Quiverdaddy

Why Support Obama?

2008-10-28T07:28:00.000-07:00

As noted in an earlier post, current approval ratings do not seem to have an impact on this election...

President Bush: 27%
Democrat Congress: 10%

How can this be? Everyone who has taken a high school civics class knows that budget bills originate in Congress. Many of them know the Democrat Congress has consistently exceeded the president's budget requests every year since they took over. Thanks to Bush's bowing to demands from McCain, General Petraeus and others calling for a troop surge in Iraq, the war is now a secondary issue. Most people recognize that the war will end soon regardless of who wins the presidential election.

So why is it that the same people who recognize that the Democrat controlled Congress has been a dismal failure are willing to elect a Democrat president with limited political experience? Do these people really believe that the same people who screwed things up will do any better when they have a rubber stamp in the Executive Branch? Other than the war, the most significant failures of George Bush has been refusal to pull out his veto pen when the Democratic Congress ran roughshod over the American people with huge deficits, absurd new entitlement programs and promotion of the mortgage industry policy that created the current economic turmoil.

The answer is simple: Even though everyone knows the president cannot create budget policy, manage the economy or even control the costs of fuel without the cooperation of Congress, he is the national figurehead. America is about to discipline the party of Republican George Bush for the high crime and misdemeanor of... governing like a Democrat.

But what about tax cuts for the rich? The dirty little secret is that Bush's "tax cuts" also took some 30 milion low to moderate income people (including myself) off of the tax rolls. We are the beneficiaries of refundable tax creds such as the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit which Democrats are allowing to expire so they can be resurrected as Obama's "middle class tax cut". The centerpiece of Obama's tax policy is that the part of Bush's tax cut that didn't work.

So we will soon have a Democrat in the White House prepared to pack the Supreme Court with the most liberal, activist justices in history with the aid of the most Leftist Congress in history because the "Compassionate Conservatism" philosophy drove George Bush to govern like a Democrat. The upside is that it will not be long before the president's approval rating will be the same as Congress'. The downside is that four years of unchecked Socialist policy may redefine what it means to be an American.

Hate Bush? We Know Why

2008-10-18T13:16:00.000-07:00

President Bush has the singular distinction of being the most unpopular president since presidential popularity has been measured. Long gone are the 80% approval ratings he enjoyed during his first term – the highest approval ratings since presidential popularity has been measured. So what changed?

Bush’s approval rating was highest when he had a Republican Congress and the sting of 9-11 was still fresh in our minds. However, things happened to shape the perfect storm that drove his poll numbers into the ditch. First, he bungled the Iraq War – mirroring the political failure in wartime of Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam. Were it not for the surge promoted by General Petraeus and Senator John McCain, the war in Iraq would be all but lost because of political rather than military management. Second, while Bush promoted extensive tax cuts, he also mirrored the politically unpopular social policies of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” after the Democrats took over Congress.

War Footing

Democrats and Republicans alike are unhappy with Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. Before long, the public will have the same misgivings about the Afghanistan front on the War on Terror. The rank and file of each party may not agree on whether we should have toppled Hussein in the first place, but all agree that management of the war effort has been too costly in terms of our national treasure – human lives and money – that could have been invested elsewhere.

Had Bush been better prepared and more circumspect before going into Iraq, chances are the military would have had the freedom to accomplish its mission to secure the country and return it to the people of Iraq in a much shorter timeframe. The Democrats would still hate him for his “war of choice”, but hawkish people in the Republican ranks would have viewed his decision as sound and the outcome successful. The irony in the war’s implications on the 2008 election is that the one person in Congress with the understanding and heart to fix the mess Bush made of the war is Senator McCain. His opposition to Bush on wartime policy has gone un-noticed because Bush tarnished the “Republican brand” along with his own reputation.

Read Daddy’s Lips

Taxes and spending have also been managed poorly from a “messaging” standpoint during the Bush administration. Bush’s tax cuts took 40 million low and moderate income taxpayers (including myself) off of the rolls. This is more than the reduction in taxpayer base than the tax cuts promoted by Reagan and JFK. An across the board tax cut combined with refundable credits for low-income people will almost always result in larger amounts of money saved by wealthy people – but proportionally lower tax relief. That was the case with the Bush tax cuts. Consider this analysis from the Pro-Obama New York Times:

“The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.

By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.

Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.”

The Times did not mention the Bush increase in the Child Tax Credit which also enhanced the “real” spending power of low income families which tend to be larger than their wealthier counterparts. Senator McCain wants to expand this credit and Senator Obama has similar “redistributive” leanings as well.

While the paper casts wealthy as the “undisputed winners” from President Bush’s tax cuts, the truth is that we all are winners when across the board tax relief is combined with targeted tax credits as was the case here. Still, the media insists on promoting the myth that a person who pays 35% of his earnings in taxes to the federal government instead of 36.5% is enjoying an unfair advantage over guys like me who pay no taxes at all – and in fact are eligible for their share of an immoral redistribution of Bill Gate’s hard earned wealth.

Many Republicans across all income levels see the tax cuts as one of the few things Bush did not screw up. The “other side” of the fiscal policy coin is Bush’s caving to the Democrats in Congress to pass the most sweeping and costly “Great Society” type program in history as they joined hands to expand Medicare entitlements and enact the Medicare Prescription Drug program. Republicans saw the expansion of social entitlements without corresponding cuts in other areas of government as a shortcut to bankrupting the country just as the social policies of FDR and Johnson did. Democrats saw them as token efforts that will not truly help people in need.

Bush has more baggage that inflames the wrath of people on both sides. Among them are a handful of initiatives that would have promoted “amnesty” for illegal aliens and his continuing support for an “ownership society” that allowed Democrats in Congress to expand the Community Reinvestment Act – along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is this last “offense” for which he and his entire party will be held accountable in November. It is ironic that the “GOP Rebels” in the House of Representatives and Senator McCain (along with about 18 of his GOP colleagues) have been fighting to have Fannie Mae more closely regulated since 2005. People know that Congress makes the laws and pass the budgets – but they also know the President has veto power and the responsibility to implement the spending and policy priorities sent to him by the congress. Since he failed in the public mind, his party will bear the brunt.

So Why “Hate” Bush?

Pointing the finger at the Democratic Congress just won’t work. Most Americans who’ve had even a basic Civics class knows that a president cannot do anything to affect the natural cycles of the economy. Still, they expect a president to take leadership on important economic and foreign policy issues. While Bush has done this, and while many in his party within the Congress have sought to rein in some of the profligate spending, politics reigns supreme. The leadership in Congress run the process with an iron fist and with a media that is 90% aligned with their cause, can hold a president hostage to their spending priorities by putting them in otherwise popular bills – assuring there will be no veto.

To his credit, Bush has vetoed some bad legislation, including some absurd spending priorities put forward by the Democrat controlled Congress. However, when the time came for leadership over politics, he did not confront the out of control congress. Now, he is paying the price – for himself, his party and ultimately the country – for not standing up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The Least Popular?

With a 27% approval rating in the polls, it’s hard to imagine that there is anyone less popular in American Politics than George Bush. It may surprise you that the less popular politicians are Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. While the congress’ overall approval is at 10% -- 17% lower than President Bush – Pelosi and Reid have even lower approval ratings. This is reported on with more detail on the QuiverDaddy blog.

It may be a result of the same “perfect storm” that Bush was whacked by, but it is more likely an indicator that other than the war, Americans of both parties are not up for Socialist policies that take from the middle class and give to the client class. Maybe it’s that they recognize the most profligate spending and irresponsible management of the housing crisis originates in the Congress. In the absence of a president who has the constitutional authority to originate a budget – and has failed to use his bully pulpit – Congress literally wrote the check their butts cannot cash.

One must assume Obama will have coattails and the projected gains among Democrats in Congress will become a reality. If that’s the case, we will have an unpopular president and an even more unpopular Congress four years from now.

And that’s the only “change” you can believe in.

Two Jokers with 50 Race Cards

2008-10-08T08:17:00.000-07:00

If you’ve been following politics for any length of time, you’re familiar with the race card. It’s not necessarily dealt by African-American candidates, though it is almost always dealt by Democrats in a heated political contest to gin up support for their candidates among minority voters.

There have been some horrendous abuses of the race card in past elections, the worst of which was a video ad invoking the tragic lynching of an African-American man by chaining him to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him to his death. The campaign spot claimed that the idea of Bush in the White House forced the narrator to relive that crime. Another ad warned black people that if Republicans won the election, black churches would be burned down.

With the aid of David Axlerod, a consultant who specializes in helping African-American candidates win in white dominated electorates, Barack Obama has come very close to transcending race as a decisive political issue. Campaigning as a post-racial and unifying candidate for change, Obama has been one of the most inspiring American political leaders of all time. Unfortunately with the race tightening, he and his surrogates seem to feel they need an insurance policy. The sad result is that a candidate who does not need to play the race card to win has made it the centerpiece of his campaign strategy.

To his credit, Obama has not dealt race cards as despicable as the ones used against George Bush. However, he and his surrogates in the media are dealing them in full hands as McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, would say “from the bottom of the deck”. Even Bill Clinton, once hailed as the “first black president” was disappointed to find the race card played against him during the long primary contest between his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Obama.

Nuanced Bigotry

People do not realize how actively involved the media are in the Obama campaign. They may not be taking orders directly from the campaign, but there can be no doubt there is a coordinated effort behind the scenes to take the talking points, faxes, emails and press releases from the Obama camp seriously. This is fairly transparent in the nuanced bigotry that is hitting the media as almost every outlet comments that the polls are too close for Obama to actually win even if he’s ahead. Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh plays montages on his show almost every day of mainstream media types using identical phrasing in their characterization of some event.

There is a common narrative in the media regarding the racial implications of the current presidential campaign. Try Googling “racially tinged”, for example. They cite the mythology of the “Bradley Effect”, a Democratic code phrase for white people saying they’ll vote for a black candidate because they don’t want to be labeled as racist.

Of course, the assumption is these racists will then vote for the white candidate in the privacy of the voting booth. The “Bradley Effect” was debunked years ago when someone figured out that a voter initiative generated more voter turnout among people who supported the Republican governor’s position than the position of Tom Bradley. The “Bradley Effect” in fact could more accurately be described as what happens when the candidate is on the wrong side of a divisive issue and his opponent is on the right side.

Polls have shown that more than 95% of African-Americans will support Obama. That’s not much more than would support any other Democrat candidate. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton appealed to white working class voters, often associated with the Reagan Democrats. When she mentioned this reality in a campaign speech, she was dealt the race card. Her offense was pointing out a political reality in black and white terms. The problem is that the white working class voters Hillary thought would support her were not doing so because of race but because of ideology. Obama is a Socialist – perhaps the most Liberal politician in U.S. history. Clinton, while no moderate, is left of center on many issues – an easier pill for working class people to swallow.

Obama has from the beginning emphasized his roots as a wedge issue. His attack on Republicans has been predictive rather than accusative. He claims the GOP will point out that he has a “funny middle name” – and then McCain makes mention of his middle name (Hussein) off-limits. He says the GOP will point out that he doesn’t look like other presidents on the dollar bills. To my knowledge, no Republican has mentioned Obama’s race other than in response to his dealing out a hand of race cards.

Secret Decoder Ring

The Obama camp and their surrogates in the media will accuse Republicans of using “racially coded messages” to telegraph to their constituents that Obama is somehow unacceptable because he’s black. Unfortunately, the public has not been given the key to these cryptic messages and there is no secret decoder ring in your box of Cracker Jack.

Apparently, when McCain showed Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears in an ad intended to show Obama as nothing more than an airhead celebrity, the “secret code” was that he was a black man who would do awful things to these fine upstanding young white women.

When McCain showed Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae who plundered the company and drove it into the ground, helping to precipitate the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the “secret code” was that two “sinister black men” were responsible for the mess. The other “sinister black man” was Obama himself. The real message was that Obama took Raines and Jim Johnson into his circle of economic advisors – not a wise move if you don’t want to repeat the disaster these men caused.

Obama surrogates claimed Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin’s comments about William Ayers, the domestic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and other high profile government targets was “racially tinged” because she did not mention that Ayers was white. This race card would have been dealt differently if Palin had identified Ayers’ race… “Oh, so you think terrorists are normally NOT white?”

Barney Frank alleged that McCain’s criticism of the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac handled subprime loans was racist because the programs were targeted to the poor, most of whom Frank believes are African-American.

A mysterious letter was dropped in the mailboxes of Obama supporters accusing them of supporting him because of “racial guilt” and asking them to visit a Website for more details. The group operating the Website posted a note disassociating itself from the letter and its anonymous author. No information about the number of people receiving such letters has surfaced, but if Democratic operatives wanted to stir up a little angst, they only need a few to draw media attention. The next step will be to blame McCain supporters for the letter. This is the oldest trick in the book, but it works.

