Club for Growth is not gunning for Governor Jindal

By Neil Stevens Posted in | | | Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Whilst the leftosphere borders on Civil War over the failure of Democratic leaders, Senator Obama included, to defeat the President's wishes on FISA and war funding, we on the right have had our own debate over our own rising star's first real conflict.

Yes, of course, I mean Governor Jindal and the legislative pay hike. Some on the right are up in arms, angry that given the opportunity to draw the line, gather the people behind him, and face down the intransigent legislators, he's turned it down, deciding it wasn't the fight to take.

Personally it doesn't bother me but then again, I'm not all that opposed to professional legislators, being an opponent of term limits as well. If all that Jindal had to trade off to get sweeping ethical reform in Louisiana, was a clean pay raise for the lowest paid legislators in the country, then I thought that was reasonable. So I was shocked to hear that there's actually a recall effort starting against the Governor.

Club for Growth was less shocked, though, and therein lay a controversy here at Red State.

Read on...

Hairs shot up on the necks of a great many Republicans. At least, among those who took Governor Mike Huckabee's side against the organization, Club for Growth's subdued, objective comments about the recall seemed an implied attack on Jindal. Jindal was The Next Target of the Club For Greed™.

However I saw no such thing. Certainly CfG wasn't jumping to Jindal's defense, but they are a single interest group. It's not their job to get awed at the way he wantonly tears down the corrupt, fascist Kingfish legacy. In fact, if Jindal were to raise the tax burden of his state way up, I'd appreciate it if CfG were to warn us before we go and nominate Governor Jindal in 2016.

But no, contrary to the fears of some, Club for Growth is not taking a position at all on the Jindal recall. I have it in writing from CfG Communications Director Nachama Soloveichik, who was nice enough to respond so quickly to my query about this issue.

Why the posts, though? Soloveichik says that CfG is attempting to follow the news on all the leading prospects for Senator McCain's running mate, and of course that includes Jindal. CfG is also looking at the economic records of each candidate, just as they did for the Presidential candidates.

I believe it. Governor Jindal does not have much of a record yet. It's not his fault, but he hasn't been in office for even a year yet. So naturally, Club for Growth has little to work with in evaluating him, and so when they count the pay hike as a strike against him, they don't have much else to balance against it. But just the same, they're not treating this one thing the same as, say, Governor Huckabee's long record which included multiple substantial tax and spending increases.

So we can all relax. Conservatives who like CfG and Jindal do not have to choose.

« BREAKING: Bobby Jindal vetoes pay raise.Comments (29) | Gov. Bobby Jindal Signs Bill to Chemically Castrate Sex OffendersComments (51) »
Club for Growth is not gunning for Governor Jindal 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Unlike you I kind'a like the 22nd term limit amendment, but I do like both Jindal and CfG, and I do not see any big deal breaker issues between them.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

an opportunity for the Huckabots to take a shot at C4G and the folks who value their input on the issue that they follow, and follow well.

Thanks Neil.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

"...the corrupt, fascist Kingfish legacy." Nice turn of a phrase.

"Governor Jindal does not have much of a record yet." Experience like Gov. Jindal is getting now is what makes governors better candidates for President than most senators -- governors actually have to face and resolve conflicts. Senators can grandstand and pontificate for 6 years.

We should be the party with the discipline to nominate candidates for high office who are more than pretty-boy party hacks who have no legislation and one speech on their resume.

"PsychObama, qu'est-ce que c'est?"

It's what they don't tell you.

They were correct about Huckabee's tax and spending increases. What they didn't tell you is that Huckabee's veto could be overridden by a majority vote and that he had a Democratic legislature that's 70-90% Democratic through his entire tenure in office.

They didn't tell you that there were 2 court rulings that forced additional money to be spent on Education and Medicaid.

I wonder what conservative here could have done better than Huckabee did under those circumstances?

As for Jindal, the idea that his record is short is notable except during his brief time in office, he accomplished a school choice program and introduced and gained passage of a tax cut for business.

His educational accomplishments has been given short shrift, and I've seen no mention in recent discussion of his vitally needed business tax cut.

They've gone after his Congressional record, but somehow failed to note his 98% anti-pork performance on the 2007 RePork card. Their own report card! And they didn't bother to mention it when trying to explain that his record was uninspiring
among their list. I don't know, I consider someone with a 98% anti-pork record to be fairly inspiring.

I didn't come out for Huckabee until after Super Tuesday. But then I began to research this, I became angry. The Club for Growth didn't lie, but they sure as heck deceived me with incomplete information. They're doing the same thing with Bobby Jindal.

The nomination of John McCain can be laid at the feet of the Club for Growth whose obsessive compulsive campaign against Mike Huckabee gave John McCain the South Carolina Primary and the presidency. Where we'll their economic puritanism lead in 2012 or 2016?

I still read the Club for Growth blog and they find stories I use on my blog or website, two or three times a week. On my Slatecard, I have two currently endorsed CFG candidates, Lt. Governor Sean Parnell and Congressman Paul Braun (R-GA) on my slatecard, along with former CFG candidates, Bill Sali and Michelle Bachman. There’s no denying that CFG does some good work, but their recent antics have caused me to view their statements with a far-more skeptical eye.

Adam's Blog

"The nomination of John McCain can be laid at the feet of the Club for Growth..."

No, I'm pretty sure it can be laid at the feet of the voters.

And what does "education" have to do with the Club for Growth's mission? I don't look to them to judge schooling records. I look to them to judge pro-growth policies.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Neil, I'd refer to the CFG White paper where they attack Huckabee for not supporting School Choice (and fail to note that there was strong opposition from religious school administrators who didn't want government to run their schools.) But, here's what CFG says:

The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education can only lead to higher quality and lower costs.

Neil, has the Club's mission and position on school choice changed in the past year. If so, could you show me where they changed it?

Adam's Blog

It's funny how that works. Anything Huck did that's good, he takes sole credit for. Anything Huck did that's bad, was forced on him by outside elements.

Does he walk on water too?

HTML Help for Red Staters


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

No, Huckabee doesn't walk on water. You may still think he should have pushed reform, or proposed lower budgets even with the circumstances he faced. But if you don't acknowledge what the circumstances are, you don't really know the full story.

Reason concluded in 1975 regarding Ronald Reagan's record that there were many troubling things including increasing government and tax hikes, but, "one’s administrative decisions, constrained as they are by existing laws, institutions, and politics, do not necessarily mirror one’s underlying philosophy."

Reason '75 is far wiser than today's guardians of the right.

Adam's Blog

There are always excuses. There are always Democrats to reach out to, bleeding heart liberal programs to fund, and one-sided compromises to be made.

Some people made the excuses. Others don't.

Time will tell if Jindal is like Huckabee on that or not, but we don't know that yet, so I'm glad CfG is staying out of it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Some people made the excuses. Others don't.

Let me quote your own post, "If all that Jindal had to trade off to get sweeping ethical reform in Louisiana, was a clean pay raise for the lowest paid legislators in the country, then I thought that was reasonable."

You just made an excuse for Bobby Jindal to raise legislative pay, and a reasonable excuse at that. So, who are the conservatives that need absolutely no excuse and have governed in a way? What about Reagan?

He was asked his first term tax increase by Reason. His response:

Oh, for heavens sakes, I don’t know what the percentage was–but you see, the problem was that the state budget we inherited didn’t mean anything. We got in and found that to get through the election year, the previous administration had changed the bookkeeping and had a budget that was financed by 15 months’ revenue. By changing to an accrual method of bookkeeping, what they really were doing was postponing until after the election what they knew was going to have to be a tax increase. We won and found that out to our surprise –because we were quite unable, even in the period between election and inauguration, to get very much information from the outgoing administration. It was not an orderly transition! In fact, the Director of Finance in his briefing said to one of my representatives, “Look, we’re spending a million dollars a day more than we’re taking in–I’ve got a golf game–good luck.” That was our briefing in finance! We had to–much as we objected–institute a gigantic tax increase, and put the state back on a solvent basis. I said at the time that I did not recognize that as permanent–that we were going to try to give the money back to the people, just as we could institute reforms. Over the eight-year period we gave back in the form of one-time rebates, tax cuts and even bridge toll cuts $5.7 billion–which comes pretty close to giving back the amount of that increase.

