Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Mike Huckabee: Genuine Conservative or Pro-Life Liberal?

As Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has risen in the polls and now in one poll has the lead in Iowa, the critiquing of his record has accelerated in the high gear.

I have been delaying the writing of this blog for weeks because it seems that whenever someone writes an article tearing Huckabee down, there is always another one "clarifying" Huckabee's positions. I want to break down really quick the "Negatives" brought against Huckabee than present the "clarifications" before giving my opinion.


* Without going into extensive details, Conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, John Fund, Randy Minton and Ann Coulter point to Huckabee's past positions on Illegal Immigration and Taxes.

-According to Schlafly, Huckabee "destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles....Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee." (

-Ann Coulter has said, "On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, 'I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.' Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up 'those who are racist and bigots.' Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking — unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant." (

-John Fund has written, "But it's Mr. Huckabee who is creating the doubts. 'He's just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,' a former top Huckabee aide told me. 'As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I'll guarantee is that won't lead to competent conservative governance.'" (


*On the other side, those who support Huckabee point to his positions as a Pro-Life, Second Amendment supporter who is a "Christian Conservative" and either try to clarify or "dismiss" his record:

-Donald Wildmon, founder of American Family Association (AFA) has endorsed Mike Huckabee saying, "I feel that Gov. Huckabee understands the needs of our country and has the ability to lead us in meeting those needs...." (

-Janet Folger has written, "May I suggest a driver without a long record of traffic violations like driving the wrong way on one-way streets such as abortion, marriage and judicial appointments? .... To get to where we need to go, we need someone who won't negotiate on the non-negotiables of life and marriage. Someone who can reach the Reagan Democrats, union workers and African Americans. And someone who can take on Hillary." (

-Dick Morris, who has worked as a political consultant and strategist for Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee, has written, "He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.) He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security. And he can win in Iowa. When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one." (

Conclusion: The real points of contention are about Huckabee's validation as a Conservative on the issues of Illegal Immigration, Taxes and Spending.

From everything I have read, defending Huckabee as a guy who will not be another "Amnesty Republican" is very thin and on this issue I would suggest wait and see if you like what he says about the issue. Track record is very important, but if one were to compare the track records and campaign promises of Presidents on "in the moment" issues such as George W. Bush with Education and Jimmy Carter with the Death Penalty, their Presidential policies were more inline with their campaign promises than their track records.

Concerning Huckabee's "Fiscal Conservative" credentials, just read Dick Morris' column entitled "MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE". In this column, Morris explains how many of the accusations put against Huckabee while he was Governor of Arkansas is exaggerated. Basically, Huckabee isn't as bad as everyone makes him out to be and he is more so a Neo-Fiscal Conservative than a Traditional Fiscal Conservative.

The fact is that in a Republican field of where the "leading" candidates have either questionable social track records (Giuliani and Romney), a past of flip flopping and appeasement (McCain), or just can't seem to gain traction (Thompson, Paul, Tancredo), Huckabee seems like "the best option" for many Republicans at this point. I, for one, am very skeptical of the opinions and perspectives of those such as Schlafly and Fund. Re-phrasing a term from the movie "Mean Girls", Schlafly and Fund are "almost too Conservative to function". What I mean by this statement is both are so staunchly positioned on the traditionally Conservative side of politics, they have positions that are a little "farther right" on issues than a large number of Republicans, Neo-Conservatives, and Moderates in this nation. As for Ms. Coulter, while she is for the most part a genuine, uncompromising Neo-Conservative, her brazen honesty leads her to take positions that are on the harsh side of reality.

The major problem with the criticisms of Huckabee lies with in the idea that Republicans and Conservatives keep looking for the "Next Reagan". But guess what people? There is and was only one Ronald Reagan! He is not coming back from the dead or will be reincarnated in another political individual. Reagan was the man the nation need at the time he was elected President. Today, we are at a cross roads in the political world where the "old guard" is making it's way out the door and "new blood" is rising up, the next President is one who will define how the next generation will stand and vote for the next 30 years, similar to how the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter Presidencies defined a generation of voters. In the same way, Bush Sr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. and who ever is elected in 2008 will define the next generation of voters. But in order to continue a "positive" direction for this nation's future, we need to get away from the sort of politics this nation has been molded to live with for the last 30 years.

