Before he dropped out of the GOP presidential race in October for lack of funds, Sam Brownback had sought an Iowa-based bounce like the one Mike Huckabee is enjoying. “He’s played the game plan that I hoped to play — much better,†Brownback told the New York Sun. But the Kansas senator remains happy with his endorsement of John McCain. And if Brownback is jealous of the “Huckaboom,†he’s not saying. “I am glad that Mike Huckabee is doing well,†Brownback said.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
58 Comments
Bring it on. The only weaker Republic candidate would have been Brownback himself.
Capt why are you counting out the R.R.? I certainly am not, though outnumbered by those that does not vote with their faith. What they lack in numbers they make up for in will power. While the average American voter would put off voting if it would interfere with watching their favor game show. The R.R. voter would walk ten miles through a blinding blizzard to get to the polls. While the R.R. voters have been thinking about that one-day for years. The Average voter has given little real thought about what the candidates said or their agenda. The average R.R. voter has an agenda, while the average voter is simply thinking in terms of party. Having no idea other then a often misperceived believe that they understand what that party is standing for. Remember 06 and what was thought would happen if the Democrats took control back of the house? How many voted in 06 thinking it would mean the withdraw of our troops from Iraq?
No Capt, I do not count out the R.R.
As usual, Frank Rich has an excellent analysis of the Huckaboom.
http://tinyurl.com/278k88
Suck up, Sammie…you backed the wrong horse. But then the religious right only has room for one leader…not you, Sam.
He’s played the game plan that I hoped to play — much better,” Brownback told the New York Sun.
In other words mouth a pack of lies to get the super ignorant fundies to vote for you.
This could get fun:
“South Carolina’s 2000 Republican primary was a jamboree of race-baiting that included a whispering campaign branding Senator McCain as the father of an illegitimate black child. The local political operative who worked for George W. Bush in that race and engineered the infamous Bush visit to Bob Jones University is now in Mr. Romney’s employ”
If Romney goes after Huckabee like that then it will really get dirty.
Funny thing is – ther are a lot of things I like about Huckabee. As a governor he has had to deal wiht real issues; just like my #1 choice Richardson.
It’s the natural cyle of things.
America elected Jimmy Carter because he was an executive. Reagan, another governor, got the call. One-and-out for non-exec George HW Bush, then President Clinton and George WMD Bush…
But the Republic Party’s penchant for cutting *federal* taxes with unfunded congressional mandates finally caught up.
Fifty states’ tax increases, forced by the Republic Party’s fetish for federal income tax cuts, didn’t have the same impact as fiscal responsibility might have had. But American taxpayers are catching on.
Mike Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas much more than Bill Clinton did as Governor.
The Hickabee “bounce” that Brownback says he wish he had gotten?
WELL Sammy, while Hickabee is a nut, at least he isn’t a plastic nut.
Senator Brownback? For your post political career, you might want to pursue an interest in becoming a Kmart mannequin.
Thank you for posting the link to the NY Times OPED piece by Frank Rich. The reason why Huckabee’s polls are soaring is because the GOP voters understand that he is sincere and ethical and is for real. Like most of the Christian conservative Republicans from Kansas, Brownback was all talk and no action. These GOP Kansans worship the poltical opportunism espoused by Karl Rove & and have more faith in Machievelli’s book “The Prince” than in the Holy Bible. They are only interested in getting re-elected and are afraid to risk any political capital so they keep their God-given political talents buried in the ground. Brownback could have been a great president only if he had defeated Kathleen Sebellius for Governor in 2006. My guess is that Brownback did not have enough faith to generate the courage to try to reform the corrupt judiciary & amoral GOP legislature in Topeka. It was so much easier for Brownback to pontificate about human rights abuses in 3rd world countries. If McCain wins the nomination, I hope he is smart enough not to choose Brownback as his running mate.
Bill McKean kiakahahaha@yahoo.com 293-6079
Huckabees economic populism bothers me alot.On economic matters, he really doesnt know what he is talking about.However, if he were to pick a “supply-sider” as VP, I think it would help a great deal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/NATION/112050064
Paul – on economic matters it appears that Huckabee DOES know what he is talking about. It is you “supply-siders” who have created so much deficit and debt.
