Alarming News

January 31, 2008

Mitt. Mitt. Mitt.

Thinking of voting for McCain because you think the writing is on the wall, that he’ll be our nominee and so you may as well get used to it? Read this first (hat-tip Hot Air Headlines). There is more conservative man in this race, and one that doesn’t want to change the constitution to reflect the bible. That man is Mitt Romney. We’ll all have to suck it up and go with McCain if he’s the Republican candidate running against Hillary or Obama. But we don’t have to do it yet. Go Mitt.

Posted by Karol at 08:02 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Mitt Romney will say anything to get ahead. If he were shot down over Hanoi he’d be in the Politburo by now.
Go Mac Go!

Posted by: Bill at January 31, 2008 at 9:02 am

Mitt Mitt Mitt!
Seriously, nominate a Mormon candidate. Go for it! Yes, of course, how scum bag to knock a guy down for his religious heritage. Yet, we’re talking about a race in which polls ask “who will vote for a woman?” and everyone on the left is shaking in their boots calling Obama unelectable asking “who will vote for a black man?” Lets face it — how are you going to mobilize your base with a LDS candidate? He might as well be a scientologist. Perhaps the Republicans are more ready for a mormon since Orin Hatch’s bid, or the bids of Mo Udell and George Romney before. Half the evengelicals, who the right can’t tell to go stuff it, find mormonism heretic. Perhaps, though, they’ll at least be motivated to vote against the black man, or worse, a woman.
Faith aside, I’m just terrified at this point of anyone in politics who wants to succeed where daddy failed. Aren’t we in enough shit in this country from men having to prove themselves to daddy? Does Romney, too, have a more loved brother who could better lived past his father’s legacy of a failed presidential bid? Should we look into whether good ol’ George wanted to right his fathers legacy, too, of legalizing polygamy in the US? I’m for that (just not in the same freakish pedophile way).
In some ways I like Romney. Yet, I see him as a chamaeleon. Certainly, his past moderate views on abortion and gay marriage can be chalked up to serving time as the governor of Massachusetts. They’ll shed fast if he wants the base. They are already starting to shed.
And, yes, there is the Massachusetts issue. He is from Massachusetts. NO ONE likes Massachusetts – not even New Hampshire. “Wait,” you say, “he is only a transplant.” Oh, indeed. He is a transplant from a family who, inable to live by the laws of this country that you can only have one spouse, expatriated to Mexico to practice polygamy under their faith.
Yeah! Go with this guy.
Signed by someone who admittedly voted for Romney in 1994 in a protest vote against Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: Toby at January 31, 2008 at 9:06 am

Rumor has it – Mc Cain as Prez and Huckabee as VP. Huckabee is keeping his votes away from Mitt. Two liberals in the White House. Goodbye America, hello socialist Europe.

Posted by: Jiggs at January 31, 2008 at 9:22 am

I really hope there’s more to your huck hatred then the bible/constitution crap.
what does it say about Mitt that the conservative boston herald endorsed mccain?

Posted by: Larry at January 31, 2008 at 9:29 am

Okay, now even I would support Mitt over McCain/Huckabee. Now that would just be awful.

Posted by: Toby at January 31, 2008 at 9:40 am

McCain would never go with Huckabee. He’ll pick a strong fiscal conservative. Huckabee also has too many weird quotes out there. Mac will pick a solid, rock-ribbed conservative to stand by him. Maybe Tom Coburn.

Posted by: Bill at January 31, 2008 at 10:11 am

Mitt Romney is the only one in the race who has the ability to lead this country. He is a man of integrity as well as experience. I can’t believe that Republicans would choose the ugly tempered, position changing, dishonest attacking John McCain as it’s Nominee. If they do my family and many others I know will not pull the lever for him but will sit this one out for the first time in our lives.

Posted by: FMP at January 31, 2008 at 10:21 am

Maybe Tom Coburn.
I would be extremely excited if McCain picked Coburn.

Posted by: Karol at January 31, 2008 at 10:34 am

Of the guys left, only Huckabee holds even a modicum of interest for me.
McCain I could vote for against Hillbama (with a vomit bag in one hand). But Romney is the worst. The absolute worst. Liberalism advanced on all fronts while he was governor of MA while he put on a dog-and-pony show pretending to oppose it. If he’s the nominee, I’m off the reservation.

Posted by: Florentius at January 31, 2008 at 10:47 am

It would make a nice ticket.

Posted by: Bill at January 31, 2008 at 10:49 am

If Huckabee is on the ticket, I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, even if by some wild brokered improbability it was Edwards or Kucinich.
I’m serious.

