Huckabee in trouble?

[Guest StuCotts]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/politics/01huckabee.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Taking full advantage of the moment would require bashing Huckabee over the face with his blunder for as long as it takes to annihilate him. The Dems will be too wimpish to do anything more than make discreet reference to it.

[Guest Conway]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/politics/01huckabee.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Taking full advantage of the moment would require bashing Huckabee over the face with his blunder for as long as it takes to annihilate him. The Dems will be too wimpish to do anything more than make discreet reference to it.

It certainly has the ability to be his "Willie Horton" moment though he seems to be in full throttle defense mode on the issue the last few days. I don't think it becomes an issue as to how the Democrats will treat him on it because, with the GOP clearly turning back to its more conservative roots, any issue regarding weakness with regard to law and order will simply kill him in the primaries. He probably won't survive New Hampshire if he even runs.

I kind of like Huckabee. I'm not a fan of his religious positions. But, he does have a certain populist bend that makes him attractive as a candidate. Certainly more attractive than Sarah Palin to an old GOPer like me. Though my support is clearly behind Mitt Romney at this point.

[JKane]

I respect Huckabee a lot more than any of the last group of Republican candidates, but figured he gave up a future serious run when he took the job with Fox. This'll probably insure that.

We need less people in prisons (especially here in CA) but this will set that back too. Anybody with political ambitions is even less likely to sign any kind of clemency or prison reduction leaving states in budget crisis pretty much only education to cut, as keeps happening in CA.

Why in the hell would any gay man back a fundamentalist Mormon? Though I agree there's currently no better choices. If Republicans were smart they'd try to rehabilitate Colin Powell, but he's too free thinking (or maybe just thinking--esp. compared to the likes of Palin) for the establishment and is probably fed up anyway.

[Guest Conway]

Why in the hell would any gay man back a fundamentalist Mormon?

I think that the nature of your question answers it. I'm a man who happens to be gay. My sexual preference, while it is an important part of who I am, hardly defines me exclusively.

I don't feel the need to lockstep to the agenda thrust upon me by the activists in the gay community. I prefer to make my own decisions as opposed to having others make them for me.

So, why Romney? I do care about social issues. But, in terms of current significance in my mind, they pale in comparison to our country's need to address the case of mindless spending that our politicians have so endeared themselves to. I believe that Romney is the only candidate with the experience and the resolve to tackle the issue of deficit spending and recapturing our place as a financial leader of the free world.

I had hopes that Barack Obama would minimally bring a conciliatory tone to the Presidency that would allow our congressional leaders to work together to solve problems. I dreamed that he would become the type of communicator and facilitator that Reagan was to the nation.

Instead, he has become as, if not more, polarizing than his immediate successor. Our nation is floundering while he tries to borrow us out of a true financial crisis. In my mind, he will be one of the worst and most unsuccessful President's in our country's history. Instead of being led by principal he is dancing around like a marionette being guided by a polling puppeteer.

We need to make a meaningful change in leadership in both the executive and legislative branches of government. Obama is proving that the ability to speak beautifully doesn't equate to the leadership that our country so badly needs to lead us through the truly tough decisions that we have to make to break our chronic spendaholism.

[TampaYankee]

I kind of like Huckabee. I'm not a fan of his religious positions. But, he does have a certain populist bend that makes him attractive as a candidate.

I agree that he, with that populist bent, had a certain appeal to me early on in the GOP Primary. However, once he got on the religious bandwagon with remarks like we should govern according to the gospel over the Constitution and that he didn't beleive in evolution that pretty much did it for me. I have no problem with people practicing religion in their everyday lives. I drawn the line when they desire to govern a diverse nation according to their brand of religion. Also, I can never see myself voting for anybody that denies The Theory of Evolution as scientific fact. What other obvious objective facts that don't fit with their prejudices will they choose to deny when deciding what is best for the nation both domestically and internationally? In a democracy there is room for differences of opinion on policy but not on facts established by rational processes. Not in my opinion.

[JKane]

I think that the nature of your question answers it. I'm a man who happens to be gay. My sexual preference, while it is an important part of who I am, hardly defines me exclusively.