BenHuckabee will move MY direction.Just watch.
And again;
“Deficits are caused by Periodic recessions” JFK
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and that tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes now. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.JFK
Only economic growth can pay our bills. When you want a credit card or a mortgage, what does the lender look at?
Your INCOME of course. For the country, as a whole, income is, basically, GDP and GDP growth.
If we try to raise tax rates, and kill the economy, what have we accomplished?
The deficit is at a 5 year low. Not bad after the Clinton Recession and 9-11:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071011/budget_deficit.html?.v=17
Paul – I’m sure he will. And he will lose as a result. Your massive deficit “borrow-and-spend” policies are losing their luster.
Is Huckabee the one who said he’d revoke MFN for China if elected or was that someone else. And supply side economics doesn’t work because the government never cuts spending, 9 trillion dollar debt isn’t good for the country, the government spends almost as much on paying interest on the debt as it does on military spending.
TomSupply side DOES work.
If we raised tax rates, we would have the worst of 2 worlds: Lower growth and lower revenues!
It is illogical to say we must raise rates because we can’t control spending.
Raising rates will NOT raise revenue, it will only kill the economy and kill revenue growth.
MonkeyFrank Rich and David Limbaugh agree on a few things:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59081
Hillary’s biggest problem is her own negatives.
How does Hillary attack anyone, without driving those negatives up?
Paul, once again you are proving yourself incompetent on economic matters. Can you seriously get us to believe that the last three Presidents who have provided us the most debt which has sucked up our nation’s ability to invest in itself has been a good thing?
When Reagan entered office our debt was at the lowest point for the % of our GNP. Thanks to three Republican Presidents it has gone from 35% of our GNP to 70%. It went from $2 trillion when Reagan entered office to nearly $10 trillion when Bush leaves office.
I know you are a borrow and spend economic irresponsible conservative so you don’t care about the fact that we have to sell U.S. assets to foreign governments and waste taxpayer dollars on interest payments (over $400 billion a year) that do nothing to benefit our nation.
Paul – one big thing they will look for when “When you want a credit card or a mortgage, what does the lender look at?” is my current debt load. If Ihave been wildly irresponsible with debt then they will see that and show me the door.
As for your JFK analogy – note that he was looking at 90% marginal rates that were clearly too high. That is NOT the situation today and you know it.
Didn’t Thomas Etheridge thing he could borrow his way to success with WWW? How did THAT work out Paul?
“Econ101″ –
I think I’m on record as not having Senator Clinton as my favorite for the Democratic nomination.
Whomever she might face, should get win the nomination, would subject Americans to yet again another least-of-the-worst Hobson’s Choice.
From what I know so far, I can’t imagine any of the Republic Party candidates being worse than Senator Clinton in the Oval Office.
My problem with the presidential race is at another level.
Damnit, we’ve got to find some common ground. Maybe that’s too much to ask, but we are a severely divided nation thanks (I observe) to the Republic Party partisans who had 12 years of Reagan/Bush from 1981 through 1993 and the congressional elections of 1994 and the SCOTUS judicial coup d’tate of 2000.
I’ll give you guys credit. You’ve played the system brilliantly for the last 30 years. But in the process America has lost its soul.
The Republic Party America invades countries that don’t present a threat. The Republic Party America spends money we don’t have for wars we don’t need. The Republic Party America hires brown people for substandard wages then vilifies them fot taking the jobs. The Republic Party America stands up to protect to life of every baby in the nation right up to the moment they’re born, then denies the poorest and the weakest the health care they need to survive. The Republic Party America is more concerned with corporate executives’ income than the wages and benefits of the people who generate corporate profits. The Republic Party America proclaims smokestack emissions are “beneficial for crops” instead of realizing that non-carbon energy sources are possible. The Republic Party America no longer believes in habeas corpus, or individual privacy, or constitutional checks and balances.