Liberal commentators will continue to parse everything McCain says to find a racial overtone. In a blogher.com article, Maria Niles quotes David Gergen when he unwittingly leaked the Obama strategy:

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, 'he's not one of us,'" said Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat, from Nixon to Clinton. "I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about." Read entire article here

The tragic consequence of Democratic identity politics in this election cycle is that it could set race relations back nearly 50 years. Who wants to re-live that history. The use of the race card is not only offensive but unnecessary. Democrats enjoy the convergence of a perfect political storm of a declining economy, an unpopular war, an unpopular president of the same party as their opponent, and a media fully in their corner from faux commentary to carefully crafted hit pieces on Saturday Night Live. That combined with a charismatic candidate who reads his script with style and grace, and you have no need to play racial politics.

But they do anyway. The fact that Democrats will consistently play the race card – even when there is no political need to – demonstrates that they lost touch with the rest of America so long ago. The irony is that the first racially transcendent presidential candidate in history is being done such a disservice to those who worship in his temple. If you don’t see “secret codes” in McCain’s rhetoric or campaign ads, it’s because there are none. If you don’t see any appeal for Barack Obama in terms of substantive policy positions, it is because there is none. If racial politics is a contributing factor, it will be either because Obama played the card effectively or because voter backlash will send a final message to Democratic candidates: You can’t win on this gambit anymore.

Resources on Bradley Effect:

Mark Blumenthal (June 19)
Nate Silver (August 11)
Nate Silver (September 19)
Marc Ambinder (September 19)
Daniel Hopkins (August 4)

Thanks to Al Giordano of the Narcosphere for the above links.

Washington's Best Kept Secret

2008-10-03T18:52:00.000-07:00

An Elephant in the Room That Could Be a Game Changer

It’s probably Washington’s best kept secret. A pair of statistics, the dynamics of which could blow this election cycle wide open doesn’t seem to get any play from either side of the aisle. It’s not intentionally covered up by the political class. In fact, it’s in plain view of every political junkie who surfs the Internet in search of some electoral bone to gnaw on.

I’m speaking of course about approval ratings. If you said, “I know…. Bush’s approval rating is the lowest it’s ever been – the lowest since someone invented polling,” you’re only getting a third of the story. It’s the other two thirds that should have dominated the news over the past few weeks when we were hearing about the latest Washington pork fest and the huge drag Sarah Palin was supposed to be on the McCain campaign after the Vice Presidential debate.

Perhaps, the reason neither campaign has made an issue of this secret is that both are tied to the consequences it could bring. It is a powerful snippet of information that cannot be easily spun to anyone’s political advantage. It is astonishing however that the Punditry – especially conservative talk radio and the right end of the Blogosphere – has not given it any thought. Nestled just below President Bush’s approval rating – the one we hear about on the mainstream media every night – is the Congressional approval rating. That would be the Democratic Congress.

Real Clear Politics:

President Bush Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve -- 26.7
Disapprove -- 69.0

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve -- 17.8
Disapprove -- 75.6

Granted, there are Republicans in both houses of Congress, but the Democrats enjoy significant majorities making it possible for them to enact any legislation they see fit – including the $700B Wall Street welfare package that went down in flames a week ago. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House guaranteed her party a campaign issue by preceding the vote with an angry partisan speech that turned off wavering Republicans from joining the “Yea” votes. She blamed the Republicans for the bill’s failure and a cooperative media parroted the charge. Possibly nowhere in the mainstream media was it mentioned that not only does Pelosi enjoy a majority, but more Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats voting against it. In other words, of the 95 Democrats opposing the bill, only a few dozen would need to switch. It is this partisan politics of perpetual deadlock that has soured the American public on their Congress’ job performance. The “change” we keep hearing about, from the perspective of Main Street, is a change from the partisan gridlock that has characterized the Pelosi/Reid reign.

Some people are now beginning to analyze the impact of the partisan hackery of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, her Senate counterpart. Barack Obama has a lot to worry about if their analysis should ever make air or print. In short, the American public not only disapproves overwhelmingly of Congress’ performance, they place most of the blame on the Democratic leadership in both houses.

Rasmussen Reports, in two separate polls ranked the Bush approval rating and Congressional approval ratings. Bush earned a 34% approval rating for August, according to their September 2nd survey results. Bush enjoys positive reviews from 70% of Republicans, 11% of Democrats and 32% of those not affiliated with either party. While recent tracking polls show Bush falling out of favor because of the economic downturn, he still remains more popular than Congress.

An example of the damage partisan politicking from Democratic Congressional leadership is the underwhelming support Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid receive from people in their own parties.

Pelosi’s Problem:

In Rasmussen polling, Congress’ approval rating still hovers around 9% of likely voters. Rasmussen reports 25% of Democrats view their Speaker favorably and 14% of Democrats unfavorably. President Bush is viewed more favorably by Democrats than Nancy Pelosi and his unfavorable rating among Democrats is lower than that of the Speaker. For the first time in recent memory, many voters have begun to move away from the notion that all of Congress is a bunch of rubes except the guy they put in office. We may be facing an anti-incumbent trend in this election. If Rasmussen’s trends for the Congress in general and Pelosi in particular are any indication, the Democrats may not have as much a chance at expanding their majority as Chris Matthews and Bob Beckel would like you to believe.

Reid’s Rejection:

Harry Reid is even more unpopular among Democrats than Speaker Pelosi is. He is viewed unfavorably by 41% of Democrats, 8% of whom view him “very unfavorably”. While Rasmussen acknowledges a partisan divide – 64% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated likely voters have an unfavorable view of Congress, only 35% of Democrats feel the same, the news hasn’t reached the public yet that the party of hope and change is running the house of the status quo.

Why hasn’t this affected the Obama campaign? Chances are, the Punditry will blame McCain’s lackluster campaign or Sarah Palin’s normality. The truth may well have something to do with the Republican candidates or their campaign. However, the evidence points more to the fact that a clear explanation of who runs the 110th Congress – and how they’ve done business the past two years – has never made it into the mainstream media. Other than a few talk show hosts, nobody has pointed out that the current Democratic presidential candidate received more walking around money from Fannie Mae than anyone else in Congress other than Chris Dodd. In spite of the wide circulation of a YouTube video showing aggressive defense of the corrupt institution by leading Democrats, no effort has been made in the media to show how far back Republicans were sounding the alarm about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrat after Democrat defended Franklin Raine’s stewardship of the doomed enterprise even as he was running it into the ground, and even with a clear public record a mere Google search away, the story seems too hard for our “free press” to uncover.

Why hasn’t the Obama campaign’s ties to the corruption and avarice that created the current economic mess been covered? When the McCain campaign tried to expose the corrupt link between Franklin Raines’ plunder of Fannie Mae and his role as chief economic advisor to the
Obama campaign, McCain was accused of being a racist. His hate crime? Showing two “sinister looking black men” in a campaign ad. The two “sinister looking black men” happened to be the candidate and his chief economic advisor, both of whom need to be held to account for the failure Fannie Mae. Obama seems to have discovered the secret to successfully surrounding himself with felons, terrorists, cult leaders and thugs: make sure they have unfettered access to the race card. If McCain can’t show “sinister looking black men” in his ads, he cannot even show the Democrat candidate (whom Joe Biden has acknowledged is not “sinister looking”. Virtually any question of Obama’s policies or associations has been met not with refutations or clarifications; he has resorted to the last refuge of political strength that is the weapon of choice for community organizers – race. If McCain could level the charges – and proof – that are appropriate for anyone and simply push back on the race card, Obama can be shown for the cog in the Chicago Political Machine that he is.

The Elephant in the Room:

The public knows that the 110th Congress is broken and that we need change. They know that Bush’s administration has not been stellar – especially in the past two years having to work with a do-nothing Democrat Congress. Amidst all of the clamor for change is the elephant in the room. It looms large in the potential for an anti-incumbent sweep of Congress and not a few unexpected losses in the Senate. Even if both leading candidates for President are part of the Sausage Factory, both are campaigning on a platform of change – Obama toward a Socialist utopia and McCain toward a bipartisan cooperative. Neither is realistic in the final analysis. But if Joe Six-pack wakes up some morning between now and November 4th, looks at the mess Congress made and who the key players are, there is a faint hope that we can at least give bipartisan cooperation a fair shot.

Links:

Rasmussen Reports: Bush Approval
Rasmussen Reports: Democrat Congress Approval

O'Bamma - Biden: Intimate Moment

2008-09-30T13:45:00.001-07:00

You get to provide the caption....

We found this intimate moment captured for history on the Drudge Report.

My first instinct was that some should advise The One and His bumbling Gaffer In Chief to get a room. Instead, QuiverDaddy invites you to be the Editor and provide your own caption for the photo.

Just click on the comment link and give us your suggested comment.

While you're here, why not vote in our weekly poll.

Der Fueher Wants You

2008-09-29T11:08:00.000-07:00

It has long been a tactic of the Left to hire an army of trial lawyers to litigate their way into office. The most aggregious use of the courts for political purposes may have been Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election by demanding selective recounts in areas of Florida where Democratic poll workers botched the election process. Years after the debacle, every conceiveable scenario of recounting showed that Bush still would have won the Florida vote albeit by a paper thin margin.

When disinformation and race baiting fail them, Democrats always resort to the courts, and thus far, they've been unable to make charges of racism stick, if for no other reason than Senator McCain having a solid record on such issues. Likewise, Obama and his Chicago Cogs have not been able to make lies, slander and outright actionable libel stick. Their only remaining tactic -- and one we will see a lot of in battleground states -- is ideological suppression. That's a fancy term for silencing opposition.

Obama has loosed his legal beagles in Missouri by recruiting several district attorneys and sherrifs to file criminal complaints against people who express opinions about Hhis character, campaign or policies that do not present him in the favorable light He feels is most appropriate for one of his stature. This report on KMOV St. Louis points out Obama's "Truth Squad" is not merely a blog that corrects factual errors about his candidacy. In point of fact, use of statewide law enforcement officers and state attorneys to "enforce" his speech code with an iron fist seems more appropriate in a different historical setting -- 1930s Germany, perhaps.

McCain also has a "Truth Squad", but thus far it has confined its activities to contesting what the McCain campaign feels are inaccurate or unfair attacks such as those typical of a Democrat campaign. The latest example is accusing the McCain camp of "racism" because it featured two "sinister black men" in an ad about his economic policy advisors. The "sinister black men" just happen to be Obama himself and his chief economic advisor, Franklin D. Raines, the guy who drove Fannie Mae into the ground causing the current economic crisis. His failure and criminal conduct have nothing to do with his race; they have everything to do with the reason Obama should not be trusted with the presidency -- especially on economic issues. Most people get that. That's why The One feels it necessary to file criminal complaints against anyone who dares criticise Him.

Not merely criticize in a campaign ad. The state attorneys and sherrifs have been instructed to file criminal charges against ANYONE who makes a false statement against The One. Clearly, He has not bothered to read the constitution. He may have taught "Con Law" as an adjunct years ago, but it doesn't appear the "Con" is short for "Constitutional".

Hacking Sarah

2008-09-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

"Anonymous", a group of prOama hackers, managed to spoof YAHOO! into releasing Sarah Palin's password. They did several screen grabs and then released emails, contact lists and private phone numbers of the governor along with her friends and family. The goal of this latest dirty trick seems to be to prove that Palin's promise of transparency was broken because she used the YAHOO! email account to secretly conduct government business.

Laying aside the foolhardiness of using YAHOO! for anything official or which requires security, I find it hard to believe Palin and her associates were naive enough to believe that a commercial email account would somehow protect them from scrutiny. YAHOO! may be a great service, but it is subject to a host of laws (both privacy and anti-terrorist) just like its competitors.

Accusations that Palin and others used private email to avoid scrutiny simply aren't grounded in reality. YAHOO! is far more likely to be hacked than a government account, and even if the account was "deleted", YAHOO! has to maintain archives of the content that passes through its service for situations just like this.

YAHOO! is not going to subject itself to litigation or worse, criminal complaints, in order to protect any of its members. On the other hand, it's also going to do all it can to ensure the privacy of its members -- especially after such a high profile breech. People need to trust that YAHOO! Mail is at least as secure as Gmail, AOL or any other major player. However, if you take the time to read the Terms of Service for any decent Web provider like YAHOO!, you'll find disclosures in their privacy statements that they will release information about their members' accounts in cases of criminal government investigations and the like.

Palin and other staffers had to know that using private YAHOO! accounts to conduct government business was not only less secure than a .gov domain maintained by the state of Alaska, they certainly knew that their emails were subject to being viewed by any investigation into her conduct as governor. Just looking at the dozens of names of private citizens on the account along with other staffers shows that there was no expectation that Palin and others using YAHOO! intended to hide anything.

