McCain's record has so many lapses of judgement in it that it's easy to forget them all. Mark Levin has an excellent article at NRO which provides the details of all of those betrayals.
Somehow the Gang of 14 idiocy that McCain brokered slipped my mind...
If Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chafee were septuagenarians who had spent 5 1/2 years in a POW camp, would we forget all of the terrible positions they had and support either of them as the nominee of our party?
Does being tortured by a North Vietnamese Commie trump any rational analysis of his record?
ARC: St Wendeler
Friday, January 11, 2008
McCain's record has so many lapses of judgement in it that it's easy to forget them all. Mark Levin has an excellent article at NRO which provides the details of all of those betrayals.
This article in London's Financial Times must've come as a shock to the Left, who all ridiculously claim that there is no Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security problem - and then proceed to recommend nationalization of the healthcare system. Well, it looks like the future healthcare obligations of our current system could pose a real danger to us and the world economy:
US's triple-A credit rating 'under threat'The new face and motto of the Democratic Party:
By Francesco Guerrera, Aline van Duyn and Daniel Pimlott,in New York
Published: January 11 2008 02:00 | Last updated: January 11 2008 02:00
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody's, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating - granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 - reflects growing concerns over the country's ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.
It could also put further pressure on candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties to sharpen their focus on healthcare and pensions [aka social security] in the run-up to November's presidential election.
Most analysts expect future administrations to deal with the costs of healthcare and social security and there is no reflection of any long-term concern about the US's financial health in the value of its debt.
But Moody's warning comes at a time when US confidence in its economic prowess has been challenged by the rising threat of a recession, a weak dollar and the credit crunch.
In its annual report on the US, Moody's signaled increased concern that rapid rises in Medicare and Medicaid - the government-funded healthcare programmes for the old and the poor - would "cause major fiscal pressures" in years to come.
Unlike Moody's previous assessment of US government debt in 2005, yesterday's report specifically links rises in healthcare and social security spending to the credit rating.
"The combination of the medical programmes and social security is the most important threat to the triple-A rating over the long term," it said.
Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the US, told the Financial Times that in order to protect the country's top rating, future administrations would have to rein in healthcare and social security costs.
"If no policy changes are made, in 10 years from now we would have to look very seriously at whether the US is still a triple-A credit," he said.
Mr Hess said any downgrade in the US rating would have serious consequences for the global economy. "The US rating is the anchor of the world's financial system. If you have a downgrade, you have a problem," he said.
Moody's did once threaten to cut the rating of some of the US Treasury's debt when Congress refused to pass the president's budget in the mid-1990s. Other large economies, notably Japan in the 1990s, have had to suffer the symbolic blow of losing their top-notch credit rating.
Last year, David Walker, comptroller general of the US, caused controversy when he compared America's current situation with the dying days of the Roman empire and warned the country was on "a burning platform" of unsustainable policies.
Medicare and Medicaid spending, which has risen sharply over the past few decades and now accounts for about 45 per cent of total federal spending, up from about 25 per cent in 1975, has long been a source of concern.
Last month, Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, which advises Congress on the federal budget, said the issue was "the central fiscal challenge" facing the US.
Most presidential candidates have vowed to reform the healthcare system but many of them, especially on the Democratic side, have focused on extending coverage to the 40m-plus uninsured Americans rather than on cutting costs
ARC: St Wendeler
Jane "Blackface" Hamsher provides this excellent bit regarding Identity Politics and why Larry O'Donnell is an idiot. Why is it excellent?
Stupidest Thing Said This Campaign Season
By: Jane Hamsher Friday January 11, 2008 8:48 am
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Stupidest thing anyone has said this campaign season goes to Lawrence O'Donnell:[...]
If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.
A couple of points worth making (though I'm sure there will be many more):
5. The ugly identity politics on display here is a prime example of the place that nobody -- especially liberals -- wants to go. The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose. It is, abjectly, the stupidest thing that can happen in this campaign season.
Well, that's just great... O'Donnell is an idiot, of course. But, Jane is an even bigger idiot. Lemme break out my own "couple of points worth making" regarding Jane's post:
- It's a good thing that Jane "Blackface" Hamsher hasn't been involved in "ugly identity politics." Oh, wait.
- I'm going to keep this little post in case Obama is the Democratic nominee and remind Blackface of it when she claims that John/Mitt/Rudy/Fred/Mike are standing in the way of a black man becoming president.
Ed Morrissey provides better analysis here, without the hypocrisy.
ARC: St Wendeler
It seems that Human Events has joined the Thompson Surge - perhaps in reaction to the endorsement of Another Rovian Conspiracy?
