Huckabee worries Republicans will 'Balkanize themselves' (Huckabee smears Reagan)

The Hill, Washington DC ^ | 2011-05-06 | Shane D'Aprile

[SoConPubbie]

You can make all the excuses you want. They don’t change the actual facts.

No, you can spin all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the bill was signed close to the end of the 2nd term and it was unlikely that he would know it was not being enforced until the earliest at the end of his second term.

Is that you Karl Rove?

[SoConPubbie]

Read the post directly above your last one for a more objective reading of the situation.

[JLS]

“Do you like repeating the talking points of the left?”

So it is now your contention that criticizing Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the US Supreme Court is a talking point of the left. Perhaps you need a time out to mull that bit of logic over in you mind. The rest of us need a time out to quit laughing.

[SoConPubbie]

So it is now your contention that criticizing Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the US Supreme Court is a talking point of the left. Perhaps you need a time out to mull that bit of logic over in you mind. The rest of us need a time out to quit laughing.

So you just ignore the facts presented, and go straight to defending yourself, cute.

[JLS]

“It was the largest tax-hike only in peacetime, taxes had been raised at a much higher rate during war in the past.”

Tell me a larger one then? In 1984 revenues were about 15 times what they were in 1944 and about 2.5 times in constant dollars, it is 10 and 2 times for the height of the Korean War. That makes it highly unlikely that that any WWII or Korean war tax increase was as great that the 1984 one, but perhaps since you made the claim you can document your claim.

[SoConPubbie]

So it is now your contention that criticizing Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the US Supreme Court is a talking point of the left. Perhaps you need a time out to mull that bit of logic over in you mind. The rest of us need a time out to quit laughing.

So what I believe we have established tonight, is the following:

1. You are willing to leave out facts and distort the record of an honorable man (Reagan) to support a potential POTUS candidate(The Huckster) who has shown himself to be less than honorable by his past actions both while in office as a governor and while seeking the office of POTUS.

You've made that painfully clear tonight.

ANd in the process, probably added doubts about your sincerity as a conservative given your constant slandering of the Reagan's record by leaving out the facts, and our causes, or regrets, that have been pointed out as part of the historical record.

[wardaddy]

i was gonna stay out of this and enjoy these fascinating exchanges and I admire Magnus as a top ten president but I agree with JLS....and I was an adult and recall well that conservative groups were unhappy with Sandra when he nominated her as a promised gender pick

They feared her stance on Roe bigtime and there was ample evidence already she was very soft on overturning abortion laws given her record in AZ

I reckon Magnus figured that was the best he could get through a Democrat congress and hoped for the best

Given how Free Republic is rightfully so on abortion I can promise anyone she would never have passed muster here in her nomination time period

She is a wart on his career and he had to have known after HELMS and others insisted that she was spoiled goods

Reagan is revered but like anyone flawed

The tax revisions killed commercial real estate, they did leave Lebanon to amal and hezbollah.....and they did trade arms to terrorists for hostages

Some not so great stuff

Reagan meant well and brought us back to our senses and defeated the bear that is where his greatness lay

My two cents....y'all have fun

[JLS]

“So you just ignore the facts presented, and go straight to defending yourself, cute.”

So you both claim to be conservative and use defending oneself in an accusatory manner? Of course I defended myself from you silly name calling. Name calling is really a pathetic way to argue, but one can not let it completely pass particularly when it is as silly as calling someone a leftist for criticizing a GOP president for appointing a S.D. O’Connor to the bench.

In addition you presented NO, that is zero, facts. Presenting another person’s opinion who happens to agree with you is not bringing more facts to a discussion. Reagan still appointed O’Connor. She was still a Judge from Arizona appointed by a Dim governor to the bench.

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan was a very good president, to my mind second only to G.W. Bush during the part of my life I have been politically aware, but Reagan was not perfect nor was he able to do anything that he wanted. He was a politician. He had to make compromises like all politicians.

Using the most relevant measures, such as changes in marginal tax rates or comparing the impact of each President’s tax changes on revenues as a share of GDP, Bush’s tax cuts are far less significant than the Reagan tax cuts. But there presumably is some measure, perhaps nominal revenues over some period of years, showing the Bush tax cuts are larger, so we’ll let that claim slide. The more relevant issue to address is the legacy of each President. Reagan did sign several tax increases after his 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, but the cumulative effect of those unfortunate compromises was relatively modest compared to the positive changes in his first year. When he left office, he bequeathed to the nation a tax code with meaningful and permanent tax rate reductions. The Bush tax cuts, by contrast, expire at the end of this year, and virtually all of the pro-growth provisions will disappear. This doesn’t mean Bush’s record on taxes was bad, b

[JLS]

“So what I believe we have established tonight, is the following:

1. You are willing to leave out facts and distort the record of an honorable man (Reagan) to support a potential POTUS candidate(The Huckster) who has shown himself to be less than honorable by his past actions both while in office as a governor and while seeking the office of POTUS.

You’ve made that painfully clear tonight.

ANd in the process, probably added doubts about your sincerity as a conservative given your constant slandering of the Reagan’s record by leaving out the facts, and our causes, or regrets, that have been pointed out as part of the historical record.”

1. I clearly stated I am not in favor of Huckabee for the nomination. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

2. Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of slander. [Actually it would be libel as this is written not spoken.]

3. Name one fact I have mis-stated, omitted, or distorted. That is do you claim Reagan did not sign the tax increase bill, the amnesty bill, appoint S.D. O’Connor to the bench or did not leave Lebanon?

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan was a very good president, to my mind second only to G.W. Bush during the part of my life I have been politically aware, but Reagan was not perfect nor was he able to do anything that he wanted. He was a politician. He had to make compromises like all politicians.

