I don't advocate throwing over Social Cons. They're an important part of the Right. But economic issues are going to drive the next few election cycles, barring an International incident. But Huckabee is a Big Government, tax and spend liberal, no matter his social views. I think what he really meant to say here is, he's in danger of being irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, he is - though that doesn't mean he'll just go away, as I wish he would.
(CNN) — Days after national Republicans launched a new campaign to broaden the party's outreach, former upstart presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says the GOP is at risk of becoming "irrelevant as the Whigs."


"...But Huckabee is a Big Government, tax and spend liberal..." That's false. The Club for Growth, Romney, and Thompson spun this lie. Huckabee is more conservative than either Romney or Thomson. Both have engaged in constitutional defiance that Huckabee wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot pole. And Huckabee opposed the Bush/Paulson TARP, as I doubt either Romney or Thompson would have, and has opposed all of the bailouts and spending since. During the campaign, Huckabee cited the 10th Amendment regularly, as no one else did. Huckabee caled the (supposed) "stimulus bill, The Congressional Relief Action Program: or CRAP. Feel free to justify your styatement to an old conservative who knows better.
Posted by: Larry Perrault | Saturday, May 09, 2009 at 08:02 PM
Larry, you abject idiot, Huckabee wanted to TAX FAST FOOD. He wanted to tax companies that made fried food, like your local KFC or MacAndDon's. He's wanted to do other things to regulate what people eat or drink or smoke.
He is a tax-and-spend fiscal liberal, social conservative, and he needs to have his nuts cut off.
Posted by: Danimal | Saturday, May 09, 2009 at 08:23 PM
He flooded his own ststae with illegal aliens and then ran opposing illegal imigration.
A Big Fat Fraud!
Posted by: mary | Saturday, May 09, 2009 at 09:46 PM
PALIN/HUCKABEE 2012
The only team that's electable.
Posted by: Frank | Saturday, May 09, 2009 at 10:02 PM
"You abject idiot!" Oh, here's a site on the "right" side that has mastered the style of debate of the left-wing howlers. I watched Huckabee's entire campaign, from before he announced until he dropped out: over a year. He never advocated taxation of resttaurant foods: An idiot would do that. As governor of Arkansas, he backed a mark that could be put next to menu items of approved healthy content: just information to inform choices. As governor, he also signed a bil to eliminate smoking, IN WORKPLACES: THOSE OF THREE OR FEWER EMPLOYEES OR WHICH CATERED ONLY TO ADULTS WERE EXEMPTED. Do you doubt that he has opposed all of the spending and bailouts? He said during the campaign that the federal government shouldn't raise taxes. As a state governor, he signed tax increases to rebuild a dilapidated highway system and to improve state schools after a Supreme Court order, putting in accountability measures for educational performance. Both highways and schools improved from the bottom 10% to the top 10% in the country. That's the sort of things that good state governments do. Huckabee constantly cited the 10th Amendment distinction between federal and state powers and responsibilities. I am a 52-year-old who has been a conservative since a pre-teen. I cut my teeth on William F. Buckley and George Will. Rise above the low rent style of argument usually taken up by liberals.
Posted by: Larry Perrault | Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Larry, in trying to defend Huckabee, you show him to be a big-Gov expander of state/Fed powers: What place is it of the State (or Feds) to ban smoking in someone's place of business -- whether three or 300 employeess work there. That move speaks of his overweening arrogance. It is the call of the employer to make the smoke/no-smoke rules in his own business.
Posted by: man_in_tx | Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 03:50 AM
Well said Tex!
Sorry there Larry but if Huckabee is conservative I'm an Astronaut!
I do like him but "true" conservatives don't need to be involved in "Nanny State", big, government!!
Leave to the Astroturfers and the MSM to push the Soros/Xerxes line of "conservatives need to be more moderate"!
That worked real well with McCain didn't it?
If the current bunch of so called Republicans can't grow "some" and fight the destruction of the Republic taking place we need to send 'em all packing!!
Posted by: SacTownMan | Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 04:08 AM
I think the same thing about Huckabee, he wants to be the Nanny of the United Nanny States. That's the impression I got of him in some interviews he gave when he was running. If it's not true then he should work on clarifying his positions.
Posted by: Lala | Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
When Huckster first started running for Prez he was on a local Iowa station. When asked about illegal immigration he stated that we need these illegals to do the jobs that Americans won't do and you can't deport them because they're just trying to make a living blah blah blah...
He was for illegal immigration before he was against it. He only changed his stance once he found out that the majority of Iowa Repub's were staunchly opposed to illegal immigration.
We call him Elmer Gantry here in Iowa.
Posted by: Hal | Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 01:06 PM
"conservatives need to be more moderate"!
That's not my line. I'm probably more philosophicaly conservative than you people are, though perhaps not on some matters that are poorly thought out visceral responses. I'm in Texas. I didn't even vote for George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004, but went third-party after Republicans nominated. When he was first elected president, I said, "Leviathan gets a night manager." And, that's exactly what happened. Bush's last deficit of 450 billion dollars set the stage for Obama to throw all caution to the wind.
I supported and voted for Huckabee in 2007-8 precisely because he was the most conservative candidate in the field. I also know the records and history of Romney and Thomson. And except for all the posturing and political/personal attacks, it really wasn't even close
Posted by: Larry Perrault | Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 02:51 AM
Larry:
How do you think about Constitutionalist candidates, such as Mike Peroutka in '04 or Chuck Baldwin in '08 ?
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 02:44 PM
I voted for Michael Peroutka in 2004.I was part of The Constitution Party for 4-5 years, and was offered a state party office, which I turned down for physical reasons. But from within, I saw roughly even splits when some matters arose. Some, like Joe Sobran who was the VP candidate in 200o, were thoughtful, philosophically clear conservatives. Others operated more on emotional reactions. I can give examples. They were mostly all good people. But, too often they didn't present a clear and persuasive message to outsiders. And obviously, especially a third-party needs to be a missionary and not an insular effort.
Posted by: Larry Perrault | Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM