Friday, December 28, 2007
|
|
John McCain Complains
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:58 PM
|
The Arizona senator was complaining on Fox & Friends this morning that Romney was attacking him and that he had never changed. Given the recent memory of the disastrous McCain-Kennedy immigration "reform" which many conservatives denounced as amnesty and which did include social security for illegal aliens. McCain will never be able to spin himself as other than a flipper on immigration. Ditto the Bush tax cuts he opposed (unless he wants to announce he was wrong to oppose them in 2001 and 2003.) Team Romney responded with a detailed defense of its ad:
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message." ANNOUNCER: "John McCain, an honorable man. But is he the right Republican for the future? McCain opposes repeal of the death tax, and voted against the Bush tax cuts twice."
- In 2002, Senator McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Twice Vote Against Permanent Repeal Of The Death Tax. (S. 1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay, H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay)
- In 2001, Senator McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Vote Against The $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay)
- In 2003, Senator McCain Was One Of Only Three Republicans To Vote Against The $350 Billion Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)
ANNOUNCER: "McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently. Even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security."
- Senator McCain's 2006 Immigration Plan Would Allow 11 Million Illegals To Remain In The U.S. "The McCain plan – which is being put forward in the U.S. House by Arizona GOP Congressmen Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe – allows the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to stay in the country if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine." (Mike Sunnucks, "Napolitano, Hayworth Criticize Bush On Illegal Immigration," The Phoenix Business Journal, 2/1/06)
- Senator McCain Voted To Allow Illegals To Collect Retroactive Social Security Benefits. "Specter, R-Pa., motion to table (kill) the Ensign, R-Nev., amendment no. 3985 that would bar illegal immigrants currently in the country from claiming Social Security credits for work done in years before they are assigned a valid Social Security number." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 11-44; D 38-5; I 1-0, 5/18/06, Clinton, Kennedy, And McCain Voted Yea)
- "The Senate Voted Yesterday To Allow Illegal Aliens To Collect Social Security Benefits Based On Past Illegal Employment - Even If The Job Was Obtained Through Forged Or Stolen Documents." (Charles Hurt, "Illegals Granted Social Security," The Washington Times, 5/19/06)
- The Washington Times Editorial: Senator McCain Moved Social Security Closer To Insolvency By Offering Benefits To Illegals. "On its way to bankruptcy, Social Security will get there a bit sooner if President Bush, Republican senators (and prospective presidential candidates) John McCain, Chuck Hagel and Sam Brownback and the overwhelming majority of Democratic senators get their way. ... During the Senate debate on immigration reform in May, Mr. Ensign proposed that no illegal alien whose status would be adjusted by the Senate bill be permitted to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity. ... In addition to Messrs. McCain, Hagel and Brownback, other still-serving Republicans who opposed the Ensign amendment, which lost by a 50-49 vote, included Sens. Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens and George Voinovich." (Editorial, "Social Security Siphon," The Washington Times, 1/5/07)
ANNOUNCER: "And Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney cut taxes and spending as Governor."
- Governor Romney Turned The Legislature's Proposed Capital Gains Tax Hike Into A Tax Refund Instead. "Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002. Governor Romney also signed legislation that provided property tax relief to seniors and legislation establishing a two-day tax-free shopping holiday in 2005." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)
- Club For Growth: Governor Romney "Imposed Some Much-Needed Fiscal Discipline On A Very Liberal Massachusetts Legislature." "[O]n balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)
- Governor Romney "Attempted To Cut Down On Government Spending By Streamlining Many Duplicative And Wasteful Elements On Beacon Hill." "To his credit, Romney attempted to cut down on government spending by streamlining many duplicative and wasteful elements of Beacon Hill. ... Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch's press positions, saving $1.2 million." (The Club For Growth, "Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues," Press Release, 8/21/07)
ANNOUNCER: "He opposes amnesty for illegals. Mitt Romney. John McCain. There is a difference."
- Governor Romney's Strategy For A Stronger America Calls For Ending Illegal Immigration Without Amnesty. "Reject Amnesty. Do not give amnesty or any special pathway to those who have come to this country illegally." (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America," www.mittromney.com, Posted 9/18/07)
- Read Governor Romney's Immigration Plan Here.
|
|
|
Old McCain. He still has his implied Concord endorsement and his liberal press pals. They anti-endorse Reagan--bad company. And that group sure ain't going to ask McCain about his flip-flopping each month this year. Even McCain's economist has a hard time rationalizing Don John Quixote. Geeze, make up your mind McCain! |
|
Of course, if you push any distinction far enough you're going to make it sound artificial. I can't consider every detail in a timely fashion so let's just contrast two important state gov't levies (I use the term 'levy' for lack of a better one, don't read anything into it). First the personal income tax. Second, the automobile licencing fee.
There is an important moral distinction between the two that make the one a tax and the other a fee.
I have a right to acquire and keep property through legal means. Thus, transferring my income to the state represents a possible infringement of my right. Imposing or raising an already imposed income tax should only be done with the greatest of care.
While the constitution asserts my right to travel, it does not assert that I have a right to travel by any particular means. In particular, it makes no reference to the driving of cars. It is a privilege for me to travel by automobile, not a right. That's why the state is permitted to impose speeding laws and environmental standards and all sorts of things with less concern about my rights. Licensing fees fall into this category.
The income tax involves taking away money that I have a right to acquire and keep. The automobile license fee involves charging for a privilege. Because of this distinction, the first should be considered compulsory and the second voluntary. |
|
|
|
I spent all day at the therapist trying to erase the visualization of Hugh as Britney from my mind
Joe
Loved that Hugh's Mitt list
it keeps growing and growing
dirL
|
|
Of course fees are disincentives. That's economics 101. However, economics 101 also includes another important concept: elasticity of demand.
------------------------------
That is my chief point here. I understand the sex offender issue and not looking to argue that.
My point is that people can avoid income taxes - but to do so means you make little to no income and resort to government or private charity (or begging) to survive. Few want to do that.
Few want to avoid marriage, avoid homeownersip and the like - so Romney, knowing this, knew he could raise income on these people. THAT is where the similarity with taxes occurs.
Where I live there is now a $5 charge for parking to explore what is technically a national forest. That did not use to exist and I have no problem with it - for obviously, if you want to explore the forest (hardly a necessity of life) you don't mind paying - and there are some legitimate expenses for the forest that I would prefer those who use it pay for, before I pay for it with income or sales taxes.
Romney and his fans are trying to portray his fees as if they are all along the lines of this forest example. They simply are not - and his tedious parsing of the language in this context is both frustrating and a negative for my future support. |
|
By your standard you can avoid taxes too - just don't choose to work for a living and rely on others to support you.
There already are licensing fees and they are set based on car value. As more cars get on the roads, and as older cars are replaced by newer cars - that money increases. This is not the same as some $20 fee for a service that was first set 25 years ago (as Romney supporters have argued here).
By the way, the DMV also has fees too - when using their services.
Since income taxes ARE in fact being paid as well - what are they being used for? Seriously, if you are making the argument that the government provides me the opportunity to drive a personally owned vehicle - and that the income taxes, gas taxes and already high licensing fees are not sufficient and outdated - so therefore it is perfectly acceptable to raise these fees - then you are arguing for tax increases plain and simple.
|
|
Steve_in_Corona:
Of course fees are disincentives. That's economics 101. However, economics 101 also includes another important concept: elasticity of demand.
People that want to get married are _aching_, _longing_ to be married (well, usually, I hope). They have an inelastic demand for a marriage license. They are very unlikely to be deterred by any reasonable increase in marriage licensing fees.
Sex offenders on the other hand are not feeling quite the same way about registering. Their demand for that particular service is quite elastic. And that makes them quite price-sensitive.
Note that I'm _not_ saying that Romney should have increased marriage license fees just because he could. I am saying that when he looked at the cost-benefit-analysis it may have made sense to act just as he did.
Let me re-iterate. I'm not promoting fee increases. I'm distinguishing them from tax increases. |
|
The key is not to just type Reagan. Type Daily Kos and Reagan (or your other favorite lefty blog) and see how often they bring him up (including the fact that Reagan caused 9/11).
|
|
Steve_in_Corona:
Licensing fees defray the costs for all sorts of services provided (often poorly I admit) by the gov't. Auto license fees help pay, in part, for the California DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles), which is tasked with insuring that automobile operators are at least minimally competent and that the vehicles themselves meet minimal safety standards.
I live in California too, so I know how the simple letters D M V conjure up all that is bad about gov't. But it really, truly, would probably be a lot worse if there were no DMV. (What we'd all like, I think, is a _better_ DMV.)
In the end, if you don't want to pay your fee, you don't have to have a car that you drive on roads administered by the state. But if you do drive on those roads, you are benefiting from a state service.
Once again, I'm _not_ arguing in favor of increasing fees. I'm just saying that they can be morally justified in a way that taxes cannot. And that increasing the one is a totally different prospect from increasing the other. |
|
But he increased fees for getting married, buying a house, bringing a case to court, and using a public golf course, to name a few reported examples. However, in a move that could prove controversial with social conservatives, Romney decided not to raise fees for convicted sex offenders. He vetoed a $75 fee for offenders required by law to register with the state.
Kevin Madden, Romney’s spokesman...noted that the $75 fee increase for sex offenders was a disincentive for offenders to register.
--------------------------------------
So here is my question. Since Madden himself acknowledges the obvious - that fees are disincentives - then how does a true social conservative seek to provide a disincentive for marriage!!! What sort of conservative seeks disincentives against private home and gun ownership.
If these really are just fees and not taxes, with the idea that one just not "use the service" then Romney is even less a conservative than I thought.
I almost like the idea that he is just lying about raising taxes better... |
|
|
Sheesh, I know you libs loved FDR and Truman and Kennedy and all that, but Hell's bells Man! Kennedy was elected over 40 years ago... |
|
Taxes are compulsory. Fees are not. True, it might be highly _inconvenient_ to get along without some gov't services just to avoid paying the fees. But that just shows that some gov't services are valuable.
---------------------------------
Well, it sure would be inconvenient to do without my car - but I do not see how a licensing fee for my personally owned vehicle would equate to the government providing a service.
