Well, of course he's talking about nothing. That's what we tried to tell you earlier! All sizzle, no steak! :)

maybe they had all thouht about making a creepy, kinda lame video before but didn't believe in themselves.

then, hark!, st. barack descended from on high and gave to them words of comfort: "yes, we can".

Did he make the video himself? No. I don't get why you keep taking him to task for it. Obama's appeal is not just to liberals, in fact he seems to appeal to people who have become a bit apathetic politically from both sides of the fence. Does he get carried away with the whole crowd lifting rhetoric from time to time? Hell, yeah, but then so did Mr.Clinton. People like hope, whether you agree with his vision of hope or not, it is something that Hillary has been unable to convey.

I say again-His opponent is an old, cantankerous establishment politician. All Obama has to do is get McCain to blow his top or appear tired in one debate and it won't matter if the man reads the collected works of Wadsworth in his speeches--game over.

The power of the man on the white horse is pulling for Mr. O at the moment. Sure, he might have the Mongol hordes a couple leagues behind him, but he sure does look pretty in all that new armor...and the pillaging and burning won't happen until after the festival, right?

If you're only hope is that he'll never figure out a message then, hey, I'm not going to tell you all the lifeboats have left. I've seen no indications that McCain has anything going for him beyond "Will make a good commander-in-chief" and "Has a 'good enough' conservative rating...". That's not going to turn out the GOP faithful and, considering the Dems have _record turnout_ (and that excludes folks like Obama girl who were apparently too busy to vote in their primary but can likely be counted on to show up for a general) this is not a good thing.

Just sayin', "The man will stay an empty suit..." is sounding suspiciously like "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...". Unless the GOP wants to end up flat on its back wondering what the hell happened, folks better be prepared to eviscerate any likely programs.

there is only one republican who can out-debate obama....the huckster

I agree with Dawn when she said that Obama's best weapons are that catchy phrase "Yes, We can" and the Hope-word that he adds after every single sentence. However, I can truly say that Dawn and I, another pro-hillary, will vote Obama if he gets the nomination. I can guarentee you that.

All liberals (biggest and moderate; young and old; latinos and blacks) will rally behind Obama if he is the Democrat running in November. We rather vote for Obama's Hope to get us out of Iraq, for a new health care plan, to cut taxes for the people who need it more. He is not saying nothing, Maybe... but, believe me, Democrats are doing their best to get republicans out of the White House in a hurry... and, YES WE CAN, with Obama or Hillary.

If he can't get the biggest liberal I know, who also happens to be black, to vote for him.

Obama is leading 3-1 among blacks. The 25% that did not vote for him in the primary will do so in the general election.

where's my funny quote on the "yes we can" idiots?

Did he make the video himself? No. I don't get why you keep taking him to task for it.

Steff, I'm not taking him to task for the video, just for the vacant message in the video. When the video came out, multiple friends of mine, everyone from uber-Republican Dorian Davis to Hillary-lover Dawn Summers were so wowed by it, and the media was so in love with it as being the most powerful ad of all time, that I just found it stunning because I would watch it again and again and hear...nothing. I can admit when a Democrat has a powerful, captivating ad. I think Eliot Spitzer's ads in the last election (in particular "Little Light") were some of the best political ads I've ever seen. "Yes We Can" is just blank.

James, I continue to disagree with my Republican friends on the strength of Obama. You know how I feel about McCain and yet I feel John McCain will make lunch of Obama in any debate. It will be like when Dick Cheney debated John Edwards and Edwards looked like a little boy being scolded by grandpa. More from Dawn Summers (did everybody click over and read the whole thing? She may be a wacky liberal but she is a wacky liberal that has this 100% right): "Obama is untested to say the least. He’s 40, has won exactly one statewide election –where his opponent was a transplant from another state — and he didn’t even give a crap about that job enough to so much as finish a half of it before he decides no running the United States is what he’d be better at."

I remain much more worried about running against Hillary Clinton. Next to Obama, she is a real candidate who has a serious groundgame that we don't want to compete with.

"All liberals (biggest and moderate; young and old; latinos and blacks) will rally behind Obama if he is the Democrat running in November."

Barring any major, catastrophic developments, I will not.

I'm tired of waiting for ONE substantive position on any issue to manifest itself from his campaign. I'm unimpressed with his empty shtick, and I think he is an arrogant, elitist snob who's wet behind the ears and is not up to the job.

I'm tired of waiting for ONE substantive position on any issue to manifest itself from his campaign. I'm unimpressed with his empty shtick, and I think he is an arrogant, elitist snob who's wet behind the ears and is not up to the job.

I'm tell you guys, I hear this a lot. I agree with KJ that Democrats will line up with Obama if he's the guy but I can see quite a few of them thinking McCain the maverick, the one who always gets the "he's my favorite Republican" prize from Democrats, might not be so bad.

This country re-elected George W. Bush over John Kerry when dissatisfaction with Bush was high.

It gives me a little bit of faith in the common sense of the American voter. So when an all-style, no-substance Obama suddenly is put under the lights for honest evaluation, they won't fall for his honest-to-goodness socialism.

The only people who get carried away with Obama's "I have no ideas, but I sure can turn a phrase" schtick are big time liberals and impressionable college kids.

Fortunately for Republicans and this country, liberals are so full of themselves, and so truly believe that they represent mainstream thought, that they think that their enthusiasm for Obama's speechifying will translate over to regular folks.

I'd have to think that most Americans understand that Islamic terrorists are at war with us. Now. Even if we ARE kicking their asses big time, and they haven't been able to strike back, that their malace will not disappear if we simply elect Obama.

It's something I've never gotten: how Democrats really believe this war on terror is somehow all made up or something. That Islamists wouldn't try to one-up themselves with an attack bigger and better than September 11th if they could manage it. And they could manage it if we gave them Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

They believe that George Bush perpetrated September 11th. They sincerely think he did. Somehow, this leader whose administration can't seem to keep a damn thing secret, managed the biggest, most perfectly executed con job of all time, and none of the required thousands who needed to be involved have spilled the beans.

I just don't get Democrats. I can't understand how millions upon millions of Americans are either brain-dead retards, or just so ideologically blinded to act the way that they do.

Karol,

Sorry, but a serious candidate with a good ground game would not be caterwauling about the fact that Obama won't debate her nor trying to do shamrocks and shenanigans to get banned delegates seated. Sorry, but I think more and more Dems are starting to realize that the Billary monster has enough negatives, baggage, and raw, unadulterated hatred going against it that maybe Obama is a much better alternative.
As to being battletested, I'm afraid that comparing John McCain to Dick Cheney in a rhetorical engagement is like comparing a voodoo doctor to a brain surgeon. I'm not necessarily a Cheney fan, but I've heard enough about him and his command of facts to realize the man is a stone cold killer when it comes to a debate. Read some of the stuff about the discussions prior to Desert Storm when Cheney was SecDef and you'll see what I mean.

John McCain on the other hand? I haven't seen or heard anything yet that makes me say, "Oh yeah, he'll bring the wood to the debate that will make up for the clear juxtaposition of energized youth versus old man" or, as you put it, make it seem like someone's grandfather is adminstering a well-deserved hide stripping.

If Obama has made it to the point where he's debating John McCain then, sorry, the "not tested in an election"-meme won't hold because he will have beaten Billary, i.e. the party machine of the last Democrat President to win two elections. He will be riding a wave of energy that hasn't been seen in this country for awhile. Finally, he will be facing an opponent whose party faithful aren't exactly sure about and independents aren't totally wedded to.

Barring some serious incident like a terrorist attack, severe international crisis, or major natural disaster in the next few months, Obama vs. McCain is not a good matchup at all.

Now, on the other hand, McCain versus Billary is a matchup made in heaven for the GOP. Just in the few documents that have been released there's a treasure trove of statements that will paint Hillary as Bush lite in the minds of independents. Unlike Bill, Hillary has all the charm and warmth of a coiled, hissing king cobra when she's pressed. Finally, there's that little issue of the Clintons seeming to do strange, rather thuggish things to people who cross what they consider personal space. It's part of the reason Hillary's bleeding now (Americans hate a bully, and the crap they pulled with MSNBC was bullying at its finest) and, if she beats Obama, I'm sure there will be plenty of other opportunities to remind the people just what the Clinton Dynasty represents.

Most voters are not as smart as Dawn (or, on the other side, as those of us who were flabbergasted by Huckabee's late surge, etc.). Every time I talk about this I add a mental "but I really hope Karol's right", but I don't really believe it. I think if it's Obama v. McCain we are screwed. And by "we" I don't mean Republicans. I mean all Americans who will have to live under his presidency.

I guess that's where I disagree most with the "fear the Obama" conservatives. I actually think voters are very smart. These are people who get up off their couches and go through some degree of effort to cast their vote. They're not doing it willy-nilly. In the case of Huck, he speaks to values voters in a way that no one else in the Republican field did. There's a large segment of the Republican party who is very G-d-orientated and wants to hear about the lord and how He relates to policy. It might not be your cup of tea, it's not mine either, but there's nothing dumb about those people. They just want different things from their candidate.

The difference with Obama is that he speaks to this vague concept of "hope" and doesn't have any policy to back it up.

I maintain he crumbles. He has no other way to go. There's no there there.

OH! And I keep forgetting to say this: if he does win his primary and does, as I expect, crumble in the general, obviously the meme won't be "he was an empty suit" but "Americans are too racist to elect a black guy". Bank on it.

Karol, I concede your point on the Huck voters--to a certain extent. I think it takes at least a little bit of "dumb" to consider oneself a Republican and yet vote for a crazy tax-and-spender, among other things, just because he's a Christian. I agree that apparently they do want something different out of their candidate but I'm appalled at how "he's a Christian" was good-enough different. I think it's a little of both different and dumb.

I'll see your Dawn and I'll raise you a lawyer-trained friend of my own who drools over Obama (she's white, if that matters). Drools. The HOPE thing is the same drug as the JESUS thing is for Huck--they actually believe that this is all it's going to take. People who don't generally like confrontation, who believe that nobody does like confrontation and nobody would choose that way if only SOMEBODY would come along and offer them a peaceful way to get what they want--never minding that what some of them want is the death of whoever's on the other side of the table. These are the people who will go for Obama in droves.

I hope you are right, Karol, and there's absolutely no doubt you're right that if he loses the general it will be because we're all a bunch of racist jerks, but I'm preparing for the worst-case scenario: That people overlook that lack of "there" (as they did Huck's financial outlook and whatever else to vote for the Christian) to vote for the HOPE that "can't we all just get along" will become a reality.

It turns my stomach.

Well, instead of "just because he's a Christian" I should say "just because and actually in spite of the fact that he *uses* Christianity as a club and shield to keep people from looking too closely at anything else."

Sorry for the caps, also--tired of asterisks and italics, I guess. :)

Here is a newsflash:

not all of Huck's supporters are Evangelical Christians....I'm not Christian.

Many people are supporting him because of the Fair tax...but you don't hear the media talking about it or talking about the Fair tax.

when huck entered the election; he was an unknown to many people...he needed to establish himself; therefore he went for the religous southern voters...makes sense since he's a religous southerner....he didn't have enough, time, money or media attention to broaden his base.....but you can take it to the bank that he will run in 2012 and will have a great chance to be the republican nominee.

