Monday, December 1, 2008

Palin 2012 Correspondence

The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party

Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late

I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.

I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.

But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.

A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.

All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.

Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:

Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.

Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:


http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/

http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would have to agree that Mike Huckabee, and the Fair Tax proposals he brings to the table, represent the best hope for the Republican party to return to the White House. It is a long way to 2012, however, for those who genuinely want to see the Fair Tax come to pass, I would suggest a long, hard look at the lay of the land prior to putting Huckabee up for another run. An economic turnaround is expected by the middle of 2009, and full recovery and record growth predicted again by 2010. Considering that, and the state of foreign affairs, with the US withdrawing from Iraq and the likelihood that will produce a period of calm in the Muslim world, at least for a while, and I would not give the GOP much of a chance to field a candidate that can unseat Obama in 2012. In fact, my "crystal ball" (which, if you will note was extremely accurate this time around) tells me that Obama will likely win re-election in a Reagan-Mondale sized landslide against anyone the GOP runs in 2012.

Huck needs to develop his television presence for a couple of years, and then run for the Senate seat that will be up for grabs in Arkansas in 2010, I believe. Then, he needs to push fair tax for six years, and make a White House run in 2016.

Patience is often considered a virtue, but it can also be used as a political stragegy.

Sarah Palin was an extreme disappointment as far as I am concerned, particularly to evangelical Christians. Compromising your principles for the sake of campaigning "because the other side does it too" does not impress me. Perhaps Huckabee lost because he did not participate in the agressive mudslinging that the other candidates seemed to have mastered so well, but he did not compromise his principles or beliefs and in the long run, that will strengthen his position. Media critics aside, Palin proved herself to be every bit as inexperienced as her opponents accused her of being, appallingly ignorant of foreign affairs and foreign policy, and demonstrated a mastery of cheap shots, but not much else. I don't believe there was any possibility for John McCain to have won this election, but I do think Palin subtracted from his overall vote total. The GOP would be wise to allow her to serve out her term as Alaska's governor, and then stay there.

Anonymous said...

Lee:

I DO note that your predictions were pretty accurate. I fret what the last few generations of public education and media have wrought. I noted that not that long ago, society would have cast one with as liberal rhetoric and record as Obama's (there has never been one - he makes George McGovern look moderate) unceremoniously to the curb.

Are the statistics you have cited about the failure of young adults raised Christian to retain their faith, also reflected here and in recent studies that show that definite majorities of young people unabashedly confess to engaging in things like theft and cheating in school, etc., not to mention widespread sexual exploration?

I have also said that I think Huckabee and his influence will be fine with his television commentary and program. Wider elements of The Republican Party need to study and advocate for The Fair Tax. It would be nice if the party became largely identified with it. I'm serious about Republicans making themselves identified with the life and liberty of everyone and not the wealth of a relative few.

If Obama plays to his and his party's interest more than to his expressed ideology, he will probably win reelection. But if he a) gets carried away with himself or b) fails to restrain the Democrat Congress, and messes things up, he could well lose to a good candidate. It might possibly be the best thing for him personally, as it was for Clinton, to lose Congress after two years.

On the other hand, this generation might not care about anything as long as you keep a piece of candy in their mouths (said the curmudgeon bitterly)

Larry Perrault said...

Lee said, "Sarah Palin was an extreme disappointment as far as I am concerned, particularly to evangelical Christians. Compromising your principles for the sake of campaigning "because the other side does it too" does not impress me."

I don't know what this refers to. But I think at worst (I'm not inclined in this case to believe the worst - she brought a lot of Democratic women over), Sarah Palin was at least a break-even proposition for McCain. I know that many (mostly media-influenced) people were put off by her. But without her, McCain's turnout might have been pathetic. That "foreign policy ignorance" stuff was and is baloney. Not because she's a foreign policy wonk. She isn't. She's a GOVERNOR! a) few governors are foreign policy wonks. And b) governors are usually elected. Boy, was this year an anomaly with three Senators on the tickets. And, what is Obama's foreign policy expertise? He hired it, and so would she. So did Bush. So did Clinton. And so did Reagan.

What a President requires is not a catalogue of names and a Ph.D. in geography. A President requires principle and experience dealing with human nature. She has demonstrated that in spades and in quick fashion. I think people who think otherwise take too many cues from television.

But more importantly she has a rare eye-opening quality similar to what Obama has. Huckabee doesn't light up a room by walking into it. He wins an audience by his engaging disposition combined with his experience with people.

Most people have neither. Personally, I love to talk about policy. Who cares? I love to talk about theology and ecclesiology. My father is a pastor. If I were a pastor it would be interesting to see how many people had counted all of the ceiling tiles before I was run off.

That quality of fascination is priceless. Whoever that is, take that horse, and teach it what you need to. As I said, she has already quickly risen to governor, confronted and disposed of entrenched and corrupt Republicans, beat a former Democratic governor, cyt a deal with oil companies to benefit Alaskans, and become the most popular governor in the country.

The Republican Party would be idiotic to let her get away from the spotlight, let alone to shun her. Of course, I don't put it past Republicans, who have been called, "The Stupid Party." Maybe they'll let bright people like David Brooks and Kathleen Parker flush the party down the toilet.

Larry

Anonymous said...

I was not extremely accurate, I thought McCain/Palin would win Ohio (based on Hillary/Obama) and that the election would be closer. At the risk of sounding flippant: in addition to issues, from the perspective of sociology what we need is a relatively tall, good looking, intellegent sounding candidate with a good voice and a full head of hair. Short names are a plus because they are easier to remember and fit on signs or bumper stickers in large print. Cynical, but worth several percentage points, all else being equal.
There are those of us that are issue oriented, study tax plans, voting records, associations, past writings, etc. and those who vote based on gut reaction to a candidate. I've been on board with fair tax / flat tax since Steve Forbes, but face it, he was a goofy looking guy and therefore didn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell. From the frontlines in Ohio, I agree with Larry that Palin has something of that stage presence that can't be duplicated, and she also connected directly with the long neglected pro-life community simply by refusing to abort her Down's syndrome child: there was no question as to whether she would walk the walk. She did fine in the V.P. debate against a much more experienced candidate, should not be penalized for fullfilling the traditional V.P. role of critizing the opposition, and from other interviews she was quite intellegent and more qualified as candidate than Obama. She wasn't supposed to supply the ticket foreign policy experience because McCain had that, was supposed to help the big push on energy (both of which disappeared as soon as the economy hit the fan) but no matter what she was going to be characterized by the other side as
1. An idiot, because all people that really believe in Christ, and have more than 2 children are supposedly idiots and will destroy the world.
2. A hypocrite, because all republicans are hypocrites.
3. An intolerent racist animal slaughtering hatemonger, because she believes in the 2nd amendment, hunts, and see no. 1 above.
4. And worse of all, she has an annoying voice.
They mishandled the press by giving in to the crys to submit to press ambushes; Katie Couric -we all knew where she stood! No democrat was required to submit to anything other than a entirely pre-structured arrangement, and she has been damaged, maybe irreprably. Amoung the people I know (admittedly not a scientific survey) Palin helped the ticket and is still popular. With 4 or 8 years of seasoning, I would vote for her again, or teamed up with someone else as a team, or (my favorite) as a rep/senator/PAC issue person to keep the republican party from not taking the Pro-life wing for granted, because they were and are ready to bolt if the David Brookses win the battle for Republican party.
HOWEVER, I am still not entirely sold on Huckabee, because I am disturbed by the reported West Virginia caucus manuveuring, was baffled by the lingering campaign, and think that he has seriously opened himself up for unfair characterization as the "Fox talk show guy" and as no 1 above. Tell me: other than the fair tax (which I like but other candidates could adopt) what is the attraction? I haven't felt it. Why should I vote for this guy vs. Palin, or John Kasick, or Romney, or John Thune, or candidate to be named later? Or teamed with any of these? I really don't know.
Of course to answer that, the assumption is that we believe the same things.

Anonymous said...

Borghesius:

As for Palin, I would vote for her TOMORROW. Courage and good character can be equipped with other things. But, other ideas can't necessarily be equipped with courage and character, which she has demonstrated. And, it's foolish to overlook that inherent charismatic appeal. Why should anyone think that she can challenge entrenched power and negotiate with oil companies, but she can't challenge or negotiate with anyone else?

And, I never bought that "experience" objection. She has plenty of experience. But I said even before she was tapped and Republicans were harping on Obamas experience deficit, that the whole experience angle is WAT overblown. Don't you wonder how two people who disagree on either or both of foreign and domestic policy can both be addequately "experienced." I didn't care about Obama's experience. We should keep our eye on the ball: I cared a HECK of a lot about WHAT he had done and said. The issue is what he BELIEVES.

As for Huckabee, West Virginia was not an obscure matter. McCain was third in the first round of balloting and threw his supporters to Huckabee. They didn't favor Romney, who had attacked them both, often deceptively and disingenuously.

I didn't like Romney, either. Besides his distortions against Huckabee and McCain (after he had himself turned 90 to 180 degrees on issue after issues), I listened all year and did not hear a clear system of thought, but only politically motivated posturing. Even if for some reason we assume those changes were genuine, I'm little impressed by someone who reaches clarity in his 50's on some fundamental principles that were clear to me in my boyhood. Romney spoke at a banquet at my state's Republican convention, and I saw not clarity of thought, but hitting all of the hot-buttons.

As for Huckabee's "lingering campaign, he stayed in until he was eliminated. After Texas when he was elininated, he withdrew. Had he won Texas, he would have been a major threat with major momentum. I also attended Huckabee supporter meetings and met people like those I had read of, who disagreed with him on many issues, but liked him, anyway.