Posted by: Mark Poling at January 31, 2008 at 10:51 am

Huck/Mccain would work alot better then mccain/Huck…Huck needs a strong foreign policy man alongside him.
all the Huck bashers have nothin substantial on Huck….he’s consistent unlike phony mitt and he’s much more conservative then mccain.
Unfortunately, the media has portrayed him to be some religous nut and the public has bought into it…..look at his record as governor…look at why he did the things he did…look at what he’s offering as president….you’ll see a real republican…oh, by the way, huck would dominate hillary or obama in the debates.

Posted by: Larry at January 31, 2008 at 10:54 am

It is refreshig to read some common sense on this thread. i’m getting sick of hearing McCain being described as a liberal or a socialist by peopl who support Romney. It is one thing to have issues with Sen.McCain on some of his positions, it is quite another to throw in with someone who is as transparent a phony as Mitt. This guy wil tell any group of voters whatever he thinks they want to hear to get their vote, and I’m shocked that so many conservatives think these most recent positions are his ‘core’ beliefs. Give me a break! The idea that people want this poll-tested, focus group-molded fraud in charge of our military while we’re at war is tuly frightening to me. I thought conservatives were people who loved the country and put it first.

Posted by: Corey Cronrath at January 31, 2008 at 10:56 am

Larry, there doesn’t have to be much more against Huckabee than the “constitution” crap. (I believe the last count was four amendments he was proposing, which just doesn’t seem like a conservative number to me.) As to the “bible” crap:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

I’m sure that little quote would have a number of the Founding Fathers (for most part a very religious lot) spinning in their graves.
The Club for Growth has some interesting things to say about Huck’s Arkansas record too, but I’ve already eaten too much of Karol’s bandwidth.

Posted by: Mark Poling at January 31, 2008 at 11:29 am

Larry, a serious question first: what is your religious preference? You sound like one of my old church members who was gung-ho for Alan Keyes’ presidential campaign for the one, and I mean literally *single* reason that Keyes is allegedly a born-again Christian.
As a Southern Baptist, I’m ashamed of Hucksterbee and other “Christians” who use government as a weapon. I fail to find the passage where Christ told us to form the government in God’s image.
Not everybody in America is Christian, and so Christians need to stop making everybody else live like them — just like Jews and Christians wanted to live as they wanted, without Romans telling them how to live. Let people live freely so long as they don’t encroach on others’ lives, liberty and property.
I’m called a “fundamentalist Christian” for my beliefs that abortion is murder, that homosexuality is sin, and that the Bible is literally the word of God (and not just a creation of men). I’m also a libertarian who believes that the only proper role of government is to defend life, liberty and property. Thus I believe abortion should be largely illegal because it’s to defend the unborn’s right to life. I also believe that while I believe certain physical behavior is “sin” according to my personal religious beliefs, such behavior does not affect me. So unlike Hucksterbee, I will talk to people and explain what I believe God wants and doesn’t want them to do, but I refuse to use “government” or “law” to criminalize such behaviors, because what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is not my concern.
Hucksterbee has many beams in his own eyes that he should be more concerned about, rather than the motes in others’ eyes.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm

I don’t mind eating Karol’s bandwith, so let’s get started…
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
does that quote sound good?…no..did Huck admit that quote didn’t come out right?…yes
let’s take into context what, where and to whom Huck said that…
1) he was referring to gay marriage and abortion…nothing else…he didn’t say everyone must go to church on sunday’s.
2) he said it in South Carolina
3) he said it to conservative republicans in south carloina.
what he did was pander to his base…it didn’t come out right, but if that’s the reason people aren’t voting for him; then it’s sad.

Posted by: Larry at January 31, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Perry, I’m a non practicing Jew..heck, I’m not really a social conservative…I don’t think Huck is perfect…he’s not the greatest candidate ever…but is he the best candidate for 08?…yes.
I don’t think Huck is trying to get everyone to live like a Christian…he’s simply talking about hius beliefs…he said plenty of times that he cares about everyone equally….people make it sound like he’ll favor evangelicals and the hell with everyone else….that’s like saying mitt will do that with mormons, obama with blacks, hillary with women….I don’t believe that.
are you saying Huck wants to criminalize gay people?…where and when did he say this?

Posted by: Larry at January 31, 2008 at 12:49 pm

This is just sad.

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 31, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Unfortunately, since he siphons votes from Romney more than he does from Media Darling McCain, the media will do what it can to keep Huckabee in the race.
Larry, was it you who called Huck the most “progressive” Republican left in the race? Note: the word “progressive” isn’t really considered laudatory to a lot of conservatives. (Of course, that may also be part of the explanation for why he isn’t getting reamed by Old Media….)

Posted by: Mark Poling at January 31, 2008 at 2:33 pm

the media wants to keep huck in the race?..your kidding, right?…if that was true, he would get more questions in the debates; when it’s clear he’s by far the best debater out there…the media almost never mentions huck anymore…they’ve been concentrating on a 2 man race.
I used the word progressive…you can use the word visionary…bottom line is that huck has ideas…he doesn’t just speak the typical political jargon.

Posted by: Larry at January 31, 2008 at 2:48 pm

My last comment on this post, I swear:
Huck’s a political “visionary” in exactly the same way Bloomberg is. I want no part of it.

Posted by: Mark Poling at January 31, 2008 at 3:13 pm

“what he did was pander to his base”
Please consider what you wrote there, because you answered your own question of why so many of us distrust that man.
“are you saying Huck wants to criminalize gay people”
No, but do you understand the ramifications of a “Constitutional marriage amendment,” whatever you want to call it? I oppose it for a much different reason than most people. I don’t believe government should have *anything* to do with marriage. Some say we should the church out of the state, so how about getting the state out of the church? Marriage should be purely ceremonial, with no civil component required. And meanwhile, anyone should have the freedom to make cohabital contracts. If a man and woman, or two men, or two women, enter into a contract specifying rights to each other’s bodies upon death, and the bequeath of property upon death, why should the rest of us prohibit that? It’s no skin off my nose. I also don’t believe government should have the power to force companies to give benefits to “partners” they don’t want. True freedom works both ways.
You probably believe the “cross” in his Christmas message was unintentional, don’t you. That for me was the final straw. Anyone who has to invoke Christ so blatantly is no follower.
“to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards”
This is his desire to make the Constitution conform to his religious beliefs. If that isn’t using the government to make everyone live like a Christian (that is, what *he* thinks a Christian is), what was he saying? It’s no longer a mere matter of “expressing opinion” when he’s talking about altering the Supreme Law of the Land.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Every Republican from Massachusettes I know is voting AGAINST Romney. They laugh every time he’s referred to as the “conservative” in the race. I simply cannot believe that he has snowed so many good conservatives. In-credible. That’s what he is.

Posted by: Bill at January 31, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Let me start off again by saying that Huck isn’t perfect.
“what he did was pander to his base”
Please consider what you wrote there, because you answered your own question of why so many of us distrust that man.
there’s a big difference in pandering…he wasn’t lying about his beliefs….there’s no reason to distrust him…he’s been consistent from day one….now look when romney panders…that’s someone you should distrust….same goes with mccain…he’s all over the place.
the constitution stuff would never pass anyway…this is all hyped up stuff to marginalize huck…..his point was that he’s against gay marriage and abortion…that’s what I took out of it…his choice of words were poor…he said so himself.
regarding the floating cross…maybe it was a symblo of christ…and if it was, what’s wrong with that?…it was a christmas ad.

Posted by: Larry at January 31, 2008 at 4:02 pm

“he wasn’t lying about his beliefs”
So pandering is ok if one is sincere? And that means that Huckster was *not* misunderstood, because he really does believe in amending the Constitution so it aligns with the law of God?
“the constitution stuff would never pass anyway”
That sounds like when Hillary voted for a bill and was happy it died.
No, it wouldn’t pass, but *nobody* should be in office who believes that crap.
Of course the lighting evoked imagery of Christianity’s main symbol, but Huckster’s campaign said it wasn’t intentional. Do you truly believe that? I personally think it would be easier to believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.
The cross was another piece of evidence that Huckster’s campaign is only about identifying himself as a Christian so that evangelicals will flock (pun intended) to him in enough numbers. That’s it. He *can’t* make a stand on things like taxes or crime, because his record on those is so liberal.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 1, 2008 at 11:45 am

When Huck pandered, he was re-inforcing his beliefs….he believes that abortion and gay marriage should be banned…if I’m not mistaken, that’s a republican position…the way he said it came out wrong…he admitted that…he’s not in favor of having everyone going to church on sunday’s…to me, this isn’t an issue why you wouldn’t vote for huck….especially when Mitt is a fraud and mccain is old, angry, erratic and lefty leaning.
Huck had no money and was polling at about 2% when he started…he needed to establish a foundation…he rightfully did it with the evangelicals….it’s not like he’s making up a position like the fraud romney…Huck was a minister…why not appeal to those people?
I don’t think you can call Huck too liberal on taxes and crime when he’s for the fair tax and he used the death penalty on about 10-15 people.

