From ABC News link, which is now being reported on Fox News Channel, as well:
Bernie Campbell, a 26-year-old public school teacher in Laconia, N.H., was eating dinner at home Friday night with his wife, a graduate student at Dartmouth, when he got a phone call.
…
Campbell, a West Lebanon, N.H., co-chair for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., figured what the heck, it was just 60 seconds.
After he told the automated caller that he intended to vote in the Jan. 8, 2008, New Hampshire GOP primary, that he considers himself pro-life, and that he intends to vote for McCain, the poll took on a decidedly negative tone, Campbell told ABC News.
…
The automated machine, which identified itself as being with Common Sense Issues, threw Campbell questions about whether he’d be less likely to support McCain if he knew the Arizona senator opposed a federal amendment to ban same sex marriage, or that he’d hurt the anti-abortion-rights cause by leading the charge for campaign finance reform.
In the story, the McCain campaign blames Huckabee backers, but I won’t go that far since multiple campaigns could’ve hired the same firm, and I’m not familiar with the name of this one, or how widely used it is.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Huckabee wouldn’t use this tactic with McCain. For one,
Huckabee stated that he wanted to run a positive campaign.
Secondly, Huckabee wants McCain’s endorsement if McCain were
to drop out. Huckabee on a number of occassions has went way
out of his way to acknowledge McCain in a friendly and positive
way. It would not be in Huckabee’s character to use this tactic.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Huckabee told this push poll group to get lost several days ago. Given his deep respect for McCain I’d not be surprised if he tried to get the NH attorney general to get these clowns fined.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/03/post_222.html
This is a group that di push polling in IA also.
Here’s what Huckabee had to say:
“We don’t want this kind of campaigning because it violates the spirit of our campaign,”
December 15th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
What I don’t understand is why this group is doing this, in spite of their candidates wishes. I don’t blame this on Huckabee at all, but I see absolutely no reason that a group of his supporters should even consider attacking McCain.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Benjamin,
rofl
Huckabee stated that he wanted to run a positive campaign.
Huckabee also stated that he had a Theology degree. It’s a shame when a football coach has more integrity than a Pastor and a candidate for President. I refer to the case of George O’Leary and the University of Notre Dame. When it was discovered (caught) that O’Leary had padded his resume in order to inflate his chances, he did the honorable thing. He apologized and resigned. Too bad we can’t say the same thing about Huckabee. Heck, he hasn’t even apologized, he’s just equivocated.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Someone else is pulling the strings. I don’t know who.
But, it doesn’t help either McCain or Huckabee so it
has to be someone else.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
BTW, I happen to agree that this particular incident is out of Huckabee’s control.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Well, there’s group in Iowa doing push polling calling into question whether Huckabee is a Christian.
I think these dirty tactics by outside groups are just the new normal with CFR.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I don’t think the huckabee campaign was behind the Mormon push polls either. I’ve never stated any opinion on that, and will let the facts come out, but it is premature to accuse Huckabee of that one indirectly when he had no ties to the polling firm.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Irish Right,
What offends you the most that Huckabee is a pastor or that
your candidate of choice has not been able to pull the party
together. At least Huckabee shows signs of energy and growing
support among non-evangelicals.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Benjamin,
What offends me about Huckabee is the fact that, while he wears his religion on his sleave, his hands are continually dirtied by scandals and questionable conduct.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I hope for conduct better than that from our candidates. I expect it from someone who proclaims himself a man of God. Huckabee shames us all.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Irish, Huckabees not involved in this. It’s by a rogue group that Huckabee has denounced and told to stop several days before this started.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
EGS, I’ve already agreed that Huckabee is likely not involved in this.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“At least Huckabee shows signs of energy and growing support among non-evangelicals.”
Riiight. Ben, you make me laugh. The only non-evangelicals that support Huck are those that are indistinguishable from them (some like minded Catholics and Mormons), except in name only, and fiscal and defense liberals.
