Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Can Anyone Win This Thing?
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Every Christmas morning is a shimmering promise of surprise and delight. You never know what it will bring, and you might just get your heart's fondest desire. But in reality, surprises are not the rule. If you want to know what you'll get this Christmas, your best guide is what you got last Christmas.

Likewise for presidential elections. Every campaign raises a host of possibilities, particularly in the imagination of candidates. They may be forgiven for ignoring all evidence that is unfavorable to their dreams, which is usually abundant. History suggests there are mysterious but inflexible constraints on the outcome of these contests.

We already know it's almost impossible to elect people from certain places -- like Massachusetts, which hasn't produced a president (or even a vice president) since John Kennedy in 1960. Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry might want to break the news to Mitt Romney.

Americans also don't elect candidates from New York, even though it has a horde of electoral votes. We used to find presidents there quite often, including Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland and both Roosevelts. But not since 1944 has someone from the Empire State (Franklin Roosevelt) been elected. The last New Yorker to make a plausible run for his party's nomination was Nelson Rockefeller in 1968, and he didn't come very close.

That's bad news for Rudy Giuliani, who has something else working against him: He used to be a mayor. Only two former mayors have ever reached the White House -- Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge. But both of them went on to serve as governors before seeking the presidency, a step Giuliani has skipped.

Hillary Clinton can take consolation that she's neither a mayor nor, really, a New Yorker. But history holds other ill tidings for her. Every morning, 100 senators see a future president in the bathroom mirror -- and invariably it's a mirage. Americans rarely regard sitting senators as presidential timber.

The last person to go directly from the Senate to the Oval Office was Kennedy, and prior to that, Warren Harding in 1920. Kerry was nominated but lost, and dozens if not thousands of senators have foundered in Iowa or New Hampshire or some other primary state.

The good news for Clinton is that if sitting senators can't win, she can stop worrying about Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John McCain, all of whom are fated to turn into pumpkins. What about Fred Thompson? He's not a sitting senator, but the exclusion seems to apply to former ones as well (except those who become vice president). We have also never elected a comatose candidate, as Thompson appears to be.

Things are even tougher for House members, such as Ron Paul. His patron saint is James Garfield, the last congressman to jump straight to the presidency, back before the invention of the wheel.

Bill Richardson has the distinct advantage of being a governor, like four of the last five presidents. But he has the misfortune of being a former Cabinet secretary, which is the political equivalent of concrete overshoes. No former Cabinet secretary has made the ascent to the Oval Office since Herbert Hoover in 1928, and he didn't leave anyone yearning for more.

John Edwards lacks that drawback, but he has the handicap of being a former senator, and he has created another for himself: He's running a populist campaign in a country where populists are all glitter and no gold.

Every four years or so, someone emerges with a fiery pitch about helping the little guy and humbling the evil corporate interests. And every time, he's the one who gets a lesson in humility, from Fred Harris (1976) to Dick Gephardt (1988 and 2004) to Pat Buchanan (1992 and 1996) to Al Gore (2000). Perhaps the premier populist in American history, William Jennings Bryan was also the premier loser -- nominated three times for president by the Democratic Party without ever winning.

Recent history suggests that to win the presidency, you have to be a white male from the South or West, preferably with experience as a governor. That description fits only one candidate in the race -- Mike Huckabee. So by examining the portents of history, we find that he's the only person who can possibly be elected next year.

Unless 2008 is one of those years that confirm what Henry Ford insisted: History is bunk.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
ColinCody
That concept of "benevolent dictator" crops up from time to time, particularly when there is lots of govt upheaval with newbies taking over in the usual messy fashion of those new to representative govt. Right after WWII was such a time. The rub is that benevolent dictators are not that easy to find. Castro and Hugo Chavez looked great while on the outside. As soon as they had the reins, they revealed their true agendas. Just what will work or fail in Iraq is up in the air, but trying to find a benevolent dictator and support him and "top quality" Iraqi troops looks like pie in the sky to me.

Ron Paul on leaving Iraq
Mountain Rose--we could leave Iraq relatively quickly to excellent advantage for all were we to establish a BENEVOLENT but very strong man in charge of Iraq and back him with several divisions of top quality Iraqi troops to impose order and get rid of the bad guys. The Iraqis have proven over an extremely long time span that they can function well only under such a powerful leader.

Democracy is entirely foreign to Iraqi/Persian thinking because they have never experienced it. Furthermore, it can never work for them because of the nature of their incredibly bad religion. Using the above approach would be a great win-win solution for us and for them regardless of who becomes our next president.

According to what Dr. Paul has said publicly, he does not intend to abandon Iraq to corruption and civil war, nor does he want to leave precipitously were that to lead foreseeably to great harm for the Iraqi people. So there is no reason to fear Dr. Paul's plans to extricate us ASAP from that unfortunate situation. He is exactly my age, and we older, wiser men do nothing without lengthy, careful consideration of all the reasonable options available to us.

