Rasmussen Michigan GOP Primary
- Mike Huckabee 21%
- Mitt Romney 20%
- Rudy Giuliani 19%
- Fred Thompson 9%
- John McCain 8%
- Ron Paul 7%
The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
We now have a situation where Mike Huckabee is first in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, first in Michigan, second in Nevada, first in South Carolina, and second in Florida. Not to mention, quickly overtaking Rudy Giuliani as the overall national frontrunner.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Go Huck!!!
December 8th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Huckabee…Huckabee…Go Huck
December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 am
In short, we have a situation where the Republican Party ceases to be a credible vehicle for conservative free market public policy.
Time to turn on the gas and take a long winters nap.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Does anyone believe the “Rudy’s going to win Florida after collapsing everywhere else” nonsense if Huckabee’s leading in Michigan?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Matt, Metro probably does.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Neck to neck.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Keep the expectations high for Huck. Now fiscal conservatives can spend the next three weeks awakening to the threat of losing any semblance of control over their party. Huck now will be hammered over this period. Wall Street Republicans will not let their party slip away without a fight.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Wall Streeters are already cozing up to the dems. Haven’t you seen the fundraising numbers? This probably just seals the deal for them.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am
stunning…. I never thought that could be Huckabee country, and that means New Hampshire is certainly in play for him…
December 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I think Huck will be pounded in the news, but he’s countering that by approaching the pastors networks in several states. He is really making this a religious vote, and his supporters are making this a Southern Christina versus Mormons/Catholics/Jews/etc. battle.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
The problem here is likely Republican voters. The actual primary voters in MI also consist of a substantial segment of independent voters. Rasmussen polls cannot be used draw any conclusions due to his so-con bias. McCain getting only 8% in MI makes his showing in NH all the more important.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Matthew, you said one of the most insightful and important things in another thread that I thought it should be put here and get the visibility it deserves:
“The sad thing about Huckabee, is he’s the most genuinely skilled politician I’ve ever seen. Better then Clinton. Better then Reagan. And I feel this overwhelming sense of waste; what could we have done with a conservative with Huckabee’s abilities? What sort of lasting movement could we have created?”
When you think about the trajectory of the GOP over the last 3 years it has got to be one of the more remarkable declines in the prospects of a political party in the nation’s history. 3 years ago there was talk of a permanent conservative governing majority that would change the American political landscape for a generation or two. Now we seem to be rushing headlong to nominate the one candidate who would dissolve the coalition Reagan built. We will, in effect, have 2 big-government statist parties in this country. It is frightening to imagine what this portends for the U.S. and world economy and, more broadly, for freedom.
At least when Robertson, Keyes and Bauer ran they were for economic freedom. The Left’s longstanding boogieman of the GOP as a “Christianist” party has come to fruition.
This free market evangelical is going Libertarian or Constitution Party is this clown gets the nomination.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Are even Rudy’s February 5th “firewall” states of NJ, CT, NY, and DE safe with this maniac on the loose? People have lost their home states before.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
New Hampshire is still very different than Michigan. Huckabee was getting lambasted on conservative radio last night here in Southern California, and a lot of callers were calling in saying that they hadn’t heard anything about the Dumond case before nor Huck’s policy on paroles and clemency of other violent criminals. Some education has to be done quickly. A couple said that didn’t care what his records was because their pastors are promoting him/
December 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
We should’ve realized Huck would be competitive in blue-collar/unionized Michigan.
I’ve been posting that millions of blue-collar/union Democrats would vote for Huck in the general, and there are enough blue-collar/union Republicans to make a difference in GOP primaries, especially in a state like Michigan.
This is the danger of populism. Populism combined with the most likeable, funniest guy in the race.
I hope the economic conservatives would pack up and move in with the DLC and start pushing that party further right.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Matt, if Huck wins every pre-FL state except NH, then I think FL is in severe danger.
Except for one major thing. You’ll see every one of the other candidates on the same state endorsing the anti-Huck by late January. And Rush Limbaugh 80% of the pundits and elites on TV.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Hey all - i had a question for the board. i was thinking of flying to iowa for christmas break / new years, to get a chance to see the candidates, and possibly do some volunteer work. Does anyone know if that would be a good idea? will there be events happening, would i be able to help out at all?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am
This is truly what the founders were afraid of, when it came to Democracy, that the “emotional masses” would be swayed to support a populist candidate.
Metro, you better get your guy going because if Mitt or Rudy can’t stop this guy, we are in trouble.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am
If you are going there to campaign for Huckabee it is a terrible idea. The weather is dreadful and they often times kill people who are from out of state.
If you are for any of the free-market candidates (Rudy, Mitt, Fred) it is a great idea.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Good post by Paul Mirrengoff on Huckabee’s foreign policy: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019217.php
December 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
joe c,
Just contact a campaign office directly because there will be down time for the campaigns at the holidays. Also, if you go to the Des Moines Register site they have a feature that allows you to enter a date and a candidate to determine upcoming events.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Maybe Huckabee will go down in a plane crash inexplicably a few days before his election, like the last uber-likeable populist type candidate we saw.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I still remember scores of working-class Catholics from the working-class, Catholic Michigan town in which I grew up heading to the polls in 1992 to vote for Pat Buchanan in the GOP primary. Many of these folks went on to vote Democrat in the fall (or for Perot) when “Go, Pat, go” didn’t really go anywhere at all. They weren’t tribal Republicans by any means, and they voted for Buchanan not in spite of his economic liberalism and vocal Catholicism, but because of it. There are probably at least as many working-class fundamentalist Protestants in Michigan who have been waiting for a candidate who thinks like them. While they may only comprise 20-30 percent of primary voters, that’s a plurality in a 5-man race. And if Huckabee wins Michigan, whoever wins New Hampshire (either McCain or Romney) is basically done, and Huck goes on to win Nevada and South Carolina on January 19th and will face Rudy in Florida…alone.
The dread rises.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Folks, do you really believe that a single candidate can turn around a whole party in a single presidential primary?
