Mike Huckabee - a former GOP presidential candidate who almost single-handedly enabled John McCain to get the nomination earlier this year - recently had a conversation with John Brummett of the Arkansas News Bureau. They discussed the Club for Growth, a highly-respected fiscal conservative organization which very publicly criticized the Huckster’s tax-and-spend record as governor of Arkansas. According to Brummett:
“He and I talked a little about that, too, long enough for Huckabee to say that outfits like the Club for Growth don’t understand that you can’t always cut taxes at the state level and meet basic needs. Such people would ‘let an 8-year-old child choke to death on the steps of the Children’s Hospital’ for lack of Medicaid.”
What a jerk. Suggesting that fiscal conservatives would let a child choke to death is the sort of crud you’d expect from the Left. This kind of rhetoric against fiscal conservatives is nothing short of giving aid-and-comfort to the opposition.
The acronym “RINO” stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Many use the term to describe Republicans who simply don’t measure up on certain issues. But just being wrong on taxes, or spending, or guns or abortion doesn’t, in my book, make someone a RINO.
A RINO isn’t just wrong on a number of issues, but someone who goes out of his way to do harm to fellow Republicans. Such as former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who took great glee in not only voting like a liberal but poking conservatives in the eye in the process. It wasn’t enough for him not to support George W’s re-election in 2004; Chafee went out of his way to publicize the fact.
I don’t extend the RINO label often or easily. Chafee was a true RINO. And Mike Huckabee is fast approaching RINO status.
Posted on July 8th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
I find blaming Huckabee for McCain somewhat a little given that had Club for Growth not poured $750k to bash Huckabee into South Carolina when it was clear the race was between Huckabee and McCain down there and only one of those two would win, you would have no McCain nomination.
Huckabee was using hyperbole, which the author told us next paragraph. Huckabee’s point is that some organizations are out of touch with the dynamics of a State. For some reason, the Club has never mentioned that Arkansas throughout Huckabee’s tenure every year had a 70-90% Democratic legislature and that his veto could be overriden by a simple majority. Oh and by the way, two court decisions contributed to higher education and medicaid spending.
Also, please note that the Club’s blog has been consistently bashing and degrading Bobby Jindal (Is Jindal lurching towards RINO status as well?)
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/07/newt_gingrich_has_a_gavomitind.php
Despite all that Jindal has done in Louisiana already. (He’s acomplished more in 7 months as Governor than Barack Obama has during 4 years in the Senate.) He’s gotten a School Choice program, pro-Gun legislation, business tax cuts, ethics reforms, and more done in Louisiana. Not to mention that in Congress he received a 98% rating on CFG’s RePORK card (something that CFG never mentions in its criticism.)
By the way, I have to ask:
So, given that RINOs “go out of their way to harm fellow Republicans.” Wouldn’t you consider it a little “out of their way” for the Club to continue to attack Huckabee and Jindal as neither is a candidate for anything right now?
The race was between McCain and Romney. Huckster never had a prayer. Period.
I may be wrong, but I believe the Club criticized Gov. Jindahl for not vetoing a pay raise for legislators. However, the governor changed his position, admitted he had made a mistake, and ended up vetoing the bill anyway. Problem solved.
The Club for Growth, unlike Huckabee and Chafee, is “right” and right on the issues, so they can’t be “RINO’s” by definition.
And here’s a news tip for you: Both Huckleberry and Jindahl are “candidates” for the veep slot. They may not be “running” for the position, but both are in the mix.
Get a grip, Adam. And stop trying to defend the indefensible.
So let me pose a hypothetical question. Let us say there was a town of 200 people, with 40 residential homes of whatever type — whether they be apartments, duplexes, actual homes, double-wides, whatever — and a pure economist stipulates that there is no need for a paid fire department or police force. The locals monitoring themselves is enough to ensure that property values, according to the economist in question. Now let us presume that the population of this town grows to 20,000 over the course of a given span of time. There is agreed in the population a need for a professional police force and a paid fire department. All of the homeowners agree, and it is further studied, and discovered that the presence of a professionally paid, organized fire department and police force actually stabalizes and increases property values. Would the tax pledge permit the town to institute some form of tax to pay for this, or would it have to be resisted by government leaders?
Adam is lost . The Club beat Huckabee in Michigan where he was leading after his win Iowa. Huck beat himself in SC by not spending time and resources there and campaging in MI.
I know conservatives in Arkansas who declare Huck raised their taxes to the tune of $500 million net during his 10 years as governor. They say he raised fuel taxes 6 years after he was given a report that the interstates were falling apart and that same report told him how to fix them without raising taxes. He opposed the removal of the 6% state sales tax on food. What a RINO.
“Teacher,” we don’t deal in hypotheticals, especially one which takes the wild position that “All of the homeowners agree.” That could only happen in the fantasy town of Nirvana.
Secondly, if the town has the power of citizen initiative, then the citizens can gather signatures to put such an issue on the ballot.
Lastly, if a candidate wants to run on a platform of raising taxes and “All the homeowners agree,” then that candidate will win. If he doesn’t, that pretty much shoots down your claim that they “all agreed,” doesn’t it?
First of all, CFGers, exactly one poll showed Huckabee leading Michigan after Iowa and it was within the margin of error and the poll was an outlier (source: http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html)
Secondly, as to the Arkansas record, did the same report explain how you got a 70-80% Democratic legislature to go along with this “fixing the Interstate plan” and did your friends in Arkansas tell you about two court rulings that forced more spending on roads.
Chuck,
Well, there is almost never universal agreement. While the hypothetical may be strange, the basic underlying principal remains constant. Growth beyond certain threshhold points may in fact require tax increases. So, how do we deal with the scenarios, and they do take place, where 70 or 80 percent agree and 20 or 30 percent don’t? I know I would be incredibly uncomfortable making a pledge that I could not 100 percent keep. The voters, as you have said before, are the final authority. If I can not make a good case for why I voted for a tax increase, they can vote me out . If they continue to vote me in, does this not reflect the population being ok with tax increases? And if this is the case, why sign the tax pledge to begin with
Obviously, “Teacher,” you don’t get it…and never will. This is not complicated. Not in the least. If you refuse to sign the Pledge, that tells voters you might raise their taxes. If they’re OK with that, you’re in. If not, you’re not. Simple.
[…] Some Folks From Arkansas Told Me… July 11, 2008 7:06 am Adam Graham Humor Recently I was debating Chuck Muth on Mike Huckabee and the Club for Growth. A commenter wrote: I know conservatives in Arkansas who declare Huck raised their taxes to the tune of $500 million net during his 10 years as governor…What a RINO. […]