Was that Mike Huckabee on "Morning Joe" today -- or John Edwards? The former Arkansas governor found an odd way to refute charges he's not a true conservative, indulging in some class-warfare rhetoric that would have been the envy of the former North Carolina senator.
Mika Brzezinski hit Huckabee with an excerpt from Bob Novak's column of today. Here are the opening paragraphs from Novak's False Conservative:
Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.
Huckabee's first reaction was to laugh off the criticism, saying that it hurt him so bad "I'm going to have to take half a baby aspirin to sleep tonight." But after comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Huckabee went on to offer this appeal to populism:
I'm not a candidate who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple, you know, I've come up the hard way. People understand that. I'm the only Republican that's saying the economy, while doing great for the people on Wall Street, is not necessarily translating down to the guys handling the bags and selling the tickets and serving you Cokes on the airplane. And there's just a whole lot of folks out there wondering if they're going to keep their jobs.When these guys attack me and call me a protectionist. Look, I'm a free trader. But there's nothing free and there's nothing fair about the trade agreements that lend us with a $232 billion trade deficit with China because we're not enforcing on their side of the border the same kind of regulations that we're forcing on American businesses. We're losing jobs; we're losing our competitive edge. We've got a tax system that needs to be totally overhauled, replaced, get rid of the IRS, bring in a consumption tax as opposed to this tax on productivity.
And that scares the daylights out of some of these guys who just kind of like business as it is and they don't really care if it's the Democrat or the Republican: just keep everything the same so they can continue to get wealthy at the expense of people who don't know if they can get their kids through school.
Look for the MSM to continue to give Huckabee plenty of airtime. He's an MSM two-fer: his populist message appeals to the liberal media, and to the extent he sows the whirlwind in GOP circles, all the better from the MSM perspective.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
He's certainly not honest
November 26, 2007 - 08:43 ET by sarcasmoIf he claims he's the "only Republican" critic of Wall Street vs main street...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Bias
November 26, 2007 - 08:45 ET by fosstenI'm sorry, maybe I'm just not awake this morning, but...
How is this an example of bias in the media?
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
I think it's more of a "man bites dog" thing
November 26, 2007 - 08:59 ET by sarcasmoIf the John Gibson show had-on a Democrat who used free-market capitalist arguments to counter Gibson's questions, that would seem to me like a similar situation to this one. You don't expect "greed" attacks on anti-tax/anti-spending groups from the political right any more than you'd expect Kucinich to cite Ludwig von Mises.
I'm astounded, despite his taxing, spending, and ethical issues as Arkansas governor, that Huckabee's getting the kid-glove treatment from the media he's been getting up to now. I suppose it's because he is glib, lost weight, and plays the guitar. If it weren't for sites like http://www.taxhikemike.org (promulgated by that evil "club for greed"!!!) we'd know almost-nothing about his past.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I suspect media rope-a-dope.
November 26, 2007 - 09:27 ET by dervishHe's getting kid glove treatment because the other glove has a blackjack in it. If he makes it as the Republican nominee, the media will suddenly discover that he was a Baptist preacher. I'm sure there are no end of tapes of things he's said -- relating to abortion, homosexuality, creationism, whatever -- that will be useful against him, but there's no point in knocking him out of the primary.
Here's an alternative explanation
November 26, 2007 - 10:09 ET by sarcasmoWith a focus on the CFR-influence on the news media that's rarely-spoken-of because it elicits "conspiracy theory" name-calling. (As if those politicians and media-droids who happen to be in power currently would somehow not conspire to remain in power!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
You keep asking for it...
November 27, 2007 - 05:30 ET by UnsaneWhat on earth do you have against Foreign Affairs magazine?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You keep parroting this allegation...
November 27, 2007 - 05:50 ET by sarcasmoBut the info on the CFR is out there for anyone who's halfway-interested, in a variety of places on the 'net, and the CFR, like it or not, is not just a boring magazine. Why are just-about all the Presidential candidates of BOTH parties CFR-members if it's just the lowly magazine you keep-desperately-trying to paint it as, anyway??? What magazine has that sort of influence, or ever had it in history?? Do some research, and evaluate your sources for once, as you keep preaching.
You keep not-answering coherently, but I'll keep exposing the CFR because the biased, lazy news media obviously WON'T talk about 'em at all. I bust bias here, and I call 'em like I see 'em.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I HAVE to keep parroting because you can't read
November 27, 2007 - 06:04 ET by UnsaneYou keep not-answering coherently The lack of ability to read on YOUR part does not constitute an emergency on MY part.
The reason I keep bringing up Foreign Affairs - which I see you are throwing a tantrum about, right now, or - dare I say it - maybe you are, to quote Sarcasmo "whining like a little girl"? - is because of your idiotic habit of ascribing immense power to a club of pencil-necked geeks and pointy-headed intellectuals.
Oh, but if only the nerds of the world had the power you say they have...
Again, not only do I sometimes taks a stab at their publication - though admittedly not in awhile - I looked into JOINING the CFR. I could, no doubt, still file for a candidacy with them. BUT, after doing my own research, I decided it would not be worth it, because they (like you) would HATE my "sorry, we tried" approach to diplomacy.
So, exposing the CFR? I will do that for you. http://www.cfr.org Easier than you thought.
Besides, did I not warn you previously that the next time I saw you - or anyone else - try to make out this pathetic organization into something infinitely bigger than it is, that I would ask you about the mag? It is about the only thing they are good for. The joke, as always, is squarely on you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Oh, yeah...Right.
November 27, 2007 - 06:21 ET by sarcasmoThe CFR's own website "exposes" them really-well. Good source evaluation -- believe what you're told!! I expect Hillary Clinton's website "exposes" Hillary in a very similar way. And when you whine like a little girl, I say it. So what? I call 'em like I see 'em, and frankly you've whined like a little girl quite frequently.
To be serious for a moment, even though the joke's again on you, because even the much-maligned-here Wikipedia is devastating. It also has good links for anyone ACTUALLY interested in honestly researching the CFR's influence and deciding for themselves just what it is.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
File Chapter 7 under intellect quick, crybaby
November 27, 2007 - 17:55 ET by UnsaneHey, aren't you the one constantly whining, in the case of your Reactionary God, that I should go see what he says? What, are you too scared to see what the CFR says???
I evaluated the source and know their biases. Of course, keep ignoring the nasty fact I know a little more about this organization than YOU do, as I could have joined them some years ago, and oh by the way, still can.
But then, as your dream is of a United States that is as hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world as possible, even nonprofit organizations of pencil-necked geeks and pointy-headed intellectuals that look at the wider world fills you with EXTREME TERROR. If you live in that much fear of a bunch of nerds like the CFR, then you will fear...and believe...anything you are told.