Human Events provides excellent analysis of each candidate and their positions:
HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred ThompsonBy the way, I was on the phone with Brian yesterday during the debate when Wendell Goler addressed the immigration question to McCain. I told Brian that the first candidate who correctly referred to McCain's plan as the McCain-Kennedy plan would win the nomination.
by Human Events
The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.
We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.
To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a war hero whose personal courage sustained many of the men imprisoned with him in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” We honor him, but he does not honor many conservative principles. His co-authorship of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation last summer ran directly against our principles of American sovereignty and national security. His position has not been ameliorated by his more recent explanations of border-security measures he might support. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his support for economy-strangling measures to control “global warming” and his anti-torture legislation (which didn’t make torture illegal, it already was: McCain’s law only made a clear law vague to the point of unenforceability) all cut against the conservative grain. And so did his McCain-Feingold campaign finance law with its stifling of political free speech.
No one even jumped on it. Sorry, but this is politics 101 in the GOP. If your opponents main legislative accomplishment in the past year involved teaming up with Ted Kennedy (especially if that legislation is rejected not only by large parts of the GOP, but by the nation as a whole), you'd better point that out at every opportunity. And, when it's your opponents major weakness, you would think that all of the candidates and their political consultants would've prepped for that.
I was disappointed by the rest of the field that they didn't do that.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a charming and agreeable gentleman. But his support for the economically disastrous “cap-and-trade” fix for global warming is as bad as Sen. McCain’s position on the issue. The so-called “fair tax” he supports is unworkable. His tax-and-spend policies do not comport with conservative principles, but they do align all too well with Huckabee’s populist rhetoric on the injustice of corporate CEO salaries. His stance on granting special benefits to the children of illegal aliens is also very troubling. On the war, Gov. Huckabee’s understanding of the issues does not impress us. For example, he wants to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move the detainees there into U.S. prisons, which -- as Sen. Thompson schooled him on in a recent debate -- would result in the grant of constitutional rights to terrorist detainees even though they are enemy combatants. Gov. Huckabee’s grasp of foreign policy does not make us comfortable.
Rep. Ron Paul’s limited-government rhetoric is appealing to many conservatives, but his unyielding isolationism that might have been appropriate for another era is not realistic. He would withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences and then pull American forces out of every other country as well. He does not believe, as we do, that America must win the war against the terrorist-sponsoring nations. We find intolerable his repeated statements that we were attacked on 9/11 because we had a presence in the Middle East. That implies that we were, in whole or in part, to blame for the attacks.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did an admirable job bringing his city through the crisis of 9/11. Even before that terrible day, he did a commendable job cleaning up Gotham. But the mayor’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights social views are more liberal than conservative. And his foreign policy views are of considerable concern. His article in Foreign Affairs late last year seemed less conservative than neo-Wilsonian. Giuliani also said in the June 5, 2007, debate, “We need to look at nation-building as part of what we need to teach our military.” No, Mr. Mayor. We don’t.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a closer call. We believe his relatively new pro-life position is a sincere one, but examining his record and listening to his campaign rhetoric indicate to us that he is more a problem-solver than a gut conservative. His “RomneyCare” legislation made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to impose an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face significant penalties. And we have concerns about the big-government approach he took as governor, raising state “fees,” according to the Cato Institute, by $500 million and proposing two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year.
Which brings us back to Sen. Fred Thompson.
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.
In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
The question now is whether Sen. Thompson will do what he has not yet done: Take the advantages he is given by his intelligence, his principles, his political skills and this endorsement and make the best use of them.
This is the question, isn't it? If you'll recall from National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney (covered here), their main issue with Thompson wasn't any of his political positions, his resume, etc. - it was his approach to the campaign.
Now, the rest of the endorsement:
As the primaries and debates speed by, we would like to see Sen. Thompson continue to invigorate his campaign to carry him successfully through Tsunami Tuesday and to nomination at the Republican convention.We saw flashes of Thompson's abilities last night and it certainly had an effect on Frank Luntz's focus group. However, while Thompson may have won the debate, it remains to be seen whether voters will be willing to move to a candidate who hasn't done particularly well in the first two contests. Frankly, I think all of the GOP candidates could stay in until Super Tuesday, but Thompson needs a strong showing in South Carolina.
Sen. Thompson, you suffer, like most conservatives, from the built-in problem of not being a professional politician. It’s precisely as Rush Limbaugh said of you: “The problem with Thompson is, and a little bit with me, is I’m a depth guy. I like depth. Television doesn’t reward depth. Television rewards zingers, one-liners, cutesyisms. Fred Thompson produced a brilliant 17-minute video that was on YouTube that explains everything about every issue that he cares about. It’s clear he’s thought deeply about a whole lot.”
