Respect the Huck

Um.... Crossover appeal? You've GOT to be kidding me! The Huckster is like George Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" on steroids! No, if you want "crossover appeal," why not look to the candidate who actually has it? The one who draws rallies of thousands of people from every race and creed and political background? The one who has people switching their party affiliation in order to vote in the Republican primaries for the first time in their lives? The one who's ranks are filled with former Democrats, Libertarians, and most importantly -- Independents. THAT'S the man who will be able to win in a general election -- the person able to unite people from just about any political persuasion. And, that man is RON PAUL!

Mr. Barnett needs to be honest with himself. Huckabee is a GOOD SPEAKER, and with his former career as a Southern Baptist preacher, it's no wonder. He's good at delivering prepared as well as off-the-cuff answers, and he sounds good while doing it. He's been trained to WOW audiences of every size. It's what good Southern Baptist preachers do. That said, he DOES NOT have crossover appeal. People ARE NOT switching parties to vote for him in the primaries. He WILL NOT rebrand the Republican base because he's simply an extension of that base's current political choices.

Yeah, I'm baffled by his crossover appeal. He's a likeable, skilled politician. But he doesn't have much appeal to Democrats. Maybe some squishy independents.

quote "And let's have Paul and Giuliani talk ideas and what it means to be conservative in the 21st century."

Huckabee is much more of a conservative than Giuliani. Giuliani is closer to Hillary Clinton than anyone else. That is why I would probably not vote for him if he were the Republican nominee.

rr

Bugg, I'm not particularly a Huckabee supporter, and maybe I don't understand the governor's plan. But it seemed to me that what he wanted to do was offer the same state college scholarship/tuition discount to children whose parents were illegal immigrants as is available to children whose parents are citizens, provided only that the child had attended the public schools since the age of five and had maintained an "A" average (which I think is the same criteria that the children of citizens have to meet). Now, you could argue that the government shouldn't be giving in-state tuition discounts, or scholarships, of any kind to any students for any reason on the ground that this is "our" money and parents should have to pony up the same amount of tuition for their children regardless of whether they are in-state or out of state, and equally regardless of how well the child did in grade and high school. But arguing against extending this scholarship to the handful of children of illegal immigrants who will qualify on the grounds that this is "our" money seems illogical to me.

Now, arguing that children of illegals shouldn't be able to receive the scholarship because their parents are lawbreakers is a different position to take. But that's where the scholarship idea interests me: if a child has attended school since age five and has maintained an "A" average, isn't it slightly hypocritical to "notice" all of a sudden that the child is illegal when he or she has graduated from high school and wants to go to college? In other words, if we're going to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend American public schools without asking any questions about the status of their parents, and to remain in these schools from age five to roughly age 18 without ever bringing up the question of whether or not they are citizens, isn't it rather inconsistent to make their status an issue when they're on the verge of applying to a state college and seeking a scholarship? If we're going to go through the trouble to educate the children of illegal immigrants at the public's expense, in other words, why should we stop suddenly after high school?

I'm laying out the argument, though I frankly haven't decided exactly where I fall on this issue. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right to deny a child the scholarship opportunity because of his parents' status provided that we've *already overlooked* that status for the past thirteen years. On the other hand, it's a sad truth that the children of illegal immigrants are often made to suffer for their parents' choice to come here illegally, but that doesn't obligate Americans to ignore the law completely in dealing with the aftermath of the situation. I like that Huckabee is willing to engage on some complex realities that generally get ignored, though; would Americans generally support deportation efforts at the local schools, with immigration officials and law enforcement present on registration day? If we're not, if we're willing to keep educating the children of illegals, why do we want to stop after high school, when we know that the absence of a college diploma these days can severely restrict your career choices?

Forget ideology for a moment. Which candidates (of either party) pass the test of sanity, competence, and integrity? Maybe Richardson.

Interesting stuff in a Salon article
www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/
about Huckabee's checkered past governing Arkansas.

What do they put in the water of Hope, Arkansas? It isn't only Clinton and Huckabee -- Klipsch Speakers are from Hope as is Melinda Dillon, who played Jillian, Barry's mom, in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." Not too shabby for a "city" of barely 10,000 people.

