This ad highlights why the liberals are so pro-Huckabee, it's like Ann Coulter said he would be easy to lead astray. Not that he has that conservative a jumping off point to begin with.
The next president has to be ready to lead from day one. Mitt Romney is that person.
Friday, December 28, 2007
This ad highlights why the liberals are so pro-Huckabee, it's like Ann Coulter said he would be easy to lead astray. Not that he has that conservative a jumping off point to begin with.
McCain is a lot like Huckabee, he is practically a blue dog Democrat. I know Independents are allowed to vote in the NH primary and a lot of those are Democrats who want to influence who the Republican nominee is, but true conservatives will put Romney over the top.
Gov. Romney: "What's happened in Pakistan has made more clear in the mind of the American public and perhaps some of our Democratic colleagues as well that what we're dealing with in the global war on terror, this war against violent Jihadism, is not just an effort in Iraq or even extended to Afghanistan, but this is a worldwide effort on the part of violent Jihadists who have as the their intent the collapse of all nations, Islamic as well as Western."
While I would like to think that this event has made Jihadism more clear in the mind of "perhaps some of Democratic colleagues". Their actions lead me to believe other wise. What this assassination does underscore is that we need not only a Republican president who understands the threat we face, but we also need a Republican congress and Senate who will not be constantly trying to cut him off at the knees while battling the Jihadists. Given the stakes of our current international situation, the actions of this Democrat Congress and the Democrat candidates seem utterly ludicrous.
* Barack Obama claiming he would bomb Pakistan with or without Musharaff's consent
* Harry Reid saying we have lost the war in Iraq
* Nancy Pelosi visiting terrorist sponsor nation Syria and posing for propaganda pictures with President Assad.
* Hillary Clinton's rhetoric about having a suspension of disbelief regarding General Petreaus
* John Edwards saying that the "War on Terror" is only a bumpersticker
* Obama, Edwards, and Hillary calling for direct talks with Iran
* The Democratic Congress proposing a bill that would offend key alley Turkey at a crucial time in Iraq
* Tying the defense bills for Iraq to withdraw deadline and attaching outrageous pork spending to those same defense bills
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there.We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. Jihad encompasses far more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For radical Islam, there is an over-arching conflict and goal - replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, 4/10/07)
Governor Romney is the only candidate running for President who has promised to increase our troop levels by 100,000. He is also the only candidate proposing returning military spending and research to the Ronald Reagan levels. In short, he "gets it", when it comes to fighting the Jihadists. If America wants to win this war, they will elect Gov. Romney and give him a Republican Congress and Senate to expedite the process.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
It is very interesting to see how much credibility the media has given recently to newspaper endorsements of candidates. Both the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor took strong anti-Romney positions, do the liberal media's newspapers even matter any more? Is it really a surprise that liberal institutions like the Boston Globe or New York times would endorse John McCain? Of course they are for McCain, he's the most liberal Republican running for President.
Who didn't expect the liberal media to embrace McCain? It comes as no surprise to me as they've been doing it for the last 8 years!
Give Senator McCain credit where it is due. He is great on the "War on Terror", but so is Joe Lieberman. Frankly, they are much the same candidate. Both were against the Bush tax cuts, both were pro-amnesty, both were for campaign finance reform. I'm not sure where they even differ on the issues. Joe Lieberman may as well be running for the Republican nomination.
It's much the media's love affair with Mike Huckabee. They know Mike is a big government Republican, and they know that a lot of the liberal agenda will get accomplished with him in the Oval Office.
So, who do they fear? Well, two liberal newspapers chose not to endorse anyone, but they were so afraid of Romney's conservative leadership they blasted him instead. I have to point out that the Concord Monitor's editorial board has in the past embraced positions of being:
* For Drivers licenses for illegals (which Romney vetoed in Mass.)
* For Gay Marriage (which Romney fought in Mass.)
* For Raising Taxes (Romney wants to cut taxes)
* Against School Vouchers (which Romney brought to Mass)
It is only natural they would come out so strongly against him. Who else has come out strongly against Mitt? Why that would be the DNC of course. They have issued more anti-Romney press releases than against any other Republican candidate. Check out this chart:
Why is the DNC so worried about Romney? What do they fear in a Romney candidacy? There are about a dozen reasons off the top of my head:
1) Romney has the resume to be President. A succesful CEO who has turned around companies, the Olympics and state budget crisis, Romney has a record to run on. A lot of Americans like the idea of having a business man in charge - this is largely the reason Ross (nutso) Perot got as many votes as he did. No matter who the Democratic nominee is whether it is Edwards, Obama or Clinton, they will all face the same attack from Romney. They have never run ANYTHING, not a state, not a small business, not a corner store. They are all vulnerable to this and the DNC knows it. Americans tire of career politicians, especially ones who have never even had a job in the private sector (Obama/Clinton) or ones for whom the only way they've ever made money was by suing hospitals (Edwards).
2) Romney has one a tough election in the bluest of blue states - Massachusetts. The bottom line - if you can win there, you can win anywhere. They know Romney is going to attract a lot of swing voters and the DNC is going to have a tough time painting a well-spoken Republican from Massachusetts as a Bush clone.
3) Mitt looks like a President. Like it or not, since the JFK-Nixon debates, television has played a larger role in politics as have the politicians looks. Poor Phil Gramm never had much of a chance at winning the nomination, even though he may have been the smartest guy in the room. Lucky for the Republicans that this time the smartest guy in the room is also the most photogenic.
