The Caveman & the Highest Bidder

Anderson Cooper had barely said "Thank you and good luck" before I received a request to comment on the Republican debate. The slugfest was broadcast live from the Reagan Library on CNN Wednesday evening. Much of the feedback focused on a perception of unfairness – well founded if you go by face time – toward Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Indeed, both candidates had to remind the moderator of their presence. Congressman Paul was told patronizingly that he would get his chance to speak and Governor Huckabee received a promise of a "shower of questions" that barely amounted to a tinkle.

If you’re a Huckabee or Paul supporter, the big news of the evening is that while they were not given much time to speak, both proved to be frustrated adults at a playground sand-kicking contest. Neither Romney nor McCain won on points. In fact, neither of them had any real points to make. Too much of the dialogue can be summed up in the "is not...is so" snit between these two examples of why relying on conventional wisdom and establishment talk show hosts is not the smartest way to choose a leader. I found myself wondering if it really matters whether Mitt Romney meant "timetables and milestones" or something different that goes by the same name. I concluded that both the Governor and the Senator were so fully engaged in their disdain for one another that their disdain for you and I came into sharp focus.

What none of the commentators touched on in the post-game wrapup was the undercurrent of McCain's inevitability and Romney's entitlement. If the overt bias toward "front runner" status was frustrating for conservatives watching this debate, the potential of a McCain or Romney presidency on the basis of inevitability or entitlement is downright disturbing. I closed my eyes and reflected on the implications either of these "front-runners" getting the nomination posed.

What McCain's supporters tout as his ability to “reach across the aisle” amounts to an inability to confront difficult issues without simply caving to Democratic sensibilities. McCain's desire to be loved by liberals has often put him at odds with conservative thinkers. Case in point: McCain-Feingold, the speech-control bill supposedly intended to get a handle on the out of control spending in political campaigns. He never spared a breath to remind us that there is too much money in politics and it can be corrupting. His cave to Democratic sensibilities didn't take into account the ability of spoiled rich kids being able to self-fund the purchase of the Oval Office like some kind of leveraged buyout.

As if complying with the law of unintended consequences, McCain-Feingold replaced much of the soft money with unaccountable and often "invisible” 527 groups that can claim support for one candidate while doing the dirty work of another. In this election, Common Sense Issues, Inc. is a perfect example of what McCain's cave to Democratic sensibilities brought us. The head of the group set up the organization as a "Supports Huckabee" third party group, and yet he never personally donated to Huckabee's campaign. Token donations from some known Huckabee supporters formed enough evidence to circumstantially associate Huckabee's campaign with the group. The only donation the group's leader made was $250 to Fred Thompson. The push polling stopped when Thompson left the race, but the damage was already done to Huckabee's effort. Score one for McCain-Feingold.

McCain-Feingold is one of many examples of his "reaching across the aisle". In addition to the McCain Feingold "Repeal the First Amendment Act", he gave us the McCain-Kennedy "Grant Amnesty to Illegals and Then Call Them Citizens Act". Did I mention the McCain-Lieberman "Global Warming is Real and the Only Way to Fix It Is Suppress Economic Progress Act"? It seems all we need to do to get McCain to cave in to liberal interests is buy a hyphen. No doubt there are vehicle bills in the Senate pre-marked as the "McCain-Insert-Democrat-Name-Here Act".

I woke up from my reverie and realized that while it is truly frightening to have this kind of caveman at the helm, it is even more frightening to have a spoiled rich kid succeed in buying the Oval Office. McCain can only do so much damage to the Republic with his liberal alliances. To allow a self-funded and self-important wind-up doll to succeed in buying high office would finally destroy any notion that anyone can aspire to become president. We would have to rewrite all of our second-grade civics lessons... Imagine what that would cost. In a strange way, it seems like the nominating process has descended into some kind of surreal reality show -- Survivor Washington or American Idolatry. I don't think either is anything close to what the Founders intended. However, if they could have anticipated eBay, they probably would have found Mitt Romney's effort to be the highest bidder for an eBay presidency just as disgusting.

