Redstate

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

FoxNews?
Republicans?
Fred & Rudy?

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Are you a moderator? :) No, I think that Fred and Rudy can not complain much since they have decided to make NH an afterthought.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

And I'm not trying to set you up, other than to confirm that your "they" was Fred & Rudy.

So now I can address what you're saying. I don't see where it was Fox's job to butt-job Fred and Rudy just because they've not campaigned very hard in NH, a state that in no possible universe either would have won. The primary process is not just NH, and in fact SC is right around the corner. A good showing in THIS debate by Fred might help him in SC, but he was denied that possibility by the idiots at Fo.

Was the debate televised nationally? Yes it was.
Was the intended audience only the citizens of NH? No.
Does FNC intend to hold a similar debate in SC a couple of days before the SC primary, one in which the front players in SC would get the lion's share of the debate floor? I really don't think so.

Are you following my reasoning here? It's a pretty lame excuse to snub Fred on the basis that this debate pertained only to NH.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

This crap w/ Fox' coverage of Fred is getting noticed by more than just FredHeads. The change I see now is that 1) They are admitting their unfairness, and 2) They are making up excuses for said unfairness.

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie

...eh? ;- )

“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson

Throughout the debate, Chris Wallace let Romney, Huckabee and McCain speak two or even three times before he got around to calling on Giuliani and Thompson. If I recall correctly, there was one question near the end where he completely skipped Thompson.

Then, on the post-debate interview with Brit Hume, Wallace criticized Giuliani and Thompson for not being as involved in the debate at the other three candidates!

A nice and reasonably fair one, to be sure. But I thought the snub of Fred and Rudy was deliberate and pointed.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I think it has to do with Fred not kowtowing to New Hamphire voters. It's personal.

Fight On!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

That's why he's not running there.

if Fred can not win there, where can he win? Everyone says South Carolina, I guess that is based on his "southerness". But he is a libertarian-conservative in the Goldwater Reagan mold, I think the desire not to "Kowtow" to New Hampshire Republicans is no virtue. New Hampshire is the "Live Free or Die" state, sounds good to me.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Once upon a time, but not in decades. Now they're pretty much a standard slightly left-of-center New England mushy centrist state. To many lberals from NY and Mass end up moving there.

"Live free or die" is one freakin' awesome state motto. Too bad their *acting* motto is "Pork me again, dealer".

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

never help :). However, I still think there is a libertarian streak in New Hampshire, they certainly are not pro government. New Hampshire has some of the most lax taxes in this country. Also, New Hampshire has some of the most lax gun laws in this country. Also, I am not sure if you have ever heard of the Free State Project, but libertarians chose New Hampshire out of all the 50 states to create a kind of libertarian homeland. I am not saying it has worked, but they did pick New Hamphsire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project

In the end, I agree with you that carpet baggers and the local economy have change New Hampshire. But still, I think Fred's brand of conservatism, the libertarian form, should do better than the statist forms of Rudy, Huck, John, and Mitt. Also, we are not talking about New Hampshire as a whole, we are talking New Hampshire REPUBLICANS.

in the end, this spells trouble for Fred.
___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Aren't going to be offended that you didn't come to their house for coffee. NH and IA are spoiled rotten and expect that kind of treatment for months leading up to their primary date. If you don't deliver, they hold it against you. They are not representative of the rest of the United States.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Too bad their *acting* motto is "Pork me again, dealer".
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

GOP nominee and most of them get Inaugurated.

NH is a freak state. So is Iowa.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

"NH is bigoted against Southerners"
"NH is a freak state"

To think IA and NH are freak states when presidential politics is concerned. They've been the first two states since the beginning of time. Of course they are screwed up beyond repair. The only hope for them is if they spend about 50 years as the #49th and #50th state.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I thought it was a pretty funny couple of consecutive posts.

that America ends up electing most often don't win the NH primary.

