Here is the response…
In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease.
Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.
At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.
My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals. We must prevent new infections and provide more accessible care. We must do everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine and a cure into reality.
Furthermore, I am proud that the United States has led the global battle against HIV/ AIDS. We have both a strategic interest as the world’s only superpower and a moral obligation as the world’s richest country to continue to do so until this scourge is a memory.
I supported the current Administration’s proposal to double our initial commitment from $15 billion to $30 billion over the next five years for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has already done an extraordinary amount of good, by providing drugs for over a million people and care for four-and-a-half million people, but it expires in 2008 and must be reauthorized. I support an increase in our commitment to the Global Fund. Through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, we can do our fair share to meet the Millennium Development Goals we affirmed in 2000, which include universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It sounds like Huckabee thought Dumond was born again, and thus manipulated his release. Greeat article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-huckabee8dec08,1,1844389.story
December 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
It looks like the Huckster’s new found fame has afforded him a rapid response team… try not to get too dizzy from all the spin from the honorable pastor governor mike huckabee
December 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
so he is saying that he was justified in making the “quarantine†statement. In other words if he was president at that time he would have been justified to quarantine thousands of people around the US. THis is exaclty the types of descisions the POTUS could face and exactly the reason Huck is a terible decision maker and must be stopped.
Michael Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
so he is saying that he was justified in making the “quarantine†statement. In other words if he was president at that time he would have been justified to quarantine thousands of people around the US. THis is exaclty the types of descisions the POTUS could face and exactly the reason Huck is a terible decision maker and must be stopped.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
This is getting more unbelievable by the minute – THink aboiut it. He is not saying he is wrong to make the quarantine statement.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
If he would have just said he was wrong to make that statement I would be much more willing to accept this response. But the fact that he says he was justified only pronounces the fact that he would be a terrible decision maker. It has less to do with the AIDS issue and everything to do with with his poor leadership.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Huchabee is NEVER worng. Ask Dumond’s victims. Can somebody do me a favor? I am trying to fina any links to the story anout Huckabee’s teenage son murdering and stoning that dog. I want to forward it to some animal protection and cruelty groups. Thanks in advance.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Americans are so used to insincere apologies perhaps this strategy of explaining why you said something instead of apologizing for it, earns respect.
Huckabee is the one candidate who embraces his record and doesn’t apologize for it. Rudy does this to a lesser extent.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I say again, steve, who is your candidate?
December 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
As a general rule politicans are woeful on scientific development. In the Democratic party this would probably be a deal killer and he’d be out of the race.
Personally I don’t think Huckabee’s past gaffes and actions are as self damaging as Giuliani’s been the last couple weeks.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
9- why – that has nothing to do with it.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Huck’s have been few and isolated.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
It does if your hypocritical. There is not one person in this race who hasn’t made a mistake.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Few and isolated? Here’s how HotAir put it today:
“DuMond and his clemency record, the flip-flop on Gitmo, the NIE fiasco, calling ICE “INS†in his new immigration plan, attributing his poll surge to a power that’s “not human,†and now this — and that’s just the past week. Tuition breaks for illegals, the “Christian leader†ad, the 2003 any-tax’ll-do speech, and his support for the Fair Tax were all already a matter of blogospheric record.
Whatever they’re paying their new research guy to deal with all this crap, it’s not enough.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/08/huckabee-92-isolate-aids-patients/
December 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Because of the effective response, this will not be detrimental. The media has already left it and picked up race card, because of Oprah and Obama.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The “CHRISTIAN LEADER” ad was the first thing that ticked me off about this guy. The more I hear and read about him, the less I like him both personally and professionally.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Some of these issues would be big if there were more to the story, but there just isn’t.
Here is my post from the previous thread:
#173, At least he did not say as Mitt did, that I don’t personaly believe in abortion but I’m going to allow thousands to be killed anyway.
I guess we would also have to assume then, if the Dumond case is definitive of Huckabee’s stance on crime, then Romney’s stance on immigration and border enforcement can be defined by the two gardening episodes.
What I am getting at with all of this is that the claims against Huck are few and not characteristic of his position. For instance, Dumond was freed, but 19 others were punished with the death penalty during his tenure.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
And you like who Randy?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
#16, So…you have a problem with him being a Christian? I thought particular faith didn’t matter.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Huckabee allowed 19 people to be put to death. That doesn’t excuse bad judgement. He’s gonna have to pay for the bad decision not to keep killers behind bars.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
If someones faith is offensive to you I don’t know what to say.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I say again, name someone in the race whose record is spotless.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
7 – here’s the archive link to the article that ran in the paper
http://library.ardemgaz.com/ArchiveSearch.asp?SearchWords=dog&inField=All&SortBy=DateDesc&DocsPerPage=20&eventStartDate=08%2F07%2F1998&eventStopDate=08%2F07%2F1998&go=+Execute+Search+
December 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
#18, The target of Huckabee’s bigotry, Mitt Romney. I used to think that I would take Huckabee over Thompson and while I am still very much anti-Fred, I would now take him over the huckster.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Michael, You’re grasping at straws. Romney also believes personally that drinking alcohol FOR HIM is immoral. Should he ask for the governemnt to prohibit alcohol?
He made a mistake, and you would think a christian would forgive his mistake. Plenty of people have accepted his change of heart. If that is the best you have on Romney then let’s bring on the next debate and Iowa!!!!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I’m not as bothered about the quarantine statement as I am by the fact that he released an average of 1 felon every 5 days he was in office. I doubt that anybody has done any kind of systematic follow up of all of these released felons….in all, there were close to 700 of them….but aside from the people DuMond raped and killed, I wonder how many other crimes were committed and how many other people were hurt or killed. One wonders if Huckabee had any concept of what the recidivism rate for felons is.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Effective response? They let this go for 12 hours before they had a response out there… And will somebody please get Huckabee Matt Drudge’s email? He has yet to put the statement up.
In my opinion this is a 4 hour news cycle arena. Time to get on top of the game.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Michael, I already have a Christian Leader.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
So forgiveness should be rendered to Romney and none for Huck? Hypocritical.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
27 – not only that, but if you look at the 19 that Huck proudly claims that he killed, how many of them were jacked up on anti-schitzophrenia medication so that they would be ’sane enough’ to kill?
This issue cuts both ways for Huck. One one side, profess that you are born again and he’ll let you out of jail. On the otherside, make sure you stay on your mental-meds so that he can kill you…
A study of these facts is very disturbing to say the least.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Huck didn’t ask for it.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
#25, Very poor argument. Huck believes the same thing about alcohol. There is a big difference.
Romney’s decision allowed thousands to die. There is no room for conscience in that area. When it effects life or death of another individual it should be enforced.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I was hoping Huckabee would come out and disavow his previous statement that gay people are a public health risk. He does have some quotes on record from recent years where he opines that what people do in their bedrooms is none of anyone else’s business. So is Huckabee trying to have it both ways? Does he tailor his views to his audience at any given time? If so, he’s no better than any of the other candidates in the field and I assure you that, when the oppo researchers are done with him, his sins will find him.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
#25, You tout the Dumond case which effected a few people but excuse the deaths of inocent babies by Romney. It is obvious that you are biased and blind.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I am bothered by his quarantine statement. It had no basis in medicine, it was inflammatory, pandering, and demagogue rhetoric. Huckabee isn’t going to get out of this by telling a cute joke about a man who sells dog food.
If you really want to see the full wrath of the elite academics, Hollywood-type. Then criticize somebody who has AIDS. Some in elite academic medicine are still hammering Reagan for not surrendering a large percentage of NIH to stop the AIDS virus.
Just wait, the reporter’s questions and protest marches are comming to a primary state near you.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
#32, what decision are you talking about? Every time that he was in a position to make a decision, he sided with life.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
BTW, all of the stuff Justin brought up in #14 is going to start catching up to Huckabee and bringing his numbers down. In marketing there is a concept called Post-Purchase Anxiety Syndrome. You might know it better as Buyer’s Remorse. It’s human nature to second guess a decision right up to the time you’re locked into it, and then rationalize it. There are a lot of Huckabee supporters in Iowa and other states that have tentatively made a decision to support Huckabee, but are not locked into it yet. These negatives that keep coming out will cause a lot of self-doubt about that decision.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
#36, He has stated from his own mouth that he was “effectively pro-choice.”
December 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Witrhout this blemish, he would have been the nominee and I would have supported him.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
There is a great quote from Bill Parcells that I think applies to politics as well as sports: “You are what your record says you are.” Romney has a pro-life record. Romney is pro-life.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I am not the one that needs to forgive Huck. It’s the families of those murdered victims and AIDS patients who have that right. I am simply suspicious of a man who dodges and weaves every significant question without putting up smoke-screens. Romney can answer a direct question:
Reporter: Did you or did you not put your dog Shamus on the top of your car?
Romney: Yes, and Shamus loved it. Next question
Reporter: Did you or did you not say that you wanted to quarenteen HIV positive Gays.
Huck: Um, I thought AIDS er, was spread by handshakes. . .
Reporter: then why did you blame Homosexuals?
Huck: Secret service men, Take this woman back to the sheed, I’ve changed my position on Waterboarding.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Randy, you can’t give facts like that to Michael. It’s asking too much. He’s blind to Huck’s poor record, and nobody can tell im different. If his pastor said to vote for him, it’s done.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
23 – Thanks, Jeff!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
As a man speaketh, so is he.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
It seems to me that he traded human life for political gain, and that is tragic.
And as far as the whole dog thing and Huck’s son, I do not care. It should not have happened and my son would be in a heap of trouble with me, but animals are not more important than people.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
#34 = that is not a true statement at all. Romney came down on the side of life EVERY time.
Facts are facts.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Michael,
Romney’s views on abortion never killed anybody. The first time he actually had to confront a pro-life issue as Governor was when he changed his mind about the subject and became pro-life. From that point on he governed consistently as a pro-life governor and won plaudits from the pro-life community for doing so.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I was hoping Huckabee would come out and disavow his previous statement that gay people are a public health risk. He does have some quotes on record from recent years where he opines that what people do in their bedrooms is none of anyone else’s business. So is Huckabee trying to have it both ways? Does he tailor his views to his audience at any given time? If so, he’s no better than any of the other candidates in the field and I assure you that, when the oppo researchers are done with him, his sins will find him. — DaveG
That was the first thing that I noticed about this statement: there was nothing to clarify his remarks on homosexuality being an “aberrant” lifestyle and a “public health risk.” Guess he still believes that sexual attraction to the same sex is a public health risk!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Michael, he sided with life every time he faced a decision as governor. How does that equate to thousands of deaths. Nice try, pal.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
This Huckabee-AIDS fiasco is not about AIDS. It’s about homosexuality. Anyone who thinks that this is about AIDS is sorely mistaken.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Michael:
You’re dilusional if you think Romney could have ended abortion. The SCOTUS is the only governemnt body who can close that pandora’s box now. I am not sure Huckabee has the savvy to get qualified pro-life judges through the minefield of nomination. He would probably appoint Roy Moore and get shot down in an instant, and be forced to nominate somebody like Souter.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
47 – Michael – step away from the jesus-juice for a minute…
December 8th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
You’re dilusional if you think Romney could have ended abortion. The SCOTUS is the only governemnt body who can close that pandora’s box now. I am not sure Huckabee has the savvy to get qualified pro-life judges through the minefield of nomination. He would probably appoint Roy Moore and get shot down in an instant, and be forced to nominate somebody like Souter.
Hah. The Supreme Court can’t end abortion, silly.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
#42, thats ridiculous. NO-ONE tells me who to vote for. The facts are plain and Romney spoke them, he allowed babies to be killed. There is no way around that.
I respect Rudy more than Mitt, because he is honest about his view.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Metro – since we are apparently on cordial terms today can you answer a hypothetical question for me, please?
Let’s say it comes down to a 2 man Mitt v Huck race (i know you believe 10,000% this won’t happen and it would probably lead to the end of the world but just humor me). If this were to happen and if everyone you have talked about throughout this post comes out behind Mitt as the anti-Huck (all the other candidates, Rush, CFG, etc) would you be willing to vote for Mitt? It just seems that you have been saying that everyone else will and should do this if Rudy is the anti-Huck so I wonder if you would be willing to do the same if Mitt is the anti-Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Michael, Romney’s views on abortion never killed anybody. The first time he actually had to confront a pro-life issue as Governor was when he changed his mind about the subject and became pro-life. From that point on he governed consistently as a pro-life governor and won plaudits from the pro-life community for doing so.
How convenient for his presidential run!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
56 – Since you’re so well versed on the matter, would you mind citing an article, situation, circumstance that backs up your claim?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
TLG:
AIDS is about a lot of things, Racial equality, Sexual liberation, Sexual equality, Gender, etc. You’re right in that it’s about Homosexuality, but people are going to take the AIDS angle and get Bono to give a statement, and parade pictures of ill-african children. There is a lot of money and energy behind the AIDS lobby (some for a good reason).
Therefore, the outcry from the AIDS interest groups will far drown-out anything you’re going to hear from the Gay lobby.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Metro – since we are apparently on cordial terms today can you answer a hypothetical question for me, please? Let’s say it comes down to a 2 man Mitt v Huck race (i know you believe 10,000% this won’t happen and it would probably lead to the end of the world but just humor me). If this were to happen and if everyone you have talked about throughout this post comes out behind Mitt as the anti-Huck (all the other candidates, Rush, CFG, etc) would you be willing to vote for Mitt? It just seems that you have been saying that everyone else will and should do this if Rudy is the anti-Huck so I wonder if you would be willing to do the same if Mitt is the anti-Huck.
I can answer this: No. I’d still vote for Rudy. Can’t vote for Mitt Romney. No way. No way, no way, no way. I wouldn’t do it because I don’t care about the GOP if it nominates Romney or Huck. I’m voting Libertarian if Mitt’s the nominee and potentially for Hillary Clinton if Huck’s the nominee (Hillary’s the only Democrat I’d vote for, though; I’d vote Libertarian in a Huckabee-Obama match-up).
December 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
This is comment section’s hilarious! The Rombots are going to turn this thing into “The Passion of the Mike” and be sad to see what kind of effect that has on IA evangelicals. I look forward to the scenes where Mitt nails Mike to the cross.
This may turn out to be a juicy fight for those of us who’d like the shameless religious pandering to be driven out of our politics.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Romney is a phony and the American people recognize that.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
56 – Since you’re so well versed on the matter, would you mind citing an article, situation, circumstance that backs up your claim?
…Are you claiming that Mitt Romney’s pro-life conversion was not convenient for his run for the presidency?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
TLG: AIDS is about a lot of things, Racial equality, Sexual liberation, Sexual equality, Gender, etc. You’re right in that it’s about Homosexuality, but people are going to take the AIDS angle and get Bono to give a statement, and parade pictures of ill-african children. There is a lot of money and energy behind the AIDS lobby (some for a good reason). Therefore, the outcry from the AIDS interest groups will far drown-out anything you’re going to hear from the Gay lobby.
The “Gay Lobby”? Any connection to the malicious “Homosexual Agenda” there?
And obviously, I mean in this circumstance. Huckabee’s comments about AIDS were all about homosexuality, really.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I’ll let the American People decide that. Absent the ‘idiot vote’ most people will see the quality and humanity of Romney.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I would vote for Ron Paul before Mitt.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Oh, and I love that, in Huckabee’s response, his way of showing that he really did care about AIDS victims was A PROMISE TO GET THE GOVERNMENT MORE INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE.
LOL.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Oh, wait — 58 — I misread that. I see what you’re saying — that the pro-gay rights groups aren’t going to be as loud in response as the Bono set.
But that doesn’t change Huck’s motives.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
64 – no – the question was in regards to Michael’s insistence that Romney had killed thousands of babies. I’m just looking for something on the record to back up that assertion. So far all I hear is crickets chirping…
December 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
65 — Me too. Hopefully we’ll have won the war by January 2009, anyway, so we should be okay with Paul.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I don’t know TLG, we’ll see the reaction. Huck probably helped himself quite a bit with the anti-homosexual crowd, but this isn’t going to look good for his “Tolerance & Compassion” image problem.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Mitt has zero chance of winning this election, just deal with it. Even as a Christian, in the face of Rudy’s so-con issues, I would vote for him above Mitt. He is a phony and he acts like a ventriliquist dummy, always looking plastic and scripted.
This of course if Huckabee doesn’t make it.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I trust Rudy’s response to the judge appointment issue more than Mitt’s not so sincere apology for supporting abortion.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I don’t know TLG, we’ll see the reaction. Huck probably helped himself quite a bit with the anti-homosexual crowd, but this isn’t going to look good for his “Tolerance & Compassion†image problem.