Refusal to release emails in conjunction with the current Democratic witch hunt is not the same thing as violating a pledge of transparency. Such cases involve a lot of complex litigation, negotiation and discovery. It is no different than President Clinton seeking to protect his private correspondence or privileged (executive) correspondence during Whitewater or Reagan and his staff seeking to protect privileged correspondence during the Iran-Contra investigations.

The truth will come out as it did in those cases. However, we shouldn't expect the targets of any investigation to simply volunteer information (or emails) that can be scoured for nuggets of political cannon fodder that can be taken out of context and used to smear a candidate's character. Democrats of all people should understand this as the prObama hackers used the same tactic against Bill and Hillary.

Don't Poke the Bear?

2008-09-12T06:44:00.000-07:00

Did the ABC News/Charles Gibson Interview Reveal More About Gibson?

As I watched the first Gibson interview with Sarah Palin, I commented that the banner headlines in the mainstream media would shout that Palin lacks the experience and judgment to be president because she supports admission of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and that she did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

To be honest, I thought the Bush Doctrine amounted to “America will treat other nations that harbor or aid terrorists – as terrorists” with the promise that the terrorists would be hunted down and defeated. According to Charles Gibson, I was wrong – it was the doctrine of “anticipatory strike” or “pre-emptive war” that Gibson identified as the Bush Doctrine.

As it turns out, I was no more wrong than any other American – or Governor Palin herself – in not getting Gibson’s interpretation. I just assumed since he is a very well informed member of the media, his interpretation was the only correct one. A blog on Weekly Standard here suggests there is no one fully agreed-upon meaning of the Bush Doctrine, but the most common one cited in ABC News’ own reportage happens to be the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” theme that if you harbor or aid a terrorist, we will recognize you as a terrorist (the one that came to my mind as I watched the interview).

Charles Gibson seemed horrified at Palin’s unflinching support for Georgia – and later mention of Ukraine – entering NATO. The idea that when one NATO ally is attacked it is considered an attack on the whole alliance was perceived as a foolhardy provocation of Russia. Palin reminded Gibson that we do have the same obligation to our existing NATO partners – something of which he is keenly aware. The “Don’t Poke the Bear” mentality of the Democrats and the mainstream media didn’t immediately register with Palin – she simply restated her support of the states in which Russia has shown an expansionist interest.

Score points for global impact wisdom on Palin’s part for deflecting questions about whether the U.S. has a right to cross the Afghanistan – Pakistan border without Pakistan’s permission. Such incursions were authorized by Bush to chase down border insurgents who support the Taliban from “safe havens” within Pakistan. President Bush recently signed a “secret” finding authorizing such attacks (which is why it’s an issue). Palin was smart enough to realize it is not the place of a candidate to second-guess the diplomatic implications of such a finding resorting to the tried and true “all options should be on the table”. Had she said “yes”, she could then be accused of creating an international diplomatic incident with Pakistan and if she said, “no” she would be making an un-supported comment about the current administration’s policy. Neither Clinton nor the current president Bush made such mistakes when they were running. Criticizing the current president’s approach on such issues is one thing, making a blanket statement about an ongoing diplomatic issue – especially with Pakistan’s government in a state of flux – would be outright stupid (which apparently Gibson thinks Palin is).

I have to admit, I wasn’t dazzled by Palin’s overall performance, but I was impressed – especially by two important things:

Gibson treated her seriously and with respect. He focused on issues that are important to Democrats and their supporters in the media (her faith, for example) but he also covered real substantive issues our next Vice President needs to be informed about. He didn’t condescend to her or make any play to the “girl power” mentality other media hypesters have done. In fact, he treated her the same way he would have treated any other Republican.

Palin, on being challenged about a stand on global warming where she has moved toward McCain’s position insisted she was not making political adjustments to accommodate McCain. Later, when a related issue came up, she struck a position opposite that of McCain (drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve). When Gibson reminded her that McCain’s position was against drilling in ANWR, she said that is an area where they’ll have to agree to disagree – but she’ll continue to work on McCain. BINGO! A president needs a vice president who will support him when it matters, replace him when it is necessary and stand up to him when he needs diverse points of view to make the tough decisions called for by his office. Clearly, if they win in November, McCain will have that kind of vice president.

As for the “how many world leaders have you met” qualifying question Gibson repeated throughout one segment of the interview, I am stunned that Palin didn’t retort, “actually, two more than Obamma met before his world tour last month”. If meeting world leaders while on a whirlwind campaign tour in Europe and the Middle East is a qualification to be president, she can punch that ticket with an airplane reservation. I’d be willing to donate my miles.

Why Democrats Favor Foreign Oil

2008-08-05T08:28:00.000-07:00

The Price We Pay...

Having a Democrat controlled Congress means a lot of things to different people. One thing it should mean to all of us is that there is a high price to pay for their insatiable thirst for more tax dollars and their devotion to Gaia as reflected in their refusal to seek energy independence.

While the cost of crude has continued to soar -- averaging 75% of the cost of a gallon of gas this year -- the amount collected in taxes has remained fairly stable, even as the percentage of cost in taxes has gone down.

Democrats in Nancy Pelosi's Congress not only refuse to deal with the high cost of foreign oil, they're also averse to even discussing options. That's evident in their rushing to recess in order to prevent Republicans from calling for a simple up or down vote on an energy bill. Because of the dynamic caused by rising fuel costs with a stable tax base, Democrats have the best of both worlds -- a boundless supply of money to misappropriate and an issue to exploit in the fall.

The tragedy of their recalcitrance is in the numbers on the chart below. Consumers are at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers who can belch their hatred and cause speculators here to drive the costs of oil even higher. As long as people have to go to work, shop and live their daily lives, the demand will remain somewhat stable and the tax coffers will continue to fill up. Oil companies on the other hand are taking the brunt with hysterical claims about "obscene profits" and unnecessary subsidies. To be fair to the oil companies, their costs for refining and profits combined has been less in real dollars than the toll Democratic tax levies have cost in ten of the last twelve months.

Congressional Democrats and their Fearless Leader know that the public would turn them out in a landslide if the cost of their energy policies were widely known. So they turned out the lights and killed the cameras in the House chamber to prevent Republicans from both the educational process of hearing two sides of the issue -- and from the threat that progress could be made toward an energy policy that is not dictated to us from countries that have committed acts of terror against our citizens.

For more than a decade, when Republicans have sought to relieve the oppressive Democrat regulations and restrictions so we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the Democrat response has been obstruction and obfuscation. Their favorite canard is the notion that it would take more than ten years to develop the refining capacity and drilling capability to extract and process domestic crude. Had they been turned out ten years ago, we would be operating new refineries and drilling off our own shores and we would have found ourselves well on the way to developing alternative energy sources.

Next time you fill up, just remember that as much as 75% of the cost of your tank full of gas is a direct result of the failure of one party to recognize the economic, national security and moral implications of a failed policy that preserves their largess without offering any real energy solutions. Now, as the American public clamors for a Drill Here Drill Now policy, the Democratic Congressional leadership is telling us that the problem can be solved by merely targeting the oil companies' profits. Can we agree that if profits (which are often invested in job creating research into alternative energy) are cut that taxes should also be cut by the same amount? With 75% of the cost coming from the acquisition costs associated with foreign oil, the most our Democratic friends could save if they repealed all federal, state and local taxes and nationalized the petroleum industry is $1.00 a gallon off the current $4.00 price tag.

Perhaps Barrack Hussein O'Bamma could save us from ourselves. He'll have to come up with a different policy than "inflate your tires and get a tune-up" though. I inflated my tires every day last week and the price of a gallon of gas only went down three cents.

For a more detailed explanation of how fuel costs are affected by cost of crude, refining and profit, distribution and other factors, visit the Department of Energy Website where we found the graphics in this post.

Bet O’Bamma Didn’t See This Coming!

2008-08-04T19:20:00.000-07:00

Original celebretard reference came from The One Himself….

Yes, as crazy as it sounds, the McCain campaign actually landed a sucker punch with the Paris Hilton reference in one of its anti-O’Bamma ads recently. While the fawning media got its undies in a knot over the McCain campaign ad’s passing reference to Paris Hilton, the idea actually came from O’Bamma Himself:

According to the NewsBusters Web site, the reference was taken from a comment O’Bamma made about Himself after His election to the Senate in 2005: “I’m so overexposed, I’m making Paris Hilton look like a recluse.” The comment was also included in Time Magazine’s “Verbatim” column at the time. This pinnacle of self-importance is topped only by John Lennon’s claim of the Beatles’ exceptional greatness – “We're more popular than Jesus now. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary." To be sure, O’Bamma sometimes leaves the impression that We the People are “thick and ordinary” in His eyes. To His credit, comparing Himself to Paris Hilton is not quite in the same league as the Lennon comment. Actions, however, speak louder than words in that department. Witness the luxury liner in which He and His media disciples now travel. They have dubbed the aircraft “O-Force One”. No need for an election or an inauguration, I guess.

I’ve posted on FoxNews and on ABC News’ blogs that it seems almost silly that people are debating the “vicious attacks” coming from McCain in light of his reputation for refusing to stoop to negative personal ads. McCain’s reputation stems from the 2000 presidential primaries where he was unjustly vilified by the current president’s supporters for things that were unrelated to his qualifications to serve as president. Among them, racially tinged references to one of his children. McCain and his campaign representatives have confirmed their ads are intended to bring humor to the process while pointing out O’Bamma’s lack of substance on important issues. The O’Bamma could rightly point out that His lack of substance stands on its own without any help from McCain’s admakers.

This comes in sharp contrast to O’Bamma surrogates – and O’Bamma Himself – playing the race card and then accusing McCain of doing the same when he called The One on it. Everyone who has read outside the Main Strain Media knows O’Bamma made the first of His many racial references with His “oh, by the way did I mention HE’S BLACK” comment at a rally back in June. A day does not go by when The One or one of His surrogates makes a reference to Senator McCain’s age. It appears the Democratic strategy is to campaign like a pig and then complain when their opponents plant tongue firmly in cheek and offer up the slop.

“The time to hesitate is through… no time to wallow in the mire…” And the media’s response? “Try now, we can only lose – and our love become a funeral pyre.” Now, if McCain’s whiz kids borrowed that ditty from the Doors, no doubt O’Bamma would claim the Senator from Arizona made it up as some sort of encoded racial attack on loose living celebretards.

If anyone asks, “Can they do that?” Remember The One
and His followers will answer,

“Yes we can!”

SHOCKER?: Search “Obama” on Amazon.com
or Shopping.FamilyMentors.com and the top ranking books
are almost all anti-O’Bamma… See examples below.

The Obama Nation
Buy New: $15.40New (20) Used (4) from $14.25Avg. Rating: 84 reviewsSales Rank: 6

The Obama Nation is written by the same author who documented the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s Vietnam experiences with John Kerry during the 2004 election. He has been working on this project since 2006, a time when Hillary Clinton was the “presumptive nominee” of the Democratic Party.

The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate
Buy New: $16.77New (3) Used (1) from $16.77Avg. Rating: 5 reviews
Sales Rank: 20

Why Huckabee Can't Drop Out

2008-02-16T10:11:00.000-08:00

A funny graphic going around the Internet these days shows Senator John McCain and Governor Mike Huckabee in full debate mode. McCain says, "Since all of the moderates in the country have endorsed me, I think you should drop out of the race and let me fool the Democrats!" Huckabee replies, "Since all of the moderates in the country have endorsed you, I think conservatives should be able to vote for me."

This strikes at the heart of why Mike Huckabee seems to dig his heels in when operatives within McCain's campaign and the Commentocracy urge him to quit before voters in 20 other states have been heard. Huckabee clearly is not following any conventional political instincts in his decision to remain in the race until someone clinches the nomination. Instead, he's listening to the most vocal chorus of more than two million supporters who have yet to participate in the electoral process. Huckabee is the only means conservatives have of conveying a simple message to McCain: "If you want to be our nominee, earn it."

The political party bosses front loaded the nominating process to give moderates a better shot at bringing forth an early nominee from their ranks. Unfortunately, they didn't count on the presence of a strong and motivated conservative base this election cycle. Their hopes of repackaging Mitt Romney as a conservative fell flat -- none of his conservative views were realized before he opened his campaign headquarters. Romney is so prone to ideological fluidity that he originally endorsed Mike Huckabee, withdrew that endorsement so he could run, and then did a 180 kick-flip to grind his way into the McCain camp. Suddenly, McCain went from geriatric ultra-liberal to a national hero and man of substance. Such is the character of the people who occupy the highest rungs of the GOP ladder. While many conservatives were fooled into supporting Romney, thanks to an almost hysterical two-week rant from Talk Radio, a remnant of serious conservatives stood their ground, voting for Huckabee and for Fred Thompson. McCain's divide and conquer strategy proved more effective than Giuliani’s firewall in God's Waiting Room.

