February 7-10, 2008
Feb 07 03:45 Big Battle Looming in House Feb 07 18:40 Hillary & Obama vs. Reagan Feb 07 20:19 Dean's Desparate Attack Against McCain Feb 08 04:03 Another Corrupt Philadelphia Politician? Feb 08 12:33 McCain's Speech Feb 08 22:12 Precinct Caucuses: Building the GOP The Right Way Feb 09 10:20 Prioritize A 4-Letter Word For DFL Feb 09 11:10 Everyone's Entitled to Their Delusion Feb 10 05:07 Everyone's Entitled to Their Delusion, Part II
Prior Months: Jan
Big Battle Looming in House
Sometime Thursday, a big fight will erupt on the House floor. According to this memo , the fight will be over earmarks. Here's an outline of the fight:
"House Republicans regret Speaker Pelosi's decision to keep the earmark factory open. Middle-class families are fed up with Washington politicians squandering their hard-earned money, particularly at a time when families are struggling with the rising cost of living. We need to bring fundamental change to the way Washington spends the American people's money, but this change cannot begin until the earmarks stop. Republicans hope rank-and-file Democrats will honor the promises they made in 2006, and join us in voting to halt the broken earmark process so it can be reformed," Boehner said.It's long past time to eliminate earmarks because they're the biggest source of corruption. Corruption specialists like John Murtha certainly will howl about the GOP's attempt to limit earmarks. Frankly, I'd hope that they'd wear that as a badge of honor.
"It's become evident to the American people, as well as a good many of us in Congress, that the system Congress uses to dole out earmarks is badly broken and in need of thorough, fundamental reform. Unfortunately, it's also evident that Democrats in Congress have demonstrated neither the will nor the appetite to work with Republicans in bringing about that change voluntarily. So it's incumbent upon us to use every opportunity available to speak up for the millions of Americans who have had enough," said Blunt.
Last year, it was easy for freshmen Democrats to vote for earmark reform because it wasn't truly reform. A year later, we can point out that the omnibus spending bill contained a monstrous increase in airdropped earmarks, which weren't part of the original legislation. Instead, they were 'airdropped' into the conference report so they couldn't be debated on the merits. Here's what the House GOP is doing to complicate things for swing district Democrats:
Three GOP members of the House Appropriations Committee, Reps. Jack Kingston of Georgia, Frank Wolf of Virginia and Zack Wamp of Tennessee, have authored legislation that would bring the earmark process to a halt and establish a panel to identify ways to permanently change the spending process. Kingston-Wolf-Wamp has been cosponsored by 129 House Republicans, including the entire House Republican leadership team. However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who as leader of the Democrat-controlled House has the power to shut down the chamber's earmarking process immediately, declined to support the measure or the proposed moratorium.I said a year ago that the earmark reform bill wouldn't make corruption machines like John Murtha miss a beat. Last year, it was a prediction. Now, it's verifiable fact. This being an election year, it's a safe bet that a 527 or a candidate or the NRCC will point out how Democrats didn't keep their promise of cleaning up Washington. It's equally certain that someone will point out the GOP's reform agenda. (I suspect that that someone will point it out repeatedly. )
That isn't insignificant at a time when the economy is slowing and people want to keep taxes and spending steady.
Posted Thursday, February 7, 2008 3:49 AM
No comments.
Hillary & Obama vs. Reagan
There's a must read WSJ editorial out today that details the fight between Obama and Hillary over HillaryCare II. here's a sample from the editorial:
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton's "individual mandate" for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.There aren't many differences between Hillary and Obama so it's important to point out a difference as significant as this. Hillary admitted to George Stephanopoulos that they'd "have an enforcement mechanism" in her new plan:
Mrs. Clinton's proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren't insured is because it's too expensive, not because they don't want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can't be "universal" without a mandate.
But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table.
The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous "Harry and Louise" commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this "smear campaign" doomed HillaryCare in 1994, as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.
Yet if Mrs. Clinton's plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won't be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, "You can mandate it but there will still be people who can't afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?" And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that "we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."