Posted by: Larry at February 1, 2008 at 2:16 pm

The other nigth I went to see the movie, Article VI (where were you, Karol?) and I got to talking to someone about primary voting.
Her: When I voted in 2000, I went to vote and Steve Forbes name was still on the NY ballot. he had already dropped out. I think it’s ridiculous for a candidate to still be on the ballot after they drop out.
Me: I don’t think it’s ridiculous. You spend your whole time supporting someone during the campaign season and your candidate drops out. This happens all the time, especially when we would have primaries in late March & April and into May. If I had a State that had a late primary and only the inevitable candidate was still on the ballot, why bother voting in the primary. Vote for your guy even if he drops out.
Her: But its’ a wasted vote.
Me: No its not. You are voting for delegates. These delegates go into the convention pledged to a particular candidate. If that candidate dropped out, then these delegates are still worth something. Other candidates are gonna want them. Let the battle begin.
= = =
The bottom line is, the only time you really have to vote for someone you don’t care for is a General Election, because the other option is much worse.
In a Primary, you look at your choices, and whether or not they are still running, you vote for who you like.
Why?
Because, in the case of Giuliani. He may have his delegates now pledge to McCain. If he gets delegates, they will go in for McCain, even though they are Rudy delegates.
If Tom Tancredo gets delegates still, they may end up in Romney’s corner, b/c Tancredo turned up backing Mitt.
But Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson didn’t back someone. Their delegates could go into the convention for a deal. It’s about deals. McCain, you can’t get my delegates unless you stop talking against the free market. Romney, you can’t get my delegates unless you appoint me or Mr. X to your cabinet.
That’s politics. And that’s how it should work.
So if I go into the voting booth on February 5 and my favorite candidate was Fred Thompson and he’s still on the NY Ballot, I’m still going to vote for him.
You NEVER VOTE for the inevitable. Look at 2004. Lemmings, i tell you.
“Oh? Iowans believe Kerry is the guy to go against Bush. Iowans must know something. Let’s forget all these other guys and vote for John Kerry because the Iowans are probably on to something. I was going to vote for Lieberman. I was going to vote for Dean. But Iowans say it’s Kerry. Though he never crossed my mind before, he won the first Caucus so I’ll vote for him.”
Yeah.
We know how stupid that sounds today, but that’s what happend.

Posted by: daniel at February 1, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Maybe your system needs reviewing so that all the votes are on the same day? Spreading them out over a month or so, plus the months of campaigning and fud-raising before that is a silly system.
I suggested Romney may be the best candidate at the start. But I think it doesnt really matter. Unless there’s a dramatic change in world and US affairs in the next 4-5 months, the Republican candidate may struggle in the national polls.
This means whoever wins MUST distance themselves from Bush’s legacy.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm

“This means whoever wins MUST distance themselves from Bush’s legacy.”
Not that me and mine would ever allow THAT to happen!

Posted by: hashfanatic at February 1, 2008 at 9:07 pm

“When Huck pandered, he was re-inforcing his beliefs”
His beliefs to change our Supreme Law of the Land to subject every non-fundamentalist Christian wacko to his ideal of a theocracy? Grand idea.
“….he believes that abortion and gay marriage should be banned…if I’m not mistaken, that’s a republican position…the way he said it came out wrong…he admitted that…”
It came out wrong, but how? He does or does not support changing our Supreme Law of the Land to subject every non-fundamentalist Christian wacko to his ideal of a theocracy?
Oh, and not all Republicans, if you didn’t notice, favor constitutional bans on gay marriage and abortions.
“he’s not in favor of having everyone going to church on sunday’s…”
Oh? He wouldn’t like everybody to be a “saved” Christian like him, going to fellowship on the Lord’s Day?
I think you mean he doesn’t want to use law to make people to go to church on Sundays. That is true — he just wants people to live as if they do.
“to me, this isn’t an issue why you wouldn’t vote for huck….especially when Mitt is a fraud and mccain is old, angry, erratic and lefty leaning.”
I wouldn’t vote for him because he’s hypocritical, deceitful, delusional religious freak who wants to use government to force people to live according to his morality. Does that clarify it for you?
“I don’t think you can call Huck too liberal on taxes and crime when he’s for the fair tax and he used the death penalty on about 10-15 people.”
I’m going to sound bloodthirsty here, but only “10-15 people”? Look to Texas, who knows how to deal with murderers with efficiency. Moreover, Huckster granted clemency to more people than his three predecessors combined.
On taxes, the Club for Growth has exposed his record of hiking taxes as he pleases. He’s in favor of tax hikes to promote “the arts,” meaning he’d like to see people enjoy things courtesy of MY money.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/updated_huckabee_white_paper.php

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 3, 2008 at 10:03 am

“It came out wrong, but how? He does or does not support changing our Supreme Law of the Land to subject every non-fundamentalist Christian wacko to his ideal of a theocracy?”
he shouldn’t have talked about jesus…majority of republicans favor his position…I’m not a hardcore social conservative, yet I support huck, because I look at the whole picture…all these religous views will have no impact on the country….none of these amendments will pass anyway.
you think huck is deceitful, hypocritical and a religous freak?…I haven’t seen any of that…and even if what you say is true, tell me one politician that isn’t deceitful or hypocritical?
about 80% of the taxes huck raised in arkansas were court mandated.