Keep whining like the little girl that YOU are, Sarcasmo, to quote Sarcasmo.
And when you whine like a little girl...and frankly you've whined like a little girl quite frequently. What, sarc, working for The Department of Redundancy Department??? If that is your ONLY criticism - ironic as it comes from THE BIGGEST CRYBABY on NB (and nothing compared to the tantrums you will be throwing come March or April) - you lose the argument by showing me that you are as intellectually bankrupt as any Leftist here...which is fitting, considering how much you accuse your opponents of what you most frequently and habitually do.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
He's getting the McCain
November 26, 2007 - 12:24 ET by NewsbusterbrownHe's getting the McCain treatment. As long as he hurts Republicans, the old media will lay off, but if he becomes a danger to Democrats...
Wow
November 26, 2007 - 18:02 ET by deerjerkydaveWow, that website shows Huckabee to be either a big liar or someone who makes up answers when he doesn't have one. Thanks for the link sarcasmo. He repeatedly says that his tax on gas was approved by voters on the ballot, when in reality he signed that tax into law himself.
And the Huckabee-bonus is...
November 26, 2007 - 18:24 ET by sarcasmoThe left, including the Democrats themselves, are ready to go with Mike's ethics-record. Those are the only cards they've revealed so-far, but resentful, partisan parts of the Clinton machine remain in that state, as well as lefty-journalists like the Salon-guy who've battled him for years.
I think it's safe to say we'll see more scandal, even if I have no idea what it will be, but IMO some of that dirt is likely to stick. (And I'll be honest, of the non-Paul candidates, I really like Fred Thompson -- who at least displays a whiff of states' rights Federalism at times -- much-better, despite my oft-repeated FL-gunshow-curiousity.)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Other Stories
November 26, 2007 - 19:26 ET by deerjerkydaveThere's a video on that website as well of Huckabee who while governor of Arkansas said that he has no problem with higher taxes. Recently Huckabee was asked about it and his rebuttal was that it was in the context of mandated Federal requirements. This also turned out to be untrue and his campaign had to make a correction to his statement. At best Huckabee is guilty of being unable to remember events accurately, but he forcefully argued his erroneous points as if he was certain in his mind that they were true.
The reality I've come to is that Huckabee is to the left of George W. Bush and I guarantee you that is not where the base wants to go. Huckabee talks a good game about abolishing the IRS but didn't GWB also claim during his two campaigns that he was going to push for a unified Federal tax system? The moment the vote was in the issue vanished into thin air. I have no confidence that Huckabee would be any better.
I agree that Fred Thompson would be much better than this guy, or Mitt Romney (my two favorites at the moment). Maybe Ron Paul would make for an interesting VP.
Please see new last
November 26, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Mark FinkelsteinPlease see new last paragraph.
I agree, Mark. He's about
November 26, 2007 - 12:23 ET by motherbeltLook for the MSM to continue to give Huckabee plenty of airtime. He's
an MSM two-fer: his populist message appeals to the liberal media, and
to the extent he sows the whirlwind in GOP circles, all the better from
the MSM perspective. Mark F.
I agree, Mark. He's about to become their favorite "even Republican."
Huckabee
November 26, 2007 - 12:23 ET by jitumaluI don't know how an attack piece on Huckabee comes under "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias."
If one would look at this in an intellectual and strategic point of view, what Gov. Huckabee is doing is very shrewd and effective. There is nothing wrong with having a populist rhetoric. Huckabee is offering free-market, conservative solutions to these real issues.
Let's use that classic story of giving someone fishes vs. teaching them how to fish. There is nothing wrong for a person to say, hey I understand what you are going through, but the best way for you to get fishes regularly without depending on anyone is by learning how to fish.
The democrats say, hey I understand what you are going through, let me constantly provide you fishes for the rest of your life.
We as conservatives lack empathy, and we can use that to our advantage to get the common folk to understand why we are very adamant on individual responsibility. There must be a combination with the head and the heart in how we communicate.
If one thinks Gov Huckabee is no different than the democrats, you haven't done your homework. I suggest you all listen to the debate between Gov. Huckabee and Sen. McCain on healthcare. If Gov. Huckabee was a liberal he would've said let the government fully fund healthcare. Go check it out for yourself.
http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/resources/ia_forum_webcast.html
Also on taxes, Gov Huckabee is for the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). Anyone with an decent IQ score knows that the fair tax is not a liberal tax policy. He has also signed the no new taxes pledge by Norquist, unlike some other candidates.
Finally on his educational background. If Gov. Huckabee was currently a pastor of a church without any kind of executive experience, you have a point. He has proven how he can lead an entire state and do it effectively. No one accuses him of being incompetant. He has been the Lieu. Govenor of Arkansas for 3 years, then Govenor for close to 11 years. While being Governor he served as the Chairman of the Southern Governors Association and also the Chairman of the National Governors Association.
Also he served in other leadership positions including president of the Council of State Governments, state co-chairman of the Delta Regional Authority, the Southern Regional Education Board, the Southern Growth Policies Board, the Southern Technology Council, the Southern International Trade Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
As former chairman of the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission, Huckabee worked with the 37-state coalition to develop energy policy and lobby Congress on energy matters, such as the regulation of oil and gas production.
Now what did Romney do as a one-term Governor of Massachusetts?
Note to NewsBusters: Please stick with your motto and focus on the liberal media and democrats.
http://justinok.blog...
I don't know how an attack
November 26, 2007 - 12:36 ET by motherbeltI don't know how an attack piece on Huckabee comes under "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias."
Note to NewsBusters: Please stick with your motto and focus on the liberal media and democrats. -jitumalu
Without disputing your premise: If you don't think that belongs here, why waste so much time responding to it?
Because
November 26, 2007 - 13:00 ET by jitumaluAnswer: Because it required a response. Anyone who read my response knows that I was responding to the 'liberal' charges and also the charge that his theology degree is an impediment. Thanks motherbelt for your reply, nonetheless.
By the way, on immigration Huckabee is in full support of building the border and he will build it. That's the first and most important solution as far as sovereignty and national security is concerned. I think 90% of americans agree on this issue. If you can't take a man at his word, then how are you going to believe the others, especially Romney, who has been all over the place?
I even heard some democrats are saying the same thing, which surprised me.
http://justinok.blog...
Yeah, jitumalu, I especially like Huckabee's "conservative"
November 26, 2007 - 12:50 ET by RJposition on establishing Anchor Babies for illegal aliens and their families.....
