thomas_paine's Blog

Since Governor Romney officially suspended his campaign in February, his supporters have been hoping for an opportunity to use the "Romney for President" signs sometime in the future.  Well, they just might see his name on the ballot this November, as McCain's running mate.  However, if asked, should Romney really jump on the ticket? As a former "Romney for President" supporter, I initially embraced the idea.  After all, it would keep him politically relevant.  It would also help McCain strategically.  McCain has admitted the economy is his weak spot and having Romney as Vice-President would definitely sure up the weakness.  A McCain-Romney ticket would possibly put states like Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts into play for McCain.  Yet, despite the possible benefit to McCain, what would the benefit be to Romney?  If McCain were to get elected, Romney would have to wait eight years for a potential shot at the Whitehouse.  If McCain loses in a landslide (a recent Newsweek poll had Obama up 17 points), then Romney will be forever linked to the embarrassment.  Not to mention, McCain is on record saying that the Vice-President's only job is to check on the health of the President.  As much as I wanted to see Romney get into the Whitehouse, I don't want to see him get in this way.  McCain is the self-proclaimed "maverick" who prides himself in going against the grain (and the Conservative base.) If asked, Romney should let McCain ruin, err, run the 2008 race without him.  As a supporter, I'll gladly wait an additional four years to see Romney in the Whitehouse.    

Since Governor Romney officially suspended his campaign in February, his supporters have been hoping for an opportunity to use the "Romney for President" signs sometime in the future.  Well, they just might see his name on the ballot this November, as McCain's running mate.  However, if asked, should Romney really jump on the ticket? As a former "Romney for President" supporter, I initially embraced the idea.  After all, it would keep him politically relevant.  It would also help McCain strategically.  McCain has admitted the economy is his weak spot and having Romney as Vice-President would definitely sure up the weakness.  A McCain-Romney ticket would possibly put states like Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts into play for McCain.  Yet, despite the possible benefit to McCain, what would the benefit be to Romney?  If McCain were to get elected, Romney would have to wait eight years for a potential shot at the Whitehouse.  If McCain loses in a landslide (a recent Newsweek poll had Obama up 17 points), then Romney will be forever linked to the embarrassment.  Not to mention, McCain is on record saying that the Vice-President's only job is to check on the health of the President.  As much as I wanted to see Romney get into the Whitehouse, I don't want to see him get in this way.  McCain is the self-proclaimed "maverick" who prides himself in going against the grain (and the Conservative base.) If asked, Romney should let McCain ruin, err, run the 2008 race without him.  As a supporter, I'll gladly wait an additional four years to see Romney in the Whitehouse.    

With the national gas price average well over $4.00 a gallon, I think it is an appropriate time to thank the Democrats.  I am so glad that they are more concerned about reducing every American household’s “carbon footprint” than actually reducing the gas prices.  They are more concerned with saving whales, polar bears, and beach shores than saving American families money.  Has anyone noticed that the Democrats and activists who speak about “saving the Earth” from the evil oil companies all drive large fancy cars, have enormous homes, and fly around personal/jumbo jets (notice the plurals)!  Yet they sit on their thrones made of gold, wearing the finest clothes, telling us, the American people who struggle to make ends meet, to reduce our  “carbon footprint.”  What’s the Democrat response?  It’s the oil companies fault.  Really?
    Remember when Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid promised us that they were going to change the course of this country after they won both houses in 2006? Well what have they done?  They have prevented us from drilling offshore for our own oil, increased the Federal minimum wage (when more than half of the states in the Union already had a minimum wage HIGHER than the new federal minimum wage), and have kept us in Iraq. (Don’t tell me that it is Bush’s fault because the Democrats control BOTH houses.)  I digress.  I’m grateful for the Democrats.  Because of the Democrats, we can all qualify for food stamps, welfare and unemployment much easier.  So, next time you are in line at the pump, and you see the $4.00 gas, remember, thank a Democrat, because tonight, a polar bear’s bed of ice is bigger, while our wallet’s are getting smaller.  Thank you Dems.

