Everyone criticizing Mike Huckabee should themselves try to be more honest about Huckabee's positions on economic issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#Economic_issues). I don't see how someone who wishes to abolish the IRS and supports the Fair Tax can be fairly labeled a "tax hiker."

Let's see here...

Huckabee...
- supports hiking the federal minimum wage
- has been labeled a "serial tax hiker" by Grover Norquist
- raised the sales tax in Arkansas, the gas tax, increased taxes on beds in nursing homes and increased taxes on groceries
- left office with a "net tax increase of $505 million"
- supports taxing sales on the internet
- supports protectionist cap-and-trade policies

From the time Huckabee entered office until 2005, the tax burden for the average Arkansas taxpayer jumped by 47%.

The record stands for itself. Just because someone supports the FairTax, doesn't mean that they are a fiscal conservative (eg. Mike Gravel).

Read more for yourself, but be prepared to accept the fact that you are wrong.

http://www.taxhikemike.org/
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php

The Wikipedia page you linked is equally damning...

"Mike Huckabee increased state spending 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004. During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt increased by approx. $1 billion."

"The Cato Institute, a libertarian non-profit public policy research foundation, gave him an F grade for spending and tax policy in 2006, and an overall grade of D for his governorship."

"He has asserted to be the first Governor of Arkansas in history to lower taxes. He asserts to have lowered taxes 94 times although most of these were tiny deductions that the legislature initiated."

...and just because someone is not an ideologically pure economic libertarian doesn't make them a liar. I'm no huge fan of Huckabee either, but he is not a liar or some sort of closet liberal. I think he is a shrewd politician.
You say that Grover Norquist called Huckabee a serial tax-hiker, however let's take a more honest look at what Norquist thinks:
"Huckabee has signed the pledge circulated by Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, promising to fight future tax increases. That has satisfied Norquist. 'He has a troublesome history in supporting tax increases as governor, as did Ronald Reagan,' Norquist tells me. 'But in running for president, he has made a written commitment that he would oppose tax increases.' Unless Huckabee breaks his word, he’ll be okay with Americans for Tax Reform." (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzVmNmMyMjJmZTQwOGRhNTI0OWFiYTQ1ZTAxN2M0MDM=&w=MQ==)

And just one example of a sensible tax cut from a very interesting interview at rightwingnews.com:
"We did pass the Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights that, first of all, limits the amount of increase that a person can have in his property tax. It can't go up more than 5% any year, it can't go up by more than 10% in a 3-year period." ( http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php)

...and just because someone is not an ideologically pure economic libertarian doesn't make them a liar.

The video pretty much sums it up. He claims he was going on along with the voters, but the voters did not approve a gas tax hike, the approved a bond. Huckabee signed the gas tax increase into law.

He has also denied supporting taxing the internet, but he is on record supporting, along with Ed Rendell, the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania.

Is that a lie? I guess that depends on your definition of "is."

Huckabee signed the pledge not to raise taxes, but his record shows that he has and will given the opportunity to do so.

A more honest look would be to compare Huckabee's campaign rhetoric and his record and draw the obvious conclusion that the guy is a liberal on fiscal issues.

Again...under Huckabee's tenure as Governor, the tax burden of Arkansans jumped by almost 47%.

Actually, Norquist's exact quote was, "the man from Hope has a slight problem--he is a serial tax increaser."

Let me know when you are ready to be honest about Mike Huckabee.

...and just because someone is not an ideologically pure economic libertarian doesn't make them a liar.

No, but deliberately telling lies about what you have/have not done DOES make you a liar.

Huckabee has consistently and deliberately told lies about his fiscal record. He is, therefore, a liar and a tax-hiker.

"Huckabee's defenders say his record as a tax-cutting governor is unmatched in the state's history, which is true. During his first two years, he and the Dem legislature cut taxes across the board. They increased the standard deduction for all filers, doubled child care credits, removed the so-called 'marriage penalty' in states, indexed the income tax to inflation, eliminating bracket creep. In 1999, he pushed through reform of the state's messy property tax laws. He's also trimmed discretionary spending (which was fairly painless, thanks to growing income from the income taxes. And he says he'll entertain ideas to give back portions of a projected $600M budget surplus this year.
But it's very hard to cast him in the mould of a reflexive anti-taxer.
He defends a gas tax increase by noting that an overwhelming majority of Arkansans supported it and he, the governor, makes no apology for fixing the state's dilapidated roadways. In 1996, just months after he came into office, Huckabee championed a state constitutional amendment that aimed to levy a small (1/8th of a cent) conservation tax to help the environment. He later summed up the lesson he learned. 'Arkansas proved to me in November 1996 that they don't mind paying reasonable taxes if they understand how the money is being spent and can see a return on their investment.'" (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/hmri_mike_hucka.html).

