Why the addicts? Because let's face it, if you're checking this site over the pre-Christmas holiday you are a serious political news junkie.
As such, here are some tidbits to help feed the craving:
1) Weather is a real problem in Iowa. Candidates on both sides of the aisle have dealt with it during the past month. It's really wrecking wreaking havoc on whirlwind campaigns swings now (examples here and here). It's one of those things campaigns can't control, just grit through.
2) Mitt Romney and John McCain have started going at it in New Hampshire something fierce. The argument for now is over the quintessential "Live Free or Die" state topic: taxes. Expect contrast, or even attack, ads from both sides after Christmas. Romney will want to remind Republican voters why McCain makes them angry. McCain will want to unload on the competitor he clearly dislikes the most.
3) Mike Huckabee has done the unimaginable: his campaign tangled with Rush Limbaugh. Jim Geraghty offers the best online coverage here, here, and here. The equivalent on the Democratic side would be picking a fight with the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, and NPR all at once. The best news for Huckabee is that Limbaugh is now on vacation until January 3rd. Jonathan Martin, however, summarizes that the damage has probably been done - regardless of belated attempts to make up.
On a thematic basis, the spat puts an exclamation mark on the fact the conservative commentariat has examined Mike Huckabee, does not like what it sees, and isn't being shy about pointing out that conclusion.
3) Mitt Romney's campaign cannot tolerate another story like this in the next few weeks. It doesn't matter if a some conservatives found the MSM frenzy misplaced, or that it was later proven wrong. It's the initial wave of media coverage that often leaves the biggest imprint in voters' minds. And time spent playing defense on bad stories is time not spent talking about the campaign's message. Which is why...
4)...if I was Mike Huckabee's campaign I would be vaguely uncomfortable right now. His campaign is not responding via TV and mail to a steady stream of incoming attacks in those same mediums, including: the Club for Growth on taxes, Romney & Fred Thompson on immigration, Romney on pardons & combating meth (a surprisingly potent issue in many rural areas), and seemingly everyone under the sun on foreign policy. His defense-via-media availability route means he is spending more time reacting to others than making his opponents react to him. Getting stuck in that trap for more than a couple days late in an election is a danger zone for any campaign. Huckabee might be able to weather it to a point in Iowa given the nature of his base, but it will do nothing to help him expand it.
5) Speaking of Iowa, a must-read for any political nerd this holiday season is pollster.com's long but worthy discussion of Iowa caucus polling, thus explaining why it is indeed so devilishly difficult to do well. Also worth chewing on are pollster's recent summation of "where things stand" in Iowa as well as a delightfully wonkish variation on pollster.com's averages to see if more sensitive trend estimates shed light on recent, possible voter shifts. For those interested, pollster.com has truly provided a high level study in political polling this campaign season, which is quite a service.
I hope this fix helps get you through Christmas.
UPDATE: Commenter "Bill H" says Rush himself said he'll be back on January 2nd. All the online reports I've seen say the 3rd. Either way, one suspects Limbaugh will have something to say on the matter further the day before or the day of the caucuses given the attention it has received.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 22, 2007 07:04 PM | Email This"Give Hope Another Chance"
www.mike-huckabee.blogspot.com
As for Huckabee, did you see the major take-down in Friday's Wall Street Journal? They hit him pretty hard on ethics. I think the air is quickly going out of the Huckabaloon. We'll see how he finishes in Iowa, but I don't see him in the thick of the race much beyond there.
I am still hopeful that Fred Thompson will make a surprise showing in Iowa and finish up with the top two. Hope springs eternal...
Posted by: Bill H on December 22, 2007 08:06 PMAs far as Romney's so-called slip-up, as a Mitt fan, I don't think it will hurt him in the long run. As people come forward to support Mitt's claims, and as the media tries to cover their butts (like TNR tried to cover Beauchamp) it will just serve to get the story out even more that Romney was for civil rights when it wasn't cool.
In the generals, that is very likely going to help him get enough of the minority vote to weaken the democrat nominee and carry the election. I think republicans see this and this issue is going to *help* him, not hurt him. Tell me, are you ashamed of Romney now that people are coming out of the woodwork to verify his account?
