In light of this weeks endorsment for Fred Thompson from National Right To Life, I thought I would copy and paste an old post from my other blog on myspace. It received several comments from Mike Huckabee supporters. I hope to receive some comments from Fred Supporters being a little broader audience in this venue. Whoever your candidate is - feel free to comment (you can also comment on these responses. Just note the # your referring to).
To get started - here are a few responses I've received on my other blog:
1. (my favorite so far): Mike Huckabee will give us 1 definition of marriage across America of one man plus one woman equals marriage.Fred Thompson says he will give us 50 definitions of marriage by allowing 50 different states to define Marriage.
2. "I think Mike has many things that Fred doesn't: Charisma, character, humour, great communicative & speaking skills, and he has the ability to draw attention naturally. Fred has only 1 thing, people mascarading him as another Reagan. His 1st speech was a let down, he's not raising much money and soon people will begin to see he isn't anywhere near Reagan. Another thing is i only know of two politicians that could naturally outdo Hillary in a debate, because of their great communication: Gingrich & Huckabee."
3. "Fred Thompson originally had my vote and only because I thought he might be famous enough to get enough votes to beat Hillary. But, when he decided so long to run, and after the values voters debate that he didn't show up for. I'm for Mike.. Fred Thompson has a young family. He's been divorced several times, and I think he doesn't have any real answers. NOr do I think he is a true conservative."
4. Fred has got nothing much to say and what little he has to say he has trouble saying it. Mike has plenty to say, and knows how to say it. Did you see the Gov on the Glenn Beck show on CNN tonight, he spoke and made sense for the whole hour!! (note: I just heard Fred on CSPAN - and he has as much if not more trouble with speaking and speech giving as Pres. Bush - Hillary will rip him to shreds - mp)
5. "I feel I can actually trust Mike Huckabee. Fred has advisors telling him what to say and even when Fred does say something he is reading it off a sheet of paper. I have yet to see Mike Huckabee read from a script. The words he says are words of conviction that come right from his heart. I know who Mike was ten years ago and I know how Mike will be ten years from now. He convictions are firm with deep roots. That's the difference between Mike and Fred."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mike Huckabee's ardent support for the FairTax Act of 2007 (HR 25/ S 1025) represents a power shift of massive proportions in America. It lays out a practical ideal of voluntary payment of taxes, based on a substantial level of taxpayer choice that the plan affords. Since FairTax untaxes basic necessities (up to socially-accepted poverty-level spending), what is taxed is marginal, and/or desired or preferred, on a broader base of retail products and services. This is to say that the taxpayer may, under the FairTax, choose to purchase used products and avoid paying the tax. And, to the extent desired, the taxpayer may choose to self-perform certain services rather than pay for them. This will stimulate do-it-yourself education, improve citizens' self-reliance; indeed the FairTax represents the possibility of ushering in a new can-do, citizen psychology that would accrue to greater demands for government accountability - truly, a cultural sea change.
Government is the "necessary glue" that enables the social fabric to cohere. It does this by effecting "rules" that ostensibly provide members with equitable access to wealth and resources. It also must provide ostensibly equitable enforcement of those rules in order to mitigate threats to the social fabric. It is unrealistic to believe that the structures of a national government can be supported on donations, thus the need for taxes. Naysayers love to characterize anything purporting to be a "fair tax" as an oxymoron - but it is not true. The idea of fairness has to do with equitable sharing in the cost by all members who depend upon the social fabric for food, shelter, clothing and post-necessity economic enterprise. And, because of the shift of power from politicians and special interests under an enacted FairTax, the elected will find it more difficult to both enlarge government, and implement any dual system of taxation. FairTax strategist, Dennis Calabrese, discusses how the FairTax repeals the income tax, how it does away with the IRS, and how it addresses other aspects of frequent concern to skeptics.
The FairTax has a much greater opportunity for success to operate as a "self-regulating" mechanism because of increased visibility. One finds that the current system, ostensibly regulated by the Internal Revenue Code, is in fact poorly regulated because of continually increasing complexity (the effect of tax favors from politicians, through lobbyists, to favored corporations and other special interests) stemming from the desire by those holding government position to steer public behavior using tax code "carrots." We have seen how 100 years of this type of behavior has eroded the Nation's currency and the purchasing power of working family incomes. "Visionist," Tom Frey believes the current tax system will simply collapse; and economist Laurence Kotlikoff heralds - short of enactment of FairTax (or an otherwise unlikely change in spending habits) - the U.S. will shortly face an irrevocable economic breakdown. (Kotlikoff believes that passage of the FairTax can stave off the economic ruin we're facing, but would be surprised to see it happen.)
Frey and Kotlikoff may be right on both counts, and we may not be able to successfully evoke change; but shall we not try?
Mike Huckabee believes we should.
(Permission granted to republish, in whole or part. -Ian)
Please folks. I hope you like Taxes as much as the Huckster does. If you disagree, check out which candidate the Club for Growth dedicated an entire web site to: www.taxhikemike.org.
Hmmmm? If that's not a clue, Huckabee's welfare promises to farmers ought to tell you he's off the constitutional reservation. It's why I'm voting for Paul. I'll switch if you can show me other wise.
Ron Paul of VA,
The Mike-the-Hike theory is T-I-R-E-D. It's obvious you haven't researched your facts and taken note of the $850 million surplus left to Arkansas upon the Governors leaving office at the end of his 10 year term limit, the tax increases that were made during the Huckabee tenure were on Cigarettes, Gas, and other luxury items. The State Income tax that was raised was approved by 80% of the Arkansas Residents to improve the road system. After the increases came and served their purpose the decreases came with abundance (read Mikes website for an exact number www.mikehuckabee.com). You need to read my other blogs on this subject as well. You could have also watched Mike Huckabee address this same issue on Hannity and Colmes last week. Governor's are required by state law (at least in Arkansas) to balance the budget. Mike Huckabee did his job. His vision for America is to go back to a more constitutional form of tax (ie., doing away with the IRS). He also never blamed America for 9.11 as your candidate has more often than not. Mike will be working to unite the country not divided it. By the way - for the record - this particular discussion is about Fred - not Ron Paul.
Mr. E.R.:
This is Jeff Myers of the Wide Open blog. I've been out of town and just noticed your recent comments on my blog. Thanks for joining in the conversation. I responded to you in the "Geez Magazine" post. God bless!
Jeff
Post a Comment