If Huck rises as someone openly denouncing small-government conservatism, he would also have to purge numerous state GOP branches and somewhere around a third to a half of all GOP congressmen.
There are some powerful forces of inertia that make it difficult for me to image the whole GOP going fully fledged New Dealing, bleeding-heart Christian almost over night.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am
DaveG, and, as I said last night…. the irony of it all, as most all the name Republicans rally around Rudy to save the party from being split.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:42 am
DaveG,
Do you agree with my assessment, that Michigan would be a top target for Huckabee in the general election? I’ve said he’d likely go after Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Minnesota. And get at least two of the four. He’ll play awfully on the coasts, but what Republican needs the coasts?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am
MarkG makes a good point.
As if Rudy had decided that abortion and gun control were his #1 issues and ran in the Democratic primary, campaigning also on his right-wing foreign policy and economics. Do you really think liberals evaporate and nominate him?
The vast majority of Republicans are economic and security conservatives, and that is why Huck has a lower ceiling than Rudy, as likeable as he is.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Huckaboom in Rasmussen begins to fade;today Rudy up 2, Huck down 1;
December 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I just simply cannot get my mind around this phenomenon. It’s as if an entire segment of the party has collectively lost its mind.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
MarkG,
True, but the party is already suffering from a fiscally retarded President currently. Remember 2006? With Huckabee we will be repeating it in 2008.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Irish Right, ya know, people like me and TLG and Awakened warned you what happens when you let religion control a party. Do you really think supply-side economics has much meaning for the devout?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Metro,
I think more people are attracted to fiscal liberalism, so no. I think 90% of the democratic party is composed of genuine, rock-ribbed, fiscal liberals. I think the Republican party is composed of 35-50% genuine, rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives. The rest who identify that way do so because they liked Reagan and hated communism. Are the 30’s through 70’s just a blur to you? You know, that era where there was no hint of fiscal conservatism, anywhere?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Can I take back every negative thing I have said about Romney?
I still have grave reservations about his ability to win a general election (as all the painful discussion threads of this week demonstrate), but at least the party would remain a conservative party.
Please, Mitt, save us evangelicals from ourselves!
December 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Matt, ok, 50% of Republicans rock-ribbed economic conservatives, I’ll accept. But most of the other 50% is sympathetic to that mindset when it’s properly put to them the way Reagan did, or the way Rudy does.
P.S. I don’t use the term “fiscal conservatism” because so many people use it to mean balanced budgets. You can have balanced budgets under socialism.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
GaryMiller,
Not sure how serious you are, but I am beggining to think It’s going to be “anyone but huck” and we will see the GOP coalesce around an alternative.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
JFK was a tax cutter and a tough SOB on foreign policy. Camelot indeed.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Metro,
Yes, you have been warning against Huckabee for quite a whie now. You are a real prophet.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
You all can blame this mayhem on Fox News. I just have to laugh.
They wanted to create a Huck surge in Iowa to help Rudy but ended up creating a Huck surge in the entire country. I guess someone screwed up! They will probably start trashing him now. Idiots.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
MarkG,
The problem is not that Huck, individually, will be the ruin of the party. However, with Repubs staying away in droves, the downticket candidates are hosed. Thus, we will be looking at Democratic majorities in both Houses with a president who is more sympatico with them than their own candidate of finance and foreign affairs. As a result of the super majority that the Dems will win with Huck as our candidate, his veto (if he would even wield it), will be meaningless.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I may also up and travel to Iowa as well to do everything I can in the weeks before the Caucus.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Jason, even when I believed his appeal would be largely limited to Iowa, a la Robertson, Bauer, Keyes, you scoffed at me for saying he could reach 19% in Iowa by January.
What’s happened is that I was proven right, but on an order of magnitude bigger than I imagined, while you ridiculed me for the level I predicted.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:53 am
To answer those of you out there who don’t get what Republicans see in Huckabee or why they would vote for him. Most of the Republican base doesn’t see the scary picture being painted of Mike Huckabee. They see a likable guy who is a mainstream conservative. He’s not the most conservative candidate in the field of the major candidates (that would be Thompson). But he’s not a liberal either, or even a moderate. He has a few moderate issues, but most of his issue stances are conservative. This is how most people see him. They also see someone who is honest and trustworthy. They see the system as broken, and Huckabee as an outsider and a reformer. They don’t see the scary caricature that you guys see.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Gary (#33) LOL!
This is amazing . . . we’ll see how it plays out.
Looks like EVERYONE’S guns will be aimed at Huckabee now (now that’s a relief as a Romney supporter who currently held that postion)
It may depend on momuntuem over the final two weeks.
Huck can’t continue to have a week like the past one . . . but we’ll see.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Who was saying this morning or last night that Huck had no chance in Michigan????
Folks, it’s time for a new #1 in the Power Rankings.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Matthew Miller:
Yes, I think Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin are Huck’s purple-state targets in the general. He’d have to make sure his network of evangelicals kept a lid on the doctrinal suspicions that they hold towards Catholicism, as these are Catholic-heavy states. But as a so-con without a hard edge, and with populist economics to boot, Huckabee would be well positioned to give Hillary a run for her money in the Great Lakes states. Huck’s problem is that he would almost certainly lose New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, and would have no chance at all in any Northeastern or West Coast state, and might lose Arizona, and could certainly lose Florida to Clinton, who has always run very strong down there. If I flip all the states I just mentioned and leave the rest of the red/blue map alone, Huckabee beats Hillary by a margin of 278-260 EVs. In other words, too close to call.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Eric, true, and that’s why the Huckaboom will not last — they will be discovering many things shortly.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’m forced to concede that Huckabee is probably a terrific campaigner, but he hasn’t been campaigning in Michigan. Populism has a strong appeal for a large segment of the electorate, and so does religion if it is properly packaged. Combined with momentum….in this case the momentum generated by all of the stories about Huck rising in Iowa….it’s a potent brew.