I had respect for Huckabee even if I disagreed with him on various issues especially education policy. However, I lost a bit of respect for him when I heard about his interview with Imus this morning.

Don Imus asked Huckabee about his lack of foreign policy experience, Mike Huckabee joked: “And the ultimate thing is, you know, I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy – but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (WABC Radio, 12/04/07)

Foreign policy is not laughing matter and our enemies don't need a Comedian in Chief. Huckabee belongs on the national stage, maybe he can replace Leno when he retires, but he if expects to be President he needs to take the job a little more seriously than this. What does Holiday Inn have to do with foreign policy, except to slightly insult the workers who are likely immigrants from a foreign country.

The fair tax would be an unenforceable disaster,

The FairTax is one of the reasons I would consider Huckabee. Why do you say it is unenforceable? Of the problems people seem to have with this plan, this isn't one I usually hear.

Sorry a typo in the last comment, it should say

"it was written in August so the motivation was NOT a Huck "take down"....

Also Rich Lowry of NRO wrote an article today in the New York Post on the Fair Tax that's worth a read.

"HUCK'S SALES-TAX LUNACY"

Here's an excerpt

"To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good luck: Huckabee's magic wand will come in handy.

Then, there's the sales-tax rate. FairTaxers say that a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What they're really talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar - what most people would call a 30 percent rate. The government would pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick "done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are," notes economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to go as high as 57 percent.

The tax would apply to everything, even medical expenses - so it would amount to an incredibly regressive tax on even the most necessary purchases of low- and middle-income taxpayers. The home-mortgage deduction would be gone; buyers would pay a 30 percent (at least) tax on their homes.

To make up for this burden, the government would send monthly "prebate" checks to all Americans based on income. (And you thought our current tax scheme was complex?)

Any of these points makes the FairTax so vulnerable to attack that it would kick away the tax issue as a GOP strength. This is why no serious candidate would ever endorse it. And why, despite his stupefying rise in Iowa and other states, Huckabee seems likable and talented - but still something less than a serious candidate."

Here's the link

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12042007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hucks_sales_tax_lunacy_958738.htm?page=2

Evangelicals may help Huckabee surge in the polls and maybe even win the nomination, but when his proposals are examined in a general election he's going to have a tough time.

It seems to me the FairTax would be much easier on enforcement than the current system.

The Fair Tax is also regressive taking a bigger chunk out of the poor. Huckabee admits this and that's why he advocates a pro-bate to pay the additional tax they would incur. (This is nothing short of a new entitlement program.)

This is all part of the original plan written by John Linder, not Huckabee's idea. The Pre-bate would go to all people. This nearly eliminates the tax on the poor.

Most home purchases are of “used” homes. Under the Fair Tax used items are not subject to the sales tax (seems to me this would encourage conservation). New homes would be subject to the tax but the cost of the homes will be less because all of the materials used to build the new home will be cheaper because no tax is paid on items used to build the home.

What the FairTax does:
• Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
• Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS

A great many Americans are scared to death of the idea of a Baptist preacher as the resident of the White House (Bill Graham as a visitor is just fine, but not as the principal resident). We don't want someone who will try to govern by the Bible. Ours is supposed to be a government as laid out by the Constitution, and I have real doubts about Huck's willingness to pay much attention to that document.

This is not Huckabee's plan. He supports the FairTax which is a bill written by Rep. John Linder. If you want to find out about the plan you can, it is not vague. It is not a VAT.

Based on the plan every household family of 4(regardless of income) would recieve a rebate of $525 every month.

a family of 3 $458
a family of 5 $591
a family of 6 $658

As to remodeling i don't know but will try to find out.

This really does seem like a plan that would be a benefit to the envirionment. We talk about the problems of consumerism. Well this taxes consumption(which obviously discourages consumption). Our current system taxes income (which obviously discourages income). Our current system is opaque. The FairTax is trasnparent.

"Left unstated in the above is the obvious and I'd argue indisputable fact that all the other top tier candidates are, objectively speaking, more qualified for the job than Huckabee." Disputable! Since Romney only served one full term as governor of Mass. He was elected in 2002.

