The C. S. Lewis Candidate for President a/k/a My Problem With Huckabee
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (94) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've just got to say this. I have a fundamental problem with Mike Huckabee despite really, really liking the guy. This sums it up:
“I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street,” he says. “CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder-working, and that is wrong.”
Compare that to this:
"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one."
And to this:
Some CEOs have lined their own pockets while workers lost their jobs and families lost their savings.
Mike Huckabee is a good man. And he is a social conservative. But next to social conservatives, I'm willing to bet that the entrepreneurial class is the second largest voting block in the Republican coalition. And they do not like economic populism, which is what this amounts to.
Read on . . .
I've asked Mike Huckabee about this statement — it's one he made in a Human Events editorial meeting I participated in. He said, at the time, that the government should not get involved in setting wages. But it's only a little step from preaching what he's preaching, to getting elected and doing something to take action.
Mike Huckabee is a Southern conservative Democrat in his views, when you combine the fiscal and social sides of the candidate coin. That's going to leave the entrepreneurial class looking elsewhere. Couple that with Mike's Willie Horton issue that Hillary will no doubt throw at him that's going to leave the GOP out of the White House, if Huckabee is the nominee.
The irony here is that I've started calling Mike Huckabee the "C. S. Lewis candidate." In Mere Christianity, Lewis writes
If there were such a [Christian] society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life were very socialistic and, in that sense, 'advanced', but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned — perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing.
Couple Huckabee's economic populist rhetoric with his socially conservative values and that's what you'd get. Of course, with so few real Christians running the show with him, I suspect we'd get economically unsound policies, not just charity and fairness to all mankind, as Lewis is describing.
And that's my problem with Mike Huckabee.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Clinton Comes Out Against Mukasey — Comments (18) »
The C. S. Lewis Candidate for President a/k/a My Problem With Huckabee 94 Comments (0 topical, 94 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The FairTax is about the only thing economically that Huckabee is on about that I'm in favor of. And heck, I took a college course on Lewis & Tolkien (got to buy the Space Trilogy and LotR as college textbooks, score!).
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Let's get the entire country hooked on prebate checks! Most people already think that their tax refund is the government giving them money and not the government repaying an overcharge.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
The government already sends checks out to everyone. Even worse, that money comes from funds they never paid out of pocket. Even worse than that, some of that money comes from funds they never paid in the first place (EITC and other refundable tax credits).
At least with the FairTax, the source of that money is readily apparent to everyone, because they all pay it out of pocket every day.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Is that worse, or better than the current system of income tax refunds?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
has an inherent set of problems, but solves so many more problems. in fact, if we went to it, and got rid of bilingual education, I would not be so opposed to illegal immigration anymore because under that type of tax no one gets away without paying.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
but I have a much bigger problem with how Huckabee would go about implementing it. Bottom line, I don't trust the guy as far as I could have thrown him BEFORE he lost the weight.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
There's no way you can rip out the whole tax system and replace it with something else without redistributing the burden... raising some people's taxes in the process. So which promise is he not serious about? Or is he not serious about either of them? I'm betting on the latter myself.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I do not know about that. Take a look at the pledge it appears to be compatible with the creation of the FairTax.
http://www.atr.org/pledge/national/index.html
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Unless #2 is interpreted to mean that you can eliminate deductions on one person to pay for lower rates on another person. The guy who pays more under the system would certainly feel it was a tax hike. With any major reform, there will be some people paying a lot more and some people paying a lot less.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
#2 Sounds like it pertains to net systemic rate/deduction changes to the Income Tax, and thus the effect upon one person by the change is moot. The FairTax's rate is also calculated to be a wash with the imbedded taxes that it is replacing, as such it should not be considered a rate hike.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
But some people will pay a lot more than they are now and others will pay a lot less than they are now under the system. Any major reform of the tax code will have this effect. I can assure you the people who end up paying a lot more would consider it a violation of the pledge. If I was serious about tax reform, I wouldn't sign this pledge.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
class warfare as well which I just can't stand. Furthermore, he is picking on an easy target and turning them into villains, in this case CEO's. Given that I work as a mortgage broker and have had my own industry demonized, which I also hate, that is yet another trait that bugs me to no end.
