Against Huckabee

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
I’m anti Free Market economics anyway. As far as Taxes go, there are somethings the government exists to provide, roads, police, fire-department, education, and must raise taxes if necessary to pay for those services. Beyond that, there is always waste, pork, and corruption that should be eliminated but never is.

It seems like the majority here is pro-free market, and private sector, and that’s all good. That’s what we have elections for.

[/quote]

I think you’ve fallen into the trap of democracy. So, let’s say that you think the government’s job is to provide for health care and I think it isn’t. If you can get enough people to agree with you and win a referendum then you get your way, my rights be damned.

This happens every year here in Moscow. Every year these damned lefties vote to raise school taxes. Wait, let me rephrase that: they raise property taxes to support schools. Now, I don’t believe the .gov has the right to force me to pay for some other kid’s schooling (well, I do, but it’s a complicated position), and I certainly don’t believe in property taxes (because that means we are all renters) yet because a bunch of people want that to happen, I essentially have a gun put to my head and my money is taken from me for something that the government has no right meddling in. Democracy sucks, except in the most highly reined in circumstances.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
I’m anti Free Market economics anyway. As far as Taxes go, there are somethings the government exists to provide, roads, police, fire-department, education, and must raise taxes if necessary to pay for those services. Beyond that, there is always waste, pork, and corruption that should be eliminated but never is.

It seems like the majority here is pro-free market, and private sector, and that’s all good. That’s what we have elections for.

I think you’ve fallen into the trap of democracy. So, let’s say that you think the government’s job is to provide for health care and I think it isn’t. If you can get enough people to agree with you and win a referendum then you get your way, my rights be damned.

This happens every year here in Moscow. Every year these damned lefties vote to raise school taxes. Wait, let me rephrase that: they raise property taxes to support schools. Now, I don’t believe the .gov has the right to force me to pay for some other kid’s schooling (well, I do, but it’s a complicated position), and I certainly don’t believe in property taxes (because that means we are all renters) yet because a bunch of people want that to happen, I essentially have a gun put to my head and my money is taken from me for something that the government has no right meddling in. Democracy sucks, except in the most highly reined in circumstances.

mike[/quote]

That’s a good point. However, I didn’t mention health care, only roads, police, fire, and education. When we get to health care things get murky, but since I’m at work (yeah, on a Sunday) and our cable went out and I can’t watch the Football game I will take the bait.

First, lets start with the basics, like police, fire, and roads, then work our way out. Everyone in the community has to pay for police and fire/EMS services, whether they want to or not, because everyone in the community benefits from them. If you really wanted to go all out you could have a system where people voluntarily subscribe to a private fire service, and if your house catches on fire and you haven’t paid your dues, you are shit out of luck. I understand New York City had such a system once upon a time and it didn’t work so well, because when a non subscriber’s house catches on fire, and no one does anything, it spreads to their neighbor’s.

Educating other people’s children takes a bit of a leap. One has to assume that if more people are educated to the point where they can be productive members of society, the stronger our economy will be, and the fewer will turn to crime. That makes us all safer in the long run, and saves us money. Better to pay $5000 a year to educate someone else’s kids that $30000 a year to keep them incarcerated when they grow up because the only thing they know how to do is sell crack for a living. But the basic principle is, if you benifit have to pay, whether you want to or not.

Health coverage takes even a larger leap. One has to assume that we all end up paying for medical care for people who don’t have insurance anyway, and it ends up costing us more in the long run, so universal healthcare is good for everyone because it saves everyone money. I’m not really going to get into that because I’m not well informed on the issue, and it’s way way off topic.

However, I do get your point and agree that the concept of “essential” services is murky and the line is always moving to suit the political flavor of the month. And I agree that the fallacy of democracy is that one’s rights are always at the mercy of the mob. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a Republic, and in a Republic citizenship comes with duties and responsibilities, including taxes. If you don’t like the situation in your city you could move out to the country. Moscow sounds every bit as bad as Richmond, and I plan to move out to the middle of nowhere as soon as I can afford to.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I mentioned before in another thread that Huckabee is my least favorite among the Republican candidates - this post by Prof. Ilya Somin does an excellent job of explaining why:
[/quote]

Agree with most of what he’s saying, Huckabee is the natural heir of Bushism, which even most Republicans have finally figured out is both empty and not conservative.

Having said that, if forced to choose between the Wall Street wing of the party and the Christian right, I’ll go with the latter. Conservatives should be a lot more worried about abortion, family breakdown and education than about tax cuts. Far from being a captive of the religious right these past seven years, the Bush Administration has taken their votes and all but ignored their agenda. This column (despite its obvious liberal slant) sums it up well:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_plutocrats_v_the_theocrats

“The plutocrats got showered with riches, and the theocrats got lines from hymns dropped into speeches.”