It seems to be mentioned over and over again, by the media that Mitt "looks like a President". I hate to imagine people would vote for him based solely on his looks, but I know people also base their votes on equally frivolous things like a handshake, or or who is tallest. In today's world looks are sadly important.
4) Romney has the best running mate of any Republican. I'm not talking about his VP, but his wife Ann Romney. Ann has been a charismatic speaker, and often has been compared to other popular first lady - Laura Bush. She has been a terrific campaigner and would make a stark contrast to other first ladies who do more negative things in the media (Bill Clinton, Obama).
5) Romney has the ability to sell his ideas directly to the American people. After 8 years of George W. Bush the American people are looking forward to a state of the union address where the President doesn't stumble over big words. Romney wrote his "Faith in America" speech, and is was widely received with aplomb both for its' substance as well as Romney's genuine style in delivering it. America faces some of its' toughest challenges right now, the next President is going to have to mobilizing the American people to overcome them, the Democrats fear Mitt Romney is just that man.
6) Romney is the only Republican candidate who takes the Health Care issue away from the Democrats. This is a huge one, no matter how much Hillary talks about the 47 million uninsured Americans, Romney has the trump card. He has done something about Health Care and she has not. Based off what we've seen on the campaign the Democrats are planning on using this as a key issue in the 08 election, Romney being the Republican nominee pulls the rug out from under them.
7) Romney has no skeletons in his closet. The guy is squeeky clean. The liberal media keeps digging and has unearthed the startling facts that Mitt's Mormon great great Grandfather had more than one wife, and that Mitt while serving as a missionary in France was known to have a Coke from time to time. No ethical scandals like Huckabee and Clinton, no money returned, no former cocaine use like Obama. The Romney campaign won't have any last minutes DUI stories before the election, no extra marital affairs, just Mitt and his family talking about what a great father and grandfather he's been.
8) Romney has proven to be a great fundraiser and successful debater. Mitt has shown himself to be innovative not only in business but on the campaign trail as well, he has raised more money than any other Republican candidate, and by ignoring tradition and inventing new fundraising techniques he broke the record for the most money raised in a single day to kick off a campaign. He also won the first and last of the Republican debates (and a few inbetween).
9) Democrats fear Romney is the next Reagan. Maybe it's the hair, maybe it's the heighth, maybe it's that both names start with the letter "R", or that both Governed liberal states, but a lot of people have been mentioning Romney and Reagan in the same breath. That is when they are not mentioning JFK in the same breath as Romney. Those are the two people Romney is most often compared to and it does him well. The Democrats see voters and pundits making the connection and they know they don't have a candidate that does likewise.
10) Romney is a convert to the right to life movement. While pro-life personally his whole life, he has become pro-life while in office. The liberal media, and the Democrats has no problem with someone who was formally pro-life becoming pro-abortion, they call that coming to his senses. But, when a candidate changes from pro-choice to pro-life, he must be losing his mind. They know that Romney will have to prove himself on this issue to social conservatives, and worry that he will go the extra length to demonstrate that he is pro-life. They know Romney's conversion story on this issue is a powerful one and will affect many American's opinion on this issue, and encourage more people to examine their own views.
11) Romney represents American family values. Despite charges of being too perfect, the Romney family comes across as genuine and loving. He has five sons, all of whom are successful in their own careers and families. There is no Billy Carter, no Roger Clinton's around, no Bush twins getting into trouble. Romney actually said on 60 minutes that he and his wife had waited until marriage before having sex. Given Ann Romney's efforts to teach inner city youth to wait until after marriage before having children- can you think of a better spokesperson for abstinence? The Romneys could really teach abstinence as a form of birth control the best way possible, by example.
12)They know Romney is the agent of change. Mitt has turned around things where ever he has gone. 8 years of the Romney administration and there is a good chance that Washington will no longer operate in the same way after he leaves office. They know Romney is going to keep his promise to restrict spending, they know he is serious about energy independence, and border enforcement, and they know he is going to put an end to illegal immigration, and continue to win the war against the violent Jihadists. Having a successful, charismatic, Republican like Mitt Romney in the White House could very well be the death knell of the DNC, and they are scared to death of him.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Interesting article on the 2nd contest in this year's primary (it's not New Hampshire).
Romney's campaign has one of the largest on-the-ground efforts, according to observers in the state. The former Massachusetts governor and head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in nearby Salt Lake City is organizing a large grassroots campaign in the state, says Matt Micheli, one of two state coordinators there.
This is a good move on Romney's part because this primary despite being ignored nationally right now is going to be a huge media event once all the votes are in.
Which sets Romney up for consecutive wins.
- Iowa: Jan. 3
- Wyoming: Jan. 5
- New Hampshire: Jan. 8
- Michigan: Jan. 15
- Nevada: Jan. 19 (also South Carolina GOP)
- South Carolina: (Democrats) Jan. 26
- Florida: Jan. 29
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Doug Wilson has a great column out today at Townhall.com. About Romney's Education platform. I know Governor Schwarzenegger took on the teacher's unions and lost badly, but something has to be done to improve education in this country and Mitt is the man to do it.
Taking on the educational establishment is like picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel—it simply isn’t done.
Mitt Romney apparently never got that memo.