This is all the more reason we need to listen to the frustrated adults on the playground. The Caveman and the Highest Bidder are too frightening for this Constitutional Conservative to comprehend.

This is Not a Two Man Race

As the sun was about to set on the primary election in the Sunshine State, a lady called "conservative" talk show host, Sean Hannity seeking his advice on how to vote. She explained that she supported Huckabee and opposed McCain. Like many conservatives, she was not comfortable with McCain because of his frequent alliances with Democrats against his own party. She was not comfortable with Mitt Romney either. Like many conservatives, she was skeptical of Romney's recent conversion to conservative issues and his penchant for nasty campaigning.

False Dichotomy

How to choose between the candidate you believe in and one of two you cannot believe in? Sean Hannity, carrying the water for the GOP establishment, said with finality that it was now a two-man race and Mike Huckabee was no longer relevant. The lady sounded despondent and acknowledged she would have to pass on her candidate of choice and vote for Romney, if for no other reason than to stop McCain. Her choice may have been the right choice, but it was one made based on faulty logic that is disconnected from the dissent and dialogue the Founders intended in the political process by which we select our leaders.

The next morning, all of the local and national "conservative" talk shows, "conservative" columnists and establishment types were wetting themselves because the unthinkable happened: McCain took the Florida GOP primary by a margin far less than the percentage of votes Huckabee and Ron Paul drew away from Mitt Romney. The story line was not that the establishment and their mouthpieces in talk radio pushed a poser candidate on the conservative wing of the party. Instead, it was the Constitutionalist and the Reagan Conservative who were to blame for this "debacle". Never mind that the Florida race was touted as the proving ground for McCain's candidacy. "It's a closed primary," Limbaugh and his clones mphasized, "McCain can't win if only Republicans are allowed to vote!" Unfortunately, talk radio was wrong yet again. Their spin inevitably will be that a lot of Northeastern liberals and senior citizens who live in Florida were behind the McCain victory. That too may be true, but again it skirts the issue of why Romney can't attract enough of the conservative base to build his own coalition -- and that is why this is not a two man race.

Other choices.

Ron Paul's supporters have been able to help him raise enough funds for a successful grassroots operation. However, his views are largely Libertarian and in a Republican field, they can't win more than 6% (if you believe conventional wisdom). In Florida, a state that should have been more "Libertarian friendly", he only earned 3%. What would have happened if Huckabee had raised the kind of funds Ron Paul earned early on? Nobody -- not even the vaunted talk radio drivers of conservative thought -- can say for certain. However, I can't help but believe that more people in the Republican Party can relate to Huckabee's appeal to entrepreneurs, the middle class, and blue collar Reagan Democrats. Huckabee's view that the 10th amendment should lead the federal government to stay out of state issues should be appealing to federalists of the Fred Thompson mold. His view that human life and the institution of the family are worth protecting should appeal to social conservatives, and even the Fair Tax, when given fair consideration should be attractive to people in all income ranges.

I mention Huckabee here because if it is not a two man race and if conservatives can find no authentic comfort level with McCain or Romney, a second look at Mike Huckabee may be well worth the effort. Even after more than $20 million of Mitt Romney's own personal wealth was invested in trashing Huckabee as a liberal, and the investment was supported by Romney's apologists in conservative media, Huckabee remains in the race. The reason is that people were driven to his Website, www.mikehuckabee.com to see just what all the noise was about. That's where anyone can read his Issues Page to see where he actually stands. The establishment must grant that if Romney has been a liberal in the past and we should only believe what he says now, that should be even more the case with Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has been consistent on his core principles. On issues where more detail has evolved, such as his tough immigration policy, his positions have been consistent. Huckabee more resembles the Ronald Reagan that was. Romney represents the repackaged Ronald Reagan of the moneyed establishment.

Emergence of Free-Thought.