I think that Huckabee is an excellent debater and extremely charismatic and he defends social conservatism better than anyone I have ever seen. His answer to the ridiculous supposition abou creationism and evolution was incredibly moving, however, I have to agree with you, this sort of class warfare is not cool.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
although the class envy thing is wrong, people like Mozillo at Countrywide are why the public believes CEO's will serve themselves first and bail on their companies.
I have no use for most of my entire industry. They are almost all scum. Ask Beck and I think he will agree that mortgage brokers are by and large some of the lowest humans, that said, I still find it abhorrent to pick on us simply because we make good villains.
There are plenty of bad, and that means ethically and morally, CEO's out there. I would bet the lot of them are just as rotten as my fellow industry mates, but picking on them because they make good villains is still, in fact especially, wrong and counter productive.
You see what happens is politicians craft legislation that targets certain groups, like mortgage brokers, not because it is good legislation, but because that group is hated and then they can go to the public and show them that they are for the common man. It is typical populist philosophy and while it may work politically it doesn't work as a matter of good policy.
Here is my analysis of Hillary's mortgage bailout and here is Obama's
What you will find in both is plenty of attacking easy villains and protecting sympathetic victims, and none of the policy will do anything but make the situation worse.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Mike Huckabee isn't all that far from Obama or Edwards. Personally, I prefer either McCain or Paul to him.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Huck is certainly better than HWMNBN as well all Democrats on the GWOT. Also he's said that he'd like to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, and signed Norquist's tax pledge. On top of that he brings a crowd to their feet. Nothing Fred has said has really brought out the standing ovations, and while I know you don't like his history of working with Democrats, consider the fact that Southern Democrats are considerably more conservative than their Yankee counterparts. I can imagine he will be able to pull out the boxing gloves over the issues that the base cares about. I'm not asking you to withdraw your endorsement of Fred. And I'm hoping Franz will be the Secretary of Defense in the next administration. But come on, give Huck a chance,-as a fromer FreHead, Huck always made sense as a viable #2 anyway.
Chuck Norris does not vote for president of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins. Pitbull of the VRWC.
Some Southern Conservative Democrats are better than Northern Liberal Republicans...
I'd vote for Zell Miller over Guiliani too :)
Chuck Norris does not vote for president of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins. Pitbull of the VRWC.
1. I could care less about him signing the pledge. I'm old enough to remember "read my lips..." and I absolutely don't trust Huckabee on taxes and government expansion.
2. "Don't like" doesn't even come close to my opinion of his history of working with Democrats. See #1.
3. Huckabee has absolutely no history of fighting the opposition. He's a Compassionate Conservative who I think makes Bush look like me.
4. If he gets the nomination I'll vote for him. It will be a very bleak day. Bottom line, I absolutely detest the guy.
5. Put Franz in a room with Huckabee & Franz will need a bath. Huckabee will disappear.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I see McCain has moved from "off the list" to "bottom of the list" and now "3rd from the bottom." Pretty soon you're going to be writing this.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
My ex-wife's lawyer is 4th from the bottom and he's got a restraining order and armed security.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Yeah, in 2004 Kerry came in second and Bush finished next-to-last.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Huckabee is one smooth talker & makes a very good impression. One wants to like him. But the more I read regarding his grasp of economics, the more troubled I am; he may be the worst of the lot. However, like Finrod above, I do have some sympathy for the Fair Tax idea.
No grasp on economics... yet a good enough grasp on how terrible the federal tax system to have a decent ability to propose, support and back up the fair tax.
