Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Mike Huckabee - The veil lifted part two



"Then I'll get on my knees and pray, we don't get fooled again." The Who

I was writing an entry on what was wrong with the GOP and my post turned into a post about Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls, so I thought it was befitting to issue a warning about a man skilled in the public debate arena but deficient in what it takes to be president of the free world. (Note: I have included several links. If you right click on these links (links are in red) and click open in new window, you can read more material on Huckabee without leaving my post. Spread the word about Huckabee.)

I have recently posted on Huckabee’s penchant for raising taxes in his own state of Arkansas but that is just the tip of the iceberg. When you roll back the veil even further, we get even a more frightening picture of this man. Huckabee would take us into the direction of the failed polices of Jimmy Carter. Huckabee represents the Howard Dean of the GOP. I just hope he crashes and burns in the same way Dean did.

If the GOP nominates Mike Huckabee, it would be a grave mistake. Besides being unelectable in a general election, I am forced to ask the question - can we afford to elect someone who is pro-life but lacks the qualifications for anything else? The New Hampshire affiliate of the National Teacher Association, (NEA) recently came out in support of Huckabee. This in itself should be a red flag to all conservatives. The NEA, a far-left organization, is very territorial and does not support anyone who would upset the NEA’s agenda. The NEA has never in its history supported a GOP candidate, and for good reason. The NEA supports Huckabee because he supports much of the NEA’s agenda such as its opposition on school choice. Huckabee is not only bad for America, but he would set the conservative movement back thirty years.

Huckabee is toeing the liberal line in more ways than one. Just this week, he publicly stated Bush's foreign policy was arrogant and he denounced the administration for its "go-it-alone-attitude arrogant bunker mentality.” Do we want our presidential candidate decrying the arrogance of the Bush administration? We all know that Bush has made mistakes, but how is this supposed to garner him the party’s nomination? He has come out and said America needs to change its “tone.” Huckabee talks about the same “Kumbaya” diplomacy of the Democrats. He believes we can talk rationally with terrorist governments. Huckabee recently stated to the Des Moines Register, "You treat others the way you'd like to be treated; to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries." I am sure Ahmadinejad will be glad to hear that, this type of diplomacy only serves to give Iran and other terrorist groups time to plot the demise of the West. It seems that Huckabee wants to snuggle up with Hugo Chavez with the likes of Cindy Sheehan. Huckabee sounds more like Hillary Clinton when Hillary refers to Bush’s foreign policy as “Cowboy diplomacy.” Huckabee says we need to change our tone with the rest of the world while he feigns ignorance on the new governments of Sarkozy’s France, Markel’s Germany, and Harper’s Canada. All three of these governments have come out in support of the USA.

When applying for a job, a prospective employee is always taught not to lie or exaggerate on a resumé. Huckabee did just that. In his response on why he is the best one for the war on terror, Huckabee said:

"I'm as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well."


I believe we are in a religious war, but does one need a theology degree to understand that? Political correctness has driven us to see Islam as a religion of peace. In any event, that is not the crux of the issue. Huckabee said he had a theology degree and “woops!” Guess what? He doesn’t. Apparently, his religious studies amount to one year. Huckabee is not running for president of the religious right, he is running for president for all Americans. Most of America would not even understand what he meant by saying a theology degree makes him more qualified to understand the war on terror. His ignorance on what it takes to run for president does not stop there.

When I was in High School, I would frequently get into trouble with my other siblings, and on occasion before I would receive my well-deserved punishment, I would ask my father with lachrymose eyes, “Why am I getting in trouble?” and my dad would respond, “Because you don’t know when to keep your mouth shut.” I am finding this same trait in Huckabee. He just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut. In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Huckabee says to journalist Holley Bailey, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to start evaluating other religions.” But it didn’t seem to bother Huckabee when he asked the New York Times, “Don’t Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers?” If this isn’t evaluating Mormonism, not sure what is. For a political candidate, this question would only be asked by a neophyte in the political game. Even if this were a part of Mormon doctrine, the public discourse would be taken down a theological pathway that most Americans could care less about or that most Americans would not understand. There was such a backlash from this statement that Huckabee had only one recourse, he had to apologize. This only begs the question – Is Huckabee really qualified to be president? And then there are the flip-flops,,,