Americans are a trusting bunch, a patriotic people, a usually rational folk. But they’ve been deceived by the Republic Party for just too damned long.
We’ve seen the consequences of Republic Party orthodoxy and will vote against just about anybody who ends up the Republic Party’s presidential candidate simply because he (and it’s always “he”) promises more of George WMD Bush’s Reign of Error.
I’m on record as decidedly *not* strong for Hillary. But I guarantee you that I’d vote for the yellow dog on the side of the road before I’ll vote for any of the Republic Party candidates.
The Republic Party had its chance. They were in power and they did not outlaw abortion, as they promised you. They were in power and did not balance the budget, as they promised you. They were in power and did not turn this nation into a “christian” nation, as they promised you. (Some of the fine points of Jesus’ teachings simply didn’t work into the Republic Party agenda, don’tcha know).
And ya know somethin’? As a Liberal first and a Democrat second, I’m frustrated that better minds and hearts of America have not yet steered the Titanic that is America from the iceberg. Yet.
But the only presidential candidates I see who recognize the iceberg are Democrats. All the Republic Party candidates seem to be in “Full speed ahead” mode.
Monkey
What the HELL are you talking about?The Republican Party NEVER promised any of this:—–”The Republic Party had its chance. They were in power and they did not outlaw abortion, as they promised you. They were in power and did not balance the budget, as they promised you. They were in power and did not turn this nation into a “christian” nation, as they promised you. (Some of the fine points of Jesus’ teachings simply didn’t work into the Republic Party agenda, don’tcha know).”—–Nobody can “outlaw” abortions until the Supreme Court decisions are reversed or nullified.
Beyond that, NOBODY can know the future.
W. did not know that 9-11 would happen.
We had huge expenses there.
Also, any future President will have to deal with the retirement of the baby-boomers. This is absolutely the WRONG time to come up with more spending ideas. In other words, the promises of your Democrat friends will never be kept.
Promises to spend more money cant be kept.—–BenJFK’s tax cuts cut tax rates for EVERYONE, not just those at the top.Very few people were subject to the top rates, when JFK’s tax rate cuts went into effect for everyone.
— By the way, the Republican Congress, under Clinton, DID cut spending.The budget wasnt really “balanced” because of the payroll tax issue.However, dont take credit for it, when it was a Republican Congress that did it.
Forget it Econ101, Libs like MonkeyHawk and Doug just make crap up to antagonize folks.
The other Libs won’t hold them accountable for their lies and perhaps they believe the lies as well.
Those who lent WWW money did not look at the cash flow from WWW.
They had no cash flow.
As for the country, at large, our deficit is NOTHING compared to GDP.
Our debt, compared to GDP, has been much higher, in the past.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
And again: Reagan won the cold war.
George W. Bush is fighting the war on terror.
These things cost money.
And, of course, the DEFICIT is at a 5 year low.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071011/budget_deficit.html?.v=17
I fully expect that the budget will be balanced next year.—-By the way libs:
I fully expect that you will claim that tax rate cuts have increased the deficit.
Not true!
Tax revenues increased under JFK’s rate cuts.
Tax reveneus increased under Reagan’s tax rate cuts.
Tax revenues ARE are increasing under the Bush tax rate cuts.
The deficit problem is caused by SPENDING TOO MUCH.
Cutting taxes on the super rich WHILE going on two wars.
THAT one is unique to bush.
How’s….how’s that working out?
Actually, the rich are paying a huge percentage of the total tax revenue:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
Cutting tax rates on the “rich” is working VERY well.Cutting tax rates on the rich increases revenue from the rich:
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook4.html
And they hold how much percentage of the nations wealth?
Soak the rich. That’s where the money is.
When ya need water ya don’t go to a puddle.
The best way to get money from the rich is to lower the tax rates on the rich.
The Federal Government does not tax property (except at death).
The Federal Government taxes INCOME.
The “rich” do not NEED income.
Tax income unfairly, and you will reduce income, which will reduce tax revenues.
The “rich” do not get a “pay check” or a “welfare check” — the rich make profits off of investments.