Even if the conservative remnant were foolish enough to fall for Romney's multiple personality disorder of a campaign, he didn't have a chance against McCain. Just before Romney dropped out, the math told the story: McCain at that point had 53% of delegates and everyone else combined had 47%. Pundits and historians will fiddle with facts for generations to come, but the bottom line is that the "Anybody but Romney" vote far outweighed the "Anybody but McCain" vote. The Establishment would have been happy with either man, since their objective is to have a moderate who can appeal to some Democrat constituency. They closed ranks behind the more liberal McCain as soon as he sowed traction. What better Republican to run against liberal Democrats than one who has supported them more often than his own party? If it was only about power and winning, this would be a slam dunk. Unfortunately, some of us still look for something intangible – like core convictions. Romney had none and McCain’s are fundamentally wrong for conservatives.

Huckabee, and to a lesser degree Fred Thompson, provided conservatives with an alternative "anti-Establishment" vehicle. The GOP Establishment and NeoLib conservatives had no way of anticipating that the conservative base had finally reached the tipping point of refusing to be the GOP's step 'n fetchers for yet another election cycle. The 2008 election cycle is proving to be a pivotal moment for traditional conservatives. Instead of staying home in droves as they did in 2006, conservatives may well bolt the party altogether if the rift is not healed soon. It cannot be healed by efforts to crush Huckabee's Quixotic insurgency. MEMO To McCain Camp: Huckabee's supporters aren't going to support you until the last delegate has voted at the convention. Even then, much rests in the person who will run with McCain. Without a real conservative on the ticket, all of the geotargeting in Huckabee's strong districts will not pursuade the political burn victims on the right.

Less than a month ago, GOP insiders were salivating over the possibility that a young and charismatic Democrat named Barack Obama would be crushed by the Clinton Machine in the most cynical and abusive way, putting a disillusioned African-American voting block up for grabs. The Perfect Storm of Bill Clinton's racial slurs and Obama's lack of gravitas did not come to fruition. Democrat Party bosses reined the former President in and many African-American leaders closed ranks behind Hillary -- for a few hours. In spite of his weakness as a potential leader of the free world, Obama's growing popularity is allowing him to ride a wave of feel-good 60's type Democratic politics -- possibly all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

What it means.

The GOP needs their base back. Even if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Al Gore and other party leaders are trying to make an amicable end to the Democratic Party's current nominating disaster. The Democratic nominee will be poised to wage a generational battle of their Young Liberal against the GOP's Old Moderate. Conservatives need not show up. McCain cannot be recast as a conservative with any more credibility than Romney was. Without the Get Out the Vote efforts of disenfranchised Social Conservatives, McCain cannot win. He would be a fool to pick Romney or any other moderate as his running mate. He may not be thinking of Huckabee with any warm fuzzy feelings right now, but he needs to make a credible overture to the new generation of Social Conservatives. Establishment "OnceCons" like Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson and Phyllis Schlafley have no credibility speaking to this constituency. Their endorsements of “any elephant”, including moderates, over the past twenty years has proven that their loyalty is with pragmatic politics and not movement conservatism.

Conventional wiseguys tell us this new Social Conservative movement is uniting around the impossible hope that Huckabee could emerge as a standard bearer in a brokered convention. They are short sighted and shallow in their analysis. What is happening is a united effort among SoCons to take their place at the table -- even if they have to scorch the tablecloth in the process. If conservatives are not given an opportunity to vote their conscience and the GOP loses in the Fall, the fault will not be their intransigence. It will be the end of their 40 year journey of discovery that people of principle can never throw in with people of power and expect to come out with a clear conscience. The last few primaries will be their final feeble attempt at conveying this message to the moderates who run the party. It can be a reunion song or a breakup song.

John McCain and his OnceCon apologists are calling the tune.

Feeling Disenfranchised?

2008-02-15T15:56:00.000-08:00

This may be my shortest post ever. You are free to send it to anyone you know who you think may be feeling a bit disenfranchised lately.

I’ve always been against “strategic voting”. However, I believe everyone should vote – even if the establishment and the media tell us it’s all over. That’s why I’m deciding this year to take someone else’s advice: I got an email from another blogger today that cynically said, “since McCain has it all locked up, I guess I can go ahead and vote for Mike Huckabee as a protest vote.” Not a bad idea.

Here’s the message you’re free to send along to those Democrats whose delegates won’t be seated or to those Republicans who were told it was a “two man race” when there were still four active candidates (one of those two men recently dropped out and endorsed the other): Give your vote to Huckabee or Ron Paul on the GOP side and to Kucinich or Gravel on the Democrat side. Since it’s all over, you can send a message to your party that politicians who have ears for the media and talk radio need to start tuning in their constituents.

An Open Letter to Phyllis Schlafley

2008-02-10T19:52:00.000-08:00

Dear Ms. Schlafley,

I have long been a Republican activist and the journey has brought me many great memories. One of them was a call I made to Eagle Forum to ask for your endorsement of a candidate – and you answered the phone. It was your home phone number.

We’ve come a long way since then. As a homeschool dad of more than 20 years and a GOP activist, my path has crossed with Eagle Forum many times and I’ve learned to value the research and wisdom you have provided over the years. Now, more than ever, we in the conservative movement are confronted with a choice and a possible challenge to stand our ground on principle and for the convictions we cherish.

The mainstream media is cheering on what they perceive to be a “realignment” taking place within the GOP. They crow over the failure of talk radio and many in the conservative punditry to persuade their followers to pull the lever for Governor Mitt Romney. The problem is that the realignment, if any, is not taking place in a shift toward the left, but in a direction of inclusion and broadening of the conservative wing of the party that with leadership could give us a permanent governing majority within the party – and within the country.

In order to recognize this realignment on the conservative side, we have to distinguish between the angry class warfare of John Edwards’ “Two Americas” and instead look toward a rhetoric that, while respecting the importance of free market economies and the role of business in providing jobs, innovation and growth, also respects the fact that these economic drivers do not function in a vacuum. We have to be a party that can relate to the working class “Reagan Democrats” and take the leadership role of persuading them that business is their partner and not their enemy.

In order to recognize the realignment on the conservative side, I believe we have to distinguish between the neo-Marxist “universal healthcare” offered by the Democrats and the creative approaches offered by Republicans on the conservative side. Programs and policies that spur competition, improve quality of care and promote wellness are a top priority – not cradle to grave minimum care at maximum taxpayer costs. Former Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out in his book, “Stop Digging Your Grave With a Knife & Fork”, that it doesn’t make sense for the government to become our nanny when the industry itself can find its own economies of scale through prevention and wellness. He cites the cost of providing weight loss and management training and follow-up for a total cost of $3,000 makes more sense to an insurance company than paying $38,000 for open heart surgery. In Huckabee’s view, the government’s role can and should be much more limited – providing incentives for business and industry to take a common sense approach to wellness, reducing the cost of healthcare overall by giving consumers the wheel. Free markets work every time they’re tried.

In order to recognize the realignment on the conservative side, I believe we have to distinguish between a philosophy that grants citizenship to people who criminally invaded our country and who seek concessions from us in ways that jeopardize our security and contaminate our culture, and a philosophy that secures the border while removing incentives illegals have for coming here. Among these, increasing – and enforcing – penalties to businesses that hire illegals making it more beneficial to hire Americans, implementing a Fair Tax that cannot be avoided by the underground economy, and the immediate deportation of any illegal who has committed a felony. And no amnesty. A plan partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, was adapted by Governor Huckabee as his own position and plan for immigration reform. It is among the more popular plans in the field.

Perhaps the most important consideration of the conservative realignment is the recognition that conservative issues cannot always be bound up in the notion that appointing strict constructionist judges will protect us from the abusive and tyrannical behaviors of the court in recent years. Some issues are too important and fundamental to our national sovereignty, and to our national conscience to allow the courts to have jurisdiction at all. Rather than pursue the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we need to support the Human Life Amendment. Rather than trust the courts to rule on the meaning of marriage, we need to unite in an effort to define marriage within the constitution itself, forever settling this issue outside the jurisdiction of justices who may “grow” in office.

In order to realign the conservative movement around its own core principles, we need to be willing to fight Senator McCain’s nomination. There are possible scenarios by which this can happen, one of which I trust you would not be favorable to. Given the opportunity to unite conservatives behind a candidate who is fundamentally right on our core issues and risking a protracted floor fight in a brokered convention, I would much rather see Governor Romney release his delegates to Mike Huckabee. If you could take a moment to speak with Governor Huckabee and consider an endorsement, that would be helpful. However, if it comes to a brokered convention, you can count on me as a “foot soldier” in the fight. In the end, the “realignment” I spoke of above is not a realignment at all. It is a call to recognize that this election is about choices and I do not believe conservatives are seriously making a choice for McCain. Without unity behind the remaining conservative, we will need to take a bold stand at the convention and send a message to the establishment and to the media: The realignment is not toward the moderate views of John McCain, it is back to the roots of the Reagan Coalition that made the GOP great.

If you need delegates committed to this purpose, I ask only that you point me in the right direction to getting selected and taking this message of realignment to the establishment leaders in the Indiana party. I believe the stakes are too high to allow for the harshness of the campaign through Super Tuesday to keep us divided. If we cannot mend fences and unite right now, we are electing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton by default.

A Victory for the American Creed

2008-02-07T19:33:00.000-08:00

In the absence of the shrill and hysterical rants from Talk Radio over the past few weeks, who knows what kind of case Governor Romney could have made for himself among conservatives? I spoke out against what I felt was a bullying from the Commentocracy that was unprecedented in American history. As irony would have it, the day before Governor Romney suspended his campaign, I sent each of the major talk radio people a simple chart showing the delegate count for each candidate with this observation:

Senator McCain 53% of delegates
All others together 47% of delegates

They could not, after all, blame Mike Huckabee for their failure to browbeat us into voting for Governor Romney. After he invested more than $80 million in his campaign, combined with the tens of millions in free airtime courtesy of Talk Radio and a near total blackout of anything positive about McCain, Huckabee or Ron Paul, Mitt was only able to capture primaries in his adopted home states and a few caucus states. This, I told the talkers, all translated into a "weak and unconvincing candidate".

Now that it is all said and done, and we struggle to put this dark chapter of GOP history behind us, there is a clear lesson to be taken from the events that took place over the past month: It was just as important to defeat Governor Romney because of his effort at self-funding as it was to turn him out for his failure to convince us that he had any core conservative principles.

Please don't take this as yet another class warfare rant. Neither Governor Huckabee nor his supporters buy into the "Two Americas" populism of John Edwards. Mitt is entitled to his money, hard earned and invested as he saw fit. However, the overarching message of this leg of the 2008 presidential campaign had everything to do with the American Creed. It was a bold push-back sent to the Establishment, the Commentocracy and any Mainstream Media types curious enough to seek the truth: “The Oval Office is not an asset to be acquired in a leveraged buyout.”

Huckabee’s little band of guerilla warriors helped their fellow citizens maintain a proud American tradition of rejecting self-funded campaigns. The eBay strategy didn't work for Steve Forbes and Ross Perot. Now it has failed Governor Romney. Whether the demise of the Romney campaign was a backlash against self-important Talk Radio barons or yet another rejection of self-funding, we can all take pride in the fact that conservative market principles and not money or media decided Mitt Romney’s electoral fate. It all took place without government regulations, Fairness Doctrines or McCain Feingold anti-speech laws.

The storyline will be wrong, as usual. For those of us who watched and were awed by the way America’s political process heals itself, a minor miracle envisioned only by the nation’s Founders took place. Mike Huckabee, a simple preacher decades ago, learned through real life experience what it means to serve and to struggle and to see others struggle. He was able to maintain conservative principles and held true to his convictions through a difficult stretch as a voice crying in the wilderness of Democrat corruption in Arkansas politics. He stood against the Clinton attack machine and prevailed three times -- the longest term of a Republican governor in Arkansas practically since Reconstruction -- and did not misplace his core principles along the way.

With hardly any money and a small army of everyday people giving of their time and treasure to take this message across the nation, Huckabee, like David with five small stones against insurmountable odds felled a well-funded establishment supported candidate and all of Talk Radio with the first of those stones. The Giant is dead.

We now wait to see what will become of the remaining four stones.

Talk Radio's Birthday Gift to Reagan

2008-02-06T09:53:00.000-08:00

Here it is, Ronald Reagan's birthday, and the party he restored to greatness is asking itself some serious questions. Perhaps those questions shold have been asked after the Iowa Caucuses last month. In the national political autopsy of Super Tuesday, the Commentocracy typically followed their biases and long held grudges. Instead, they should be considering not the future of their talk radio colleagues, but the future talk radio has made for the GOP.