Romney, on the other hand, has broad appeal, and it continues to grow despite Huckabee’s recent surge.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Huckabee doesn’t want to run a negative campaign, except when he throws out comments to attack Romney’s religion. Huckabee doesn’t want to run a negative campaign, except when he calls capitalists the “club for greed”. Huckabee doesn’t want to run a negative campaign, but he will accept the benefits of a dirty push poll attack on McCain.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I don’t think this is Huckabee’s fault. He needs to be vocal against it, but he won’t always be able to control these guys.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Again, the Anti-Huck Rhetoric is centered around the fact
that Huckabee is a previous pastor. Religion is what is
causing most of the discontent against him. I understand
that his record reflects a programmatic moderate approach
as Governor. But, that was the only way things would get
done in a largerly Democrat controlled state. The libertarians
are concerned because they think that Huckabee will be a tax
and spend republican president. It isn’t the case.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
16 – How quickly you are forgetting that Huckabee has said that he wants to run a positive campaign. Come on, you have to take him at his word, the guy is beyond reproach with his theology degree and all.
You’re reacting like he’s running for president of his HOA and not for POTUS.
I believe Huckabee. I literally believe 100% of everything he says. He did say he’s running a positive campaign and I will certainly take him at his word. NOT!
December 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I under stand the Anti-Huck rhetoric is not going to get any better
unless Huck wins the nomination and has a viable Nationally Known
Fiscal Cons. to be the running-mate. The Anti-Huck Rhetoric is first
fostered by the atheists or non-christian fiscal conservatives that
are more libertarian than conservative. You will even hear how some
will support a liberal elitest Democrat Nominee over Huck. Something
a conservative republican true to their principles in supporting
the party of principles would never do.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Quack,
Huckabee has never attacked Romney’s religion. Claims of as much are utterly false. Huckabee asked a question about Mormonism to a man who knew more about the religion than he, the answer to that question being a “yes.” Huckabee has provided a straight forward explanation of this.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Futhermore, Huckabee appolgized to Romney over the reporting
of the incident. This due to the fact that Huckabee wants to
keep his campaign positive and to let Romney know personally
that Huckabee has nothing against Romney. Besides, Huckabee
doesn’t want to impose his beliefs on others. He believes
in people choosing a faith for themselves if they choose one
at all. He establishes his faith only as a character trait
to help define himself with the voters.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Staying on topic, who would benefit by this negative tactic
if Huckabee is obviously not involved. Remember this is NH
and not Iowa. McCain is showing signs of strength here.
Could it be someone else trying to leap frog over McCain or
not Romney himself but someone trying to keep Romney with a
solid lead? I don’t know. It could be just a bunch of cooky
people that don’t like McCain.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Benjamin (18) says:
“I understand that his record reflects a programmatic moderate approach as Governor. But, that was the only way things would get done in a largerly Democrat controlled state.”
This is FALSE. It is regurgitation of Huck’s talking points and it is FALSE.
Republicans in AR oppose Huckabee because he didn’t govern as far to the right as he could, then move to the left only to the extent necessary to get things done. Instead, he pandered to moderates by dismissing anti tax Republicans at “Shiites”. He used Dick Morris triangulation strategy to place himself in the middle by demonizing the right. This is why he calls capitalists the “club for greed”. This is a short term political strategy that is long term stupid because he is bashing a part of the Reagan coalition.
Huckabee is right on guns and abortion, but that is it. He is soft on crime, took thousands of gifts from special interests, he takes nanny state positions like banning smoking in privately owned restaurants and other health regulations, he wants to bring terrorists to a camp in KS, the first step in giving them lawyers and treating them as criminal defendants with rights instead of terrorists, and today he is triangulating again by bashing Bush.
Don’t believe the Huckster. Many of those who supported him at first in AR no longer do, because he marginalized the right by triangulating.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782
These arn’t Dems criticizing him, its REPUBS. The famous Hucabee tax video is not Dems begging Huck for a tax increase, its Huck begging Dems for a tax increase.
