Exit Brownback, Up Huckabee

Huckabee will be the Bob Dole of '08. Heck, any Republican candidate will be the Bob Dole of '08.

Rod said, "I really like him, and hope he does win Iowa, but I think the calendar and his checkbook are too great to overcome. "

I'm a very conservative Christian homeschooling mother and on a personal level I like Huckabee too. But it's not his checkbook that I am worried about but my own. Huckabee seems to be willing place politics over principle, at least as far as the role of the federal government is concerned.

In a recent debate Huckabee said this about the Bush veto of health care for children, "I’m not absolutely certain that that’s going to be the right way. . . . The political loss of that is going to be enormous.”

As a social AND fiscal conservative, I do not believe that it is not the role of the federal government to take care of widows and orphans health care or provide "weapons of mass instruction" in art and music for that matter.

It is the role of the church, charity, and families to take care of those needs, not the federal treasury. It is NOT compassionate or conservative to take the money from one family and give it to another to win votes. That seems to be the Huckabee way. As governor Huckabee was willing to take federal funds to help those in his state, that tells me as President he'll be more than happy to give them out.

Conservatives have been duped into believing that we are being "compassionate" when we allow the government to take our money and give it to those in need. It is not only inefficient, it undermines the very freedoms this country was founded upon. Forced benevolence by the federal government is stealing pure and simple.

The political result of a Bush veto may well be enormous, but I fear that the enconomic loss in my pocket book will be enormous if Huckabee gets elected; leaving me less funds to take care of my own six children and also my neighbor in need.

The only thing to increase by such programs is the size of the federal government. Huckabee may have a big heart, but I don’t have a big wallet. Some of us just can’t afford to fund compassionate conservatives anymore.

I can see Huckabee as a possible VP candidate in 08. Nomination in 2012? Not sure, but possible.

IF the GOP loses in 2008, I rekon that Sarah Pallin at the top and Bobby Jindal at the bottom would make a might attractive ticket

"Then why don't the churches in this country stop building multi-million dollar monuments to their pastors and start caring for the poor, the infirm, and the "widows and orphans"? What's stopping them?"

Maybe you need to get out more, and visit more churches. There are thousands of churches in this country who do what you suggest. Nothing is "stopping them."
My own rather large church runs a battered woman's shelter, a homeless shelter, and regularly collects food and clothing for the local poor. Many of the members have adopted children from other countries who were orphans. I don't think my church is atypical in this regard.

"Then why don't the churches in this country stop building multi-million dollar monuments to their pastors and start caring for the poor, the infirm, and the "widows and orphans"? What's stopping them?"

Posted by: ds0490 | October 18, 2007 10:36 PM

Do you actually attend church, ds? Members of my church run a soup kitchen, build homes for the poor through Habitat for Humanity, support a free medical clinic, take hot meals to the bedridden every day, collect Christmas presents for poor children... the list goes on and on. As "annoyed" wrote above, my church is not atypical. In fact, I don't know of a single church in my area that's NOT deeply involved in such activities. You might want to do a little research (or maybe even have some personal experience) before you ask biased questions like that.

" It's painfully naive to think the private sector can respond to all that need."

It's painfully naive to make a statement like this. It is actually, the other way around, the federal government cannot respond to any needs on its own. They rely solely on taxing the PRIVATE SECTOR to give them the funds necessary to respond to the needs of others. In reality, the private sector is the ONLY one responding to the needs of the poor, through voluntary donations and taxation.

What you are basically saying is that you don't trust people to give on their own, therefore the federal government must take it coersively and give their money to others to meet a need. And that is true that some are indeed selfish and will not help his neighbor.

So in order to take care of the needs of the poor, the "compassionate" thing for the federal government to do is take from the selfish man and give it to the poor man (along with a cut for himself for his benevolent efforts.) That is stealing pure and simple. Selfishness may be immoral, but stealing is criminal. What amazes me is how many want the federal government to punish the immoral man (through increased taxation), but call the thief "compassionate." Neither the selfish man nor the thief is compassionate in my opinion.