Actually, Karol, now that I think about it, I guess if you show me your "different" I'll show you my "dumb." The (few) people I know who are ga-ga for Obama (few only because I know few Dems) I wouldn't call dumb in general, but they are so crazy for this "different" that they are becoming too dumb to notice different's the same in many ways (i.e. get 51% voters lined up, as my friend was outraged to note that Rove had the crassness to come out and say but somehow fails to notice that that's all Obama is ever really going to do, if that) and that the actual different, the socialism, may be great for those who are dumb enough to want it, but not so much for the rest of us.

if he does win his primary and does, as I expect, crumble in the general, obviously the meme won't be "he was an empty suit" but "Americans are too racist to elect a black guy". Bank on it.

Only 'idiots' will say this. Americans are much much better than that and this was show in the primary. Obama is doing ok among whites, and well among well-educated and high incomes whites.

If he wins the primary and loses the general, there will be plenty of memes but not this one. Saying this is the equivalent of saying that "Democrats are too sexist to nominate a woman". I won't bank on it, K.

I'm still waiting for someone on this blog to respond to the following...

if Huck is a tax and spend liberal; why was he for the bush tax cuts from the start?...why did he sign the no tax hike pledge?...why is he a big supporter of the fair tax?

most of the Huck bashers are also supporters of Reagan....guess what?..Reagan raised taxes as governor...Huck cut taxes 94 times....he raised them 21 times....many of the tax hikes were court mandated....his hands were tied...he was dealing with a 90% democratic legislature.....he inherited a 250 million defecit....he left with a 800 million surplus...the other governors voted for him to lead their committee....he was one of the best governors in this country.

HUCK 2012

You know why no one has responded to the Huck tax comment? Because on the list of disqualifiers that's about #11 and, hey, just writing the Top 10 will take up too much of Karol's bandwidth.

Nice try James....Karol would love for you to take up her bandwith...helps with the advertising.

I'd also like to mention that Reagan's man Ed Rollins is with huck and so is duncan hunter; who's one of the best on immigration....Huck has the most comprehensive immigration plans, but you never hear about that or the fair tax.....it's alot more important to find out whether our president believes in evolution...yea...right

Larry,

In all seriousness, the problem with Huck was that, even when I listened to his whole speeches, he came off sounding a little too much like Jimmy Carter with regards to foreign policy. My #1 test for a President is, "Can they press the button on a first strike?" because, hey, retaliation is pretty easy.

Huck doesn't pass that test, based on some of the things he's said. Annihilating several million people to prove a point or prevent said number of Americans dying has nothing to do with Christian values or conscience but everything to do with cold, hard reality. I just can't see Huckster doing it.

"...obviously the meme won't be "he was an empty suit" but "Americans are too racist to elect a black guy". Bank on it."

Oh, I agree with this, because I am already getting this from my "own"!

I'm unmoved by this argument, because what could be more racist then casting a vote after weighting the candidate's race as that candidate's predominant, identifiable quality?

The same could be said for Hillary. Fine, a woman, but must it be THIS one?

I would probably never vote for McCain, because his one seeming redemptive quality is his hawkishness, and I am staunchly antiwar. I've always regarded the Clintons as just another part of the vast right-wing conspiracy they decried, but it took Obama to make her look like the best of a bad lot...

If there was, as Karol says, any "there" there with Obama, I could understand why the establishment liberals are on him like white on rice, but change is not always positive and, as it stands, I believe he would crumble like a cookie in any sort of crisis.

What a mess.

James,

Please tell me you have a better reason then that...ofcourse the Washington insiders would have more knowledge of foreign affairs then a Governor, but huck believes in the conservative principles of defense...there's no doubt he would need a strong military VP...someone like Mccain would work for the huckster.

Oh, I have many reasons, that's just the start. I've put these as questions because, hey, if you've got answers I'm open to persuasion.

Releasing a convicted rapist who went on to kill someone in my home state? Yeah, that really colors my opinion, sorry. Two women are dead because he believed a man found the Lord or whatever excuse he's using now. Governors should only offer clemency in the clear, irrefutable instance of wrong doing or new evidence. "I got my nads chopped off by vigilantes...maybe" isn't compelling evidence nor, in lieu of it being proven that those responsible were state employees, is it wrong doing.

Making a comment about aligning the Constitution in line with religious pricinciples? (Can't spin that one, it did come directly from his mouth.) Hmm, yeah, that's a little too much coming from a man who allegedly wants the post where you have to swear to "uphold and defend the Constitution."

His tax record? Yeah, that's there too. As a non-Reaganite, i.e. one who doesn't think Reagan walked on water but was a da*n fine President anyway, the counterargument about Reagan raising taxes doesn't deter me. Principles are principles, and if you're unable to turn back a Democratic legislature in Arkansas then how are you going to do with a Democratic Congress? I'm not saying McCain is better, mind you, but that's why I'm an independent who is taking a coin with me on election day given the likely candidates at this time.

Foreign policy or ignorance thereof? Yep, that's there. Sorry, he's running for President, not dog catcher--he should indicate some basic knowledge or awareness while applying for the job, as the world does not stand still long enough for someone to jump on.

Federalism? Doesn't strike me as someone whose heard about it from some of his comments. Even outside of the comments above, I just get the feeling that he doesn't believe the Federal government is a monster to be shrunk.

Commander-in-Chief? What's Huck's military plan from day 1? Not Iraq alone, but where does he see the next 10 year (yes, 10 year) going? If he doesn't have the experience to deal with these things, whose judgment is he going to rely on?

