Huckabee 2012

Conservatives are disappointed. Our guy lost.

However, we don't give up but rather begin our efforts to work harder for the next election. 4 years is a short amount of time but the damage that could be done if the leftist president Obama has a full 8 years, could be insurmountable.

Liberals found a Jimmy Carter. Conservatives must find a new Ronald Regan to defeat him in four years. Personally I believe Mike is our best bet. He's much weightier than Sarah Palin and will have a broader appeal. I tried to get excited about Palin and as a strong supporter of Mike in the primaries, Sarah was pretty close to what I wanted. However, she doesn't have the gravitas that Mike has and Mike is much more thoughtful and perceptive.

Since the 2008 race is over and done, I've made a new blog called: President Huckabee 2012. I hope you'll visit there and see what's going on in the future of the races for president.

Graphic Design Site

I'm not updating this blog anymore since Mike Huckabee isn't running for president this year. For all your graphic design and web design needs, check out this graphic and web design site.

Morning Media

it's so cool to see Mike still talking to America!

read more | digg story

Thank You - Mike Huckabee thanks his faithful supports

Governor Mike Huckabee address to his friends on the official website:God has been so good to us! We can never fully express our gratitude for all you have done and how you have touched and blessed our lives... I promise to you that I gave it all I had to the last minute and left it "all on the field."REFLECT, REST, RENEW, and RE-BOOT!

read more | digg story

Conceding for '08

Huckabee concedes the race.

By now most of us have expected that this was inevitable. I'm still as proud of him as the day I chose to support him. Governor Huckabee is an admirable man who ran a good race and who brought conservative principles to the forefront of American Politics.

America said no. At least for now.

But look at the past to see the future. America said "no" to McCain the first time (or two maybe?) that he ran. Perhaps America will say "no" to John McCain in November. And of course the first time Reagan ran, he was told no too. Maybe next time when Obama or Hillary are in the White House, Huckabee will have a much better chance. His name recognition will be much higher and his ability to raise funds and gain traction will be much higher.

Now brace for four years of liberalism--whether it's from McCain or Obama or Clinton--and then a Huckabee will be a breath of fresh air!

Reporting from RI

Let’s face it – Rhode Island is a very small state. It ain’t Texas. In fact, the Dallas-Forth Worth area is probably bigger than all of Rhode Island. On top of that, it is a very “blue” state. Republicans are as rare as hen’s teeth up here. So why on earth would Mike & Janet Huckabee even pay attention to Rhode Island? It’s simple. As Mike points out, “Every vote counts; every vote matters.”

Just ask anyone in the overflow crowd in Warwick last night if their vote matters. Many arrived over an hour early to stake their place in line to enter the Grand Ballroom at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. The room was filled beyond capacity, spilling over into the outer hallways. Not only do these Rhode Island voters matter, but they matter even more when they tell their family, friends, co-workers and yes, even strangers on the phone that this country needs the leadership of Mike Huckabee.

While I didn’t major in math either, I do know that single votes do add up and we can win delegates In Rhode Island! Although there are very few Republicans in the state, most are pro-life. Delegates are apportioned; this is not a WTA state.

I should back up here and give a little “behind the scenes” view of a Meet Mike Huckabee event. I’ve been blogging about New Hampshire primary events and grassroots organizing since the earliest days of this campaign. From my ring side seat, here are some random musings about a day in a campaign.

Yesterday I arrived early in Warwick with some Huckabee signs for the rally. We keep recycling these signs from NH…to …MA…now RI. (Hopefully they will make their way to Mississippi for March 11). Now, in search of internet access to blog, I make my way with laptop to a conference room outside the ballroom. Lo and behold, inside the room it’s Janet Huckabee, Ed Rollins and some “embed” reporters. First I should say Janet is one gracious lady and secondly, Mike’s a lucky guy. Like Mike, she’s a regular down-to-earth person. I’m invited in; we ‘chat a spell’ about their New York visit and then back to work. Along comes a campaign staffer to make a Starbucks run. Now unlike the Hillary campaign, which listed $15,000 for Dunkin Donuts in Iowa alone, this is a “pass the hat” Huck Money deal. (Folks, trust me, your donations are not squandered)

Stepping out of the room, I meet a Providence TV reporter who wants to interview me and get some background on Mike Huckabee. Since she knew very little about him, she referred to him singularly as “a former Baptist preacher”. When I pointed out his long tenure as Governor, she so sweetly replied with an epiphany: “Well, that’s more executive experience than anyone running” I could only reply, “BINGO.” I introduce her to Janet and they do an interview.

Now I’m hanging out in a conference room with reporters awaiting the”media availability” with Mike prior to the event. There’s a 15 minute delay, so I’m chatting with some network reporters hearing their stories of covering Mike and other candidates

The conversation starts evolving into “Mike stories” about his amazing memory, his multi-tasking ability, his superb gift to connect with people, and of course, his sense of humor. Well, I couldn’t resist a chance to pontificate – “Guys, that’s what makes him a leader”

The Governor enters the room to start the conference, spots me across the room and gives me a “Hey Dale - good to see you” and greets others by name. One of the only unique questions, (as opposed to the “Why are you in the race still?” question), was on the press report that Mitt Romney might re-enter the race. Mike boiled it down to being the ultimate in changing your position to go from endorsing McCain to un-endorsing him.

I now go in to the Grand Ballroom, where the band is warming up the crowd, the chants begins for Mike. There was deafening roar when Mike & Janet enter. Then, Mike does a little Mustang Sally on the bass. I won’t reiterate his entire speech since readers of this blog know where he stands, But, he gives an inspiring challenge to his supporters to vote and get out the vote When talking about the Fair Tax, Mike pulled out of his pocket a 1040 tax form, ripped it to shreds, threw it in the air and the crowd went wild.

Standing next to me was National Chairman Ed Rollins, who served Ronald Regan. I jokingly whispered to him “Excuse me, I’m a little history challenged. Who again is the Great Communicator?”

He just pointed to the stage.

Folks, it ain’t over till Texas says it’s over. And Rhode Island, too.

A Vote for Change?

When you start thinking for yourself, you see things differently. I thought about President Bush's State of the Union address.

One year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we're seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) the cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6)1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Think about who you are going to vote for in the November election and what we will really get!!

Mopping the Floors at Convention?

Another pundit suggests that this Fall we'll see a brokered convention between Huckabee and McCain....

(FORTUNE Small Business) -- Roving political-schwag seller Cameron Koepke expects a floor fight between John McCain and Mike Huckabee at the Republican convention, and he's been predicting a dead heat between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for quite some time.

Article continues...

Who Do You Want to Bomb Today?

John McCain is a war hero. He's promised to defend our nation. But is he the right answer to our national security? Personally, I believe he may be better than Obama or Clinton at defending our nation from future 9/11 style attacks (or worse), but his tendency to quickly respond with a statement like "bomb bomb bomb Iran" may not be the best answer to the security threats we face.

New York Times at it again: Questions McCain's Eligability because of birthplace

Hot off the press from the NYT is an article questioning whether were McCain is born will have any impact on his bid at the presidency. Legal issues aside, this is a perfect example of the attacks that are going to be coming at McCain fast and furiously as the election cycle unfolds. The original article can be viewed here.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

So what do I say? Well, for one thing, I've never been a McCain supporter anyway, so this doesn't really bother me. I could say, "I told you not to support him!" I could say, ok, let's nominate a true conservative with a true vision for the country. Of course the liberal left is going to do everything in their power to take down McCain now that he is the "presumptive" nominee for the republican party. They of course want someone who is beholden to them and they will produce more and more doubts in the minds of the American public until he is completely destroyed. For us though, these stories are coming out just in time... after all, we don't really want McCain anyway do we? We know that he hasn't got a chance against Barack Obama in November and a lot of conservatives resolutely refuse to support him. So for once I commend the NYT on their work and ask them to continue to destroy John McCain for us.

Senator McCain or Sentator McChicken?

Senator McCain is quotes as saying that he doesn't think he'll debate with Gov. Huckabee. Why not Senator? Do you think that he'll run circles around you like he's run around every other single candidate? Do you not want to see the contrast of you, a life-long politician with someone who has actually had to work a few times in their lifetime? Who has bought and paid for you this time?

Will You Waste Your Vote?

Is it possible?

You can waste time, money, and food….can you waste a vote?
Can the effort to go to the polls be squandered?
John McCain hopes so.

Even more than in the general election, a vote in the primary process is powerful. It is at the primary level that the true voice of the individual is heard. For at the primary, it is not about defeating the opposing party but about supporting the candidate with whom you most identify – the candidate who will promote the issues you believe in. When the national convention takes place and majority rule chooses the party candidate, loyal voters will make the decision to back their party, vote independent, or stay home. But, when you vote in the primary, the field is open. The primary is the sounding board of America. It is your only chance to vote for the candidate most like you.

In the primary, we’re not yet running the “big” race; we are choosing the runners. We owe it to ourselves and to our country to choose the runner we believe in. A primary election where voters are apathetic will result in a weak runner and a weak race. A strong race is forged from strong blood and strong battles.

Let’s lay it on the table.

There is no such thing as a wasted primary vote……if you vote your gut. The way to waste your vote is to stay home or back a candidate you do not believe in. Fall into the easiest rut and vote for whomever popular opinion says will win, and your vote will be truly wasted.

If the predictions are correct and John McCain is the inevitable Republican nominee….why vote for him? He’s going to get it anyway. He doesn’t need your vote. It’s just extra icing on a heavily laden cake – needless excess. If you feel Mike Huckabee more closely represents you and your convictions, let your voice be heard by casting your vote for him. If the pundits are correct, you’ll have the chance to vote for McCain in the fall when it will “really count.” This way, you get the best of both worlds – you can have your own say and you are not “hurting” the general election. That’s quite a win.

When it comes down to it, you can’t really afford to give your vote to someone else, to lend it to the forecasters who predict what the outcome will be. If you do that, the power is gone. Then it isn’t a voice; it’s an echo. An echo of another person’s opinion.

Will you waste your vote? No. You’ll use your vote to make a choice, to express your convictions, and you’ll feel proud. On the other hand, wasteful voters have nothing of which to be proud.

10,000 comments? WOW!

This is some pretty incredible activity for someone who has absolutely no chance of being the nominee for the GOP!

That's right, over 10,000 comments have been left on our campaign blog since 1 AM this morning. An incredible total. The response is smashing every record we have had on our blog. Voters are clearly hungry for a healthy discussion of ideas.

- from www.mikehuckabee.com

America: A Big Country!

"America is big.

"Big ideals. Big freedoms. Big heart.

"We need big borders.

"Not because we’re an arrogant nation. But because we’re a country who wants people to cross the welcome mat before reaching out for privileges. As Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee puts it 'If you come (to America), you should come through the front door and sign the guestbook!' (Speech in Plano, Texas, Collin County Community College, February 20, 2008).

"We are a nation comprised of immigrants. Most families can find more than one relative’s name on a ship manifest or on the roll at Ellis Island. We’re proud of the fact that we are the country who welcomes the “tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” (“The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, 1849-1887) We all recognize that were it not for the gracious hand of liberty beckoning to our own ancestors, none of us would enjoy the privileges of citizenship today.

"We believe everyone needs a hand up, but we don’t appreciate a thumb in the nose.

"And when we say border security doesn’t matter, we are ignoring the thumbed noses of those who would skulk into our country and manipulate our government services to their own advantage.


"Americans believe in equality. That means “if it’s fair for me, it’s fair for you.” Cutting in line isn’t allowed. Strengthening border security means that everyone gets a fair chance, because our resources are not being drained to solve the difficulties connected with those here illegally.

"Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate to sign the No Amnesty Pledge (January 16, 2008). He has promised to make strengthening our borders a top priority of his administration. He will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegal immigrants and will seek penalties for employers who hire them. His guarantee to American voters is 'I will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.'

"Mike Huckabee will lead the way in putting out the welcome mat….behind a strong front door. And that’s a safe plan for everybody who lives in America."

Why We Can't Afford President McCain!!

McCain is a senator. Senators propose more legislation. From a legal point of view, they make and create more laws. They don't really get their hands dirty and they aren't responsible for the effects of the laws they create. There's no "the buck stops here" when it comes to shouldering the blame and taking responsibility for the initiatives they propose (on a side note, Obama and Hillary are both senators too so this entire logic applies to them too).

When/if McCain becomes president, there will be more legislation, bigger government, more laws, more regulation. When is America going to wake up and realize that we already have way too much legislation. Legislation = restriction and will result a choking of the American spirit of freedom and creativity. When creativity is stifled the American dream cannot become a reality since it is based on the principle of freedom to create. McCain's agenda is the wrong agenda for America. Any agenda that results in creating more unenforceable laws (such as more restriction on gun ownership) is a wrong direction.

This is not to say that all legislation is wrong. There are certain things that must be legislated and certain amendments that must happen in order to preserve creativity and stimulate growth. In order to stimulate creativity and freedom, human life must be protected and valued. Also, the long-standing definition of marriage must be set in order to encourage family values.

Conservatism remains the only viable option for a bright future for our nation. We must take action to stand for what we believe in. WE MUST STOP LIBERALISM!!! WE MUST stop McCain!!!

Dallas Cowboy Endorses Huckabee

Again, this race is far from over. A win in Texas and a good showing in Ohio by gov. Huckabee can definitely change things a lot in this race to the finish. This story from Mike's own blog once again chooses the quality of people that are attracted to his campaign and the people that are working behind the scenes for a win in Ohio, Texas and beyond.

LITTLE ROCK, AR – Dallas Cowboy legend Cliff Harris endorsed former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, it was announced today.

Huckabee said: "I am truly excited to have Cliff Harris on my team and appreciate his support. It means a lot to have the greatest athlete in the history of my alma mater wearing my jersey."

...
While playing for the Dallas Cowboys, Harris earned the nickname "Captain Crash" for his intensity on the field. Former Arizona Cardinals General Manager and NFL Hall of Famer Larry Wilson stated that Harris "changed the way the position is played. Other teams now model their Free Safeties after how Harris played."

Original post on Mike's blog.

Huckabee is a modern phenomenon. He proposes new ideas and shows that America is a great place with great opportunities for everyone.

John McCain: Attacked by Vets?

The GOP race for president is far from over. Perhaps McCain has won a few contests now, but there are many more contests to be won, and the possibility of a brokered convention is very real, especially as more information about McCain's background come out.

The following article is quoted from one of the NYT's blogs. It shows what many Vets think of the real McCain and why he is unfit in their eyes to be the next president of the United States of America.

February 25, 2008, 2:49 pm
Veterans Group Takes On McCain

By Leslie Wayne

VoteVets, a group of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plans to broadcast a cable television advertisement attacking Senator John McCain, the only veteran in the presidential race.

The ad features a young mother and Iraqi vet, who challenges Mr. McCain’s statements that it would be fine with him if the United States spent the next thousand years in Iraq.

Holding up her infant son, the vet, Rose Forrest, said, “This is my little boy. He was born after I came back from Iraq. What commitment are you making to him? How about a thousand years of affordable health care? Or a thousand years of keeping America safe? Can we afford that for my child, Senator McCain?”

....