Liberal pundits and talking heads are gleefully touting the end of talk radio as a dominant center of influence for the conservative movement. Their logic goes something like, “since the GOP is moving away from Mitt Romney, the candidate of choice for talk radio, are Rush and his colleagues fading into irrelevance?”

It is an exercise in wishful thinking of seismic proportions. As Rush has proven over and over, his relevance is not determined by who is in power but by those who must live with the consequences of the decisions those powerbrokers make. Limbaugh and other popular talk radio hosts will thrive no matter who the GOP nominates and no matter who wins the general election in November. Unfortunately, the party of Lincoln has been thrown into an irrecoverable civil war as a result of their unrelenting assault on Mike Huckabee and John McCain.

Reagan’s Revolution

Ronald Reagan’s revolution began many years before 1979. It was a result of a once in a generation mending of fractures in the GOP and the festering dissatisfaction of social conservatives and working class people within the Democratic party. As the 1980 presidential contest neared, Reagan found a way to bring three disparate and often conflicting groups together in what has been likened to a “three-legged stool”. The coalition of the Reagan Revolution was made possible because Reagan supported all three legs of his stool. Neoliberals, the supply-side, free-market economic conservatives and the national defense conservatives were already a large part of the GOP. What Reagan did was everyday man the party of blue blood.

Social conservatives have been thrown a few bones in the form of platform planks addressing their issues, and in exchange, Evangelical leaders invested their reputations in a massive effort to mobilize their flocks to become the most effective political ground force since the early years of the Labor Movement. This leg of the stool included many disaffected working class people in the South and the upper Midwest who felt the Democratic Party had left them. Combined, social conservatives and blue collar workers did not represent enough votes to obtain a governing majority. Nevertheless, if the GOP could not find a way to bring these “values voters” into the fold and keep them there, the coalition would collapse. They earned the name, “SoCons” by being the hands and feet of a party that had become mostly a disembody policy brain.

Merely mouthing pro-family positions and supporting the Second Amendment would not be enough. SoCons were drawn to the Reagan Coalition because Reagan himself convinced him he was one of them. No candidate before or since has been so effective in persuading this block of voters than Reagan. That meant the party stalwarts had to have a hammer to keep SoCons in line. Talk radio and the failed nomination of Justice Robert Bork provided the perfect storm that would codify all of the SoCon agenda into a single, easily defined wedge issue: Judges. Even now, talk radio and the party establishment have worked together to use the hammer of “liberal justices” to hold the values voters in line. Whenever a marginal candidate is offered up, the fear tactic of reminding these voters of what will happen if someone like Hillary Clinton is allowed to appoint the next three justices to the Supreme Court is trotted out as a reliable weapon against independent thought.

Here Come Da Judges

Linking a strict constructionist judicial philosophy with social issues is a natural mix, since much of the judicial activism over the past 50 years has occurred in cases such as the infamous Roe v. Wade decision making abortion a right protected under the 14th amendment. Ironically, Roe v. Wade is often likened to our generation’s edition of Dred Scott. It is an easy quick reference reminder to SoCons that if they do not toe the party line, someone Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be the next Supreme Court Justice. Justice Thomas was treated brutally by Democrats in his confirmation hearings and the nominations for Justices Roberts and Alito proved just as vicious. Judicial appointments have become an emotional involvement strategy for the GOP to keep the SoCons engaged.

Unfortunately, during the time when tough confirmation processes for Alito and Roberts was getting SoCons engaged, they were also becoming more engaged in learning independently about the process itself, and the players involved. As George W. Bush’s presidency began to draw t a close, SoCons began severing their core values from the bundle called “Judicial Activism” and viewing them as ways of examining the core values of candidates. A candidate such as McCain who claims to be in favor of strict constructionist judges has the added burden of demonstrating that in his voting record and in the core values he has espoused over time. The same is true for Romney.

The Appeal to Authenticity

Without the fear of judicial appointments as an easy, consolidated wedge issue, the GOP now has to present a convincing argument, issue-by-issue, to values voters. This weakness began to show fine-line fractures within the GOP coalition when former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee came in second place in the Ames, Iowa straw poll. The dynamic of money versus values came to the forefront as Romney invested millions in his effort to show up a not so strong first over the lesser known Huckabee who only had his core values and a small army of enthusiastic supporters to carry him to a strong second place finish.

Romney poured even more money into his effort to defeat Huckabee. After outspending Huckabee 20 to 1, Romney’s loss should have gained the attention of the establishment and talk radio, seeking to unpack what was behind Huckabee’s win. Instead, they coalesced around Romney instinctively without giving a second thought to the implications of his Iowa loss. Those in the Commentocracy who did consider Romney’s liabilities recognized something Huckabee had that Romney lacked: Authenticity. More importantly, Romney had no credible connection to values voters concerns about abortion, gay rights, gun control and concerns of the middle class.

This huge disconnect between the establishment candidate and the most critical component of the Reagan Coalition was only amplified as an injured Romney campaign limped into New Hampshire where McCain lay in wait. By now, talk radio talents, led by Rush Limbaugh had already launched their effort in support of Romney, the unintended consequences of which we are only now beginning to assess. They are money smart in everything but politics: Romney has invested more than $40 million in a failed effort to convince values voters he can be trusted. Imagine what that amount of money could have done for a candidate with a credible connection to the party base – it should have been obvious to the Commentocracy, but it was not.

He Called Me a Name

Just before the holiday break, a story was planted in Mark Ambinder’s blog claiming that a “prominent DC-based Huckabee ally” claimed Rush Limbaugh did not think for himself. Limbaugh feigned shock and said he thought it was probably the McCain campaign that planted the quote. Within a day, Limbaugh became “convinced” that the quote was real and that an actual staffer on the Huckabee campaign was the source of the quote. Huckabee maintained his campaign did not have a staff in DC, but Limbaugh now had his justification to begin the month long assault on Huckabee: “He called me a name!” Granted, the name was innocuous – entertainer – but to someone of Rush’s degree of self-importance, anything less than acknowledging his longstanding role as a legitimate political commentator and opinion shaper is unacceptable.

Rush’s tirade against Huckabee did not take into account the suspicious nature of the original Ambinder post. His history of commenting on such issues has always been one of skepticism when “undisclosed sources” are cited. Any objective observer now can see it was a carefully choreographed scenario designed to give Rush a reason to launch the talk radio barrage against their candidate’s opponent.

Limbaugh’s talk radio colleagues kept the story line alive through the holidays and into the Iowa Caucuses.

The Unthinkable: A Conservative Wins

When Iowans balked at the comparative ads offered up non-stop by Romney and the supporting cast of Romney mouthpieces on the radio attacking Huckabee, the former Governor pulled the one negative ad at the 11th hour. Much to the chagrin of media, liberal and conservative alike, Huckabee’s pulling the attack ad was viewed with cynicism and disdain. It only served to amplify the radio assault on Huckabee – which only solidified the support of his followers. He beat the more moderate Romney by 8%.

Talk radio became apoplectic. How could this happen? Even a bunch of hayseed hick Evangelicals could see Huckabee was nothing more than a populist preacher with no experience. Why didn’t SoCons hear their message – what about the judges? Isn’t populism like John Edwards? Do they want McCain to win? On and on it went, driving SoCons further from the Romney candidacy.

The Intolerable: McCain’s Momentum

The Commentocracy made some foolish assumptions in their analysis of the Iowa outcome. Not the least of which was that if they could take out Huckabee, values voters would automatically gravitate to Romney on talk radio’s say-so. It didn’t happen. McCain won New Hampshire because the energy was invested in stopping Huckabee. They furthered this blunder by posing Thompson as a contender to draw votes away from Huckabee. Instead, the votes taken away from Huckabee were more than the margin he would have taken South Carolina and the Straight Talk Express gathered steam going into Florida, a state favorable to liberals and moderates in the GOP. The perfect state for someone like Romney delivered for McCain even though the liberal vote was split between himself and Giuliani.

Having sent Huckabee into the margins by declaring it a two-man race, talk radio now focused their efforts on destroying McCain. In addition to the Romney attack machine’s robocalls and negative ads, Talk radio began a combined 336 hour screed against McCain, demonizing him as being so bad that they would support Hillary Clinton if he won the nomination. Their invective became more shrill and when Huckabee didn’t play ball as the non-factor he was declared to be, they turned their guns on him yet again.

And that was the final salvo in their deconstructing of the Reagan Coalition.

What Values Voters Value

The factor the establishment and the formerly conservative Commentocracy failed to consider is that the appeal of Huckabee was not his background as a Baptist pastor. Mitt Romney is a former Bishop in his church, and that was not a factor either. What they missed, and what values voters have been saying since their convention where Huckabee also scored second in a straw poll is that they want leadership that not only appeals to their values, but that genuinely shares them. Romney’s repackaging did not buy him credibility among these voters.

It’s no longer enough to simply hang up a campaign headquarters sign and declare yourself a social conservative. With the social issues no longer bundled into the judicial activism bromide, GOP leaders now have to prove in some measurable way that they are part of the values voters and that SoCons are not merely the faction we need to pat on the head for our GOTV efforts. Huckabee connected with these people on a level of authenticity that Romney is incapable of because until he declared his candidacy, he had an extensive record of being on the other side.

The more hysterical and shrill talk radio’s assault against McCain and Huckabee became the more values voters realized they themselves were under attack. Resented for not toeing the party line, their candidate was vilified as being in some secret black helicopter conspiracy with McCain. The fact is that Huckabee never exchanged salvos with McCain because the Senator never attacked Huckabee – following a strategy that all but ignored the Governor’s presence in the race.

In the end, SoCons were not supporting McCain, they were opposing Romney. A candidate with no core convictions and who is so malleable on core issues cannot expect their support. Rather than trusting talk radio and the GOP establishment, SoCons, values voters at heart recognized what the Commentocracy and their handlers at the RNC still refuse to admit: The values coalition – much of the SoCon base – is not leaving the GOP; the GOP has left them. Had Huckabee not been destroyed after Iowa, these voters would have had a better alternative to Mitt Romney than McCain.

What It Means

In their fear of a positive populism and core values offered by Huckabee, the Commentocracy joined forces to engage the only candidate capable of holding the Reagan Coalition together and making it stronger. In their embrace of an inauthentic candidate who was essentially only right on the NeoLib issues, they chose the wrong horse. They can only hope that this is not the first of many races where their best horses will fail to come in under the wire.

Liberals will celebrate the supposed GOP Crackup and the demise of talk radio. They’re only half right. Talk radio will long survive the damage they did to their own party. They may have killed the Reagan Coalition, but they’ll have plenty to talk about over the next four years. Listeners will still tune in, but only in the same way they tune in to the all-disco station when they’re overcome with boredom.

Conservative Media: Huckabee is Gay

2008-02-04T09:47:00.000-08:00

Romney's surrogates in talk radio and in the establishment Commentocracy are now trying to play to their perception of homophobia among Social Conservatives by implying that former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee is gay. Google "Huckabee Man Crush" and check out the results for yourself.

They've begun inserting dozens of blog topics across the internet with titles like, "Does Huckabee have a man crush on McCain?" and they have bolstered this talking point with leading Shrill Shills, Mary Matalin and Laura Ingraham repeating the charge. It is believed to be an accusation originally leveled by the Weekly Standard's Rich Lowry. However, the concerted orchestration of this very loud whispering campaign has the stink and smear of Romney's campaign tactics all over it. It would hardly be a surprise to the casual observer if it was found that this nasty trick originated from the Romney campaign.

Playing the "Gay" card.

The same accusation was leveled against Bill Kristol when he acknowledged that Huckabee was probably the better nominee for the Republicans in spite of his commitment to vote for a different candidate. The establishment NeoLibs are cynically appealing to Social Conservatives by implying that anyone associated with a defense of Huckabee -- or Huckabee's perceived defense of Senator John McCain does so not based on their core principles, but on the basis of barely submerged gay tendencies.

"Man Crush" seems to be the NeoLib code for closet homosexual, and whenever they've leveled that charge against one of their own, the result has been either immediate compliance or group censure. No doubt, Bill Kristol will be disciplined for his independent thinking. In the establishment mind, Social Conservatives are poor, undereducated, and easily commanded by merely implying that someone is gay or has had marital failings in the past. The former is their attack of choice against Huckabee and the latter is their latest attack on McCain. After all, apart from our obsession with abortion (which they view as also hurting the GOP) we are first and foremost a bunch of 19th century homophobe culture prudes who support traditional marriage and oppose homosexuality (which in their mind is also hurting the GOP).

