Absolutely the best response of the evening, and Mike Huckabee knocked it out of the park:

HUCKABEE:

I think it would be incredibly presumptuous and even arrogant for me to try to suggest what Ronald Reagan would do, that he would endorse any of us against the others.

Let me just say this, I’m not going to pretend he would endorse me. I wish he would. I would love that, but I endorse him, and I’m going to tell you why.

It wasn’t just his specific policies, but Ronald Reagan was something more than just a policy wonk. He was a man who loved this country, and he inspired this country to believe in itself again.

What made Ronald Reagan a great president was not just the intricacies of his policies, though they were good policies. It was that he loved America and saw it as a good nation and a great nation because of the greatness of its people.

And if we can recapture that, that’s when we recapture the Reagan spirit. It’s that spirit that has a can-do attitude about America’s futures and that makes us love our country whether we’re Democrats or Republicans. And that’s what I believe Ronald Reagan did — he brought this country back together and made us believe in ourselves.

And whether he believes in us, I hope we still believe in those things which made him a great leader and a great American.

Huckabee could go a long way towards rebuilding the Reagan coalition by offering the VP slot to Mitt Romney. It could work.

William Phelps, writing at Town Hall answers questions about the Fair Tax.

Q: Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than the income tax?

The fair tax is a national retail sales tax that applies only to the purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. There is no tax on used property. Does Bowyer think that major retail chains like Wal-Mart, Kroger, McDonalds and new car dealers and others who sell most new goods are “prone to corruption”? Does he think the forty five states that have sales tax systems are cheating?

There is no evidence that the administration of state sales taxes is corrupt. Since the states will collect the fair tax for the federal government. it will not be “prone to corruption”.

William Jennings Bryan promised that an income tax would fair and tax only the rich. Now we know what happens to a flat income tax which becomes so complex that it includes 66,000 pages of code, rulings and regulations and which is so corrupt that the IRS admits that it fails to collect more than 300 billion each year and while the billions held off shore in tax shelters. The fair tax would tax the underground cash economy of illegals, and drug dealers, who now escape taxes when they buy something new or services.

The fair tax is simple, transparent and efficient.

Q: Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?

Since there are no exemptions and no tax shelters under the fair tax, there would be no work for the tax lobbyists in Washington who currently manipulate the income tax for the special interests.

Because the fair tax includes the prebate reimbursing on the necessities of life, there is no need for exemptions.

Fair tax is not based on any existing system, but was developed based on original research by leading institutions and economists on the charge to develop of the best tax system for the federal government.

Q: Does it apply to non-profits?

No, it applies only to the purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. There are no business to business taxes. Because the imbedded corporate income taxes, other income taxes, payroll taxes and compliance costs in the price of all goods and services under the income tax are repealed by the fair tax, purchases by non-profits will cost about 20-22% less than today.

Q: Are used goods taxed?

No. Goods are taxed only once when first sold for personal consumption. The differential between new and used property will be about the same in the market place as it is today, because the fair tax does not add to the cost of new property, but replaces the imbedded taxes of approximately the same rate. Only new replacement parts would be taxed if a used product is rehabilitated.

Q: What about transition?

It will be smooth and will not cause a rush to buy as Bowyer asserts because the total costs paid for goods and services will be about the same the day before and the day after the fair tax becomes effective. Bowyer seems to have the erroneous idea that the fair tax increases to price on new goods. It doesn’t because the imbedded taxes are eliminated of approximately the same percentage on the average. There would be a one time credit issued to retailers for the imbedded taxes on inventory on the effective day of the fair tax so that inventory would not be double taxed.

Q: Isn’t it that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax inclusive?

Bowyer doesn’t understand that inclusive and exclusive ways of computing rates don’t change the dollar amount of the tax. Either way the tax is the same $23 per $100. Computed the same inclusive way as the income tax, the fair tax is $100 -$23 = $77. Computed the exclusive way it is $23 divided by $77. =30%. If you computed the income tax on the exclusive basis, the 25% bracket would be the 33% bracket, or $25 divided by $75 =33%. Either way it is the same $25 tax per $100.

