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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Dr. Charles W. Dunn, an author and political scientist, believes that Mike Huckabee has the momentum to take South Carolina's Republican primary.
Dunn currently serves as dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, and says even though Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) won the New Hampshire GOP primary, he thinks the senator has too much baggage to win in South Carolina -- the gateway to the south.
"Remember what happened in 2000. He won big in New Hampshire and lost big in South Carolina and he also made a lot of enemies in South Carolina," says Dunn. That is why he is predicting a win for Huckabee, despite a poor showing in New Hampshire.
"Huckabee won while losing, so he goes forward with a head of steam into South Carolina and possibly into Michigan," notes Dunn. "He should win South Carolina, and that's the gateway to the south. The south has the largest number of electoral votes in the electoral college.
Dunn does not think that Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani will be factors in the Palmetto State's GOP primary later this week.
Hey Everyone,
I don't know how Gov. and Mrs. Huckabee keep up with their busy schedule! After driving down from Traverse City to the Birch Run event on Friday, getting signs, a banner, and other supplies, I drove back home and went to bed about 1:00 am.
I started out Saturday morning at 6:30 am, and got out to my pickup truck which was covered in a fresh lake effect snow. I headed up to the Northern Michigan Voter's Fair & Straw Poll and setup a table right up front between the Romney and McCain tables. Great turnout and we answered alot of really good questions about Mike and his positions. The organizer gave us access to a laptop that had a high-speed connection to the web, that displayed it's screen on a overhead projector which showed up on the stage's huge big screen. So we ran YouTube videos of Mike all day long.
I left the Fair about 4:00 pm, and headed over to the Ronald Reagan Dinner/Charlevoix GOP fundraiser. I put out some yard signs out on the shoulder of the road, in the driveway and was able to park in the very first spot, which was a straight shot viewable from the small entrance driveway. So I put a yard sign on my rear bumper, which was right between my FairTax bumper stickers. The Huckabee sign greeted everyone as they arrived at the event (over 150 people including Duncan Hunter and all the other speakers)!
I was the first person there, besides the host, Charlevoix GOP Chairman - Wes Dillworth (Romney supporter) and his family. I chose to sit at the very first table on the right, next to the bar (even though I don't drink).
People started trickling in about 5:15, and then walked in U.S. Congressman-Peter Hoekstra R-MI. Wes Dillworth was setting up behind the bar and Peter walked over to Wes to say hello. They shook hands, and Wes asked Peter, "so how are we doing in the tracking"? Congressman Hoekstra said..."McCain is drawing smaller crowds than us, but Huckabee is kicking our {backsides}". Right then, Wes happened to look over and see me sitting behind my laptop, and leaned back and whispered something to Peter. Peter immediately looked over at me and nodded...I simply smiled at him and nodded back. This exchange really boosted my confidence to speak in front of the group on behalf of Gov. Huckabee.
The event finally started late at 7:00 pm... We started by having the local sheriff leading us through the Pledge of Allegiance, then a local pastor lead us through a prayer, and then we had a buffet style dinner.
Presidential Candidate/U.S. Congressman-California Duncan Hunter started it off, by giving a great speech. He brought his wife and his son, Duncan Jr. who just got back from Iraq and is running for office in California.
Next, Ex-Presidential Candidate/U.S. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, spoke and asked us to support John McCain for President.
Next, U.S. Congressman-Peter Hoekstra R-MI, spoke about Mitt Romney .
Oh, I forgot to mention...prior to the speeches starting, I had given the emcee my name to put on his lineup sheet. When I told him my name, he asked me what office I held? I said, "I don't hold an office, I'm a Truck Driver and I'm supporting Mike Huckabee for President, and I'm sorry I don't own a suit so I'm a little under dressed (Black & Silver pullover sweater and black dress slacks), so if you could please tell the audience that when you introduce me, I'd appreciate it." He said OK.
"Next, we have Randy Bishop speaking on why he's supporting Mike Huckabee for President. Randy is a Truck Driver, and he wanted to apologize for being "undressed" for this evening's event because he doesn't own a suit, so here's Randy". (I got more applause than Sam or Peter, they were very nice to me). I told Duncan Hunter, that Gov. Huckabee told me to say Hello....Duncan said, "Tell Mike I said Hi Back"...the audience applauded.
I started off by telling them a little about my trucking business. I told them that I drive an average of four (4) times around the world per year (100,000 miles), using 16,662 gallons of diesel fuel, which cost $53,357 in 2007. After corporate taxes, truck payments, repair bills, insurances, and a semi's license plate ($1,850 per year) I end up with less than 30% to claim as my personal income, which I then have to pay personal taxes on... and end up with less than 22% of my gross income to actually live on and pay for my personal expenses. Needless to say, the entire room was shaking their heads in disgust and amazement.
I told them about Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen Project, and how he interviewed all of the candidates for President. Jim told me personally in Traverse City this week, that the Democratic candidates, "don't even think we have a problem with illegal immigration", and out of all of the Republican candidates, that Mike Huckabee has a real solution to this problem and that's why Jim Gilchrist endorsed Mike Huckabee for President. I told them to go to MikeHuckabee.com under Issues, and read his 9 point strategy listed as his Secure America Plan.
Also, I told them that Mike wants to close the IRS, shut it down and replace it with the "FairTax". I explained that it's a consumption tax and does not tax us on our productivity. I told them to go to MikeHuckabee.com and read more about it there. But more importantly, all these illegal workers would start paying into our tax system when they bought their necessities to live. Other people who get paid in cash, and even visitors to this country (like all of the Canadians who cross over from Windsor into Detroit, or Sarnia into Port Huron) and many others would start paying into our Federal Treasury. Many applauded right then.
I finished by saying simply, Mike Huckabee wants to seal the border, have all of us not be penalized for our labor and profits, and get the U.S. economy booming like we have never seen before in our lifetime!!! That's just some of the reasons I'm supporting Mike Huckabee for President"! The room broke out in a huge, loud applause.
I stayed for the other politicians and listened to their speeches. When it was over, I had no less than 20-25 people come over and tell me that they were switching their vote, and would be voting for Mike Huckabee. A former judge, (I promised not to tell you his name) came up to me and said, "you were the most credible guy on that stage tonight, the rest of them were just politicians"! That made me feel good for Mike.
Gov. Huckabee, I tried to do my best for you. I hope I didn't say anything to hurt your campaign or anything that you didn't want me to bring up...but like I told you at the Birch Run Rally, "I'm just a Truck Driver, who wants you to be our next President".
God Bless you and Janet! I think God has a hand in everything we all are doing in this campaign and hopefully we will deliver a win in Michigan for you this Tuesday.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve you,
Randy
Corralling the conservatives
To date, many on the right have gone left, and many left, a bit right. Even now our own GOP candidates are wrestling over who is truly conservative.
At the last round of debates, Fred Thompson, degraded by his own dilapidating campaign and threatened by Mike Huckabee's lead in the polls, tried to liberalize Mike by saying:
This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and its future. On the one hand, you have the Reagan revolution. You have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security. On the other hand, you have the direction that Gov. Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies.
Even radio host Rush Limbaugh heckled Huckabee with a similar liberal lashing, accusing him of not being a conservative in the line of Ronald Reagan – an unfortunate "Rush to judgment."
The only truth in their words is that they could not be further from the truth.
....
Will the real conservative please stand up?
As I've already shown in my past WND columns, most liberal accusations against Mike Huckabee's record on immigration, taxes and crime are also biased, out-of-context rushes to judgment.
The complete record and platform of this former Arkansas governor reveals a tried-and-true conservative. He has consistently stood for pro-life, pro-education, pro-military, pro-death penalty, pro-God, pro-constitutional, pro-middle America, pro-small business, pro-marriage, pro-legal immigration, less government, less taxes, fiscal solvency, etc., positions.
As Huckabee himself summarized, "Now if that's not conservative, somebody needs to hand me a new book and show me what conservatism is about."
But who better to discern a conservative than one who knew Reagan better than Limbaugh, Thompson or most of us: Ed Rollins, the man who led Reagan to victory in 1984 and is now the national campaign manager for Huckabee. He already testified about Huckabee: "I was with the old Reagan, and I can promise you this man comes as close as anyone to filling those shoes."
Then he asked Dobson to listen to a statement from McCain and respond.
"I think, uh … I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you wanna call it that … I don't have any problem with that," McCain says.
"Dr. Dobson, would you be comfortable with someone like John McCain as the … conservative or Republican candidate for president?" Johnson asked.
"Well, let me say that I am not in the office. I'm in the little condo so I can speak for myself and not for Focus on the Family," Dobson said in rejecting McCain's leadership.
He noted that legislation he'd just been discussing on the program, regarding an attempt by Democrat leaders in Congress to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation, is being supported by McCain, too.
"That came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections … and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him," Dobson said.
The provisions of the new congressional proposal, hidden deep inside a plan to reform lobbying rules to eliminate the many recent scandals involving members of Congress, would require pro-family groups to provide documentation of their actions to the government any time they try to spark any "grass-roots" action.
Phone calls, personal visits, e-mails, magazines, broadcasts, phone banks, appearances, travel, fundraising and other items all would be subject to government tabulation, verification and audits, Dobson said during a recent program. "On and on it goes."
"Clearly, the objective here is to hide what goes on from the public and punish and silence those of us who would talk about what our representatives are doing," Dobson said of the plan by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. American Family Association Chairman Donald Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer joined Dobson in urging listeners to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls demanding those speech limits be removed.
Bauer said the telephone number to call is: 202-224-3121.
Focus also has begun an online petition, at Focuspetitions.com.
Wildmon characterized the Washington proposal as a message to the American public: "We don't want to hear from you, and this is the way we're going to handle it."
Dobson also earlier scolded Republicans for blaming the 2006 election victories by Democrats in many races across the country on conservatives.
True Conservatism
This is a guest post by MWS, a frequent poster of valued comments on Race42008.com
Limbaugh or Burke?
“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations.”
-Edmund Burke
Much has been made on this board of what a “true conservative” is, and is not. Generally, people will either compare a particular person to a laundry list of positions deemed conservative by prevailing sentiment, or worse, will simply defer to what self-appointed sentinels of conservatism profess. Recently, I have suggested in several threads that conservatives would be well served if they spent less time listening to Rush, and more time reading Burke. I would like to briefly make the case why.
Conservatism in modern America has become uprooted. Too often it has become a series of policy proscriptions; big military, lower taxes, less government spending, assertive and unilateral foreign policy, etc…. Sometimes these policies can be good and proper manifestations of conservative principle, but they are not- as is often mistaken- the essence of those conservative principles themselves. The essence of conservatism is not found in a random litany of policies that necessarily vary in time and place. It is not dictated by terms such as “increase, decrease, cut, raise, limit, grow.” The essence of conservatism is found in the acknowledgment and preservation of transcendent truths. Policies are the seasonal leaves, which come and go as the manifestation of the life of the tree. But they should not be mistaken for the life of the tree itself. Conservatism is a philosophy, even a sensibility. I would offer the following as some of the enduring principles of conservatism:Conservatism recognizes a hierarchy of value. Not all goods are equal, and some must be subordinate to others. Conservatism has the human condition as it’s ultimate concern, and not the mechanics of political process or economic theory.
It recognizes that markets exist to serve people, and not people to serve markets.
It seeks stability and continuity in economic as well as social policy, as these are the prerequisites for passing on traditions and heritage.
At root, it recognizes that man is created in the image and likeness of God. As such, it is anti-utilitarian. People are not fodder, either for the government, or the economy.
It is anti-Utopian. Its principles can be manifest in republics or monarchies, under capitalism or manorialism. It can exist in a variety of economic or political systems because...
True conservatism, in the Western tradition, is rooted in Christianity. Let me say that again. Our culture, traditions, sentiments, and mores in the Western world are rooted in the culture, traditions, sentiments, and mores of Christianity. As such, it is impossible to understand conservatism without a healthy appreciation of how Christian tradition informs our culture. One of the most significant (and radical) among these truths is the inherent dignity of man. Conservatives believe in teaching a man to fish, so that he may be as self-sufficient as possible, but will, in times of dire need, help unconditionally. Too often, the self-professed guardians of conservatism espouse a law-of-the-jungle mentality that is rooted not in Christianity, but in Social Darwinism, which is completely antithetical to our Christian heritage.
With such an understanding of traditional conservatism, we should fully expect for a true conservative to speak out for the poor. We should expect such a conservative to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of all of God’s children, even those here illegally. We should not reflexively dismiss his calls to preserve and protect the earth our Creator gave us in trust. We should understand that even raising taxes and spending more is not beyond the realm of possibility, if it stabilizes families, protects communities, and helps secure the common good.
I’m not against economic growth, but I am against the notion of economic growth at all costs. I am not against low taxes, in fact I prefer them, but I am not in favor of lower taxes at any cost. A true conservative should recognize that the essence of the good is not defined in relative terms such as raise, lower, increase, decrease, more, less, but rather in the acknowledgement of the transcendent order, created and sustained by the living God.
I would encourage each reader here who is interested in understanding the core principles of conservatism to put down the newspaper, turn off the radio, and set aside the position papers (if just for a moment) and pick up the works of men such as Edmund Burke, Christopher Dawson, GK Chesterton, and Hillaire Belloc. Let us not confuse particular policies for universal truths, seasonal conditions with transcendent realities, or even the fizz and froth of talk radio for the substance it tries to ape- but has long forgotten.
by Brett Passmore
Huckabee's position on school choice appears to be the latest hot issue in the debate over whether Huckabee is "conservative" on anything other than moral issues. The anti-Huckabee right has taken to claiming that he "opposes school choice." Yet Huckabee has strong backing from homeschoolers and frequently says he strongly supports a parent's right to choose their child's education. So which is it?
Before I go any farther, a personal interest disclaimer: school choice is the main issue that first got me interested in politics. I am the product of 16 years of Christian education, and I have never been enrolled in a school financed by taxpayers. My parents sacrificed a lot to give us a faith-based education, even while living in a town with extraordinarily high property taxes to finance best-in-state, gold-plated local public schools. So naturally, they complained about paying twice for education, and I started following the school choice issue before I even entered high school. An essay I wrote in college on school choice landed me my first real job, and I've continued to be active on the issue ever since. So this means a lot to me.
On the other hand, my husband is the product of 20+ years of public education, and he feels it served him quite well, while enabling his parents to still retire early even while none of their four children who all have graduate degrees have ever incurred student loans. Today he is a public school teacher, though his main motivation for teaching in public school is that it pays nearly twice as much as private school would. But he's not a member of any teacher's union, and his experience teaching in the brave new world of "Standards of Learning"-focused education (i.e. the focus of teaching is now on getting the maximum number of students to pass a standardized test) has convinced him that's not what he wants for our children.
Clearly, public education serves some people very well, like my husband and his siblings. But it leaves a lot of families in the cold: residents of bad school districts, average students (nowadays) who slide by because they'll pass the test but there aren't any resources dedicated to challenging them to achieve their true potential, and families who believe that faith should be an integral part of the education experience... and numerous other categories.
So what's the solution? "School choice" is the obvious answer, which generically means allowing families to enroll their children in the school of their choice (or homeschooling) with some form of financial assistance to do so. But not all school choice programs are created equal.
Michigan state Rep. Fulton Sheen announced at a rally today that he is officially withdrawing his endorsement of Romney to endorse Huckabee. Sheen, who said he had served as a Michigan state chairman for Romney, pointed to the FairTax and his support of the Michigan FairTax ballot proposal as the main motivator for his decision. Romney does not support the FairTax and Huckabee does.
NBC/NJ's Erin McPike notes Romney walks a fine line on the Fair Tax. He's careful not to alienate these voters by saying, "it's not part of my presidential platform, but I'm willing to look at it because I think there are some good ideas there."
Huckabee crowds swell
After reports that Romney attracted crowds in the low hundreds yesterday while campaigning in Michigan, Huckabee's evening event seems all the more noteworthy. Although no news was made, and he played bass with another local band, the difference was in the crowd. More that 500 very enthusiastic supporters filled the upstairs of the Expo Center in Birch Run, forcing the planners to set up an overflow room on the first floor. The overflow room quickly filled with roughly 300 people, forcing the planners to set up a TV in the lobby. That's a fairly large crowd for four days before the primary.
Huckabee deftly parried Thompson's aggressive and spirited attacks early in the debate. It was a battle on terrain that was unfriendly to Huckabee, and Thompson attacked with skill. And yet Huckabee got out of the exchange unscathed.
The exchange with Thompson came early in the debate, and Huckabee was just getting warmed up. For the first time in this campaign, Huckabee looked like a credible commander in chief when the conversation turned to those Iranian speedboats. His normal joviality vanished, replaced by an appropriate gravity.
Then he got even better. He seized on a characteristic piece of Ron Paul idiocy to give a spirited speech defending America's commitment to Israel. Again, he looked credible as a commander in chief. But this was also an extremely shrewd piece of politicking. Conservative foreign policy types obviously loved it as did pro-Israel people. But Huckabee's core audience of conservative Christians, a much larger segment of the society than either of the other two groups, adored it also.
Mike Huckabee's an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short. He's a lot more than an affable dispenser of one-liners who only knows how to play to the home crowd. For people who might be inclined to dismiss Huckabee, compare his response to Thompson's adroit offensive with McCain's blundering into the climate warming thicket. These two are the likely finalists, and one of them is much better at politics than the other.
Here's what I said on November 28, the night of the YouTube debate, the night that catapulted Huckabee to his huge lead in Iowa: "Was this a seismic night? I'll give that one a big yes. Tonight heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force."
Although fewer people watched last evening's festivities, tonight was even bigger for Huckabee. For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.
In the race for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to be tough to beat.
Our Opinion
Nashua Telegraph 11/25/1975
Mr. Reagan's Record
Ronald Reagan, or so the ultraconservative legend runs, brought the yeasty state of California to the brink of perfection during his two terms as governor.
Since his tenure as governor constitutes his first and only governmental service and experience, Mr. Reagan and his flacks make much of it; too much, in fact.
When he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination last week, Mr. Reagan performed the obligatory "mess in Washington" routine and promised to clean it up tidily, using the techniques he employed as governor of California to "manage government more efficiently." "We found that fiscal responsibility is possible, that the welfare rolls can come down, that social problems can be met below the federal level." So much for the rhetoric. Now for the record:
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state budget soared from $4.6 billion to $10.2 billion — a more than 100 per cent increase.
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the state sales tax was increased from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, the corporate income tax was increased from 5.5 per cent to 9 per cent, and the top personal income tax was increased from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.
While Ronald Reagan was governor of California the number of state employees increased by 5.7 per cent. This is the mart who promises to cut armies of employees off the federal payroll, who promises to balance the budget, who promises to begin paying off the national debt and who, to top his program of conservative delights, promises to cut taxes to boot.
Some people may be charmed by Ronald Reagan's pitch; some people may even be persuaded, but the difference between promises and performance, between the Reagan rhetoric and the Reagan record is a difference that should be made plain to the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation.
HUCKABEE IS A Christian socialist, some say. Really? If he is a Christian socialist, he is surely the first one to call for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. Again, it is not at all clear why rank-and-file conservatives are supposed to nod vigorously whenever a McCain or Romney supporter calls Huckabee an "economic liberal." At least he talks about eliminating income taxes and capital gains taxes. Do they?
Romney's support for semi-socialized health care in Massachusetts (which is almost indistinguishable from Obama's scheme for the entire nation) is scarier to me than anything Huckabee uncorked in Arkansas. And then there is John McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts. Does that make him an unacceptable economic liberal?
But Huckabee doesn't talk about Wall Street enough, some warn. Good; Wall Street already sups at the government trough. If he cuts off corporate welfare, I would be happy. It is about time somebody talks about getting the ravenous, regulatory Leviathan state off the backs of small businessmen, gun owners, and homeschooling families, rather than waste time on Wall Street talking to fat cats who vote for the Dems anyways.
ANKENY, Iowa -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney disputed the idea that, having spent millions of dollars on TV ads and his state organization, he has to win the Iowa Republican caucuses Thursday.
"There's no 'have to win,'" Romney said in an interview with ABC News Tuesday. The former CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics predicted he'd win "either the gold or the silver and then go on from there."
Huckabee also suggested a two-way debate in the final two days that would allow Romney and him to share a stage.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney “comes on and says he's pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state's health care plan,” Huckabee told host Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
My blog is worth $5,645.40.
How much is your blog worth?
