The best way to combat poverty is to create economic opportunities. You do this by eliminating taxes.

From what I have read (wish I could cite a source, sorry) eliminating all income tax would lead to an average 20% drop in retail prices. Whether that’s the right number or not, doesn’t really matter. Fact is, eliminating income tax would lead to a drop in prices, an increase in purchasing power and an increase in the economic rate of growth. Not to mention, it would significantly simplify lives and cut government bureaucracy.

Sounds a lot better than building a complex new form of welfare.

Huck can’t even get 50 people out to vote for him in a poll in NH.

Huck ain’t no first tier candidate.

Iowa was fixed and if Iowa was an indication then Rudy and McCain should get out eh?

If you do it by rules and reg’s - you’ve got corporations, other non-profits - and all of their lobbyists - all over it. An “advance rebate” is a efficacious way to handle it. It’s not welfare; it’s a rebate. Linder discusses how they finally arrived at this solution in this C-SPAN interview: http://snipurl.com/lindr

Among Republican candidates, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is the only one who opposes the war in Iraq and he is the top recipient of money from military members. He has received $19,250 so far.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/military-donors-shift-a-bit-to-democrats/

I am also opposed to the Fair Tax that turns all Americans into welfare dependents.

Both systems are terrible and destructive.

You propose to trade one piece of crap for another. That is no solution.

The only way to end the “lobbyist industry” is to make it unprofitable. That is, eliminate the possibility that lobbying can lead to economic payoffs. One big step forward would be to eliminate the current tax regime.

Are you serious that information is pretty readily available

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-best-q2-fundraising-from-soldiers.html

I’m at work, it took all of 2 minutes to find this. If you are going to write articles like this it would probably behoove you to get off your a** and do a little research!

Christians have a concept of repentance. It is basically this: Stop now! Turn around! Go the right way!

Children have a simple concept of learning. It is basically this: Ow! That burns! I’m not going to touch that again!

Perhaps successful people know what to say: Yikes! That was a goof!

Huckabee puts his listeners at ease, and reassures them, articulating clear concepts in a natural, easy style (no doubt something well-cultivated as a pastor). One can easily imagine sitting comfortably with this man over a cup of coffee at the Main Street Cafe.

Most importantly, Huckabee convinces many that he is ONE with the FairTax grassroots movement. Romney’’s recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4fa6Z_4Po )” drew a sharp contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what’’s wrong with the income tax can”t be fixed with “a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver.” That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to - and misery of - American families, invigorates his campaign’’s raison d”etre.

“Main Street” will have to demand ( http://snipr.com/simplifythecode ) that their legislators deliver the bill to Huckabee, if elected.

http://www.coralridge.org./medialibrary.asp?mediaId=3305

http://www.coralridge.org./medialibrary.asp?mediaId=3306

The principle put forth by some of the Founding Fathers with respect to foreign policy was: “trade with all, entangling alliances with none.” Seems timeless to me!

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on some of those issues, but I respect your attempts to explain them. I still feel you’re giving too much credit to Giuliani. But you’re entitled.

Just when I was ready to find a natural and convenient point to move on, you lay another whopper out there.

“Paul lost his claim of being driven entirely by principle when he said this in the debate [insert Paul’s ‘dug a hole for our party’ line]…Like any other politician, it’s all about winning elections.”

That is woefully uncalled for. Whether you agree with Paul’s foreign policy or disagree, he certainly didn’t select it due to its potential for electoral approval. Nor has he changed his ideology to enhance his political clout.

Paul M.O. is that he doesn’t change his positions when the wind shifts. I think we can all agree on that. If he were more willing to do so (or even compromise), he’d be on much better terms with GOP leadership.

Trying to PERSUADE fellow Republican politicians and voters to stop being stubborn and adopt a certain position is not automatically an “unprincipled” approach. Perhaps if Paul became a noninterventionist recently, or did so to pander, attacking his principles would be fair comment. But that’s not the case, and you’re out of line.

On Fox News Watch yesterday, Cal Thomas made the point that - though it’s superficial - Fred Thompson may actually have an advantage of the other candidates because he is very tall (taller than Lincoln) and has a baritone voice - which commands people’s attention.

Since you keep castigating The Stiletto for not including every last comma in Pauls’ answer - even though she did include a link so anyone can read it - perhaps it would have done better not to have quoted a single thing Paul said and merely noted that he sounded like a yapping dog so it didn’t matter what he said. Really, we’ve known all this since the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Politics 101.

This article was how one observer perceived the debate. As she pointed out in the article, the voters gathered together by Frank Luntz had a completely different take. In the eye of the beholder.

As for Giuliani, The Stiletto lived in NYC during the time when thugs were roaming the streets, Staten Island was laying plans to secede from the rest of the city (in case you don’t know, Staten Island has the highest tax base in the city so this would have been catastrophic), the middle class was fleeing and people had written NYC off as “ungovernable.” No one can give Giuliani ENOUGH credit for what he did in the years leading to 9/11 and afterwards when all the gains that had been made could have been lost.

Finally, bin Laden’s statement brought to mind the campaign rhetoric of several candidates - mostly on the Dem side. And The Stiletto is toying with the idea of doing a compare-contrast - if she can get around to it before the news cycle moves on to something else. Obviously, bin Laden is paying very close attention to the campaign and is co-opting messages that he thinks will resonate with the American people.

Ah, “I.” What a wonderful pronoun. It’s nice to see you use it. I understand your desire to write under a non de plume (how journalism is a war, though, is beyond me ). It was your constant use of the third person I found disturbing.

You keep pushing this back to the partitioning of Iraq, which I find irrelevant to the theme of comparing the rhetoric of Paul and bin Laden. I don’t disagree with you on the partitioning of Iraq, per se. I also don’t disagree that a dramatic pullout would have consequences. I never contested that logic.

As I wrote before, I found your piece (largely) well-written and professional. But declaring after the fact that you don’t question Paul’s patriotism or that bin Laden has used the term “neoconservative” doesn’t justify the out-of-the-blue jabs that you threw.

You said Paul sounded “unreasonable” and whiny. You thoroughly documented an exchange between Paul and Huckabee (included 5/6 of it, not the “highlights”) but pruned Paul’s final response which has widely been considered important to providing context. And you found it “disturbing” that bin Laden used the same rhetoric.

Should we be “disturbed” by Ben Bernanke because both he and bin Laden have spoken about “sub-prime mortgages” (they have)?

Finally, a note about Giuliani. You should read Freakonomics, if you haven’t already. You give Giuliani far too much credit for the turnaround in New York, which began nationwide before he took office. I’m not saying Giuliani cannot claim some credit on some fronts, but he’s quick to claim much more credit than he deserves while ignoring some troubling aspects to his reign. Seven years into his term he had a 36% approval rating — that has to tell you something.

In fact, you go on to exacerbate this line of thought - not only do you know what’s best for the Iraqis, you know exactly what will happen if the US withdraws before the country is partitioned! Amazing! Let me know what stocks to buy, too, please!

Imagine some Chinese saying that China must invade the US to unite the Red and Blue tribes so as to avoid genocidal destruction. You would consider that comment insane and offensive. And yet, you have no trouble doing the same with respect to Iraq.

It’s simple: all of those who want to fight foreign wars can volunteer by getting on planes and going overseas - no need to take billions from taxpayers against their will, just go ahead and fight! Leave the rest of us out of it so that we can defend the country if it ever should be attacked.

As a tribal society, Iraqis cannot live together in peace. The US army has resorted to building walls to separate Sunni and Shia neighborhoods. The Kurds have a de facto partition because they are geographically removed from the epicenter of the insurgency. In the end, Iraq will be partitioned whether you like it or not - it’s the only way to create the stability necessary for the US to withdraw without leaving a country convulsed in genocidal destruction.

You are mixing concepts here. Republicans and Democrats are political parties. Conservatives and Liberals are positions on the political spectrum whose meaning changes over time. Libertarian, although also the name of a political party founded a few decades ago, is a political philosophy. There are lots of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who consider themselves libertarians - they are the ones sending the text messages.

“Tom: Educate yourself by reading Charles Krauthammer’s column about partitioning Iraq: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/09/07/iraq_divided”

What does it matter what he thinks? Is he Iraqi? Does he own Iraq? What would you say about some Iraqi, French or Korean who wrote an article about how the US should be partitioned into Red and Blue states? Such destructive arrogance!

Ron Paul has been first tier since he entered the race, but not according to the MSM. Think about it. He has been blacklisted/black outed, ignored and ridiculed by the MSM from the start, and screwed around in the debates. If he’s no big deal, why the HUGE effort against him?

Many forget that in Q2, Ron Paul finished 3rd in cash on hand (after subtracting debt, Romney) and received more donations from military members than ANY other candidate. The only Rep candidate close in military donations was McCain, who finished 3rd behind Paul and Obama.

And Ron Paul has more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place real life straw poll wins combined than any other Rep candidate (so much for the ‘internet only’ BS) and this includes that old mummy, Fred Thompson.

Wow, great point and well spelled out. I can PROMISE you that if Hillary Clinton is elected, I will NOT unite behind her in her efforts to destroy our nation. Except for Romney or Guiliani (and possibly Thomspson once I actually hear what he has to say), I would at the very least stand behind any of the GOP candidates a majority of the time. These two would be no different than Hillary in my opinion.

Of course, being that this is America, I am free to my dissent. One nation united under God is a reference to our STATES being united under God. Not the sovereign people.

And Hunter won first place at the Texas straw poll, too. Do you think that makes him the sure-shot for the next President?

Give it a rest. Just support your candidate, but not at the expense of Ron Paul. I am not calling Huckabee a kook, because for the most part, I respect him. And in any other election cycle without Ron Paul, I would probably be supporting him. But, Ron Paul is different, far different. His supporters recognize this and they are NOT going to let go no matter how much you shake them.

I do, however, respect and empathize with your view on Iraq as you detailed in your last post. Maybe we just need people actually talking about bringing them home. Everyone is either talking about “staying the course” or going after Iran. We can’t afford this right now. We are going to go the way of Russia soon. China is handing us a noose and our current President and most of the candidates are putting it around our necks.

“Huckabee: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under G-d. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

Later, after the debate, in the “spin room” he expanded on this theme, saying that while you can disagree with a presidential candidate while they are ruynning, but if they win, we need to respect the office and support them in whatever they choose to do and promote - else, we would not be “one nation under God”.

This is simply moral and political insanity. This means that we should have supported Clinton in his attempt to implement socialized medicine when he was president. That pro-lifers are immoral and unpatriotic for opposing the policies that are responsible for the killing of over a million children in the womb each year. This, in a nutshell is a modern reguritation of the “divine right of kings” argument that the Declaration of Independence and the book “Common Sense” addressed in the times of our republic’s framing.

The “divine right of kings” doctrine in essence said that kings are in place by God’s will, and therefore whatever they want to do is reflective of the Will of G-d - therefore, to resist or disagree with what they did or wanted to do, was disobediance to G-d.

As Huckabee has a ministerial background it is not a leap to realize that this idea comes from a theological viewpoint he holds - not just a political one - probably a misinterpretation of Romans 13.

The facts are I, as a pro-life Christian (constitutionalist - not a libertarian) am in no way responsible for abortion or the immoral invasion of Iraq, a nation that in no way whatsoever had an capacity to attack us. Period.

And, agreeing with and supporting whatever a given president advocates when it violates common sense, basic morality, the Constitution and the laws of God does not in any way make us “one nation under God” rather, if we all did it, we would be “one nation under a immoral political leader”.

Huckabee holds a dangerous view of the role of civil govenrment. He has an even more dangerous view of the relationship between executive power and the people. His philosophy is the “divine right” of the executive branch (especially if it is him in charge) to do whatever it wants, and that anyone that opposes its actions is morally wrong in doing so. I think most people and Christians that support him on the basis of his presented public persona, and do so without really investigating what this man really advocates and his past governmental track record. They need to dig deeper.

I am not questioning Paul’s patriotism, and for all I know both him and Bin Laden may be proven right in the end. Today, as things stand I am not sure why we went to Iraq, why we prosecuted the war the way we did and what we want to accomplish there. However, I do know that we can;t leave things the way they are now by just pulling out for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. I truly believe that allowing the country to naturally partition itself and then leaving a small force behind to make sure everyone stays in their designated region is the answer.

Also, The Jack Parkman notes that there was no response (or even acknowledgment) regarding The Stiletto’s patently offensive comparison of Ron Paul with Bin Laden.

This is coming from someone who found the lion’s share of your piece insightful and on-point: even one little casual tidbit can be so inappropriate as to tank your credibility. “Personally, The Stiletto finds it disturbing how closely some of what Osama bin Laden says in his new tape echoes some of what Paul said in this latest debate,” is such a tidbit.

A simple apology and acknowledgment that you spoke too loosely goes a long way toward setting the record straight and smoothing things over. One needn’t allow an otherwise reasonable viewpoint to be tossed into the bin of irrelevancy as if it were Hannitistic hackery.

What honor? Our economy is headed for a big crash if we continue borrowing the way we do. You people better wake up to reality.

Don’t be fooled by calls to honor, appeals to the emotion, or these lies. This is how the informed military and their families feel.

He is not the only one to have suggested this (in fact, Brownback did as well during the debate), and after following the arguments pro and con closely for months, The Stiletto has concluded that partitioning the country is the only path towards us extricating ourselves without a precipitous withdrawal.

The Stiletto will not dignify rest of your rant with a response since your idea of debate is to call someone a racist. You don’t like The Stiletto Blog, fine. Don’t read it. You think you know more than The Stiletto? Fine, write your own damn blog.

Wow taking a lie strait out of hannity’s mouth, here is a youtube video of what happens when you try to vote twice with the same phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxQadgSkoA
obviously you need to do some research before you make claims, Oh and i love how leave the last response from Paul out. Nice!

That fact that Huckabee has to fall back on the old one nation under God and something about honor, shows how weak his argument is. If Fox Let them continue i am sure huckabee would run out of tired catch phrases, And Paul would still have valid points to share. Please show a little intelligence when you post.

May I suggest that before declaring Huckabee a first-tier candidate, the Stiletto might find it useful to meditate on his reasons for doing so. If it is indeed because he finds that Huckabee’s assumed ‘presidential’ looks and sounds are sufficient and that the actual content of his comments is irrelevant he should at least change his blog to something like ‘The Stiletto - the inconsistent blog of a superficial racist’ in order to alert the average reader of the mediocre quality of his blog. I’m out, this is a brain dead retard.

Good reporting, though I think it’s inappropriate to include the entire Paul-Huckabee exchange EXCEPT for the final response to the “honor” charge. The “brevity” defense doesn’t fly when you’re publishing 5/6 of the exchange. It certainly leaves the reader with the impression that Huckabee’s final comments were the end of the exchange. Once you pass a certain point (in this case I’d say anything more than one back-and-forth from each candidate), it’s no longer a “clip” and should be published verbatim and in its entirety.

I also think it’s unfounded to call Mike Huckabee “first-tier.” You’re editorializing a bit too much here with claims that Paul sounded unreasonable, etc.

Finally, you reveal your true colors in your comment by shockingly comparing Paul to Bin Laden. Whether or not you agree with Paul’s foreign policy, it is inappropriate and disingenuous to hurl such attacks. What Chris Wallace did (and what you are doing here) is inappropriate for one irrefutable reason: Paul held this foreign policy belief long before 9/11. His non-interventionist position pre-dates Bin Laden’s fatwa.

While I suppose you are entitled to take offense when someone evaluates the motives of our enemies and makes that evaluation part of their argument, a thorough policy analysis would include such considerations.

Ultimately, attacking Paul as “taking his marching orders from al Qaeda” is as nonsensical as attacking George Washington’s opposition to “foreign entanglements” as “giving bin Laden what he wants.”

Simply untrue. Fox limited it one vote per phone. The people who say this are sore losers who are trying to cover up the fact that their side for its candidates than the Paulites do. Perhaps some of the potential anti-Paul texters are too busy watching their hero on Law and Order re-runs.

To John: If you look at all the candidates running on the Democrat and Republican side - and the field is larger on both sides than in any other election - the vast majority have no military experience. It is at least possible that we may never have another president who served in combat in our lifetimes. The West Point - White House trajectory is no more.

To Mike: The Stiletto actually agreed with some of what Paul said - specifically, that everything that the planners of the Iraq War said would happen (such as it will be funded by Iraqi oil revenue) has not come to pass. The Stiletto is also disturbed that Pres. Bush keeps changing the goalposts in defining the success of the mission. However, because of the incompetent way the war was prosecuted, we are now in a situation where the country is unable to govern its people or defend itself against Islamofascist insurgents. The vaccuum we created with this instability will enable Iran to arm the Islamofascists with nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Then, we will be fighting them over here (and guess what - thanks to all of those student visas Bush handed out to Saudi students, they are already over here) and they will have the means to kill millions. Unfortunately, we cannot leave now. However, The Stiletto believes the only workable solution is to allow the partition of the country into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish zones (The Stiletto doesn’t give a flying fig what the Turks think of this idea) and leave behind just enough troops to keep the Turks from invading the Kurdish area and to keep the Sunni and Shia on their side of the border separating them. Meanwhile, each state will have a vested interest in protecting its borders with its own forces so that the US contingent doesn’t even have to be huge.

Here is a man who used to be a pastor yet thinks premptive war is a just war.
That the use of tactical nukes against Iran would be acceptable.
Who thinks that ignoring the Constitution in attacking Iraq is Honorable.
That condones the use of torture on prisoners.
Mike Huckabee supports the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, and the Military Commissions Act, all that violate the Constitution.

If this is what being a Republican is supposed to be all about, may the political party die a horrible death.

There is nothing Conservative about Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee. They would ALL hand over our national sovereignty to the UN at the drop of a hat.

Rep. Ron Paul hits it right on the head every time. When asked where he gets his answers from, he need only point to the Constitution.

Like patriotism, honor is one of the last refuges of scoundrels. Huckabee’s use of it was hardly original. In 1968, Richard Nixon deployed the “peace with honor” mantra to win the oval office. Four years later, after 20 thousand more Americans died, he agreed to the same peace treaty terms that he could have had in 1969. All of those Americans died needlessly for a concept of honor that in the end proved to be dishonorable in its results. Hopefully, the American people won’t fall for this snake-oil again in 2008.

The purpose of our military is to defend the United States. Unless you can show how invading Iraq and occupying the country is worth the cost in lives and treasure, saying in effect “It’s not quite as bloody as Vietnam or Korea” is not a compelling point.

>>Personally, The Stiletto finds it disturbing how closely some of what Osama bin Laden says in his new tape echoes some of what Paul said in this latest debate.

Thoughtlessly doing the opposite of what an enemy says is a natural reaction, but a dangerous one, since it gives him another way of influencing our behavior. If he were saying Americans were too chicken to attack him in Pakistan, would the appropriate response to be invading the country and proving him wrong? Instead, we should figure out what is in our national interests *first*, and then figure out the best way to accomplish that regardless of whether or not bin Laden approves.

In other words, we should debate whether or not it is worth sacrificing more blood, sweat, tears, and cash in the Iraqi desert, without worrying about the opinion — pro or con — of some terrorist.

WE ARE NOT IN A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE!!

re: RON PAUL

You are saying the same thing they said about VIETNAM - “if we pull out all hell will break loose”

BEING OVER there is creating more recruits, making the defense contracors insanely rich, indebting our country, and reminding me of Russia’s bullydumb focus on winning for honor in Afghanistan.

WE ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT OBL wanted, creating A HUGE RECRUITING CAMPAIGN, and going bankrupt taxing future generations with all this inflation and DEBT, while funneling funds that could be used to get us off the dependency of oil, strengthen our borders, and get our ship together.

AMERICA is succumbing to pressures of globalists, oil companies, fear, and religious interests for Israel too

WE NEED TO WAKE UP , be strong, Iraq wont be a safe haven, the longer we are there, the more revenge is built via dead civilians, and the seen occupation.

2. Does Stiletto have some plausible reason why the other candidates
generate no ‘fanatical’ interest in their positions ?

Thanks for your interest, anyway…
Your response to these point will be enlightening.

Or watch him in a press conference after the “Rudy Giuliani dust up”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

Huckabee’s ascention to the top tier hurts Romney, who has a lot of baggage (not the least of which is his well-deserved reputation as a flip-flopper). Thompson’s entry into the race also hurts Romney for the same reason. The Stiletto thinks Huckabee and Thompson are going to have to duke it out to see who knocks Romney out of the top tier.

Last week’s debate shows that it’s too soon to count McCain out, and Rudy has shown remarkable staying power, given that his position on the issues is anathema to most conservatives.

Having said that, if Ron Paul wins a single primary, you can count on The Stiletto to acknowledge his feat.

There is no interest in the tax increasing Huckabee. Why would there be? While govenor he raised taxes 60% from the time he got into office to the time he left.

Other than the fact that now for some odd reason the mainstream media is trying to push him into the “first tier” category he’s not really generating any buzz.

Ron Paul on the other hand everywhere he goes is surrounded with mobs of people. Name one candidate that is drawing the crowds that Ron Paul is drawing! Fox news security had to make the good Dr. leave the stage after the debate the other night because crowds of people were coming up to him trying to shake his hand. Any other candidate get this treatment? NO. So go ahead and keep trying to promote other candidates. We the people know the TRUTH!

Here is the last part of that debate:

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We’re losing — we’ve lost over — (cheers, applause) — we have lost — we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in — we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long — what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home! (cheers, applause)

Figures updated as of two days ago, Thursday, from Alexa, show that traffic at http://www.RonPaul2008.com has reached an all time high.

Traffic rank is at an all time high of 10,226 (the lower the number the better)
Reach is also at an all time high of 0.017% (percent of global users who visit the site).

Ron Paul’s website traffic continues to trounce all GOP competitors by a landslide.

In second place among GOP’s as of two days ago, was ImWithFred.com, which had traffic rank at 37,779 and reach of 0.0055%.

Huckabee continues to bite the dust with horrible statistics of a traffic rank of 81,563 and reach of 0.002%.

Figures and trends can be seen here:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr…onpaul2008.com