Benjamin, you will learn the hard way at some point. Huck lies to get support on the right, and then takes them for granted and throws them under the bus to appeal to moderates and pander to the main stream media. Mark my words, you will be disappointed with Huck in the long run.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
A positive campaign?…hah, what about:
Don’t mormons believe jesus and satan are brothers?.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
22, Huck slips something negative in, then says “awe shucks and apoligizes, but the negative is then out there. This is just what Hillary did with Shaheen and Obama on drugs. Day one, Repubs will attack Obama on drugs, day 2, I didn’t mean to say Obama and drgus, day 3, I apologize for saying Obama and drugs, day 4, I resign for saying Obama and drugs.
They said Obama and drugs 5 times, they put out the dirty message and try to avoid the consequences. This is what Huck does with Mormonism and push polling.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
everybody get ready for the second Ron Paul money bomb tomorrow. I’ll probably be huge.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I think that the push-poll smells of the Rominator and the Obama drug problem smells of the Clintonator.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
You have got to be kidding me, and I was trying to stay out of the religious mudslinging.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Michael Medved had this group on his radio show recently. They were unabashed Huck supporters who freely admitted their tactics and were not interested in stopping(despite Huckabee’s request). Their main issue was abortion so the calls were intended to hurt Huck’s opponents primarily through highlighting the abortion stances.
Anyway, they were very open with their intentions so I think we don’t need to waste time with Romney conspiracies. I don’t think Huck can be directly blamed either, though it is coming from his camp.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Tommy Oliver, you are wrong. I am pro-life and pro second amendment. I agree with Huck on those things.
I also believe in market capitalism, punishing criminals and not victims, I am not willing to throw American jobs out the window by imposing carbon taxes or other global warming taxes on our economy, and I would trade the “human rights” of every terrorist at Gitmo for the life of ONE innocent American citizen.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Back and Forth
I wonder why Huck is going after Bush? Are there any segments of evangelicals against Iraq war?
December 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Quack,
I think it will be the reverse. You will learn the hard way
that Huckabee isn’t as Liberal as you are attempting to point
out. The issue is the need for balance in the Reagan coalition.
The need for mutual respect and appreciation between the Fis.Cons
and the Soc.Cons. and right now the only ones excited is the
SocCons. with Huckabee. Without the SocCons there is no coalition
and no Republican victory against the Democrats. And the economy
although looking good on the country club republican side at so
great on the hard working average middle american republican side.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Colin, Huck is going after Bush to pander to moderates and to the MSM. Triangulation. That is Hucks only political strategy.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Tommy,
Overcoarse not every Anti-Huck statement is involving Religion
but the heated ones are.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Quack hack,
I wasn’t defending Huckabee.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Not from me, benjamin. I don’t particularly like him and i’m probably one of the more conservative posters on the site.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Tommy,
I didn’t say you were defending him. I was saying that most
criticism of Huck are coming from that direction. You may not
be a supporter of Huck, but I don’t recall you attacking based
on him for being a former pastor either.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
#34. I can see it might help in general election, but how can it help in Republican primaries?
December 15th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Mutual respect between SoCons and FisCons? Is that why Huck calls us the “club for greed”? I have lots of respect for SoCons, I AM ONE, I just won’t support Huck. I know him too well from how he operated in AR.
The middle class benefits from capitalism, it was created by capitalism. You are buying Huck garbage that is the same as Edward’s liberal union garbage. Edwards wants to help middle class only if they are in a union, other middle and lower class that have to buy consumer products, and restricting trade HURTS THEM because it raises consumer prices.
What Huck says about the economy isn’t an economic strategy, its a political strategy. He is using a political calculation to dictate his economic policy. That is wrong and stupid both.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
39, its to pander to the MSN and appeal to the minority of Repubs who agree with Pat Buchanon on trade. Its a political miscalculation which is really an attempt to pander to the Lou Dobbs voters.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Benjamin,
I’ll give you two examples asking the same question. You tell me which one you think is an actual question and which one is something less than an “innocent” inquiry:
1) Question: Do you think Mormonism is a cult or a religion?
