Huckabee was the Governor of a state with a Democratically controlled congress for over 10 years, he had unmatched Republican support through several election cycles, successfully defeating the Arkansas Clinton Machine (don't forget the "other" man from Hope) his record stands tall against the sound and video bites of the day. Romney will fare less well with his blue state governance because he actually did change his positions, wherein Huckabee never did.
This is the key point: Huckabee does not shift positions and supports the Fair Tax, that is all I need to hear. That alone shows how much of a forward thinking fiscal conservative he is. Fair Tax is the future, learn about it here:
www.fairtax.org
And support Mike Huckabee!
www.mikehuckabee.com,

LoudounVoter - Thank you. If we avoid talking about Clinton or radical feminism or my almost fanatical opposition to "free trade", you and I and caludia agree on most issues. One thing, there are a lot of west coast liberals who think as I do. I find it interesting that there is this divide on a few issues between the northwest and the east. It's all over a very few issues and it's been used by political operatives to divide us.

mibrooks, that is the best post I've seen from you. You nailed it.

Bush 2000: "Compassionate conservative." Seems like a relatively decent guy. Still almost lost. Wooden opponent saves the day.

Bush 2004: No mention of compassion. Ripe for the taking. Inept opponent saves the day.

Why is it crazy to believe in something that you cannot prove is real? You can't say he is ignorant, because he doesn't believe in evolution. He believes God has a plan for us, and only God can change who we are. Respect someone for having the ability to have faith in something they cannot prove.

That is all.

claudia - "Republicans aren't elected by the uninformed like Democrats tend to be. Yet you elected bush..."

To be perfectly fair about this, I have Republican friends who voted for Bush because they thought he was a moderate. Bush's campaign presented him as such. In fact, it is only in very recent days that we are learning that he hqad initiated spying and wiretapping programs on American citizens prior to (and completely unattached from) 9-11 and Al Qaida. Bush and his people are creepy and dangerous. Almost everyone knows that now, but not very many people knew it in 2000. In 2004, the excuse started to run a bit thin, but Kerry ran a dumb campaign. I waas sitting in a room full of labor activists when he made his infamous outsourcing speech..."nothing we can do about outsourcing..." and I watched people get up and leave. He flat out lost the election that night.

'Republicans aren't elected by the uninformed like Democrats tend to be. '

yet you elected bush...

Bush is the biggest spender of all time. They helped get him elected.

Maybe that should tell us something about the Club for Growth?

Good conservative people will not allow the smear campaign being waged by Toomey and Schafly to determine their own analysis of Huckabee's record.

Republicans aren't elected by the uninformed like Democrats tend to be. Huckabee's honest...maybe that's why the establishment hates him so very, very deeply!

Huckabee can win, but he needs a financial boost to do it. Sign up to donate $100 (or more) on Children's Day, November 20th, and help Mike Huckabee raise $1,000,000 in one day!

http://Nov20ForTheChildren.com

'if a Republican is a Democrat who got mugged a Democrat is a Republican who got sick. '

Would anyone care to read about Rudy's proposal to provide universal health care to all New Yorkers during the time he was being treated for cancer? I got links.

I never said health care was guaranteed by the Constitution of thee bill of rights. However, there is that guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 'Life' would seem to have some relationship to 'health' wouldn't it?

I didn't say that health care was a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I said it was a universal human right. There's a difference. The Constitution is a legal document; I'm talking about morality. Unsurprisingly, the whole concept is unfamiliar to certain people here.

JD, you completely avoided my question. All of your arguments against universal healthcare also apply to the fire department. Why is it okay for the fire department to be supported by taxes instead of individual effort? Why is it okay for me to pay for your problems when your house is on fire, but not when you have cancer?

The level of government is meaningless. Fire departments are paid for by both municipalities and states. They also receive part of their funding from the Department of Homeland Security. So some small amount of my taxes goes to help stop your house from burning down. Why is socialized fire-fighting okay and universal healthcare bad?

Colin said, "I don't think anyone was arguing access to healthcare is a constitutional right. Clearly it isn't."

OK, go tell your fellow lefties Blarg and Claudia that. I don't think they get it.

I don't think anyone was arguing access to healthcare is a constitutional right. Clearly it isn't. It's also pretty clear that today there is a majority of the public that believes in the concept of universal coverage, if not on how that coverage should be delivered. Respectfully, those of you who are comparing health care access to cable TV seem a tad out of touch to me.

As I hear recently, if a Republican is a Democrat who got mugged a Democrat is a Republican who got sick. I don't particularly care what type of universal coverage we end up with, and am perfectly fine with the type of public/private hybrids all the Dems are currently proposing. But I think we will see universal coverage in the next 4-6 years.

If ya'll want we can start a discussion about the need for universal cable TV as well. You know, since they're the same thing.

Mike, I and claudia would argue that decent health care is a right and you would argue that it is not. Let us put that aside for the moment, however, and look at this from the intersts of this country. Now, I am sure you are aware that Toyota located their new hybrid motor plant in Canada almost solely based on the excessive and unpredictable health care costs in this country. Likewise, GM, Ford and many other businesses are in dire financial condition due to health care contracal obligations to retireees. Likewise, Medicaid, Medicare and government employee health care benefits are an outrageous and expensive burden on the taxpayer. If we "nationalized" health care, the costs of this would become pedictable and we would remove those burdens from business, making them better able to compete on the world stage. Essenially, I would argue that national health care makes eonomic sense.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'

I can't be either safe or happy if I am dying of a preventable disease, can I?

USMC_Mike, that's right man. Healthcare is something that is available to every citizen if we work for it. It's important in today's time, but it is not a universal right.

As for Club vs. Huck, I think Huck is genuine and I think the Club for Growth is pro Guiliani and will bash about everyone else to help him to the nomination. For some reason, he's Toomey's pick it seems. I think Huck is going to turn heads in Iowa, and he could just win the state outright. If Huckabee is the nominee, he will likely win in a landslide...and he may actually be what it takes to unite the nation. He's real, and independents and southern democrats will really appreciate that. However, northern Republicans would not appreciate that, because he is for main street over Wall Street. I know Dem's here in NC that haven't voted Republican since Reagan in 1984, and some haven't since Nixon, that say they will vote Huckabee if he's the nominee. Otherwise, their vote goes Democrat.