Unless of course one thinks our rights (such as ownership and use of property) come from the government - which very well may be the case for some liberals.
So the analysis would have to be which fees indeed were raised by Romney - item by item.
Would any Romney supporters care to provide such a list? |
|
SK - 2008
The simple fact that a citizen has less money in his pocket after paying a fee just as he has less money after paying a tax doesn't mean that taxes and fees are the same or even comparable.
Taxes are compulsory. Fees are not. True, it might be highly _inconvenient_ to get along without some gov't services just to avoid paying the fees. But that just shows that some gov't services are valuable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of raising a bunch of fees. I wish Romney could have straightened out Mass.'s mess just by trimming the size of it's gov't, but there is an important moral distinction between fees and taxes. Romney is not weaseling a bit when he says that he did not raise taxes. |
|
No Brob..nobody deifies the dead Reagan. And frankly, I doubt too many have forgotten his flaws.
Everyone has flaws Brob. I hear a lot of Democrats wishing for a return of the Bill Clinton days. Clinton had flaws too, didn't he? Especially to the more liberal of Democrats.
There is nothing wrong with looking back to one who exemplified strength and confidence, and was beloved (not deified) by millions of Americans (as witness to the funeral a couple years back).
The context is a GOP primary - and so pointing back to Reagan makes a lot of sense.
What doesn't make much sense is the palpable hatred that so many on the left have towards a man who has not been President for almost 20 years. |
|
Here's some fire in the belly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b2nNwj_gzw |
|
I love both these candidates, so I'm completely objective. Here's my take:
1. Talking about your opponent's record isn't an attack.
2. "An honorable man, but not the right Republican" would be the most kid-gloves "attck ad" I've ever heard. |
|
BMessenger-
You compare what candidates spend campaigning. This is entirely irrelevant to me. The fact that Huckabee did not have the money to spend more in Iowa does not endear me to him. All it shows is that Romney has a better organized campaign, more support, and (insofar as Mitt has loaned some money to his campaign) more commitment than Huck.
When we face Hilary! or Obama! in November, I want a candidate who has the means, strategy and skill to engage in total war. I don't want some mamby-pamby measured attack. Mitt and Rudy seem to me to be the only candidates who can provide that. I'd rather wake up on the first Wednesday in November to hear the MSM complain about how obscenely President-elect Romney spent money to buy the election than to hear Gov. Huckabee mention in his concession speech how President-elect Clinton outspent him.
|
|
BMessenger:
Another inapt comparison you make is comparing Romney's electoral history to Huckabee's. Huck is from, what most would agree, a _somewhat_ more conservative state than Romney's. Huck got re-elected in a center-right state for adopting centrist and populist policies. Not a big suprise.
That Mitt ever got elected in Mass. is a minor miracle. That he got anything conservative done there is a miracle as well. After doing even marginally conservative things in Mass., imagining that he should be re-elected is really hoping for a major miracle, isn't it?
The fact that Mitt decided not to run for re-election (rather than get beat) just shows that he was too conservative for the state. That's not saying much, I know. But it does underscore the essential difference that invalidates the comparison.
|
|
BMessenger:
First, since Romney did not increase taxes in Mass. His state's tax burden ranking went down for some reason other than Mitt's increasing taxes. Perhaps other heavy burden states decreased their tax burdens a bit. Or perhaps economic conditions in Mass. resulted in people spending more of their income on taxes than other things. For example, if everyone in Mass. earned more money they might all experience some tax bracket creep. This would cause the tax burden to go up with no change in tax law.
Second did you mean to say that Arkansas went from 32nd to 39th? I'm pretty sure that when you're ordering states by their tax burden, your high ordinals are better than your low ones? I'm going to assume you meant that Arkansas went from 32nd to 39th. Even so, this may have had no straightforward connection to Huckabee's policies. (For all the same reasons that Romney's policies may have had no simple connection with his states 'standings'.)
Look, the next President may do all the right things economically, decrease and simplify taxes, cut spending, etc., and our tax burden might still go up. There are variables in the equations that are simply outside of any human being's control. The President just has to do the right thing. Mitt did the right thing in Mass. by not raising taxes.
|
|
A MESSAGE TO ALL ROMNEY SUPPORTERS:
If Romney does not win Iowa he will not win the nomination. The establishment will not circle around the candidate who had Iowa all to himself and then lost it to Huck. If Romney loses Iowa, NH could go either way but SC will not vote for a MASS GOV. Romney needs to sweep the first two, and Hugh above all else knows this. It's desperation time for Romney, the internals do not look good. The Huck vote will be there at(37-39%). The Romney money and org needs to turn out to match Hucks numbers. It jsut isn't going to happen. |
|
|
http://www.slate.com/id/2181005/ |
|
The distinction is crucial here since the law requires 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but simple majority to raise "fees." Republicans are always in the minority here, but the Democrats typically do not quite have 2/3 of the majority. So it is hard anymore for the liberals to raise taxes.
So we had a governor (once) who since he couldn't raise taxes decided to raise "fees" instead - specifically the vehicle licensing fee.
The people (rightfully) called this a "car tax."
He got recalled - but then again, this isn't Taxachusetts either. |
|
When Mitt Romney wants popcorn, he breathes on Iowa.
Mitt Romney invented the apple (the fruit, not the company, the company stole the logo and as a result made billions).
Mitt Romney built Mount Everest with a bucket and spade.
Mitt Romney does not age. Every birthday, it’s just another year added to his existence, which sucks for you.
Mitt Romney does not have chest hair, he has millions of highly venomous nematocysts. You have virtually no chance of surviving the venomous sting, unless treated immediately. The pain is so excruciating and overwhelming that you would most likely go into shock and collapse a split second before getting hit in the face with a roundhouse kick.
Mitt Romney can chug a gallon of milk and not throw up.
Mitt Romney beat the Sun in a staring contest.
If you get roundhouse kicked in the face by Mitt Romney in your dream, you DIE!
Mitt Romney was born in a log cabin that he built with his own hands.
Some people get lucky and kill two birds with one stone. Mitt Romney once killed four birds with half a stone. What’s that? You say there’s no such thing as half a stone? The four dead birds didn’t think so either. That is why Mitt Romney never needed a gun.
Mitt Romney CAN lick his elbow. Mitt Romney can also lick his own elbows. At the same time.
Mitt Romney is capable of photosynthesis.
Mitt Romney can MAKE water run uphill.
Mitt Romney can strike a match on a bar of soap.
Mitt Romney once played Russian roulette with a fully load gun and won.
Mitt Romney once played 18 holes of golf using a 12 inch strip of rebar and a sun dried tomato. He shot a 54.
Mitt Romney performs colonoscopies on himself.
Mitt Romney's smile once brought a dead puppy back to life.
Mitt Romney understands the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
When Mitt Romney picks his nose, he REALLY does find Gold.
|
|
"In any case, the simplistic equation FEE INCREASES = TAX INCREASES is not only _technically_ untrue. It's not even _plausible_ from a practical viewpoint."
They are definitely not identical. No debating that. But the end result is the same in that each one causes a citizen to have less money in their pocket. There should be little debate about that also. |
|
A Romney supporter accusing another candidate of flip-flopping? UNREAL! Do you have no shame?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI |
|
It it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If the Fed makes you pay, it's a tax. I live near a National Park. The sign says Fee Area Ahead. Get serious. Your TAX doolars at work...
In the 80s many government projects (for the lack of another word,) went from being on the federal teat to taking in 'Use Fees'. Now tell me how that changed things, other than requiring those using the project to pay for it... |
|
The new poll from Research 2000 does have the effect of bumping the RCP average up a bit for Huckabee. So does the fact that RCP is now including only the three latest polls rather than the five latest (thus _including_ the suspect Bloomberg poll and _excluding_ the American Research Group Poll--which has Huck's lead at a statistically irrelevant 2%).
But the Research 2000 poll shows Romney closing the gap. Romney has moved up 5 points in the last two weeks. Huck has moved up 3. If this were an isolated poll, that would be statistically irrelevant. But virtually all the polls show that the race is tightening (is anyone really surprised?). |
|
The tax burden in MA went from 9th to 7th under Romney's direction (which was only a single term) while Huck's state went from 39th to 32nd despite the worst roads in the nation, a Clinton legacy that left the state in tatters and a school system that might have beat out MS for 49th place. Mitt's total burden increase was over 2%, while Huck's was just about 1%. Huck also balanced his state's budget every year while in office. He left the state much better than he found it and he essentially was re-elected twice since he served out the last 2 1/2 years of Jim Guy Tucker's term before being re-elected twice. How did Willard do? Well he did so well in MA, that they voted in a radically liberal governor with no experience in a massive landslide.
I'd also say that Huck is better fiscal conservative and what's more, I'd say that any candidate on the verge of winning a state where he is outspent 20 to 1 says something about how he and his team handles money. |
|
There are a lot of wrinkles involved in Romney's so-called fee increases.
First of all, it's not fee increases, its fee AND FINE increases. I find the latter a whole lot more palatable than the former.
Second some fees fell on people that, frankly, I couldn't care less about. It doesn't bother me that inmates have to pay $2 rather than $0.86 to make a phone call. I wish Mitt had raised the 'fee' to $20.
Third, in some cases, Romney increased a fee at the same time that he extended the term until the next fee. Romney proposed gun license increases from $25 to $75, but at the same time increased the gun license term from 4 to 6 years. Still an increase but not a tripling.
Fourth, in many cases fees were increased by the legislature for more than Romney requested. (The legislature increased the gun licensing fee to $100 rather than the proposed $75). Ultimately, of course, Romney accepted these higher fee increases here and there in order to get the overall package through. Was anyone looking for a candidate who will never compromise on anything?
Fifth, some fees may have been raised to decrease a certain amount of behavior (rather than as a revenue enhancement). Perhaps this was appropriate. Would anyone really complain if a fee on, say, partial birth abortion were increased?
Finally, some fees were all new. I take it as obvious that some government services should be subject to user fees. Since government often provides new services over time, it seems that new fees will, on occasion, need to be imposed. In 1970, for example, I'm sure that Mass. had no fee for paying your taxes over the internet. They probably do today. I'm not saying that Mitt instituted that fee, but I am saying that some of the fees he did institute are like that.
In any case, the simplistic equation FEE INCREASES = TAX INCREASES is not only _technically_ untrue. It's not even _plausible_ from a practical viewpoint. |
|
Good analysis. I think you are mostly spot on.
To be fair, both Mitt and Rudy have a chance of beating Hillary in the general. But it would be far closer and they probably would lose. Rudy would have a slightly better chance than Mitt because he brings in independents Mitt does not.
Fred Thompson would make an outstanding VP, but I doubt he would agree to it. Fred Thompson remains the one candidate who has not managed to completely alienate a big segment of the GOP base, but he also fails to inspire confidence as a front runner. |
|
|
Very funny. Do you feel "dirty" after that Hugh impersonation. It was very realistic. You might a demabrasion decontamination shower (like the one they did in Silkwood) followed by intense therapy and maybe a Navajo sweat lodge healing ceremony. |
|
Romney - A Mormon cannot win. Not for me but it is my take as too many people will switch or stay home due to this. It only takes 2-3 million people to switch or stay home and he cannot win.
Giuliani - Too many wives, pro-gun control. This will kill him in the general election.
Huckster - Could win, no fatal flaw. His Christianity gains him 3-4 million votes and loses him as many. I count him out on silly purposes as we cannot vote into the White House a guy named Huckabee from Arkansas can we?
Obama - The most liberal Senator running and he is close to most liberal in the business. No chance of winning.
Clinton - Formidable. But she is a liberal Senator from the North East which means she is unelectable.
Edwards - No analysis necessary, he cannot win.
This leaves McCain. Not loved by some in his party? Yes, but he is the strongest amongst independents of any candidate in either party. He backs national defense, guns and God and that gets him the most vocal and voting elements of the Republican party.
No offense to my immigration-is-THE-issue friends out there, it is not. It is an important and growing in importance but I will site two pieces of evidence to show that immigration is not a strong factor yet. In the election cycle just 13 months ago, Republicans got shellacked by open border Dems because we were not the party of small government, guns, national defense and God that we have come to love.
The second piece of evidence is this. Who among the LEADING candidates for President of either party do the immigration-is-THE-key issue folks like? None is the answer.
McCain’s weakness on the immigration issue will not cost him the election. That leaves taxes. He is considered weak here. His voting record is better than perceived however and he will have 6 months to make his case as a small government Republican. Integrity and character combines with the core issues of small government, guns, national defense and God to produce Presidents.
|
|
On the Liberal side of the aisle, you can chose between the Corrupt, the Inexperienced or the Delusional.
On the Conservative side your choice is "by the way, I'm a Christian", "Remember I'm a war hero", the lazy campaigner, a damn good mayor or an accomplished administrator.
The last two are the only ones of the bunch from either party who evolved to conservative positions rather than flipping and flopping based on the latest polls, have experience establishing multi-layer administrative teams and in depth international knowledge.
Yesterday when "By the way I'm a Christian" was appologizing for the tragedy in Pakistan, the most qualified candidate showed his quick analytical mind as he detailed the processes he would pursue in this situation as President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myyvS3nQvJo
If your man is Billary, so be it. Hugh has identified the most qualified two candidates.
|
|
I notice you never responded to my post yesterday about the experience that John McCain has. You claimed all he did was fly planes. You were wrong. I'll go ahead and post a little reminder for you.
Wrong Phil
McCain was more than just a pilot. After his return from Vietnam he did the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
"By late 1974 McCain had recuperated just enough to pass his flight physical and have his flight status reinstated, and he became Executive Officer and then Commanding Officer of the VA-174 Hellrazors, the East Coast A-7 Corsair II Navy training squadron stationed at Naval Air Station Cecil Field outside Jacksonville in Florida and the largest attack squadron in the Navy. McCain's leadership abilities were credited with turning around a mediocre unit, improving its aircraft readiness and pilot safety metrics and winning the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation, and while some senior officers resented McCain's presence as favoritism due to his father, junior officers rallied to him and helped him qualify for A-7 carrier landings." |
|
The funny thing is that Rudy is still the guy to beat.
He will most likely have the most delegates following super Tuesday. |
|
|
If his show has a following there, it seems plausible to me that people could actually go vote against Mitt merely to spite Hugh. I like Hugh's show, but this "all Mitt, all the time" is truly annoying. I hope anyone but Mitt wins - even Ru Paul - just so Hugh can get his comeuppance. |
|
Where exactly are the ads misleading and deceptive? All I am reading is that McCainiacs have even thinner skins than their idol (if that is possible).
In soccer, the politics McCain practices is called "own goal". |
|
That poll is ludicrous. Research 2000 is an absolute joke and disgrace and dominated by the liberal MSM establishment that wants to help the Democrats.
In any event, the poll you cite is still an objectively positive one for Romney. It shows that Huckabee is no longer viable, and that Romney is unstoppable.
Mitt is also irresistably charming and good looking.
The only polls worth anything are those that show Romney in the lead.
....
....
