This seems worth considering, and at first hearing rings true. I’d love to hear more comments on this point:
A Huckabee primary loss — which will happen entirely because of his more liberal record on taxing and spending — is a sign of religious conservative strength. With every single candidate in the Republican field vowing to protect life and religious liberty, and with every single candidate highlighting the plight of the persecuted church overseas, religious conservatives aren’t reduced to voting for the “most overtly Christian” candidate to make their voices heard in the culture war. When Mike Huckabee loses the Republican primary, he’ll be defeated by another pro-life, pro–religious liberty candidate — but one who probably has a stronger conservative economic record or better national-security credentials. How is that a sign of religious-conservative weakness?
(source: Why a Huckabee Loss Would Be a Win for Religious Conservatives)
While I agree with the overall point—and I have a lot of respect for French—any pundit who claims Huckabee has a “liberal record on taxing and spending” simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose Huckabee as a candidate, the fact that he complied with his state’s balance budget requirement is not one of them.
Would it help if Peter replaced “liberal record on taxing and spending” with “monstrous demagoguery against desperately needed reforms on taxes and spending “?
Well, just quoting French, of course. I do note that “more liberal” is not precisely the same claim as “liberal.”
Fair point, Joe. Thanks.