'How about our school discussion from yesterday - on average, would you say the average private school is higher or lower quality than public, for the money?'

Um, no. You must have no idea how much private school costs. For instance, where I live, private high school costs approx. $40,000 a year. The excenllent public school my daughter attends costs $20,000 if you attend out of district. Yet her school has academic standings that match or surpass private schools.

Talk to people who have actual experience, not your air-headed economic theories.

"Because health care is a universal human right."

Read the constitution.

Health care is not a right just because you claim it is.

You have to do a little more work than that, even though I know you think it sounds pretty.

And then, even further, you have to prove that health care (as a "right") should be guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

I suppose you think cable TV is a human right as well.

If you take money from me for a noble cause (like paying for your daughter's cancer treatments), it's called robbery and it's a crime.

If the government takes money from me for the same cause, it may be called taxation, but it's still robbery because it's against my will, and it ought to be a crime.

Government robbery was NEVER intended by our framers, just as "health care" was NEVER codified as a "universal human right".

bsimon, I used the word 'right' because the in-over-his-head Blarg did. As for it being more economical; you could argue that either way. Do you really feel that the government provides services in the most economical way, at the highest quality? How about our school discussion from yesterday - on average, would you say the average private school is higher or lower quality than public, for the money?

Blarg, fire fighting is a local muni issue. We're talking feds here. If the City of Alexandria or County of Prince William wants to offer Universal Health Care for their citizens/victims, that's fine by me. You can move there. I for one won't be saddled with the extreme taxes to pay for it.

_Colin - I work for a company, as a database admin and programmer, doing audits on Medicare and Medicaid claims, and handle studies for 11 other states. I live in Oregon, where a form of the Swedish plan, has been under consideration and the trial laywers are flat out against any form of it...liberal and conservative. One thing I have encountered is the unbelievable amount of overcharges and outright fraud. It isn't just suppliers and doctors, either. Patients, everyone seems to be in the act. I see Medicare patients with 5 and ten wheelchairs, all purchased within the past two years, shopping around for doctors or suppliers who will give them another scooter or another power chair. DME suppliers are the worst. They take simple things like hearing aid batteries that cost less than $1 and charge over $50 for them. It's enough to destroy your faith in human nature :)

As for extrapolating from Sewden, I think we can. First off, Sweden has a much smaller population and so costs there would even be higher than here. Sweden provides nursing home care for older citizens who need it, and independent living for others. I lived there, with my family for several years, and I might be prejudiced and heresay eviendence of this sort is always suspect, but the care we received was far far better than anything we have had here. Friends needing surgery got it quickly, med's were dispensed at a government pharmacy at the local mall, and we got into the doctor the same day we called for an appointment. Dental care wasn't as good as that, it was on par with what we have here, but the copayment was about $8 per visit no matter what the proceedure.

JD, how do you feel about the fire department? It's funded by state and local taxes. Even if you decide you don't want coverage, you're still required to pay for it. And if your house does catch on fire, the cost to put it out is paid for by everyone, not by you personally. And a fire that's extinguished by the sweat of others isn't valued nearly as much as the fire you extinguish yourself. If you don't pay for your own firemen, there's little incentive to work harder.

So what are your thoughts on the scourge of socialized fire-fighting? Should we eliminate it in favor of a free-market solution?

"I think we need to decouple health care from employment - for two reasons, firstly because employers are an inefficient delivery mechanism (why are they in the health care business at all?)"

bsimon- Employers began offering health insurance as a bonus in the WWII-era when there was a shortage of male workers because of the war.

According to the Hoover Institution,
employer-paid health insurance was a legacy of World War II. "Fringe benefits" were excluded from wartime price controls, so ever more comprehensive health coverage became a way to attract and retain workers in the face of labor shortages. Medicine had been largely insulated from these changes because the jobs of prescribing care and arranging for its financing were largely kept separate.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058126.html

"healthcare isn't a 'right' any more than you have a right to have ... anything else"

Healthcare as a 'right' is a moral argument and mostly irrelevant, IMHO. While I tend to agree with that sentiment, the economic argument for moving towards universal healthcare is far more compelling.

As someone else noted above, there is a huge cost to employers associated with healthcare costs for their employees. I ask again: why is it the default in our country to tie healthcare to employment? I understand why it started - as a benefit to attract workers, or from negotiations with unions. No doubt about it, employer-provided health insurance massively improved access to decent medical care & probably lowered societal costs for emergency room coverage and/or opportunity cost from lost productivity due to shortened lives. But isn't it time for a paradigm shift?

nanellen--"Mike Huckabee is a Christian. Ergo, he believes that if life evolves on Earth it is because it is part of God's plan. There. Was that so difficult to understand?"

Clearly it is, since Mike Huckabee stated that he does not accept evolution. Ergo, he is ignorant, delusional or stupid.

Blarg said, "Because health care is a universal human right." Well Blarg, I understand your viewpoint, even though it's incorrect.

:-)

IMHO, healthcare isn't a 'right' any more than you have a right to have a car, a flat screen TV, or anything else. And things that are given to you (paid for by the sweat of others) are not valued nearly as much as things that you earn. You have kids? Then you know what I mean. I prefer that people work for and earn their own healthcare (or anything), else there's little incentive to work harder.

Take a look at the "rights" you have, as the government defines them. I'd suggest that "rights" don't involve someone else paying for something you have; at least, that's what the framers had in mind. Correctly defined, rights involve ways that restrict the government from messing with you (limiting speech, taking away your guns, forcing you to quarter soldiers, taking property without paying you for it, etc).

JD writes
"So Blarg and bsimon, it's a bulk-volume discount thing? That seems like such a slippery slope - why not enforce government purchasing of everything then, from cars to homes to lawnmowers. After all, if a single payer solution existed for those markets, wouldn't the avg cost go down?"

I can't speak for Blarg, but I'm not really for a gov't funded single-payer solution. I was just explaining why you have a vested interest in improved health for others in society.

