Huckabee Endorses Obama (and Osama)

Thats pretty much the only way I can read this

In an interview with 1200 WOAI news during his swing through Texas, longshot Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee outlined a strategy which has him not winning the GOP nomination outright, but pushing the nomination to the September Republican National Convention, which he says will turn to him as the most ‘conservative alternative.’

The ‘brokered convention’ plan is in stark contrast to Huckabee’s previous sunny predictions of a sweep to victory in the primaries and caucuses on the shoulders of adoring family values conservatives.

So in a pathetic last ditch effort to get the nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to completely ruin any possible chance of the GOP winning in November. The American people are sick and tired of the incompetence and pandering to the nut-jobs of George Bush, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, and Rick Santorum (see: 2006 Elections). Obama can attract 22,000 people to a rally at Georgia Tech. Mitt managed to get about 1500. The GOP’s only shot of beating the Democrats is to rally around McCain – who unlike Hillary or Barack will continue to actually fight the jihadists.

So, if any Ron Paul Supporters in Texas are reading this, if you want to make sure that the US is out of Iraq this time next year, vote for Huckabee. And all those who voted for Huckabee here in Georgia, Osama Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

84 comments

  1. Rick Day says:

    Can you verify your last reach, er, statement? Cite your source (other than partisan whining) that says electing a D will mean the end of the war in 6 months.

    And Bin Ladin should be thanking the Bush Administration for not caring about catching him.

    Fool.

  2. John Konop says:

    The reality is we cannot afford this nation building strategy (10 to 12 billion a month). Also we cannot afford a quick pull out with no plan,

    We must go back to the Reagan containment strategy.

    Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:

    1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.

    2) Allow each group to have a much stronger
    role in self government by letting them create three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.

    3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.

    4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.
    Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.
    We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand

  3. EAVDad says:

    “The GOP’s only shot of beating the Democrats is to rally around McCain – who unlike Hillary or Barack will continue to actually fight the jihadists.”

    This is such crap Chris that I don’t know where to begin. I thought you were more intellectual than to fall for the “If the Democrats win, the terrorists win” crap. Yes, McCain has a strong military history, but his stance on the war in Iraq so far sounds like the same aimless strategy that got us into the unnecessary, intractable war.

    I’m not some bleeding heart here and, in fact, might vote for McCain. But I don’t think he will get us victory in Iraq any quicker or slower than Obama or Clinton.

    Please, don’t be a dittohead.

  4. aardfark says:

    I find myself more and more agreeing with the same ideas expressed here by EAVDad.

    I’d like for someone to offer a real, rational reason why you cannot be a “true conservative” or “real American” and disagree with the entire Iraq fiasco so far and the ongoing party line on said disaster. If there’s a logical argument, I haven’t heard it yet…

    And if memory serves, McCain was one of the loudest and most often repeated voices saying from the start that Iraq was going to be “quick and easy,” only to later recant (sort of) by saying that anyone who shared his earlier stance was seriously mistaken.

  5. curt flood says:

    Agreed, EAVdad. It’s amazing that there are folks out there who still believe that waging the war in Iraq has anything to do with defeating terrorists.

    And my favorite is the argument that “we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Classic discredited cold war domino-theory rhetoric, straight outta LBJ, JFK and Nixon.

  6. Roy says:

    I bought into the WMD, Sadam’s a menace theory, back in ’03, but now see I was wrong. As a result, I don’t trust the current admin anymore. I do however now think it was all about oil. More and more republicans seem to be accepting this. And perhaps the worst of it (besides 500,000 dead; us and them) is we’ve helped create a new Iran, as well as thousands of more terrorist that just want to do us in.
    I have always been a republican, but this war seriouslty make me think of becoming an independant. And the most terribly dissilusioned? The ones who think Sadam had something to do with 9/11!

  7. NonPartisanGA says:

    Roy,

    How do you support your conclusion that Iraq was about oil?

    Who is getting the oil or otherwise benefiting and how?

    Was Congress complicit in this oil conspiracy?

  8. Roy says:

    Well Nonpartisan,
    I guess it really wasn’t, since we found all those
    anthrax labs in operation, not to mention those nukes just waiting on propulsion systems.

    Seriously, evan Alan Greenspan said this was the administrations prime motive. As well, several departed members of the Bush administration have also said Bush wanted this from day one.

  9. StevePerkins says:

    (1) The issue of whether the war in Iraq is about “terrorism” is a dead horse. Not even most Republicans still believe that they’re one and the same.

