Video: Huckabee on the vast right-wing almost “conspiracy”

posted at 3:35 pm on January 16, 2008 by Allahpundit

Via the ‘Busters. It’s not quite a conspiracy, he assures us, just a coalescing of power complexes around the mortal threat to their fat-cat status posed by his candidacy. Scratch the surface of any type of identity politics and you’ll find this logic underneath. Usually the supposed conspiracy takes the form of disparate interests falling into uncoordinated alignment against you; occasionally it’s the full cahoots. Huck doesn’t want to go the Ron Paul route by pushing the latter so he keeps his toe on the former. But it’s the same song he was singing before Iowa, until he temporarily suspended it for states like New Hampshire and Michigan where the evangelical base wasn’t as motivated. Now that he’s back on familiar ground in South Carolina, he’s calling it up on the jukebox again.

An interesting poll from Gallup today shows he’s leveled off among the “very religious” at around 30 percent. That’s enough to win a five-man race in South Carolina but not a two- or three-man race on Super Tuesday. How does he build on it? With his economic rhetoric, of course, and also his secret weapon — the likeability factor, an example of which I’m including at the beginning here. He can’t compete with Romney financially but he can beat the hell out of him by going on TV every five minutes and charming the hell out of everyone. To wit:

“Voters really don’t vote on the issues to any significant extent,” said Ken Warren, pollster and political scientist at St. Louis University. “It’s mostly because they don’t know how the candidates differ on the issues. The difference are so subtle, particularly in primaries, that even analysts have a hard time keeping them straight. So (voters) rely on the candidates’ persona instead.”

The confusion created by subtle differences is compounded this year by a crowded field of candidates and a quick-paced primary schedule. That leaves voters to ponder whether they simply like the candidate.

Fred is forever lamenting the fact that the media spends too much time on horse race stuff and not enough on policy, but I wonder if that wouldn’t actually enhance the importance of likeability as some voters (not all, certainly) simply throw up at their hands at trying to digest the fine policy distinctions. The Internet will make it easier to keep track, so maybe that’s more feasible next election.

Another key to likeability? Misrepresenting your more eccentric past pronouncements when challenged on them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Here’s another video of Huck’s statement.

thirteen28 on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM

It’s the PEOPLE versus the POWERFUL!

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Yup, that’s a true-blue Conservative right there!

Igor R. on January 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Yep – there’s a consiracy, it is called, “conservatives
will not support liberals – regardless of what the
liberals may call themselves”.

Onager on January 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM

That “anxiety” Huck speaks of is a not-so-fond reminiscent stank of Jimmy Carter likeness… It’s like skunk – it’s hard to get off and makes you lots of friends.

SkinnerVic on January 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM


…there’s just an anxiety that exists in the Washington power circles about our candidacy.

For what it’s worth Governor, there’s a lot of folks that have anxiety about your candidacy that are nowhere near any type of circles in Washington.

someguy on January 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Exactly what I’ve been saying for months…the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM

If it whines like a Democrat then it must be a Democrat.

SimplyKimberly on January 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Exactly what I’ve been saying for months…the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!

Given Huckabee’s record on illegal immigration, that seems an odd statement.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Exactly what I’ve been saying for months…the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Was this before or after it was against Huck’s soul to deny illegal aliens state-payed benefits.

In a battle between Huck’s new election position and what his soul is telling him, Huck’s soul will win every time. Just ask him.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Exactly what I’ve been saying for months…the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM

How many times do you have to hit the backspace bar to correct what you type, due to laughing uncontrollably at your comedic prose?

Darksean on January 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Exactly what I’ve been saying for months…the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Yes, and nothing places terror in the hearts of the “amnesty crew” like a man who gives tuition breaks to illegal aliens.

amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Yup… a vast right wing conspiracy attacking a liberal from arkansas.

AverageJoe on January 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Oh, what a priceless screencap…

MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Dear Governor Huckabee(nejad),

I simply wanted to thank you SO much from the very bottom of my heart, for making it so that the Democratic Party is no longer the ONLY major American political party that regularly engages in class warfare (..A communist tactic, if I remember my college reading correctly).

I used to be proud of the fact that it was the Democratic Party that always portrayed themselves as the “party of the poor and middle classes” and the “evil Republicans” as the party of the Rich and Powerful.

Thanks to you, poor and middle class Republicans, and economically more successful (or simply lucky) more well-off Republicans, can now proudly claim to be at each other’s throats in classic communistic class struggle. It’s such a WONDERFUL Thing!!

Yours in the evangelical jihad for the white house,

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Yeah he’s from Hope alright. A play right out of the Clinton handbook.

Same as it ever was.

PowWow on January 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM

“South Carolina’s a great place except the way the make a living by growing tobacco. That might hurt me so I’ve gone ahead and pretended like I never really said I wanted to ban smoking across the country. Hopefully, the people of South Carolina will be as ill informed as the people of Iowa and we’ll pull out a win. I plan on mentioning Jesus a lot and playing the class warfare and religious bigotry themes, you know, the usual stuff”

TheBigOldDog on January 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM

…the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Do anything you want to me but please don’t throw me in the Huckleberry patch!
- Plantation Rabbit

MB4 on January 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Yours in the evangelical jihad for the white house,

Just a thought. Could we maybe limit use of the word “jihad” to actual jihadists? Huckabee does tend to over-emphasize his faith, but let’s not overuse that term.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Just a thought. Could we maybe limit use of the word “jihad” to actual jihadists? Huckabee does tend to over-emphasize his faith, but let’s not overuse that term.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Will “crusade” work?

Probably not, it’s not a defensive against Moslem tyranny (oil-renting thugs are our friends!) more than it is religious demagoguery writ large.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Just a thought. Could we maybe limit use of the word “jihad” to actual jihadists? Huckabee does tend to over-emphasize his faith, but let’s not overuse that term.
Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Apologies, cannot comply until Huckabee actually starts BEHAVING and CAMPAIGNING like the disciple of Christ he portrays himself to be. Until he addresses that specific dissonance, my jihad and Huckabee-nejad references continue.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM

the “fat cat” elitist amnesty crew is scared to death of the outsider Huck and will do anything to stop him!
HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Harald:

DING!

Sorry, there’s a difference between FEAR and REVULSION.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 4:01 PM

I despise this man. What a tool to suggest that he’ll do well in S.C. because he’s just like them – he knows how to fry up a squirrel.

melda on January 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Is is just me, or is Huckabee beginning to sound a little like Ron Paul?

Keep it up, Huck!

Dave R. on January 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Fry up a squirrel?

I thought he WAS a squirrel….!!!

(Hmmm…more good nickname fodder.)

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM

I despise this man. What a tool to suggest that he’ll do well in S.C. because he’s just like them – he knows how to fry up a squirrel.

melda on January 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Huckabee employs “liking” far too much as a power and influence strategy. Basically if his “I’m just like you” rhetoric falls apart, so will his power base.

BKennedy on January 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM

After Saturday it could be SECOND LOOK AT MITT!

sonnyspats1 on January 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Because it’s pretty obvious that, there’s gotta be, almost this, I don’t want to use the word conspiracy, but there’s just an anxiety that exists in the Washington power circles about our candidacy.

I don’t see what the problem is. He is simply stating a fact. Many people for very valid (and some not so valid) reasons are doing their best to tear him down.

Many people do not agree with his policies and are rallying against him. Isn’t that how it is supposed work? I can understand going after the guy for his policies. I can’t understand going after him for stating the obvious.

jman on January 16, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Well that was just great. Make the people of SC look like a bunch of fried squirrel and possum belly eatin’ hicks.

Brat on January 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Dave R.

The only similarities between two first names and Huck is that they are both outsider candidates.

The difference is Paul is a weak and terrible candidate while Huck is a strong, moral and principled leader!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM

jman on January 16, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Of course that’s how it works. But what makes this mock-worthy is his “too cute by half” rhetoric (again). He doesn’t want to use the word conspiracy…but he’ll use the word conspiracy.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 4:12 PM

TheBigOldDog on January 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Yeah how does it go? “I don’t want to come off as the guy who fired you but as the guy who works next to you?” Huckabac’s tobacco ban needs to be a focal point in the South.

sonnyspats1 on January 16, 2008 at 4:13 PM

I always thought Tyson Foods was a fat cat. I’m glad Huck didn’t bend over for them by putting a Mexican consulate in Little Rock and charging them a dollar a year lease.

a capella on January 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Huckabee said, to paraphrase, “there’s just so much…anxiety against me in the Washington power circles.”

