At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Does the endorsement of Mitt Romney by National Review (long time publication founded by William Buckley ) mean anything to you ? Will it have any influence on who you support ?
You mean Republican Lieberman???? Nahh. It doesn't matter. You've got a 5 way tie for second.
The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself.
I must say that I've always like Joe Lieberman. I've found it difficult in the past to put my own support behind McCain, but considering this particular election and the other candidates in the running, I like him as well as any.
I like Joe, and I think his endorsement of McCain could have some interesting effects.
The guy who was The Goracle's running mate, still caucuses with the Democrats and had a 75% liberal voting record according to ADA's last count is really a Republican? Well, if I had been treated by my own party as Joe was in his last campaign I'd have to seriously consider switching myself.
True. I still don't think he is conservative enough for most Republicans. Although the same could be said of Pres. Bush to a lesser degree, as that was the knock on him that caused some dissension among the base.
Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.
I posted on another discussion his disjointed Foreign Affairs essay . It is a diatribe against Bush Adminstration policies that ,if I didn't know any better,could've been penned by Dennis Kucinich .
There are also issues that have been exposed about his governance Arkansas ,and questions about everything from his spending and law enforcement priorities.
But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .
Heterodox Huckster . I think you hit the nail on him ! Except for a very small parochrial group of social conservatives I do not see how Huckabee has anything in common with any of the Republican base.
Personally, I wish this suddenly religious campaign would go away, and should the Huckster or Romney win the nomination I bet it does go away in a hurry - except for selective pandering to the evangelical community. After all these years of the alleged "Bush theocracy" the last thing the GOP needs is a holy war.
Quote:
But we know he is a good salt of the Earth Christian .
The Huckster has pulled out a Christmas ad, and in his best Max Lucado impersonation tells us "Are you about worn out of all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? I don't blame you. At this time of years sometimes it's nice to pull aside "At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ..."
Steve ; yeah less about Mormonism and more about how Mitt launched Staples, Domino's and Sports Authority, as well as the Salt Lake City Olympics ;and how that business know-how could be utilized as Chief Executive.
Comments on this post
tomder55 agrees: I can only say that indeed they have been guilty as charged to most of your critique;especially regarding good conservative fiscal management . The option the other party offers is far worse is their only defense. weak indeed.
Not just weak, but completely false.
The deficit was brought under control after the Reagan Binge because the Democratically-controlled Congress adopted and enforced pay-as-you-go budget rules in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. This budget process remained in effect throughout both Clinton Administrations. The most recent five-year extension passed in 1997. By the time it expired in 2002, Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and could easily have continued it. But they wanted to do a big tax cut without having to reduce spending to offset it, so they let it expire, and predictably, the deficit has ballooned. On the second day of business after the 2006 election (January 4, 2007), the new Democratically controlled Congress re-adopted pay-as-you-go budgeting.
So with regard to budget discipline, it just is not true that "The option the other party offers is far worse". The other party is the only one in the last thirty years to show a shred of fiscal integrity.
Really ? The omnibus budget that Congress just passed added 9000 additional earmarks worth est. 20 billion dollars to the budget . As I recall the Democrats won in 2006 with a promise to reform the earmark process. As far as I can tell all they want to do to fix the budget is to tax us more. You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue . Yes the Republican record on spending was pretty bad but I see the proposals for government expansion coming from the Democrat campain ;not the Republican.
You know that with the tax cuts have come record revenue
It is simply not true that the tax cuts have caused government revenues to be higher than they would have been otherwise. There is no disagreement about this between liberal and conservative economists. Here's a conservative's view: Townhall.com - The Logicizer
Quote:
Yes, federal revenues have been increasing since 2003, but, needless to say (or one would think), that coincidence hardly establishes causation. While some talk show blowhards, politicians and editorial page / op-ed writers persist in contending that the Bush tax cuts have had a net positive impact on revenues, the strong, broad consensus among economists -- including conservative economists and Bush's own current and former top economists -- is to the contrary: The Bush tax cuts have had a net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been higher, and would be higher today, if the Bush tax cuts had not taken place).
There follows a very long list of quotes from conservative economic luminaries who reiterate the point.
Facts are neither conservative nor liberal, and it is a fact that government revenues have been, and are presently, lower than they would have been otherwise. In the absence of spending restraint (not much room for disagreement about that), simple arithmetic leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Federal Government's current budget deficit, and the accumulated debt produced by previous years' deficits, are both significantly larger than they would have been without the tax cuts. So no, tax cuts without spending restraint is not responsible governance. The Supply-Side Dream is dead.
I know what the revenue is . You are countering with theories of how they might have been . I contend that the tax cuts were a stimulous to the economy and that is why the revenue has increased. Would the recovery had been so dramatic (going into it's 6th year of expansion if the housing bubble bust doesn't slow it down ) ) had there not been the tax cuts ?
Linear Mode
