Redstate

However, #5 contradicts #4. Hard working entrepreneurs become CEOs if they're hugely successful. And do you really want the government sticking their nose into how much money someone should make? That should be left up to the shareholders. If they approve the compensation, it's their money.

I also notice that you completely avoided AGW. Newt has some conservative ideas there, and those might not be so bad if Mike were to go that route.

You also make no mention of GWOT and Immigration. He's good on the first and really bad on the second which undermines his position on the first.

==== 13 ====

So I guess that leaves him with #1 and #4.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm glad you brought that up, we need debates that are serious about these issues. The Federal Government is too big, with too much authority, doing things it shouldn't be doing per our constitution. Having a discussion about getting rid of the Federal Tax Code is, in my opinion a worthy dialogue indeed. But ultimately it comes down to what you really want in a President.

I understand full well the difficulties in implementing the Fair Tax. Eliminating the 16th Amendment, Eliminating the Federal Income Tax Code, and entirely reworking the way Washington does business. However, I want a President who take a strong Federalist Stance in opposition to the Federal Government sticking their hand into my pocket and taking my money. I want a President who takes a strong Federalist Stance in opposition to the corruption that takes place in each and every bill that passes through Congress that makes loopholes (amendments) into our Tax Code, which is more than 9 times the size of the Holy Bible.

I think, a candidate for President who will stand up for the Fair Tax and has said strongly he will advocate it and the major changes it will need is something we need in a President. A President advocating radical changes rather than minute band-aids.

On a personal note, I'm 22 and carry the full realization that I, and my generation are going to have to pay for the corruption going on now. I'm in for the long haul and if someone doesn't start advocating these changes NOW then it will be even more difficult to make any changes later.

Is that I discount what is not possible. I actually like the FairTax but it will never happen. Everyone knows it will never happen. Huckabee certainly knows it will never happen. So his support for it (even if it is authentic... which I doubt) is irrelevant. If he is such a big fan of abolishing the income tax why didn't he attempt to do it in AR? I mean he did show a preference for sales tax hikes over income tax hikes, but he seemed to like both just fine and he certainly didn't suggest eliminating the income tax.

I then discount what is not consistent with the candidate's record. He talks a good game on taxes now, but his record is awful. Most of the stuff he came up with on taxes (tax pledge, FairTax) he only came up with after the CFG "aka Club for Greed" started attacking him on his fiscal record. That makes it seem defensive in nature. Given the total disconnect between the record and the talk, I will go with the record every time.

And there's no reason to think his nannystate impulses will be contained at the Federal level. He has shown he has those impulses. Why would he resist them if he were in the White House?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

But I'll do some checking up on it for future threads.

He favored Sales tax increase in Arkansas- that's true, so did the populace when they voted overwhelmingly (80%) to increase the sales taxes for better road construction. When a tax increase is done by ballot initiative and the population supports it, it's an entirely different ball game.

Yet, he cut taxes 85 times including the largest income tax decrease in Arkansas' history.

In terms of nannystate impulses: you make it seem like he's just itching, just dying to, absolutely cannot wait to implement the largest federal government we've ever seen. This is completely unrealistic given the bedrock of his record in Arkansas: which I invite you freely to check out. My only request is that you dig a little deeper than the Club4Growth "white papers" or blogs which only cite them.

And no, he's supported the Fair Tax and signed the no tax increase pledge long before the C4G's white papers came out, and their ads against him in Iowa.

The Huckabots like to claim this referendum was for whatever he is being criticized about at the moment. Sometimes its the gas tax, sometimes its one of the sales tax increases, sometimes its the income tax hike, but it wasn't for any of that. It was a referendum on whether to issue bonds to pay for infrastructure.

CFG came out with this stuff before he did any of that. That's why CFG mentions that he refused to sign the tax pledge, because at the time, he wouldn't sign it. It is totally defensive in nature, because his record is awful. There's nobody in this race that has a worse record on taxes. His record would be bad even if he were running for the Democrat nomination.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The Huckabots like to claim this referendum was for whatever he is being criticized about at the moment.

I bring it up because anytime the Rudabots, Fredabots, Hillabots, RomnaBots or any other bots come out and cite the C4G "white paper" with authority, all they're doing is spitting out the same crap the C4G fed them.

I bring it up because it shows the clear and distinct differences between what was needed/wanted in his state (essential services, infrastructure development and other legitimate services required of by local and state governments). If 80% of the people in Arkansas supported this referendum (which the C4G cites as part of Huckabee's "nanny-state" governance), then how further off is the C4G?

You might want to find out the facts behind it and what it actually applies to rather than just making it up as you go along. Or do you have a source that shows that all his tax hikes (sales, gas, income) were each approved by 80% voter referendums? I would be interested in seeing that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Arkansas voted on a BOND ISSUE related to roads. The increased gas tax was not part if the issue and was not on the ballot.

Rev. Huckabee is now and has been since day one, lying about this. Given the history of C4G v Huckabee's history, there's not much effort involved in who has more credibility. Rep Toomey and C4G have it all over The Huckster.

Your guy is, pure and simple, a patent medicine salesman with a product that is deadly for the consumer.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Did the CEO who just left Citibank found Citibank?

Did the CEO of Exxon found Exxon?

Did the CEO of Enron found Enron?