The Democrat's tactic of calling Bush an idiot worked because he is not a good public speaker. However, I find it incredible a Republican would allude to as such for a Republican who, with 10 1/2 years of presiding over the economy of on of our states, has visited foreign countries to detail issues of trade among a plethora of other things.
"the more I read regarding his grasp of economics, the more troubled I am; he may be the worst of the lot."
-- It's time for you to check some different sources (aka those that aren't already bought and paid for or committed to another candidate)
But I feel you're a tad off base. To typify the "entrepreneurial class" as that of CEOs of large corporations (i.e. Exxon, Citigroup) is a major error in my opinion. Huckabee's argument is valid in the sense that it is wrong that a CEO of a company (not a founder, not an owner, put a chief executive officer) take checks of $200million plus on his way out, leaving the company in a sad fiscal state where they need to make significant cuts/layoffs.
The entrepreneurial class is that of individuals who take an idea and turn it into a business. This "class" of individuals is consistently harped on by the federal government dealing with excess regulations, a reason why many fail each year. Those who are successful build their business and grow it so its self-supporting and can provide retirement security.
Individuals in this "class" are, in my opinion, those most likely to endorse the Fair Tax as it will eliminate a number of these excess regulations that hinder growth. Putting Huckabee's comments, and twisting them to fit your preconceived mold of him is disingenuous.
thing for this country.
It is easy to recognize that there is a problem. There is definitely a problem with CEO compensation, golden parachutes and the like. But the problem is with the Boards of Directors and the idiot decisions they often make.
Some things are just not amenable to a government based solution. About the only thing I think government might do is to scrutinize who is sitting on boards of major corporations and perhaps issue a law to discourage the incestuous practice of sitting on several boards at the same time.
Perhaps you could encourage some sort of civil litigation on the part of shareholders against Boards who fail their fiduciary responsibilities.
No solution seems to be very good, or might cause more harm than good.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
that a CEO makes $200MM is not the point, the point is it is not the government's business to moralize about it.
The entreprenurial class are capitalists. You are right that they are cut from a different mold than corporate CEOs. But as capitalists they find it abhorrent that someone running for President would make such populist, anti-free market statements as Huckabee does in lamenting CEO pay.
(1) Huckabee is going much further than that in his statements and
(2) Entrepreneurs like to imagine the day it is possible for them to make millions.
Yes, individuals will endorse the Fair Tax, which has as much likelihood of passing as Ron Paul does of getting elected President.
would you also agree that A Rod is paid way more than he should. Is it time for the government to step into baseball and regulate salaries there as well. Isn't it obscene that someone could make thirty million dollars a year playing a game. What about movie stars? Isn't it obscene that movie stars make up to twenty million dollars just to act? Isn't it time the government step in there as well? Where does the regulation stop?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
having the government set salaries, and having the government correct the problems in corporate law which result in such salaries.
Grandiose executive compensation is partly market-driven, true. But it's also partly that management has a little too much to say about what goes on in the boardroom, and stockholders too little.
and furthermore, I believe you are about to propose a great deal of government regulation. I won't dismiss it out of hand, however I don't generally believe government regulation resolves anything. Proposing laws that dictate to corporations how their companies should operate seems to me to be totally disastrous.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
besides regulations describing how companies operate? I'm not talking about adding requirements, but about changing the structure. Ideally, this allows the market to operate more freely, not less.
Let's take an example. IIRC, shareholder's meetings are firmly stacked against the shareholders, since management gets to vote the unvoted shares. It's not obvious this is wise. If management were less able to protect board members this way, board members might be a little more aggressive in demanding performance.
Is it a burdensome regulation to change this? I wouldn't consider it so. Then again, I'm not even a novice in corporate-level business, let alone an expert.
I am going from a vague memory here, but did not the Clinton Administration institute some type of cap on the salaries for CEO's of publicly traded companies?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I just jumped ship to start my own company courtesy of being tired of watching our executive board soak our shareholders. The middle class is tired. Corporate governance is a joke. We aren't talking about Michael Dell or the entrepreneurial class here.