    (2) The idea that Ron Paul supporters only cared about Iraq is likewise a dead horse. For me, the issue of Iraq barely hangs onto the Top 10 by its fingernails.

    (3) The notion that a Democrat President will have us out of Iraq within 6 months was never even a horse in the first place. The only two candidates who made such claims were Kucinich and Bill Richardson, neither of whom broke double-digits. Under either Obama or Hillary, it will take years to wind down.

    (4) The notion that “a vote for (insert Republican’s name here) is a vote for (insert Democrat’s name here)” is fast turning into a dead horse. I’m no Huckabee fan, but a vote for a candidate is a vote for that candidate. If no candidate can get enough delegates to avoid a brokered convention, then they don’t deserve to get the nomination without a brokered convention. This goes for either party… and by the way, it’s FAR more likely that the Dems will go to a brokered convention this year than will the GOP.

    In essence, while I think that McCain is a better candidate than Huckabee by every imaginable criteria… I strongly oppose the practice of pointing to the opposition party as a “boogeyman” and using them to rally around a bandwagon candidate no matter what. This notion encapsulates everything that is wrong with the party system, and represents why neither party really stands for anything.

  10. Bill Simon says:

    Roy,

    I am not going to argue with you at all regarding the administration for the past 8 years.

    BUT…do you really think that now is a good time to put into power the kind of people who have a history of APPEASING terror-minded maniacs?

    Barack/Hillary/whoever on the Left are all about pacifism and placating people like Saddam and Osama, believing concepts like IF we disarm the US, the rest of the world will lay down their arms and treat us nicely?

    Do you really want to put THAT kind of “change” in charge of this country?

  11. NonPartisanGA says:

    Roy,

    Take a deep breath….

    1) I did not even mention WMD real or imagined. I only asked you to elaborate about your oil conspiracy theory.

    2) Alan Greenspan as former Federal Reserve Board Chair was not part of the administration and not likely to participate in foreign policy strategy.

    3) Even if Bush wanted the war from day one, that does not prove as you suggested that “it was all about oil”. Oil being a factor or one of a number of motivations is not the same as the sole motivation.

  12. IndyInjun says:

    My point of departure with Bush was in 2002 when the intention to make war on Iraq was announced, as my study of the situation showed Pakistan to be the greatest locus or terrorism.

    To me the frightening aspect of Iraq is that we have SPENT our force there instead of against the real source of terror and the costs have been borrowed from the Chinese. At the same time we are sending $10’s of billions to the terrorist nation, one with very real WMD.

    Bush said of Saddam; “That man tried to kill my Daddy” and he has/had Saddam’s pistol as a souvenir. He would probably have the noose, too, if he had his way.

    As for the US taking the oil, that would have been too awkward. The objective was to have permanent bases in the ME, where 75% of the proven reserves of light crude are to be found and to have a proximate force to the newer mega fields in the ‘stans of central Asia, where the Chinese were making inroads.

    Whether it was for oil or a strategic presence, or some combination, is debatable. It was not about terrorism, though.

    The financial state of the USA will soon forbid any more adventurism unless we start acting like a real empire and seizing the oil for our needs.

    Even Huckabee might be able to rationalize it.

  13. John Konop says:

    Non

    Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?
    O’Neill Tells ’60 Minutes’ Iraq Was ‘Topic A’ 8 Months Before 9-11

    CBS) A year ago, Paul O’Neill was fired from his job as George Bush’s Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president’s policy on tax cuts.

    Now, O’Neill – who is known for speaking his mind – talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

    Entitled “The Price of Loyalty,” the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book’s publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

  14. Roy says:

    Bill,

    I will probably vote for McCain again as I did in the primaries. But I just don’t see where the other side are terror appeasing maniacs. In my opinion we can’t police the world, there are too many problems here at home we should be dealing with. We coudn’t micro manage southeast asia and we can’t the middle east.

    NonPartisan, if the war wasn’t about oil, then what was it about?

  15. Roy says:

    Good points Indy, Especially regarding the Pakistan situation . Our State Department for years had classified Pakistan as a major source of terror, and Bush &Co. declared them as “America’s partner in the fight against terrorism”. That remark there was worth 4 shots of vodka!

  16. NonPartisanGA says:

    Roy,

    I cannot tell you what was in the heart and mind of the President and the members of congress when they decided to move forward.

    Hence I have not made any contention about what the real deal was because I do not know.