CAN ANYONE WIN THIS THING????
SURE!!! TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHO CAN WIN THIS THING???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ


MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!! :o)) LOL ...HO HO HO!!!

Every one of these guys have problems.
Except of course for Duncan Hunter, who everybody loves and who nobody is going to vote for. I have followed this guy's logic in my own determination for best candidate and came to the same conclusion; that Mike Huckabee is the best all around. I have since reconsidered and now back to being unsure. Unfortunately the only other guy who's viable for me is Fred Thompson, and he does not appear to be gaining much ground. Then again, who knows what's going to happen when Iowa votes on January 3rd.

Ron Paul won’t rule out third-party run
POLITICO-Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused to rule out the possibility he may run as a third-party candidate during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Paul, however, downplayed expectations that he will run on a potential third-party libertarian ticket, saying “I have no intention of doing that.”

When asked by host Tim Russert if he would promise not to run, Paul demurred, saying, “I deserve one wiggle now and then” and that he was “99.9 percent” sure he would not run

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-wont-rule -out-third-party-run

Tennessee citizen not voting for Fred.
Sure, Fred might have a better conservative record than Romney, but Fred is not the conservative superman his fans try to make him out to be.

You are forgeting about his many problems.

Fred is a lobbyist who lobbyed for pro-abortion groups, and his record as a lobbyist is a big problem. Fred is a big member of the CFR, which is for the north American union and open borders. Fred also stubbornly supported McCain-Feingold. It is called McCain-Feingold-Thompson by McCain himself. Fred is a hollywood actor with a wife half his age. Fred stubbornly came into the primary late. Fred insisted on voting against the impeachment of Clinton.

What a freak'en conservative.

Maybe Nixon was right when he said Fred was, "dumb as hell". Nah. What Fred is though is very very stubborn. Not what I'm looking for.

You do good to fight against Romney.

Now tell the media you don't want any of their elites and vote a true American's conservative like Huckabee or Hunter.

I'm voting for Huckabee.

Good night, and pray
That God's will be done on earth, as it is in Tennessee!

Thompson o8


PS, a little, tiny overstated just this once :)
so don't write me letters, talent scout ;)

Wow
Hey, Bobbie. I don't think USMC Lt. likes you much. But then again I'm paying attention to his words. You probably have a different interpretation based on your skill to watch the show unfold.
The show I'm watching is USMC Lt. whipping you like the puppy that p*ssed on the rug. I think that describes 'the entire picture.' You define the term Doofus.

DocTony
Okay, that is all I wanted to know! :D

Thompson o8, Jeri too
Hopefully Jeri will not allow herself to be groomed to death.

It happens a lot in these races, but I know if she is herself (mom, patriotic, loves the troops, weakness for lovely clothes, loves to visit relatives, etc.)

she will be fine.


aDNA
Robert is likely doing something and it's probably causing his hyperventilating. It also appears to have badly affected his vision and I've heard there is something unnatuarally hirsuit about his palms.

Robert,
Well, while the rest of us are paying attention to what is being said, you can focus on what is really important to you.

Jeri Thompson
Jeri Thompson talking with Laura Ingraham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2o-ZasgIA


That will keep you up all night trying to figure it out, even with out any clevage, Robert.

Try not to hyperventilate, fella.

Lilly FYI
President Bush didn't get elected because of his Christianity. He barely mentioned it before he was elected. We voted for him because we couldn't fathom AlGore as president.

DocTony
Great observation!! I love it!!

Nanna
Actually, Robert is just a big Boob himself. So it's not surprising when he recognizes one of his own.

robert
I can see that you were looking in the best places. There was ONE picture of her in an evening gown with some clevage showing. But can always look to you to point out breasts "hanging out" . Sound like Bubba to me.

What a christian you are!!!

A leering ignorant little old man with your mind in the gutter.Yup, just like Bubba.
Must run natural with the liberal democrats.

and Zach Wamp for press Secretary
YES!

He is seriously funny, and conservative.

No one will go to it,

but for my lates video addiction,

(Scroll to Hon. Zac Wamp on YouTube Debate)

http://www.fred08.com/FredCast/FredCastSummary.aspx#

You are all up too late, so give yourselves a little laugh and click on this and go brush your teeth. love, aDNA, wishing you each the best

Thanks Anne,
and our family sends our best to you!

(We got Fred Thompson pins for Christmas, woohoo!)


Jeri for first lady
Jeri is a patriotic mom who cares about what is written in text books in schools.

PS,

And yes, Jeri can have the first lady clothes any day.

love, Paulina

aDNA: Good points..



Of course Fred would would be far better than Rudy, and Jeri would certainly be better than Rudy's bimbo!

Ummm... No arguments here... :-)



Pay for your own guillotine!
Now rockerisback, you would not want to see any actually fighting between professional talkers and we-the-people, would you?

Well, let the fur fly.

I will not go to Clear Channel to listen to any of these dorks who supported a Romney, or a McCain, or a Giuliani. They support the candidates they support, and in the process, they may fire themselves.

Snicker.


aDNA
I can certainly picture Jeri as first lady. A good smart conservative one at that.