As long as voters in the remaining GOP primaries think for themselves, read the candidates' positions and consider the recent record of Mitt Romney -- "almost conservative" only after he began his race for president -- there remains a possibility that Mike Huckabee can become the candidate of choice for truly conservative Republicans. I would only ask that you actually do the due diligence of considering who you believe, and with whom you agree. Then support that person. It may seem simplistic and even naive, but as long as Huckabee is willing to stay in the race and regular people are willing to support him, conservatives will have a voice in this race. Your vote for the candidate you believe in instead of the guy you think will win the nomination is a strategic vote in favor of giving voice to all three legs of the stool that was once the Reagan Coalition.

Are we wise to ignore the conventional wisdom that voting for the guy you believe in will draw votes away from the lesser guy you "could" believe in? I'm the wrong guy to ask that. I have always voted my conscience and committed myself to the principle that merely settling for someone who panders to my issues is unacceptable and un-American. If McCain wins the nomination and if he is far from the ideal choice, I can't be held accountable for his nomination. It is never wise to compromise your principles for strategic reasons -- especially if the people offering the strategic reasons have a hidden agenda. Such is the case with the establishment media. Ron Paul's supporters should consider that truth when it's pointed out that with only 3% of the vote, he cannot influence the outcome. I believe that, but I would ask Ron Paul's supporters to consider instead, whether they can find value in another candidate after giving an honest look at his positions and record. That is essentially what the "conservative" media is asking all of us to do in the case of Mitt Romney. Do so without considering all of the nasty rhetoric and accusations McCain and Romney have hurled at one another and at Huckabee. I trust what you'll find this is not a two-man race. There are at least four choices remaining. It is your decision and you should feel secure in making the choice that best represents your interests.

The Choice is Yours.

I've said my piece. The rest is in your hands. If you agree that the GOP primaries should be decided by voters and not by talk radio hosts and "conservative" columnists in back rooms with a bunch of establishment operatives, I urge you to forward this article to people you know. Ask them to consider the record and positions of the candidates, and vote for the person they want to win and not the person the "conservative" media says can win. Remember: At this stage of the game, if the "conservative" media says it's a two man race, they're really promoting one man -- and he may not be the man you would want to advance.

What Limbaugh "Hates" About Reagan

Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, takes a back seat to no one in his respect for the Reagan legacy. That's why it's surprising that his sharp criticism of Mike Huckabee happens to be on the fronts where Reagan's record is not as conservative as those of us who view him as one of the greatest modern presidents are concerned. Rush hits Governor Huckabee in four key areas near and dear to conservatives of all stripes: taxes, immigration, populism and potential judicial appointments. It is worth a trip down Memory Lane to see how the greatest president of our generation compares to the candidate Limbaugh believes is out to destroy the Reagan Coalition.

Taxes.

Limbaugh criticizes Huckabee for only enacting 94 tax cuts while accepting three tax increases. His information comes in part from the Club for Growth, which was once the go-to organization for fiscal policy analysis. Recently, FEC filing data showed that the Club for Growth has been co-opted by supporters of Mitt Romney who had already maxed out their donations to the former Governor's campaign. CFG's ads critical of Huckabee's tax policy are made possible by more than $585,000 in donations from Romney and his supporters.

Limbaugh is overlooking a few key points about Huckabee's record on taxes. Huckabee, unlike Mitt Romney faced a court order mandating improvements to schools. Having inherited a state in a shambles and burdened by a huge deficit, Huckabee's options were limited and he accepted the tax increase solution the Democrat legislature saddled him with. The second tax increase was voted on by the people of Arkansas. Add to that the third tax, a penny added to the retail sales tax and a gasoline tax and the net increase is probably much less than the nearly half a billion dollars Mitt Romney confiscated from the people of Massachusetts. The rest of the story is that in obeying the court order, Huckabee took the state with schools that were a dismal 49th in the nation under Clinton to 8th in the nation. The gas tax left the state with roads that Trucker Magazine rates among the best in the country. Then he left office, leaving an $800 million dollar surplus with a recommendation that his successor return that to the people of Arkansas. Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative media fail to mention the surplus at all.