    I asked you to expand on your conclusion to help me reason through why you said what you said.

    Defending your premise by implying that if I can’t prove otherwise is a rather convoluted defense.

  17. rat farris says:

    Just to clarify –

    1) I don’t believe the war on islamofacism is the seminal issue of our time.

    2) I don’t believe that western civilization will fall, or the night sky will be lit by the suitcase nukes going off in American cities if we turn tail from Iraq.

    However, I suspect that many of Huckabee’s supporters _do_ believe these things and this post was addressed to them.

    Finally, if Ron Paul’s performance in the debate is any reflection of his following, Opposition to Iraq is the reason he has such support. Even on questions of domestic policy he’d run home to the “we wouldn’t have these issues if we weren’t building an empire abroad” response.

  18. rat farris says:

    Finally, I do believe that Huckabee staying in the race is hurting McCain’s chances in the General. And if Huckabee really is working to make it an open convention, then the floor fight will make a democratic victory certian.

    Unless Obama diddles little boys, in which case even Alan Keyes would become a viable candidate.

  19. curt flood says:

    “For me, the issue of Iraq barely hangs onto the Top 10 by its fingernails.” Was this a typo? A war that churns the Iranian threat, costs us billions each week, with continued US casualties, and isn’t a top-ten issue? Maybe I’ve misread.

  20. IndyInjun says:

    John Konop,

    You pointed out the other reason I became hostile to the Bush GOP gang – the fact that they fired, scapegoated, demoted, and smeared scores of real conservatives, GOPers, and just honest folks for just trying to serve America and not the Bush imperium. CORRUPTION.

    O’Neil and Summers were among the first.

    Rat,

    If the Dems win, what difference does it make. The Dems=GOP=Poison for ou and me.

    Do you prefer the cherry flavor D-Con or the peach?

  21. Roy says:

    NonPartisan: When we invaded Iraq and took Baghdad, what was the most important government ministry to guard? One would have thought the ministry that contained nuclear research and development as well as bio science labratories. Where’d we station armed units? The oil ministry. And who in all this has made out the best financially?? Bush and Cheney’s good friends from Texas what with windfall profits, oh, and Halliburton and Blackwater.

  22. Roy says:

    And Indy, remember that story Bob Jones University put out (some said with the help of Karl Rove) that Mccain (back in the 1999 primaries) had had an affair with a “colored” woman and that’s why he had a dark child???
    McCain and Cindy had adopted an orphan from Bangladesh years back and that rumor was to help Bush win the SC primary after McCain won big in New Hampshire. Bob Jones U folks…I’ve known atheist that would never even -think- about coming close to telling such a terrible lie.

  23. rat farris says:

    Roy,

    Perhaps because #1 – the Administration was incompetent (in not securing the WMD sites) and 2) the oil ministry was the most crucial to preserve for the reconstruction efforts.

  24. rat farris says:

    Roy,

    That is because atheists have a sense of decency. Fundies can rationalize doing anything in order to help save people’s souls (see: Spanish Inquisition).

  25. Roy says:

    Farris, but also the other ministries in charge of bio weaponry would be just as cruicial if not more, if they reall were manufactoring nerve agents, you couldn’t have that continue, expecially with our forces on the ground.
    And Rugby, surely McCain will win Oregon, Ohio.

  26. debbie0040 says:

    There will not be a brokered convention. McCain will secure the nomination out right and the Huckster will continue to be the court jester.

    Obama’s record has not been bought to light yet. Obama makes Hillary Clinton look conservative.

    http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml

    Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
    ——————————————————————————–

    By Cliff Kincaid
    Feb 12, 2008

    A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

  27. IndyInjun says:

    Debbie,

    Bush just dropped $700 million on Tanzania, all of it to be borrowed from China, and we are supposed to worry about Obama?

    As I see it McCain and the GOP love to spend and borrow, while Obama and the Dems love to spend and tax.

    Choose your poison.

  28. debbie0040 says:

    McCain is a fiscal conservative, Bush is not.

    I disagreed with Bush and the money he pledged to Tanzania.

  29. IndyInjun says:

    If you plop down the world’s most awesome military force in the midst of 75% of the reserves, you maintain pressure to – 1) favor US oil companies over Chinese oil companies on the part of the ‘stans 2) keep supplies flowing to USA without crippling price hikes or supply disruptions 3) maintain oil pricing in the $US dollar, despite the arab sheiks being robbed of $billions as their $US dollar assets are inflated away. (Noted here that gas prices in Europe have not gone up much, while US prices explode because of the cheapened $US.) and 4) embargo Iranian gasoline imports to stiffle its ambitions

    Therefore you don’t have to overtly take it, all you have to do is control it.