So, Allah, Bryan, and Hot Air readers, how does it feel to be in the Washington power circle (for once)?

Nessuno on January 16, 2008 at 4:16 PM

“there’s just so much…anxiety against me in the Washington power circles.”

Maybe he’ll cry, like Hildebeest.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 4:20 PM

It’s odd that the elite media turns away in disgust at the thought of such plebeian cuisine while their the one’s injecting their faces full of botulinic toxins.

regal on January 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Of course that’s how it works. But what makes this mock-worthy is his “too cute by half” rhetoric (again). He doesn’t want to use the word conspiracy…but he’ll use the word conspiracy.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 4:12 PM

I do see your point and agree it could have been phrased better.

It just seems like people are nitpicking every syllable the guy utters. Sometimes this makes the discourse seem more suitable for a schoolyard than a political forum. Then again, I admit it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two!

jman on January 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Who watches this damn show anyway?

Oh that’s right.. nobody.

Mcguyver on January 16, 2008 at 4:25 PM

while Huck is a strong, moral and principled leader!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM

I don’t know how, or based on what, Huck got you in his spell, but you are either delusional, or hypnotized by him.

Your rants are not based in fact, given his record. He has a record, similar to Jimmy Carter.

If you base your ‘love’ on his promises, then you could easily get on the “Change/Hope” Obama train, which is also based on…well…not much.

Take it easier on that cool aid.

Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Huck is a strong, moral and principled leader!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Well, your material’s great but you need to work on your delivery.

thejackal on January 16, 2008 at 4:31 PM

I do see your point and agree it could have been phrased better.

It just seems like people are nitpicking every syllable the guy utters.

There’s no nitpicking required here, really. All political candidates face opposition. Huckabee is once again playing the aggrieved and strongly hinting that those who oppose him are working as a sort of anti-Huckabee cabal. In reality, though, opposition to his candidacy is broad-based, but not organized by power elites or anything of the sort – it’s just groups of voters who don’t like his ideas.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM

I liked this so much, that I borrowed it from another Huckabee thread

Liberal candidate checklist.

1. Support sanctuary cities √
2. Have a record of raising taxes. √
3. Deflate your opponents tires on election day √
4. Promise sweeping smoking ban nationwide √
5. Take back your promise of smoking ban due to political expediency √
6. Support in-state tuition for illegal aliens √
7. Oppose school vouchers √
8. Get that all important NEA endorsement √.
9. The pulpit to garner votes from evangelicals √

TheSitRep on January 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM

TSR, with indulgence, I hope,

Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Entelechy on January 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Harald’s just a troll, and not very good at what he does. Don’t worry about him. He claims to be an investment banker from CA with a strong Viking heritage and pure motives, interested only in raising the level of discouse and rounding out political views here. But, he just can’t quite pull it off. Bush league compared to the really good ones.

a capella on January 16, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Fred is forever lamenting the fact that the media spends too much time on horse race stuff and not enough on policy

I just saw Fred on CNN where Wolf was asking him specific questions about the economy. Fred kept repeating, “You need sound financial principles.”

If he gave any non-platitude answers I did not hear them.

EJDolbow on January 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Huckabee is once again playing the aggrieved and strongly hinting that those who oppose him are working as a sort of anti-Huckabee cabal. In reality, though, opposition to his candidacy is broad-based, but not organized by power elites or anything of the sort – it’s just groups of voters who don’t like his ideas.

Slublog on January 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM

We’ll know if he really means it if he hints darkly about a coalition of the devil, Mormons, the Baptist conservative wing, and Shi’ite Republicans. Well, and also the anti-Christians who opposed his tuition break for illegal’s children.

a capella on January 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM

What a capella said. Harald is to be ignored.

You can’t love Huck’s policies and be a member of the GOP at the same time. You can like the man, certainly, but we’re not electing someone based on their personality or religious affiliation or ability to play the bass. We’re electing someone based on their policies, their past and and their promises.

What has Huck done that actually makes him endearing to GOP voters? Inquiring minds want to know. Got an answer, Harald?

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM

I’ll vote of Osama, Obama, Osama before I vote for the Huckster. . . he scare me.

MCPO Airdale on January 16, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Protect gun rights for one.