People need to get out of this mold of wanting a Republican "Like Reagan" and a Democrat "Like Clinton". Huckabee doesn't fit the molds some Conservatives are looking for. In fact, none of the Republicans running for the nomination are not from the Reagan or Traditional Conservative molds. Many of the attacks on Huckabee are from those who nit pick. The end game choice comes down to this: If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, do you want her as your President for 4 years? Remember, it's your choice, your vote does count.

President Clinton was against "The Iraq War....from the beginning"?

President Bill Clinton is trying to claim he was again the Iraq Military Operation from "the beginning". Interesting, because his wife, Senator/Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton supported the Congressional Approval of US Military Action in Iraq. But you dont have to believe me just because I say all of this, watch this report on ABC's Good Morning America:

So all of this about the former President being against military action in Iraq from the get-go is mularky. The fact is that it was President Bill Clinton in 1998 who sign the Iraq Liberation Act which declared it was the duty of the United States to liberate Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Be informed, do yourself this favor. Take time out of your day and watch the following video from December 16th, 1998. It is President Bill Clinton addressing the nation about attacking Iraq. If you want to blame President Bush for anything, blame him for following Clinton's lead on Iraq while all the former President was doing was attempting to "finish" the job the first President Bush never finished:

Monday, November 19, 2007

Videos: Chuck Norris Endorsement; Infamous Tancredo Ad

I could not resist posting this. After watching the "Joe is Right" video, watch this.

Also, for those who haven't seen it, here is the "infamous" Tancredo Ad. It's true, but sadly everyone wants to call him a "hateful". I guess the truth isn't popular. Maybe the ending is a little mellow dramatic though.

So they want an "War" over Oil?

Politics overshadow gathering

Unlike Russia and China, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran both are publicly Anti-America. Now, Chavez wants OPEC to "set itself up as an active political agent".

So, Chavez wants to take the US down by using Oil to hurt us? Not the most original idea, but a resourceful one. It's ashame one the the largest US oil suppliers disagrees:

While Chavez's 23-minute statement was brief by his own standards, it drew a gentle rebuke from King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, who chided him for talking longer than the time allotted by royal protocol. He also turned down Chavez's plea, saying: "Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely."....

"OPEC has made a point, from its establishment, to work for the stability of the oil markets," said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal, at a news conference after the close of the summit on Sunday. "Oil should be a tool of construction and development, not one of dispute."

Ok, so Saudi Arabia is not onboard with the idea. Chavez had his say and we hear him loud and clear: Unlike Iraq, he wants a REAL War over Oil. Maybe President Bush doesn't sound so crazy when he says we need to get away from being so dependent on Foreign Oil. Maybe the US needs to start making major investments in other forms of energy and/or start drilling for oil in areas where we know there is oil to be found (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, California, Montana to name a few). Until we do so, threats from people such as the Presidents of Iran and Venezuela will continue to scare investors and Oil prices will continue to rise.

There was a time in US history when we were the greatest exporter of goods on the International market. Now we are the greatest importer. Do you really think sending jobs and factories to China is helping our economy? It certainly is hurting our kids.

All the Democratic Candidates agree with "Joe"?

Honestly, it appears that indirectly, all the candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination agree with and support US Senator Jope Biden! Then why don't people just vote for him if he is the "genius" behind all the other Democrats positions?

Hillary: "I have experience" Obama: "What experience do you have?"

Obama to Clinton: 'You weren't Treasury secretary'

Well, first Barack Obama has been called naive, now he doesnt have any economic experience? In a recent speech, Senator Hillary Clinton said the following:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in Iowa today arguing she has the experience to lead the economy out of a downturn and that signs of economic trouble ahead make it risky to elect a different candidate....
''There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for --our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,'' Clinton said, according to excerpts released in advance by her campaign. ''Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.''

So Senator Obama responded to Senator Clinton by saying:

"I am happy to compare my experiences with hers when it comes to the economy," Obama said. "My understanding was that she wasn't Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration."
"I think she's a capable person. She's been a senator, like I have," he added. "But rather than just assert experience, if she has specific differences with me with respect to economic policy, I'm happy to have those debates. But this general notion of experience based on longevity in Washington I don't think is sufficient."

