Wednesday, December 26, 2007
|
|
Huckabee Blasts Entire GOP
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:40 AM
|
From Time:
But as Huckabee now mounts his closing argument for the Iowa caucuses, he has moved full bore into the rhetoric of economic populism. "I am out to change the Republican Party. It needs changing. It needs to be inclusive of all those people across America for whom this party should stand," he said Sunday, on CBS's Face The Nation. On the trail, he speaks regularly of challenging the "Washington to Wall Street power axis." He frankly acknowledges the suffering of the stagnating middle class, and even offers up government as a part of the solution. "The President ought to be aware that the people struggle," he said in Muscatine on Friday morning. "He ought to be aware every time a decision is made — whether [or not] it's to raise taxes — how it's going to hurt the family out there, who can barely pay the grocery bill as it is."
At some of these events, if you close your eyes, you would think a Democrat was speaking — Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton turned southern Baptist.
The GOP does not need "changing." It needs reminding and it needs energy in its new leader. It needs to recommit to its traditional stand against excessive spending and the growth of government. It needs to affirm its belief in victory in the war and to the nomination and confirmation of originalist judges. It needs to endorse extension of President Bush's tax cuts and elimination of the death tax. It needs to argue for the rights of the unborn and the protection of those least able to protect themselves.
It needs a spokesman for its beliefs and for its traditional agenda which wins when it is embraced and defended.
What the GOP definitely does not need is neopopulism, class warfare, and identity politics of the sort Mike Huckabee has been selling the last four weeks. Huckabee's lunge left may not have been premeditated, but it clearly displayed a candidate with no anchor in the GOP's tradition of fiscal restraint, free trade and low taxes and a very limited understanding of the world's most dangerous forces.
Don't be surprised if Mike Huckabee fails to finish in the top three anywhere other than Iowa. He's a very affable, likeable fellow with a genuine commitment to the life issue, but his fractured ideology is shared by very, very few Republicans, and his understanding of the rogue states, especially Iran, is questionable. As actual voting approaches, GOP regulars have to ask themselves who can beat either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Mike Huckabee will never rally the GOP base to his standard given his populist rhetoric --the sort of nonsense that President Bush and every GOP nominee since Reagan has blasted away at.
|
|
It is interesting to read the demise of said candidate when not one vote has been cast. We've all watched the polls and, in my opinion, are manipulated in the way questions are asked, who is asked, age groups asked, the amount of people, etc. All of these can factor into getting a different result.
I do have to say that all of you Huckabee supporters to go back and look at your own comments. You guys do have a populist attitude and view of what government should be. The rest of us get annoyed when you call us "elitists". speaking for myself (and probably many others on this site) I live a very humble life as I am serving in the military in Iraq and have had the same Reaganesque attitude toward government-strong military, small government that doesn't handle every issue for every American, low taxes, anti-abortion, etc. That is MY conservative party that unfortunately has wavered over the past 10 years or so. May you vote for the BEST candidate that YOU think can really beat the Dems. Personally I am a Mitt fan as he is strong on those issues listed above especially his strengthening the military and economy-wise (which we're going to need)no one is smarter. |
|
The "Death" Tax is killing family business.
A family-owned business stands to lose nearly half of all its assets when it passes from one generation to the next. That's over half of everything, including land, buildings, equipment, money, and more — all because of the current Estate Tax law which is really a tax on death.
The reality is, people can't afford to pass on their business. They sell out, letting long-time employees go. Not because they want to. But because they have to. And the echo reverberates through an entire community.
If you're concerned that eliminating the Death Tax will add to the budget deficit, don't be. Independent studies reveal that it would actually help reduce the deficit. |
|
|
Can anyone tell me where it says that I have to pay tax on my income? |
|
I see that in about five posts you could only comment on one sentence I actually wrote - and even that you did not refute.
For the record, do not confuse posters - because you seek to rebuke one poster does not make your argument stand against those others who would show the board your errors.
I quoted the IRS verbatim - and I never used the words "death tax" - and I never tried to scare anyone.
I just refuted your emotionally charged, and factually (not to mention semantically) challenged commentary.
Good day. |
|
|
I can assure you, Huck has nothing in common with Ronald Reagan. Huck is nothing more than a snake-oil salesman. |
|
From the Washington Times:
"As governor, I ordered my state troopers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegals and enforce federal immigration law."
Mike Huckabee is overselling his record of cracking down on illegal aliens as governor, claiming he ordered his state police to arrest illegal aliens when in fact he never signed the agreement with federal authorities that would have allowed it…Mr. Huckabee signed a bill that began the process, but he never followed through with signing an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to secure training for state police officers. Without it, they cannot enforce federal immigration law.
The only other former governor in the race, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, signed a cooperation agreement with Homeland Security officials in the waning days of his administration last year, but his Democratic successor rescinded it immediately.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2 0071226/NATION/712809668/1001
|
|
You wrote and I agree....."Huckabee disaster
If he is somehow our candidate, I won't vote. For the 1st time, I won't vote. As an Evangelical, he is appalling to me. He doesn't understand the GWOT or the international financial markets. He is a fraud."
I would simply add Mitt, Rudy, and John to your disaster idea.
|
|
don't pay taxes, their ESTATES do. The estates consist of their net ASSETS. The tax is triggered by their DEATH. No death: no tax.
The DEATH TAX has NOTHING to do with living people. However, its CONSEQUENCES can have an impact on surviving beneficiaries. They may have to sell off assets, like a farm or business, in order to pay the DEATH TAX. That might give rise to the death of the business. Something many on the left just love. |
|
"It is a DEATH TAX because it is triggered when someone DIES."
Your ignorant response: "This is simply and utterly false."
So the DEATH TAX is triggered by what .... a person's BIRTH??? Their receipt of income??? Their change of residence??? Their divorce???
I see you are very touchy about calling the confiscation of personal wealth upon death what it is. Facts don't matter to fools.
If you want to make some money ON YOUR OWN, get off your fat arse and earn it yourself rather than have it confiscated for you.
Go troll somewhere else. Maybe you can convince those on KOS that black is really blue.
|
|
"The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.
Once you have accounted for the Gross Estate, certain deductions (and in special circumstances, reductions to value) are allowed in arriving at your "Taxable Estate." These deductions may include mortgages and other debts, estate administration expenses, property that passes to surviving spouses and qualified charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify.
----------------------------------
Please note the first sentence. The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.
Dead people may not pay taxes, but dead people also do not have rights either, do they? But of course, according to the IRS, this tax is a tax on the rights of the living.
Again, THEIR semantics, not the left's.
|
|
What deductions are available to reduce the Estate Tax?
Marital Deduction: One of the primary deductions for married decedents is the Marital Deduction. All property that is included in the gross estate and passes to the surviving spouse is eligible for the marital deduction. The property must pass "outright." In some cases, certain life estates also qualify for the marital deduction.
Charitable Deduction: If the decedent leaves property to a qualifying charity, it is deductible from the gross estate.
Mortgages and Debt.
Administration expenses of the estate.
Losses during estate administration.
------------------------------------
Notice "reduce the tax" - That is the IRS' semantics and explanation, and I think I will cite their authority over yours.
To use a different example - the income tax. I might make a certain amount of money, but have enough children and deductions to not owe ANY tax on my return (and no, I am not talking about returns/owe based on withholding status)
I mean I owe ZERO DOLLARS TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX
For you to take such an example and say that the income tax does not exist for such a person is the same thing you are saying here by saying the estate tax does not exist for someone's estate.
You also are arguing apples/oranges by talking about how to avoid liquidating assets through life insurance and other vehicles. The tax still exists and must be paid to the government. By the way, life insurance is NOT always tax-free money (as you imply) - as many people find out the hard way. |
|
Nice to have some sensibility on the topic. Good point about tax avoidance and minimizing strategies. Also, the assets/funds/income are SUBJECT to the tax even if the tax owed is ZERO.
You are also correct about spreading the assets beyond the wife upon death to make better use of the exemption. In fact, I was indirectly involved in a very interesting case where a husband and wife were killed together in an accident and they had "A/B" trusts. Could it be determined, who died first?
The deceased person's assets have already been taxed. They should not be taxed again. In virtually every case, the beneficiaries; the families, friends, partners, charities, etc. are in the best position to distribute and utilize the deceased person's assets than is the government.
KILL the DEATH tax! |
|
Voice of Reason: Great post from Star Parker.
BigSky: You're right, Huckabee has been great for the GOP, issuing a wake-up call to the stuffed-mitten elites.
Huckabee is the most important man in this primary. He's turned himself into a key player (unlike parasite opportunists and big-spending neo-Republicans) by virtue of his broad appeal. He infuriates the self-annointed leadership of the party, to their ultimate ruin.
In that sense, Huckabee is very much like Reagan.
And Romney is very much like a vapid Ken doll who will say anything to be elected.
Say "adios", Mittens!
It's been spendy and it's been fun, but it's over.
+ + + |
|
Let me chime in in reply to the following:
"Death leads to the tax IF (a) you are not leaving assets to a spouse or qualified charity, and (b) the assets exceed a minimum threshhold, and (c) you have not done sufficient estate planning to avoid or reduce the taxes, or (d) have insufficient life insurance to pay to tax bill without selling the assets."
As to (a) - the tax is still there, except it is not paid due to the existence of the unlimited marital deduction. (Hint - deduction is the key word there) In fact, one of the worst things one can do is leave everything to a surviving spouse, because the deceased would have failed to take advantage of his personal unified exemption
as to (b) - see above re: unified exemption (key word, exemption) The tax is still there.
(c) it is impossible to AVOID or REDUCE estate taxes unless one wants to spend money on accountants, insurance agents, financial planners, and trust lawyers. The lobbyists for whom are one reason the code is so complicated - but to use (c) as an example of when the tax does not exist is incorrect.
(d) This is the funniest of them all - since within it is an admission that the TAX MUST BE PAID. How can someone argue that the tax is not paid, while also arguing of the advantages of buying sufficient life insurance so as to have proceeds to PAY THE TAX!
|
|
|
101. Good Grief. This current whirlwind is SWILL. |
|
We appreciate the leftists chiming in to help us pick a nominee. Small wonder they are more interested in our contest than their own, since the only fellow on their side with any successful administrative experience is stuck in single digits in the polls. They need to discourage our side and/or sabotage our process so that the complete lack of qualifications of their nominee doesn't become the principal issue in the general election.
My only problem with Romney is the response to the MLK/George Romney "scandaloid." It was a cheap shot that meant nothing, but he fumbled the response completely and gave it some legs.
While McCain has affronted my sensibilities on a number of issues over the years - BCFRA, "Gang de 14," McCain-Kennedy, & etc. - he would also be far preferable to anyone the Democrats are likely to nominate.
I'll support the Republican, unless it's Huckabee - but I cannot conceive of a guy who took nearly $400,000 in outside income in his last year as Governor and who has some touchy-feely approach to foreign policy winning the nomination. His rise is more of a vote for "Gee, I wish there were a candidate I could support more enthusiastically" than for Mike Huckabee himself (similar to the large early support for Thompson in the spring and summer, right up until he actually entered the race). |
|
Jim - Sorry to tell you this but Hucksterbee most definitely does not appeal to all of red-state america. Most of red-state america does not find the 'I stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night' mode of policy making to be acceptable. Most of red-state america would like to see some depth of intellect beyond the 'awe-shucks' simplicity that Huckster represents. Behind Huckster's rhetoric lies a vacuous hole that will spell the end of the conservative coalition.
If Huckster is the nominee or the VP candidate I will leave the GOP and never return. In fact, I will never vote GOP again. Even Ron Paul, who looked pathetic on his MTP appearance, is a better alternative than Huckster. |
|
The Main Stream Media has been AGAINST Romney, not for him; whereas the Main Stream Media has been promoting Huckleberry. Why? because the MSM with their Democrat allies KNOWS HUCK WILL BE SLAUGHTERED BY THE DEMS ON ELECTION DAY.
If anything, Romney's campaign has been in spite of the hostile media, which he must counteract. Hucker has been getting MORE than a free ride from the media, a virtulal lovefest. |
|
I've been pleasantly surprised by Mike Huckabee. I like that he has challenged the prevailing power structure within the Republican party. I like that he is a relatively young candidate, too young to have served or protested the Vietnam War; so maybe we could finally put that generational chestnut to bed once and for all.
A genuine outsider, bootstrapping a campaign. If he can win, if he can overcome the virulent and unfair attacks against him. Then isn't that just the kind of person who can win a general election?
Conversely if Romney can't muster an outright win despite a gross advantage of funding and media, then who thinks he can be a standard bearer for the Party in Nov? |
|
|
Please don't compare Huckababble the Huckster with Ronald Reagan! It's beyond insult to Reagan. They are polar opposites! |
|
"No, death does NOT lead to the tax. Death leads to the tax ..."
You just contradicted yourself.
"... the estate is NOT the same thing as the dead person."
What a brilliant observation. The estate = THE DEAD PERSON'S ASSETS. That is how the dead person's assets are taxed.
"There is no tax on ANYTHING going to a spouse, moron!"
Who said this? Are you hearing voices in your little head? (Since you like personal insults.)
"If ignorance is bliss, then you are the happiest con in the world!"
A "con"? What does that mean?
Bottom line .... it's the DEATH TAX because it is ONLY triggered by someone's death. It's a friggin shame if YOU don't like that apt description. Most socialist, wealth re-distributors don't like it. |
|
|
|
As Hugh would say, "read the whole thing!"
This overall shift in sentiment toward the Democratic Party, however, reflects disillusionment with Republicans rather than enthusiasm for Democrats. The current favorability rating for the Democratic Party is at 54 percent, exactly where it was after President Bush's victory in 2004. However, the current favorability rating for the Republican Party is 41 percent, down 11 points from 52 percent over the same period.
The point is that Americans have not suddenly fallen back in love with the liberals.
They have fallen out of love with a Republican Party that was supposed to be carrying the banner of traditional values and limited government, whom they no longer trust to do so.
When Reagan ran against the entrenched political establishment in 1980, the sentiment toward him was similar to what we hear today about Mike Huckabee. How could this guy – a class B actor, former sportscaster, with a bachelor's degree from Eureka College in Illinois – be running for president of the United States?
But Reagan had been traveling and speaking around the country for years. He knew the country and he knew its people. When he ran against government and the establishment, these folks felt he was representing them.
But now Republicans have become a detached ruling elite like the Democrats that Reagan ran against. And they have alienated a chunk of the grass roots within their own party, and independents that Reagan had wooed in.
Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts. detached ruling elite like the Democrats that Reagan ran against. And they have alienated a chunk of the grass roots within their own party, and independents that Reagan had wooed in.
Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts. |
|
This kind of casualness with the truth is what has alienated good citizens across the country from the elites who are running our political machinery.
Americans are unhappy with the status quo and hence the surprise showings of candidates such as Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. They're sick of detached, elitist, power-hungry candidates whose personal agenda is something other than genuine concern for people and clear and honest principles.
The bad news for Republicans is that prevailing disillusionment is disproportionately toward and within their party.
According to Pew, 33 percent of Americans now identify as Democrats, up 2 points from 31 percent five years ago. Twenty five percent now identify as Republicans, down 5 points from five years ago.
In addition to this, 17 percent of independents now lean Democratic, up 6 points from five years ago and 11 percent of independents now lean Republican, down one point from five years ago.
|
|
Part 1, from conservative, Star Parker:
It's doubtful that anyone needs any more reasons to explain why Americans are fed up with politics as usual. Nevertheless, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has given us one more.
Apparently when Romney said, “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King,” in his much publicized “Faith in America” speech, this was not exactly true.
It appears that not only did Romney not see this, but there is serious doubt whether his father ever indeed did march with Dr. King.
Romney now says that he meant this “figuratively.”
According to the former Massachusetts governor, “If you look at the literature or the dictionary the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I have described. It is a figure of speech. . . .”
We haven't seen a politician parse a sentence like this since Bill Clinton dissected the meaning of the verb “is” and explained that it was Monica who had sex with him and not the other way around.
The next sentence in the speech following the King claim was, “I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways nearby. . . .” Also figuratively?
The Detroit Free Press says it has no record of Romney's father, onetime Michigan Gov. George Romney, ever marching with King. According to the Free Press, when Dr. King marched in Detroit, their archives show that Romney's father did not participate because he said his religion prohibited him from public appearances on Sunday.
How ironic that Romney chose to insert this apparent whopper in his “Faith in America” speech. Perhaps the governor's idea of faith is what Groucho Marx had in mind with his line, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”
|
|
Have you guys noticed how deeply deep Brobby has become above? Scary. Just when I thought it wasn't possible to get deeper depth than he'd already achieved...Bingo...He gets deeper.
Sarah Palin is a BABE. Which shows my depth. I'm for Mitt+Condi. Utterly unbeatable. But, OK, I'll settle for Mitt & Hotty if I have to. There I go being deep again. It's a Gift. And a Curse. |
|
Too good looking. Too much executive experience. Too family-oriented. Too few scandals. Too intelligent. Too well educated. Too successful.
Anybody but Mitt. |
|
|
Hugh, I know you are doing what you think is best for the Republican party, but you are so biased toward Romney that you have lost your contact with the real people. I have listened to you for years and thought that you were a reasonable guy. However, now I turn you off because you are so biased. It would be nice if you would present some facts, bring others on your program and let them talk about their canidate or candidacy. Why do you not let the voters decide whom thay prefer? You are so obviousely projecting your biases that you are alienating a good segment of your audience. Lghten up! Let's be more fair. Your shrill attacks on Mike Huckabee and your projection of him losing 50 states is fantasy. Mike Huckabee will appeal to all red state people. 60% of the country talks like Mike does. 60% of the country are interested in his calm, folksy and humorous style. Get a clue, Hugh. |
|
Why do you insist on being WRONG? Is it stupidity or impudence?
It is a DEATH TAX because it is triggered when someone DIES. Get it .... death -----> tax????
The dead person's ASSETS are TAXED. Get it .... death -----> tax????
"It is a tax on what someone else inherits."
YOU ARE WRONG!!! The DEATH TAX is paid BEFORE any beneficiaries are PAID!!!
That's not spin; it's FACT.
Now apologize for parading your ignorance; then go away.
|
|
"It IS a death tax.
Write when you know what you are talking about."
Spin it any way you like but it is NOT a death tax. The persons who dies is not charged millions for dying. It is a tax on what someone else inherits.
Write when you know what YOU are talking about. |
|
|
HE'S A LOSER WHO WILL BE CREAMED (BY THE SAME MSM) IF HE EVER GOT THE NOMINATION, not because Huck is or is not conservative |
|
DeerJerkyDave: "I saw Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes last week and she said she thinks that Romney will be the nominee."
Yes, but you left out what Coulter also said in that same statement:
"I couldn't really decide. I don't like any of them except Duncan Hunter. And I couldn't decide. I realized, when you flip a coin when you think it can't decide, and it comes up heads and you think, no, I wanted tails. That's the way I am starting to feel about Romney." |
|
|
|
|
For bringing America a Democratic victory with your choice of terrible candidates who have no plan for America except to continue your crazed "free market" amd "free wars"...Merry Xmas! |
|
|
|
|
Please stop being "good republicans" and "good democrats". We all need to be GOOD AMERICANS!Before you vote please consider this:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6709022309011886773 |
|
|
If he is somehow our candidate, I won't vote. For the 1st time, I won't vote. As an Evangelical, he is appalling to me. He doesn't understand the GWOT or the international financial markets. He is a fraud. |
|
Who the main stream media is in the tank for look no further than David Shuster who is probably the most unhinged lefty shill in the tv media. I thoght he was going to make a gay marriage proposal to Huck this morning or at least go take a cold shower after talking about him. He almost gaurenteed that if Huck won the primary he would be the next president because he's so likeable. Nothing about his policies that would get him elected. This is what happens when you have a liberal evaluating republican candidates/voters, they judge them on what THEY like.They can't get inside a conservative's head who judge things more on a logical basis than an emotional one.Huck's an emotional candidate. There's nothing about his candidacy that make you want to sleep outside the poll to vote for him.Well,unless you're a fair tax fanatic.Voting for someone based on the fact he is the same religion as you are is a vary narrowedminded unless it was a tiebreaker of sorts.
Now Huck has donned a hunter's outfit to shore up the hunter's vote in Iowa. Once again a superficial way to get votes rather than on substance. Romney wants to straighten out the federal government and that's his #1 job next to keeping us safe. Huck would sign off on Dem programs if fit his "what would jesus do" criteria. |
|
...at least according to Hugh's logic.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/romney-and-ch ange/
which explains that just a few months ago, Mitt was touting himself as the candidate to change the GOP. Hugh says at the beginning of this post "The GOP doesn't need changing". Thats not what Mitt says in the article.
Of course, if Hugh says we need a candidate that "endorses extension of President Bush's tax cuts", why not support a candidate that has ALWAYS supported the Bush tax cuts rather than one who only now when he is trying to get the GOP nomination turns into a supporter of them but in 2003 said he did not agree with those tax cuts to the praise of Barney Frank after meeting with him.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQxZTZmZjRlMTRiOW U4OTAxZjZlM2I0YWJiNzU2MDM=
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TMK6580&show_arti cle=1&catnum=3
This longtime FISCAL conservative is amazed that the conservative world is falling liberal flipflopping Romney. Huckabee with the Fairtax and (reliable coming from this nonflipflopper) promise to make permanent Bush tax cuts and never raise taxes is the more reliable fiscal conservative.
|
|
Ted on December 26, 2007 1:03 PM:
> What's your point?
Who knows.
> Are you trying to say or imply that Huckabee or McCain
> are going to be better than Mitt on cutting costs?
No. Do you think Romney didn't raise taxes in MA?
18 February 2007. "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview
'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos Sits Down with Republican Candidate" ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2885156
Mitt Romney: Well, when I ran for governor, it
was pretty clear that I was going to be an anti-
tax governor. I said I wouldn't raise taxes and
I was very clear about that, and I didn't raise
taxes.
Fee-Fee Romney's Taxes & Fees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=23a78e88-4d1a-47bd-8a7 a-60aa8109e297%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
> Get real.
>
> Huckabee is a liberal on giving subsidized college
> education to illegal immigrants for god sake.
Do you think Romney "is a liberal on giving" funding for "education to illegal immigrants"?
////////////////
Romney On Sanctuary Cities-- 0:50 - 1:05: advocates cutting funding to sanctuary cities (which he didn't do when MA governor), and is OK with funding illegals' education
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnOPpQnHFc
Romney calls Ted Kennedy co-collaborator on health care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
> You're just nit-picking Mitt. If you really cared about
> ridding the Dept. of Ed., you wouldn't be tearing down
> Romney and handing the Presidency to the Dems.
In your view, which governor has a better record on taxes:
Romney, or Huckabee?
////////
Michael Medved: AR tax growth w/ Huckabee tad better than Romney MA taxes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2d1d6b5f-7d2a-4ba4-af3 8-ce935abe2d7c%40e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
So let's look the other way when Republicans are weak on life or defending marriage. As far as I can tell, the Fair Tax is fiscally much more conservative than anything the other candidates are offering. Oh but the current tax system allows manipulation by those who can control it or pay for it. What do you think earmarks and lobbyists are all about? Strongest candidate on the second amendment, but he must be a democrat. Actually will use the bully pulpit to defend life, that really sounds like Barak or Hillary! Actually supported Homeschoolers in his state, sounds like a guy in the back pocket of the NEA to me. If I don't have to send my kids to non-public school with after tax dollars sounds like I'm getting more of a choice in education as well. That's really kowtowing to the left. I want the smallest government and least taxes possible but to coin a phrase from the left, I'm tired of all the Christophobes that just want to make money! |
|
"Don't you realize that the Union Leader editorial only means that Romney is "rising"?"
Hmm, didn't the Union Leader endorse *Pat Buchanan* a couple of times? Yeah, yikes.
An endorsement by a Lefty rag like that is the kiss of death to a conservative candidate. |
|
> All of the voters should realize in the GOP column to NEVER LISTEN to any Op-eders
You mean like Hugh "Painting the Map Red" Hewitt?
:-)
+ + + |
|
"Have you seen the national debt?"
I have, and it's yet another reason not to vote Huckabee. Do you *really* believe Huckabee is going to bring fiscal prudence to the presidency? Please.
Our nation's disastrous state of financial affairs is one of my #1 concerns, and that's why I'm voting Romney. |
|
|
When the MSM pushes a GOPers, we should all by now know that that person is not who Gopers should vote for as our nominee. Whether it is McCain, the Huck or Paul, the MSM and Left in the Dem leadership is really fearful that the Pubs will put up Rudy, Mitt or even Fred. They know that if the voters stick to a logical, electibility view with conservative foundations, McCain will not get the nomination and neither will the Huck. That leaves the above 3. Everyone is putting too much spin and effort into Iowa and NH. Feb. 5 will have huge electoral possibilities and if Rudy, Mitt or even ole Fred gets hot, then the race will really narrow and possibly be settled. If it is not, a brokered Convention will be very real. All of the voters should realize in the GOP column to NEVER LISTEN to any Op-eders, MSM endorsement, or Dem advocate on the Tube and Blogs who wants to 'help out the GOP with their suggestions.' NEVER. In the long run, like it or not , electibility is still important in one's consideration. And if one stays at home feeling superior and smug, only Dem leftist socialist pacifists benefit. |
|
If Romney loses narrowly in both IA and NH (I do not believe that will happen), he has staying power and very easily could go on and win MI. Both McCain and Huck will be hurting for money in MI and SC.
Romney is just as viable as Rudy in the long run even if he runs second in one or more early primaries. He can stay in even if he runs second in all of the early primaries going into FL. He will be in better shape than Rudy in FL.
I do not see a Huck vs McCain race as long as Rudy and Romney have the strategies and money that they do. At the moment Romney is fighting both Huck and McCain but one or both of them will be gone by FL.
Romney will survive all of the way to the convention and so will Rudy. The media will play games and have some influence but both Romney and Rudy have solid core support because they are candidates of substance. |
|
I would be very careful about polls around and during Christmas. Before the break the polls with the tightest likely voter screens have Iowa essentially tied. However, each of the 3 polls have unique different screens that exclude different types of non voters. They give a 3 different looks at the race and they all say statistically tied.
The key question in IA at the moment is can Romney's GOTV beat Huckabee's informal network (help from fair tax and churches). About 40% of the Iowa voters are self identified "religious right voters". I doubt if Huck has more than 50 % of them. Religious Right voters are different than Evangelical voters.
The other key question is how the McCain/Rudy vote breaks. The 3 polls favor one or the other but are not consistent.
The race in IA could be decided by less than 3000 votes. |
|
Just a few months ago, Romney tried (it didn't work b/c people laughed about the wisdom of trying to run on change with his flip flopping record) to run on the theme of CHANGE, to include being out to change the Republican Party.
According to Hugh's superficial logic, ROMNEY ATTACKED ALL REPUBLICANS!
Look at the leading sentence of this story from a NY Times journalist:
"Mitt Romney is making a major messaging blitz this weekend, launching what his campaign advisers say will be one of his dominant campaign themes in the coming months, casting him as a change agent for the Republican Party..."
LOL
It continues, "The blitz essentially began earlier in the week with the release of a new television ad, entitled “Change Begins with Us,” in New Hampshire and Iowa that featured Mr. Romney speaking directly into the camera and calling for Republicans to “put our own house in order.”
and
"Mr. Romney’s strategists believe the idea of change is a fruitful vein for him, given the discontent many Republican voters are feeling these days. They also believe Mr. Romney is in an especially good position to portray himself as an outsider to Washington..."
and finally points out how many were mocking him for this, which is why we don't hear it now
"Rival campaigns and Democratic officials have already begun sniggering about the double-entendres in the “change” theme, in light of criticism about Mr. Romney’s shifting positions over the years."
LOL, you'd think Chief mittCheerleader Hugh would have remembered this (failed) campaign meme (or maybe hoped we'd forgotten):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/romney-and-ch ange/
|
|
|
What Mike Huckabee needs is a big Baptist Church - not the White House. He is a very charismatic speaker and he knows theology. If he had a church it would probably be almost as big as the biggest mega churches. Give him a pulpit. The more he opens his mouth as to what policies he would promote the more he sounds like Obama or Edwards. He is another Jimmy Carter in the cloak of being "born again." Just talked to another conservative friend who voted for "Jimmy" because "he loves the Lord." How bad could he be. Remember how bad he was: 22% interest rates, our embassy held hostage for a very long time. Bad, bad times! Do you really want to revisit this again with Rev. Huckabee? |
|
I agree with Boomshak, Ted, and others in their analysis. The MSM does not want Romney to win the nomination and they are doing their best to sway Republicans away from him through their hype for Huckabee and McCain. I think I still see articles now and then that say that Huckabee is "surging" when his numbers have clearly taken a hit in the last couple of weeks. This race will be close but I think that Romney will pull out the win for the nomination.
I saw Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes last week and she said she thinks that Romney will be the nominee. |
|
|
|
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2 ... or-romney/
Last week I wrote about the Concord Monitor's anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney. That was brushed aside by Romney and his supporters as nothing more than a "liberal" newspaper doing what liberal newspapers do: bash conservative candidates. Well, today we have the not-so-liberal Manchester Union Leader offering an editorial strikingly similar in tone to that of the Monitor's. It begins:
There is a reason Mitt Romney has not received a single newspaper endorsement in New Hampshire. It's the same reason his poll numbers are dropping. He has not been able to convince the people of this state that he's the conservative he says he is.
The paper with New Hampshire's largest daily circulation sees a clear alternative to Romney for the state's voters. It is the man who risen from the single digits and is now tied with Romney for the lead: John McCain. More of the Union Leader's devastating anti-Romney ink:
|
|
Hugh, you really need a clue already. Would you like to buy one?
Your unrelenting shill for your candidate and irresponsible violation of Reagan's 11th commandment is seriously putting yourself in a bad position. Even your consituents and peers there at Townhall see it. It's obvious when you bring collegues on your show and we can all hear their reluctance when you try to get them to say something good about your candidate and bad about his opponents. Honestly, I don't know if this is a new thing for you or if you used to argue for people this way through law school. If the latter, I have no idea how you actually made it through.
The worst part about it is that you don't even see the problem. You think you're on some sort of mission of integrity to "expose the facts" when in reality your making yourself look bad and shooting yourself in the foot. |
|
And his supporters are getting hysterical (in both senses of the word).
Time to put some more popcorn on...
+ + + |
|
[Boomshak on 26 December 2007 12:33 PM]"John McCain. I have despised him for years. He is the consummate RINO. We may as well nominate Olympia Snowe."
What's quoted below is an older version of
http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/members.htm
and is cited in
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573355/posts
Romney is mentioned in the 2nd to last line:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Republican Main Street Partnership
Congressional Members
109th Congress
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine
Sen. Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Sen. John McCain, Arizona
Sen. Gordon Smith, Oregon
Sen. Olympia Snowe, Maine
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Rep. Charles Bass, New Hampshire
Rep. Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, New York
Rep. Mary Bono, California
Rep. Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Rep. Ken Calvert, California
Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia
Rep. Michael Castle, Delaware
Rep. Thomas Davis, III, Virginia
Rep. Charlie Dent, Pennsylvania
Rep. David Dreier, California
Rep. Vernon Ehlers, Michigan
Rep. Mark Foley, Florida
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, New Jersey
Rep. Jim Gerlach, Pennsylvania
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Maryland
Rep. Paul Gillmor, Ohio
Rep. Kay Granger, Texas
Rep. David Hobson, Ohio
Rep. Nancy Johnson, Connecticut
Rep. Timothy Johnson, Illinois
Rep. Sue Kelly, New York
....
Gov. Robert Ehrlich, Maryland
Gov. Linda Lingle, Hawaii
Gov. George Pataki, New York
Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California
|
|
Are you trying to say or imply that Huckabee or McCain are going to be better than Mitt on cutting costs? Get real.
Huckabee is a liberal on giving subsidized college education to illegal immigrants for god sake.
You're just nit-picking Mitt. If you really cared about ridding the Dept. of Ed., you wouldn't be tearing down Romney and handing the Presidency to the Dems. |
|
[Hewitt]"The GOP.... needs to recommit to its traditional stand against excessive spending and the growth of government."
18 February 2007. "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview
'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos Sits Down with Republican Candidate" ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2885156
Mitt Romney: Actually, not all going in the same
direction.
As you get older and you have experience -- I ran
for office the first time, never having been in politics,
13 years ago against Ted Kennedy and since then
I've learned a few more things.
I proposed, at that time, for instance, that we
eliminate the Department of Education. A lot of
conservatives thought that was a great idea.
I don't think that's a good idea anymore. I think we
need the Department of Education. I think "No Child
Left Behind" is performing a useful function in
providing for testing.
It has a lot of errors in it and I'd like to change it, but
I like the fact that we're testing our kids.
|
|
The Liberals fear Romney, Rudy, even Fred.
So do some of the comment providers on this blog...
They do protest far too much.
Pushing the Liberal Lean of McCain, desperate to undermine the more sincere Conservatives in the Republican Race.
It is truly amusing...
|
|
|
"The Huck thing and now the McCain thing are all part of the Left's "Stop Romney at all Costs" ploy." |
|
LOL !
You seem to not be savvy enough to know what the GOP represents, in it's fine Conservative history.
Tax reduction and limited government, especially in context of the opposition, has been one of the most valued asset of the fine Republican Party.
Huckabee really is a Democrat, exploiting his religious Identity, pushing the Nanny State.
His rhetoric about the GWOT, is absolutely a complete rebuke to the strong fight the GOP has offered since 9-11.
Huckabee is regretful and deeply misguided.
Mr. Hewitt, one of the most savvy Conservatives on the scene, knows and states it quite well.
One has to wonder, what Huckabee has actually done in his efforts for pro-life, traditional marriage, etc...
"Novo Nordisk is involved with embryonic stem cell research. It seems Huckabee received a total of $35,000 in honoraria from the same firm..."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGZkMDc0MTU4OTdlNT ZlODlhZjZjOWFmY2JlNmM2NDY=
There is little to show, except for his rhetoric.
What concrete legislative attempts has Huckabee offered to promote pro-life causes in ARK?
How about like the fine efforts Romney made in MASS to defend traditional Marriage?
"Last week, Romney and Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley called on the lawmakers to allow a vote..."
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2 006/07/06/leaders_oppose_bid_to_ban_gay_marriage/
Huckabee is weak...
And the bias against a fine Man like Romney is truly amusing.
Anne Coulter writes...
"THERE'S A HUCKABEE BORN EVERY MINUTE"
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?ar ticle=225 |
|
winning New Hampshire. THAT will be the MSM's final gambit. They will jack the polls to look like McCain is running away with NH.
Until he is proven wrong, I will look to Rasmussen. The man is a Democrat, but he has been damned accurate for a long time.
Watch the polls to all get MUCH closer to each other just before ther election as some of these left propaganda machines try to save some credibility at the end. |
|
Don't you realize that the Union Leader editorial only means that Romney is "rising"? Obviously you have not been paying attention to our fearless host and prognosticator who has assured us that such anti-endorsements only inure to the benefit of Romney. You see, we are living in the twilight zone. In this new bizarro world, every anti-Romney article is actually a blessing in disguise and will only cause a bump in his support. Also in a parallel universe, any positive Huckabee articles only serves to damage Mr. Huckabee and increases the support. Similarly, anti-Huckabee articles actually detract support from the Huckster and there is a 1:1 bump in Romney's support. Finally, you must also appreciate that polling charts do not work well in the bizarro world of Hugh. You see, if trend lines are pointing down for the Mittster, it is actually a good thing because at this late juncture in campaign season, polling becomes like golf. According to Hugh, the lower numbers you get, the better you will do during the caucus.
Welcome to Hugh's world of the bizarre. |
|
It's funny to see HughRomney.com rely on that bad old liberal mainstream media in support of his candidate.
As hilarious as the implication (occasionally stated explicitly in the comments) that anyone who doesn't support a flip-flopping Northeast one-term governor is not a real conservative.
Muah hah hah.
+ + + |
|
Republicans don't believe in less spending and smaller government. Individual Republicans here and there might, but to claim that the party does is ridiculous.
If they did, they'd do something about it.
|
|
The Democrats and the MSM as their mouthpiece DO NOT want Mitt Romney to be the nominee. I mean, my God, they are even printing articles saying "Mitt Romney Must be Stopped!"
Then every liberal publication in America endorses John McCain (while in the same article saying they are against every conservative principle).
Hell, John McCain. I have despised him for years. He is the consummate RINO. We may as well nominate Olympia Snowe. McCain loosk too old to get a drivers license much less run the country.
Nope, the Huck thing and now the McCain thing are all part of the Left's "Stop Romney at all Costs" ploy. |
|
Like his democrat compatriots Huck is a economic illiterate posing as a populist huckster (no pun intended). Populism usually plays big where they chew on hay and in the inner cities where they hope to get something for free.
Let me give you the bad news. He has never had a chance at the nomination. He is being puffed up at this time to pretend that a race is taking place and to enhance the chances of Hillary or Obama getting elected.
Being pro life and a dollar will get a cup of coffee if you are lucky with today's electorate. I know, I know if the repubs nominate Rudy you are staying home. Who cares! Stay home, the line will be shorter. |
|
Your boy's going down. All the money, all the "core" support, all the "high-profile" endorsements, all the slick prevarication...
... all for naught.
Nice vanity project. Sorry about the dashed illusions.
+ + + |
|
McCain ?
Yes, it seems many DEMOCRATS want the moderate liberal leaning McCain.
The reason the Democrats in the Press in the Globe, Register, etc., have endorsed others besides Romney, is that they are frightened by the fine Mr. Romney.
A very sound Conservative Candidate scares the Liberal Partisans...
Laughs?
The tired 'Jorge' commenting on this blog resembles a fine comedian.
The funny thing is, why do Democrat Liberals play a game?
Why aren't they able to be honest about their partisan lean?
And do they really believe a 'con' will sway anyone?
John McCain is a lackluster, Beltway Insider, who does not even understand the power of tax reduction.
Huckabee again shows he really has no clue either, with the most pathetic populist garbage.
Hillary Clinton must be upset, Huckabee is stealing her lines... |
|
|
Hugh has lost it? Such a pathetic attempt to paint Huck as something he is not: anti-Republican. Oppose him on his record, or his naivete, or his overt faith appeal, fine. But to claim he is "slamming the entire GOP" is false, hyperbolic, and ridiculous. |
|
|
has Rudy only 9 point behind the Huck. Rudy is peaking at the right time. Weeeeeeeeeeee How bout dem apples, Rudy bashers? hahah |
|
LOL about the AR granny biker chick!
I think the larger story here is the end of the Republican coalition, AKA Romney's stool. (No, not the stuff that comes out of his mouth; the three legged kind.) Fiscal conservatives include most of the coastal Repubs, who are pretty neutral about social issues but want to keep all their salary income and stock dividends. Social cons in the Midwest and South have alot less concern about keeping the Bush tax cuts and ending the estate tax, and more about abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells. So in Huckabee, they have the perfect candidate, and the coastal elite have their worst nightmare.
Mitt tried to pretend to be a SoCon, but his act has been seen through. Rudy is the closest to a true coastal FiCon in the race, and I think it will come down to him vs. Huck.
Although I still like McCain... |
|
|
|
It IS a death tax. It is an ESTATE tax on the cumulative assets of the person that has DIED! The tax is NOT based on anyone that is alive. The tax ONLY occurs when someone has DIED; not when someone, some charity, whatever, is the recipient of a distribution from an estate.
Write when you know what you are talking about. |
|
I'm struggling to survive as I'm sitting on my couch wirelessly communicating with the world.
I'm stuggling not to eat more of a fantastic variety of left-over Christmas cookies and treats, possibly the greatest the world has ever seen, as my freshly ground and brewed coffee from all best beans in the world grows colder by the second on the table next to me. Will I finish my giant cup of excellent coffee before it grows cold? Perhaps I should purchase one of the heated coasters; but as a struggler in the lower middle class I can barely afford my large flat-panel TV to display my HD and digital signal from the cable company, bringing me a meager variety of hundreds of channels of information and entertainment.
I'm struggling to decide which of my two (paid) cars the family will take down to San Diego this afternoon to celebrate my son's Birthday by eating some of the greatest beef ever raised and grilled in the history of man at the "Rei do Gado" on 4th street. We will of course take my preferred gas guzzler because it is more comfortable even though I can barely afford to fill the twenty gallon fuel tank yet again this week; I may have to forgo the price of a sea voyage in chase of large marine animals sometime in the future because of it; or maybe not.
I'm struggling to decide if I really can afford to buy my son that new Alienware desktop that he wants for Christmas/Birthday or am I just deluding myself about our impoverished state? Does he really need a computer with billions of times the processing and storage power of the original Cray's? After all we're struggling here in the lower middle class; the second of the two Americas. |
|
|
by the embarrassingly gushing Peter Tilden (he actually blubbered "I love you man!" between softball questions) on KABC and he came across as a folksy "everyman" very full of himself. All of his answers were delivered in the form of cute analogies, all personality and no substance. Why do the latest ex-governors from Arkansas all fancy themselves rock stars? How about a "biker chick granny" from Arkansas? |
|
|
You want to get rid of the death tax because you are worth millions. It is not the death tax it is the estate tax and it only applies to people who are worth 5 million and more. Most of us are struggling out there. Of course 1percent of the country is smiling. Guess what Huck represents people who have family values and are middle class and below. We are you're average Joe and we have never had someone represent us before |
|
Hugh continues to spin as his boy goes down the tubes. All objectivity is gone. I agree with TS Missouri, I can't wait to hear the lame excuses that Hugh will have to come up with to explain how his guy tanked when he out spent everyone nearly 20 to 1.
|
|
To prove my point that Huck is old news now, and it's McCain who must dealt with, on RCP average polls, McCain has just pulled ahead of Mitt (Huck continues to go down).
Granted, McCain is drawing from Giuliani (which more than ever leaves Mitt as the only one who can remain standing, which is good in the longer run), but it means McCain is the MSM/Democrat darling right now -- and Mitt, I'm sure, is aware he needs to deal with this. Not so much that McCain can be the GOP nominee -- which he can't, the GOP largely hates him -- but THIS MCCAIN THING IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EFFORT TO DERAIL ROMNEY. This is the critical point.
And, finally, the McCain RCP polling may reflect the last couple of days -- so we'll see what's happening with what Romney can do now. |
|
|
What the GOP needs is a charasmatic candidate who can communicate Conservative ideas in a positive manner. The GOP has been behind the eight ball the past year. People are tired of ideas. They want solutions to problems; solutions that they can accept and understand. Mitt Romney is the only candidate who may come close. What is really needed right now is a candidate who can campaign like a cross between Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. They knew what it took to win and how to communicate that to the American people. |
|
Oh now that is a real winner for Republicans.
In the first place it is NOT a death tax. The dead can not pay taxes as they are, well hello, dead.
It is an inheritance tax.
I don't think that most Americans will take kindly to having to pay a boat load of taxes on income that they earned while the rich don't pay any taxes on money that they did not earn. |
|
I mean to say above...that Romney would be finished once McCain wins in NH...not Iowa. McCain will win in NH....Romney most likely second...but after a loss in Iowa...that will be it for Romney.
Thank goodness...and I can't wait to see all the backtracking HH does when Huckabee gets the nomination.... |
|
When you are right, you are soooo right!
Huckabee is acting just like the rest of the RINO's in this race. That includes your man Mitt, Rudy and John! |
|
There is no "demise" happening for Huckabee nor will it Ted. Where are you at?...political neverland?
Huckabee is on fire...he is going to win Iowa...finish no lower than third in NH...and will win Michigan and South Carolina. Romney will be finished in Iowa when McCain wins there. The race will come down between McCain and Huckabee...and odds are very good that Huckabee wins the nomination. If not, Huckabee will be on the ticket with McCain.
Go Huckabee!! One week away from a big win in Iowa! |
|
Note to everyone (including Hugh): the recent Main Stream Media-Democratic Party alliance's effort to promote Huckabble as the GOP's nominee who they desparately want has failed. (I don't think it had much of a chance anyway.) So, Huck's demise is old news now, albeit it's fun to watch that phony Huckster crumble.
The real issue right now is the MSM-Democrat effort to promote McCain in their effort to derail Mitt. Their Huck gambit has failed, so they're now on to McCain. While McCain is no "huckster", he's certainly not the nominee the GOP needs (and McCain is NOT who the Dem's and MSM fear the most -- proven by Mitt getting ALL the negative hits).
If Mitt can survive McCain (and the betting is he can), it will be clear sailing for Mitt, barring unforeseen circumstances.
And if Mitt can then run with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as VP, THE GOP IS GOING ALL THE WAY and will carry the day for the next generation!!! (A fantasticly exciting ticket sure to trump the Dems nearly everywhere, Romney-Palin' 08.) |
|
Read the whole article and see what Time finds so unsatisfactory and, from their bizarro-world POV, inauthentic about Huck’s “populism.” Populism isn’t a dirty word, and Huck isn’t the first Republican to correctly point out that the best way to help the working / middle class is to leave it alone, tax it less, and give it more control over its own money. That’s why left-wing Time is disapproving that Huck isn’t actually the distributionist they think he should be:
“But the trick with Huckabee is that his populist rhetoric is only rarely matched with progressive proposals. He supports continuing President Bush's tax cuts…”
“His major education reform would not be more federal spending on teachers or preschool, but more arts education, stricter teacher testing and a new federal push for home schooling or charter schools. When he speaks of health care, he talks not of new federal benefits, but of more focus on prevention for chronic disease like diabetes and tax breaks for health savings.”
There’s nothing wrong with speaking frankly about wanting to help us working people with some long-needed relief from taxes, not to mention more control over health care and educational choices. Time has correctly realized that Huck is no friend of their preferred confiscate-and-redistribute policies. |
|
He ought to team up with Silky Poney Edwards. $400 haircuts & 'My fadda was a werker & a slaver..'x 2 would be cute.
Huckleberry & his little herd around these parts ain't Republicans and ain't conservatives. |
|
'The GOP does not need "changing." '
Have you seen the national debt? Just what did the Republican party do to reduce the debt when it had all the power? We all owe $30,000 each on the debt, every man, woman and child. The only thing the current Republican party has done is spend and borrow like mad. The GOP needs to be taken out to the woodshed and "changed" in a pretty serious way. The Democrats, too.
Running up a monstrous debt in a time of peace and plenty is absolutely criminal. Please explain the differences between the Republican and Democrat parties on this topic. I'm dying to know what they are.
While you're at it, grab your checkbook. You owe $30,000 and you need to pay up. |
|
I don't know how anybody that claims to be conservative can support Huckabee. He even talked about regulating salaries in a free market.
This guy speaks class warfare like John Edwards. Huckabee doesn't understand the economy and he feels government is the answer to everything. This guy is a tax increase waiting to happen. |
|
HUCK - How about Blasting out GPS Guns regulations?
See -> http://www.GPSGuns.org
MORE Gun Owner, Less Predators.
Protecting GUN RIGHTS and Ownership is increased with GPS GUNS Technology.
Current Gun Laws don't work and can be improved!
Requiring Trackable Guns may open restrictions in Public Zones like at VT..!
More Gun Owners = Less Predators!
Join the Mission at http://www.GPSGuns.org
|
|
|
|