How about he’s the only strong pro life candidate out there.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Huck looks like the chef in the Campbell’s soup commercials. The one where he’s doing the low sodium thing and uses sea salt.

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalt…

LickyLicky on January 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM

sea*

LickyLicky on January 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM

That’s absurd on it’s very face, Harald.

1) Fred! is the strongest Second Amendment supporter in the GOP field, so that’s not a position that Huckabee has any sort of unique claim to.

2) Fred! has a much more realistic stance on abortion: putting the legality of it back into the hands of each state.

It’s quite simple, really. You cannot outlaw abortion at the Federal level. It’s not going to happen. This country is far too divided on the issue to have it settled in such a neat and simple way. Huckabee’s stance on abortion is not only naive, it’s unattainable. Fred! is a realist and I support him for that very reason.

I despise abortion. I think it’s a cruel and ugly practice. But I cannot force others to believe what I believe. So why is Huck the strong Pro-Life candidate, Harald? To me it seems like he’s merely the least informed on the issue.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

I’m anxious about Huckster’s candidacy, but I’m not in any Washington power circle. I’m in the Arizona desert, and I’d be anxious about any candidate who claims that it’s “un-Christian and un-American” to require a person to show a valid I.D. before voting in a U.S. election. There are 20 million+ illegal aliens living in this country — more than enough to swing any election if they’re allowed to vote — and any candidate who is willing to pander to them should cause great anxiety in every American.

AZCoyote on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

You cannot outlaw abortion at the Federal level.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Actually yes you can! A constitutional amnendment banning both abortion and gay marriage…like Huck proposes.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM

You cannot outlaw abortion at the Federal level.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Actually yes you can! A constitutional amnendment banning both abortion and gay marriage…like Huck proposes.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM

I don’t think he meant it as an impossibility but just as a really bad idea. There’s a lot of things out there that people will say you can’t do, but not in the literal sense.

LickyLicky on January 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Harald, do you know what it takes to amend the constitution?

Honestly, it’s a serious question: do you understand how impossibly difficult it would be to amend the constitution to outlaw abortion?

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM

um, okay…

LickyLicky on January 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM

A constitutional amnendment banning both abortion and gay marriage…like Huck proposes.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM

One more reason to declare Schmuckabee the second-biggest dolt, with RonPaul being #1.

thejackal on January 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Protect gun rights for one.

How about he’s the only strong pro life candidate out there.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM

And, he’s gonna singlehandedly pass a constitutional amendment to bring the Constitution back into line with God’s standards. He’s got it all going, that’s for sure. For a guy who likes literal translations when they suit him, he sure does think the Constitution is a living, flexible document doesn’t he? How’s that national ban on smoking coming? Is that worth an amendment? Or, is he in a tobacco growing state now

a capella on January 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM

My um was for my quote eff up, not for the post about the difficulty changing the constitution proposes. Although I seem to be incorrect in my assumption ofwhat you meant.

My bad. I stand by my assertion that it would be a really, really bad idea and not a complete impossibility, even though that’s not what you meant, Hebrew.

LickyLicky on January 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM

Article Five:

Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and “apply” to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of 2008, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

Once proposed—whether submitted by Congress or by a national convention—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states to take effect.

I only post this, Harald, because I am convinced your understanding of our constitution is terribly lacking.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM

The Huckster’s upset because people are actually looking at the clueless moron’s record and are now thinking having a slimeball Huckabee in the White House isn’t such a good idea.

katieanne on January 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM

My bad. I stand by my assertion that it would be a really, really bad idea and not a complete impossibility, even though that’s not what you meant, Hebrew.

LickyLicky, no you understood what I meant perfectly. It’s NOT impossible to amend our constitution, but it’s absurdly difficult. And it’s definitely not going to happen in an America where a president is elected with ~50% of the vote. We are a far too divided and partisan society to agree on something as serious as abortion.

To think otherwise is absolutely, positively naive. Huckabee would have only eight years from January 2009 to get that amendment. Does anyone really think that the huge number of liberal, social-progressive folks we share this country with are going to buy into CRIMINALIZING abortion?

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM

I don’t think so.

Huckabee will win the presidency and republicans will win a 2/3rds majority! Then we WILL repeal the 16th amendment and pass the fair tax and pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and banning abortion!

Count on it!

Democratic congress has 11% approval rating…time to throw them out!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Wow.

