Monday, December 31, 2007
Mike Huckabee to Appear on the Tonight Show on January 2
Gov. Huckabee will be Jay Leno's guest on January 2, the night before the Iowa Caucus. This will be Jay's first show since the writer's strike began. Expect high ratings.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
How Fiscal Conservatives Use Social Conservatives
In an article at bloomberg.com, columnist Matthew Benjamin succinctly describes the division of labor (and rewards) in the Republican Party:
Fiscal conservatives have used social conservatives to do all the heavy lifting so that they (the fiscal conservatives) can make a sizeable return on their investments. However, while the fiscal conservatives are making money off of the efforts of social conservatives who labor for their selected candidates, the social conservatives end up getting stuck with the bag. Instead of having a truly pro-life, pro-family candidate who will go out on a limb and say, "Right is right, wrong is wrong," social conservatives are told to be pragmatic. "Would you rather have Hillary Clinton?" they are told.
Well enough!
Even though he may lack financial backing, Mike Huckabee is demonstrating that social conservatives can unite behind a viable cnadidate. In fact, he has demonstrated that money cannot buy elections; otherwise, Mitt Romney would already be picking curtains for the Oval Office.
In doing so, he [Huckabee] threatens the uneasy if effective coalition Republicans have counted on for three decades: abortion opponents and other social-issue activists supplying foot soldiers, proponents of tax cuts and business-friendly regulatory policies putting up the money and getting the biggest economic benefits.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aW4kA.Dle4BU&refer=politics
Fiscal conservatives have used social conservatives to do all the heavy lifting so that they (the fiscal conservatives) can make a sizeable return on their investments. However, while the fiscal conservatives are making money off of the efforts of social conservatives who labor for their selected candidates, the social conservatives end up getting stuck with the bag. Instead of having a truly pro-life, pro-family candidate who will go out on a limb and say, "Right is right, wrong is wrong," social conservatives are told to be pragmatic. "Would you rather have Hillary Clinton?" they are told.
Well enough!
Even though he may lack financial backing, Mike Huckabee is demonstrating that social conservatives can unite behind a viable cnadidate. In fact, he has demonstrated that money cannot buy elections; otherwise, Mitt Romney would already be picking curtains for the Oval Office.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
My First Look at Mike Huckabee
This video describes, among other things, the events that transpired on July 15, 1996. Then Lt. Gov. Huckabee's address to the state (which was fed to C-SPAN) was why I joined the Huckabee bandwagon lo these many years ago:
Mitt Romney... meet John Kerry
Mitt Romney reminds me of John Kerry.
On the issue of the Iraq War, John Kerry tried to play both sides of the fence, stating that he voted for a war-related resolution before he voted against it.
Gov. Romney is doing the same thing on abortion:
He also flip-flops on every other issue important to social conservatives while denouncing "Reagan-Bush":
On the issue of the Iraq War, John Kerry tried to play both sides of the fence, stating that he voted for a war-related resolution before he voted against it.
Gov. Romney is doing the same thing on abortion:
He also flip-flops on every other issue important to social conservatives while denouncing "Reagan-Bush":
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Romney's Hypocritical Attack on McCain
Today, Gov. Romney derides John McCain for not learning "Reagan 101." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22370986/
Of course, by his own admission, Gov. Romney completely skipped the course.
Of course, by his own admission, Gov. Romney completely skipped the course.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Mike Huckabee's Christmas Gift
The Governor is getting unearned media in spades today all because of the Christmas ad. The more people attack it, the more people become curious to see it.Gotta love it!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
A Governor Turned Presidential Candidate Admits to Tax Hikes
In 1973, former Gov. Ronald Reagan explained in an essay that as a governor, it is impossible to make promises along the lines of "no new taxes."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, December 17, 2007
Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Embrace Mike Huckabee
It took me until just recently to finally admit that Rush Limbaugh is adamantly opposed to Mike Huckabee. Up to now, I had recognized that Mr. Limbaugh--like any other citizen--had a favorite candidate, and that there was only a 1 in 5 chance of it being Mike Huckabee. But now, after reading his daily update, I am convinced that Mr. Limbaugh has a strong negative bias against Gov. Huckabee.
The purpose of this posting is not to criticize Mr. Limbaugh (or Mr. Hannity, who has long been a Guiliani supporter) or anyone else for that matter. No, these men have their opinions, and they are entitled to have them and to express them openly. In fact, this is what they are paid millions of dollars each year to do.