I agree with that sentiment 100%. But the fact remains you are supporting somebody who believes:

A, That you are an abomination, destined for hell, and undeserving of the same rights as others.

B, That his underwear are magic and they protect him from evil.

I agree that what Bush did to the national debt is horrendous and needs fixing, but unfortunately what he did to the economy (and his little adventure in Iraq) must be sorted out first.

There's an easy solution though: let's go back to the exact same tax rates as we had UNDER REAGAN and the budget would be right as rain in no time!

The idea that some new Republican can swoop into office and fix the budget... well, we've tried that here in California. Our debt is worse, even somebody with no future political ambitions couldn't touch sacred cows like prisons and the only things significantly cut are social services, especially education--in a state a Rand Corp. study said already had among the lowest education spending. But it's not like investment in education is important for the future of the state...

[Guest Conway]

A, That you are an abomination, destined for hell, and undeserving of the same rights as others.

Romeny has never met me , so I doubt seriously that he has any opinion of me. Much less one than encompasses the ideas that you mention herein.

quote]B, That his underwear are magic and they protect him from evil.

I have no idea what you mean by that. It sounds kind of nutty.

I agree that what Bush did to the national debt is horrendous and needs fixing, but unfortunately what he did to the economy (and his little adventure in Iraq) must be sorted out first.

I agree that what Bush did to the economy is horrendous, too. I disliked him for reasons other than the reasons that you disliked him.

But, I recognize that the national debt is currently three times what it was when Bush left office.

The deficit is not wholly his responsibility. But, certanly 2/3 of it has been driven by Obama initiatives.

Our resident socialist in the White House has spent approximately $780 billion on a stimulus program that has been a massive failure because first, it has had virtually no positive effect on employment and second because the Democrats are so busy kicking the financial services industry that it fails to even recognize the essential role that credit markets need to play in economic recovery on a microcosmic level. Instead of providing companies with tax incentives to move forward with new projects, Obama wishes to regulate companies to a higher degree creating higher operating costs for them to meet those regulatory requirements. He chose to bail out non-essential industries for the sake of political patronage to labor unions at a considerable expense to the taxpayer. Now he's proposing to spend nearly a billion dollars that we don't have on a hopelessly flawed health care bill and wishes to take unused TARP funds to create some eight armed government sponsored monster jobs program as opposed to paying that money back to the treasury against our ballooning debt.

This administration is one more example of what a complete failure Keynesian economic theory is in real practice.

There's an easy solution though: let's go back to the exact same tax rates as we had UNDER REAGAN and the budget would be right as rain in no time!

Again, I don't really understand your point here. But, I believe that tax rates will have to increase on a temporary basis until we can retire the massive debt that the present and immediate two past administrations have handed us. Keep in mind that while the Clinton Administration told us that it operated on a surplus, the truth is that, rather than borrowing from the public markets, Clinton chose to borrow from inter-governmental units like the social security trust fund. he never spent less or borrowed less money. He simply borrowed it from the government, and claimed in his most sincere Bubbaspeak, that he had not borrowed money on the government's behalf.

The idea that some new Republican can swoop into office and fix the budget... well, we've tried that here in California. Our debt is worse, even somebody with no future political ambitions couldn't touch sacred cows like prisons and the only things significantly cut are social services, especially education--in a state a Rand Corp. study said already had among the lowest education spending. But it's not like investment in education is important for the future of the state...

Your current governor and legislature is a band of fools. They forecast revenues as if the population was going to continue to grow exponentially in California for an in finite period.

If, as a federal government and a nation, we are going to conquer. We need leadership that has the spine to cut disbursements to sacred cows as well as increase taxes on a temporary basis to set off the huge deficit that President Obama is going to leave us.

Romney is the only potential candidate for 2012, in my mind, that has the business experience to positively influence our budget crisis in a way that will positively impact our nation in the long run.

[manticore]

B, That his underwear are magic and they protect him from evil.

I have no idea what you mean by that. It sounds kind of nutty.

See Mormon underwear.

I also don't care for the nuttiness of Romney's religion--but to be fair, I find the other Christian denominations nutty as well, even the mainstream ones.