I'd like to take this a step further by comparing HillaryCare II to Ronald Reagan's governing principles. As I said yesterday , Ronald Reagan had a great libertarian streak in him. Here's how he worded it in his Farewell Address:
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.Comparing HillaryCare II with Reagan's governing philosophy is the starkest contrast imaginable. It isn't difficult to say that Reagan's We The People approach is more appealing that HillaryCare's dictatorial approach. Let's compare the essence of Hillary's philosophy to Reagan's philosophy. First Hillary's statement:
"we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."Now Reagan's statement:
"We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us.Reagan's governing philosophy is the polar opposite of Hillary's. Reagan thought it best that citizens should make the most important decisions in their lives. Hillary thinks that it's best if bureaucrats did the deciding for people because it's relatively easy to control government but it's almost impossible to control individuals.
The bottom line is that we should aspire to a nation that liberates individuals and restricts the government, not vice versa.
Posted Thursday, February 7, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Feb-08 10:38 AM
If you had researched Hillarycare, you would have discovered the massive coercion built into it. First, you would be allowed to not buy insurance, UNTIL you sought out a doctor. At that point you would me required to enroll and pay for the "single payer" government plan. You would be ASSIGNED a doctor, You would accept whatever treatment the doctor, following government guidelines, would give you. If you went to another doctor, you AND the doctor went to jail. A very good system, you must admit, if you are in a gulag somewhere.
Dean's Desparate Attack Against McCain
The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti has written a blistering attack of Howard Dean's recent fundraising letter. It's a fisking worthy of the Fisking Hall of Fame, if such an institution existed. Here's an amusing portion of the fundraising letter :
John McCain is a media darling, but don't trust his carefully-crafted image; he's worked for years to brand himself. From Iraq to health care, Social Security to special interest tax cuts to ethics, he's promising nothing more than a third Bush term.I can't believe that this passes the laugh test with anyone but the craziest of lefties. John McCain twice voted against the Bush tax cuts, which makes Dean's assertion that McCain's for "special interest tax cuts" utterly absurd. During his speech to CPAC today, Sen. McCain promised that he'd veto bills with earmarks in them. That's a major distinction between Sen. McCain and President Bush.
Here's Dean's next absurd assault against McCain:
After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign. In fact, two of the top three sources for John McCain's campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms, and he looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.
Democrats have been exposed as corruptionmongers, using earmarks as a fundraising tool. John Murtha has perfected it to the level of a science. The absurdity of Gov. Dean's statements gets more obvious with each sentence.
Here's Mr. Continetti's response:I wrote an entire book in which McCain was one of the few Republican heroes in the Abramoff affair. Besides which, whether you agree with the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, and I don't, you can't really argue that McCain is trying to make lobbyists' lives easier. Quite the contrary.Dean's claims are without merit. They can't be substantiated. I don't agree with McCain's way of fixing Washington's corruption but I'm not foolish enough to say that Sen. McCain wants to make Washington lobbyists' lives easier.
As if those claims weren't absurd enough, this one tops the charts by a country mile:
On immigration reform, he's run as far to the right as he can, aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party.Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter had the most 'radical' positions on immigration of this year's GOP presidential candidates. As I said here , the vast majority of people agree with their once-radical positions on immigration:
People have criticized Tom Tancredo's immigration beliefs. Fortunately for people who believe in the rule of law and in the principle of sovereignty, Rep. Tancredo didn't moisten his finger to see which direction to take. He kept forcing his beliefs into the political mainstream.On immigration, John McCain needs to come right a considerable distance before anyone confuses him with Tom Tancredo.
It's a fitting tribute to Rep. Tancredo that people are agreeing with him. People are looking for principled politicians.
Ordinarily, I'd say that someone should slap Gov. Dean silly for making such statements but it's obvious that someone's already done that.
Posted Thursday, February 7, 2008 8:22 PM
No comments.
Another Corrupt Philadelphia Politician?
H/T: King
I've been interested in the rampant corruption in Pennsylvania's political class for quite some time so this post about State Sen. Vincent Fumo's mansion immediately caught my attention. To say that it's startling is understatement. Here's what's known about Sen. Fumo's mansion:
- Fumo bought the property in 1994 for $175,000, and in 2003, assessors sought to hike the valuation that year to $436,000. Fumo appealed and the BRT cut the increase to $250,000.
- Kevin Feeley, a consultant for the Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes, said that he "was confident that Fumo had been treated like any other taxpayer."
- Today, it has a six-floor elevator, seven fireplaces, three kitchens, a whirlpool bath, a custom-built vault, a billiard room, a wine cellar, a shooting range, gas lamps and heated sidewalks.
- Fumo's mansion is currently on the market for $6 million.
- Fumo's property tax bill is $6,611 because it's valued at $250,000. (If his property were properly valued at $6 million, his property tax bill would be in excess of $165,000.)
- In the spring, the board increased valuations for two-thirds of Philadelphia properties but skipped Fumo's.
- Among the allegations in the 139-count indictment is that Fumo had a taxpayer-paid Senate aide work for 18 months as "project manager" overseeing the parade of contractors redoing the house.
- Two of the four BRT votes that saved Fumo's property from reassessment came "from members with personal or political ties to Fumo."
All the renovations he did to his house were done in secret; he got a court order in 1995 to make the renovations to his mansion secret, the only such order ever given out. He got it because he supports abortion rights and was worried for his safety .It's time we applied the age-old maxim that sunlight is the best disinfectant to Sen. Fumo's situation. After all, it's obvious that Sen. Fumo hasn't used any disinfectant anytime recently. When's the last time you heard of a 139-count indictment? I'm not a lawyer but I've never heard of a person getting that big of an indictment.
Here's some additional questions worth asking:
- Considering the fact that the major renovations were made in 1995, why did Sen. Fumo object to a new valuation for $436,000 in 2003?
- Why didn't the assessors establish a higher valuation than $436,000 on a 6-story, newly renovated mansion?
- How did the Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) lose the documentation on what happened when Sen. Fumo appealed the assessment?
Ed Goppelt of Hallwatch.org said "It's like the fourth grader saying the dog ate his homework. To lose 13 years of records from one of the most powerful elected officials in Pennsylvania? That's pretty weak."I couldn't agree more than I agree with Mr. Goppelt. Here's another tasty tidbit of information:
In any event, state tax data show that Philadelphia properties are routinely undervalued. A state analysis found that, on average, the assessments of Philadelphia properties are off by 40 percent. But even by that standard, the assessment of Fumo's property is grossly in error, 96 percent less than it should be.How does someone have their house valued at 4 percent of what it's worth? The better question worth asking is why so many Philadelphia properties are off by 40 percent in their valuations. Might it be because that's Gov. Ed Rendell's biggest base of support?
Whatever the answer is, nobody in their right mind can argue that the Pennsylvania Democratic Party political machinery isn't greased with these types of 'favors'.
Posted Friday, February 8, 2008 4:04 AM
No comments.
McCain's Speech
Frankly, I loved John McCain's speech to CPAC . That doesn't mean I'll swoon and give my everlasting devotion to Sen. McCain. It does mean, though, that I'll listen to what he has to say. Here's something that I loved from his speech:
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.That should be music to a conservative's ears. Here's the next paragraph:
I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it , any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.There aren't many movement conservative that wouldn't like those policy initiatives. Here's something that Sen. McCain said that I agree with him on:
I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country . I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.
All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep . I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics.I've talked extensively with conservatives about Sen. McCain's beliefs. I've vehemently objected to a number of those beliefs, starting with BCRA, followed by McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman. That said, you've never heard me say that I didn't take Sen. McCain at his word.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not swooning after just one speech. I'm persuaded mostly by actions. At this point, I'll need alot more persuading .
Posted Friday, February 8, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment 1 by Andy Barnett at 08-Feb-08 02:11 PM
Gary - I like you think that I do embrace conservative fiscal policies and national defense policies but I put such a great emphasis on the social conservative issues that in the end the I'm willing to sacrifice the other legs of conservatism.
Mitt Romney said we are in a war yesterday and that's why he is bowing out. I would agree that we are in war.
Since Roe v. Wade we've been in a war for life. It pre-dates the war on terrorism, it's bloodier, and it's devastating to our nation.
We need a leader who will put an emphasis on fighting this fight and others that are destroying life, our youth, and our families.
Check out my latest post...blog.andybarnett.com
I'm passionate about this but I must be true to my principles!
