I can understand the “Right to Life” organizations endorsements (incorrect, perhaps, but they aren’t the only ones to swallow what they’ve swallowed), but what possible purpose (other than self interest) could there be for a legislator in a state that has already had its primary and a mayor in a state where Huck is running poorly at best, to endorse at this point?
Politics never fails to make me shake my head in amazement.
Good endorsements for Huck. The Jim Naugle one surprises me. Movement groups like Right to Life organizations usually go for the lower ranked candidates because they are mainly one-issue groups, so overall policy is less crucial than their own single issue. But from a purely political viewpoint (not speaking to their conscience), I wonder why sitting politicians align themselves with lower-ranked candidates so close to an election. Politically (strategically) they’re linking up with a losing figure, which never looks good, and except for the brief publicity, they have nothing to gain themselves from the endorsement.
Brett continues to support Huck, plugging away. Props to him.
As I’ve said w/ many endorsement posts (including many of those for McCain), they are not especially valuable per se, except for some free-media and the perception of momentum. But all candidates will take them, if offered.
Just curious, but how does Huckabee respond to assertions of his flopping on the “living nature of the constitution?
“My point was that the Constitution was a document, it’s a living, breathing document written in order that it could be changed. The Scriptures, however, were not written so that we would change them to adapt them to ever-changing cultural norms.”
What does he say on his site about judges trying to legislate from the bench?
“I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.†The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat.”
Huckabee also got City of Plantation Councilman Jerry Fadgen and former chairwoman for Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign in Broward County, Barbara Collier.
Brett Passmore, thanks for taking down the other post. I do not want this site devolve into hit parade involving authors without credibilty, etc. I get that you and the Huck supporters feel you have to stop Romney at any cost, but I always appreciate non-fiction here.
McCain is reeling in the endorsements today – first the NYT and now this – must be great to be an authentic conservative such as John McCain getting all this great press!
Joseph (#8) In all fairness to Brett, there was no one on this site to represent Huckabee a few months ago. So, Huckabee’s endorements were never shown here, when we see day after day the endorements for other candidates. But yeah, Brett should be clear on when those endorements occur.
Huckabee is only strong in one area pro life, but so am I, so maybe I’ll run for President. Too bad this President thing requires more than that. Once again he screwed up last night with foreign policy, WMD’s to Jordan, not Syria, and he didn’t even correct himself. Any Huckapologists wanna try? I would like to hear how his highway from Fl to Maine would jumpstart the economy though.
Fran, I am not trying to interpret what Huckabee actually means — I will leave it up to his supporters. But in general, when we talk about the US Constitution, we have two lines of thinking — those that believe the original intention of our Founding Fathers (including the amendment process part) or those that believe the meanings (words and sentences) can be expanded according to our meanings today. This set does not feel amendments are necessary. This second set often declare the Constitution as “living”. It is not good to use that word, “living” among the conservatives. But then, if he is a true conservative (as his supporters claim), he will know not to use that word in related to Constitution!
Read more about it, if you want, here at Wikipedia
SGS,
Gov. Huckabee agrees with the first interpretation: “those that believe the original intention of our Founding Fathers (including the amendment process part).”
Now wait, #20 and #23. Huck didn’t say that the Amendments were there to be changed. That wouldn’t make sense (and only prohibition was changed, and that change allowed alcohol again!) He said the Constitution itself was a living document. And he said it could be CHANGED. That is very different from being amended. To change it means it was wrong to begin with. Amendment are added to what’s already there, to strengthen it. Actual changes to the Constitution are extremely rare occurances, and have been done mainly only in cases of outlawing slavery (which wasn’t necessarily legal but was tolerated by the original intent of the Constitution).
I’m curious how Brett will explain these contrasting statements, since it goes to the very core of what worries me about Huck.
Paul, if you agree that constitution is “living”, you either agree that “interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views [meaning Founding Father's views] is often unacceptable as a policy matter;” or you are in favor of “the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, ‘living’ document.”
The citations above are from Wikipedia.
I once read a good article that basically says that Constitution was written as a support framework for the Declaration of Independence, where the right to Life, among others, is identified. If you are shaking the Constitution, you also are shaking the Declaration itself, and in turn, the right to life. Yes, the Founding Fathers recognized that they are not perfect and that our needs change as the years go by. This is the very reason why they had the amendment process defined in the Constitution itself, to permit us to improve upon it as needed.
Alaska, there actually have been 27 amendments, including the first 10 we have come to call “Bill of Rights”. Yes, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, which is a good thing.