If I were Mitt, I would focus almost exclusively on Iowa for the next 3 weeks or so, and I’ll bet he does….at least to the extent that he’s free to revise his schedule. If I were Rudy, I would forget all about Florida and concentrate on Michigan. Frankly, he can’t win New Hampshire, and this poll shows that he’s in the hunt in Michigan. Romney and Huckabee, the other guys in the hunt, will be busy beating up on each other in Iowa, so Rudy has an opening….if he’s wise enough to do it.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Jason, I am deadly serious.
I actually started in late ‘06 being a Romney supporter. I have reservations about his ability to win. I migrated (briefly) to Fred before coming to the realization he did not have the ambition to win. I am now for Rudy because of his fiscal/foreign policy credentials and his commitment to appoint the type of judges we need.
I’ll support anyone who can stop Huck at this point.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Yep,
Metro, Rudy, Dick Morris, and Fox News are all probably feeling pretty stupid right now for promoting the Huck surge.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Jeff, I’m feeling quite the opposite of stupid, having been proven right in an absolutely huge way. And I’ll be proven right again that Huck will not win a 2-man race.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Huck ahead of Romney on Intrade again. Rudy below 40 for the first time in a long time. Current standings:
Rudy 38.7
Huck 20.5
Mitt 19.7
Jmac 8.1
Fred 5.0
December 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Gary Matthew Miller,
It’s amazing how having a common enemy can put things into perspective. Mitt, Fred, Rudy, and John all seem like excellent choices now. And I think this feeling sort of leads guys like Metro to believe “look, if everyone is uniting so quickly against Huckabee now, we’ll have the whole movement united against him by February 5th”. I think this is a tempting idea, but a fatal error. We are a special breed of Republican. We’re incredibly active, we can passionately about issues and principles, and sometimes we’re able to look beyond our own perceived interests. The rest of the electorate is nothing like this. Right now, they’re concerned about the state of the country. They’re not ideologically to too many ideas, and to the extent that they, they’re motivated by core moral convictions, not vague abstract economic principles. Huckabee seems great to these people, and if we wait too long to tell them different, we’ll be unable to stop his momentum. I asked my dad yesterday, if he’d heard of Mike Huckabee.
My dad’s a Dem who generally votes Republican over taxes and defense. He responded “isn’t he that guy who lost weight?” That was essentially the extent of his knowledge. And my Dad’s 1 class from away from a PHD and a vociferous reader. If he can’t be bothered to care enough about the issues this country faces, then I’m deeply skeptical that rural voters, with “heartland” values, or suburban moms will be able to. They’ll see Mike Huckabee, they’ll like him, and the media will thrust him into a uniquely positive position. And we’ll be unable to stop him, even with all the “conservative opinion-makers” on our side.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Considering the current momentum, it’ll be interesting to see what attention tomorrow’s events draw. The three I’m most interested in is Rudy with Russert on MTP, Huckabee with Wallace on FNS, and the Univision debate — which I hope someone streams online.
The reason I mentioned inertia in the GOP leadership circles and am still open to Huck in theory as the nominee: If the leadership could convince Huck of the small-government, tax-cutting “religion” — man, would he be effective at spreading the word in an effective fashion!
December 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Matt, there’s a chance you’re right. But Republican primary voters tend to watch FoxNews, and they’re going to see 80-90% of the Republican talking heads they know and love uniting against Huckabee and educating them about him.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
DaveG,
Stop stealing my thoughts. J/K kinda.
There is no way Huckabee wins even 3 of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I got one word for you - Women! Sure, catholics too, but Huckabee does not appeal to independent or democratic women. In fact, last I checked he was losing women to Romney in Iowa.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
problem here is the polls are not going to pick up how many Dems and Indies will vote on the republican side.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Matthew, I’m not saying we CAN stop him. Only that we have a MORAL obligation to stop him.
If the GOP ceases to be a vehicle, albeit flawed, for economic freedom the nation’s and world’s future looks grim.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I am really surprised and disappointed in the so-cons. I hope this misery stops soon. Do these people even know who Mike Huckabee really is?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I tend to agree with Metro on Fox News and Limbaugh. They’re not going to stand for Huckabee. If Limbaugh pimps Huckabee in a general election contest, his listeners would rightly call him out for being a sellout. This is a guy that has pushed limited government (except for national defense) for twenty years. And I have always had a sneaky suspicion that Rush never gave a hoot about the social issues (Have you heard some of his raunchy innuendos?) and only catered to them to keep them on the reservation to win elections.
Now the inmates are taking over the asylum. What a friggin’ mess!
December 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
MarkG,
Tomorrow the media will be focused on Oprah and Obama in South Carolina in a football stadium.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I think this poll is not that surprising because a Detroit Press poll taken on 8/13 showed Fred ahead Rudy 22-19 in MI. Then he faded quickly. 16% undecided here. Close 3-way race means person with funds and organization has advantage. As usual, unwarranted hysterical reaction here.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Do these people even know who Mike Huckabee really is?”
I fear they do.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Matt Drudge is already doing his part on the Huck resistance LOL. As a libertarian the Huck surge is probably freaking him out.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Interestingly, the anti-Huck movement could really help Rudy in NH. NH voters will see Mitt as damaged goods due to what’s likely to happen in Iowa, and especially how that renders him a poor anti-Huck to voters in subsequent states. And secular NH voters are going to be very uncomfortable with the GOP race being discussed as a Baptist vs. Mormon race. This could add up to a big surge for Rudy in NH.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
The Huckabee surge is turning out as the best way to knock off Gulliani’s once inevitable run at the white house. THe two man race everyone was talking about for the last few months is really Romney-Huckabee!