The original link to this story about John McCain is here

Debate This, Debate That

Huck calls on Senator McCain to debate. Senator McCain has responded saying that he'd be willing to face Huckabee in a debate. But will he really? Something in me tells me that if there is a debate, it won't be nationally televised. Also, if there is debate, the majority of the mainstream media will probably just ignore it. Why would they pay any attention to a "preacher turned politician" from the state of Arkansas? But hopefully, if there is a debate, voters in Ohio and Texas will tune in and not just overlook it entirely. Debates are what has brought about a lot of Huckabee's success and debates may just take this campaign all the way to a "brokered" convention before long.

Texas Changes Everything?

Adam Graham has some good words to say about the upcoming Texas primary in which Huckabee could change things with a win in TX and a solid turnout it OH.

Huckabee Plays Defense
February 25, 2008 01:00 PM EST

I read a very interesting article on February 20th that pointed out the campaign of Mike Huckabee was in trouble, as it hadn’t won a state since February 9th, a whopping 11 days prior over a span that included five primaries.

...

Huckabee has said winning Texas changes everything, and it does. A win in Texas will make McCain’s job of getting to 1191 harder for McCain to do before the convention. McCain has heretofore done very well in Blue States. After March 4th, the only Blue States remaining to vote are Pennsylvania and Oregon. On the other hand, Red States abound: Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, Kentucky, Idaho, New Mexico, and South Dakota. A Huckabee win in Texas gives rise to the hope of political junkies the nation over, a brokered convention, a real convention in Minneapolis in September, along with a real debate over the party’s future.

Original story continues here.

If Huckabee does indeed win Texas and finish strong in Ohio too, there will be no doubt that he is still in this race to the finish. He could very easily take this race to a brokered convention as he continues to get his message of change and a love for America out to the world.

Starting a New Blog

To those who have been regular readers on my blog here, I'm starting a new blog. Here it is: nononsensepolitics.blogspot.com

Raze Taxes-Clean Up Washington

The following article from Star Parker explains how the FairTax would help eliminate a lot of the pork in Washington, something that many Americans would love to see happen. This is one of the reasons I believe that we should elect governor Huckabee. He espouses the principles of smaller government and the principles that made America great without compromising his beliefs that every American should have the same opportunity to do well.

A 'yes, we can' plan with beef: Nix IRS

Posted: February 23, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

With the wide public sympathy today for "cleaning up Washington," it's too bad more attention hasn't been given to Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax" proposal.

There is no perfectly constructed tax, and this idea, like all, has its critics. But it also has huge benefits relevant to today's concerns and warrants much more serious attention than it's getting.

The proposal would get rid of all existing taxes – the income tax on individuals and corporations, the payroll tax, the estate (death) tax – and replace them with a single national retail sales tax. Fair Tax proponents say that it would take a sales tax of 23 percent to meet current obligations.

(article continues)

Read the original article here...

Trickle Effect: Arkansas Remains Solvent After Gov. Huckabee's term as governor

The following chart includes a list of the states and also shows which party has authority in them.


The Center on Budget and Policy Priority reports the following:

* Over half of the states are anticipating budget problems.

* The 20 states in which revenues are expected to fall short of the amount needed to support current services in fiscal year 2009 are Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The budget gaps total $35.2 to $38.0 billion, averaging 8.3 – 8.9 percent of these states’ general fund budgets. (See Table 1.)

* Another five have said that they will have deficits that will need to be closed for fiscal year 2009, but have not released information on the size of those deficits. They are Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Vermont. Analysts in three other states — Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas — are projecting budget gaps a little further down the road, in FY2010 and beyond.

What is interesting to me is the states that are not on this list as well as the states that are on this list. Arkansas is not listed on this list (though some conservative states are). This makes a statement about the fiscal policies that were set during Huckabee's governorship.

Recreating John McCain?

The mainstream media would lead us to believe that McCain is unique. He's a hero for a time when the country is war-torn and uniquely qualified to help America in its whoas as a war-torn nation. But is this what McCain really is? Does he really provide answers to unanswered problems or is he just an old suit that has been involved in politics for way to many years.

McCain has been inside the Beltway for so long that he can probably not remember what it's like to live out in the real world.

Huckabee Supporters to McCain Supporters: Don't tread on me!!

With increasing pressure on the Huckabee campaign, it's apparent the the liberal McCain camp is getting restless. They're beginning to see that Huck really is growing in support.

As the endorsements slowly start to trickle in for McCain from people who wouldn't endorse him when it mattered, the sense of inevitability from his supporters has reached an all time high. One by one, the big names in conservative politics say "yeah..I guess, me too." They have resolved that this old beat-up pickup truck is the best we got, so we might as well try to drive it in the race. What an absolute death knoll for a presidential hopeful.

So McCain-ites, here's my message to you:

Quit urging Huckabee to drop out! If he is 100% dead as you claim, then tell McCain to start his national campaign - why worry about some insignificant washed up nobody? But thats not the case is it? The fact is, Huckabee could very easily rack up another 5-7 states before this is all over. Huckabee isn't McCain's problem, THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP VOTING for Huckabee are McCain's problem! The thing is, you can't make people stop voting for the other guy, you can only ask the other guy to quit.

McCain's supporters are literally shouting from the rooftops that their candidate is incapable of winning the required amount of delegates without Huckabee dropping out.

Look - either Huckabee is irrelevant, or he's a threat. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If he's irrelevant, then shut up and win the required amount of delegates - case closed - quit whining on my blog comments. If he's a threat, then quit asking him to drop out, thats idotic. "You may beat us, so drop out." Quit trying to intimidate and belittle the voters and supporters of the competition - it only makes us hate your candidate more.

McCain's problem is, every time a new round of states vote, he loses some more to Huckabee. Everyone wants to talk about the Potomac Primaries, but no one wants to mention the few days previous when McCain lost Kansas BIG, and Louisiana.

What no McCain supporter is answering, is WHY McCain keeps losing states. Why does Huckabee continue to win states in an election that is over? Your excuse of "evangelicals voting for Huckabee" as the only reason he keeps winning is wearing thin. Your attempt to act as if the only people who don't want McCain are those darn Christians, is proof of a weak grasp on reality. The facts are, there are huge numbers of conservatives in every state that continue to cast a vote against McCain. You want them to stop. Why do the people of Texas or Mississippi have to swallow their vote because mighty California and New York have spoken?

If McCain is going to win, then what do you care if the remaining states cast their vote and have their voices heard? You claim that McCain can't "focus on the general election" because he has to pay attention to the primaries.... Why? Why does he have to pay attention. Isn't it mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win? Then McCain should just move on. What could happen? He loses Texas and North Carolina and the rest of the Huckabee states? Then what? Are you suggesting that if McCain focuses on the Dems, that he would lose more states? Or are you worried that it would go to a brokered convention? Are you worried that he could lose at the convention?

If you're not worried about Huck catching up in delegates, and you're not worried about losing a brokered convention, then why all the fuss? Why all the "get on board" talk. Who cares about us and who we vote for? Just go win. That's how elections work. Welcome to America.

"But McCain can't 'solidify' the party with Huckabee still in it." Why? Who are all these people that need solidifying? Evangelicals? Conservatives? Why does McCain need there to be no other choice but him to get everyone behind him? So it's Huckabee's fault that all of these people don't like McCain. Here's a newsflash - that fact isn't going to change - with or without Huckabee. McCain is who he is. That won't change. We don't like him. That won't change.

We don't like McCain because of McCain. We don't like the idea that we are backed into a corner and forced to vote for him. Yes, we will cast our vote for him if he wins the nomination, but stop telling us to "get with the program" and back your guy. This is America. And in America, we have choices. Let us cast our vote for the guy we believe in. If our votes don't tally up to enough support for our candidate of choice, then so be it. But until then, we would like to exercise our freedom. We will back our candidate until someone wins. Get that through your head. Please read it and reread it.