Most business owners are people like me who work long, back-breaking hours to keep the bills paid and the tax man at bay.
What is being talked about here are CEOs who inherit mature corporations, and then loot the place. When I sit around with other IT workers and complain that is a constant refrain. At a certain level, the accountability stops and the money just keeps rolling in. We see the stupid decisions, the bad policy, the market failings, and we all know that corporate governance is in need of an overhaul.
Corporations are creations of the law. The government can regulate them, as the government enabled their creation to begin with. This isn't about small businesses, where mismanagement is quickly discovered and punished by the market. This is about large corporations which flounder around for years off accumulated market power, only to fall into oblivion while the President and CEO who wrecked the place go off to Tahiti.
Huckabee is actually tapping into a real issue, with real emotion. Surely the denizens of Red State are not so completely out-of-touch with actual middle class voters to be blind to this?
I have a hard time believing that Republicans here would think, "Huckabee is an unacceptable shill for socialism, God bless it, let's get a lobbyist in here to really help the middle class!!!!"
That dog won't hunt. Thompson's a bore. Guiliani is a liberal. Romney is a flip-flopper. Huckabee is one of us.
Huckabee talks, people listen. That is why he is moving up in the polls. I don't normally shill for candidates, but I like the man, plan to vote for him, and this is idea that somehow his rhetoric amounts to class warfare is just silly. This is good politics, and potentially good policy.
what you are saying is that government should step in everytime there is a perceived act of unfairness. Whatever these CEO's compensation, whether fair or not, there should have been a legal contract agreed upon by two separate sides. It is not the job of the government to then step in and try and renegotiate that contract because it deems it unfair. If someone is willing to pay a CEO too much, then that is their business. If government gets into the business of righting every unfairness it sees, what we will have is a swollen government.
Again, what Huckabee is doing is picking on an easy target. Most people aren't going to have any problem with a politician proposing that CEO's pay is limited, in fact they would applaud it, and thus it is the sort of policy that would work politically, however it is terrible policy.
Politicians cannot be in the business of setting limits on pay. It is not the government's business what a CEO makes, and if the government gets into that business, then we are yet another step closer to socialism.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
The rule of law requires that regulations and laws not be targeted at individuals. The courts decide on the individual acts. The executive and the legislature should not look at individual cases, but should seriously reform the entire system.
As has been pointed out by others, large corporations are owned by management and often run to the detriment of the shareholders. The system was created by law, and can be modified by law. Corporate governance needs serious reform.
The attacks on Huckabee, I think are unwarranted. I can see getting this worked up about Clinton or Obama, but Huckabee? Get real.
I'm going to actually enjoy watching him win.
As has been pointed out by others, large corporations are owned by management ...
Well, technically no - they are owned by shareholders. That management also happens to be shareholders is, in and of itself, neither good nor bad.
...and often run to the detriment of the shareholders.
I can see why you like Huckabee so much.
Corporate governance needs serious reform.
Sure, because congress' latest venture into that field was so wonderful...
The attacks on Huckabee, I think are unwarranted
Well, of *course* you do...
I can see getting this worked up about Clinton or Obama
Perhaps you're not looking at the front page right now?
... but Huckabee? Get real.
Sure, because nothing says "real" like some good old-fashioned class warfare.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Yes, corporations are owned by shareholders.
But we've all dealt with the 'agent-principal' issue. Corporations are supposed to be run for the benefit of the principals which are the shareholders. (Remember maximizing shareholder equity?)
However, larger corporations simply are not run in that fashion in many cases.
Whether you believe a creature of statute like a corporation is in need of reform, or even capable of being reformed, is another debate. Huckabee does, and appeals to those voters who agree.
Like it, lump it, scream about it. Simply because reform didn't go well in the past at one point or other, doesn't mean that it is impossible forever.
