Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lar_drewstar





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Reputation: 19.8Reputation: 19.8
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The United States in my opinion has had enough of the social Conservatism of the current president and are quite sick of how obvious religion plays a role in his decisions. If Huckabee wins the nod for the GOP he will certainly fall to whoever the democrats nominate.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The United States in my opinion has had enough of the social Conservatism of the current president and are quite sick of how obvious religion plays a role in his decisions.


Bush has played the Christian right for suckers! Huckabees message is fresh because he knows Christ and is not afraid to be a true Christian. Y'know love your neighbour feed the poor all that crap Bush knows nothing about..
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a lot of fear in some conservative circles that Huckabee's candidacy could destroy the relgious right - financial right coalition built by Reagan. Ace of Spades has put together some of the issues here: Link

Quote:
Federalism: Huckabee is no respecter of state's rights. From abortion to smoking bans, he thinks "you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right." With regards to federalism, Carter coyly responds that "federalism is not inherently conservative." This makes me wonder what other goals he and his candidate are ready to dismiss as not conservative.

Immigration: Setting aside his amateurish blunders on the topic ("INS"), he unconvincingly prevaricates on the question of amnesty: "I don't believe in amnesty. That's not a good idea, but creating a pathway where people can have a form of restitution to make things right, to understand that laws have to be obeyed or some consequences have to be applied. That makes more sense than trying to deport 12 million people or build a 700 million, ehr...700 billion dollar fence, whatever it's going to cost."

[For the sake of fairness, I should say that I agree with Huckabee on this point. But most conservatives don't. And I certainly disagree with providing illegal aliens with scholarships not available to citizens or legal residents.]

Education: Since long before President Bush's 2000 campaign on school choice, conservatives enthusiastically supported the idea that parents knew the educational needs of their children better than school boards. We've been trying since then to expand school choice and combat the entrenched teachers' unions. Huckabee has abandoned us in that effort: "[New Hampshire chapter president of the NEA] Rhonda Wesolowski lauded Huckabee's opposition to school vouchers and his commitment to arts and music education."

Taxes: Huckabee likes to talk tough on taxes, but the truth is that with a Democratic legislature, he presided over "a 37 percent higher sales tax, 16 percent higher fuel taxes and 103 percent higher cigarette taxes." His answer: "The fact is the fuel tax was a part of a road program that was voted on by the people of my state by an 80 percent margin. Most every politician I know would love to be with 80 percent of the people, because we needed roads. We needed them desperately."


Sources at Ace of Spades.
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Huckabee wins the nod for the GOP it could cause the Democrats to rethink their position on many economic issues. Most fiscal conservatives can't stand Huckabee and might be willing to choose a centrist candidate over hard right Social Conservative.

Clinton was able to gain respect by reforming welfare, a typical right of centre position. A lot of fiscal conservatives didn't agree with his stances on certain social issues but lived with it because he was decreasing the size of the welfare state.

I'm not saying any democratic candidate is likely to do this but I think it would be in their best interest to follow this approach.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally think that we are about to see the worst US president since Carter, and that is looking like the best case scenario right now. Obama, McCain, Dean, maybe Huckabee, all would be worse than Carter. Clinton would be better than any of that lot. I guess you have to have a truly awful president every once in a while to make you appreciate the qualities of a good president. None of the current crop of front runners is anything like a Reagan.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I personally think that we are about to see the worst US president since Carter, and that is looking like the best case scenario right now. Obama, McCain, Dean, maybe Huckabee, all would be worse than Carter. Clinton would be better than any of that lot. I guess you have to have a truly awful president every once in a while to make you appreciate the qualities of a good president. None of the current crop of front runners is anything like a Reagan.


Agreed, with minor changes. Clinton, plus those listed, are like the train wreck coming that you know is gonna happen, but there's nothing you can do to stop, only watch between your fingers.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What the hell is up with American politics? The Iowa caucuses are apparently an election where they pick the people, who will pick the people, who will go on to to pick the peopel, who vote for the members of the electoral college, which picks the president. Could their process be any more confusing or round about?