In their latest assault on Huckabee's integrity, "conservative" talk radio and their print media counterparts have moved from the disgusting to the despicable. Apologies are owed to both Huckabee and McCain. Anyone considering himself a conservative should disassociate themselves from these immoral and unprincipled operatives -- and be sure to email every talk show to let them know what they are doing to their own credibility.

What it means.

Conservatives must stand together to thwart talk radio's undue influence on elections. "Fairness Doctrines" and "Campaign Finance Reforms" are not the answer. We can apply market forces to discipline these information sources to stick with facts and disengage from the character assassination that has become their only defense for Mitt Romney's campaign effort. They are all calling on Huckabee supporters and Ron Paul supporters to abandon their candidates and support a pro-abortion and anti-marriage candidate they handpicked before a single vote was ever cast. Our response must be to remind them that had they treated the candidates fairly and accurately, the result would have been a Huckabee nomination.

Remind your favorite talk show host that they are responsible for the McCain surge -- and could end up handing him the nomination by pushing a candidate Social Conservatives cannot support in good conscience. This is the time to stand up for principle, even if our "third choice", as Bill Bennett calls McCain, is the eventual nominee. In the end, if the McCain Express gathers steam, it will have been the willful choice of "conservative" media. Had their initial reaction to Huckabee’s surge been more supportive of – or even objective toward – Huckabee, we would have a clear frontrunner who is far more conservative than their pick.
Finally, we need to remind them that unless they have any specific credible evidence, they need to apologize to Huckabee and McCain and cease their groundless accusations that one or both of these men are gay.

Romney's "Coming Out" Party

2008-02-02T09:58:00.000-08:00

Wading through the sludge of opposition research posing as serious discussion of issues, one would think Mitt Romney was running for president of the local chapter of ACT-UP instead of the more prestigious office he seeks. Much of the information available about Romney is true, and yet often misleading. A case in point is his long standing relationship with the gay community, frequently characterized as one of mutual support.

While it is quietly expected that Romney will re-flip on gay rights and other social issues once he takes office, there remains a certain “trust but verify” mentality among Mitt’s more liberal supporters.

Don't look for a "Log Cabin Republicans for Mitt Romney" bumper sticker anytime soon. While the former LDS Bishop i and one term governor of Massachusetts has had a warm relationship with this right-leaning Republican LGBT group in the past, his sudden lurch to the right on social issues just after his decision to run for president has left the Log Cabin group feeling confused and betrayed.

While the LCR does not officially endorse candidates in the primaries, they have released ads critical of their former crusader based on his frequent flips on other issues. If nothing else, the LCR has been consistent in its support of non-social conservative positions, and they are one of the few Republican groups holding Romney's feet to the fire on his massive tax increases disguised as fees. More detail on such ads can be found on the LCR Website in this article.

Of all the GOP candidates, Romney has had the longest gay-friendly record as shown on LCR's voter guide. Nevertheless, his support from this group, and probably from many gay groups, has dwindled since he began collecting frequent-flipper miles after launching his bid for the White House. If Romney’s fluidity on core principles is disturbing to social conservatives, it is downright frustrating for one of the few organizations seeking to change the GOP's anti-gay image from the inside. ii

Early Beginnings

Romney and the gay community became domestic partners in 1994 when he sent a letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Club seeking their endorsement. The October 6th letter states his pro-gay agenda, asserting he would go beyond Senator Kennedy's impressive record on gay issues. Stating it is not enough to merely match Kennedy's record, he believed, "we can and we should do better." He said it was important to help make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream issue, noting that Kennedy could not do this. "I can, and I will," Romney promised.

Romney also promised to co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, (ENDA) and asserted that the "Don’t Ask--Don't Tell" policy was a good first step on the road to allowing Gay service men and women to serve openly and with pride. Asking for their support in the final phase of his failed campaign against Kennedy, he told the Log Cabin Republican group that "by working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and the nation.

One-Hit Mitt

While he won the gay community’s support late in the campaign, it was too late and he lost. But he did not lose his sense of duty to this part of his constituency—at least not yet. They were called to action again when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts and he won. Unfortunately, while he still held to his commitment to support much of the gay agenda, within two years of taking office, Romney began testing the waters for a possible presidential bid. He had to tack right and do it quickly. His first effort was to support a ban on gay marriage.

The gay community pushed back in a very public way. What amounted to an outing party began with attack ads challenging Romney on his clarity of positions. In March of 2004, a Boston Globe article quoted David Rogers, then vice president of the Log Cabin Club in a rant about Romney’s lack of loyalty:

"He didn't say, when we met with him, `I'm sorry, folks; I'm against gay marriage because it's morally wrong.' He didn't say that." Romney told them he did not support a constitutional amendment, then before the Legislature, that would have banned gay marriage and outlaw domestic partnership benefits for gay couples, Rogers said. iii

Kenneth Sanchez, then president of the Log Cabin Club made the first scathing criticism of Mitt's betrayal. He said, “The governor is trying to further his national ambitions by giving in to political expediency.” The Log Cabin Club knew in 2004 what we are only now beginning to realize.

The outing party continued with an even greater intensity as the 2008 campaign loomed. Suddenly, the national Log Cabin Republicans, in order to discredit Romney for his flip-flops on social issues found themselves in an awkward, if not formal, alliance with Social Conservatives. The October attack ad, found in the article linked above, reads like the charges being leveled at Romney by more conservative Republican groups and by John McCain, the only candidate joining Romney in comparative ad buys. Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee remains neutral in the ad wars -- a sort of political Switzerland -- though in interviews and n his blog, he has also joined the chorus of skeptical Social Conservatives in challenging Romney's flip-flops on their core issues.

What it all means

Is it fair to characterize Romney's turnabout on the gay rights issues as a flip-flop in the sense that he never shared their values in the first place? Is it fair to accuse him of secretly sharing their values and merely posing as a conservative? The maelstrom of political rhetoric that is the 2008 election forces us to consider questions like this. However, it makes much more sense to ask instead, "Is it reasonable to trust a person like Mitt Romney at all when there are other candidates who have not been so fluid in their core convictions?" That's a question many of Governor Romney's supporters, including the entire ClearChannel lineup lack the courage to ask. It is one those of us who have no financial interest in Romney's success must gather the courage to ask.

i In the interest of being consistent with the Mainstream Media’s reference to Governor Huckabee’s prior experience as a Baptist pastor, we include this information about Governor Romney.

ii Log Cabin TV Ad Campaign Sets the Record Straight About Mitt Romney
LCR Press Release, October 4, 2007

iii Republican gay rights group hits Bush, Romney stances
Rick Klein and Mary Leonard, The Boston Globe - March 11, 2004

The Caveman & the Highest Bidder

2008-01-31T15:24:00.000-08:00

Anderson Cooper had barely said "Thank you and good luck" before I received a request to comment on the Republican debate. The slugfest was broadcast live from the Reagan Library on CNN Wednesday evening. Much of the feedback focused on a perception of unfairness – well founded if you go by face time – toward Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Indeed, both candidates had to remind the moderator of their presence. Congressman Paul was told patronizingly that he would get his chance to speak and Governor Huckabee received a promise of a "shower of questions" that barely amounted to a tinkle.

If you’re a Huckabee or Paul supporter, the big news of the evening is that while they were not given much time to speak, both proved to be frustrated adults at a playground sand-kicking contest. Neither Romney nor McCain won on points. In fact, neither of them had any real points to make. Too much of the dialogue can be summed up in the "is not...is so" snit between these two examples of why relying on conventional wisdom and establishment talk show hosts is not the smartest way to choose a leader. I found myself wondering if it really matters whether Mitt Romney meant "timetables and milestones" or something different that goes by the same name. I concluded that both the Governor and the Senator were so fully engaged in their disdain for one another that their disdain for you and I came into sharp focus.

What none of the commentators touched on in the post-game wrapup was the undercurrent of McCain's inevitability and Romney's entitlement. If the overt bias toward "front runner" status was frustrating for conservatives watching this debate, the potential of a McCain or Romney presidency on the basis of inevitability or entitlement is downright disturbing. I closed my eyes and reflected on the implications either of these "front-runners" getting the nomination posed.

What McCain's supporters tout as his ability to “reach across the aisle” amounts to an inability to confront difficult issues without simply caving to Democratic sensibilities. McCain's desire to be loved by liberals has often put him at odds with conservative thinkers. Case in point: McCain-Feingold, the speech-control bill supposedly intended to get a handle on the out of control spending in political campaigns. He never spared a breath to remind us that there is too much money in politics and it can be corrupting. His cave to Democratic sensibilities didn't take into account the ability of spoiled rich kids being able to self-fund the purchase of the Oval Office like some kind of leveraged buyout.

As if complying with the law of unintended consequences, McCain-Feingold replaced much of the soft money with unaccountable and often "invisible” 527 groups that can claim support for one candidate while doing the dirty work of another. In this election, Common Sense Issues, Inc. is a perfect example of what McCain's cave to Democratic sensibilities brought us. The head of the group set up the organization as a "Supports Huckabee" third party group, and yet he never personally donated to Huckabee's campaign. Token donations from some known Huckabee supporters formed enough evidence to circumstantially associate Huckabee's campaign with the group. The only donation the group's leader made was $250 to Fred Thompson. The push polling stopped when Thompson left the race, but the damage was already done to Huckabee's effort. Score one for McCain-Feingold.

McCain-Feingold is one of many examples of his "reaching across the aisle". In addition to the McCain Feingold "Repeal the First Amendment Act", he gave us the McCain-Kennedy "Grant Amnesty to Illegals and Then Call Them Citizens Act". Did I mention the McCain-Lieberman "Global Warming is Real and the Only Way to Fix It Is Suppress Economic Progress Act"? It seems all we need to do to get McCain to cave in to liberal interests is buy a hyphen. No doubt there are vehicle bills in the Senate pre-marked as the "McCain-Insert-Democrat-Name-Here Act".

I woke up from my reverie and realized that while it is truly frightening to have this kind of caveman at the helm, it is even more frightening to have a spoiled rich kid succeed in buying the Oval Office. McCain can only do so much damage to the Republic with his liberal alliances. To allow a self-funded and self-important wind-up doll to succeed in buying high office would finally destroy any notion that anyone can aspire to become president. We would have to rewrite all of our second-grade civics lessons... Imagine what that would cost. In a strange way, it seems like the nominating process has descended into some kind of surreal reality show -- Survivor Washington or American Idolatry. I don't think either is anything close to what the Founders intended. However, if they could have anticipated eBay, they probably would have found Mitt Romney's effort to be the highest bidder for an eBay presidency just as disgusting.

This is all the more reason we need to listen to the frustrated adults on the playground. The Caveman and the Highest Bidder are too frightening for this Constitutional Conservative to comprehend.

This is Not a Two Man Race

2008-01-30T08:44:00.000-08:00

As the sun was about to set on the primary election in the Sunshine State, a lady called "conservative" talk show host, Sean Hannity seeking his advice on how to vote. She explained that she supported Huckabee and opposed McCain. Like many conservatives, she was not comfortable with McCain because of his frequent alliances with Democrats against his own party. She was not comfortable with Mitt Romney either. Like many conservatives, she was skeptical of Romney's recent conversion to conservative issues and his penchant for nasty campaigning.

False Dichotomy

How to choose between the candidate you believe in and one of two you cannot believe in? Sean Hannity, carrying the water for the GOP establishment, said with finality that it was now a two-man race and Mike Huckabee was no longer relevant. The lady sounded despondent and acknowledged she would have to pass on her candidate of choice and vote for Romney, if for no other reason than to stop McCain. Her choice may have been the right choice, but it was one made based on faulty logic that is disconnected from the dissent and dialogue the Founders intended in the political process by which we select our leaders.

The next morning, all of the local and national "conservative" talk shows, "conservative" columnists and establishment types were wetting themselves because the unthinkable happened: McCain took the Florida GOP primary by a margin far less than the percentage of votes Huckabee and Ron Paul drew away from Mitt Romney. The story line was not that the establishment and their mouthpieces in talk radio pushed a poser candidate on the conservative wing of the party. Instead, it was the Constitutionalist and the Reagan Conservative who were to blame for this "debacle". Never mind that the Florida race was touted as the proving ground for McCain's candidacy. "It's a closed primary," Limbaugh and his clones mphasized, "McCain can't win if only Republicans are allowed to vote!" Unfortunately, talk radio was wrong yet again. Their spin inevitably will be that a lot of Northeastern liberals and senior citizens who live in Florida were behind the McCain victory. That too may be true, but again it skirts the issue of why Romney can't attract enough of the conservative base to build his own coalition -- and that is why this is not a two man race.

Other choices.

Ron Paul's supporters have been able to help him raise enough funds for a successful grassroots operation. However, his views are largely Libertarian and in a Republican field, they can't win more than 6% (if you believe conventional wisdom). In Florida, a state that should have been more "Libertarian friendly", he only earned 3%. What would have happened if Huckabee had raised the kind of funds Ron Paul earned early on? Nobody -- not even the vaunted talk radio drivers of conservative thought -- can say for certain. However, I can't help but believe that more people in the Republican Party can relate to Huckabee's appeal to entrepreneurs, the middle class, and blue collar Reagan Democrats. Huckabee's view that the 10th amendment should lead the federal government to stay out of state issues should be appealing to federalists of the Fred Thompson mold. His view that human life and the institution of the family are worth protecting should appeal to social conservatives, and even the Fair Tax, when given fair consideration should be attractive to people in all income ranges.

I mention Huckabee here because if it is not a two man race and if conservatives can find no authentic comfort level with McCain or Romney, a second look at Mike Huckabee may be well worth the effort. Even after more than $20 million of Mitt Romney's own personal wealth was invested in trashing Huckabee as a liberal, and the investment was supported by Romney's apologists in conservative media, Huckabee remains in the race. The reason is that people were driven to his Website, www.mikehuckabee.com to see just what all the noise was about. That's where anyone can read his Issues Page to see where he actually stands. The establishment must grant that if Romney has been a liberal in the past and we should only believe what he says now, that should be even more the case with Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has been consistent on his core principles. On issues where more detail has evolved, such as his tough immigration policy, his positions have been consistent. Huckabee more resembles the Ronald Reagan that was. Romney represents the repackaged Ronald Reagan of the moneyed establishment.

Emergence of Free-Thought.

As long as voters in the remaining GOP primaries think for themselves, read the candidates' positions and consider the recent record of Mitt Romney -- "almost conservative" only after he began his race for president -- there remains a possibility that Mike Huckabee can become the candidate of choice for truly conservative Republicans. I would only ask that you actually do the due diligence of considering who you believe, and with whom you agree. Then support that person. It may seem simplistic and even naive, but as long as Huckabee is willing to stay in the race and regular people are willing to support him, conservatives will have a voice in this race. Your vote for the candidate you believe in instead of the guy you think will win the nomination is a strategic vote in favor of giving voice to all three legs of the stool that was once the Reagan Coalition.

Are we wise to ignore the conventional wisdom that voting for the guy you believe in will draw votes away from the lesser guy you "could" believe in? I'm the wrong guy to ask that. I have always voted my conscience and committed myself to the principle that merely settling for someone who panders to my issues is unacceptable and un-American. If McCain wins the nomination and if he is far from the ideal choice, I can't be held accountable for his nomination. It is never wise to compromise your principles for strategic reasons -- especially if the people offering the strategic reasons have a hidden agenda. Such is the case with the establishment media. Ron Paul's supporters should consider that truth when it's pointed out that with only 3% of the vote, he cannot influence the outcome. I believe that, but I would ask Ron Paul's supporters to consider instead, whether they can find value in another candidate after giving an honest look at his positions and record. That is essentially what the "conservative" media is asking all of us to do in the case of Mitt Romney. Do so without considering all of the nasty rhetoric and accusations McCain and Romney have hurled at one another and at Huckabee. I trust what you'll find this is not a two-man race. There are at least four choices remaining. It is your decision and you should feel secure in making the choice that best represents your interests.

The Choice is Yours.

I've said my piece. The rest is in your hands. If you agree that the GOP primaries should be decided by voters and not by talk radio hosts and "conservative" columnists in back rooms with a bunch of establishment operatives, I urge you to forward this article to people you know. Ask them to consider the record and positions of the candidates, and vote for the person they want to win and not the person the "conservative" media says can win. Remember: At this stage of the game, if the "conservative" media says it's a two man race, they're really promoting one man -- and he may not be the man you would want to advance.

What Limbaugh "Hates" About Reagan

2008-01-26T16:08:00.000-08:00

Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, takes a back seat to no one in his respect for the Reagan legacy. That's why it's surprising that his sharp criticism of Mike Huckabee happens to be on the fronts where Reagan's record is not as conservative as those of us who view him as one of the greatest modern presidents are concerned. Rush hits Governor Huckabee in four key areas near and dear to conservatives of all stripes: taxes, immigration, populism and potential judicial appointments. It is worth a trip down Memory Lane to see how the greatest president of our generation compares to the candidate Limbaugh believes is out to destroy the Reagan Coalition.

Taxes.

Limbaugh criticizes Huckabee for only enacting 94 tax cuts while accepting three tax increases. His information comes in part from the Club for Growth, which was once the go-to organization for fiscal policy analysis. Recently, FEC filing data showed that the Club for Growth has been co-opted by supporters of Mitt Romney who had already maxed out their donations to the former Governor's campaign. CFG's ads critical of Huckabee's tax policy are made possible by more than $585,000 in donations from Romney and his supporters.

Limbaugh is overlooking a few key points about Huckabee's record on taxes. Huckabee, unlike Mitt Romney faced a court order mandating improvements to schools. Having inherited a state in a shambles and burdened by a huge deficit, Huckabee's options were limited and he accepted the tax increase solution the Democrat legislature saddled him with. The second tax increase was voted on by the people of Arkansas. Add to that the third tax, a penny added to the retail sales tax and a gasoline tax and the net increase is probably much less than the nearly half a billion dollars Mitt Romney confiscated from the people of Massachusetts. The rest of the story is that in obeying the court order, Huckabee took the state with schools that were a dismal 49th in the nation under Clinton to 8th in the nation. The gas tax left the state with roads that Trucker Magazine rates among the best in the country. Then he left office, leaving an $800 million dollar surplus with a recommendation that his successor return that to the people of Arkansas. Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative media fail to mention the surplus at all.

By comparison, Ronald Regan was vilified by liberals for his massive tax cuts taking the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. That is an achievement, the fruits of which we still enjoy today. What Limbaugh leaves out of his re-telling of the Reagan tax story is that Ronaldus Magnus also presided over what National Review called the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. The "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, or nearly 1 percent of the gross domestic product [1].

That, of course doesn't make the Gipper a liberal. Nor do Huckabee’s tax cuts, followed by tax increases, make him a liberal. Both left office with their respective charges in better condition than they found them. Both created surpluses where a prior Democrat administration had only left corruption and malaise.

Immigration.

Limbaugh and other conservative commentators take Huckabee to the woodshed over his immigration policy, claiming that he is an open borders advocate who would grant amnesty to the more than 12 million illegals in this country. Their concern is based on a proposal to allow children of illegal aliens who attended Arkansas public schools for their entire K-12 school career to compete for state scholarships -- if they filed for citizenship. Contrary to hysteria of conservative commentators about these scholarships, only thirty children in the whole state would have qualified, U.S. citizens would not have lost their right to compete and most importantly, the proposal was never enacted. Even if it had been enacted, it is not likely illegals would expose themselves by coming forward to participate, since they had to apply for citizenship to qualify.

Huckabee's open borders immigration policy is a bit scary though. In summary he calls for:

Securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.
Supporting the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security. This money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers. This money will turn "catch and release" into "catch and detain" of those entering illegally, and crack down on those who overstay their visas.
Those caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.
Never allow amnesty. He opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and he opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.
He opposes and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals. The federal government must crack down on rogue cities that willfully undermine our economy and national security.
He opposes giving driver's licenses to illegals and supports legislation to prevent states from doing so. In 2005, he signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.
He will stop punishing cities which try to enforce our laws and protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of their citizens.
He opposes and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. They must be punished with fines and penalties so large that they will see it is not worth the risk.

OK, so it's scary if you're here illegally. His nine point "Secure America Plan" is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. It is also similar to a plan put forth by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana.

Compare Huckabee's proposed opportunity for thirty students here illegally to compete for scholarships if they come forward and apply for citizenship -- and his immigration policy outlined above with the three million illegals summarily granted amnesty by Ronald Reagan.

In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to approximately three million illegal immigrants. This should be of at least some consequence to Limbaugh and other conservative leaders (assuming Huckabee's thirty high school students who never got their scholarships are a travesty of justice.

Critics of IRCA felt the law had no teeth and would not stem the tide of illegals. They were right. In granting three million of them amnesty, Reagan gave them quite a head start. Reagan proved to be a compassionate conservative when it came to immigration. Upon signing the law, Reagan said, "The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans." [2]

On balance, comparing Huckabee's immigration policy to Reagan's is like comparing Tom Tancredo's policy with that of Cesar Chavez. OK, maybe not that extreme.

Economic Populism.

Rush Limbaugh is well known to his fans as a perpetual optimist. Where many people see challenge, he sees opportunity. So it is with the economic challenges working class people cope with everyday. Limbaugh has been there. He shares stories of his struggles from time to time, and his story is inspiring -- especially to a starving broadcaster like myself. However, he parts from the Gipper on this subject.

Reagan understood that standing between the working man and his struggle for security is opportunity. Like Limbaugh, he had an infectious optimism that if government roadblocks were removed, ordinary people could do extraordinary things. This, along with his giving support to social conservatives that would become the Republican base, is what made the 1984 landslide possible. We called them Reagan Democrats. Stan Greenberg analyzed voters in Macomb County, Michigan where the population,mostly unionized auto workers, supported Kennedy in 1960 by a margin of 63%. These same people bolted the Democrat party and voted 66% for Reagan in 1984. [3]

Reagan Democrats saw in Reagan, a person who related to and understood their middle class aspirations. The Democratic Party descended into a coalition of grievance groups, and it has remained so ever since. The attraction of working class people to the Republican can-do ideal is not an accident and it should be the norm. What appeals to working class people in Huckabee's "populist" rhetoric is that it lacks the angry revolutionary tone of Pat Buchanan or the angry class envy of John Edwards. Instead, it is one that says Huckabee wants to be able to relate to voters "like the guy you work with on the line rather than the guy who fires you." That bit of humor doesn't do justice to the means by which Huckabee intends to show his concern for those in a soft job market or who are coping with higher fuel and healthcare costs. Get the government out of the way and empower small businesses.

Indeed, while Huckabee may want to relate to the guy you work with, he understands, as does Rush and as did Ronald Reagan, that if we do not empower business, there will be no risk taking, capitalism, expansion -- and jobs -- that benefit us all.

It is understandable that one who has struggled and worked hard to be at the pinnacle of his profession would be offended by populist rhetoric. Nobody in conservative circles has an ear for the language of victimization and class envy. But we all are united in our appreciation for the language of opportunity. It's OK to say you feel someone's pain if what you intend to do about it is empower him to achieve without the crushing weight of government regulation. Such is the "populism" of Mike Huckabee. When his supporters listen to his comments about the economy, they are inspired that together we can do better. When they listen to John Edwards or Pat Buchanan, they just get depressed and go to bed early.

Judicial Appointments.

Limbaugh's criticism of the candidates he considers liberal often includes references to the judicial appointments they're likely to make based on their presumed liberal worldview. Judges are unelected and unaccountable, often serving for the remainder of their natural lives. Conservative commentators have been able to keep social conservatives in line by reminding them of the threat Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat boogeyperson poses to the republic if they are able to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. There is merit in choosing a nominee who is inclined to choose strict constructionist judges for the federal judiciary and for the Supreme Court. Most of the justices on the court now are well into their move to Florida years and it's likely the next president will make more than one appointment.

On this point, one need only look at the liberal tendencies of the pro-gay and pro-choice advocates in the race. Other than Huckabee, all of the candidates have varying degrees of support for the liberal side of the equation. Social conservatives are more likely than their moderate counterparts to recognize the activist role judges have plaid over the years in decisions affecting free speech, government sponsored discrimination, gun rights and the death penalty. Pro-life conservatives also see the ultimate in judicial activism in the form of Roe v. Wade, our generation's version of the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Two thirds of Reagan's successful Supreme Court appointments resulted in liberal or at best, moderate jurisprudence. The worst of the justices appointed by conservative presidents is Anthony Kennedy, who has baffled constitutional scholars and conservative commentators alike by finding precedents in European law. Kennedy's record on abortion is mixed, and leans heavily in favor or Roe. He has been on the liberal side of cases involving Gay Rights, and has been a reliable vote in opposition to capital punishment. [4]

Some critics believe Sandra Day O'Connor was something of a judicial shape-shifter, making seemingly arbitrary decisions and changing her principles according to political expediency. Notable cases Rush probably would not support was the ruling that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Conservatives recognize McCain's effort at suppressing free speech in political campaigns as the "Incumbent Protection Act". In two 2003 cases, O'Connor held that the University of Michigan undergraduate program had engaged in "unconstitutional reverse discrimination", but upheld the university's Law School affirmative action program as constitutional. [5]

While Supreme Court appointments can be controversial, the confusion of muddled lawmaking from the bench often makes matters worse. Each decision is carefully researched and published, but laypeople only know the outcome as it affects them. As long as you discriminate in a specific limited fashion, it's OK. As long as you abort the baby by a certain date, it's OK. Reverse discrimination is OK some of the time but not others, and affirmative action is OK all of the time, but not others.