Answer: I don’t know much about it. Perhaps you could clear something up for me. Do Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?
2) Question: Do you think Mormonism is a cult or a religion?
Answer: I don’t know much about it.
Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?
OK, pop quiz. Which is a legitimate question and which isn’t?
December 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
And Benjamin, I have NOTHING to learn about Huckabee. I know Huckabee. I worked to get him elected in 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998. But by 2002, after being on the butt end of his triangulation strategy, after being compared to Shiite fanatics simply because I opposed his new taxes and release of criminals, it was very hard to vote for him, even over a Dem.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I glad to hear you are SocCon. just so happens that I am
a FisCons too. I support a simplified flat tax, lowering
taxes, keep taxes low, and reduce the enormous wasteful
spending in washington d.c. I want to see energy
independence, competition in the market place so that
small business can compete and create more better paying
jobs. I live in a border state and want to see the borders
secured today. I work in the prison system, so I don’t believe
in being soft on crime and stongly support the death penalty.
And yet you would call me a liberal because I strongly believe
in social conservativism. That is why I said we need balance.
We need a voice on all three fronts. I don’t particularly
feel all that great about any of the candidates being so
flawed. However, Huckabee is the best communicator which
is what has hurt this party since the departure of Reagan.
And in no way will I ever support Clinton, Edwards, or Obama.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
How is it that almost every thread on this site starts out about one candidate, it doesn’t matter, and ALWAYS ends up a thread ranting both for and against Romney and Mormonism. MOVE ON PEOPLE, and STAY ON THREAD!! Please
December 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Perhaps everyone on this site is rich and does not feel the pinch of higher fuel, food, education, and healthcare prices. But millions of families are struggling. Huckabee is merely tapping into this angst and its a perfect political message against Romney and Giuliani, who come across as fatcats who believe the government should cater only to the rich. Its not a question of whether you agree or disagree, but rather what is the alternative message. Apparently, the tax cut message is not selling this year.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Sorry, I am just tired, and feeling out of sorts today. ;(
December 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Irish Right,
Again, your criticism comes back to a Religion question about
“Mormonism”. And why is that? because you want to start some
fued between Huckabee and Romney in which Huckabee appologized
to Romney realizing that he allowed the reporter to pull him
into a religious conversation to place a wedge on both Huckabee
for being the “pastor” and Romney on his religion should be a
factor to be elected. In which both Romney and Huckabee stated
that religion shouldn’t be the cause to vote for or against a
candidate.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
44, I didn’t call you a liberal, I called Huckabee a liberal.
Energy independence? at what cost? the reason we buy it from where we buy it is that they have the lowest price. If we choose to get it somewhere else, the cost by definition goes up. So do you want higher gas prices for these middle class people? Huckabee cannot answer a question like that, because he hasn’t thought it through. Huck goes for a poltical slogan, with no substance. Just like Edwards calling to tax corporations, without stating the obvious fact that if you tax a corporation its an additional cost that they pass on to the buyers of their products. Tax big utility companies, they pass it on to ratepayers. MIddle class ratepayers, so much for helping the middle class. Edwards and Huckabee have slogans that are not thought out. A cheap rhetorical stunt which bashes capitalism. I will never go for that, from Huck or Edwards.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Des_Moines_Register,_Hill/2007/12/15/57268.html?s=al&promo_code=4170-1
Look at who won’t get the endorsement tonight.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
46, I feel the pinch of higher prices, which is why I am free trade. If you use trade policy to punish the low cost provider of consumer goods, is INCREASES the cost of consumer goods. THe prices at wal mart GO UP. Who does that hurt? “Fair trade” proposals inevitably attack lower cost imports, which cause prices to go UP. Basic economics.