From all I can read and hear about Fred Thompson, he is the real deal. I am so hoping people wake up and begin to really check these people out instead of just listening to their talking points.

So many people want to be entertained all the time and not listen to the message, or realize the seriousness of the situaltion. The presidency is not about entertaining the masses, it's about saving this nation from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Don't republicans love evangelists?
Yes they do, as long as they vote for the repubulican elites and money lenders, then shut up and disappear after that.
Isn't it fun to watch repubs attack christains, crosses or subliminal crosses.

I always hire someone for taxes
so you all can handle those questions. But tax cuts work, and I want good roads and a good military for my taxes. Period.

But with Fred Thompson you will get conservative judges, a pro-life candidate, a man who sees through Iran's latest garbage, a man who will resist the NEA and the UN,

and you get Jeri Thompson for first lady.

Any arguments?

Thompson's the real deal
I've made my choice - Thompson. And backed it up with $, which is worth more than a whole lot of yapping for the rest of them.

Together with the fact that he's been the most consistent conservative among the GOP field, and the fact that he has handled the debates well, Fred's position in favor of the flat tax persuaded me that he's a very serious and viable candidate. Buying into the promise of the so called 'fair' tax from the rest is a fool's errand. You may as well support madam klintoon because she promises you a 401k account, or any of the other freebees in her basket of goodies.

And the 'huckster'? Are you in the market for a bridge? Are you kidding?

You too nanna
Merry Christmas nanna, glad to see a note from you. You kick stuff around here!

--Paulina

Thompson/Hunter 08
aDNA, You are sooooo right about Fred Thompson.

He is a true conservative.!! He always has been and is persistantly voted that way.
He isn't like the others that have just been "born again" conservatives, for the election.

Merry Christmas y'all

JD's Handsome Son
I nearly spit out a mouthful of milk from laughing while reading that. =)

Thompson for Prez
You have got to be kidding me! Fred Thompson does not have a liberal bone in his 6'5" body.

Thompson is not buying this outrageous Iran report; he knows that the uranium enrichment is the problem in Iran.

Thompson supports freedom and choice being injected into the educational system via charter schools and vouchers.

Fred Thompson worked hard to get Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court.

He does not follow election herd mentality on global warming, and he has a 100% pro-life voting record.

He is a true conservative, and will eat Hillary's little lite lunch.

Huckabee is the conservative choice.
Ok, all you fake conservatives, if you keep up your same old thing, and deny a good cannidate like Huckabee, it will have a chilling effect on the GOP.

Romney is even worse than the same old thing people. Romney is the most fake politician we have ever seen, for most people. All the money and the smearing in the world is not going to change that.

Thompson isn't any good either. The fred people are just like the Romney people in their denial of his problems.

I'll let the liberals have their elites.

The American people don't want the media elites, what they want is a good strong blue collar, middle class, social conservative cannidate. The American people want Mike Huckabee.

lilly
"Are they really dumb enough to elect, with the Middle East in an uproar,..."

And someone, unless it was cancelled today, who showed up at John Hagee's "ministry".

Huckabee
Pussed out on his Meet the Press interview. What a slime bag. He doesn't want to get shown up for the liberal he is right before Iowa. What a joke.

After Dark
It must be sundown. Lilly has risen from the tomb to belch her liberal stench at us.
Someone hand me a wooden stake and a garlic necklace.

To Sam
Along with whatever he may believe about the economy, Romney apparently believes that lying is the way to win credibility. This morning on a talk show I saw them run clip after clip of Romney saying "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King". Then when this was exposed as a false statement, Romney was shown sputtering trying to explain that "I saw" doesn't really mean "I saw". Is he channeling Bill Clinton, with "is" not meaning "is"? Romney scares me not because he is a Mormon but because is very slick and glib. Republicans dismiss Clinton as "Slick Willie". I can't imagine that they don't pick up this same slickness in Romney.

Huckabee
Are the American people really dumb enough to elect as President of the United States a nice guy who has no formal education but in theology and who dropped out of theology school to become a televangelist? Are they really dumb enough to elect, with the Middle East in an uproar, a Baptist preacher with zero experience in foreign affairs and who even jokes about this (vd his joke about having slept last night at the Holiday Inn Express)?

Yes, I think they are dumb enough. After all they elected George W Bush on a basis of "likeability" and his being a born-again Christian. We are on the cusp of a huge populist wave that refers to the Middle West and the South as "the real America", discounting both coasts, where most accomplishment is to be found; that disdains higher education and educated people; that is contemptuous of the rest of the world, hates our international organizations, and despises immigrants; and that is famously uninformed about world affairs, taking its information from the "entertainer" propagandists of right-wing talk radio.

For seven years we have been governed by a spoiled rich kid who goofed off from school and responsibility and, having learned little, thought he could understand Putin's politics by gazing into his eyes; a super-Christian who governed for his super-Christian base and thumbed his nose at the rest of us. Enough already. But Huckabee will appeal to those who voted Bush into office because he was "such a good Christian". I doubt they have learned anything.

why Mormons should vote for Dr Paul
Romney is disloyal to the constitution, the Founders, and the prophets of his own church...phony puppet of the dark establishment?