23, its a joke and a lie for Huck to talk about less regulation.
Huck required restaurants in AR to set up a completely separate venelation system in order maintain an no smoking section, so some small businesses across AR made the investment.
Then a couple of years later, non smoking sections were banned.
Why not let customers decide? if you dont want smoking, go to another place? Instead, he used the regulatory power of the state in a herky jerky way not only to take freedom away, but he did it in a way that screwed small businesss out of thousands.
Huck supports the biggest bogus regulatory nightmare ever proposed, the cap and trade response to the global warming scheme.
This violates Hucks no tax pledge. You cap emissions and tax companies who exceed the cap.
Huck delivers the lines well, but his record in AR and his cap and trade proposal show that this is just one more LIE from the mouth of a huckster.
SGS. . . Those are amendments. They didn’t change the constitution. The added to it. There’s a difference. Outlawing slavery was the only actual change to the constitution, which when originally written spoke in tolerating tone to the horrid practice. The 13th amendment changed this.
BWett (#38) Oh! Huckabee actually used “living” and “breathing” together to define the document that is Constitution? I am sorry, but you cannot get more liberal than that with that kind of language!!! I declare today that Huckabee is liberal, period! HE DOES NOT FAVOR THE ORIGINAL INTENTIONS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!!!
QH,
As a physician in training and asthmatic, I can assure you that without a non-smoking section everyone in a public area is exposed to smokers puffin’ away. Furthermore Gov. Huckabee does not support cap and trades and you know it.
#39: There is a huge group of Huckabee supporters in MO and Gov. Huckabee has received by far the most endorsements in our state. Put simply, Gov. Romney does not stand a chance here!!!!
Alaska, I am sorry if I have confused you. Yes, you are right, and I had thought I was affirming your comment, other than clearing that there has been more than a few amendments. Oh… I see now what you meant. Sorry. Yes, there are like three of amendments which have cancelled the wordings in the Constititions or its amendments.
44, either you or Huckabee (or both) are liars. Don’t tell me Huck doesn’t support cap and trade when I know for a fact he does:
Also, you might be right on smoking, but Huckabee should take FREEDOM off his bus, because he thinks nanny state health care mandates are more important that FREEDOM. FAITH FAMILY NANNY STATE HEALTH CARE MANDATES isn’t as cute and too long for the bus.
Huckabee Backs Mandatory U.S. Cap on Global-Warming Pollution
By Kim Chipman
Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said he supports a mandatory cap on global-warming pollution and that the U.S. has a moral obligation to address climate change.
“It goes to the moral issue,” the former Arkansas governor said at a climate-change conference today in Manchester, New Hampshire. “We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly.”
SGS and Jack. . . My origianal and main point was that amending the constitution and changing it are different things. (Yes, the Senate elections is another, although I’d note that there is a small but growing group of “experts” who think direct Senate elections is a bad idea.) “Changing the Costitution” has a deeper meaning in the context of liberal vs. conservative, especially when it concerns Supreme Court appointments. Liberals tend to favor the approach that sees the Constitution up for modern interpretation, while conservatives generally subscribe to it’s original intent. It worries me when conservatives start using the language of liberals when speaking of Constitutional issues.
The Supreme Court is my biggest issue this election. I have been saying all along that I don’t like Huck but I’d still choose him over the Dems because of the SC nominees. These quotes of Huck’s makes me start to wonder about the wisdom of that possible vote choice.
Alaska
Voting for McCain or Huck would essentially be the same as voting for the Dem nominee. That’s why we need either Mitt or Rudy to win the nomination.
52, In AR Huck liked to use his judicial appointments to appeal to African American voters in East AR, who often turned out to be soft on crime liberals.
Paul said: “There is a huge group of Huckabee supporters in MO and Gov. Huckabee has received by far the most endorsements in our state. Put simply, Gov. Romney does not stand a chance here!!!!”
Reality, according to Rasmussen’s Missouri Primary Polls:
Huckabee 27
McCain 26
Romney 18
Giuliani 7
Paul 5
You are forgetting a couple of things. First, whether Rudy still survive his Florida Firewall strategy, and second, the bump of whoever wins Florida. Considering these factors, Romney does have a chance, especially in Missouri.
QH,
Not so fast, I’m busy calling voters on behalf of the Gov. Huckabee campaign. I’m definitely not running away from a quack. Gov. Huckabee said he’d entertain the idea of cap and trades. He has not formally announced that this is what he supports. Back to calling voters . . . .