The anti-homosexual crowd, a.k.a: the people who are currently supporting him in Iowa. This won’t hurt him at all. This will help him, if anything. He’s got Iowa locked up after this! This just hurts him in New Hampshire and the general election.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
67: TLG
I agree, but you can see that Huck has put multiple feet in his mouth just by this comment. Medical, AIDS, Homosexual, etc. It might be alright for an Arkansas Governor to say that Gays are evil and of the devil, but that kind of thing is more typical of the president of Iran than should be of the dignity of the President of the United States.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I agree, but you can see that Huck has put multiple feet in his mouth just by this comment. Medical, AIDS, Homosexual, etc. It might be alright for an Arkansas Governor to say that Gays are evil and of the devil, but that kind of thing is more typical of the president of Iran than should be of the dignity of the President of the United States.
Ah, but see: you are not an Evangelical Protestant. This is the sort of “politically incorrect,” “pro-family [anti-gay]” stuff that can secure a win in Iowa for him!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Michael
Now a Pro-life voter will vote for a Pro-choice candidate over a supposed johnny-come-lately Pro-life candidate? Could there be anything else coloring your judgement of him?
Northeastern Moderate: No, Mitt and Rudy are both Northeasterners.
Success in the private sector: No, Mitt’s got a corner on that market
Success in his family life: Let’s see, oh, I won’t even get into that inconvenient fact of 5 extremely well-adjusted boys who all gave 2 years of their lives in voluntary service to other people.
Mormon: BINGO that must be it. Michael you’re not voting for mitt because he’s a Mormon?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
That’s where the large number of AIDS interest groups, (of which I do have some sympathies BTW) are going to step in with the big money of the Gay lobby (of which I don’t have much sympathy really), to really stick it to Huckabee in Iowa. All the people who Huckabee offended by this statement are not stupid. They are going to stick it to Huckabee where it will do the most damage.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
TLG,
If the Iraq war was over by January ‘09, we would NOT be ok with Ron Paul. He would start tearing down our military and intelligence capabilities. You don’t think a foreign crisis or threat would materialize during a 4-year period of time?? Say good bye to American Exceptionalism. For that matter, say good bye to America’s future.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I don’t think Huck ever response to anything directly he mostly sidesteps the issue but makes you feel good about yourself
December 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
#76, Why must you always run to play the victim card? Should we move affirmative action into politics, so Mitt can be elected? Other Mormons have been elected to civil offices without such banter. I stated earlier, if not for his record on abortion he would be the nominee right now.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I am surprised the release didn’t have …but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night somewhere in it. Huck is a joke!!!!!
December 8th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I have friends who are Mormon, who I respect and would vote for. I can’t change how Romney appears, fake.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
If he is a joke, where does that place Mitt?
December 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Michael,
I don’t mean to pick on you, but you keep saying stupid things. To say that Mitt can’t win is absurd. In the most recent poll we have on the subject, both Mitt and Rudy lose to Hillary by a margin of 46-43. Being down a whopping 3 points with almost a year to go before the election isn’t exactly insurmountable. If electability is a big thing with you, try supporting McCain. He’s the guy who does better than Mitt or Rudy, and, BTW, considerably better than Huck in these things. I’m sensing a lot of animosity toward Mitt in your comments that might be clouding your judgement a little. Just keep in mind that if Mitt wins, you’ll be getting the most capable president we’ve seen in this country in about a century.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Paul is an isolationist.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
ABC ran a very short story about this on the evening news, but it was drowned out by coverage of the Obama rally which led all three newscasts.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Huckabee and the tale of buyers-remorse:
Huckabee, another unfortunate Howard Dean just couldn’t close the sell. When people actually started test driving the car, it broke down. It wasn’t the scream that did him in, it was his inability to get set his record straight, respond quickly and substantially to criticism, and his general lack of Presidential manner.
Do we really want 4 years of this? I’ll Take Shamus and the supposed anti-self push polling to all of the Huckabee closeted skeleton’s anytime.
How many times can a man laugh when confronted by the number of serious questions/criticisms about his record; e.g. the Club for Growth, Wayne DuMond, AIDS, Homosexuals, illegal immigrants, virtual absence of foreign policy experience (except building a free Mexican consulate) and Guantanimo.
At some point his laughter isn’t going to look so ‘folksy’ and his ‘authentic’ nature isn’t going to look so Presidential after all.
I’ve always said this is a Marathon, and the strongest campaigner, with the longest stride is going to win. That’s Mitt Romney.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
#84, I am with you on John McCain, for the most part.
On your last sentence though, I must part ways. To be quite honest, I do feel that I have more animosity toward Mitt. I did not before visiting this site. I am constantly beat up by Mitt supporters on this site who consistently attempt to degrade Huck. I feel that I have been subject to the very things that Huck’s supporters have been accused of. There are no doubt many who are what they are accused of. There are ignorant people in all circles.
I, my friend, happen not to be one of those people. But, I do get worked up at times because some of the statements here, I consider to be offensive. Mainly because of the constant ridicule of the faith of Huck. He does not speak the way he does about God in order to offend or to claim that he is God’s speacial choice. He speaks that way because it is his belief that he should be upfront with the facts about who he is and what he believes. Some of his statements have been taken out of context to mean something that they do not mean. It is something that Mormons may not understand, just as there are things that Christians don’t understand about Mormons.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Now a Pro-life voter will vote for a Pro-choice candidate over a supposed johnny-come-lately Pro-life candidate? Could there be anything else coloring your judgement of him? Northeastern Moderate: No, Mitt and Rudy are both Northeasterners. Success in the private sector: No, Mitt’s got a corner on that market Success in his family life: Let’s see, oh, I won’t even get into that inconvenient fact of 5 extremely well-adjusted boys who all gave 2 years of their lives in voluntary service to other people. Mormon: BINGO that must be it. Michael you’re not voting for mitt because he’s a Mormon? – Joseph D. Welch
And you are a Mormon that’s voting for Mitt because he’s a Mormon. Don’t be stupid; we know that that’s why.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Dave, it’s ELECTORAL VOTES that count.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
TLG, If the Iraq war was over by January ‘09, we would NOT be ok with Ron Paul. He would start tearing down our military and intelligence capabilities. You don’t think a foreign crisis or threat would materialize during a 4-year period of time?? Say good bye to American Exceptionalism. For that matter, say good bye to America’s future.
I am supremely confident that if this country were to be attacked or directly threatened, Paul would retaliate. He would do an inestimable amount of good for the small government/capitalist wing of the GOP while adhering to the Constitution. Veto, veto, veto, veto, veto. His would be known as the Veto Presidency, which sounds absolutely wonderful.
As it stands, we don’t know how Iraq will turn out, so I can’t support Paul.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Feltcher,
What Obama is doing today with Oprah will be old news tomorrow. Huckabee’s record will always be news as long as he is in the lead. Perhaps the spotlight isn’t as comfortable a spot that ol’ Huck thought it would be, after all, and now Romney has the benefit of being the underdog. If Romney does pull out a win in Iowa, NH, and SC then he just might be the underdog that became unstoppable.
Rudy still has a chance though.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
That animosity I spoke about is wrong, and I am lumping his supporters together to be representative of who he is. I understand that this is not true.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
TLG – I wasn’t asking you because I know you are irrational as opposed to Metro who actually seems to have a brain and is capable of using it. You, on the other hand, seem to have shut your brain down when it comes to politics. But, since you decided to add your 2 cents in, how about you go back and re-read the question and then try your answer again.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I agree with #91. If not for this war, I would be supporting Ron Paul. I like every other aspect of his ideas.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
TLG – I wasn’t asking you because I know you are irrational as opposed to Metro who actually seems to have a brain and is capable of using it. You, on the other hand, seem to have shut your brain down when it comes to politics. But, since you decided to add your 2 cents in, how about you go back and re-read the question and then try your answer again.
Hah! Usually, people say the opposite — that Metro is a flaming Rudybot and that I refuse to jump on anti-Mitt bandwagons. If it makes you feel better, I consider you one of the most ridiculous Rombots on this site, so I guess I should take it as a compliment that you say that my brain has shut down.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Its fine to be an ideological libertarian as a private citizen and can work as a congressman, but not as a president or even a governor. Governments exist to provide services.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
TLG,
That’s not entirely accurate. I read Rudy’s book “Leadership” back in 2003 and dreamed about his candidacy. I thought he would be a strong conservative. I really liked how he cleaned up the porno shops in New York and made it a more family friendly atmosphere (i.e. you could actually walk the streets without geting killed).
I wasn’t happy about his pro-choice stance, but I thought I could live with that. Then came along Mitt. I was very skeptical at first (especially because of his Mormonism and pro-choice stances in 2003). I had the opportunity to meet Mitt at a Fundraiser in Austin, TX last summer. Let’s face it there isn’t a person running for President that has the intelligence, energy, and good-will that Mitt has. Being president is a 24/7 job, and Mitt isn’t going to be pursuing special interest agendas (like Huckabee), and Mitt isn’t going to be wasting his time on shenanigans (like Giuliani). He is going to be a golden, high-yield political machine as President, and I am going to see to it that He wins.
If Rudy were a Mormon and not a Catholic, and if Romney were a Catholic, I’d be even MORE enthusiastic about Romney because his Presidency would be a slam dunk. Mitt’s Mormonism is a serious liability, but if it sinks his bid for Presidency, so be it.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Michael,
I’ve been a hard-core Mitt supporter ever since I read Hugh Hewitt’s book “A Mormon In The White House?”, about a year ago. Since then, I have read literally thousands of things about him, pro and con. I know how easy it is to become emotionally involved in this stuff….just don’t let it get to you and your ability to use your brain. I took some flak yesterday for saying I would vote for Huckabee in a general election if he were the Republican nominee. I have defended his commitment to God, although as a Mormon my belief system is, to put it mildly, out of synch with his, and I have also defended the Fair Tax, which I am a strong believer in. Just realize that the Romney guys on this site are, for the most part, great guys who simply want the best man to run the country they love. Probably, pretty much like you.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
RayinNH, if it were Mitt vs Huck, I’d pay zero attention to politics — the same way I survived the Clinton years.
Huck I cannot sanction on political grounds. Mitt I cannot sanction on character/moral grounds.
Most Republicans would rally around Mitt in that scenario, and he’d win the nomination and lose the general.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Its fine to be an ideological libertarian as a private citizen and can work as a congressman, but not as a president or even a governor. Governments exist to provide services. – Feltcher
The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Thanks Metro. I can’t fault you as I wouldn’t vote for Rudy or Huck, myself but thanks for being honest. I am starting to do some research on that Wayne Root guy, just in case the Huckster bamboozles the whole country.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
TLG – i agree with you in 101. And out of all the Mitt supporters on this site how do I become one of the most ridiculous.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Mitt’s Mormonism isn’t a liability for me, Mitt is.
But I can understand that you guys simply have to obsess over his religion since he’s made it the centerpiece of his campaign.
The recap is fun: Mitt moves staff and cash to drum together the evangelical vote in IA starting back in 2006, when he barely served as the absentee governor of MA. Sufficiently established after spending so much cash and time in IA, he slaved away for months to make himself out to be a true SoCon. The religious SoCons were perfectly organized around him — for Huck to poach!
And now you’ve got nothing left other than a wealthy white guy slipping in the polls, while his campaign whines improbably that it has come to this because of Mitt’s Mormon victimhood at the hands of Iowa’s barbaric Christian conservatives.
Try running that game strategy on the white chick or black guy Mitt would face in the general election, and we suddenly have one more obvious reason why a Romney campaign would go down in flames.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
98 — “Wasting his time on shenanigans”? Let’s assume that’s true for a minute. Fine. Rudy reshaped an entire city while doing so, while Mitt has absolutely nothing to his name that’s remarkable in the field of politics, even with all of his “good will” and “energy.” It’s not a serious statement to suggest that Rudy wouldn’t do anything as President because he’d be wasting his time on ’shenanigans,’ whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.
Note that you didn’t say that you liked Romney’s record. You said that you like his “good will.” That’s nice. That has nothing to do with the position of the presidency. Romney’s done nothing to suggest that he’d be a “golden political machine” — there is honestly nothing at all that should tell you that about him. Why would you think that? If anything, you should think that Rudy would — the guy that cleaned up a city with conservative governance in spite of a Democratic legislature, even while, as you say, engaging in “shenanigans.”
December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I voted for Bush41 in 1988 and spent the next 4 years feeling disgusted with myself. Even though Dukakis would have been far worse, I would have preferred to vote for neither.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
And out of all the Mitt supporters on this site how do I become one of the most ridiculous.
I just recall some absolutely hyperbolic pro-Mitt language coming from you, including some predictions about the race. And were you one of those that said that Rudy was a “liberal”?
Also: the fact that you think that I’m a poor analyst of this race, or that I “don’t use my brain,” regardless of my good track record of predictions and defending Mitt Romney — a candidate that I loathe — against unfair attack pieces on more than one occasion (push-polling, the ‘Sanctuary Mansion’ hit that Rudy went after him for at the debate, and Murdock’s writings, to take three recent examples), which the other Rombots have acknowledged.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Also, I do not support Huckabee on the basis of his faith. There are several others on the stage who I would not support even though I am of like faith. The same goes for people in the past, such as Jimmy Carter, who was a complete disaster as a president.
What his faith does do, is tell me where he stands on social issues, which I believe to be more imortant than any economic plan. I have looked at the records of Mitt and Huck.
The problem for Mitt is his previous stance. It is difficult for me to see how he can overcome that or come up with a reasonable explanation other than “it was a mistake.” Noit that I don’t believe in redemption and forgiveness, he just cannot seem to make it believable to me. I understand that his faith shares the same values that I also hold, which is a plus.
I happen to believe that the presidency is a best fit, not for those of high intellect, but to those who can communicate effectively and sell their plans to the American people and to the world. I believe, although many here will disagree, that was the only reason for the success of Ronald Reagan.
I don’t say this to lower his stature, but Mitt would do best as an advisor or cabinet member who can use his brain to develop ideas for someone to sell. To me, he is like Newt, who I believe also could not win the White House.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I find the Romney folks far more tolerable given recent polling in Iowa. Minus the hubris that was never justified and which has now disappeared, I can talk to them.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Comming from an atheist, that sounds like a ringing endorsement of Mitt
December 8th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I’m really curious to know how people reached the conclusion I’m an athiest.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
And I’m curious to know why athiests cannot be good judges of character.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
110 — What are you trying to say?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Well then I stand corrected — you often (to use Metro’s phraseology) don’t use your brain. I do consider to be “liberal” on certain issues and I won’t back down from that. I still believe him to be a social liberal and I’m not starting a conversation on this; just stating my belief. I also, don’t recall what predictions you might have found outrageous, but I will freely admit to using hyperbole frequently.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
RayinNH, I don’t think it’s dishonest to call Rudy a social liberal, although I would point out that he is a social moderate, when you contrast him to actual social liberals.
I DO think it’s dishonest to call him a liberal generally, which many have done. I don’t know that you’re among them.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Metro 109, you are not kidding. Where did all these Huckabots come from?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
114 — That was really sloppily typed out, but I’m tired of arguing the point, so, whatever.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
#113:
TLG, just move along! No anti-atheist bigotry here to see! Nothing that should concern anyone…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Michael,
It took more than communication for Regan to stare down the Soviets, and drive them to abandon communism. Clinton was a good salesman, but he was a horrible commander-in-chief.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
#116, Have you seen the polls.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Huckabee wrote today that HIV requires a lower level of contact for transmission than TB? He’s completely wrong on that. It’s much easier to transmit TB. TB can be infectious through the air. It doesn’t even require bodily contact or an exchange of fluids.
Huckabee might have been making an honest mistake if he suggested a quarantine of sorts for HIV-infected people or those with actual AIDS during the mid-1980s, but definitely not in 1992. We knew by then that HIV was not transmitted by casual contact.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Where did all these Huckabots come from?
Heh. It is true that anti-Hucks are in the minority. Just look at the polls.
Rett, did I not tell you that Huckabee express is only starting to take off? Hold on to your hat!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
#119, I would agree with that, but show me a republican like that.
You prove my point, he was the democratic Reagan.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Metro – I’ll grant you on the social liberal v social moderate thing. Kennedy is a true liberal (and not just socially) and obviously Rudy is far too the right of good ol’ Teddy.
I do also think you have been much more conversational lately, but as you said it probably has more to do with all the non-Huckabots mutual detest for the man. We will, obviously, always disagree on Mitt but we certainly agree on many other things.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
110, 111, 113,
oops, I was typing so fast that I mixed up ThatLibertarianGuy with Metro. I often simply lump you two together as part of the same amorphous internet libertarian paradigm, and this time I accidentally mixed you two up.