I am all for a candidate changing his mind. Reagan changed his mind on abortion. Timing, however, is everything. If it appears that a candidate is changing his mind for political expediency instead of his true convictions then I have a problem. Maxwell Smart, agent 86 of “Get Smart” fame when foiled by a plot by the evil organization "Kaos" would say, “It’s the old switcharoo trick. That‘s the second time I fell for it this month.” The switcharoo trick is better known in today’s vernacular as the flip-flop. Well, how many times are we going to fall for “The old switcharoo trick?” before we realize this guy’s rhetoric is too good to be true.

Switcharoo #1 – Cuba.

When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he came out against the trade embargo against Cuba. He said it was bad for business. As presidential candidate, he has changed his mind. Now that he has seen his poll numbers surge, and wanting to maintain his momentum, he has come out in favor of the trade embargo since he needs to garner the Cuban vote. The Associate Press quoted Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee when he criticized Huckabee for "changing his stance on Cuba on a dime to appeal to a particular group of people right before an election,"

Switcharoo #2 – immigration.

Again in his home state of Arkansas, two Years ago, Huckabee voted for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Huckabee was always viewed as soft on immigration. He was in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. Now when polls indicate that 70% of Americans want control of our borders and illegal immigration stopped, Huckabee has come out hard on immigration releasing a nine point hard-line plan on immigration. This should give you pause irrespective of whether you or for or against illegal immigration.

Switcharoo #3 – abortion.

Huckabee has always been pro-life. But, if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would return to the states. That is what the current debate is about. The legality of abortion resided with the states before Roe v. Wade, and that is where it would return. The ideal would be to completely outlaw it, but in order to do that you would need to pass a constitutional amendment, and as a practical matter, that will never happen, (At least not in the current political environment.) If I am wrong, someone can point that out to me. When Huckabee was talking to John Hawkins a conservative essayist, Huckabee stated that the legality of abortion should not be settled at the national level, it should be left up to the states. This is an exact quote which was on Huckabee’s website until recently. Why? You ask. Huckabee now says that such a deep moral issue should not be left up to the states. He now claims that he always believed in a federal ban on abortions.

As the saying going, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Apparently, Kerry does not have a lock on the flip-flop.

Rich Lowry, a conservative journalist, states the problem with regards to Huckabee this way:

Huckabee has been running his campaign out of his back pocket, and has done it extremely well. There's a reason, though, that serious candidates surround themselves with policy experts. It's necessary to running a campaign based on more than sound bites. Wherever you scratch Huckabee on policy, he seems an inch deep. Do Republicans really want to enter what is already a tough political year with a candidate apparently allergic to preparation, and who has shown no predilection for organizing or fundraising, when he can do cable TV appearances instead?


In an interview with Huckabee, newsweek makes the following observation:

Over the years, Huckabee made plenty of enemies, not all of them Democrats. Small-government Republicans in Arkansas, who fought the governor, over immigration, education spending and taxes, have long complained that he is really a closet welfare-liberal. he has all but declared war on big-business Republicans, believing that tax cuts and unfettered free markets have made the rich richer at the expense of ordinary Americans.


This shows a complete ignorance of how the economy works.

Californians feel the same unease with Arnold Schwarznegger (alias Schwarzenkennedy) about their governor. The number of Republicans who would consider Schwarznkennedy a Republican, you can fit inside a small room.

Our little Christian pastor seems to have also entangled himself with the Arkansas ethics committee. The Arkansas ethics committe has sanctioned or fined him five times for improperly taking cash, expensive clothing and other gifts from friends and contributors among other charges.

It should be obvious to all conservatives that when the veil is finally lifted from Mike Huckabee, the real man behind the rhetoric is revealed. Huckabee is a liberal in sheep’s clothing. He is a rhino, (Republican in name only) of the worst degree. I just hope conservatives in their quest to find a candidate who is socially conservative will understand who this man really is. He is not who they are looking for. Mike Huckabee is a liberal, tax-and-spend fledling who will change his views according to which way the wind blows. His qualifications for being the conservative Commander in Chief we need are nil. Be forewarned!

Note: Huckabee's nine-point immigration plan was lifted from the pages of National Review. He does attribute it, but what does that say about a candidate who can't even come up with his own plan. I wonder if he has even read it.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

And the Winner Is... August 5th GOP debate



Whose idea was it to have a GOP debate at 8:00 AM in the morning? - And on a Sunday morning. Doesn't anyone know Republicans go to church? There must have been a total of two people watching it, maybe three. I was one of them. In fact, I woke up exactly at 8:00 AM; I turned over, grabbed the remote and turned on the television. My wife didn’t even wake up – so that was good, because she would have told me to turn it off. I am sure, in the next few days, we will hear various sound bytes from the debate, and most people will say “What debate?”

Was it just my impression that the GOP debate doesn’t come off as quite as silly as the Democratic debate. I mean we saw no Snowman talking about global warming, and no crazed lunatic with an AK-47. I actually thought George Stephanopoulos did a good job moderating. ABC only showed three videos in the entire debate as opposed to all the half-witted questions posed by the Youtubers in the Democratic debate. I was very disappointed my question was not posed which had made the first cut on i-caught. But I guess when the network only shows three videos, chances are slim they will choose yours.

I digress. So, why is global warming such a hot (no pun intended) topic with the Democrats and not a hot topic with Republicans (it wasn’t even mentioned.) The reason is this – Global warming is a fraud. Here is the question I posed which made it in ABC's first cut.



Some other frauds which have been perpetrated, and have been found out to be frauds from the Democratic side of the aisle

Paul Ehrlich – The population bomb http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul-ehrlich/

Global Cooling - http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

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

I would add to the list evolution, but I won’t. I will stop with the few I mentioned.

Back to the debate -

I understand the American people want change. Change to me is returning to our conservative principles. Bush was never and has never been a true conservative albeit he is better than anything the Democrats have ever had to offer. When you watch the Democratic debate and then the Republican debate, is there any question that the Republicans would continue to grow the economy and continue the war on terror? The Democrats talk about raising taxes and withdrawing from Iraq, (a defeatist approach). They have yet to take “Economics 101” to see why raising taxes stifles growth (they should just make a trip to Europe), and the Democrats also fail to understand that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, the enemy would look at it as a victory, and such a perceived defeat would only embolden radical Islam. As Guliani pointed out, the Democrats don’t even mention “Islamic terrorism.” I will feel much safer with the Republicans in power.

And what is that guy with the first two names again Paul Ron, Ron Paul still doing on the podium. He talks like a Democrat, and he must have used the word neocon about 100 times. Have you ever noticed that when sites such as the drudge report create a poll asking who won the GOP debate, Ron Paul is always the winner http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 . As of this writing, he has over 17,000 votes on the Drudge Report with Mitt Romney second at under 3000 votes.. It happened in the last debate on KSFO’s Melanie Morgan’s website too. I can say that Ron Paul has one thing going for him. He has a loyal following that just sits at the computer all day and votes for him. I think Ron Paul’s disciples need a life.

I don’t think abortion is going to be much of an issue this go round, but I do think Mitt Romney needs to get a better answer. I thought Brownback and Romney were going to have a fist fight over Romney’s change of position on the issue of abortion. Romney didn’t defend his position very well, and later in the debate, he said he felt the one area he thought he made a mistake was when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, he was pro-choice. It left me the impression that he was always pro-life, but he only changed his position for political reasons. I wonder if anyone else had the same impression.

Tancredo actually wanted to blow up Mecca and Medina. All I can say is this – if we didn’t have the entire Muslim world gunning for us now, we would after we blew up the two most holiest shrines in the Muslim world. And that came from a candidate other than Ron Paul. I thought Ron Paul was the only wacko up there – I guess not.

When Thompson was done speaking about breast cancer, it sounded like his entire family had it. If that is true, it is definitely a tragedy, but when he then said he would cure breast cancer by 2010, he just sounded like an idiot.

Last week, Obama handed Hillary the Democratic nomination when he said he would withdraw from Iraq, talk to our enemies and invade our allies, which means he would invade another sovereign nation. I thought invading sovereign nations was anathema to the Democrats. I wasn’t sure at first if Guliani agreed with Obama, but he sure didn’t make it clear. Mitt Romney was able to explain why Obama’s position was just plain ridiculous. Will Obama lose his star power now? Will he get booed by the Daily Kos? One can only wait and see.