CEOs are not a 'class.' We aren't talking all rich people here. The CEOs in question run publicly traded corporations. Trying to lump the CEO of GM in with a business owner like myself with three employees is just plain propaganda. Huckabee isn't attacking me, even though I'm in the upper income bracket.
He's attacking the system that allows CEOs to loot publicly traded companies with impunity, then bail out while others take the pain.
That isn't the same as trying to soak the rich in general, or socialize the economy. The average voter on the Republican side gets that.
You don't. Which is another reason I'm glad people who post to this forum don't run the Republican Party.
Look jaszkowski, I went to bed last night because most of this is much ado about very, very little to me. I certainly understand the difference between CEOs and generic rich people. But what you're simply not getting is that when Huck rails about "CEOs looting companies on their way out the door" what the average, generic voter on the street hears is "Huck slams rich white guys". I know that's probably inconvenient for you, but there it is.
While you may feel all warm and fuzzy that Huck isn't going to "socialize the economy", it suffices to say that I'm not nearly as certain. Most of Huck's domestic policy ideas are pure Nanny-statism (at his very core, he's a "Government must modify your 'destructive' behaviors" kind-of guy), and it's simply not a particularly long trip around the block to go from that point of view to full-blown "socialize the economy" mode. Savvy?
So while you may be justifiable in your relief that "people who post to this forum don't run the Republican Party", I'll simply close by saying "likewise".
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If you know the facts, you can attach a name and incident to practically any law or regulation ever enacted. I know I have a fair share of my own.
In Vino Veritas
Especially on the Dem side. However, legislating with specific targets in mind is one of the great problems we have. Lobbyists like Fred Thompson only exacerbate this situation.
The point I was trying to make was that I would NOT support 'reform' that was targeted at specific individuals or companies. I would support reform of corporate governance that was designed to improve the overall system.
do NOT make the problem worse.
The "problem" is the permanent class of "legislators" in DC who have never held a real job (and being an elected official is NOT a real job), who have never had to make a payroll, who have never had to deal with regulators (because they exempt themselves), and yet they think they can micromanage the economy and business in general.
Huckabee is absolutely part of the problem and in the Oval Office, he would BE the problem.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm very curious to know why you happen to believe that.
It's true that among entrepreneurial businesses that are small, young, or both, the founder(s) are still the managers. That doesn't describe the vast majority of large public companies.
It's also true that in Europe and East Asia, businesses (even publicly owned ones) are generally run for the benefit of management rather than of ownership. The opposite is true here. There are problems with our corporate governance but it's by far the best in the world.
In all candor, I believe shareholder rights are so strong in America that they have created economic problems. Shareholders are the reason that managements must manage to quarterly financial results rather than for long-term growth. Escaping this dynamic is one of the reasons there is so much demand for private equity.
You say that corporate governance can be changed by law. What specific changes in governance do you want to see?
It's also true that in Europe and East Asia, businesses (even publicly owned ones) are generally run for the benefit of management rather than of ownership.
The agent problem is an old one, and exists in all countries. Adam Smith was a critic of joint stock companies, and Milton Friedman's rules of who to trust in spending decisions don't inspire confidence in them either.
It would be great if every sector was so structured that small businesses could thrive. Government doesn't exactly make that easy, and could do a lot to ease the situation. But, of course, there are many sectors - oil exploration and production is a good example - where the economies of scale are always likely to outweigh the diseconomies.
Where I think you are a bit sweeping is in your lumping together of Europe (and probaby Asia, too, though I don't know so). I don't know American corporate law well - probably not as well as you do - but The Economist, which I generally trust as an advocate for free markets, argues that American management is generally less accountable to shareholders than is so in Britain. In France, where many big companies have huge cross shareholdings and the government owns shares in many of them that tends not to be the case. Germany has a complex two-tier board structure, which empowers union representatives, in big publicly traded companies, but has an enormous mittelstand of medium sized family owned businesses which is much to be envied.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
and I've had my own business. I've been broke and I've been very well off. Huckabee may be lots of things, but "one of us" he ain't. He is government toady who will be busy expanding the role of the government in your everyday life.