Rather, my intention is to delve into the reason why Mr. Limbaugh in particular (and Mr. Hannity, to a lesser extent) seem to exhibit a bias against Gov. Huckabee.
When it all boils down, there are three distinct sections of the Republican coalition: (1) Fiscal conservatives, (2) social conservatives, and (3) defense conservatives. Now, these sections are not mutally-exclusive of each other. In fact, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity would boldly proclaim that they are members of all three groups.
However, the vast majority of Republicans fit in only one or two of these categories; hardly do they fit in all three. Even when Republicans do simultaneously espouse all three of these distinct characteristics, their respective priorities are not identical. Some place fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Others place the social ahead of the fiscal. (One could list all of the permutations very easilty.)
From what I have gathered, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity place social conservatism at the bottom of their respective lists. Therefore, when a candidate like Mike Huckabee puts social conservatism at the front of the line, the talk giants become scared. Here is why:
Fiscal conservatism deals primarily with money and taxation, right? Well, if you think about it, money is measured in analog terms. By this, I mean, wealth is not an "either-or" situation. There are people who have more money than I do, but they are not necessarily wealthy. Likewise, there are people who have less money than Bill Gates, but they are not necessarily poor. There are varying degrees of wealth (or poverty, as the case may be.)
Conversely, much of social conservatism deals with discrete events. Either abortion remains legal, or it is banned. Either gay marriage is legalized or it is prohibited. By and large, social conservatives do not see varying degrees of legalized abortion or sanctioned gay marriage. For social conservatives, the fight for our culture is an all or nothing affair.
In a purely pragmatic sense, Republicans who place fiscal issues ahead of social issues believe that we have more to lose fiscally than we could ever lose socially.
To such a person, the issue of abortion, for example, cannot get any worse. If a Democrat (or a liberal Republican) is elected President, abortion-rights will likely not expand. (Yes, there might be attempts to lift the bans on late-term abortions, but even if these bans are lifted, the actual number of abortions will likely remain constant.) Conversely, if a Democrat is elected, our collective gains on fiscal issues may be erased when taxes increase to record highs and the deficit balloons to stratospheric levels.
However, what these pragmatic Republicans fail to realize is that our fiscal stability is a direct function of our social strength.
Take the issue of abortion. But for abortion on demand, our economy would have generated more than $421 billion in social security taxes over the last 20 years. Here is how:
In 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Since that time, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports the number of abortions as follows for the years 1973-1992:
Year --------- Number of Abortions (Yr)
1973---744,600
1974---898,600
1975---1,034,200
1976---1,179,300
1977---1,316,700
1978---1,409,600
1979---1,497,700
1980---1,553,900
1981---1,577,300
1982---1,573,900
1983---1,575,000
1984---1,577,200
1985---1,588,600
1986---1,574,000
1987---1,559,100
1988---1,590,800
1989---1,567,000
1990---1,609,000
1991---1,556,500
1992---1,528,900
Pretend that these children had not been aborted. Assume for the sake of this analysis that each of these aborted children had grown up, only to make the least possible contribution to our economy, by earning minimum wage for their entire working lives.
The 744,600 children aborted in 1973 would have turned age 15 in the year 1988. Back then, the minimum wage was $3.35 per hour. Working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, these 744,600 children would have earned $4,988,820,000.00 in 1988.
In 1989, the 898,600 children who were aborted in 1974 would have started working, along with the 744,600 children who had been aborted in 1973. These 1,643,200 children, working 2,000 hours per year, would have earned $11,009,440,000.00 in 1989.
In 1990, the minimum wage increased to $3.80 per hour. As such, the 1,034,200 children who were aborted in 1975--along with the 1,643,200 children who were aborted in 1973 and 1974--would have earned $20,348,240,000.00.
You could go on and on until you get to the year 2007, when the 1,528,900 children who were aborted in the year 1992 would have gone to work for the first time. These children, along with the 26,983,000 children who had been aborted from 1973 through 1991, would have earned $333,589,230,000.00 in wages in 2007 alone, by earning only $5.15 an hour.
In all, these aborted children would have earned a total $2,807,884,880,000.00 from 1988 to 2007. Social security taxes generated from this revenue (paid by the employee and the employer) would have equalled $421,182,732,000.00
You see, by embracing social conservatism, we actually make fiscal conservatism possible.
Had we fought tooth and nail to stop abortion way back then, we wouldn't be worrying about "saving social security" now. Instead, our economy would be generating enough money to preserve social security for the next century.
By fighting abortion, we promote the future economic growth of our nation.