The Reagan legacy is proof that even the most conservative president can expect no guarantee of strict constructionist jurisprudence. Part of the process is selecting judges that will make it through the Senate confirmation process. Reagan learned with Bork and Ginsberg that compromise is sometimes necessary. Unfortunately, in the case of the judiciary, two of three Supreme Court justices served to muddy the waters or worse, advance the cause of liberalism. Huckabee, like most of the other candidates promises to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution as the founders -- and amenders -- intended.

There is so much to celebrate about the life and legacy of Ronaldus Magnus. His was a presidency more about what we love and value than what we hate or fear. Nevertheless, if we take Rush Limbaugh at his word, based on his criticism of Mike Huckabee, there are some things he hates about Ronald Reagan. If he took an honest look at Huckabee's record and his positions on the issues, he may be reminded more of what he loved about Reagan and what it is Governor Huckabee's supporters love about him.

References:

[1] Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. (2007, November 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:15, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982&oldid=174375848

[2] Ronald Reagan. (2008, January 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:18, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=185125734

[3] Reagan Democrat. (2008, January 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:23, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reagan_Democrat&oldid=183473106

[4] Anthony Kennedy. (2008, January 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:37, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&oldid=182827691

[5] Sandra Day O'Connor. (2008, January 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:41, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Day_O%27Connor&oldid=184734913

A Word From Our Moderator

2008-01-26T10:18:00.001-08:00

I have received a few comments on this blog, for which I am very grateful. However, some of them have been "rejected" -- I hate that term -- because they would be a distraction from what this blog is intended to accomplish. Help us out by following these guidelines:

Be brief. Comments that are longer than the original article are rejected.
Be focused. Stick to one topic only.
Be fair. Opposing views are welcome -- we'll even try to respond -- but personal attacks, campaign or organization talking points, etc. must be rejected.
Be honest. If you support a given candidate or group, please identify your "loyalties" so readers have some perspective.

On that note, guests should know QuiverDaddy is committed to supporting parental rights, freedom of thought and to providing support and encouragement for fathers who have a "full quiver".

Because there have been and will continue to be several politically oriented posts on this blog, in fairness, I should disclose that I support Mike Huckabee for president. If you're confused about why a pro-family guy who supports lower taxes, the second amendment and secure borders would stand behind this candidate, please visit www.mikehuckabee.com and click on the "Issues" tab.

If you feel it is important that you have a voice in supporting a different candidate, feel free to post on their blogs, or better yet, start one of your own at www.blogger.com.

Why Romney Is So Pursuasive

2008-01-25T22:46:00.000-08:00

Political campaigning meets Brave New World: The Rominator 2008.

Be afraid....

If you've wondered what was going on under that perfectly coiffed hair, a confidential informant from the Romney campaign has revealed the secret to his candidate's ability to rapidly change positions according to the audience he is speaking to: The Rominator 2008.

Scientists working for one of his many far flung global companies tested the
prototype just after Romney tossed his hat into the ring, according to the
source who spoke on condition of anonymity. The source explained that a team of
researchers enters demographic information and opinion polls from each stop
Romney will make on the campaign trail the next day. After a few hours under
the Rominator 2008, the robo-candidate is programmed to perfectly articulate
what the best research money can buy says those voters want to hear.

Hans Mittengrabben, a senior engineer for the project discounted claims that the
Rominator 2008 is a deceptive campaign tool. "On the contrary," Mittengrabben
said, how will voters know he is the right candidate if he does not adjust his
position according to the appropriate metrics of the moment?"

A group of Ron Paul supporters has sought an injunction against further use of
the device claiming it infringes on their patent rights. Iman Utjob, head of the
group said the device was taken from their compound in the dark of night by
commandos dressed in business suits. The commandos made their escape in
helicopters of an unknown design before Mr. Utjob and his aids could recover the
device, Utjob told the source.

Once the existence of the Rominator 2008 was discovered, we felt an obligation
to inform voting Republicans everywhere of the source of Romney's ability to
convince people he is actually a conservative. However, our editors are
skeptical as story was filed by our tepid reporter, QuiverDaddy, who has a
reputation for adapting facts to fancy and calling whatever comes out,
"commentary."

The real story: Linked from Drudge.

Tax Hike Mike? Not the Biggest Hiker on the Trail....

2008-01-23T15:28:00.000-08:00

I’ve done some research on the various candidate sites, Wikipedia, CFG and so forth and I have to say, I’m not comfortable with Romney at all.

I could go into his recent policy changes on key issues of interest to social conservatives, or the image retooling that seems to occur between states or the fact that he has the crass notion that he can simply buy the White House with chump change left over from some leveraged buyout. We've heard all those arguments before, and as I've observed the campaign, they're valid concerns. Then there's the sleaze factor in the way he has bought off high powered organizations at great expense (more than 585,000 that can be accounted for so far) to trash the other candidates and you may have all the reason in the world to oppose a candidate. However, this is politics and merely being a phoney with deep pockets and no conscience doesn't necessarily make a guy stand out.

The conservative media has been critical of another candidate, Mike Huckabee, for tax increases he made as Governor of Arkansas that were not completely offset by his tax cuts, leaving a net $500 million extracted from the taxpayers’ pockets. The tax charge is what it is — Governors, especially those who preside over Democratic states, are likely to raise taxes. Huckabee and Romney were both governors of heavily Democratic states and they both raised taxes.

The “Rest of the Story” is that using the same figures from CFG, on a “per year in office” basis, Romney’s tax increases were actually 70% higher than Huckabee’s. Romney's "higher" tax bite may be even higher; when Huckabee left office, he also left an $800 million surplus which could be used to offset the tax increases. It doesn’t take a brilliant economist to catch such inconsistencies in any campaign, but in a campaign that is all about taxes and the economy, one has to wonder why Mitt’s handlers didn’t at least break out a pocket calculator before writing his attack ads.

How it all works out:

Mike Huckabee is charged with increasing taxes by a net of $500 million over 10 1/2 years. That is an average of $47,619,048 per year.

By contrast, Romney's net $325 million over four years comes to $81,250,000. This also does not take into account any surplus he may have left.

Here's the Apples-to-Apples:

"Tax Hike Mike" -- $47.62 Million
"True Conservative Mitt" -- $81.25 Million

So the true conservative raised taxes 70% more per year in less than half the time in office than the ultra-liberal tax hiking Huck.

Even when considering the difference per capita, the amount Arkansans paid over what Masachussetts citizens paid was $2.00 per year! That’s less than the tax increase Arkansas voters approved — which was factored into the “Huckabee” tax increases.

Here's the real shocker. Romney only served four years in office. Technically less, since he started running for president during his tenure as governor. Remember the charge that Huckabee's net tax increases were about $500 million? at $81.25 million a year, Romney's tax bite could have been as much as $853.13 million if he had been able to get re-elected and spend 10 1/2 years in office. That's $353 million he saved the people of Masachussetts by quiting his job early to run for president -- proof that he is indeed a fiscal conservative.

So in addition to the sleaze factor, his ideological viscosity, his cynical drive to do a "Leveraged Buyout" of the White House and all the other reasons his opponents give for opposing him, Mitt Romney's opponents can now add, "he's a tax and spend liberal who raised taxes even more than Mike Huckabee!" to their mantra.

Of course, before I hit the "Send" button, the establishment media will have Mitt's latest talking points up debunking this "myth".

Push Polling Controversy

2008-01-19T10:09:00.000-08:00

Tony Silva

As with everything I blog, the notes below are my opinion only and not associated with any campaign or organization.

With all the controversy over push polling in South Carolina, I decided to do some research to see who is really behind it. The person who heads Common Sense Issues, Inc., the organization doing the polling bragged about sending over 1,000,000 calls into South Carolina on NPR claiming that he was doing it on behalf of presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee.

Since these guys normally operate in the shadows, I thought it was kind of screwy that Huckabee would allow "his" surrogates to go on the national media and brag about doing something unethical.... So I did what seemed the Common Sense thing to do about this Issue: I looked into the organization's FEC reports and the donations of the guy who runs their operation.

What I Discovered:

Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney and the conservative media have been attributing push polling to Huckabee’s campaign
FEC Records show Common Sense Issues, Inc. supports Huckabee and opposes Romney and have expended funds for Huckabee
FEC Records also show the head of the push polling operation has supported Fred Thompson financially but not Huckabee
The head of the push polling operation is bragging about it in the media and stating it is on Huckabee’s behalf in spite of the campaign’s repeated requests that they stop

Where I found It:

Patrick Davis brags about 1,000,000 push polling calls into S.C. for Huckabee: Click Here
Common Sense Issues, Inc. FEC Expenditure Report: Click Here
Patrick Davis Consulting, LLC Google Search: Click Here
Patrick Davis’ FEC Donations: Click Here

What It Means:

Push polling tends to hurt the guy it's attributed to more than the guy to whom it's targeted. In this case, the people involved in this dispicable operation are going out of their way to attribute it to their "support" of Mike Huckabee.

The only one to benefit from the push polling that took place in South Carolina is Fred Thompson. I don't hold him responsible -- his donors can do whatever they want in the era of McCain-Findgold. However, I do think Fred Thompson should follow Mike Huckabee's lead and disavow his supporter's practice of push polling in South Carolina and for the rest of the campaign -- and stop attributing this activity to an opponent's campaign.

Common Sense Issues, Inc. has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in their effort to "support" Mike Huckabee. Maybe conservative Republicans should donate as much as they are able to the Huckabee campaign to counter -- and expose -- this nasty group

God Forbid...

2008-01-17T16:54:00.000-08:00

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has done it again. He always seems to come up with the line that grabs the headlines and sends the Commentocracy into apoplexy when a little thought might be healing salve for their Christophobic tendencies.

This time, the former governor of Arkansas gave them something to think about, which they failed to do before they launched into talking about it:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it‘s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the Living God and that‘s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so, it‘s God‘s standards rather than try to change God‘s standards so it lines with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat our family.

Almost instantly, the blogosphere was flooded with liberal cries that The Huck intended to rewrite the Constitution to comport with the Bible. A new epithet was invented for the purpose, "TheoCon", and the usual fretting and gnashing of teeth about church & state wasn't far behind. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", emphasizing that he has not endorsed a candidate, and tried to explain the comment in light of our nation's historical Judeo-Christian heritage. Dan Abrams and Lawrence O'Donnell were having none of it.

The problem with this kind of rhetoric in our era of civic ignorance is that the ignorati themselves refuse to avail themselves of historical documents that might shed light on Huckabee's position. Tony Perkin's attempt at putting it into language even liberal Commentocrats can understand proved to be futile. Stupid old smelly documents in the Smithsonian were probably the source of Huckabee's TheoCon rantings, right? Well... sort of. Thanks to AlGore, I didn't have to get a bus ticket to Washington so I could visit the Smithsonian. The musty old document I needed is available by Googling, "Declaration of Independence". The text we were looking for wasn't hard to find. It's right at the beginning:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wow! Those old dead white guys really had a way with words. For the full treatment, visit the Declaration of Independence article on Wikipedia. The short version is that the Declaration was influenced by the writings of British philosopher, John Locke. The signers and the framers of our Constitution understood that there is a law that is higher than the positive law that enables human governments, called "Natural Law". The higher law comes from a higher authority, identified in the Declaration as "nature and nature's God", leaving the character of the Deity ambiguous, I believe for a reason. Natural Law is the foundation of British Common Law, and both can probably be traced all the way back to the ancient lawgivers, among them a guy named Moses.

When The Huck is suggesting that we should amend our constitution to match God's standards, he may be engaging in a colossal case of poorly chosen rhetoric, but essentially the concept is not only "Constitutional" -- why We the People choose to amend our Constitution matters less than the process -- it is also consistent with the original thinking of those original thinkers who framed our founding documents: If the governing bodies enact laws or write judicial opinions that violate Natural Law, our Constitution has a healing provision tucked away in Article Five.

The Bill of Rights amounts to a manifesto of natural rights, and it was amended to the Constitution to win ratification. Many of the amendments since also deal with rights which are not enumerated in the original text, but which their proponents thought important enough to enshrine there. The 13th through 15th amendments come to mind.

Far from a TheoCon, Mike Huckabee is an original thinker at best; at worst he's an original thinker who sometimes speaks in the language of the pulpit when he's communicating the ideas of the political prophets of our nation's founding. Should his advocacy of a Constitutional amendment protecting the natural rights of the unborn disqualify him from the presidency? God forbid!