Just imagine a commercial with footage of his dad marching with a bunch of civil rights supporters in the 60's and what effect that would have. They've got to have that footage in the archives, somewhere. It's the kind of thing that wins elections.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 22, 2007 09:44 PMThanks, and yes, I saw the WSJ column you mentioned. I have believed for the last few weeks that Huckabee's record of sketchy ethics in Arkansas could be the topic that hurts him the most among the folks that have been flocking to his banner. Immigration, pardons, etc. cause hims some problems, but hitting a Republican on ethics in the current climate is a killer if done right. I really wouldn't be surprised to see the last ad going after Huckabee right before the 3rd, either from Romney or someone else, focus on this issue.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 22, 2007 10:17 PMhttp://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=207908
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 23, 2007 10:30 AMI don't know what gets on my nerves more, Guthrie's daily Ron Paul gushing, or Michael Medved's constant tub thumping on the radio for "crunchy-con" Mike Huckabee, a fellow my gut tells me is about as conservative as Jimmy Carter.
Here's hoping Paul and Huckabee both fail to survive the primary season.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 23, 2007 04:43 PMAs for Giuliani, Romney and McCain, I like to think of Ambrose Bierce (sp?) when he said that "War is the health of the state." It points out that fiscal conservatives can not be hawks. The two positions are mutually incompatible.
We have over 700 permanent military bases overseas. We have permanent bases in over 130 of the world's 190 nations. It appears that we have taken on the role of the world's policeman, a position that GW Bush specifically opposed when he ran in 2000. Exporting democracy is liberal Wilsonianism. It is not conservative.
We spend trillions of dollars defending foreigners! It is like having the French on welfare. By defending Europe, with our 75,000 troops in Germany alone (yes, half as many as we have in Iraq!) we allow Europeans to spend more on their failed socialistic welfare programs. We are violating our own principles and it is bankrupting America as well! It is causing weakness in our currency, and jacking up our debt, which is like a tax on our grandchildren.
We have 40K troops on the DMZ with S. Korea, and they send us Hyundais! Great cars, and they can fund their own defense, can't they? Especially against a N. Korea that can barely keep it's troops supplied with rice, much less bullets. I say we get the S. Koreans off the dole. N. Korean nukes are the problem of Japan, China, S. Korea and Russia, not the US. Kim just wants to extort trade consessions and aid from us. We have rewarded him in the past for his nuclear program and this almost guarantees that he or other rogue nations will try it again.
We send trillions to both sides in the Israel/Arab conflict, thus escalating the bloodshed. We have built a permanent base in Iraq about the size of the Vatican. Until recently, we had a base in the holy land of Meccah and Medina, thus enraging even moderate Muslims. We installed the Shah of Iran, and have been meddling in Middle-Eastern politics for decades. THIS is why they attack us, not because we love liberty.
And why do the Iraqi's deserve our military welfare? They have had five years to get their rear-ends in gear and they have squandered it. I say "enough." Let them have the civil war they want so badly. They no longer deserve one more American taxpayer dollar or one more drop of American blood. I say we get the Iraqis off the dole as well. I say we just come home.
Sovereignty is conservative. So is a strong defense, sound money, individualism, self-reliance, limited government, spending restraint and free trade. But the Republican Party has gone against most or all of these positions.
Until it can find it's way back, it can look forward to more losses like those in 2006. When will the Republicans become conservative again?
I won't mention my favorite candidate, because I get in trouble when I do so. :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 23, 2007 05:44 PMAre you willing to say that you would have opposed American military presence in Japan and Germany after World War Two?
And more incredibly you make this statement:"We installed the Shah of Iran, and have been meddling in Middle-Eastern politics for decades. THIS is why they attack us, not because we love liberty."
I don't know how to break this to you Bruce, but there hasn't been a Shah of Iran since the Carter Administration. Was Iran better off with a Shah instead of an Ayatollah? Perhaps you should ask Mr. Carter.
