Thanks for your email. I believe that the upcoming election is an important one and all Americans should care about the issues involved.
I'm concerned most, this election cycle, about the rise of federal power, particularly executive power, that we've seen in huge measure from Clinton and G.W. Bush. I'm concerned that Huckabee won't bring us back toward federalism. In the last (Oct 9) debate, he said that he would, if necessary, act to prevent a perceived terrorist threat even if Congress specifically denied authorization - as if Congress wasn't worthy of making that decision. That's the thinking that got us into our current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, thinking that the White House has the only good ideas and answers. Then there's the constitutional problem of bypassing the check and balance provided by Congress.
In a brief examination, I don't see any discussion on Huckabee's website of states' rights or federalism, and his only mention of the Constitution is in reference to the second amendment.
I would suggest Ron Paul as a candidate who is committed to the the entire constitution, federalism and limited government, and is a strong Christian. I don't agree with all of his opinions, including his support for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but I believe a return to federalism is the most important issue facing the federal government today.
Ron Paul supports morality, and is a strong Christian himself. He believes that it is generally up to the states occasionally, and ultimately the individual, not the federal government, to enforce morality. Paul is strongly pro-life and opposes Roe v Wade on constitutional grounds.
After writing my email, I came to a realization: Mike Huckabee isn't that different from George W. Bush! Let's compare campaign positions:
Bush: Campaigned on and passed tax cuts
Huckabee: Campaigning on the Fair Tax
B: Ignores restrictions on executive power
when he deems it necessary
H: Willing to do the same
B: Restore moral integrity to presidency
H: Restore moral integrity to nation
B: Encouraging "compassionate conservatism"
H: encouraging individual effort
B: Would appoint conservative
H: No obvious opinion, pro-2nd amendment
B: Redefined definition of torture to exclude what he deemed necessary/useful, though that torture is given to some who are innocent, and torture can supply bad intelligence.
H: Opposes torture
There are some areas of difference. Huckabee opposes anything even close to amnesty for illegal immigrants (so does Paul). Huckabee supports letting states choose their own standards for education, which would partially rectify one of the biggest problems with Bush's No Child Left Behind act. Paul, on the other hand, would seek to abolish the Dept. of Education and its often counterproductive programs altogether. Huckabee would not use of torture on detainees, something Bush has allowed by using clever definitions of the word. I'm going to be optimistic and assume power and an insular white house wouldn't go to Huckabee's head as it did Bush's. But I can't see big changes coming from a Huckabee white house, and certainly not the big changes in federalism and size of government that Paul would bring.
To learn more about Ron Paul, visit his website.
Wikipedia article on GWB's 2000 presidential campaign
Mike Huckabee issues page
Huckabee's opinion on torture
Transcript of October 9 Republican debate