I agree there is econmic angst. Alot of that angst is because of higher gas prices. “energy independence” REQUIRES that we buy from someone other than the low cost provider, and when you buy oil from someone who is not the low cost provider GAS PRICES GO UP. “Energy independence” can only be achieved at the cost of HIGHER GAS PRICES.
So Huckabee simplistically appeals to the angst created by higher gas prices and proposes a policy that results in higher gas prices. This is all basic economics, which Huckabe doesn’t understand. He only understands the simplistic poliical pander, which is the same basic political pander on which almost all democrat economic policy is based upon.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Energy Independence doesn’t have to be a long term expense.
In fact it could be to our national security benefit should
dependence on energy from foreign resources turn to higher
price and not have any other option. Should not America
rise to the challenge of having energy independence and make
it marketable?
December 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“We don’t want this kind of campaigning because it violates the spirit of our campaign,â€
Huckabee believes his campaign has a “spirit� Wow, he does have some crazy beliefs.
Of course, I’m kidding.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Benjamin, why do you think we buy it from the Saudis? Becasue they sell it CHEAPER than anyone else. If you prohibit buying from the Saudis, you MUST buy it from a higher priced producer.
“Energy independence doesn’t have to be a long term expense.” What does that mean?
Should the government fund “energy independence”? If it does, who will get the money? Oil Companies? Subsidizing oil companies, that will appeal to the middle class.
You bought a SLOGAN, there is no substance there. Classic Huckabee, all slogan, no substance.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I didn’t say prohibit the Saudi’s from selling anything. I just
believe America should be able to compete in the market place
concerning the Saudi’s and that way we ensure a source of energy
for our national security and development. And I didn’t say we
should subsidize the oil companies. We could take a page from
Alaska here and allow for the natural resource to be owned by
the citizens instead. (Just a thought) But I just don’t buy this
Idea that America can not compete for lower prices to produce
the same goods or services as offered abroad.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
As previous economic disasters show. It takes time to move from one energy source to another.
I think it’s prudent to prepare America for switching away from oil when the cost of a gallon shifts continually upwards as we hit peak oil.
Funding for cellulosic ethanol, clean coal, and nuclear energy certainly makes sense.
If we could build 20 nuclear power plants it would greatly ease our energy woes.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
The problem with what you said econ grad, is that
the liberal Democrats will fight it all the way.
But I do agree with you.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Who said Rudy has given up Iowa?
December 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Nice talking with everyone, but I have ta jet.
Be back next week.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Nuclear power is one way, but we need better technologies for storing the waste and to prevent accidents. I am not saying its not safe, only that it will need to be safer to convince congress and public to go along.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
56 says “I think it’s prudent to prepare America for switching away from oil when the cost of a gallon shifts continually upwards as we hit peak oil.
Funding for cellulosic ethanol, clean coal, and nuclear energy certainly makes sense.”
FUNDING? You mean government funding? Subsidies? Of big coal and big nuclear utilities?
As the prices of current energy sources go up, it becomse profitable to do alternatives. Let the persons who will PROFIT from these alternatives take the risk on which alternative will actually work, instead of taxpayer subsidies. A subsidy of an idea that solves the problem will be, with hindsight, a subsidy to the rich. A subsidy for something that doesn’t work is a waste. Why should the taxpayers take these risks, let those who will profit from alternative energy take the risk.
Free market (NO subsidies or tax loopholes) is a better way to appeal to voters that slogans that upon examination, turn into subsidies schemes like we already have.
So does Huck support more drilling, which is the only real way to energy independence in the near term? Or is he pandering to environmentalists? Or is he pandering to both side without committing? That is an easy question to answer. Once again, politics before basic economics is always what you get from Huck.
December 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I agree generally on nuke. But who should invest? Entergy, among the largets producers of Nuke energy in the US? Or ME, a middle class taxpayer?