Muslim fanatics don't hate and attack us because we "meddle" in their politics. They hate and attack us because western culture threatens their barbaric 11th Century way of life. Western culture allows women to live like human beings. How would you like it if you had a daughter that was forced to wear a headscarf in public, was forbidden to date, and was subjected to an arranged marriage? How different is the way Muslims treat women than slavery?
I get the whole Libertarian/Pat Buchanan isolationist thing. I don't imagine that my greatest political hero, Theodore Roosevelt, would go along.
Liberals and libertarian isolationists stick their heads in the sand about the Muslim way of life. Neither have the courage to oppose it publicly.
What kind of "sovereignty" will we have Bruce if we stick our little turtle heads in our shells and ignore the threats of the barbarians half a world away?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 23, 2007 06:49 PMBush campaigned on not being the world's policeman, but one of the early foreign policy staff meetings had as an agenda item attacking Iraq, well before 9/11. 9/11 was the excuse to attack a nation that had little if anything to do with 9/11. No link to bin Laden, no WMD either. And bin Laden is still on the loose. Disgracefully incompetant, or intentional? Who knows.
W.W. II would never have happened if we had stayed out of W.W. I. Without our late entry, there would have been a negotiated settlement after the trench war stalemate. Our presence lead to heavy financial reparations and humiliating punishment of Germany that paved the way for the rise of Hitler. Now, given that we had a hand in setting the stage for W.W. II, we had to enter in to it to try to fix things. Having done that, we had to help set up stable governemnts in Japan and Germany. But the difference is that both Japan and Germany had industrialized economies and middle classes. They were "ripe" for democracy, and we made sure that we taught them to do it instead of trying to hand it to them without their involvement. "Give a man a fish..." Iraq is different. We are trying to foist it on them and they have little sense of ownership and too little personal involvement. They have sectarian differences that are irreconcilable and they have no middle class, too little industrialization, and they actually want civil war. So these situations are totally different.
Bush has continued a policy that began even before the Carter administration. It began with Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who is the true origin of the neocon foreign policy. Reagan saw the mistake of engaging in the Middle-East after the Lebaneese embassy was attacked. He wisely pulled the troops out. It was as if he was saying: "you don't want our presence as peace-keepers? Fine! You don't deserve them." But his policy was not continued, and 9/11 was at the end of a long string of "blowback" attacks that are a direct result of our interventionist foreign policy. We are reaping what we have sown.
I believe in individual liberty, and that it applies to women as well as men. I believe it comes from the self-evident truth of our self-ownership. Others believe it comes from God. No matter the origin, we are on the same page.
It is often in our individual interest to fight for liberty all over the world. But the function of our government, of our Constitution, is not to spread liberty across the world, though I believe that we have a chance to do that by being a shining example ourselves. Forcing it on other nations is unconstitutional. It can't be forced anyway. Liberty must be earned to be appreciated, mostly because it is so hard to hold on to. Just as when you give a kid a skateboard he trashes it, but if the kid had to earn the money for the skateboard he takes care of it, you can not give people liberty. (And by the way, we are losing it here in America right now for the same reason.)
We want our soveriegnty to be honored. In order to get that we MUST honor the sovereignty of other nations. If they want to violate the principles of liberty, we can try to persuade them, but we can not use force against them as long as their tyranny does not leak out beyond their borders.
So, yes, spread liberty, but not via the US government. I advocate private citizens giving to paramilitary groups to topple dictators, and donating to domestic revolutionary groups, and letters of Marque, but I do not advocate forcing American taxpayers to do the job, mostly because not all will agree to the mission.
This is the ideal way the UN should be run. They should get all of their money from voluntary contributions, and none of it from taxpayers. This would force them to reform and be responsive and effective... but that's a digression.
I have explained patiently a dozen times now that libertarians are not isolationists. I'll do so again since you seem to make the same mistake. An isolationist wants high tarriffs to shut down foreign trade. But a libertarian wants "free and friendly trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none." We are not isolationists, we are non-interventionists. There is a huge difference. We say that when goods cross borders, troops tend not to. We see that mutual trade dependencies lead to peace. Yes, contrary to the assertions of the left, true capitalism leads to peace, not war. We want lots of contacts with foreigners, but we do not want to tell them how to run their countries, or to get ourselves tangled up in their regional disputes.