As governor of Massachusetts and on the presidential campaign trail this year, Romney has bucked the establishment by supporting much-needed reforms such as school choice and rightly labeling the failure of so many of our inner-city schools the “civil rights issue of our time.”
Leadership on civil rights and education runs in the Romney family. Mitt’s father, George Romney, served as governor of Michigan in the 1960s and earned a reputation as a civil rights pioneer and proponent of local control of education. In The Rise and Fall of an Urban School System: Detroit, 1907-81, Jeffrey Mirel notes that George Romney helped grant the Detroit school board full financial independence from the city, a move that streamlined the bond issuing process and enabled “school leaders to borrow funds for capital improvements.”
Some forty years later, Mitt Romney has inherited this mantle of leadership from his father. It couldn’t come at a better time for America’s schools.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently found that one in ten high schools are “dropout factories” where less than 60 percent of students who enroll as freshman continue through their senior year. Meanwhile, the Associated Press found this year that the on-time high school graduation rate among minorities stands at about 50 percent. The situation in some urban areas is even worse—much worse. According to Walter Williams, just 21.7 percent of students in Detroit’s public schools graduate. All this despite the fact that education spending has increased by more than 100 percent since 1971.
Mitt Romney has a winning formula to bring about the change our schools need. Romney has offered a plan for education reform which would expand school choice and strengthen charter schools. Romney would also reward teachers with merit-based pay, particularly in areas—Detroit, for example—that struggle to attract and retain quality teachers.
As a business leader, Romney understands that competition breeds success. He understands that in order to improve, schools need to compete with other schools and teachers need to compete with other teachers. This type of healthy competition is the lifeblood of the American economy, as it fosters innovation, efficiency and prosperity. Likewise, introducing competition into our school system will cultivate a culture which rewards excellence, and improves quality from top to bottom.
Romney has a record of advancing substantive educational change. During his tenure in Massachusetts, Romney increased the number of charter schools and the number of students attending them, even against the opposition of a hostile legislature. Romney proposed a plan to provide $68 million per year in performance-based bonuses for 25,000 qualifying teachers. He also oversaw the hiring of 1,000 additional math and science teachers, helped put laptops in the hands of thousands of middle school and high school students, and initiated a scholarship program which rewards successful high school graduates with four-year, tuition free college scholarships. Romney has also proposed a tax credit for families who home-school their children.
Add it all up and you have a record of conservative leadership and a vision to shape the future.
While nearly every student, every school district would benefit from the various reforms mentioned, minority students in urban school districts stand to gain the most. That’s why Romney calls education the civil rights issue of our time.
We can no longer afford, can no longer tolerate, the achievement gap between whites and minorities in our schools. Reasonable people will differ as to how to fix the problem, but we have forty years of evidence which shows that money—and more and more of it—is anything but a panacea. Minority parents and their children know the truth of this, perhaps more than anyone else. They sense the need for change; they sense that their schools are at a tipping point. Romney agrees.
“At some point,” Romney has said, “I think America—and more important, the minority communities—are going to say, ‘It’s time to split with our friends, the unions and the Democratic Party, and put our kids first here. “
With Mitt Romney at the helm, that time may be now.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Romney takes on McCain over taxes
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Sat Dec 22, 2:30 PM ET
NORTH CONWAY, N.H. - Taking aim at a rallying John McCain, New Hampshire front-runner Mitt Romney said Saturday that his GOP presidential rival had failed "Reagan 101" by twice opposing President Bush's tax cuts.
Romney also sought to turn McCain's well-known maverick streak — a central theme in his campaign ads — against the Arizona senator. McCain's go-it-alone attitude, Romney suggested, will breed more divisiveness in Washington if he wins.
"Anyone who's run something, whether it's a small business or a big business, knows that the No. 1 ingredient for success is building a remarkable team of people around you, motivating them, guiding them, insisting on them drawing out their best capacities," Romney told a crowd of more than 100 people at an elementary school.
"I've had occasions to run business, to run the Olympics and to run a state, and you don't do that by yourself," said Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.
Taxes, a major focus in a state without an income tax, drew Romney's attention in his criticism of McCain.
"He voted against the Bush tax cuts — twice," Romney said. "That's failing Reagan 101. (Ronald) Reagan taught ... almost all of us in the Republican Party that lowering taxes would grow the economy and was good for our economy and good for individuals. And I believe that the Republicans are going to nominate a tax-cutter to become president of the United States."
McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against a $1.35 trillion tax cut that Bush proposed in 2001. McCain also voted against similar plans in 2003, as well as a proposed repeal of the federal estate tax. McCain said they disproportionately benefited the wealthy.
That is according to the latest Rasmussen poll, which shows Mitt Romney beating Hillary Clinton in the general election for the first time. Just confirming what's been known for months now, the more voters get to know Mitt Romney - the more they like him.
The only weird thing about this poll is they comment about Hillary getting the lions share of female voters, yet not a single woman I know (Republican or Democrat) is going to vote for her. Several Democrat women I've spoken with wouldn't vote for her because they are against dynasties in American politics, others because they feel it's Bill's way of getting a third term, and others wouldn't vote for her because they simply can't stand her. Time will tell.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Two big news items of the day:
1. Romney is leading in Michigan!
2. Tom Tancredo Endorses Mitt!
I don't have to tell you how big these things are. Tancredo's endorsement cements Mitt as the leading candidate in favor of protecting our borders, and putting a stop to illegal immigration. Michigan is going to be a key state for winning the nomination, and being on top in Michigan is essential for Romney. In my opinion, it is a must win state for him.