But, of course, you believe "we as conservatives lack empathy", right? Sounds like another guilt-ridden Democrat to me.
RJ
November 26, 2007 - 13:41 ET by jitumaluI already have discussed the illegal alien issue in the first anti-huckabee article on Newsbusters. You could refer to that.
You called me a guilt-ridden democrat and I am very offended by that. I could be called anything else and I wouldn't be as offended :)
RJ, all I was trying to say is we need to be smart in how we communicate our conservative ideals. Be emotional/empathetic when required, be logical when required, but always provide conservative solutions.
Are you telling me that you have no empathy towards anyone? Just because a person has empathy doesn't mean he/she is a liberal. Let's put our thinking caps here.
http://justinok.blog...
Did you "discuss" Huckabee's Anchor Baby proposal, jitumalu?
November 26, 2007 - 14:03 ET by RJ'Cause that's what he's disingenuously talking about....see, it translates to amnesty for their families.
Hey, I've got tons of empathy, but I don't wear it on my sleeve like guilt-ridden Democrats and their Republican clones.
However, it was YOU who flatly stated "We as conservatives lack empathy". I just called you on it.
Proper empathy would be to
November 26, 2007 - 14:48 ET by dscottProper empathy would be to identify the root cause of their wanting to come here illegally in the first place, that being incompetence of government officials not doing their jobs to pass necessary legal reforms to promote business activity. We can also sympathisize with illegals regarding incompetent government officials (Dems on our side of the border) who insist on throwing up roadblocks against business expansion which creates jobs. Either way, the source of the problem is NOT America or Americans, the source is incompetent foreign government officials who refuse to create a climate condusive to economic growth to at least match their population's needs.
The responsibility of illegal immigration falls squarely on foreign governments refusing to take care of their own people, however this is aggrevated by the collective incompetence of ICE, IRS and Social Security not doing their JOBS. How long have we been filing the I-9 form for employees to certify their legal working status? What set of geniuses at ICE and IRS decided not to run the SS# to verify compliance and prosecution of identity theft????? ID theft is a crime! Filing a false IRS return is a crime. Not filing an IRS return if you are required to do so is a crime. Enforce the friggin Laws, they are on American citizens!
Here's a hint to the Social Security Administration: If you are getting SS contributions from more than one state, the probability (not 100%) exists ID theft is occuring. It is the responsibility of SSA to insure taxes collected are accurately credited to the proper individual SS account. When you see more than one set of SS collections on the same individual during the same time period a red flag should go up, after all you morons are collecting the money. Yes, some people work more than one job at a time, however, once verified it shouldn't be an issue for the computer program not to flag it. All this stuff is done by computer, if Google can scan the internet for individual search results, you morons surely should be able to search for duplicate and triplicate uses of SS#s. Is it really that much to ask you people to do your jobs competently?????
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
RJ
November 26, 2007 - 15:00 ET by jitumaluProvide me a source to your anchor baby charges. Then I will respond.
About empathy, I don't sound want to like a broken record. I've said what I wanted to say. Just because you don't wear it on your sleeve, doesn't mean everyone has to do the same. I'm just being pragmatic thats all, right now the left hits us with a false stereotype of being pro-rich, when we are truly pro-individual and pro-freedom. Using a different method to communicate our ideals would be helpful, thats all I have to say.
http://justinok.blog...
It was called the DREAM
November 26, 2007 - 15:14 ET by dscottIt was called the DREAM Act, in which a child of an illegal after 5 years of being here (illegally) would be eligible for all benefits, including in state tuitition and essentially give their parents a green card. The anchor baby issue was high lighted by that woman who repeatedly was deported from the country, came back had a kid, then hold up in a church for over a year before finally being deported again.
Enabling bad behavior (whining) only begats more bad behavior. You can whine about the kids, but you are whining to the wrong people, you should be shouting at the top of your lungs at the foreign politicians who REFUSED to enact business friendly legislation to provide jobs for their own people. We are not the world's lifeboat for incompetent and callous governments who refuse to take care of their own. We are not the world's safety valve for unemployment or wealth for that matter.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Ah, jitumalu, isn't the fresh air great? :^)
November 26, 2007 - 15:21 ET by RJOk, you know what an Anchor Baby is, right? Just in case you don't, it's a baby with illegal parents that has been born in the U.S. That "anchors" it's illegal family here. Many illegals have done that deliberately.
Huckabee's proposal to provide educational rights to the children of illegals expands the concept to children not born in the U.S. Obviously, the illegal family has to stay in America to care for their child, right? Voila! Instant amnesty for the family.
Pretty straightforward stuff, and it's not new. The concept has been proposed here in Connecticut and in other deep blue states. The libs love it.
As for the "empathy" thing, let's not forget that you flatly said conservatives don't have any. As you said, you "said what you wanted to say."
RJ
November 26, 2007 - 15:49 ET by jitumaluOK, RJ you can cherry pick part of comment I said about conservatives not having empathy. I take that back, what I meant to say is that's how conservatives are stereotyped.
Now lets talk the facts about the 'anchor baby' proposal. On the state scholarship, the governor only supported the measure that applied to those who met the academic qualifications (high grades, attended an AR school, etc) and applied for legal citizenship. The measure didn't pass. Governor Huckabee stressed that any student would simply be treated as any other graduate of an Arkansas High School, and not given any special consideration.
How does that become an anchor proposal? First, the student has to apply for legal citizenship - the state cannot provide citizenship, the federal government does. Second, the student would be 18+ and so they don't need any parents to look after them. The measure didn't pass and eventhough I'm not excited about the proposal itself, I think it is safe to note most of the top-tier republicans including Huckabee have similar stances on the issue of illegal immigration
For those who are worried about where he stands on illegal immigration, check this link:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4
http://justinok.blog...
It's "cherry picking" to call you on an insult, jitumalu?
November 26, 2007 - 16:11 ET by RJHmmm. Well, in any event, I'm glad to see you've finally taken it back.
I listened carefully to Huckabee yesterday when he talked about illegal students. He didn't once allude to their being 18. He just talked generally about giving "good students" an opportunity.
Ok, let's assume that you're right that it's about college. As I said, many blue states have, or are trying to pass, the same concept. I'll use CT as an example. Here, the liberals want to pay for the illegal students' college, their health care, and give them other financial benefits.
Ignoring the fact that it's all free for them and ignoring the high cost to the citizens of the state, what about the legal students who cannot get into their schools of choice (or perhaps not into a school at all) because an illegal has taken their place? And is it "fair" that they have to pay their own way?
The concept stands or falls on it's own merits, and attempting to justify it because "others do it" doesn't make it palatable. Besides, I really doubt you'll be able to produce "top-tier Republicans (with) similar stances."
