Huckabee’s Nanny State
Admittedly, Mike Huckabee caught my attention a month or two ago. But with attention comes scrutiny and Huckabee does not pass the sniff test . . . ummm . . . mustard . . . errr . . . is not up to my standards.
Huckabee, as of this writing, is far ahead in the Iowa polls. Mind you, he still has not made much of a dent nationally, be he is the talk of the Republican Party. The question is, is he a Republican?
The only litmus test is whether he is registered a Republican. I assume he is. Other than that, what makes him Republican? It used to be that Republicans were for limited government, lower taxes, were socially conservative, and a strong defense. The Republican Party no longer professes these things; that is why I left the party.
Smoking bans have been a cause célèbre in state government of late. First it was California. As goes The Golden State, so goes New Jersey. Even Huckabee’s Arkansas joined in on restricting personal freedom by banning smoking in public places. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
If smoking is the hazard that it is purported to be, then a public ban is non-sensical. Rather, flat-out banning the substance should be done.
Huckabee was interviewed recently by Hugh Hewitt. Here is the exchange they had about smoking:
HH: And the last question is do you support a federal ban on smoking as has been alleged?
MH: No, I don’t. I support workplace clean air. But a federal ban on smoking would mean that you couldn’t smoke in your own home. I don’t care what people do in their home. But in a workplace, in our state, we passed a law which I’m very proud of, and that said that people have a right to have clean air at the workplace. I did not support a ban just in restaurants and bars because frankly, I think that the problem with that is that you’re punishing the customers. But what you have a right to do is to protect the workers in the same was you do from radon gas and a host of other carcinogens and toxic fumes, which is exactly what tobacco smoke is.
HH: Well, I understand that from the state side, but I’m talking about the federal lawmakers getting involved in this and imposing on states a uniform standard. Do you…just for the workplace. Do you support federal laws mandating standards for workplace non-smoke environments?
MH: I personally would on the workplace issue. If there are two or more people, and as long as anyone under the age of 21 worked in that place, there ought to be some protections for them.
Why do politicians feel such a great need to protect the workers? Would anyone interviewing to be a cocktail waitress not expect there to be smoke in the workplace? More important, why can’t business owners set up their businesses to cater to whom they want?
Huckabee is all for looking after the workers, but will gladly tax the hell out of the product. I just do not understand how this fits in with a conservative philosophy. And that is when it occurs to me, Republicans no longer have a conservative doctrine. Pretty soon government will want to limit what we can eat . . . wait, it has.
Huckabee does not meet my standards for president.
Also blogged on this date . . .
- Imagine - 2007
- Carmen, R.I.P. - 2007
- Fatherhood . . . - 2007
- WherIGo - 2006
- It's All Over - 2005
- MIL in Green Acres - 2004
By Shirley on Dec 8, 2007
heh have you seen this site? http://www.taxhikemike.com/
It used to be that Republicans were for limited government, lower taxes, were socially conservative, and a strong defense.
Here’s a good interview about the different issues surround iraq, not such a great recording though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFzoDP4HmgY
Sounds like you are describing Ron Paul
By Bob on Dec 9, 2007
I had not seen that site, but am familiar with Huckabee’s tax speech when governor.
I still contend Ron Paul is wrong on the war. He makes a good point regarding the declaration of war. Congress did not declare war, but did approve military action. It would be immoral to leave a mess now because it is inconvenient and expensive.
By Shirley on Dec 9, 2007
The majority of Congress may have, but Paul voted against the military action in Iraq to begin with. Here’s one of his opposition speeches
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=671
He knew what we would be getting ourselves into.
I’m not quite sure how “now” equates to a year and half or 2 years from now? He’s stated multiple times we have the moral obligation of helping them since we created the mess. He wants a workable exit strategy on the table that gets us out and the Iraq government to step up to take control of their country.
The fact is that Bush and Cheney knew before going into Iraq what the problems would be. Cheney’s interview on Iraq from 1994 and why we didn’t invade then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I&feature=related
So one has to question why they went forward anyway. One should also question why they have not put forth an exit strategy that is satisfactory with the Iraq Parliament, especially now that the violence has been slowing down. Maybe that question was recently answered when the Iraq’s National Security Advisor addressed the White House and spoke on national TV? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4P3P1P2JnY Obviously, their intentions for permanent occupation have been presented, and Iraq doesn’t want it. Their response.. “A Big Fat No” Would it be immoral to stay despite their wishes? I would think at this point, based on their statements, our moral obligation is to move towards a policy that will end our occupation and help them gain their sovereignty as a nation once again.
I will say though, that I don’t think the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of US troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians should be marginalized to be simply “inconvenient”. It’s expensive alright, but not just financially. It’s a tragedy. A tragedy they knew would unfold prior to stepping foot in Iraq and did it anyway. Why? Furthermore, after listening to the national security advisor’s statements, what moral justification do we have for not formulating a strategy for US withdraw?
By Bob on Dec 9, 2007
The violence is just now slowing down. Why is that? Because the US has committed more troops. There is a time to exit Iraq; it is not now.
This exchange is very similar to how my parents used to speak with my sister and me about marriage. They said that if we were truly in love there was no immediacy to being married as the other one would still be in love with us a year or two from now. We will exit Iraq. We do not need to have that plan’s is dotted and ts crossed today. Let’s stabilize the country first.