Southerners, on the other hand, esp those in SC, vote issues, without regard to region. Fred has a chance here because of his conservative record and policy proposals, not because he's from Dixie.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

rules. At some point he will be not playing by the getting elected rules. If he has us all figured out, more power to him. If not, then he wasted a bunch of people's time and money.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

He has basically avoided NH, and they expect special treatment there.

It seems to me that Romney gets "techy" about the issues where as Fred gets to the bare bones, and does it quickly. I honestly though can't see a single issue that they disagree on.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

I also has to do with the differences in accent.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

it's that Thompson supporters at Redstate don't seem to be able to grasp why Fred doesn't appeal to everyone. For those who don't support Thompson, nothing could be easier to understand.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

appeals to me because he is the only candidate willing to tell the truth and take a firm stance on the toughest issues. He really levels with the American people.

And it costs him dearly when the votes are counted.

Would you say he "leveled" with the people tonight?

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

was willing to tell the American people what we're really going to do to fix Social Security. People don't want to hear it. They want to pretend it will always be available and will always increase. It won't.

That said, stating the case this honestly costs Fred major votes.

Romney had the best night. He took nailed Huckabee on immigration, on taxes and on pardons. Huckabee may be a one-hit wonder. I sure hope so.

Rudy was good, not great.

McCain, since I disagree with so many of his stances, was dreadful. Quit with the faces already.

maybe tonight...but 10 months down the road I fear what that leveling will be...if he had any personal convictions I might could trust him

We can't adjust COLA because it would be politically unpopular (and therefore wrong) but we can raise the retirement age? What?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

most Americans don't want someone to level with them.

That's one reason why the "Straight Talk Express" has taken more that a few detours.

Exactly.

What does that mean?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

I meant, what does That's one reason why the "Straight Talk Express" has taken more that a few detours mean.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

has made some "concessions" to electoral reality and in the process deviated somewhat from some of his principled stands.

Hey, it's a superficial, and sometimes dirty game. That's one reason why a lot of talented people would never get involved. For those who do, and McCain is one, success is going to depend on doing what's necessary. Some do a lot more than is necessary (or admirable). Others, and I think McCain is one, have limits.

Personally, I think there is a lot more involved in Fred's problems than just his being too willing to level with the people.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I don't believe Thompson has much appeal for most people. Given the fact (and I take it as a fact) that so much of a presidential campaign is superficial (and the media's shallowness is vastly more important than any real or imagined ideological slant), Fred starts with a major deficit. His personal appeal is limited at best, as are his rhetorical skills, perhaps constrained by his career as the "serious" character actor who delivers a handful of lines while steadfastly portraying a block of granite.

His attitude isn't much help either. Campaigning, for better or worse, is a game, with rules and expectations, and it's a rare candidate who can say "I won't play by those rules" and be successful. Fred's not that candidate. When Fred says he won't raise his hand, that undoubtedly resonates with some people (especially those who long for substance), but many more, who like being spoon fed their pabulum in tiny, easily digestible nibbles, probably think, "Who does this guy think he is? Why is he too good to go along." Don't forget most Americans spend their lives going along. And most Americans have never heard of Redstate or any other political blog.

I think Thompson takes himself way too seriously, and people I've talked to (in a highly scientific survey involving literally a handful of people) agree. Too often he comes across like he doesn't want to be there, and is only suffering the fools so the country can have the benefit of his bountiful gifts. Unfortunately for Thompson and his supporters, most people don't see those gifts. One reason why they don't see them -- I believe -- is because they don't really exist. Fred had, at best, an undistinguished senatorial career. That, coupled with his meager personal appeal, leaves him with his mediocre acting career to fall back on. And that's not much of a net. Fred doesn't carry films or TV shows, he just adds a little salt (and certainly nothing more exotic). But when you run for president you have to able to star. Ronald Reagan was never considered a great film actor (he was certainly competent), but the standards are lower in a political campaign and in that arena there may never have been another American politician who could play the part better. If that sounds dismissive, it's not meant to be. Again, to be a great president (or a complete bust) one first has to get elected. Reagan was unparalleled in using his personal skills in a political setting. It's not like "It's morning in America" was substantive. But Reagan was able to infuse that with hope and emotion that really resonated with millions of people. One of the most amazing things about Reagan's presidency was that polls showed the majority of Americans disagreed with him on almost all major issues. But he got those same people to vote for him. With Thompson, it's more like "It's 9:25 AM on Tuesday in America and it looks like rain." That's not going to win many over.