I'm so glad you pointed this out, because many of my conservative friends here are a bit confused with entrepreneurship and huge payouts to CEOs. An entrepreneur, a founder of a business takes it from scratch and builds it up. Say it stays a private company, say his son inherits it, and his son and his son. I have absolutely no quarrel whatsoever with them getting their due.

But when a public company forms a board and that board brings on a CEO for 5 years worth of time, and then gets fired due to a change in direction of the company- then I, and most of America have serious issues with that board then paying out millions of dollars to that CEO.

There's a major difference between #4 and #5, but my points don't contradict themselves.

In terms of Newt, Huckabee is the only candidate who has attended his forums and has been serious about Lincoln-Douglas debates. If Fred were serious, he would've agreed to one with Huckabee.

Brownback and Huckabee matched up in Iowa at Armstrong's Cancer Forum.

McCain and Huckabee matched up in Iowa at the AARP 'divided we fail forum.

And Fred? I think he just hit the snooze button again. (cheap shot in jest)

But when a public company forms a board and that board brings on a CEO for 5 years worth of time, and then gets fired due to a change in direction of the company- then I, and most of America have serious issues with that board then paying out millions of dollars to that CEO.

You're saying that the government should have the right to decide how a company spends its money?

You may have issues with it, and millions more may have issues too. If so, stop using that company's products & services. Don't ask the government to play corporate board. The government can't even run itself.

--------------------------------------
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
-- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)

You're saying that the government should have the right to decide how a company spends its money? No, and Huckabee doesn't support that either. That said, there is a clear distinction between employees receiving and losing stock options and corporate CEO gifts.

You may have issues with it, and millions more may have issues too. If so, stop using that company's products & services. Don't ask the government to play corporate board. The government can't even run itself. And when it's too late? When the numbers come out, the CEO is fired, given millions of dollars and the company collapses? Where does that leave the supplier, buyer and purchaser of said company's good or service? They're left out to dry, while one person has a pot of gold. I'm not disagreeing with you, don't get me wrong: but this is a seriously eff'ed up sense of corporate justice.

I'm not disagreeing with you, don't get me wrong: but this is a seriously eff'ed up sense of corporate justice.

Yeah, but I sure don't want the government involved. Maybe those stockholders should start insisting on "prenups" that limit such payouts. Anything but government intervention.

--------------------------------------
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
-- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)

He says he wants his campaign rhetoric back.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

But when a public company forms a board and that board brings on a CEO for 5 years worth of time, and then gets fired due to a change in direction of the company- then I, and most of America have serious issues with that board then paying out millions of dollars to that CEO.

So what's the solution, nanny-stater? Stock options already granted should be stolen back? Contracts should be voided by the government? Regulate more!

Oh and founders may start and build a company, but professional management is usually needed to take those to the next level.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

who think that Huckabee can pick up enough Electoral College votes to actually WIN the election...

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Saying he's from the south. Our most eloquent candidate with a strong bedrock of solid conservative principles. Also, according to Rasmussen Reports he's currently polling the best against Hillary out of all our Republican candidates.

They have just about as much value as preseason predictions for any sport. They'll only begin to have value closer to the end.

==== 13 ====

clothing.

He is "good" on SoCon issues that the President has essentially NO control over other than judicial appointments. We have no clue what kind of nominations Huck would make, but given his long history of "bipartisanship" there is no reason to believe his nominees would look like anything but Kennedy or SDO. Beyond that, he'll have all the influence that my dead white cat has on the issue.

As a libertarian leaninf Republican, your second contention is simply stupid and offensive. This guy spent his whole career expandind the role of government and increasing taxes in AR. Now he wants to get the fed involved in "preventative healthcare" and implement the FairTax. Given that implementing FT will be a very long process - if at all - and will cause a major disruption in where taxes come from, the opportunity for a tax loving guy like Huck is overwhelming. And anybody dumb enoungh to actually believe that he will follow through on his "no tax" pledge deserves the higher tax bill they will get. Look for him to start talking about "shifting" the burden - that's what he did in AR and it's nothing more than code for a stealth tax increase.

With respect to CEO's salaries and regulation, he can go directly to h*ll. The fed has no business regulating CEO salaries - until they're willing to deal with the corruption in their own midst that makes Enron look like chump change. And as far as regulation is concerned, that's done by the permanent welfare class of bureaucrat in DC. No Republican President has ever, or will ever impact that. Check RR & GWB for examples. Given that Huck thinks the role of governmet is to help people, why would you think he'd reduce it's role.

As far as being a "man of character and eloquence", so what. That's a lot of the appeal of GWB. For all his "good" qualities, he's still a socialist and nothing more than GWBII.

No thank you very much.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

of actually saying "mbecker908 is going to say the same thing again" at the end of my comment.

Have you done any additional research after its been requested you do so after any of your past comments. I swear you're like an autobot: A Huckabee post is up and you come out saying "Socialist, Socialist, Socialist."

In terms of your points(again):

He is "good" on SoCon issues that the President has essentially NO control over other than judicial appointments.
AND I want complete confidence that he'll do so. Rudy can say all he wants about appointing strict constructionists- he didn't do so in NYC, and I don't trust him to do it as President.