  30. John Konop says:

    JasonW

    Read the book Art of War and you will see the problems with invading Countries! The best chapter explains how the greatest generals you never heard of because they avoid the war by using their mind. A smart general has his ducks in a row before the invasion and it is only done as a last alternative. Also an occupation is always a tough winning the peace. And when throw on the secular problems in Iraq it is a hornet’s nest.

  31. John Konop says:

    Rome

    The fact that over 20 thousand people a month visit my blog on a monthly basis has nothing to do with the topic. I guess you have even giving up adding mindless talking points about the topic of Iraq.

    Rome you clicking your heals three times and putting your head in the sand will not make the problem go away.

    Try reading books instead of comic books and listening to Rush!

  32. DavidAtlanta says:

    So, a vote for anyone other than an aging RINO with temper control issues and a solid neo-con voting record is a vote for Al-Qaeda?

    I hope the GOP has better arguments than that.

  33. MSBassSinger says:

    Posts such as this one are good illustrations of why the Republican party is in shambles. The Rockefeller Republican wing of the party has reasserted itself since 2000, setup the 2008 primaries to allow their “independent” and Democrat friends to dilute the strength of conservatism in the Republican primary process.

    We have the Orwellian spectacle of Rockefeller Republicans like McCain, Romney, and Guiliani being inaccurately called conservative while a real conservative like Huckabee is falsely painted as a liberal, and conservatives like Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson are dismissed altogether.

    It is grossly Orwellian when Rush calls Huckabee a “Huckster” and says he is not conservative.

    It is grossly Orwellian when Hannity and Laura Ingraham refere to Huckabee as a “tax and spend liberal”.

    Fortunately, conservatives are not mind-numbed robots waiting for their daily marching orders from anybody. I must admit we are no longer the dominant voice in the Republican party, but we aren’t quite ready to shutup and sing the party line.

    Huckabee is doing the right thing. He is giving conservatives the option of voting for him to hopefully take the issues of conservatism to the convention (which is what the convention is for), or to put their tails between their legs and obey the Rockefeller Republican call to get in line and support a liberal candidate as if he were to be anointed rather than selected.

    Whether Huckabee bows out gracefully now, or stays in to the convention has no bearing on whether McCain can beat Hillary or Obama. McCain is a weak candidate, no different than Ford in 76, Bush in 92, or Dole in 96.

    Republicans win when they have a candidate that is conservative across the board. Bush fooled people in 92, and his son in 2000, by pretending to be conservative when they had no intention of governing from conservative principles. With McCain (or Romney or Guiliani) Republicans have no such conservative candidate.

    Conservatives are able to be conerned about more than one thing at a time. Conservatives can want to see abortion be the decision of the States, to see our enemies destroyed, to see illegal immigration stopped and reversed, and to see government’s immoral levels of taxation and interference in private lives reduced significantly. Huckabee certainly stands conservative on all these. We can’t be so sure about McCain, given his flip-flopping.

    Any loss of the Presidency in November by McCain is due solely to what the Rockefeller Republicans have done in neutering the once powerful, once admirable, and once believable, Republican party.

    Why did Republicans lose so badly in 2006? Because, thanks to the Rockefeller wing of the party, they did not get rid of unnecessary programs, like the Dept. of Education, did not reign in spending, and did not hold each other to acceptable personal moral and ethical standards, and went right back to “nation-building”. The Republicans of 1994 had 12 years to get it right, and did not keep their word. The losers got booted. Plain and simple.

  34. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Good post MSBass

    I love the overblown stereotype Farris. If you want to believe that Huckabee’s supporters are a bunch of backward idiots go ahead, it just isn’t true.

    Also, so much for competition breeds excellence belief that the GOP used to believe in. As long as Huckabee stays positive and points to the political differences that they have, I believe he will only help McCain.

    The only way we go to a brokered convention is if some major scandal breaks about McCain.

  35. IndyInjun says:

    Sorry, but the notion that Huckabee is a conservative is quite laughable.

    “Opportunist” and “hack” politician come to mind.

    Conservatives never had a chance in this race, none at all.

  36. Romegaguy says:

    The only way we go to a brokered convention is McCain was to die tonight and unable to get any more delegates.