It's irrelevant whether Thompson would be a good president if he can't get elected. And to get nominated and then (even harder) to get elected, he has to appeal to people (in a largely superficial process) in ways that he appears to be unable and/or unwilling to do.

the dearth of fools in Tennessee.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Personally, I think there is a lot more involved in Fred's problems than just his being too willing to level with the people.

Those problems, I was kind of hoping for something b>meaningful, you know, like unconservative ideas, a history of flip-flopping, or maybe previous scandals. Or maybe doesn't have any knowledge of substantial topics.

But what ya got is
(a) you think he has limited appeal, [and limited rhetorical skills -- OK, THAT's rich]

(b) doesn't do the dog and pony show [you spend a full paragraph admiring that, and ridiculing shallow people who who like being spoon fed their pabulum in tiny, easily digestible nibbles

(c) takes himself too seriously, according to what you admit is a sample of you and your friends.

OK, I think I see what you mean by the serious problems Fred has.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

It doesn't matter whether you think the problems I've described are meaningful. What matters (to you, I assume) is whether or not Thompson gets the nomination. So, anything that keeps him from achieving that goal is, indeed, meaningful.

Since Fred's not convincing people to vote for him in greater numbers than they vote for other candidates, I'd say his problems are meaningful, serious, and in the end, terminal.

There's more to being president that a minimal set of qualifications. There are lots of Americans who are reliably conservative, free of scandal, have no record of flip-flopping, and have a grasp of "substantial topics," but who are not presidential material. I think, and apparently I'm not alone, Fred is one of those people. You disagree. Great. Now someone, namely Thompson himself, has got to convince enough people to vote for him to get him the delegates he needs to get the nomination. When that doesn't happen, perhaps you'll agree his problems were serious.

Given the flaws in the other candidates, I wouldn't bet my life on the outcome of this race. If Thompson were to somehow get the nomination, I'm pretty sure it would be because he changed his campaign radically, something I just don't foresee happening, but I'm willing to be surprised.

that there were other, more serious problems, but it turns out to be more of the same -- the way he's running his ampaign, in one form or another. Not policies, not scandals.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Why does he not appeal to you?

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I don't understand. Maybe you could elaborate? What are you talking about?

=============================================================
Romney-- I would cry all the way to the polls
McCain-- I would hold my nose and cry on the way home
Huckabee-- No way, nohow
Giuliani-- See above
Paul-- 10% in Iowa? Yikes!!

Your commentary on the candidates says a lot. You've pointed out what many seem to be ignoring. Those who are so enamored of Fred may be so because they find the other candidates so wanting.

Since tastes vary, there are probably a lot of people who would make the same kind of list, exclude the candidate they support, and add Fred's name with the note: I'd sleep all the way to the polls, all the way home, and for the next four years.

My point is that the field is not inspiring. It's hard to imagine Romney leading anywhere if he had Huckabee's or McCain's bankroll.

I really believe, and I could be wrong (in fact, I'm undoubtedly wrong for some individuals) that Fred's supporters have elevated him to a level he doesn't deserve and can't support, because they need someone about whom they can be enthusiastic. It's understandable, but not realistic.

That's why they keep opining that he triumphed here or won there or scored points over yonder, but he doesn't really move up substantially in the polls.

One caveat about my disbelief in Thompson and his chances. Every other candidate has such significant flaws (to some part of the electorate), that anything is possible. Anything, that is, except Redstate endorsing Ron Paul.

That is, if a person was paying attention to the baloney being pushed by them. Huck just makes his half-truths sound so gooooooood.