I am 100 percent with Obama on this one. What makes Senator Clinton so "experienced"? This is the same argument I have against Senator John McCain, what makes McCain or Clinton so much more experienced? Just because Senator Clinton has been married to a Governor and a two term US President doesn't make her any more or less qualified. She was never the Governor or President. Under that explanation, why don't we elect Nancy Reagan as the next US President? Nancy's husband, the late Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California for two terms and US President for two terms. If we follow Hillary Clinton's logic, Nancy Reagan has "experience" too!

Obama is right. Why doesn't Hillary get down to the details and explain why her positions and policies are better? All she does is call Obama "naive" and talk about how she has "more experience". If "experience" is so "important" to the American people, why was the race between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 so tight? Lets think about it, Bush was a Governor of Texas. That's it! What was Al Gore? He was a US Congressman (1976-1984), a US Senator (1984-1993), a Presidential Candidate (1988, 2000), and US Vice President (1992-2000). If Al Gore can't be "elected" on experience ALONE, then what make Hillary Clinton so special?

Besides, one of Hillary's "great" ideas is to give a 5,000 dollar bond to every child born in the USA. Obama wants to make Community College education "free" for most college students. Hmmm, $5,000 US bond or $4,000 tax college credit? Tough choices...

Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Republican Field is getting out of control

Ok, for those of you who have not heard all of the noise or who cannot keep up with the changes, here is a quick summary of what's new:

*Rudy Giuliani's connections to Bernard Kerik and Charles Hill. Bernard Kerik has been indicted on federal charges and Charles Hill has some "questionable" positions on foreign policy issues. The Giuliani campaign is trying to minimalize these connections. These "connections" may be overrated, but since everyone keeps bringing up Giuliani's positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration, this is another thing to pile on.

*Fred Thompson got an interesting endorsement. He has been endorsed by the National Right to Life organization for Fred's "100% Pro-Life voting record". Interesting, this is after Giuliani being backed by a "Christian Big Name" (Pat Robertson), Romney and Huckabee being endorsed by other "Christian Big Names" (Paul Weyrich and Donald Wildman, respectively), and John McCain's odd endorsement by Senator Sam Brownback.

*Mike Huckabee cannot avoid the accusations that he's not a real conservative, but we also see Huckabee is having trouble keeping his facts straight about his past positions on taxes. It is hard to tell if Huckabee is truly gaining ground on the leaders and is now getting shot down, or he has become "one of the big boys" and is taking his hits like the rest. In the meantime, Rolling Stone likes Huckabee.

*Mitt Romney has been strong lately, but he also cannot get around the Mormon label and the fact people see Mormonism as a "cult". This I find odd, since we have elected presidents who come from different religious backgrounds that some have considered "cults" (for example: John F. Kennedy - Roman Catholicism; Richard Nixon - Quakers). Also, Romney has been attacked for some of his illegal immigration positions. Over the last several months, Romney has shown that his beliefs and positions are more a product of "reconsideration" and an "evolution" of thought than they were "Flip Floping". Unlike John Kerry and John McCain, Romney has not played both sides of an issue and ignored past statements, Romney has explained where he was and how he got to where he is now. This shows he is more thoughtful then many other politicians.

*John McCain cant avoid keeping his foot out of his mouth. Also, he parades his mom onto national cable TV and she shoots him in the foot. Good times, especially when you reply to a obscure question by calling someone a "jerk"

Conclusion: Rudy Giuliani gets big boost, takes three steps forward, two steps back. Mitt Romney gains strength, cannot avoid bigotry. John McCain continually takes two steps forward, four steps back at every turn. Fred Thompson is assumed for dead, then resurrects himself and then does not seem to do much with his "new chance" in the race. Mike Huckabee is gaining ground in the polls, but getting killed online. Tom Tancredo is getting trashed for being honest and truthful. Ron Paul appears to have a great deal of support from people who are not registered to vote or do not vote (see his Myspace page). Oh, and Duncan Hunter has been almost never heard from.

Welcome to Campaign 2008, where voters will need to seperate the facts from opinion to get the truth.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

America's Dynasties?

One of the major worries of the 2008 Presidential Race revolves around Senator Hillary Clinton. People fear the idea of two "Political Dynasties" ruling this country. Since 1989, we have had George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush as our Presidents. Now, the possibility of Hillary Clinton being the next President has caused concern on both sides because many Conservatives and Liberals both agree Hillary would not have the same kind of Presidency that Bill Clinton did. When people see the name "Clinton", they think of Bill first, not Hillary. Sarah Baxter in an article on the "Times Online" said summarized it best this past Sunday:

President George H Bush was sworn into office in January 1989. If Hillary Clinton wins two elections, the Bushes and the Clintons will have been in the White House for more than a quarter of a century.

So if Hillary Clinton serves two terms as President, it would be 24 years of either a Bush or Clinton as President! This is totally unprecedented for the United States of America. Let's quickly review other Presidents who were family members:

The Roosevelts:

*Theodore Roosevelt (September 14, 1901 to March 3, 1909)

*Franklin Delano Roosevelt (March 4, 1933 to April 12, 1945)

How Related: 5th Cousins

Years apart between Presidencies: 24 years

The Harrisons:

*Benjamin Harrison (March 4, 1889 to March 3, 1893)

*William Henry Harrison (March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841)

How Related: Grandfather (William)/Grandson (Benjamin)

Years apart between Presidencies: 48 years

The Adams'

*John Adams (March 4, 1797 to March 3, 1801)

*John Quincy Adams (March 4, 1825 to March 3, 1829)

How Related: Father (John)/Son (John Quincy)

Years apart between Presidencies: 24 years

But Father and Son Bush Presidencies are separated by 8 years! And so would Bill and Hillary's Presidencies if she was elected President. Be honest, are these four people truly the best or most qualified people be President in the last 20 years? While that is subject to opinion, everyone can pick at least one of these four people they do not like or would not vote for. I personally am troubled by this Bush-Clinton-Bush pattern. As some historians and political analysts have pointed out, it has the aura of a Political Dynasty or Political families controlling the nation. This is what happens in Europe, not the US.

One of the major reasons that our nation's Founding Fathers setup the nation via the US Constitution the way they did was to avoid any sort of monarchies or dynasties. The whole point was to avoid any sort of "King" or chosen family succession as the leader of the nation. There was still 24 years that separated the Presidencies of John Adams and his son, John Quincy. 24 years is approximately a generation (

I feel the same way many in this nation do: We need "new blood" in the White House, no more "Blue Bloods" or "Heirs to the Throne". Or any more of the malarkey "It is their turn" like the Republicans did with Bob Dole in 1996 and Richard Nixon in 1960 or what the Democrats did with John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

When people complain there are too many "Career Politicians" and "Washington Burecratic Insiders" in the US Government, Hillary Clinton is the model of what these people DO NOT want as President. Hillary Clinton has lived off the taxpayer for 31 years. Her husband, Bill, was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976, elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978, and elected US President in 1992. Then, as her husband's Presidency came to an end in 2000, she ran and was elected US Senator, a position which she still holds today. She has not worked or lived in a world without a Political paycheck to live off of in 31 years. Is she really who we want in the Presidency? Someone who cannot truly identify with the every day American? Do we want another Clinton like we have already spent the last 7 years with a second Bush?

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Obama almost has the right idea...

Obama: I deserve a tax increase

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama almost gets that idea, but falls short again. On "Meet The Press" Obama said that his way of fixing the problems with Social Security would not be to cut benefits or to move up the "Retirement Age".

Good so far.

His plan is to raise the income tax to accomidate the lack of funds in the Social Secuirty "bank". Obama said "I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected."

Ok, maybe this guy is seeing the light.

Then Obama explained how "only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from higher payroll taxes, he said." (Source:

Nevermind, I thought there was hope. Here we go again. Another Democrat who doesnt want to really change the Income/Payroll tax structure. He wants to raise the tax accross the board and "protect the middle class". And what about the "lower/Working" class Senator Obama? You see, this was one of the great farces of Clinton's infamous "tax cuts". President Clinton wanted to raise taxes on the "Rich" while cutting the taxes of the Middle Class. But what no one talks about is with these "doughnut hole" gaps or "cuts" for those in the Middle Class, the poorest still suffer.

Hither to, this is one of the greatest blinders and weaknesses of those who are Fiscal "Moderate Liberals" or "Liberals". They want to raise taxes on the Rich, protect the Middle Class, but forget about the Working Class Poor.

Sure, it is cute when Obama says stuff like this:

"Obama also invoked his friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, who Obama said has expressed concern that he is paying less in Social Security taxes than anyone else in his office.