By comparison, Ronald Regan was vilified by liberals for his massive tax cuts taking the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. That is an achievement, the fruits of which we still enjoy today. What Limbaugh leaves out of his re-telling of the Reagan tax story is that Ronaldus Magnus also presided over what National Review called the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. The "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, or nearly 1 percent of the gross domestic product [1].

That, of course doesn't make the Gipper a liberal. Nor do Huckabee’s tax cuts, followed by tax increases, make him a liberal. Both left office with their respective charges in better condition than they found them. Both created surpluses where a prior Democrat administration had only left corruption and malaise.

Immigration.

Limbaugh and other conservative commentators take Huckabee to the woodshed over his immigration policy, claiming that he is an open borders advocate who would grant amnesty to the more than 12 million illegals in this country. Their concern is based on a proposal to allow children of illegal aliens who attended Arkansas public schools for their entire K-12 school career to compete for state scholarships -- if they filed for citizenship. Contrary to hysteria of conservative commentators about these scholarships, only thirty children in the whole state would have qualified, U.S. citizens would not have lost their right to compete and most importantly, the proposal was never enacted. Even if it had been enacted, it is not likely illegals would expose themselves by coming forward to participate, since they had to apply for citizenship to qualify.

Huckabee's open borders immigration policy is a bit scary though. In summary he calls for:

• Securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.
• Supporting the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security. This money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers. This money will turn "catch and release" into "catch and detain" of those entering illegally, and crack down on those who overstay their visas.
• Those caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.
• Never allow amnesty. He opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and he opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.
• He opposes and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals. The federal government must crack down on rogue cities that willfully undermine our economy and national security.
• He opposes giving driver's licenses to illegals and supports legislation to prevent states from doing so. In 2005, he signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.
• He will stop punishing cities which try to enforce our laws and protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of their citizens.
• He opposes and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. They must be punished with fines and penalties so large that they will see it is not worth the risk.

OK, so it's scary if you're here illegally. His nine point "Secure America Plan" is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. It is also similar to a plan put forth by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana.

Compare Huckabee's proposed opportunity for thirty students here illegally to compete for scholarships if they come forward and apply for citizenship -- and his immigration policy outlined above with the three million illegals summarily granted amnesty by Ronald Reagan.

In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants, required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to approximately three million illegal immigrants. This should be of at least some consequence to Limbaugh and other conservative leaders (assuming Huckabee's thirty high school students who never got their scholarships are a travesty of justice.

Critics of IRCA felt the law had no teeth and would not stem the tide of illegals. They were right. In granting three million of them amnesty, Reagan gave them quite a head start. Reagan proved to be a compassionate conservative when it came to immigration. Upon signing the law, Reagan said, "The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans." [2]

On balance, comparing Huckabee's immigration policy to Reagan's is like comparing Tom Tancredo's policy with that of Cesar Chavez. OK, maybe not that extreme.

Economic Populism.

Rush Limbaugh is well known to his fans as a perpetual optimist. Where many people see challenge, he sees opportunity. So it is with the economic challenges working class people cope with everyday. Limbaugh has been there. He shares stories of his struggles from time to time, and his story is inspiring -- especially to a starving broadcaster like myself. However, he parts from the Gipper on this subject.

Reagan understood that standing between the working man and his struggle for security is opportunity. Like Limbaugh, he had an infectious optimism that if government roadblocks were removed, ordinary people could do extraordinary things. This, along with his giving support to social conservatives that would become the Republican base, is what made the 1984 landslide possible. We called them Reagan Democrats. Stan Greenberg analyzed voters in Macomb County, Michigan where the population,mostly unionized auto workers, supported Kennedy in 1960 by a margin of 63%. These same people bolted the Democrat party and voted 66% for Reagan in 1984. [3]

Reagan Democrats saw in Reagan, a person who related to and understood their middle class aspirations. The Democratic Party descended into a coalition of grievance groups, and it has remained so ever since. The attraction of working class people to the Republican can-do ideal is not an accident and it should be the norm. What appeals to working class people in Huckabee's "populist" rhetoric is that it lacks the angry revolutionary tone of Pat Buchanan or the angry class envy of John Edwards. Instead, it is one that says Huckabee wants to be able to relate to voters "like the guy you work with on the line rather than the guy who fires you." That bit of humor doesn't do justice to the means by which Huckabee intends to show his concern for those in a soft job market or who are coping with higher fuel and healthcare costs. Get the government out of the way and empower small businesses.