Rudy did have to provide for the illegal public school kids in NYC. Huck did not have to provide a college education for the illegal children in Arkansas.

But only Thompson's plan makes total sense, and allowing them to stay is de facto amnesty, which won't be missed by the electorate, I hope in South Carolina.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

I would love to see a Romney/Giuliani ticket.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

However, I like your suggestion. Rudy has some GREAT experience as a DA and has some gravitas on the GWOT that would complement Mitt very well. Similar to the way Cheney complements W.

That combo couldn't not be matched by Hillary or BO with ANY #2 that they could choose.

--------------------
Vista really sucks!

there goes my 2nd Amendment rights with Mitt...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po

So as I see it:

One candidate that's a taxmonger (Huckabee)
One candidate that ignores the 1st Amendment (McCain)
Three candidates that ignore the 2nd Amendment (McCain/Romney/Giuliani)
Three candidates that are more Pro-Amnesty than Pro-America and Rule of Law (McCain/Huckabee/Giuliani)

Reagan Conservatism within the Republican party is truly dead (Michael Steele calls it Post Reagan). Anyone that tries to spin these candidates as conservative just comes off cheap. At one time I would have argued to vote for the Republican so a Dem would not get into the White House. I got GWB, massive spending, and amnesty. No more. I'll vote my conscience regardless of who ends up in the White House.

Fred, I had real high hopes that we could actually get a real conservative in the White House. All we can do is pump money in, but YOU have to perform. Good luck in SC, I hope you can turn it around.

-- roxer

No, it didn't continue, but Mitt asked the question Wallace was about to. Huckabee sounded like the kid tattling after recess. He got very flustered

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

I'm interested in why. Did you think McCain or Huckabee defended acquitted themselves or did he just drop the ball?

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

I think Romney's patrician attitude of ads against him were personal attacks not pointing out facts. But his ads were never like that. Unfortunately, they were.

Huckabee was weak in evading his questions. Regardless if an ad may have taken positions out of context, you still have to answer a question.

McCain just grates me the wrong way. I think he still danced around the amnesty issue.

Order of finish:
1.) FDT
2.) Romney
3.) Huckabee (down mainly due to initial evasion)
4.) Giuliani
5.) McCain

Hope that answers your question.

I see your point. What about the content of his attack ads though? Many said he was lying and distorting the truth but he did not back down and really came off looking like he was right to put the distinctions in that he did.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

Agreed. I think Fred paid for Huck's religious litmus test. An ole school Yankee v Southern feud with Fred paying for Huck's "God Willed My Victory" nonsense.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Because we know all the bad things about him already.

He's really laying them out on national TV now, though.

But maybe I'm indulging in wishful thinking, and those who *want* to support him will keep finding rationalizations.

That is why I am beginning to hope for a McCain loss in NH...Romney will flood sc with ads anyways and I know it would be dangerous to let him have that much momentum, but mccain would endorse fred if he lost in nh and maybe that would be enough to win over huck, romney, and rudy.

I wonder if McCain support would go to Thompson. I can see it going to Huck, Rudy, or Fred. I don't know how he could support Fred when Fred's #'s or lower than his.

Although he doesn't have moneybags, he does have enough money to hang through 2/5. His national numbers are competitive (and he led the last national poll). After 2/5 he might drop.

I think the Fredheads are getting to borderline of reality about the odds for Fred to win. I like the guy (he's my number 2 by a slim margin behind McCain), but he has very little chance to win any state much less the whole sha-bang (no matter how good he is on paper).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Just a quick question--Do you put McCain ahead because you think he is more electable, or because you think he would really be a better President than Thompson?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

And the Thompson staff is not denying that, as a supporter, I recognize that as well. The South goes where SC goes.

BTW- Guiliani has similarly avoided all the states you mentioned too, he's strong on Feb. 5, but won't be if he loses Florida, which he is now.

Fred is not the only one looking towards one state.

