Friday, February 08, 2008

The begrudging Case for Mike Huckabee



As I am now obligated to support Mike Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nominee due to Romney's departure, I will give some reasons why I believe that out of the three remaining contenders, Mike Huckabee is the preferred man.

I'd like to note, before I begin:
I started this primary year liking Ray McKinney, then Duncan Hunter, then Fred Thompson, and finally settled on Romney last week. Now that all of these fine men are out of the race, I am limited to Huckabee, McCain and Paul. Huckabee is the best of the three, limited though the selection may be.

I'll start with my three main issues.
1. War on Terror
As with all the republican contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, Huckabee is strongly supportive of Bush's actions, and will likely continue taking the fight to the terrorists home turf. While Huckabee has little, if any experience running a war, he is a competent individual. While there is no battle ground similar to Iraq in '02 looming, action must still be taken against Islamic nazis. I trust Huckabee with this.

2. Economy
Admittedly, I have had my prior concerns about Huckabee's tax record. But when contrasted when McCain's past positions, particularly in regard to Bush's tax plan, I deem Huckabee worthy. His persistent campaigning on the Fair Tax is also a bonus, and I doubt he will deviate from that position in his first term, if elected.
Yes, Ron Paul has never raised taxes. But what's the deal with the gold standard? Our standard of living as a nation has only risen since we have switched to our current monetary policy in the early 20th century.
While Huckabee's support of subsidies on agriculture and alternative energies are hardly conservative, they could hardly do worse then what we've had now.

3. Immigration
This is what worries me most about Mike. His actions in Arkansas simply were not good. Still, what more harm could he do then the status quo is achieving?

All da rest (that I agree with Huckabee on):
Abortion
Like McCain and Ron Paul, Huckabee has always opposed the killing of babies.
How anyone wouldn't, I don't know. But this is the issue I trust Mike most on, defending the unborn.


2nd Amendment
Like most republicans, he supports the right to bear arms. He was the first govenor to push, and pass, a concealed handgun permit in the state of Arkansas, and strongly opposed the assault rifle ban.

There you have it. Huckabee is my favorite of the remaining three.
(Romney... I hardly knew thee)

20 comments:

Gino said...

my friend from AR, he's a right-winger as well, tells me huck is the biggest shyster, on par with bill clinton.
dirty,dirty,dirty... and he plays dirty as well.

dont let the 'rev' title fool you.

Palm boy said...

Yeah. He definetly feels slimy, and thats why up to this point I have not liked him much.

But compared to the rest of the pack, he is the 'standout'.

SolaMeanie said...

You should read what I wrote on my blog today. I just got back from Arkansas for my aunt's funeral. I still watched the news in the midst of it all and had to take beta blockers to calm down, LOL.

I hope Huckabee gets it. I don't trust McCain at all. I might end up voting for the Taxpayer's Party in the end, but I won't be forced to vote for McCain no matter what games the party establishment play.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Gino and Palm Boy, I replied on the other post.

As for this post:

An important thing to point out is that all candidates are not identically/equally pro-life/pro-Second Amendment.

For instance, John McCain has been wishy-washy on embryonic stem-cell research, and he opposes a Human Life Amendment. I don't think Ron Paul is actively supporting one, either. Huckabee is.

Also, John McCain has been undependable on the Second Amendment. Huckabee and Paul have not.

As far as immigration, Huckabee doesn't have the best record, of course, but Romney wasn't exactly spotless in that area, either. Less than two years ago, he was quoted proposing a plan not too different from John McCain's. Then, Rudy Giulani, who you also, I think, said would be an okay candidate, wasn't great on immigration either--in his past or in his plan for the future.

Bekah said...

I was looking at an old World Mag and I found the artical about blogging teens, so I thought I'd check out your site. I really like the way you write!
I was a big Romney fan and I was really disapponted when he dropped out. So, now I'm for Huckabee.
Keep up the good work!

Palm boy said...

Sola, I read your column & liked it.
Never heard of the Taxpayer party before, but it may be preferable to McCain.

KA, Good points. But McCain has been good on 'life' issues for a very long time, and I don't think it is anywhere near his largest problem.

Immigration... McCain was a proven softie on it, Romney had a good plan and not much background, and Ron Paul is pretty good on it.

Bekah, I really appreciate you stopping in and reading. You must have been looking pretty far back in World issues, I think that was October of 2006 when they interviewed all of us.

Gino said...

kingdom advancer: if paul hasnt come out in support of a human life ammendment then it would only be becuase he thinks the constituion already applies as written. i've held that view for near 20yrs already.
trust me, his views come through through science, medicine,(he's an ob-gyn) and his christian faith.

i trust him more on prolife than any other.

