|
Dec 26, 2007
Thomas Sowell
Dec 24, 2007
A case of clemency that's easy to explain
It hasn't been apparent to me why Mike Huckabee favored the release from prison of Wayne Dumond, a patently dangerous rapist who, once released, committed murder. By contrast, it's easy to see why Mike Huckabee wanted to help Eugene Fields after he was convicted in 2003 for driving while intoxicated for the fourth time in less than five years. Fields, after all, was a wealthy developer and major donor to the Arkansas Republican Party. Moreover, according to the New York Times, Fields had Richard Bearden, a former executive director of the state's Republican Party with close ties to the Huckabee administration, backing his bid for clemency.
Huckabee obliged in early 2004, when he announced his intention to grant clemency to Fields. The announcement meant that the public had the right to comment. Naturally, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) urged Huckabee not to give Fields, a serial offender, yet another chance. Teresa Belew, MADD's local executive director, made her comments public. This was her right and, given the political "juice" behind Fields, it was also the sensible move.
Huckabee responded to Belew with the harsh petulance (and arguably the "arrogant bunker mentality") to which the political world has recently become accustomed. According to the Times, Huckabee sharply criticized Belew for going public with her criticism of Huckabee's notice of intention to free Fields. In addition, he questioned MADD's motives, stating the organization was simply trying to fan "the flames of controversy that have been stirred in this case by the unusual curiosity of certain media members."
For full story:
GWR & MLK
 55 | Article William Vincent Shannon PDF  IMAGES . . . than in any comparable period in Michigan's history," Romney asserts. When the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King marched in Detroit three years ago, Romney marched with him. He is proud that he helped . . . George Romney: Holy and hopeful by William Vincent Shannon 55 William v . . . |
From Jeff
http://www.harpers.org/media/pages/1967/02/pdf/HarpersMagazine-1967-02-0...
"When the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King marched in Detroit three years ago, Romney marched with him. He is proud that he helped write a state constitution that has the most comprehensive civil-rights guarantees in the nation, including open occupancy in housing."
This was written in 1967 . . . this is hardly something that Mitt ROmney made up. Chris Matthews owes Romney an apology big time.
Dec 23, 2007
From David
A very favorable Op-Ed piece at NewsBlaze compared Romney to Reagan. Don't let the title of the piece worry you; John Lillpop has nothing but good things to say about Romney:
"Fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate running for the White House. He is also the most experienced and qualified, a fact attested to by his service as the governor of liberal-infested Massachusetts, and by his enormously successful personal finances."
"No other candidate comes close to matching his qualifications for taking over the Oval Office'
"Best of all, Romney is intelligent, articulate, and an eternal optimist. He is a contemporary clone of Ronald Reagan, but in sacred underwear."
Here's the link: http://newsblaze.com/story/20071223154749lill.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html.
RFC: Request for Cartoon
Drawing The Line Between Church And State
Eleven days and counting before their state nominating caucuses, it's understandable that some Iowa Republicans may be having trouble separating politics and religion.
The battle between Mitt Romney, the Mormon, and Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has defined the race.
"We are veering very close to violating the article in the Constitution that says, there should be no religious test for federal office," Meacham told Teichner.
Meacham is the author of " American Gospel," an attempt to put the tension between God and politics in historical perspective.
| American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation |
 |
"You have 46% of Evangelicals, in a poll that Newsweek did in Iowa, saying that Romney's Mormonism makes them less likely to vote for him," said Meacham. "That, in and of itself, is a very dangerous battle to have because it pushes religious affiliation to the center of debate in a country that has done very well when it has kept that kind of religious debate to the sides, or off the table altogether."
The living embodiment of that notion of separation is the neighborhood of Flushing, in the New York City borough of Queens.
Here you'll find every nationality imaginable - every religion. Within a few blocks, there are churches, a Quaker meeting house, Buddhist temples, synagogues, a mosque. As a sign of how mixed-up everything is, in front of the Queens public library, the Christmas tree and the Menorah were sponsored by the Chinese Businessmen's Association."
Professor Kenneth Jackson, who teaches New York history at Columbia University, described the significance of the remonstrance:
"This is one of the really great documents of American history that's preserved by the archives. It's the first thing that we have in writing in the United States where a group of citizens attests on paper and over their signature the right of the people to follow their own conscience with regard to God - and the inability of government, or the illegality of government, to interfere with that."
In 1657, Flushing was a farm village, and like Manhattan, part of New Netherland, a Dutch colony governed by Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant persecuted followers of religions other than his own Dutch Reformed Church. When he barred Quakers from Flushing, thirty local citizens, none of them Quakers themselves, petitioned Stuyvesant, claiming the ban violated Dutch custom.
"It's just elegantly and eloquently written," Jackson said. "They say, 'We desire, therefore, in this case, not to be judged, least we be judged. Neither to condemn, lest we be condemned, but rather let every man stand and fall to his master.'"
Peter Stuyvesant, no man to be trifled with, fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted - but there's more.
An important part of this story is the role played by a man named John Bowne, who lived here. Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. He was arrested, jailed, and sent to Holland for trial. The outcome was not what Peter Stuyvesant expected - Bowne was exhonerated.
"It didn't just come out of thin air, the First Amendment to the Constitution. We believed this already, in 1791, so it could become the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights," Jackson said.