The guy is a dangerous jerk who happens to be very well spoken. He's very good on abortion and 2nd Amendment issues and Obama or Edwards on everything else.
Read my lips: Huckabee is an unacceptable shill for socialism. Period.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
you know if I could make an observation about your general postings. You need to start telling us how you really feel I mean to often you seem to mince words. All right, just kidding for anyone that maybe dense, however, you take frank to a whole new level.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
you totally misread what I wrote.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
He was taking 'frank' to a whole new level.
one reason why he is among my favorite posters. I just didn't want any miscommunication. Being frank is a compliment. I don't mind being called an ignoramus. I tend to agree.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
NO, I wanted to be frank.
You'll have to figure out the whole first part of it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Well it'll be after 5 in 20 minutes anyway, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I agree it's ugly as h*ll to see the guy you just fired walk out with a huge payout. My eyes almost popped out when I saw the package that Merrill gave Stan O'Neal this week. And O'Neal was a major-league disaster for Merrill.
Trust me, for this I know from direct experience: until you're the guy that writes that big check, you don't know what ugly feels like.
The problem is that you can't hire a CEO without signing a contract with him/her. And the contract invariably includes a golden parachute, for the simple reason that any CEO has a target on his back at all times. It's kind of like being manager of the Yankees, except that he only gets one or two quarters to screw up instead of a whole season.
You (and several others) raise the issue of governance. Corporate America has come a very long way in this regard. With some exceptions, boards are quite independent and quite serious about what they do these days. And that trend was in place long before Sarbanes-Oxley made directors personally liable for their actions.
As far as individuals holding multiple board memberships are concerned, I don't see those as problematic as long the companies aren't competitive.
Someone raised a point about corporate "laws." Every business corporation has a set of by-laws that govern all its dealings with shareholders and managers. I can tell you, again from experience, that having well-drafted by-laws will save your tail someday. Except in cases like the New York Times Company and Ford Motor Company, where there is a supervoting share class, it generally takes a majority or supermajority vote by shareholders to change the bylaws.
Shareholder lawsuits, which someone mentioned: we don't need any new legislation to make those easier. They already happen every day of the week. I've been through some disgustingly nasty ones myself. As a rule, they don't do anyone any good.
charge between friends? :>)
I don't have much use for class warfare, or for muzzling the entrepenurial oxen that are producing the grain. That's bad social dynamics and bad economics. But I think the party does itself a disservice by defending every excess as the price of doing business.
There's nothing wrong with being someone being rich. That richness is generally good for everybody. We should be explaining this more. Yet there is a problem if that economic power is being misused to the injury of the poor. Being in favor of economic liberty works two ways.
That said, I'm not a fan of Huckabee for a variety of reasons, including excess economic populism.
This is an interesting discussion, as it goes to where the soul of the GOP should be. Is the Party about social issues or economic ones?
Huckabee is solid on the social but squishy on the economic. Someone like Giuliani is squishy on the social issues but solid on the economic issues.
There really isn't anyone out there who hits the ball out of the park on both. (Is there? Have I missed someone? I tally Romney as squishy on social issues based on his history. If he is what he says he is, then I guess he's the answer.) So the Party may have to pick its priority, a process that will be no fun.
Gar
Duncan Hunter is strong on social and economic (except for his trade policies, which I hope he could be set straight on). Unfortunately, he hasn't caught enough traction, which I think a shame. But I can't jump on board any of the other candidates yet because they all have substantial weaknesses to go along with their strengths, though I'll vote for any of them (except HWMNBN) over any of the Democrats.
Besides Coburn, McCain has done the most to fight the pork barreling in the Senate.
