Why not Huck?

Given his "surge" in Iowa, it seems appropriate to start my candidate profiling posts with Mr. Huckabee.

I should start with the position I'm coming from. I am a registered Republican, but I belong to the libertarian wing of that party. Meaning I not only believe in a limited government, I still believe in limited government when someone I like is in charge of the government.

I believe only fools, delusional people, and socialists support increased government authority as a general principle. The first two categories are usually people who think it's okay to give the government more power because they like and/or trust whoever is currently in charge. Nevermind the likelihood of different folks wielding that power down the road.

Anyway, here are my most basic reasons not to vote for him:

1. He received the teachers union endorsement. I work for an organization that has battled representatives from teachers' unions across the country for 15 years. We work on behalf of children and parents seeking the best education possible. The unions work to preserve a demonstrably failing system, and are willing to do so totally at the children's expense. And they believe Huck is their guy.

2. I believe it is not only unseemly, it is inappropriate for him to use his alleged faith in Christ as the apparent only barometer by which folks should vote--by implication suggesting that people of faith should support him on that basis alone. The measure of a great President is not merely a question of how great is his faith in Christ--if it were Jimmy Carter would be held in higher esteem.

It is not for me--or any of us--to judge Huckabee's faith. But his recent, convenient, and almost inexplicable changes in major policy positions suggest a glaring lack of honesty and integrity that leave me doubtful.

While Governor in Arkansas, Huckabee ruled with a liberal hand when it came to taxes, to crime and punishment, to illegal immigration, and to commenting on foreign policy. His recent unconvincing and convenient swing to the right is simply beyond belief and I do not trust the man.

3. Huckabee is the ultimate Nanny State Republican. The government is his solution to any problem. We may all see the value in healthier diets and no smoking, but passing federal laws to enforce massive smoking bans and forced good eating habits strip away the very core of individual and property rights this country was founded upon.

There is a great quote I've used in speeches: "the people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." It sounds great to have the government enforce a smoking ban at all restaurants so you can enjoy your family meal. It is, after all, a public place right? Wrong. It's owned by a private individual who has now lost the right to choose how to control his property. How much will you love that kind of government power when it now allows the government to reach into your property and dictate how you use it? How about your intellectual or virtural property?

Why go down that road at all? That is precisely the road down which Huckabee would lead this country.

4. The Cato Institute gave him an "F" for his second term and a "D" overall. Only four governors had worse scores. We're at a pretty tricky time economically, and it's not the time to take a gamble on our financial future with someone who has a proven poor track record. Huckabee's philosophy on the appropriate use of your tax dollars is the antithesis of what conservatives stand for: He believes in the entitlement system, and is the only GOP candidate that opposed Bush's veto of the S-CHIP expansion. He supports increased government subsidies for ethanol and agriculture in general. He believes in increased taxes to solve budget problems.

I do not want him throwing away my hard earned tax dollars on ever-expanding entitlement programs.

5. Speaking of fiscal policy, let's talk tax policy. Huckabee supports the Fair Tax--which I don't necessarily disagree with in principle (I think a system of taxes based on consumption is a good idea). But the spin on the Fair Tax is not particularly straightforward: proponents claim that this tax will somehow automatically replace the income tax. Except they neglect to mention that the only way to really get rid of the income tax is to repeal the 16th Amendment. Further, the policy is not completely well-thought out, as James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal has detailed.

This is already too long so I'll stop. Hopefully for those who support Huckabee and read this blog I've at least given you some food for thought.