Mike Huckabee vs. Mitt Romney–The definition of conservative and liberal
We have all seen the distortions of Mike Huckabee’s record on taxes and other issues. These distortions are being spread by the conservative media, especially people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The people who believe in Mike Huckabee have spent a lot of time and effort to defend his record and bring the truth out. Today, we get some help from World Net Daily, in the form of an article by Andrew Longman. He has a very good article that shows the differences between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. He starts by saying:
There is a persistent myth that Mike Huckabee is a liberal and Mitt Romney is a conservative. That, my discerning friends, is a lie of convenience assembled by establishment people who own Romney, don’t own Huckabee, and who have a lot of money they fear is at stake. Please keep in mind that Mitt Romney has tens of millions of dollars on hand and outspent Huckabee 15 to 1 in Iowa. Romney is supported by the multi-billion dollar business entity known as the Mormon Church. And pointedly, Huckabee has only his principles and a 10-year history as governor to run on; his professional life was made building only spiritual capital.
That opening paragraph addresses one of the biggest lies that has been spread about Huckabee and Romney. The conservative talk shows and other media have the shoe on the wrong foot here. They call Huckabee a liberal and Romney a conservative and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Let’s read the rest of the article.
But let’s reduce the charge to its root. Huckabee typically gets slammed as a liberal on taxes, pardons and illegal immigration. Do any of the charges stand up, or are they just being shouted through multi-million-dollar megaphones? I can only fit one topic per column, so let’s hit the pocketbook.
The total tax burden in Arkansas went from 30.3 percent in 1996 when Huckabee took office all the way up to (are you ready?) 30.5 percent in 2006 right before he left. That’s right, folks. Under the “big government” guy, the overall tax burden rose by two-tenths of a percent in 10 years. If you meet any Republican politician who can hold a Democratic state legislature to raising the tax burden by only two-tenths in 10 years, make him president, would you?
Has anyone recognized if any Republican is to be president, he’d probably have to restrain a Democratic legislature? And experience doing that is a good thing? Forgive me, but two-tenths in 10 years isn’t a point of complaint. The guy should get a medal.
So how did Willard fare in restraining taxes? Romney, who got himself elected running to the left of Ted Kennedy, did what big-government liberals only hope to do. By the same measure of overall tax burden, and from the same source for information, Romney oversaw an increase from 30.4 percent to a whopping 34.4 percent total tax burden on the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. He got over that pesky one-third psychological hurdle! Four percent in four years (all while Bush was president), versus two-tenths in 10 years during Clinton and Bush presidencies.
Romney dishes tax burden at a rate 50 times Huckabee.
If you’ve been fed that “Romney is an economic guy” thing by the TV, don’t go for it. Somebody is paying the networks good money to say that. You are supposed to believe Mitt is “conservative” and Mike is a “liberal” on taxes. You promise to be obedient, don’t you? Please ignore the nice man who wants to eliminate the IRS. He is a hick from the sticks who’s really a liberal! Avert your eyes. Nod if you understand. The big “Christians” we purchased signal only establishment candidates: Romney, Giuliani or McCain! Such variety! Don’t you know what’s good for you?
On abortion, the only candidate in the race to support a human life amendment to the Constitution is Huckabee. The right to life group Massachusetts Citizens for Life said Romney was a pro-abort as of March 2005. Romney decided he was pro-life in July 2005. In December 2006, Romney dumped 25 grand on the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which then re-evaluated him as pro-life. But Willard is equal opportunity – he handed National Review’s non-profit 10 grand; National Review then endorsed him.
Come to think of it, maybe Romney is some sort of “economic guy.”
Human Events, in its report on Republicans in Name Only, said of Willard, “Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade.” Contrast that with “liberal” Huckabee, who is the only candidate in the race to support a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. In 2004, when Arkansas approved the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (that Huckabee had pushed for) Huckabee said the amendment was necessary to stop activists looking to rewrite the social code. But the TV media and Rush Limbaugh say Huckabee is a “liberal.”
Yeah, right. OK.
Reading my columns, you know what I mean when I say “conservative.” But the TV media and Limbaugh are using the words “conservative” and “liberal” in a different way.
Conservative: He who supports the moneyed or adulterous Republican establishment fraternity headed by the Bushes and secular, amoral billionaires. Can also mean someone whom you regard as outstandingly pagan who has nevertheless given you huge sums of money.
Liberal: He who isn’t part of the secular, moneyed, amoral billionaires. Also, he who has no money but campaigns on traditional morality. Also, anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable because that person is loyal to his wife and/or who preaches against adultery.
And by the way, you knew that Romney’s Bain Capital owns Clear Channel, right? And that Clear Channel broadcasts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Any appearance of a conflict of interest in turning a Massachusetts liberal into the Reagan-like robot is purely coincidental; opinions of the talent do not necessarily reflect those of … the owners.
I don’t know how much I can add to this except to say, Amen. The definitions of conservative and liberal have been completely twisted and turned around. It is now convenient to call someone a conservative, if they have arranged for large amounts of money to be sent your way. By the same token, if you have only yourself, such as it is with Mike Huckabee, you are called a liberal. In his opening paragraph, Andrew Longman calls this a myth. That is the only part of the article I disagree with. This deception is far greater than just a myth. I would call it an outright lie about a good man. It makes me wonder if I should call myself a conservative or not.
That’s my take!
Larry
An outright lie.
Well put. That’s exactly what it is.
Your first paragraph shows that you’re anti-Mitt, therefore anti-Mormon, and worse of all you’re a liar.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a business unless it’s God’s business just like the Baptist church or any other Christian church. The Mormon church never, and will never support Mitt Romney or any other Mormon who runs for public office with money as you stated. You don’t hear political discussions in a Mormon church. The church leaders leave it to the members to make their own choice of who to vote for. Remember, Harry Reid is a Mormon and a Democrat and his views are different from Mitt’s.
Please, don’t spread any more lies. Huckabee is a good man but we all know he doesn’t like the Mormon religion. It’s okay to have differences, but to attack somebody’s integrity is classless and not a sign of a true Christian. It was Huckabee who first attacked Mitt’s personally. It was Huckabee who repeated never to go into negativity. But it was also Huckabee who did all that and more. Now, who is the real liar? Yes, it’s Huckabee, the ex-Governor of Arkansas and a former Baptist pastor. I’m wondering now who is the real Christian. The latest poll in Florida showed that a good number of Christians voted for Mitt Romney.
Romney has everything and didn’t need to run, but he sees the need for someone to help out with our current problems in Washington. Pres. Hinckley said this to Mitt Romney,” It would be a great experience if you won and a great experience if you lost,” Romney recalled.
If he loses, part of that is the ignorance and hatred from many professed Christians towards the Mormons. The other problem is the ignorance of many people who don’t know much about Mitt, and the resentment, envy and jealousy of the other republican candidates because Mitt has everything to be the next president.
Sava7,
I personally do not have a problem with the Mormon religion. My problem with Romney is how he has switched positions on every issue known to mankind and has done it more than once. It depends on what he is campaigning for and where it is.
As far as Huckabee attacking Romney first, that just is not true. Romney was the one who started airing negative campaign ads that were full of half-truths and full blown lies.
I always have to laugh at Romney being the “economic guy”. Check his record in both business and public service and you get a much clearer picture of him, and it isn’t an economic guy…