Indeed, while Huckabee may want to relate to the guy you work with, he understands, as does Rush and as did Ronald Reagan, that if we do not empower business, there will be no risk taking, capitalism, expansion -- and jobs -- that benefit us all.

It is understandable that one who has struggled and worked hard to be at the pinnacle of his profession would be offended by populist rhetoric. Nobody in conservative circles has an ear for the language of victimization and class envy. But we all are united in our appreciation for the language of opportunity. It's OK to say you feel someone's pain if what you intend to do about it is empower him to achieve without the crushing weight of government regulation. Such is the "populism" of Mike Huckabee. When his supporters listen to his comments about the economy, they are inspired that together we can do better. When they listen to John Edwards or Pat Buchanan, they just get depressed and go to bed early.

Judicial Appointments.

Limbaugh's criticism of the candidates he considers liberal often includes references to the judicial appointments they're likely to make based on their presumed liberal worldview. Judges are unelected and unaccountable, often serving for the remainder of their natural lives. Conservative commentators have been able to keep social conservatives in line by reminding them of the threat Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat boogeyperson poses to the republic if they are able to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. There is merit in choosing a nominee who is inclined to choose strict constructionist judges for the federal judiciary and for the Supreme Court. Most of the justices on the court now are well into their move to Florida years and it's likely the next president will make more than one appointment.

On this point, one need only look at the liberal tendencies of the pro-gay and pro-choice advocates in the race. Other than Huckabee, all of the candidates have varying degrees of support for the liberal side of the equation. Social conservatives are more likely than their moderate counterparts to recognize the activist role judges have plaid over the years in decisions affecting free speech, government sponsored discrimination, gun rights and the death penalty. Pro-life conservatives also see the ultimate in judicial activism in the form of Roe v. Wade, our generation's version of the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Two thirds of Reagan's successful Supreme Court appointments resulted in liberal or at best, moderate jurisprudence. The worst of the justices appointed by conservative presidents is Anthony Kennedy, who has baffled constitutional scholars and conservative commentators alike by finding precedents in European law. Kennedy's record on abortion is mixed, and leans heavily in favor or Roe. He has been on the liberal side of cases involving Gay Rights, and has been a reliable vote in opposition to capital punishment. [4]

Some critics believe Sandra Day O'Connor was something of a judicial shape-shifter, making seemingly arbitrary decisions and changing her principles according to political expediency. Notable cases Rush probably would not support was the ruling that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Conservatives recognize McCain's effort at suppressing free speech in political campaigns as the "Incumbent Protection Act". In two 2003 cases, O'Connor held that the University of Michigan undergraduate program had engaged in "unconstitutional reverse discrimination", but upheld the university's Law School affirmative action program as constitutional. [5]

While Supreme Court appointments can be controversial, the confusion of muddled lawmaking from the bench often makes matters worse. Each decision is carefully researched and published, but laypeople only know the outcome as it affects them. As long as you discriminate in a specific limited fashion, it's OK. As long as you abort the baby by a certain date, it's OK. Reverse discrimination is OK some of the time but not others, and affirmative action is OK all of the time, but not others.

The Reagan legacy is proof that even the most conservative president can expect no guarantee of strict constructionist jurisprudence. Part of the process is selecting judges that will make it through the Senate confirmation process. Reagan learned with Bork and Ginsberg that compromise is sometimes necessary. Unfortunately, in the case of the judiciary, two of three Supreme Court justices served to muddy the waters or worse, advance the cause of liberalism. Huckabee, like most of the other candidates promises to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution as the founders -- and amenders -- intended.