I mean, WOW.

Harald, what country do you live in where you think that, even if liberal Republican Mike Huckabee could beat out a liberal Democrat for the Presidency, that the GOP would capture a two-thirds majority of the legislature?

I swear, pass along a little bit of whatever you’re smoking. It puts the Los Angeles Cannabis Clubs product to shame…

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Voters Democrat voters really don’t vote on the issues to any significant extent

fixed

labrat on January 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Not only that, even if the GOP managed to secure the presidency and a two-thirds majority of the legislature — a humongous “if” to begin with — do you honestly think 38 states would ratify an amendment legalizing abortion?

You’re nuts.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM

do you honestly think 38 states would ratify an amendment legalizing abortion?

This should read “criminalizing abortion,” not legalizing abortion. Obvious mistake, I know, but I had to address it.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Harald,

Dude, I’m gonna have to agree with Hebrew on this one but will do my best to express it neutrally: I think the probability of acheiving a 2/3 majority to repeal the 16th (Income taxes, etc.) is an extreme long shot. Feel free to believe it, but I have my own doubts as to how realistic it is.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Please tell me.. why we can’t get a 2/3rds republican majority again?

Because dem congress has an 11% approval rating?

Because dem congress has done nothing but name post office’s since they got the majority?

Because the dem congress has done nothing but try to force us to lose the global war with islam?

There’s got to be a reason.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Huckleberry’s problem is he has to get people to focus and dream about goal that is very hard to acheive (Fair Tax) in order to keep them from seeing that as Govenor he was a tax raiser to the tune of $.5 Billion. There isn’t any way to run away from that.

Mallard T. Drake on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

It looks like a chicken, clucks like a chicken and walks like a chicken… it must be a RINO.
JUST SAY NO TO REPUBLICAN “JIMMY CARTER” MIKE HUCKSTER!

Go FRED GO!

HotAirExpert on January 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Go home Fred! Go home Fred!

You’re lookin pretty tired and it’s time for bed!

Go home Fred! Go home Fred!

Ron Paul keeps beating you badly now you’re finally dead!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM

One lying Arkansas governor is enough. This guy could set back Christianity 2008 years.

volsense on January 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM

HaraldHardrada:

that was lame

Drunk Report on January 16, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Hey: Talk to me when your guy actually beats Ron Paul for once!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Never take drugs unless you get them from your doctor.

The way things are now, it will be nothing short of miraculous that a Republican is elected in 2008. The biggest problem right now is the rancor over the present Republican prez.

A 2/3 majority? You are hallucinating.

Huckabee? He scares the crap out of anybody who isn’t a certified Jesus Freak. That’s at least 70% of the country. Huckabee is a moron without a prayer of ever seeing the inside of the White House without a tour guide holding his hand.

Constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion and outlawing gay marriage? You really belong in Saudi Arabia.

You are a brainless troll.

thejackal on January 16, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Huckabee? He scares the crap out of anybody who isn’t a certified Jesus Freak. That’s at least 70%30% of the country.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM

I rest my case.

thejackal on January 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Harald, again, even IF we got a two-thirds majority in the legislature, how can you expect 38 states to ratify that amendment?

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion and outlawing gay marriage? You really belong in Saudi Arabia are a brilliant conservative.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Huckabee kiss my Grits!

Chakra Hammer on January 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Please tell me.. why we can’t get a 2/3rds republican majority again? Because dem congress has an 11% approval rating? Because dem congress has done nothing but name post office’s since they got the majority? Because the dem congress has done nothing but try to force us to lose the global war with islam? There’s got to be a reason.
HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM”

Harald, you asked for a reason, I’ll give you a reason.
Please. Read and Learn.

Before I give you that reason, I need to ask you a question: When you mention the 16th, you ARE talking about INCOME TAXES and NOT Abortion, correct? Just looking to confirm.

Because the text of the 16th doesn’t deal with abortion, it deals with Income Taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Lifted from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

OK, now, as for the Fair Tax, which is described as:

“The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.” Lifted from:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Harald, I’m not sure why the decription of the FairTax plan above, in light of the wording of the 16th, requires a 100%, absolute, TOTAL REPEAL as opposed to a simply revision…meaning, an amendment to an amendment. The only part of that text I can see that might need to be amended would be the part about “apportionment among the several states”. Otherwise, whether it’s the Fair Tax plan versus the current collection of federal income, payroll, estate, excise, etc. taxes versus a national federal retail sales tax, Congress would still be the one to “lay and collect taxes”. And since Congress likely wouldn’t be doing the actual collecting, instead of the IRS (which simply enforces federal tax law, they don’t MAKE it, Congress does that) each individual state’s department of revenue would have to do the same thing. I’m not sure what the difference is?