We have no clue what kind of nominations Huck would make, but given his long history of "bipartisanship" there is no reason to believe his nominees would look like anything but Kennedy or SDO. That's Bull and you know it, nice try bending "bipartisanship" to mean "sell out of principles" (which Rudy, Mitt, McCain and Thompson have all done)

expanding the role of government

and increasing taxes in AR Yet he cut taxes 85+ times. Many of the "tax increases" you rail against were passed by ballot initiative, the biggest receiving 80% of the vote. Libertarian? That's direct democracy!

the fed involved in "preventative healthcare" First, please point to any of his policies that would increase federal Government Responsibility- you'll find none. As far as I've heard, he'll use the Presidency as a bully pulpit on the issue. Most insurance issues are dealt with by the states now, yet most insurance regulations, etc do NOT make is feasible for insurance companies to get involved in preventative health care. your point on this has been refuted by others multiple times

Implement the FairTax. Why the hell not advocate getting rid of the corrupt Federal Tax Code. Given that implementing FT will be a very long process - if at all - and will cause a major disruption in where taxes come from, the opportunity for a tax loving guy like Huck Bull again is overwhelming. It was a very long process getting to where we are now in terms of the size of the federal Government and it will be a long process breaking that down.

With respect to CEO's salaries and regulation, he can go directly to h*ll. The fed has no business regulating CEO salaries - until they're willing to deal with the corruption in their own midst that makes Enron look like chump change. And yet you're too big of a p***y to stand up and say "Yes, lets tackle the Federal Tax Code, where a majority of the corruption takes place because it'll "take too long." We're not talking about the Fed regulating CEO Salaries, we're talking about Gives in the size of hundreds of millions of dollars to CEOs right after they've been let go. Do some research.

And as far as regulation is concerned, that's done by the permanent welfare class of bureaucrat in DC. No Republican President has ever, or will ever impact that. Check RR & GWB for examples. and yet once again, we shouldn't make any effort to cut through the over regulation of the federal Government? And you call yourself a libertarian? Please...

Given that Huck thinks the role of governmet is to help people, why would you think he'd reduce it's role. Did the Federal Government help his wife when she had cancer? When he was diagnosed with Diabetes and took the individual initiative to lose over 100lbs? Huckabee said on Hannity clear as a whistle that he's not for doing so. (yes I know, you'll come out now with "He can't be trusted"- you're a broken record)

As far as being a "man of character and eloquence", so what. That's a lot of the appeal of GWB. Yeah, Bush is eloquent. Bush stood for 2 days to get serious Social Security reform, and he's been in the low 30's ever since. I want an advocate who will take 4 years and do everything he can in those 4 years to reduce the role of the Federal Government."

Why don't you make one post where everything can be refuted instead of copy-pasting the same points into every Huckabee thread?

I always expect your posts to be insightful and this one doesn't dissapoint. I agree with you 100% on this.

Huckabee is such a nanny-stater economic liberal that he can't even hide it during the primaries. He wants to tax us and spend our money for our own good just like the Democrats.

Thanks to the no tax pledge and the War on Terror it would still be worth going out to vote for him over Hillary in the unlikely event he is nominated, but as far as the primaries there is no reason a libertarian conservative should vote for Huckabee.

...a nanny state in reform clothing. There is nothing libertarian about getting the entire country hooked on monthly/quarterly gubmint checks.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

About having a federal government the size that it currently is, with the over-regulation and corruption it permits.

The fair tax is definitely a step in the right direction.

getting more people OFF government subsidies is a way to lessen the size of the government. Or do you think that sending more money to DC and them redistributing out in the form of prebates that are paid out are going to somehow make the government smaller?

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I have a huge problem with that too. Sending everyone in the country a check every month is just about the worst thing we could possibly do. Very soon the Democrats will be saying, "Why not send out a bigger check! The poor and middle class can't make ends meet!" They'll index it to wages and pretty soon the average person will be getting half of their money from government checks. More and more people won't pay any taxes at all and will just want bigger refund checks.

Doesn't the clear fact that Huckabee has a guilt-ridden mindset trouble you? Some of his statements about immigration are so far-left that they should give pause to any conservative who is considering supporting him.

If elected, we should fully expect him to be horrible on immigration and racial preferences. Of course, the current Republican President is terrible on those already, but I think it would be nice to have a genuinely conservative conservative President.

Particularly if Hillary is his opponent. She's stuck at 48 percent and unlikely to get any higher.

If Huck isn't the nominee for the GOP, most of the Huck crowd will rally around whoever gets it. Just like the ficons will rally around Huck if he's the nominee, right?

The difference, IMO, is that Huck has broader appeal to independents and blue-collar Reagan Democrats.

This isn't a pipe dream for Huckabee supporters. The bottom line is, of those who meet him or have the opportunity to hear him speak for more than the ten second to two minute sound bites, most come away with a postive enthusiasm not felt in a long time.

Once Huck gets a larger audience, he will sell well in lots of circles (excpet mbecker circles...NO SALE!)

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

The difference, IMO, is that Huck has broader appeal to independents and blue-collar Reagan Democrats.

Just like W, right? We've seen this movie before. Where the compassionate conservative rides in and is supposed to appeal to moderates and independents because of the "compassionate" part and to conservatives because of the "conservative" part. It doesn't work that way.

W isn't getting a 3rd term. Huckabee isn't getting a 1st. It would really amount to the same thing, since Huckabee takes W's "compassionate conservatism" to the next level. People from all over the political spectrum are sick of "compassionate conservatism" after 8 long years.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

When I first heard the term "compassionate conservatism" it bothered me. It bothered me just as much as the "gentler, kinder America" speech. After 4 years of Bush I, and now 8 years of Bush II, it is clear that the Bushes were not comfortable with Reagan conservatism. Their statements should have been a warnings. But I ignored my gut feeling and went along. Well, I am not prepared to do the same. Huck sounds like another Bush.

