We Will Be Back In Strength

We welcome Governor Huckabee to the front page on this important night. -Patrick

I'm very proud to have supported Senator McCain and the only regret is that more Americans didn't share my conviction that he would have made an outstanding President. I not only recognize, but respect that we are a nation in which the people choose and tonight they have chosen Senator Obama. He was not my choice, but he will be my President and I will pray for him to lead this great nation with God's help and grace. He will face serious challenges to lead our country and he will need all Americans to give him a chance.

The campaign is over and now is the time for governing and leading. The Republican Party must now reassess where it is and where it is going. Our problem is not that our views aren't acceptable, is that many in our party have abandoned the very principles that once drew Americans to trust us. Our party will be back with strength, but tonight we should all celebrate the historic nature of this election and put our country ahead of our party.

As disappointed as I am that we have lost the election, I can't help but feel that many courageous leaders of the civil rights movement look down from heaven tonight with a smile that the day has come when a man is elected without regard to his color. I salute President-elect Obama for his discipline and tenacity that has given our country the opportunity to witness this significant event.

Politics is not an event but a process. We sometimes lose the events but it never gives us the right to stop being faithful to our principles that enlisted us in the process. We shall live to fight another day.

This blog is cross-posted at www.HuckPac.com.


Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)


Mr. Huckabee

I like you. www.undersundog.com

yea, yea, yea...

...congrats to Pres Obama. Ok. Enough.  

Now the war begins, metaphorically.  The first "internal" battle must be the bloodiest - that of wresting control of "our" GOP  away from the globalist/elitists.  Thats right, Repub fighting Repub. We should be hearing the first reports of rifle fire and volleys of artillery very soon.  Ahhh, the smell of gun powder!  Again, metaphorically.   This is healthy and necessary and it must happen if the GOP is to survive.  Sad thing is, its not necessary.  If these elitist hacks that control the party would step aside, admit that they are clueless and have failed miserably.  But they won't.   They're in locked-in arrogance.   They'll start out by blaming Sarah Palin for yesterdays loss.  Watch them.  Mark my words.  She'll be the scapegoat.  They'll try to shift the blame/spotlight off of their wretched selves and onto Sarah.   My message to Sarah;  fight back.  Mount a brutal and viscous counterattack.  Demand a say in any decision that the GOP makes from here on out.  You are no longer having to drag John McCain around.  You are free.  Fight for Middle America and they'll back you up.

A new RNC chair will be chosen soon.  That will be the first major skirmish.  If a man/woman that represents Middle America is not chosen it will be tragic and a supreme insult to the Base.  There is no more "business as usual" within the GOP.   People who have that  milk toast attitude should simply retire to their knitting or go rearrange their doilies until all the blood letting is over.  Darvin Dowdy

It's milquetoast

And I'll bring the popcorn!

Cant decide whether I'd rather see Palin's faction win or not.

All due respect...

...We don't dunk our Oreo cookies in "Milque" here in TX, RisingTide.  Got Milk?  Ha!  [ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/milktoast ]

Milk and Popcorn? Yuk!  As for Palin, she sure has been silent today.  What do you make of that?   Good? Bad?  Of all the people that are running their mouthes today, she's the silent one.  DD


Enough RINOs

No more McCains.  No more "work with my opponents".  No more globalists.  I want someone who unashamedly stands up for my principles from day one.  We have two years to get this operation going.  Lets start now!

How appropriate.

>>No more "work with my opponents".

How appropriate that Texan's "compromise equals defeat" sentiment came in a comment on a column by Mike Huckabee, who is the poster child for why religion should be kept out of politics. Politics is the art of compromise. Compromise is anathema to religion. Nothing in Mike Huckabee's religion is negotiable, so when Mike Huckabee takes a political stand on a religious principle, the result is what we've seen out of Bush for the last eight years: block-headed stubborness. Those days are over. The evangelicals have had their say through Bush, and America has replied, "Never again!"

Yeah that'll work really well, except...


Huckabee and pals are completely misreading what this election means in terms of the GOP's next direction.