I publicly oppose Islam. I think it is immoral, and violates individual liberty. Is that public enough for you? While I'm at it, I oppose ALL religion since it is all superstition, and against reason. I am tolerant of it as long as it remains peaceful, and does not try to gain power via co-opting government control. I support freedom of conscience, and I support the separation of church and state that gives us freedom of conscience and religion.
I don't propose ignoring the Islamic barbarians as you so aptly call them, I propose letting them go to their own particular hells the way they want to. Civil war and sectarian violence is their right. We have gotten caught in the crossfire with our interventionist liberal Wilsonian foreign policy.
Remember when Iran and Iraq were tied up in a 20-year war? Kept 'em busy didn't it? We destroyed that stalemate, and now Iran is poised to take over when we leave, as one day we must.
The neocon strategy was totally idiotic.
Any more questions?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 23, 2007 08:59 PMWould any reasonable commentator here not think that your post at #15 pins the looney meter?
You merely dismiss the idea without any reason. I look forward to hearing your reasoning.
And I never said that Bush's grandfather was a Nazi. That would be ad hominem, and irrelevant. What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
If you don't have a response, then my arguments stand.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 23, 2007 10:52 PMHow it is that you cling to the myth that the United States was responsible for the rise of militaristic Germany and Japan?
And how different are those beliefs from the modern left that believes that the United States is responsible alone for the evil in the world?
And Germany bore no responsibility for the atrocities of World War 1?
Nah, it was all the fault of the US.
I need a drink.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 24, 2007 12:12 AM"Kept 'em busy didn't it?"
Yup, and evidently Bruce you didn't care in the least how many innocent civilians died as a result of that protracted war. Is death only important when it can be blamed on the US?
Bruce further says, "We destroyed that stalemate, and now Iran is poised to take over when we leave, as one day we must."
Are you admitting that Iran is a viable threat to peace in the middle east Bruce? It seems to me you are saying that Iran will "take over" when US forces leave Iraq. Do Libertarians regard an Iranian takeover of Iraq as a positive development? I don't imagine that you do but what do you propose as an alternative? Or do libertarians simply believe we should ignore evil and pretend it doesn't exist. Libertarians might have some difficulty explaining their philosophy to the widows and widowers of the 911 attacks.
1. do libertarians say there should be no required schooling at school or at home? That seems to be a large deprivation of liberty.
2. do libertarians say there should be no mandatory sewage systems?
3. Do libertarians say that there shoulde be freedom of choice in marriage so that 3-way marriage among consenting adults is okay?
4. do libertarians believe that states are free to leave the USA? Isn't that giving people the ultimate liberty?
5. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, isn't lbiertarianism simply a bunch of ad hoc decisions about what can be centrally imposed and what not? In ohter words, libertarianism at its core demands complete libertarianism, doesn't it, because it has no limiting principle short of full liberty?
6. Last question. Accepting the full liberty principle, does that not mean individuals are at liberty to setup their own defense networks, leading to war of all against all, and "contracts" whereby individuals promise to render military service in exchange for defense from those military leaders who the "free market" picks and chooses to be successful?
In other words, does not libertarianism lead straight to anarchy then feudalism?
In which everyone is "free" to choose to be a vassal, or go it alone and defend himself, his wife and family against everyone else?
Or, if liberty can be 100% sacrificed to establish a state iwth a monopoly of violence, what principle operates to make that acceptable but not everything else the state does today?
I should mention that hearing Ron Paul on Meet the Press, I do believe he is more principled than your average politician. But as you can surmise I find the whole theory of libertarianism to be a set of contradictions.