If Huck isn't the nominee for the GOP, most of the Huck crowd will rally around whoever gets it. Just like the ficons will rally around Huck if he's the nominee, right?

From what I can tell, yes. But I suspect---based on the caterwauling from Team Dobson HQ---there are more socons who will boycott a Giuliani as nominee than there are ficons who will boycott a Huckabee.

No vote for the GOP nominee is a defacto vote for Hillary, and all that comes with it. No one should be allowed to profess ignorance of this important point. Especially after Lord's reminder of not-too-recent history, and of a time when so much was thrown away.

May we wage a spirited primary. And, if Huck is the guy you think he is, then he will indeed generate enough of a following, in the right primary states, to win.

We'll see. But I'm not holding my breath.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Agreed. No breath-holding.

We'll need both of our votes for the GOP nominee.

Following the cell phone commercial...we need a candidate such as...."Mittfred McHuckiani."

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

you should copy-paste that and post it everytime mbecker copy-paste's his...

He's for a massive regulatory scheme to "fix" the "problem" but doesn't even necessarily believe that problem exists? That's just great.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Again, let's be precise....

1) Huckabee has never indicated he favors a "massive regulatory scheme" to fix global warming. He HAS indicated support for a LIMITED cap and trade program to deal with acid rain issues...the ONE area where cap and trade appears to have demonstrated success.

2) He supports conservation, not to "fix the problem" of global warming, but to be a good steward of the earth. Are you in favor of more pollution, dirtier water, etc.??? Didn't think so. I don't believe in global warming either...man-made or otherwise...I think it's a massive hoax. But I can still believe in helping keep a cleaner environment.

IMO, his rhetoric is perfect in maintaining conservative principles while appealing to independents. Good strategy. Good politics. Conservatives win.

Blessings!

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

Is go to a Bass Pro Shops to see all the things hunters and gamers do for the environment. I think Huckabee stands for more common-sense approaches like this, and is upset conservatives have entirely fled the scene and the debate.

It's the government stepping in, creating a whole new industry and picking industries as either winners or losers. It's a carbon tax, except instead of the tax going to the treasury, it goes to the "right" kind of businesses.

If he doesn't believe in AGW and still wants to implement cap and trade, then he is an idiot. That position doesn't even make any sense.

Are you in favor of more pollution, dirtier water, etc.??? Didn't think so.

Maybe you can describe how CO2 emissions qualify as "more pollution" or describe how it results in "dirtier water."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

If Hillary is able to blur the differences on domestic issues between her and Huck, the social issues will take center stage. Can the GOP win solely on guns, gays and abortion?

Republicans cannot win on only guns, gays, and abortion, and that's the only issues that will differentiate a Huckabee versus Hillary contest.

The Republican Party has lost appeal because it has essentially become a socially conservative, fiscally liberal party. It has lost its way on being the party of small government.

We need to channel more of Barry Goldwater, and less of George W. Bush.

I think Huckabee is wonderful human being, but he's essentially a pro-life liberal. I also don't see him having the toughness to take on the Clintons.

How's a former Baptist preacher going to be effective at going negative?

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

in the general election?

If he wins, the Republican Party and affiliated organizations are great at doing that. In fact, there are a multitude of anti-Hillary campaigns already started. Huckabee only needs to get his message out, and in doing so differentiate himself from Clinton. Which, as you can imagine, won't be too difficult given his record and life experiences(tossed that in because Huckabee's self-depricating humor refers to it often.

Hillary vs. Huck will come down to social issues

Pro-life vs. Pro-choice
Pro-guns vs. Gun control
Pro-gay rights vs. No gay rights

Is this enough for the GOP to win in the general election? I think not.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

the social conservatives. The problem has been the refusal of the 2000-2006 GOP congress to aggressively pursue a conservative agenda on fiscal matters and to aggresively attack the lib dems on their attacks on the war and national security. All this was made more difficult by Bush winning election on the NCLB and MedPx admittedly. But Fiscons need to put together a detaile plan on what rsmalled govt would look like, how its better than what we have now, and precisely how we get there without too much pain.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

you meant Cuba!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

passed)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

The Republican Party has lost appeal because it has essentially become a socially conservative, fiscally liberal party. It has lost its way on being the party of small government.

Do you have any evidence for that?

From everything I understand, the Republicans are doing poorly for two reasons and two reasons alone: corruption and the war in Iraq ("Bush's" war). I don't believe for one second that a decline of fiscal conservatism had anything thing to do with a single 2006 loss. I think some of the people complaining about spending are using it as an excuse to oppose the war on conservative-sounding grounds.

A lot of people would argue that Republicans have lost their socially conservative positions as well or not acted enough on them, and that will hurt Republicans more than it helps if it makes ANY change.

.

That may or may not be, but we really don't have enough information to tell what will influence people's votes in 2008. I think the war and corrpution have left a lot of people with a bad impression of Bush and Republicans in general that could take a while to shake off. The media hasn't helped either.

I don't believe for one second that people will change parties because they want someone who is more socially liberal, though they may abandon Republicans who fail them on other issues including spending. However, we will not know until closer to the election.

Rudy's positions on social issues, while disturbing to some, are largely moot due to (a) his pledges and statements (all affirmatively made) to social conservative leaders

Is then Huckabee's pledge to fiscal conservative leaders to not raise taxes (the biggest argument made on this site against Huckabee) made mute as well?