These investments produce jobs, which also generates more tax revenue.
Again, the “rich” do not need income.
Nobody benefits when you make income vanish.
High tax rates just make income disappear.
Government employees are workers too. Government jobs tend to be jobs with better pay and working conditions.
Private sector jobs not so much.
Manufacturing jobs? What manufacturing jobs?
The greedheads outsourced those.
Tax wealth and tax imports.
Government employees are tax USERS not tax generators.
In the end, every level of government depends on profit.
Without profit, there can be no tax.
Dammit! Prior experiment, still stuck in my cache! Sorry. . .
Non-farm payroll is at an all-time high:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/employment/index.html
Libs
Is it your goal to produce the maximum amount of income possible?
Or is it your goal to punish the rich?
The two goals are mutually exclusive.
The poor pay virtually NO income tax, especially when the EIC or Earned Income Credit is taken into account.
When we want to reduce alcohol use, we TAX alcohol.
When we want to reduce tobacco use we TAX tobacco.
When we want to reduce “carbon” use, the greens want to TAX carbon.
When we want to reduce traffic offenses, we RAISE the price of a traffic ticket.
When you want more of something, subsidize it.
When you want less of something, TAX it.
Raising income tax rates simply reduces income, which reduces tax revenue, which hurts everyone.
I was sitting back, waiting for someone (and expected it would be you, “Econ101″, to pull out the old “taxes prevent….” canard.
No, “Econ101.”
The philosophy is to tax those most able and willing to pay.
Tobacco and alcohol are reliable sources of income, despite CONservatives’ objections to their use.
People will violate speeding laws and stop signs… because *they* are more important than anyone else’s safety… so the fines are increased until, maybe, some people will be inclined to drive slower and, ya know, *stop* at stop signs.
“You want more of something, subsidize it,” you say.
With whose money, “Econ101?”
I want more hot sex with nubile young virgins, “Econ101″! Give me a taxpayer-financed subsidy!
I want less stupidity in the world, “Econ101!” If we taxed it, you’d be living in a culvert underneath the Canal Route.
MonkeyYour most recent post makes absolutely no sense at all.
If we want more people to work, and pay taxes, we should aim for full employment.
As JFK and Reagan taught us, the best way to achieve full employment is through low tax rates.
“Only full employment can balance the budget” JFK
Okay, “Econ101″ –
Let’s adjust the tax code to what JFK advocated.
Happy now?
MonkeyDo you want to adjust enviromental regulations, civil rights and the cold war, back to JFK’s time as well?
Progress has been made, in all those areas, including our understanding of economics.
Sorry you were left out, on that educactional process.
I say we go pre Kennedy Monkeyhawk.
The right is always waxing nostalgic about how great the 50’s were.
Let’s get back to 50’s taxes. Too hell with Gordon Gecko and the greed is good crowd. I’ve no lost love for the CEOs of this world.
Oh gee, damn, “Econ101″ –
Are you admitting that maybe, perhaps, possibly, things have changed since JFK advocated lowering tax rates?!
DING!
DING!
DING!
DING!
DING!
“TELL HIM WHAT HE’S WON, JOHNNY!!!”
So maybe, “Econ101,” you can put to rest the old “JFK advocated lower taxes” canard the NeoCons worship as the ultimate Republic vs. Democrat “gotcha.”
During the Eisenhower 50s, federal revenues came from about 50% corporate taxes and 50% individual taxes.
By 2004, federal revenues came from 12% corporate taxes and 88% individal taxes.
And the Republic Party — which gave corporations all those tax breaks — calls any adjustment to that tax code “socialism.”
You’re one of em, “Econ101.”
I can’t for the life of me figure out what you think you’ll get out of promoting a Republic Party policy that’s targeted against you and the people to sell to.
You’re the classic frog in a pot of water. You don’t realize it’s getting hotter. You keep ranting that warm is what you like and the people with bigger stoves and more pots of water must certainly have your best interests in mind.
Sorry, “Econ101,” some of us went on to Econ 102 and beyond.
You make your living, “Econ101,” by the present system that pumps mega-dollars into the for-profit health insurance industry.
Fine. We all play the cards we’re dealt.
It’s food on your table and your kids’ braces you’re fighting for. I understand.
I’m sure plenty of guards at Auschwitz were merely trying to pull down a paycheck. Nothing personal, y’know.
If you thought for a moment, “Econ101,” beyond your personal comfort level you might get a glimpse of how right-wingnut political philosphy is ultimately doomed.
You might outlive the consequences of your politics, “Econ101.” Perhaps your kids might, too. But for those of us who went beyond “Econ 101,” and who care about not only our kids and grandchildren and their progeny, you and your thoughts are dangerous to civilization.
Ultimately, maybe you guys are right. You haven’t evolved from the apes at all.
MonkeyActually, Hillary is proposing to FORCE people to BUY private health insurance.
Did she stab you in the back with that one?
You presume way too much.
I can sell just about anything. I have sold municipal bonds, I have sold tax shelters when tax rates were very high, I have sold HUD Low Income Housing Tax Credits, I have sold HUD Historical Preservation Tax Credits, I have sold stocks, mutual funds, Oil and Gas Limited Partnerships, Natural Gas royaly interests, Long Term Care Insurance, Medicare Supplement Insurance, life insurance and just about every other “intangible” product you can think of.
You assume that you can deprive me of product to sell.
You can’t!
However, stupid economic policies CAN deprive me of a market to sell anything TO.
By the way, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen once said this, on the floor of the Senate:
“It is a paradoxical Truth that tax rates are too high today and that tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes now. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment”.
Former Democrat VP Candidate Lloyd Bentsen rightly attributed the quote to JFK.
Democrat Lloyd Bentsen quoted JFK in support of the Ronald Reagan tax rate cuts!
By the way
Our corpoarte tax rates, here in America, are actully HIGHER than the corporate tax rates in EUROPE!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0707_48.pdf
“Econ101″ boasts –
“I can sell just about anything. I have sold municipal bonds, I have sold tax shelters when tax rates were very high, I have sold HUD Low Income Housing Tax Credits, I have sold HUD Historical Preservation Tax Credits, I have sold stocks, mutual funds, Oil and Gas Limited Partnerships, Natural Gas royaly interests, Long Term Care Insurance, Medicare Supplement Insurance, life insurance and just about every other “intangible” product you can think of.”
Good for you, “Econ101!”
If the George WMD Bush economy continues, you can sell Bibles door-to-door like in the movie “Paper Moon.”
“I can sell just about anything.”
Including snake oil.
Paul – maybe your nic should be “Willy Loman”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Salesman
BenI would give it a try, but somebody would make fun of that one, as well.
Of course, in my opinion, everyone is a salesperson. Some just admit it and some don’t.
Of course, Ben, my point was not to boast.
My point is that I can be very, very unbiased, as far as any particular industry is concerned.
I simply want what is best for the country, as a whole. I have no reason to “protect” any particular industry, other than the fact that I truly believe that a healthy economy is the best national policy.
“A job is the best social program”.
And, by the way Monkey, the Bible is a tangible product, not an intangible.
Also, the economy is doing just fine.
Thank you Mary Poppins.
Actully Paul, the message is that one need not believe in what one is peddling if one is the consummate salesman. Ask Willy Loman.
And where, exactly, did Willy Loman ever cheat or rip anyone off?Loman was an honest man.His kids were jerks.Ungrateful jerks.Like liberals looking for a hand out and looking down on those that do all the work.”Death of a Salesman” is a liberal attempt to trash hard work.It is an attempt to make people feel embarrased about honest labor.
There’s a sucker born every minute. That is the free market.
You libs love evolution. The free market is evolution!
I did NOT type the above or:
——-There’s a sucker born every minute. That is the free market.
You libs love evolution. The free market is evolution!
Posted by: Econ 101 | December 09, 2007 at 10:34 PM
——Again, this is a troll, not me
I do not put a space between Econ and 101