Some Final Thoughts on Election 2008

November 5, 2008

America spoke. Obama was elected as President of the United States. I personally think it was a poor choice and I hope and pray that with the election out of the way Obama will abandon his far left rhetoric and shift to a more centrist stance during his time as President.

I wish Mike Huckabee had run against Obama. Huckabee had the personality and public speaking skills to counter Obama blow for blow. Huckabee also had some truly good ideas for America.

John McCain was extremely graceful in defeat and I wish his concession speech would get played as often as Obama’s victory speech.

The Democrats, while they gained in the House and Senate, did not get a super majority. That would have been a disaster. I hope that after dramatic losses in two straight elections that Republicans will realize that the abandonment of conservative principles (especially fiscal ones) is what has been their downfall. Hopefully, this election will force Republicans to return to small government, fiscal, and social conservatism.

Obama is now Commander in Chief and I hope, since he has no military experience, that he surrounds himself with unbiased advisors who understand the military.

Finally, George W. Bush can breathe a sigh of relief. I am one of a seemingly small number of Americans who think Bush has been a good president overall. I vehenmently disagree with the amount of spending and government expansion that he approved with his pen, but he played a huge role in helping to keep America from being attacked by terrorists again. We seem to have lost sight of that, but I remember and I am grateful. I hope that as the years pass and people have time to reflect on his Presidency that people will remember his leadership during the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

President Bush has caught a lot of flack and taken a lot of blame for things that were not directly his fault. This opinion piece from The Wall Street journal offers a good perspective on the Bush presidency and why our treatment of him has been a disgrace and why he ultimately deserves our respect.

Here’s an excerpt from the WSJ piece Jeffrey Scott Shapiro:

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Advertisements

Joe the Plumber, Obama’s Socialistic Tax Plan, and Mike Huckabee

October 16, 2008

First, Joe the plumber. He’s become and overnight political celebrity and here is some video and commentary about the statement that brought him his five minutes of fame:

Also, note the discussion about Obama’s tax plan. The idea that 95% of American’s will get a tax cut sounds good until you consider how many American’s don’t pay taxes. You know those American’s that don’t pay taxes? Yes? You know whose money will be giving them those checks? Yours and mine. Obama wants to take my hard earned money and give it to other people as he sees fit. Sorry, but I think I’m a much better manager of my money than the government and I can support the needy by giving to my local church and to other charities. The government does not need to become a charity. My wife and I work hard for the money we have. We don’t live outside of our means and are nearly debt free (just a small amount on some of my student loans). Why should the government punish my wife and I and many other Americans for being responsible? The only thing that will come out of this is you will have more people not wanting to earn as much because of the higher taxes. Good job, government, tax our productivity even more and then give it to those who aren’t productive. That gives me great motivation to go out and work my tail off. Fair Tax anyone?

Mike Huckabee will have Joe the plumber on his show this Saturday. If you haven’t watched the show yet, be sure and check it out. It’s laid back gives Huckabee a good forum to talk about conservative issues.


Mike Huckabee Lambasts Republicans for Their Consideration of Wall Street Bail Out

September 24, 2008

Mike Huckabee today released a statement about the idiocy going on in both parties as they work with Wall Street to strap the American tax payer with hundreds of billions of dollars in bail out monies. Huckabee shows here that he is not merely Republical talking head by calling this bail out what it is: stupid. He also offers up some ideas to help get us out of this mess without charging the tax payers for the stupidity of Wall Street.

——————————————————————–

Bailing on Our Principles

Today at 12:14pm

by Governor Mike Huckabee

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset – that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government—which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries—just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.


Mike Huckabee on Nationalization of Oil

May 27, 2008

Mike Huckabee has some good commentary on a recent comment by Democrat Maxine Waters.

Here is what he had to say:

Just when you think the Democrats can’t get anymore outrageous, they do. Maxine Waters, a very liberal Democrat, from California wants to nationalize the oil companies. She made the threat at a House hearing on Thursday, May 22. Oil executives were testifying before a House Committee, when Ms. Waters first demanded that oil executives guarantee the American people lower gas prices in return for the right to drill for oil, anywhere the oil companies wanted to.

When the CEOs told her that if Congress would do their job and open up some of the areas that would produce significant amounts of oil, lower prices would follow, Congresswoman Waters responded by saying “well, I can see that this Congresswoman is going to favor nationalizing the oil companies, and making sure the prices go down.”

I guess someone should remind the Congresswoman of Hugo Chavez and . Surely, she isn’t suggesting that. But then, again, maybe she is. She obviously has never learned about the fundamental economic fact of supply and demand.

We all realize that we must do something to help the American consumer, and stem the rising cost of gasoline, but nationalizing the oil companies is not the answer!! must become less dependent on foreign oil. Drilling for oil in areas such as oil rich areas of Alaska, and off the coast of some of our Gulf States should be encouraged in a way that will protect the environment. We can solve our energy problems effectively and efficiently without resorting to the radical tactics of people like Maxine Waters.