If McCain was cut from real Presidential cloth, he would gladly acknowledge that we Americans SHOULD cast our vote till the end. Instead he constantly wants to send out memos about how everyone else should quit because he's winning. The fact is, he's just not presidential. He has no respect for us Huckabee supporters, and neither does his campaign or his backers. A real leader welcomes strong competition and considers it healthy. A weak manager wants to squash anyone who dares to compete, afraid they will expose their weaknesses.

We WILL cast our vote! We WILL be heard! We will hold out till the last vote is counted at the convention in hopes that our candidate will come out victorious! If you don't like it, then move to somewhere where Communism flourishes - I think you'd be happier there - In fact, I'll drive you to the airport.

Original post here...

Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small

Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas. As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."

read more | digg story

John McCain: Disqualified by the Constition?

Those who are concerned about the constitution and its continued influence on America need to learn about McCain's birthplace more and its relationship to the constitution.

McCain was born in Panama in the then American-controlled Panama Canal Zone to Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. Although McCain was not born within a state of the United States, his US citizenship (and future eligibility to be elected to the presidency) was assured at birth both by jus sanguinis, since both of his parents were U.S. citizens, and jus soli, as the Canal Zone was at that time a United States possession.

---

Panama was leased...not our territory. And see the State department's statements above.

Jus sanguinis which was the majority opinion of the Dredd Scott case was overturned by the 14th amendment. It is worth noting that using genealogy as the basis for citizenship was how they were denying citizenship to blacks...ie...your parents weren't citizens so you are not either.

That ruling was OVERTURNED by the 14th amendment. The minority opinion held in that case said it is not "Jus Sanguinis" but "Jus soli" (not genealogy but location) that determines it. History has held them correct and the 14th amendment was specifically written to overturn the "Jus Sanguinis" decision. From Justice Curtis' minority opinion:

Quote:
"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

Original posts here.

Why Did Romney Endorse McCain?

The following post by a Huck's Army member is a good observation of the facts surrounding the endorsement of McCain by Romney. After all of Mitt's crazy attacks on John McCain, his endorsement seems like a last ditch effort to stop Huckabee after being stopped by Huckabee at every single turn.

You want to know why Romney endorsed McCain the time he did? I'll tell you why...

I've said that Romney's concession speech at CPAC was one of the most selfish speeches I've seen in a long time. He hid his true intentions within just about every line that came out of his mouth that day. People in the media tried to spin that speech and believed that he was really giving up for the betterment of the Republican party; that he actually cared about the war in Iraq/on terror, and that he was doing everything for "you" (the people/his supporters). All of this of course, was a lie.

Romney quit the race for HIMSELF, not for the people, nor for the Republican party. He quit because he knew none of his plans worked out due to Huckabee stopping each and every plan he had, either with help, or by himself (Huck). Romney's "plan A" was killed by Mike in Iowa, after he spent over $10 million in attack ads. His "plan D" (winning the southern states) on Super Tuesday was also killed by Mike. He just couldn't beat Mike in true conservative states. So he dropped out because he didn't want to spend another $40 million to barely beat out Mike and eventually lose anyway. However, that concession speech was all about Mitt, to set himself up to support McCain in hopes of Mac asking him to be VP.

Romney's endorsement came after he saw Mike win in Kansas and Louisiana and barely lose in Virginia, with the media pouncing on Mike yet again. Romney saw that this was his chance to finish Mike off so that Mike won't get a chance to surpass him in delegate count and was also a great opportunity to suck up to McCain again, in hopes of getting the VP spot. Mitt doesn't like losing, like he said. But what's worse than not getting the "gold?" Getting the "bronze." Mitt wanted revenge on Mike as well as the VP spot. So this was a great opportunity to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Being the businessman he is, he does not want to see no return on his investment. If he couldn't be President now, he wants to at least try to be VP. If not VP, he wants to act like some sort of selfless savior of the Republican party and a leader of the conservative movement. Wasting roughly 20% of his net wealth, $40+ million, HAS to buy him SOMETHING. Too bad all it bought Mitt was a "bronze" medal and a bunch of pissed off supporters. Mike will still press on, not only passing Mitt in delegate count, but at the very least, gathering an army of TRUE conservatives for future endeavors. Mike will either EARN his Presidential nominee or go down fighting and become the leading voice of TRUE conservatives, as well as the Christian community. Mitt will fade away because there's no way McCain would lower himself to ask Romney to be his VP. And if Mac does, he's even more sad than Romney is.

In the end, Mitt endorsed McCain to benefit himself, as usual. Mitt only cares about Mitt. He's so transparent to non-gullible people, it's not even funny. Actually, it is pretty funny. Romney screwed up yet again. Endorsing McCain only further separated his remaining supporters away from him. He came out looking like the biggest hypocrite to those with half a brain, people that knew about his attack ads, dirty tactics, flip-flopping record, and people that knew about his animosity against McCain not even 2 weeks ago. As Mike would say, Romney's just the latest "me too" crowd, nothing more.

A Democrat Win a good thing?

Someone on Huck's Army responded to my earlier essay:

McCain and the Republican establishment are betting that when push comes to shove, conservatives will vote for McCain because "he is better than the Democrats." Well, I am not so sure that McCain is better than the Democrats. Sure, McCain isn't as liberal as Obama or Hillary, but he is still a liberal who will destroy the Republican party if elected President. I don't really care about the Republican party, but I do care about my conservative principles. If we allow the Republican party to move even further in the liberal direction, the GOP will no longer be useful for implementing conservative principles. I have lost all respect for Hannity and Limbaugh for what they have wrongfully said about Mike Huckabee, but they are entirely correct about John McCain.

I will not give up hope for Mike in 08 until McCain gets 1191 delegates, and I really don't think that will happen unless McCain wins at a brokered convention. I agree with what "nyseman" said earlier: McCain doesn't stand a chance of beating the Democrats in 08. McCain would lose just as Gerald Ford did in 76. 4 years of Jimmy Carter as President was a really bad thing, but it led to Americans getting sick of liberalism and overwhelmingly electing Ronald Reagan in 80. If John McCain gets the Republican nomination in 08, I hope Obama or Hillary wins the Presidency, and they will. After 4 years of Obama or Hillary, trust me, America will be ready to put a conservative in the White House in 2012. Not wanting to lose again, Republicans will be ready to nominate a real conservative, Mike Huckabee, in 2012.

For those who are thinking of voting for McCain if Mike doesn't win, ask yourself this question: Would Ronald Reagan have ever become President if Ford had beaten Carter in 76? Then ask yourself this question: Is it better to get a liberal Republican for 4 years to keep the Democrats out of the White House and end up with no viable party for conservatives to turn to?

I respect the decision of those who say they would vote for McCain if he is the GOP nominee in order to keep Obama or Hillary out of the White House. An Obama or Hillary presidency is indeed a scary thing. However, I am convinced that it would be better for our country to suffer through 4 years of another Democratic presidency in order to get a real conservative in the White House. You think Ronald Reagan was a good President? Just wait until Mike Huckabee wins the White House!!!

What does McCain for President mean?

McCain is a senator. Senators propose more legislation. From a legal point of view, they make and create more laws. They don't really get their hands dirty and they aren't responsible for the effects of the laws they create. There's no "the buck stops here" when it comes to shouldering the blame and taking responsibility for the initiatives they propose (on a side note, Obama and Hillary are both senators too so this entire logic applies to them too).