Neil, would you say this is an excuse? Or not an excuse? If it's not an excuse, please explain what Governor Reagan is saying. If it is an excuse, could you name a leader who doesn't make and never has made "an excuse" and has never had to sit and explain his record.

It seems to me that we have to understand the concept of context and what actually happened.

Adam's Blog

But we'll see if it's the exception, or the rule with him. It certainly seemed to be the rule with Huckabee, while it was the exception with Reagan.

I'm not going to evaluate his whole time of office based on one veto decision one time, when the rest isn't even done yet, any more than I judge Reagan's whole time in office based on one or two decisions.

You seem to forget: Huck was in office a long time. That's plenty of time not just to react to circumstances, but to dictate them over time. Note that Jindal and Reagan both are having to make these compromises upon entering office. Huck was making them for years.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Well, Huckabee was in office a long time, so was Reagan. Here's what Reason concluded regarding Governor Reagan:

Reagan did institute property and inventory tax cuts, but during his tenure the sales tax was increased to six percent and withholding was introduced to the state income tax system. Under Reagan’s administration, state funding for public schools (grades K- 12) increased 105 percent (although enrollment went up only 5 percent), state support for junior colleges increased 323 percent, and grants and loans to college students increased 900 percent Reagan’s major proposal to hold down the cost of government was a constitutional amendment to limit state spending to a specified (slowly declining) percentage of the gross income of the state’s population. The measure was submitted to the voters as an initiative measure, Proposition One, but was defeated when liberal opponents pictured it as a measure that would force local tax increases.

Reagan instituted a major overhaul of the state welfare system that reduced the total welfare caseload (which had been rapidly increasing) while raising benefits by 30 percent and increasing administrative costs.

This would seem to include quite a few "excuses" including increasing administrative costs for Welfare, raising K-12 by 105 percent and Junior College Spending by 300 percent, and College Aid by 900 percent. Over the long term, Reagan had some issues, just like Huckabee did. Although, unlike Huckabee, Reagan had a legislature that was split about 50-50 and a veto that could only be overturned by a 2/3 vote. It would seem the records are equivalent.

Adam's Blog

Governor Reagan was not a supply-sider so the fact that he raised taxes to try to balance the budget is not surprising even if it was wrong. President Reagan didn't become a supply sider until he was running for President in 1980.

That Governor Huckabee signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge not to raise taxes as well. So, if Reagan's Tax increases aren't issue, than why should Huckabee's be?

Adam's Blog

You seem to be under the impression that if you do your best to knock Reagan's time as Governor, it will somehow elevate people's view of Huck. You are mistaken and falling into a fallacy.

Showing that Reagan and Huck may have shared faults, does not mean they shared the virtues that made Reagan so loved.

HTML Help for Red Staters

time.

No cable news. No Internet. No Club for Growth. No supply side economics in the public debate. Monster tax rates in excess of 70%

Huckabee has a much more conservative-friendly atmosphere in terms of public support and resources.

There is a reason why it was called Reaganomics in 1980--becuase NOBODY else in the public sphere (besides National Review) was arguing for supply-side economics.

In summary: Reagan had less to start with, and did far more with it.

Reagan would have liked Huckabee, but he wouldn't have put Huckabee in a job dealing with economic issues.

First of all, if Reagan were a wonk, the Laffer Curve was in existence long before 1980. And the idea of "lower taxes and less spending" was hardly revolutionary.

Second point, though is that Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

And again, the issue being raised is Arkansas where Reaganomics at a state level was not accepted. Even if Supply Side theory were in place in 1967, Reagan would not have been able to get the legislature to cut spending as much as he needed meaning a tax increase would have still happened.

Adam's Blog

and certainly no Presidential candidate was. Moreover, Reagan was talking about the burdens of big government going back to the 64 Convention.

if so, name the candidate?

Reagn broke new ground, ground the Huckabee was incapable of spreading to Arkansas, so why would he be more successful in DC?

Don't bring down Reagan to make Huckabee look better. It just ticks off the people you need to persuade.

How about a President who talked about the burdens of big government in 1924:


I'm not trying to bring Reagan down to any level other than that of a Great Man who helped America rediscover great ideas rather than a demigod who was a conservative political Christ. He was a great man and it should be celebrated. However, he had flaws and he made mistakes. (Two of them were named O'Connor and Kennedy.) He raised taxes in 1982, despite the Laffer Curve, despite everything he raised taxes.

When we deify Reagan and forget his faults, we do neither Reagan nor the country justice.

Adam's Blog

What I’m trying to establish is that a less than impressive record as Governor does not mean one will make a lousy President or that somehow having problems as governor means you’re not a conservative.

I would say he shares many things in common with President Reagan:

1) Optimism and a real belief in the greatness of America, which I think he explained very well at the last Reagan Library debate. Huckabee has what Barack Obama only tries to imitate. Obama’s “optimism” takes a very high view of Obama, but a low view of the country. Huckabee’s optimism is based in a love and a respect for his country that runs deep.

2) An understanding of the need for America to defend itself. Huckabee’s biggest spending item is returning America’s defense spending to the percentage of GDP it was at under Ronald Reagan, and he understands the ideological nature of this war.

3) An ability to communicate ideas to the average person. This has been forgotten by many conservatives who can really only speak to the choir and pray for good turnout. To be elected three times as a Republican in Arkansas where only four Republicans have been elected statewide since reconstruction, you have to be able to speak to the common person. Huckabee does that.

4) Huckabee has a movement, just like Reagan did. You’ll find most members of Huck’s Army slightly to the right of Red State. These are hard-working people who sacrificed for the campaign and did an amazing job organizing. What that organization did with ¼ of the money raised by Rudy Giuliani and 1/6 of the money of Mitt Romney was to win more States than John McCain won in 2000, Bob Dole won in 1988, or George H.W. Bush won in 1980. This organization is the future of the GOP, particularly the young energized homeschoolers behind him.

5) Like Reagan in 1976, Huckabee is working his heart out for conservative candidates across America.

6) Huckabee holds to bedrock conservative values. The values of Mike Huckabee weren’t something that were handed him to him by a Washington consultant. They’re what he believes and what he’s fought for. He understands that businesses like Wal-Mart are good for our country. He favors opening up ANWR and offshore areas to drilling. He favors abolishing the IRS and he favors less government. I also believe he understands the key issue of our times and the importance of addressing the problems of our culture as the lynchpin to everything else.

Now certainly, you can nitpick points on #6, both with Huckabee and Reagan, (Reagan, for example supported the Brady law) but overall, I think Huckabee’s principles combined with everything else makes him a force to be reckoned with in the future of the GOP.

Adam's Blog

Reagan always talked about freedom being intrinsic to capitalism, that capitalism was just free people making decisions for themselves.

Huckabee never speaks this way. Its not how he thinks. Which is why he can sound like democrats when talking about CEOs, Big Oil, et al.

I hope Huckabee does work his heart out.

If he is an economic conservative, it is a very recent conversion.

Mike ultimately figured this out, and he changed his words on topics such as immigration, capitalism, etc. as the campaign wore on. However, people were paying attention to the November and December iterations of Huckabee (Huckabee 1.0), and found him wanting.

I never said if you Xeroxed Reagan, Huckabee would come out.

Reagan was not the next Calvin Coolidge. Reagan was Reagan, Huckabee was Huckabee. I would refer you to read the Relavant portions of "From Hope to Higher Ground" where Huckabee extensively praises business owners and the good they do. He praises our market economy.

Adam's Blog

Not sure why he periodically chose to sound like a democrat, but I'm glad if those outbursts were not indicative of his broader philosophy.

McCain has the same bug, so I am not singling out Huckabee.

"You’ll find most members of Huck’s Army slightly to the right of Red State."

That is hysterically absurd! Huckabee is a rabid leftist that makes a big show about going to church.

P.S. His campaign is over and he lost. He is not running for anything now, and I doubt he has any intention of running for anything in the future.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

the 80s, and yet Huckabee isn't a supply sider.

When Reagan took up supply side economics, supply side economics didn't even exist in the realm of political discourse. That's why it was called Reaganomics.

All Huckabee had to do was sign on to what others have brought into the public debate, but he has never done so convincingly.

Supply side economics didn't become well-established in Arkansas with 90% of the legislature Democratic when Huckabee got there.

Not convincing? As a candidate for President, Huckabee proposed abolishing the IRS and signed the tax limitation (no tax increase) pledge from Americans for Tax Reform. Would it be more convincing should he sign it in blood next time around.

Adam's Blog

His own VP thought he was full of bunk.
There was no Club for Growth, or the various other think tank/public policy organizations to help carry the water.

If Huckabee had went to the CATO institute and said, "help me bring supply side economics to Arkansas" he would have received lots of support and resources.

He just doesn't care about.

Nothing in the way that Huckabee approaches economic issues suggests that he did anything besides latch on to someone else's idea as a way to distinguish himself on a topic that he is weak on.

When in Huckabees time as governor did he ever express simpathy for job creators, and the taxes and regulations that they had to overcome?

That is the test of believability. When, prior to his run for President did Huckabee ever have anything to say to owner/investors/risk takers who the democrats always treat like crap?

Huckabee's economic conservatism is as recent as Romney's social conservatism. However, Romney's family and personal character helped people buy into his conversion. Huckabee would need to start a business for people to buy into his conversion. Or at least see how his positions sustain themselves over time.

That Huckabee cut Capital Gains Taxes in the State of Arkansas. That is a big deal for businesses and investment. He also fought for tort reform understanding the danger that frivolous lawsuits pose to small business.

He had lots of nice things to say about Sam Walton, about John Stephens, Sr. He held them out as examples in his book which he wrote before he ran for office.

Adam's Blog

his public comments as well. I was paying close attention, watched all of the debates, read the news intensely each day, and I didn't see a lot economic discussion by Mr. Huckabee that inspired any kind of confidence.

Like I said, I hope he establishes himself on the national state as a true economic conservative. Time will tell.

The establishment with in the Republican party was also opposed to supply side economics in 1980 and before.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

I'm sorry... I'm basically a wage slave at my job (just a university assistant position while I attend classes), and even that pays more per year than what Louisiana's legislature was making.

As bad as they are, they probably deserve more than that.

"Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant." - Michael Fisk

Nope, they are grossly over paid. Elected office should be a part-time voluntary activity.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

That would bar a lot of people, specifically anyone who can't afford to just walk out on his paid occupation, which means almost everyone.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Not necessarily. Remember I did say part-time, not full-time.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

Seems to me that won't work in any state much larger than Rhode Island, due to travel logistics. Work 9-5, then go to a night session of the legislature? Come home, sleep, then get up for work the next day? No way.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I was thinking more along the lines of weekends, with perhaps a week or two long stint once or twice a year.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

why couldn't there be an online meeting or a huge online video conference of some sort? While it would probably have some lag due to the sheer amount of bandwidth required, it would make such a thing as a part-time legislature work.
-----------------------------------
4.62, 0.51

Not to be rude Neil, but how many "regular" working people run for higher office (paper candidates excluded). I suspect that your point might very well be moot. Afterall "anyone who can't afford to just walk out on his paid occupation" probably cannot afford to spend the required unpaid time campaigning.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

I am not sure that an all volunteer part-time legislature adds any net barriers to the election process. Afterall, a part-time commitment to legislate is a much lower barrier than a full-time commitment.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

No, I'm pretty sure it can be laid at the feet of the voters.