Remember, most of the original 13 colonies had established churches and actually taxed citizens to support them. The end of that led to an explosion of religious fervor.
"In other words," Teichner asked Jon Meacham, "the separation of church and state enables the tolerance of someone else's religion?"
"Absolutely," Meacham agreed. "The separation of church and state is like oxygen to the fire of religious liberty."
So if you thought the tug-of-war between religion and politics is something new, think again.
"Religion has always been a weapon in the political arena," Meacham explained. "In 1800, there were advertisements that said you could have Jefferson and no God … or Adams and God." (
Meacham cited another example: "In the Civil War, President Lincoln was presented with a proposed amendment to the Constitution to declare our allegiance to independence and Jesus … and in a brilliant parliamentary move, he referred it to a Congressional committee from whence it never emerged."
And another example, "Theodore Roosevelt, in 1908, was defending William Howard Taft, who was a Unitarian being attacked by William Jennings Bryan's supporters who were evangelicals who believed that Unitarians were not Christian."
And of course, lately, Teichner observed, we've been reminded of John F. Kennedy's famous speech.
On September 12, 1960, Kennedy said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. Where no Catholic prelate would tell the President, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote."
Kennedy's self-defense to Houston ministers was that year's chapter in a long history ... Mitt Romney's speech was this year's.
In his speech , Romney said, "the founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation under God, and in God, we do indeed trust."
The two speeches, 47 years apart, show how the conversation about what Jefferson called the "wall of separation" has evolved.
"Americans have tested that wall in every possible way," Meacham told Teichner. "We've run trucks up against it, we've thrown firecrackers at it, and the wall has stood pretty strongly. And it requires, I think, constant vigilance."
Because, as history and the First Amendment tell us, the relationship between government and religion is as fragile as it is strong.
Conservative Icons Speak out Against Huckabee . . . please add to this LIST!
Please
Rush Limbaugh:
Bob Novak:
Condileeza Rice
Peggy Noonan
Charles Kruthammer
Michelle Malkin
Fred Barnes
George Will-- ( these comments too on a TV news show)
Laura Ingraham:
David Limbaugh
Kim Strassell :
Pat Buchanan
Mitt Romney :)
Sean Hannity (kind of)
Michael Reagan
Glenn Beck (semi "reconciliation" ---- but then he's still not too impressed )
Matt Drudge:
. . . it's obvious that he has a bone to pick with Huckabee.
Jim Geraghty
Tony Blankley
Ann Coulter:
Rich Lowry:
Dean Barnett:
Mark Hemningway
Austin Hill
Tom Bevan
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Frank Gaffney
Peter Wehner
Hugh Hewitt
The Editors of National Review (Oh yeah, this one too)
Larry Kudlow On Mike Huckabee
[W]hen I had Governor Huckabee on, what was it, last week or the week before, I had a bout with him. I went at it. He wants to, if need be, have government regulate salaries. I think he's crazy. I don't think he understands the free market business system. He's not good on taxing, he's not good on spending, he's not good on free trade. In other words, all the prosperity factors seem to be Mr. Huckabee's weakness. I don't think he understands it. He's just out of tune with all measures of free market, supply side economics. You know, it isn't his religion, and I admire his religion. I personally am a man of faith. I regard myself as an Evangelical, the fact is. But it's not his religion, it's his positions. Condi Rice came out of the State Department. Hell, I haven't seen her in about a month or two. She came out and attacked him because of his navet on dealing in international affairs with Iran and others. He doesn't seem to understand power politics, and that we are in a jihadist global war.
Dec 22, 2007
Was it all planed?
Mitt Romney: Simply Brilliant
Imagine Mitt Romney sitting with a bunch of reporters. He says, "You know, I have always been for civil rights, even back in the 60's. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King, Jr."
What would happen? Do you think the old media would trumpet this across the front pages?
Of course not. If the old media ran with that story, not only would it help Mitt, but it would help the Republican Party by demonstrating that in the 60's, only the republicans were united behind the civil rights movement. The democrats were split. So since it would help republicans, the story was tanked, if it was ever started.
So what does Mitt do? He gives a speech on national TV, a speech that was supposed to be about his religion. (Note how every time Mitt came out and said it wasn't about his religion that the media drummed it up even more.) In the speech he declares that he saw his father march with Dr. King. It was a minor statement, but an important one. It was a statement that everyone heard. But otherwise, it was a forgettable statement.
But it gets better. See, someone in the media uncovers that maybe this isn't true. After all, the historical records don't show that Dr. King ever marched in that area. When confronted, Mitt shows weakness, and starts to backpedal. "Aha!" the old media thinks. "We got him cornered–let's go in for the kill." The old media runs with the story, blaring it across the headlines: "Mitt is a liar. He didn't see dad march with King."
And then it gets better. See, Mitt did see his dad march with Dr. King. So did a whole lot of other people, people who marched as well. One by one, the real story comes out, piece by piece the lead story in the old media is thoroughly trashed.
Most importantly, the big issue that was supposed to take Mitt down–gets the message he wanted out in the first place. Now, when people think Mitt, they will think: "Wasn't he the guy that claimed to see his dad march with Dr. King?" and then, "Oh yeah, and they thought he didn't but he really did!"