RJ
November 26, 2007 - 16:21 ET by jitumaluAbout listening to Huckabee, I suggest you look in a lot deeper than just one interview.
There was no quota on this scholarship. As far as other states like CT are concerned you should work harder at electing anti-amnesty candidates to the legislatures then.
Till there is a solution to illegal immigration from the federal government, the states have to look into their own best interest. It is much more cheaper to give a highly educated high school graduate 1000 dollars a semester rather than paying welfare for them because they are plucking fruits and raising chicken. This is just my point and not anybody else's.
This issue should've been solved by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush Jr. Now that this is a major issue in the campaign, it is taken much more seriously. Gov. Huckabee is clearly against amnesty and he's in full support of building the border.
I think I've made my point. Thanks.
http://justinok.blogspot.com
We're talking about what Huckabee said, jitumalu
November 26, 2007 - 16:37 ET by RJI don't need to go deeper on this issue. As I said, even if I agree that you're right that he was speaking of college (something he never mentioned) his proposal is still wrong.
I don't know what a "quota" has to do with the issue. There are only so many places available in each school, and any taken by illegals are not available to American students.
And if you don't think Connecticut's giveaway program would become more or less standard, then you're naive.
So now health care, stipends, etc, are ok with you. Incrementalism at it's finest. The more you talk, the more you reveal yourself (and, by extension, Huckabee) to be proponents of amnesty.
BTW, jitumalu, they're STILL "Anchor Babies"
November 26, 2007 - 16:45 ET by RJ...because they will be bringing their families in ASAP, continuing to jump ahead of others in line.
Given the high school
November 26, 2007 - 16:37 ET by dscottGiven the high school education they received at our expense, i.e. the property taxes we paid, don't you think they got enough already???? With their education here, they could go back to where they came from to live at the top of the heap there.
BTW-Why should out of state students pay higher than illegals on tuitition costs, it's way more than a $1,000 my friend. You are talking State subsidizies on the order of $10,000 per student or more per year when you look at the difference between in state vs out of state tuitition. How is this fair???? Why should a New Yorker pay over $25K/yr to go to FSU or USF in Florida when an illegal gets to go for $12 or $15K or less.
No it's much cheaper to deport them back to where they came from and tell their governments to get off their backsides in providing opportunities for "their" citizens.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
The Unfair Tax
November 28, 2007 - 03:11 ET by UnsaneAlso on taxes, Gov Huckabee is for the Fair Tax which in reality is the "Unfair Tax", as it is the most regressive form of taxation their is. In politics, whenever I hear ANYONE on either side of the aisle talk about anything being "fair", that is my cue to run like hell. Anyone with an decent IQ score knows that the fair tax is not a liberal tax policy. It might not be Leftist, but anyone with a decent IQ knows that it is bad policy to attack the very heart of the engine of the economy, which is consumer spending. Already in TX I pay 8% in sales taxes. Under the Unfair Tax, this goes to 30% or so. Guess what I will do with my wallet under such circumstances? Slam it shut. I won't be the only one.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"I'm sorry, maybe I'm just
November 26, 2007 - 12:06 ET by ckc1227"I'm sorry, maybe I'm just not awake this morning"
Why should THIS morning be different from any other time of day, any other day of the week?
I have to say, the more I
November 26, 2007 - 09:09 ET by Warner Todd HustonI have to say, the more I learn of Mike Huckabee, the less I like him. I guess there is a reason he ran well in a state run by Democrats!
-
November 26, 2007 - 09:16 ET by dahliatraversHis attempting to appeal to less-well-off Republicans as he responds to Club for Growth is not so bad.
What is a major problem is his stance on the border.
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/742931899.html
Yup
November 26, 2007 - 10:06 ET by well99Him and Rudy are soft on illegals.I really dont want either of these two winning the primary.I could care less about the Club for Growth or the rich.I just want someone who represents Americans.
I think Huckabee is reading
November 26, 2007 - 09:24 ET by motherbeltI think Huckabee is reading the writing on the wall, and saying what he thinks Americans want to hear.
And the fact is that a lot of Americans don't care if they vote for a Democrat or Republican; they just want to know who is going to take stuff (mainly money) away from "rich people" and give it to them, in fact or in kind.
That's why Bush and the Republicans passed the prescription drug plan: because people want free stuff. Republicans know if they don't deliver it, the Democrats will. And since they want to stay in power, they will give the electorate what they want. Being elected and re-elected is the name of the game.
Huckabee
November 26, 2007 - 09:32 ET by candanceYeah he's basically appealing to working-class conservatives who hate abortion and gun control but like the idea of taxing the rich. The more I see of him, I'm also starting to think of hims as a RINO.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Absolutely Unqualified to be President
November 26, 2007 - 10:34 ET by PopularTechMike Huckabee is the biggest joke going. How is this guy in the polls with a degree in "Theology" and support for Cap and Trade and CAFE standards? Electing Huckabee would cripple the economy. The only other idiot GOP running who support Cap and Trade is McCain, who thanks to showing his true colors on immigration has no chance of winning the nomination. But Huck should not even be considered as a VP candidate yet absolutely conservative and qualified candidates like Duncan Hunter are not even talked about.
A Quick Comparison of Each Presidential Candidate's Record and Plan for Global Warming
Now who do you think is more qualified to be president Huckabee or Romney?
Mike Huckabee:
B.A., Religion, Ouachita Baptist University (1976)
Ordained to ministry Southern Baptist Convention (1974)
Mitt Romney:
BA, Brigham Young University (1971)
MBA, Harvard Business School (1975)
JD, Harvard Law School (1975)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Romney a lawyer - not good
November 26, 2007 - 10:40 ET by fosstenSorry, but if you're trying to impress me with Romney's JD, you're barking up the wrong tree. This country is already ruled by too many lawyers, from the lowest judiciary to the highest office in the land. It's an elitist proletariat, and I'm not in favor of it. If that's the criteria I'm supposed to go by, I'd choose Ron Paul, who's a doctor, or Huck, who's (at the very least) NOT a lawyer.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Maybe you missed the MBA?
November 26, 2007 - 10:51 ET by PopularTechRomney is the only candidate with an M.B.A. and a J.D. which makes him both qualified to run the government and understand the laws.
Paul is qualified to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Surgeon General.