Mitt may be working hard in NH, but I'm starting to wonder why he's not spending more time in Michigan. All polls seem to point to McCain winning NH. Mitt is badly bruised if he does not win NH. And you are right, he can still win Michigan where Huckabee is only 1 point away. I know Mitt's Dad was Governor of MI, but Mitt also is next door to NH.

Fred is already bruised, and is going to focus on his one best chance, South Carolina. Historically, South Carolina sets the way for the South.

McCain has NH, if he loses its over. Huckabee's Southern appeal gives him shelf life no matter what happens in MI and NH, because he is looking towards SC too.

Truthfully, they are not all in extremely different and difficult predicaments. This is nobody's race yet for sure. With polls separting these guys by less than 5-10 points on average, and the RCP poll has been good this year.

As a Fred supporter, I'm definitely nervous, but other than Fred, I see only Rudy with a fair amount of states in which he seems comfortable.

This will be a long race.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

...and is running ads and the like. Right now, he needs to win NH. After that, he will move to Michigan and campaign.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I agree, that if Mitt wins NH he is strong, but if he doesn't, he does not have an obvious win in MI either. I'm not saying suddenly that Fred's chances are the same as Mitt's, but I don't see any of the 5 out of this because of my reasons above.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

All polls seem to point to McCain winning NH.

From the Weekly Standard today:

"Rasmussen's polls show the race tightening. In their numbers from yesterday, Romney trailed John McCain by five points. Today, he trails by only two. In the WHDH/Suffolk tracking poll, Romney is up three. Last Wednesday, the day before Iowa, WHDH/Suffolk had McCain up nine. That's a net twelve point pick up for the purportedly beleaguered Romney. Not that we should care, but Zogby shows Romney picking up a net five points over the weekend and leading by a point today."

That McCain will only serve for four years. lol, lets just hope Romney wins this thing out right.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

Romney is polling fine in SC. He doesn't need to evade SC. That's Romney secret weapon, he is relevant everywhere. He is the only national candidate. He'll do okay in south Carolina, but one thing is for certain he will always be a player in all these early states.

all the others run away from states where things aren't going their way.

You can if you have four opponents whose only strategy is winning one state Huck/Iowa Fred/SC MCCain/NH Rudy/Cali.

Mitt's opponents are so weak nationally that he can afford to lose a couple and look like the only viable full spectrum conservative come super tuesday

I'm a little frustrated at how long it's been since a SC poll. Michigan too for that matter. Whoever wins between Romney and McCain will have a lot of momentum into Michigan, but it'll be tight regardless. Mitt will go into Florida with the most collected delegates.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

He and McCain are already tied in Michigan polls and when McCain wins NH, Romney won't have a chance in NH. Since he also doesn't have a prayer in SC. Good riddance.

sfg

Based on what great analysis do you make this pronostication?

Secret double inside information?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Michigan Polls

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie

show Romney needs a NH win. Percentage chance of Romney winning:

NH: 20%
MI: 34%
SC: 7.5%
FL: 6.7%

Compare to McCain's odds:

NH: 78%
MI: 42%
SC: 40% (roughly tied with Huck)
FL: 20% (second to Rudy's 40%)

As you can see NH is Romney-McCain battle. MI is similar with Huck playing a bit more (roughly 20% chance). As McCain is slightly ahead in the odds for MI already, a NH loss for Romney would be a big hit. And he is already uncompetitive in SC and FL. A NH/MI back-to-back win by Romney would make him competitive in SC/FL. But NH may be Romney's last stand.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

But RCP(it's old, I know) show Romney at second. What makes you or the experts think he is uncompetitive there? I don't think McCain will have a shot there regardless of how he does in NH or MI.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Thompson always seems fed up with these debates from the outset.

Tonight Huckabee and McCain came across as short-tempered, tired, and annoyed.

I hope it costs them both dearly.

he ALWAYS seems old and tired, and tonight everyone else did. Calm down Fredheads, he really did do good! And I am not particularly a Fred guy although I'd prefer him to some others.