SolaMeanie said...

Ron Paul is more libertarian in philosophy than standard Republican. In fact, I think he once was a member of the Libertarian Party.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Palm Boy,

No, it's probably not his biggest problem, but I think it's necessary to point out that all the candidates are not equally pro-life. John McCain only seems to mention the life issue when it's advantageous--when he's trying to confirm his "conservative credentials." He may have a pro-life voting record, but he's definitely been a "foot-soldier," not a leader, in the pro-life movement.

Gino, sounds pretty good to me, except, how do you make that view have a practical application? Obviously, the liberals disagree. So, wouldn't you have to have a constitutional amendment at least clarifying that the constitution already applies as written?

Gino said...

advancer:
i see your point. if it ever cam to a vote before him, he sure would vote for it.
its just not in the libertarian ,strictly constitution, mindset to go out of the way to call for more ammendments.

it is actually easier to pump your energies into slipping in two more judges who will overturn RoeVWade and then divide and conquor the states where you can, than try to get the whole loaf past an electorate that will never accept it in a democracy under our current culture.

paul has called for,paraphrased, 'equal rights for all our citizens, born and unborn'.
he has already elevated them to ciizen status with his own words and deeds. i've never even heard flip benham use that language, and i've spent time and protested alongside 'flipper'.

mind you, although many libertarians have the same views as you on this, we dont come to them through the bible.
we got there using logic of what we know as scientific fact.
the bible is a 'back up' for libertarians so inclined to use it.

most of chrsitainity uses the bible, or sacred teachings, and then back up their argument with science.

i never needed a bible to tell me.
or a church.
these were things i already took with me when i entered the faith.

under_the_mercy said...

Paul is most certianly a libertarian, he ran for president under that party a few years back.

Though the libertarian party holds pro-choice views in its platform, there are many (often called libertarians for life) who oppose that view. Paul personally is against abortion but believes that the decision should be left up to the states.

You know the Constitution was never meant to apply to the states, it was designed only as a limiting factor to the federal government.

Funny, I got the impression that Huckabee was not to be trusted from watching the debates, had never heard the same before from other sources though.

Palm boy said...

Gino, it's remarkable how often Christianity and Science correspond on a belief, life and it's beginnings being one of those.

Under, I think Ron Paul will run as a libertarian again after the Republican Primary.

under_the_mercy said...

I'll bet you a cookie he won't.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I know it would be difficult to pass a constitutional amendment (by design, that's the way it's supposed to be). I know we should focus on overturning Roe v. Wade first. However, I have a problem with people who seem to suggest that abortion isn't so much wrong--just Roe v. Wade. Restoring "constitutional balance," as McCain's website says, isn't good enough for me if babies are still being killed all over America.

That being said, until a constitutional amendment can be passed, obviously, we have to fight the battles we're presented with.

Thanks for clarifying Paul's position on that.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Also, I want to point out that, I didn't have to read a specific verse in the Bible to convince me that abortion is wrong. But the Bible is the rock which my morality is built upon. If my biblical foundation crumbles, then my "right-and-wrong" is just like everyone else's and my position is only "right" if I can get 51%, or 67%, or some other majority.

Gino said...

i often tell folks the bible doesnt specifically preach against abortion. some verses can be used that may allude to that fact, but mostly, the pro-life teaching is one of Tradition.
without the Tradition, these verses wouldnt mean what we understand them to mean.

LDS: are prolife, only up to a point. they believe a 'baby' becomes human (sanctified life) when the soul enters the body, which they believe to be when the new being implants itself in the uterine wall.
as opposed to judeo tradition, and extension, our own, that a soul is imparted upon conception.
this is why you will see normally reliable prolife mormons give an OK to embryonic research. these babies are not 'human' (yet), in their faith.

SolaMeanie said...

The cult known as The Church Universal and Triumphant is "pro-life." But not for the reason Christians are. They believe killing an unborn child is deicide. I kid you not. Shows you the landmines that can be laid by being co-belligerents in politics, LOL.

In my view, I don't see how any Christian could read Scripture seriously and be in favor of legal abortion. The value of life even in the womb screams out from its pages.

Gino said...

The Church Universal and Triumphant

wow!
thats the church i want to join.
why be catholic or baptist when you can Universal and Triumphant instead?

Mercy Now said...

I support the 2nd and another law to nullify the ban on auto firearms:o)

Palm boy said...

Sola and Gino, ahaha.

Mercy, I can jump on that bandwagon. :D