Phew. Ok, I'm done doing my best Hugh impersonation. |
|
|
|
I haven't really seen this mentioned here yet, but Counselor to the President, Dan Bartlett, said the following about Hugh Hewitt in Texas Monthly:
Q: Yeah, or what if Hugh Hewitt called?
A: That's when you start going "Hmmm ..." Because they do reach people who are influential.
Q: Well, they reach the President's base.
A: That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very effective way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-01-01/talks-2.php
--------
Unbelievable. Hugh regurgitates exactly what the White House tells him. I have no reason to doubt that he does the same for RINO Romney. |
|
It was in 1976 that Reagan ran against Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination. Reagan lost to Ford in 1976, who then lost to Jimmy Carter.
--------------------------------------------
In point of fact, Reagan lost a close race with Ford - because the GOP decided they would go for the more liberal option rather than the TRUE (not recently evolved) conservative with principles.
Yes, that led to a loss in 1976 to Carter.
But it also led to two landslide victories for Reagan thereafter - including defeating a sitting incumbent.
I have often said that one of the best things to happen to conservatism within the GOP was the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. In 1994 and for several years afterwards we saw conservatism triumph. Unfortunately, it is waning again and it is quite possible that a GOP nomination of a center-left candidate will lead to a Democrat victory - but may in fact lead to a true conservative arising to fix the damage that Hillary or Obama (like Carter before them) will have done.
If we aren't all speaking Arabic first... |
|
This clearly shows Romney's true colors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPrZ2VtD0yQ
|
|
Romney did increase taxes while governor of Taxachusetts (if such a thing was even possible). They increased around $700 million a year.
A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney's first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million...That doesn't include an additional $140 million in what Romney described as business tax "loophole closings" approved that year, the vast majority recommended by Romney. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/28/romn ey_oversaw_millions_in_fee_hikes_as_massachusetts_governor/
If I removed a major deduction you rely on when filing your taxes, such as your home mortage interest or child allowance, and your tax burden increases--would you deem that an increase of taxes you were paying? Maybe in Mitt's world that is not a tax increase, but for everyone else it is. Trust me, those Mass businesses looked at it as a tax increase.
Mitt Romney also increased fees for government services and licences. Call it what you will, but that is a tax increase too.
|
|
Candidates don't target other candidates unless they are really in trouble.
Mitt has begun devoting significant time, resources, and money to targeting John McCain.
This is telling. Without a doubt, the Romney campaign views McCain as a serious threat and indeed, as the front-runner.
|
|
If the rate of inflation is 3% it would take 24 years to double. Mitt did it in a year. Are you really trying to say that Massachusetts did not raise fees for 24 years? Surely not. The same can be said for that which he quintupled, except that was obviously much more gratuitous.
Slick for sure, but neither wise, nor prudent. |
|
Americans for Tax Reform place John McCain at 90% or tied with 8 others for 70th - 77th best place out of 100 Senators. That is hardly a bad score. A bad score is Hilary's at 5% tied with 18 Dems for 5th-22nd worst or Obama's at 0% tied for 97th-100th worst with 4 others. McCain can easily defend his record against Obama or Hilary and he deserves better credit from conservatives on his tax record.
The immigration issue did not stop America from wiping out Republicans in a giant slaughter and replacing them with wide open border Dems just 13 months ago. This means that immigration cannot have been an important issue unless it is to say that America wants open borders.
To those who view immigration as a key issue I will point out again that the vocal crowd on this crisis do not seem to like any of the candidates who are actually attracting voters. This either means that they are picking candidates on balance, which is what I expect, or that immigration is simply not a issue that matters near as much as the vocal group says it is, or both. If it were high on people's minds in numbers that mattered, then there would be a candidate out front, or in the running, that the Chicken Little crowd loved on immigration.
Immigration will not hurt John in the election. I did not say I agree with him, I do not, but it will not hurt him.
ET
|
|
What is your point - that is exactly what I said.
A fixed $40 fee (unlike a 10% income tax) has no means of keeping up with inflation. We should not expect the fee to stay at $40 indefinitely...if it stays at $40 for several years, we should expect the eventual increase to be more drastic.
A Governor should not rob the tax revenue to compensate for fees that have not been indexed to inflation; he should increase the fees. That's what Romney did - and it was wise, prudent judgment. |
|
What are you talking about? What Noonan discussion are you referencing? In When Character Mattered she made it clear that he spent over half his life studying communism. That is not fictitious information, that is factual. If something similar could be said for Romney I have little doubt we would have heard about it by now.
"Peggy Noonan's discussion of Reagan's foreign policy credentials that began in 1976 actually proves Romney's point. It was in 1976 that Reagan ran against Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination. Reagan lost to Ford in 1976, who then lost to Jimmy Carter.
Like I said earlier - the morons don't concern themselves with that facts; they simply make their election decisions based upon other factors...they create fictitious information to justify voting for the dumb*@#'s like Huckabee and McCain." |
|
|
hugh is becoming the britney spears of bloggers. seriously, his analysis is getting so ridiculous that i soon expect to see pictures of him shaving his head or flashing his crotch as he gets out of his car. |
|
Hawk,
You said:
"Taxes are calculated based upon a tax rate - fees are fixed.