Posted by: Larry at February 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

“he shouldn’t have talked about jesus”
That contradicts what you’ve been saying all along, that he’s been “pandering to his base.” If that’s true, why not talk about Jesus?
But then, you excuse his “pandering” because, well, he’s sincere about it! But he won’t be sincere if, as you said, he doesn’t talk about Jesus. Because his beliefs are clear, that the Constitution should be amended to align with the laws of God.
“…majority of republicans favor his position…”
First, that’s not true. A majority of Republicans, not necessarily conservatives, don’t believe in turning the U.S. into the theocracy that Hucksterbee envisions.
Second, conservatives who do believe like Hucksterbee should realize that they will keep losing elections so long as voters view them as religious freaks.
“I’m not a hardcore social conservative, yet I support huck, because I look at the whole picture…all these religous views will have no impact on the country….none of these amendments will pass anyway.”
Like I said before, that’s just like Hillary supporting a bill but being glad it didn’t pass.
If his religious views will never get passed, why bring them up? He can leave them private, since according to you they won’t matter.
“you think huck is deceitful, hypocritical and a religous freak?…I haven’t seen any of that…and even if what you say is true, tell me one politician that isn’t deceitful or hypocritical?”
Ron Paul. Whether or not you agree with his positions, what you see and hear is the real deal. I’d even give that to Obama.
“about 80% of the taxes huck raised in arkansas were court mandated.”
Which leaves 20% that he favored, and that’s 20% too many.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm

I have no problem w/huck pandering, but he shouldn’t have gone into all the god stuff…stick to the point of constitutional amendmant against gay marriage and abortion.
I’m more interested in experience and policy…those are qualities that will actually affect us.
think about it…2 words we always hear are “change” & “experience”….Huck is the only one who can offer both…nobody has more experience running a government and nobody is offering the real change huck is in regards to the fair tax.
you say huck is deceitful and a hypocrite…I haven’t seen one example of it…you know who is deceitful and a hypocrite?….the media….his tax record is a perfect example…they mention how he raised taxes, but never mention that 80% of it was court mandated…I’m not sure what the other 20% was about, but I know huck decreased taxes more then he raised them…he balanced the budget every one of his 10 years….and he took a 250 million dollar deficit and turned it into a 800 million surplus.
experience and change…that’s the huckster.

Posted by: Larry at February 4, 2008 at 12:52 am

“I have no problem w/huck pandering, but he shouldn’t have gone into all the god stuff…stick to the point of constitutional amendmant against gay marriage and abortion.”
That’s just the problem with your argument. You say his pandering is sincere, therefore he must talk about it in a religious context, because that’s what he believes.
Does he or does he not really believe in amending the Constitution to align with “God’s Law,” or was he just talking out his ass?
If he doesn’t, then he was pandering insincerely to get right-wing evangelicals to vote for him. You can’t have it both ways.
“I’m more interested in experience and policy…those are qualities that will actually affect us.”
But which “experience” and which “policy”? Those by themselves are meaningless. Ted Kennedy has experience. Joe Biden has policy.
Not that I want to see Obama elected by any means, but as George H.W. Bush showed, experience isn’t everything. As LBJ showed, policy isn’t everything.
It’s perfectly possible for a young political novice to know what we need. Not inherently so, but possible: logically speaking, all it takes is for someone to be right.
“think about it…2 words we always hear are “change” & “experience”….Huck is the only one who can offer both…nobody has more experience running a government and nobody is offering the real change huck is in regards to the fair tax.”
Very well, so now you’ve added “change” to the list. But change to what? Without specifics, each of your three desired qualities is meaningless.
“you say huck is deceitful and a hypocrite…I haven’t seen one example of it…you know who is deceitful and a hypocrite?”
See above. So he does not believe that the Constitution should be amended because of God’s law?
He’s deceitful for obfuscating or downplaying his real record, and hypocritical for masquerading as a “conservative.” Conservatism is more than just moral beliefs.
Or as Dick Morris, who advised Huckster’s lieutenant governor campaign, said, “What we wanted to do was run a progressive campaign that would appeal to all Arkansans. So we opened the campaign with ads that characterized Mike as more of a moderate whose values were the same as those of other Arkansans.”
Playing to the center is an old political strategy, and it’s the way to win, but Huckster should at least admit it.
“….the media….his tax record is a perfect example…they mention how he raised taxes, but never mention that 80% of it was court mandated…I’m not sure what the other 20% was about, but I know huck decreased taxes more then he raised them…”
You don’t know about the other 20%…are you sure you know about the 80%? The mandated taxes you’re talking about were mainly for schools, which is to say, people educating their children using their neighbors’ money.
Court mandates are not sent down by God, anyway. A truly principled governor or president would refuse to execute them and continue the legal fight, rather than simply bending over for the judiciary.
Like I said, he believes in hiking taxes so that people can enjoy the “arts,” courtesy of other people’s money. Same thing with national parks, as his record has proven. He expanded child health insurance in Arkansas, which means people pay for other people’s children.
If I didn’t know better, his record on raising taxes and what he spent it on sounds more like Bill Clinton or Jim Guy Tucker, not a conservative Republican.
“he balanced the budget every one of his 10 years….and he took a 250 million dollar deficit and turned it into a 800 million surplus.”
Arkansas has a state law requiring balanced budgets, and “balanced” does not always mean spending was cut. If you didn’t notice what I wrote above, Huckster was in favor of expanding various social programs.
Go read http://www.nwanews.com/adg/national/203850/ and tell me he didn’t govern like a quintessential liberal. All right, money to keep prisons open is one thing, but scholarships and medicine for the elderly? Those should be private endeavors, paid for by people who want to contribute, not by forcing me to contribute via taxation.
But the most telling statistic is, “Meanwhile, the average Arkansan