I think the goal needs to be achieving universal or near-universal coverage. More importantly, I think we need to decouple health care from employment - for two reasons, firstly because employers are an inefficient delivery mechanism (why are they in the health care business at all?), secondly because it stifles opportunity to change jobs. I have no problem with private health care solutions, private insurance companies, etc. But I also think people demonize gov't run healthcare far more than it deserves.

Mostly though I think the existing system is inefficient & should be replaced. Sadly, I don't have an easy solution to offer. I'm inclined to think a public-private hybrid could make sense, perhaps by letting people opt into medicare. If private providers can sell better care for a lower price, people will flock to that alternative. I think one of the GOP candidates offered a variant of this lately - something about letting people opting for early retirement buy into medicare; I don't recall details though.

Mike -- I'm not aware of any trial lawyer opposition to universal health care. And I'm a lawyer, though admittedly not a member of the plaintiffs bar. I think you're wrong on this one bud.

"Extrapolating that for the population of the U.S." - regarding Sweden healthcare.

While I agree with some of what you are saying here, I don't think you can just extrapolate those figures upon the US. Sweden is a completely different country (diet, values, tradition) and much more homogenous in several aspects than the US is.

I also get the impression in Europe that people spend less money on senior citizens in declining health compared to US. For better or for worse, our society here spends a hefty percentage on the healthcare of individuals who are on the last legs of life.

I would be interested though to see how much healthcare would actually cost for the average person here compared to other Western countries.

Because health care is a universal human right. Lawnmowers aren't. Oops, there I go again with the explanations you won't understand.

No, young healthy people shouldn't have the right to refuse healthcare. It's a risk pool. If the pool only consists of people with high risk, then the average healthcare costs are higher for everyone.

And, to some extent, you shouldn't be allowed to choose such a stupid decision. Nobody, however young and healthy, is invincible; anyone can get sick or injured. And in a universal healthcare system, the government's going to end up bailing those people out when something unexpected happens. (Actually, that happens now; emergency rooms accept everyone, even people who can't pay.) So it's better to have them be a regular part of the system.

So Blarg and bsimon, it's a bulk-volume discount thing? That seems like such a slippery slope - why not enforce government purchasing of everything then, from cars to homes to lawnmowers. After all, if a single payer solution existed for those markets, wouldn't the avg cost go down?

This also has a 'choice' element to the equation (again, I thought liberals were pro-choice LOL); if I'm young and healthy and don't want to pay for healthcare, don't I have that right? And aren't we forcing those kids to pay for healthcare through taxes, under a gov-payer system?

That said, I do see the reasoning behind a gov funded innoculation or anti-viral situation, as then your health has a direct impact on mine since I can catch whatever you had.

_colin, as any lawyer can tell you (and as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, everywhere single payer health systems have been enacted) it is one thing to sue the local doc and quite another to take on the government. A single payer system would have a huge impact on litigation, why is why most trial lawyers oppose such a system.

Mike -- malpractice reform hasn't had ANY impact on medical insurance premiums where it's been enacted. Want to know what did? Insurance companies raising rates to make up for losses suffered when the .com boom ended. Guess what? They weren't lowred after porfolios recovered. Strange how lawyers are the "evil" ones though...

As I don't see the URL mentioned above:
http://www.taxhikemike.org/

claudia is right. The U.S. pays more than six times what other western countries pay for health care and we don't even make it into the top 10 for quality. Check out Scandinavia. Sweden has a population of around 9.6 million people. It costs a bit under $16 billion dollars to provide complete medical, hospital, nursing home, perscription drug, and dental care for their entire population. Sweden's care, by the way, is consistantly rated as the best in the world. Extrapolating that for the population of the U.S. you get $523 billion dollars. That would be complete heath care for every man, woman, and child. Currently, we spend somewhere over 3 trillion dollars annually and only manage to cover a bit more than two-thirds of our people.

The conservative aegument for universal health care would thus be that it would save business and government at least 2.5 trillion dollars annually. No more Medicare, Medicaid, private plans, hustling lawyers filing lawsuits, and better care. Given the present economic mess, providing univeresal single payer health care would alleviate an enormous cost born by business and might just provide enough economic stimulation to lift us out of the looming recession.

Not to change the subject or anything but, check out Novak's article in today's WaPo about Fred Thompson. He really blew it Sunday on MTP....see, I told you social cons that he was not the answer!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110702080.html?nav=hcmodule

But where will socail cons? Giuliani defends a woman's right to choose. Romney has made the switch from pro-choice, ending past opposition to a "human life" amendment. Huckabee is described by one national conservative leader as a member of the "Christian left."

Conclusion: That leaves McCain, no favorite of the right, but the major candidate with the clearest longtime position against abortion.

The same McCain that was right about the surge, and right about Donald Rumsfeld, and is a true fiscal conservative despite what CFG says, and has been endorsed by Sam Brownback. Where's the fix on that endorsement, CC?

"there are several reasons why you should pay for the healthcare of others. (And have others pay for your healthcare, of course.) Here's one you'll like: it makes your healthcare cheaper."

On the flipside, this is an argument used to control the behavior of others, which is not a valid argument, in my opinion. For instance, certain states use the cost argument to impose helmet laws because of the cost borne by the public when an unhelmeted motorcyclist exposes his brain to the elements. As a motorcyclist I always wear a helmet because I like my brain where it is; but I am also against helmet laws because it should be up to the individual to make their own decisions, no matter how bad they might be for themselves (and tangentially, for society).

Sorry to go all Clinton-like in arguing both sides.

I guess its back to the Huckabee fetish for Chris. Ron Paul got his day. Now Chris will give Huckabee the rest of the year on The Fix.

If Huckabee was doing really, really really well and his camapaign was picking up all sorts of momentum, why is it his fellow Christian conservatives won't endorse him? Why can't he pick up any significant endorsements from the leaders of very same wing of the party he claims to represent?

Think about Chirs before you post another mash note to Huckabee masqurading as political analysis.

"Tell me again why it's MY job to keep YOU healthy?"

Its not your job, per se. However, you will benefit if I am healthy and thus do not require health care. As the aggregate health rises, the aggregate costs fall, driving down the costs for each of us. That's true whether we're part of a private insurance plan or publicly funded health care.

Point being: you benefit if I am healthy, therefore you have an interest in me being healthy. That you might not recognize that interest does not mean it does not exist.