'And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need,' Obama said." (Source:

Yes, good points. But what about cutting the Payroll or other taxes on the Working Class Poor and Middle Class and only raise the taxes on the "Upper Class/Rich"? If we are so desperate to stick with the current tax system and want to still appeal to "Moderate" swing voters, just run on this instead of the ridiculousness that Obama has suggested and that President Clinton did? And don't tell me it cannot be done because you would be suprised what Politicians can get done when it means getting re-elected. This plan would boost any Democrat in polls and would lead to an almost guarantee in getting elected. And if they actually got it done, the momment they sign that new tax setup into law, they would guarantee their re-election just because they did what "no one thought would be done".

While I am not advocating the US Government playing the role of a Burecratic Robin Hood by taking from the Rich, giving to the Poor and Elderly, while easing the financial worries of the Middle Class, I know it is not a losing campaign idea. I know from experience that President Clinton's "tax cuts" did not help my Working Class family. I do not want to see the same sham occur again to the Working Class Poor of America.

Hypocritical Republicans!!

Ok, so after the Republican Presidential candidates all agreed in Florida last month that the Republicans would not punish Florida for moving up it's primary date like the Democrat Party has, the Republican National Committee makes liars out of their Presidential Candidates:

*GOP Punishes Five Early-Voting States by Stripping Half Their Delegates

Oh, but they are not as bad as the Democrats because the Republicans are still allowing half of the delegates. Look, why do we need to at all "punish" anyone? This circus of "who's first" concerning Presidential Primaries is ridiculous, even to a Political Guru such as myself. Hey, Republicans, there is a reason why the voters kicked you out of power in 2006 in the US Congress and why the current Democrat controlled Congress has the worst approval ratings EVER! Stop with this same old rhetoric and burecratic mularky! Stop being like your rival Democrats or you will meet the same fate you met in 2006 and 1976: out of power. Start learning from history instead of repeating it.

Friday, November 9, 2007

The "Religious Right" pick sides

Over the past week, some new Republican Presidential endorsements have been appearing from those who have been characterized by the media as "The Religious Right". After recently all the "leading Evangelical Christian" leaders got together to discuss what to do since they didn’t have a candidate to support. Now all of a sudden, 3 have decided that they have a candidate they want to support. Pat Robertson, who had founded or been behind the creation of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), the Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation, and Regent University, Robertson has decided to back former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. American Family Association (AFA) founder Donald E. Wildmon has personally endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee today. There were rumors on the internet that Focus On the Family founder James Dobson would endorse Huckabee as well, but Dobson has denied any endorsement anytime soon of anyone. In the meantime, Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Moral Majority, has thrown his support behind former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney while Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (known for his "core Christian" beliefs).

For months, many "Christian leaders" had been hesitant to endorse any of the Republican candidates. And the typical stereotypical reasons fall inline here: Giuliani isn’t Pro-Life, Romney is a Mormon, McCain has flip flopped on various issues, Thompson is not an ideal or strong candidate, and Huckabee is too good to be true and not well known. But now, everyone is picking "their" candidate. I guess those rumors of supporting a "3rd Party Candidate" are out the window? Maybe, maybe not, especially since Dobson has not officially changed his positon yet. Each endorsement says something unique, because Wildmon now endorse Huckabee since he is gaining ground in polls and Huckabee is a ordained Baptist minister. Brownback choose McCain, both who have "strong" Pro-Life voting records, but also have flip flop on other issues over the years. Weyrich's support of Romney might speak to the fact that Romney has the financial firepower to sustain after getting the nomination, a reflection on Weyrich's background with the Moral Majority. Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is purely a political pick, nothing that has to do with Christian or Moral beliefs (he talked about National Security and the threat of Islamic Terrorism at the official endorsement press conference).

Now we need to see how each endorsement affects how people will vote. I have the feeling that the endorsements help Huckabee and Giuliani, while they hurt McCain and Fred Thompson. Romney is still going to poll well in Iowa and New Hampshire no matter what. Watch for Huckabee to start doing even better in polls, he is my Dark Horse in the Republican race. McCain is trying so hard to gain traction, but it just is not happening, while Thompson has not really excited anyone. So this race is looking like it will develop into a three man contest between Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.

As for Dobson, dont forget what happened back in earlier this year with Fred Thompson.