When the Democrats needed to reform, they moved away from traditional liberal ideology and focused on moving toward the center. They thus moved to the right. Conservatives misinterpret this as meaning that they, too, must move to the right. Actually they have to move the opposite direction - back to the center.

Take a good look at the composition of the Democrats in the Senate that upset Republican seats two years ago, and this year. Quite a few came from states that traditionally put up Republican senators and governors, and traditionally voted for a Republican president. The difference was that these Democrats were not running for office in order to push some ideological agenda - they were running to be effective representatives and make good governing choices in Congress. They eliminated the ideological edge that the Republicans traditionally won on, and without that, the Republican candidates had nothing to run on. They ran on ideology without ideas.

Now you get the hard-right pundits out advocating a hard push further to the right in a bid to regain control of Congress. What the GOP should be doing instead is looking again for people that will run for office in order to be effective representatives of their states and constituents, in order to make good and beneficial policy, rather than running in order to push an ideological agenda.

But by all means, guys, if you really think the ideological agenda is what gets voters to choose you, go right ahead and keep pushing it, and keep on wondering why you continue to lose.



 If the GOP is to come back they must break with Wall Street and big business. Business has tried to turn the employee class in this country into a peasant class by flooding the labor market with illegals and visa abusers. 

They have shipped millions of jobs overseas through a perversion of free trade that allows Asian countries to rig currencies and prevent the natural balancing of trade deficits. When you run a trade deficit your currency should decline versus the currency of the country with a trade surplus. Big business protected this perversion because they did not want currency fluctuations to wipe out the profit margins on their off-shoring. This is not free trade, but crony special interest capitalism. 
These two groups give more money to Democrats and cost the Republicans millions of votes. Cultural and economic populism will work. It is time for a change.



Gov Huckabee writes:

"..Our problem is not that our views aren't acceptable, is that many in our party have abandoned the very principles that once drew Americans to trust us..."


Yup, I LOVE this kind of thinking.  Get on back to bedrock Conservative principles, you'll be fine.


Go right ahead, Mike. The country not only just told you that they are rejecting hard-core conservatism, they did it LOUDER than they did just two years ago.

The country may be center-right but it is not hard-right. The country asked for a hamburger and you offered a hot dog - and your response to their rejection is to offer a bigger hot dog with extra toppings.

The country did what?

Try as I might, I didn't see any hard-core conservatism about John McCain. In fact, the only hard-core conservatism I saw was when Gov. Palin came on the scene. John McCain's numbers started steadily raising until he sold out to Wall Street. After that, hard-core conservatives knew all they wanted to know about John Mccain.

           ex animo

 Operation Rednet  



Let's look at the record...

McCain embraced regressive tax policy - that's hard-core conservatism. It's what Bush instituted, and voters rejected McCain's plan to continue and deepen that regression.

McCain decided to ditch his moderately conservative "states rights" approach to issues like abortion, and joined the party platform (calling for a national amendment to ban abortion).

He only enjoyed a rise after the convention because that's what happens when you finish your convention - you get a bounce, and to boot, he picked Palin, and everyone's first impression was "ga-ga." Then she opened her mouth, started explaining exactly how little she knew and exactly what her positions were, and the numbers turned sharply south again.

I'd respectfully disagree...

First, McCain's tax policy proposal was hardly regressive - the rich would still have paid the lions share both as a precentage of income and as a fraction of all taxes paid.  That by definition is not regressive.  His policy was certainly less "progressive"  (redistributive?) than Obama's. 

Second, it is definitely not a "hard-core conservative" principle to drive toward a regressive tax system.  I don't know of ANY political philosophy that espouses a regressive income tax system.

The bottom line is, McCain was a candidate that couldn't hold his base, and could not appeal to very many outside the base.  He wanted his base to be the 20% in the middle, and so he never achieved a focused message.

flat tax is regressive.

anythign that doesn't start with a "you get X to live on" is regressive, as most sales taxes are regressive as well (costing the poor more, as they spend more of their income).

And you are wrong. Buffet himself said he pays less in taxes under Bush than his secretary does, percentage wise.

and wasn't mccain to lower capital gains taxes?

what dictionary are you using?