Pres Benson on US Foreign Policy:
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/arti cle.php?articleid=166

Benson: “…There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He's our executive; he's on our payroll, in necessary; he's supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to "uplift" their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: “I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. -- George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

and read this - by LDS/Mormon and former under-secretary of State...
Pres J Reuben Clarke on US Foreign Policy – Let Us Have Peace
http://www.zeios.com/OurRepublic/Articles.aspx?ArticleId=47

why Mormons should vote for Dr Paul
Romney is disloyal to his Mormon faith

Pres Benson on US Foreign Policy:
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/arti cle.php?articleid=166

Benson: “…There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He's our executive; he's on our payroll, in necessary; he's supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to "uplift" their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: “I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. -- George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

and read this - by LDS/Mormon and former under-secretary of State...
Pres J Reuben Clarke on US Foreign Policy – Let Us Have Peace
http://www.zeios.com/OurRepublic/Articles.aspx?ArticleId=47

Paul won’t rule out third-party run
POLITICO-Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused to rule out the possibility he may run as a third-party candidate during an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Paul, however, downplayed expectations that he will run on a potential third-party libertarian ticket, saying “I have no intention of doing that.”

When asked by host Tim Russert if he would promise not to run, Paul demurred, saying, “I deserve one wiggle now and then” and that he was “99.9 percent” sure he would not run.

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-wont-rule -out-third-party-run


USELESS STATS
This article reminds me of all the useless stats we see in sports: this team has lost every game when losing my less than three points after the third quarter. Totally useless. Besides, Huck fits the populist mold of William Jennings Bryan and Pat Buchanan, so he doesn't have a shot in well. So I guess that means nobody's going to win, right? Wrong. Romney will be the nominee.

Romney cant be trusted on any issue
How can anyone trust this fraud?
1) He is pro-war as long as it is none of his five eligible sons are fighting in it.
2) He is pro civil rights, but not enough to disavow the teachings of his church about blacks.
3) He is anti-illegal immigration and in spite of all his wealth, still employs illegal immigrants at cheap wages.
He supported Bush's immigration plan (thought it was reasonable) until he found out most repubs dont support it.
4) He was pro-choice before he conviniently became anti-abortion just in time to run for POTUS.
5) He was for gay-marriage before ... well you know the rest.
6) He was pro gun-control before becoming a shill for the NRA.
7) He would not employ a mislim in his cabinet (ie religious test) but does not want anyone questioning his religion and the religion of his fathers.

Why anyone would vote for this sleazy snake oil salesman is beyond me.


Mr. Chapman. I respectfully have to
disagree. I wouldn't trust Mike Huckabee any more than I would trust an Obama, who claims to be anything but a Muslim. Huckabee's floating cross was no accident. As someone who knows a little bit about the film business, nothing translated to film is accidental to the point it stands out glaringly, and, whether it be a commercial selling soap or a commercail selling a politician, nothing is allowed to distract from the message, unless of course the distraction itself is a subtle part of the message. That bookcase was highlighted by a professional lighting technician, with just the right suffusion of shadows so that it simulated a cross, and the candidate himself was placed in such a position that the cross appeared directly over his shoulder. Remember, the man is running for the highest office in the land, possibly the world. There is no way he would have approved the final cut if he had a problem with the cross. IMHO it was calculated and deliberate, and to claim it was accidental tells me all I need to know about him.

Sam, Mitt Romney is a
FRICKING ADAM SMITH ECONOMIST and Mitt Romney wants to CUT ALL TAXES for Americans who earn $200,000.00 per year OR LESS and lower taxes for corporations and small business that will bring the JOBS BACK to AMERICA because high taxes by Democrats sent them offshore.

Mitt Romney is a multi-millionaire worth ($250,000,000.00) because he know how to manage corporations and money. Mitt Romney has NEVER CRACKED under any kind of pressure. So WHY, SAM do YOU blatanly LIE????


Is Huckabee Really Pro-Life ?
Below this comment is the same link to a damming article on Huckabee. This time I have provided a clickable link to this story for those who care about the truth about Huckabee's weak ablity to resist temptations of bribe monney's corrupting influence.

http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2007/12/cooler-exclusive-g overnor-graft.html

1952 AND 2008
The last Presidential election in which neither party had an heir apparent was 1952.

The Republican Party had not elected a President since 1928. In addition, Rockefeller Republicans were firmly in control of the GOP at the national level. Today, we call them "RINOs".

Dem. Pres. Harry Truman decided not to seek reelection after he lost in one of the first primaries. His V, Alban Barkley, ran unsuccessfully in early primaries.

The GOP saw a knock-down, drag-out fight between Gen. Eisenhower, who was well liked by the Eastern Establishment, and OH Sen. Bob Taft, a conservative known as "Mr. Republican". CA Gov. Earl Warren was a dark horse who dropped out and threw his support to Ike, who subsequently appointed him to be Chief Justic of the Supreme Court.

