johaneriksson.se

There has been a lot of talk about change in the presidential campaign, although it seems to be a change in faces rather than policy that voters want. Mark Steyn considers where real change comes from, and also takes a look at those longing to reside in the White House. He is not impressed.

As for Mike Huckabee, last seen comparing his success in Iowa to the miracle of the loaves and fishes (New Hampshire, alas, was loaves-and-fishes in reverse: he took his Iowa catch and turned it into one rotting fish head in Lake Winnipesaukee), in Thursday night’s debate he was attacked for raising taxes in Arkansas. “What I raised,” riposted the Huckster, “was hope.”

Terrific. In a Huckabee administration, nothing is certain but hope and taxes. Did he poll-test the line? Was it originally “What I didn’t raise was tobacco”? Or did he misread the line? Did he mean to say “hogs”? Is there any correlation between taxes and hope? If you cut taxes by 20 percent, does hope nosedive off the cliff? Not for those of us who were hoping for a tax cut. And is there any evidence that he “raised hope”? Hope of what? Huck’s line is a degradation of FDR: We have nothing to hope for but hope itself.

Read the entire piece. It’s entertaining if nothing else, and he certainly makes a couple of fair points.

—-

Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, usa, förändring
Technorati Tags: politics, usa, change