The discussion that followed on Hotair.com had a lot of bloggers suggesting that Tom Tancredo had been assured a cabinet position for his endorsement. People tend to make these wild type of allegations for reasons I'm not sure of, and I really can't think of other examples where people have been given positions for endorsements. Can anyone name a Bush cabinet member who ran against him for the presidency and then endorsed him and now works at the White House? I can't either.
Anyways, it did get me thinking about what the Romney administration might look like given Romney's remarks about how he would evaluate potential cabinet members, "I would choose people based on their merits... I'm open to having people of any faith, ethnic group. But they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and what they could bring to the Administration."
It is within that spirit that I would like to propose some key members of the Romney Administration:
Vice President: JC Watts
Besides winning our Vice Presidential poll question 3 times, there are many reasons for the Romney-Watts ticket. In the classical political sense, Watts helps Romney get votes he otherwise wouldn't get. Watts allows Mitt to run with a former Baptist preacher (not named Huckabee), and gives him a running mate with rock solid conservative credentials. He also brings in what is likely to be an unprecedented percentage of the black vote for the GOP, forcing the Dems to spend money in places they otherwise wouldn't have to. After he's in office JC would be the natural person to put in charge of Romney's education reform policies that include: school choice vouchers, more testing, and more emphasis on math and science.
Director of Homeland Security : Tom Tancredo
Tom guarantees that Mitt Romney's 3 part plan to address immigration will go into effect. 1. The Border Fence 2. Employee Verification System and fines for employers who hire illegals 3. Putting an end to "sanctuary cities". We all know Tancredo would be the man to make sure that Mitt's plan gets implemented, and by putting Tom incharge he would show the Congress that the new administration means business.
Attorney General: Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani would be a solid choice here, he is popular and has a record of fighting crime and has given us some really tough talk on fighting terrorism. Rudy has a record of accomplishments when it comes to fighting crime, both as a US Attorney and as Mayor of New York. He has taken on the Mafia and won, he is the guy we want in charge of stopping terrorists in this country. There should be no hard feelings here if Romney wins, Rudy should be given this job - and all the credit he deserves.
Secretary of State: John Bolton
Dispite the main stream media's attempt to smear Bolton, he is still hugely popular among conservatives, and is one of the few diplomats with a record of getting results. He has a powerful record of standing up to the worst of the UN's offensive dictators, and just getting the job done.
Secretary of Defense: Duncan Hunter
A Vietnam veteran and Army Ranger, Hunter has served on the House Armed Services Committee for the last 27 years. He is also the author of the Secure Fence act, and has a son who recently returned from a couple of tours of Iraq and is U.S. Marine. No more stupid questions from the media to the Defense Secretary about "would you send your son to Fallajuh?" They would already know the answer.
Of course, John McCain plays a big part in this too. His leadership in the Senate is going to be absolutely critical in ensuring that these people can get appointed. Politics is hard work, but I'm not aware of any bad blood existing between McCain and Romney like there was between McCain and Bush. Let's hope they can bury the hatchet and move forward doing what is best for America by speaking in a united voice.
The next administration is going to need forceful bold leadership, and not just from the President, but from all parts of the government. We face difficult challenges, and now is the time for leaders who will clearly define the issues and get to the meat of the matter. Remember that Bush was always trying to reach across the isle and work with the Democrats, the only problem was every time he reached across they bit his hand. Even going as far as to say he sent servicemen into war so they could "get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."
This would be the type of administration, that Republicans and Conservatives would really rally around - this group would fire up the base, and inspire the country. That's what this party needs, and what this country needs. A team we can get behind and root for.
If Romney is smart he will put together the best conservatives have to offer for his administration, after all as Ronald Reagan said, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is being carried out."
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Well, it seems what goes up must come down. Huckabee's poll number shot up like a rocket, and are making a similar rocket like crash to the ground. It seems the more voters got to know Huckabee and his record, the less they liked. It's hard to pin it down to one thing but it might have been:
* The largest tax increase in Arkansas history
* His numerous pardons of murderers and rapists
* His record of making Arkansas a sanctuary state for illegals
* His numerous ethical scandals and bribe allegations
* His not so subtle digs are Romney's faith
* His blame America first foreign policy
* Or maybe it was the fact that he was the one candidate that the main stream media and Democrat party were hoping would get the nomination
At any rate, I expect the decline to continue. It's too bad you can't win an election by playing bass guitar and joking about "weapons of mass instruction". Too bad in deed.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Romney was on Tim Russert's show today, and the early reports are that he did great!
Althouse: "I thought he sounded really Reaganesque — the tone, the pauses, the personal warmth."
Carol Platt Liebau: "Mitt Romney showed that he has the intelligence -- and the media savvy -- to do a good job in a presidential campaign."
My favorite part was where Russert pretended to not understand how something that works for an individual state wouldn't work the same for all 300 million Americans, like that would have no effect on the equation. That was one of the rare times that they actually got into issues.