But with respect to both Palin and Huckabee, I agree that they have some work to do with some constituencies. And, by that I don't mean trimming to please them (Romney?) I just mean making the consistency of your position clear. People want to respect your clarity and loyalty to what you believe even more than they demand agreement. There would be Democrats who like Huckabee just as there are Republicans like me who are unimpressed by Romney. Republicans disagree with Huckabee too. That's why he needs to speak directly to them and explain what he believes or what they mistakenly believed about him.

Actually, I like what Huckabee is doing, where many of those Republican doubters will hear him. For instance, many who were wrongly scared by politically or personally motivated attacks on his fiscal conservatism, may have seen him consistently and genuinely oppose all of the recent bailouts.

But if she can soote some of her doubters, I'd be happy to see a Palin candidacy. Among candidates I have seen in my lifetime, Huckabee is uniquely qualified. But Saxby Chambliss who just won his Senate runoff in Georgia, said what others have said before after Palin came down to campaign for him: that it was remarkable how she turned the people out and on. By the way, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney went down there too, and he wasn't saying that about them.

If Huckabee wants to run again and can win, I'm all there: that would be great. But, Palin can walk in and turn the lights on. She has to fit into the party's future. That stuff doesn't grow on trees.

Anonymous said...

That was "Anonymous Larry. I messed up.

Anonymous said...

There is very little evidence that Palin on the ticket brought Democratic women over to McCain, in fact, the evidence in available exit polling shows the opposite effect, that she pushed moderate Republican women toward Obama. No doubt, there is a clear media bias against individuals who profess a born-again belief in Christ and participate in conservative, evangelical churches, as is evidenced by the media treatment of Huckabee. That's to be somewhat expected, though I do not really see that the bias extends as thoroughly as some people seem to think to all Republicans. My evaluation of Palin is my own, based on her own statements, including easily trackable contradictory statements she made, sometimes on the same day in different places, and her virtual inability to be coherent without a script. I noticed this almost from the very first day of her arrival in the campaign.

What really baffles me is the almost complete lack of support an articulate candidate with a clear committment to give more than just lip service to evangelical Christian social issues received from the major media influences in evangelical Christianity, particularly James Dobson and Richard Land. I am particularly disappointed in Land's willingness to abandon any consideration at all of Biblical theology and worldview perspectives to heavily lean in favor of Mit Romney. It gives credence to the criticism of the religious right that the basic Christian views they advocate are just tools to gain political ground. Because of what I know about Mormon beliefs, I could never cast a ballot for a practicing Mormon for political office, no matter his political views.

Those of you who think Palin should make a presidential run in 2012 have something in common with the DNC. They think she should, too, in fact, they are probably drooling and salivating over the possibility of a Palin run, which would guarantee their lock on the White House, and probably Congress as well. Sarah needs to stay home, finish out her term as governor of Alaska, and go back to being a hockey mom.

Anonymous said...

Lee:

I strongly disagree with your perspective on Palin. She has the kind of charismatic dynamite that is non-existent among other Republicans. That would be plain foolish to waste. All of that said, she needs to be schooled and practiced on national issues.

But she isn't stupid. I'm not sure how you dismiss all of what she already has so quickly and resolutely accomplished in her life, which are well beyond modest. Can she engage on issues like Huckabee can? No, neither can anyone else. As I've said, Huckabee's appeal is in his ability to engage people directly both personally and on issues. But, Palin has the ability to appeal without having had that ability, which she can develop, similar to Obama's ability. People supported him who had no idea what he thought, even if they were told the opposite of what he actually proposed. I heard supporters say they agreed with Obama when the interviewer attributed McCain's positions to Obama.

I can't speak with respect to either opinion or exit polls, but Palin drew the support of one of Hillary's biggest female fundraisers and a handful of NOW chapter officials. They and all she traveled with spoke glowingly of her intelligence, character, and appeal. To meld the abilities of she and Huckabee would amount to a political nuclear weapon.

I heard Land speak at a pro-life banquet and he did pretty well. But, I heard his disposition toward Huckabee as well as some comments on taxes and the economy for which he was ill-suited. I suspect he just had a bee in his bonnet relative to Huckabee stemming from an earlier Baptist experience.

Speaking of "Baptist," are we clear that your disposition toward Palin would be the same if her history had been Baptist rather than what it is? And, why would I take a cue from Democrats? They were hot to run against Reagan, too! I don't vote for Democrats because they don't know which end is up.

Anonymous said...

eat stop eat -
error smart -
evidence eraser -
evidence smart -
fatburningfurnace -
fat loss 4 idiots -
fitness model program -
fit yummy yummy -
flattenyourabs -
flatten your abs -
forex trading machine -
forex trading made ez -
get your exgirlfriend back -
google snatch -
governmentregistry -
government registry -
grow taller 4 idiots -
guy gets girl -
hcg recipes -
homemadeenergy -
home made energy -
how to break 80 -
hyper vre -
instant domain cash -
i software tv -
jamo rama acoustic -
linden method -
lose the back pain -
magni work -
maternityacupressure -
maternity acupressure -
musclegainingsecrets -
muscle gaining secrets -
negative calorie diet -