Click here for link:
Mitt or Huck: Who's more conservative? by Andrew Longman
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.
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.
(Column continues below)
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.