And although Giuliani is generally pro-market, he's not exactly the savior of fiscal conservatives. I don't see any fundamental tax reform or SocSec reform happening under a Giuliani administration. I think McCain is probably more aptly a pro-market type. But his desire to use the surplus to pay down the debt rather than fund a tax cut hurt him with the anti-tax wing of the fiscal conservatives.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Fred is strong on both. He is pro-life, strong 2nd Amendment, Federalist, limited government, anti-amnesty. I can't think of anything policy-wise to complain about. He is also currently 2ndish in national polls and mixed in state polls. I definitely think he is someone that could unite the base across the fiscal, social and GWOT areas.
I'm afraid I am starting to sound like a Fred shill, and I don't mean to do that, I honestly like the guy's candidacy and think we would be well served with him as the nominee.
Huckabee is solid on the social but squishy on the economic. Someone like Giuliani is squishy on the social issues but solid on the economic issues.
Well Huckabee and Giuliani are both on the edges in that respect. Anybody else (except for RP) is pretty conservative on both sets of issues. Romney, Thompson, or even McCain would all be better choices for someone looking for a well rounded conservative than either Rudy or Huck.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
William F. Buckley agrees with Huckabee. Or vice versa.
It is perhaps not a legal problem, but it's certainly an esthetic one. I don't think Huckabee (or Buckley) addressing it rises (sinks) to the level of economic populism.
I think it's hilarious how Redstate has turned into a board where people shill for their chosen candidate. There's nothing wrong with it either. That's what politics is! So go ahead, shill away!
party nomination, so it's an important issue right now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Really. Great personal story, nice guy, seems like a real, genuine person.
But if I'm going to vote for a tax-hiking, nanny-state-loving, trans-fat banning, cig-stomping, crim-alien coddling, class-warrior - well, I may as well vote Democrat, no?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'm sort of playing Devil's advocate here, but couldn't you say that Huckabee is merely stating the truth, that it isn't fair nor right that a CEO bails on his company taking lots of money while others lose their jobs, but that it isn't the job of the Government to fix it, but the job of churches and families and such?
Jindal/Palin '16
It's none of the damn government's business.
The Board of Directors is elected by the shareholders (with the exception of companies like the NYT). If shareholders have a problem with executive compensation they have the ability to take any number of avenues. Given that "shareholders" no longer is just a collection of moms and pops but more typically very large pension funds, when they even think "jump" the Board buys a trampolene.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Cause, you know, it seems to be a pretty elastic concept. But as to your points...
... but couldn't you say that Huckabee is merely stating the truth, that it isn't fair nor right that a CEO bails on his company taking lots of money while others lose their jobs...
Well, if you're a Democrat - sure. For FisCon-type (well, just about any non-Nanny-State-type) Republicans? Not so much.
... but that it isn't the job of the Government to fix it, but the job of churches and families and such?
Well, problem there is that Huck ain't running to be head of a church - he's running to be HMIC of the Federal Government™. And no, it's the job of corporate boards to negotiate compensation packages with their executives - and it's really not anyone else's business. Perhaps not the best political message perhaps, this SoCon is quite comfortable leaving blatant class-baiting to the other guys, thank you very much.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm amazed at the short memories of the conduct by Tyson Foods and the assistance of Huckabee in carrying out illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and outright conspiracy.
I suppose Tyson Foods and Rogers, Arkansas didn't exist but Huckabee continues to offer the premise that illegals should have rights and priviledges earned by the blood of our ancestors for committing an illegal act.
This isn't even hard to research:
http://acan.gohotsprings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=245
(Nearly) everyone howled when he retired with a $400 million package in 2005. Did he "loot the company"?
On his watch (1993-2005), the old Exxon became ExxonMobil in one of the largest, if not the largest corporate mergers ever. If it had failed, Raymond would have been one of the biggest goats of all time.
An $80 billion company became a $320 billion company, while paying a hefty dividend. Raymond's package was less than 0.2% of the increase in value of the company on his watch.