The two Dem. finalists were liberal globalist Amb. Adlai Stevenson II and TN Sen. Estes Kefauver, a Yale-educated merchant's son known for his folksy style. Stevenson was the Dem. candidate.

Algore is unlikely to run again and Dick Cheney will not be running for Pres.

None of the four GOP "front runners" has broad appeal to the conservative base, which any serious candidate must have the support of to win. The two issues that will be very important to the conservative base and potentially make or break are certain to be:

1. The North American Union (NAU). Pres. Bush is working quietly to implement this scheme to merge the USA with Canada and Mexico, bypassing Congress and using private "working groups". Most Americans will be slave laborers. Our Constitution will be killed. The currency will be the Amero, not the dollar.

2. Illegal alien anarchy. Pres. Bush is for open borders. The four top-tier GOP candidates are all very weak on immigration issues. All Dem. front runners are for open borders.



Why don't Democrats teach more?
Conservatives have made a living off convincing Americans that taxes are a "lose-lose" proposition; that any tax cut is a good tax cut; but that cutting the taxes on corporations is the best tax cut of all because those cuts will "grow the economy."

Democrats could, if they would, correct the conservative distortions and teach Americans the following:

1. All tax cuts have consequences, but the consequences will be different depending upon whether you cut taxes for corporations, the middle-class or the poor. We should look at all the possible consequences and determine which we like the best.

2. Taxation is not a "lose-lose" situation. Our taxes pay for services that benefits Americans and that Americans want. But Americans want diverse things from our government and its just human nature to be in favor of taxing for things we want for ourselves and oppose taxation for things that other people want which we don't want.

3. One group of economists studied the reasons for the growth in our economy over the last few years and determined that Bush's tax cuts for corporations increased growth by about .7 of 1%.

4. Reagan's tax cuts are cited as the proof that tax cuts grow the economy and make everyone better off. However, the majority of economists believe that long-term, stable economic growth is entirely dependent upon increased productivity caused by innovative technology. Tax cuts play a very minor roll in the development of new technology, such as the computer.

5. The most credible analysis of Reagan's tax policies demonstrate that he actually raised taxes when other, less visible, taxes than income tax are considered.

The Democrats could do a great deal for honesty in political discourse to teach these facts to the American people.

Is Huckabee Really Pro-Life ?
Is Huckabee Really Pro-Life?
Today I read a deadly article about Huckabee supporting Embryonic Stem Cell Researchers by taking $35,000 U.S. Dollors from a Company named "Novo Nordisk" that proves Mr. Mike Huckabee the Former Gov. of Arkansas, is only interested in getting more bribe money, rather than taking the Conservative Pro-Life Poistion even when tempted by Money. "Novo Nordisk" is one of the Worlds Largest Research Companies, that does work on "Human Embryonic Stem Cells".

I finally have proof of What I always have suspected. Which is, that Huckabee is our current day Richard Nixon. Corrupt to the core of his inner being. I am Pro Life, and I am glad more fellow Moral People can see the Huckabee for the man he "Chose" to be, as Governor of the State of Arkansas.

Below is the link to the article which proves Huckabee, is the New "Slick Willie" of Arkansas.

http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2007/12/cooler-exclusive-g overnor-graft.html


reply to: andrews
re:
**************************************************
andrews writes: Sunday, December, 23, 2007 12:08 PM

Lodestar
Are you really saying that we fought in Iraq only for Israel?

Without Israel we would have no interest in the Middle East?

Have you never heard of this thing called oil?

**************************************************

And the price of oil has done what since we took out Saddam? And the oil in Iraq was going to pay for our profligate spending there? And Saddam had what exactly to do with 9/11? and Saddam and Osama were seriously at odds with each other? And democratic, free elections in the M.E. since 9/11 have revealed what?

Everything has a relative value and cost... $2 TRILLION (all-in cost per the CBO) is about $25,000 PER American household... try to think a bit beyond the platitudinous programming of the neoCON ilk; even most American Jews correctly eschew their militant Zionist agenda.

Mountain Rose
"I don't care why we went there: we are there now. If Ron Paul wants to pull out the troops, I am not voting for him, no matter what else he says."

You should care if for any reason to avoid the dishonesty that got us there in the first place. In any even due to the deteriorating US dollar and the out of control spending the US will wind up having to leave or risk financial ruin. The US can't nor should depend on borrowing money from the Chinese and the Asian banks to continue to finance this debacle.

lodestar
Does "Cut-N-Run Ron" intend to win the war in Iraq, or pull out?

I don't care why we went there: we are there now. If Ron Paul wants to pull out the troops, I am not voting for him, no matter what else he says.

Grownups finish what they start.

If we don't follow through on our commitments, how can we expect any other nation to trust us?

oh, and please...
Pleas DO NOT tell me Islam would be all sweetness and light toward us if not for Israel. I doubt seriously that the state of Israel caused Mehmed II to conquer Constantinople, or his successors to thrice besiege Vienna. Nor for Mohammad's earlier followers to seize all of north Africa and Spain.