These are just a few reasons I have heartburn with Huck. Thankfully for him, I'm an independent, so technically he could just ignore me and folks who think like me until the general. However, judging from his performance last night, he's got to go back and work on convincing people that he's not just some populist preacher from Arkansas.

Dawn's post fits nicely with the Day by Day cartoon for today, 2/13/08.

Larry, I already debunked your claims about the "Fair" Tax (substituting one tax-collecting bureaucracy for another) and Reagan. Need the URL?

"Many people are supporting him because of the Fair tax...but you don't hear the media talking about it or talking about the Fair tax."

Because no one with objective reasoning can truly evaluate the "Fair" Tax and continue supporting it. It sounds like a good idea, keeping the same revenue and encouraging the economy to grow, but the implementation will be disastrous. And there's no explicit requirement to get rid of the income tax (like a repeal of the 16th Amendment), so we could wind up with both on our backs.

Now, I don't see a lot of Hucksterbee's support coming from "Fair" Tax advocates. I see it as coming from idiot evangelicals who don't know better. You're an exception, of course, but certain segments are blind because they happen to share the same religion (and let's not forget race). Back in 1992, some of my church members said about Clinton, "Oh, he's a fellow Baptist, he must be a good guy! And he's not a liberal, he's a moderate." One supported Alan Keyes in '96 because "He's a born-again Christian."

That's the core of Hucksterbee's support, and it doesn't go very far north of the Bible Belt.

Perry,

go buy the 2 books by Neal Boortz on the fair tax...the 2nd one just came out and it answers all the questions people have raised about the fair tax...the first book was #1 on the NY Times best seller list and the 2nd book is already #4.

How is it you get 30 comments on my post? 31. Dammit. Everything always works out for Karol.

James,

Let me first say that I don't think Huck is perfect...no politician is.

1) Regarding the pardons - he agreed with the decision to parole the rapist, but he didn't parole him...that was the clinton elected parole board...some of them lost their jobs and were angry at huck; therefore they blamed him for pressuring them.

2) the whole constitution thing was blown out of proportion...he believes in amending the constitution for gay mrriage and abortion....his beliefs come from his belief in god.....he admitted it came out wrong...but people have completely overreacted by saying he wants a theocracy and impose his religon on us....those amendmants are a platform of the republican party.

3) his tax record was completely misrepresented...he had no choice but to raise the taxes he did.

4) you say he believes in bigger government....the fair tax is not big government.

5) you're being way too hard on Huck for his foreign policy...you can't expect a governor to be fully versed in foreign policy right away....but he has the right principles of foreign policy...that's what I care about.

Larry,

I'll use the same numbering:

1.) Sticking by the established facts, this is what happened. First, Huck met personally with the parole board. This was somewhat unprecedented, no? Second, he sent the recorder out of the room, correct? This doesn't strike me as a sign of things being on the up and up. Finally, any man who is not smart enough to realize #1 and #2 may look suspicious at a later date is probably not exactly brilliant. In a prior life, every time something shady was about to happen, I made it a point to start writing down the 5Ws. It's amazing how this simple act can keep you out a myriad amount of trouble. Now, I'm just some hick from the boonies, but if I can figure this out, I think the governor of a state should have a clue. I made it a policy long ago to never support anyone who wasn't smarter than I am because, hey, it's not a high bar to cross. The fact that Huck is just shocked, SHOCKED that people are inclined to believe something untoward happened in this meeting indicates he might've caught said bar to the mid-section.

2.) Mmm, explain to me again how gay marriage and abortion are national issues? Because last time I checked the GOP plank believes Roe v. Wade, the central thrust of which was that there was a superseding right to privacy at the national level, was wrongly decided on Federalist grounds. So the solution to Huck then is to amend the Constitution rather than, I don't know, simply getting it reversed? This, in addition to what people do in their bedrooms are issues that need to be addressed by changing the foundation document of our nation? Even _without_ distortion that concept is scary as _HELL_ to me.

Fight these things in court and make sure SCOTUS is staffed with nine justices who have apparently read the Constitution since law school--within reason. Start messing with the Constitution because you think two men buggering one another cracks the top ten issues of the day? Not so much, if only because the Constitution already says that this stuff should be handled by the states--it's just that somewhere along the way Congress decided it didn't want to, you know, do its job and control the lower courts that things have gotten out of hand. Huck's comments indicated he was wanting to be the political Robert E. Lee (grandiose, complex maneuvers going for a knockout) when the solution calls for a Grant (holding someone by the nose while your buddy knees him repeatedly in the nuts until such time as he passes out or gives in). I think you may recall which one of these approaches won the War of Northern Aggression, no?

3.) No choice? How many did he veto? Because "my veto was overridden" is no choice, whereas "I went along to get along" is a _definite_ choice. Legislature can't impeach you for being a cantankerous a**hole, after all.

4.) Mmm, you're trying to merge two issues. Just because you believe in the fair tax doesn't believe you don't believe in large government. As our current Chief Executive is proving, you can spend some serious coin without, you know, taking a comparable amount in.

That being said, I've heard Huckabee talk about expanding educational support, infrastructure support, etc., etc., yet I've heard no talk of what he's going to cut. When I say he's in favor of big government, I mean this as someone who believes our government is waaaaayyyy too big now. If Huckabee is going to add programs without taking a chainsaw to the monster now, then he's de facto in favor of big government. That is, unless you think government's not too big now. Feel free to start defending that as a counterpoint here.

5.) No, I can't expect a governor to be versed in foreign policy. However, I can expect a Presidential candidate to, you know, be aware of things like an NIE that purports to claim Iran will not be nuclear anytime soon. Considering the pessimistic reports from Mossad indicate that this may become a, shall we say, _hot_ issue within the first 90 days of the next term, I'd like someone who might have an idea of what he's going to do rather than just winging it as the sh*t hits the fan about March of next year.

Once again, the rule is that someone I'm pulling the lever for has to be more qualified for the job than I am. Saying you support Israel, want to fight the War on Terror, etc. etc. are great principles, but pardon me after the last flyer I took on a guy saying these things didn't turn out so well if I'd like specifics. Saddam Hussein needs to be replaced sounded like a great _principle_ but, hey, the execution has left a bit to be desired.

I'm not saying Huck's a bad guy or that he's not more prepared than, say, Bambi, er, Obama. However I am saying that, were I a Republican, I've seen _nothing_ that would make me choose him over, say, McCain. You think abortion and gay marriage are bedrock issues far more important than crime and punishment, fiscal responsibility, and a very large number of armed, dedicated men trying to kill us then, yeah, we just gotta disagree.

Say what you want about McCain, I'm fairly certain that he'd go to the mat for conservative judges / justices (which is where you can start getting things put back in their proper order on those two issues) and absolutely positive that he'll be happy to help lots of folks catch the Martyrdom Express if the need arose. Huck on the other hand would attempt to climb the Amendment Mount Suribachi while singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers,' squander what political capital he may have attained, then having nothing left when it came time to take care of business with the Mullahs and/or a radicalized Pakistan.

James,

You make some valid points...like I said, Huck isn't perfect....name one politician who is?

I'm not a social conservative...gay marriage and abortion aren't big issues for me, but it is a bedrock for issue for many republicans.

I don't believe he's for bigger governemnt.

when I support a candidate, I look at these 4 things...

1) experience - Huck has it

2) Success - Huck was a very good governor.

3) Issues/policy - I like what Huck brings to the table...especially the fair tax.

4) Communication skills - Huck is the best republican communicator since Reagan.

"Ed Rollins is with huck"

That in and of itself disqualifies him in my book. Rollins is so many levels beyond unprincipled scum, I would want nothing to do with any candidate that hired him.

The whole "putting the bible in the constitution", his hatred of entreprenuers, his support of illegal immigration, his lying about his record on taxes. They all combine to make him, well, a Democrat.

He's a pro-life Democrat, plain and simple, who hires vile, vile people.

And listening to him speak is just like listening to Obama. It's worse though, because the snake-oil preacher is invoking God in his lies.

Aside from being pro-life, I see nothing about him that I consider admirable. In fact, I find Huckabee offensive.

Sean--right on.

the same ed rollins worked for Reagan, the man conservatives worship....I don't care how rotten rollins is...bottom line is that he sees the same greatness in the Huckster that he saw in Reagan.

he doesn't support illegal immigration...he has the most comprehensive immigration plan of any candidate...the only thing he supported was college tuition breaks for kids who spent their entire lives in the school system...that's being a compassionate conservative.

he hasn't been lying about taxes....it's his critics that are misleading the public.

and calling him a snake oil slaesman/preacher...ridiculous....the snake oil salesman is the fraud Romney.

Hey Obama Supporters:
If Yes, You Can, why do you need the Government to Do It For You?

Supporting the children of felons is not being a compassionate conservative--it's supporting the children of felons! Considering that Governor Huckabee did not provide the correct answer ("Hell yes I'd give the same benefits I'd give to children of illegal immigrants to veterans!") prior to discussing his plan, I can only assume that, yes, he supports illegal immigration.

Now, while I will admit that I am biased (my wife is a legal alien and, yeah, get your a**es back in line is my official stance), it also says volumes about Huck's feelings regarding veterans' families that he has not, to date, correctly answered this question.

Finally, I'm afraid that "I rode with Reagan" is starting to get a bit tiresome. Sorry, but if Ronald Reagan had as big a posse as current candidates or their supporters claim the Berlin Wall would've collapsed solely via the force of their cheers after his famous speech.

Just sayin', Ronald Reagan was the best President for his time and, yeah, deserves most of the credit for closing the Cold War. However, this is like saying, "I married well, elect me!" when it's a candidate's argument and, last I checked, that show's playing in the Jacka** Theater.

Larry, I've done better than that.

I've met Neal Boortz in person. I've heard what he had to say about the "Fair" Tax. None of it washes when you realize what the tax is about.

Now, refute a single thing I said, or can you? Stop ducking the questions.

Like I've said, no candidate is perfect...I'm not sure I agree with his stance on benefits for kids of illegals...I can see the argument against it.

I think it's fair to say he's tougher on immigration then any democrat or mccain.

speaking of veterans...Huck talks about it on his website....there are alot of his positions you don't hear about because the media focuses on things that have nothing to do with being a president...such as evolution.

Perry,

I've answered all your questions...you refuse to accept the answers....I don't agree with your assesment of the fair tax.

by the way...who are you supporting?

James, who are you supporting?

Larry,

See, and that's the problem--I, a conservative, can't find myself supporting any of the candidates. Instead, I find myself being told something suspiciously close to, "Yeah, and who else you going to vote for?" by the GOP. Given the crop of candidates, I just might pull the lever for the Libertarians again just to say I voted. Sure, it's nominally the same as voting for the winner, but then again it's not my fault the rest of the population isn't motivated to do this out of pique. ("Mr. Jones?" "Yes?" "You have just been elected President of the United States." "WHAT?! But I'm a Libertarian!")

Although I will say that I heard an interesting reason why the field might have been so thin on the GOP side this year: No one wants to deal with the numerous messes that are being left by the current Pres.

Larry, all you do is say "Look here," which is no answer, or you just stick your head back in the ground.

Why do YOU support the "Fair" Tax, and how do you respond to my refutations?

Have YOU met Neal Boortz in person to talk about the "Fair" Tax? It sounds good on paper, guy, but it'll become a nightmare like the VAT in Europe.

The "Fair" Tax will by necessity maintain the same level of tax-collecting bureaucracy. It's supposed to allow us to eliminate the income tax, but there's no explicit requirement that the 16th Amendment be repealed, so we could certainly wind up with both taxes.

The concept of a monthly "rebate" is so laughable that it's absurd. It's already such a boondoggle for the federal government to send out a one-time rebate, so what makes you think it can do this 12 times each year? You're against illegal immigration, so answer this: in your own personal opinion, not what Huckster or Boortz or anyone says, should illegals get it? After all, they will be paying the tax too, right?

In the end, its most ardent supporters, like Boortz, talk about how it's wonderful the "Fair" Tax will collect the same amount in revenues. Why do we want a new tax, and making our entire economy shift over, so government can keep stealing the same amount of money from us? That's not a tax cut, only a tax substitution.

I was going to vote for Ron Paul, even if I had to write him in, though I still disagree with him on Iraq. I agree with his general principle that we shouldn't get tangled up in international affairs and alliances that aren't our business. However, I disagree with him about the specific situation of Iraq: Saddam became our business once he had his army kidnap American citizens in Kuwait.

However, McCain might win me just enough to hold my nose and pull the lever. He's always talked about cutting spending, which is good, and he's finally now talking about tax cuts, and that's a great thing. People in this country, like me, can't keep shelling out 40%, 50%, 60% of their income in this or that tax. OK, so McCain believes in global warming, and he's against free speech (McCain-Feingold), and he's an evil vindictive bastard. He's still better than "Say 'Heil Hillary' if you want universal health care!" Clinton, or "I'm so nice you won't notice my socialism" Obama.

Perry,

you met boortz...did you ask him your questions?...I'm for the fair tax because it makes sense...maybe it needs some tweaking, but I believe in the principle...and it's not like the current tax system is working.

I love what the huckster is doing right now....he's campaigning across the country...solidifying his base..expanding his base....getting free media attention, etc.....and in a few years, he'll run again....he'll win south carolina and will be on his way to the white house.

Larry,

Sorry, it'll take a disaster of epic proportions (i.e., one that regains religion the centrality of American life that it held up until the 1950s) for Huck to win a general. I'm not saying he can't win the GOP primary--but I don't think he can win the general unless all hell's broken loose. The current American populace just has too much of an aversion to a candidate who is that blatantly religious.

Larry, I worked for Herman Cain, one of the first candidates to run on the fair tax and I've met Boortz and John Linder. I'm not so sure I believe in the fair tax anymore. Apart from it just being completely unrealistic in implementation, I'm no longer convinced that it could work in practice either. More likely, we'd have the sales tax and then our govt., pinched for money as always, would start introducing new taxes anyway.

James,

You finally admitted the real truth...it's not about any of the issues regarding Huck...it's the fact he's too religous...that would be taboo for many in the mainstream to say; therefore they use bogus, misleading attacks.

if/when huck gets the nomination, the people will hear his message...they will hear his brilliant communication skills....and after having 4 years of a democrat; they will realize what a mistake that was.

Karol, I'm not surprised you're against the fair tax now....when you decided to support Romney; it was only a matter of time before you flip flopped...wait a minute, you "changed" your mind like Mitt often likes to do...my bad :)

Brilliant communicators don't make slips such as his Bible/Constitution flap. Seriously. I mean, let's look at the best communicators we've seen run (not necessarily win) for President since 1980. Do you see Reagan, Clinton, or for that matter, Bambi making that mistake?

I have no doubt that Ronald Reagan especially was a God-fearing Christian who made many decisions based on his faith, yet I don't think anyone had the sense that he "majored in miracles" or believed his campaign was divinely inspired. Huck not only does so, he has said it. Even as a fellow believer, that portion of his message as well as his fervent belief in it sets off bells.

When it comes to God and politics, I'm more of a Lincolnist in that America should strive to be on God's side, not believe that God is on ours.

As to the comment about the issues, those are generally the problem I have with Huck. The religious angle just exacerbates the problems, as I've found people who believe that they're right with God tend not to be very flexible in their thinking. In general, I think it's because they believe that if they are resolute, Satan can't whisper in their ear. Whether that's true or not (I personally believe the Lord gave us free will for a reason, and not just because we provide him with great amounts of humor), I think it's hard to argue with the effects thereof. I'm not a Bush basher (pulled the lever for the man once as a matter of fact), but I have definitely seen and heard him say things that lead me to believe he thinks he's right because of his faith. Having done that for eight years, I'd rather not have a repeat, thanks.

I, like you, believe the media does distort a lot of things said by GOPers, and it's likely only going to get worse in the next few months. ("John McCain, please pick up the white courtesty phone...John McCain, please pick up the white courtesy phone...") However, in judging Huck, I've only gone off the words I've heard him say, his discrete actions, or what's on his web site.

For example, you want to say he's tough on immigration, yet the words "This policy will be drafted to comply with the final federal court decisions on this issue" appear with regards to one of his planks. Anyone whose willing to let some Clinton or Carter appointee perchance color his opinion on illegal immigration pretty much loses the ability to claim "toughness" on this issue. We're a sovereign nation, the laws are on the books, and if Andrew Jackson can carpe scrotum to defy the Supreme Court then I'd like a President who at least has the intestinal fortitude to say, "Thanks, Judge Smith, but I can read the law and you have absolutely _zero_ enforcement capability. Pound sand and I really hope you have a plan for heating your courthouse because we're not paying the bill until the last day of the fiscal year." That's tough _and_ constitutional, and it's been long past time we had a Chief Executive who did that. In short, there's nothing in Huck's policies that really set him aside other than his stance on faith and family--so I'll take my milquetoast without a dash of old time religion, thanks.

Now, as to the fair tax, I'm afraid I'm with the rest of the skeptics here. Government doesn't let taxes go away, especially if they're allowed via Constitutional amendment. No one in the Fair Tax is seriously advocating that the income tax amendment be abolished. Given that Congress's approval rating is somewhere south of 20% (allowing for margin of error) yet they keep doing dumb sh*t, it's fairly certain that the majority of our servants stopped being worried about us dumb idiots turning them out long ago. So, until you can show me where Huck has said "First I will abolish the 16th Amendment and here is my step by step offensive plan," consider me highly skeptical.

I agree with our fair (pun intended) hostess that this would merely be the camel's nose into the tent for taxing us even more than we already are. Tell me after we've had a great natural disaster / terrorist attack / war / narcisstic boomers wanting their benefits that the logic would not be, "Oh, we've got to reform the Fair Tax Act and bring the income tax back." You telling me that this wouldn't pass Congress? You know, the folks with something like a 90% reelection rate and gerrymandered districts? The folks who apparently think they should have a retirement benefits plan that far outstrips Social Security?

I'm not saying I'm against the fair tax as a _concept_, but I'm also in favor of first use nuclear weapons in theory. What do they have in common? Both of them sound great on paper, but but upon execution would lead to unfortunate and sharp unforeseen consequences. I'm thinking trying to enact the Fair Tax would lead to the opening of a box which would make Pandora's look like a minor trinket by comparison.

Now, you can insult me like you did Karol and Perry, but that's not going to persuade me or, for that matter, anyone else. Like I said--I'm just a simple hick from the Missouri hills, so put it in easy terms for me. If I'm wrong on Huck's position on the Fair Tax, i.e., he's said that the 16th Amendment is going away _as step one_ and explained how he's going to impose it, then I'll retract most of my opposition to his position on taxes. However, I've seen a lot of Presidential candidates lately promise many things to many people then suddenly start to reconsider once they won election/reelection. It's not enough to be for something "in principle" anymore--if Huck wants to be successful, he's going to need a plan. That, in and of itself, would set him apart from the field.

Brilliant communicators don't make slips such as his Bible/Constitution flap. Seriously. I mean, let's look at the best communicators we've seen run (not necessarily win) for President since 1980. Do you see Reagan, Clinton, or for that matter, Bambi making that mistake?

I have no doubt that Ronald Reagan especially was a God-fearing Christian who made many decisions based on his faith, yet I don't think anyone had the sense that he "majored in miracles" or believed his campaign was divinely inspired. Huck not only does so, he has said it. Even as a fellow believer, that portion of his message as well as his fervent belief in it sets off bells.

When it comes to God and politics, I'm more of a Lincolnist in that America should strive to be on God's side, not believe that God is on ours.

As to the comment about the issues, those are generally the problem I have with Huck. The religious angle just exacerbates the problems, as I've found people who believe that they're right with God tend not to be very flexible in their thinking. In general, I think it's because they believe that if they are resolute, Satan can't whisper in their ear. Whether that's true or not (I personally believe the Lord gave us free will for a reason, and not just because we provide him with great amounts of humor), I think it's hard to argue with the effects thereof. I'm not a Bush basher (pulled the lever for the man once as a matter of fact), but I have definitely seen and heard him say things that lead me to believe he thinks he's right because of his faith. Having done that for eight years, I'd rather not have a repeat, thanks.

I, like you, believe the media does distort a lot of things said by GOPers, and it's likely only going to get worse in the next few months. ("John McCain, please pick up the white courtesty phone...John McCain, please pick up the white courtesy phone...") However, in judging Huck, I've only gone off the words I've heard him say, his discrete actions, or what's on his web site.

For example, you want to say he's tough on immigration, yet the words "This policy will be drafted to comply with the final federal court decisions on this issue" appear with regards to one of his planks. Anyone whose willing to let some Clinton or Carter appointee perchance color his opinion on illegal immigration pretty much loses the ability to claim "toughness" on this issue. We're a sovereign nation, the laws are on the books, and if Andrew Jackson can carpe scrotum to defy the Supreme Court then I'd like a President who at least has the intestinal fortitude to say, "Thanks, Judge Smith, but I can read the law and you have absolutely _zero_ enforcement capability. Pound sand and I really hope you have a plan for heating your courthouse because we're not paying the bill until the last day of the fiscal year." That's tough _and_ constitutional, and it's been long past time we had a Chief Executive who did that. In short, there's nothing in Huck's policies that really set him aside other than his stance on faith and family--so I'll take my milquetoast without a dash of old time religion, thanks.

Now, as to the fair tax, I'm afraid I'm with the rest of the skeptics here. Government doesn't let taxes go away, especially if they're allowed via Constitutional amendment. No one in the Fair Tax is seriously advocating that the income tax amendment be abolished. Given that Congress's approval rating is somewhere south of 20% (allowing for margin of error) yet they keep doing dumb sh*t, it's fairly certain that the majority of our servants stopped being worried about us dumb idiots turning them out long ago. So, until you can show me where Huck has said "First I will abolish the 16th Amendment and here is my step by step offensive plan," consider me highly skeptical.

I agree with our fair (pun intended) hostess that this would merely be the camel's nose into the tent for taxing us even more than we already are. Tell me after we've had a great natural disaster / terrorist attack / war / narcisstic boomers wanting their benefits that the logic would not be, "Oh, we've got to reform the Fair Tax Act and bring the income tax back." You telling me that this wouldn't pass Congress? You know, the folks with something like a 90% reelection rate and gerrymandered districts? The folks who apparently think they should have a retirement benefits plan that far outstrips Social Security?

