California Conservative

Mike Huckabee is thought to have the gift of gab. According to this quote, Gov. Huckabee didn’t have that gift going yesterday:

”Folks, I don’t know what you are going to hear, about that I’m not a conservative, but when you cut taxes, and you increase the per capita income, you improved the schools, and you rebuild the roads, and you preserve the national resources, and you streamline government, your government grows at a rate that is half that of the average of all states,” Huckabee said, his voice rising. “Call it anything you want to, but anybody with an I.Q. above broccoli calls that conservative, rock-solid, kind of leadership.”

I’ll start this fisking with the tax thing. When you cut some taxes a little bit but raise other taxes alot, you aren’t a conservative.

Next, let’s talk about the education issue. You aren’t a conservative when you get endorsed by the NEA, especially when you tell them that you’d veto any school voucher legislation that made it to your desk.

Next, let’s talk about the things that Gov. Huckabee didn’t talk about. When legislators here in Minnesota tried passing the DREAM Act, it was supported almost exclusively by the DFL. (DFL is Minnesotan for flaming liberal.) Mike Huckabee supports giving in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants. At least he did before flip-flopping and saying that he’d deport every illegal immigrant in the US.

BTW, the outcry against Minnesota’s DREAM Act was so loud that the DFL dropped that out in conference committee.

If Mike Huckabee is the GOP nominee, I won’t vote for him. I’ll focus solely on local races. It’s time that the GOP faithful rejected Gov. Huckabee’s flippant one-liners and his inconsistent beliefs.

Technorati Tags: Mike Huckabee, Taxes, DREAM Act, Education, School Vouchers, Immigration, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Mike Huckabee is certainly a threat to the GOP but not in the way he suggests in this article.Here’s what I’m referring to:

“Apparently my candidacy comes as somewhat of a threat to a lot of the Republicans in the Republican establishment, some of the folks who have run the party in the Washington circles,” he said. “They’ve maybe not understood that the heart and soul of the Republican Party is only as strong as the heart and soul of the rest of America.”

Let’s examine that statement. It’s apparent that he thinks that he’s on the side of the angels and that everyone who isn’t supporting him is on the wrong side. Let’s ask what his evidence is of that. Can he answer that? I’m betting he can’t. Let’s not stop there, though.

Let’s look at what the heavyweights of the Republican Party have stood for over the years. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan had a strong libertarian streak in them because they believed in personal freedom above everything else. (BTW, when GWB showed that trait, he had the highest approval ratings of his presidency.)

Another thing Goldwater, Reagan and William F. Buckley stood for was limited government and free markets. They believed that the smaller the government, the more freedom individuals had. That’s because taxes and spending were kept under control.

Now let’s compare the underpinnings of the Reagan/Goldwater/WFB conservative movement with Gov. Huckabee’s agenda. During the last debate, Gov. Huckabee tried justifying his liberal spending record, essentially saying that he got results from his increased spending and increased taxes. That isn’t something that a conservative would tout.

Next, let’s look at Gov. Huckabee’s getting the NEA’s endorsement:

The New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association has endorsed Mike Huckabee as their GOP candidate in the upcoming New Hampshire primary. The main reasons for the endorsement are non-Conservative indeed.

The union’s President Rhonda Wesolowski called a news conference to praise Mr. Huckabee for opposing school vouchers and Huckabee’s record in supporting higher taxes to improve public education.

Huckabee’s opposition to private school choice and his support for a federally mandated and funded arts and music curriculum also please the NEA.

Why Mike Huckabee wants to run in the GOP primaries as anti-federalist education taxaholic is beyond me. (more…)

That’s the verdict rendered in this article. It’s just another example of the case conservatives should be making on Fred’s behalf. Here’s one of the key sections of the article:

In short, Thompson holds the same conservative positions of all the other candidates combined, and has none of their flaws. In fact, any close observer of the campaign season would tell you that Thompson has been on the receiving end of barely any substantive attacks on policy issues. This is no coincidence. And it is the reason he has had to bear the brunt of shallow attacks about his demeanor, campaigning style, and laziness (whatever that means).

Thompson is a demonstrably viable candidate with solid conservative positions across the board, and unlike Mitt Romney, whose continued defense of his sometimes liberal record puts a dent in his newfound conservatism, Thompson has not budged on the issues since running for office in 1994.

Fred’s conseratism doesn’t change in the sense that the same underlying principles still guide his policy positions now as they did decades ago. The issues might change but the principles of unwavering federalism and fiscal freedom still guide his domestic policies.

Fred’s also the only candidate that’s published detailed plans for entitlement reform, immigration reform, dealing with Iraq and Iran. That’s before we get to the issue of judicial nominees, where he’s got the best credentials of anyone. (One of his advisors is David McIntosh, the founder of the Federalist Society.

Unlike Giuliani, Thompson is an undisputed social conservative, with the National Right to Life endorsement to prove it. And unlike Huckabee and McCain, he is an economic conservative who was given high marks by organizations such as the Club for Growth, and whose flat tax and Social Security plans were praised by editorial boards across the country. Thompson’s courageous and spot-on designation of the National Education Association as the primary obstacle to education in this country also shows a remarkable divergence with Huckabee, who was recently endorsed by the NEA’s New Hampshire affiliate.

