numerous murderers during his tenure in office and one of them ended up committing another murder on an innocent victim. This man does not have the judgment to be President of the United States. There is only one man who has the knowledge, experience, and honesty to lead this country in the right direction , and that man is Fred Thompson. It is time for Republicans to come together and stop obsessing with style over substance, because Thompson has by far released the most substantive policies than any other candidate. It's time to unite my fellow Republicans, get behind the man with the plan!
I am a republican who thinks that the party has moved too far to the right on many issues and am
voting for Mr. Huckabee because I believe he is more mainstream and he's on the right side of the abortion, gays and gun rights issues.
Keith, with all due respect, Huckabee is a big government advocate. That is not in line with Republican ideals. Mike Huckabee does not have a chance in the general election because he is all style and no substance. He is a good communicator and i'm afraid that many people are just facinated with his communication skills. But with all do respect, Mike Huckabee doesn't have the experience, or the judgment to lead this country in the 21st century. This is the same man who released murderer after murderer in his state of Arkansas, eventually leading to the death of another innocent person. And just recently, he unbelievably said that Mormon's believe that the Devil and Jesus are brothers! This man is the man that yall are supporting to lead this country in the future? I'll stick to a genuine, honest and inspiring man in Fred Thompson.
I was a big fan of Fred too but he has fallen too far to win now. As far as experiance all he has to do is tap James Baker and a few other top players and he will do as good as anyone else can. He also can bring
a lot of independents in as well as conservative dems.
I think a Huckabee/McCain ticket will win the election!
For my part, I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani if nominated. His election would be the end of the GOP as a pro-life party.
Incidentally, I also wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, whom I consider so dangerously naive about foreign and defense policy as to be a threat to our national security.
Huckabee was the governor of a poor state with an infrastructure in catastrophic decay. Raising taxes was his only option after Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker let the state go to hades in a handbasket.
I'm sorry if some don't find him sufficiently conservative economically, but he has Rudy Giuliani (who is in no meaningful sense pro-life) and Fred Thompson (who thinks families ought to have the right, if they claim loved ones
have requested it, to starve those loved ones to death even though they are not terminal beat six ways from Sunday on the abortion and related issues. Romney will be unable to carry the South, and certainly won't be able to carry his home state.
The notion that Huckabee lobbied to let dangerous people out of prison because they converted to Christianity is a lie. Huckabee extended executive clemency to some, and lobbied for the release of others, because they gave evidence of having been rehabilitated and precisely no longer a danger to society. A seemingly sincere religious committment was one element in some cases in making that transformation evident- and a perfectly legitimate
factor when considered along with others. In one particular incident- the Wayne Dumond affair- he made a mistake, and says that he wishes every day that he had the opportunity to undo it. But if you compare Huckabee's record in this regard with what Romney-appointed judges have done in Massachusetts with regard to releasing dangerous characters... well, better to do your research than to merely repeat misleading and inaccurate talking points.
Mike Huckabee has every bit as much foreign policy experience as Ronald Reagan did, and I would like to see Keif document his odd claim that Huckabee doesn't recognize what a dangerous world this is. Facts, Keif, go a great deal further than innuendo.
Oh. And incidentally, skyab23... Mormons do believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers... and your characterization of Huckabee's record with regard to executive clemency is a pack of bald faced lies. He never pardoned a murder in all his time as governor of Arkansas, and did not exercise executive clemency in any way, shape or form in the case of Wayne Dumond, the man who subsequently committed a murder. He simply supported a statewide movement to free a man thought by many to be an innocent victim of a witch hunt after a crime was committed against a cousin of Bill Clinton's.
Jim Guy Tucker commuted Dumond's sentence, and a Democratic parole board set him free. Huckabee's involvement was nothing other than wrongly believing that Dumond was innocent- a mistake he fully acknowledges.
And Bob Finch... compassionate conservatives are "socialists?"And what in the world is a "Right Socialist," anyway? Your insubstantial and frankly rather silly ad hominems are a poor substitute for arguments!
skyab23 you said that Mr Huckabee raised taxes have
you by chance noticed how much the Repulicans were
spending even before they lost both houses of congress and all without a single veto from our
President. sure they didnt raise taxes they ran up the debt for our children and grandchildren to pay for all
the pork they became addicted to!!!
Mr. Waters, I'm indeed sorry that you live in a bit of a thought vacuum. I'm not the first...nor will I be the last...to identify and call out the intellectual brotherhood between compassionate conservatism and socialism. It's probably more clear to those of us who take their conservatism seriously as a mode of thought that precedes political ideas, but there's definitely a kinship in the two dogmas.
In a sense, compassionate conservatism is more dangerous than socialism to our nation's future because it cloaks its destructive components in religious overtones. I've actually had a chance to see the fruits of this insidious farce close up; a while back, I was engaged professionally in the promotion of some "faith based" initiatives. It was a part of my job. And, I'll admit that for a while I started to buy into it as some new way of being conservative.
No more.
Something about it bothered me from the outset. And because something so supposedly compassionate and good continually nagged me, I studied it. I deconstructed it. I thought through all the various scenarios that might play out when churches and ministers and "godly men" get in bed with bureaucrats and politicians. I finally figured out why faith based initiatives, and by extension compassionate conservatism is fundamentally dangerous to this nation's future: It seeks to set up a system by which religion is too easily co-opted by government.