JD, there are several reasons why you should pay for the healthcare of others. (And have others pay for your healthcare, of course.) Here's one you'll like: it makes your healthcare cheaper. As Colin pointed out, we pay more for our healthcare than countries with a government-run system, and on average have worse care than those countries. Our system is incredibly inefficient; a single-payer system would end up far cheaper per-capita than the patchwork we have now.

There's also the fact that you're a human living in a society of other humans, and you have certain obligations to that society. But I know you won't accept that, so let's stick with the money argument.

'I didn't realize the purpose of government was to make us happy.'

eyes roll... that has nothing to do with what I said. Okay, ask each person who thinks they are getting better health care.. simple enough for you to understand now?

and perhaps [likely] you've never read the Declation of Indepence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

'Then why isn't the drug sold at the same lower cost in the US? Because they buy our politicians blarg, so they can charge anything they want.

I've worked in the pharma industry -- don't let your heart bleed for them. They spend about 10% of their budgets on R&D. The rest goes to advertising and profits. And a great many of them couldn't give a rat's a*s about the effects of their drugs.

I remember one meeting where I sat and listening to peoople talking about the economic cost/benefit analysis of leaving a drug known to be lethal on the market--like how much it would cost them in legal charges, in bad publicity, etc. How many people dying would be the tipping point, etc.

Do you have any idea how long Vioxx was left on the market when it was quite obvious it was killing people. Don't waste your tears.

Tell me again why it's MY job to keep YOU healthy?

After all, that's what we're talking about, if Government is going to tax me to pay for someone else's healthcare.

Yes, I know this will be regarded as a flame to the Government-run healthcare jihadists out there. But at the end of the day, we're getting so far from what the framers intended this country to be that it makes me sick, pun intended.

"Ask someone who's on Medicare how they like their healthcare, then ask someone with an average crappy policy. I like you'll fnd out pretty quick who's happier."

I didn't realize the purpose of government was to make us happy.

Maybe that's because I'm not an ex-hippy-do-what-feels-good type.

Only privatization of health plans can align incentives to prevent disease."

That's what we have now. What are you talking about?

Hillary likely isn't talking about probably because it's pretty easy to figure out.

So you people really trust corporations, whose only interest is making a profit, [an headed by CEOs who make huge salaries and lavish perks. and who will readily deny essential services to cut costs--as they often do now, ask anyone with a chronic ilness,, to provide you with ggood health care, rather than your government, run by officials you elect?

Here's a test for you. Ask someone who's on Medicare how they like their healthcare, then ask someone with an average crappy policy. I like you'll fnd out pretty quick who's happier.

"Once the drug is produced, it can be sold in other markets, at a lower cost, because the company has already recovered its costs here in the US market."

Then why isn't the drug sold at the same lower cost in the US? This isn't about new drugs costing more in the US, it's about ALL drugs costing more here. If a drug company can make money selling drugs in Canada at lower prices, why can't they make money selling them in the US for the same price?

Regarding prescription drugs:

Our pharmacy companies are incurring ALL the research & development costs to find all these great new drugs. It takes mind-boggling capital expenditures to bring a drug to market -- and our companies take on ALL the risk. Not to mention an overly conservative FDA.

I did a long research project on a major pharma company in business school.

Once the drug is produced, it can be sold in other markets, at a lower cost, because the company has already recovered its costs here in the US market.

Maybe it's not fair. It's the price we pay for scientific innovation in this country -- where we advance most of the new pharma-drugs.

I don't know what the answer is -- but punishing the big *evil* pharma-companies is not the way to go. They take on INCREDIBLE risk to bring a 15-year long research project through their pipeline and into the market.

CFG is a bunch of rich, self-righteous hypocrites who:
(1) attend the religious service of their choice yet have turned ignorance of its teachings into an art form in order to make (and protect) a buck.
(2) pledge allegiance to the flag of the US yet do everything in their power to not contribute toward its defense.
(3) would love to "drown government in a bathtub" and revert to a plutocracy complete with serfs and lords yet are first in line looking for government grants/tax breaks/pork handouts.

If the CFG doesn't like MH this is a good thing for MH. Of course, this is yet another endorsement (like Robertson's) that MH is NOT getting. Soon he'll have the moral high ground all to himself but without any endorsements.

The McCain-MH ticket is a nice dream. MH is weak on foreign policy and needs help in that area. How about an MH-Jim Webb ticket? That'd stir things up.

Colin --

1. If you flood the market with new insurance buyers, prices will come down. No PHD Economics necessary.

2. We need more doctors. Lots of solutions to this, but an obvious one sticks out at me -- malpractice reform.

Blarg -- I don't think prevention is an icing on the cake of universal healthcare.

But even if it is, as you say, it's such an important part of the solution that it should not be ignored. So if it is part of HRC's planned reforms, she should be talking about it - but isn't.

"Only privatization of health plans can align incentives to prevent disease."


This statement would be more plausible if the existing system were already focusing on disease prevention.

USMC_Mike -- How does the fact that we pay more for the same health services than do single-payor systems -- indeed any country in the world -- play into your fun hypothetical? Doctors visits cost more in total dollars. Name a particular health service -- it costs more here. Lets not even get into prescription drug prices. If our system is so much more "efficient," how do you explain all of that?

And that's without even geting into how "efficient" it is that the entire uninsured population currently receives health care -- and almost none of it preventative -- in the most expensive and inefficient medium possible at emergency rooms.

I think you guys are missing my point. My point is that Democrats don't talk about disease prevention as a specific issue, because their health care policies would include more disease prevention as a side benefit. It's part of a package, not a distinct issue to be discussed separately. If we fix the big problems with the healthcare system in this country, disease prevention would be promoted as part of that fix. If we just keep what we have and add disease prevention, that would barely affect the quality of healthcare at all.

Mike, I agree that private insurance not tied to jobs would include the same benefit. The benefit comes from keeping the same insurance for a long time. Of course, healthcare premiums are so high that practically nobody can afford to buy their own insurance without assistance from their employer or the government, so without some significant reforms that's not a feasible approach.

Mike Brooks said "claudia, I m merely stating the obvious. Feminists are pro-abortion in all circumstances."