When/if McCain becomes president, there will be more legislation, bigger government, more laws, more regulation. When is America going to wake up and realize that we already have way too much legislation. Legislation = restriction and will result a choking of the American spirit of freedom and creativity. When creativity is stifled the American dream cannot become a reality since it is based on the principle of freedom to create. McCain's agenda is the wrong agenda for America. Any agenda that results in creating more unenforceable laws (such as more restriction on gun ownership) is a wrong direction.

This is not to say that all legislation is wrong. There are certain things that must be legislated and certain amendments that must happen in order to preserve creativity and stimulate growth. In order to stimulate creativity and freedom, human life must be protected and valued. Also, the long-standing definition of marriage must be set in order to encourage family values.

Conservatism remains the only viable option for a bright future for our nation. We must take action to stand for what we believe in. WE MUST STOP LIBERALISM!!! WE MUST stop McCain!!!

FairTax and Huckabee

A reader of my blog posted the following comment and I'm posting it to the front page for more visibility/searchability. Thanks so much for the post Ian!

Gov. Huckabee's advocacy of the FairTax is the single most important policy position in this election. Research findings explain why:

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars – $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces [BHKPT].

The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan [THBP].

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case [THBNP].

The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be [ALM].

Consumption benefits [ALM]:

• Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.

• Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place.

• The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted.

• By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent.

Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system [KR].

Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively [JK].

Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax [THBPN].

Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20 [THPDB].

On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base [TBJ].

The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent [WM].

ALERT: Kotlikoff refutes Bruce Bartlett's shabby critiques of the FairTax.

John McCain: Shoots Himself in the Foot?

John McCain's Gun Control Problem
by John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs
Gun Owners of America

In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.

It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.

He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.

"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.

So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.

To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.

Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.

McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.

Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.

Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.

But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.

Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.

Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."

The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.

"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.

At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."

McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.

As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.

"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.

Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."

Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.

Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.

After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.

"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.

A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."

However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."

Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.

In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.

John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long.

Why Not McCain? Why Huckabee?

I will be doing an essay on why I cannot support McCain for President later on. But before I write that article, I'd like to tell you why I'm for Huckabee a little bit instead of why I'm against McCain.

- Pro-life: Mike values life from when it starts: conception.

- Pro-family: the best and happiest families are families that have a mom and a dad. If we redefine marriage to be something other than a woman and a man living together and loving each other, we've redefined the very basic unit of society and have taken the ultimate step towards destroying our nation.

- Pro-small-business: America runs on the small business, not just the mega-corporation. The very basis of the American dream is that I can become self-employed and make a living doing something I love. Big government and big business are two siblings who when paired together tend to restrict and stifle small business enterprise. Mike wants to get the government out of the way of everyday people.

- Pro-second amendment: Mike Huckabee supports the second amendment, but does not apply it to just hunting. He realizes that Americans need to be able to defend themselves from the government in event that it gets so large and so out of control that they need to take it out.

- Pro-FairTax: It's been long said that there are two inescapable realities in life: death and taxes. But imagine choosing what taxes you'll pay? With the FairTax (which BTW, has been thought up by some very smart folks but is also supported by every day citizens like you and me), you only pay taxes on stuff that you choose to purchase. Most people will save a ton of money with the FairTax. Check out the FairTax calculator here to see just how much you'll save!

- Pro-America: the above reasons are just a start of why you should support Huckabee. The biggest reason is that he loves America and knows that it is a great nation and "the last best hope for humanity." More than 300 million reasons why you should vote for Huckabee!

Still Believe in Ronald Reagan's Legacy

Now that Romney's out... what's next?

Or do I really need to ask? For those Romney supporters out there that absolutely hate McCain and want the best for our country, I recommend that you please take a look again at Huckabee. I think you'll find that he is a much better option than voting for no one.

Should Mitt Romney Drop out of the Race?

Last night was bad for Mitt Romney. He's spent millions upon millions of dollars only to be trumped by a liberal. If John McCain is worse than Hillary Clinton as many talk show hosts would have you believe, then why is it that some conservatives choose him over Mitt Romney? Why is it that in the most important races for the GOP last night he came in not second, but third? I don't know about you, but it looks like that when Mitt goes up against a liberal he loses. For example in MO last night, if Mitt Romney hadn't been in the race, I'm confident that Mike would have ousted McCain.

Mitt Romney is a spoiler to the true conservative who is the only candidate who has any chance against the Dems next year.

Winning where it counts...

Last night was a surprise.... a big surprise for a lot of us and a big surprise for even me.

Huckabee won in the important states. Most people agree that next year, in order for the Republican to win in the general election, we will need to win in states like Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee. These are exactly the states that Mike win and Mitt Romney placed a distant third. Places like California and NY where McCain won are going to go for the Democrat anyways. So what should conservatives do? They should unite behind the one candidate who has good ideas for the future of America. They should get behind Mike Huckabee all the way to the White House.

Nancy Reagan Likes Mike

Nancy Reagan doesn't endorse candidates... she, like Chuck Norris, tells America the way it's going to be and that's how it is! Anyway, the picture above taken after last night's debate at the Reagan Library reflects strongly on which candidate Nancy likes.

A Message of Hope

Here are three WarrenPiece1 videos to remind us all that this race is far from over. Go Mike!

read more | digg story

Video:Huckabee Tried a Cafe Cubano

A video from the Governor's recent trip to Little Havana restaurant Versailles to try a "Cafe Cubano."

read more | digg story

The case for Mike Huckabee- not just for evangelicals

"Unlike most other Republicans past and present, this folksy, up-by-the-bootstraps former governor of a heavily Democratic state has a message capable of reaching far beyond the GOP faithful. It's one with a natural resonance for the middle class, for Latinos, for African-Americans, for believers of all kinds - indeed for anyone."

read more | digg story

2nd Amendment: Rights to Bear Arms?

Overall the debate last night was pretty boring. Mike had some good opportunities to explain the FairTax and show the American people that he was the true conservative who instead of borrowing money from China to avoid an economic downturn, believes in investing in America's infrastructure. America are you listening??!!

But Mike did get a dig in at Mitt who supports the Assault weapons gun ban. Mitt emphasized that he compromised with pro-gun and gun-ban groups for the ban. My question to Mitt is, is it a good thing to compromise on the very basic rights that are the foundation of American liberties and freedom? Mitt needs to be held accountable for this.

Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney!

Afterall, he's been born again in so many ways!

Original political cartoon posted here

Political Cartoon: Stereotyping the Candidates!

Mike Huckabee Announces the Endorsement of Mayor Tom Truex

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee, joined by State Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster and State Representative David Rivera, announced the endorsement of Davie, Florida Mayor Tom Truex at a rally Wednesday in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.

read more | digg story

Rush Limbaugh and GOP Establishment Betray Their Base

Limbaugh rants against him. The GOP establishment scoffs at him and yet he share's many parallels with the man who many see as the patron saint of the Conservative movement. Both communicate well with everyday Americans, both were governors with "liberal" records, both had/have a vision, and both were/are opposed by the GOP establishment. Read it.

read more | digg story

Duncan Hunter Says "No Way" to Romney Presidency

Duncan Hunter has withdrawn from the race but refuses to throw any weight behind Mitt Romney because of ties to China:

URGENT: Get this email to EVERYONE you know!

Duncan Hunter refused to endorse Mitt Romney and exposes some serious problems with his business dealings.

HUNTER CALLS ON ROMNEY TO OPPOSE BAIN PARTNERSHIP WITH CHINESE COMPANY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2007

CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655, dlhunter08@yahoo.com

San Diego, CA - - - Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a "clear statement" to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM. Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.

"I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney's company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner," stated Hunter. "Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible."

A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; "The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ." A copy of this resolution is provided.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, "…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

"Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation's connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, "a strategic partner" in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.