The truth is that Huckabee has a mixed record on taxes. He is hardly a libertarian, but he is also not "a serial tax increaser." When did Norquist say Huckabee is a "serial tax increaser"? The NRO article that I used that quotes Norquist was written fairly recently. Norquist obviously changed his position on Huckabee.

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee praised NewsMax for a "wonderful story" about his real record as governor of Arkansas.

When Huckabee appeared on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 26, host Chris Wallace pointed out that the conservative Club for Growth ran ads in Iowa attacking the candidate as a "tax and spender" during his years as governor.

Huckabee responded: "I have to be a little flattered that the Club for Growth targeted me with $100,000 of ads in a state where no one thought I was even playing seriously. And you have to wonder, 'Where did that money come from? Who gave them that money in order to run those ads?'

NewsMax did, I thought, a wonderful story in which they pretty much debunked the Club for Growth ad and its content and the attacks."

The Club for Growth noted that as governor, Huckabee had raised sales taxes

37 percent, fuel taxes 16 percent, and cigarettes taxes 103 percent.

But Huckabee told NewsMax in an exclusive interview in early July that a state Supreme Court decision required immediate additional spending on education. The ruling came at a time when he had already cut the state budget 11 percent, and the choice was between raising taxes to fund the court order or being in contempt of court.

When he became governor, Arkansas had some of the "worst highways in the nation," he said. Over 80 percent of voters supported a 4-cent tax on diesel fuel to fix the roads.

Similarly, a 1/8-cent increase in the sales tax was approved by the voters to preserve their natural and cultural heritage.

Huckabee told NewsMax that as governor he would have "violated his oath of office" if he had tried to thwart the will of these voters.

With respect to the spending that he as governor had under his control — excluding federal pass-throughs and programs strictly controlled by the Democrat legislature — he said spending rose only about six-tenths of 1 percent a year during his 10 1/2-year tenure.
(http://www.newsmax.com/insider_report/Insider_Report/2007/09/02/29688.html)

For someone that doesn't support him, you sure are spending a lot of time defending him...

Huckabee told NewsMax in an exclusive interview in early July that a state Supreme Court decision required immediate additional spending on education.

Had Huckabee wanted to fight this, he could have.

When he became governor, Arkansas had some of the "worst highways in the nation," he said. Over 80 percent of voters supported a 4-cent tax on diesel fuel to fix the roads.

http://taxhikemike.pjdoland.com/2007/09/mike_huckabees_track_record.html
"HUCKABEE: “Did we raise taxes on fuel? Yes. But 80% of the people voted on it because it was on the ballot” (“Meet The Press,” 01/28/07).

TRUTH: Governor Huckabee signed a gas and diesel fuel tax increase that was not contingent on voter approval. A second bill, which raised $475 million dollar in bonds, did require voter approval. Governor Huckabee shouldn’t falsely blame the voters for his tax increase."

He also publicly campaigned in support of that bond referendum.

When did Norquist say Huckabee is a "serial tax increaser"?

I linked the article.

Norquist obviously changed his position on Huckabee.

The truth is that Huckabee has a mixed record on taxes.

When the citizens of a state have their tax burden jump by 47% and are left with a $505 million increase in taxes...how can you possibly call that mixed? That is a pathetic tax record.
Doubtful. Norquist is the head of a very influential anti-tax organization. The quote says that Huckabee with be "okay with American for Tax Reform," not necessarily Grover Norquist.

Here is another quote from Norquist on Huckabee...
"Recalling that Huckabee has said that he would only raise taxes if his arm were twisted, Grover Norquist of ATR responded: 'He has a history of allowing his arm to be twisted and twisting other’s arms.'"