Well, then I guess we can just abolish analyzing elections. Because it's always the voters, but why is the question.

Had CFG not spent $750k run ads against Huck in SC when it became clear the choice would be McCain or Huckabee, McCain would have lost and forced from the race. Huckabee may have had the inside track or the establishment could have turned to Romney. McCain would have been out of the picture.

Adam's Blog

I will take McCain over the pillsbury doughboy of populism anyday.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

The party at the end had a stark choice: Huck or Mac. Mac or Huck.

And the Republican party voters decided that the Maverick was the better Republican.

HTML Help for Red Staters


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I no more like slavish devotion to populism than I do to marxism....I find both ideologies to not be keeping with my preferred ideology Americanism....you know freedom to give to the charity of my choice without having my tax dollars taken to support someone else' problems in life based off what a politician believes it is needed for....and Huckabee with his holier than thou attitude was the most egregious candidate on the right with taking my tax dollars for his "perfect world".

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Where did Huckabee say he wanted to take your tax dollars for a perfect world. Huckabee's statements have been to the effect of, "If we had a better world, we would need a whole lot less government?"

Adam's Blog

"For these voters, Huckabee might just be the perfect candidate. He calls for constitutional amendments to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, appealing to their desire for a president who uses the government to legislate morality. He brings populist promises about strengthening Main Street while regulating Wall Street to bring back balance to a system that these voters feel has been weighted in favor of the wealthy. Many of these voters draw from their religious beliefs and personal experiences in the working class to recognize a moral need for helping struggling Americans through government safety nets and strengthening the public school system, areas where Huckabee has placed more emphasis than his Republican counterparts."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_huckabee_republicrats

Read it all and oh by the way google Huckabee and populism and government services and you get a whole slew of articles about Huckabee going against wall street to pay for little Americans on mainstreet....that sir is a Democrat model and it doesn't work anywhere it is put into practice....and those would be my tax dollars he would be shoveling to the poor and never making them desire to get up and go make their own...we know how that works it is called WELFARE!!!!!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

the maverick or the populist, the centrist or the other centrist, the warhawk anti-pork, fence-hating AGW disciple or the big-government 'God is my copilot' socon.

Thank God the media and early open primary purple states gave us such wonderful options....

Impeach the 5 usurpers

FL is the ultimate of all squishes - going Bush by what, 50.00001% in 2000? SC was the home state of Mini-me, and i don't know what the heck was wrong with their brains.

But those were what, the 6th and 9th state primary/caucus?

Early states color I use the 2004 presidential election to determine red/blue/purple. In timeline order:

State : Electoral Votes : Bush/Kerry% : color : note
IA : 07 : 50-49 : purple :
WY : 03 : 69-29 : red : did anyone notice WY?
NH : 04 : 49-50 : purple :
MI : 17 : 48-51 : purple :
NV : 05 : 50-48 : purple :

[see a pattern? by this time Fred and Rudy, the choices of the bulk of red-state conservatives, are effectively gone, they just don't know it yet. So our choices have already dwindled down to McCain the aisle crosser, Romney the historic moderate, and Huckabee the big-gov socon]

SC : 08 : 58-41 : red : McCain was already the frontrunner.
LA : 09 : 57-42 : red : ditto
HI : 04 : 45-54 : blue :
FL : 27 : 52-47 : purple : Rudy's skip-early strategy will never be repeated.
ME : 04 : 45-54 : blue :

There was ONE STINKING STATE (IA) between the Mississippi and the Rockies that had ANY say as to who the nominee would be.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

won.

And if Hillary had not run as the experienced candidate, she would have won.

And if Romney hadn't taken socially liberal views to run for Mass office, he would have won.

And if Bush would have taken on McCain after his many heresies, McCain likely wouldn't have won

And if . . .

Huckabee has die hard supporters, but his support has a relatively low ceiling. Huckabee v. Obama would be a nightmere.