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

However, I do get your point and agree that the concept of “essential” services is murky and the line is always moving to suit the political flavor of the month. And I agree that the fallacy of democracy is that one’s rights are always at the mercy of the mob. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a Republic, and in a Republic citizenship comes with duties and responsibilities, including taxes. If you don’t like the situation in your city you could move out to the country. Moscow sounds every bit as bad as Richmond, and I plan to move out to the middle of nowhere as soon as I can afford to.[/quote]

I think I misrepresent Moscow somewhat. I love this place and when I retire I’m almost sure to come back to the PNW. I just get sick of the hippies occasionally. It’s a shame that I need to be in a hippie town for a Co-op grocery store. Those things rock, even if they are filled with commie politics. I just got sneered at over there by some asshat for having my Beretta on me. So far as the rest of the post, I think we’re in general agreement.

mike

I appreciate the joke - but the answer is “not”: Huckabee’s Foreign Policy – Outside the Beltway

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

However, I do get your point and agree that the concept of “essential” services is murky and the line is always moving to suit the political flavor of the month. And I agree that the fallacy of democracy is that one’s rights are always at the mercy of the mob. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a Republic, and in a Republic citizenship comes with duties and responsibilities, including taxes. If you don’t like the situation in your city you could move out to the country. Moscow sounds every bit as bad as Richmond, and I plan to move out to the middle of nowhere as soon as I can afford to.

I think I misrepresent Moscow somewhat. I love this place and when I retire I’m almost sure to come back to the PNW. I just get sick of the hippies occasionally. It’s a shame that I need to be in a hippie town for a Co-op grocery store. Those things rock, even if they are filled with commie politics. I just got sneered at over there by some asshat for having my Beretta on me. So far as the rest of the post, I think we’re in general agreement.

mike[/quote]

I like Richmond also, but the city rapes you on property taxes and the service fees and charges on the utilities are yet another tax. I also feel more comfortable with a couple of acres between me and the neighbors. But there’s a lot of history here, one of the country’s oldest organized fire departments, and the church where Patrick Henry made his speech. Also, I think we’re the only state capital that has nesting bald eagles.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
He’s lacking in other areas. Find them and pick on him for those.
[/quote]

How about…he’s a doofus that only has his christian credentials to back him up? From what I have read about him his role as governor wasn’t all that worthy of adoration either.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JeffR wrote:
tedro wrote:
So we have Huckabee and his questionable economic policies, Romney and his liberal health care plan, and Guiliani the most liberal candidate in the field. I keep flip-flopping between Huckabee and Romney as far as who I hope wins.

After the Florida debate, I was leaning towards Huckabee, after the recent Iowa debate I am wishing Thompson would have started campaigning earlier. He appears to be getting much more comfortable behind the podium and we are finally starting to see some fire in his belly. Of the candidates that can seriously challenge for the nomination, I like his views the most.

tedro,

If you are a Republican, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE THINKING WITH huckabee.

I have no clue why people are even considering this guy. He has a willie horton story that is going to blow up in his face. His pardon number as Governor is pretty suspect. His stance on immigration is poor.

If you vote for huckabee in the primary, my only guess is that you are one of those one issue jackasses.

Let me make this clear: huckabee couldn’t overturn roe vs wade.

Period.

There is no plausible scenario where he could get this done.

So get it out of your brain.

Can anyone tell I’m not a big fan of the far Right?

If you are free from sin, can’t find forgiveness in your heart and decide to judge Rudy, then why not vote for Fred Thompson?

JeffR

Hey Jeff, if Thompson had a little more fight in him would you pick him over Rudy? If not, why?

mike[/quote]

Hey, Mike.

I wouldn’t pick F.T. over Rudy. I think Rudy has much more potential. He is the candidate that scares lixy the most. That’s good enough for me.

However, F.T. is my second choice at this point. His candor is noteworthy.

Sadly, I think he waited too long to try for this office.

JeffR

[quote]tedro wrote:

Forgiving Rudy is not the issue. I don’t like him for his abortion stance, gun control, and questionable policies regarding taxes.

[/quote]

tedro, please take a peek at his tax record. As for gun control, he’s moderated that substantially. Under Rudy’s watch, nothing will change regarding roe v wade.

No chance.

JeffR

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Jeff,

While I’m not a big fan of the religious right either you’ve got a few things wrong.

First, a President Huckabee (sounds funny huh? Probably because it’s not going to happen) could easily appoint pro life judges to the Supreme Court, just as Bush did by the way.

And secondly, I think it’s the desire of the religious right to return the abortion issue to the state, and that could happen.