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 4, 2008 at 9:13 pm

3 things..
1) a former minister doesn’t need to constantly talk about god to explain his beliefs…it’s known why a minister believes what he believes….it’s obviously jesus….stick to the point, huck
2) is the fair tax a conservative position or liberal?
3) it looks like huck will easily win his home state; while romney might not win his….what does that say?

Posted by: Larry at February 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

You’re answering nothing of what I’m saying. Can you give straight answers or not, or are you going to continue being as evasive as a Clinton?
1. Does he or does he not believe in changing the Constitution to align with God’s law? Yes or no?
2. The “Fair” Tax is an idiot’s position. It’s not fair, and it’s still a tax.
3. It means…absolutely nothing. If more Republicans in Massachusetts favor McCain over Romney, it’s going to be for different reasons than why Huckster wins his home state.
Al Gore didn’t win Tennessee in 2000, what does that say?
So I’m still waiting to hear your challenge to the proof of Huckster’s liberal record on taxes, crime and government spending…

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 5, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Those should be private endeavors, paid for by people who want to contribute, not by forcing me to contribute via taxation.
For someone who works on Wall Street, you are incredibly naive. How much of your professional dependence relies on government subsidies. Would your firm exist if it weren’t for investment in infrastructure like roads and telecommunications? How much of what you eat is cheaper because you can get vegetables from California in January? I would guess that investment in defense disproportionately insures your empirical well being over the empirical well being of someone living in Montgomery, Alabama (by virtue of them having less to lose).
What would you do if you actually had to produce something of unique value, rather than fill a bureacratic post? Your job is there because there are regulations in place. What economic use are you without regulations. How much of my tax dollar pays for the government bureaucracy that creates the regulation that employs you?
Have you ever actually looked at a federal budget? Do you know how much money goes where? How much of your tax dollar are you really quibbling about? I’ll send you the buck or two that came out of your income taxes last year that went to the National Endowment for the Arts.
It’s comical that you talk about it as YOUR money. It is NOT your money. It belongs to the Federal Reserve of the United States of America. You choose to allow your employer exchange it with you for services that you provide. If want to be paid in euros, or donkeys and corn, demand it.
In accordance with Arrow and Sen, you either have government or you don’t. And if you live in a society that chooses to have government, it is the job of the government to improve the global welfare of the citizens (otherwise, why would they choose to be governed). There is no good and bad government, only effective or ineffective government.
‘Fair’ is an impossible ideal. Any time that you create any rules, you create an unfair situation. You create barriers to entry into markets (be they financial markets or social markets). Some rules are clearly valuable some less so. In your job, you ensure compliance. How much of your job is to account for regulations because your company would be predators if they could be? Or probably, were predators because they could be, and We, The People decided that we can’t tolerate predators, because we should be collectively trying to figure out how to produce more things of value, not how to avoid getting being preyed upon.
Couching the terms of governance in terms of morality is at best a myopic obscuration. The general principle of right and wrong is a belief, not a rational way of thinking (with much the same relationship that macroeconomics has to microeconomics).
I leave you with the sage words of Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist #1:
I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable–the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
…To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.

Posted by: David at February 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Huck believes changing the constitution to align with gods law as it pertains to marriage and abortion.
the fair tax makes sense to me and many who want real change.
if huck wasn’t a good governor, he wouldn’t win his own state…..comparing al gore makes no sense…gore was a senator…senators don’t run states.
you say huck is liberal on taxes…I disagree.
you say huck is liberal on crime…I’m not so sure
you say huck is liberal on spending…I’m not exactly sure what that means.
ronald reagan raised taxes as governor.
huck is a consistent social conservative with a populst message and conservative solutions.

