Huckabee: All bailouts are ridiculous...

Now that's the Mike I like...

This is Why We Like Mike

The following article has a few quotes of Mike Huckabee towards the end of the article that are important in showing why I like Mike Huckabee for president in 2012. He stands strong against more and more bailouts of failing companies and stands for doing the right thing when it comes to government spending.

Will Republicans find rallying point in bailout debate?
By Chuck Raasch, GNS Political Writer

The recent declaration that the economy has been in recession for a year was not news to Americans who have lost jobs, income, health insurance or retirement security.
Democrats are in power partly because they felt people's pain before the Bush administration and the Republican candidates for president did. If Republicans do not figure out why they missed so many economic distress signals for so long, they have little hope of returning to power for at least a generation.

But now a GOP rallying point has presented itself. It is in response to what appears to be an unprecedented, massive rush to government bailouts of private industry. The public has deep reservations about such commitments. A CNN poll taken just before the executives of the Big Three automakers pleaded for tens of billions in government loans said 61 percent of Americans were against any such bailout.

This reality not only invites Republicans to return to the small-government philosophy they have abandoned, but it also could force them to speak to a middle class that GOP candidates had trouble hearing during the 2008 election. Too often, Republican candidates responded to kitchen-table concerns with textbook-dull homilies on free enterprise.

Looking back on the presidential election, there was one especially predictive moment for the Republicans.

Both the Dow Jones and the S&P hit record highs Oct. 9, 2007. Coincidentally, Republican presidential candidates debated that night in Dearborn, Mich., the epicenter of the auto industry. Despite the bulls on Wall Street, MSNBC anchor and moderator Maria Bartiromo pointed out that two thirds of Americans had just told pollsters they believed the country was in recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession began two months later.

But some of the Republicans on stage in Dearborn that night appeared to have no clue as to what Bartiromo was talking about. Those who did were unable or unwilling to keep driving an economics message home for the next 13 months.

In the debate, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, fairly fresh to the campaign trail, said, "There is no reason to believe that we're headed for a recession." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Michigan was undergoing a "one-state recession" while "the rest of the country is growing and seeing low levels of unemployment." Ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani primarily paid homage to the free market as a "wonderful thing."

Some Republicans did hit the right note. Ron Paul declared "this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people ... Wall Street doesn't know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn't know about it. But it's because of the monetary system and the excessive spending.''

But the GOP hierarchy and the mainstream media treated Paul as a gadfly.

The eventual nominee, John McCain, acknowledged that economic worries were bigger than Michigan and said that at "every town hall meeting that I have," people were worried about keeping health care coverage.

But he spent a lot of the next 13 months defending his decision to back the surge in Iraq, and he did not have a consistent economic message. Democrats - first John Edwards, then Hillary Rodham Clinton and then the eventual winner, Barack Obama - focused like a laser on the economy.

When McCain suspended his campaign in September and eventually sided with the massive bailout of banks and industry - a commitment that could heap trillions in new debt on succeeding generations - he lost an opportunity to connect with average Americans who still wonder if it is the right course.

In the Dearborn debate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who three months later won the Iowa caucuses, turned out to be the most prescient.

"I want to make sure people understand that for many people on this stage the economy is doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it's not doing so well," Huckabee said. "The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs. And that's barely paying the rent."

But Huckabee did not have the money to sustain a long campaign, and his economic message often was overwhelmed by a false assumption that he was the candidate of the religious right.

Please say it ain't so Joe...

I really hope this doesn't happen but I'm afraid it will. Of course we've seen what happens when Romney goes up against Huckabee. I think that the same would happen if a Romney ran against a Barack Obama too. However, even though Mitt Romney flip-flops on social issues, if the economy is still a wreck in 2012, I prob wouldn't mind him taking the reigns from Obama. It's just that I'd much rather have Mike Huckabee at the helm.

Republican Mitt Romney is laying the groundwork for a possible White House campaign in 2012, hiring a team of staff members and consultants with money from a fund-raising committee he established with the ostensible purpose of supporting other GOP candidates.

The former Massachusetts governor has raised $2.1 million for his Free and Strong America political action committee. But only 12 percent of the money has been spent distributing checks to Romney's fellow Republicans around the country.

Instead, the largest chunk of the money has gone to support Romney's political ambitions, paying for salaries and consulting fees to over a half-dozen of Romney's longtime political aides, according to a Globe review of expenditures.

Romney founded the Free and Strong America Committee shortly after dropping out of the 2008 presidential primary. He filled its coffers by telling conservative contributors around the country that their money would be used to support Republican candidates and causes.

According to the Globe analysis, he spent $244,000 on contributions to congressional and other candidates between April and the November elections. He has spent more than twice as much on staff salaries and contracts to hire professional fund-raisers, who are compiling contributor lists that will serve Romney well in a future presidential campaign.

In essence, Romney is financing a political enterprise that he can use to remain a national GOP leader and use as a springboard should he decide to launch another presidential bid for 2012.

Romney aides insisted that the primary mission of the Free and Strong America Political Action Committee is to raise money for other Republicans around the country and to promote GOP policies. The committee says that booster work included flying Romney to various districts to help congressional candidates, many of whom happened to support his 2008 presidential primary candidacy.

But the committee's track record of spending most of the money on other expenses, such as Romney's political staff, raises questions about written fund-raising solicitations he has made that were mailed to potential contributors, including this one:

"It is more essential than ever that conservative candidates and organizations have the resources they need to get their message out to voters," Romney said in the fund-raising appeal. "Because of your help, my political action committee . . . is supporting over 70 candidates this election cycle. Your continued support today will ensure that they have the assistance they need to win."

Campaign finance experts say the Free and Strong America committee's use of its funds for Romney's political expenses is well within the legal restrictions set by law. They also note that it is not entirely unusual for high-profile politicians to use such political action committees, despite their appeals to donors like the ones Romney makes, to keep large sums for their own purposes.

The story continues here...

Huckabee: No Bailouts

This is one of the reasons I really like Mike. He's come out very strong against bailouts. Period. Not the auto industry, not the banks. Nobody gets bailed out. NOBODY.

Bailouts are totally not cool. They ultimately fail and they do not produce growth or innovation. They keep companies that need to go bankrupt for the economy to move on, limping along and dragging down the rest of the economy. Are they painful? Of course for all involved they are. However, continuing to finance a failure cannot in the long run produce success.

In order for success to be defined, failure has to be a possibility.

The Race Begins Now

Pretty soon (barring the unlikely event of his birth becoming an issue) we'll be inaugurating the furthest left president ever. The media is in the tank for Obama still and will continue to be for a long time coming. However, their being in the tank for him may backfire on them when things go wrong.

Pride Before a Fall
Michelle Obama has stated that America is a mean country. While that may be so, I think overall that I would say a greater sin that America faces is one of pride. I think we're in the process of being greatly humbled through the economic devastation. A nation that is proud can fall a long way.

Obama even admits that one characteristic he doesn't have much of is humility. He props up his ego in amazing ways in presuming that the presidency was his by creating his own presidential seal and now even with his whole "the office of the president elect."

Conservatives need to adopt an attitude of gratitude and humility. I believe that these where two characteristics that made Reagan a great man. He was honorable and had a distinct sense of humor and didn't stoop for crassness. Yet, even in his confidence, he was not proud.

If conservatives can present their ideas in a way that doesn't come across as condescending, they can advance their cause greatly and have a stark contrast between themselves and a president Obama.