Fred’s plain-spoken policies are refreshing, even inspiring. He doesn’t back away from fights. He doesn’t pull his punches. He calls it as he sees it. It isn’t just that he’s talked the talk; he’s the only candidate who’s consistently walked the walk.

Finally, there’s this:

Thompson’s plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee’s weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.

Fred Thompson is the most qualified candidate in the race. You’ll notice that the people that criticize him for his campaigning style don’t criticize his substance. That’s because it’s impossible to argue with his positions.

In fact, they’re the type of positions that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would take. You can’t do better than that.

UPDATE: I just noticed this comment on my ‘other’ blog. I thought you’d like reading it.

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as am Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com. I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Comment by Frederick Paxson • 18Dec2007

Mr. Paxson is with Fred’s campaign so his opinions are appropriately biased, though I can honestly tell you that their bias is documentable and irrefutable.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, SCOTUS, Federalism, Immigration, National Security, Conservatism, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Veteran Iowa political reporter David Yepsen thinks that Fred Thompson won yesterday’s debate. Mr. Yepsen has been covering Iowa politics for many a year so I pay particularly close attention to his opinions just prior to the Iowa Caucuses.

Fred Thompson came out on top in Wednesday’s debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa. Of all the candidates, he did himself the most good.

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney also scored well. They avoided any last-minute derailments of their front-running candidacies in Iowa and shored up the support they’ve built.

But it was Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, who was specific, good-humored and exuded an executive persona during the low-key, 90-minute session that was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.

He had several high points. One of them came when he flatly refused to play the ‘raise your hand’ game in answering a question about global warming. Another came when he said the biggest problem facing education was the National Education Association. (Bashing teacher unions is always popular with Republican audiences.)

Thompson also gets credit for being a stand-up guy willing to take on entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country if left unchanged. He made it clear that wealthy, older Americans could no longer expect full Medicare benefits if he’s elected. Thompson also teased Romney about his wealth and how the former Massachusetts governor is “getting to be a pretty good actor.”

(more…)

Frank Luntz’s focus group’s opinions notwithstanding, I didn’t think that Gov. Romney’s answers on education were that great. I couldn’t have agreed more than when he said that there should be more local control of education. He lost me, however, when he talked about NCLB’s testing and accountability standards.

I’m curious how someone can say that they’re for local control of education and think that NCLB is a great system. NCLB is cumbersome at best. It puts tons of restrictions on states and local school districts. The burdens are so bad that many school districts are lobbying to reform NCLB.

What’s worse is this email I got this afternoon:

GOV. MITT ROMNEY: We’ve made the same effort in our state, actually before No Child Left Behind was passed. We test our kids. We have high standards. We teach them in English, English immersion. We say to be successful in America, you’ve got to speak the language of America. We also put in place incentives for kids to do well. For those that take the graduation exam, which you have to take to get out of high school, we say that you’re going to get, if you score in the top 25 percent of the test, a four-year tuition-free scholarship to a Massachusetts institution of higher learning. The federal government insists on those tests and those standards and it’s key. Let me continue: I think we also have to have higher pay for better teachers and people who are not good teachers ought to find a different career.

Talk about chutzpah. He’s taking credit for Massachusetts implementing NCLB before the bill was passed and signed into law. There’s just one problem with his taking credit for it: President Bush signed NCLB into law on January 8, 2002. Romney waws sworn in as governor in January, 2003.

Let’s summarize: Gov. Romney says he’s for local control of education only to admit that he’s a big fan of NCLB, which puts onerous mandates on local governments. Further, he’s tried taking credit for something that happened while he was campaigning for governor.

I’d call him a smooth operator but I certainly wouldn’t call him trustworthy.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, Education, NCLB, Unfunded Mandates, Local Control

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The Daily News reports that Los Angeles Unified School District officials have quietly hired two consultants to help improve their public image.

The recent hirings come in addition to a six-person communications staff with a nearly $1.4 million budget, an overall $10 million communications budget, and a separate consulting contract with Darry Sragow, who helps LAUSD develop communications strategies and policy issues.

Their online poll asks whether hiring consultants help improve LAUSD’s image. So far, more than 90 percent of respondents say NO.

But the question is not whether consultants will help improve LAUSD’s image, but why LAUSD and UTLA would bother to provide the education that our taxpayers and children deserve.

After doubling their budget during thirty years of decline, why would they? So far, their formula for failure has delivered nothing but ever-increasing budgets.

LAUSD’s 50 percent drop-out rates, bloated bureaucracy, hemorrhaging budget, abysmal test scores, drug- and gang-infested campuses threaten hundreds of thousands of children each day, and Admiral Brewer plans to waste $10 million to promote their image? Why do lipstick and pigs come to mind?

Q-Tips, Honda, and LA’s private schools don’t sell because of their advertising, but because they provide superior products and services at a reasonable price. Spend $10 million to promote OJ and, no matter how slick the campaign, you still end up with a double murderer. Spending $10 million to report that no one was shot at Venice High today is NOT progress…

The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but that train ain’t comin’.

H/T AJK

Broadcast legend George Putnam has picked up Migdia Chinea’s story.

You may recall that her LAUSD classroom was burglarized and she endured an on-campus assault last month. According to Chinea, the burglar used a school district key to remove her laptop, wallet and glasses. Anyone check Sandy Berger’s socks lately?

And why does the LA Times fail to cover violent and property crime from LAUSD campuses? LAUSD students and teachers endure more crime most US cities! Hello! Times! Daily News!

Is anyone there!!!

Migdia Chinea shares her experience as a substitute teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District. She describes herself as UCLA-educated with honors, refined, empathetic, college-level Spanish fluent and a Googleable professional screenwriter.

She describes LAUSD this way:

There’s no teaching going on at LAUSD – only confinement of the sort one may find in a penal colony, complete with walkie-talkie-carrying wardens and bullhorns. And I have “confined” at many different schools within central Los Angeles in the last six months. Many students scream “suuuuuuuub” when they see someone like me – a “guest teacher” – in their classroom and trample anyone and/or anything as they push and shove their way inside…

(One school is) surrounded by criminal street gangs and is widely considered one of the most dangerous campuses… most classes (are in) are in a complete state of disaster, absolutely filthy, with no computers available. There are no simple supplies, such as pencils, pens or paper, nothing to be found anywhere…

(M)any students… are violent and unpredictable. I was present, in fact, during a violent melee involving hundreds of students that brought in several police squad cars and helicopters flying overhead.

I have also endured several school “lock downs.” Here’s how a “lock down” works: As in a prison, the inmates and their jailers are not allowed to leave for any reason, nor let anyone out.

I always try to leave one classroom door open because I am often afraid for my life…

On Oct. 5, 2007, at another notorious middle school, I was deliberately body-slammed on the head by two to three large young men in a P.E. class of 53 students… I’m told by the local police that this sort of physical abuse on teachers occurs with disturbing regularity…

In my view, the LAUSD is completely corrupt, inept and broken, with many students having serious behavioral problems and disinterested in learning, whereas the teachers remain underpaid and exhausted – some of them just marking time until their retirement and giving out charity passing grades to high school students who can barely write or do math at a third-grade level… (more HERE)

“Disturbing regularity” is gophers digging up your bulbs, an employee showing up drunk, or forgetting to take out the trash. But after 30 years of the institutionalized intellectual vandalism of our city’s most precious and needy children, when will we call it DELIBERATE regularity? If LAUSD was a private company, it would have collapsed a generation ago like the stinking necrotic tumor it is.

Compare LAUSD with the people it serves: LA City’s $6.5 billion budget employs 40,000 who serve 4,300,000 residents, while LAUSD’s $32 billion budget ($11B operations & $21B construction) employs 80,000 who (ostensibly) serve 650,000 students. (more…)

According to this article, Democrats have a big law and order problem stemming from their position on illegal immigration.

Last week there was a feverish debate following Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical acrobatics over proposals to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Yet it’s the uniform backing of this policy by the leading Democratic presidential candidates that may prove more foreboding for liberals in the general election.

The rising American discontent with illegal immigration has the potential to sever Democrats from the majority of voters, especially those in the working and middle class, like no issue has in four decades.

This isn’t good news for Democrats. I wouldn’t be surprised if illegal immigration is the defining issue in 2008. I’d be shocked if it wasn’t a stiff wind behind the GOP’s back. Here’s why I think that:

1. People are getting sick of the additional expenses illegal immigrants force on working families. These additional expenses range from higher property taxes to school children of illegal immigrants to higher health insurance and health care costs to ‘pay for’ illegal immigrants’ ER visits.
2. People have read enough articles about illegal immigrants committing violent crimes against American citizens. They’re saying enough with their violence.
3. People think that not enforcing the border is how the next group of terrorists will get into the country.
4. They simply want our government and our law enforcement officials to do their job. They don’t care why they aren’t enforcing the borders; they’re simply demanding that they start immediately. (more…)

That’s the admonition Michael Barone gives Democrats in his latest column. The Democratic leadership doesn’t seem willing to accept that freely. It appears as though they’re being forced to agree with it bit by bit:

The congressional Democrats got ready for one more push in September. But the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker cut the ground from under their feet. Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who declared last spring that the war was lost) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem to have thrown in the towel. The Democratic Congress will not use its power to appropriate to end the surge or to bring the soldiers home.

That leaves the left wing of the party angry at its leaders and the party split on the war, much as it was in 2002, when about half of congressional Democrats voted to authorize military action. The Democrats here suffered from a lack of imagination. They could not imagine that the United States military could perform more effectively in 2007 than it did in 2005 and 2006.

I’d argue one subtle but important thing with Mr. Barone. It isn’t that “Democrats suffered from a lack of imagination.” It’s that they can’t afford to admit that President Bush has finally changed course and that that’s resulted in a dramatic change of conditions on the ground. I say that they can’t afford to admit that President Bush’s new strategy is working because their campaign contributions will instantly vaporize if they admitted that. (more…)