Huck is not qualified for anything except being a Baptist Minister, ooops he already is.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I get your point on the so
November 26, 2007 - 12:43 ET by dscottI get your point on the so called credental issue, Romney has got education and executive experience under his belt, however I think fossten is right that this is a distraction from the real issue of the candidate being "Representative" of the majority. We are not running a Meritocracy as envisioned by lib Dems. IMO, both Romney and Huckabee are RINOs. They don't "represent" the thinking of most conservatives, let alone the country.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Repub.
btw- check Tom's blog at www.bizzyblog.com and read the 5 part series on Romney. This guy has taken some very non conservative actions, and my friends, actions speak louder than words. Spin it any way you wish, but Romney is not a conservative.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
I hope not
November 26, 2007 - 19:05 ET by PopularTechIf Ron Paul was a libertarian he would be pro-legalization of drugs, pro-illegal immigration and pro-gay marriage. Don't get me wrong Paul is 100 times more qualified than Huckabee, he just as no chance of winning.
Like it or not the only candidates that have a chance to beat Hillary are Giuliani or Romney. I think it is great everyone is pulling for who they want but I just hope people don't show up at the polls because the GOP candidate is not their ideal. I will take Fiscal Conservative over 100% Socialist anyday.
The Polls don't lie
Right now the question you have to ask is could you vote for a Giuliani/Thompson ticket?
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
pro-legalization of drugs,
November 26, 2007 - 20:08 ET by dscottpro-legalization of drugs, pro-illegal immigration and pro-gay marriage
Ok Sarc, how does Ron Paul stand on these issues, since you seem to boost him at every opportunity???????
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Go look it up on his site.
November 27, 2007 - 06:14 ET by sarcasmoI'm not him, and I'm not your researcher, either. It's not that I boost Dr. Paul at every opportunity either, it's more like some people here BASH him under that description, as we've all seen over and over. I just bust bias, but sometimes the fact that I do it singlehandedly or the fact that I've busted NB's bias makes me inconvenient. It doesn't change the facts, though.
I still say the tax and spend drugwar is an expensive big government failure that engenders rampant corruption in politics & law enforcement, both here and abroad. One moral failure of the tax and spend drugwar lies in letting people like Jessica Lunsford's rapist/killer out early in order to keep some pothead in a jail cell at taxpayer expense because of brain-dead "mandatory minimum" sentencing laws. Prohibition generally implies "God creates mistakes but politicians don't," and I take exactly the opposite view. These arguments usually degenerate into lies and dimwitted name-calling, though, as we've also-seen here frequently.
I'm totally against illegal immigration, I say "go to the back of the line" for all of them. I thought Reagan's amnesty was morally and politically wrong at the time, but he signed it anyway. Blame Alzheimer's. I expected actual border enforcement from that point on, and America & I didn't get it, because law enforcement priorities in this country are screwed up (see above).
There should be a separation of marriage and state. I think so-many people worship big government that it's unthinkable for them. Big government worshippers tend not to want to ADMIT to worshipping big government, and they get insulted whenever I point-out the obvious as to what they really-worship, but "follow their money" and tell me who's right. I know exactly what they worship. Gays are individuals, who should have individual rights just like the rest of us. Most of them just want to be left alone, and those gays certainly have my sympathy. If they want to be monogamous & commit themselves legally in a relationship, I fail to see what conservatives have against it, no matter what gays or their churches want to call the commitment. It's just a word. Homosexuals can do what they want, as long as it doesn't cost me tax-money I'm fine with it.
Want the candidate's views on all these issues? Go look at what he's said/written. There's an entire internet FULL of his weekly columns, and google is your friend. Want mine? Ask me, like you just did. But don't expect me to speak for anyone else, or to do your research for you unless I feel like it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
THE TRUTH COMES OUT!
November 27, 2007 - 11:07 ET by PopularTechI told you!
Libertarians support legalization of Drugs
Libertarians support illegal immigration
So if Ron Paul does not support these issues, I would not call him a Libertarian.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Uh, the truth is...
November 27, 2007 - 11:12 ET by sarcasmoHe's still a Republican, like it or not. One would think your Google-skills would be better than just finding a different political party he ran with 2 decades ago...But nice try anyway.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
"Dr." Paul
November 27, 2007 - 11:16 ET by JimboHe's NO Republican. He's a libertarian riding the Rupublican wave until he decides the time is right to break ranks and run as an independent. I know you will have an aneurism trying to prove me wrong, but don't bother. It wont work.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Prove yourself right, then.
November 27, 2007 - 11:19 ET by sarcasmoHe's a Republican, like it or not. There's a small government wing of the Republican party that's been around a while, like it or not, and I don't feel any need to prove the obvious. Prove why you hysterically put scare quotes around "Dr." for a Republican Doctor who's been one for decades, instead.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
He'll prove it Sarc
November 27, 2007 - 11:34 ET by JimboI don't have to prove that he will break off and run as an independent. He will do that for me.
As for the quotes around "Dr.", I do it for two reasons. First, becasue while he portrays himself as an MD, it has no bearing whatsoever on his qualifications to be President and is a desperation move. Secondly, and more importantly, I do it because I know it pisses you off.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Nope, on 2 counts.
November 27, 2007 - 11:38 ET by sarcasmo1. Like it or not, "Plan B" is his Republican district.
2. It doesn't piss me off, because he's really a Doc whether you like it or not, but it does make you look particularly-hysterical whenever you try it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
MISTER
November 28, 2007 - 03:17 ET by UnsaneSo, MISTER Paul has an M.D. So what? I didn't constantly hear of a former TN Senator constantly referred to as Dr. Frist (example).
I don't know about the rest of the voters here, but I am not voting for OB/GYN. I AM voting for President. Therefore, your God's M.D. has zero bearing on the office he is campaigning for.
Hence, don't whine either when you see me refer to the SecState as Dr. Rice. At least her Ph. D. has a direct, relevant bearing to her office.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I understand that
November 27, 2007 - 12:18 ET by PopularTechRead what I wrote. Now answer these questions:
1. Do you believe in legalizing Drugs? Does Paul?
2. Do you believe in Gay Marriage? Does Paul?
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
See above.
November 27, 2007 - 13:44 ET by sarcasmoI've told you what I believed, and I've told you to go look for Paul's words if you're curious about him. My words above stand, like 'em or not.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Contradictions collapse
November 27, 2007 - 17:57 ET by UnsaneBut GOD HELP US ALL if YOU are told to look at an organization's website to see what they say about what they do(http://www.cfr.org).
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You are the Ron Paul Expert
November 27, 2007 - 21:04 ET by PopularTechI cannot find anything except Wikipedia which states his issues on these things, which is why I asked.
So you are trying to convince conservatives to go with someone who is Pro-Legalization of Drugs and Pro-Gay Marriage, GOOD LUCK!
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I'm with Fred! Having
November 26, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Free StinkerI'm with Fred!