Therefore (since costs of providing government services never decrease) fees can (and should) be increased periodically to keep up with inflation. This is wise and prudent judgment."
It would be wise and prudent to make fees keep up with inflation. Romney did not do that. Romney in some cases, doubled, and yes, quintupled fees. Do you think it is wise and prudent to double and quintuple fees?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Tax_Reform.htm
FactCheck: Did not raise MA taxes, but DID raise MA fees
Mitt Romney said he "did not raise taxes" when he was governor of Massachusetts. Technically, that is true, but it's also misleading. Romney did not raise anything called a tax during his tenure as governor, but he did increase state revenues by raising various types of fees. In 2003, Romney doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline (money that is supposed to be for cleaning up any leaks from underground fuel tanks). All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. Romney also "closed loopholes" in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue. In addition, Romney cut local aid, a program whereby the state supplied revenue to cities and counties. In 2004, Romney cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget. |
|
Peggy Noonan's discussion of Reagan's foreign policy credentials that began in 1976 actually proves Romney's point. It was in 1976 that Reagan ran against Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination. Reagan lost to Ford in 1976, who then lost to Jimmy Carter.
Like I said earlier - the morons don't concern themselves with that facts; they simply make their election decisions based upon other factors...they create fictitious information to justify voting for the dumb*@#'s like Huckabee and McCain. |
|
Allow me to differenciate between taxes and fees.
Taxes are calculated based upon a tax rate - fees are fixed.
Therefore (since costs of providing government services never decrease) fees can (and should) be increased periodically to keep up with inflation. This is wise and prudent judgment.
Since taxpayers' incomes generally increase with inflation, tax revenue that is based upon a fixed rate will keep up with inflation without increasing the rate.
Periodic fee increases are necessary and prudent. The grocery store analogy makes perfect sense - because only the theives saw the "tax increase." It is pure stupidity to claim otherwise. |
|
Wow. I actually find this more disturbing than when he distanced himself from Ronald Reagan in 1994.
Does Mitt Romney not know anything about Ronald Reagan? Perhaps if he would rent or buy In the Face of Evil, he would understand that Reagan studied and fought communism for more than 30 years prior to being elected president. According to Peggy Noonan's book, When Character Was King, Reagan first saw how awful it was when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild.
Bottom line - this guy should never again compare himself favorably to Ronald Reagan.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDkzMWFkY2Y4 ZDBlOWU5Mzk3NzNkZmY4OWZjZDJkNzQ=
CURRY: Most analysts would say, governor, that the events of yesterday will help your chief opponents Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Are you concerned, are you worried that your impact, that your campaign will be impacted negatively?
ROMNEY: Oh, I think we have to put the events of the world at a higher level than thinking about local politics. But I do believe as well that people recognize that what we want in a leader is a person who can actually guide America in a very challenging time. You look back to the — one of the great foreign policy leaders of our nation was Ronald Reagan. He was a governor, not a so-called foreign policy expert. He was a person who knew how to make difficult decisions and how to lead in times of crisis. And I think if you look at my life's experience you'll recognize that's what I bring to the table. |
|
When the government raises taxes, they take more of your money.
When the government raises fees, they take more of your money.
Do you disagree with either of those two sentences?
Your grocery store analogy makes no sense what so ever. Whether it be fees or taxes, when either government raises either, citizens end up with less money in their pocket.
You may now resume your name calling. |
|
|
|
Romney did close off some corporate tax loopholes - which means some taxpayers saw a tax increase. The claim that Romney increased taxes is pure stupidity.
When a grocery store installs theft-prevention devices, do we call that a price increase??????? (I guess you do if you are the THIEF!!!!)
Its funny how someone as well-qualified as Romney brings out the morons in droves to criticize him with fictitious claims.
|
|
NOW.
What John McCain did earlier this year with HIS shamnesty bill disqualified him for POTUS for LIFE. |
|
Hugh-
Posting Romney's attacks, and then posting the Romney team's explanation behind them, does not make them anymore persuasive. As you know, McCain's team shot out a rebuttal as well. Curiously you make not mention of it, but I digress. Instead of referencing either of those, let's see what someone not associated with either campaign found.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/new-ads-romne y-attacks-mccain-mccain-touts-support/
Here is an excerpt from Marc Santora's article.
Mitt Romney, waging a two-front battle to stave off challengers in both New Hampshire and Iowa, unleashed a television advertisement critical of Senator John McCain on Friday.
Specifically, Mr. Romney assails Mr. McCain on both tax policies and immigration. On both topics, the commercial presents facts that could be construed either as selective or worse, misleading.
For instance, Mr. Romney claims Mr. McCain “even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.”
The more complicated reality is that Mr. McCain supported legislation that would allow illegal immigrants who come forward, pay fines, then wait their turn to become citizens the chance to collect Social Security — but only after they are citizens."
The ad also makes claims about Mr. Romney’s own record that are open to question.
For instance, the ad claims “Mitt Romney cut taxes and spending as governor.” Some fiscal conservatives, however, have claimed that Mr. Romney’s raising of state fees by some $500 million when he was governor as simply a tax by another name and have also been critical and his closing corporate tax loopholes, which they argue amounted to tax increases on corporations. |
|
Romney - A Mormon cannot win. Not for me but it is my take as too many people will switch or stay home due to this. It only takes 2-3 million people to switch or stay home and he cannot win.