I think you make a lot of good points Mike, but this is quite honestly one of the stupidest things I've read in a long time. First, it strikes me that your use of "feminist" could most accurately be defined as a synonym for "women I don't like." It would be preferable if you simply used the latter phrase. Whether you realize it or not, you really do SOUND like you hate women when you go off on some of your over-generalized diatribes.

Second, the idea that folks who are pro-choice are supportive of abortion at all, let alone in all circumstances, is just stupid. Most pro-choice voters, myself included, would prefer that there is never another abortion period. I simply don't think sending women to prison who reach a different conclusion makes any sense. I had THOUGHT you agreed with that proposition. Apparently not, since you're now describing pro-choice women as "pro-abortion."

proudtobeGOP writes
"[Hucakbee] and other Rs have advocated policies which would financially incentivize each person to prevent as much as they can. This approach is a much better solution than some nanny-state approach, imo, an empowers people to have control over their expenses based on their lifestyle."

So... it is OK for nanny-corporations to 'incentivize' personal responsibility, but it is not OK for the nanny-state to do the same? Why?

"there's a financial benefit to the insurer (the government) to keep you healthy"

This is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.

Financial incentives DONT APPLY to government Blarg, because government is not constrained by a profit/loss paradigm. Government can always resort to fundraising (bonds, taxes), or just simply run a deficit.

If your logic was actually valid, wouldn't we see some pressure on the boomers to take care of themselves (because that would be in the SS administration's best "financial interest")?

Government will always spend $5 to make a $.02 pencil and $100 to make a $5 hammer because "financial incentives" don't apply to government.

Only privatization of health plans can align incentives to prevent disease. Therefore, Proud is right -- only the R's are offering a preventative approach to healthcare -- which is the only viable solution.

"there's a financial benefit to the insurer (the government) to keep you healthy."

blarg - you have just highlighted the underlying difference in approaches to healthcare reform between Rs and Ds with that comment. I would argue that it is encumbent upon each individual to keep oneself healthy, inasmuch as USMC Mike was talking about chronic disease prevention.

Just as Huckabee's own testimonial proves, it IS possible to mitigate disease with personal lifestyle modification, and he and other Rs have advocated policies which would financially incentivize each person to prevent as much as they can.

This approach is a much better solution than some nanny-state approach, imo, an empowers people to have control over their expenses based on their lifestyle.

Blarg -- why run to the government to "solve" your healthcare problem?

Why not have private insurance you can take with you wherever you go? Not to mention private retirement accounts so you're not locked in at one employer...

Some pretty compelling arguments here for taking a long hard look at Huckabee, especially in the general against Hillary. I haven't voted for a Republican at the federal level since forever, but I'm pro-worker and pro-small business and pro-community before I'm a Dem, and my sense is that Hillary's first loyalty is to the Wall Street bigshots who've bankrolled her. Huckabee's probably pretty awful on Iraq and Iran and civil liberties, though, so that would be a tough tough choice.

Mike, I don't think that the other candidates oppose or ignore disease prevention. It's a built-in feature of a universal healthcare system. So when Democrats talk about making healthcare more universal, disease prevention and wellness care are sort of implied.

The average person changes healthcare plans frequently. (I don't have the exact numbers.) Every time you change your job you get a new plan, and some companies change plans every couple years to save money. This means that insurance companies have no reason to promote disease prevention. It costs money now to get early screening and treatment, but the real cost benefits aren't seen until later. So insurance companies don't have a financial incentive to promote disease prevention.

In a universal healthcare system, that wouldn't be a problem. Since you'd have the same healthcare for your whole life, there's a financial benefit to the insurer (the government) to keep you healthy. Of course, none of the major Democratic candidates are promoting true universal healthcare. But their reforms towards expanding government coverage would definitely have a disease prevention component.

Not to mention his view on healthcare, which I wouldn't have found to be so insightful were it not for my favorite biologist-Democrat fiancee:

Huck is the ONLY candidate talking about disease PREVENTION, not just treatment after the fact. The truth is, many forms of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and most of the most expensive human ailments are completely PREVENTABLE.

I don't want Hillary to tell my kid whether or not he can get a heart transplant.

I also don't want Rudy to tell my kid that he can get one if his insurance covers it.

I want Mike Huckabee to help prevent the need for a heart transplant.

If you have ever seen a picture of fat Mike Huckabee and compare that to the marathon-running Huckster of today, you would at least grant that he has some credibility in personal health/weight management.

What if America WASN'T the most obese country in the world? I bet GM, and all the other companies sucked in to paying healthcare for expensive, preventable diseases would like that. And so would I, a taxpayer.

Mike Huckabee is a Christian. Ergo, he believes that if life evolves on Earth it is because it is part of God's plan. There. Was that so difficult to understand?

Mike Huckabee raised the ire of Club for Growth because he backed insuring the poor children of Arkansas. He didn't march lockstep with all programs that raised taxes when they were necessary to improve the lives of the people of Arkansas. Likewise, he CUT taxes about 94 times.

Here's the thing. He didn't just wake up one morning and decide I'm going to change my positions to be more Conservative so I can run for President as a Republican. He is who he says he is. He wasn't born wealthy. He knows what it's like to work for living. He knows how to manage money. I trust him veto "bridges to nowhere" and the other pork barrel projects the Republican Congress pushed on the taxpayers. Club for Growth needs to back off. They've lost all credibility with me.

proud & mike- I like the glass-half-full spin. McCain-Huckabee would be a very compelling ticket, particularly if the Dems nominate Clinton.

Expanding on Proud's point...

The club wouldn't be so determined to bring MH down if they didn't think he was a viable player.

So, congrats, you have a spine, AND, your opponents see you as a credible threat?

Governor Huckabee...welcome to the club! The club that is hated by The Club for Growth, that is. You now join the ranks of John McCain, who, despite decades of true fiscal conservatism and standing up for what is right, faces the same sharp criticism from Toomey et al.

They say "Senator McCain's zealous effort against wasteful spending deserves praise.", and indeed they do.

Over his twenty years in the Senate, he has been at the forefront of the battle to eliminate wasteful projects and inject greater discipline and transparency into the appropriations process, often by introducing a slew of cost-cutting amendments.