60, you lie again. Read the Bloomberg article. He said he supported cap and trade and it is a moral issue. Its also a moral issue to lie. I hope you arn’t lying on the phone when you talk to those voters.
Lying about Huck raising taxes. Lying about cap and trade. Lying about Wayen Dumond.
The fundamental believe of Huck and his minions is that they can lie faster than others can tell the truth. It worked for a while, but the voters arn’t that stupid.
your wasting your time with Paul, he worships Huck, the truth mean nothing to him. If he is in MO he’s probably a decendant of one of there former Govenors from the 1830’s
Paul,
From the sound of your posts, you wish that MO still had the extermination order (taken off in 1977?) on the books.
When you gonna run, I can’t wait
61 The problem with Paul is he told a lie about Huck’s cap and trade policy. Maybe in his heart of hearts, he thought there was no way a conservative can be for cap and trade. But there it is in black and white: Huck supports cap and trade. Meet the real Huck Paul. His critics are right. You can love him, but after the heat of the campaign if you examine the facts, you will see, Paul
Even Huckabee said on Meet The Press that he wouldn’t push to prosecute women seeking abortions. He would instead go after the doctors licenses. For murder, we don’t typically just take someone’s license to work. We throw them in jail for a long, long time and sometimes send them on to the Ultimate Judge.
Abortion is wrong. It is taking an innocent life. HOWEVER, it happens so much now and is a “right” guaranteed by the Constitution, according to the US Supreme Court (until overturned, of course).
66, 68: Please don’t change the subject. We’re not talking about the punishment for abortion. We’re talking about the moral characterization of abortion. The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers would say that abortion is definitely murder.
Mitt Romney refuses to say that it is murder. This is a big indication that his “conversion” is not at all genuine. Imagine supporting a “pro-life” candidate who doesn’t even believe that abortion is murder!
Romney stands no chance in Missouri, you know what happened the last time a mormon ran for President in Missouri….. that’s right I said it the crook was shot!
January 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
too bad voters aren’t putting faith in Mike.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“Arizona Right to Life” endorsing Huck???
I thought McCain has been consistent in his views. What is going on?
Huck steals one in McCain’s backyard. Love fest might be over.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Just an observation …
I can understand the “Right to Life” organizations endorsements (incorrect, perhaps, but they aren’t the only ones to swallow what they’ve swallowed), but what possible purpose (other than self interest) could there be for a legislator in a state that has already had its primary and a mayor in a state where Huck is running poorly at best, to endorse at this point?
Politics never fails to make me shake my head in amazement.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
The Huckster……is just staying in now for a possible VP……now
January 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Good endorsements for Huck. The Jim Naugle one surprises me. Movement groups like Right to Life organizations usually go for the lower ranked candidates because they are mainly one-issue groups, so overall policy is less crucial than their own single issue. But from a purely political viewpoint (not speaking to their conscience), I wonder why sitting politicians align themselves with lower-ranked candidates so close to an election. Politically (strategically) they’re linking up with a losing figure, which never looks good, and except for the brief publicity, they have nothing to gain themselves from the endorsement.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
whoops…..two…”nows”
January 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
#3. . . We think alike! (your #3 and my #5)
January 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Half these endorsements are like a few months old…
January 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I’m curious about this highway that is going to jump start the economy.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
# No. These endorsements happened today…
January 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Bedrick happened like 3 months ago!
January 25th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Brett continues to support Huck, plugging away. Props to him.
As I’ve said w/ many endorsement posts (including many of those for McCain), they are not especially valuable per se, except for some free-media and the perception of momentum. But all candidates will take them, if offered.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
#11,
After you posted that, I reviewed this situation -
YOU ARE RIGHT – sorry for the confusion.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Just curious, but how does Huckabee respond to assertions of his flopping on the “living nature of the constitution?
“My point was that the Constitution was a document, it’s a living, breathing document written in order that it could be changed. The Scriptures, however, were not written so that we would change them to adapt them to ever-changing cultural norms.”
What does he say on his site about judges trying to legislate from the bench?
“I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.†The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat.”
January 25th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’m sure there are more hidden endorsements out there – we just need to know where to look.