Giuliani - Too many wives, pro-gun control. This will kill him in the general election.
Huckster - Could win, no fatal flaw. His Christianity gains him 3-4 million votes and loses him as many. I count him out on silly purposes as we cannot vote into the White House a guy named Huckabee from Arkansas can we?
Obama - The most liberal Senator running and he is close to most liberal in the business. No chance of winning.
Clinton - Formidable. But she is a liberal Senator from the North East which means she is unelectable.
Edwards - No analysis necessary, he cannot win.
This leaves McCain. Not loved by some in his party? Yes, but he is the strongest amongst independents of any candidate in either party. He backs national defense, guns and God and that gets him the most vocal and voting elements of the Republican party.
No offense to my immigration-is-THE-issue friends out there, it is not. It is an important and growing in importance but I will site two pieces of evidence to show that immigration is not a strong factor yet. In the election cycle just 13 months ago, Republicans got shellacked by open border Dems because we were not the party of small government, guns, national defense and God that we have come to love.
The second piece of evidence is this. Who among the LEADING candidates for President of either party do the immigration-is-THE-key issue folks like? None is the answer.
McCain’s weakness on the immigration issue will not cost him the election. That leaves taxes. He is considered weak here. His voting record is better than perceived however and he will have 6 months to make his case as a small government Republican. Integrity and character combines with the core issues of small government, guns, national defense and God to produce Presidents.
|
|
|
NcCain is not getting my vote, period. |
|
|
|
"I'd imagine the Romney camp has internal tracking polling that shows Willard in deep trouble."
Your imagination isn't very persuasive evidence.
Got facts? |
|
1. Anyone who follows politics remembers the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan. That's the largest reason McCain is unelectable - the GOP will not forgive him for that piece of #@$%.
2. What is so misleading about citing McCain's Senate voting record of opposing the Bush tax cuts?
You guys are pathetic.
|
|
Misleading PATSFANDON ???
measures ???
*** it is sadly the truth...
McCain foolishly opposed tax cuts!
HE also opposes WATERBOARDING.
McCain's claim to be the one to lead the GWOT is silly, as he has been compromised by political correctness and populist liberal conception.
McCain's opposition to a safe, secure, successful interrogation technique used to gain essential information from TERRORISTS, needed to save LIVES, shows he won't do what it takes to win the GWOT.
Perhaps Senator McCain, the author of the disastrous McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill, believes this liberal placation will help him gain Democrat support in the GOP Primary.
Judging by the Globe, the Register, the Monitor, it is working, as the Democrat Liberals seem desperate to get the nomination for the moderate - liberal - leaning populist, John McCain.
McCain is regretful, the true War Hero, has been a terrible Senator, and should get out of the race for President. |
|
Romney has taken the right approach on McCain. He is very vulnerable on immigration. He is also extremely vulnerable on flipflopping. So far no one has called McCain on his 8 major flip flops. This is a very good start.
The Romney ad is factual and well documented. It clearly indicates McCain's previous positions. It is a direct frontal assault on the idea the McCain is stable and straight talking. In reality he blows with the wind (smoothly) but tends to get away with it.
McCain has a well known record. A little aided recall will help Rep voters remember why they really dislike John McCain. |
|
|
That is a CLASSIC! Thanks for the laugh. |
|
Maybe McCain's team forgot that aside from being a successful businessman, Romney also earned a JD from Harvard, and is thus well versed on the form, use, and meaning of citations of the record.
The burden now clearly shifts to McCain to give convincing evidence or explanation that Romney is lying, as McCain claims.
But at this point in the analysis, the presumption must be that Romney did not and is not lying, and has correctly cited McCain's past un-conservative votes.
McCain is now paying the price for being the radical darling of the left.
|
|
|
It's the weekend. Enjoy it. Go out and get some fresh air. Cash that weekly check you get from the Romney 2008 campaign and live it up for a few days. Mitt's tanking everywhere, even though you pump him up every five minutes, so you might as well take a break and spend some of those Romney dollars. After all, he won't be sending you those checks six weeks from now...after his campaign officially ends. What will you talk about then, Hugh? It's been the Hugh and Mitt Show for so long, can you ever return to reality? |
|
and I approve this message.
I've been accused of attacking John McCain. Is this true? I plan to find out. I'm going to consult with several experts on this matter, including members of my staff, as well as members of the Senator's staff, and the national media as well. From this, I hope to arrive at a consensus about this issue and also develop concrete solutions towards dealing with these problems in the future.
I've always liked John McCain and his family; I saw my father fight alongside Admiral McCain (John's father) during World War II. Well, they didn't exactly fight together, but they were both on the same side, the American side. So when I say I saw them, I'm speaking of my mind's eye of course, in that they were both patriots. |
|
|
|
Hugh conveniently forgets to note that Romney's latest ad is misleading and inaccurate.
It's telling that the Romney campaign is resorting to such desperate measures.
I'd imagine the Romney camp has internal tracking polling that shows Willard in deep trouble. |
|
|
|