It was only a joke, by the way.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I was referring to this site only. Where have Huckabee’s supporters been all year? Supporting another candidate? Undecided? Why Huckabee?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
125 — No, I really don’t think that you were going about atheists having no morals. If you don’t believe that’s true, then there’s no punchline.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
WiseGuy:
You obviously just joined the thread WiseGuy. Your guy has been hammered this whole thread, and Michael has been the only one defending. It’s good you’re here, now Michael can step out of the ring. He almost suffered a knock-out blow, but it’s good you came just in time.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Michael,
Yours is a very common situation. The race begins, you’re fairly open to candidates, you settle on one for various reasons, and then the frequent battles between your chosen candidate and other candidates’ shifts your perceptions. This is especially likely to occur when supporters of candidates squabble; you’re turned off by one candidate, and increasingly polarized towards your own. Sometimes this manifests itself rationally (i.e, you can find actual reasons to dislike a candidate, grounded in policy), but largely it’s just an irrational impulse.
I suspect that some Romney supporters who are currently saying they won’t for Huck “under any circumstances”, will end up changing their mind if he’s the nominee, and once passions have died down; not alot, but some. This is less true for Rudy supporters opposing Huck, because I suspect that they’re more likely to genuinely have nothing in common with Huck. But, everyone does this to an extent, and ultimately, rational instincts tend to prevail.
That said, I don’t think the “I won’t vote for Huck” impulses are even largely a result of the sort of irrational impulses that come from a primary campaign. I’m not supporting anyone currently, though I have my favorites (Mitt, McCain, Rudy in that order probably). And I think an objective evaluation of the facts must conclude that, whatever Huck may be, he does seriously differ from what has been the traditional understanding of “conservative”. Some will like this, and others won’t, but I don’t think it’s seriously disputable.
The question then becomes, given my particular set of priorities, does it make sense to believe Huckabee is likely to advance my interests; or more to the point, does it make sense to believe Huckabee is MORE likely to advance them the alternatives? Once you’ve answered that question you can proceed. And I think the criticisms emanating from Romney, Rudy, McCain, and Fred supporters alike are, however hyperbolic, criticisms which take into account this sort of calculation. They’re not solely, or even largely, products of an overheated campaign season.
They are, in that sense, quite distinct from the sort of thing you’re offering up: “I won’t vote for Romney, because Romney supporters are being mean to me”. When most of these guys say they won’t vote for Huck, they’re being dead serious. Even if Huck were in last place, instead of first, and even if he were no threat whatsoever to their candidate of choice, they’d likely say the same thing (if they could be bothered to examine the evidence). It’s not a threat from weakness, but a promise from strength.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Well, it’s been fun, but I need to stop taking over the Huckabee threads by talking all about Romney, seems to be happening to Huck alot these days though.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
128: Definitely keep on hammering Huck! It will only strengthen him for the general election.
Huck is a man of composure. There will be no Dean-scream from Huck. Huck is also a very good communicator who can easily brush aside these attacks. A great communicator and a Teflon candidate. Who does that remind you of?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
WiseGuy,
Bill Clinton?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Michael, I agree whole-heartedly with what you say about Reagan and Clinton and their communicative skills and talents in 108. We tend to forget after seven years of this tongue-tied president (he’s his father’s son) just how important that is. And Mitt, too, is no talented communicator.
I think the GOP would be in a much better position now if we’d had seven years of Jeb, who takes more after his mother in the communication department, instead of Dubya. I believe Dubya’s abysmal public speaking and poor political instincts have made him and his party almost toxic. And that’s a shame since he should have sold the school voucher system early on, and — had he been a good communicative leader like Ronnie and Bill — sold the nation on the “Ownership Society.” Sad, sad.
Mitt’s well spoken, but there’s no spark or inspiration in what he says. Mitt’s a mediocre pol who would, if elected, have to swallow whatever the Dem Congress rammed down his throat. But it will never come to that. His political and speaking talents are outdone by Bill/Hillary and Barry O by lightyears.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Matt,
Given that I know how you feel about Huckabee, your position in #129 is remarkably mature and even-handed. Well said.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I want to know how many of the clemencies Huckabee gave were to people who claimed to be “born again”.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
133, MarkG,
Mitt’s well spoken, but there’s no spark or inspiration in what he says.
Before Thursday you could have reasonably held that opinion. You would have been wrong, but others might have agreed. After 10:15 Thursday morning, you are in the minority.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
#129, ??That is not what I said. Meaning this:
“They are, in that sense, quite distinct from the sort of thing you’re offering up: “I won’t vote for Romney, because Romney supporters are being mean to meâ€.”
That is absurd. That is not at all what I was saying. I was reffering to the rhetoric that I often resorted to during attacks by Romney people and the rhetoric that came back. It had nothing to do with a decision about who I would vote for. I was talking about my tone and the characterization of what I said.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Matthew, it is the good old Ronald Reagan himself! However, if we had a conservative “Bill Clinton”, conservatism would still be advanced. Remember, Clinton sought to appear moderate and at times even fiscally conservative, but he managed to put ultra-liberals on the Supreme Court. Huckabee will do the opposite.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
#135 exemplifies what I was talking about.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Irish #136: Then what did he inspire the nation to do? Just be nice, faithful church-goers?
I found nothing particularly inspiring in what he said in terms of content alone. And the delivery was mediocre.
I will, however, give him and his campaign kudos for creating the right buzz beforehand for the media to pay close attention. Of course, he can only give what is eagerly awaited as the “Mormon Speech” once.
He’s just lucky the speech wasn’t overshadowed by another hostage incident at another Clinton campaign office. Romney’s speech would have been reduced to sixty-second recaps on the news.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
“Mitt’s well spoken, but there’s no spark or inspiration in what he says.”
Eh…a matter of opinion, but I really must disagree. Have you watched his bigger speeches? Ames, ACU, etc.? Go watch them, and then tell me that there is no inspiration in what he says.
–
“Mitt’s a mediocre pol who would, if elected, have to swallow whatever the Dem Congress rammed down his throat.”
Four years dealing with the most Liberal State Congress in the country, and the results were no new taxes, a balanced budget, a market-based healthcare solution, and many other big things. At Worst, the Senate MIGHT be 60% Democratic in 2009, and a few of them hold Conservative positions on some issues.
–
“But it will never come to that. His political and speaking talents are outdone by Bill/Hillary and Barry O by lightyears.”
That is if you believe that the American public is going to pick screaming “he betrayed this country” rhetoric over proven leadership.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
WiseGuy,
Sure, I’d like a conservative Bill Clinton. What’s that got to do with Huckabee? Clinton fooled people into thinking he was a moderate; his record didn’t support that contention. If Huckabee’s fooling people into thinking he’s a liberal, he’s been doing it for an awfully long time; since before his Governorship. Liberals could largely trust Clinton, because they saw he raised taxes a bunch, increased spending a bunch, and generally followed his conservative sounding social rhetoric, with liberal social policies. Clinton wasn’t a flaming liberal, but he was close enough, and good vehicle for the movement.
And, if I’m honest, I’ll confess that Huckabee isn’t a flaming liberal either, my occasional “socialist” comment notwithstanding. But, he’s close enough. And while he might end up being a good vehicle for a movement, that movement wouldn’t be conservatism. I do agree with you on the judges though. Huck would be fine on judges. It’s everything else that’s troublesome.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Tell you what, MarkG, why don’t you log on to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com and take a look at his Thursday show notes. I certainly couldn’t say it any better than El Rushbo.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Matthew,
Fiscal conservatives could easily rally behind Huck if he becomes the nominee. Take a look here:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032602a.cfm
December 8th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Also, you can take a look here:
“Cutting Taxes and Other Great Ideas for Congress from an Arkansas Governor”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/HL645.cfm
December 8th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Here is what may have happened with a Huck as POTUS on 9/12/01:
Press Release from the desk of the President of the United States:
I, the Honorable Reverend/President of the United States, issue a decree to round up all people of the Muslim faith, and let’s keep them all “quarantined” until we can understand the nature of our enemy. These are dangerous times, and we wan’t to quell the spreading of “Radical Jihad”. These interment camps will be very similar to the camps that took place with the Japanese during WWII. Folks, it is OK, and you all need to trust the wisdom of the All-Knowing Huck.
I can’t believe that Huck said that . . well, 2nd thought, I can. He probably related AIDS to leprosy, and heck, in the Bible they had leper camps, so why not have AIDS camps?! This guy needs to be stopped!!
December 8th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
You are ridiculous. That contributes nothing noteworthy to this blog.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Well, I guess there is no question about who is leading this race. The political assassins have turned all there knives toward Huckabee, and a 15 year old quote (that in context is a real yawner) gets about 150 posts in 4 1/2 hours.
This race is looking more and more like Huckabee’s to lose.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Rett,
You need to post Wiseguy’s link for all the “Huckabee-is-a-communist” paranoids on this site. Here it is again.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/HL645.cfm
December 8th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Huckabee is not a conservative Bill Clinton. Besides the social issues, Huckabee is to Bill Clinton’s left. For example, President Clinton was for free trade, while Huckabee is not. And I believe that Clinton raised taxes less in Arkansas than Huckabee did.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Wow. If only your beliefs translated to actual facts.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Marksal,
Huckabee is for free trade, as long as it is fair trade, meaning that foreign companies are not subsidizing that which is being traded so as to undercut their U.S. competitors.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Watching you all bicker is very amusing. The most amusing is how some people have jumped on to the Huckabee bandwagon as of late and all of the sudden have confidence that Huck will win. Where were all of you guys when Huckabee was struggling? Now a few numbers make you feel like the king of the world, eh? Don’t get your hopes up, because they will probably be dashed.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I have supported Huck since January.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:56 am
It’s sad that as a 6th grader, I knew more about AIDS and how it was transmitted than Gov. Huckabee did running for Senate.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Thomas,
If you look closely at what he is saying, he concern was that we thought we know how it was transmitted but we could be mistaken, thinking we knew more than we actually did (thus he cites the 1991 case with the dentist who transmitted it to several patients and yet they were not certain how it happened). In other words, what if we were wrong? Or what if, like the concern we have today for the bird flu, it was able to mutate so as to be able to transmit in other ways?
December 9th, 2007 at 2:50 am
We’re still finding stuff out about HIV transmission today. Kimberly Bergalis and lactation were not a good enough reason to make those kinds of extremist statements.
If he said it in 1984 it might be forgiveable. But to say it in 1992? Wow.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:22 am
This is absurd.
You guys want to guarantee lose in November? Try fielding a candidate who said gays were a “public health risk.”
See if that changes the perception of the GOP, which is definitely necessary in the wake of Bush’s screwups, Republican sex scandals, corruption, and wasteful spending.
A guy who hated on gays in a ridiculous way who will likely spend just as much as Bush?
VICTORY! You’ve figured it out!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Huckabee has just shed his sheep’s clothing. Stopping AIDs research would sentence millions of innocent children to death. Include the children of the United States in that. There are people who now have AIDS, or who will have AIDs who have done nothing to warrant the comments made about them by Huckabee. I am ashamed of the man.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Before someone takes exception to my previous comments, yes, I read his response to his AIDs comments. Obviously, his mentality regarding persons with AIDs has not changed, just his political rhetoric, and that so recently that the paint has barely dried.