I am constantly amazed at people who claim all we have to do is sacrifice Israel (and the few unfortunate Jews who would be murdered when the state fell) and then all the world would be sunny and peaceful, and OBL would give Bush a big bear hug...

Islam does NOT hate us because of Israel. And that claim (made by so many Paul-boosters) is one of the many reasons I cannot take Ron Paul seriously on matters of foreign policy.

Lodestar
Are you really saying that we fought in Iraq only for Israel?

Without Israel we would have no interest in the Middle East?

Have you never heard of this thing called oil?

Silly Article
Using Chapman's criteria there isnt a single candidate in either party who has a shot at winning.
Except Huckster-Bee. The Huckster just narrowed his own chances, however, by sending his people out to pick a fight with Rush Limbaugh. I was listening to Rush Friday morning and was soon smiling broadly. It seems that The Huck has hired Ed Rollins, a notorious idiot, and that Rollins and some unidentified person were spreading canards attacking Rush. This is utterly stupid. Most conservatives had only vaguely heard of Huckster-Bee and some even blame Rollins for being a part of the Perot fiasco that elected BJ and the Gang, but we all know Rush VERY,VERY well. If the Huck-man and his paid stooges were conservatives they would know this. Bye-bye Huckster-Bee. You had the chance to make the sale but now you have a cogent, passionate conservative (the voice of conservatism) who has made the case that you are not one of us, but a sleazy, Perot-like liberal former governor of Arkansas.

reply to: Mountain Rose
I come from a family that has served nobly in war; my uncle was killed over Germany in a B-17, and my father (a career Air Force Officer/Command Pilot) was nominated for the Medal of Honor in Nam, got every other medal, and was made a Green Beret by the grateful army while getting shot at daily in a FAC plane. But I am keenly aware of NOT pursuing the fights/goals of others and imagining them to be congruent with OUR best interests.

The neoCONS snookered us into spending what will become $ 2 TRILLION in Iraq to get those permanent bases there for Israel-- that is $400,000 per Israeli citizen... $ that might have funded S.S. or rebuilt infrastructure. [If you read a bit, this will become clear... there are a number of respected exposes.] "Cut and Run" and the "WW War on Terror" are simply Pavlovian jingoisms which do NOT serve America. We have not won over hearts and minds in the M.E.-- we have simply proved what the militant Islamics imagine to be our agenda and at whose behest.

Lodestar- Ron Paul insists
on cutting-N-running.

NO THANKS!

Tampa Dave
I don't want to argue, but my home state of Maryland is actually the bluest state. We have more taxes per capita than Massachusetts, and we have elected fewer republicans for shorter terms. (We gave our one republican governor in recent memory only one term, the legislature let him pass nothing, and he got blamed for the failings of the previous governor, and the legislature themselves. As soon as he left office, his democratic successor revived his slots bill, and it went form being "immoral" to a "great budget victory". The legislature didn't even pretend that it wasn't a purely partisan issue. Why bother? Our ONE significant paper is entirely in the pocket of the Dems.)

Not that the bay state doesn't give a good try, but I have to argue that I live in the bluest of states.

Plus we have the highest percentage of lawyers of any state, and a population where federal workers form a significant percentage. What could be more blue than those two facts?

(Tell me again why I continue to live here?)

reply to; baseballdoc
I like your reckonings about best tickets... you are also perspicacious and sagacious, in marked contrast to the vacuous, noisome gadfly of TH, Roberto/Roberta! Was s/he/it not supposed to be banned here?! ;~)

lodestar
No "Cut-N-Run Ron" Paul!!!

Comatose Fred...
That will be his nickname if Fred Thompson gets elected President. Won't take that many people calling him 'Comatose Fred' for it to stick...

Ron Paul on key issues... FYI
... actually, some quite thoughtful and rational perspectives which cannot come across in 30 second sound-bites: limiting government and profligate expenditures; strong defense, but not presumptuous nation-building; preserving national sovereignty and the rule of law (stanching ILLEGAL aliens); preserving and cherishing individual liberties and responsibilities versus surrender to a Big Sister nanny state of Shrillary; insisting on performance in education.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immig ration-reform/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/privacy-and-personal-libe rty/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and -sovereignty/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

Robert
Here you go, MTP in four parts.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017958.html

BEST DEMOCRAT SINCE JFK

.....Hands down winner ...GEORGE BUSH ...

.....Let's put some real Conservatives in the White House ...

BEST TICKET: THOMPSON/HUNTER ...

RUNNER UP: ROMNEY/THOMPSON - ROMNEY/HUNTER

.....COLOSSUS

possibly acceptable choices include...
Mitt, Fred, Duncan and Ron Paul...
I could CERTAINLY embrace Ron Paul! I teach business and econ to college students... personally, I GET what Ron Paul is trying to say-- we would ALL be FAR better served as Americans if we could tamp down the ulterior agenda open border crowd, globalists, PC ilk, RINOS, and neoCONS, ALL of whom have limited special interest, self-aggrandizing agendas that are opposed to traditional conservative American goals, which include limiting govt. influence and spending and foreign wars unless absolutely necessary.