By promoting strong families, where work ethics are handed down from generation to generation, we undermine the welfare state.
Yet, when we embrace the fiscal to the exclusion of the social, we actually undermine the very foundation for our nation's prosperity.
In the final analysis, I believe that Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity truly are fiscal and social conservatives, but they have placed the fiscal ahead of the social--to the very detriment of the fiscal policies they are trying to promote.
Shortsightedly, these pragmatic Republicans are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.
Indeed, the fiscal conservatives would be much better off supporting a social conservative like Mike Huckabee.
The purpose of this posting is not to criticize Mr. Limbaugh (or Mr. Hannity, who has long been a Guiliani supporter) or anyone else for that matter. No, these men have their opinions, and they are entitled to have them and to express them openly. In fact, this is what they are paid millions of dollars each year to do.
Rather, my intention is to delve into the reason why Mr. Limbaugh in particular (and Mr. Hannity, to a lesser extent) seem to exhibit a bias against Gov. Huckabee.
When it all boils down, there are three distinct sections of the Republican coalition: (1) Fiscal conservatives, (2) social conservatives, and (3) defense conservatives. Now, these sections are not mutally-exclusive of each other. In fact, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity would boldly proclaim that they are members of all three groups.
However, the vast majority of Republicans fit in only one or two of these categories; hardly do they fit in all three. Even when Republicans do simultaneously espouse all three of these distinct characteristics, their respective priorities are not identical. Some place fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Others place the social ahead of the fiscal. (One could list all of the permutations very easilty.)
From what I have gathered, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity place social conservatism at the bottom of their respective lists. Therefore, when a candidate like Mike Huckabee puts social conservatism at the front of the line, the talk giants become scared. Here is why:
Fiscal conservatism deals primarily with money and taxation, right? Well, if you think about it, money is measured in analog terms. By this, I mean, wealth is not an "either-or" situation. There are people who have more money than I do, but they are not necessarily wealthy. Likewise, there are people who have less money than Bill Gates, but they are not necessarily poor. There are varying degrees of wealth (or poverty, as the case may be.)
Conversely, much of social conservatism deals with discrete events. Either abortion remains legal, or it is banned. Either gay marriage is legalized or it is prohibited. By and large, social conservatives do not see varying degrees of legalized abortion or sanctioned gay marriage. For social conservatives, the fight for our culture is an all or nothing affair.
In a purely pragmatic sense, Republicans who place fiscal issues ahead of social issues believe that we have more to lose fiscally than we could ever lose socially.
To such a person, the issue of abortion, for example, cannot get any worse. If a Democrat (or a liberal Republican) is elected President, abortion-rights will likely not expand. (Yes, there might be attempts to lift the bans on late-term abortions, but even if these bans are lifted, the actual number of abortions will likely remain constant.) Conversely, if a Democrat is elected, our collective gains on fiscal issues may be erased when taxes increase to record highs and the deficit balloons to stratospheric levels.
However, what these pragmatic Republicans fail to realize is that our fiscal stability is a direct function of our social strength.
Take the issue of abortion. But for abortion on demand, our economy would have generated more than $421 billion in social security taxes over the last 20 years. Here is how:
In 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Since that time, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports the number of abortions as follows for the years 1973-1992:
Year --------- Number of Abortions (Yr)
1973---744,600
1974---898,600
1975---1,034,200
1976---1,179,300
1977---1,316,700
1978---1,409,600
1979---1,497,700
1980---1,553,900
1981---1,577,300
1982---1,573,900
1983---1,575,000
1984---1,577,200
1985---1,588,600
1986---1,574,000
1987---1,559,100
1988---1,590,800
1989---1,567,000
1990---1,609,000
1991---1,556,500
1992---1,528,900
Pretend that these children had not been aborted. Assume for the sake of this analysis that each of these aborted children had grown up, only to make the least possible contribution to our economy, by earning minimum wage for their entire working lives.
The 744,600 children aborted in 1973 would have turned age 15 in the year 1988. Back then, the minimum wage was $3.35 per hour. Working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, these 744,600 children would have earned $4,988,820,000.00 in 1988.
In 1989, the 898,600 children who were aborted in 1974 would have started working, along with the 744,600 children who had been aborted in 1973. These 1,643,200 children, working 2,000 hours per year, would have earned $11,009,440,000.00 in 1989.
In 1990, the minimum wage increased to $3.80 per hour. As such, the 1,034,200 children who were aborted in 1975--along with the 1,643,200 children who were aborted in 1973 and 1974--would have earned $20,348,240,000.00.