The tax pledge is nothing but a gimmick. I suspect that Huck will fulfill his pledge just like Bush I held to his "read my lips" promise. Frankly, I am tired of these stupid, meaningless pledges. Signing a tax pledge does not equal fiscal discipline or smaller government. To me, the fact that Huck has labeled the Club for Growth, the Club for Greed is more much significant than him signing the tax pledge.

Huckabee is a former minister who in 11 yrs of governing in a DEM state has never... never broken his word, pledge, or been accused of doing so. He has never changed his position on a significant public policy issue. Yet you are going to place more stock in a rhetorical use of the term "club for Greed" responding to on an organization that did a biased hit piece on him (see e.g. outstanding rebuttal "Fiscally Flawed? -- A Rebuttal to the Club for Growth at www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004053.html )
than you are the pledge of this man not to ever raise taxes.
AND you are just going to trust politicians running for conservatives' vote in the GOP nomination who won't take such a pledge?
One more thing: Bush 1 did not PLEDGE not to raise taxes, tho said he wouldn't; Huckabee has promised/pledged under Grover Norquist's organizations terms.

I forgot.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

But with no momentum anywhere, there's no reason to support him.

When I started supporting Huckabee he was low in the polls, but was at least having some traction in Iowa. Now he's gaining traction in Iowa, NH, SC, MI and even in my home state of Delaware.

n/t
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

A RINO? Sorry, but RINO's don't cut taxes 85 times. RINO's aren't federalists and RINOs don't have supporters on this site.

TOTALLY MEANINGLESS numbers you guys have fond them. He cut taxes 85 times! He also left the residents of the state with a net higher tax burden. It's easy to cut taxes 85 times when you raise them like crazy first.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/11/11/romney_cri...

me why is 30 words or less?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

It's not a new opinion. I just never had reason to express it since Huckabee was just another face in the crowd.

Shatter: To split the base by giving one sizable part of it the finger, and so making that part of the base wide open to vote for someone else or stay home. George H.W. Bush shattered the party when he broke his tax pledge, setting us up for Ross Perot in '92.

30 words? I'm not that concise, heh. But here goes:

And why? I think it's fair to say that we have a three legged stool in our party. Defense of social values, defense of economic liberty, and defense of the nation against foreign threats are the baseline set by Ronald Reagan in our new coalition. Huckabee would lose us all the activists of that second leg, who get worked up about things like cutting programs, spending, and taxes.

HTML Help for Red Staters

social issues with promises that will satisfy most sc-cons if he gets the nomination but I Huck's nannystatism IS him. Do you really think that a sizeable number of fiscal cons would sit it out if he were the nominee?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

And I can also tell you this: We KNOW from '92 that when Republicans go in that direction, that there are people who will flock to the nearest guy talking about fiscal discipline.

And that person this time around will be Herr Doctor Representative Ronald Paul.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"coming around" on social issues is a sign of hypocrisy? I think the Robertson endorsement backfired on Rudy this week because it was so clearly cynical on both their parts. When Rudy was seperated from his wife, he lived with a gay couple and said he'd love to preside over their marriage one day. What is he now going to say? "I hate those guys."

Rudy strikes me as a huckster with no moral core. He is the same as Romney. A big phoney willing to say whatever he has to say to get elected.

I understand Huckabee's appeal. He comes across as real and warm and concerned. In the current field of R's running, that is a plus.

Rudy wants a job. He wants the GOP to hire him. We have some demands. He can promise to advance or not advance certain policies depite his views.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

we actually trust him to do what he says? Nothing in his past record shows him to be conservative on issues of gay marriage and abortion. Nothing. That is a big leap for social cons to make. And if that is their most important issue, why shouldn't they go for Huckabee or even Thompson or McCain?

And Kate O'Beirne made a good point the other day on Tucker. If Rudy is the nominee and Hillary is the Dem nominee, it takes a lot of possible attacks off the table. (She was referring to the Clinton marriage and hanging out with shady characters.)

the lesson the GOP taught Bush 41 in 92. Second, Rudy kept his promises in NYC. Third, Rudy would want to be re-elected.

Rudy's views on gays and abortion are less relevant at the federal level esp given some of promises to date, which include his opposition to gay marriage, promise not to expand abortion rights, and the Bork fed-soc appellate ct bench of judges he will be forced to choose from.

That said, I am pro life and i favor Fred and Mitt over Rudy

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Gamecock, rudy refuses to MAKE any promises about taxes (only Romney and Huck among serious candidates have agreed to no new tax pledge) and has a fiscal liberal-moderate record on spending. As Romney pointed out in a recent debate:

" Romney: Guiliani also fought to keep the commuter tax, which was a very substantial tax, a almost $400 million tax on commuters coming into New York.
And when it's all said and done, if you're a New York taxpayer, city taxpayer, your state and city tax combined can reach as high as 10 percent. And in our state, if you're aBoston worker, it's going to be more like 5.3 percent.

Giuliani indeed fought like a wolverine when state officials moved to eliminate the city's non-resident income tax. He lost that battle. During 1999, the last year it was in effect, it brought in close to $400 million, according to an estimate by the city's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office, as Romney says. Romney's also correct about New York City taxes – in fact, at the end of Giuliani's term, combined city and state taxes went as high as 10.5 percent for some residents."
See more at www.factcheck.org/mitt_and_rudys_cherry_orchard.html

I agree, the GOP has three legs, each important to victory in 2008.

