Mike Huckabee info dump

This post is not a traditional blog post, but rather an information dump I will periodically update with various resources demonstrating the counterfeit nature of Mike Huckabee's "conservative" credentials. Almost all of the resources are first-hand statements from Huckabee himself.

-----------------------------------

Government programs to subsidize "approved" healthy behavior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPHhIbmVhDQ

----------

Support for S-CHIP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8sBLOK1jgQ

----------

National smoking ban:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl81Pq4aOOo

----------

Doubling "PEPFAR" aid to Africa is not enough!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8jT8L5hCSM

----------

Appears to want some kind of control on CEO pay (what kind? he doesn't say):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRnAUFMSUZc

----------

Defends choice of President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, as chief Foreign Policy adviser (though the audio is muffled, it sounds as though Huckabee briefly mentions Haass' position on US sovereignty [see note below link]):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGxMdNCjfRU

NOTE: On Feb. 21, 2006, Haass, writing for the Taipei Times in an article titled "State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era", made the following statements:

"For 350 years, sovereignty--the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states--has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion."
"Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."

"...sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization."

"Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves . . . Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary."

"Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute."

"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

Such statements as the above are completely consistent with the agenda and philosophy which has prevailed in the CFR since its founding. A brief study of the history of the CFR reveals a wealth of such quotes from both its members and its leadership.

----------

(3rd-party source) Raised taxes overall (0:48) and fought against proof of citizenship for tax-payer funded state services (1:20):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrE6IusJ1U

----------

Supports One.org (campaign to lobby the US government to increase federal spending on foreign aid):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_aHDZcP8uc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWRmff_7hM

----------

Huckabee believes in human-caused Global Warming and supports:

• Increased federal fuel efficiency mandates (1:50)
• Cap & Trade (2:07)
  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KicX3Zc994c

----------

Cap & Trade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1z9lpuoTTU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgSjQW2rN8I (1:35 - "I'm still very open to that [a national cap on carbon]")

----------

Cap & Trade and CAFE standards (starts talking like he doesn't want the government to cap carbon, but then when asked directly at 1:24, he affirms he is open to government caps):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpxLLidYWRk

----------

Cap & Trade:

"As part of our overall effort, I also support a cap and trade system, which has worked well for reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. However, I do not agree with those who want all allowances to be auctioned off because I believe that will create too great a burden on businesses. The alternative to cap and trade is a carbon tax, which I don’t support."

http://www.carbontax.org/progress/us-presidential-contenders/

(NOTE: No so-called "voluntary" system could possibly result in a "burden on businesses", and if it was truly voluntary, by what federal authority would he disallow auctioning off voluntary, self-imposed allowance quotas? Furthermore, though he says he opposes it here, he refers to a tax as an alternative. All of this taken together reveals quite clearly that he is referring to mandatory, government-imposed cap & trade.)

----------

A note on Huckabee's mythical "voluntary" cap & trade:

"Voluntary" cap and trade is an oxymoron for the following reason: Cap & Trade is about limits on the amount of CO2 emissions a business is allowed to produce. Each business has a quota - an allowance - and if they manage to fall short of that allowance, they can sell their remaining allowance to businesses that need to exceed their allowance but would otherwise incur a fine. Now if a business needs to exceed some ridiculously, voluntarily self-imposed CO2 quota, what sense does it make for them to purchase excess CO2 emissions "allowance" from another business that has also voluntarily self-imposed a quota? Wouldn't a self-imposed quota that overestimates a business' required emissions simply reveal a miscalculation on their part, calling for a smaller quota next year? It certainly wouldn't indicate that there is some mass of "unused" carbon emissions out there, waiting to be traded.

Following such an absurd "plan", what is there to stop me, Mr. Average Joe, from simply "selling" such CO2 credits that I "voluntarily" invent out of thin air to other businesses, and what sense would it make for any business to actually purchase them? Who would determine what my "allowance" was if it was voluntary? If my business is writing novels, what is to stop me from allocating to myself enough "credits" to support a power plant, and then just sell the "excess" to other companies? There is absolutely no way for any such self-awarded "excess credits" to have any value or any meaning to a company that wants to exceed its own irrationally self-imposed "carbon cap".

Either Huckabee supports such mind-numbingly stupid business behavior that wouldn't make any difference at all and that nobody would actually be stupid enough to follow, or he is simply doing a typical political two-step and backing away from his original support for Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade only has any meaning if the government sets the mandatory caps, and therefore creates an artificial market for tradeable, government-issued carbon credits, without which you would face a fine or worse.