Huckabee .. oy vey.

Well Titus, I think I've found your candidate ... and the registered Republicans in the state of my birth (yes, I was born in Davenport) just made him their man.

Huckabee is a social conservative and a fiscal nightmare. Under his tenure in AK the budget went from 1 billion to 6 billion dollars a year (a trend of D.C. Republicans, whom he says he is not I might add). He pardoned over 1000 criminals, including murderers, one because the felon's pastor convinced Huckabee (a pastor himself) that the man had changed. This criminal then used his new found light to find another victim. He has granted in state college tuition rates to illegals whom were brought here by their illegal parents (how they confirm that is what happened outside of the child saying, "si senior, it is what happened" is beyond me). He is a foreign affairs novice, and I'm not convinced he "gets" the war on Islamo-fascism." He seems to have this "what would Jesus do" approach to crime and war, and that scares me more than just a little. Obviously I am a fan of Christian influence in the political process, everyone here knows that, but it's too often contorted to mean (by well meaning and big hearted Christians) the redistribution of wealth and/or turning the other cheek even when your offender is holding a Kalashnikov.

As to the political process, Titus you're wrong on a couple of points. First, what you're right about - Edwards sucks. He's a smarmy little snake oil salesmen that describes America as if it's one giant dry salted farm in 1928 after a dust bowl. He's a socialist elitist of the first order who advocates a nanny state the likes of which would have made Kruschef put back on his shoe, sit down and smile.

However, you wrote ... and history tells us that those candidates that win IA and NH win the nomination.
Hold on there Tex - Bob Dole won Iowa in 1988, Pat Robertson came in second both while George H. Bush, came in third. It was the third place finisher whom would later hear "Hail to the Chief" when entering a room. More recently in 2000 it was the heir to Goldwater's seat in AZ, American war hero, and amnesty for illegals advocate John McCain who took New Hampshire from dubya. And add one Pat Buchanan to the list of NH winners as well. The early primary states do one thing and one thing only - thin the herd making it clear who the top tier candidates actually are. From now on the debates will have 4 to 5 people at maximum on both sides rather than 8 to 9. Those two states revel in taking on the role of giant slayer this time every 4 years. Romney outspent the Huckster 10 to 1 and Hillary comes in with 99% name recognition and they both get beat - it means NOTHING to those in the top tier already. The most it can do is take a second stringer (like Huck Finn) and put them in the final 3 or 4, and it did just that. Richardson, Biden, Hunter, they'll all announce their withdrawal within two weeks as a result. That's what the early states do - cut the field in half. The later states cut it to 1 or 2, and that's the primary caucus function (no pun intended). Also, Bill Richardson is from New Mexico (or at least he is governor there), not Arizona.

Now it may seem like I'm being particularly personal with Huckabee, what with the nick names and all. I mean, I could disagree with him on policy without resorting to a tone of personal dislike. Well, it because of this: on CNN he was asked (by a Mormon host no less - yes CNN hired one of us, and made their quota of one I presume) if he could ever see himself in the future voting for any Mormon, putting Romney aside. And the very evangelical Huckabee said, "I don't know." How dare you sir? What century is this? Would it have been acceptable to have said he doesn't know if he could vote for a Jew? What would the media buzz be if the word Mormon was replaced by Muslim in that question? He is a bigot in my estimation. And for all his "awe shucks" and southern draw I find that answer as intolerant as it comes. There ARE examples of political systems with a religious test, but he'd better brush up on his Arabic and Pharisee if he intends to mimic them.

Now, who is kicking themself in the pants for not jumping in the race in light of the Huckabee win? Our own (or former for two of us) Haley Barbour. Huck's appeal has been his southern draw, "aw shucks", and seemingly straight (I'd call it "common") talk. Hell, Barbour can "awe shucks" the daylights out of anyone ... and get you the best deal on aluminum siding this side of Vancleave you've ever seen (that one's courtesy of Jambo).