With the national gas price average well over $4.00 a gallon, I think it is an appropriate time to thank the Democrats.  I am so glad that they are more concerned about reducing every American household’s “carbon footprint” than actually reducing the gas prices.  They are more concerned with saving whales, polar bears, and beach shores than saving American families money.  Has anyone noticed that the Democrats and activists who speak about “saving the Earth” from the evil oil companies all drive large fancy cars, have enormous homes, and fly around personal/jumbo jets (notice the plurals)!  Yet they sit on their thrones made of gold, wearing the finest clothes, telling us, the American people who struggle to make ends meet, to reduce our  “carbon footprint.”  What’s the Democrat response?  It’s the oil companies fault.  Really?
    Remember when Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid promised us that they were going to change the course of this country after they won both houses in 2006? Well what have they done?  They have prevented us from drilling offshore for our own oil, increased the Federal minimum wage (when more than half of the states in the Union already had a minimum wage HIGHER than the new federal minimum wage), and have kept us in Iraq. (Don’t tell me that it is Bush’s fault because the Democrats control BOTH houses.)  I digress.  I’m grateful for the Democrats.  Because of the Democrats, we can all qualify for food stamps, welfare and unemployment much easier.  So, next time you are in line at the pump, and you see the $4.00 gas, remember, thank a Democrat, because tonight, a polar bear’s bed of ice is bigger, while our wallet’s are getting smaller.  Thank you Dems.

The results of the Iowa caucuses can be equated with college football's "upset weekend". Barack Obama stunned the Clinton machine by winning the Iowa caucus convincingly, sending Clinton's presidential hopes in a tailspin. For Republicans, the outcome of the Iowa caucus should be a bit frightening. Let's face it, Barack Obama is young, energetic, and provides a message that connects with a large base of voters, not to mention he is good looking. As a Florida resident spending time here in New Hampshire during the primaries, I ask: How are the Republicans going to counter the formidable foe Obama? With Iowa's pick, Mike Huckabee? He does have energy and he is appealing, but almost exclusively among the Evangelicals. What about John McCain, who currently leads in New Hampshire? Young, energetic, and good looking are definitely not words that describe a 71 year old Washington relic. So who are republicans left with? Fred Thompson, Giuliani, Ron Paul and Romney. Fred Thompson has turned out to be a disappointment for republicans. His lack of enthusiasm and energy are definitely not what the Republican Party needs to counter Obama's appeal among voters. Ron Paul, who has some really great ideas, will not get the nomination because of his low poll numbers. This leaves Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani would have been a great candidate to run against Clinton. However, her nose dive in the polls no longer makes him the perfect Republican counter. Thus, the Republicans are left with Mitt Romney. As much as we might not like it, image in America is everything. When compared to Barack Obama, Romney not only has the good looks, but he has executive experience, both in government and in business. He knows how to counter Obama's push for "change", because he has implemented change wherever he has gone. Romney is the only Republican candidate who has won a caucus, and either leads or is the top two in all of the primary races. Let's face it Republicans, we have a formidable foe in Obama. We must either get used to voting for Mitt Romney, or get used to saying President Obama. It's your choice.

The results of the Iowa caucuses can be equated with college football's "upset weekend".  Barack Obama stunned the Clinton machine by winning the Iowa caucus convincingly, sending Clinton's presidential hopes in a tailspin.  For Republicans, the outcome of the Iowa caucus should be a bit frightening.  Let's face it, Barack Obama is young, energetic, and provides a message that connects with a large base of voters, not to mention he is good looking.  As a Florida resident spending time here in New Hampshire during the primaries, I ask: How are the Republicans going to counter the formidable foe Obama?  With Iowa's pick, Mike Huckabee?  He does have energy and he is appealing, but almost exclusively among the Evangelicals.  What about John McCain, who currently leads in New Hampshire?  Young, energetic, and good looking are definitely not words that describe a 71 year old Washington relic.  So who are republicans left with?  Fred Thompson, Giuliani, Ron Paul and Romney.  Fred Thompson has turned out to be a disappointment for republicans.  His lack of enthusiasm and energy are definitely not what the Republican Party needs to counter Obama's appeal among voters.  Ron Paul, who has some really great ideas, will not get the nomination because of his low poll numbers.  This leaves Giuliani and Romney.  Giuliani would have been a great candidate to run against Clinton.  However, her nose dive in the polls no longer makes him the perfect Republican counter.  Thus, the Republicans are left with Mitt Romney.  As much as we might not like it, image in America is everything. When compared to Barack Obama, Romney not only has the good looks,  but he has executive experience, both in government and in business.  He knows how to counter Obama's push for "change", because he has implemented change wherever he has gone.  Romney is the only Republican candidate who has won a caucus, and either leads or is the top two in all of the primary races.  Let's face it Republicans, we have a formidable foe in Obama.  We must either get used to voting for Mitt Romney, or get used to saying President Obama.  It's your choice. 

 

As mentioned in the previous post with the similar title, Mike Huckabee's policies and past will be subject to increased scrutiny as the political microscope intensifies because of his surge in the polls and the approaching primaries. New discoveries relating to Huckabee's past campaigns and his recent article in the Journal of Foreign Affairs warrants additional commentary as true conservatives try and determine who Mike Huckabee really is and whether or not he is a true conservative.

Huckabee's past campaign tactics are beginning to be dissected. When Huckabee ran for lieutenant governor in the early 1990's, he enlisted the help of Dick Morris, who had advised Clinton's gubernatorial races and presidential race. According to Morris, “[Huckabee] appealed to [voters] in much the same way that Clinton did in his first few races...He has the same type of charisma that I saw in Bill Clinton in 1978." Morris and Huckabee were afraid that his opponents would portray him as a radical right-wing candidate. So what did they do? In 1995, Morris said, “[w]hat we wanted to do was run a progressive campaign...So we opened the campaign with ads that characterized Mike as more of a moderate whose values were the same as those of other Arkansans. That was the first stage. The second stage was to raise the level of intensity, to get people interested in the race." The statement is particularly meaningful in light of Huckabee's recent anti-Mormon comment to the New York Times reporter, resulting in heightened media attention to the race and his reason for providing scholarships to illegal aliens.

Huckabee has also drawn potent criticism for his lack of foreign policy. On December 4th of this year, he went on the Don Imus show and joked about his foreign policy experience. He said “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night." Criticism regarding his foreign policy has continued since he recently published an article in the Journal of Foreign Affairs. Among other things, in his article, he called President Bush and his administration of “arrogant bunker mentality” and compared the United States to a high school student. According to Peter Wehner of National Review ,“Governor Huckabee’s article in Foreign Affairs, while fine (if largely conventional) in some respects, is fundamentally unserious; on national security matters, he is likewise. And when the final votes are tallied in the GOP race, Mike Huckabee’s words, on these issues and others, will cost him.”

Huckabee is also being scrutinized for trying to appeal to democrat voters. Huckabee's use of the words “arrogant” and “bunker mentality” when referring to President Bush and the administration are also being compared to statements made by democrats. For instance, earlier this year John Kerry referred to the White House as being in “bunker mode.” In March, Dianne Feinstein said “the White House is in a bunker mentality...”

As mentioned in the previous post, the political microscope will only continue to intensify its magnification on Huckabee's past and policies and conservatives will begin to see who he really is and what he is really made of. Who knows, maybe the next republican presidential candidate will be nearly the mirror image of our past democrat president.

 As mentioned in the previous post with the similar title, Mike Huckabee's policies and past will be subject to increased scrutiny as the political microscope intensifies because of his surge in the polls and the approaching primaries. New discoveries relating to Huckabee's past campaigns and his recent article in the Journal of Foreign Affairs warrants additional commentary as true conservatives try and determine who Mike Huckabee really is and whether or not he is a true conservative.

Huckabee's past campaign tactics are beginning to be dissected. When Huckabee ran for lieutenant governor in the early 1990's, he enlisted the help of Dick Morris, who had advised Clinton's gubernatorial races and presidential race. According to Morris, “[Huckabee] appealed to [voters] in much the same way that Clinton did in his first few races...He has the same type of charisma that I saw in Bill Clinton in 1978." Morris and Huckabee were afraid that his opponents would portray him as a radical right-wing candidate. So what did they do? In 1995, Morris said, “[w]hat we wanted to do was run a progressive campaign...So we opened the campaign with ads that characterized Mike as more of a moderate whose values were the same as those of other Arkansans. That was the first stage. The second stage was to raise the level of intensity, to get people interested in the race." The statement is particularly meaningful in light of Huckabee's recent anti-Mormon comment to the New York Times reporter, resulting in heightened media attention to the race and his reason for providing scholarships to illegal aliens.

