Campaign Chairman Says Reagan Legacy “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot”
“All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” – Townhall’s Matt Lewis (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chairman Declared The Reagan Coalition Dead:
Gov. Huckabee’s Campaign Chair Ed Rollins: The Reagan Coalition Of Social, Fiscal, And Defense Conservatives “Doesn’t Mean A Whole Lot To People Anymore.” Huckabee Campaign Chairman Ed Rollins: “The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, anti-tax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins On The Reagan Coalition:
“It’s Gone.” “[Huckabee's] success is setting off a debate in his party over whether his success marks the fading of the old Reaganite conservative coalition — social conservatives, anti-tax activists and advocates of a muscular defense — or, rather, offers a chance for its rejuvenation. ‘It’s gone,’ said Ed Rollins, who once worked as President Reagan’s political director and recently became Mr. Huckabee’s national campaign chairman.” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Rollins:
Some Parts Of Reagan Coalition May “Go By The Wayside.” “‘It is a time for a whole new coalition — that is the key,’ he said, adding that some part of the original triad might ‘go by the wayside.’” (David Kirkpatrick, “Shake, Rattle And Roil The Grand Ol’ Coalition,” The New York Times, 12/30/07)
Gov. Romney Aims To Keep The Reagan Coalition United:
Townhall’s Matt Lewis: “Rollins’ Pronouncement Is Almost An Argument To Vote For Mitt Romney.” “All along, Mitt Romney has wisely run as the only candidate who represents all three legs of the ‘three legged stool’ that is the Republican coalition. For those of us who believe it is imperative to preserve the Reagan coalition, Rollins’ pronouncement is almost an argument to vote for Mitt Romney.” (Matt Lewis, “Rollins: Reagan Coalition Is Done,” Townhall, Posted 12/29/07)
National Review:
“Romney Is A Full-Spectrum Conservative.” “Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Gov. Mitt Romney:
We Need To Unite “Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives And Defense Conservatives.”
GOV. ROMNEY: “I believe that to win the White House that our candidate has to be somebody who can represent and speak for all three legs of the conservative stool or conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan put together – social conservatives, economic conservatives and defense conservatives.” (Gov. Mitt Romney, Press Availability, Grand Rapids, MI, 10/13/07)
Gov. Huckabee Alienates Fiscal And Foreign Policy Conservatives:
National Review:
Gov. Huckabee Would Pull Apart The Conservative Coalition By Alienating Economic And Foreign Policy Conservatives. “Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.” (Editorial, “Romney For President,” National Review, 12/11/07)
Club For Growth’s Pat Toomey:
Gov. Huckabee Is “A Big-Government Liberal.” “In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the ‘party of Wall Street,’ will only reinforce the image of Republicans as ‘the big spenders that they used to oppose.’ A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.” (Pat Toomey, “Dump The Huck,” National Review, 10/26/07)
Columnist Robert Novak:
Gov. Huckabee “Is A High-Tax, Protectionist Advocate Of Big Government.” “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.” (Robert Novak, “The False Conservative,” The Washington Post, 11/26/07)
CNBC’s Larry Kudlow:
Gov. Huckabee Naïve “On Dealing In International Affairs With Iran And Others.” CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW: ” Condi Rice came out of the State Department … and attacked him because of his naïveté on dealing in international affairs with Iran and others. He doesn’t seem to understand power politics, and that we are in a jihadist global war.” (Hugh Hewitt Radio show, YouTube, 12/21/07)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer Said Gov. Huckabee’s “Naïve And Unconvincing” Views On Foreign Policy Are Disqualifications To Be President. “Huckabee is funny, well spoken and gave a preacher’s stemwinder that wowed the religious right gathering in Washington last Saturday. But whatever foreign policy he has is naive and unconvincing. In wartime, that is a disqualification for commander in chief.” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Fine Field Of 4½,” The Washington Post, 10/26/07)
Dump the Huck - He’s not VPOTUS material.October 27th, 2007 | 11 Comments | Posted in Club for Growth, Fiscal Discipline, Labor Unions, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey, S-CHIP, Taxes
|
This comes from The National Review Online, and it was written by Pat Toomey who is the president and CEO of the Club for Growth.
Emphasis Below is mine.
In some quarters, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee appears to be the flavor-of-the-month Republican candidate for president. Given his folksy charm, social conservative credentials, and embrace by the mainstream media, it is not surprising that some are increasingly enamored with him. But this flirtation does a great disservice to the conservative movement if it overlooks Huckabee’s stunning record of big-government liberalism.
During Huckabee’s tenure as governor, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. A dyed-in-blue tax hiker, Huckabee supported raising sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even nursing home bed taxes. He virulently opposed a congressional moratorium on taxing Internet access, and sat on the sidelines while his Democratic legislature pushed the largest tax hike in Arkansas history into law. What’s more, on his watch, and frequently at his behest, state spending increased by 50 percent, more than double the rate of inflation, and the number of state government workers rose by 20 percent. Yes, as a presidential candidate, Huckabee has signed on as a supporter of the Fair Tax and pledged against raising taxes, but when a candidate’s long and clear record flies in the face of his election-year symbolism, you can chalk it up to politics every time.
Of course, there is little actual chance of Huckabee winning the presidency — at least not in 2008. Notwithstanding his improved polling in Iowa, Huckabee isn’t really running for president — not with a near empty campaign treasury. Rather, the second iteration of the Man from Hope is trying to parlay his social conservative credentials and aw-shucks congeniality into the vice-presidential nomination next year. Before conservatives jump on that train, however, they should consider the likelihood that the presence of such a big government backer on the ticket would hurt the party’s prospects more than it helps.
In 2006, Republicans suffered a severe lashing at the polls in retaliation for years of out-of-control spending and government expansion. In the final days before last year’s elections, the Club for Growth commissioned a poll among voters in the 15 most competitive congressional districts across the country. The results showed a remarkable and painful erosion of the Republicans’ fiscal branding among these key swing voters.
For example, we asked voters whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.” Sixty-six percent of voters in these key districts agreed with the statement, including 72 percent of Independents.
In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the “party of Wall Street,” will only reinforce the image of Republicans as “the big spenders that they used to oppose.” A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.
Huckabee makes no secret of his desire to turn the GOP leftward, calling himself a “different kind of Republican,” adopting protectionist positions, and peppering his campaign speeches with the kind of class warfare rhetoric one expects to hear from John Edwards. No doubt, this is the reason that the liberal media is so smitten with him.
Instead of talking about curtailing government spending, Huckabee refuses to endorse President Bush’s veto of a vastly expanded S-CHIP. He is an unabashed fan of No Child Left Behind and an opponent of private school choice. Huckabee is also quickly becoming the labor unions’ favorite Republican, recently gaining a union endorsement along with Hillary Clinton.
In frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, the GOP is well on its way to nominating a candidate for president with a strong fiscal record. Each of them would provide a great opportunity for the GOP to reestablish its vitally important brand as the party of pro-growth tax policy and smaller and more affordable government. But no Republican presidential candidate can effectively claim that mantle with Mike Huckabee standing by his side.
Beyond those currently running for president, the eventual nominee has any number of strong across-the-board conservative prospects for vice president to choose from within the GOP ranks. Surely, he can do so without assuming the tax-and-spend baggage Mike Huckabee would bring.
In 2006, Republicans paid a steep price for big-government conservatism’s record-setting domestic spending spree. That is a lesson we should take to heart as we consider the choices facing us in 2008.
[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]