For a candidate for President to get my support and vote he has to proof himself to me, not the other way around.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Apples and oranges, my friend. I concur that a candidate must prove that he/she is fit to be our next President, but I also stand by my statement that if no direct proof can be offered to prove Huckabee was directly involved in this push poll then the man must be considered to be innocent. To believe otherwise would be as silly as believing in man made AlGorbal Warming while the Martian polar caps melt, or as henious as believing Murtha’s speech on the House floor when he convicted our Heroes in the Haditha case. In this instance there is no bloody glove … yet.

That’s true, but I have less of a problem with them than Huckabee and I’ll tell you why. Government shouldn’t be about morality; I’m a Christian, I have a strong faith in God, but it’s not government to decide what a good cause is, and Huckabee, to me, seems as someone who doesn’t have a problem with that. From his defence of school opportunities for kids of illegals, to his not completely intellectualy honest defence of his raising of taxes (the people voted for it! I just agreed!), he just oozes moral justification.

I don’t want that in a President; I think that is part of the problem with President Bush. From more money to all sorts of causes, to prescription drugs, to being soft on illegals, it all stems from one thing – he wants to be perceived as being ‘moral’ or ‘good’ or ‘compassionate’.

That’s better exercised by private individuals than government, IMHO. Romney and Giuliani, although liberal in some areas, have had to deal with criticism over them, whereas any challenge to Huckabee leads to a denial that there’s anything to discuss. Scholarships for illegal kids? ‘It’s moral, I have to do what my soul tells me!’ The parole of a rapist while I was governor? ‘I didn’t have a hand in it, Guy Tucker reduced the sentence!’, even though parole board records show he interceded personally to secure the parole and several board members said they changed their vote after his intercession!

I don’t like that type of denial; it’s very disingenuous and makes me incredibly suspicious. Giuliani may be saying more of the ‘right’ things and Romney to, and in that is a tacit acknowledgement that some of the things they supported in the past don’t sit well with the GOP and they are willing to revisit them. That’s hard to do when a person won’t even admit that there might be a disconnect; this to me is one of Huckabee’s biggest flaws.

As someone mentioned, Bennett is spot on; War, Immigration, Taxes. Giuliani is great on the first, good on the last, and says the right things about the middle one, whereas I see Huckabee as weak on two and three. Plus, he can’t win. Purple America will not vote for a Baptist minister with some cute soundbites who has liberal tendencies.

This is not to say I’m pimping Giuliani; I do have some things to come to terms with him. I just think in the general calculus of what is important, I find Giuliani in key areas less alarming than Huckabee. Remember, we’ve got things like the estate tax and expiring cuts to worry about.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Thanks. It seems to me that these issues could be satisfactorily addressed, but I understand your point about it leaving room for opponents to bash it.

For the record, I do not like Huckabee at all, but I do like the Fair Tax a lot.

The “30%” was a mistake, and should read “23%”. I had started to make a different point to begin the post, deleted it, and somehow my number from that got left in. Oops! Also, keep in mind that the “transition” can be quite long, depending how fluid peoples’ assets are (i.e. how long it takes them to spend what they’ve earned) and how long it takes the economy to adjust. To answer your last question, the Fair Tax would specifically eliminate many of the taxes that occur upon withdrawal from tax deferred accounts and such, but as far as I know, there’s no provision for determining what you earned before and after the new tax law takes force. That means that it really applies to your whole life savings, even if there may be some compensating effects from the repeal of other taxes. The Fair Tax people count on these compensating effects when they sell their plan, but there’s really a lot of uncertainty and fudging of numbers there. I’m not saying it can’t be fixed somehow, or even that it all won’t work out in the end, just like the Fair Taxers say, but it’s a point that makes the politics of the issue very sticky, and provides ample space for somebody to bash its supporters.

Sorry, I just saw your correction of 30 to 23, but the other questions still stand.

Mitt will faithfully disavow opponents rights of reason. See a president scoff at your existence in order to excuse his own. NO THANKS.
maverick muse on December 4, 2007 at 9:00 AM

What the hell are you talking about? This is how Mitt Romney was raised:

George also enforced his belief that his Mormon children had to be integrated into the world and respect people of different backgrounds. Cortella remembers his Roman Catholic mother’s being apprehensive about sending her son into the bosom of a Mormon family — until the first Sunday he spent at the Romneys’ house. “It was about 11 o’clock in the morning,” Cortella says. “Mr. Romney said, ‘You come with me.’ He took me to the Catholic church not far from the house. He said, ‘From now on, every Sunday you will come to this church,’ and he was getting mad if I was not going.” In an even starker example of the senior Romney’s live-and-let-live policy, Cortella says the Romneys allowed him to smoke cigarettes in his room.