I don't dislike Huckabee by the way, he just needs time to show whether his more pro-capitalist views are sustaining or a temporary case of Republican primary.

strong advocate for capitalism. Neither one explains pro-growth politicies very well (and Huckabee is a great communicator on other topics).

Both make negative comments about CEOs, Big Oil, Big Pharma, tax cuts for the rich, etc.

If you want to say that Huckabee is better than McCain on economics, what you are really saying is that Huckabee wasn't the weakest major candidate runnning in terms of economic issues, he was merely the SECOND weakest candidate running. However, I disagree and conclude that based on his statements while running for office, Huckabee was in fact the weakest on economic issues. Unfortunately, he grabbed on to the Fair Tax, and he pretty much sank tax reform for an election cycle or two.

Given Johnny Mac's foreign policy credentials, voters made the obvious choice, but economic conservatives were excited by neither, but probably more scared by Huckabee in terms of unpredictability.

Club for Growth scorched Huckabee because Huckabee is NOT an economic conservative. Its not what he is about.

Picking between McCain and Huckabee on economic issues is like choosing what way you wish to commit suicide.

CfG wasn't supporting either of them, having largely lined up behind Romney... but Huckabee was definitely anathema to them, and, if you listen to Huck's arguments on free trade, taxes, and CEOs, you'd swear you were listening to somebody running for the Democrat nomination, and probably somebody to the left of Hillary Clinton on economic issues.

You want a place where Huckabee's economic ideals are put into practice? There is such a wonderful place in America... it's called Michigan, aka economic Gehennom.

"Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant." - Michael Fisk

Is Jindal fading fast? I mean, there's a recall movement, then he signed a stupid ID bill, which pretty much dooms his national ambition. He'll frankly be painted as a crazy wingnut by MSM.

He's going to make mistakes because they come even more frequently when you are young and inexperienced (and whether or not he made a mistake on the pay raise is a debatable point in and of itself). More importantly he is also promising and has at least said the right things on some major issues. Reagan's first year as governor of California was a self-admitted disaster. He took a principled ideological approach to what he was doing and the legislature kept handing his teeth. Eventually he and his administration learned how to compromise with them and win the hearts and minds of the people of California. Which led to better results from the legislature because when he needed to he could go over the heads of the legislators. Jindal may learn how to do the same things in our new instant access environment. Or he might not. Right now I think he should still be given the opportunity to turn Louisiana around.

About every third day somebody tries to file impeachment papers on GWB, or somebody claims to have Cheney's love child, or NYT commits treason.

These are dailies, don't sweat the small stuff.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Bottom line, many of us simply don't trust Huck as far as we could throw him before he lost weight.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Neil, they were not the lowest paid legislators in the country. In fact, before the pay raise they were about average (source National Conference of State Legislatures).

The reason why there is a recall effort afoot is because Jindal broke a campaign promise and people feel betrayed. Not to mention he's been less than forthcoming about why he won't veto the "excessive pay raise" bill referring to a "separation of powers". Apparently, Mr. Jindal has never heard of something called checks and balances.

But it is undeniable that they have been targeting Jindal (albeit in a subtle fashion). Quotes like "Ronald Reagan? I don't thinks so" and "I know I've dumped on Jindal..." confirm CfG's anti-Jindal sentiment.

The main goal of CfG right now is to influence the VP selection process and to steer McCain away from selecting Jindal or Pawlenty in favor of somebody like Romney.

You make a good point Neil that CfG is a special interest group with a very limited focus. CfG's preferred candidates are not the most conservative ones, holistically speaking.

holistically speaking.



McCain for POTUS so the left can't ruin SCOTUS.

For some reason, they still feel the need to attack Huckabee as counterproductive and idiotic as it is at this point.

Which makes me want to join you in smacking down their inane, oversimplified caricatures.

Perhaps when I'm less busy. Good job taking them on!

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

I call it blind obedience to the Huckasiah.



McCain for POTUS so the left can't ruin SCOTUS.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service