Street Prophets

Huckabee's Next step?

Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:44:12 PM PDT

Just as Pat Robertson corralled conservative Christians around abortion and lowing taxes to form the Christian Coalition it seems that former Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee will be forming his version of the next generation of conservative Christians.  Tonight I listened into a conference call featuring the former Governor as well as Steve Strang, publisher of New Man Magazine and Charisma Magazine and named one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.  

According to Strang roughly 6,000 people listened into what turned out to be a blatant sales pitch for Strang’s magazines and few books including one that calls Islam "a religion conceived in the pit of hell"

I was hoping the call would reveal some more details on what’s next for Governor Mike Huckabee.  I have been previously intrigued in what he will do next.

While the call did not reveal any hard facts of what his next move will be or what the political action committee will entail, the direction of the questions that were selected underscore some of my thoughts below.  The real nature of the PAC will be disclosed with the launch of his website MikeHuckabee.com.  As of right now the site is "Coming Soon" with a countdown, launching timely on April 15th (tax day).

In my observation the most attention was paid to the issue of the tax structure in the U.S. (besides the self-promotion of Charisma Magazine).  Huckabee has been an advocate of the Fair Tax.  He touted the fair tax as a structural change that would reward productivity and boost the U.S. economy. A small snipet of the plan from Wikipedia:

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total amount paid, which includes the tax payment itself. U.S. state sales taxes have historically been expressed as a percentage of the original sale price or pre-tax amount, which would be a tax rate of 30%. The effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates that are used to "untax" purchases up to the poverty level. The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services. Critics argue that the sales tax rate defined in the legislation may not be revenue neutral (that is, it would collect less for the government than the current tax regime), and thus would not yield enough money for the government.

The 16th Amendment might get in the way of the plan but I think Hucakbee is utilizing this aspect of his agenda to gain more national attention with the subcontext of traditional conservative ideas such as abortion, gay marriage, possibly illegal immigration (that one came up a little bit in the call but gay marriage did not).

I am sure the PAC and his next steps will be to support selected Republicans running for office, including Senator John McCain, whom he said he plans on supporting.  Evidently, he is awaiting instruction from the McCain camp on how he can be of more use for the campaign.  When he brought up Senators Clinton and Obama he believes they will both raise taxes. At this point he nearly compares taxes as moral issue as to slavery, but he stopped just short of making a direct comparison.

This is intriguing because a later question asked about taxes whether "we would continue to be slaves of the IRS?"  Strang once spoke about Lincoln being from the Republican Party and the Democrats were the ones that wanted to continue slavery, with the added caveat that it was 150 years ago.  So, what’s up with the slavery references?

So, it seems that when the nation’s taxes are due, Mike Huckabee will be launching a national political action committee pushing the fair tax plan with some additional maneuvering of traditional conservative Christian values.  While he will probably be helping Senator McCain versus the eventual Democratic nominee he will also more than likely be helping some other members of his party to gain some good will for another run in 2012 if Senator McCain loses in November.  Should be an interesting development to follow in the coming months.

  • ::


Tags: Mike Huckabee, conservative christianity, political action committee, taxes (all tags)

Permalink | 5 comments

  • Cookie time... (7+ / 0-)

    I really would like some good home made chocolate chip cookies right now... hmmm...

    http://www.faithfullyliberal.com

    by Aaron Krager on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:44:40 PM PDT

  • Slavery (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lam2b2g, vgranucci, wanderingoutlaw

    So, what’s up with the slavery references?

    The reactionary right has always loved this sort of thing.

    In 1884, it was the Dems were the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion".

    This time, can we elect a President? Please, not another clown.

    by grada3784 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:00:39 AM PDT

  • Is it just me.. (5+ / 0-)

    Or does the whole "included in price" thing just smell very badly of "false witness"?

    The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

    by Karmakin on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:58:53 AM PDT

  • Usually (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    vgranucci, wanderingoutlaw, grada3784

    "slaves" is right wing code for anti abortion sentiment.  Here's a good explaination.  

    Perhaps it was a reference to making sure not one tax dollar goes to birth control of any kind (especially for third world countries and military women serving overseas).  The words "slavery" and "Dred Scott" are dog whistles.  I'd guess they were tying the idea of tax dollars to health care (for women) and abortion in a neat little coded bundle.

  • framing slavery (0 / 0)

    So, what’s up with the slavery references?

    It is a matter of framing, I suspect.  Although I have not seen Lakoff's (my favorite) recent assessment of this neo-con/repub framing, my guess about this frame is: Slavery is defined as whenever your money does not directly serve you. For example, taxes that support food stamps or national healthcare make a slave out of you because you may not directly benefit. For example, tax cuts directly benefit you, so they must be OK. Only direct connections are reliable.

    This is an attack on the concept of the Common Weal(wealth).  From this perspective, assuming the world is basically evil, you must fight for every cent for yourself and your family, or you are being stupid. Indirect connections are fraught with peril. Because, if the world is bad, a common wealth is an absurd idea. Indirect connections will cause problems for you, like corrupt cumbersome bureaucracies. Therefore, the Federal gov't  bargaining for health care is not seen as in their  best interests. Considering that large organizations, like corporations or megachurches,  are full of indirect connections, this may disprove my theory. In fact, the commonwealth has served the people well in the past and could certainly bring down the price of perscription drugs.

Permalink | 5 comments