  37. debbie0040 says:

    The Huckster needs to drop out and allow McCain to begin preparing for the general election. Keeping the Whitehouse will be an uphill battle for the GOP. We need every advantage possible.

    By staying in, the Huckster is helping the Democrats…

    Huckabee needs to stop being so egotistical and self serving.

    He won’t be VP. 2/3rd of the GOP base despise the Huckster. 1/3rd still follow him like mind numbed robots…

  38. MSBassSinger says:

    debbie0040, should we just skip the convention and go ahead and anoint McCain?

    You need to understand that the party – GOP or Democrat – is far less important than the nation. There is no benefit to the nation or the party by having the last conservative candidate withdraw before the convention.

    McCain is sufficiently liberal and untrustworthy that his term as President will be barely distinguishable from Hillary or Obama.

    Like I said earlier, “Any loss of the Presidency in November by McCain is due solely to what the Rockefeller Republicans have done in neutering the once powerful, once admirable, and once believable, Republican party.”

    Although I do wonder why my reply to “IndyInjun” was removed. I didn’t notice anything untoward in it.

  39. debbie0040 says:

    The last conservative candidate? Huckabee is not conservative. Huckabee is an evangelical not a conservative.

    He might have some social conservative views, but he is a fiscal LIBERAL. It takes more than being pro life and against gay marriage to be a conservative. Huckabee also changed his views on illegal immigration when he decided to run for President.

    The Huckster can not win.

    John McCain is not a liberal. Tell me, point out areas where McCain is liberal.

  40. MSBassSinger says:

    debbie0040, you may be right that Huckabee cannot win. The liberal wing of the GOP has had the process sewn up since 2004.

    But there is no rational argument for Huckabee not being conservative.

    First, your statement makes it sound like evangelicals are not conservatives. Traditional American conservatism came from applying Scriptural teachings to civil society without having a theocracy. Did you notice that the Founders were largely Christian from different Protestant sects? Social, fiscal, and defense conservatism all comes from that.

    Don’t believe the propaganda you’ve heard about Huckabee. Look at the facts.

    He, having to work with a heavily Democrat legislature and years of neglect from Clinton, lowered taxes in Arkansas, and lowered the tax burden. He has always been for lower taxes and lower government regulation. He is for the Fair Tax, which is the most conservative tax plan out there.

    Huckabee is and has been 100% for taking the war to our enemies and winning the war. He is properly hawkish in the defense of our nation.

    It is McCain, not Huckabee, who is the liberal here. McCain is the nominee of the Rockefeller Republican wing, the liberals.

    “John McCain is not a liberal. Tell me, point out areas where McCain is liberal.” Au contraire, madame.

    McCain pushed for amnesty for illegals.
    McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts (2001 and 2003) on the basis that it unfairly helped the rich (the Democrat line).
    McCain pushed for and passed the McCain-Feingold Bill that helps Democrats, hurts Republicans, and restrictsd free speech.
    McCain has spoken harshly of, and insulted, Christians – the very people who have strongly supported his party.
    McCain, in 2005, opposed a federal gay-marriage ban.
    McCain opposed overturning Roe v Wade (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99).
    MCain’s ACU rating teh past 7 years has been below 70%, and currently at 65%.
    McCain believes in man-made (anthropogenic) global warming, which is a hoax.
    The proposed McCain-Lieberman energy bill would raise taxes on gas by 50 cents per gallon.
    McCain opposed drilling in ANWAR.
    McCain opposed interrogation techniques that have already saved American lives.
    McCain wants to shutdown Gitmo, bring the prisoners to the US, and give them rights to our court system like any criminal.
    MCain is rated with an “F” from the Gun Owners of America (GOA).
    McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows.

    Is that enough for you? All this has been readily available in the conservative media.

    A true conservative is conservative socially, fiscally, and on defense. Huckabee is, McCain is not. McCain fits the Rockefeller Republican mold, Huckabee does not.

    If being a Christian who walks the talk is something you find distatsteful in a President, I am glad you weren’t around for Presidents like Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Madison. If that point of view is yours, you would have detested them.

    Perhaps you don’t believe this, but there was a piece of propaganda going around when Romney was still running that Huckabee and evangelicals in general want to turn our nation into a theocracy. I’ve been an activist Christian for a long time, and I have never heard any reputable Christian advocate that. The Constitution we have is just fine – and we need to go by it much more closely than we do.