I have no love lost either for Christian conservatives who seek to impose their perception of morality upon the rest of us. The less centralized determination for all the better. Hence, the very nature of personal freedom and self-determination intended by the collective wisdom of our wise founders.

No Huckster! No Regularization Rudy!
The Huckster has charmed the media and debate viewers, but close inspection reveals a lover of ILLEGALS and a globalist-- egad! No mas! Regularization Rudy and the Huckster might be thinking about an odd couple pairing, but their agenda would be Presidente Jorge redux-- precisely what 70%+ of Americans rightly say they do NOT want.

Meandering Mitt is a bit hard to trust, but he is SAYING the right things about the ILLEGAL invasion. Regularization Rudy, the Huckster, and Juan McQuisling are verboten on ILLEGALS alone-- END OF DISCUSSION! You can try to put lipstick on those ILLEGAL-loving pigs, but they still oink. Fred has solid ideas on many issues... check them out:

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx

Duncan is a good guy who has fought hard against ILLEGALS, but history does not bode well for a Congressman trying to jump to POTUS. Intellectually, I like Ron Paul... his supporters are broad based, and he is raising $.

rockerisback
Its called a "Volunteer Army" - ever heard of it? You may be too old to know this, but America has abandoned the draft.

There are many patriotic Americans who have never served in the military.

Has Huck or anyone in his family ever served in the military? Fred? Rudy? Hillary? Barack? Edwards?

If military service is a requirement for being president, then I guess we'd be stuck with McCain. I admire and respect McCain for his service - but I don't want him as president.

Robert
I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. Russett went after Paul hard as I hoped and Paul acquitted himself excellently. The man understands the Constitution, something that Russett should as well, seeing how he is an attorney. By this I mean it seems that Tim doesn't understand Article Five.

IF IMMIGRATION IS YOUR ISSUE

.....The following is a USA NUMBERS Grade on where the candidate stand on immigration with an "Execellent" being the most Conservative:

EXCELLENT: HUNTER AND THOMPSON

GOOD: RON PAUL

FAIR: ROMNEY

POOR: HUCKABEE

BAD: GIULIANI AND McCAIN

ABSYMAL: ALL DEMOCRATS

.....If you want English to become a second language ...vote for a Democrat .....COLOSSUS

Mitt and Iraq
"MITT and Iraq
With MiTT being so pro-war is this a fair question?
"

If Mitt is so pro-war, how come none of his sons is serving there. And dont tell me his sons are serving the country by working on his campaign. What a self serving family? Never made any sacrifice for the country and he wants to be president.
Never.


tru lib
actually the harry potter novels had it right. By using the expression, he who must not be named, persons admitted his presence but essentially diminished voldmort's existence. It is far easy to avoid even using that expression but essentially ignore the rantings of some. Perhaps to some degree we are all narcissist and that we believe we are casting our pearls for others to be impressed. But when others are spooning out gibberish why would they imagine anyone is listening

MORONIC ARTICLE

.....Chapman ...Write another article on Jan 4 after the Huckabubble has burst and explain what happened ....As the stock brokers say ..."past history is not a predictor of future results" ...

.....Huckabee is toast after Jan 3 .....COLOSSUS

Whew! angrywhtwimp REALLY IS angry!
.

Doc: Hoping you'll check back...

Great! SOOOO relieved! Thank God!

You and your dad certainly did get a Christmas Blessing! :-)


I'll check back on Chapman's and Novak's column later to follow up.

Surely WILL let everyone know. It will be my pleasure. (Always glad to give wonderful news!)



Hey Anne
I told you the old buzzard was tough, I am setting in the surgery waiting room and the doctor was just out and he did just fine! gotta run but let my pals know and thanks for their prayers and well wishes!

History also suggests....
....that religious leaders don't become President.

Have we ever had a minister, pastor or priest become President?

That bodes ill for Baptist pastor Huckabee.



dang it
i MISSED WOBBIE, but that was funny 3wire avery funny

Savage: What I do really 'fear'

is the antics of (dare I say it??) rp and his fanatics. Not only is he a scary dude, but his fanatic followers are really scary. Yikes!

Saints preserve us all!



Savage: Glad I make you grin! :-)

That's why I make the "big bucks!" LOL

I HOPE you're right! In fact, I'm kind of betting on the fact that you're right.

Not one of the "top tier" candidates am I even comfortable with... each for different reasons.

But, we'll see. All I know is that if we allow a demo in the WH, we're in very huge trouble!



Thanks
For pinpointing the problem for us, though it's pretty obvious to the casual political observer; from Carter to Clinton to Bush II, southern white governors have driven our country into the toilet. Huckabee is everything that was wrong with all of them in one pathetic, phony, science-denying package of crap. And none of the brains of any of them, which is more scary. If the bible doesn't say it, Huckster doesn't need to know it, and that's scary.