And the tragic result of such a scheme is that the generous man cannot be as generous as he would like and the poor man is not getting the help he actually needs.

And sadly, unless Huckabee really establishes himself as some kind of superstar during his very short run (an EXTREMELY improbable outcome, as much as I like him), he's not going to get the 2012 nomination either.

Four years from now, you'll have a whole new crop of candidates. And it will be the incumbent President against the out-party's biggest money person.

A Romney/Huckabee slate is a Democrat's dream. I can already see the "the Bob Jones wing of the GOP has spoken" ads. Huckabee is very likeable and smart and actually would make a good choice with someone like Guiliani, who isn't all that likeable.

I agree with Daniel.

Huckabee is likeable, but otherwise brings nothing to the ticket as a VP -- no big state, no swing state and, unless Giuliani is the presidential nominee, no ideological balance.

And you wonder by 2012 whether social conservatives--who are his main audience--will even have any power in the party.

"There is a point, however, that all of those good works by churches, synagogues, and yes even mosques, can't meet the needs of the poor in this country."

Solid evidence of mosques helping poor INFIDELS please. Assertions are not welcome.

From Huck's web site:

................

My number one priority is to secure America's border.
We have to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need a fence along our border with Mexico, electronic in some places, and more highly-trained border agents.
Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.
Illegal immigrants already living among us who commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported.

..................

Not a flip flop at all, he has been consistent with this position for a long time. He's not one prone to wetting his finger and feeling the wind before making statements like this. He's a highly principled and consistent person with an enthusiastic & optimistic outlook.

I think he would make the best president of the Repubs, but agree that 2012 is more likely than this year. I expect he would decline a vice presidential role with any of the leading candidates.

Huckabee can can actually speak. He is genuine. His positions are strong and stable. He can actually stand up for his faith in popularly reasonable and understandable terms, without softening it. He is adamant about securing the border. He's legitimately and unapologetically conservative. He has a strong record of success running a government with a Democratic congress.

I believe the primary reason the powers that be are doing their best to ignore him, both in the media and in the political circles is his support for the Fairtax and his ability to present it clearly. The Fairtax is the biggest threat to the power and structure of our Federal political machine. It would eliminate Congress' ability to control and manipulate through taxation. The Fairtax would eliminate all the political tax favors legislated since the creation of the income tax system. It would eliminate all the tax loopholes created for our politicians campaign donors that they worked so hard for, and the ability to create any more. It would eliminate the whole K Street tax-favor-for-campaign-contribution corruption machine. It would level the political playing field. The only legitimate reasons I can find that anyone could have for not wanting the Fairtax is 1) having a vested interest in the perpetuation of some form of our current system or 2) not really understanding it (or being deceived about it). (I'd love to go into the long list of overwhelming benefits of the Fairtax, but that's another blog...)

He is the most normal of the Republicans. His positions are so logical and he can support them so well and reasonably, that he becomes one of those folks that if you attack him, you end up looking the unreasonable or attacking jerk. Put against Hillary, who he knows, and with the Arkansas background in common with her husband's political rise, Huckabee is so normal, that I believe she would either look shrill and wacko, or the socialistic bents of her positions and ideas would stand out in unfavorable stark contrast and as extreme to his. I think he would resonate and be much more relatable to a much broader audience and be offensive and polarizing to dramatically fewer than Hillary (or Obama for that matter).

He has my vote and my dollars.

"Maybe he can invigorate the GOP's far right, but all the charisma in the world doesn't make him palatable to Soccer Moms and Independents."

You may well be right, but I don't think the average soccer mom is going to have a problem with someone who does more than pay lip service to believing in Jesus. I think they'll find Huckabee refreshing as someone who's Christian profession is more than the usual empty words.