Having said that, I will take Mitt, or Rudy over Hillary any day. Huckabee and McCain would be disasters for the country. Not close to Hillary, but with them I'd be voting against Hillary, not for Fred, Mitt, or Rudy.
My fellow evangelicals better wise up to these facts:
So how is it that Mitt Romney is going to "force" Mormanism on the US? If you beleive that, you have allowed the MSM to "play" you. Like a piano.
I'm with Fred! But as much as I have many, many, disagreements with Mormon theology (no, we're not discussing that, it's not the point) I will take Mitt in a heartbeat over Hillary.
"This generation is so damned spoiled and lazy, they wouldn't know a real threat to their freedom, until it interupted the
power-source to their X-box, and killed a half a million people!" - George S. Patton (sorrt of)
Trying to understand your
November 26, 2007 - 14:33 ET by Ruths husband BenTrying to understand your post in light of the other posts. I guess it is just a preemptive strike, as no one brought up Romney's faith. Not that I disagree with your point. There have been many Presidents of faith, maybe more than without. A personal belief system, even one I disagree with, is far better than someone with no personal ethics who will do whatever he/she believes is expedient. Personal belief systems only disqualify a candidate if thier belief system means that you have to force others to adopt your religion. Which is why I will never vote for a Muslim, a Global Warmist, an athiest, or a medieval Catholic (think Inquisition).
But I would vote for Romney or Huckabee a long time before I would vote for Rudy. When all the chips are on the table, it comes down to abortion as an issue that I can't get past. My concern is that the Republicans will nominate Rudy and I will, for the first time since Nixon's second term not be able to vote for anyone.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
When all the chips are on
November 26, 2007 - 14:53 ET by dscottWhen all the chips are on the table, it comes down to abortion as an issue that I can't get past.
Romney was for abortion before he was against it, and in fact via his recent universal health care legislation, made the citizens of Taxachuettes subsidize all abortions on demand. The cost, i.e. the copay is $50 in Taxachuettes for an abortion, thanks to Mitt Romney, the so called conservative. Do you hear him lamenting this????? Think again, real hard.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Agreed, but now he is
November 26, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Ruths husband BenAgreed, but now he is against it. My point was Romney versus Rudy who is for it. I am not a Romney fan (and in fact, I like Rudy for what he did in NY), but historically Presidents keep their campaign promises (and this is true for both sides of the isle). So, since he says he is against abortion now, I take him at his word on this.
To me, most of the conservatives running are only fiscal conservatives, e.g., Romney, McCain, Paul, Thompson. They throw social conservatism under the bus as soon as they see it as a hinderance or pick it up as a banner if they see an advantage. This is because the Republican power brokers could give a tinker's damn about social issues such as Abortion or Marriage, they are in it for the money.
Rudy probably figures his abortion stance will gain him votes among liberals who have too much sense to vote for Hillary and know that Obama has even less credibility. And he also figures that when election day comes, social conservatives will be backed into a corner - vote for him or Hillary - and will choose the lesser of two evils. But I, for one, cannot vote for either evil. To me, it would be like voting for someone who was pro-slavery or someone who was not in favor of it, but thought it was a personal choice. If you believe, as I do, that slavery or abortion is a crime against humanity, both positions are abhorent.
Which is why I will defy their gambit and vote for neither, if that is the only choice I have. It may result in Hillary in the White House, but it will not require me to be unfaithful to myself.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Agreed, but now he is
November 26, 2007 - 15:56 ET by dscottAgreed, but now he is against it. My point was Romney versus Rudy who is for it. I am not a Romney fan
I'm not so sure Romney is really against abortion given his actions in the most recent past, his actions don't match his words. When did Romney have this epiphany? What's the timeline??? Before or after he signed tax payer subsidized abortion under the guise of universal health care?
To me, it would be like voting for someone who was pro-slavery or someone who was not in favor of it, but thought it was a personal choice. If you believe, as I do, that slavery or abortion is a crime against humanity, both positions are abhorent.
Should anyone believe Romney then over his position on abortion given he is totally silent on abortion subsidization by Taxachuettes health care? Why does he not publicly state it was a "mistake" on his part he now regrets having it included in his health care solution????? Do you see the problem with Romney??? If one has an about face on an issue it is because something stirred deep within to cause that change (Paul on the road to Damascus), then one is equally stirred to speak out.
Romney is acting just like Hillary, having taken the most recent poll, looking at the primaries and deciding which position is most likely to get the nomination or at least which position is the least likely to offend the most voters, it's disengenuous on both their parts. At least with Rudy (I'm not a supporter of his, leaning toward Fred), we know what we have and a proper calculation can be made if his candidacy will suit our purposes. With Romney, anyone making a calculation concerning him is dealing with faulty numbers which brings one to the wrong result. If you vote for Romney you in effect are voting for Hillary, their positions ultimately are the same.
BTW-this is the same guy who also castigates Obama for having come clean on drug and alcohol use as a teenager, telling high schoolers to learn from his mistakes and follow a better path. While I don't support Obama, here is a person who shows contrition, whereas Romney not only doesn't show contrition over his past stance on abortion but then goes on to bad mouth those who do show it. That's 2 big red flags! And we haven't even dealt with the stealth tax increase he foisted on the citizens of Taxachuettes under the guise of universal health care! That's strike 3!
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Now you're making me do
November 26, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Ruths husband BenNow you're making me do homework! Okay, I went to Mitt Romney's homepage and searched for "abortion" and here is the story of his conversion and in his own words, here (emphasis and parenthetical added):
"It was during this battle (cloning) that I began to focus a good deal more of my thinking on abortion.
"When I first ran for office, while I was always personally opposed to abortion, I considered whether this should be a private decision or whether it should be a societal and government decision. I concluded that I would support the law as it was in place – effectively, the pro-choice position.
"And I was wrong.
"What became clear during the cloning debate is how the harsh logic of an absolute right to abortion had cheapened the value of human life to the point that rational people saw a human embryo as nothing more than mere research material to be used, and then destroyed"
Now, as to whether you believe it or don't, that is up to you.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Ben, More homework needed
November 26, 2007 - 16:26 ET by dscottBen, More homework needed there!!!! WHEN did Romney have the epiphany on abortion??? BEFORE or AFTER he signed RomneyCare????
http://www.krowenlaw.com/joy.htm April 12, 2006 he signed on to RomneyCare
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
There is an article linked
November 26, 2007 - 16:33 ET by Ruths husband BenThere is an article linked on his website dated December 22, 2006 that said his change was "recent". So, I guess near then. Now I am done being a Romney apologist (like I said earlier, I am not his biggest fan, I just consider him above Rudy) and I gotta go put a lasagna in the oven before Ruth comes home, so bye now.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Hmmm, is that home made
November 26, 2007 - 16:41 ET by dscottHmmm, is that home made lasagna or the 5 cheese from the frozen food section???? Any garlic bread with that? Making me hungry, How about an invitation to dinner?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Absolutely home made. My
November 26, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Ruths husband BenAbsolutely home made. My mother's recipe. I was just putting it together (I made the sauce yesterday, it is best for it to sit a day). I modified the recipe some years back and alternate a layer of swiss with the mozzerella. I am also a purist in that I use Romano (never Cottage Cheese) Cheese. And yes, we have homemade Italian bread tonight (not garlic bread, however). I confess that I don't make my own pasta though, I use dried store bought.