Most of the interview Tim Russert focused on Romney's Mormon religion and the allegations of flip-flopping on the issues. The things Russert didn't ask Romney about include (but are not limited to):
The War on Terror
Competition with China and India
American Families and Values
Advancing American Technology
Basically, everything that Mitt Romney has made a cornerstone of his campaign was completely ignored. Tim Russert, by keeping the focus on his religion, and his critics at the ultra-liberal Boston Globe (who Russert cited ad nauseam) Russert effectively demonstrated the bias of the main stream media once again. He did a disservice to Governor Romney and his own viewers. Instead of focusing on the issues that matter to the American people, he does the bidding of the ultra left wing establishment. The questions may as well have been coming from George Soros or Michael Moore. Knowingly or unknowingly Tim Russert has hurt the democratic process, the only good thing to come out of this interview is that Romney handily demonstrated his ability to deal with such nonsense.
You can view the interview in its' entirety here:
Saturday, December 15, 2007
The National Review Editorial Board
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC)
Sheriff Joe Araopo
Bob Jones III
and many others.
So those are some fairly impressive endorsements and Judge Bork just adds to the list, on the other hand - he's no Chuck Norris, Oprah or Barbara Streisand .
Boston, MA – Today, noted conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
Joining Romney for President, Judge Bork said, "Throughout my career, I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. He knows firsthand how the judicial branch can profoundly affect the future course of a state and a nation. I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."
Judge Bork continued, "Our next President may be called upon to make more than one Supreme Court nomination, and Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation. I also support Governor Romney because of his character, his integrity and his stands on the major issues facing the United States."
Welcoming Judge Bork's support, Governor Romney said, "For decades, Judge Bork has been a leader in moving the conservative legal movement forward. As one of our nation's premier conservative jurists, he has been an important voice for our conservative values in Washington. I look forward to his counsel and working with him on the most important judicial matters facing our nation today."
Background On Judge Robert Bork:
Judge Bork Is A Leading Conservative Jurist With A Long Record Of Public Service. Judge Bork served as Solicitor General from 1973 to 1978 and acting Attorney General from 1973 to 1974. From 1982 to 1988, he served as a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On July 1, 1987, he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In February 1988, Judge Bork resigned from the Circuit Court and joined the American Enterprise Institute. Judge Bork, who also served as a partner at a major law firm and a Professor of Law at Yale University, is currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a Professor at the Ave Maria School of Law.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Some of the comments on Youtube include:
"More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush's virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates, we vote for Mitt Romney."
- National Review 11 Dec 2007
Romney was AMAZING in wednesday nights debate, even the Luntz's focus group agreed, we need someone who unites all of the factions of the conservative movement, whether it be social or economic/foreign policy conservatives which Romney can pull off.
I watched the debate. It didn't look like Huckabee was really able to move people in the way that Romney did. Romney was clearly the winner of the debate. Romney is the right man for POTUS.
Not surprising, good policy gets good support.
Romney was the only man on that stage that could say what he just said.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Like Phil Collins once sang, "Jesus he knows me, and he knows I'm right." I'd also like to point out that for a Baptist minister, he slipped when he said Jesus was a little boy when he fed the five thousand with the fish and loaves. That happened after Christ had begun his ministry, so he was at least 30. That is an age that has never been called a little boy to my knowledge. Of course I don't know Jesus like Mike Huckabee does.
Not comments by myself are necessary. This is the most important speech on religion in America since JFK, and Mitt Romney does a great job of speaking for himself.
Governor Romney's "Faith In America" Address:
"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'
"God bless the United States of America."
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
As Cameron Diaz once said, "If you want rape to be legalized, don't vote". She may as well have said, "if you want rape to be legalized, vote Huckabee".
Romney was lambasted last month for a poor decision a judicial appointee made, this has a lot more direct involvement from Govenor Huckabee. He personally advocated for the release of the rapist, even after meeting with the victim. Not surprising Huckabee's response is an outright lie and denial.
* He lied about not having any involvement in pushing for the rapists release.
* He lied about raising taxes in Arkansas.
* He lied about being an advocate for illegals.
Haven't we had enough of lying Governors from Arkansas? What do Iowans see in this guy? Arkansas is sick of him, and he would never get re-elected in Arkansas after passing the largest tax increase in the state's history.
Why do Iowans think he'd make a good president? Is it because he lost weight? Why not just vote for Jared?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.
The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.
As a presidential candidate, Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing for replacement of the income tax with a sales tax and has more recently signed the no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. But Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.
Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.
Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.
Nevertheless, he is getting remarkably warm reviews in the news media as the most humorous, entertaining and interesting GOP presidential hopeful. Contrary to descriptions by old associates, he is now called "jovial" or "good-natured." Any Republican who does not sound much like a Republican is bound to benefit from friendly media support, as Sen. John McCain did in 2000 but not today with his return to being more like a conventional Republican.
An uncompromising foe of abortion can never enjoy full media backing. But Mike Huckabee is getting enough favorable buzz that, when combined with his evangelical base, it makes real conservatives shudder.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
In their efforts to find skeletons in Mitt Romney's closet the liberal media has met with frustrating results- their aren't any. So, what's a biased editorial board to do? The answer is obvious, "He's too perfect". After the campaigns of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton's numerous affairs, the didn't inhale episode, the boxers or briefs questions, George W's cocaine accusations, and DUI's, you'd think American would be ready for a President who's only baggage brought to the White House are the ones that will contain his clothes.
The Liberal media is having none of this. And, what's worse some conservative news outlets online have generally shown a theme of repeating the liberal media's mantra. I don't know if they consider themselves to be Anti-Romney websites, but they sure come across that way. I'm speaking about Worldnetdaily.com and Hotair.com. Hotair sure had seemed to thrown it's hat in with Fred Thompson at least initially. Now they don't seem to know who to go to. Well, as a Romney supporter I want to say you all are welcome aboard the Romney express.