Mike Huckabee for VP?

May 13, 2008

Those seem to some of the rumblings from sources around the net. If you read the comments below the articles that mention Huckabee as a possibility for VP, you will see that the idea engenders a variety of spirited responses. They range from “I could never vote for a creationist” to “I was going to vote for McCain but won’t if Huckabee is on the ticket” to “Huckabee is great campaigner and communicator and would be an asset to McCain.”

While my ideal would have been to see Huckabee at the top of the ticket and there is a chance that a VP slot could hurt his future chances for office should McCain win, I think he would be a great VP for McCain.

1. He is a great communicator. Huckabee was certainly the most likable of all the candidates on both sides of the race and he has the ability to reach out to the average American because for much of his life he was the average American. McCain is decidedly weak when it comes to his communication skills. Huckabee would be invaluable as a spokesman for McCain.

2. Fair Tax. Huckabee as VP would give the Fair Tax a great deal of publicity and would help keep the idea in the public mind. If nothing else, it should help increase demand for tax reform.

3. During the primary, Huckabee did well with traditional conservative voters. Many of them, though uncomfortable with McCain, would still vote for him. However, I believe there would also be a significant number who would simply  stay home. Huckabee would help insure than conservatives come out to vote.

4. A lot of people, conservative and liberal, will watch the big Republican Convention. Huckabee giving a rousing address carried by all the major news networks and replayed for days could help give the McCain campaign a great launch in to the general election.


Hillary Clinton for President: 2012

April 30, 2008

This is an interesting opinion piece from Fox (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann) that opines about why Hillary has stayed in the race despite the math that seems stacked against her. The article also has an interesting comparison between her dogged determination to stay in the race and Mike Huckabee’s hanging in the race until McCain had the nomination sewn up. (link)

FOXNews.com

Is Hillary Preparing to Run in 2012?

Friday , April 25, 2008

By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

FF

Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she’s a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They’ll likely break even in Indiana and he’ll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she’ll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.

Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.

So why is Hillary still running so hard? Why is she especially focused on pushing up Obama’s negatives?

Until the last vote is counted on June 3rd, we can chalk up her persistence to determination, courage and sheer obstinacy. But if she persists in her candidacy after the last primary, we must begin to consider whether she has an ulterior motive.

Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.

Every day that she stays in the race and punches Barack Obama, she must realize that she is decreasing his chances of getting elected in November. Each time that she waves the bloody shirt and says that only she is strong enough to fight the war on terror, she obviously raises doubts about Obama’s strength and leadership. Every time she criticizes him for not switching pastors or for saying downscale white voters are bitter, she raises issues that are very destructive to Obama should he win the nomination.

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin? Doubts about Hillary’s motivation are going to keep on growing with each inconclusive primary. After she loses North Carolina and fails to carry Indiana by any significant margin (North Carolina has twice as many delegates as Indiana), people will begin to wonder out loud about why she is staying in the race. And if she remains obdurate after the last votes are cast on June 3rd, it will become an increasingly accepted presumption that she is running a campaign of sabotage against Obama.

There is a way to run without waging a scorched earth campaign. Mike Huckabee continued to fight for the Republican nomination until McCain reached the magic number to clench the battle and did not attack McCain. He waged a positive campaign and exercised his right to stay in the contest as long as it was undecided without hurting the party’s chances in November. Obviously, Huckabee could have attacked McCain and drawn more votes for his candidacy, but, in the interests of party victory, he chose not to do so.

Why isn’t Hillary making the same choice?

In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008. Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.


Back in Action

April 30, 2008

I have mourned the exit of Governor Mike Huckabee from presidential politics for nearly two months now. While I wouldn’t say I have moved on, as I am still following Huckabee closely, waiting for any hints at future run for office; I have decided that it is time to start working towards getting/keeping conservatives in Washington.

I personally have decided to support John McCain for President, unless a worthy third party candidate arises. My decision is based on a few main points: he does not aspire to universal health care, he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent (if the democrats let these expire they will effectively be raising taxes on everyone in America, not just the rich), he believes in a very strong military and will support the military, he is a strong proponent of cutting government spending.

Whether or not he will hold to those views if elected remains to be seen, but right now he is a far better option than either of Democrats. He is far from my first choice for office, but he can do the job better than the current competition.

I have also recently been contacted by the Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe campaign. They asked me if I wanted to blog for him, I agreed. I have had the privilege of meeting and eating lunch with Sen. Inhofe and I believe that the man has his head on straight. He is a good representative of Oklahoma’s conservative values, so I hope that by blogging against liberals and for conservatives, I will be a small help to his campaign.

So, the battle for the votes of those living on Main Street America continues. The question is, will Americans support big government liberals and Republicans who spend like “John Edwards in a beauty salon?” (Mike Huckabee) Or will we elect people with true conservative values (which does not necessarily mean they are Republican)?