If Huck is nominated, you predict the fiscal leg will vacate?

Wouldn't the same hold true for a candidate who primarily represents any of the legs?

Mittfred McHuckiani isn't running, but whoever gets the nomination will have my support. I would hope the ficons would do the same.

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

When you've devoted a great portion of your life to fighting for a cause, you don't turn around and work for a guy who works agianst you on your cause.

That's why pro-life activists would stay home instead of helping Giuliani, and that's why small government activists would stay home instead of helping Huckabee.

And notwithstanding those people rewriting the small government out of Ronald Reagan, that matters.

HTML Help for Red Staters

stay home in large numbers. As the race narrows, the candidates will have more chances to speak to the electorate and make their cases. Most republican voters have not made up their mind. People who blog are much more likely to have chosen sides and to be vocal about it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It doesn't take large numbers to swing a state and lose the election.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I agree with you concerning Huckabee who had this to say to
Bill Sammon of the Wash. Examiner

One of my complaints with Republicans in my own party is that, true or not, we’re perceived as the people whose tax policies do tilt toward the people at the top end of the economic scale, with disregard to the people who are barely making it.

And I think it’s in many ways a legitimate criticism.

LINK

My other pick for somebody who would shatter the party is McCain who said this about the Bush tax cuts

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.

LINK

GOP candidates who embrace the class warfare rhetoric of the Democratic party will indeed shatter the GOP.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

burden is so heavily levied on the wealthy now, that his statement means that he would raise taxes.

he's out

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

...when they occurred from the beginning and has been long on record for making those tax cuts permanent, as even the CFG hit-job admitted.

Speaking for the CFG attack, its discredited well here

www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004053.html
and evidence of bias from moderates supportive of Clinton and Romney campaigns here:
http://conservablogs.com/nuke/2007/11/06/more-on-the-club-for-growths-sm...

gamecock, the rest of the quote is finished at the link he points to says...
"“And I think it’s in many ways a legitimate criticism,” he says. “Certainly we COMMUNICATE very poorly how our tax policies are going to help the family out there who are barely struggling to pay rent.”

Huckabee in a very DEM controlled with a very strongly DEM controlled legislature for the first time in ARK history was able to push significant tax decreases through, but only had so much power. Here's a comparison with Romney statistically:
Huckabee vs. Romney
State+Local Tax Burden

Summary

As a percent of income, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee & Arkansas: 0.11%
Romney & Massachusetts: 0.175%

In terms of actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee and Arkansas: $70.98
Romney and Massachusetts: $139.19

Analysis That Yields These Statistics

Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden as a Percent of Income

The following charts demonstrate the comparison between Huckabee and Romney with respect to tax burden as a percent of total income during their tenures as governor.

Arkanasas' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html

Using 1996 and 2007 for Huckabee, we see that the state+local tax burden for Arkansans went from 10.1% of income to 11.3% of income for an increase of 1.2% over 11 years (Governor Huckabee serving for 10 and a half of those), or an average of .11% per year.

Massachusetts' Tax Burden as a Percent of Income
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/460.html

Using 2002 and 2006 for Mitt Romney, we see that the state+local tax burden for Massachusettsians (?) went from 9.8% to 10.5% over 4 years for an increase of .7% over 4 years, or an average increase of .175% per year.

Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of .11% per year.
Under Romney, increase of .175% per year.

Huckabee vs. Romney - Tax Burden in Actual Dollars (inflation adjusted to the year 2000)
http://www.pnreap.org/United_States/comparative-trends-analysis.php?indi...
(choose Arkansas then Massachusetts on the right, then click on "Generate & Display Output"; when the next screen appears, scroll down to the graph at the bottom: "Arkansas and Massachusetts: Per Capita Income, 1969-2006")

Arkansas' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation adjusted to the year 2000:
1996: $20,232 per capita income * 10.1% state+local tax burden = $2,043.43
2006: $24,804 per capita income * 11.1% state+local tax burden = $2,753.24

Increase over 10 years = $2,753.24 - $2,043.43 = $709.81
Increase per year = $70.98

Massachusetts' tax burden in actual dollars, inflation adjusted to the year 2000:
2002: $37,536 per capita income * 9.8% state+local tax burden = $3,678.53
2006: $40,336 per capita income * 10.5% state+local tax burden = $4,235.28

Increase over 4 years = $4,235.28 - $3,678.53 = $556.75
Increase per year = $139.19

Conclusion:
Under Huckabee, increase of $70.98 per year.
Under Romney, increase of $139.19 per year.

[[[[Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform ]]]

A 37% increase annualized over 10 years is close to, if not less than, the annual rate of inflation. Why does the CFG not point that out. Are they intentionally being misleading?

Must be a great source. Yes I'd trust a guy who thinks that tax RATES should increase at the rate of inflation over CFG.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I was surprised at your Huck link on taxes so I actually looked at it. You conveniently left out the next sentence which clarifies that his criticism isn't about GOP tax policy but how it is communicated to the poor. He's right we don't adequately communicate how our tax policies can positively impact poor families.

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

.

tax policy as favoring the rich is legitimate. I don't have to see the next sentence unless he takes back his first two sentences as having misspoke. Did he? no

Reagan, Newt and Bush43 reduced tax rates on the lower income group to where few pay federal taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers pay 90+% of taxes.