Precinct Caucuses: Building the GOP The Right Way
Earlier this week, I attended the Benton County BPOU's precinct caucuses. To say that there was an electricity in the air is understatement. In 2004, 97 people attended the precinct caucuses. This year, 313 people voted in the straw poll.
The thing that excited me most was the massive influx of first time attenders. A significant portion of Mitt's supporters and a majority of Rep. Paul's supporters identified themselves as first time attendees.
From my perspective, the most significant thing about that is the energy they brought to the event. Frankly, it's an energy that's been lacking in the GOP this year. When I submitted a resolution on the healthcare constitutional amendment that the DFL will put on this November's ballot, Paul's supporters and Romney's supporters vehemently disagreed with the notion of healthcare as a constitutional right. That's the type of energy that we'll need going forward, both toward the conventions and towards rebuilding the GOP from the ground up.
Earlier this week, Michelle Malkin wrote the conservative's rallying cry . Here's what I'm talking about:
Some on the right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds and secure borders, no matter who takes the White House in November.AMEN, MICHELLE!!! In fact, I'd take it a step further. This should be our focus every election cycle. There's an old saying that's particularly applicable to conservative politics this year: If you aren't moving forward, you're falling behind. Tomorrow's leaders come from today's activists. If we want more reliable conservatives, then we need to start recruiting and grooming them early. Anything less is unacceptable. Simply put, we want a strong 'farm team'.
Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you, instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.
There's a model for this in professional sports. In the late 1940's & early 1950's, the NY Yankees were the best team in baseball. Sportswriters of that era said that the second best team in baseball was the Yankees' Triple-A farm team.
Here's the point: Our goal as conservatives shouldn't just be to field the best 'major league team'. Conservatives should also aspire to fielding the most loaded 'farm system', too. That means preaching Ronald Reagan's gospel of liberty, prosperity and national security throughout the land.
It's my belief that GOP politicians have misread election results. As a result, they retreated to unprincipled moderation when the Agenda Media told them that's what voters were calling for. This fall, I said something pertinent to this discussion:
It's important to remember that it wasn't that people got fed up with low taxes, sensible spending priorities and a government that protected them from terrorists.The same can be said about the principles that Ronald Reagan governed by. People didn't tire of Reagan's principles. It's that voters believed that conservatives were abandoning those principles. That's what drove them away.
We also heard campaign operatives say across the country that conservatives couldn't carry certain districts. While that might've been true in a handful of districts nationwide, that certainly wasn't my belief in a majority of so-called swing districts. When we started settling for unprincipled moderates, the GOP started its decline. The good news is that we can rebuild the GOP if we're willing to work through things rather than stomping off the playing field in a fit of rage.
Several things are key in rebuilding the GOP into a principled majority party. It starts with a healthy respect for the Tenth Amendment. A government that is limited is a government that is most accountable.
Also key in the rebuilding of the GOP is a rallying to the principles of federalism. The quicker we sell that principle to voters, the sooner they'll reject HillaryCare II and other similar initiatives. Once we win people over to that belief, then people will want as many of the decisions made as close to them as possible. Part of that discussion needs to be our explanation that local decisionmaking means less wasteful spending, thereby eliminating most tax increases. I'll bet that voters will agree with that.
I also think that our repeated espousing of libertarian principles will appeal to people. Something that Reagan repeatedly proved is that people yearned for personal liberty. The sooner we get people singing from that songbook, the quicker we'll rebuild the party.
If we walk away, however, the faster the GOP will devolve into being Democrat lite. I'm confident that people reading this post will agree that that isn't the way to go.
It's time we got the ship righted and the rebuilding process started.
Posted Friday, February 8, 2008 10:15 PM
No comments.
Prioritize A 4-Letter Word For DFL
If last year's legislative session proved anything, it's that the DFL majority looked at the word prioritization like a 4-letter word. That's the picture my adopted state representative Steve Gottwalt paints in this statement:
"Here's a point on property taxes that will surely be missing from the partisan rhetoric when the House Property Tax Relief and Local Sales Tax Committee stops in St. Cloud this week. The best and most sustainable way to decrease property taxes, for homeowners and businesses, is to apply fiscal restraint in governmentI've never made it a secret that I think Steve is a rising star in the GOP. He's obviously a fiscal conservative who isn't afraid of telling liberals that they need to prioritize their spending. He challenged Larry Haws & Tarryl Clark on that last September at the League of Women Voters Education Forum. The result was so stunning that Larry Haws said this:
spending at all levels.
"In 2003, Minnesota faced a huge state budget deficit. State spending was re-prioritized, reducing local government aid (LGA) but not classroom K-12 funding, and local units of government were to decide whether a number of government expenditures were important enough to fund at the local level.
"Some assert that those LGA reductions automatically forced up local property tax levies an equal or even greater amount. In 2003, the City of St. Cloud did receive over $2 million less in LGA than the previous year, and received even less LGA the following year. I served on the City Council during that time.
"The truth is, despite receiving significantly less LGA in each year, we made adjustments in the City's budget instead of just raising the city property tax levy to cover reduced LGA. In fact, the City's levy stayed the same ($13 million) in 2003 as it was in 2002 and went up just a small percentage in 2004, totaling less than the rate of inflation for those years (let alone making up for reduced LGA!).
"Living within our means is something families and businesses have to do, and so must government."
"Maybe we do need to prioritize."Democrats don't pass budgets; they pass wishlist-driven spending plans. The difference is best measured in billions of dollars, both in terms of spending increases & tax increases.
Speaking of tax increases, expect State Sen. Steve Murphy, (DFL-Red Wing), to propose the same tax increases as were in last year's Transportation Bill. Sidenote to SD-15 voters: Larry Haws & Tarryl Clark both voted for the $1.5 a year tax increase.)
As for the DFL passing property tax relief, I'm not holding my breath. Their plan last time wasn't property tax relief. It was an income tax increase mixed with LGA & precious little in terms of direct relief to homeowners.
Posted Saturday, February 9, 2008 10:20 AM
No comments.
Everyone's Entitled to Their Delusion
That's the message being sent in this memo to Huckabee's campaign staffers:
Memorandum to Huckabee CampaignersThe nominating contest is essentially over. Huckabee and Rollins know that. This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read. First off, Ronald Reagan wasn't the huge underdog that Gov. Huckabee is. For that reason alone, Huckabee should drop out of the race immediately. Certainly, it's his right to continue as long as his money holds out and his staff keeps working for him.
From: Ed Rollins, Campaign Chairman; Chip
Saltsman, Campaign Manager
Re: Our Path to Victory at the Minneapolis-St.
Paul convention
Too many Republicans have tried to turn this nomination battle into a coronation, not a series of further election contests. Big mistake on their part. They are wrong. We know that we are running an underdog campaign, but that's nothing new we have always been the underdog. And yet a whole lot of onetime overdogs are now on the sidelines, licking their wounds. The Republican National Convention is seven long months away; a lot can happen in that much time. A lot will happen.
But in the meantime, as you all know, Governor Huckabee is not a quitter. He has never shirked from a challenge, and he never will. He has always told us and personally reaffirmed to us just today that he is in this race to win. That is, to win the Republican presidential nomination, and to win the White House. Why? Because he cares deeply about the issues that inspired him to get into politics in the first place back in the 60s, when he started studying the works of the great conservative thinkers and writers, back in the 70s, when he was an ardent supporter of another underdog Republican. And what was that fellow's name? Oh yes, it was Ronald Reagan.
Karl Rove was on Hannity & Colmes Thursday night. According to Rove's calculations, Huckabee needs to win 83.3 percent of the remaining delegates to win. McCain needs to win 40 percent of the remaining delegates. With the math being that straightforward, it's difficult to figure out why he's staying in.
Perhaps it's his way to become the presumtive nominee after McCain. He's a regional candidate. He's an economic socialist. These things don't play well in the GOP. God help us if they ever do play well in the GOP.
Faith. Family. Freedom. Those are the words that have guided Mike Huckabee this far, and they will continue to guide him, and us, all the way to the White House next January. The 44th governor of Arkansas will be the 44th President of the United States.That's funny. Undoubtedly, faith and family have guided Gov. Huckabee. That said, I find it odd to hear Ed Rollins say that freedom is one of Gov. Huckabee's guiding principles. It isn't liberating to openly support increasing taxes on people. That's what he did in Arkansas. That's what he's doing in supporting the Fair Tax this election cycle. Here's one last dose of Gov. Huckabee's delusion:
In fact, come to think of it, any American who reveres the US Constitution has a stake in Mike Huckabee's success, because he has been an unstinting proponent of all our Constitutional freedoms, including the First Amendment, which he believes has been wrongly abridged by wrong-headed campaign finance reform legislation. Of course, there is one amendment that MH doesn't like: The 16th Amendment. That one was a mistake, which he will fix with the Fair Tax!It's utterly delusional to think that Mike Huckabee will get the 16th Amendment repealed. Unfortunately, that will be with us for the forseeable future.
It's one thing to instill enthusiasm into your campaign workers. It's another to issue a memo with that many absurd statements in it. It's over. It's time for Gov. Huckabee to go home, hopefully for a very long time. If he really cared about the party, he'd run for Senate.
Posted Saturday, February 9, 2008 10:35 PM
No comments.
Everyone's Entitled to Their Delusion, Part II
Mike Huckabee is finally flipping his lid. Check out this answer in his interview with Howard Fineman :
Fineman: How do you answer people who say that you ensured John McCain's nomination by hurting Mitt Romney?As I said here , the nomination race is over. At this point, Gov. Huckabee would have to win 83.3 percent of the remaining delegates to win the nomination; McCain only has to win 40 percent of those delegates. What are the odds that both those things will happen? He has the right to continue but it's unrealistic for him to think he'll win.
Huckabee: I find it amazing that people would say that I "hurt" Romney. Could it not be that he hurt me? Had he not been in South Carolina-and if Fred Thompson had not been there-I would have won. Would it have changed the universe for me? Yes, it would have. Why is it that my candidacy should disappear? Who is it that has the right to pull the plug on it? Is it my critics? My critics never supported me, so why would I sit around and act according to the chorus of critics? I'd rather act according to the chorus of my supporters.
What's particularly unbecoming is his playing the 'If my opponents hadn't been in the race, I would've won' card. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson both had more credentials to be president than Gov. Huckabee has. Sen. Thompson has tons of foreign policy experience, federalist principles and a habit of cutting wasteful spending in Wsahington. And he voted to balance the federal budget four consecutive years.
Mitt Romney took over the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics when they were filled with corruption. He had to deal with the security of world's athletes in the aftermath of 9/11. He built Bain Capital from the ground up. He has a long legacy of accomplishments.
Mike Huckabee has a quick wit and a mixed history of cutting and raising taxes. And he thinks that he's the one who should be president? Shame on him for thinking that.
What's been true all along is that Mike Huckabee's never been more than a likeable second tier candidate. His sense of humor and his position on the disaster known as the Fair Tax are the only things that kept him in the race.
That's hardly the resume of a first tier presidential candidate. That's the resume of a first tier presidential wannabe.
Posted Sunday, February 10, 2008 5:11 AM
Comment 1 by Andy Barnett at 10-Feb-08 05:21 AM
Gary,
Mike was saying this in response to the arrogant media which claims that he is the one who stood in the way of Mitt Romney. He's making fun of that ridiculous argument, I don't think he's complaining.
Have you listened to Mike Huckabee's speech at CPAC? It's posted on my blog right now. Why don't you go check it out and report back to me.
I don't like fighting with other conservatives but this is about principles man.
I liked Mitt Romney and thought well of Fred Thompson, because they seemed solid on all of the moral issues.
John McCain is not and so I believe we have to rally around Huckabee if for nothing else to make a statement to the rest of the party that social conservatives will not be forgotten.
Honestly, I find his personality and what he has to say refreshing and can you really argue that there is a better leadership quality than having a life transforming relationship with Jesus Christ?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-08 04:07 PM
Andy Barnett said:
Honestly, I find his personality and what he has to say refreshing and can you really argue that there is a better leadership quality than having a life transforming relationship with Jesus Christ? Obviously, I'm happy that Gov. Huckabee has had a "life transforming relationship with Jesus Christ" but that alone doesn't make him a leader.
I'd further state that we're electing a president, not a Theologian-in-Chief.