Again, it seems Huckabee has a somewhat mixed record on taxes. He cut things like income and property taxes, while he did raise the sales tax and the fuel tax to pay for roads. In addition, he spent more on education because he would've been in violation of the law if he hadn't. I'm not so much defending Huckabee as attacking this notion of ideological purity. In politics you want your ideals to become a reality. The best way to do this is to win elections. Now one may be able to find a candidate who completely agrees with him/her ideologically, and he/she will feel good about voting for that candidate. But if that candidate has no chance of winning it is only a masturbatory exercise. I would say to that person, why not find the candidate who has ideas close to yours who will actually win. Then you have a better chance of actually getting things done, i.e. actually beginning to make your ideals a reality.

This is why the Fair Tax is probably a bad idea politically: there is no room for compromise. You have to first get the 16th amendment repealed, then you have to abolish the IRS, then you have to implement the national sales tax. Without any of the first two conditions being met, the third one does no good; it would be yet another tax.
Mike Huckabee did raise some taxes and cut some taxes. Every Republican candidate who can actually win has his flaws. But they are all better than Democrats, who are almost absolutely flawed.

Again...it's not a mixed record when you look at it objectively. He left the people of Arkansas with a higher tax burden...what's mixed about that?

This isn't about idealogical purity. I disagree with Giuliani on many things, but his fiscal policy makes the most sense at this point.

If I was going for idealogical purity, I'd be backing Ron Paul.

You cannot win elections when your candidate's rhetoric and record do not match up. Mike Huckabee talks a good game, I'll give him that. But at the end of the day his record doesn't back him up.

Well, it seems we agree that Guiliani is the best candidate. And any of the Democrat candidates would be a gift to the Republican nominee. I guess I just don't see Mike Huckabee as that bad. I am glad we agree on Guiliani. I hope most Republicans feel the same.

I disagree with Giuliani on many things, but his fiscal policy makes the most sense at this point.
I hope you mean his current fiscal policy rhetoric.
Guiliani is no fiscal conservative
He's bought and paid for like the rest of the neo-con big government front runners. I just can't figure out who has the most liberal fiscal record between him and Mitt. I do agree that Huchabee has both of them beat hands down.

I guess I just don't see Mike Huckabee as that bad.

You should if you call yourself a fiscal conservative.

I am glad we agree on Guiliani.

We don't, except maybe that his fiscal record isn't full of flaws.

I am not supporting any candidate at this point and I would not vote for a Presidential ticket with Huckabee's name attached to it.

I do agree that Huchabee has both of them beat hands down.

Daniel,

Huckabee's record on fiscal issues is terrible.

This DNC release that you linked has holes.

http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/CityRevenueandSpending.pdf

Giuliani had an average spending increase of 2.84% and he cut spending in his last year. Now...compare that to the 10% year increase in the NYC budget by his predecessor.

According to the things I've read, many of which I have posted, Huckabee had reasons for raising some taxes. He did cut income and property taxes. We disagree on Huckabee. I would not describe myself as libertarian--I presume you would say you are a libertarian--so that pretty much explains our disagreement. Just as an aside to let you know where I'm coming from: I would say I'm conservative, perhaps even "neoconservative," although I do not like many of the neoconservatives' hysteria in the realm of foreign policy. For example, I do not agree with Norman Podhoretz's hysterical, fear-mongering description of the current conflict as World War IV. I like George Friedman (http://blogs.stratfor.com/friedman/) when it comes to foreign policy. I like the Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley brand of conservatism.

I like the Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley brand of conservatism.

In other words, you are a neo-conservative, which is the word Irving Kristol used to describe himself.

We could have told you that without the long explanation.

According to the things I've read, many of which I have posted, Huckabee had reasons for raising some taxes.

Huckabee didn't cut spending in other areas first. Based on everything I've read his first inclination was to raise taxes.

The bottom line is that he left the citizens of his state with a higher tax burden.

"In other words, you are a neo-conservative, which is the word Irving Kristol used to describe himself."

Perhaps, but "neo-" implies that one has a Leftist past, as Irving Kristol did. Also, I don't exactly agree with most neoconservatives on foreign policy, so I just wanted to make that clear.

"We could have told you that without the long explanation."

Yes, but I am so arrogant and self-centered that I wanted to explain.

Perhaps, but "neo-" implies that one has a Leftist past, as Irving Kristol did.

You said, "I like the Irving Kristol and William F. Buckley brand of conservatism."

You implied it yourself by saying you like his brand of "conservatism." I only pointed out that Kristol referred to himself as a neo-conservative.

Neo-conservativism is statism.