In the next week, you have the opportunity to connect with the conservatives in South Carolina who will be eager to hear your message. We were encouraged when you told Iowans, “I think I know how to talk to the American people about the [Democrats] and the danger their victory would pose to the principles we hold dear.” Now is the time you have to do it.
Mayor Giuliani has offered a dozen proposals to American voters. We know, perhaps better than most, what yours are. For example, your stand on reforming the entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation is courageous and workable. You need to spell those ideas out for everyone in the plainspoken terms that connect with your core conservative constituents. We’ve publicized a list of the 10 most important issues to conservatives, ranging from illegal immigration to tax reform. You need to speak out forcefully on each of them.
We agree with Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of your December 30 video speech to Iowa voters. More speeches like that one and an ad campaign demonstrating the Reaganesque inspiring optimism we know you have could create a momentum in South Carolina that would carry far beyond its borders.
Tell us how you -- rather than your opponents -- would be better able to beat either New York Sen. Hillary Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the fall. You told the Iowans you were, but you need to tell us all now. Why you, and not Mitt or Mike or Rudy or John? Preview your fall campaign by attacking the centers of liberalism as you did in Iowa, and connect each one of them to the liberals you’ll be running against.
As you said, the Democrats are all liberals. It may not matter which candidate you run against, because they’re all a bunch of MoveOn.org-CodePink-ACLU clones.
We believe that politicians, like the rest of us, can make their own luck. In that regard, we wish you a productive and successful primary season.
—The Editors of Human Events
Dan Riehl provides analysis as well... Frankly, I'm looking forward to the brokered convention. For years we've talked about how conventions don't matter and they're simply a coming out party for the candidates... well, it is possible that the GOP convention this year could have a lot of substance.
ARC: St Wendeler
Thursday, January 10, 2008
To further cement my endorsement of Fred Dalton Thompson, I'm supporting this blogburst for Fred.:
BLOGBURST FOR FRED: MAN THE OARS AND START PULLING
Fred Thompson’s campaign is once again at a critical juncture and again I am showing my support for the candidate of my choice by organizing a Blogburst in hopes that we can raise the funds necessary for Fred’s campaign to be competitive.
This time, it’s South Carolina where Fred is staking all in hopes of a breakthrough victory. A clinical analysis of the GOP race for President shows that it is still anyone’s ballgame. Rasmussen’s most recent 4 day rolling average has Fred in 4th at 12%, ahead of Giuliani and just 9 points out of the lead held by Mike Huckabee at 22%.
But Thompson desperately needs to win in South Carolina in order to continue to be a viable candidate. And there are several factors at play in the Palmetto State that makes a Thompson win a realistic goal:
1. Romney has dropped out of the running in SC, having pulled his ads and is transferring staff in order to ambush John McCain in Michigan.
2. That leaves only three candidates with a realistic shot at winning in SC; Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson. Amazingly, none of the three candidates will have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to financing. This levels the playing field considerably.
3. SC voters have made it clear that opposition to illegal immigration is one of the top issues in the state. Looking at the three candidates above, who do you think has the most consistent, conservative record on immigration?
4. Outside factors may play a role in the dynamics of the race. McCain may very well be grievously wounded by a Romney win in Michigan – a state he won in 2000. There would be little time for McCain to right himself following a loss there what with the SC primary 4 days later.
In short, a Thompson win in SC is not only possible but within reach – if Fred has the money for media buys to get his message to the people.
I realize that many bloggers who support Fred have been hitting their readers hard for donations recently – especially since Fred’s campaign has set as a goal raising $540,000 by tomorrow in order to finance his ad campaign. As of Thursday morning, the effort has realized $420,000 towards that goal.
My hope is that once again, speaking with one voice and calling on our readers to dig deep, we can duplicate our success from December’s blogburst, putting Fred way over the top and give the campaign a rocket powered boost into South Carolina and beyond.
Rick makes an excellent point. I'll be donating using the button below.
Memo to Fred - The next time you're in a debate, even if being laid back is your style, try to be a bit more engaged. You've got a great message and you're the one to deliver it. Use those acting skills!
ARC: St Wendeler
In today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove outlines in "Why Hillary Won", a pretty good analysis of how Hillary was able to bounce back from her Iowa defeat and re-invigorate her campaign. One piece particularly jumped out at me, as its something I've been saying for a while now
Third, the Clintons began -- at first not very artfully -- to raise questions about the fitness for the Oval Office of a first-term senator with no real accomplishments or experience.As I've outlined to co-conspirators before, Obama is simply the man that fit the suit. He's just another Johnny Bravo.