Bush deserves some credit on school choice, but his overall education record is characterized by more spending and centralization. Thanks in part to his no-bureaucrat-left-behind plan, the budget for the Department of Education grew significantly and federal spending on elementary, secondary, and vocational education more than doubled. Equally worrisome, federal bureaucrats gained more control over education policy. Finally, Thiessen brags about Bush’s record on Social Security reform:

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan was a very good president, to my mind second only to G.W. Bush during the part of my life I have been politically aware, but Reagan was not perfect nor was he able to do anything that he wanted. He was a politician. He had to make compromises like all politicians.

This addresses all the economic claims in Thiessen’s article, but we can’t give Bush a complete grade until we examine some of the other issues that were missing from the column. On regulatory issues, the biggest change implemented during the Bush year was probably Sarbanes-Oxley — a clear example of regulatory overkill. Another regulatory change, which turned out to be a ticking time bomb, was the expansion of the “affordable-lending” requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[SoConPubbie]

Reagan was a very good president, to my mind second only to G.W. Bush during the part of my life I have been politically aware, but Reagan was not perfect nor was he able to do anything that he wanted. He was a politician. He had to make compromises like all politicians.

And speaking of Fannie and Freddie, no analysis of Bush’s record would be complete without a discussion of bailouts. Without getting too deep in the issue, the most galling part of what Bush did was not necessarily recapitalizing the banking system (a good chunk of which was required by government deposit insurance anyhow), but rather the way it happened. During the savings & loan bailout 20 years ago, at least incompetent executives and negligent shareholders were wiped out. Government money was used, but only to pay off depositors and/or to pay healthy firms to absorb bankrupt institutions. Bush and Paulson, by contrast, exacerbated all the moral hazard issues by rescuing the executives and shareholders who helped create the mess. Last but not least, let’s not forget that Bush got the ball rolling on auto-industry bailouts.

If all of this means Bush is a “conservative record without parallel,” then Barack Obama must be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

[wardaddy]

Helms and other conservative senators opposed her and that was quite public then

I was alive as a mid 20s politically active kid and recall Helms being smeared as sexist when all Helms was doing was pointing out that sandra had already decided in the direction of pro choice in Arizona
Many freepers are just too young or have bad memories

Her decisions prior to nomination are public record folks can look up how she acted over abortion questions
I doubt Magnus missed that especially with Jesse Helms hanging on his pants leg screaming it

[SoConPubbie]

She is a wart on his career and he had to have known after HELMS and others insisted that she was spoiled goods

He did his vetting and rolled the dice; as the historical record shows, she started off conservative and became more moderate as the years went on.

Calling it a wart or implying that he purposefully made a bad decision are two highly different things.

One is not so implicit in it's meaning while the other is complete hyperbole.

JLS knows this, as do you.

JLS is trying to protect the Huckster by purposefully spinning/sliming the history of Reagan by leaving out the historical and factual context of his decision making.

[JLS]

You arguments that G.W. Bush was not perfect are certainly fair arguments against my opinion that G.W. Bush was a better president. I am not yet convinced as G.W. Bush was more consistent on both economic policy and foreign/defense policy and did not sign on to as many bad deals with Dims as Reagan, but still this is a better case than trying to argue with the fact on Reagan.

Still you come off as a Bush hater doing this. You can not have your hero as perfect so you adopt the Dim strategy of tearing down Bush to build up Reagan. The Dims want to say Reagan was great, an aberration and nothing like these current Republicans. They want to do this since Reagan is far enough in the past that he is admired by more of the population. Sometime in the future the same will happen with G.W. Bush. Because G.W. Bush will be far enough in the past that he is admired by both as a war time president, the Dims will say he was great, an aberration, not like these current Republicans etc.

I think it is close enough that some informed people could think Reagan was better than G.W. Bush or Ike who I lived through but do not remember was better than both or that G.W. Bush was the best president in my lifetime. By demanding allegiance of all to the idea that Reagan was head and shoulders better than G.W. Bush you are buying into and repeating the Dim meme that Reagan was an aberration and different than these current Republicans. That is you are helping the Dims marginalize the most conservative candidates of today.

[wardaddy]

I am no Huckabee supporter at all though I do respect his unflappable debate skills

I agree though with the gist of jls musings about Reagans mistakes...more or less

There was plenty of evidence about Sandy and no way Reagan could not know with Jesse Helms...not known for subtlety telling him she was soft on infanticide

She did not change....just another moderate the media treated like a Fascist in her hearings

George W learned this one well and did not this same mistake like Magnus and daddy...well there was Harriett..but we sure scored with Rivets and Alito especially...now Bork was were Reagan really tried

Real shame is there were good women around none of them nominated ever

Those mistakes cost a lot of baby lives like loose lips and ships

Justice Kennedy might be a better example of a stealth nomination e who gave no tell of his social liberalism

[org.whodat]

Huckster just out to huckster a few people.

[flaglady47]

JLS is trying to protect the Huckster by purposefully spinning/sliming the history of Reagan by leaving out the historical and factual context of his decision making.

I know you love Reagan, as do many of us, but he had his flaws and you are not acknowledging them. JLS is factually right about Reagan, not you. You are trying to protect your hero from having any flaws at all. That is not the human experience. We all have flaws. Please do not go to such a great extent to try to change history or you will end up looking as bad as the Dems who do that on a daily basis. You can still love Reagan, but don’t lie to yourself or others. It is not healthy. And one thing we can all agree on is that the Huckster should never be trusted with the Presidency.

[timetostand]

There will be a landslide election if Huck is the Republican nominee - for Obama