Senator McCain has also voted against a number of pricey bills, even when most of his colleagues preferred to toe the party line.

But, The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes-especially lower tax rates- across the board, and if anyones veers from that one path that they deem correct, then they are chastised and railed against by Toomey. So, I would say, congratulations Gov Huckabee...you have a backbone!

I am not in a position to speculate about whether or not it is a personal vendetta driving the assault against Huck, but I do agree with Jennifer's point above that, within the next couple months, Mike is going to continue to do well. Could he end up getting picked for VP? If I were a NE Republican like Rudy and Mitt, I'd pick him.

On a slightly separate issue, I think so many Republicans are so concerned with winning that, if the mass media, or the polls, tell them Rudy is the only one who can win -- the real "front-runner" -- they will, as Pat Robertson did, pile on.

I don't believe Rudy will get the nomination in the end. He will either be steamrolled by Romney's early momentum or maybe a McCain comeback?

Either way, winning should not outweigh principals. No matter how many times Pat Robertson tells me Rudy is a "good Catholic", I'm not going to believe him -- and I don't think I'm alone.

Shouldn't fiscal conservatives love Huck for his wacko "Fair Tax" proposal? Seems right up their alley.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

AndyR says, "If you drive on them then you should have to pay. "

Ahem. You do that now, just through the FHWA trust fund (taxed on a gallon of gas). What's the difference? Who cares if the roads are paid for through gas taxes, regular general fund income taxes, the excise tax on gas and tires, or higher prices for food and other stuff that uses the roads to deliver.

it's all coming from the same pot of money; ours.

jennifer.miller writes
"It sure seems like a personal vendetta to me. I have been amazed that Pat Toomey and others would go after Mike Huckabee when his platform includes eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and enacting a Fair Tax (consumption tax)."

Could it be as simple as a self-preservation move on the part of the club for 'growth'? If Huckabee's brand of fiscal conservatism includes a rational analysis of the tradeoffs between taxes & services, a group like CfG will lose influence; whereas a guy like Giuliani seems more than willing to pander to such groups in order to get elected - a little of the good old 'tit for tat' politics.

USMC_Mike observes
"Aparently, you don't have to be a left-wing nut to care about the environment."

The tide certainly seems to be changing in that regard. The Newt had a chat here earlier this week about his new book, which apparently argues that we can both reduce the harm we're doing to the climate/environment and continue to prosper, economically. I wonder what the club for 'growth' thinks about that idea?

Even the WSJ is a little nervous about where Rudy's true loyalties as prez might lie--perhaps with the countries he does business with, rather than our own:

'Rudy Giuliani is one of the few candidates ever to pursue the White House while maintaining a high-ranking role in a private-sector firm.

But since he became a candidate for president, the Republican front-runner has rebuffed all calls to disclose details about the clients and dealings of Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm he founded in 2002.

Some of those clients have controversial records. Among those he hasn't disclosed is the government of Qatar, a Persian Gulf state to whom the firm provided security advice, according to the former U.S. ambassador there. Qatar is a strategic U.S. military ally and energy supplier, yet also a country that has been criticized for its conduct toward al Qaeda -- a potential political pitfall for a candidate pitching himself as an uncompromising foe of Islamic terrorism.

Other potentially controversial dealings have been disclosed by the firm or by clients over the years. They include Purdue Pharma, a drug company that hired the firm in 2002 to help with a federal investigation into overdose deaths attributed to the pharmaceutical firm's powerful OxyContin painkiller, and New York nuclear-power-plant operator Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

While Qatar is technically a U.S. ally, it has drawn scrutiny for its involvement in the U.S. effort to combat terrorism. In 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation went to Qatar to arrest al-Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, then under indictment in New York for a plot to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners. But Mr. Mohammad slipped away, apparently tipped off by an al-Qaeda sympathizer in the Qatari government, U.S. officials told the bipartisan 9/11 commission. Mr. Mohammad went on to mastermind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.'

'There has never been a government program, initiative, tax, etc. that a liberal doesn't "beleive" in.'

I see you're telling me what I bleieve in -- which is not what I beleive in.

'Who do you think will be calling the shots in a Clinton II administration? All of her big corporate donors, that's who'

Who do you think calls the shots in ANY admnistration. Because of our cash-based, highest bidder campaign system --which I'm sure you beleive in -- no one gets to the WH without she support of, and ownership by, corporate donors. They always get what they pay for.

It sure seems like a personal vendetta to me. I have been amazed that Pat Toomey and others would go after Mike Huckabee when his platform includes eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and enacting a Fair Tax (consumption tax). It is almost as puzzling as Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Guiliani who supports gay rights and abortion rights. Even considering the confusion among some of the leaders of the fiscal and social conservative interest groups now, I believe that when everything shakes out in the next two months before the primaries, things will really start to coalesce for Huckabee and he will be within striking distance of the nomination.

Mike, novamatt - That's the way I see Huckabee, too; a genuine populist. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but I would vote for Huckabee over any Democrat except for Edwards. He is actually a thoughtful, decent guy. I do notice the Clinton gang popping up with their bigotry and distorted attacks, which is all the more reason for people to support Huckabee.

Andy, thanks for the information. That helps clarify things.

bsimon, fiscal conservatism probably is exactly what you think it is. It's just that, quite simply, the CFG is slightly crazy. Thankfully, they don't speak for all of us.

And, mibrooks, just an fyi, I consider myself to be a pro-life feminist.

Laugh it up claudia. meanwhile, the party of the jackass will nominate another Clinton who isn't running on the liberal populist agenda of the leftwing that you espouse, whose major financial backers are the greedy corporations and defense contractors you hate with a passion.

Who do you think will be calling the shots in a Clinton II administration? All of her big corporate donors, that's who. not the 'little people' she doesn't care a whit about, like Anita Esterday for example.

here's the answer to your question bsimons, and it's pretty funny. the republicans are still using the old script because they and their marketing agencies can't decide who they are:

''An effort by House Republicans to "re-brand" their battered party with a new agenda and a new strategy to sell it has fallen behind schedule as GOP leaders try to referee ideological and tactical disputes among their members.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) began the project to refurbish House Republicans' scuffed public image at the start of the year, amid widespread expectations among lawmakers that the results would be ready for public rollout this fall.