Former President Bill Clinton hit a nerve by drawing attention to Mr. Obama's conflicting statements on Iraq. There's more -- and more powerful -- material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.
For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another. He won't escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won't cut it.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
I read this Mark Steyn article over at the New York Sun and have to say that I agree:
You Feelin' Hucky?I commented to several co-conspirators a week or so ago that Huck would be great in the debates and would run circles around whoever the Dem nominee is. But, as Steyn points out, the problem is when he starts to govern.
BY MARK STEYN
January 7, 2008
Confronted by Preacher Huckabee standing astride the Iowa caucus smirking, "Are you feelin' Hucky, punk?" many of my conservative pals are inclined to respond, "Shoot me now."
But, if that seems a little dramatic, let's try and rustle up an alternative. In response to the evangelical tide from the west, New Hampshire primary voters have figured, "Any old crusty, cranky, craggy coot in a storm," and re-embraced John McCain. After all, Granite State conservatism is not known for its religious fervor: it prefers small government, low taxes, minimal regulation, the freedom to be left alone by the state. So they're voting for a guy who opposed the Bush tax cuts, and imposed on the nation the most explicit restriction in political speech in years. Better yet, after a freezing first week of January and the snowiest December in a century, New Hampshire conservatives are googoo for a fellow who believes in the scariest of global-warming scenarios and all the big-government solutions necessary to avert them.
Well, okay, maybe we can rustle up an alternative to the alternative. Rudy Giuliani's team are betting than after a Huck/McCain seesaw through the early states, by January 29th Florida voters will be ready to unite their party behind a less divisive figure, if by "less divisive figure" you mean a pro-abortion gun-grabbing cross-dresser. I can't see things playing out quite like that. The principal rationale for Rudy's candidacy is that he's the national-security toughie who can beat Hillary. But it's hard to conclude after Iowa that this is shaping up as a Code Orange election. And, as for Senator Clinton, her Thursday night third-place was the nearest Bill and Hill have come to a Ceausescu balcony moment. In a world where even John Edwards can beat Hillary, who needs Rudy?
Way back a gazillion years ago, when Mrs. Clinton was first exploring the exploration of exploring the possibility of an exploratory committee, some wily GOPers were suggesting the Republicans trump her history-making first-woman-President card by drafting Condi Rice. It turns out we dead white males on the right-wing were worrying unnecessarily: The Democrats trumped themselves. Liberal voters want desperately to cast a history-making vote and, if that's your priority, Barack Obama is a much more appealing way to cast it than Hillary. Don't worry about this "Change You Can Believe In" shtick. He doesn't believe in it, and neither should you. He's a fresh face on the same-old-same-old — which is the only change Democrats are looking for.
As for Huckabee, the thinking on the right is that the mainstream media are boosting him up because he's the Republican who'll be easiest to beat. It's undoubtedly true that they see him as the designated pushover, but in that they're wrong. If Iowa's choice becomes the nation's and it's Huckabee vs Obama this November, I'd bet on Huck. As governor, as preacher and even as discjockey, he's spent his entire life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience and he's very good at it. His gag on "The Tonight Show" — "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off" — had a kind of brilliance: True, it is, at one level, cornball (imagine John Edwards doing it with all his smarmy sanctimoniousness) but it also devastatingly cuts to the nub of the difference between him and Romney. It's a disc-jockey line: the morning man on the radio is a guy doing a tricky job — he's a celebrity trying to pass himself off as a regular joe — which is pretty much what the presidential candidate has to do, too. Huckabee's good at that.
I don't know whether the Jay Leno shtick was written for him by a professional, but, if so, by the time it came out of his mouth it sounded like him. When Huck's campaign honcho, Ed Rollins, revealed the other day that he wanted to punch Romney in the teeth, Mitt had a good comeback: "I have just one thing to say to Mr. Rollins," he began. "Please, don't touch the hair." Funny line — but it sounds like a line, like something written by a professional and then put in his mouth.
This is the Huckabee advantage. On stage, he's quick-witted and thinks on his feet. He's not paralyzed by consultants and trimmers and triangulators. Put him in a Presidential debate and he'll have sharper ripostes and funnier throwaways and more plausible self-deprecating quips than anyone on the other side. He'll be a great campaigner. The problems begin when he stops campaigning and starts governing.
In The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan observed of Huck that, "his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture."
She's right. It's not the economy, stupid. The economy's fine. It's gangbusters. Indeed, despite John Edwards' dinner-theatre Dickens routine about coatless girls shivering through the night because daddy's been laid off at the mill, the sub-text of both Democrat and Republican messages is essentially that this country is so rich it can afford to be stupid — it can afford to pork up the federal budget; it can afford to put middle-class families on government health care; it can afford to surrender its borders.