Subsidies screw the middle class. Lou Dobbs, John Edwards, and Mike Huckabee pander to the middle class by using slogans that havn’t been thought out, that really screw the middle class, except for big labor.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Feltcher our safety mechanisms today are top notch.
The French get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power in a nation much smaller than ours. They have the cheapest electricity in Europe.
If we had electricity at 1/2 or 1/3 its current cost all types of alternatives to petroleum in industry and transportation begin to work.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
If Mike Huckabee were posting on this blog RIGHT NOW, he would have nothing of substance to offer to this discussion.
He is for energy independence, lower gas prices, the envirnoment, and against corporate interests.
Each slogan/goal conficts with a least one of the other goals. Its not just a pander, its a contradictory pander that fails to recognize necessary policy tradeoffs. All slogan, no substance. That is Huckabee.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Benjamin in 44:
So you support a candidate who has a clear record opposing all the positions you just listed here, because he talks good?
December 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“FUNDING? You mean government funding? Subsidies? Of big coal and big nuclear utilities?”
That’s how the French did it and they have the cheapest electrcity in all of Europe. Without government aid it would have never happened.
Sometimes government has to take the lead because the capital costs and inherent risk are too high.
In addition hysteresis occasionally prevents markets from doing what they should until long after it was noticed and necessary. I think our energy situation is just such a rare example.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
63, the reason the French power is cheap is because the high initial cost of the plants have been depreciated over decades. New nuclear plants built either here or in France would be nowhere near as cheap as the French power because of the new cost of the plants.
This is similar to calculating all in cost of driving a car AFTER you have paid for the car. Its cheaper, because the car is paid off.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Excuse me, all except social conservatism?
December 15th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
66. The reason there is no current investment in Nuke is because coal is cheaper. Coal might not be cheaper after the libs impose huge carbon taxes. If huge carbon taxes are imposed, the private sector will begin to invest in nuke because its the cheapest.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
QuackHack even amortizing the capital costs France has the cheapest electricity.
I actually amortized the cost in my 1/2 to 1/3 cost estimate for American electricity. If you don’t amortize the cost and count it as sunk costs than American electricity would be 1/5 as costly.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
There is also a time factor. Some of the cheapest electricity in the US is produced by a nuke in Arkansas. It was built pre 3 mile island, so its cheap, like the french units. Nukes built post 3 mile island are not cheap anywhere, except the former soviet union maybe, and we saw how that worked out.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
The dirt on Huck I have vaguely referenced is hitting the news now:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/15/519110.aspx
Huckabee has a Mark Rich purchase of a pardon problem.
A 4 time DWI offender was pardoned by Huckabee, and he got anotehr DWI a few weeks after the pardon.
Lots of contributions from this guy helped him get the pardon.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
According to Federal Election Commission records, a month after Fields’ appeal was denied, his wife made a $5,000 donation to the State Republican Party in June of 2003. A month later, she made an additional $5,000 donation, again to the Republican Party of Arkansas. The following month, Fields reported to prison and began his clemency application process. He was a free man in less than a year.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/15/519110.aspx
December 15th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Quack, I’m wondering where you’re getting such information from.
All the research I’ve seen on new nuclear power in China and Japan have been rather promising.
Westinghouse also shows a lot of promise with their new reactors.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Honestly, Benjamin,
I really shouldn’t expect any better.
… because you want to start some
fued between Huckabee and Romney in which Huckabee appologized
to Romney realizing that he allowed the reporter to pull him
into a religious conversation …
There are only two possible explanations for Huckabee’s question. Both cast doubt on his ability to lead the country. First, if he did “allow the reporter to pull him into a religious conversation”, I question how he will stand up to those have far more nefarious reasons for asking him questions. If that’s not true, then he is being disingenuous in the extreme with something far more nefarious than innocent inquiry.