I'm not saying I'm against the fair tax as a _concept_, but I'm also in favor of first use nuclear weapons in theory. What do they have in common? Both of them sound great on paper, but but upon execution would lead to unfortunate and sharp unforeseen consequences. I'm thinking trying to enact the Fair Tax would lead to the opening of a box which would make Pandora's look like a minor trinket by comparison.

Now, you can insult me like you did Karol and Perry, but that's not going to persuade me or, for that matter, anyone else. Like I said--I'm just a simple hick from the Missouri hills, so put it in easy terms for me. If I'm wrong on Huck's position on the Fair Tax, i.e., he's said that the 16th Amendment is going away _as step one_ and explained how he's going to impose it, then I'll retract most of my opposition to his position on taxes. However, I've seen a lot of Presidential candidates lately promise many things to many people then suddenly start to reconsider once they won election/reelection. It's not enough to be for something "in principle" anymore--if Huck wants to be successful, he's going to need a plan. That, in and of itself, would set him apart from the field.

Hate double posts :(

James,

I didn't insult Perry...and Karol loves being insulted, trust me :)

Nothing you really said swayed my opinion in any way...Huck is treated negatively by his detractors because of his religon and not policy...every candidate has policy issues, but people are overblowing them, because it's alot easier doing that then saying they don't like him because he's too religous.

If you don't think he's a brilliant communicator and public speaker; you're in the minority....when you're campaigning non stop; there will be times you say something that doesn't come out properly..that's what happened with the constitution/god stuff.

Regarding the fair tax...I'm sure there will be some reform needed...I'm not saying I know all the answers...here's what I know...the current system sucks...the concept of the fair tax is far better...like I said, I'm sure there are some issues that need to be addressed, but I would take my chances with something new and promising; then with the same old nonsense.

There wasn't time to get into a long, drawn-out debate with Boortz. But don't be fooled, he's not quite the libertarian he claims to be.

I'll even admit that at the time he convinced me. It sounds good, but you need to look beyond the surface. I did later, using my brain, not my feelings.

You say "it makes sense" but don't explain "how."

You say Huckster is campaigning, increasing his base, blah blah, but those words are equally empty.

You're just spouting vacuous rhetoric. You'd be perfect for Obama's campaign, you know?

As far as Hucksterbee and his faith, that's a very valid reason not to want someone in office. No one should have that kind of power, who believes in amending the Supreme Law of the Land to suit his religion.

You probably wouldn't want a faithful Muslim in the White House, would you? Because of his religion, right? You wouldn't be able to trust what he does, because his religion would guide him too much, right? Exactly -- welcome to our viewpoint.

Perry,

This is a Judeo-Christian nation...ofcourse I wouldn't want a muslim as president...I'm not saying they're bad people, but they don't share our core beliefs.

many people have core beliefs based on their faith...that's where Huck is coming from...I have no problem with it...and I'm not Christian or Religous.

Regarding the fair tax...have you read the new book by boortz; which answers all the questions of the critics?

Here's the difference between obama's rhetoric and the huckster....obama uses the word "change" and "yes we can"...what the hell does that mean?...yes we can raise your taxes?...we'll change from small government to big government???...or in the case of the bush administration; he'll change from big government to bigger government.

the huckster offers real change in the fair tax...whether you agree or not, you can't deny that it's real change.

"This is a Judeo-Christian nation...ofcourse I wouldn't want a muslim as president...I'm not saying they're bad people, but they don't share our core beliefs."

If you bothered to read what the Founding Fathers did, they set up a nation that might happen to be dominated by a particular religion,

So there you have it. You don't mind the religion of one particular person, but you do mind another's. I knew you'd give that answer, because you're blind enough to believe, "Oh, Huck is a Christian, he can't do me any harm," and on the flip side you believe, "Oh, he's a Muslim, he must certainly want to suppress freedom."

Why do you care about religion so much? I don't. I care about whether someone will defend my freedoms, instead of trying to amend the Constitution to suit his conception of "God's Law." Amending the Supreme Law of the Land to fit his freakish notion of "Christian values," and force me, a Christian, to obey them, is not freedom.

Change by itself is meaningless, you silly dolt. Change to what? Proponents of the "Fair" Tax claim it will boost the economy by creating jobs and encouraging growth. Economists have been pointing out the problems with the "Fair" Tax theory. We've talked about Obama's plan for "change" will result in only change being left in our pockets. That's precisely what will happen when the "Fair" Tax is instituted, and we're hit with both that and the income tax. Don't you see that, or are you really so blind?

Well, Obama and Shrillary both say their plans to raise taxes will create jobs and encourage growth, too. There's no difference between you and any other zealot who supports a candidate blindly.

Oh, and far as Boortz's new book, I haven't read it. I hadn't even heard about it, and it's superfluous for someone like me.

In this technological era, information comes so rapidly that books are too slow. The debate is online, and in newspaper op-eds, that transmit the discussion with far greater speed than some silly book.

So what are your arguments, instead of constantly dodging and evading the question? Do you even have a real job? Look, don't take this personally. You seem to have good intentions, but you exhibit such a lack of spine here. You seem the type of guy who couldn't possibly defend himself when asked a good question at a presentation. "Well if you check this book out" doesn't cut it in the real world.

Perry,

Your religous spin is quite pathetic...I've said on numerous occassions that I'm not Christian nor am I religous...it has nothing to do with being a president...I don't care why he believes in pro life and anti gay marriage.

for all the critics of the fair tax; there are plenty in favor...including economists....but i'm sure you're smarter then all of them.