"This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do."

A copy of Congressman Hunter's letter, as well as two articles regarding Huawei acquisition efforts are provided. Media are encouraged to contact Gary Becks at (619) 334-1655 for additional information or to arrange an interview with Hunter.

Mitt Romney's Real Fiscal Side

Mitt Romney is being touted as a "fiscal conservative." However, the following article from the Boston Globe exposes some flaws in Romney's economic policies that he doesn't want you to know about.

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney is touting his revival of the Massachusetts' economy in a pitch to voters in Florida, a state that could make or break his White House bid, but some experts dispute that record.

The former Massachusetts governor issued a statement on Sunday titled "creating jobs" that focuses on 57,600 jobs added to the Massachusetts economy during his single term as governor from 2003 to 2007.

But Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum, who has researched Romney's record, said the state lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases.

"As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he said. "On every measure you've got, the state was a substantial under-performer."

At a campaign rally here on Saturday, Romney's supporters handed out flyers promoting the candidate's economic credentials, a central theme in his campaign, saying he had "closed a nearly $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes" during his term in Massachusetts.

But the $3 billion deficit projected by Romney and state legislators in January 2003 at the start of his administration never rose that high because a surge in capital gains taxes more than halved the shortfall to $1.3 billion.

While Romney and the state legislature cut $1.6 billion from the 2004 budget, analysts noted he also generated more than $500 million by raising fees and by closing corporate tax loopholes -- actions considered tax rises by some businesses.

"There's never been under his watch an economic turnaround to speak of," Michael Widmer, president of the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told Reuters.

"We added a few jobs over the last three years of his tenure but very few. He also raised corporate taxes and fees and the (deficit) gap turned out to be less than $3 billion."

MIXED RECORD

Romney is in a close four-way race in Florida where the primary on January 29 is the next test in the state-by-state battles to determine the Republican and Democratic candidates who will square off in November's presidential election.

The multimillionaire former venture capitalist has retooled his campaign to emphasize his nearly 25 years of business experience that includes founding Bain Capital LLC, a successful Boston-based private-equity firm, in 1984.

At rallies, Romney presents himself as a candidate whose real-world business experience can help shake up Washington.

But he faces stiff competition in Florida's Republican race from John McCain, the senator from Arizona who won Saturday's South Carolina primary, along with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Romney's resume includes a number of prominent successes such as rescuing the debt-ridden Salt Lake City Olympics and helping to set up office supply retail-store chain Staples Inc., which employs about 70,000 people.

Massachusetts also won a credit-rating upgrade during Romney's term as governor for the first time since 2000, his campaign's statement said.

His supporters contend the state's job market was soft long before Romney's term, which ended in January last year, blaming a Democratic-controlled Legislature for the weakness. His spokesman, Kevin Madden, has asserted that Romney brought Massachusetts "back from the brink of financial disaster."

But Northeastern's Sum said that while jobs were created under Romney, the rate was the third-lowest in the nation after Hurricane Katrina-hit Louisiana and Michigan. At the same time, wages in the New England state stagnated during Romney's term.

The average weekly wage of Massachusetts workers, Sum said, rose by just a $1 between 2001 and 2006 after adjusting for inflation, while the state had the third-highest rate of population loss in the nation between July 2002 and July 2006.

Real output of goods and services -- a broad measure of economic performance -- grew 9 percent, below the 13 percent rate for the United States, he added.

Winning the Mind

Huck responds to a Townhall blogger:

Governor Huckabee Responds to Frank Pastore’s “Dear Huck” Letter
By Mike Huckabee
Thursday, January 17, 2008

On January 14, Frank Pastore wrote an open letter Mike Huckabee Titled: “Dear Huck: You’ve Won Our Hearts, Now Win Our Minds Too.” Below are Pastore’s Original Questions with the Response from the Huckabee campaign.

Frank Pastore: 1. You’re accused of advancing “liberal economic policies” because you raised taxes in Arkansas. If elected, what do you want to increase social spending on and why? Most conservatives don’t define “limited government” in terms of “no government.” We want government to help those who truly need it. We want to help the single mom down the street that’s struggling. Unlike Democrats, we don’t measure the success of social programs by how much we spend on them, but by whether the people we claim to be helping actually get helped.

We want “limited government” in opposition to “unlimited government.” We believe we’re already spending too much on too many programs, and we’d rather spend more wisely what we’re already spending than simply default to spending more. We don’t want “bigger government,” we want “smarter government.” We understand a “let’s cut spending” message can’t win a general election, but a “responsible spending” message can. How do you suggest we do this?

Governor Mike Huckabee: First, I am a fiscal conservative. I have signed Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform “no tax” pledge. When I was Governor of Arkansas, I cut taxes 94 times, including the largest broad-based tax cut in the history of my state. I doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, eliminated the marriage penalty, indexed tax brackets to prevent bracket creep, reduced the capital gains tax for both businesses and individuals, and eliminated the capital gains tax on the sale of a home. I reduced welfare rolls by almost 50 percent.

When I left office, the tax rates remained exactly the same as when I began almost 11 years earlier: the tax rate was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest. Having inherited a $200 million budget shortfall from my Democrat predecessor, I left office with an $844 million surplus, letting my successor follow my lead to get the sales tax on food eliminated.

I share your goal of wanting to help those who truly need it. I will undertake a top-to-bottom review of all programs to eliminate waste and duplication. Right now there are many different programs dealing with things like hunger and job training. I will consolidate and streamline to get the most out of every tax dollar. I will reduce the federal work force by not replacing many of the baby boomers who will be retiring.

I will fight against pork and fight for a line-item veto that passes constitutional muster. I will also look for ways to accomplish our goals through block grants to the states. Governors at the state level are the ones who know their people and their needs better than the federal government and, since they have to balance their budgets, know how to get the most out of a dollar. We also need to measure performance and demand better accountability. We have to stop throwing money at problems without following up to ensure that they are actually achieving solutions. I will insist that programs and the people running them justify their existence. I will never just assume that because a program was funded last year, it should be funded next year.

While we have great needs, the federal government also has great resources provided by the sweat of the brows of all our taxpayers. They are entitled to a solid return on their investment. I will never forget where the money comes from and will demand of Congress and all my executive departments that we be the best stewards that we can possibly be of those hard-earned funds.

Pastore: 2. Your “Fair Tax” proposal is interesting, but you must know it has zero chance of getting through Congress in the coming decade, even if you should win reelection. We appreciate you raising the issue, and we’re all frustrated with the Tax Code, and we all hate the IRS. But, Congressional Democrats won’t ever let us eliminate an entire federal department like the IRS or the Department of Education. It will take decades to make a serious run at something like that. So, what are some more modest improvements you suggest for improving our existing tax system over the next four years?

Huckabee: First, I strongly disagree with the premise that the FairTax can’t be passed. It will be a challenge, but undertaking those challenges is what leadership is about. The FairTax already has a tremendous amount of support and enthusiasm around the country and in Congress. People agree that our tax system is broken and needs radical, fundamental change. As president, I would be a Communicator in Chief who would do a great job explaining the FairTax to the American people and getting them to light up the congressional switchboard until Washington gets the message. It’s our long-term solution, it can be done, and we will do it.

As a pathway to the FairTax, there are several steps we can take. I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and fix the alternative minimum tax once and for all. I would expand upon the Bush marginal rate reductions, capital gains rate reductions, and dividend rate reductions. I would reduce the marginal corporate tax rate.

I would eliminate the death tax.

I would make all tuition deductible, because I believe that education is an investment in human capital and should be treated at least as favorably as a business is treated when making a capital equipment purchase. Our best means of remaining competitive in the ever-expanding global marketplace is a well-educated American workforce. Education not only improves our national well-being, but is also the path to personal upward mobility.