PS. Actually scratch that, I am wrong. According to wikipedia, the caucuses are precinct elections, to pick which delegates for the county conventions. The county conventions pick delegates for the state convention, and the people at the state convention vote on who will get the Democratic nomination at the national convention. I cannot believe that anybody understands, let alone follows, this system.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After the parties have their nomination meetings, then you have presidential primaries, then the actual election. I have no idea what goes on in a primary.
Lar_drewstar





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Reputation: 19.8Reputation: 19.8
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I personally think that we are about to see the worst US president since Carter, and that is looking like the best case scenario right now. Obama, McCain, Dean, maybe Huckabee, all would be worse than Carter. Clinton would be better than any of that lot. I guess you have to have a truly awful president every once in a while to make you appreciate the qualities of a good president. None of the current crop of front runners is anything like a Reagan.


How about Bush? Wouldnt you say hes the worst president ever? Destroying individual liberties with illegal wiretapping, starting a war in iraq which was completely necessary and which leads to the fiscal destruction of the united states as we know it (rise in oil prices, fall of the dollar), Alienation from most of the world, approval ratings in the 30's, and quite bluntly the man simply had no vision, no clarity, and barely a grasp of english! He is a disgrace to fiscal conservatives, classic liberals, even social conservatives cant possibly be satisfied with his work. What has the man done that is good, can anyone name anything? Immigration? No.. Education? No.. Social Security? No... The man has done nothing. And now he is nothing but a lame duck, how fitting. I wont deny I had high hopes from him in 2000 and even in 2004 but I think its time for Americans to admit their mistake in this instance.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bush isn't so bad if you compare him with some of the previous presidents. Warren Harding? Not only was Harding incompetent, his administration was corrupt (always a great combo). Although Harry Truman's image has improved, during his administration Truman's popularity ranked right down there with Nixon. Speaking of which... Nixon? Hello??

I don't have much use for Bush but I'm willing to let history be his judge and I have a feeling he'll end up being fairly "middle of the road" from the longer perspective. After all, how many presidents get to preside over the largest act of terrorism in US history... with the added bonus of Hurricane Katrina thrown in for good measure?

-Mac
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't it a little harsh and premature to say none of the candidates would make a good President. I think a few of them have the potential to be.
I don't know maybe I'm thinking of Bush, but wasn't Reagan going to make a terrible President?
Anyhoo. I do think that any of the Republican candidates could be at least as good as Bush.

BTW Is anybody familiar with the 'Fair Tax' idea that Huckabee is proposing?
On the surface it sounds rather sexy to shut down the IRS.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lar_drewstar wrote:
Destroying individual liberties with illegal wiretapping


Hyperbole at its best.

Quote:
starting a war in iraq which was completely necessary and which leads to the fiscal destruction of the united states as we know it (rise in oil prices, fall of the dollar)


The war in Iraq didn't cause the rise in oil prices. The situation in Iran combined with demand from China is causing the rise in oil prices.

The choice to invade Iraq was made under exceptional circumstances. It is easy to be critical now and I agree that it turned out to be a mistake. It was, however, a courageous and necessary decision at the time. It is also a decision that would have been made by Al Gore.

Quote:
Alienation from most of the world


Oh come on. Hating the USA is a sport in most of the world. Always has been and so long as they are dominant it will continue to be. Everyone hates Microsoft too.

Quote:
approval ratings in the 30's


He won the two most important polls in the last eight years.

Quote:
He is a disgrace to fiscal conservatives, classic liberals, even social conservatives cant possibly be satisfied with his work


This is true. He tried to appoint Harriot Myers for crying out loud.

Quote:
What has the man done that is good, can anyone name anything? Immigration? No.. Education? No.. Social Security? No... The man has done nothing.


Tax cuts.

Quote:
And now he is nothing but a lame duck, how fitting.


All presidents are lame ducks at this point.

Quote:
but I think its time for Americans to admit their mistake in this instance.


If Bush had been the president in the 1990's he would have faired much better. I partially agree with what you are saying but he was as much victim of circumstance than anything else.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to see the hyperbole used to try to defend the next president, when it begins to dawn on people like that the enormity of the error they just made in electing an Obama or McCain. Economic ruin? I just read a story the other day about how the low dollar was going to restore the sine in the US rust belt. More jobs every month, higher GDP every year, higher growth than Canada, yeah, they sure are a basket case down there.

I think that is all I can say to someone who does not even know enough to check the basic facts before making an argument.