The Iraq Parliament is not capable of standing alone yet, despite what it may say. I’ll trust the US military on that assertion.
By Shirley on Dec 9, 2007
“We will exit Iraq” - Just like we left all the other countries we’ve invaded? or our “stategic relationsips” we’ve made resulting in over 700 military bases around the world? Which brings up another point, why aren’t they shutting some of them down to redirect funding to the Iraq war instead of getting us more in debt?
I guess I have a little less faith in their statements, motives, or ability to assess the situation accurately than you do. First they claim there were WMDs, and it turned out there was none. First it’s shock and awe, capture of Saddam and “mission accomplished”, and now it’s the surge and who knows what determines mission accomplished. First Iran is building nukes, now its Iran stopped building them 4 years ago. If nothing else, you have to at least admit they’ve been wrong on a number of occasions resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The only other option is that they we’ve been flat out lied to. Which is it?
As a side note, when did the Iraq Parliament make a statement of their current stability or lack there of? Have a link?
By Bob on Dec 9, 2007
The Iraq Parliament statement was in reference to your own remark. The US military has determined it cannot stand on its own. That we are still in Iraq satisfies that claim.
Mistakes? Sure there have been some. Want to beat up the current Administration over them? Be my guest. Leaving Iraq before the country can make it on its own (power grids, infrastructure, security, etc.) would not be correct, whether we have made mistakes in the past or not.
As for why we continue to have military bases around the world, surely Shirley, you are not stating that we should be isolationistic. The bases serve the United States defense. If this is Ron Paul’s foreign policy, then I am more confident that he is unfit for command.
Sacrifice defense in other areas to fund the war in Iraq? I do not like Bush’s spending any more than you do, but suggesting that is ludicrous. I much rather fold ED, entitlements, and pork projects and keep our defense strong.
By Shirley on Dec 9, 2007
Explain to me how making trade offs with military bases we fund, especially in countries who are our allies, to try to keep a balanced budget while we are at war with iraq is being isolationistic? And no, Paul is not an isolationist he is an noninterventionalist. He very much believes in a strong national defense and securing our borders, which hasn’t happened yet unfortunately. However, he does believe there are better ways to do it than playing the role of world policeman, and I happen to agree.
But I can’t take credit for coming up with the ludicrous idea of getting rid of some, the credit belongs to the Department of Defense. Using Germany as an example, the DoD has already made a few announcements over the last couple of years about returning some of our German bases back to the German government. I can only assume it’s already underway or completed. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/07/mil-050729-dod01.htm and http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10294 and you can see a lengthy list of facilities here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/germany.htm. So how is/was that a bad idea? I think the bad idea was waiting so long to do it, and not doing more of it, when we obviously needed the troops and funding in Iraq to begin with. Surely you aren’t suggesting Germany, or any of our other allies, are now a threat to our national security and the Dept. of Defense is making mistakes by returning them?
I do completely agree with cutting all the entitlements and pork etc.
By Shirley on Dec 9, 2007
P.S.
The link i posted with statements from the Iraq national security advisor said nothing about their stability. They said they did not want the US building permanent military bases in Iraq. You are saying we will exit, however it seems our government is suggesting to them otherwise.
By Bob on Dec 9, 2007
If the task is to
retreatbring our troops home, why would we want to fund the war by closing bases? If the DoD agrees with you and has already begun closing bases, then there isn’t any savings to be had as those savings have already been realized.Bases are needed for our protection. If the military decides it can close some, so be it. To do so to fund the war, as you suggested, is not the reason to do so. Either the bases are needed or not. It occurs to me that sometimes we need friendly airspace from which to launch.
The war continues. When Ron Paul becomes president, I am certain he will have a balanced budget, bring the troops home, and right all that is wrong with the US.
By Bob on Dec 9, 2007
From an AP article today:
and
It’s an article like this that tells me the US is still needed in Iraq.
By Shirley on Dec 9, 2007
Again, where in this discussion was it said we should or will be leaving in a day, a week, a month or even a year? I will bring up the point though that there are intelligence officials who do believe our continued presence in the area will keep the insurgents waging their war against us. So, there are two sides to every coin. Hypothetically speaking, if we give it 10 years and the violence doesn’t end, are we still retreating if we leave then? And for the record, I don’t get the whole “retreat” thing, we declared “mission accomplished” years ago.
As for the your other response, the point Ill address is this… For as much wasteful spending as our government does, are you really going to take the stance that you don’t think there’s even a possibility that it exists within our military decisions? I’ve read your blog for awhile, I know you don’t beleive the government makes wise spending decisions in a lot of areas. So why are they immune to mistakes all of a sudden in this area? Heh c’mon now.
By Bob on Dec 9, 2007
Did I state you wanted troops home in a year? If I did, I was mistaken but can find no reference of having said so.
You did state two years, however.
If we can have this all wrapped up then, let’s bring them home. I suspect, however, the task will take longer. I don’t want to commit to 24 months only to find out more time is needed. That’s the problem with timelines, as any web developer will confirm. Don’t meet the timeline and folks will clamor for your head. In the case of war, I am more willing to be patient.