Further, when it comes to Huckabee the DNC is drooling at the chance to run Obama or Hillary against him. From the political magazine sites I've read he is on the record stating that those with AIDS should be rounded up in a WWII Japanese American internment camp fashion, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, etc, etc, you get the picture. They think (maybe with merit) that he's the GOP candidate with a glass jaw and it's why they haven't unloaded on him at all during the primary. My warning to the GOP - look under the hood (as Obama advocates when addressing Hillary's campaign), and kick the tires, less we get stuck with a lemon.

BUT, even though the entire media structure is focusing on the Huckabee win the HUGE, HISTORIC news that should be leading the broadcasts is the Democrat race. Do you realize history was made tonight? For the first time in US history, in the same race, a black American won a presidential caucus race while a woman placed third. Where is that angle in all of this? Are you telling me that me, a conservative - a.k.a. racist, bigot, dark skin hating, homophobe - notices this while the punditry class does not?

At any rate, as I said, this is herd thinning time and means very little when it comes to picking the exact victor in all of this. I find no Reagan in any of them. The conservatives in the GOP thought, stress thought, they had it in George W, and he has been Reaganesque in fighting our current enemy, but the fiscal irresponsibility, the inability to communicate that sense of noble purpose that makes Americans feel good about being Americans, those things he lacks. The closest to this bunch in my opinion is Romney. His knock is that he is too polished, too good and has changed his position on social issues when it suits his political fortunes. Well, Ronnie was as polished as it gets - he was an every hair perfect movie actor. And he was once a Democrat.

Oh, the union vote went 380 to 128 out of a possible 564 voters in favor. I voted yes and for a very simple reason. Conservatism, to me, is above all else common sense. Giving a guy a dollar as he begs with a card board sign may make you feel good, or better about yourself, but all you've done is enable a fellow human being to live on the streets in absolute squalor and destitution for that much longer. I mean if no one, and I mean no one, gave a single red cent to these acts of begging the vast majority out of neccessity would go to a shelter and get proper care and perhaps their life back. And for badboy, who thinks this move "stupid", let me say this. First, I'm a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. Now, I could wax eloquently about the 8 hours for work, 8 for fun, 8 for sleep that you partake in of as a matter of course in your 24 hour day, that were union initiatives, and the list goes on. But more importantly - the night before the vote I listened to a documentary on the great Ronald Wilson Reagan, may he rest in peace. This is the man whom defined conservatism and led a movement. He was one of the greatest figures of the 20th century and was the driving force (along with the Pope, the Polish president and Thatcher) who pushed the scourge known as the USSR into the dust bin of history. If you haven't already I suggest you listen to "the speech." It was his convention speech given when Barry Goldwater was the nominee (1966 I think). It is what propelled him into the governorship of California and set the tone for his political career - it was fantastic, conservatism incarnate, and as applicable today as it was then. Now, do you know what Reagan did before the governorship but after he stopped making movies? Yes, he was a spokesman for GE, and had a television show. BUT, before that, for three terms he served as the head of one of the most famous and effective unions in US history - the Screen Actors Guild. And he did so during the communist scare of the 1950's. He disliked blacklisting and suggested to the government during testimony as a "friendly witness" that Hollywood Land (as it was called then and displayed on that famous hill) would clean its own house if there were in fact communist influences. He protected many an actor from unfairly having their reputations and careers ruined, up to and including one Nancy Davis, whom after having read her name on a list of communist sympathizers took her problem to her union boss and future husband - that meeting is where they first met. NOW, this is the same man whom opposed the teacher's union at every turn as PoTUS and fired every single air traffic controller in the country that didn't show up for work after his 48 hour deadline, all for calling an illegal strike. I point all this out because his philosophy on unionizing is the same as mine. When unions are invited in democratically by employees, and then act as honest brokers on behalf of those they claim to represent then he/I have no problem with unions. When they act outside of the best interests of the very industry they are in, costing jobs as with the AWU, and causing general mayhem as with the air traffic controllers, or behave antithetical to the education of our nation's youth, as with the teachers union, then he/I oppose them. Call it "moderate" if you want, I call it common sense. Whatever you call it you have to acknowledge that it's how Reagan viewed it, and THAT my friend should end all discussion on the matter between two conservatives. It's like calling "shotgun" first for the car when you're a kid - evoking the phrase "Reagan did it" is check and mate within the "right."

Happy New Year, 2008!

FR