As it now stands, according to members and well-connected staff aides, the debut could happen as late as next spring, after the presidential primaries.

Boehner's idea had been that the GOP could lift itself off the mat by borrowing from private-sector marketing concepts. Among those who have consulted in the effort were corporate brand experts such as Richard Costello, the man behind GE's famous "We Bring Good Things to Life" campaign'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6744.html

How about 'We Bring Misery to Life?' anybody got any better ones for them? Come on, folks, pitch in --they really need your help. They're dyin out there!

I would also like to point to the Huckster's belief that being a good caretaker of the environment and the earth is a noble Christian value.

Aparently, you don't have to be a left-wing nut to care about the environment.

In this post-Al Gore Peace Prize/MTV Movie award green era, that could certainly appeal to some folks. I once again point to my biologist fiance, who is a "conservative Democrat", and is more drawn to the Huck than to HRC...

Huckabee seems like a genuine, non-demagogic populist. He's resisted free trade orthodoxy, he's not allergic to government spending or raising taxes, he's actually concerned about the economy's effect on people who don't ride around in limousines.

He's not the typical sort of Republican who might appeal to Democrats -- the economic conservative, social moderate like Giuliani or Romney. He's the reverse of that, a social conservative and economic populist. I happen to think a pretty sizable number of Americans are in that quadrant, and they haven't had a champion since maybe George Wallace, and a non-demagogue champion since, I dunno, FDR?

"The so-called conservative movement does not beleive in good government -- they beleive in no government."

Well since Claudia gets to decide what I "beleive"...

If conservatives don't "beleive" in good government, liberals don't "beleive" in bad government.

There has never been a government program, initiative, tax, etc. that a liberal doesn't "beleive" in.

So I guess that means we never get "good government" either way, if you have to listen to a "winger" of either extreme.

' Besides, if the state governments aren't going to pay for
highways -- who on earth should?'

It isn't fiscal conservatism bsimon -- it's just what I sid. Their whole agenda consists of privatizing everything and no taxes ever, so that there is no more public policy -- it's a return to the policies of early in th republic, when if you wanted fire protection for your house or business, you had to pay a private fire company. Now, of course that means that the wealthy control virtually everything and the poor and middle class are screwed, but that's entirely the point.

The so-called conservative movement does not beleive in good government -- they beleive in no government.

'USA Today: "John William Anderson, who was born on July 4, 2001, is on TSA's watch list. He was first stopped in 2004 when his mother and grandmother took him on his first plane ride to Disney World." Anderson's mom Christine tells the paper, "No one can give any answers to why my son is on the list or really how to get him off."

so many 6 year old terrorists running around... oooh so scary.

The keystone cops at homeland security... feeling safer yet?

Looks like others found more detailed info. I found:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201646.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"In Arkansas, Huckabee worked to enact broad-based tax cuts, but he also signed measures that increased the sales tax on gasoline and cigarettes. He persuaded voters to approve a $1 billion road-construction package and helped establish a much-lauded program to expand health-care coverage to children."

USMC_Mike makes the observation
"If the people of AK wanted to fix their roads, and they approved a specific tax to do so, that's not un-conservative. In fact, I would argue that it's a better conservatism than just blanketly declaring that we should "cut taxes" in ambiguous ways."

Which makes a guy like me wonder: why is the Glub for Growth so anti-Huckabee? Do they really think there is no such thing as a reasonable tax? If the roads are deteriorating, how do they expect the roads to be fixed?

Perhaps fiscal conservatism is not what I think it is...

smb57, asks "Besides, if the state governments aren't going to pay for highways -- who on earth should?"

According to the club for growth folks all roads should be toll roads and run by private compainies. If you drive on them then you should have to pay.

BTW, I agree with you and find this idea to be ludicruos.

On the political ramifications of this ad I think it shows that Huckabee's momentum is being noticed outside of Iowa. A third poll has Huckabee in a solid second in Iowa. My prediction of him in first by thanksgiving is looking better and better everyday.

If only he wasn't so militantly anti-abortion, anti-homosexuals, and anti-evolution I might think about voting for him.

There is that, Mike. I'm still curious to know the details of this story, but I have to wonder -- how effective is this ad, really?

I mean, if they can go 'Huckabee's a liar!', then that might be effective.

But raising taxes on gas to fixed badly underserviced roads? That's not really something which makes you enemies. More likely, that's something which demonstrates fiscal responsibility. Besides, if the state governments aren't going to pay for highways -- who on earth should?

claudia, I m merely stating the obvious. Feminists are pro-abortion in all circumstances. Their assertion is that it's their body and they can do with it what they wish. Of course, at the same time, if some male is unfortunate enough to impregnate one of them, the female has the choice still of aborting that child or of enslaving the man for 20 years or so.

I m 60 years old and have run into a lot of feminists. One thing they have in common is there self centered view of the universe. I was listening to a women's talk show the other day and actually heard women crabbing that men didn't undergo menopause! Maybe I'm getting thin skinned in my old age, but I am sick and tired of listening to snide comments from women denigrating men. It's in the media, television shows, movies, you name it. Read the credits, it's almost always a woman writer putting those words in the characters mouth. If a male says hey like to shoot or hunt, it is almost predictable that some feminst twit will pop up with a snide remark that firearms are some sort of compensatory mechanism for insecure males. Same for football and other sports. I would have thought that we had outgrown "womens lib" in this society by now. Same thing for the cheap trash talk of religious conservatives. You know I am no fan of Dobson nor Robertson, but those people do a lot of good - they fund and volunteer to run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, battered women's shelters, Habitat For Humanity, medical assistance for the poor and for refugees in places like Burma and Darfur. They deserve better than the snide an mindless hate they are subject too by, in the main, liberal feminist and gay right posters on forums like this one.

No thinking person tolerates bigotry of any sort. That applies to religion, race, sex, creed and political orientation. If "you people" wish to continue your hate filled and bigotted skreeds, if you assasinate the character of a politcian like Romney (which was done yesterday, calling him a closet queen) I will point it out, even though I loathe everthing Mr. Romney stands for. Integrity, honesty, and fairness count. If you cannot act like a decent human being, expect to be treated like trash.