Now, what could be wrong with a little government in religion, you might ask? Well, it might appear to start out just fine, but if you play out how this will work for the long-term you have to be an ignorant fool not to recognize the dangers. Firstly, all government social and welfare programs, no matter how they are intended, quickly morph into the playthings of little pods of bureaucrats more concerned about their petty fiefdoms and job security than they are about actually fixing the problems they've been charged to address. Secondly, it is in the bureaucrats' interests to make various program constituencies dependent upon their "services." And by "services," I mean "money."
Still, you might ask, what's wrong with a little lord over serf action if it means that "we'll be caring for the poor?" I hope you're not asking this, but if I'm digging this deep, I'm obviously concerned about somebody's deficiencies of comprehension...hint, hint.
So, I'll inform you by asking a rhetorical question: What happens once all these churches and ministers are hooked on cash subsidies and, one day, inevitably, the left finds itself in control of the legislative and executive branches?
Sigh. Since I've come this far, let me spell it out: Once churches are hooked on government loot, they'll be far more likely to have matters of faith dictated to them by those with left agendas. Gay marriage? They'll be preaching its good works from the pulpits? Abortion? Not a sin anymore!
If you don't have a concern that this will happen, I can't help you. You're not a conservative.
Conservatives generally advocate the elimination of welfare in government, especially in the Federal realm, because even the most minor assistance programs are socialist in origin. Conservatives at the very least desire charitable intent and action to be left to those who have a stake in it to do whats right in their communities; that is, locally. It wasn't all that long ago that the care of these matters informed our nation's traditional narrative, and the notion that government should care for all poor people was laughable.
As conservatives, and as Republicans, we had made some strides in rolling back the Federal Government's 20th century intrusions into matters of charity. We really were doing better in the years after Reagan reset our resolve to actually try to lead on conservative principle and prescription. Then, this vile notion of Compassionate Conservatism reared it's pustulant head.
Bush has done enough damage to the term "conservative," but there's a real concern among many of us who care for tradition that a Huckabee presidency will wreak havoc upon true conservatism itself, merely by strengthening the terminological association between the false conservatism these people have cloaked in compassion. It disgusts me that this horrid innovation shares any intellectual ground with my mode of thinking.
Bottom line? All government social and welfare programs are socialist at their source ideals. Compassionate conservatism seeks to use government as an instrument of churches, and vice versa, specifically in the realm of social and welfare programs. Compassionate conservatism is, in effect, a form of socialism weilded by people who see themselves as being on the right of the political spectrum. Hence, it can be referred to as "Right Socialism."
My first response is to Bob who said that Huckabee did not pardon a single murderer or criminal, which both are not true. But lets just say that you are right that he did not, even you stated that he "simply supported a statewide movement to free a man thought by many to be an innocent victim of a witch hunt after a crime was committed against a cousin of Bill Clinton's." So Mr. Huckabee supported what some people thought was a witch hunt, even after a jury convicted him of murder? And then Governor Huckabee proceeds to support this push to release this man who goes on to murder another innocent person. You want a man with that kind of judgment as the leader of the free world? He is a tax raiser, not even you can deny that and he has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. He is not prepared to be President. I think you are just amazed by his great communication skills, again a matter of preferring style over substance. I don't want style, I want substance, someone who can get the job done, someone with experience and someone with genuine integrity and honesty, and I believe that man is Fred Thompson.
My next response is to Keith Kneitz and my answer to that is that I totally agree with you. The Republicans, more in partiuclar the President, has strayed away from fiscal conservative principles. Yet this has nothing to do with Fred Thompson. He has written many recommendations before the spending got of control on how to stop pork barrel spending and get rid of ear marks. I believe this man is a true fiscal conservative. Now I am only 20 years old so I haven't been around the political scene as long as some of you guys, but I have studied much and analyzed many policies of the presidents over the years; ranging from both foreign and domestic problems. And the conclusion I have come to is that we need someone who is a strong fiscal conservative, someone who is for a weak federal government, someone who will secure our borders, promote free trade and keep our taxes low. Also, someone who believes that the states have a role as well, that is why they were put into place. Fred Thompson is that man my friends, and I just wish that the Republicans who are not supporting him,(most for no plausible reason whatsover)would get behind this man and he would with out a doubt defeat the Democrats next November. I am however disappointed in my fellow Republicans who are fixated on the fact that only Rudy Giuliani can win a general election. I can assure you that he cannot and will not. I am from North Carolina, and I know all too well how much the Republicans depend on the Southern vote in a general election. And Southern people will NOT vote for a liberal Republican in Rudy Giuliani. They will NOT vote for a flip flopper in Mitt Romney who they believe is not genuine. They will NOT vote for Mike Huckabee because of his poor judgment and his constant use of religion in the political spectrum. They will however vote for a man they believe is honest, genuine and has this countries best interests at heart, oh and not to mention actually have detailed plans to accomplish it by! My fellow Republicans, I urge you to get on board the Thompson express, we'll certainly let you on if he gets the nomination, but we need you on board right now to help make that happen!
Post a Comment