Huckabee has also drawn potent criticism for his lack of foreign policy. On December 4th of this year, he went on the Don Imus show and joked about his foreign policy experience. He said “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night." Criticism regarding his foreign policy has continued since he recently published an article in the Journal of Foreign Affairs. Among other things, in his article, he called President Bush and his administration of “arrogant bunker mentality” and compared the United States to a high school student. According to Peter Wehner of National Review ,“Governor Huckabee’s article in Foreign Affairs, while fine (if largely conventional) in some respects, is fundamentally unserious; on national security matters, he is likewise. And when the final votes are tallied in the GOP race, Mike Huckabee’s words, on these issues and others, will cost him.”

Huckabee is also being scrutinized for trying to appeal to democrat voters. Huckabee's use of the words “arrogant” and “bunker mentality” when referring to President Bush and the administration are also being compared to statements made by democrats. For instance, earlier this year John Kerry referred to the White House as being in “bunker mode.” In March, Dianne Feinstein said “the White House is in a bunker mentality...”

As mentioned in the previous post, the political microscope will only continue to intensify its magnification on Huckabee's past and policies and conservatives will begin to see who he really is and what he is really made of. Who knows, maybe twhat conservatives really want is a republican presidential candidate that will be the mirror image of our past democrat president.  Heck, if you can't beat them, join them.

    As the primaries draw ever closer, the political microscope begins to intensify its magnification.  Perhaps, no candidate deserves more scrutiny under the microscope than Mike Huckabee. For the past couple of weeks, Huckabee's campaign has been experiencing a surge.  Huckabee attributes this to his likability and experience as governor of Arkansas.  However, true conservatives must ask themselves:  Is Mike Huckabee the kind of person we want in the White House and is he the kind of conservative we want? Kenneth Vogel of Politico.com reports that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee accepted nearly a hundred gifts from over twenty different people.  Every single one of those people ended up being appointed to various state positions.  One of them was a CPA who provided then Governor Huckabee with free accounting services for a year.  Vogel reports that the following year, the CPA was appointed to the Arkansas' Development Finance Authority.  The article goes on to detail the many other gifts that he received and the offices/positions the people were then appointed to.  When asked to respond to the allegations, Politico received a statement from Huckabee's attorney saying that it was just a "coincidence". 
    Huckabee's stance on illegal aliens has also drawn some criticism. As governor, Huckabee used tax-payer money to provide scholarships to illegal aliens.  He felt that the children of illegal aliens should not be punished for their parent's choice to come to the United State's illegally. 
    Huckabee's tax and spending policies are also beginning to be scrutinized.  From 1999 to 2002, Mike Huckabee opposed repealing a sales tax on groceries and medicine, raised taxes on gasoline, and signed into law a bed-tax on nursing home patients.  According to the Cato Institute's "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors: 2006", Huckabee received an "F". 
     As the political microscope intensifies over the next couple of weeks, we conservatives will begin to see what Huckabee is really made of, and who he really is.  Perhaps, the surge will die off, and he will simply fade away into the history books as a former presidential candidate.  Or maybe the political gods will smile favorably upon him, allowing him to follow in the footsteps left behind of another former, likable Arkansas governor with a spotted past ....
    I guess time will only tell, and republicans can hope not.