There is no legitimacy to the dem's claims. That Huck thinks there is, brings his knowledge or character in question.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

If Huckabee says that the Dem's criticism of GOP tax policy is legitimate he's dead wrong.

First off, we currently have a federal income tax rate structure which is progressive, with higher marginal tax rates at higher levels of income.

So, inevitably, whenever a Republican president wants to cut income tax rates, a high income person is going to get a tax cut with more dollars in it than a low income person. In fact, many low income people don't even pay federal income taxes. And a large proportion of personal federal income taxes are paid by the top 10 percent income earners.

If Mike Huckabee approves of this state of affairs, the use of the taxing power of the state to redistribute income, that's his business. But if that's the case, maybe he should switch parties.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

-ted.

I think one of the main mistakes made in political prognostications (and I have been intimately involved in these cycles my whole life, and so have seen this happen ad nauseum - and no Neil, yours don't make me hurl!) is how campaigns change the whole dynamic.

Once the nominees are picked and the public focusses on the two visions, what usually occurs is that the conservative has a huge advantage.

And as to Rudy, I just think that, if he is the nominee, that once he engages in detail and is juxtaposed with the liberal, the base will be happy to not shatter.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Its stupid to say that fiscal conservatives would be so offended by Huckabee that they'd vote for... Hillary??!!!???

So, I guess what you are saying is; Social Conservatives are stupid because they will.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Its stupid to say that fiscal conservatives would be so offended by Huckabee that they'd vote for... Hillary??!!!???

Do you not notice that what you wrote there is the exact same thing fiscons say about Rudy? Please do notice it; it's critical that you do.

Huckabee, who's signed the no-new-tax pledge

Rudy has said he'll appoint strict constructionist judges. Most SoCons I see on RedState are having none of it. Why assume that fiscons will believe Huckabee? It's hard to look at Huckabee without seeing readable lips.

is for an extremely conservative elimination of the income tax for a national sales tax

No one sane believes that is going to happen in our lifetimes. People are terrified of Big Changes. That's the one thing we have going for us against HillaryCare. At the end of the day, most people will take the devil they know. Huckabee knows this. He can pander all day on this and never have to deliver.

any many many prolifers in the heartland of America would go ahead and support a 3rd party if prochoice/gay rights guiliani gets in

And yet you believe that other Republicans will support Mr. Global Warming Health Nazi. Why would they? Both of those things are windows into Huckabee's soul. On all the things he doesn't discuss or are today unforeseen, a reasonable person has to assume that he'll come down on the same side as most Democrats. He thinks like them. What makes you think that most Republicans would support a Democrat just because your hot button gets pushed?

Show me a true GOP-type fiscal conservative who is seriously going to bolt the party.

You'd do it. You said so yourself. What, you have strongly-held principles but nobody else does? Get over yourself.

Find a pro-life candidate who isn't a Democrat. Hurry.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

...but I'm definitely NOT voting for Huckabee. Whether that means I'm not a "GOP-type" fiscal conservative (whatever *that* means...) or not, it's a pretty common sentiment amongst most of the FiCons *I* know.

Why would I (or any other FiCon) trust Huckabee's tax pledge? The SoCons don't trust Giuliani's pledge to nominate the judges *they* want. We have just as much reason to believe the one as you do the other.

(As for the so-called Fair Tax - *don't* get me started -- it's not only nearly impossible to pass, but contains the biggest entitlement program this country has ever seen. It makes Social Security look fiscally conservative by comparison. Show me a version of that which *doesn't* include that ridiculous prebate, and I *might* give it a second look.)

Yeah, the SoCons are saying they'll abandon us if Giuliani gets the nod, but when you look carefully, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them accept him anyway because even though he's not what they want, he's *better* than Hilary on their issues. Yes, there will be a few who don't, but most will.

The FiCons, on the other hand, have had to put up with GWB for 7 years now, and if Huckabee, who is actually *worse* than Hilary on fiscal issues, gets the nod, I think we're going to abandon him in droves. And may never come back -- I know a lot of my FiCon friends have already given up the GOP as a lost cause. A Huckabee nomination may be the final straw for most of the rest of us.

First off, Reply To This is the link you need to start hitting when you reply to people.

Secondly, I guess if enough Republicans think like you, you all are just going to have to be taught a lesson if you insist on noninating Huckabee. If the Stupid Party makes this kind of mistake every decade though, we're not going to get very far.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The stupid party listens to those voices in the GOP establishment running things for quite a while (like they warned in 1976 and 1980 against Reagan) that we need a more moderate conservatism to avoid scaring away voters, appointing people like Bush I and Bush II, Guiliani and Romney.

Conviction and conservatism communicated by genuine true believers in it wins elections.

And I'm still waiting for your response to my mocking you for the "conventional wisdom" argument that there is any significant portion of the "base" that would abandon the party over a Huckabee nomination, as there IS clear evidence that many would stay home or go elsewhere for a Guiliani presidency.

You responded with hand-waving dissent. Until you have more to refute me than that, I don't see anything to respond to, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters

...who proposes an assertion. You assert that Huckabee is "a mirror" of Guiliani, saying in effect that just about as many people would abandon the GOP ticket with Huck at the top due to his so-called fiscal moderate positions as would abandon Guiliani for his socially liberal positions. That Huck would "shatter the base"; I said thats ridiculous, are you willing to answer Gamecock (no Huck supporter) and point to some evidence for this assertion? I can't disprove something you have brought no evidence forward for; I can point to a significant voting block of people (I'm among them) who would not hold their nose and vote for Guiliani, show me one signficant person or argue in more detail please as to who these fiscal conservatives are that have said if Huckabee is at the top they would go vote for some 3rd party person. As an aside, Ron Paul sells himself as prolife and is a danger for social conservatives/evangelicals flocking to him in greater #s if they are extremely dissatisfied with perceived liberalism of the head of the GOP ticket.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Neil

Are you comparing Huck's Liberalism to "Sanctuary City" Rudy's?

That's putting lipstick on a pig if I ever saw it.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

HTML Help for Red Staters

Neil

So it comes down to which flavor of Liberalism this current crop of Republicans are offering up on the menu doesn't it.

The Tax and Spend Liberalism of Huck, with a dash of sanctuary thrown in.

or

Rudy's Tax and Spend, and sue the Federal Government when your trough gets a little less Hog feed, with large helpings of social liberalism on abortion, gay rights, sanctuary city and other untraditional Republican fix'ns.

or

Mitt's every election season changing what's on the menu to get what ever votes he needs? Well, with of course the recommendations of who ever is his menu consultant and image consultants are telling him.

or

Fred still trying to figure out where the kitchen is, and if he really wants to fire up the stove and cook up some vittles.

Oh My!

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

If you don't think that the small government Republicans won't bolt because you don't think they'd vote for Sen. Clinton, doesn't that same logic apply to the pro life Republicans?

HTML Help for Red Staters

This is a much more informed article on the situation.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/11/11/romney_cri...

sure

I've never been wrong

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This Reply To This

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

or did you -- in the instant between my clicking on your comment, and its appearing on my screen -- change the subject title?

I didn't like the other one.

say late last week? Hint: Dr Dobson isn't close to endorsing anyone.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You assume that Giuliani's name recognition and money are enough to win voters nationwide everywhere even if he loses in early states.

Keep in mind that the national attention and media will be covering the winners and losers and poll numbers will change VERY rapidly and in many UNFORSEEN ways after that happens. Also, Huckabee's name recognition if he wins in Iowa and South Carolina will be very high as well.

Lastly, if Romney or Huckabee win in Iowa, Romney in NH, Fred or Huckabee in S.C. and Romney again in Michigan, where is Giuliani's momentum?

I don't think he can lose all the early states and go into the Super Tuesday and expcet to win. By then the media will have slaughtered him on the count of having "disappointing performances" in the early states, they will be singing the praises of who ever does well in the early states, and money and organization won't matter much anymore.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were also very little known, almost no name candidates, until they won the early states. That clearly shows that not having a national organization and buckets of money aren't necessary to get the nomination and can overcome candidates that do have those benefits.

I am not saying Rudy doesn't have a chance, but I see his campaign fading quickly if he doesn't win SOMETHING in the early states or comes VERY close to. 3rd or 4th place finishes all around will pop his campaign like a pin to a balloon.

You are right about Carter. Carter was an unknown, and didn't get any cred till he won Iowa.

You are wrong about Clinton. Clinton was an early favorite, who tanked when the Tsongas thing got running, and he didn't compete in Iowa, because Tom Harkin was running and basically everybody wrote it off. Clinton then lost New Hampshire as well, but finished a strong second after people thought (one of the Clinton scandals, I can't keep em all sorted out) would kill him. He then declared himself the "Comeback Kid," and "Won" New Hampshire even though he technically lost it.

Anyhow, the difference between both of those situations is that back then, there was actually time between the primaries and caucuses, so winning them got you weeks of free publicity, not days. I don't think Giuliani has to "win" any early state, just not get murdered, and his money and name recognition, along with a pretty loyal following, is very capable of winning it.

It's not a sure thing by any means, but it's the most plausible scenario if Huckabee does well.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

That'll leave Rudy to win New Hampshire.

Isn't Romney favored to win NH?

Romney is ahead right now in New Hampshire, but the chances of him staying ahead if he loses Iowa are slim to none. He's dumped BUCKETS of money and time into Iowa, and it'll basically be a death rattle if he loses Iowa. If he wins smaller then expected, it'll be really harmful too.

He's been losing his lead slowly anyway, and the air will go out of his balloon really, really fast if he doesn't run the table on early primaries. If he loses Iowa, he's basically finished, and he's the only one who can match Giuliani in terms of money or organization.

Which, like I said originally, is why good news for Huckabee is really good new for Giuliani.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

...you would know how to find the freaking Reply to This link under a comment you want to, erm, reply to.

Darn it, man - have some of that Arkansas-style compassionate conservatism for Hinz, will ya?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

that you NOT call the CEO of RedState a liar.

It's your call -- just saying...

...and don't worry, I don't normally have the time to sit here all day pushing Huck, a strange hobby for today...

oh, and I forgot guiliani on 'global warming'...
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=16854

And I'll take back the "lying" thing too, lets just call it 'misleading'.

Check the cites, I just pulled a Romney one at random, there's much more evidence that he's been a bigger believer in the record than Huck.

He has specifically for 'carbon credits' or 'cap and trade', specifically came out against them.

As part of our overall effort, I also support a cap and trade system

So he came out against them before he came out for them or was it the other way around? His position on this is incredibly stupid. I'd take Barbara Boxers's position on AGW over Huckabee's. At least hers is somewhat logical.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman