Huckabee Is A Friggin’ Liberal January 25, 2008
Posted by papersource in 1.trackback
Since he’s running in the Republican primaries for president, don’t expect Mike Huckabee to be advertising the strong endorsement he just got from Ted Strickland, Ohio’s Democratic governor. It seems Mr. Strickland, who typically racked up a 95% rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action during his 16 years in Congress, has discovered a kindred spirit in Mr. Huckabee. He told the Cincinnati Enquirer last Sunday that Mr. Huckabee is a “combination of conservative views in some ways, but very, almost liberal views in other ways.” Mr. Strickland concluded: “Of all the Republican candidates, Mr. Huckabee would be my personal choice.”
While Mr. Strickland didn’t specifically mention education as an area where he shares agreement with Mr. Huckabee’s “almost liberal views,” it’s notable that the former Arkansas governor was endorsed for the GOP nomination this month by the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association. Mr. Huckabee has sent mixed signals on support for school choice, but the president of the NEA in New Hampshire cited opposition to school vouchers that Mr. Huckabee apparently expressed in his meeting with the union as a key reason for the endorsement.
As for Mr. Strickland, he has become one of the most vociferous opponents of school choice anywhere in the country. Earlier this year, he attempted to end Ohio’s statewide school choice experiment with a line-item veto, called for a moratorium on new charter schools, and said he would like to ban for-profit companies from operating schools in Ohio. It’s frequently said politics makes strange bedfellows, but in the case of Ohio’s Democratic governor lavishing praise on Republican Mike Huckabee, it appears to be a case of two peas in a pod. — OpinionJournal’s Political Diary
***************
The Constitution is a “living, breathing, document.” — Mike Huckabee, CNN interview, Jan. 18, 2008
WJM - That is the classic liberal position for amending the Constitution to adopt every passing social fad, including repealing the Bill Of Rights. Oh, I’m going way too far? Read up on the French Revolution, which is the clear path to where liberalism goes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
***************
Jan 28, 2005, by Doug Thompson, Arkansas News Bureau:
LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.
Holt, R-Springdale, replied later that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.
Senate Bill 206, filed Wednesday, also would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and would require state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally.
***************
Not surprisingly, The Huckster is religiously liberal as well:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121901856.html
What The Huckster said in the above Washington Post article is consistent with a movement called neoevangelicalism, which in practice is almost indistinguishable from social gospelism. The difference is that neoevangelicals retain some
semblance of Biblical faith. But there’s not a whole lot of difference between The Huckster and Jimmy Carter, or Al Sharpton for that matter. They all use Jesus as their justification for big government social programs. The Huckster (and to give him his due, Carter) probably believe it, too — which makes them much more dangerous than a Sharpton.
Quoting Reagan as some bastion of fiscal discipline is a willful ignorance of overwhelming fiscal hypocrisy. We all love movie stars, and many of us love small government, but crunch the numbers sir or you are chasing ghosts.
I didn’t quote him as a “bastion of fiscal discipline.” Re-read it.
President Reagan deliberately outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and ended the Cold War. If it wasn’t for him, millions of people would still be enslaved.
I am aware of this reading of his grotesque indebting of future generations. My point is that regardless of the rhetoric, Reagan and Bush II have both exploded spending in the very ways that folks decry Democrats will/do/are about to and it is silly. I don’t want the government in my life and I am no Democrat, but Repubs claim they are fiscally conservative and they expand government in their own way, via the military and their foreign adventures.
I think the debts our grandkids have to pay is as much enslavement as any!
I agree with you, with the exception I noted above. What President Reagan did was necessary to end the Cold War and that trumps fiscal concerns in the short-term. What Bush I, Clinton and Bush II should have done was to repair the damage to the economy ending the Cold War cost us. Instead, they (esp. Bush II) spent like…well, I’d say drunken sailors, but that’s an insult to drunken sailors everywhere.
Bush II’s presidency has been breath-taking. He’s managed not only to be the biggest spender in history, but at the same time destroyed the image of America overseas. He’s certainly done more damage to this country than any president in my lifetime. I rank him with the worst of the worst presidents we have ever had. Worse than Wilson, which is really saying something, perhaps on a par with FDR, which is really saying something, and even gives Lincoln a run for his money http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
The difference between the parties is that Democrats want to drive us off the cliff at 100 mph while the Republicans only want to do it at 80. The only exception is Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul2008.com