Anne
:-D You do make me grin a lot. Thank you. As Mark Twain said, When Congress is in session, no man's money, life or wife is safe. Only a Dem or a crazy (but then, i am repeating myself) would NOT fear action by the pols. But one by one, in order of name recognition, the top tier of both parties is palling on the voters as policy recognition takes the place of name recognition. Its a long shot, but still room for some non-establishment type to come forth. It looks to me like Huckabee has fired up the religious right, which is at least good from the standpoint they are conservative allies and i want them engaged. Brokered conventions are a distinct possibility. I am no fan of smoke filled rooms (did i say no fan in smoke filled rooms?) but they did at least usually come up with candidates who at least looked and acted presidential. Now we are stuck with those whose records are so rotten we dare not vote for them, and lightweights who have virtually no record at all. Interesting times, Girl, interesting times. And by the way, Fred's timing has been good so far. He could be betting on over-exposure and a last minute come from behind.

Federalism
Vote for the only Federalist in the bunch. If that means there is less for him to do--all the better. Since when did the Feds have the right to take over all the things they have? Return the Federal governement to the position intended by the Founders as outlined in the Constitution. Get the Federal Government out of the daily lives of Americans. Maybe then the Feds can focus on the few Constitutionally mandated responsibilities they have. Maybe then, they can stop messing up the things they have no business dealing with.

Vote Conservative, Vote Federalism, Vote Fred.

Hey Savage: We luv ya, but...

I had faith in Fred, so you can imagine my disappointment in his slooooow start. Ugh!

I would "like to think" that people will start looking at his demeanor as "thoughtful" and "deliberate" which is something we could use some of these days. But who knows?

The real campaigning won't start until Jan. Then we'er going to start seeing some action... I think and maybe fear! :-)






Lies
Damned lies, and statistics.
Next column.

cb
I have never read Chapman before, and I don't think I will in the future. What is the point of this article? This entire geography lesson at the beginning seems utterly insignificant. Yeah, I am really not going to vote for someone because they are from New York. Even if I agree with all of their positions, I just cannot stand New Yorkers. Policy is unimportant, all that matters is where they call home.

Comatose Fred
Judging by the remarks of George Will in an adjoining column, Congress looks best when it does the least. The most popular thing Bush has done for those who elected him is veto stuff. Hopefully, Comatose Fred will establish new standards for inactivity, which makes him look more and more like my choice. GO FRED!!!! i mean RELAX FRED!!!!

Disagreement
"We already know it's almost impossible to elect people from certain places -- like Massachusetts, which hasn't produced a president (or even a vice president) since John Kennedy in 1960. Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry might want to break the news to Mitt Romney."

The premise is faulty: Americans have not considered the election of a Massachusetts REPUBLICAN to the office of POTUS, at least not in modern history. The article cites all Democratic politicians who failed to win in the general election. Additionally, look at the candidates cited (besides Romney): Kerry, Kennedy, and Dukakis. The current Democratic governor of Massachusetts is of the same mold - no wonder a De4mocratic candidate has not made it to the White House from the Bluest Sate.

USMC Lt.
The most effective method of demonstrating a lack of concern for an individual is to completely ignore their existence.

MITT and Iraq
With MiTT being so pro-war is this a fair question?

WATCH VIDEO


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/mitt-and-iraq

Chapman
"Things are even tougher for House members, such as Ron Paul. His patron saint is James Garfield, the last congressman to jump straight to the presidency, back before the invention of the wheel."

Chapman is in for rude awakening like so many others who sell Paul short.

What's the point?
Inevitability hasn't worked out for the Dems the way it was supposed to. No reason that Reps should buy into Huckabee's "inevitability," and certainly not on the evidence of this article, regardless.

Struggling to get up to a one here
Obviously Mr. Chapman is one of Huckleberry's Hounds who allows religious considerations to override everything else. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings Mr. Chapman, but when everyone in the race is either a Senator or a Congressman but one person, and that one person is looked at with distain by a large portion of the base, then it is likely that all of your statistical references are going down the toilet.

And BTW, Fred is not so much comatose as he is bereft of media coverage. It seems the media is not interested in giving him any play since he became a serious candidate. I guess that includes pundits here on Townhall.

I seldom read Chapman...
... and now I remember why. He's a moron. Was this column supposed to be tongue-in-cheek?

He makes generalizations using statistically insignificant sample sizes, and makes his own arbitrary cut-offs to try to make his point. It's just ludicrous.

Go check out the quick profiles on American presidents at http://www.americanpresidents.org/

There have been only 43 presidents in the history of our nation and they have come from so many varied backgrounds that trying to make generalization on our choices for future presidents based on commonalities in past Presidents, disregarding actual current circumstances and the candidates' personalities and policies, is an exercise in futility. This sort of pseudo-statistical prognosticating has more in common with reading tea leaves than any sort of intelligent analysis.

Robert
Hope you lose.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.