Mike has it most of the way. How I understand what happened is that on that ballot there was a bond referendum to fix the roads in AK. This bond was to be secured by a raising of the Gas Tax. They did this so that the money could be provided quickly by the bond and then payed back over some years via the tax. So basically both groups are right. The people didn't neccesarily vote for a tax, but it was implied in the measure. Also if Huckabee hadn't raised the taxes then the State's bond rating would have been ruined, which basically means that the state can't borrow money anymore, and that is BAD.

The club for growth stands for Club for God-awful Rich Oppressive White Tax Haters. Hey, maybe that is what it stands for.....

Huckabee went along with a tax for a specific purpose, that was approved by the people. That's hardly "liberal".

If the people of AK wanted to fix their roads, and they approved a specific tax to do so, that's not un-conservative. In fact, I would argue that it's a better conservatism than just blanketly declaring that we should "cut taxes" in ambiguous ways.

Well the bad policy chickens come home to roost...

'Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday that a host of economic problems, including the severe housing slump, will cause business growth to slow noticeably in coming months.

Bernanke said he and his colleagues believe economic activity will "slow noticeably in the fourth quarter."

Many economists believe the economy's maximum point of danger of falling into a recession will occur in the early part of next year.

A variety of problems from the steepest housing downturn in more than two decades to a severe credit crunch, surging oil prices and a falling dollar have roiled Wall Street in recent days, triggering big plunges in stock prices.

The Dow Jones industrial average plunged by 360.92 points on Wednesday, the second drop of that magnitude in the past week.

Much of that anxiety stems from a steady stream of bad company news as corporate giants such as General Motors, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup have reported huge losses.

So does anyone know the real story on this gas tax?

I doubt there's as completely unconnected as CFG is trying to show, but perhaps it's also not as clear-cut as Huckabee's been explaining it to be. I'd like to know what the real story is.

Anyone care to enlighten?

To clarify about the comment, the point is Huckabee is not a 'liberal.' He's a fundamentalist Baptist preacher who doesn't beleive in evolution.

Mike, I really worry about you. You seem one minute like a nice
guy, the next like a raving woman hater. what does feminism mean to you, anyway? I always thought to mean men and women should have equal job opportunities and get paid the same as men for th same work. I have met women who hated men, btw, most of them were goldigging republicans--hardly feminists. I know lots of happily married women with kids who consider themselves feminists. And while I have met many women who have had abortions, I have neve heardr any of them express anything but regret about doing something they regarded a necessary evil. So I really cna't imagine where you dreamed these people up.

Claudia, I support abortions in a limited number of circumstances. I am pro-gun. And I am a liberal. Not every liberal agrees with the feminist ideology that abortion is some sort of new holy sacriment for feminists.

Huckabee has problems with the club because he is uncomfortable with outsourcing, recognizing that it has not just harmed workig men an women, but has been a national security disaster. The more rabid Clinton posters here see that he is a Christian and attack him, solely based on that; a sort of mindless knee jeerk reaction. To spin it the other way one poster put it: 'ban guns', 'support and expand homosexuality', 'lock up all Chrsitians' (and, I suppose, replace them with feminist Wicka twits'.

I don't expect the WaPo to understand it or to be willing to mention it, but there's another big problem Huck has: his past support for massive illegal immigration. There's a lot of information available out there but, instead of looking into and following the money, the WaPo wants to pretend Club for Growth is the only issue.

Here's the 38-second introduction to just one of Huck's immigration-related problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo

Please go to his campaign appearances, ask him that question, and then upload his response.

And, that's just one issue. He's also made several very questionable statements about this issue and he's appeared with LULAC and Tyson Foods (a current suit claim the former helped the latter employ illegal aliens).

Don't expect the WaPo or the rest to do any real reporting on this; Huck's support for illegal immigration is probably one of the reasons why the MSM is pushing him.

"Sleep" does not rhyme with "Chief". I recommend you redo the limerick with a last line involving a leaf, or the phrase "Where's the beef?"

see? ericbadger is a good example. their base drinks the koolaid -- so they will keep doing exactly what they are. but the swing voters ain't buying it this time.

Yes, bsimon, those who think the country is on the wrong track are betweem 67% amd 80%, depending on which polls you look at -- but what else are the Republicans going to do? They're failed policies are all they've got. All they believe in is privatization of government and transferring of wealth from th middle class to the rich, so what else are they going to run on?

Huck as the Preacher in Chief?
His platform is beyond belief,
With fed sales tax
immigration that's lax
The economy goes back to sleep.

"These people are now eating their own."

Yes, they are. What amazes me though, is that the GOP front-runners are still clinging to the Bush administration, or at least to Bush admin policies, when a majority of Americans think we're on the wrong track. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall polling on that issue approaching a super-majority, so to speak. Yet the GOP clings to the failed policies of pre-emptive war, tax cuts combined with spending increases and ignoring the worsening economic outlook for middle class americans. What are they thinking?

'pro-life, pro-gun liberal."

Most hlarious remark I've seen so far today. These people just get nuttier as their movement crashes and burns.

You're right about that bsmin--the Treasury Depatment in China scared the bejeezus of the Wall Street biggies when they announed they lot they would switch to investing in euros rather than dollars [the euro is now, defacto, the world standard, which is pretty funny considering the wingers who talk about how bad the econ is over there] -- in any case, since our economy works on borrowed Chinese money, we would fold in a day if that happened.

The official later backtracked after some frantic calls from DC, but it will happen sooner or later. The dollar is now known jokingly around the world as the US peso... having sunk below the Canadian dollar...

Poor Huck. These people are now eating their own. Would be funny to watch if it wasn't my own country imploding..

Chris writes
"Other fiscal conservatives have been more willing than the Club to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt. Grover Norquist told the National Review's Byron York that Huckabee's willing to sign Americans for Tax Reform's pledge to oppose any tax increases as president is good enough for him."

Interesting. Yesterday we discussed the fracturing of the religious/social conservative wing of the GOP, today we see cracks forming in the no-new-taxes coalition. As the dollar continues to slide in value - thanks to the borrow-and-spend fiscal policies driven by the tax-cutting policies of groups like the club for 'growth' - the GOP is setting itself up for being utterly shattered in the 2008 Presidential election.