[/quote]

Mick,

I just don’t see him being able to appoint activist judges. A judge bent on overturning this law would have given clues to this proclivity.

He/she just wouldn’t pass the judiciary committee. The only chance said President would have is to pick a “moderate” who is essentially an extremist with no paper trail.

Not going to happen.

Frankly, I’m not well versed in the argument about returning the issue to the state. Educate me.

JeffR

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
He’s lacking in other areas. Find them and pick on him for those.

How about…he’s a doofus that only has his christian credentials to back him up? From what I have read about him his role as governor wasn’t all that worthy of adoration either.

First of all I can’t resist the temptation to remind you that the doofus that you support is only a mere Congressman.

Secondly. it the guy is so bad then like I said pick on him for something that he’s actually done wrong.

Here are some ideas:

Pardoning hardened killers

Spending the states money like a drunken sailor

Raising taxes.

There you go.

Now come back with something that we can all look at rub our chins and say “I’d never vote for that guy Huckabee”.

The doofus thing just won’t float when you back the biggest doofus in the race.

[/quote]

Mick,

lifty is too far gone. Even when he tries to make a valid point, most people are going to see him through his usual posting prism.

This “floating cross in the background” crap makes me angry.

This blatant play for far right votes isn’t going to fly in the general election.

For any Caucus goers who frequent this board: PLEASE DON’T SADDLE US WITH A CANDIDATE WHO HAS NO CROSS-OVER APPEAL/CHANCE TO WIN.

THINK.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
PLEASE DON’T SADDLE US WITH A CANDIDATE WHO HAS NO CROSS-OVER APPEAL/CHANCE TO WIN.

THINK.

JeffR

[/quote]
What do you think we are going to do?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
PLEASE DON’T SADDLE US WITH A CANDIDATE WHO HAS NO CROSS-OVER APPEAL/CHANCE TO WIN.

THINK.

JeffR

What do you think we are going to do?
[/quote]

I think people will turn to Rudy as the only candidate with broad appeal.

JeffR

What about the people who find him to be nothing more than a slimy politician, who have principle, and who don’t want to vote for the “popular” guy just because we are told to? Who do we vote for?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What about the people who find him to be nothing more than a slimy politician, who have principle, and who don’t want to vote for the “popular” guy just because we are told to? Who do we vote for?[/quote]

lifty,

Nearly every politician in history has had their share of “slime.”

Your “sainted” ron paul, manipulates the history of our Founding Fathers to further his political career.

I understand your resistance to the “popular” candidate. In your mind, someone who stands above the crowd must be resisted. It’s the socialist in you. Further, how could you maintain your “uniqueness” if you vote for the popular candidate?

What you’ll find is that you will gain exactly nothing for being a Rebel Without a Cause.

Fads fade. People grow to adulthood. The unrestrained passion of youth gets channeled into productive endeavours.

Someday you’ll look back and cringe at what you are saying now.

In summary, I think you should vote for the guy most likely beat lixy’s friends into total irrelevance.

JeffR

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
He’s lacking in other areas. Find them and pick on him for those.

How about…he’s a doofus that only has his christian credentials to back him up? From what I have read about him his role as governor wasn’t all that worthy of adoration either.

First of all I can’t resist the temptation to remind you that the doofus that you support is only a mere Congressman.

Secondly. it the guy is so bad then like I said pick on him for something that he’s actually done wrong.

Here are some ideas:

Pardoning hardened killers

Spending the states money like a drunken sailor

Raising taxes.

There you go.

Now come back with something that we can all look at rub our chins and say “I’d never vote for that guy Huckabee”.

The doofus thing just won’t float when you back the biggest doofus in the race.

[/quote]

He’s a kook and doesn’t have a chance.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What about the people who find him to be nothing more than a slimy politician, who have principle, and who don’t want to vote for the “popular” guy just because we are told to? Who do we vote for?

lifty,

Nearly every politician in history has had their share of “slime.”

Your “sainted” ron paul, manipulates the history of our Founding Fathers to further his political career.

I understand your resistance to the “popular” candidate. In your mind, someone who stands above the crowd must be resisted. It’s the socialist in you. Further, how could you maintain your “uniqueness” if you vote for the popular candidate?

What you’ll find is that you will gain exactly nothing for being a Rebel Without a Cause.

Fads fade. People grow to adulthood. The unrestrained passion of youth gets channeled into productive endeavours.

Someday you’ll look back and cringe at what you are saying now.

In summary, I think you should vote for the guy most likely beat lixy’s friends into total irrelevance.

JeffR
[/quote]

What about people like me who have conscious?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

He’s a kook and doesn’t have a chance.[/quote]

Are you refering to Paul?

I don’t think Huckabee is the answer but I don’t think he is a fascist.