Just some Poli Sci 401 for your Christmas Eve. Blessings to all--libertarian, Moslem, communists, evangelicals alike --
Posted by: Marcel on December 24, 2007 05:15 AMYou can accuse me of "blaming the victim" (we conservatives get that a lot...) but I still think we should consider the results of our actions, and if, as Pogo points out "the enemy is us" then we should change our behavior. Neither you nor I think the US is without fault. Neither you nor I think the US is pure evil. I think the US Constitution is the best and most moral foundation that any country ever had. I just wish we followed the Constitution more closely. And by the way, the Constitution is largely a libertarian document.
All I am saying is that 9/11 can rightly be viewed as unintentional blowback for our past foreign policy actions. To ignore that perspective is to ignore part of the findings of the 9/11 commission.
That is the difference between my libertarian position and that of a modern liberal. I am a laissez-faire, free market capitalist, a believer in limited, constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy, just like the founders of our country. Modern liberals are socialists. So are many modern social conservatives.
I DO care about the deaths of innocent people in the Middle-East, but that is NOT the perview of the US Constitution. As individuals we can do a lot to promote peace in the region. We can also help with diplomacy and negotiations. But we should not send our troops to get in the middle of sectarian or other regional wars. I think there would be LESS conflict in the Middle-East without us propping up unpopular dictators, and being a destabalizing force through our foreign aid.
Free trade leads to peace, as I mention above.
You sound like a bleeding heart liberal. You ask me if I don't CARE about the suffering of those poor foreigners. Of course I care. Just like my advocacy of laissez-faire economics looks like I do not care about the poor, but actually is better for them than the welfare dependancy we now offer, I think the poor in the Middle-East would be better off without our violating their sovereignty.
I do not see an Iranian takeover as a positive development, but I do see it as a direct result of the neocon's failed policy of attacking Iraq. I'm not happy to see it, but that is what I see. Don't you?
Libertarians believe in fighting evil at home, not in tilting at windmills and going on fools errands and crusades. We have a realistic idea of what we can and can not do. Neocons seem to be advocating empire, or a utopian new world order, or having the US taxpayer fund a world police force. I think this is insane.
My heart goes out to the widows and widowers of the 9/11 attacks. The first thing we should have done was apologize to them for the failures of our foreign policy that contributed to their loss. We had no business meddling in the Middle-East. Furthermore it was not in our interests to do so. It was not Constitutional. It set the cause of liberty back, both here and abroad.
Foreigners now fear us. If we merely allowed our own economy to grow with capitalism and low taxes, and nurtured freedom here in the 50 States, others would be more likely to want our freedoms and our free markets, as so many immigrants do. But now liberty is tarnished with the evils of empire and our support of dictators. We are viewed as the great satan instead of as Reagan's shining city on the hill.
We have abandoned the virtuous vision of the founders and this is not in our long-term interests. Our virtue and our strength both come from the same source: our libertarian founding principles and the Constitution that defends them. By abandoning them we have made ourselves more vulnerable, less strong and less secure.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 24, 2007 10:13 AMHe has the largest weekly audience in all of radio--about 20 million! Yeah, you could say a few people listen to him...
Eric, here is from the transcript of Rush's Christmas message "Thanks so much for being part of this program and my life. You have enriched it and continue to do so, and I will see you on January 2nd." It is at Rush's Christmas Message
Posted by: Bill H on December 24, 2007 10:32 AMThe normal rational assumption would be that this means you/the libertarians have no answers, no?
Posted by: Marcel on December 24, 2007 10:34 AMI am not an anarchist. I am a more mainstream libertarian. I call myself a min-archist. I defend the minimum government that is necessary to defend our equal individual rights to life, liberty and property. I am socially tolerant and fiscally conservative and a foreign policy non-interventionist. A fiscally conservative Democrat might have a lot in common with my position, as would a limited government Republican. I can also be called a constitutionalist, because the Constitution is a VERY libertarian document.
I will not claim to answer for all libertarians, but I provide my personal positions in answer to your points:
1) I would like to see a needs-based tuition voucher given to the bottom 20% of WA kids. Just the poor, and you have to apply for it. It should be equal to the average private school tuition in the state. Then I would put each government school in the hands of a local non-profit board, and they would set their tuition rates. I would allow total parental choice, regardless of location. I think that competition between schools would improve school quality for the poor, and that specialization would improve choices, diversity and service quality for all. By the way, I am a high school math and physics teacher. Private school, of course! :)
I think it is dangerous to grant the government monopoly power over the indoctrination of the children. I do not trust the likes of GW Bush, Gregoire, or Hillary Clinton with this power. Parents should be responsible for children, not a soviet-style state.
I would like to see private charities make supplemental tuition donations to poor kids. Over the long haul, I'd like to see private charities take over the 20% state vouchers I propose above, so that we make the smooth transition to a totally privatized system, but if that can not be achieved, I will be happy with the 80% privatization I propose.
By the way, this would allow massive reductions in property taxes, which would help the poor and middle class. It would even help renters!
2) When a developer builds a house, the developer should pay for the installation of local streets and sewage systems, not the general taxpayer. If I decide I want to install a septic tank in my back yard, and if I can do so without significant risk of bad smells or runoff to my neighbors, then I have the right to opt-out of the City sewage system. I object to forced monopolies, such as the government monopoly on sewage systems in urban areas. By the way, monopoly is bad, and the government is the biggest source of monopoly in society: gas, electricity, cable, garbage colletion, US post office, WA ferries, recycling, local phone... I say we allow competition and choice in all these areas.
3) First of all, there is a difference between saying something should be legal, and saying that it is therefore OK. For instance, I think that multiple, serial, consensual one-night stands should be legal, even if I don't think they are very moral or desirable. Alcoholism should be legal, even though it represents moral abdication. Marijuana should be legal, in spite of the fact that it is usually a bad idea to use it. I don't. Not all that is legal is moral. Not all immoral acts should be illegal. Only actions that violate the rights to life, liberty and property of others should be illegal. There should be no victimless crimes on the books.
I do not think that three-way marriage makes sense for the vast majority of people, and I would not choose it for myself, but all peaceful actions should be legal. To the extent that a three-way marriage can be peaceful, I will reluctantly admit that it must remain legal. Victimless crimes make no sense.
Three way marriage should be legal under the following conditions:
1) There is no coercion: all parties to the marriage must give their consent.
2) All parties to the marriage are over 18 years of age and are otherwise competant to enter in to legal contracts.
By the way, I believe in deregulating marriage. Marriage should be a church function, not a government function. All who want them should seek a civil union from the government, or write their own civil union contracts. If they want their unions blessed by a church, then they can seek that on their own. Most churches will not grant marriages to three people or to gays and lesbians, but some will. Civil unions should be available to gays and lesbians, as well as threesomes.
4) Yes. Lincoln was a tyrant, who killed 600,000 people needlessly, and expanded the power of the federal government just to save his own "legacy." All other nations eliminated slavery without a civil war. We could have done so as well, and we would have had less racism today if we had done so. If the south were independant, we would have strong trade ties with them today. The south would be a bit like another Canada. That would have been just fine. Lincoln violated the spirit of the American Revolution. Sic semper tyrannis.
5) See my intro, above. Libertarians are more diverse than you give us credit for.
6) Your argument is a challenging one for the anarcho-capitalist libertarian such as Murray Rothbard, but not for min-archists like me. Google Murray, and you will find a very interesting discussion on this very topic.
We must be able to terrace the slippery slope between anarchy and pure socialism, don't you think? There must be limits to government, and yet some amount of government is a necessary evil. I draw the line at the defense of our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. Others draw the line in different places. This is the source of many interesting conversations! :)
I see more intrusive government such as that in France and Germany as utopian. I see anarchy as impractical. I have a more centrist, balanced position.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 24, 2007 10:58 AMOh brother. All Lincoln had to do was snap his fingers and poof! Slavery was ended.
Are there not nations where slavery still exists Bruce? Are there not still nations were there is de-facto slavery of women?
Of course there are but Libertarian isolationists could care less.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 24, 2007 11:17 AMIsn't that the phrase John Wilkes Booth uttered when he shot Lincoln in the back of the head?