There is so much to celebrate about the life and legacy of Ronaldus Magnus. His was a presidency more about what we love and value than what we hate or fear. Nevertheless, if we take Rush Limbaugh at his word, based on his criticism of Mike Huckabee, there are some things he hates about Ronald Reagan. If he took an honest look at Huckabee's record and his positions on the issues, he may be reminded more of what he loved about Reagan and what it is Governor Huckabee's supporters love about him.



References:

[1] Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. (2007, November 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:15, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982&oldid=174375848

[2] Ronald Reagan. (2008, January 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:18, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=185125734

[3] Reagan Democrat. (2008, January 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:23, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reagan_Democrat&oldid=183473106

[4] Anthony Kennedy. (2008, January 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:37, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&oldid=182827691

[5] Sandra Day O'Connor. (2008, January 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:41, January 19, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Day_O%27Connor&oldid=184734913

A Word From Our Moderator

I have received a few comments on this blog, for which I am very grateful. However, some of them have been "rejected" -- I hate that term -- because they would be a distraction from what this blog is intended to accomplish. Help us out by following these guidelines:

• Be brief. Comments that are longer than the original article are rejected.
• Be focused. Stick to one topic only.
• Be fair. Opposing views are welcome -- we'll even try to respond -- but personal attacks, campaign or organization talking points, etc. must be rejected.
• Be honest. If you support a given candidate or group, please identify your "loyalties" so readers have some perspective.

On that note, guests should know QuiverDaddy is committed to supporting parental rights, freedom of thought and to providing support and encouragement for fathers who have a "full quiver".

Because there have been and will continue to be several politically oriented posts on this blog, in fairness, I should disclose that I support Mike Huckabee for president. If you're confused about why a pro-family guy who supports lower taxes, the second amendment and secure borders would stand behind this candidate, please visit www.mikehuckabee.com and click on the "Issues" tab.

If you feel it is important that you have a voice in supporting a different candidate, feel free to post on their blogs, or better yet, start one of your own at www.blogger.com.

Why Romney Is So Pursuasive

Political campaigning meets Brave New World: The Rominator 2008.

Be afraid....

If you've wondered what was going on under that perfectly coiffed hair, a confidential informant from the Romney campaign has revealed the secret to his candidate's ability to rapidly change positions according to the audience he is speaking to: The Rominator 2008.

Scientists working for one of his many far flung global companies tested the
prototype just after Romney tossed his hat into the ring, according to the
source who spoke on condition of anonymity. The source explained that a team of
researchers enters demographic information and opinion polls from each stop
Romney will make on the campaign trail the next day. After a few hours under
the Rominator 2008, the robo-candidate is programmed to perfectly articulate
what the best research money can buy says those voters want to hear.

Hans Mittengrabben, a senior engineer for the project discounted claims that the
Rominator 2008 is a deceptive campaign tool. "On the contrary," Mittengrabben
said, how will voters know he is the right candidate if he does not adjust his
position according to the appropriate metrics of the moment?"

A group of Ron Paul supporters has sought an injunction against further use of
the device claiming it infringes on their patent rights. Iman Utjob, head of the
group said the device was taken from their compound in the dark of night by
commandos dressed in business suits. The commandos made their escape in
helicopters of an unknown design before Mr. Utjob and his aids could recover the
device, Utjob told the source.

Once the existence of the Rominator 2008 was discovered, we felt an obligation
to inform voting Republicans everywhere of the source of Romney's ability to
convince people he is actually a conservative. However, our editors are
skeptical as story was filed by our tepid reporter, QuiverDaddy, who has a
reputation for adapting facts to fancy and calling whatever comes out,
"commentary."

The real story: Linked from Drudge.

Tax Hike Mike? Not the Biggest Hiker on the Trail....

I’ve done some research on the various candidate sites, Wikipedia, CFG and so forth and I have to say, I’m not comfortable with Romney at all.