Posted by: Larry at February 5, 2008 at 1:45 pm

“For someone who works on Wall Street, you are incredibly naive. How much of your professional dependence relies on government subsidies. Would your firm exist if it weren’t for investment in infrastructure like roads and telecommunications?”
For someone who so criticizes another, you’re incredibly ignorant. The finance industry neither wants nor need government subsidies — for all the taxes we pay, for all the bullshit we have to go through, what we get isn’t worth it. We’d be better off doing it ourselves. Today alone, we just wasted thousands of dollars on a report that California insisted on, ASAP. We’re going to have to lather, rinse and repeat about a dozen more times for California alone. Now add it all up for “registration” we need to do for Kansas, and tell me we’re getting a great deal. This is money taken out of our clients’ pockets.
In the end, private endeavors have built far superior infrastructure. Government didn’t need to subsidize telecommunications; markets supplied the demand. Was it government planning that put a phone in basically every house, or made cell phones so affordable to the masses? Hardly. It was private competition, but it is government that gives monopolies to certain companies (telephone and cable, chiefly) that restricts competition and shackles the consumer.
NASA for all its billions couldn’t keep its costs down, let alone produce a commercially viable space tourism industry, yet the private sector is now making space-worthy tourism craft for tens of millions. Private competition doesn’t have the luxury of government’s inherent inefficiency.
“How much of what you eat is cheaper because you can get vegetables from California in January?”
Government has nothing to do with that. People demand, sellers want to supply, and the technology exists to transport produce quickly enough to fulfill the demand. In fact, government makes such vegetables more expensive by a myriad rules and regulations, and by cracking down on the illegal immigrants who pick a lot of our vegetables.
“I would guess that investment in defense disproportionately insures your empirical well being over the empirical well being of someone living in Montgomery, Alabama (by virtue of them having less to lose).”
I believe in a strong American military, capable of responding to threats with crushing force, but your point is confusing here. Defense in precisely what? Permanently stationing troops in Europe, Okinawa and Saudi Arabia does nothing for New York City, Montgomery, Alabama, or Juneau.
“What would you do if you actually had to produce something of unique value, rather than fill a bureacratic post?”
Actually, since you apparently don’t understand how economies work, very few people produce things that are truly unique. That’s why competition is usually about doing things better.
“Your job is there because there are regulations in place. What economic use are you without regulations. How much of my tax dollar pays for the government bureaucracy that creates the regulation that employs you?”
That’s a great deal of assumption about my job, which you know nothing about. It would exist if government didn’t create the false need for it, not in the same form today, of course, but a better form. There’s plenty of real value that we give to our clients, which is about improving various internal processes and thereby building their trust.
My job’s bureaucratic element exists only with the things that government demands of the company. There are plenty of other things I could be doing with my time, for the benefit of our clients, not FINRA.
Now, you absurdly pat yourself on the back because you think your taxes pay for my job, but that’s the thing: I don’t want government to burden us with regulations, which means that nobody’s taxes has to support a bureaucracy that creates the false needs for jobs. I’d much rather you don’t pay taxes to support bureaucracy that perpetuates itself and in our jobs, that I don’t pay taxes for the same, and that we instead use that money to trade amongst ourselves. In other words, I don’t want you to be taxed, I’d much rather you buy some of our excellent mutual funds.
“Have you ever actually looked at a federal budget? Do you know how much money goes where? How much of your tax dollar are you really quibbling about? I’ll send you the buck or two that came out of your income taxes last year that went to the National Endowment for the Arts.”
Yes, I have. I’ve seen the bills. Do you think a million here, a million there, does not add up to real money, as the late senator said? Bush just proposed $3.1 trillion in federal spending.
“It’s comical that you talk about it as YOUR money. It is NOT your money. It belongs to the Federal Reserve of the United States of America.”
Technically, this is correct, but you illustrate what’s so wrong with America. You’re willing to tolerate the situation; I am not.
But hey, if you don’t think you own it, then return it to the Fed.
“You choose to allow your employer exchange it with you for services that you provide. If want to be paid in euros, or donkeys and corn, demand it.”
You don’t think that lots of us would rather be paid in euros, which are at least holding value? But we can’t, because the federal government gave itself a monopoly on money. Did you not notice what Dave Barry said, that in other news, the dollar lost value against major currencies and most brands of bathroom tissue?
“In accordance with Arrow and Sen, you either have government or you don’t.”
A ridiculous assertion, because of course something must be true or something must be false.
“And if you live in a society that chooses to have government, it is the job of the government to improve the global welfare of the citizens (otherwise, why would they choose to be governed). There is no good and bad government, only effective or ineffective government.”
In other words, your conception of government is to make me pay to support everyone else who doesn’t want to produce (since nearly half of American wage earners have no income tax liability at all). Last year, I shelled out half of my income to support the livelihoods of other people. How about you?
The purpose of legitimate government is to protect lives, liberty and property. It is not to redistribute wealth, provide a social safety net, or make it “fair” between competing people. It’s to punish force and fraud.
“‘Fair’ is an impossible ideal. Any time that you create any rules, you create an unfair situation. You create barriers to entry into markets (be they financial markets or social markets).”
Which is another reason that government should exist only to punish force and fraud. Other than that, let people choose to transact freely.
But keep in mind that only government can create rules that must be obeyed. Only government can create barriers. Companies have no such power, because consumers can always choose to go elsewhere.
“Some rules are clearly valuable some less so. In your job, you ensure compliance. How much of your job is to account for regulations because your company would be predators if they could be? Or probably, were predators because they could be, and We, The People decided that we can’t tolerate predators, because we should be collectively trying to figure out how to produce more things of value, not how to avoid getting being preyed upon.”
Do you really know any specifics of what I really do? I didn’t think so. Please stop assuming so much, all right? You’re probably a nice guy and all, but my opinion of you is getting lower by the paragraph.
Now, my company couldn’t be a predator even if it wanted to. We have no way to force people, in case you didn’t notice. Even were we a monopoly, people can simply refuse to do business with us. Conversely, when they do business with us, it’s because they willingly decided to. They decide to because they judged that they’d get more in value (in our case, returns on their investments) than what they gave us (fees).
Our reputation began on the excellence of our investment research, but now we’re even more respected for commitment to our customers.
Couching the terms of governance in terms of morality is at best a myopic obscuration. The general principle of right and wrong is a belief, not a rational way of thinking (with much the same relationship that macroeconomics has to microeconomics).
Did you have a point by quoting Hamilton, or was it to support your conception of a government with expressly unlimited powers? For one, throughout the Federalist Papers, Hamilton was not defending extreme powers for the federal government, but a central government far, far weaker than the one today. Second, he was a bit of a statist who wanted one giant United State, without all the individual state governments. He didn’t want true federalism (which allots more powers to the states than the central government), but centralism. Third, he was always a bit of a pompous ass once he got George Washington’s favor.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 6, 2008 at 10:23 pm