Q. How do we determine interest rate portion of the mortgage?

Just as now, the market rate is the interest rate, but market interest rates will fall to the level of tax free bonds today which will make it easier for home buyers who will be paying the purchase price in pretax dollars, rather than after tax dollars under the income tax. The borrower and lender will continue to state the interest rates in the debt instruments, but this is irrelevant to how the home would be taxed.

The fair tax applies to the purchase price of the home, if it is new. If the home price is stated artificially below market value and the interest rate artificially higher than market rates as Bowyer envisions, then it would constitute tax evasion. Reputable home builders would not be tax evaders subject to criminal penalties for tax evasion and reputable lenders and borrowers would not be willing to participate in a conspiracy to commit tax fraud.

Find out more at Fair Tax.org

This is the best idea of Campaign 2008, from either party.

Go Mike!

“I would also suggest that one needs to look very carefully at exactly what the business record is,” Huckabee said.”If it’s taking companies that are in serious trouble, buying them when they are in pain, selling off their assets, then making huge profit off of it then that’s not something a lot of Americans can relate to, except those that have lost their jobs because of those kind of transactions.If that’s the turnaround then there are a lot of Americans who do not want to see their lives turned around like that.” source

Before taking a morning jog in Ft. Lauderdale, Mike Huckabee’s remarks regarding Mitt Romney’s business record drew a very sharp distinction between the vision of conservatism espoused by Wall Street Republicans and Main Street Republicans. It is a distinction drawn previously by both Huckabee and Duncan Hunter, and one that has come into increasing focus as the economy emerges as the top issue in the campaign.

Ironically, it is the success of the Bush national security policy, and the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq that has diminished the war and national security as the primary focus of the campaign. But, if the economy is Romney’s supposed strong suit, a closer look at his record in the private equity business is warranted.

…as the leader of private equity firm Bain Capital from 1984 to 1999, Romney’s record shows that while some of the firm’s investments helped companies grow, others ended in thousands of layoffs, and in some cases, bankruptcy.

Layoffs are a common result of private equity takeovers, with Bain Capital no exception….

Companies such as office supplier Staples Inc. and pizza company Domino’s were successful Bain investments under Romney.

But medical test maker Dade Behring, circuit board maker DDi, American Pad & Paper and auto parts company Cambridge Industries are among the companies that went bankrupt after Bain invested in them with Romney at the helm….

The private equity model is built on loading companies up with debt — which can ultimately prove too heavy a load for the business, as was the case with DDi.

Bain invested $46 million in DDi in October 1997 and later sold shares worth at least $93 million, according to a report by the Orange County Register newspaper. The Anaheim, California, company ultimately went bankrupt, laying off 2,100 employees. source

“It always makes sense to fight for every single good job.”

This was Mitt’s campaign rhetoric in Michigan and SC. It makes perfect sense for a candidate for President to say this.

But, if this had been his attitude as a businessman, this is certain: He would not have amassed the personal fortune that is financing his run for the Presidency, and thousands of “good jobs” at DDI, American Pad and Paper, Cambridge Industries, and others might still be around.

It does help to explain, however the club for growth’s enthusiastic support for Romney, despite his less than sterling fiscal record as governor of Massachusetts — he’s one of their own.

“his support for broad-based tax cuts in liberal Massachusetts together with his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush tax cuts on the campaign trail offers hope that Governor Romney’s previous ambivalence on tax policy is more a function of Massachusetts politics than his core beliefs.”

Ah yes. hope!

The fiscal record of Romney is somewhat similar to Huckabee. They both governed Democrat majority states as pragmatic conservatives. But Romney comports himself as a fiscon, so establishment Republicans give him a pass, and praise his record as offering hope.

He’s one of their own. More “identity politics?”

Rep. John Linder (R-GA) has penned an interesting recollection of the early days of the Reagan Revolution — and how they compare to Mike Huckabee’s campaign. His essay appears in The Gwinnett Daily Post.

I was first elected to the Georgia House of Representatives 34 years ago. I have watched this party change for a long time. Some changes have been better than others.

Two years after that first election, I went to work on the Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. I was one of the leaders of that campaign in Georgia, and my friend, Paul Coverdell, led the establishment’s efforts to nominate President Ford.

It was the typical establishment-versus-interloper campaign. Most of the friends I had made in the party were in the establishment. Most of them thought the nomination of Ronald Reagan was not only impractical, but would destroy our party.

Reagan had just served two terms as the governor of California. His record was not all that conservative. He signed the biggest tax increase in the history of the state. He got the best he could get with a Democrat-dominated general assembly. He signed a bill legalizing abortion. But governors have different challenges than presidents.

Frankly, most of the establishment couldn’t have cared less about abortion. They thought the discussion of it was, well, tacky. But we were, at the time, the party that Barry built, and the new foot soldiers cared about abortion.

Their concern with Reagan was that he just wasn’t up to it. What did he know about foreign policy? How could he stand up to the Soviets? Did he understand detente?

During that campaign, as in all campaigns, the establishment sat at the head table, and the rest of us milled around the small round tables below.

Coverdell approached me, after Ford had won the first several primaries, and urged me to switch sides. Paul was convinced that Ford had the best chance of winning. Paul recited all of the reservations mentioned above and then said, “John, Reagan cannot win. No one will take him seriously.” That was also the consensus of the Republican writers and commentators.

I said, “Paul, I think politics is all about what you believe. I know what Reagan believes. I have no idea what Ford believes. But you need to watch Reagan connect with the people. He is the best communicator I have ever seen. He is bringing new people into the party. And these are folks you won’t be meeting at the club for lunch. They carry a lunch bucket to work. Or a brown paper bag.”

Four years later, I worked again for Reagan and Paul worked for George H. W. Bush. Again, the Wall Street crowd sat at the head table, and the Main Street crowd sat at the small round tables on the floor.

The same arguments came from the establishment. His tax cut idea was a “riverboat gamble.” In fact, his tax cuts doubled the size of the economy and doubled revenues to the treasury. Unfortunately, they spent that and more.

Reagan didn’t understand that the world is a dangerous place and dealing with the Soviets required a more “understanding” policy. It also required a willingness to sign more treaties. They didn’t know that Reagan had no interest in understanding the Soviets. He wanted communism consigned to “the ash heap of history.”

It was a neverending series of put-downs until New Hampshire. Then it was over.

Reagan won that election with the support of Larry Lunch-bucket and Betty Brownbag. They were called the Reagan Democrats. When we celebrated that victory, I asked some of them why they chose to join us. They said, “When he talked, we felt that he was talking to us.” The Reagan Democrats believe they have been ignored since 1988.

The establishment doesn’t like change. They have always felt that their seats at the head table were threatened by those new to the club. The establishment that so ardently opposed Reagan’s nomination in 1980 crawled all over each other to chair his 1984 race.

Today they now see themselves as those who put Reagan in power. His presidency was their presidency. They believe they are the keepers of the flame.

Today’s establishment includes elected officials, consultants, lobbyists and even conservative writers and commentators. Unless you allow them to write the rules and approve of your positions you are unwelcome. Anyone who does not genuflect before their altar is “not conservative.”

When you look at the many fine candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president, who do you believe can best speak to those Reagan Democrats?

I believe that candidate is Mike Huckabee.

When Reagan became president, one of his first moves was to reduce income taxes from 70 percent to 50 percent and ultimately down to 28 percent. As pointed out above, both the size of the economy and the federal revenues doubled in eight years.

Huckabee doesn’t want to lower income taxes. He wants to abolish them - along with the IRS, the most intrusive, coercive and corrosive federal agency ever. Mike would replace those taxes on income with a sales tax - the FairTax. Every American will become a voluntary taxpayer paying taxes when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend. How conservative can one get?