Either way, Huck is unqualified to lead and it has nothing to do with religion.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
More on Huck’s Mark Rich problem from NRO:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWFjYjFmOWMwYThjYzcwM2FiYmE5MDcyMmM4NzlkMGQ=&w=MA
December 15th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’m not trying to be a smart aleck..I truly don’t understand something about the ‘fair tax’. Please somebody explain it to me. If we raise the price of everything by 30%, let’s say an automobile, for example, the people over seas, or in Canada wouldn’t pay the extra 30%; they would buy something else, so we must be sending them to their dealers the same as they do today, right? Therefore, if I wanted to buy an American car, I’d go to Canada to buy it cause it would be a lot cheaper. Are cars exempt or something? This could be applied to almost any bigger ticket item.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
74, see this:
“As things stand now in America, Immelt said, “the market does not work in energy.” The multibillion-dollar scale of investment that a company like G.E. is being asked to make in order to develop new clean-power technologies or that a utility is being asked to make in order to build coal sequestration facilities or nuclear plants is not going to happen at scale — unless they know that coal and oil are going to be priced high enough for long enough that new investments will not be undercut in a few years by falling fossil fuel prices. “Carbon has to have a value,” Immelt emphasized. “Today in the U.S. and China it has no value.”
This is Thomas Friendman of the NYT’s article “the power of Green”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/opinion/web-0415edgreen-full.php?page=9
Jeff Immelt is the CEO of GE. When he says “Carbon has to have a value” he is talking about a carbon tax. Immelt is advocating for a carbon tax not because he is a newly green corporate CEO, its because a carbon tax is needed for him to make a killing building nukes in the US.
If nuke was cheaper (believed to be cheaper of the long term), they would already be building it.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
77, you are right. When you have a tax that high, you make the travel worth it.
The problem with the “fair tax” is that the Dems will kill Huck with it in the fall. Huck supports the fair tax only to pander to fiscal conservatives because he knows he has a problem because of his tax record.
It is good politics but bad policy because he cannot answer the question that you asked. He also cannot answer the question about how shifting the tax burden from investment to consumption is a huge tax cut for the rich. So much for the “help the middle class” argument.
Huck is a slonganeer, what he says about policy cannot be taken seriously.
Also, as you point out, it takes 30%, not 23%, to make it work, unless you also propose huge spending cuts.
Huck doesn’t look past the slogan, and the slogans contradict.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Ah, I hadn’t even thought about that angle. The theory, anyway, is that in the US prices would be roughly the same, because the “FairTax” essentially replaces all the upstream taxes which today are built into the sticker price. But that means that a US produced car would be 23% cheaper in Canada (not counting any taxes they might put on). So it would be 23% cheaper to go to Canada to buy your car. FairTaxers would likely counter that you’d have to pay the tax upon returning to the US (a use tax) – the various states with a sales tax already have such systems, enforced at vehicle registration time. However, what about a big screen tv? Jewelry? Etc and so forth. How would anyone ever know?
December 15th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
By the time they hire auditors to chase people to collect the use tax needed, they just as well keep the IRS.
The biggest problem with a national sales tax is that if its passed and the feds still have income taxing authority, we will wind up with both a national sales tax and an income tax too.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I’ve been wondering how long it would take for anyone to pick up on the DUI guy.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:12 am
What’s happened to this blasted site? It used to be constant attacks on Romney from Rudy supporters. Now, nothing seems to make sense. Huck doesn’t qualify as a competent candidate, so why in the heck are we even talking about him? If Huck wins, it’s just a sign that the Republican party is going to pot, because if we nominate this guy, we are so desperate that we don’t even care about competency or record.
Rudy and Romney are the competent ones that can win in 2008, not Huck. What is this, a nightmare? Well, Huck should fall soon anyways, since I suppose that his support is weak and fleeting. It better be, or I will be disappointed in our party for not being educated enough about their candidates before voting.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Huckabee doesn’t walk on water folks, but I must say he’s big on redemption. I simply do not trust this man.
QuackHack(#72), here’s another-one:
http://shotpolitics.com/lois-davidson-tells-her-story.htm … (Marie aka SS)