  41. Chris says:

    Bass – I’m confused. You defend Huckabee’s tax-increase and massive spending as conservative yet condemn Bush 42’s tax-cutting and massive spending as not conservative?

    Both are liberals for massively increasing spending. Bush just happens to be a supply-side liberal.

  42. Chris says:

    should we just skip the convention and go ahead and anoint McCain?

    YES! because no one else is going to get the nomination, and the longer the GOP Primary goes on, the harder it will be for McCain to win the general.

  43. rugby fan says:

    I don’t think that Phuckabee, the Suckabee Huckster’s decision to stay in the race matters.

    There is no mathematical possibility for him to steal the nomination and the organizational and fundraising support is lining up behind McCain.

    Indeed, McCain is only going after Obama in his attacks.

    In other words, Phuckabee is having as much impact on the GOP race as Gravel is for the Democrats.

    Just because party activists are worried about Phuckabee prolonging the race doesn’t mean there is anything to be worried about.

  44. debbie0040 says:

    MS, I am a Christian and preachers kid so I don’t find the fact the Huckster is a Christian distasteful.

    What I do find distasteful is the fact I believe the Huckster is using his Christianity to obscure his bad fiscal record of raising taxes, increasing spending and pardoning/commuting the sentences of murderers and rapists. When it comes to raising taxes, the Huckster makes Clinton look conservative.

    Being tough on crime is part of being conservative.

    The Huckster also advocated amnesty for illegals and even supported the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Bill in May of 2006 and also supported a path to citizenship for illegals.

    It is not Christian to mislead and lie about your record like the Huckster has.

    I would not vote for Tax Hike Mike Huckabee if he were the only candidate in the race..

  45. MSBassSinger says:

    debbie0040, I have no problem with you voting any way you believe is right. I am glad that you aren’t one of the secular conservatives that detest the involvement of Christian conservatives. You might be surprised how often I encounter such people.

    I am fully aware of the points you raise against Huckabee, but the facts just are not there. Huckabee lowered taxes more than he raised them – in fact, one of the tax increases was voted on by the people and he had to go along with it. He never supported McCain’s amnesty bill (McCain-Kennedy). There is absolutely nothing in Huckabee’s record or his platform to indicate he is for higher taxes or pro-illegal immigration.

    I don’t expect you to suddenly support Huckabee. But you should at least stick with the factual truth. One could think what you wrote is bearing false witness since the facts are so contrary to the assertions. I don’t think so, though. I think you just haven’t looked deeply enough at the facts, and are unintentionally taking the propaganda as fact and forming your heartfelt opinions from that. At least you are engaged in the discussion and not sitting back and doing nothing.

    Although I never supported Romney or McCain, I did do the due diligence to go to their websites and read their stands on issues and the accusations made about them. I would hope you would at least do the same for Huckabee, and search the web for 3rd party discussions of the anti-Huckabee propaganda.

    Don’t forget that both Romney and Reagan, as governors, raised taxes more than Huckabee.

    BTW, I served 5 years as a local pastor, and my kids (now grown with their own kids) were PKs.

  46. MSBassSinger says:

    Chris,

    You wrote: “I’m confused. You defend Huckabee’s tax-increase and massive spending as conservative yet condemn Bush 42’s tax-cutting and massive spending as not conservative?”

    Fortunately, I get to say what I wrote and what I meant. Your version is incorrect.

    Huckabee supported tax raises in a few areas, one of which was voted on by the people, and lowered taxes in a lot more areas. The overall effect was to hold taxes down. Huckabee is and has been, for the Fair Tax, which not only reduces taxes, but eliminates income taxes, corporate taxes, and cap gains taxes – while cutting spending. There is nothing more fiscally conservative than that.

    Bush’s tax cuts were miniscule compared to Reagan’s, and were too little too late. Apparently you and I agree that Bush has governed as a fiscally irresponsible liberal.

    Since Huckabee raised taxes and spent money as governor less than Reagan or Romney, and is clearly for tax and spending cuts now at the Federal level, I can come to no other logical conclusion than Huckabee is indeed conservative.

    Now, please educate me as to why McCain, who appears to be your guy, is conservative. (No, I am not being facetious – I am open to hearing why someone thinks he is conservative).

  47. IndyInjun says:

    “He is for the Fair Tax, which is the most conservative tax plan out there.”

    Says who?

    The GOP has never adopted it as part of any platform and a lot of conservatives think that it is nuts.

