I called him Fuckabee.
Mike Huckabee, all around pillock, utterly confuses Libertarians with anarchists and doesn’t even attempt to not look like a Christian Socialist in this interview posted at the HuffPo.
Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.
If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it’s going to result in a more costly government … police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What’s the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say “yes, we shouldn’t be funding that stuff.” But what you’ve done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.
I know of not one single libertarian leaning Republican, or even a big-L Libertarian, who advocates the emptying of the jails to lower the tax rate.
In fact, every person of that political stripe that I’ve ever met or spoken to firmly believes that one of the very reasons necessitating a government at all is a police/court/incarceration system. The Constitution lays the ideas out and the Bill of Rights lists our human rights protections from the government, precisely because government is the only body capable of running a system even remotely fairly.
They may not like police officers, or they may not like how we lavish prisoners with things like free HBO cable and extensive fitness equipment, but they believe that government is the one to take up these tasks as part of “insuring domestic tranquility” and “promoting the general welfare”.
The only reason this blather even got printed period is because he was talking to fellow socialists, of the non-Christian variety mind you, and the fuck-all they know about Libertarian ideals gets spoon-fed to them by the likes of Randi Rhodes.
Remember, this is the idiot that thought the “Fair Tax†was a smart idea and tried to pimp it on a national stage. If I had one wish that I could make come true today, I would waste it on having every person who voted for this smoker of primate-pole, this throwback to Rockefeller Republicanism, to punch themselves in the nuts once an hour for the next twenty four. The tears will make them easier to spot so that sane people can berate them.
You’re forgetting that the Big-Ls DO want to empty the jails of all convicted drug offenders.
I could see forgiving users, or even pushers who had pushed in small amounts to support their habits, because users can be and are frequently rehabbed medically, and less frequently, but still ocasionally by social networking.
I do not support releasing the drug gangsters as the Big-Ls would do. These are people who preyed like wolves on their communities, and generally engaged in other forms of gangsterism besides just narcotics wholesaling. They should rot in prison. They probably have less of a chance of being rehabbed than a kiddie-diddler.
Nope, the Big-Ls can legalize dope, but they’d also better liberalize the laws on justifiable homicide, because after the dopers are all turned loose, any one of them who commits, say, vehicular homicide while high/loaded needs to be summarily shot.
So Phil, you and I are, among political fools, are most easily identified as “libertarian”, but that doesn’t mean we have to follow ALL the foolishness of the Big-L party. Remember those idiots? They brought us Lyndon LaRouche year after interminable year, most of which years he was campaigning from a prison cell.
Recently, here in Oregon, the Big-Ls brought us Mary Starret for Governor. She was a certifiable moonbat.
I look upon my designation as a Libertarian about like I looked on my college degree in ’66: It came time to graduate, and the draft board was breathing down my neck, so I went to the advisor’s office and said “what can I graduate in?” They indicated that I had enough credits to get a Bachelor’s in feces-flinging, so I got one, got into the USAF’s Officer Training School with it, and the rest is history.
So, like in Luke, when it comes time for me to be enrolled, I will go down to the Registrar of Elections, and declare myself a Libertarian.
Of course, you and I know that I’m more of a feces-flinger than a Libertarian.
“If I had one wish that I could make come true today, I would waste it on having every person who voted for this smoker of primate-pole, this throwback to Rockefeller Republicanism, to punch themselves in the nuts once an hour for the next twenty four”
poetic!
Suckabee either misunderstands or is purposely misrepresenting a major portion of the constituency he sought to represent.
Like you said, a lot of us aren’t anarchists, we just want to minimize costs and waste. I like to think that government’s safety net shouldn’t do anything for them that they can’t do for themselves, and shouldn’t set up special privileges. I don’t know why that’s so freakin hard for Suckabee to understand. Nobody credible has called for dissolution of government in the name of conservative-libertarianism, but for the love of God, a little common sense would go a long way.
A lack of libertarian-conservative skepticism will be the death of this republic.