I can’t find a link to the full article even at Newsweek, but it’s from Newsweek’s October 8th cover story entitled A Mormon’s Journey/The Making of Mitt Romney by Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller.

Big S on December 4, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification about this being during the transition only. Where are you getting the 30% number on income saved? Does this affect one’s “life savings” like cash in money market funds and CDs, or just money saved in the year prior to the transition?

Re the Fair Tax – what are you talking about? What double taxation? Can you extrapolate on this further?

Buy Danish on December 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM

It’s just during the transition between the current system and the Fair Tax. Any money you make now is subject to income tax, and if you put it in the bank, and the Fair Tax gets passed, you’ll pay another 30% when you take it out and spend it. It amounts to a 23% or so tax increase on income saved prior to the enactment of the new tax law. The Fair Taxers will tell you that this will be balanced out by the drop in “hidden” costs built in to the price of goods under the current, but that really depends on the situation and requires that a fair number of assumptions be made about how the economy will adjust. Overall, it’ll be difficult to convince people who’ve been saving up for something to vote for a 23% “retroactive” tax on past saved income, even if the Fair Tax gurus claim that there’s no proble. The only hope the Fair tax has of gaining widespread support is if people think the transition will be easy; it won’t so the Fair Tax, as structured now, will not be able to pass.

LOL

Note Well:
Mitt will faithfully disavow opponents rights of reason. See a president scoff at your existence in order to excuse his own. NO THANKS.

Witness Hillary’s vulnerability, despite her political clout. Witness the history of dirty politicking by a front-man Obama–getting a court to BREAK SEALED DOCUMENTS on an opponent’s divorce in order to scandalize, yet barely winning his seat, and not accomplishing anything of merit. Besides his plastic allegiance determined by political polls, Mitt has his own very real vulnerability on the single issue that he vaults his own invulnerability, using family life to create his own eternal pyramid scheme granting no rights to those outside of his camp. Huckabee’s record of high taxation to buy BFFE PORK and pay for illegal aliens by cutting citizens’ scholarships and social benefits will prevent his election.

Vote consistent conservative platform if indeed that is what you want. Get past gloss.

…as a Mormon temple recommend holder, he knows that by official Mormon revelation with the Mormon god speaking directly with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et.al., in order to live with the Mormon god, everyone MUST be a polygamist (escape clause following the Manifesto–be polygamous ASAP). Note well THE SHAM: every Mormon temple recommend holder is dishonest and self-righteous for claiming to be COMPLETELY HONEST IN EVERY DETAIL OF LIFE. Speech? DOUBLE-SPEAK served on a silver platter.
maverick muse on December 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Malicious Muse, You have a lot of freaking nerve talking about “honesty” and “double-speak”. I’d like to write you off as being a garden variety nut, but this screed proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re no charming eccentric.

Big S on December 3, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Re the Fair Tax – what are you talking about? What double taxation? Can you extrapolate on this further?

Show proof of Huckabee’s culpability or it did not happen.

DannoJyd on December 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Tis is not like in a court of law.

For a candidate for President to get my support and vote he has to proof himself to me, not the other way around.

Trust Huckabee?

Yes I do at this time, and for those new to American law, we in America consider a person to be innocent until proven guilty. Our Heroes in the Haditha/Murtha blame game know this to be true just as they know that political expedience can screw up even that fundamental American right.

Show proof of Huckabee’s culpability or it did not happen.

When so many Republicans think so little of the recent front runners that they are willing to stampede to an obvious shyster.

Well put. Wish I had thought of that.

–A Texan

When so many Republicans think so little of the recent front runners that they are willing to stampede to an obvious shyster.

The only chance that Republicans may have is for Hillary to be the democrat nominee, but even that huge advantage may well not be enough.

If either Obama or Edwards is the nominee, forgetaboutit.

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 7:17 PM

For that to happen, you’d have to change the debate format to something similar to Fred’s proposed one-on-ones. The current format doesn’t really allow fo anything other than canned soundbites.

The best ways to learn about the FairTax are by reading the self-titled book, or by clicking here. I’d urge everyone to at least give it a read before believing the hate.

Most of the explanations I’ve heard have been along the lines of “don’t worry, it’ll all work out in the end.” It very well may, but you’ll have a hard time convincing enough people that it will in order to take the chance of voting for it. That’s why I see supporting it as Huck’s biggest mistake-Rudy or Romney, who know a thing or two about financial matters, could really bash him with this if it came down to it. Any details that Huck could offer would employ a lot of speculation, as well as a whole lot of tax lingo (if he could even pull that off.)

I don’t trust Huckabee in my gut, and I believe Hillary would beat him.

thareb on December 3, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Probably about like Reagan beat Jimmy I.