Thompson's exchange with Huckabee over the problems with moving prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to American prisons was tremendous.

Huckabee looked totally flustered to have someone besides Romney jumping on him.

already made their minds up and are even watching tonight. That's not yet clear but I hope you're right. I would prefer Mitt over McCain any day.

When Rudy talked about turning around NYC after people had lost hope, all I could think is that he was aiming at Obama as well. Obama can talk about hope all he wants, but Rudy has delivered in that regard.

Your first two points there are why morons flock to Obama.

"Oh he speaks like Robert Kennedy and he's such a nice looking man"

If people vote like this we're completely screwed for all time to come.

I'd take an effective Pres who looks like Nixon to a person who still isn't sure about his "feeling"

His commanding of the facts seems more Hillaryesc too. He's more into saying what the people want to hear and sounding much more calculated then confident.

Romney also is now running a "National Campaign" like Hillary did, both changed their tune after they lost while Rudy had the right idea the whole time.

We require ideological purity today. It's scorched earth with each side calling the other "the enemy" and not the opposition. To some lefties and righties, half the country is either un-American or even sub-human.

An ideologue doesn't allow himself to doubt his thinking or consider other opinions. Instead, he just yells louder and with more outrageous attacks. Everyone who would question his fanaticism is "un-American or even sub-human."

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Why not just eliminate all taxes? There is a point at which taxes are too low in comparison to government expenditures. Since there aren't too many anarchists on this site, we all agree that the government has to at least spend on national defense. Therefore, some taxes, fees, tarifs, whatever are required. Since the porkers in Washington have run amock since Tip O'Neil's reign of terror, calls for lower taxes at all times are nothing but pandering.

John McCain is absolutely right. Reduced spending leads to lower taxes.

we are not even close to the point where lowering taxes would hurt our security. The Federal government could be cut in half over a period of years and only lose fat and waste. Furthermore, the taxes themselves are hurting capitalism. We do not need taxes on corporations, investing, and dying. There should be a simple sales tax so people can choose when to spend and pay their taxes. You might be suprised to know the federal government got along quite well for many years before a national income tax.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

And then we can cut taxes.

_interest? you?

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Cut taxes along with spending but at a slower pace. The idea that we can borrow and spend forever is not a fiscally conservative point of view.

you like theories, ok, of course the tax rate can not go to zero. But the reality is we can cut taxes greatly and still bring in MORE revenue to the government. I could explain it to you, but I kind of think this is a prerequisite for posting on the premier conservative blog.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

unless we are on the right side of the Laffer curve. Even President Bush's economic team have admitted that his tax cuts have not paid for themselves. That doesn't mean that he was wrong to cut taxes. Where he and the Congress were terribly wrong was in letting spending get out of control.

you might hit me with some off the wall statistics, but I know I have heard it reported that there were record revenues over the last few years. Regardless, our tax structure is a huge waste and a huge giveaway to the accounting profession. Our corporate tax rates are now higher than those in Russia and Eastern Europe. Our absurd federal regulations are destroying Wall Street and have made London the financial capital of the world. We need less government, not more, and it starts with taxes.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Tax Cuts

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, using conventional analyses, says making the president’s tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues in 2016 by $314 billion. That is more than 10 times what the Treasury analysis suggests tax cuts would generate by prompting more hours of work, more savings and investment and more efficient use of resources.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

They did not pay for themselves. That wouldn't be a problem but that we increased spending by record levels. Some of that spending was necessary since we are engaged in a war. However, dicretionary spending has also risen by record levels. That is not fiscal conservatism.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

if we are not the party for tax cuts, ie freedom

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

government, not of tax cuts. If you want a huge federal government, you are going to have high taxes or ridiculous level of borrowing.

I want low taxes. However, the only responsible way of having them is to have small, limited government.

"Society is a partnership which links one generation to another: the living to the dead and the unborn" - Edmund Burke

So your word "high" is irrelevant. The goal is to get tax RATES (see the word RATES?) as low as possible, and keep the deficit low. The lower the tax rate, the greater the FREEDOM of We The People.