Folks, Mitt is slick, and he is slicker than der Schlickmeister himself. He just used the old media to trumpet something he wanted to get out and publish far and wide. He just changed the discussion from "Didn't mormons prohibit the blacks from getting the priesthood?" to "Didn't Mitt march with Dr. King?"
This reminds me of how both Reagan and Bush would regularly make fools out of the media. It is so subtle you can easily miss it, but it is obviously there. It reminds me of Governor Romney telling a reporter, "No, I represent the people; you represent your newspaper." He is that kind of guy, witty, smart, and brilliant.
This is why I support Mitt over Thompson. I have yet to see Thompson do anything like this. This is what you need beyond the issues and the principles: you need someone that can deliver.
What do you think?
From Jeff
From John King on a bus in Iowa. Sure he cut some taxes (raised far more), but how does he get away with claiming that he cut spending?
$6.7 Billion to $16 AR state budget over his tenure . . . OVER THREE TIMES THE RATE OF INFLATION. So me the "cut spending" record Huck!
Just another Huckabee lie (I can't see any other explanation, can you?)
Jeff
PS Bonus material: Huck said that he's not sure if he actually wrote the words "arrogant bunker mentality", but he "owns them now." - - - a wimpy attempt to blame a speech writer for that gaffe. However he also said nearly those same words over two months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQitn77AXvo&eurl=http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/
Also, Huck complained on that bus that he's pretty sure that Rice didn't read his whole essay, because if she did, she wouldn't be criticizing it (the same thing he said about Romney's critiques).
I loved Charles Krauthammer's response to that. "So essentially Huckabee's saying: 'I wish she would have read that article that I didn't write'" . . . Man that's an instant classic!
Here's the laundry list of country clubs where Huckabee is a member
Little Rock Club
Pleasant Valley Country Club
Country Club of Little Rock
Maumelle Bass Club
Old Fishing Club.
Dec 21, 2007
"Governor Graft"
http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2007/12/cooler-exclusive-governor-graft.html
COOLER EXCLUSIVE- "Governor Graft"
Most noteworthy, $17,500 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure
He also received speaking fees and honoraria from churches while Governor.
It is certainly calls into question whether or not it is appropriate for a Governor to be taking a consulting fee from interest groups, as Huckabee did, when issues surrounding that interest group could come across his desk.
The consulting money was funneled through an organization called 12 stops, a group created in 2004 to handle Gov. Huckabee's book deals. With all the attention Senator Obama received for running a separate PAC and potentially funnelling money from maxed out donors through that PAC, it calls into question whether Huckabee may have done the same.
You can view a full list of Huckabee "donors" here.
Developing...
Rice rejects Huckabee criticism
WASHINGTON -- In a brief foray into politics, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday denounced comments by a leading Republican presidential candidate that the Bush administration's foreign policy is arrogant and unilateral."The idea that somehow this is a go-it-alone policy is just simply ludicrous," she said at a State Department news conference. "One would only have to be not observing the facts, let me say that, to say that this is now a go-it-alone foreign policy."Her remarks came in response to a question about criticism from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has surged in the polls to become a front-runner in the upcoming Iowa caucuses for the GOP presidential nomination. Huckabee recently said the administration's foreign policy was characterized by a "bunker mentality."Rice did not mention Huckabee by name in her response and at first declined to respond, saying dismissively: "Look, I don't comment on other people's comments. I don't have time, all right. I really don't have time to worry about this."But she then launched into a vigorous defense of the administration's multilateral diplomatic efforts on Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran, and pointed to improving ties with traditional allies in Europe, some of which were strained by the Iraq war."We have right now probably the strongest trans-Atlantic relations ... I would say in a very long time," Rice said, noting in particular Britain, France and Germany."We're working with allies in Europe, Russia and China on Iran. The (NATO) alliance is mobilized together in Afghanistan," she said. "We had 50-plus countries at Annapolis to launch the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. We're working together with allies in Lebanon."I can go on and on and on and on," Rice concluded. "And so, I would just say to people, look at the facts.
American Pastoral
American Pastoral
Mike Huckabee preaches to the choir, but not everyone's singing along.
Friday, December 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
I didn't see the famous floating cross. What I saw when I watched Mike Huckabee's Christmas commercial was a nice man in a sweater sitting next to a brightly lit tree. He had easy warmth and big brown puppy-dog eyes, and he talked about taking a break from politics to remember the peace and joy of the season. Sounds good to me.
Only on second look did I see the white lines of the warmly lit bookcase, which formed a glowing cross. Someone had bothered to remove the books from that bookcase, or bothered not to put them in. Maybe they would have dulled the lines.
Is there a word for "This is nice" and "This is creepy"? For that is what I felt. This is so sweet-appalling.
I love the cross. The sight of it, the fact of it, saves me, literally and figuratively. But there is a kind of democratic politesse in America, and it has served us well, in which we are happy to profess our faith but don't really hit people over the head with its symbols in an explicitly political setting, such as a campaign commercial, which is what Mr. Huckabee's ad was.
I wound up thinking this: That guy is using the cross so I'll like him. That doesn't tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I'm dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh.
The ad was shrewd. The caucus is coming, the TV is on, people are home putting up the tree, and the other candidates are all over the tube advancing themselves and attacking someone else. Mr. Huckabee thinks, I'll break through the clutter by being the guy who reminds us of the reason for the season, in a way that helps underscore that I'm the Christian candidate and those other fellas aren't. As a break from the nattering argument, as a message that highlights something bigger than politics, it was refreshing.
Was the cross an accident? Please. It was as accidental as Mr. Huckabee's witty response, when he accused those of questioning the ad of paranoia, was spontaneous. "Actually I will confess this, if you play this spot backwards it says 'Paul is dead, Paul is dead, Paul is dead,' " he said. As Bill Safire used to say of clever moves, "That's good stuff!"
Ken Mehlman, the former Republican chairman, once bragged in my presence that in every ad he did he put in something wrong--something that went too far, something debatable. TV producers, ever hungry for new controversy, would play the commercial over and over as pundits on the panel deliberated over its meaning. This got the commercial played free all over the news.
The cross is the reason you saw the commercial. The cross made it break through.
Mr. Huckabee is a telegenic presence, fluid and unself-conscious. The camera is his friend. It is not the potential exposer of his flaws but the conduit by which his warmth and intelligence can be more broadly known. This gift, and seeing the camera this way is a gift, carries greater implications in American politics than, say, in British politics. In Britain, public persona is important, as Tony Blair showed, but there you rise up in the parliamentary system. You have to learn to play well with the other children. You have to form alliances, handle a portfolio, create coalitions, lead within the party and then the country.
In American politics you don't have to go through that grueling process. You can be born on TV. Some candidates for president have a closer relationship with the makeup woman at "Hannity" and the guy who mics you up on "Meet" than they do with state party chiefs and union leaders. Experience, background and positions can be trumped by killer spots or a dominating debate performance.
This is some of Mr. Huckabee's power. There's the fact that he's new, and the fact that Americans are in a funny historic moment: The lives they lead are good, and comfortable, but they sense deep down that the infrastructure of our good fortune is in many ways frail, that Citi may fall and Korea go crazy and some nut go kaboom. In such circumstances some would think a leader radically different--an outsider, a minister, a self proclaimed non-establishment type--might be an answer.
Mr. Huckabee reminds me of two governors who became president, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Like Mr. Clinton, he is a natural, charming, bright and friendly. Yet one senses something unsavory there, something not so nice. Like Mr. Bush, his approach to politics seems, at bottom, highly emotional, marked by great spurts of feeling and mighty declarations as to what the Lord wants. The problem with this, and with Bushian compassionate conservatism, which seems to have an echo in Mr. Huckabee's Christianism, is that to the extent it is a philosophy, it is not a philosophy that allows debate. Because it comes down to "This is what God wants." This is not an opener of discussion but a squelcher of it. It doesn't expand the process, it frustrates it.
Mr. Huckabee is clever. He puts forth his policies, such as they are, based on a faith-based understanding of public policy, and if you disagree with his policies, or take a hard shot at them, or at him, he suggests the reason is that you look down on evangelicals. This creates a new fissure in a party already riven by fissures. He has been accused by some in the conservative press of tearing the party apart, but it was being torn apart before he got on the scene. His rise is not a cause of collapse but an expression of it.
He plays the victim well. Others want to "trip him up," but he'll "get my message out there." His foes are "Wall Street-Washington" insiders, elitists. On the "Today" show he said his critics are the type who never liked evangelical Christians. When one of them runs, these establishment types say " 'Oh my gosh, now they're serious, they don't want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be part of the discussion and really talk about issues that include hunger and poverty and things.' "
This is a form of populist manipulation. Evangelical Christians have been strong in the Republican Party since the 1970s. President Bush and Karl Rove helped them become more important. The suggestion that they are a small and abused group within the GOP is strange. It is as if the Reagan Democrats, largely Catholic and suburban, who buoyed the Republican Party from the late '70s through 2004, and who were very much part of the GOP coalition, decided to announce that Catholics have been abused within the party, and it's time for Christmas commercials with floating Miraculous Medals.
Does Mr. Huckabee understand that his approach is making people uncomfortable? Does he see himself as divisive? He's a bright man, so it's hard to believe he doesn't. But it's working for him. It's getting him his 30 points in Iowa in a crowded field.
Could he win the nomination? Who knows? It's all a bubbling stew on the Republican side, and no one knows who'll float to the top. In an interview this week with David Brody of CBN, Mr. Huckabee said people everywhere were coming to him and saying, "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you, that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."
Prayer is powerful. But Huckabee's critics say he's a manipulator with a mean streak and little knowledge of the world. And Isaiah 54 doesn't say anything about self-inflicted wounds.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Dec 20, 2007
Did a Huck Ally Really Slam Rush Limbaugh?
Thursday, December 20, 2007
I'd really like to know which "prominent DC-based Huckabee ally" told Mark Ambinder that...
"Rush [Limbaugh] doesn't think for himself. That's not necessarily a slap because he's not paid to be a thinker—he's an entertainer. I can't remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC/Manhattan chattering class. If they were praising Huckabee, he would be too... Also, I have to think that he's dying to have Hillary in the White House. Bill Clinton made Rush a megastar. Having another Clinton back in power would make him the Leading Voice of the Opposition once again."
Really? Rush Limbaugh is part of the DC/Manhattan chattering class?
Hey, if Rush Limbaugh isn't "red state enough" to question Huckabee's conservative street cred, who is?
"blending Jimmy Carter's ostentatious piety with Nixon's knack for oblique nastiness"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/12/20/retro_campaigning By George Will Thursday, December 20, 2007
... On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee's role in the '70s Show involves blending Jimmy Carter's ostentatious piety with Nixon's knack for oblique nastiness. "Despicable" and "appalling" evidence of a "gutter campaign" -- that is how The Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence, Mass., characterized this from Sunday's New York Times Magazine profile of Huckabee: "'Don't Mormons,' he asked in an innocent voice, 'believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'" Imagine someone asking "in an innocent voice" this: "Don't Jews use the blood of gentile children to make matzoth for Passover?" Such a smarmy injection of the "blood libel," an ancient canard of anti-Semitism, into civic discourse would indelibly brand the injector as a bigot with contempt for the public's ability to decode bigotry. Huckabee's campaign actually is what Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is misdescribed as being -- a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs. Giuliani departs from recent Republican stances regarding two issues -- abortion and the recognition by the law of same-sex couples. Huckabee's radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity. And consider New Hampshire's chapter of the National Education Association, the teachers union that is a crucial component of the Democratic Party's base. In 2004, New Hampshire's chapter endorsed Howard Dean in the Democratic primary and no one in the Republican primary. Last week it endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary -- and Huckabee in the Republican primary. It likes, as public employees generally do, his record of tax increases, and it applauds his opposition to school choice. Huckabee's role in this year's '70s Show is not merely to attempt to revise a few Republican beliefs. He represents wholesale repudiation of what came after the 1970s -- Reaganism. |
George F. Will, a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide, is the author of Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball.
Be the first to read George Will's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
this is not a sibling that you just aren’t having a good time with
HH: Since you're one of the unofficial advisors to Mike Huckabee, I want to play for you a little Huckabee quote from, concerning Iran. Cut number five. He made this in a speech earlier this year.MH: We haven't had diplomatic relationships with Iran in almost thirty years, most of my entire adult life. And a lot of good it's done. Putting this in human terms, all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling, or even a friend, it's impossible to resolve the difference to move that relationship forward. Well, the same is true for countries.
HH: What do you think, Frank Gaffney?
FG: Well, for the purposes of setting the record straight, Hugh, I want you and your audience to recall that the other guy he mentioned in this New York Times Sunday Magazine interview as advising him was Tom Friedman of the New York Times. And that sounds a lot more like Tom's advice than my advice. I think that's cockamamie, and in fact, I had an hour and a half, I think, conversation with Governor Huckabee a couple of months ago over breakfast, and this was one of the main points on which I tried to educate him, that this is not a sibling that you just aren't having a good time with. This is a country run by megalomaniacs bent on an apocalyptic outcome, who believe that bringing about a world without America is their god-given obligation. And you know, just talking with them, you know, can't we all get along, Rodney King style, is not a prescription for a serious foreign policy, I'm afraid.
ARKANSAS' PRIMARY DRUG OF CONCERN
"ARKANSAS' PRIMARY
DRUG OF CONCERN"
As Meth Became A Crisis In Arkansas, Gov. Huckabee
Reduced Sentences For Makers Of The Drug
AP: "Huckabee Criticized For Meth Bill":
The Associated Press: "Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee can find plenty of parallels between his native Arkansas and Iowa when it comes to methamphetamine: Both are small states battling increased use of the drug through stricter laws. But Republican presidential rivals Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are tagging Huckabee as soft on crime because of a 2005 Arkansas law he signed as governor that gave some meth offenders more credit for good behavior. Instead of serving only 70 percent of their sentences, they'd only have to serve at least half if they behaved." (Andrew DeMillo, "Huckabee Criticized For Meth Bill," The Associated Press, 12/20/07)
Meth Became A Crisis In Arkansas When Huckabee Was Governor: 
At The Same Time, Gov. Huckabee Signed Legislation Reducing Sentences For The Makers Of Meth:
Huckabee Supported A Measure To Reduce Mandatory Minimums For Methamphetamine Makers. "Methamphetamine makers could shorten their mandatory time in prison with good behavior under legislation approved Tuesday by the Arkansas House. The bill, by Sen. Jim Luker, D-Wynne, is part of a legislative package intended to help control the state's burgeoning prison population and is supported by state prison officials, the state prosecutors' association and Gov. Mike Huckabee." (Melissa Nelson, "Arkansas House Approves Bill To Reduce Mandatory Prison Time Of Meth Offenders," The Associated Press, 3/8/05)
The Bill Lowered Mandatory Minimums For Meth Manufacturers From 70 Percent Of A Sentence To Only 50 Percent Of A Sentence. "Senate Bill 387 repeals a 1997 law requiring those convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, among other crimes, to serve at least 70 percent of their sentence. Approved by a unanimous vote in the Senate and by a 56-32 vote in the House, SB 387 allows those inmates to serve half of their sentence if they've earned 'good time' for good behavior." (Arkansas House Of Representatives, "Prison Crowding And Saving Teachers' Insurance Plans Gain House Approval," Press Release, http://www.arkansas.gov/, 3/11/05)
- In 2005, Gov. Huckabee Signed The Sentence Reductions Into Law. "Also Monday, Gov. Mike Huckabee signed into law legislation allowing imprisoned methamphetamine abusers serving time under the state's mandatory 70-percent rule to shorten their sentences with good behavior." (Melissa Nelson, "Senate OKs Higher Ed Funding Formulas," The Associated Press, 3/21/05)
Huckabee Was Recently Confronted By His Support For Weaker Sentences:
Huckabee Said He Was Against "Putting People In Unnecessarily Long Sentences When There Really Was No Call For It." STEPHANOPOULOS: "Why did you sign a bill that your local paper called a relief bill for meth manufacturers?" HUCKABEE: "Well, they called it that but it was actually making sure that we had reasonable, responsible policies and prison terms. We were hard on drug offenders and drug dealers. But here's what we also tried to do. To balance being tough on drug dealers, tough on crime, but also being a little bit kinder to the taxpayers and not putting people in unnecessarily long sentences when there really was no call for it. Our prison director, I think said it best. He said, we lock up a lot of people we're mad at not just the people we're afraid of. So, we didn't coddle criminals. But what we did do, in many cases of non-violent drug offenders was create drug courts which created a different pathway so that people who had not committed a violent crime, who were drug users, who didn't have previous offenses, went into rehab and that cost w about $4 a day versus incarceration of some $43 a day." (ABC's "This Week," 12/2/07; www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv648uLzKyo)
Huckabee Admitted He Supported Weakening Penalties For Criminals Caught Running Meth Labs. STEPHANOPOULOS: "I understand not the drug users, but these were drug dealers here." HUCKABEE: "Well, and we didn't make this -- what you have to understand is that the significant difference was some of the penalties for these people could be up to life, and they still had that potential if they continued to manufacture drugs, but it was an adjustment in what had been an overreaching law that had previously passed." (ABC's "This Week," 12/2/07; www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv648uLzKyo)
The Arkansas Democrat Gazette Attacked Lower Sentences For Meth Makers:
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "Call It The Relief Bill For Meth Manufacturers." (Editorial, "A Perk For Drug Dealers," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/16/05)
The Bill Was Criticized Because It Reduced Sentencing For Meth Manufacturers Sentences, Not Meth Users. "This was a bad idea two years ago when the Department of Correction pressured the Ledge to back away from the 70 percent rule. It still is. Because the rule isn't aimed at the poor souls who wind up in jail only because they've used meth and got caught. The prisoners who would benefit by the Ledge's favor are the dealers-the source of the plague, the ones who cook up the drug and spread it around. These are the folks who prey on addicts lower down the drug chain. These are the manufacturers and merchants of so much misery in Arkansas." (Editorial, "A Perk For Drug Dealers," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/16/05)
Although The Bill Cited Overcrowding As Reason For Its Passage, Meth Manufacturers Represented Only A Small Percentage Of The Prison Population. "There's no big economy to be achieved by passing SB 387. That's because these dealers represent only a tiny fraction of the prison population. The big growth in the number of prisoners results from having to jail all those drug addicts who violate their paroles, or the terms of their probations, by falling back into their old habits. Now there's a problem that needs fixing. But the Ledge won't adequately fund probation and parole departments, leaving the drug-addicted poorly supervised-and prime candidates for a return to prison." (Editorial, "A Perk For Drug Dealers," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/16/05)
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Said That It Created A Prison "Revolving Door." "It made no sense two years ago to spin the prisons' revolving door even faster, and it makes no sense today. The Ledge needs to think about all this again, if it thought about any of this the first time, and be given a chance to change its mind." (Editorial, "A Perk For Drug Dealers," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/16/05)
from the Bard
With so many options some think the task tough
To figure out which in the crowd measure up
It's not mine to say which of those we see here
Will stand straight and tall or fall on their ear
But one thing I think is quite obviously clear
The leader we want works in honorable ways
who clearly can see by the night or by day
And chart a fixed course and never will stray
From doing each tiniest thing they did say
His or her character never will be
Put up for bids on the highest paid fee
But will endeavor with all honesty
To act in all ways to keep our land free
Who do I think it should be?
I admit it is easy to think I'd be stuck
With the slinging of mud and the rottenest muck
To know which to keep and which we could chuck
But I think with much prayer and a little good luck
The people will know the saint from the schmuck
And at least they will say " let's chuck Huck!"
‘Vanity Fair’ Makes New Giuliani Ad Seem Even Nuttier
'Vanity Fair' Makes New Giuliani Ad Seem Even Nuttier
Giuliani also failed to disclose his consulting contract with a Florida entrepreneur named Hank Asher when in 2004 he talked about him to a magazine writer who was profiling Asher. In fact, the writer was this writer, and the magazine was Vanity Fair.
Not only is the profile more coolly damaging than VF's summertime hatchet job on Judith Nathan — its cumulative effect is devastating. Newsweek and the Voice focused on Rudy's sinister-sounding but ultimately murky connection to a world of which few voters have a clear picture (and we are all tainted: Got a Citicard? A Saudi prince is the biggest shareholder in Citigroup). Shnayerson, by contrast, methodically builds a portrait of a fundamentally flawed and avaricious character, a man happy to sell his perceived integrity not just to the highest bidder, but to every bidder. The newest Giuliani TV ad (above) promising to "stand up" to "dictators" and "tyrants" might not have the same ring coming from someone who's been paid by Qatar, China, Venezuela, and countless machers in need of a cred boost. —Michael Idov
Related: Rudy Has Seen the Enemy and He Is … Us [NYM]
From Kyle
First, several people made the point that Europe has a Value Added Tax (VAT) that is more than the 10% figure that I quoted. All of the research that I read made a distinction between the VAT and a national retail sales tax like the Fair Tax. This distinction is based on the mechanics of the tax. The value added tax looks at what a firm adds to the value of a product where a national sales tax is an excise tax levied at the point of sale. The end result looks similar because the VAT is passed on to the consumer. However, the VAT requires firms to report the value added at each stage of production. A national retail sales tax does not require any such reporting other than that the national rate has been applied. The figure I used looked just at those countries using a national retail sales tax and did not include those countries using a VAT.
Second, several readers expressed frustration at the current tax system and argued that we are essentially paying the same rate as what the Fair Tax would impose. That may be true, but I don't understand how that merits scrapping the current system. If the Fair Tax does the exact same thing, why should switch? The tie goes toward stability, does it not? People have planned, not just in the short term, but in the long term for the tax benefits of the current system. Revolutionizing the way we tax would upset the expectations of a millions of Americans and businesses. Thus, doing something that drastic requires not just generalized frustration, but serious injustice. Generally, I think that frustration with the current tax system has made people over-eager to do something else. I don't deny that the current system has its flaws. Indeed, it should be flatter and simpler. However, taking the extreme position of overhauling what we have and disturbing the expectations of those who are paying taxes seems unwise to me.
More rebuttals to come
Dec 19, 2007
re: "Rod Dreher"
America's President Deserves Thanks And Respect
Townhall
By Governor Mitt Romney
December 19, 2007
"As Americans prepare for the holidays with their families and loved ones, we have many challenges to face but also many reasons to be thankful. We are thankful we live in a nation that is still a land of freedom, hope and opportunity. And we can be thankful that President Bush has kept us safe. Too often our politicians in Washington and on the campaign trail seem to have forgotten this simple fact.
"It was disheartening when Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) questioned the sworn testimony of General David Petraeus, the troop commander of our forces in Iraq, when he reported on the success of the surge. A disbelieving Senator Clinton said reports of progress require 'the willing suspension of disbelief.' We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that Senator Clinton was wrong and General Petraeus was right, and yet to this day she has refused to apologize for her unwarranted attack on the integrity of one of our finest soldiers. Even in my own party, Governor Mike Huckabee criticized President Bush by accusing him of 'an arrogant bunker mentality' in dealing with other nations around the world. Just like Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee has refused to apologize."
...
"In the wake of 9/11, the President took unprecedented steps to keep us safe and defend Americans at home and abroad. We revamped our homeland security apparatus, passed new laws that allowed us to listen in when al-Qaeda was calling, cleared out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and successfully toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein.
"Far from home, our soldiers, National Guard and Reserves, have overcome early strategic mistakes to make progress in Iraq that is both undeniable and should be welcomed by all. This progress has come as America's heroes and their families have made unequalled sacrifices."
...
"A half century ago, our mothers and fathers in the Greatest Generation came together to defeat fascism and communism, promote freedom and civil rights, and build a strong and prosperous country that is the envy of the world. They showed that there is no threat that a united America cannot defeat. By remembering their example, we can overcome the challenges that confront us."
To read the full op-ed, please see: http://www.townhall.com/
Former White House Adviser Pete Wehner
MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
To watch, please see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC0PRgnAF4Y
Former White House Adviser Pete Wehner Discusses Huckabee's Attacks On Bush Foreign Policy:
MSNBC's
PETE WEHNER: "Nice to be with you. Thanks for inviting me, Joe."
WEHNER: "Well, it was revealing because the criticisms that he made were with the kind that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore would make, not that usually conservative Republicans would make. He said that the President was at war with the world, which is not true. He spoke about the 'arrogant bunker mentality.' He said that the President really should deal with
SCARBOROUGH: "Do you think, though, that a lot of Republicans are concerned with let's say what Paul Bremer did with the de-Baath-ification plan or what Donald Rumsfeld did by not giving the generals all the troops they wanted. I mean, Republicans, I know you've heard from other Republicans. There are similar concerns about missteps after we got into
WEHNER: "I acknowledge those and I accept them, actually. I've got some of the same complaints. Clearly the post-war situation wasn't handled well. We didn't have enough troops. We didn't have the right counter insurgency strategy. We have it now with David Petraeus. That wasn't the grounds of my criticism for the Foreign Affairs article. As I said, it was the nature of his criticisms as they related to this 'arrogant bunker mentality' that we really weren't, that we were having a problem in communications with dictators in the world. Well, sometimes it's actually the nature of the regimes that cause the problems. Its not that you're not being nice enough to them. He was making the argument that if you dominate the world you're going to illicit opposition. We're not dominating the world. We're actually trying to liberate some countries. And sometimes that elicits opposition."
WEHNER: "Yeah. That was another criticism that bothered me. Implicit in his argument is that it wasn't a generous nation. If we were generous we'd be well-loved. The reality is that we are generous. We give a huge amount in foreign aid. The President's global AIDS initiative which increased the amount of money to combat global AIDS by five times over the Clinton Administration is one of the great, generous, humane foreign policy achievements ever. And the reality is that we liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most despotic and cruel regimes in modern history and that was an act of generosity. It's come at a lot of cost to us in terms of human lives and in terms of money. It's cost more in lives and money than it should have. But the reality is that the impulse was generous and I think when all is said and done we'll look back on in history as having done the right thing and the generous thing."