I don't know about the dinner invite, though. I only made two pans and one has to go to a friend of Ruth's who just had a baby. My son would fight you for the other.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
I checked out a similar
November 26, 2007 - 17:06 ET by dscottI checked out a similar article dated December 14, 2006. http://penguinsontheequator.blogspot.com/2006/12/romneys-change-of-position-on-abortion.html
it stated the following: My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard...
Then he stated: ...And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, “I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.” The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion.
So he was a self professed Pro-lifer years before in 2002 when he signed RomneyCare into Law in 2006!
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
There is no telling from
November 26, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Ruths husband BenThere is no telling from this side of his skull, how committed he is to the cause. I do think that he is a man of honor (i.e., he will keep his promise to be pro-life, if elected). In fact, I believe most politicians keep their campaign promises as failure to do so is a sure killer of re-election campaigns (think George H. W. Bush and "I will not vote to increase taxes"). In fact, it is the premise that politicians keep their promises that scares me most about Barack Obama.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Medieval Catholic?
November 26, 2007 - 19:10 ET by PopularTechWhat does that mean? Who is running that represents the inquisition?
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Huckabee? I don't think so.
November 26, 2007 - 13:35 ET by ConservativeRexHuckabee? I don't think so. If the MSM starts giving kudos to a Republican candidate you know they are up to no good.
Thompson? Nope. He won in a conservative state where he was arguably, more liberal than his constituency. A lot more liberal.
So that leaves Romney or Giuliani for me. A choice between two Yankees..imagine that!
CR... Your comment about
November 26, 2007 - 15:39 ET by Clear thinkerCR...
Your comment about Fred makes absolutley no sense. Can you clarify?
I will no longer vote for a RINO, so both of your picks are completely off the radar for me.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Another RINO
November 26, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Clear thinkerFrom the Des Moines Register...
We kept waiting for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to say he had been joking after telling a crowd in Des Moines that government needs to loosen restrictions on health-insurance companies. Less regulation would lead to more competition, his distorted thinking goes.
"The answer is not to pour government in," he told a group of mostly medical students at Des Moines University. "It's to get government out, and get the free-market health system."
This is from Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts when the state mandated everyone purchase health care.
So in his former office Romney supported forcing people to purchase insurance from the private sector, yet he wants that private sector to be subject to less government regulation?
We figured he had to be joking.
Mandating that Americans purchase insurance - which has been proposed by several presidential candidates, though not Romney - must be accompanied by a guarantee that insurance companies will actually provide necessary services and pay the bills for care.
Who, if not the government, is going to require that companies protect people against catastrophic costs?
This editorial page has written extensively about "under-insured Iowans" - a euphemism for people who buy insurance plans that offer poor coverage.
Case in point: Iowans Jan and Gary Clausen bought an AARP-endorsed plan for about $700 a month. They were left with more than $200,000 in medical bills after Gary was diagnosed with cancer. Some insurance.
Now imagine they had purchased that insurance because the government told them they had to purchase coverage.
Besides, despite Romney's rhetoric, private is not necessarily better than public when it comes to health insurance. Romney should compare the administrative costs between Medicare and the private sector.
We'll help him by offering this comparison: The head of the federal government agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid for more than 86 million Americans earns about $150,000 per year. The former chief executive officer of UnitedHealth Group Inc., which provides health insurance to about 11 million people, earned $8 million a year in pay and bonuses. His company stock options totaled $1.6 billion.
Not bad considering all those restrictive government regulations that Romney insists plague the private sector.
- Andie Dominick
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I'm glad you brought this
November 26, 2007 - 16:15 ET by dscottI'm glad you brought this up as it is a good segway into the whole issue of health insurance in Taxachuettes. I believe someone needs to confirm my conclusions about RomneyCare... The purpose of RomneyCare was two-fold:
1. Provide abortion on demand services affordable ($50) to the poor, subsidized by the taxpayer (in this case the insurance premium) as mandated by their coverage benefits.
2. Balance the Taxachuettes fiscal budget by shoving off the Medicaid cost directly onto the taxpayer in the form of insurance premiums. All residents of Taxachuettes are required to buy health insurance, those who meet the means test are subsidized by the premiums of those who don't qualify. Hence no State tax money goes to pay for medical care for the poor, the premium payers are paying it. So what happened to the money the State of Taxachuettes no longer has to spend on indigent care/Medicaid?????????????????? Ding, ding, ding, ding, you got it, chaching! It stays with the State treasury and covers any short fall in budget funding. Now you see why politicians are looking at RomneyCare, it screws the taxpayer twice and they didn't even realize it.
3. All illegal aliens are covered under RomneyCare, they must buy health insurance as well. Guess who gets to subsidize their policies, ding, ding, ding, ding. If you said the suckers of Taxachuettes, you would be right. Oh, the gift that keeps on giving....
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Huckabee hates
November 26, 2007 - 16:17 ET by Clear thinkerHuckabee hates this...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Arkansas Republican Assembly Endorses Fred Thompson
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Delegates from across Arkansas participated in a special Arkansas Republican Assembly (ARRA) Endorsement Convention. They considered 9 Republican presidential candidates. Unlike the Republican Party of Arkansas (RPA), who may not endorse a candidate before the primary, the ARRA may endorse candidates. While all the members of the ARRA are Republicans, the ARRA is an independent caucus made up of social, moral, and fiscal Conservative Arkansans who believe in God, family, and country and who work together in County Republican Assemblies in Arkansas to strengthen and to uphold moral and traditional family values and Republican principles and ideals.
An endorsement convention can be long and tedious. For a candidate to receive an endorsement, two-thirds (66.7%) of the ARRA delegates have to cast their ballots for that candidate. If a candidate achieves this percentage, voting ceases and the candidate is considered endorsed. At this years Endorsement convention, at the completion of the initial balloting, 80 percent of the delegates voted to endorse Fred Thompson. Balloting ceased.
The ARRA is pleased to announce its endorsement of former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee as the Republican Candidate for President. Earlier at its 10th annual state convention on Saturday, July 21, 2007 in Clarksville, Arkansas, the ARRA held a straw poll and Fred Thompson won the unofficial straw poll.
In summary, the endorsement convention delegates voted as follows: Fred Thompson 80%; Rudy Giuliani 6.67%; Ron Paul 4.44%; Mike Huckabee 4.44%; Mitt Romney 2.22%, Duncan Hunter 2.22%; John McCain, Tom Tancredo and Allan Keys 0%.
The ARRA was chartered Aug. 9, 1997 under the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), which has a 70 year history of success as a true grassroots organization. The NFRA is our nation's oldest and largest Republican volunteer organization. ARRA is presently chartering county chapters and serving as a gathering point for fiscal and social conservatives.
Labels: Arkansas Republican Assembly, ARRA, Bill Smith, conservative, Election 2008, endorsement, Fred Thompson, NFRA, presidential candidate, Republican
posted by Bill Smith / Editor at 1:37 PM
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Really newsbusters...Really?
November 26, 2007 - 22:23 ET by tekhakI mean is this a slow news day when you have to bash the Republican Candidates? I used to be a fan of NewsBusters, but instead of just reporting the Liberal Bias they seem to be taking sides in the election and endorsing candidates...
Huckabee may not be the best Candidate, but he is a whole lot better then then the "False" moral candiates like Romney who gave to Planned Parenthood as early as last year out of the Budget, and Post mdoern two answer Gulliani.
Huckabee is far better on Morality, which never changes despite terrible economy and War.
Remember, if this country was overrun by mexicans then Rape would still be a immoral. If This country went into an economic spiral then Abortion would still be Murder, and would still be Immoral.
Yet the top two candidates are going to do nothing to stop this crime. They apperntly won't do nothing for it either.
Seriously NewsBusters, you have turned into a whiny right wing blog, and less of something that deserves the MRC seal.
Oh yea while I am at it, Stop Bashing John Stewart and Colbert, they are probally two of the best comedians in the country and yes, I laugh at their jokes, even the ones that attack us. It's good to poke fun and have a sense of humor about yourself, and if you want to see some really funny stuff watch The Daily Show after a Democratic Debate, or re-runs from when Clinton was in office.
www.transplantministries.com
tekhak
November 26, 2007 - 22:26 ET by MrShyStewart and colbert are still very funny, I can't lie. And now there's the added fun I have when Jon gets righteous in his views, as I think he's so wrong and I can't imagine how someone that smart can be that wrong.
So, again, he's even MORE entertaining now... and he's still a very funny guy, indeed.
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
What kind of cheese goes good with your whine?
November 26, 2007 - 22:57 ET by well99Just curious
"I mean is this a slow news day when you have to bash the Republican Candidates? I used to be a fan of NewsBusters, but instead of just reporting the Liberal Bias they seem to be taking sides in the election and endorsing candidates"
"
Huckabee may not be the best Candidate, but he is a whole lot better then then the "False" moral candiates like Romney who gave to Planned Parenthood as early as last year out of the Budget, and Post mdoern two answer Gulliani."
That isnt taking sides?
"Oh yea while I am at it, Stop Bashing John Stewart and Colbert"
When did you become Dictator for life.That is Prof Truths job.Ask him.The debate is over.
Different angle on Huckabee
November 27, 2007 - 05:35 ET by UnsaneAnd now for a different angle.
It seems that Huckabee thinks it is the parents job to pay for their children's educations (I trust he means college). Well, my parents didn't pay for mine. Nor are parents obligated to pay for their children's college! What a concept!!!
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Huckabee = better at destroying the economy
November 27, 2007 - 10:52 ET by PopularTechYes you are correct Huckabee would be better than Romney or Giuliani at destroying the economy. You may want to ask what is more important having:
A. Having a job, being able to buy whatever car or truck you want and being able to practice your religious beliefs granted by the constitution.
B. Not having a job, Not being able to buy whatever car or truck you want but being able to practice your religious beliefs granted by the constitution and having a president who shares your religious beliefs 100%.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Mike Huckabee:
Ordained to ministry Southern Baptist Convention (1974)
B.A. Religion, Ouachita Baptist University (1976)
Huckabee Supports Cap and Trade and CAFE (MPG) Standards
You want the choice to be able to drive your pickup truck or SUV? Then don't support Huckabee!
Hell at least Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are not that insane.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Huck's FAIRTAX - NOT GOOD (for Politicians, Lobbyists)
November 27, 2007 - 22:32 ET by IanMy, the wisdom of FairTax naysayers who, like Rich Lowry, Robt Novak, and Pat Toomey, contend that HR 25 amounts to a pipedream! Might I suggest that they take a look at the growth in the numbers of co-sponsors over the last eight years?
Fact is, Mr. Huckabee has shown himself to be astute as to the ramifications of what FairTax means, not only to middle America, but to the United States' trade and manufacturing position, globally.
Further, because the income tax system affords politicians political cover to hide taxes in prices - by increasing costs to business, passed through to consumers, taxpayers will never be aware of the actual tax load they're carrying. This, Laurence Kotlikoff contends, does not support adequate taxpayer pressure on congressional spending, but rather distracts taxpayers against each other (poor against rich), and individual against corporation - while "Rome is burning."
Yes, the FairTax needs to be sold to the public. Mike Huckabee is best-suited to do that job because, like Reagan, he has the ability to communicate to the people and will help accelerate the urgently-needed transition to a consumption tax.
Impossible sell
November 28, 2007 - 03:24 ET by UnsaneIan - You are never going to convince me to raise my sales tax from 8% to 30%.
What is needed is a severe simplification of the present income tax:
1) No loopholes, no penalties, no BS, just a 15-17% income tax rate across the board.
2) Enshrine that tax rate in the Constitution by amending the 16th Amendment to reflect it. (Why? To stop Congress from tinkering with the tax code, of course...)
3) A Balanced Budget Amendment with a clause that forces Congress to pay off the national debt in 30 years. (That will save $200-300 billion in the budget for other things...)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And you wonder why the libs
November 28, 2007 - 11:18 ET by dscottAnd you wonder why the libs are crying about the AMT and not indexing it to inflation? The AMT is priniciply what you have outlined.
I agree with you on the UNfair Tax, can you imagine paying (23% plus state sales tax) 30% or so on buying a car? a house? Basically, only those who are wealthy could afford such a tax thus preventing the poor or middle class any access to standard of living advances. This is just another bad idea from the Ivory Tower thinkers.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.