We fought a war over it.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Lowering the deficit simply means we are bankrupting ourselves more slowly.

Also, the current deficit numbers don't include the obligations of SS, Veterans benefits and other entitlements. Congress recently raised the debt limit to $9 TRILLION

Total government obligations have exploded in the last 20 years. $53 Trillion

"The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000," Walker said. "This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."

... or, to go specifics, about riding the Laffer Curve when we are in the wrong side of it. That's the requisite to cut taxes greatly and still bring in revenue to the government.

Unfortunately, we're not in the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Greg Mankiw, Harvard's professor who is Romney's economics adviser says that.

And by the way, Arthur Laffer, the father of the supply-side economics is an advisor to Senator McCain.

_are calling for lower taxes in corporations, dividends, and capital gains. I play this game for real, with real money.

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Right on, isn't that why London and Dubai are gaining on and passing us? This should be a new thread subject.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

I read that new ipos are 6 to 1 in favor of London. And you are right on Dubai, they are going gangbusters.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Well, I'm not the one to do it, but it would be cool to see a history of capital gains taxes, and how we became the financial capital of the world, then lost that distinction.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

tomorrow. it is not just capital gains, it is also Sarbanes Oxley. here is a taste.

http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009339

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I see a pattern. When Dems and Repubs work together, America loses! Rush is right, we don't want to work with liberals, we want to destroy them!

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

That's why tax cuts without spending caps sounds good for everyone living. But that's not fiscal conservatism. That's far away from conservatism.

"Society is a partnership which links one generation to another: the living to the dead and the unborn" - Edmund Burke

could cut the federal government by 50%. I said in this stage, laffer curve or not, we could cut taxes and grow revenue. We should also change the tax scheme to promote growth and saving.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Actually it's possible to have both, you know? As odd as it may seem in nowadays America.

one's labor to the owner of same. The Founders considered the right of private property to be THE fundamental right to ensure freedom.

Boston Tea Party
War

So any and all tax cuts are of use.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I agree that taxes should be low. However, the reason taxes should be low is because we don't need to fund a bloated government. If the voters want a nanny state then let us pay for it. Perhaps the burden would convince them once and for all that we are better off keeping our own money and making our own way in the world.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Chart

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

entire party they can join that actually wants to raise them.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Who's talking about raising taxes?!?! I am simply making the case that we need to reduce spending. If we reduce spending, we can lower taxes and not have a long term negative impact to our economy.

_candidates are falling all over themselves saying they will lower taxes. I understand that you are advocating less government, except when you say "if we want a large government, we should pay for it". We Republicans want a smaller government but we also believe that cutting taxes increases revenue and makes people more free. YOu do not seem to think this is true. Why do I have a feeling you just finished some economics class in a liberal college?

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

and have been an executive in the financial services field for more than 15 years. How about you?

accomplished than I am. I am in the investment management field and I have a plain ol' BS. But I have to wonder how conservative you are. You seem to be a moderate (quiver!), am I correct in that?

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

What can I say, I was raised in the upper midwest and that's the culture here. I don't care about gay marriage and while I oppose abortion personally, I don't believe making it illegal would make it go away. I do, however, believe in limited government and low taxes. Having economic freedom, in my opinion, allows us the best opportunity for success.

As for spouting off my resume, I apologies for my Mitt Romney moment. You managed to get under my skin at that instant. :-)

Thanks for the good debate.

I consider myself to be socially conservative in many ways, but I just don't think the federal government is a solution for much of anything, other than our militay, which I hold in the highest regard.

I think we are arguing on two sides of a debate we agree on. I want lower taxes and I want a smaller government. We might argue on the immediate effect of tax cuts, but we agree that taxes should be low and government should be slim.

I am socially conservative in the sense I want people to live good lives, but I believe you can not have a good life, or lead a moral life unless you are given the freedom to make your own choices. As far as abortion goes, I think it should be left to the states. I know that is not a perfect solution, but man is not perfect, we are flawed and can only come up with our best, which is not perfect.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Why?

let's just say this is a good argument. I hold no ill will towards you, you are keeping us on our toes.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I just had a conversation with my 7 year old son about taking the Lord's name in vain. I guess you might think this comes too close to that. My apologies.

I am not a fan of the term, but I would hate to be glomed in with the PC police :)

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

intellectually honest people here. God bless

for the record

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Here is a chart of the deficit

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Can I please have the link to this? I'd love to have it for my reference. Thx again.

http://www.optimist123.com/

That ones the December Chart he does these monthly.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"This is not partisan politics, this is straight off the White House web site."

The spin, however, is another matter.

Reagan's deficit ended the Cold War, it would have been much less costly if the Dem's had kept their promise to reduce spending.

Bush's deficit is expanded by the results of 9/11 and the appropriate responses.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

... then you are right.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I should have clarified that myself since I live near Chicago.

I don't remember which non-legislators bragged abot having surpluses, but did anybody else get irritated by that language? I can't remember for certain who but someone even went so far as to talk about the money they put in the "rainy day" fund. Thinking about that now, that just cheeses me off to no end. Cutting govt spending is a bad thing if the government isn't even going to use the money it's pulling in! Only cutting spending united with returning the money to the people (via tax cuts, refunds, whatever) is a good thing. Anything else is just blatant theft as opposed to waste.

He raised taxes so much in AR that the Democrats in the assembly couldn't find enough stuff to spend the revenue on. And then he brags about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

you wrote exactly my feelings on the nomination.

The only change I would make is

For me, Fred is the best. Mitt is a very acceptable alternative.

would read, Mitt is the best. Fred is a very acceptable alternative.

Other than that minor change, you nailed it.

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie

I believe him.

He is the perfect temperament for a great Vice President. He could use his growl, bark and bite to do things that would be unseemly for a President. I wish he would reconsider.

I say JC Watts or Pete Sessions. Not sure of Session's age, but he would be great.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

"we all have to decide which of these men will make the best conservative...".

There is no "best conservative". There may be a best candidate, but no best conservative. We cannot decide if someone will be conservative, that is up to the person. As Rush stated, either they are or they are not. Pinning labels on someone doesn't make it true. That is something Democrats do. We saw that with GWB. So far based on past history, I see only one person in this race that has actually espoused conservative principles - Fred Thompson. As I said in my post above:

One candidate is a taxmonger (Huckabee)
One candidate ignores the 1st Amendment (McCain)
Three candidates ignore the 2nd Amendment (McCain/Romney/Giuliani)
Three candidates are more Pro-Amnesty than Pro-America and Rule of Law (McCain/Huckabee/Giuliani)

Micheal Steele admitted on Hannity and Colmes last night that Reagan Conservatism is a thing of the past and that the Republican party is in a state of change. I guess eventually there will be no parties because at some point they will eventually blur together. I think we are closer than most folks think.

--roxer

What I wrote was, "we all have to decide which of these men will make the best conservative Republican President."

My intent was to highlight the fact that we might nominate/elect a liberal Republican President, or at least a very weak conservative. Now, to my mind, there is no difference between the phrases "best President" and "best conservative Republican President," at least in the current crop of candidates.

But it was intentional to highlight that except for the pro-life stance, at least one of our candidates might just as well be running on the Democrat's ticket, and another (although not really seriously a threat to be nominated) "is" a Libertarian.

"We cannot decide if someone will be conservative, that is up to the person. As Rush stated, either they are or they are not. Pinning labels on someone doesn't make it true."

We can certainly decide if a candidate has demonstrated conservative principles in his statements and in his behavior. If you want to get nto an existential discussion, don't do it with me. We can be Democrats or Republicans, because that is defined by what party we've joined or support. But of course NOBODY is "a conservative" or "a liberal," we are all simply people with certain sets of beliefs.

Beyond that, I don't see much difference in the essence of what you said and what I said.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.