Shelaigh is right: Huckabee's credentials are at least as legitimate as those of the other top tier candidates.

Giuliani -- A former Mayor. I don't care how big NYC is. Nobody has ever been able to make the jump from a mere mayor to President of the United States.

Romney -- Former one term governor of Massachusets, where his power was severely limited by the fact that Democrats held veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of his legislature.

McCain -- War hero and longtime U.S. Senator. No executive experience.

Hillary Clinton -- Former first lady and now backbench Senator from NY. No direct executive experience.

Barack Obama -- Still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, where he has made no impact at all. No other significant experience.

John Edwards -- Former one term U.S. Senator, whose 6 year stint on Capitol Hill was utterly undistinguished. Like Romney, he shrewdly kicked himself upstairs by running for President rather than face a reelection campaign in which he would almost certainly have been defeated.

On pure "experience," how is Huckabee's service as Governor of Arkansas less significant than what these other candidates have done (or not done)?

The modern (winning) republican party has been a coalition between social/religious conservatives and economic conservatives. If you look at it honestly, it looks more like the old new-deal mix than the recent democratic party in that there is more difference of opinion and contentiousness. Still it works when each side agrees to settle for some of what they want and not the whole loaf. Winning heals the wounds and losing results in finger pointing. As a social and economic conservative, I'm pretty comfortable myself except for the pork barrel.

So the non-social conservatives (think Heather MacDonald) thought they could run away with the party by nominating Rudy cause he's a tough guy and there has been a social conservative backlash that has benefited Huck. A stand-off.

If either side wins outright the other will be soured and the party will definitely lose. To win the party will need a compromise candidate with stature. People were hoping it would be Thompson but he ain't it. Romney would like to be that candidate but he lacks stature because he's spent his career talking out of both sides of his mouth. So who does that leave?

The only republican who can hold the coalition together and has the stature to appeal to independents is John McCain and I predict he will be the nominee and the next president. If the republicans choose anyone else they'll lose to any of the three weak democratic party alternatives.

Huckabee? Sure, the Fair Tax? has some merit and the particular adjustments help it's workability and equitability.

But Huckabee? The man has zero honor. He's one of the sleaziest things to hit the campaign trail since Billary Clinton. He sat and lied in our faces about his state's tax record and other things. He lied in our faces about a deal in West Virginia where McCain had his people vote for Huckabee. I mean you only had to follow the math. Huckabee had 30% McCain had around 20% and Romney had 41% and Ron Paul around 10%. When it came down to another vote? Huckabee got 52%, McCain no % Ron Paul was out, and Romney had 47% so ... Not only did Huckabee lie on Fox and Friends, right in their faces and in ours, AND this pure addition is so simple the Huckster thinks we are all stupid.

Yes, Huckabee connects with people extremely well, just like a well polished pro who's life work depends on it ... yes, a professional con man.

The Huckster has also proven that unlike Romney, he is interested in his own ambitions and totally disregards the good of the country. This is reminiscent of Clinton and Gore, not of politicians who put their country first and would give up their own greedy goals to keep the country from being divided, or divide their party and by so doing help elect those who would be very bad for our country.

I really don't like McCain, the man has not much honor in my eyes either, but not to the depths Huckabee goes, and not nearly to the lengths of hypocrisy.

There is another reason the liberal media so loves and pushes Huckabee (he would be nothing without media pushing him) he is easy meat to either democrat, in any general election.

You have to be able to trust what someone is, before it ever should matter what they say. That doesn't mean they worship like you, and how many ugly cons have been perpetrated on millions by ministers of Huckabee's ilk? so his religious qualifications are not historically worth a pea in a swamp ... But that man is a dishonorable, pathological, lying, self serving individual. A man who's own interests are much more important to him than his country.

This man of tainted dishonorable character would be representing the republican party, and Christianity, to those in our country and through out the world. Do you really want a scum bag like Huckabee defining who the republicans are? What Christianity is? I surely don't. The Liberal media would bury the only chance this country has with the garbage he would exude. Remember Nixon? They sure do, and compared to Huckabee, Nixon was a choir boy.