The reason Carter is about the worst president in a 100 or more years, is that he created the Iran problem we have today. Singlehandedly. Bush could lose 5 nukes and not come close to the damage Carter did to the world.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is an interesting piece by a pro 'fairtax' Republican rep.
Quote:
Huckabee presents the best choice for Reagan supporters
By John Linder

"I was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives 34 years ago. I have watched this party change for a long time. Some changes have been better than others.

Two years after that first election, I went to work on the Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. I was one of the leaders of that campaign in Georgia, and my friend, Paul Coverdell, led the establishment's efforts to nominate President Ford.

It was the typical establishment-versus-interloper campaign. Most of the friends I had made in the party were in the establishment. Most of them thought the nomination of Ronald Reagan was not only impractical, but would destroy our party.

Reagan had just served two terms as the governor of California. His record was not all that conservative. He signed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state. He got the best he could get with a Democrat-dominated general assembly. He signed a bill legalizing abortion. But governors have different challenges than presidents.

Frankly, most of the establishment couldn't have cared less about abortion. They thought the discussion of it was, well, tacky. But we were, at the time, the party that Barry built, and the new foot soldiers cared about abortion.

Their concern with Reagan was that he just wasn't up to it. What did he know about foreign policy? How could he stand up to the Soviets? Did he understand detente?

During that campaign, as in all campaigns, the establishment sat at the head table, and the rest of us milled around the small round tables below.

Coverdell approached me, after Ford had won the first several primaries, and urged me to switch sides. Paul was convinced that Ford had the best chance of winning. Paul recited all of the reservations mentioned above and then said, "John, Reagan cannot win. No one will take him seriously." That was also the consensus of the Republican writers and commentators.

I said, "Paul, I think politics is all about what you believe. I know what Reagan believes. I have no idea what Ford believes. But you need to watch Reagan connect with the people. He is the best communicator I have ever seen. He is bringing new people into the party. And these are folks you won't be meeting at the club for lunch. They carry a lunch bucket to work. Or a brown paper bag."

Four years later, I worked again for Reagan and Paul worked for George H. W. Bush. Again, the Wall Street crowd sat at the head table, and the Main Street crowd sat at the small round tables on the floor.

The same arguments came from the establishment. His tax cut idea was a "riverboat gamble." In fact, his tax cuts doubled the size of the economy and doubled revenues to the treasury. Unfortunately, they spent that and more.

Reagan didn't understand that the world is a dangerous place and dealing with the Soviets required a more "understanding" policy. It also required a willingness to sign more treaties. They didn't know that Reagan had no interest in understanding the Soviets. He wanted communism consigned to "the ash heap of history."

It was a neverending series of put-downs until New Hampshire. Then it was over.

Reagan won that election with the support of Larry Lunch-bucket and Betty Brownbag. They were called the Reagan Democrats. When we celebrated that victory, I asked some of them why they chose to join us. They said, "When he talked, we felt that he was talking to us." The Reagan Democrats believe they have been ignored since 1988.

The establishment doesn't like change. They have always felt that their seats at the head table were threatened by those new to the club. The establishment that so ardently opposed Reagan's nomination in 1980 crawled all over each other to chair his 1984 race.

Today they now see themselves as those who put Reagan in power. His presidency was their presidency. They believe they are the keepers of the flame.

Today's establishment includes elected officials, consultants, lobbyists and even conservative writers and commentators. Unless you allow them to write the rules and approve of your positions you are unwelcome. Anyone who does not genuflect before their altar is "not conservative."

When you look at the many fine candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president, who do you believe can best speak to those Reagan Democrats?

I believe that candidate is Mike Huckabee.

When Reagan became president, one of his first moves was to reduce income taxes from 70 percent to 50 percent and ultimately down to 28 percent. As pointed out above, both the size of the economy and the federal revenues doubled in eight years.

Huckabee doesn't want to lower income taxes. He wants to abolish them - along with the IRS, the most intrusive, coercive and corrosive federal agency ever. Mike would replace those taxes on income with a sales tax - the FairTax. Every American will become a voluntary taxpayer paying taxes when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend. How conservative can one get?"

Rep. John Linder, R-Duluth, has served in the House of Representatives since 1992.


LINK to this article
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Mike Huckabee

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB