Mike is a somewhat progressive Republican when compared to a libertarian Republican. And Beck, is a libertarian.

Well I guess that he is from Glenn's perspective. But Beck is considered a fringe right wing nut when compared to an independent. Its all about perspective. And when you understand the perspective then you can judge the validity.

Well I guess that he is from Glenn's perspective. But Beck is considered a fringe right wing nut when compared to an independent.

Its all about perspective. And when you understand the perspective then you can judge the validity.

Exactly.

And we need Independents to defeat Obama.

So, while I may be more fiscally conservative than Huckabee, I do think that he would be the best candidate to win the Republican nomination. He has the best chance of winning over the Independents and isn't so progressive that it would completely turn off conservatives. He's less progressive than McCain. He's less progressive than Romney.

I'm of the belief that Huckabee wants government bigger than I want government. But he still wants it smaller than it is now, so that's a positive.

My other dark horse candidate would be Herman Cain. Love that guy.

I don't think it's relevant if Beck is "considered" a fringe right wing nut. I think that you'd agree that perception doesn't necessarily equal reality. And that bias abounds everywhere.

I'm of the belief that Huckabee wants government bigger than I want government. But he still wants it smaller than it is now, so that's a positive.

Winning Guy, you have aroused my curiosity, could you share what specifically Huckabee has done that you have issues with?

P.S. Love your ability to disagree agreeably!

He does sometimes support government programs that I hope will be eventually eliminated. Like the existence of things like the Department of Education. But also, I do realize that the shrinking of government is something that would need to be done gradually. And Huckabee's government would be a step in the right direction, while something like Ron Paul's government might be a little too shocking for people to take. And I disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

In a conference call with bloggers today, I asked him plainly:

If you were president in 2013 and a Republican House and Senate voted to end the federal school breakfast program in one year and the school lunch program one year after that, and the department of education the year after that, would you sign the bill, considering that in your book you show that these things would be better handled by parents, churches, and the states, respectively, rather than the federal government, and in fact, the federal role in education is itself unconstitutional?

His answer: Yes, he would sign a bill abolishing the Federal Department of Education, if Congress gave him such a bill to sign. On the question of school lunches, he fudged a little (pardon the pun), suggesting that he would consider it if he could be assured there would a church organization or the states would make up the difference. Not a knee-jerk answer, but thoughtful and responsive, even if a little tentative.


http://race42012.com/2011/02/21/huckabe ... nted-bill/

Winning Guy, welcome to HucksArmy.

Glad to have you report for duty.

It is interesting that you decided to enlist and then write posts looking as if you report directly to Glenn Beck.

You will find here that we welcome all discussions, but first and foremost, we support Gov. Mike Huckabee for POTUS in 2012.

We would hate to put you on latrine duty if all you do is post about Glenn Beck's political talking points against Huckabee.

We know the truth about Mike Huckabee's record. While he is not perfect, he does have a successful 10 1/2 years governing record which makes him the perfect candidate to go head to head against Obama.

Again, welcome aboard!

Actually, I signed up here in the last Presidential election cycle. I knew that Huckabee was a Fair Tax proponent. So he was my choice in 2008.

Which political figure would you say best characterizes your pov? (Doesn't have to be a pol - just someone whose politics are identifiable)

I do find it a little disturbing that you would use the word "progressive" in describing Huckabee even when it's only being applied on a relative scale. Yet you do not seem to be able to identify a specific concrete point on which you can hang that label? I am puzzled as to what you are basing this on then.

Elder's political views are philosophically libertarian, and have also been described as conservative.[12] He supports free trade, school choice and abortion rights.[13] He opposes the income tax and supports replacing it with the FairTax, a national retail sales tax. He is also a firm opponent of the war on drugs and has been quoted as saying "Philosophically, I think that if somebody wants to sit around and get stoned that's up to him or her. And if that ruins your life, so be it....So I am for drug legalization."[6] Although he is not an Objectivist, he says that Atlas Shrugged, written by novelist Ayn Rand, is one of his favorite books.[14]

He has called himself a "libertarian with a small 'l'" to distance himself from the national Libertarian Party concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Elder was registered as Decline to State, but became a Republican in May 2003 in support of the War on Terror,[15] to be more influential within the Republican Party and to open up the possibility of running for office.[14] In his May 13, 2003 column for Jewish World Review, Elder explained reregistering as a Republican by quoting Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, who said, "I am a Republican with a capital 'R,' and a libertarian with a small 'l.' I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles. But because that's the way I am the most useful and have the most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian."[15] Elder ended his column by saying, "Make no mistake: My libertarian principles remain unchanged. But as writer Midge Decter once said, 'There comes a time to join the side you're on.'"[15] Elder has said that the Libertarian Party differs in ways from the libertarian philosophy, which has roots in the Whig and Republican parties[citation needed]. Melding the two parties, he sometimes refers to himself as a "Republitarian," which he defines as a Republican Party member who holds libertarian political ideals.[16]

Elder's name was in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times (17 August 2006) that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and supported Israel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[17]

Following Elder's reregistering as a Republican, in a 2008 interview with The New Individualist Magazine, he said, "A lot of my listeners will often call up and say, 'I preferred you when you were a Libertarian.' I always tell them I never was a 'capital-L Libertarian.' I am still 'small-l.' It’s a philosophy to me, not a party."[14] Elder supported presidential candidates Harry Browne[14] in 2000, George W. Bush[18] in 2004, and John McCain[19] in 2008.

Roll Call reported that Elder contemplated a possible run for the United States Senate against California Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010.[20]

Having worked in pharmacy for 15yrs, for example (borrowing from Elders wiki bio above), I've seen that legalizing drugs does not at all eliminate the problems with them & addicts do not just fade into a drug hazed oblivion & out of society. The legal addicts were just as scary to deal with as the illegal ones. They still steal, cheat, lie & hold places up to get their fix. And the cops who have to pick up the pieces after these people will tell you pretty much the same - a fatal car crash is still just as fatal whether the driver was stoned on legal substances or illegal ones.

I've heard of Larry Elder - read a few of his columns over the years & liked them - but know little about him. Here's what wikipedia says:
I must confess that I get frustrated with people who have a reasonable amount of life experience & still do not see how the social issues DO affect all of us negatively - that's where the "social" part comes from = society.

Having worked in pharmacy for 15yrs, for example (borrowing from Elders wiki bio above), I've seen that legalizing drugs does not at all eliminate the problems with them & addicts do not just fade into a drug hazed oblivion & out of society. The legal addicts were just as scary to deal with as the illegal ones. They still steal, cheat, lie & hold places up to get their fix. And the cops who have to pick up the pieces after these people will tell you pretty much the same - a fatal car crash is still just as fatal whether the driver was stoned on legal substances or illegal ones.