  48. Doug Deal says:

    Indy,

    To add to what you said… The very definition of conservative is to maintain the status quo, or resist change. How is a drastic overhaul of the tax code “conservative”.

    I was once a supporter and I still would support it, if we started from scratch with no tax code, but the change is too drastic for a one time thing. Anyone who suggests that it could happen on a single date is a madman. That means it will have to co-exist with the income tax, which means the income tax will never go away, leaving us with another way for the Feds to tax us.

    Instead, we need to attack the real problems, Overspending and complexity of the tax code. If the government did not want to spend a hefty chunk of the GDP, we would not really care about the tax code in the first place.

    The sad fact is that everyone wants their tax bill to be 0, and wants everyone else to pay for all the services and perks that they receive. Until there is a philosophical change in the mind of the people, nothing will ever work.

  49. MSBassSinger says:

    IndyInjun, in what universe is something conservative only when GOP approved? The GOP was not a conservative party (in modern times) until Reagan, and soon after the 94 Congressional elections, the Rockefeller wing of the party seized control again.

    The Fair Tax is built on conservative principles such as:
    What you tax more, you get more of. What you tax less, you get less of. If you tax income (incl. cap gains), there is less incentive to generate income. If you remove taxes from income, then you get more of it and the economy grows.
    The use of income taxes for social engineering is a liberal concept, not conservative.
    Taxing income is immoral. Taxing sales at one and only one point is more in line with how taxation was done from our country’s start.

    The only conservatives that think the Fair Tax is nuts are 1) those who never bothered to read it and understand how it works, and 2) those who see the removal of income taxes as a loss of political power. The former is inexcuable, and the latter is understandable, if they would only be honest about it. Some are at least honest enough to say they just don’t think the DC power structure will ever permit it. That, too, is understandable. But, to call it “nuts” is either uninformed or greedy for power.

  50. IndyInjun says:

    MSBS

    You lose. I have read the bill and now both books. I will gladly debate either FT book author in any neutral forum. However, they have surrendered, saying in the new book that they don’t want to debate the actual legislation, just their ‘concept’ of it.

    I would make a fortune if the FT passes. Call me neutral. Never let it be said that I did not try to warn folks not armed with my research.

    Every IRS agent in the USA and every tax accountant is salivating over the FT, that is why there is not much outcry against it from those quarters.

  51. MSBassSinger says:

    Isn’t it great that a person’s degree doesn’t change the facts? If a person with a PhD in astronomy told me the sun appears to rise in the west, then should I just agree?

    For example, DougDeal talks about the Fair Tax co-existing with the income tax. That is not the plan nor what HR 25 says. The Fair Tax ONLY takes effect when the 16th amendment is repealed. I sure wouldn’t support it any other way.

    I would agree that it is a huge challenge to BOTH repeal the 16th amendment AND implement the Fair Tax. But since when do conservative Americans shy away from big challenges when it is the right thing to do?

    So, IndyInjun, let us assume I am wrong. It’s happened before. 🙂 Show me some factual, reasoned example of how I am wrong to support the Fair Tax.

    And I would pay good money to watch you debate Boortz on the Fair Tax. I am not that big a fan of Boortz, but the debate would be entertaining.

  52. MSBassSinger says:

    I don’t think I was clear on how I would support the Fair Tax. So here goes, even if you disagree:

    No parallelism. The Fair Tax takes effect ONLY after the 16th amendment is repealed.

    Until the Fair Tax takes effect, taxes should be lowered, corporate and capital gains taxes eliminated. A flat tax rate should be used until ther is (if there is) a Fair Tax.

    An increase in the FT rate must be passed by 2/3rds of the House and Senate. A decrease would require only 50% + 1.

    Real federal spending should be decreased by eliminating non-essential (that is, those programs, agencies, and departments not fully in keeping with the Constitutional requirements) spending. For example, but not limited to: Dept. of Education, NEA, farm subsidies, unfunded federal mandates, foriegn aid to countries who stand against the US or provide (by their govt or citizenry) aid to our enemies, etc.)

    Eliminate the death tax and tax on social security income.

    Limit spending on existing programs to no more than the true CPI and increase in legal population, with the exception of defense related spending for men, material, and R&D.

    The bill for the FT, whether HR 25 or a future bill, must have a detailed plan for the transition period, including inventory and undelivered but sold items, as well as some degree of transparency for how the COGS decreases when the hidden taxation goes away.