What bugged me about their cite most recently was their linking to and seeming to endorse the rhetoric of the LA times with this snipet:
Indeed, when a woman he bumps into while walking precincts here happens to mention he was once half an hour late to a house party, Romney stops dead in the middle of the street and turns disbelievingly to an aide: “I was late? I’m never late. . . . When was I a half-hour late?” It is finally determined that he was not late, the world makes sense again, and he trots happily down the block, where a “Mitt Romney for President” yard sign the size of a billboard greets him.
The article on the front page of their site has the caption, "Man or Machine"?
A few of the bloggers who left comments were astounded by Romney's seemingly odd behavior. I would like to remind those posters that punctuality is an important characteristic of leadership. If Mitt Romney has this ingrained into him, well he's in good company.
I'm refering to page 291 of Sterling W. Sill's book style="font-style:italic;">Leadership. Before Tony Robbins, and before Steven R. Covey there was Sterling W. Sill. He was I'm sure the inspiration for a lot of what those men do and he wrote numerous books on how to be successful, leadership, and how to be a good Christian. He was a powerful Mormon speaker, and had this to say on punctuality:
George Washington once made an appointment to buy a span of horses at three o'clock. The would-be seller showed up at 3:01. But General Washington was no longer interested in the span of horses nor the man who was not faithful to his word. The amount of time involved may be great or small, but the difference is only one of degree; the principle remains the same. Technically the appointment is cancelled if one of the parties defaults by being late, but he inconvience and discourtesy can never be cancelled. President Washington had a habit of inviting new members of Congress to dine with him. Occasionally someone would arrive late and be mortified to find the President eating. Washington once said, "My cook never asks if the guests have arrived, but only if the hour has arrived." Experienced senators who knew the President never arrived late for any appointment with Washington.
When the secretary of George Washington tried to excuse his lateness by saying that his watch was slow Washington replied, "Then you must get a new watch or I another secretary."
So, I guess the only question left is - George Washington, Man or Machine?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The latest poll we ran had J.C. Watts being selected as Mitt Romneys' running mate yet again. This is the second time we've ran a poll asking who you'd like to see on the ticket, and this is the second time Watts wins in a landslide with nearly 60% of the votes.
Last time we ran the poll there were some people who were under consideration for the nomination by bloggers and pundits who we didn't list. So, this time we listed the top ten potential running mates, including Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist and Mike Huckabee. It's clear the Republicans are excited for J.C.Watts, and they ought to be. Here are some of the things that having a Romney-Watts ticket would bring to the table.
* Romney-Watts 08 - it just sounds good
* The Clintons have already shown propensity of using the flip-flopper charge against the Romney campaign. No one says that about J.C. he is true blue conservative.
* The first black vice president should be a Republican. The Republicans have a chance to make history. The word out of Hillary's camp is there is no way she will have a minority on the ticket as her running mate. The leading assumptions are she will run with either General Wesley Clark (White-male) or Senator Evan Byah (White-Male). Romney with J.C. Watts as veep gets a lot of headlines, and free press that another running mate might not. They'll need this as the media worships the Clintons.
* The Clinton machine is sure to attack Romney over his religion, and it's history of blacks and their full membership into his church. Having Watts as veep, takes an arrow out of their quiver.
* It has long been said that the Democrat party is so dependent on the black vote that should 20% of them vote differently the Democrats could never win another national election. The African-American voters belong in the Republican party, a large majority of African-American voters are pro-life, pro-school voucher, pro-job growth, and pro- border enforcement. So, with J.C. Watts on the ticket, a greater number are more likely to study the issues than simply vote for their traditional party as always - especially if it's Hillary and Clark, or Byah (an all white ticket).
* The other thing having J.C. on the ticket does, is show that Baptists and Mormons can get along. The south is a crucial voting block for the GOP and while the mainstream media, and the pundits would question the wisdom of Romney's choice of J.C.Watts as his running mate, suggesting that the "racially divided" south would be less likely to vote a black man into power - they have another thing coming. Like most issues, this is one where the MSM and the pundits don't know what they are talking about and are completely out of touch. The south will vote for J.C. Watts, in fact a lot of white people will vote for the Romney-Watts ticket just BECAUSE they are fed up with the media telling them how racist they are. The first black vice president will happen with the Romney-Watts ticket, and white people in the south will not only vote for him, but will say, "It's about time".
* The best part is it would fragment the DNC, the Romney-Watts ticket is sure to pull 20-40% of the black vote away from the Democrats. After they win, the question has to be asked, if the Democrats are the party that is for the African-Americans why was the first one in the White House a Republican? African-American dissatisfaction with the DNC is at an all time high, this election could be the tipping point.
* Watts is one of the best speakers and debaters of our time. He would make headlines wherever he went. And if he were used to focus almost exclusively on education, the GOP could really attract a lot of voters. Vouchers make too much sense, especially for those who live in big cities with bad schools, places like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland, Los Angeles. If the Romney-Watts ticket can find a way to make it a national issue, Clinton's staunch defense of the teachers unions is going to ring as hollow and purchased as it really is. She has no programs, no ideas for improving education, her interests are the teachers unions interests, and those are preserving the status quo. Get Watts to rally the nation around the idea of school choice, and this becomes an issue that not only helps Romney to the presidency but will help GOP members in congresssional, senate and local elections. Not to mention, it would put Illinois, California and New York into play. And that spells bad news for the Clintons, and good news for America.