Why is it that in every other presidential election, I knew who I was going to vote for from the start and why. But, with this current crop of candidates, it is still a tossup. McCain is not even a blip on my screen. Guliani is the one I am looking at albeit somewhat reluctantly. He is also the one I thought who won the debate.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The GOP debate May 15 - if I may opine

So, who got to watch the GOP debate last night? I think, there should have been at least ten more people to add to the ten they already had. Then, maybe it could have been like a church social. Every candidate should have been required to wear a “My name is _____” tag. - You know those tags you are suppose to wear at church. I am a political junkie, but I swear, I didn’t know half the guys up there. I mean who was that guy with two first names, Ron Paul or Paul Ron – Geez!

Now everyone knows that President Reagan was the greatest president of our time. But, I think we should make these debates a little less boring by making them into a game. Ok – ready, anyone who invokes the name of Reagan will automatically have to sit down. By the end of the game, I would bet five would be the only ones left standing.

For those people who no one knows, those impecunious characters that have trouble raising enough money to stay in the race for more than a week after the initial primaries, need to get their names out with a one line zinger that will be in the newspapers the following day. Of course, I am not talking about Ron Paul who blamed 9/11 on the U.S. for our policies in the Middle East. Yes, everyone will know who he is, but at the same time, we will wonder if he got his talking points on some conspiracy website or from Rosie O’Donnell. He is the one person that if nominated, I would consider Hillary Clinton. The diatribe from Ron Paul did, however, give a great opening to Gulinani when he rebuked Ron Paul, asking him for an apology at the same time. And, the fight is on…..

Guliani must have listened to the press from his last debate. He needed to talk less about abortion and more about 9/11; Ron Paul gave him this one.

Tom Tacredo said we need a Jack Baur – good one. Romney said, “My fear is that McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold has done to campaign finance and money in politics, and that’s bad." – Nice. Huckabee said “we’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” when asked about taxes and spending. John McCain used the same drunken sailor line he used in the first debate – Time for new material. Ok, one of the candidates (I can’t remember the name) said that there are as many scientists who believe global warming is not caused by human intervention as scientists who do. Finally – someone is challenging the global warming myth. It’s about time since it is quite popular. Even the left got to most of the Republicans on this one.

McCain was McCain. He defended his Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill stating the Fort Dix six were here illegally on visas. Didn’t anyone tell him that at least two of them came from the Mexico-Texas border? He defended his no-torture policy, and he said we need to reach out to our friends. Did anyone tell him about the change in presidency in France with Sarkozy who has stated he wants to be our friend in spite of our differences, or with pro-American Angela Markel in Germany? There is the new conservative party leader Stephen Harper in Canada. When confronted with his anti-Republican issues like the McCain-Feingold bill on finance reform (which gave rise to the corrupt George Soros), he said, “I don’t intend to block things.” You are telling me – even if it means lying in bed with the most liberal of Democrats. Not, in my wildest dreams would I vote for McCain.

The more I learn about Mitt Romney, the more I like him. I think Giuliani would make a good president. Before 9/11, I would automatically exclude a candidate if he were not pro-life, but that issue has been somewhat pushed aside for security. It is said that Giuliani is the only one who could beat Hillary. Of course, we need someone who can beat Hillary, but Hillary has been making so many guffaws lately – it might turn out similar to the Sarkozy-Royal elections in France I want to hear more about Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson responded to Michael Moore http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611 regarding his challenge to a health care debate when Thompson wrote an op-ed about Moore’s trip to Cuba. We may be in for a good surprise from Thompson. NBC said they do not expect Thompson on Law and Order next season. http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/9940.html . There must be a reason.

Is it too much to ask for a candidate whose first priority is the Security of the United States including the Security of the borders without amnesty, a candidate who believes in reigning in spending, understanding that tax cuts grow the economy, knowing that all life is valuable beginning at conception, and that global warming is just a ploy for more government intervention.

Well, that’s my take….
 
Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member