I would provide a maximum 15.3 percent tax credit for tuition expenditures, tied to employment income and carried forward indefinitely. This replicates the effects of the FairTax by allowing workers to offset their payroll taxes with their tuition costs. The 15.3 percent cap equals the payroll taxes the family paid for the year.

We also need to consider increasing the IRA deduction limit. We should consider increasing small business and manufacturers expensing allowances. I would also investigate providing tax credits for healthcare. So there are short-term steps we can take on the path to the FairTax.

Pastore: 3. You’re accused of opposing vouchers, yet you have the endorsement of the National Education Association for your work in Arkansas, and you have the overwhelming support of home schoolers. This is an odd mix. What is your position on school choice, vouchers, charter schools, etc.?

I have the support of home schoolers because I was an ardent champion of their cause when I was governor. I appointed the first home school parent anywhere in the country to our State Board of Education.

My overriding concern is that every child in America has the opportunity to get a first-rate education—I am much less concerned with the means than with the end. I support school choice, vouchers and charter schools because different options work better in different settings. For example, vouchers may not work well in a rural area where there are no better alternatives within a reasonable distance for children to travel, but they may be the answer in an urban environment. If local districts wish to do it, if states wish to do it, I think that’s fine. It goes to the basic concept that education is a state’s decision.

I also think that we ought to have tax credits for a family whose decision is to put their children in an alternative environment. That’s one way to empower families.

I am extremely proud of my record in improving public schools in Arkansas. Everyone is used to seeing Arkansas near the very bottom of national education rankings. Yet we just soared to eighth in overall quality in the Quality Counts 2008 study produced by Education Week. My sowing hard-fought reforms in areas such as reading and math fundamentals, art and music in our schools, more demanding curricula and Advanced Placement classes, higher teacher pay and school accountability is reaping huge rewards for our children and their future.

Pastore: 4. You’re accused of being weak on national security and your statement that we have “an arrogant foreign policy” is troubling. We need to hear more clearly why you think that is. Why do you want to close Guantanamo? Do you really want to give “enemy combatants” full access to our court system? This too, is troubling. In spite of this, it sounds like you “get” the global war against radical Islam. Please convince us you’ve got what it takes to go toe to toe with Osama, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung-il, Putin, Chavez and China.

Huckabee: My perspective on foreign policy has been shaped by my experiences as a governor. I’ve traveled to approximately 40 countries in my lifetime and met with many of the world’s leaders. As governor, I’ve traveled extensively not only in trade agreements and cultural exchanges, but I’ve chaired the U.S. chapter of the World League for Freedom and Democracy and worked with elected officials from other countries. I’ve been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel (nine times), Egypt, all over Europe, Russia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. I think Ronald Reagan was a great example of a person who came to office with the same kind of skepticism and criticism. He hadn’t had foreign political experience, but he had judgment, he had clear principles that guided him. He understood that the U.S. should be the most powerful nation on earth, but had to use that power circumspectly.

I do not believe that we have an arrogant foreign policy. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld behaved arrogantly in not listening to the military about how many troops we needed to invade Iraq initially and then in refusing for years to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy. It is the counterinsurgency strategy finally adopted under General Petraeus and Secretary Gates that has been so successful this past year in Iraq.

When I said I wanted to close Guantanamo, I wasn’t staking out new ground, I was stating my agreement with President Bush and Secretary Gates on that issue. Since then, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come forward to say he favors closing the base.

It’s not that I want to give “enemy combatants” access to our court system: the Supreme Court has already held that the prisoners’ rights are not dependent on whether they are at Guantanamo or on the U. S. mainland because Guantanamo is equivalent to U. S. soil. Whatever rights these foreign prisoners have—and we’ll know that better when the Boumediene case, which is pending before the Supreme Court, is decided – our government can’t deprive them of those rights by keeping them at Guantanamo. In Rasul, the Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo prisoners had a statutory right to habeas corpus; Boumediene will tell us if they have a constitutional right.

I have what it takes to go toe-to-toe with our enemies because I understand the seriousness of the threats we face. I want to expand and strengthen our military by increasing defense spending from less than 4 percent of our GDP to the 6 percent it was under President Reagan. I know that President Clinton’s “peace dividend” has become our “war deficit.” I want to add the 92,000 to our Army and Marines that President Bush has proposed, but I want to accomplish that sooner. I know that we need to upgrade our intelligence to get information about armed groups who are ideologically opposed to us all over the world—micro groups can cause macro damage in this age of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

With respect to the war on terror, I understand the radical theology and ideology their ruthlessness is based on; I understand that they really want to establish an Islamic caliphate and destroy our civilization. I am concerned about Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Pakistan, which it is using not only to attack Afghanistan and plot against us, but also to undermine the Pakistani government. I know that we must win in Iraq, not only for the security of the Iraqis, but for the security of the entire region and our own security. I recognize Iran’s ambitions to spread westward and establish a “Shiite crescent” by causing the Sunni governments in its path to fall like dominoes, and I understand that we must have a strong, unified Iraq to serve as a bulwark against such Iranian expansionism. I am concerned about Iran’s links to Hamas and Hezbollah and its nuclear ambitions. After decades of containment, President Reagan adopted a new strategy in the Cold War—we win, they lose. My strategy in the war on terror—we win, they lose.

I recognize that China isn’t just an economic threat, but a military one as well. I know that they have been investing heavily in their military, especially their navy, which they see as a key instrument for projecting their power. Last year their military spending increased 18 percent. That means that in 17 of the past 18 years, they have had double-digit increases in military spending.

I will be very cautious in my dealings with North Korea. We recently found traces of highly-enriched uranium on aluminum tubes that they handed over to us, when they claim they’ve never had a program to enrich uranium. This comes on the heels of the Israeli raid on a Syrian nuclear facility involving material from North Korea. Recently they missed the important deadline of December 31st to disable their nuclear facilities; disclose their nuclear programs, facilities, and materials; disclose how much plutonium they have extracted; disclose their uranium enrichment program (the existence of which they deny); and disclose their transfer of nuclear materials and technology to other countries (which they also deny). Given the potential North Korean/terrorist nexus, it is essential that we are tough on North Korea as part of our war on terror.

In Russia, President Putin is spending his oil revenues updating his Soviet-era military. They have a new missile defense shield around Moscow, have been investing heavily in their Pacific Fleet, and have been developing new missiles, including a new ICBM that they have successfully tested.

We must remember that when the Soviet Union fell, we still had Russia. This is a country which has always had both imperialist ambitions and an inferiority complex relative to the west. Czarist history is a case study in schizophrenia, centuries of struggle between Westernizers and Slavophiles. We will continue to experience this push-pull, continue to have good days and bad with Russia, but overall it will be better than the Cold War. The bottom line is that Putin doesn’t want another terrorist attack like the school siege in Beslan any more than we want another 9/11. But he despises the loss of face from the fall of the Soviet Union and will do everything he can to reassert Russia’s strength and power—militarily, economically, diplomatically. I see him for what he is—a staunch nationalist in a country that has no tradition of democracy, just autocracy. The vacation from history is over. We must get back to work and continue to project our power as consistently and forcefully as Russia will hers.

Pastore: 5. Your position on illegal immigration is confusing. On the one hand, you’ve got the strongest immigration platform of all the candidates and you want to pardon border agents Ramos and Compean as your first presidential act. We all love this. But, on the other hand, you gave children of illegals in-state tuition breaks in Arkansas. Please explain this apparent inconsistency.

Huckabee: There isn’t an inconsistency—it’s a matter of which desk you sit behind. As governor, I had no control over immigration, which is a federal issue. I had no control over our borders or who came into my state. So I tried to improve something I did have control over--turning my state’s tax-takers into taxpayers. I proposed giving children who had gone through our schools and done very well academically, who were alcohol and drug-free, and who were applying for citizenship, the opportunity to compete for a very select academically-based scholarship along with their peers. I didn’t believe then, and I don’t believe now, that innocent children should be punished for the sins of their parents. There was no limit on the number of scholarships—everyone who qualified got one, so they wouldn’t have been taking scholarships away from another Arkansas resident. My plan was not adopted; no child ever received one of these scholarships. And contrary to distortions promoted by my political opponents, no children of illegals ever got in-state tuition breaks.

Pastore: 6. You have said that you want a national ban on smoking. This offends even the vast majority of non-smoking conservatives because it violates the principle of federalism. How serious are you about this?

Huckabee: This has been misinterpreted because I strongly support the principle of federalism. At a Lance Armstrong cancer forum last August, I said that if Congress presented me with legislation banning smoking in public places, I would sign it. That is because I would not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would reflect. But since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at this time, and since I have also said that the responsibility for regulating smoking initially lies with the states, I believe that this issue is best addressed at the state and local levels.

Pastore: 7. We understand the need to talk about the environment and global warming for electoral purposes. How serious are you about governmental involvement in this, too?

Huckabee: I believe that we must be good stewards of our environment because God has entrusted us to take care of this world that He created for us. We don’t own the earth, it is on loan to us. In that light, I believe that we must take care of our air and water and forests and wildlife to keep both ourselves and the overall system healthy. We must pass the earth on to the next generation in at least as good a shape as it was handed to us. Anything less diligent and conscientious would be poor stewardship and an abdication of a God-given responsibility.

I believe that we must cut greenhouse gas emissions. A cap and trade system has worked well for acid rain caused by the emission of sulphur dioxide, and I believe it can also work well for the emission of carbon dioxide. At the same time, I don’t want to impose too great a burden on our businesses, which is why I believe that some of the allowances for emissions must be given to our businesses rather than auctioning off 100 percent of them, as some environmentalists are demanding.

Huckabee Receives Critical Support of Arkansas Business Leaders

With the critical SC primary just days away, Huckabee has recieved a letter of support from key Arkansas businesses reports Pine Bluff Commercial website.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, under fire for tax hikes he supported as Arkansas' governor, received a letter Wednesday from top business leaders in his home state, supporting his actions during his 10 1/2 years in office.

The statement, signed by the head of Alltel Corp., investment firms and the chairman of Tyson Foods Inc., notes improvements in schools and upgraded roadways during Huckabee's tenure. But whether or not the letter serves as an endorsement remains between the lines.

The Huckabee campaign said those signing the statement were Alltel CEO Scott Ford; investing house CEO and President Warren A. Stephens of Stephens Inc.; Madison Murphy, former chairman of Murphy Oil Corp.; Tyson chairman John Tyson; and Delta Trust and Banking Corp. chairman French Hill.

The statement says Huckabee had faced "unwarranted criticism" over his business record. Leadership can bring "much more to the economic and societal fabric of a community than simply tax revenues," it says.

"In our support of Gov. Huckabee's truly conservative, small-government business outlook and his pragmatic, yet compassionate style of governing, we invite you to look past the shallow rhetoric of yet another campaign season to see what we have experienced first hand," the statement reads.

While governor, Huckabee advocated a 1/8-cent increase to pay for conservation programs, a $60 million-a-year fuel-tax increase to pay for road construction, and a 1/2-cent sales tax rise. He also allowed a 7/8-cent sales tax increase to go into effect without his signature in 2004, in response to a state Supreme Court order to improve schools.

Republican rival Mitt Romney and the anti-tax group Club for Growth have criticized Huckabee for the tax hikes. Stephens' brother, Jackson T. "Steve" Stephens Jr., is a longtime critic of Huckabee and a member of the Club for Growth who has donated $200,000 to the group.

However, the letter, described as a "statement in support" of Huckabee, does not use the word endorsement. Hill is the clearest supporter of Huckabee in the group, as he serves as the campaign's finance chairman. Ford, Stephens and Tyson each gave Huckabee $2,300 last year, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Alltel spokesman Andrew Moreau said Ford signed the statement as an individual and not as a representative of the company.

"The statement speaks for itself," Moreau said.

Frank Thomas, a spokesman for Stephens, echoed Moreau's comments.

"Mr. Stephens feels the letter states his feelings precisely," Thomas said. "My read is it's a pretty strong letter."

A spokesman for Tyson Foods confirmed that Tyson signed the letter.

Murphy could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday. Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Huckabee, did not immediately return a message for comment.

Team Huckabee: What Does $585,000 Buy You?

As Rush Limbaugh says, "follow the money":

Question: What does $585,000 buy you?

Answer: It bought Mitt Romney backers a smear job against Mike Huckabee orchestrated by Beltway Insiders.

The Club for Growth has an affiliated 527 group, Club for Growth.net, running anti-Mike Huckabee ads in early primary states.

- At least $585,000 in contributions from Mitt Romney financial backers.

- Club for Growth has spent $750,000 against Governor Huckabee in Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan.
Here are donors that have donated both to Club for Growth.net* and Mitt Romney:

Name: John Childs**

Contribution to Beltway Group
$100,000 on 11/16/07

$100,000 on 12/31/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,100 on 1/8/07


Name: Bob Perry

Contribution to Beltway Group

$200,000 on 12/12/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney
$2,300 on 3/13/07

Name: Kristen Hertel

Contribution to Beltway Group

$25,000 on 12/21/07

$25,000 on 1/02/08

Contribution to Mitt Romney
$1,000 on 2/6/07


Name: Muneer Satter

Contribution to Beltway Group

$25,000 on 12/21/07
$25,000 on 1/02/08

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$2,300 on 2/6/07



Name: Michael Valentine

Contribution to Beltway Group

$40,000 on 1/3/08

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$2,300 on 4/4/07

Name: Travis Anderson

Contribution to Beltway Group

$25,000 on 12/19/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$2,100 on 2/8/07

Name: Richard Gaby

Contribution to Beltway Group

$20,000 on 12/19/07

Contribution to Mitt Romney

$1,000 on 2/12/07

* Only represents donors that contributed more than $20,000 to Club for Growth.net in 2007/2008.

** "Boston investor John Childs, who donated $2,100 to Romney in 2007, recently gave 100,000 to the Club for Growth." [Morain, Dan. "Huckabee foes open their wallets for attack ads," The Los Angeles Times. 1 January 2008.]

*** All contributor information obtained from Federal Election Commission's electronic database at www.fec.gov.


Paid for by Huckabee for President, Inc.
www.mikehuckabee.com

Liberal Memo: Congrats Mitt on Winning MI!

No doubt many in the Romney camp and the so called "Reagan coalition" are happy about last night's victory in Michigan. However, was it really that hard for him to find footing in a state that elected his dad 3 times? I think not. Also, if you read the following, Mitt's win in MI makes perfect sense:

DailyKos: MI Dems Should Vote for Mitt!
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 10:10 AM

The liberal DailyKos is encouraging Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary:

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

So did the Democrats "create" Mitt's win last night? I don't know whether this is true or not, but it does seem highly possible. They want the Republicans to be as divided as possible and now that each of the "frontrunners" has a state, they can make fun of the Republicans for being all split into factions.

They had no candidate of their own to vote for, the turnout was exceptionally low, so a win for Mitt in Michigan could easily be laid directly at the feet of the Democratic party.

Too bad they won't be voting for Mitt in November.

Original article written by the Dems themselves... BTW, that article has close to a thousand comments...