Click on the link to see J.C. Watts slam Rudy Giuliani, like only J.C. can:
Sunday, November 18, 2007
print page | send as email | email editor
By Tim Dudley
November 5, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ran away with 61 percent of the vote in what the Teton County Republican Party was touting as one of Wyoming’s first straw polls Saturday night.
County GOP Chairman Joe Schloss called Romney’s showing remarkable considering the number of other candidates. About 100 people voted during the party’s Elephant Jam event Saturday at 43 North. The get-together and fundraiser celebrated the one-year countdown to the presidential election.
A straw poll is a nonbinding vote taken before an election to gauge support for each candidate.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani took second, with 12 percent of the vote. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had 10 percent, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas each received 5 percent, U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California had 4 percent, and lawyer, actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson got 2 percent. Other candidates received 1 percent or less, Schloss said.
Schloss said he thought Romney did well because he is a conservative candidate.
“That goes in line with the way that many of our citizens in Wyoming think,” Schloss said. “By nature I think we’re a conservative group, and certainly Romney fits that bill.”
Schloss said Romney is also one of the few candidates, if not the only one, who has been running a strong campaign in Wyoming, which has just three electoral votes.
Giuliani, he said, is strong nationally but his name hasn’t come up too often yet in Wyoming. Schloss said he also was somewhat surprised at Thompson’s result but that it was in line with the “lukewarm” response to his candidacy in the rest of the nation.
There’s still time for candidates to catch up to Romney, though, he said.
Schloss said he thinks Romney would do well against the Democrats’ frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.
“I think it would be a lot closer than a lot of folks realize,” he said.
Huckabee tries to joke and play off his tax record again. Huckabee's answer to a crisis- RAISE TAXES. A vote for Huckabee might as well be a vote for Hillary, he's against school vouchers, pro-amnesty for illegals, and pro-tax increase.
The only thing that makes him conservative is the abortion issue, which he never had to confront as Governor of a conservative state like Arkansas. Huckabee is running for President because he could never get re-elected in Arkansas where people are still fuming over the new taxes they are paying.
Monday, November 12, 2007
I'm talking about National Security. He says he is in favor of securing the border while on the campaign trail, but his actions as Governor have been very much against the rule of the law. Mike Huckabee has been in favor of:
- Tuition Breaks for Illegals
- Amnesty for Illegals
- Welfare for Illegal Immigrants
- Advocated for a Mexican Consulat office to be built in Arkansas so illegals there could have easier access to ID's
- He has said that "Family values don't end a the Rio Grande."
- He has called legistlation to cut off funds for illegals "racist"
Here is a candidate for President who says that he wants to enforce the border, but doesn't want to do anything to stop the sanctuary cities, and benefits that are drawing them here in the first place. Either he doesn't understand the issue, or is not as pro-border enforcement as he is campaigning to be. By blaming only the federal goverment and border agents for the problem he gets to appear pro-rule of law, while distracting from his record as Governor. The long and the short of it is, he was behind the largest tax increase in Arkansas history, supports benefits for those who illegally stay in the country, and has said he would support a Nanny-state nationwide ban on cigarette smoking. Sorry Mike, it's three strikes and you're out!
In other bad news for Governor Huckabee, he DID pick up an endorsement. Unfortunately, it's Bill Maher's:
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on Veterans Day:
"Today, we honor the men and women who have served our country in the Armed Forces. Every American is grateful for the very extraordinary acts these men and women have performed so that we may continue to enjoy freedom and liberty at home.
"On this day, we also must recommit ourselves to honoring their service when they return home. Every wounded veteran, fallen soldier and grieving family paid the price for our freedom and our security. All they require is the care they and their families need. We are indebted to them for their service and that debt needs to be paid without delay or inefficiency.
"In Massachusetts, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together to expand benefits for our state's veterans. In Washington, we must do the same. This is one issue where party identification does not matter. Our men and women are serving in far away places, and they should always be confident that their government stands behind them. On this Veterans Day, let us make a commitment to our military men and women, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and mothers and fathers truly worthy of the 21st century."
Saturday, November 10, 2007
That made a lot more sense to me. I don't follow Dobson much at all, aside from the occasional spot on the radio with his focus on the family program. I know he is a social conservative, but not too much else. That being said, the reason I was suprised to hear of his endorsement is I had always thought that Dr. Dobson was a conservative in the three ways that Mitt Romney talks about, namely being for a strong military, strong economy and strong families. The three legged stool of conservatism needs all three legs to stand, and by my count Governor Mike Huckabee is missing one of those legs. Or in other words, he doesn't have a stool to sit on.
What am I talking about? Well, I think Huckabee has the strong families thing down. He's a former Baptist preacher, so I'll give him that without knowing too much about his record. And, I'll give him a pass on the strong military too, as he seems to have answered the questions fairly well in the debates on this issue.
So, what leg is he missing? It's the economy, stupid. Or, as Mitt Romney put it in an interview a few days ago, "It's about growth, stupid".
Huckabee's record on economics is downright Democrat party worthy. In fact, the Club for Growth has written a stinging rebuke of his record.
Here are some of the highlights:
* Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
* He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
* He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
* He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
* He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
* He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
* In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).