Darn it – I was never very good at Easter egg hunts!!!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
#14, BWett, can you cite the actual location of that quote? (the ‘and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.‒ part)
thanks
January 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Brett, you missed a few.
http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/01/25/prnewswire200801251634PR_NEWS_USPR_____DC12465.html
Huckabee also got City of Plantation Councilman Jerry Fadgen and former chairwoman for Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign in Broward County, Barbara Collier.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Brett Passmore, thanks for taking down the other post. I do not want this site devolve into hit parade involving authors without credibilty, etc. I get that you and the Huck supporters feel you have to stop Romney at any cost, but I always appreciate non-fiction here.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Brett – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6Pv97p41Wo video of that quote by Bwett – skip to 3:53 on the clip
January 25th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
When Huck talks about a “living” Constitution, he is talking about amendments and not interpretation, correct?
If not, heaven help us!
He definitely shouldn’t have used “living” when describing the fact that it can be amended.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Brett, check the second paragraph here: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=28
Then check out the ink in 19 for the other quote.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
McCain is reeling in the endorsements today – first the NYT and now this – must be great to be an authentic conservative such as John McCain getting all this great press!
Canadian Felon Endorses John McCain For President
http://www.redcounty.com/sanbernardino/2008/01/canadian-felon-endorses-john-m/#c50362
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Fran,
You’re correct–ammendments only.
Here’s Gov. Huckabee’s newest TV commercial: http://my.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1271
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
One issue Huck, a true conservative who I agree with on pro-life, but who lies about almost everything else.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Joseph (#8) In all fairness to Brett, there was no one on this site to represent Huckabee a few months ago. So, Huckabee’s endorements were never shown here, when we see day after day the endorements for other candidates. But yeah, Brett should be clear on when those endorements occur.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
#24 QH — watch the add above in #23–Gov. Huckabee is anything but a one issue candidate!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Paul – that’s a nice ad from Mike
January 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
23 – How does that square with his quotes. Here, let’s parse that down a bit:
“…the Constitution was a document.. written in order that it could be changed.â€
“The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat.â€
Hmmmmmm.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Huckabee is only strong in one area pro life, but so am I, so maybe I’ll run for President. Too bad this President thing requires more than that. Once again he screwed up last night with foreign policy, WMD’s to Jordan, not Syria, and he didn’t even correct himself. Any Huckapologists wanna try? I would like to hear how his highway from Fl to Maine would jumpstart the economy though.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
BWett, Huickabee changes his positions depending upon which way the wind blows. Did you not know this?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Fran, I am not trying to interpret what Huckabee actually means — I will leave it up to his supporters. But in general, when we talk about the US Constitution, we have two lines of thinking — those that believe the original intention of our Founding Fathers (including the amendment process part) or those that believe the meanings (words and sentences) can be expanded according to our meanings today. This set does not feel amendments are necessary. This second set often declare the Constitution as “living”. It is not good to use that word, “living” among the conservatives. But then, if he is a true conservative (as his supporters claim), he will know not to use that word in related to Constitution!
Read more about it, if you want, here at Wikipedia
January 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Greg,
You have got to be kidding me. Let me guess, you support “Romney I’ll Tell You Whatever You Want to Hear!”
January 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
SGS,
Gov. Huckabee agrees with the first interpretation: “those that believe the original intention of our Founding Fathers (including the amendment process part).”
January 25th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Now wait, #20 and #23. Huck didn’t say that the Amendments were there to be changed. That wouldn’t make sense (and only prohibition was changed, and that change allowed alcohol again!) He said the Constitution itself was a living document. And he said it could be CHANGED. That is very different from being amended. To change it means it was wrong to begin with. Amendment are added to what’s already there, to strengthen it. Actual changes to the Constitution are extremely rare occurances, and have been done mainly only in cases of outlawing slavery (which wasn’t necessarily legal but was tolerated by the original intent of the Constitution).
I’m curious how Brett will explain these contrasting statements, since it goes to the very core of what worries me about Huck.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Paul
You have already proven yourself to be a bigot so therefore you will be ignored and your posts will be ignored.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Paul, if you agree that constitution is “living”, you either agree that “interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views [meaning Founding Father's views] is often unacceptable as a policy matter;” or you are in favor of “the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, ‘living’ document.”
The citations above are from Wikipedia.
I once read a good article that basically says that Constitution was written as a support framework for the Declaration of Independence, where the right to Life, among others, is identified. If you are shaking the Constitution, you also are shaking the Declaration itself, and in turn, the right to life. Yes, the Founding Fathers recognized that they are not perfect and that our needs change as the years go by. This is the very reason why they had the amendment process defined in the Constitution itself, to permit us to improve upon it as needed.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Rassmussen poll released tonight shows Gov. Huckabee at 27%, Sen. McCain at 26%, and Gov. Romney at 18% in Missouri: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/missouri_republican_presidential_primary
January 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
33 – Paul, If Huckabee believes “the original intention of our Founding Fathers,” then why did he say this?