Why would the 16th need to be repealed? To implement Huckabee-nejad’s fair tax plan, all that’s required is a slight change in wording.

There’s a whole OTHER point you’re missing, Harald.
PAYROLL Taxes. Medicare, Medicaid, OASDI (i.e., Social Security). If payroll taxes are taken away, SOMETHING’S got to fund Medicare and Social Security. Correct?

I have yet to see anybody report understandable and defensible numbers as to SPECIFICALLY HOW the fair tax plan would be an effective replacement for the current tax system (as convoluted and F***KED up as it is) in terms of funding:

-The operations of the Federal Government, i.e., what’s called the “Discretionary Budget” of the Federal government, whether Defense, Social service programs, cost of operations, Intelligence, etc. This part is calle discretionary because Congress votes on its spending levels every year.

-The Entitlement programs such as OASDI, Medicare, and Medicaid (called the “Non-Discretionary” Budget) since the receipients of these are ENTITLED and Congress has no right to bump them down, Congress can NOT vote to reduce these. The only thing that can happen is Congress can vote to increase the national debt cap so Treasury can borrow enough money to fund the Entitlement program’s cash needs.

The non-discretionary portion of the Federal Budget is HUMONGOUS. It is, in fact, starting to crowd out the discretionary portion. Federal agencies across the US Government are having their budgets SQUEEZED by the Entitlement programs. TRUST ME, I KNOW because this is the field I WORK IN EVERYDAY.

My point, Harald, is this: If the 16th were repealed, what would cover the entitlements? I’d like to see the federal sales tax percentage required to COVER the rapidly exploding non-discretionary entitlement expenses of the Federal Government as the Baby Boom generation just starts beginning a humongous wave of retirement starting this year.

My main points, Harald, are these, which have NOTHING to do with an 11% congressional approval rating for the current moment in time.

1) I really WANT to see Huck’s numbers. How much in sales tax % am I going to have to pay for my purchases?

2) Any added sales tax discourages consumer spending. The US Economy is HEAVILY dependent on consumer spending and I doubt, politically, that crushing that would fly with a 2/3 majority.

3) What would the impact of the fair tax plan be on covering the entitlement programs, and what impact would that have on our national debt (and the interest we have to pay on it, since we’re barely able to pay that interest alone. Forget about paying back principal. It ain’t even happening NOW, let alone later with the boomers in retirement.

4) With the boomers one of the largest voting blocs in the US, I have a hard time seeing support for 2/3 majority repeal of the 16th yet again, but for a slightly different reason. The first one was about crushing consumer spending and the economy long-term. This is about whether the boomers would be nervous about the survival of the entitlements…and thus THEIR OWN survival.

THAT’S why I have a hard time seeing the 16th getting repealed, Harald. Has NOTHING to do with Congress’ approval rating.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Let’s see, “I don’t want to say conspiracy”, but he just did, I don’t want to release this negative ad, but “I just want to show the press”, which got shown to a way larger audience, “Don’t the Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers”? He was just asking, like that was not planned or am I too cynical? …
When does it end, and when or will Americans see through this nonsense and read where he stands and not listen to his last comic standing routines?

Conservatives R Us on January 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM

I hate that expression “too much information”.

Tzetzes on January 16, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Hey: Talk to me when your guy actually beats Ron Paul for once!

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Fred beat Paul in Iowa and Wyoming.

Rollins and the other Sith lords at Team Huckabee are fast with the cute but disingenuous sound bite. But not even Steve Jobs can maintain his Reality Distortion Field forever. Eventually, the truth comes out.

sulla on January 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Constitutional amendment criminalizing abortion and outlawing gay marriage? You really belong in Saudi Arabia are a brilliant conservative.

Harald, you really are nuts. Neither of those things ought to be outlawed by our Federal Gov’t. Those are issues to be decided on at the state level. The federal gov’t doesn’t issue marriage licenses; states do. And before Roe v. Wade the abortion issue was dealt with by the states as it should always have been.