This is really just too much.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 24, 2007 11:58 AMUsing force to keep the south in a union it did not want to be in was a form of tyranny. So was jailing newspaper editors who disagreed with him. Then there was his scorched earth policy, and the sacking and burning of Atlanta. Lincoln was responsible for moving the US one step towards tyranny. I say again: "sic semper tyrannis."
Of course I oppose slavery of women and men wherever it happens, I just refuse to misuse the Constitution for my personal ends. But for you, the ends justify the means, eh?
And did you miss my whole distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism? I can only assume that your ignoring this distinction is a purposeful attempt to slander. Please re-read my distinction @ 15, 10th paragraph. I hope it sinks in this time because I am really tired of explaining it over and over again.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 24, 2007 12:55 PMHuckabee wants a 23% sales tax to replace the income tax.
I can't even imagine paying a 23% sales tax which I am sure knowing the democraps in this state would ride on top of the nearly 10% sales tax in this state already, not to mention the 7% income tax they will shove down our throats if they get another chance at it.
Rossi in 2008, it is not only the best choice, it is the only choice to keep these idiots and their liberal courts out of your back pockets.
Merry Christmas to all, and just a reminder, you have four years to stock up on light bulbs that really work with a dimmer, and we got plenty of dimmers in this state.
Posted by: GS on December 24, 2007 01:00 PM
By: Daniel W. Reilly
Dec 23, 2007 02:23 PM EST
"Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused to rule out the possibility he may run as a third-party candidate during an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7539.html
Sounds like a team player for the republicans doesn't he?
Posted by: WVH on December 24, 2007 02:24 PMWeather in Iowa? Nope. They'll still show up in droves.
Rudy? Done.
Willard? Done.
Huckabee? Nope.
McCain? Has a good chance if he can get past the kooks.
Posted by: WVH II on December 24, 2007 02:28 PMCertainly, there is no need for rapid response.
And those sounds of feet on the rooftop are probably quite distracting tonight .....
Posted by: Marcel on December 24, 2007 04:36 PMI patiently await.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 24, 2007 06:41 PMMcCain has the best chance of beating Hillary, Obama or any Democrat in the General Election, Republicans had better consider electabiility and resist Romney - he is unelectable. If they don't, they will remain in the minority.
"Rossi? Nope. Too much Bush stinky-poo."
#37 - you made the assertion. Now back up what you said.
Posted by: KS on December 24, 2007 09:26 PMThe person's moniker is "WVHII", that is not me. So, whoever or whatever they are will have to respond.
Posted by: WVH on December 25, 2007 08:37 AMRon Paul has said that the odds of his running a third party campaign are miniscule. All but zero. He has already filed for re-election to his TX Congressional seat. Election laws allow that as a backup for presidential candidates.
The Libertarian Party would LOVE to draft him, but unfortunately, I doubt he'd run. He's been there and done that. He's seen how hard it is to run a third party campaign, and how much better it is to run as an R. Don't worry. I doubt it will happen.
His getting the Republican nomination would be a major setback for the LP. I think this is really a risk. He has raised about $18.7 million this quarter alone. He raised $6 million on 12/16/07, which is the biggest one-day fundraising total of any candidate in US history. I think his 4th quarter total is more than any other current Republican candidate. He's got cash on hand while McCain and others are broke. His poll numbers are still rising. I think they are up to about 8%. I think he will come in second or third in NH and IA. I am certain that Ron Paul will be in the race all the way until the convention.
He is coming in first place in an AOL poll with 29% out of about 100,000 responders. Can't vote twice, either.
The groundswell of support for Ron Paul is really amazing. There is a revolution afoot and I am really excited about it! He could really get the nomination! If he does, I think he will win in November.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-022/?action=more_essay
OBTW, I don't necessarily disagree with all you stated. For instance, I do believe that marriage should be left to the churchs, not to government to define. My concern is that if government defines marriage, then it has a role to enforce its opinion on churches, just like civil rights and ADA laws apply equally to churches. This is also the reason why I think gay rights advocates are so strong in wanting marriage instead of civil unions. They want to force churches to marry gays, even if it is against their beliefs.
Posted by: tc on December 27, 2007 01:24 PM