“My point was that the Constitution was a document, it’s a living, breathing document written in order that it could be changed.â€
January 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Romney can easily win here in Missouri. I’ll personally see to it.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Alaska, there actually have been 27 amendments, including the first 10 we have come to call “Bill of Rights”. Yes, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, which is a good thing.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
23, its a joke and a lie for Huck to talk about less regulation.
Huck required restaurants in AR to set up a completely separate venelation system in order maintain an no smoking section, so some small businesses across AR made the investment.
Then a couple of years later, non smoking sections were banned.
Why not let customers decide? if you dont want smoking, go to another place? Instead, he used the regulatory power of the state in a herky jerky way not only to take freedom away, but he did it in a way that screwed small businesss out of thousands.
Huck supports the biggest bogus regulatory nightmare ever proposed, the cap and trade response to the global warming scheme.
This violates Hucks no tax pledge. You cap emissions and tax companies who exceed the cap.
Huck delivers the lines well, but his record in AR and his cap and trade proposal show that this is just one more LIE from the mouth of a huckster.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
SGS. . . Those are amendments. They didn’t change the constitution. The added to it. There’s a difference. Outlawing slavery was the only actual change to the constitution, which when originally written spoke in tolerating tone to the horrid practice. The 13th amendment changed this.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
BWett (#38) Oh! Huckabee actually used “living” and “breathing” together to define the document that is Constitution? I am sorry, but you cannot get more liberal than that with that kind of language!!! I declare today that Huckabee is liberal, period! HE DOES NOT FAVOR THE ORIGINAL INTENTIONS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!!!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
QH,
As a physician in training and asthmatic, I can assure you that without a non-smoking section everyone in a public area is exposed to smokers puffin’ away. Furthermore Gov. Huckabee does not support cap and trades and you know it.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
#39: There is a huge group of Huckabee supporters in MO and Gov. Huckabee has received by far the most endorsements in our state. Put simply, Gov. Romney does not stand a chance here!!!!
January 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Alaska, I am sorry if I have confused you. Yes, you are right, and I had thought I was affirming your comment, other than clearing that there has been more than a few amendments. Oh… I see now what you meant. Sorry. Yes, there are like three of amendments which have cancelled the wordings in the Constititions or its amendments.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This website is a great resource on the smoking discussion: http://www.dontpassgas.org
You absolutely MUST WATCH the public service announcements (view PSAs link) – they are gripping and really drive home the importance of this issue.
This needs to be required viewing of all voters on this issue.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
#42 alaska jake
I also believe how we elect senators was changed via an ammendemnt
January 25th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Jack (#48) Yes, that’s the third amendment that take away from the Constitution, and an unfortunate one at it!
January 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
44, either you or Huckabee (or both) are liars. Don’t tell me Huck doesn’t support cap and trade when I know for a fact he does:
Also, you might be right on smoking, but Huckabee should take FREEDOM off his bus, because he thinks nanny state health care mandates are more important that FREEDOM. FAITH FAMILY NANNY STATE HEALTH CARE MANDATES isn’t as cute and too long for the bus.
Huckabee Backs Mandatory U.S. Cap on Global-Warming Pollution
By Kim Chipman
Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said he supports a mandatory cap on global-warming pollution and that the U.S. has a moral obligation to address climate change.
“It goes to the moral issue,” the former Arkansas governor said at a climate-change conference today in Manchester, New Hampshire. “We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aYDB2MPIf0EU&refer=politics
Huckabee said he supports an economy-wide “cap-and-trade” system to control greenhouse gases, which scientists say are causing climate change.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Brett Passmore, you should have told your boy Paul (44) to run and hide like you do when I show up.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
SGS and Jack. . . My origianal and main point was that amending the constitution and changing it are different things. (Yes, the Senate elections is another, although I’d note that there is a small but growing group of “experts” who think direct Senate elections is a bad idea.) “Changing the Costitution” has a deeper meaning in the context of liberal vs. conservative, especially when it concerns Supreme Court appointments. Liberals tend to favor the approach that sees the Constitution up for modern interpretation, while conservatives generally subscribe to it’s original intent. It worries me when conservatives start using the language of liberals when speaking of Constitutional issues.