     As the primaries draw ever closer, the political microscope begins to intensify its magnification.  Perhaps, no candidate deserves more scrutiny under the microscope than Mike Huckabee. For the past couple of weeks, Huckabee's campaign has been experiencing a surge.  Huckabee attributes this to his likeability and experience as governor of Arkansas.  However, true conservatives must ask themselves:  Is Mike Huckabee the kind of person we want in the White House and is he the kind of conservative we want? Kenneth Vogel of Politico.com reports that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee accepted nearly a hundred gifts from over twenty different people.  Every single one of those people ended up being appointed to various state positions.  One of them was a CPA who provided then Governor Huckabee with free accounting services for a year.  Vogel reports that the following year, the CPA was appointed to the Arkansas' Development Finance Authority.  The article goes on to detail the many other gifts that he received and the offices/positions the people were then appointed to.  When asked to respond to the allegations, Politico received a statement from Huckabee's attorney saying that it was just a "coincidence". 
    Huckabee's stance on illegal aliens has also drawn some criticism. As governor, Huckabee used tax-payer money to provide scholarships to illegal aliens.  He felt that the children of illegal aliens should not be punished for their parent's choice to come to the United State's illegally. 
    Huckabee's tax and spending policies are also beginning to be scrutinized.  From 1999 to 2002, Mike Huckabee opposed repealing a sales tax on groceries and medicine, raised taxes on gasoline, and signed into law a bed-tax on nursing home patients.  According to the Cato Institute's "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors: 2006", Huckabee received an "F". 
     As the political microscope intensifies over the next couple of weeks, we conservatives will begin to see what Huckabee is really made of, and who he really is.  Perhaps, the surge will die off, and he will simply fade away into the history books as a former presidential candidate.  Or maybe the political gods will smile favorably upon him, allowing him to follow in the footsteps left behind of another former, likable Arkansas governor with a spotted past ....
    I guess time will only tell, and republicans can hope not.
   
      

    Rodney King's comment during the L.A. riots can be appropriately applied to the current hoopla that is swirling around the Republican Presidential race: "Can we all just get along?" Who cares what a candidate's personal religion is? I honestly cannot remember when a political candidate's religion mattered. Does the average voting American really know what faiths Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, or even Ronald Reagan belonged to? No, and I don't think they really care. Why? Because I think they realize that what really matters is a candidate's political beliefs, not their religious beliefs. In the end, it will be the candidates' political views and ideas that will raise or lower taxes, increase or decrease national security, not their religious ones.
    The bottom line is this: on Election Day, the ballot is not going to have "Huckabee-Baptist", "Giuliani- Catholic" or "Mitt Romney-Mormon" on it. It is going to have either "Republican" or an "R" next to their name.
    Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, I hope it is the best candidate who shares my political beliefs, not my religious ones. Let's face it, any true Republican is not going to rip their Huckabee or Thompson bumper sticker off their car if Romney gets the nomination, and replace it with a Clinton, Obama, or Edwards '08 sticker. The same can be said for Romney supporters. If Romney does not win the nomination, it is safe to say that his supporters are not going to go vote for Clinton or any of the other Democrat candidates. If Romney wins the nomination, I'll be a proud Romney supporter. If Mike Huckabee wins the nomination, I will be a proud Mike Huckabee supporter. I will be a proud supporter of any of the Republican candidates who win the nomination, because that candidate will be the one who will most likely advance my political ideology. Any Republican exercising common sense will agree. So what do you say Republicans, can we all just get along?

Rodney King's comment during the L.A. riots can be appropriately applied to the current hoopla that is swirling around the Republican Presidential race: "Can we all just get along?" Who cares what a candidate's personal religion is? I honestly cannot remember when a political candidate's religion mattered. Does the average voting American really know what faiths Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower, or even Ronald Reagan belonged to? No, and I don't think they really care. Why? Because I think they realize that what really matters is a candidate's political beliefs, not their religious beliefs. In the end, it will be the candidates' political views and ideas that will raise or lower taxes, increase or decrease national security, not their religious ones.
The bottom line is this: on Election Day, the ballot is not going to have "Huckabee-Baptist", "Giuliani- Catholic" or "Mitt Romney-Mormon" on it. It is going to have either "Republican" or or an "R" next to their name.
Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, I hope it is the best candidate who shares my political beliefs, not my religious ones. Let's face it, any true Republican is not going to rip their Huckabee or Thompson bumper sticker off their car if Romney gets the nomination, and replace it with a Clinton, Obama, or Edwards '08 sticker. The same can be said for Romney supporters. If Romney does not win the nomination, it is safe to say that his supporters are not going to go vote for Clinton or any of the other Democrat candidates. If Romney wins the nomination, I'll be a proud Romney supporter. If Mike Huckabee wins the nomination, I will be a proud Mike Huckabee supporter. I will be a proud supporter of any of the Republican candidates who win the nomination, because that candidate will be the one who will most likely advance my political ideology. Any Republican exercising common sense will agree. So what do you say Republicans, can we all just get along?