MSNBC's MIKA BRZEZINSKI: "Peter, pertaining to the Foreign Affairs article written by Governor Huckabee and the words that he used, isn't it also true that we're dealing with an administration that led us into war on faulty intelligence and an administration that brought up the possibility of World War III which appears to be on intelligence that is still sort of hard to decipher at this point. I mean, isn't there something to be said for the 'arrogant bunker mentality' and why can't Republican candidates say that? Is there some rule against it?"
WEHNER: "No, there's no rule against it. He said it. But there's no rule against criticizing him for saying it. In terms of the faulty intelligence, I don't dispute that. Of course we went in with faulty intelligence and it was a huge, huge failure. The rest of the world had faulty intelligence. Countries that even opposed our actions in
Dec 18, 2007
Gilchrist discovers candidate favors giving status to illegals within days
ELECTION 2008
Minuteman reconsiders Huckabee endorsement
Gilchrist discovers candidate favors giving status to illegals within days
Posted: December 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in the moments following the Values Voter Debate Sept. 17, 2007, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (WND photo) |
In a Dec. 9 Fox News interview, just two days before Gilchrist's endorsement, Huckabee was questioned by host Chris Wallace about an apparent contradiction between statements last year that he preferred a pathway to citizenship and his current plan. On his campaign website, Huckabee outlines a proposal that would require illegal aliens to repatriate and get on the back of the line, which could mean years for re-entry into the United States.
Huckabee insisted there is no discrepancy, specifying that "the pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce."
Asked by WND to respond, Gilchrist backtracked, admitting he may have been mistaken in his initial assumptions about the repatriation provisions of Huckabee's "Secure America Plan."
"I'm going to have to follow up on this," Gilchrist said. "I had not seen before anything in Governor Huckabee's plan where repatriation and touch-back could involve only days, not years.
"I personally need to talk to Governor Huckabee about this," he added. "This issue needs to be between Governor Huckabee and me."
As previously reported, Gilchrist told WND, "Nothing I can find in Huckabee's plan indicates he is going to let the illegal immigrants back into the country the next day after they go home.
"The illegal aliens, once they are back home, will have to stand in line with everybody else and apply for legal entry at the end of the line," Gilchrist insisted, representing what he thought was the Huckabee plan.
Gilchrist further stated at the time, "If, in fact, there is no standing in line and waiting for legal entry, I would have a serious reservation about endorsing Huckabee."
Despite the new information about Huckabee's plan, Gilchrist declined to withdraw immediately his endorsement.
"I need to get answers from Huckabee himself about this discrepancy," Gilchrist said. "I want a valid explanation and I want it published.
"Plus, I have some other questions too that you're not aware of that I have already queried Governor Huckabee's staff about yesterday and again this morning," he continued. "But it's going to take about 72 hours to get responses."
Gilchrist declined to specify the additional questions.
In the Fox News interview, Wallace asked Huckabee about the apparent inconsistency.
"Well, I don't think there's an inconsistency," Huckabee said. "When I said a pathway, I didn't say what the pathway was.
"I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept – and frankly, the only thing that really makes sense – is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point," Huckabee continued.
"But this idea of the waiting years – no, I don't agree with that," he stressed. "In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the Internet any place in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously – it's our government that has failed and is dysfunctional."
Huckabee went on to say, "It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce."
He further specified, "But the pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce."
That repatriation provisions in Huckabee's "Secure America Plan" apparently are supported by Point 9 of his plan, which calls for an increase in the number of visas available for highly skilled and highly educated applicants.
Theocratic?
Bill Whitaker
From CBS News' Correspondent
Bill Whitaker, who's covering the Romney campaign:
LONDONDERRY, N.H. -- Before former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney arrived at his first campaign stop at Insight Technology, a maker of high-tech military laser and imaging systems, a young woman went around the room, hurriedly handing out leaflets to the 150 or so employees gathered to hear Romney speak.
The leaflet entitled, "Questions for Presidential Candidates," had a half dozen questions, most of them critical of the
"These are anti-Romney," she said. "We don't allow this. Some young woman snuck in here and handed these out. She didn't belong here, we don't allow this!" Every employee I saw her approach handed the leaflets over.
After Romney gave his standard speech and asked for questions, one older gentleman stood and said he had a question about the First Amendment and the right to free speech. He relayed the above story and added that the young woman had been asked rather forcefully to leave. He then asked Romney what he thought of that.
Romney at first seemed taken aback and looked as though he'd prefer to laugh if off. Then the candidate, who has made "Ask Mitt Anything" sessions a staple of his campaign, seemed to recognize brushing this off was not an option and he seemed to realize this could be a useable moment.
Saying, "I'm not afraid of any questions" and "I was on 'Meet The Press' yesterday, for Pete's sake," he asked to see the leaflet. Romney then proceeded to answer the leaflet questions about the cost of the war and bring the troops home from
Romney never did address the free speech issue, whether he condoned or condemned the attempt to stifle a line of questioning. Still, the workers at this military technology company seemed rather pleased with his response and gave him an energetic round of applause. The candidate seemed rather pleased with himself.