    I am for the Fair Tax, but not in a way that leaves us open to worse taxation. To do all that is a tall order, and if it fails, it fails becaause we were not up to the task. But it is worth attempting. There is a 100% chance it will not happen if we don’t try.

  53. joe says:

    Indy,

    Do you oppose any move from an income tax to a consumption tax, or are you just opposed to the specifics of the Fair tax?

  54. Jason Pye says:

    The Fair Tax ONLY takes effect when the 16th amendment is repealed.

    I’m not sure about that. Boortz and Linder have said that a sunset provision would have to be included if a repeal of the 16th Amendment didn’t happen, I don’t think it exists as currently written.

  55. IndyInjun says:

    MSBS:

    The other Peachpunditeers ridicule me for explaining in depth and I have done it many times.

    My approach has been to study it like I was representing a client and researching the Bill for the first time. Doing this from a sales tax perspective – nobody else has done so, as far as I can tell – led me to conclude that the people are being sold a grand deception.

    Joe: I actually like a national sales tax at low rates with NO exemptions and no ‘prebate” The rate might be in the 8 to 10% range, but would have to be coupled with spending cuts.

    One day I might just do a web site to lay my case out so folks can see what they are being lead into by Boortz and Linder.

  56. John Konop says:

    “I actually like a national sales tax at low rates with NO exemptions and no ‘prebate” The rate might be in the 8 to 10% range, but would have to be coupled with spending cuts.”

    I agree except I would add a low flat income tax at 5% or less with no writie offs. I would than lower the national sales cost tax if we got spending in line.

    The biggest problem is spending!

  57. John Konop says:

    “I actually like a national sales tax at low rates with NO exemptions and no ‘prebate” The rate might be in the 8 to 10% range, but would have to be coupled with spending cuts.”

    I agree except I would add a low flat income tax at 5% or less with no write offs. I would than lower the national sales cost tax if we got spending in line.

    The biggest problem is spending!

  58. debbie0040 says:

    “MSBassSinger // Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32 pm
    I am fully aware of the points you raise against Huckabee, but the facts just are not there. Huckabee lowered taxes more than he raised them – in fact, one of the tax increases was voted on by the people and he had to go along with it. He never supported McCain’s amnesty bill (McCain-Kennedy). There is absolutely nothing in Huckabee’s record or his platform to indicate he is for higher taxes or pro-illegal immigration.”

    Maybe YOU should do the research, I can assure you I have. Was this Mike Huckabee’s clone that gave this interview and supported the Senate/Whitehouse – McCain-Kennedy
    amnesty bill and advocated a path to citizenship for illegals? Man, cloning sure has come along way…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201237.html

    “Where are you on the debate that rages here between the House approach on immigration and what seems now to be a consensus approach in the Senate, particularly on the issue of a path to legal status or citizenship for at least quite a few of the 11 to 12 million who are here illegally?

    I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. You shouldn’t ignore the law or ignore those who break it. But by the same token, I think it’s a little disingenuous when I hear people say they should experience the full weight of the law in every respect with no pathway, because that’s not something we practice in any other area of criminal justice in this country.

    We have everything from plea bargainings to suspended sentences to probation to clemency. There’s a whole gamut of ways in which there are lesser than the full penalties applied for a whole variety of reasons — everything from jail overcrowding to non-violent offenses.

    To think that we’re going to go lock up 12 million people, or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go, might make a great political speech, but it’s not going to happen. What should happen, however, is exactly what I think the president has proposed, and that is that we create a process where people make restitution for the fact they have broken the law. ”

    As for Huckabee’s tax increases,
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html

    Under fire from conservatives, the former Arkansas governor misrepresents his tax hikes, and cuts.
    Summary
    Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been hit with criticism over his record on taxes as governor of Arkansas. The faultfinders have been members of his own party, who take issue with tax increases he enacted. In recent interviews on Fox News, Huckabee responded to some of these questions, but we found him to be misleading and incorrect on several points:

    Huckabee claimed that a speech in which he implored the state Legislature to raise taxes was in response to a state Supreme Court order to increase education funding. But he specifically said in that speech that he would address the education matter at a later date.
    He said a tax on beds filled in nursing homes was a “fee” not a tax, despite the fact that he himself has called it the “bed tax.”
    Huckabee claimed a gasoline tax was only passed after 80 percent of voters approved it. Not true. The tax was enacted before a referendum vote on highway repairs.
    He frequently says he cut taxes “almost 94 times” but leaves out the 21 taxes raised during his tenure. In the end, he presided over a net tax increase.

Comments are closed.