* Under Governor Huckabee's watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07). The number of state government workers rose 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/06), and the state's general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform.
* Governor Huckabee is on record opposing the most important element of genuine school choice-voucher programs that allow poor students in failing public schools to attend private schools and inject much needed competition into a decrepit public education system-because of a concern about government control of parochial schools (Arkansas Times 09/22/05). He also called No Child Left Behind "the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime," (Washington Times 03/01/05) a program that stripped schools of local control and increased federal spending on education by 48% over three years (Heritage.org 11/09/06).
So, in summary let me get this straight, Mike Huckabee has raised taxes on everything from groceries, medicine, sales tax, the internet, cigarettes, gasoline, and beds, and increased the size of government in his state by 65% and he is anti-school vouchers! And he is running on the Republican ticket?!?! Who is he getting his advise from?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Hillary Clinton was elected in New York - Rudy Giuliani was elected in New York
Hillary Clinton is Pro-Tax Increase - Rudy Giuliani is Pro-Tax Increase
Hillary Clinton is Pro-Abortion - Rudy Giuliani is Pro-Abortion
Hillary Clinton is Pro-Sanctuary Cities- Rudy Giuliani is Pro-Sanctuary Cities
Hillary Clinton wears dresses on occasion - Rudy Giuliani wears dresses on occasion
I guess there weren't as many differences as I thought.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
This is the reason Romney is man to beat the Clinton machine. He is the only Republican running that can talk about his accomplishments when it comes to health care reform. He has extremely high credibility on the issue, the others treat it like the fourth rail and don't want to touch it.
Also, the bar hit the 90's when he talked about free market reforms - especially among the moderate voters. He has the message that Americans want and need.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
I had an interesting conversation with a friend at work the other day, let's call him Adam. Adam said if his taxes were lower he might be able to afford to pay his tithing (a 10%) to his church. I thought about this in relation to a study I remembered hearing about earlier this year about the most generous Americans being those who made less than 100,000.00 per year. Since, I am in that category I thought about myself, and sure enough I DO in fact give 10% of my income in tithing to my church, I do also often make contributions to various charitable organizations such as the USO, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and the Red Cross. Now, I'm not saying this just to pat myself on the back, but it got me thinking about how much more Americans would donate to charity (especially the middle-class) if they got to keep more of their own money.
I looked at my own income and taxes, and frankly I can't believe I give away as much as I do considering how much Uncle Sam takes away:
18.2% Federal Income Tax
9.3% State Income Tax
8.9% State Sales Tax
Those 3 alone would equal out to me already paying 36.4% of my income in taxes. If only America's taxes were so low. The politicians spread them out and hide them in many different places, for the very reason that you can't figure out how much you are REALLY paying.
Property Tax (over 5000 per year)
Gasoline Tax (In California 46 cents per gallon)
Recycling Tax (in California 5 cents per bottle or can)
Cel Phone Tax (10.24 per month on my bill)
Vehicle Registration Fee (Tax)
Driver's License Fee (tax)
Alcohol and Cigarette taxes
Cable TV Tax
Phone line taxes
Computer Recycling Tax (if you buy a computer)
Recycling Tax (if you buy new tires)
Sad part is I'm sure I left a bunch of them out that I don't know about. In the end though I may be paying closer to 50% of my income to taxes to the government. Add in the 12-15% that I give to charity and my family is scraping by on the 35% of my income we get to keep. Then out of that 35% if I put any of that into savings, I then have to pay taxes on any interest it earns. Then, if I die and leave any money I may have saved to my family. They have to pay taxes on it again after I'm dead. It needs to stop and needs to stop right now.
Now Mitt Romney has it exactly right when he says, "raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids . . . Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage."
Mitt Romney has a 7 point plan for reducing the tax burden on his website the outline goes as follows:
1. Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
2. Roll back tax rates for all Americans
3. Eliminating Taxes on Middle Class Savings
4. Eliminating the Death Tax
5. Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate
6. Opposing Social Security Tax Increases
7. Making Medical Expenses Tax Deductible
All of these points are effective and far reaching in the battle to let Americans control their hard earned money. And, I support all of them. They demonstrate Mitt Romney's brilliance, and ability to analyze and see things where others do not and come up with new ideas.
If I may however, and being that I am a part of the middle class I believe I just might know what could help the middle class the most. Allow me to suggest point number eight.
8. Eliminate the Marriage Penalty
The Marriage Penalty may be the worst idea in the history of taxes. America has already seen how the Government can shape social behavior when it started giving more money to unmarried welfare moms. What happened there after? The number of unmarried welfare moms skyrocketed. The Marriage Penalty was introduced in 1969,anyone want to guess by what percentage single parent homes increased? Try from 11% to 27%. And that's just from 1969-1999. It's probably even higher today, and it is proven to be much higher among African-American and Latinos.
If Romney is pro-family he couldn't hardly do the American family a greater service than eliminating this heinous tax. Why should people be penalized for being married? When the government makes punitive tax codes for marriage it sends the wrong message, and it makes it especially hard on those of us who are trying to raise a family on single income so that our children might have the benefit of a mother in the home. If anything couples should get some sort of tax break for being married. If the nation is made up of states, and the states are made up of counties, and the counties are made up of cities, and the cities are made up of neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods are made up of families - strong families means a strong nation. Therefore, shouldn't the federal government do everything in it's power to support the American family?
Governor Romney we are counting on you.