December 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Matthew, as one who has a track record of producing unintentional howlers, don’t take offense: my Dad’s 1 class from away from a PHD and a vociferous reader in #52. Your dad’s probably a voracious reader unless he reads aloud.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Metro, I’ll laugh my ass off when Huck knocks Rudy out in southern baptist Florida.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Metro,
I think one way or another the NH numbers are going to change in a big way after IA. I wonder how much of Romney’s numbers in the state are based on name recognition? Maybe he’s held onto his lead because his fiscal conservative credentials aren’t bad (still not as good as Rudy’s - but Romney has a home field advantage in NH). I can’t see how a Huck win in IA, especially if it’s a double-digit win won’t harm Romney in NH. I don’t know if it helps Giuliani or McCain but I think we’ll see the numbers turn as quickly in NH after 1/3 as they did over the last week in IA.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
DaveG,
#45, I think that is a good assessment for the general election, if it is close. I think Huckabee will run a little better than Bush in the Industrial Midwest, and a little worse in the purple states of the west. No Republican will seriously contend the left coast or the Northeast in a close election, despite the fantasies of the Rudyites, who seem to think their candidate is sufficiently liberal to win these states.
But I will gladly trade Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado in exchange for Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. I think Huckabee will run strong in all four of those states.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Cough… Cough…
Kavon W. Nikrad 5-2006:
OK… So I was wrong about the amount of money that GOP candidates would be able to raise (who knew??). But otherwise…
December 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Guys, check out Drudge, The Page and Politico. They are all running with the story that in 1992, Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS victims and said that “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.”
We’ll see if this catches on. But this is probably just another DuMond story; it’s important for us online, but the everyday person doesn’t know and doesn’t care.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
MarkG,
Lol. Indeed.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Metro,
I disagree completely on NH. Normal voters aren’t going to care a whole lot whether or not Rudy campaigns in Iowa. They will still see him probably come in 4th or even 5th. Now with Fred going to stay in Iowa, I think 4th or worse is a foregone conclusion. If voters were to see Mitt as damaged goods they would go to McCain who has been camping out in NH and has upward momentum there. Giuliani, if anything, is losing supporters and has negative momentum in NH. With this Michigan poll I am really starting to hope we can bring down the monster that Giuliani et al have created.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
By the way all these polls showing Huck ripping it up were all taken before the big speech. It will be intersting to see how they look a couple weeks from now. Also I find it funny that this poll was done on the 4tha dn is just now getting publicized just like the Iowa one. Media attention. How much does this really reflect the electorate.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Metro,
“Interestingly, the anti-Huck movement could really help Rudy in NH.”
Other than Sean Hannity (who is shilling for Rudy on behalf of his boss) and insular sites like this, there is no “stop Huckabee” movement. Sensible people don’t buy all these histrionics about “nanny statism” and “fiscally left of Clinton.” That’s a bunch of crap from hyperbolic bloggers, and the voters know it.
Consider this from Rasmussen’s latest national poll:
“Giuliani is now viewed favorably by 68% of Republican voters while Huckabee and Romney earn positive reviews from 62%. Thompson is viewed favorably by 61% of Republicans, McCain by 54%. Looked at from the other perspective, Thompson is viewed unfavorably by 22%, Huckabee by 23%. Unfavorables for Giuliani, Romney, and McCain all top the 30% mark.”
Notice that Huckabee has the second lowest DISAPPROVAL number (one point behind the comatose Fred).
December 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Okay, Matthew, maybe you should take offense. I said Matthew, as one who has a track record of producing unintentional howlers, don’t take offense, which should have been “as one who has a track record of producing unintentional howlers, I don’t mean to offend.” Gotta watch the implied subjects of adverbials. What a crazy way to run a language…
December 8th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Here’s why the dread is rising:
IA: Huck wins, Romney comes in a distant second.
NH: Huck gains, but not enough to place better than third. Romney loses a few points over the next month because of the Union Leader attacks, and loses a few points after being deflated in IA, and Mitt loses NH to McCain. Romney out.
MI: Huck, Rudy, and Romney are currently in a 3-way tie for the state. Huck’s IA showing bumps him up a few points. Rudy’s lack of a win in the first two states causes him to lose a few points. Romney bleeds support after losing both IA and NH. Huck goes up, Rudy and Romney go down, McCain goes up after winning NH, but not enough to catch Huck. Huck wins Michigan. McCain out.
SC/NV: With Romney gone, and with McCain gone, and with Rudy bleeding support due to his first few finishes, Huck, who is currently coming in second in NV, moves into first and takes the state. Uses his momentum to win evangelical-friendly SC. Fred out.
FL: Huck v. Rudy, Round One. Could go either way, but let’s say Huck’s mo’ and the “southern” part of Florida, i.e., the northern part geographically, give Huck the state and all of its delegates. Huck has the momentum going into Super Tuesday.
Feb 5th: Rudy wins NY/NJ/CT/DE while Huck splits states like CA and IL with the Mayor. Rudy makes a big delegate comeback, but Huck and Rudy are now basically even in the delegate count. As Metro pointed out last night, if Huck wins most of the early states and Florida, he ends up only 50 delegates behind Rudy after Super Tuesday, even if Rudy wins the Northeastern states, just as long as Huck’s momentum allows him to fairly evenly split states like CA and IL with Rudy. So Rudy and Huck come out of Super Tuesday tied.
Now what happens? The big blue states are gone. Remaining are heartland states like Texas that Huck will take. Rudy falls behind in the delegate count and Huck wins the nod sometime in March.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Metro,
What MWS says is exactly why we must stop Huckabee in Iowa. What would be worse? Hillary or Romney or Huckabee? Two nanny staters or a late to the game all around conservative? I think Huckabee and Romney could perhaps beat Hillary but I would have already left for the constitution party if Huckabee were holding the reins.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“If the GOP ceases to be a vehicle, albeit flawed, for economic freedom the nation’s and world’s future looks grim.”
This is the sort of lost-touch-with-reality, hyperbolic histrionics I was referring to in #75.
The average voter is too attached to the earth to believe that Huckabee is against “economic freedom.”
December 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
MWS, you really don’t get around the blogosphere much, do you? All of it is uniting against Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Look folks, y’all remember how every candidate gets incredible scrutiny? Huck will be no different. Chill!