So Larry, are you ever going to give a straight answer, or are you just going to babble on and on? I knew Huckster relied on supporters with blind faith, but you go above and beyond.
Are you really so native? You don’t know that people win elections because of popularity, not because they’re “good”? Bill Clinton won his own state in the primaries and general elections. Hillary won both Arkansas and New York. Do you say they were or are “good”?
I’ve provided plenty of evidence about Hucksterbee’s liberal record on raising taxes, and what he wants to spend the money on. You’re saying nothing to refute it, except to stick your fingers in your ears. Where is your evidence?
You say the “Fair” Tax is a conservative position, which is bullshit. The only way to make taxes fair is to make them completely non-redistributive.
So tell me, where is William F. Buckley’s book that defends the “Fair” Tax?
At least you admit you’re not sure about Hucksterbee’s crime record, but it’s there. Just dig around, kiddo. All the evidence is in front of you, but I cannot make you want to look at it.
It’s true that Reagan unwillingly signed a tax-raising bill while California’s governor, because the Democrat-controlled legislature wouldn’t cut spending. At the time, as a matter of available funds and the state’s credit rating, California simply couldn’t borrow money to close the $200 million deficit.
Hucksterbee, however, was more than happy to raise taxes, and for the fundamental purpose of taking money from some and giving to others. That is liberal spending, i.e. the redistribution of wealth. It’s morally wrong to make someone pay taxes so that others can enjoy “the arts” or a state park.
Hucksterbee is socially conservative, yes, but we need more than that. “Populist” is just a euphemism for “liberal.”

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 6, 2008 at 10:34 pm

I’ve given plenty of straight answers.
I don’t know every single detail behind the fair tax, but it seems like less government, less taxation; more personal freedom…whether it’s completely fair, i don’t know…does it seem like a better system?…yes
what you said about reagan you can say about what happened to huck in arkansas; with the democratic legislature……I’m sure you’re referring to the video of huck saying how he had no problem raising taxes….do you actually know what context that was in?

Posted by: Larry at February 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I would also like to add that huck was for the bush tax cuts from the start and huck signed the no tax hike pledge.

Posted by: Larry at February 7, 2008 at 12:31 pm

You haven’t given a straight answer from the beginning. You’ve yet to refute a single one of my points:
So tell us, Hucksterbee does or does not sincerely believe that the Constitution should be amended to be aligned with God’s Law?
If he does, he’s a religious freak who shouldn’t be in office. If he doesn’t, he’s lying to get votes and shouldn’t be in office. Either way, he’s damned.
Hucksterbee believes in taxing some people to pay for things that other people benefit from — that’s called liberalism. How can you defend that?
Hucksterbee record on pardons is on the same level of Mike Dukakis. How can you defend that?
As to the “Fair” Tax and Reagan raising taxes, we can discuss that in the other thread.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 7, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I will give credit, though, to anyone who will sign a pledge not to raise taxes, and who supports making Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Not that “permanent” means much anyway, because it means “until such time as a future Congress changes the law to raise it again.”

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Post a comment