I could go into his recent policy changes on key issues of interest to social conservatives, or the image retooling that seems to occur between states or the fact that he has the crass notion that he can simply buy the White House with chump change left over from some leveraged buyout. We've heard all those arguments before, and as I've observed the campaign, they're valid concerns. Then there's the sleaze factor in the way he has bought off high powered organizations at great expense (more than 585,000 that can be accounted for so far) to trash the other candidates and you may have all the reason in the world to oppose a candidate. However, this is politics and merely being a phoney with deep pockets and no conscience doesn't necessarily make a guy stand out.

The conservative media has been critical of another candidate, Mike Huckabee, for tax increases he made as Governor of Arkansas that were not completely offset by his tax cuts, leaving a net $500 million extracted from the taxpayers’ pockets. The tax charge is what it is — Governors, especially those who preside over Democratic states, are likely to raise taxes. Huckabee and Romney were both governors of heavily Democratic states and they both raised taxes.

The “Rest of the Story” is that using the same figures from CFG, on a “per year in office” basis, Romney’s tax increases were actually 70% higher than Huckabee’s. Romney's "higher" tax bite may be even higher; when Huckabee left office, he also left an $800 million surplus which could be used to offset the tax increases. It doesn’t take a brilliant economist to catch such inconsistencies in any campaign, but in a campaign that is all about taxes and the economy, one has to wonder why Mitt’s handlers didn’t at least break out a pocket calculator before writing his attack ads.


How it all works out:

Mike Huckabee is charged with increasing taxes by a net of $500 million over 10 1/2 years. That is an average of $47,619,048 per year.

By contrast, Romney's net $325 million over four years comes to $81,250,000. This also does not take into account any surplus he may have left.


Here's the Apples-to-Apples:

"Tax Hike Mike" -- $47.62 Million
"True Conservative Mitt" -- $81.25 Million

So the true conservative raised taxes 70% more per year in less than half the time in office than the ultra-liberal tax hiking Huck.

Even when considering the difference per capita, the amount Arkansans paid over what Masachussetts citizens paid was $2.00 per year! That’s less than the tax increase Arkansas voters approved — which was factored into the “Huckabee” tax increases.

Here's the real shocker. Romney only served four years in office. Technically less, since he started running for president during his tenure as governor. Remember the charge that Huckabee's net tax increases were about $500 million? at $81.25 million a year, Romney's tax bite could have been as much as $853.13 million if he had been able to get re-elected and spend 10 1/2 years in office. That's $353 million he saved the people of Masachussetts by quiting his job early to run for president -- proof that he is indeed a fiscal conservative.

So in addition to the sleaze factor, his ideological viscosity, his cynical drive to do a "Leveraged Buyout" of the White House and all the other reasons his opponents give for opposing him, Mitt Romney's opponents can now add, "he's a tax and spend liberal who raised taxes even more than Mike Huckabee!" to their mantra.

Of course, before I hit the "Send" button, the establishment media will have Mitt's latest talking points up debunking this "myth".

Push Polling Controversy

Tony Silva

As with everything I blog, the notes below are my opinion only and not associated with any campaign or organization.

With all the controversy over push polling in South Carolina, I decided to do some research to see who is really behind it. The person who heads Common Sense Issues, Inc., the organization doing the polling bragged about sending over 1,000,000 calls into South Carolina on NPR claiming that he was doing it on behalf of presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee.

Since these guys normally operate in the shadows, I thought it was kind of screwy that Huckabee would allow "his" surrogates to go on the national media and brag about doing something unethical.... So I did what seemed the Common Sense thing to do about this Issue: I looked into the organization's FEC reports and the donations of the guy who runs their operation.

What I Discovered:

• Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney and the conservative media have been attributing push polling to Huckabee’s campaign
• FEC Records show Common Sense Issues, Inc. supports Huckabee and opposes Romney and have expended funds for Huckabee
• FEC Records also show the head of the push polling operation has supported Fred Thompson financially but not Huckabee
• The head of the push polling operation is bragging about it in the media and stating it is on Huckabee’s behalf in spite of the campaign’s repeated requests that they stop

Where I found It:

• Patrick Davis brags about 1,000,000 push polling calls into S.C. for Huckabee: Click Here
• Common Sense Issues, Inc. FEC Expenditure Report: Click Here
• Patrick Davis Consulting, LLC Google Search: Click Here
• Patrick Davis’ FEC Donations: Click Here

What It Means:

Push polling tends to hurt the guy it's attributed to more than the guy to whom it's targeted. In this case, the people involved in this dispicable operation are going out of their way to attribute it to their "support" of Mike Huckabee.