December 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Mcon,
I voted Constitution party in our last gubenatorial race.
I’m voting Huckabee this time out. Look at Huckabee’s actual positions and don’t buy the histrionics.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“MWS, you really don’t get around the blogosphere much, do you? All of it is uniting against Huck.”
In #75 I said, ” there is no “stop Huckabeeâ€? movement. Sensible people don’t buy all these histrionics about “nanny statismâ€? and “fiscally left of Clinton.â€? That’s a bunch of crap from hyperbolic bloggers, and the voters know it.”
Acknowledging that a lot of bloggers are going into hysterics over Huckabee. But bloggers tend to be self-important, and voters have more sense than to believe that Huckabee is to Clinton’s left on fiscal issues.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS victims and said that “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.â€?”
And thus they must be removed from society and homosexuality must be banned. You know, like in Iran. They don’t even HAVE homosexuals over there. And remember, it’s all for the common good.
Put up the siren, Drudge. Put up the siren.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
MWS, you can make angry statements, but you cannot deny the phenomenon that folks who’ve hated one another in all the other camps are uniting against Huckabee. While a Matt Miller or DaveG may not carry a whole lot of weight in the Republican world, the same is not true for a Mirengoff or Hinderaker, or a Fred Barnes or Rich Lowry.
How much weight do you think it would have when Rudy, Mitt, Fred, McCain, Hunter and Tancredo all stand on the same stage rallying around one of them, saying Huck is a nice man but must be stopped from destroying the GOP?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
MWS,
The record doesn’t lie MWS. Huckabee increased taxes more then Clinton, he increased spending more then Clinton (all adjusted for inflation), and he’s running considerably to the left on trade, business, etc. You may be right that the voters (i.e, Republican voters) won’t believe Huckabee’s to Clinton’s left on fiscal issues, but it won’t be because they have too much sense, but too little, and have come to believe that any peddler with an R by his name must be fiscally conservative.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Is this a christian position?:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids
December 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
MWS,
As I have mentioned before, I have followed this race seriously since before the last one. Huckabee is a populist evangelical who wears his faith on his sleeve and who has severe nanny state tendencies. Mix in his love of balanced budgets, er raising taxes, and his disguised anti-mormon campaign in Iowa and you have a recipe for someone I could not support.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
MWS,
I’ve got your histrionics right here.
Dude, your guy called the Club for Growth the “Club for Greed”. He told the pro-growth wing of the party to get lost. If he wins the nomination, I will oblige him as will all those who love economic liberty.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
DaveG,
I think that is a plausible scenario, except nobody but Metro and TLG will give a crap about Rudy by Jan. 29 if he doesn’t improve in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Gary hits it on the head, MWS. Debating the finer points of the AR budget does not address Huckabee choosing to use the term “Club for Greed” or making some of the other John Edwardseque statements he has made. He has shown us where his heart lies.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
A little PS. to 88:
EVER.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I think what these types of threads show is that online Republicans who discuss politics see it as more than just determining who our leaders are.
It’s almost as if they see politics as a personal struggle that defines them.
Perhaps it’s because a lot of the people on here have swallowed some ideology.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I’m starting to think Rudy’s got a very good shot at NH. Not just due to the proper timing of his blitz, but due to Romney being damaged goods to be the anti-Huck after IA, and secular NH voters being very uncomfortable with the GOP race being discussed as a Baptist vs. Mormon race, which they know would render the nominee dead meat in the general.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“The Republican Party must stop being a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street”.
-Our Friendly Neighborhood Socialist
December 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
See, MWS, quotes like #95 preclude the need for going over Huck’s record. He makes it freakin clear he is our enemy.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
When Metro, Jason Bonham, sampo and Tommy are all uniting against Huck, you should realize it’s a phenomenon bigger than Race42008. Read some other authors.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
The “Huckabee wanted to Isolate AIDS patients” now has nearly 800 votes on yahoo. For folks who aren’t in the know, that’s alot.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Econ,
I have swallowed the ideology of liberty. Guilty as charged.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
For a comparison, the big Oprah story (which came out a few minutes before the Huckabee story) only has 311 votes.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Matt, where do you “vote” on yahoo?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
#99, Bravo Gary.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids;_ylt=Arpgm2EGH3IdB4Q3jS8Wwb2s0NUE
December 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
It’s more like a “recommend” I guess. Towards the bottom.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
By the way all these polls showing Huck ripping it up were all taken before the big speech. It will be intersting to see how they look a couple weeks from now. Also I find it funny that this poll was done on the 4th and is just now getting publicized just like the Iowa one. Media attention. How much does this really reflect the electorate.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I’m starting to see the bright side to Huck’s surge. All year, social conservatives were looking for an anti-Rudy to rally around. Their choice is official now and he’s the total opposite of Rudy but the so-cons left enough time on the clock for the ficons and defense/security conservatives to answer back. They won’t answer with Rudy because we’ve seen how that worked out. This whole thing has been a negotiation between major factions of the party and Romney becomes the compromise.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Since almost all of these candidates been campaigning for months and building up support, why would they not hold through from the IA caucuses all the way to “tsunami Tuesday” only 30 days later?
I could imagine Hunter shutting down operations after IA, and JMac exiting by SC for lack of funding if he comes in below third in NH.
I can’t imagine the rest not holding out to see what happens on Feb. 5 after months of campaigning, each according to his own theory of what will win.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Gary Miller:
“I have swallowed the ideology of liberty. Guilty as charged.”
See statements like those show just hysterical folks are getting. I don’t see Huckabee convincing state legislatures to repeal the Bill of Rights or the 13, 14, and 15th amendments.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk”
The first half is also the position of the Catholic Church and all protestant churches which have not jettisoned the old faith. The second half is a simple observation. The life expectancy of male homosexuals in this country is in the mid-50s. Chain smokers do better than that. If any other behavior cut 20 years off someone’s life expectancy, the media would be all over it.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Everyone sees this as Romney’s end. I think Huck’s surge is hurting Gulliani just as much or more. Before no one could touch Rudy in the national polls. He relied on that to show is campaign strength even though he has been sucking up the early states. Huck has taken more points from Rudy than Mitt.
Huck has played Rudy. Haha Maybe Huck will let Rudy be HIS VP. Probably not though. Not enough foriegn policy experience. Huck has been all nice to Rudy lets see if its Rudy that gets the shaft.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Econ,
I don’t see him convincing state legislatures either as Huck does not believe in federalism.
I think executive orders mandating the lion to lie down with the lamb will be his preferred methodology.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
#107. exactly. It is also worth noting that some may have “valuable” delegates to trade if it comes to a brokered convention.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Gomer’s ascendancy started at the Values Voter Conference when Romney won the straw poll but to diminish the win the GOP elite and MSM pushed the line that Huckabee “worked” the crowd and “won” handily among the attendees, which isn’t hard for him to do considering he’s had years of practice working up Evangelicals saying the right things and hitting the right buttons.
In life a win is a win but when you deal in politics a win isn’t always a win. It’s the same with Ames where an 18 point loss was a second place “win”. For the past year every milestone that Romney hit, and every goal accomplished there was the GOP establishment looking down on it playing it down believing that Rudy was the “Clinton-killer”. It was the elites of the GOP who created Gomer playing up his 2nd place “wins”. This “Presidential” candidate is second rate propped up as first rate with less than admirable credentials and accomplishments.
The GOP elite handed this Golden Calf to the MSM and they’re going to ride it all the way to the General Election where they can two birds with one stone - Divide the Conservative Coalition and marginalize or eliminate the effectiveness of the religious right and Social Conversatism.
I’m spitting nails mad at what’s occured. There’s still a few weeks left to save the Conservative Movement from changing completely, I’m going to work my a## off trying to make sure that it doesn’t happen. I hope that those of you who agree with me do your part.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
HIV/AIDS deserves the attention. And that is why on AIDS awareness day Huckabee spoke out about more research funding and healthcare benefits for persons with HIV.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
The Huckabee surge is turning out as the best way to knock off Gulliani’s once inevitable run at the white house. THe two man race everyone was talking about for the last few months is really Romney-Huckabee!
By the way all these polls showing Huck ripping it up were all taken before the big speech. It will be intersting to see how they look a couple weeks from now. Also I find it funny that this poll was done on the 4th and is just now getting publicized just like the Iowa one. Media attention. How much does this really reflect the electorate.
Everyone sees this as Romney’s end. I think Huck’s surge is hurting Gulliani just as much or more. Before no one could touch Rudy in the national polls. He relied on that to show is campaign strength even though he has been sucking up the early states. Huck has taken more points from Rudy than Mitt.
Huck has played Rudy. Haha Maybe Huck will let Rudy be HIS VP. Probably not though. Not enough foriegn policy experience. Huck has been all nice to Rudy lets see if its Rudy that gets the shaft.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Wow, this is great news! Huckabee express is just starting to take off. And this is good news for both social and fiscal conservatives.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Randy/jacks, How would the party rally around Mitt to be the anti-Huck, after Huck quashed Mitt in Iowa? That storyline isn’t gonna work.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
WiseGuy, how the hell do you say this is good news for fiscal conservatives, when Huck attacks Wall Street and the Club for Growth?
That’s no different from John Edwards, idiot.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
MWS,
The first half is also the position of the Catholic Church and all protestant churches which have not jettisoned the old faith. The second half is a simple observation.
I have lost all respect for you. Huckabee made that comment in 1992, not 1982. This was well after it was known that AIDS/HIV wasn’t spread through everyday contact and wasn’t a virus exclusive to homosexuals. Remember that Magic Johnson publicly revealed that he had HIV in 1991. So either Huckabee was incredibly ignorant of the facts at the time or he wanted to isolate a group of people that he knew didn’t poss a threat.
How disgusting.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Matthew,
““The Republican Party must stop being a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Streetâ€?.
-Our Friendly Neighborhood Socialist”
You know, most of your comments are really thoughtful. A few threads ago, I sarcastically predicted that by Iowa Huckabee would be smeared as a full fledged communist, by New Hampshire, he will have started the Russian Revolution, and by Feb. 5, will have coauthored the Communist Manifesto.
Comments like that make me rethink how much sarcasm I should have left out.
As for the merits of Huckabee’s comment, I will say this. So-cons deliver the votes, but the Fortune 500 gets their loopholes and subsidies. Are you a fan of corporate welfare? Because that’s what the Republican party has been delivering for Wall Street for years. Huckabee isn’t attacking capitalism, but government largesse.
Seems to me a true conservative should oppose corporat welfare.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
The MSM loves Huck. I didn’t see Anderson Cooper throwing at near as much stuff at Huck as he has to everyone else.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
At the rate that Huck is taking the wind out of Rudy. Rudy’s campaign will be dead on arrival in Florida
December 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
LJ,
I don’t advocate isolating people with AIDS, and I’m sure Huckabee doesn’t any more either. Which part of his quote which I repasted do you take exception to? The fact that homosexually is unnatural, or the fact that male homosexuals have on average about 20 fewer years to live?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
MWS, I oppose corporate welfare, not Wall Street. The Club for Growth opposes corporate welfare, too.
You know nothing about economic conservatism.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
jacks, I think you’ll find Anderson Cooper throwing a lot at Huck after the HIV/AIDS quarantee quote, given that Cooper is gay………
December 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
As plausable as it may seem I still see Mitt as having the best chance against Huck unless by some crazy chance the whole Ron Paul blimp thing works
December 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
We need to rally around Mitt to save the party. It will still take the three legged stool to win the general election.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Guys, check out Drudge, The Page and Politico. They are all running with the story that in 1992, Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS victims and said that “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.�
We’ll see if this catches on. But this is probably just another DuMond story; it’s important for us online, but the everyday person doesn’t know and doesn’t care. - LJ
These Huckabee people probably AGREE.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
MWS. How would you feel if a candidate said chain smokers live 20 years less, so we’ll ban them from PPO’s and force them into HMO’s?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Bob/jacks, if Huck quashes Mitt’s undefeatable lead in the very first contest, how does that storyline help Mitt be the anti-Huck?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
MWS, I oppose corporate welfare, not Wall Street. The Club for Growth opposes corporate welfare, too. You know nothing about economic conservatism. - Metro
It really disgusts me that people think that everything that Wall Street wants is “pro-capitalist.” Capitalism means free markets; keeping the government out of the economy, not boosting select businesses based on the wants of bureaucrats.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
As is Drudge
December 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Is Cooper gay? I’m not surprised.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Is Cooper gay? I’m not surprised. I wasn’t buying that whole 40 year old batchelor thing anyways
December 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“The first half is also the position of the Catholic Church and all protestant churches which have not jettisoned the old faith.”
It doesn’t matter. The presidency is not a contest to see who can best unite Christian doctrine. And if you think that the majority of Catholics, or Protestants for that matter, give a whit about the official positions of their respective churches, I really don’t know what country you’re living in. Most people in this country are nominal Christians, and every evangelical I’ve ever spoken with about religion agrees with that statement.
The presidency is a public office created by a secular constitution. The fact that Huckabee’s supporters seem to think that we’re electing a Pastor-in-Chief is terrifying. If Huckabee and Obama are the nominees, I could run third-party and outpoll both of them.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I think what these types of threads show is that online Republicans who discuss politics see it as more than just determining who our leaders are. It’s almost as if they see politics as a personal struggle that defines them. Perhaps it’s because a lot of the people on here have swallowed some ideology. - egs
I’m sorry, but some of us are rather concerned that a comedian/preacher is ready to assume the role of the GOP nominee for the Presidency of the United States.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Quashing Mitt in Iowa takes some wind out but if ROmney still wins New Hampshire I think he is still solid. Look Reagan lost Iowa but won New Hampshire to go on and win it all just like Papa Bush 41 lost Iowa to Dole in 88′ and went on to win New Hampshire and the rest
December 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Up until now FoxNews has been in love with Huckabee!!! If that doesn’t change fast, we may all be in trouble.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
It can go the other way too. We saw W. Bush win Iowa and lose New Hampshire to McCain back in 2000 and go on to win
December 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
It doesn’t matter. The presidency is not a contest to see who can best unite Christian doctrine. And if you think that the majority of Catholics, or Protestants for that matter, give a whit about the official positions of their respective churches, I really don’t know what country you’re living in. Most people in this country are nominal Christians, and every evangelical I’ve ever spoken with about religion agrees with that statement. The presidency is a public office created by a secular constitution. The fact that Huckabee’s supporters seem to think that we’re electing a Pastor-in-Chief is terrifying. If Huckabee and Obama are the nominees, I could run third-party and outpoll both of them. - DaveG
After this AIDS story, I’m convinced that Huckabee is not electable (I’ve thought until now that he is) and that too many Americans will be turned off by his extreme religiosity. I can see him winning in the South but nowhere else.
And one thing that unites the secular left and the religious right in this country is a belief that this country is filled with fake Christians, by the way.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
DaveG,
“It doesn’t matter. The presidency is not a contest to see who can best unite Christian doctrine.”
For the record, it is the anti-Huckabee folks here who have injected that quote into this campaign, not Huckabee. So don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“Up until now FoxNews has been in love with Huckabee!!! If that doesn’t change fast, we may all be in trouble.”
Hannity has been shilling for Guiliani for months.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
MWS:
Homosexuality is found throughout nature. It is present in many animal populations and is not just limited to we hairless primates. There have been several studies that show that gay men’s brains are simply wired differently than either straight men or women. As such, homosexuality can’t be “unnatural,” and if you have some evidence to the contrary, share it. Note that I expect your evidence to be empirical. If you plan to cite a bit of “revealed truth,” you’d better be able to prove empirically that said truth was actually revealed by a non-human intelligence.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Gary I’m wonder what your specific fear is.
I don’t think you’d be so intense if you thought Huckabee was just going to be another LBJ or FDR.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
TLG,
Just imagine the comercial that would make in the general. Even normal rational people would be turned off to somebody saying that.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
so if huckabee gets the nomination, who does he pick as VP? its got to be someone solid on foreign relations, experienced in the beltway game… this is sounding a lot like how bush and cheney. kill me…
December 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Are you guys surprised by Huck’s comments on AIDS. This was the Governor of the most redneck state in the union. Anyone will tell you that’s been to Arkansas, it’s a beautiful place but the people are backwoods. Just look at the story of Huck’s kid getting fired from Boy Scout camp for hanging that stray dog and killing it. I am done with rednecks in the white house.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Econ,
I don’t want another LBJ or FDR especially in my own party. It would stop being my party at that point.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Metro,
“How would you feel if a candidate said chain smokers live 20 years less, so we’ll ban them from PPO’s and force them into HMO’s?”
This has nothing to do with anything. If you are trying to imply that this has some relevance to Huckabee’s campaign, or even 15 year old quote, it doesn’t.
I didn’t think Rudyites were big fans of pulling out old quotes? Weren’t you just pounding some Rombots for that the other night?
Maybe we could dredge up some good Rudy material here….
December 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Wait, #144, EGS, “JUST going to be another LBJ or FDR” … are you saying those aren’t so bad???
December 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
137 - I agree with your reasoning that Mitt is better positioned than Rudy to be the anti-Huck candidate by his demonstrated leadership, ability to transform washington, and his command of financial matters which is what this nation needs.
After everyone has a chance to stand up for God and tell the pollster - yes, I’m supporting the only true christian in the race, they’ll get a chance to really compare/contrast these candidates and we’ll see a dampering of the enthusiasm for Huckster
December 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
After voting for Perot (boy, was I pissed at Bush I), I promised myself that I would never again vote for an off party candidate or skip an election.
I will NOT vote for Huck and I can’t see myself voting for any of the Dems. This is quite the conundrum.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
MWS, yes, it’s old, but it’s very, very extreme.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Huck’s VP. Hmmm it will be tough to push for Chuck Norris. Maybe make Chuck his Homeland Security secretary that will make those jihadists think twice.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
DaveG,
“As such, homosexuality can’t be “unnatural,â€? and if you have some evidence to the contrary, share it.”
There is nothing natural about ejaculating in another man’s anus.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
This is actually setting up really well for Mitt despite losing ground to Huck in Iowa. Now that the religious right has their candidate and the fiscons have theirs (Rudy), somethings gotta give to make both groups happy, and I don’t think the answer is putting Huck on the ticket will placate socons. They must be absolutely giddy with Jesus Juice at Huck’s rise and think that Mitt’s speech means America wants more religious influence in politics. For the record, that is a perverse interpretation of Mitt’s pleas for religious liberty, but I digress. At some point (Florida) the rest of the party is going to realize that neither Huck or Rudy is palatable to both wings of the party. That will open the door for Mitt Romney, what he has been saying all along.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Isn’t the AIDS story right in the wheelhouse of his main voting block? If so, he could still take Iowa and SC and with that momentum the story could lose its effectiveness. I would prefer if Huck was not one of the two man race scenario.
At least in that case, we could preserve our fiscal wing of party.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
*were not one of hte two man race..”
December 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Re #155, MWS, could you please get your candidate to say that?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
155 MWS - Wow - that is just the language of inclusiveness that we need in this nation. I’m sure your man Huck would be proud.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Hey Irish right Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,Ron Paul,
Sorry everybody I just had to make fun of all those Ron Paul people. If he weren’t so crazy. Hey maybe he can be Huck’s VP lol. Lets mix it up a bit
December 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
There is nothing natural about ejaculating in another man’s anus. - MWS
A natural Huckabee voter, if I do say so myself!
December 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Metro,
#150 was spot on. We now have Huckabee supporters on record in this thread as believing the FDR and LBJ are not bad.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Jeff,
“Wow - that is just the language of inclusiveness that we need in this nation. I’m sure your man Huck would be proud.”
That’s the rhetoric of the left.
I’m more interested in truth, than “inclusiveness.”
December 8th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Lest we forget Huck’s praise of Clinton’s NAFTA agreement - that’s a real winner in certain circles…
(GQ article - just after the simmering chili reference as I recall)
Does anyone have a nice bullet point of all of the rediculious statements made by our man Mike?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
There is nothing natural about ejaculating in another man’s anus. - MWS
Actually, if you’re going to define homosexuality completely by anal sex and remark on how that isn’t “natural” inasmuch as it serves no reproductive function, I assume, MWS, that you have never once had any sort of sexual experience with your wife or girlfriend other than regular vaginal intercourse (for reproduction, of course). Because sex for pleasure — and certainly any type except that which can be said to be for reproduction! — is not natural and not part of God’s Plan.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
MWS,
While I probably agree for the most part with your views on Homosexuality, this isn’t Iran and that probably isn’t the way to talk about it.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
We survived. I’m here on a comment board despite my parents suffering under
Pontius PilateLBJ and FDR.I don’t agree with most of their policies but the US advanced despite who the President was.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
164 - Your language is the language of a homophobe
December 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
#161, you laugh, but my wife and I were just discussing that. If he weren’t such a whackjob on foreign policy …
December 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
By MWS’ logic, all oral and anal intercourse, regardless of gender, is unnatural. The only solution then is to set up cameras in every bedroom in America to ensure that this sort of behavior isn’t taking place. Violators will be sent to re-education camps, of course. After all, our president should be more like a Big Brother who keeps us on the right track. Only then will we have the Christian Democracy that we deserve. And freedom and empiricism will die a slow death.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
166 - don’t leave out the part about praying to procreate before having sex - otherwise it’s sinful
December 8th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
WOW, EGS, in all my charicatures of you I’d never have imagined you were OK with LBJ and FDR.
What the hell are you doing in this party, anyway? There are socially conservative Democrats, you know.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
TLG,
This really isn’t the time to start talking about Homosexuality. I’m in no mood to start half defending MWS.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
EGS,
But FDR and LBJ were Democrats. If Huckabee runs the GOP, Republicans in Congress would be compelled to support him as well as almost all the Blue Dog Democrats. At that point, there will be two big government. The only difference would be that one is socially liberal and the other is socially conservative.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
TLG, Mcon is right.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Jeff,
I’m not afraid of homosexuals. I simply agree with 2 millenia of Christian morality, and 5 millenia of Jewish morality that homosexual acts are unnatural and sinful.
There is no hatred or fear there. It is like other forms of fornication, with a bizzare, unnatural twist. Are you suggesting that anyone who holds to Christian doctrine is a “homophobe?”
That wouldn’t be very “inclusive.”
December 8th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Metro, I may not agree with a politician (FDR, LBJ) but that doesn’t mean I think the US is ruined forever if it elects them. I wouldn’t have voted for either man but I believe the US is still here.
Now if a candidate wanted to undermine the Bill of Rights that’s a bit different. I don’t get hysterical short of that.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
DaveG,
“The only solution then is to set up cameras in every bedroom in America to ensure that this sort of behavior isn’t taking place. Violators will be sent to re-education camps, of course. After all, our president should be more like a Big Brother who keeps us on the right track.”
We were discussing morality, not policy. Save your hysterics.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
So you think our Constitution is OK with socialism?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
177 - it was not your position, but the inflammatory language which you selected in bringing up the issue that is disturbing if it is any reflection on the way in which you choose to debate and argue the issue
December 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
By MWS’ logic, all oral and anal intercourse, regardless of gender, is unnatural. The only solution then is to set up cameras in every bedroom in America to ensure that this sort of behavior isn’t taking place. Violators will be sent to re-education camps, of course. After all, our president should be more