You could go on and on until you get to the year 2007, when the 1,528,900 children who were aborted in the year 1992 would have gone to work for the first time. These children, along with the 26,983,000 children who had been aborted from 1973 through 1991, would have earned $333,589,230,000.00 in wages in 2007 alone, by earning only $5.15 an hour.
In all, these aborted children would have earned a total $2,807,884,880,000.00 from 1988 to 2007. Social security taxes generated from this revenue (paid by the employee and the employer) would have equalled $421,182,732,000.00
You see, by embracing social conservatism, we actually make fiscal conservatism possible.
Had we fought tooth and nail to stop abortion way back then, we wouldn't be worrying about "saving social security" now. Instead, our economy would be generating enough money to preserve social security for the next century.
By fighting abortion, we promote the future economic growth of our nation.
By promoting strong families, where work ethics are handed down from generation to generation, we undermine the welfare state.
Yet, when we embrace the fiscal to the exclusion of the social, we actually undermine the very foundation for our nation's prosperity.
In the final analysis, I believe that Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity truly are fiscal and social conservatives, but they have placed the fiscal ahead of the social--to the very detriment of the fiscal policies they are trying to promote.
Shortsightedly, these pragmatic Republicans are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.
Indeed, the fiscal conservatives would be much better off supporting a social conservative like Mike Huckabee.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Enthusiasm Explained
Pollster Scott Rasmussen has said numerous times that he can find plenty of reasons why every candidate for the Republican nomination should lose, but that there are very few reasons why any candidate might win.
The fact is that every candidate in this race has characteristics that are repugnant to the typical Republican voter. Giuliani is for abortion. Romney is inconsistent. (I could list other candidates, but frankly I tired.) As such, enthusiasm for our field of Republican candidates is very thin to say the least.
Still, there is some enthusiasm. For instance, in my previous posting, I described why I support Huckabee. As mentioned, my reasons are as much personal as they are policy-related. The purpose of this posting, however, is to analyze why others are supporting Huckabee.
Essentially, Gov. Huckabee appeals to the average man or woman.
When we look at him, we see a reflection of who we are. We identify with his struggles. We identify with his working class background. We identify with his sincerity and compassion for other people. By rooting for him, we are in effect rooting for ourselves.
Perhaps this is why his numbers are continuing to rise even when the attacks are the strongest.
By and large the American people want to believe the best about Huckabee because we know he believes the best about us.
The fact is that every candidate in this race has characteristics that are repugnant to the typical Republican voter. Giuliani is for abortion. Romney is inconsistent. (I could list other candidates, but frankly I tired.) As such, enthusiasm for our field of Republican candidates is very thin to say the least.
Still, there is some enthusiasm. For instance, in my previous posting, I described why I support Huckabee. As mentioned, my reasons are as much personal as they are policy-related. The purpose of this posting, however, is to analyze why others are supporting Huckabee.
Essentially, Gov. Huckabee appeals to the average man or woman.
When we look at him, we see a reflection of who we are. We identify with his struggles. We identify with his working class background. We identify with his sincerity and compassion for other people. By rooting for him, we are in effect rooting for ourselves.
Perhaps this is why his numbers are continuing to rise even when the attacks are the strongest.
By and large the American people want to believe the best about Huckabee because we know he believes the best about us.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Why I Support Mike Huckabee
I have known Mike Huckabee for more than ten years. I first met him in 1997. The following May, I joined his first campaign for governor. From my up close and personal observations, I can tell you that he would make an excellent president because he is an excellent person.
Bar none, of all the candidates for high political office that I have met in my 33 years, he is the only one who seems more concerned about other people than he does himself. I first observed this in June 1998. My wife and I were celebrating our first wedding anniversary, and we both were campaigning at a parade in Mena, Ark. As the Governor and Mrs. Huckabee (who insisted upon being called "Janet") drove by, they shouted "Happy Anniversary" to us.
I know this is not much, but it really impressed me. You see, we had just moved to Arkansas barely three weeks before. I was truly the new kid on the block. I had not told the Governor about our anniversary; unbeknownst to me, a friend had. So I was not expecting any greeting from the Governor and the First Lady. Still, out of the blue, they shouted this to us in public for all to hear.
Another time during the campaign, we attended a festival in Magnolia, Ark. A friend from Mississippi tagged along. This particular girl had been in our wedding, and she was thinking about going to seminary. With crowds of people all around--with people who could have either voted for him or donated to his campaign--the Governor spent a solid five or ten minutes talking just to this girl--a girl who could not vote for him--about her plans to go into ministry.
Although these two incidents are admittedly anecdotal, I don't think that they are outliers, by any means! Mike Huckabee is truly the type of guy who would carry on an in depth conversation with you, caring about what you have to say. Unlike most politicians who are more concerned about talking to people, he truly loves to listen.
About 1,900 years before Dale Carnegie was born, Jesus Christ showed people how to win friends and influence people. He once said, "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." From my own observation, Mike Huckabee uses this same approach to leadership.
The Governor understands people. He truly cares about them. Mike Huckabee cares less about what people can do for him and more about what he can do for them. And when you listen to the man, you will see this is exactly where he comes from. It's this sincerely concern for his flock, if you will, that draws people to listen to his message.
It's been said that people don't care how much you know, but they know how much you care.
And this is exactly why Mike Huckabee is now leading in the polls. People know that his candidacy is for real because they now realize that he is real.
Bar none, of all the candidates for high political office that I have met in my 33 years, he is the only one who seems more concerned about other people than he does himself. I first observed this in June 1998. My wife and I were celebrating our first wedding anniversary, and we both were campaigning at a parade in Mena, Ark. As the Governor and Mrs. Huckabee (who insisted upon being called "Janet") drove by, they shouted "Happy Anniversary" to us.
I know this is not much, but it really impressed me. You see, we had just moved to Arkansas barely three weeks before. I was truly the new kid on the block. I had not told the Governor about our anniversary; unbeknownst to me, a friend had. So I was not expecting any greeting from the Governor and the First Lady. Still, out of the blue, they shouted this to us in public for all to hear.
Another time during the campaign, we attended a festival in Magnolia, Ark. A friend from Mississippi tagged along. This particular girl had been in our wedding, and she was thinking about going to seminary. With crowds of people all around--with people who could have either voted for him or donated to his campaign--the Governor spent a solid five or ten minutes talking just to this girl--a girl who could not vote for him--about her plans to go into ministry.
Although these two incidents are admittedly anecdotal, I don't think that they are outliers, by any means! Mike Huckabee is truly the type of guy who would carry on an in depth conversation with you, caring about what you have to say. Unlike most politicians who are more concerned about talking to people, he truly loves to listen.
About 1,900 years before Dale Carnegie was born, Jesus Christ showed people how to win friends and influence people. He once said, "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." From my own observation, Mike Huckabee uses this same approach to leadership.
The Governor understands people. He truly cares about them. Mike Huckabee cares less about what people can do for him and more about what he can do for them. And when you listen to the man, you will see this is exactly where he comes from. It's this sincerely concern for his flock, if you will, that draws people to listen to his message.
It's been said that people don't care how much you know, but they know how much you care.
And this is exactly why Mike Huckabee is now leading in the polls. People know that his candidacy is for real because they now realize that he is real.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Huckabee Has the Buzz
ABCNews is reporting that Huckabee was the clear winner of the recent YouTube Debate. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3489425
Rasmussen is reporting that Huckabee is gaining on Guiliani nationwide and is in a statistical tie for first. (Guiliani 22%, Huckabee 17% --- 4% margin of error.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Rasmussen is reporting that Huckabee is gaining on Guiliani nationwide and is in a statistical tie for first. (Guiliani 22%, Huckabee 17% --- 4% margin of error.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Gays in the Military
Last night, Gov. Huckabee was asked a question about gays in the military (by, oddly enough, a Hillary Clinton supporter). While contemplating this question myself, I reached the same conclusion as the Governor, but by a different route.
When homosexuals announce to the world their sexual proclivities, its known as "coming out of the closet." The very fact that these "closets" still exist presupposes that modern society has not completely accepted homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle choice.
Well, if many pockets of society still do not accept this lifestyle choice, homosexuality must have some measureable quantity of shame associated therewith.
People who perform shameful acts are inherently susceptible to blackmail and extortion. This is why sexual immorality--including homosexuality, adultery, and fornication--is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A man who seeks gay sex with strangers in airport bathrooms is not someone I want to be entrusted with our nation's secrets. Because if such a person were photographed in the act, he might compromise our secrets in order to keep his secret safe.
When homosexuals announce to the world their sexual proclivities, its known as "coming out of the closet." The very fact that these "closets" still exist presupposes that modern society has not completely accepted homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle choice.
Well, if many pockets of society still do not accept this lifestyle choice, homosexuality must have some measureable quantity of shame associated therewith.