With dividends, he realized 15% compounded growth for XOM shareholders. I wish I had been one.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
A good management team is the difference between a +15% return and a -15% return. That's why shareholders and boards of director are willing to pay what it takes to recruit and retain the right kind of talent. Sometimes the board makes a stupid hiring decision and the guy they hire isn't worth what they paid for him, but that's life. If the shareholders are angry enough about it, they'll sell their shares or throw out the directors.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...compared to Bill Gates making $80 billion or whatever (admittedly as an owner of the company), I'd say Raymond was fairly compensated. Raymond is at least in Gates' league if the measurement is business acumen. Raymond belongs in the Business Hall of Fame for the Mobil acquisition if nothing else. Most all the dough he made was in the form of stock options which only have value if the stock goes up.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Well at least he isn't your C.S. Forrester candidate...Captain Horatio Huckabee
Horatio's first mate was named Bush.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
That brought a smile. (^:^)
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."
Huckabee's "economic populist rhetoric" may irritate some conservatives. But it is such a small issue, when compared to: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, civil unions, SCOTUS, 2nd amendment, tax cuts, the war, terrorism, national sovereignty, religious freedom, etc.
Most of those things you mention are not things that are ultimately decided upon by politicians, they are decided by the give and take of public opinion.
Fiscal matters, on the other hand, can be screwed up in a big hurry by politicians. They are MORE important in my opinion.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The perception that Huckabee's rhetoric is "such a small issue" is yours. I do not share the perception. The Huckabee quote about CEOs that Erick featured above is at root a call to mob rule. "Do you hate those guys? Yeah! Is what they do wrong? Yeah! Well there's a tree! Give me the rope!"
A guy who will do that with one thing will do it with another. That call isn't about CEOs, it's about the perception that in a "democracy" (which we don't have) whatever someone can stir a mob into wanting becomes a proper action for government. A guy who thinks like that is best kept very, very far from the White House.
Huckabee is a Smoke Nazi, a Weight Nazi, and maybe some other kinds of Behavioral Nazi that we don't even know about yet. A guy like that who is also a fan of mob rule could be the biggest Presidential Pain since James Earl Carter III. More animal husbandry practiced on human beings for their own good. Feh.
Want to see every large public company in the United States move its headquarters to someplace else? Put a guy like Huckabee in the White House and give him a Democratic Congress.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Huckabee will happily lay the foundation for a socialist take over. The guy is as bad as Edwards. And while we're at it, don't even toss out tax cuts or national sovereignty to this crowd, it's fresh meat hitting the floor of the lion cage.
Face it. Your guy is very good on abortion and he has problems with pretty much everything else. You're running around putting lipstick on a pig with this stuff.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
On his "economic populism rhetoric" I don't necessarily agree with it myself. But it is a very electable position.
Abortion, gay marriage, the war, terrorism, tax cuts -- those are the big things.
You say you don't like his economic populism rhetoric and then tell me to trust him on tax cuts? Please. I'm old. I'm not even close to senile eough to buy that one.
With respect to the war, why should I have one iota of confidence in a guy with a long and proven record of accomodating Democrats. That makes the economics part look like an easy sell.
The rest of your agenda should be resolved at the state level. And, you realize that no President will get FMA passed. Or stop stem cell research at any level but federally funded, right?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
mbecker
Well Lipstick on a Pig is better than trying to teach a Pig to sing.
Tends to piss the pig off and is really hard.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Huckabee's statements are ultimately class warfare - "Some people (they aren't REALLY Americans) have too much, it's unfair & therefore government ought to do something about it."
"People who engage in risky behaviors - - oh, say, smoking and eating transfats - - - drive up the cost of medical care for all of us.
I like C.S. Lewis... In fact, I just bought 3 of his Narnia books today.
My problem with Huckabee is the Fair Tax. I think the Fair Tax is unreasonable and short-sighted. Besides that, I like Huckabee...and C.S. Lewis.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill