In an interview with Stephanopoulos Huckabee addressed the immigration issue. Stephanopoulos questioned Huckabee's prior "KKK" statement to which Huckabee responded:
"We shouldn't have amnesty where we just say, "Fine, everybody's good, we're going to let it go." We should have a process where people can pay the penalties, step up and accept responsibility for not being here legally. But here's the point. The objective is not to be punitive. The objective is to make things right. Right for us. Right for them. And what I have objected to in the past is when we are punishing the children for the laws that maybe their parents have broken. I do have a problem with that."
I have a problem with Politicians saying they are conservative and then giving the above statement. I guess conservatives are just too dumb to know that making Mexicans "pay the penalities" is nothing but pure amnesty and all of the political pontificating will never change that. This is repeated by McCain and others, so it is not just Huckabee. Yet, Huckabee's answers are just what he thinks people want to hear.
Huckabee's view on taxes is reported by Clubforgrowth. They reported:
- Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
- He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
- He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
- He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
- He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
- He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
- In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).
"Governor Huckabee's record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag"
I agree. I just don't see a conservative who, along with McCain and others, is an actual conservative.
Rush Limbaugh makes an interesting observation. A caller asked:
CALLER: Longtime listener. I'd like to see you tell us, on a regular basis, in non-emotional terms, the difference between a conservative and a populist. I think especially since Huckabee got elected in Iowa, I think it's important that people know not just what a populist is. I know that you say that he speaks to the individual and wants to solve the individual's problems and let 'em bring government to do that, but I think if you could characterize a populist in terms what they would do in government, what do they back, what do they want to happen, what would they oppose and so forth and how a populist can be so very different from a conservative. I think that would be very helpful, and over and over for people who only listen occasionally. There are a whole host of differences between the two.
Rush Responds:
Now, the modern interpretation of populist, as I use it today, is not complimentary. A populist in this sense of "seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people," this is what people who employ populism want the ordinary people to think: that they are "one of them"; in fact, that they are from them; that they understand the ordinary, and that the ordinary are being shafted, and that the ordinary are being creamed, and the ordinary are being ignored.
So the populist comes along and says, "Not only am I for you, I'm of you, and I am going to go to Washington and I'm going to make sure that we ordinary people kick butt and we're going to kick the butts of the elites and we're going to kick the butt of the establishment! We're going to do this and we're going to do that." Most of them who do this are already from the establishment! They're elected governors. They're senators, or what have you. So it becomes a technique to relate to people on an emotional basis with a false promise, and that is that any one individual can solve all the problems of the ordinary. The ordinary would love their problems to be solved! I myself, not a member of the ordinary in my own definition, would love for my problems to be solved. But I'll tell you damn what: There is not a single politician on the face of the Earth that can solve one problem I've got. Now, I have complaints as well as problems. I don't like high taxation. That is something an elected official can do something about, but with a realistic proposal. But I've got problems with my cat. I have problems with doors that don't fit. I have problems with ants running around portions of the house, but I fix it!
In the last paragraph of his answer Rush concludes:
So the populist is actually a big-government person in disguise. The populist is somebody who wants to grow government to take problem-solving and sadness and all these things, out of your daily life and replace them with whatever government can do so you will become dependent. John Edwards is a populist, for example. Mrs. Clinton is a populist.
What is not said in this paragraph is that Rush is also calling Huckabee a populist. In all of Huckabee's answers, I couldn't agree more. Identity Politics, there certainly doesn't seem to be much of substance.
2 comments:
Howie,
I usually don’t do politics. I was very into politics before I went into ministry, but I only have so much time to read, and theology wins over politics any day for me. But, I have wanted to talk to some of my con friends about immigration, and since you brought up the Huckster and his views, I’d be interested to see what you think about it. I get to my job at Citibank at 12:30, so I only get the last hour or so of Rush. I love Beck. I pay the $6 a month to get his podcast, so I get about 3 hours of him most of the time. Laura usually gets interrupted by some stupid local sports thing, so I don’t listen to her much. All, that to say: all three of them are about the same on the immigration issue. Non of them are Christian so that’s why I am asking you. I shut them off when they talk about immigration, not because I disagree with them (I do though) but for the longest time that was all they talked about. (Laura and Beck especially). I tend to have a let “them come” mentality. You?
"I tend to have a let “them come” mentality. You?"
As Rush has said several times, every generation has a fear of immigration. The difference is that because of this fear people that did immigrate were forced to inculturate into our culture and learn about the institutions that make this country great.
I fully realize that every group of people that comes here do so with their previous culture, I remember all to well seeing the Italian Flag as a kid. I grew up south of Boston and I saw the results of the immigration to Boston by both the Italians and the the Irish. These groups definitely brought with them their old country's ways. Nevertheless, they were forced to learn English and the laws of the land and had to come to an understanding that our freedoms are based on certain institutional ideas.
The modern immigration movement from the southern border is not controlled in any way shape or form. We as a nation need to protect ourselves as a nation. If we do not do so, we will have no way of protecting the institutions that make us the greatest and freest nation on earth. (We only need to do so since the Democrats, and Republicans to some extent, refuse to allow the common man to act freely in enforcing the distinctive American way of life by passing politically correct laws.)
For instance, in a city 30 miles south of me, the Mexicans celebrate Cinco De Mayo. Again, I realize that the Italians in Boston probably did similar things, but the problem is that there is no distinctive American culture that will force these people to inculturate. The fact is, many of these people hate America and only seek to take advantage of the prosperity that is available here. (Odd to me but...). This is not a good thing. We spend tax dollars to give Constitutional rights to people who are just passing through or people who would like to see Mexico gain some property back.
In all of this, we must keep in mind, as I see you do, that the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with this issue in one sense. In another sense it is good to have a state that is not hostile to the gospel. :-)
Post a Comment