The Supreme Court is my biggest issue this election. I have been saying all along that I don’t like Huck but I’d still choose him over the Dems because of the SC nominees. These quotes of Huck’s makes me start to wonder about the wisdom of that possible vote choice.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Alaska
Voting for McCain or Huck would essentially be the same as voting for the Dem nominee. That’s why we need either Mitt or Rudy to win the nomination.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
52, In AR Huck liked to use his judicial appointments to appeal to African American voters in East AR, who often turned out to be soft on crime liberals.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Paul (44), when you say “Furthermore Gov. Huckabee does not support cap and trades and you know it.”
You called me a liar. I just posted that shows Huckabee DOES support cap and trade, and that you are a liar.
You should correct the record when you do that, instead of running and hiding.
You have bought into lies about Huckabee, you should look into what the truth is.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
You gotta love drive by liars that run and hide.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Paul said: “There is a huge group of Huckabee supporters in MO and Gov. Huckabee has received by far the most endorsements in our state. Put simply, Gov. Romney does not stand a chance here!!!!”
Reality, according to Rasmussen’s Missouri Primary Polls:
Huckabee 27
McCain 26
Romney 18
Giuliani 7
Paul 5
You are forgetting a couple of things. First, whether Rudy still survive his Florida Firewall strategy, and second, the bump of whoever wins Florida. Considering these factors, Romney does have a chance, especially in Missouri.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
57, don’t expect Paul to reply. Him and Brett are off hiding in the corner playing with razor blades and bawling like little babies.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
QH,
Not so fast, I’m busy calling voters on behalf of the Gov. Huckabee campaign. I’m definitely not running away from a quack. Gov. Huckabee said he’d entertain the idea of cap and trades. He has not formally announced that this is what he supports. Back to calling voters . . . .
January 25th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
60, you lie again. Read the Bloomberg article. He said he supported cap and trade and it is a moral issue. Its also a moral issue to lie. I hope you arn’t lying on the phone when you talk to those voters.
Lying about Huck raising taxes. Lying about cap and trade. Lying about Wayen Dumond.
The fundamental believe of Huck and his minions is that they can lie faster than others can tell the truth. It worked for a while, but the voters arn’t that stupid.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Quack
your wasting your time with Paul, he worships Huck, the truth mean nothing to him. If he is in MO he’s probably a decendant of one of there former Govenors from the 1830’s
January 25th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
The Truth: http://www.trueromney.com. Romney’s stand on right to life issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbGNHaNFtw. I do plan on running for gov. of MO but do not have any relatives who were politicians.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Paul,
From the sound of your posts, you wish that MO still had the extermination order (taken off in 1977?) on the books.
When you gonna run, I can’t wait
January 25th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
61 The problem with Paul is he told a lie about Huck’s cap and trade policy. Maybe in his heart of hearts, he thought there was no way a conservative can be for cap and trade. But there it is in black and white: Huck supports cap and trade. Meet the real Huck Paul. His critics are right. You can love him, but after the heat of the campaign if you examine the facts, you will see, Paul
January 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Huck better get all the Right to Life endorsements.
None of them should go to Mitt because Mitt refuses to say that abortion is murder.
http://race42008.com/2008/01/24/more-reasons-to-doubt-romney/
January 25th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
wise
you want everyone who’s had or performed an abortion to face the death penalty?
January 25th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Who cares about Huckabee?!
January 26th, 2008 at 1:36 am
WiseGuy:
Even Huckabee said on Meet The Press that he wouldn’t push to prosecute women seeking abortions. He would instead go after the doctors licenses. For murder, we don’t typically just take someone’s license to work. We throw them in jail for a long, long time and sometimes send them on to the Ultimate Judge.
Abortion is wrong. It is taking an innocent life. HOWEVER, it happens so much now and is a “right” guaranteed by the Constitution, according to the US Supreme Court (until overturned, of course).
January 26th, 2008 at 1:52 am
66, 68: Please don’t change the subject. We’re not talking about the punishment for abortion. We’re talking about the moral characterization of abortion. The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers would say that abortion is definitely murder.
http://race42008.com/2008/01/24/more-reasons-to-doubt-romney/#comment-252153
Mitt Romney refuses to say that it is murder. This is a big indication that his “conversion” is not at all genuine. Imagine supporting a “pro-life” candidate who doesn’t even believe that abortion is murder!
January 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
No 57 SGS
Romney stands no chance in Missouri, you know what happened the last time a mormon ran for President in Missouri….. that’s right I said it the crook was shot!