People who perform shameful acts are inherently susceptible to blackmail and extortion. This is why sexual immorality--including homosexuality, adultery, and fornication--is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A man who seeks gay sex with strangers in airport bathrooms is not someone I want to be entrusted with our nation's secrets. Because if such a person were photographed in the act, he might compromise our secrets in order to keep his secret safe.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rasmussen: Huckabee 1st in Iowa
Huckabee – 28%, Romney – 25%Mr. Huckabee again demonstrates his ability to do more with less. Just what we need--a candidate who truly is fiscally conservative.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Huckabee Beats Hillary By Widest Margin
Someone recently commented on another site that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Giuliani. This made me think about why people who are otherwise inclined to support Huckabee are supporting someone more "viable."
Republicans--especially social conservatives--are concerned about losing the White House to social liberals like Hillary and Rudy. Of course, with all other things being equal, they would prefer Rudy over Hillary, but all in all, they don't like either one of them. In fact they are scared of both of them. So they consider the electability card, and right now, depending upon who you speak with, they think that Romney is the most viable social conservative running for the Republican nomination. Naturally, they fear that by voting for Huckabee (and therefore not Romney), Giuliani--or even worse, Hillary--might benefit from the divided social conservative vote.
What these people don't realize is that (a) Romney is not a social conservative, and (b) as the article demonstrates, Huckabee is a very good shot of beating Hillary---even better than the rest of the crowd as the linked article demonstrates.
So in the final analysis, social conservatives need to follow their heart and support Huckabee instead of acting out of fear and voting for anyone else.
read more digg story
Republicans--especially social conservatives--are concerned about losing the White House to social liberals like Hillary and Rudy. Of course, with all other things being equal, they would prefer Rudy over Hillary, but all in all, they don't like either one of them. In fact they are scared of both of them. So they consider the electability card, and right now, depending upon who you speak with, they think that Romney is the most viable social conservative running for the Republican nomination. Naturally, they fear that by voting for Huckabee (and therefore not Romney), Giuliani--or even worse, Hillary--might benefit from the divided social conservative vote.
What these people don't realize is that (a) Romney is not a social conservative, and (b) as the article demonstrates, Huckabee is a very good shot of beating Hillary---even better than the rest of the crowd as the linked article demonstrates.
So in the final analysis, social conservatives need to follow their heart and support Huckabee instead of acting out of fear and voting for anyone else.
read more digg story
Monday, November 26, 2007
How One Governor-Turned-Presidential-Candidate Raised Taxes by $1 Billion
This is an article from National Review dated September 15, 2003. It shows how Ronald Reagan raised California's taxes by $1 Billion in 1967.
Back then, the price of gold was $35 per ounce. Today it's at approximately $800 per ounce. Thus, by using the fixed price of gold as a measure of inflation, one dollar ($1) in 1967 is equal to approximately twenty-two dollars ($22) today. Thus, Reagan's tax increase in California equals $22 Billion in today's dollars, if inflation is adjusted by the corresponding change in the price of gold. (Using the CPI as a way of measuring inflation, the tax increase equals about $10 Billion in today's currency--still nothing to sneeze at.)
It's funny how fiscal conservatives are quick to point out Gov. Mike Huckabee's miniscule tax increases, yet they conveniently forget how Gov. Reagan raised taxes in California by $10 to $22 Billion (depending upon the way inflation is measured).
Yet, as we all know, Reagan was one heck of a tax-cutting President.
So will Mike Huckabee!
read more digg story
Back then, the price of gold was $35 per ounce. Today it's at approximately $800 per ounce. Thus, by using the fixed price of gold as a measure of inflation, one dollar ($1) in 1967 is equal to approximately twenty-two dollars ($22) today. Thus, Reagan's tax increase in California equals $22 Billion in today's dollars, if inflation is adjusted by the corresponding change in the price of gold. (Using the CPI as a way of measuring inflation, the tax increase equals about $10 Billion in today's currency--still nothing to sneeze at.)
It's funny how fiscal conservatives are quick to point out Gov. Mike Huckabee's miniscule tax increases, yet they conveniently forget how Gov. Reagan raised taxes in California by $10 to $22 Billion (depending upon the way inflation is measured).
Yet, as we all know, Reagan was one heck of a tax-cutting President.
So will Mike Huckabee!
read more digg story
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
And We're Back ....
I had forgotten that I had this blog. Studying for the bar exam will do that.
More posts to come.
More posts to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