Why you Huckanuts want constitutional amendments to address these issues is beyond me. How can you call yourselves conservatives if you are calling for an expansion of the reach of the federal gov’t? That’s not conservatism. That’s insanity.

HebrewToYou on January 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Sorry, Tzetzes. He DID happen to ASK!!
There were clearly aspects I think he may have not taken into account.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Fry up a squirrel?

I thought he WAS a squirrel….!!!

(Hmmm…more good nickname fodder.)

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM

I think we should call him the “squirrel-eater”, the Sciurophage.

Tzetzes on January 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Tzetzes,

You mean Huck the squirrel eater? Or me?

I’ve (fortunately) never eaten squirrel. Nor do I ever intend to unless I’m truly starving.

I did have a NEIGHBOR when I was a boy, who ate squirrel.
Then again, his family was originally from West Virginia.
Am NOT kidding about this.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM

To quote Mr. Huckabee’s Good Book (as he likes to so often), “by their fruits” you shall “know them.” Ed Rollins and his ilk are symptomatic of his misplaced religiosity. Huckabee projects his character and logic flaws on other candidates and then tries to aw shucks his way out of the incident. It’s sad his principles and standards cannot stand open scrutiny. He has to hide them behind purported religiosity and homespun “goodness.” He is becoming a republican stereotypical caricature.

Cold Steel on January 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Tzetzes,

You mean Huck the squirrel eater? Or me?

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Huck, of course. Huck the sciurophage. (If he were a metaxohippophage, he would be an eater of silky ponies.)

Tzetzes on January 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM

“metaxohippophage”

Eww. No thanks. Wrong sex and too expensive!

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM

I meant “gender”.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Shirotayama,

Yes! Repeal the 16th amendment!

1. Entitlement programs are covered by fair tax revenue

2. Consumer spending will not be effected under fair tax because you’re not taking into account the lack of an income tax or the lack of embedded taxation of retail products.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Just like Huckleberry, I could bring up all the mother’s basement/get off the library computer cuz others are waiting jokes, but I won’t because I am above that. Less just say, you should listen to your elders, junior about all things conservative and constitutional.

Mallard T. Drake on January 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM

1. Entitlement programs are covered by fair tax revenue
2. Consumer spending will not be effected under fair tax because you’re not taking into account the lack of an income tax or the lack of embedded taxation of retail products.
HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Harald,

I’m gratified you read my explanation. You clearly understood it.

But you also missed a couple of my concerns.

First, OK, so you say the Fair Tax would cover the entitlement programs. But…they’re HUGE. And growing. FAST. They’ve already reached the point where federal agencies want to increase their budgets to invest in improving their operations but CAN’T because Congress (and the Bush Administration) is afraid it won’t have the cash to pay for the operations AND the entitlements.

My point was: To cover all that, I want to see NUMBERS…solid, hard NUMBERS…of just HOW MUCH of a percent of every purchase I’d have to add to my total purchase.

And, I actually disagree with your point about the impact of not having an income tax. I disagree for two reasons:

1. People have a limited monthly budget, usually, when they spend. (At least, if they’re SMART, they do.) And they can’t afford to go over it. Granted, there might not be the bite out of every paycheck in payroll, federal income, and other taxes. The question is, yet again, what are the numbers? Which costs a taxpayer less? I haven’t seen Huck give the people any hard numbers yet and want’em.

Show me the money. I wanna see the math and crunch it for myself.

The point I was trying to make here is that depending on which scenario takes more $$ out of one’s pocket, if it’s the Fair tax, that actually WOULD drive down consumption IF it eats into people’s monthly spending budget.

2. Another really key point: People who make up to or under a certain Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) typically get federal and state tax REFUNDS every year. People don’t often think about how their consumption purchases affect their taxes. For many folks, the two aren’t immediately linked. Under the Fair Tax, it’d be on everybody’s mind every day. People would ALWAYS be thinking about their taxes everytime they make a purchase.

Until reliable numbers come out, it’s hard to make a decision about the Fair Tax, at least for me. Until Huck shows me numbers, and they look reliable, and I can crunch ‘em for myself, for now I have no choice but to consider it all a bunch of Hocus-Pocus.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 9:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2