Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Remember Mike Huckabee in November...

When John "the electable one" McCain loses in a landslide to a Clinton/Obama ticket. Mike Huckabee is duping social conservatives to buy into his populist rhetoric and sucking the oxygen out of the room so the other candidates that are trying to carry the conservative banner couldn't breathe.

First it was Fred Thompson in Iowa and South Carolina and now it's Mitt Romney in Florida. Mike Huckabee, you're an ass.

I will not vote in an election that features Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain. If we're destined to have liberal policies then we might as well have the real McCoy in there so we can blame them when the shit hits the fan.

10 comments:

Ms Calabaza said...

Geez, Henry I'm hoping you're just emotional right now and I hope you change your mind by next year. Just think what harm the Clintons could do this country. McCain may be "not conservative" but he is not a leftist. Hillary is past the term "leftist" in my book, she is a Stalinist.

Henry Gomez said...

John McCain can not win in November. You can't beat liberals by parroting them. Sorry. Carter ruined the country and Reagan rebuilt it. Clinton was on his way to destroying it and Gingrich prevented it. We need to take our medicine every now and then.

Srcohiba said...

I DISAGREE WITH YOU HENRY. RUDY IS SUPPORTING JOHN TOMORROW AT THE REAGAN LIBRARY AS IS NANCY REAGAN.

I BELIEVE THAT MCCAIN WILL PUT A HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE ON THE VP SLOT.

DID YOU SEE HIS SUPPORT TODAY FROM THE FLORIDA GOP? THE DIAZ BALARTS, ILIANA ROS, GOV. CRIST, MEL MARTINEZ; ETC.

IF O'HILLARY GETS THE NOD, I THINK THAT WILL GALVENIZE THE CONSERVATIVE BASE EVEN MORE.

THE HARD CORE CONSERVATIVES WILL NOT ALLOW HILLARY OR OBAMA TO WIN.

SO COME NOVEMBER HENRY; IT'S DINNER AT LA CARRETTA. IF THE DEMS WIN, I'M BUYING. IF MCCAIN WINS, YOU'RE BUYING.

Henry Gomez said...

Sorry Mike. I respect you but I credit those endorsements to good old back slapping politics. McCain was the least conservative of all the legit candidates in the field and now he's going to be the nominee. Get ready to learn gaelic: O'Hillary and Obama.

Srcohiba said...

well put it this way Henry, heaven forbid the dems win; cause it may be the last dinner I buy for you or anyone when my taxes go through the roof. I've seen the legislation out there; there are two sets of tax legislation out there. if the dems win; we're in trouble.

Henry Gomez said...

And McCain's bona fides on taxes are?

There's a saying that we get the leaders we deserve. We played with fire, now it's time to get burned.

Srcohiba said...

Mccain has pledged not to raise taxes. I think since Bush 41, that the GOP learned that to run for Prez (big difference from Senate), they will be asked to make pledge.

no way he'll raise taxes esp. now; it would be the worst thing for the economy. we need real stimulus if we're going to keep us from going recession and that can only happen with tax cuts.

the old guy was wrong on the bush tax cuts; and I think he learned it; the bush cut helped the economy and more revenue into the treasury.

JM wasn't my 1st choice, but it is more important to the country not to have o'hillary or o'bama.

Here's an analogy: Scalia and Rehnquist. Scalia is an ideological purist; more content on maintaining purity and consistency in his views; thus he's always been and will always be the lone dissenter who never got consensus. The late Bill Rehnquist and his prodigy Roberts are the opposite. Not so hell bend on ideological purity but on getting consensus and the votes needed to get a majority decision. Purity in ideology is commendable, but at the end of the day, does not result for much if all you end up with is reading material.

Scalia's dissents are fun reading; but just that and nothing more. The majority opinions fostered by Rehnquist and now Roberts is the law.

and Reagan who was and is the pillar of everything we could want in a pres, was successful because he got consensus; he was not an ideologue. The tax reform act of 1986 which lowered rates from over 50% to 28% passed cause he was a leader who garnered support from across the aisle. The 1986 act was revolutionary; the most comprehensive tax reform at the time since 1954. He had a total dem congress against him in 1986. Yet he got it passed.

Ronnie was the only Prez in modern history (since WW2) who went beyond his predecessors in the cold war; i.e., recall the days -- you had the libs calling for nuclear freeze; you had the Nixon wing of the gop seeking detente (tolerance of the ussr and arms control);

Ronnie sought arms reduction; elimination of weapons but on our terms; Reagan was a conservative, but he was a visionary and above all an idealist; not an ideologue. An ideologue would never had sat down with the soviets. As with Nixon, an ideologue would not have made the overture to China.

Pat Buchanan is an ideologue; hard core conservative; other than the tres gatos who stand by him; neither he or others like him will ever win. I can't support his ilk esp. his anti-Israel view and his anti-Hispanic position.

I supported and campaigned for GWB in 2000 in part cause I like him better than Gore, but honestly, more because I was pissed at Clinton cause of Elian. When I punched the ballot for GWB in 2000 I said under my breath, that this was for Elian.

I didn't agree with him on all things but he was the best candidate and the pic I took of him still hangs in my office.

So that's my take. I don't see JM calling for raising taxes; he would be doomed if he did. And he has to draw the distinctions with the dems if he has a shot; and he will. I don't think he'd go for socialized medicine like the dems want. Or dictator appeasement.

As I've said; I've met him and spoke to him about Latin America and other issues; he knew what we was talking about and appeared sincere to me on his beliefs.

PS: Interesting that a majority of Cuban American's supported McCain. What's your take on that?

Henry Gomez said...

Mike, there's a HUGE difference between McCain and Reagan. McCain couldn't carry Ronnie's jock. Reagan COMPROMISED with his political opponents to get what he wanted. McCain, of his own volition, discards major ideals of the conservative movement.

Pat Buchanan is not a conservative. He stopped being one about 15 years ago. He's a populist. His rhetoric is protectionist and isolationist. The Republican party stands for neither.

CS said...

Henry, I'll tell you why I voted for McCain, he's the only one who knows what it's like to be a Cuban political prisoner,if Toni Morrison could say that B. Clinton was our first African-American president then I say McCain will be our first president to have been a Cuban political prisoner.
I trust him on Cuba more than I do any other candidate.
When it comes to the issue of taxes it has to be accompanied by being conservative on spending where Bush was miserable-and mind you I have a tremendous admiration for the man-and where I can very easily imagine McCain as a whip-cracker.
Don't buy this idea that Hilary or Obama are inevitable. There are some points nobody wants to deal with, perhaps because it's poor taste to do so, but here goes. What N.Hampshire showed us was that a lot of whites lied about how they were going to vote for O. Supposedly, he was going to win by ten points, he lost by two. When you look at the situation the Dems are going through even if one of the two were to get every delegate on super teusday it would not be enough to win the nomination, some people say that can be resolved with a H-O ticket but I doubt it, NH shows that a lot of people wont vote for a black candidate, H on the other hand is despised by many. The fragmentation on the Rep side is ideological which can be resolved by the right VP nominee, but whoever the Dems choose is gonna fragment their coalition even further. Maybe God is a Republican.
Why your hatred of McCain? Campaign finance reform? I admit I dont like it, bit it's not going to hamper frre speech, this is the age of internet and blogradio. I want to understand what your fears are. Immigration? If Americans are so worried about that what they have to do is increase their birthrate and change certain aspects of their lifestyle. How many restaurants do you think exist in this country?

Henry Gomez said...

Having a nominee that doesn't understand the reasoning behind the first amendment is not a trivial matter.

Immigration is the one issue that I AGREE with McCain on. Go figure.

But McCain doesn't offer any vision or hope for America. He seems to be running like Dole did, because it's his turn.

McCain is a wildcard because he doesn't follow any consistent vision, but rather his own judgment and his judgment has proven to be way off on a lot of things.

Lastly I disagree with ALL of the pundits that think somehow running Democrat light will be the winning answer.

No, I think you win moderates and conservative Democrats by articulating a clear conservative approach. The approach that won for Reagan and for the Republicans in 1994.

In 1994 the Republicans ran on reforming welfare and other such concrete proposals that embodied what conservative governance is all about.

Last, McCain's rhetoric about global warming is scary to me. We're supposed to be the "thinking man's" party as opposed to the Dems that are the "Feeling Women's" party. Conservatives are the last best hope of stopping the spread of the global warming religion that threatens our economy and our entire way of life. We need someone to fight those nutjobs, not someone who is one of them.