There is a potentially huge segment of the population that thinks homo economicus is missing the point. They're tired of the artificial and, indeed, creepily coercive secular multiculti pseudo-religion imposed on American grade schools. I'm sympathetic to this pitch myself. Unlike Miss Noonan, I think it's actually connected to the jihad, in the sense that radical Islamism is an opportunist enemy which has arisen in the wake of the western world's one-way multiculturalism. In the long run, the relativist mush peddled in our grade schools is a national security threat. But, even in the short term, it's a form of child abuse that cuts off America's next generation from the glories of their inheritance.
Where I part company with Huck's supporters is in believing he's any kind of solution. He's friendlier to the teachers' unions than any other so-called "cultural conservative" — which is why in New Hampshire he's the first Republican to be endorsed by the NEA. His healthcare pitch is Attack Of The Fifty Foot Nanny, beginning with his nationwide smoking ban. This is, as Jonah Goldberg put it, compassionate conservatism on steroids — big paternalistic government that can only enervate even further "our culture." So Iowa chose to reward, on the Democrat side, a proponent of the conventional secular left, and, on the Republican side, a proponent of a new Christian left. If that's the choice, this is going to be a long election year.
I don't doubt Huck's nanny-state inclinations and this is one of my biggest concerns with his candidacy, second only to his apparent reticence towards free trade. Why is an understanding of free trade a key issue for me? Because opposition to free trade not only would be a death knell for our economy, but also because is indicative of a larger tendency to think that the government is obliged to reduce or eliminate change.
How different is it for the Protectionist to enact legislation that favors the continued production of a product that is lacking (in terms quality, innovative features, or price) when compared to a competing foreign product (purely based on nationality, race, geography, language, domestic politics, etc) than it is for the Environmentalist to attempt to hold the current temperature globally (through a reduction in human or economic activity)?
In both cases, there is a misconception that the current state of the economy or the temperature is the perfect state and that it's the government's role to freeze us in that state.
Does Huckabee really think that layoffs are unnecessary? That businesses should not cut costs if they're seeing red on the balance sheet or if they see an opportunity for improved profitability through some new innovative business practice? Does he really think that people should remain in their jobs, regardless of the economic realities? (Should all of the mortgage brokers who are no longer needed thanks to the credit crunch still be sitting at their desk, waiting for the phones to ring?)
Certainly, Huck is no John Edwards (or Obama or Hillary) when it comes to being anti-business and anti-free trade. But hearing softer, but similar, rhetoric from a Republican candidate is alarming. I just hope that his rhetoric is purely used for tactical primary politics and won't result in actual government policy.
I suppose that I would support Huckabee over any Dem that is nominated, primarily because of the larger problems that a Democratic presidency would present. By the way, I did like Huckabee when he took over for Jim Guy Tucker (and was 100lbs heavier). Hopefully, the time between the nomination process and the election could be used to limit some of Huck's Nanny State tendencies.
If Huckabee does get the nomination, the likely result would be a very vocal Conservative/Libertarian faction within the Republican party that may threaten to create a separate party. Huckabee's election could make the Republican party into an American version of the Lib-Dems in the UK.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the US electoral system, it would be difficult for the factions to remain separate for very long.
ARC: St Wendeler
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
It looks like Hillary!TM has eeked this one out. I'm currently watching Obama give his
victory concession speech and all I can think is how poorly Hillary!'s speech is going to be.
Why is Obama doing so well? Is it because of his policies? No - I don't think many of his supporters really know the true impact of his policies... But, I notice that his continuously uses"We" in his speeches, which is so distinct from any speech the Clintons with their incessant use of "I... I... I..."
I have no idea why my 2008 predictions had Hillary!TM winning the nomination. All signals that I saw throughout the last year pointed to the fact that she is simply a terrible candidate. She's not Fred Thompson bad, but she's bad.
Remember her not signing the dollar bill?
Remember her ridiculous response on illegal immigration during the debate?
It is possible for Hillary!TM to move on and eventually win the nomination. I only hope that she and Obama (and even Edwards) slug it out for as long as possible - depleting precious resources in the process and burning Democratic political bridges.
One thing I know for sure is that we're going to see Hillary!TM cry her way through the remaining primaries.... Heck, we could even see Johnnie-boy or Romney start tearing up when they're questioned about how they do their hairi.
Of course, it was just the Diebold machines. (Everyone knows that the Vast Rovian Conspiracy is now backing Hillary, right?)
ARC: St Wendeler