The only one to benefit from the push polling that took place in South Carolina is Fred Thompson. I don't hold him responsible -- his donors can do whatever they want in the era of McCain-Findgold. However, I do think Fred Thompson should follow Mike Huckabee's lead and disavow his supporter's practice of push polling in South Carolina and for the rest of the campaign -- and stop attributing this activity to an opponent's campaign.

Common Sense Issues, Inc. has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in their effort to "support" Mike Huckabee. Maybe conservative Republicans should donate as much as they are able to the Huckabee campaign to counter -- and expose -- this nasty group

God Forbid...

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has done it again. He always seems to come up with the line that grabs the headlines and sends the Commentocracy into apoplexy when a little thought might be healing salve for their Christophobic tendencies.

This time, the former governor of Arkansas gave them something to think about, which they failed to do before they launched into talking about it:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it‘s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the Living God and that‘s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so, it‘s God‘s standards rather than try to change God‘s standards so it lines with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat our family.

Almost instantly, the blogosphere was flooded with liberal cries that The Huck intended to rewrite the Constitution to comport with the Bible. A new epithet was invented for the purpose, "TheoCon", and the usual fretting and gnashing of teeth about church & state wasn't far behind. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", emphasizing that he has not endorsed a candidate, and tried to explain the comment in light of our nation's historical Judeo-Christian heritage. Dan Abrams and Lawrence O'Donnell were having none of it.

The problem with this kind of rhetoric in our era of civic ignorance is that the ignorati themselves refuse to avail themselves of historical documents that might shed light on Huckabee's position. Tony Perkin's attempt at putting it into language even liberal Commentocrats can understand proved to be futile. Stupid old smelly documents in the Smithsonian were probably the source of Huckabee's TheoCon rantings, right? Well... sort of. Thanks to AlGore, I didn't have to get a bus ticket to Washington so I could visit the Smithsonian. The musty old document I needed is available by Googling, "Declaration of Independence". The text we were looking for wasn't hard to find. It's right at the beginning:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wow! Those old dead white guys really had a way with words. For the full treatment, visit the Declaration of Independence article on Wikipedia. The short version is that the Declaration was influenced by the writings of British philosopher, John Locke. The signers and the framers of our Constitution understood that there is a law that is higher than the positive law that enables human governments, called "Natural Law". The higher law comes from a higher authority, identified in the Declaration as "nature and nature's God", leaving the character of the Deity ambiguous, I believe for a reason. Natural Law is the foundation of British Common Law, and both can probably be traced all the way back to the ancient lawgivers, among them a guy named Moses.

When The Huck is suggesting that we should amend our constitution to match God's standards, he may be engaging in a colossal case of poorly chosen rhetoric, but essentially the concept is not only "Constitutional" -- why We the People choose to amend our Constitution matters less than the process -- it is also consistent with the original thinking of those original thinkers who framed our founding documents: If the governing bodies enact laws or write judicial opinions that violate Natural Law, our Constitution has a healing provision tucked away in Article Five.

The Bill of Rights amounts to a manifesto of natural rights, and it was amended to the Constitution to win ratification. Many of the amendments since also deal with rights which are not enumerated in the original text, but which their proponents thought important enough to enshrine there. The 13th through 15th amendments come to mind.

Far from a TheoCon, Mike Huckabee is an original thinker at best; at worst he's an original thinker who sometimes speaks in the language of the pulpit when he's communicating the ideas of the political prophets of our nation's founding. Should his advocacy of a Constitutional amendment protecting the natural rights of the unborn disqualify him from the presidency? God forbid!