More on the candidates I don't like

Huckabee

While I've already detailed my dislike for Huckabee in talking about why I like Rudy, I have a friend who is still trying to persuade me to sell out. His latest argument is that Ronald Reagan raised several (small) taxes, increased Social Security taxes, saw the federal government grow under his watch, added a cabinet department, and embraced several restrictions on free trade.

If I felt the need to defend Reagan, I would point to the fall of the overall tax burden under Reagan (page 4) - in the post-Depression era, only Gerald Ford and Bush 43 (so far) hold such a distinction; and given our progressive income tax, tax burdens grow as incomes rise, so Reagan's cuts are magnified by the economic growth of the 1980s - or to his record on non-defense spending.

Of course, my friend wasn't trying to debunk the Reagan is more popular than Jesus argument, but rather assumed that since I admire Reagan, and that Huckabee proposes doing some of what Reagan did, that I would accept that Huckabee was the second coming of Reagan.

Unfortunately for him, the first argument might hold up, but the second is absurd. I can accept that Reagan didn't have a perfect record, that he compromised frequently, and that he didn't achieve (and arguably didn't pursue hard enough) what he supported in his rhetoric. But that doesn't change the fact that Huckabee is still a "Big Government Conservative". And while Reagan had to compromise with a Democratically controlled Congress, Huckabee and a Democratic Congress (which is likely) would get along fine - raising taxes, expanding entitlement programs, enacting smoking bans and countless regulations, and growing government at every turn.

McCain

Have you heard about this new movie about Hillary Clinton? If not, it's probably because a court has ruled advertising for it would be illegal. Thank you, John McCain.

Here is more on why the editorial page hype for McCain is a poor reflection of the man.

As one friend of mine points out, McCain is the best example of why we need term limits - 22 years in the Senate and his prime legislative achievement is to limit criticism of incumbents like himself during election season.

Romney

Michael Tanner notes:

For some reason, Romney has been able to claim the Reagan mantle despite his support for:

• A health care plan virtually indistinguishable for the one proposed by Hillary Clinton;
• Support for No Child Left Behind, calls for increased federal education spending, and a proposal to have the federal government give a laptop computer to every schoolchild in America;
• Calls for increased farm price supports;
• Support for the Medicare prescription drug benefit; and
• An undistinguished record on taxes and spending as Massachusetts governor, earning a C on Cato’s governor’s report card, and including support for $500 million in increased fees and corporate taxes.

But in Michigan, Romney pulled out all the big government stops with a call for $20 billion in corporate welfare to revive the state’s struggling auto industry. Romney, who called his proposal “a work-out, not a bail-out,” also promised that as president he would develop “a national policy to help automakers.”

Jerry Taylor asks:

What does it say about the Republican Party when the leading fusionist conservative in the field - Mitt Romney, darling of National Review and erstwhile heir to Ronald Reagan - runs and wins a campaign arguing that the federal government is responsible for all of the ills facing the U.S. auto industry, that the taxpayer should pony up the corporate welfare checks going to Detroit and increase them by a factor of five, that the federal government can and should move heaven and earth to save “every job” at risk in this economy, and that economic recovery is best achieved by a sit-down involving auto industry CEOs, labor bosses, and government agents armed with Harvard MBAs to produce a well-coordinated strategic economic plan?

It is the difference between saying you are a conservative and being a conservative.