Regressive: decreasing in rate as the base increases (Webster).  It has nothing to do with where you start, and by definition, a flat tax is not regressive as it would take an equal percentage of all incomes.  And I don't believe McCain was advocating a flat tax.

Buffett (2 t's, mind you) pays less in taxes percentage wise because he has a better tax guy, and his secretary takes less risk and has fewer writeoffs, would be my guess.  I would agree completely with simplifying the tax system to the point where Buffett pays the same % as his secretary - I'm guessing McCain would, too.  It would allow a decrease in rates for everyone. 

I believe the Democrats will be writing the next tax bill - care to wager if simplification is in the cards?

sorry, I'm combining state and local

along with the federal. I think that anything else is talking apples and pumpkins. Buffett pays less in taxes becuase capital gains taxes are less than payroll taxes.

will you take no retired person under 50k has to even file a form?


I think we're already pretty close, aren't we?  50 is a nice round number.  State and Local would be even better, as I live in Taxesota. 

I was thinking the other day about a different use of tax policy to "spread the wealth".  What if we did something like the NBA or NFL with a 'luxury tax'.  Here's how it would work - you have a standard corporate tax rate that applies to every company.  Then you'd define a "socially responsible" company as one where the top paid employee makes no more than 100x the bottom paid employee.  For example, a law firm where the top guys get $1000/hour would be "Socially responsible" if they paid the janitors at least $10/hour.

Then you set the corporate tax rate multipler to the ratio, so if the top guy only made 95X the bottom guy, the corp would only pay 95% of the standard tax rate, etc....

This would do 3 things - it would provide tax incentives to reign in executive pay (while not limiting it),  it would provide tax incentives to improve the compensation of the people who do the work, and it would provide the corporation a benefit in retained earnings through more equitable compensation.  Plus, the gummint would probably not lose much in tax revenue, as they'd get it as income tax instead of tax on corporate profits - a win/win/win....

Damn. that's a great idea

(and exactly the thing I'd like to see thrown onto liberal blogs. Figure kos and company would have fun with Actually Good ideas!)

If the IRS were smart, they would actually just take taxes out of paychecks, and for anyone making less than 50k, not have them file a form at all. It's not like they're doing stock trades, for goodness sakes!

Why does middle class have to start at 200,000 dollars? (and go up from there?). I gotta real problem with that, and love to hear good solutions.


If you think hard-core conservatism is nationalizing a quarter of the banking industry, half the housing stock, and growing the government 50% in 4 years, you have another think a'comin'.  Bush has been ANYTHING BUT hard-core conservative.  He HAS bought into the globalist crap spewed everywhere (note how Global Warming has morphed into "climate change" now that the globe has been cooling for the last 10 years....).

Obama won on tax cuts and getting out of "global" conflicts - he grabbed the hard right (note: NOT NEOCON) agenda and sold it perfectly.  He actually ran to the right of McCain on those issues.  Hopefully he won't go back and govern to the left...

global warming still exists

you are an idiot, please go back to rubbing your broken bits of skull into your brain rather than posting on an intellectual site.

Nope, wrong

You can't show me one prediction of the "warmers" that has even come close to reality.  8 degrees warmer? nope.  Sea levels up 2 feet? nope.  Even the warmingest warmers now predict at least a decade of cooling.  Go rub your own broken skull and look at the DATA.

You say that now

only because McCain lost. If McCain had won, you'd all be crowing about how hard-core conservatism was still the country's mandate.

You say that now only because Bush's policies have failed and the vast majority recognizes it. But back when he was up for re-election and following the exact same policies as now, every one of you that voted for him embraced his policies as being true conservatism.

MnK - I was a Romney guy...

I don't know of anyone who didn't "hold their nose" when voting for McCain, and there is no one anywhere who would describe McCain has hard-core conservative.  I agree that Bush's policies failed, but, as I said, no one I know would describe them as hard-core conservative.  The mistake you're making is thinking "we" voted for "true conservatism", when what we actually were able to vote for was a choice between more liberal and less liberal.  Bush was what we would call the least worst option at the time.