It’s a legitimate question given that the former Arkansas governor has led the 2012 presidential field in the two most recent polls of Republican voters. Huck seems to be benefiting from the slow but steady evaporation in support for a Palin presidential bid among Republicans, a dynamic that I believe will continue given my view that Sarah Palin is sort of like the Ed Muskie of the race for 2012. Muskie, as students of history will recall, was Hubert Humphrey’s running mate in 1968. Following a close election, Muskie was considered a favorite for the Democratic nomination in 1972, but his path to the nomination was thwarted by a series of events that called into question Muskie’s fitness for high office. A colorful cast of characters in his family combined with a number of personal quirks that culminated in Muskie breaking down in tears on the campaign trail left Americans wondering if Muskie was just a bit too much of an odd bird to be president.
Like Muskie, Palin brings to the table a claim to the throne as her party’s most recent vice presidential nominee. But she also seems to be surrounded by a bizarre cast of characters (cough, Levi, cough) and her personality and political manuevers, such as her recent resignation from the Alaska governorship, are a tad unconventional. I don’t know if winking during debates and her signature “you betcha” rise to the level of Muskie’s tears, but I think Palin has the potential to be in the same category as Muskie as an interesting and mavericky individual who Americans just aren’t comfortable with as president.
If Palin ends up falling short, the question is which of the remaining candidates will garner the support of her voters. I’m operating under the assumption that minus Sarah, we’re looking at a Huckabee/Romney race, as the two basically tied for second last time, a status that almost always trumps every other claim to the throne. There is at least some empirical evidence that suggests that Huckabee, not Romney, would scoop up the lion’s share of Palinistas. First, in the two most recent presidential polls, the increase in Huckabee’s support and the decrease in Palin’s numbers, when each poll is measured against previous polls from the same polling outfit, is almost identical. That is to say, as Palin’s support goes down, Huck’s support goes up by almost the same amount. That’s important, because that means that Palin’s voters are going to Huck, even though that may seem counterintuitive given that Huck is sort of a compassionate conservative evangelical and Palin is an anti-government Jacksonian. It can’t all be about abortion, can it?
Probably not. I would say that the Huck/Palin overlap has less to do with ideology or even social issues as it does with a) culture and b) Romney’s continuing lack of popularity among Republicans. In pretty much every recent poll of Republicans and conservatives, Huckabee consistently and dramatically outpolls Romney in favorability among the two groups. It makes sense, then, that as more Republican voters are left without a candidate, Huckabee’s support will go up faster than Romney’s, because if Huck’s favorables are higher among these voters, that gives him more room to grow. But I also think that another dynamic is at play here, and that dynamic is decidedly cultural. At the end of the day, there just isn’t a lot of difference between Romney and Huckabee on the issues. Huckabee has always been pro-life and Romney is a recent convert, but both feel the same about abortion and judges now, and now is ultimately all that matters when legislation is being passed or when the courts have a vacancy. Huck is a compassionate conservative and Mitt is a good government Republican, but those are basically two terms that in effect describe pretty much the same thing: someone who is interested in actually governing and solving problems and not just in waxing philosophical and speaking abstractly about the constitutional limitations of the federal government. As such, there’s about as much policy distance between Romney and Huckabee as there was between Hillary and Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination back in 2008. And just as Democrats ultimately chose the candidate who was more culturally similar to them by selecting the academic from Chicago over the former Goldwater Girl from Arkansas, Republicans given a choice between Huck and Mitt may choose the evangelical preacher over the Mormon from Massachusetts.
This isn’t fair, and as I’ve stated before, I’d far prefer Romney as the nominee, because I think Romney would run a campaign as a governing conservative, and try to get the party back on the track that Newt Gingrich set it on during the 1990s. As longtime readers know, I have a beef with today’s GOP, largely because I feel that we currently lack a serious right-of-center governing party in this country. We presently have a choice between two parties — a 1970s leftist party (that’s the Democratic Party) and a right-wing populist party (that’s the Republican Party). By “right-wing populist party,” I mean a party that relies on cultural cues, empty slogans (“Drill, baby, drill!”), and philosophical abstractions and inconsistencies instead of intelligent discourse and serious policies to move the country forward. How can anyone take seriously a party with a position on health care that basically amounts to: “Say no to big goverment. Oh, and hands off Medicare!” This is a far cry from the party that Newt built in the 1990s, which attempted to bring the reasonable reforms to Medicare that will be necessary to prevent the fiscal calamity that is about to befall our nation. But now Medicare in its current form is part of the Republican platform, largely because the votes of seniors are up for grabs. This is reminscent of 1980s Democratic interest group politics. That worked out real well for the Dems back in the ’80s, didn’t it?
I am pleased to learn that I have an ally in my quest for serious governance in the mold of Newt Gingrich, and that ally would be, well, Newt Gingrich. Or at least the Newt Gingrich of 20 years ago:
The country wants that coalition to govern, not juxtapose. So they’re going to ask “What are your answers for so many working mothers? So many single heads-of-households?” A party which says “We have no answer” or “Our answer is a cultural revolution which will take generations, so in the meantime you’ll just have to suffer” is going to be in a minority status.
What you’re going to see is an argument between a governing conservatism, which is pro-active and willing to solve problems with conservative values, and a more theoretical conservatism. That’s not to speak ill of Gilder, because his job as an intellectual is to develop a yardstick for cultural change. But developing solutions such as the Orrin Hatch-Nancy Johnson tax credit for child care, which provides a powerful, pro-family position based upon parental choice, is a vastly more realistic response. It is based upon the real world and seeing people in real pain and real need.
…
By developing a positive agenda of a caring, humanitarian reform party, and by developing and winning the argument over the existence of a corrupt, liberal welfare state. You could rally over 80 Percent of the vote. Then you could convince people it’s their job to be active.
Well said, Newt, well said. And of the current pack, Romney is the guy who gives off the whole “serious governance and reform” vibe. Romney is an imperfect yet capable vessel who could probably do an adequate job of resurrecting Gingrich-ism for the GOP just as Hillary is a similarly flawed yet also competent vessel who could have brought back the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, the center-left party that was also serious about governance and moving the country forward. It shouldn’t be any surprise that the Clinton/Gingrich years were the best years that this country has experienced in a generation. That’s because both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were attempting to build parties that applied their respective parties’ philosophies to modern public problems in a forward-thinking, technocratic, and optimistic way in order to yield the best result for the country. But Democratic voters demonstrated that Clintonism isn’t what they want. What they really want is the charismatic guy who gives a good speech, and who, most importantly, is culturally similar to them, because voters assume that someone who is like them is someone who they can trust.
That’s why it would no longer surprise me if Huckabee were to win the nomination in 2012. As Palin fades and Republicans end up with a Romney/Huckabee race, it’s Huckabee who begins to look like the Republican Obama. Like Obama, Huckabee is culturally similar to the base of his party and is well-liked by the middle due to his charisma and personality. Both Obama and Huckabee seem natural, at ease, and comfortable in their skin. Both Hillary and Romney seem a bit harder to connect with on a personal level. Even though there wasn’t much difference between Hillary and Obama on the issues, Hillary just felt more centrist. Similarly, Mitt has always just seemed more moderate than he is due to his Northeastern-ness and his modesty. This hurt Hillary in the primaries and it will hurt Mitt as well in a two-man race for Republican voters.
All in all, for the first time I can envision a world in which Mike Huckabee is nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States in 2012. The combination of Palin’s fall and the GOP laws of succession limit the ability of anyone not named Romney or Huckabee from winning the nomination, and given the cultural anger and immodesty of our times, it’s more likely that Republicans will be looking for a candidate who feels their cultural pain than a candidate who can lay out a ten point PowerPoint plan on how to apply right-of-center ideas to current public problems. I prefer the PowerPoint candidate, because that’s the only candidate that makes sense for the party and the country. Tea Parties aren’t going to reorganize the entitlements or re-write the tax code to prevent fiscal collapse, and charisma solves problems about as quickly as you can say Cal-ee-for-nee-yah. I’m not saying Huckabee isn’t a smart and capable guy, but that’s not why he’s being nominated. He’s being nominated because of his culture and his charisma. Democratic voters passed up a candidate who promised a return to solid Clintonian governance in order to attempt to chase the fleeting dream of the socialist utopia they’ve wanted since the 1970s, and I wouldn’t put it past Republicans to choose the candidate in the Mitt/Huck race who is culturally closest to the folks who attend the Tea Parties. And that leaves Huck with the task of explaining to the average middle class Middle American voter why he is an acceptable alternative to President Obama, whose leftism and clear inability to govern are making him increasingly unpopular and who can probably only be saved by an economic recovery and yet another inept Republican general election campaign.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:53 am
This is one those rejected submissions to the post. If you want a Republican version
of Carter, a soft on crime, general isolationist, bible quoting, protectionist by all means go with Huckabee. Prepare to have your candidate fileed like a possum in the fall, though. Remember to the degree that Kennedy went after Romney. Chiles went after Jeb also in ‘94. the lies that they had to come up with last fall, which are repeated with great regularity on this board
October 31st, 2009 at 9:59 am
BREAKING! Politico is reporting the Dede Scozzafava has dropped out…
October 31st, 2009 at 10:01 am
Romney will get the nomination in 2012 narrowly over Huck, wins in New Hampshire, Florida, New York, California and Illinois and Michigan and probably Pennsylvania will be too much for Huckabee even if he does win Ohio and the border states and pretty much sweep the South. Huckabee will be the nominee in 2016 when he will eke out a win over Biden to become President. You heard it here first!
October 31st, 2009 at 10:03 am
Of course Huckabee can win the nomination.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:14 am
“Can Huckabee win the nominations?”
In a word, no. His record in Arkansas is decidedly “big government”, and heavy on taxes. He is also very soft on crime. As Fred Thompson aptly put it, he is a prolife liberal, Being prlife is commendable, but it is not nearly enough. Huckabee can never appeal to economic conservatives or to libertarians. Especially not in 2012. He and Palin are not drawing from the same voter pool. Your premise that Huckabee’s voters are going to Palin, based upon a poll or two nearly three years before the election is more than a stretch. The libertarians and economic conservatives, who find Palin’s anti-government orientation, are unremittingly hostile to Huckabee. So your premise is fatally flawed.
“Palin equals Muskie”
I have rarely seen a more tortured historical analogy than that one. I can tell you that Muskie never generated the kind of interest, nor had the kind of effect on policy that Palin had. If you remember (maybe you don’t), after the 1968 election, Muskie was not the presumed frontrunner for the Democrat nomination in 1972. Until July 1969 (and Chappaquidick) that was Edward M. Kennedy. Muskie was at best a default “frontrunner” and by no means was his support as solid as Palin’s is.
“Palin’s “you betcha” and “winks” equal Muske’s crying”
Hilarious. I suppose Reagan’s tossing of his head and “there you go again” should be mentioned as well. Palin’s mannerisms are not equivalent to Muskie’s crying jag (which firmly established him as a wimp) any more than Reagan’s mannerisms (or his occasional malapropisms) established his as somehow deficient in character or intellect. People who dislike Palin, including those who support another candidate will attach themselves to such trifles in an effort to rationalize their disdain, but it remains what it is….visceral disdain.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:23 am
Huckabee is in a position where he has to win Iowa. If he doesn’t, the answer is no, he can’t win the nomination. If he does, then Alex is right, although I really think Romney will beat him out down the stretch, after a win in New Hampshire. It’s just that if Huckabee does win Iowa again, the game is on. Things will be very dicey if that happens.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Dave,
Very well-written and thoughtful post, but I think Zebra has some valid points.
I know that these recent polls may show Huck picking up Palin’s drop in support, but I think Palin voters are essentially Fred voters. Where did Fred’s votes go? I don’t remember, but I think they were basically split between all 3 remaining candidates. I’d have a hard time believing they mostly went to Huck.
Huck is always going to have the problem of being a very regional candidate.
Besides, Palin isn’t toast just yet. Call me silly, but I still think she has as much of a shot as Huck.
I like the way Romney is playing it. He is in for the long haul, and not necessarily looking for a lot of attention right now. He’s building a really solid foundation, out of the limelight, but speaks up often enough to still hold the most credibility of all three.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:29 am
There have been polls done by a Republican Newsite in Texas showing they prefer Huck in 2012. Huck will sweep Iowa, the south, Midwest, and East-Midwest states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Romney will get the west and NE. Huck will win. He has the easiest rout to the nomination which includes Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and the Feb. 5th states like Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia, most of the south. Huck lost Missouri by 1%, and Oklahoma by 4% to John McCain. Without McCain, Huck would wipe the floor in Missouri and Oklahoma. Missouri and SC always picks who is the nominee and they will pick Huck. Look at history.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:32 am
Jeepers Creepers, do we still have to keep talking about the GOP wanting the “right religion”, and not wanting the Mormon?
October 31st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Dave, Huck WILL win Iowa. The base of the pary supports Bob Vander Plaats for Governor of Iowa in 2010 (Huck’s Iowa campaign chair). Huck has already campaigned for Bob in Iowa. However, the GOP establishment (AKA Romney supporters) in Iowa are having our former governor, Terry Branstad, run again just so the Christian so-con will not be the nominee (Bob has been leading all polls before Branstad got in). If Branstad wins the primary vs. Bob, the base will be sooo furious that it will come out in droves for Huckabee. If you thought that Huck wiped the floor in ‘08 in Iowa, I bet in 2012, he will get over 50% of the vote. The base is soo upset with the GOP leaders in Iowa right now because they are stopping Bob from becomming the nominee. I think Bob could pull it off and win the primary. If Bob is the gubernatorial nominee in Iowa, he will endorse Huck.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:33 am
SuzieQ,
If I’m not mistaken, Huck did very poorly in FL, and only beat Romney by one point in GA. I could be remembering wrong.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:36 am
FL – McCain 36, Romney 31, Guiliani 15, Huck 14.
GA – Huck 34, McCain 32, Romney 30.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:38 am
I don’t normally agree with voter that often, but in this case I have to agree with him about the Palin voters. I believe they are much more aligned to Romney than they are to Huckabee. Personally, I don’t see why there would have been that much movement away from Mitt and toward Huckabee as those two polls show, so I believe they are to some degree and anamoly. I’m thinking that the last two were also only Republican voters…isn’t that true…or am I wrong about that?
I’m fairly confident if it comes down to Mitt and Huck, Mitt will win out, but it could be a fairly close race.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:39 am
Missouri – McCain 33, Huck 32, Romney 29.
McCain voters will more likely go to Romney in 2012.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:40 am
SusieQ….Mitt beat Huckabee badly in Illinois last time.
Please share with us the poling in Texas you’re talking about. Don’t keep it all to yourself!
October 31st, 2009 at 10:41 am
OK – McCain 37, Huck 33, Romney 25.
Again, McCain voters will probably go to Romney.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
To #9
“Huck will win. He has the easiest rout to the nomination which includes Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and the Feb. 5th states like Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia, most of the south.”
I doubt Huckabee will run. If he does, he will not be paired against McCain and Romney, as he was the last time. He will be underfinanced. Romney will have plenty of money to expose his record, which is abysmal. And Huck’s social conservative voters will find Palin more appealing than Huck, because they will trust her more. And wshe will be much better financed than he. I perceive the race as Palin versus Romney, with Huckabee not even making it to the starting gate.
By the way, Palin has stolen a march on both of them. Her endorsement in the New York 23rd clearly boosted Hoffman and has now driven the RINO Scozzafava from the race. I bet Romney and Huckabee are kicking themselves because Palin has upstaged them yet again. Leadership is why Palin will win, IMHO. Whether on death panels, NY-23 or whatever, Palin is willing to lead and not afraid to take risks.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:45 am
SuzieQ,
It’s actually NOT a foregone conclusion that Huckabee will win Iowa this time. Last time Huck was able to put together a coalition of ABR (Anybody But Romney) voters along with a lot of slightly hysterical Evangelicals voting more on religion than political preference. He won’t have the former group with him this time, and while he won comfortably last time, it was only by a handful of points. It wasn’t that great of a margin.
What I mean by the ABR voters were lots of people who preferred Giuliani, McCain, and even Fred (who was campaigning in Iowa), and didn’t take Huckabee seriously, but knew that Romney had to be stopped in Iowa if their preference was going to have a chance. Mitt was primed at the time to run the table of the first 7 states, and would have done it if he’d won in Iowa.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Zebra,
PALIN ISN’T RUNNING!
It’s Huckabee vs. Romney folks. Romney simply cannot be trusted and Huckabee will win the day.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Palin is not running.
Romney is only unpopular amongst social conservatives – he is THE MAN with fiscal and defense conservatives.
Huckabee is about as serious as Pat Buchanan.
Your analysis does not include Pawlenty who is now where Romney was this time last cycle.
Iowa will be Huck vs. maybe Pawlenty, maybe not.
Everything else will be Romney v Pawlenty with Huckabee trying to mess things up, if he survives.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
“Romney simply cannot be trusted and Huckabee will win the day.” Neither can be trusted 100% or even 99%, but I trust both of them a lot more than Mr. Obama.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:55 am
#19
“PALIN ISN’T RUNNING!”
Who told you? Has Huckabee announced? Right now, none of you can say with any assurance who is running and who is not running. This is all hypothetical. I know the people here who support some other candidate (whether Huckabee, Romney or Pawlenty) are praying Palin does not run. Obama and the DNC are also terrified of her and spend a disproportionate amount of time attacking her, which is strange, if she is not intending to tun. I think the DNC believes she will run. I too think she will run, and I am not alone in this appraisal. Many in the GOP believe she will run and want her to do so.
Ignoring her and pretending she is no longer a factor is a bit delusional. Especially given her impact on current events, both of a political and a policy nature.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Romney is an opportunist and would happily inform the GOP that the Earth was flat if he thought it would give him the nomination. While we may not agree with everything Huckabee says or stands for, we can know that he means what he says and is totally genuine. I think Huckabee is Ronald Reagan 2.0 and will govern as such.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:59 am
22. I want her to run primarily because she will be 100% scrutinized. She won’t be able to hide behind Facebook or prepared speeches, and end up a de facto leader for some of the party, undermining the nominee. I’m one who still thinks she will run. I don’t think she can resist.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:00 am
23. That’s truly funny. A Huck supporter calling Romney an oppotunist.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:01 am
#23
“I think Huckabee is Ronald Reagan 2.0 and will govern as such.”
Huckabee is completely untrustworthy. He was a high taxer and a big government proponent in Arkansas. He outspent and out taxed Bill Clinton. and he issued about 1000 pardons in his ten years as Governor, multiple times more than Clinton did during his 10 years. Last time, no one took him seriously until Iowa and his record was never really vetted. if he runs this timne, the other candidates are going to puncture his record like on overripe watermelon.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:01 am
No, I pray for Palin to run until after Iowa, then she can drop out, having served her purpose of dividing the votes, and the evangelicals. In fighting Palin and Pawlenty for evangelical votes in Iowa, Huckabee will put his foot in his mouth and anger Palin and Pawlenty voters. They will go to Romney after they drop out. It will be between Romney and Huckabee with Mitt winning pretty handily.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
20. John, you are correct. Despite DaveG’s narrative, the dimension he did not address is who will get defense and fiscal cons.
Romney is most likely to get them, while Huck is quite unlikely to be able to do so.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:05 am
26. As evidenced by Zebra, a lot of Palin supporters really can’t stand Huckabee.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:07 am
#24
“I want her to run primarily because she will be 100% scrutinized.”
Martha, I find myself in agreement with you. I think she will run and that she should be scrutinized. By the way, I do not think she was hiding behind Facebook. The primaries are well over two years away, and most people are no paying attention. The main danger to a candidate at this point is overexposure. (I do not notice Romney on Sean Hannity every night, and I think he realizes that this is a danger).
Where I part company with you is that I think she will pass the test with flying colors. I think those who underestimate her or take cheap shots at her intelligence, character or looks (I do not mean you) are unwittingly doing her a service by lowering expectations for her.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:08 am
#6
Even if Huck wins Iowa, he will sink after Romney wins 2 major states in a row, New Hampshire and Michigan. Romney lost Iowa and New Hampshire and he still did better than Huckabee! Mitt will then win Nevada, which will give him 3 states in a row (I think Wyoming moved theirs up, which would give him 4 in a row) and Huck will most likely take South Carolina, but then Mitt will win Florida and voters will realize Huck is a southern candidate and cannot compete in the North and in less Evangelically dominated areas.
Mitt will take his Florida win to California, take that state, then it will be virtually over for Huckabee.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:11 am
#30
I want her to run because I want her to cut into Huckabee’s base!
October 31st, 2009 at 11:12 am
Didn’t Reagan raise taxes as Governor and as President?
What I liked about Reagan was his ability to unite the common man for a common purpose. Huckabee did that in Arkansas as you can see by viewing his vote break down: 20% of the African American vote.
The common people in small town USA will all come to love Huck if they don’t already. Mitt was pro-choice and laid off thousands of employees during his tenure at Bain. As the Rev. said himself, “what the voters looking for is not the guy who’s laid them off, but the guy they worked with”. Huckabee is of the people and from the people. Romney is from the cocktail parties and mansions where people are too busy discussing stock portfolios and not the real life issues. I think the choice in 2012 will be a fairly easy one to make.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:14 am
#27
I think that is a good prediction.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:15 am
#26:
“a lot of Palin supporters really can’t stand Huckabee.”
No conservative can scrutinize Huckabee’s record and be enamored with it. He is a social conservative. Period. And some of his more egregious pardons appear to have been done at the behest of his pastor and appeared to be completely contrary both to reason and to his obligation to protect the people in Arkansas. Whoever runs will have a lot of fun going through Huckabee’s record on taxes and crime, and comparing it to Bill Clinton’s, and finding that Clinton was the more conservative of the two. The opp research on him is being done now, and it one reason why I believe he will not run.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:25 am
#33:
Huckabee grew government in Arkansas at an alarming rate. He is soft on illegal immigration. He is soft on crime. If you think somebody with his big government record is going to sell in 2012, the era of anti government sentiment, you are seriously misled. Obama would find it ridiculously easy to beat Huckabee. Huckabee would carry the cotton south (the states Goldwater got), but Obama would sweep him in the Northeast, Midwest and most of the libertarian leaning West. It would be a debacle.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Dave,
All good points Dave. People do indeed want solutions and results in thier candidate along with someone they can find some commonality with what I call the X factor. The X factor seems to trump anything else. Clinton had it and used it well against Bush and Dole, W had it used it well against Gore and Kerry. But now, Obama seems to have it the best. It’s sad to say but people don’t vote as much on issues anymore though most of us on this blog probably still do. Romney is good on most issues, but a Romney v. Obama election is not good for Republicans. I my opinion, Obama’a charisma will trump concerns over lack of job growth. Obama did it with the tax issue this last election and I still don’t know how he won that debate other than he was the more likable candidate. Huckabe is the only guy right now with the name recognition (strength) and charisma to compete against Obama. Some may say Huckabee wasn’t right on all issues when he governed in Arkansas,and I would certainly disagree with that, but he speaks and acts very conservative now and people are getting a daily/weekly dose of it with Huckabee’s radio and tv broadcasts. A very Reaganesce path to the nomination.
Another thing that may contribute to this story line is what happens in some key governor’s races, VA (McDonnel), IA (Vander Platts), OH (Kasich), GA (Oxendine), SC (Bauer) as to how strong Huckabee will be in 2012. These are all key states with HuckPac endorsed candidates or atleast political friends with probably pending endorsements. We will have to wait till this time next year to see what come of these governor races,but McDonnel is seems to be a sure thing. Vander Platts and Oxendine have a good starts and we will have to see what if anything comes of Kasich and Bauer. If all 5 win elections, then the Huckabee’s strength will go up a notch.
I have yet to make a conclusion on where McCain’s 2008 supporters would go. Thats seems to be the most important question to ask. Naturally you may think they go to Palin, but just maybe they end up in Huckabee by either Palin refraining from running or people’s negetivities toward her.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:27 am
The real question should be – could Huckabee win the Presidency? Hopefully this is the question voters will ask themselves when making a decision on who to elect as their nominee. Realistically, there is no way that Huck will ever win the Presidency, he has very little appeal to anyone outside of the religious right. He’s a social conservative and that’s where his conservatism stops. Huck has had ethics violations filed against him – some that were frivilous but at least six that stuck. Hopefully Evangelicals will take the time to THINK about what Mitt Romney has to offer this country – his experience as a businessman alone is enough to make him preferred over Huck. Mitt isn’t the charismatic personality that Huckabee is, look at what Obama’s charisma has gotten us. The religious right has got to wake up and deal in reality – it’s substance over charisma, a business degree over a theological degree, it’s overall appeal over religious appeal. Heaven help us!
October 31st, 2009 at 11:27 am
zebra – one correction on Huckabee. Huckabee WAS soft on illegal immigration. He flipped on that in the middle of the campaign, and the media hardly mentioned it, because they wanted him to continue undermining Romney by staying in and helping McCain.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:32 am
#38
Well accordig to recent PPP polls, its Huckabee which has the best chance at defeating Obama.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:41 am
#39
“they wanted him to continue undermining Romney by staying in and helping McCain.”
I think that was part of it. Last time, Huckabee had the evangelicals pretty much all to himself. Thompson tried to appeal to them, but Dobson and a lot of evangelicals were suspicious of Fred’s Social Conservative bona fides, and his late start and lackadaisical campaign meant he never got traction with that constituency.
This time, Huckabee will not have the evangelicals all to himself. In fact, aside from really hard core evangelicals who want a preacher as President, and are blind to the electoral consequences of nominating Huckabee, I think Palin will appeal more to evangelicals than Huckabee. She is one of them, but she is also an anti-government libertarian and, more to the point, she does not scare libertarians. Her ability to bridge the divide between the social conservative and libertarian wings of the GOP is akin to Reagan’s in that he was trusted by both. That is why she is electable and Huckabee is not. His base is just too narrow. And his record is…well…stay tuned.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:44 am
NOPE!!! THAT DOG DON’T HUNT IN DC, NEW YORK, AND CALIFORNIA
October 31st, 2009 at 11:59 am
33. Johnny,
I can’t let that pass without a comment.
At Bain, Romney instigated the hiring of thousands of people. The layoffs were relatively few and necessary for the health of the companies involved. He made companies stronger. If you buy Huck’s lame old populist argument about the guy who laid you off, then you need to brush up on your capitalism.
Railing against Romney’s self-created wealth is also not very attractive. I can’t believe all the Huckabee snobs there are! Looking down at successful people is something the democrats do.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Huckabee is Ronald Reagan 2 ?
My God, is there a barrel of whatever you are drinking in your cave? The only similarity would be Huck driving the Death Valley Borax wagons for Ronald Reagan’s introduction.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Mike will likely win IOWA, S CAR & FLA…
Game over! : )
The choice in ‘12 will then be Obama OR Huck … and any Repubs who cast their vote for BO is NOT wanted in the Party.
Don’t let the door hit ya…:)
October 31st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The Romney, McCain, Gulliani vote totaled far more than Hucks.
These voters will likely vote for Romney or Powlenty (if Romney fades}, this time.
If John Thune gets in,he could be the dark horse suprise nominee.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Make the “a r e not”
October 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
45. Why do you Huckanuts think he can win FL? He stunk it up there in 08.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
@43. Martha said, “I can’t believe all the Huckabee snobs there are! Looking down at successful people is something the democrats do.” And yet Huckabee is a successful person whose success you sneer at, are you changing your party affiliation?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@48. Well when you have some in the national media, ie. Sean Hannity, reporting that you have pulled out of FL when you have not, it is bound to have some effect on your support…
October 31st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
He can win. When the actual race starts, the debates are going to remind people about several negatives when it comes to Romney, most notably his support for mandates to purchase health insurance (RomneyCare) and his support for TARP.
Against that, Huckabee has consistently been the true fiscal conservative all these issues. That plus his support for the FairTax, while not winning over those who absolutely hate him, will win over enough that he has a GREAT shot at the nomination, especially given Romney’s apparent inability to connect with voters.
Besides that, Huckabee is just a better debater than Romney, which will be very important in the generals. Will he get the nomination? I don’t know, but at this very early stage, he is very well position–better than Romney, I think.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Governor Huckabee WILL be the next president because he is connected to mainstream America and he has that unique gift (that Reagan had) of being able to inspire people and to make them believe in themselves and that this country can get turned around. He is a brilliantly gifted man with over a decade of executive experience and this country deserves the best…that is Governor Huckabee.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Of course Huck can win! When will people wake up!
October 31st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Romney is brilliant and is by far the best man to fix the fiscal problems of this country. Huckabee would only drive us further under. No Huck isn’t as bad as Obama, but there isn’t a chance that he would be able to reverse any of the terrible legislation that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi pass in the next three years. And if Huck came into office he would for sure be another George W. Bush with his terrible, touchy feely, compassionate conservative BS and would spend like crazy so that people would love him.
However, I really don’t think Romney can win the presidency. He will be crucified, unfairly, for MassCare. And the scumbags at Fox will lead the charge. Thank you Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly for shoving Huck down our throats. Oh, I know that they both prefer Legs, but she is done. By lying and misrepresenting MassCare, which they have already done, they are taking the default position of pro-Huckabee. And you can bet that everyone on Fox, with the possible exceptions of Cavuto and Baier, will be solidly behind Huck come primary season. There isn’t a chance in heck that Romney will ever get fair coverage from either the MSM or from Fox.
Respectfully, I have to disagree with all the spin that my pro-Romney friends here have been putting out over the many poll results, which for months now, have been showing Huck building up steam. I also have to disagree with them over their spin on the electoral map. I wish that they were right. But populism is the name of the game and Romney is hated by the populists in the Huck and Palin camps. DaveG is right, Palin supporters will go mostly to Huck because he is the Populist.
The best thing that could happen right now for the GOP and for the country is for Romney to declare that he won’t run and for him to spend 24/7 campaigning for Pawlenty. If it were a race between Huck and Pawlenty I think Pawlenty has a very strong chance to win. He would likely pick up something around 98% of the Romney people. And I think he would take a large majority of the Palin folks too. He is the only other candidate with the fiscal credentials to turn around this country.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Huckabee and Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. Both Huckabee and Romney are not conservative. Huckabee and Romney are Obama’s supporters. They are done! It is going to be Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
To that person who said McCain voters would go to Romney? Are you insane? McCain showed his total distaste for Romney during the campaign, stating that over and over. NO McCain supporters are going to go to Romney….
October 31st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“NO McCain supporters are going to go to Romney….”
Really? Here’s one who would go to Romney if the choice were Romney or Huckabee, and if I thought that either could beat Obama. The only way I’ll support Huckabee is if I’m convinced that he’s the only person who can beat Obama.
I disagree with DaveG in thinking the choice will be Romney-Huckabee, but that’s another matter.
I supported McCain in both 2000 and 2008, for the record.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
FACT: Mike Huckabee will be the next President of the United States in 2012.
Two Ph.D professors in Astrophysics correctly picked the winner of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections. Super high tech computational formulas were used, known as “Algorithms”. These formulas are used by Super Computers to make highly accurate predictions. The Ph.D professors used historical data from 1789 to 2000 that span numerous Presidential Elections in their algorithms.
The professors make their prediction for 2012, and the winner is: …… Mike Huckabee
Check out their calculations on the fan club site, just google the words: Huckabee Fan Club
Mike Huckabee keeps winning poll after poll after poll, his momentum is building at a phenomenal pace. Ronald Reagan made the same great comeback from 1976 to 1980. Now it’s Mike’s turn. Thousands of excited Huckabee Fans across the country just keep on expanding 24/7.
CNN Poll (10/28/09)
> Huckabee 32%, Palin 25%, Romney 21%
Rasmussen Poll (10/15/09)
> Huckabee 29%, Romney 24%, Palin 18%
PPP Poll (09/24/09)
> Huckabee 41%, Romeny 39%, Palin 38%
AOL Poll (10/01/09) ~ 200,000 votes
> Huckabee 25%, Romney 22%, Other (14%)
Value Voter Poll (09/19/09)
> Huckabee 28%, Romney 12%, Pawlenty 12%
October 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
FACT: Mike Huckabee will be the next President of the United States in 2012.
Do you know what the word “fact” means?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
This is the kind of statement that Romney supporters make that has me completely baffled: “Romney is brilliant and is by far the best man to fix the fiscal problems of this country. Huckabee would only drive us further under.”
First off, Huckabee did an amazing job turning AR’s substantial deficit around and creating a $3bn surplus. What did Romney do for MA?
Secondly, with all the conservative think-tanks out there, how could a legitimate fiscal conservative come up with Massachusetts-care as a solution in the first place?
Thirdly, how could any sane let alone intelligent person never mind alleged financial wizard support giving the Fed a blank check as Romney did by supporting TARP?
Fourthly, how can you trust a man who is willing to be whoever people want him to be in order to get them to vote for him? Romney was more liberal than Teddy when he wanted MA; he was more conservative than Reagan when he wanted the presidency in 2008; now he is more moderate than McCain in hopes of 2012. Who is the real Romney? No telling till he gets in office – and by then it will be too late.
The only support I have yet heard for Romney’s alleged economic prowess is that he’s a rich, ergo successful, businessman & he saved the SLC Olympics. Fine, but how did all that work out on his political resume?
Romney has no intuition for the pulse of the American people. He needs polls to tell him what to believe & what to do. With those two faults, he is reactive rather than proactive. We can’t afford more of that kind of “leadership”. He is the GOP’s version of John Kerry.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
60, thx for the post. I essentially said that Huck is the front runner and is quite likely to get the nomination and that Rommey can’t win and should drop out and you want to start an argument with me over Romney’s record. You did a great job of illustrating the rabid, irrational hatred of Romney that has become part of the populist battle cry.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Very well said, QuoVadisAnima
October 31st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Until Mitt declares he’s NOT running,
his record is important to point out.
Fair enough?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“Can Huckabee win the nomination?” Yes, he can!
Romney had the money to get his name out there and hire plenty of workers to help. Romney even won support of many of the “religious leaders.” Some of those “religious leaders” thought Huckabee was unelectable and compared him Pat Buchanan. The difference between Buchanan and Huckabee was Buchanan tried going straight for the presidency without holding any other elected political office. Huckabee proved his electability by being elected first as Lt. Governor and then Governor…twice! He maintained a high approval rating in Arkansas and probably could have been re-elected again had it not been for term limits.
During the 2008 primaries; Huckabee was virtually unknown. Huckabee’s “staff” were more volunteers than paid. Here is a quote from an article posted shortly after “Super Tuesday”:
” Vogel estimates that Romney finished his race having spent $309,439 per delegate.
By contrast, the campaigns of John McCain and Mike Huckabee, have been more efficient in their spending. Huckabee spent roughly $49,649 per delegate; McCain’s spent $57,566.” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/02/09/romney_and_the_grammometer.html
Why do people consider Romney so “fiscally conservative” if he spent more than a quarter million dollars more per delegate than Huckabee? How is Romney considered more “fiscally conservative” when the Tax Freedom Day was over a week later after his 4 year term in Massachusetts compared to Arkansas’ Tax Freedom Day staying virtually the same after Huckabee’s 10 1/2 year term??? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22328.html
Huckabee did not have the money to compete in every state in 2008 to even help get his name out there. Romney will probably be able to raise much more money again. But, Huckabee will no longer have to worry about the name recognition problem and he still has a whole Huck’s army of supporters willing to volunteer to help.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
63, you can continue to rehash all the sad, tired, dishonest, distortions of Mitt’s record that have been argued to death on this website long before you ever came here, but unlike many of my Rombot friends, I am not going to argue about them any more. If Romney decides that he is really in then he has a huge hill to climb in trying to refute all the false claims. It is a hill about which I am quite dubious he can overcome. But that will be his job and I will leave him to it.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Here’s why Huckabee NEEDS to be the nominee: Remember 1980…Reagan made a home for Libertarians and conservative dems. In the south, a lot of blue-collar whites were still democrats. I remember my dad didn’t change his party affiliation until after Reagan was elected. Reagan was in touch with the values of the common working man…so is Huckabee. All of us republicans daydream about another 1980. Huckabee is the ONLY one that could make it happen.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@61. DanL, this is what leaves me confounded. I cited factual reasons for problems with subscribing to Romney as an alleged economic genius capable of leading our country back to economic prosperity.
Where was it rabid or irrational? Where was it populist? And why in all the many, many times that I have asked these questions in all sincerity, have I never received a rational, reasonable reply from any Romney supporters instead of indignant huffs?
Distorted? Okay, then school me on where it is distorted.
Yet, most of these same Romney supporters demand that Huckabee supporters explain again & again the allegations against him while paying no regard to the explanations.
Why do these same people slam Huckabee as a supposed fiscal liberal who raises taxes & grows government because he raised taxes to fix things that desperately needed fixing in his state (while somehow leaving them radically better off than when he came in) — while bending over backwards to try to convince people that Romney’s fees should not be considered taxes, Massachusetts-care should not be thought of as govt-run healthcare, & TARP was a necessary evil to save the free world from collapse?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
64. Dan, come back, we need you.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
60, 66. You do your cause a great disservice to your own cause when you make claims here that everyone knows are just flat out false.
Go back and do some honest homework on what Romney did in Mass. Then you can have an intelligent conversation at race.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Everyone knows that no one here would ever do such a thing.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
And therein lies Mitt’s PROBLEM…
The claims are NOT false, in any way… as Martha, and others who are blind to Romney’s record, know (but cannot admit for ??? reasons).
But the Repubs are aware or WILL soon be made aware of these truths. : )
October 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
66, it is rabid and irrational that I have thrown in the towel on Romney and you still want to fight. Here is an analogy to illustrate. Let’s you and I were married (shudder) and had just had a lengthy and heated argument. I capitulated and turned away. You, however, were not satisfied with having won and chased after me, knocked me down and proceeded to kick me in the head until I became unconscious.
As to your arguments, I already stated that we have argued them to death here in the past. I don’t care to any more. I’m not going to convince you and you aren’t going to convince me.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
*let’s say
October 31st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The truth will convince the voters.
As we shall see. : )
October 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
69. Yeah, but when someone says Romney is to the left of Kennedy, it tells me everything I need to know. (Notice, that only Huckabee people say that.)
When I attack Huckabee, (and I admit I do it to the extreme), I at least stick to the facts/his record.
Next QVA will be telling us that Romney instituted $50 abortions, and that he flip-flopped on a 520 issues.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
73, just like the truth convinced the voters on Obama, Clinton, Carter…
October 31st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Quo Vadis…….doesn’t that mean ” where am I ?” or ” Where am I going ?” Truly apropos your candidate.
1. As Ross Perot said, Running Arkansas is like running a general store. Turning the budget around is like selling more beans.
2. Fiscal conservatives are NOT ” nattering nabobs of negativity” to quote another so-called conservative. Every once and awhile, you have to recognize a problem and try to solve it.
3. Businessmen , who are quite sane, do recognize the ” potential ” alternative to TARP was financial Armagedden. Bush saw that, McCain saw, that. It didn’t happen, so many say it never would have happened. What did Huck suggest we do last October?
4. Your fourth statement is beyond ridiculous and bespeaks a mind that wrestles with reality. A Republican running in Massachusetts obviously takes positions that are less attractive in Arkansas. Just as they are less attractive in New York and California. The very reason why the GOP CANNOT win a national race with Mike Huckabee . An unfortunate flaw in your argument, the Constitution, kind of requires a candidate to win some of these othert kinds of states, if only for the electoral votes they award. How does the Huckster do this, Quo Vadis ??
October 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
66. QVA – I think people are tired of having to re-inform every person who believes all that nonsense about Romney. It gets old, and doesn’t do any good. Not to mention, it’s time consuming. Huckanuts don’t want to know the truth.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Another thing I’d like to add to 65 is we are seeing the same frustration in middle America that we had in 1980. That is the basis of the TEA parties. This WILL grow over the next 3 years and those people (including me) will be looking for someone…and not just someone to run Washington, but someone to start changing it… who’s it going to be?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
78, change we can believe in? Can’t you see that you folks are the right’s equivalent of MoveOn.org?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Well 79, this year marks 20 years since the fall of the Berlin wall. That event happened for many reasons and over years of time…but most of all because people forced change.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Name calling reveals your sincerity and intelligence. Good luck with that.
You call us “Huckanuts” … are you 12, Martha? Wake up, please. : )
October 31st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Well, I must go now to trick-or-treat with the kids. Remember, Huckabee in ‘12
October 31st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
81 lol! I have no idea if you are one of the many people who have called Martha a Rombot, so maybe you aren’t being a hypocrite.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
80, are you wanting changes such as destroying government hard drives? Or maybe releasing hordes of criminals? Or maybe begging the legislature to raise taxes? How about many well founded ethics investigations of the chief executive? Ya that is some change to believe in.
Be safe trick or treating and have fun with the kids. I’ll be out in a couple of hours with mine.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Oh and the only thing that I can think of as being more scary than President Huckabee is running into Adam Graham while out trick or treating. Thank Heavens that Graham lives on the other side of the state from me.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Whew, a little bit of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.
QuoVadisAnima literally means “Where are you going, soul?”
Now that you actually know what you’re playing with, carry on with your anima animus…
October 31st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I really hope you aren’t going to try to convince libertarians that they should support the guy who wants to change the constitution so it conforms to the Bible?
Let’s just lay off the Reagan comparisons, okay?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
DanL, please let’s agree to an annulment, I just ate.
Basically what it seems you are saying to me is that I am mistaken about Romney, but that you are tired of straightening out the ignorant masses and I must go do my own due diligence.
Problem with that is I already did get this information from the news not Hucks Army. Now I will readily acknowledge that it is possible that there were extenuating circumstances as we know that the media only reports what it wants us to know.
If you know the truth, then why be coy? Is it really so difficult to defend that it takes more effort than all of these snarky responses you’ve made time to post?
You are one of the ones ready to coronate Romney as the economic wunderkind — and we’re supposed to just take your word for it? Or expend our own time looking for something that you claim exists somewhere out in cyberspace if we’re just willing to look hard enough for it? Next, you’ll be trying to talk me into tipping cows…
October 31st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
@71, BTW, DanL, no one is forcing you to defend Romney. I asked for an explanation & you declined. As I said, that is all I have ever gotten from Romney’s supporters. Why are his supporters the only ones I know who are so disinclined to explain his resume?
Furthermore, what IS unreasonable is that you apparently expect people to stop calling out his faults because you don’t wish to defend them. Of course you are free to refuse to do anything more than cheerlead for your guy — just as I should be free to question the ongoing substantiation deficit.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Huckabee is such a fool, I just can’t believe that protestants hate Mormons so bad that they support Huckabee.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
A Huckabee nomination would destroy the party as there is a large segment who will not support Huckabee after his action in 2008.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
@76. craigs,
Putting aside all your snide asides, Huckabee worked with a completely partisan Democrat legislature. They were so hostile to him that they nailed his office door to the legislature shut. He accomplished all that he did by working with these very same people. He did it without compromising his core principles.
Had he run for governor in MA, he would have done things no differently. He would rather lose than lie about who he is or compromise his personal convictions. Am I supposed to admire or respect Romney for being a chameleon of convenience?
Liberals say that the objective is what matters not the means; most conservatives want a leader who rejects that premise.
And the objections I have raised about Romney’s political resume have as much if not more to do with the hypocrisy of his defenders who then turn & slam Huckabee for the very same type of faults to be found in their own man.
Meanwhile, TARP’s biggest problem was giving a blank check to the Federal Reserve. Have you been paying no attention to what has been happening there? Changing the game midstream, the slush funds, etc. Do you really think the economy is saved?
TARP might have helped because it did buy us some time to try to fix things. Problem is that it bought us time, but no one fixed anything – the game played on.
If you think this market is in recovery, I have some beachfront property in AZ you might be interested in…
October 31st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
QVA you are really obtuse. For the third time on this thread I will state that we here at Race have argued endlessly on the issues you have raised. We have argued, and argued, and argued, and argued ad nauseum. I really don’t care that you weren’t here then. The Huck supporters did get their argument and rebuttal. With some time and effort you can research these arguments. Here’s a little search tip, look on the right side of your screen and click on Mitt Romney. Then scroll down for responses from Illinoisguy, Martha, GetReal, marK, lkv, or corep (to name a few of the Romney supporters). With a little diligence you ought to be able to find answers to your questions.
Oh and I fully expect the populist army of nutcases to continue to misrepresent Romney’s record from the house tops.
BTW, craigs answered you in 76. And as Martha said in 77 “Huckanuts don’t want to know the truth.”
October 31st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
92. Very same faults? Ah, no. Romney didn’t do, and indeed would never do 90% of the things Huck has done. It’s almost comical.
QVA, you don’t want to know the truth, and no one here is going to bother trying because they’ve done it 1000 times already.
One of the silliest things Huck people say about Romney is that he should have defied court orders in the gay marriage fiasco. Even Huck said that’s what he would have done. (Yeah, right.) Then they turn right around and tell us that Huck just HAD to raise 500 million in new taxes because he was FORCED to!
Do you see the transparent hypocrisy of that, QVA?
Id’ really like to hear you explain how Romney is to the left of Kennedy, though. That should be interesting.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
81. Yes, Dan is right. I’ve accepted that I’m going to called a Rombot from now on. I figured Huckanut is a lot nicer than the other names from which to choose.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
@90, Thanks for regurgitating the old bigotry against evangelicals, but I’m not a protestant (btw, fyi, evangelicals don’t generally consider themselves protestant either) & I don’t hate Mormons. In fact, I have more respect for the Mormons that I have known personally than the majority of the Christians I have known because they lived their faith.
Had Romney & Martha been my first & only introduction to the LDS, though, things might have been different…
At any rate, Huckabee just endorsed David Harmer in CA who is a Brigham Young University graduate & practicing Mormon so you all are going to have to figure out a way to work that into your anti-Mormon bigotry schpiel.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I think you are writing Palin off much to quickly. It would be wise to wait and look at her numbers after she begins campaigning. She is not your standard politician.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
My goodness. I don’t think I could tolerate a Huckabee administration especially after this current nightmare of an administration. Anyone but him. I just watched Michelle Bachman’s
vid on the Pelosi Healthcare Prevarication and I had a wicked thought about a Palin/Bachman ticket. I mean, you couldn’t ignore that kind of raw conservatism in high heels now, could ya? I would pick a Romney/Liz Cheney ticket first, but I wouldn’t consider it a loss to have a Palin/Bachman ticket. Moms unite and clean up the country with a good old-fashioned U.S. Constitutional capitalist mop. This is kind of an exciting news day. Go Hoffman. Go Rubio. See if you can pull it off, Christie. McDonnell is going in style, already.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@94, Martha, I’m sorry – I see now that you’re right. Romney raised fees not taxes therefore his fiscal conservativism is unsullied. Romney HAD to allow abortions under his healthcare plan because of a court order, but Huckabee did not have to raise taxes just because of a measly court order. Romney HAD to make compromises on social values because he was in a partisan state & it was the only way to get things done, but Huckabee did not have to make compromises on fiscal values for any reason whatsoever not even because they were needed even though he was in a partisan state.
Yes, yes, I see how mistaken I am now – thanks so much for clarifying! :rolleyes:
P.S. I said Romney campaigned to the left of Kennedy not that he governed so. The essential point is that he is willing to be a liberal, conservative or moderate so long as he wins – people like that should worry most rational people.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Huckabee jumped on the little publicized Harmer race in CA? Good, keep the trend going. The way to beat back forced socialism is one local race at a time, or many at a time if at all possible. Get the big names behind the little people. Build up the conservative troops a district at a time.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Now is not the time to talk Romney. He is the best candidate to fix this mess, but he should lay relatively low in terms of the media and just keep building up conservative support local and state levels like he’s doing. Maybe put out an awesome blueprint in the form of a moderate to best selling book next year outlining how the government needs to be hauled back onto a constitutional foundation, the cracks and fissures repaired with fiscal sanity, and a thorough tune-up of streamlining and eliminating bloated agencies undertaken under his team of experts. He will also impose transparency norms that few politicians other than himself could operate under without fear of opening their closets and showing their Modus Operandi to constant public scrutiny…wouldn’t you love to see Congress have their pay normalized (substantially reduced to the levels of us little people) and have to open their private dealings for review to insure they pay their taxes, don’t double deal (not on foreign or corporate payrolls), etc. etc. etc.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@93, DanL, thank you for your thoughtful response. You’re right – it is totally unreasonable of me not to want to spend hours of time that I don’t have to spare poring over the charitable responses of such helpful & friendly people
And justifiably because they do not wish to be bothered with backing up their claims that they are more than willing to make over & over – just not defend at the same rate.
You guys seem to be having a competition here, but I’m afraid Martha retains her crown. And you wonder why you win no converts? “Jane, you ignorant slut…”
October 31st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
What? I must’ve stumbled into a semi-private conversation here….
October 31st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Upon reflection, I had probably better explain that last line for the uninitiated. It is a line from the old Saturday Night Live show when Jane Curtain & Bill Murray used to be the news anchors. Curtain would read a supposedly well thought out opinion piece which Murray would respond to with that insulting line rather than a rational rebuttal. (In case there is any question, I feel like Jane Curtain to DanL’s Bill Murray)
October 31st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Quo…, you have nailed it.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Quo Vadis
You don’t have to put my remarks aside…..they were meant to be snide.
I just believe the important point that you can do nothing unless you are elected….and Huckabee is a bit like Alf Landon, likable, amusing, but totally unelectable.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Johnny B:
Ripping Romney for having acquired success in the private sector constitutes nothing more than class warfare which is the sort of thing that is typically used by the liberals. Look, I don’t begrudge a man for having had some financial success by way hard work, long hours, innovation and honest dealings. Why do you? Why does Huckabee? Truth is, Romney created & saved thousands of tax paying jobs. He rescued Staples. Did you know that there are over 35,000 tax paying employees there?
This used to be the sort of things that “Republicans” would respect and admire and even demand in their candidates. Now many Huckabee supporters consider this a political liability? Huckabee himself has criticized Romney for his success / wealth in the private sector. That was the second reason why I could never vote for Huckabee for any office.
This to me, proves Huckabee is ill-qualified to be commander in chief.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Mike will find a suitable position for Mitt IF he agrees to help defeat Obama…
October 31st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Johnny b:
You got some real zingers here that I just can’t let go with out a comment:
While we may not agree with everything Huckabee says or stands for, we can know that he means what he says and is totally genuine.
Oh really? Are you aware of the recent criticism towards Huckabee regarding the NY-23 race? If you study the recent events that transpired there fairly & honestly, you will clearly see that Romney’s statement was the statement that was clear and “totally genuine.”
However, my personal favorite is when Huckabee had the IA press gathered prior to the caucus voting. He states how he is a nice guy and does not want to attack Romney therefore he announces that he will not run his attack add that his campaign had just produced. So what does he do next? He then shows it all the press gathered there! Now that was priceless..
There is no way Huckabee is genuine as you state when you look at things fairly and honestly.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
@CraigS, I recognized it for what it was and I did not feel obligated to put them aside so much as simply better for it…
@cwpete, No we do not consider Mitt’s success a liability just because we do not bow to it as proof of his economic prowess. Perhaps you will be so kind as to elucidate how Mitt’s business acumen translated into political acumen during his time in MA since everyone else declines?
October 31st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
#37 Fiscal Conservative:
“Romney is good on most issues, but a Romney v. Obama election is not good for Republicans.”
Like your handle states, I also am a fiscal conservative. Romney is the only potential major candidate that meets that criteria for my vote. He has proven successful business experience – check. He has proven budget governing experience – check. He cuts taxes and reduces the size of gov’t – check. His is the only candidate that I am aware of that has any sort of grasp on the global economy – check. And that last one for me, the global economy, is huge.
Romney would smack Obama with Obama’s very own socialist mop in 2012 if our unemployment numbers are in double-digits with the economy still faltering. Moderates will go for Romney in a big way due to 3 more years of quiz-socialism, cap & trade, medical gov’t power grab, and other tax increases. Double digit unemployment is now the new norm. There is no way Obama is getting re-elected if unemployment does not change.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
#111:
“Perhaps you will be so kind as to elucidate how Mitt’s business acumen translated into political acumen during his time in MA since everyone else declines?”
This is easy, it got Romney elected as a “Republican” in the bluest of blue states simply because even the liberals were forced to understand that they needed a governor who knew how to rub to nickels together to get them out of the fiscal mess that the state was in. Also, study out the goings on regarding the SLC winter Olympics Romney is largely credited with saving. That took both political & business acumen to pull off.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
#54 DanL
“However, I really don’t think Romney can win the presidency. He will be crucified, unfairly, for MassCare.”
I can’t see that happening given a Romney / Obama race where Obama is pushing a socialistic take over of 1/6th of the economy. How could they rip Romney for that given what Obama and the liberals are currently trying to do?
As many know, I’m a big Romney fan, but I’m also a big Glen Beck fan. I think many of GB’s criticisms toward MA health plan are valid. In fact, Romney himself has admitted it is not perfect. I agree with the criticism charge that once it gets passed, it can morph into something entirely different than what was initially intended, similar to how the interpretation of our Constitution is significantly different than in years passed. Having said that, I’m more forgiving than GB and others.. , I don’t hold Romney liable for what the liberals due to the MA plan as result of their changes any more than I do our founding fathers for how the liberals constantly piss on our Constitution.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Granny T #64:
“Huckabee did not have the money to compete in every state”
Exactly, if that can’t change he will not become the nominee much less the President. I don’t think this will change do you? Whomever our candidate is, such candidate is going to need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to compete with the liberal money machine.
Honestly, Huckabee doesn’t have a prayer.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
This has been a good thread. Trick or treators are now banging at my door. Must go toss candy, I hope they are all Conservatives.
Appreciate the comments..
October 31st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
cwpete, I don’t hold MassCare against Romney. In fact I agree with the views that Illinoisguy and Martha have expressed on it in the past. I only think that my willingness to forgive him for it places me in a smallish minority.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Here is my prediction here…if we are all still here in 2012 and our country exists at that point….expect Huck to get the nomination but never make it into office. JESUS IS COMING BACK, and that means those of us that love him are going to meet him in the sky. I don’t know where that will leave the remainder of the republican party, but you probably won’t have to worry about Huck anymore(wink). If it does happen, God bless you all. If not…then i hope huck wins…if not huck than i hope romney can pull it together. Either man will make a fine president..and i look forward to it.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
QVA,
As a CEO, Romney achieved phenomenal success turning around hundreds of companies – from small venture start-ups to large corporations – thus facilitating the employment of thousands of people. A lot of people like to diminish the importance of his success at turning the Olympics from a financial and public relations disaster to one of the most successful Olympic games ever, but it is simply a perfect way to illustrate Romney’s superior leadership and organizational skill.
It should be obvious to you that the leadership skills that made Romney such a stunning success in business, transfer easily to the political arena. Leadership is leadership. Romney is heads and shoulders above the rest in these very essential qualities. He has done his homework. He has a conservative record in Mass as governor. He knows how to fix problems. CWPete is exactly right – that’s why Mass. hired him. They NEEDED him, just as we do now.
What we don’t need is a bunch of populist yahoos talking about feeling our pain, and railing on the people who make this country work. What we don’t need is a guy who has issues in the character dept. What we don’t need is a guy who said we need wing-tips in Iran, and who thought our Iraq policy was an arrogant bunker mentality. What we don’t need is a man who is all too happy to divide the party along religious lines. What we don’t need is a man who thumbed his nose at our system of justice and freed 1000 criminals because they came to Jesus, and because he feels more fit to judge than judges and juries. What we don’t need is a man who was profoundly grateful to the legislature for raising more taxes. I could go on, but it would take all day.
The truth is that Huck has little to recommend him beyond his being a “one of us” kind of guy. We can’t afford that right now. And if we do select him, the party is going to continue down it’s path to destruction.
ABH.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
cwpete is on fire tonight. I second the motion. I don’t need to throw anymore kindling on the Huckabee is shifty fire, but even more important than that is fiscal sanity. Isn’t his PAC broke? Every potential candidate that can’t balance their own checkbook, raise your hand. Now follow the escort out the side door, thanks for playing.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
If you think huck won’t have the money next time based on LAST TIME…you’re an idiot. He had a much smaller amount of support, and many were reluctant to jump on his bandwagon, because they didn’t think he could win the nomination. Now that he has proven he is VIABLE(that doesn’t necessarily mean he will win)…he will get money from his larger base of supporters, and a LOT more big names will endorse him and throw money behind him. That in itself means he will have a better chance this time around..especially without Fred in the race…who was Huck’s main opponent for support. A lot of people that wanted fred, ended up supporting Huck after they realized Fred was just a fish in a barrel(sad too, because i love the Fred). Huck offered sollutions last time…like a veterans bill of rights and a realistic sollution to our immigration problem. He has been pro-life through and through, and needs to convince no one of his creds their. Will he have to face a big challenge on fiscal issues? YES, and he should have to. I think he will govern as a fiscal conservative because he has turned more into that kind of person…and because he will have escaped the democratic legislature of arkansas…on a national level he would oppose the dems…on a state level you can’t gain political capital by opposing..you have to have support for your sollutions. Huck will be fine…and i hope he can get Mitt for his cabinet or VP(i prefer pawlenty for VP, but if Mitt and huck are willing..i’ll take it).
October 31st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I don’t know that I would call Huck a fiscal conservative, I think “creative” conservative better suits him. It took creativity to register in a Bridal registry to escape the pesky law against accepting expensive gifts. And no one can disagree that it was creative to call the Iowa Press to announce he was too good to go negative and “prove” his goodness by showing the PRESS the ad he wasn’t going to show – that was ingenious! He didn’t have to pay for it and he got it aired repeatedly. Huck is creative in other aspects as well. His “innocent” expose of Mormonisms was a joke. He was a keynote speaker at the SBC in Salt Lake – he knows what Mormons believe and exactly what to say to insinuate they worship Satan…though, this is a far cry from the truth. He constantly whined that Romney was rich but never mentioned that Romney made his money legitimately – by having a job. Hey – I thought the liberals are the people who hate the rich? I wouldn’t doubt that Huckabee was behind the nasty Palin rumors – all to set Romney up. Huck is clever, I’ll give him that. I found it interesting that he publicly asked Palin not to leave the Republican party…wanna bet his intent was to perpetuate the “quitter” mentality to her fans. The only way “genuine” fits a description of Huckabee is if “jerk” is added to it! I would love to see Romney and Palin work together to take him out early…KARMA.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
121. Wasn’t it just a month or so ago that Huck was in the red $30,000? He finds money to pay his family to run the PAC, however.
Also, one of my fav Huck ideas. Weapons of Mass Instruction. That was a doosie.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
122.
!
October 31st, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Wasn’t it Huck who joked about the assassination of Obama? And didn’t he have a suggestion about where to stick the Confederate flag? He also thinks Adam Smith would flip us all the bird if he were alive today.
That Huck~ He has so much charisma!
October 31st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Tammy,
I’m pretty sure that huck didn’t say they “worship” satan. He said they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. Guess what, that is what they believe. If not, then my mormon friends have been lying to me…including the missionaries that come to my house…and that mormon website where you can “ask a mormon”. Jesus and Satan are brothers according to them, and Jesus CHOSE to come to earth and die on the cross as a sacrifice. We all CHOSE to come here, and how we live our lives here, will determine what level of heaven you are a part of. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS EVANGELIZED TO ME ON MANY OCCASSIONS. Now, if a mormon would disagree with these statements, i apologize…but it is what i have been taught BY MORMONS. Is there some rift in the mormon religion that would cause them either to disagree on this issue or not. YES. Because they believe in modern day revelation, and this opens the door for great power as a person. Like Brigham Young as a church leader. Some mormons now disagree with much of these teachings…why? I can’t really explain. This is neither here nor there however, as it was a ridiculous topic for the huckster to bring up in the first place…or if he was asked the question, he should have said it doesn’t matter or something along those lines. He made a mistake…people make mistakes.
Statement of faith by me:
I believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God, and died on the cross for the sins of all those that believe and have faith in Him and His power to save them.
I believe in God the Father(Yahweh), in His eternal personage and that He, Jesus and the Holy Spirit make up God all in all as the trinity.
I believe that we are called to live a holy life, and that this is a display in itself of the saving faith of Jesus Christ.
I beleive that if we fail to live a holy life, we can as christians avail ourselves of confession directly to Jesus Christ as our mediator for forgivenss.
I believe that we are to love one another, as He gave us commandment.
I believe that Jesus Christ WILL COME AGAIN, and that He will take all of us away who believe in Him(that is have a relationship with Him).
I believe that we are justified by faith in Him, sactified in our walk with Him, and glorified either at death or resurrection with Him.
He is my King, and I love Him.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Hey, I’ll buy Romney’s business experience as a *potential* selling point politically – I get that. What I am asking is what actually materialized politically once he got in to substantiate it?
We have had many a successful businessman run for mayor here in nearby Houston. Some were quite good & others were awful. Being successful in business does not necessarily translate into being successful as a political executive. You can’t handle people in politics the way you can within a corporate structure.
I don’t accuse Romney of being a failure as a governor (as Huckabee’s haters do despite all the evidence & testimonies to the contrary), but I have seen nothing from his political resume or recent stances that indicates an ability to right the economy, let alone lead the country away from its most recent mistakes and back onto the right track.
Romney appears to have been closer to mediocre than successful in MA. If he was so effective, then why was he not popular enough there to be able to run for a 2nd term?
Other baggage: He also too perfectly fits the lefty stereotype of the GOP pols, and in our current anti-DC, anti-govt climate is going to fare even worse this time out for his healthcare program & TARP support – both of which are incompatible with a true fiscally conservative mindset and both of which would have gotten Huckabee crucified by the very same hypocrites who are currently defending Mitt for them.
@Martha, if Huckabee were all that you allege, then I would agree with you – but he isn’t and I don’t – & I find it yet another irony how it is Huckabee’s haters who keep bringing up religion as a weapon to bash him with while hypocritically accusing him of being the one who does that.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@125, No, Martha, there was a loud noise while he was giving a speech at an NRA convention & he attempted to make a joke to the effect that Obama was afraid of guns. It was a dud. He apologized for it. Everyone has moved on. Why can’t you?
October 31st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@122, Hey, Tammy, I bet you’re right! I bet Huckabee caused the economy to crash, too! And I bet he’s the one who is pulling Obama’s strings! And I bet he’s the reason the GOP can’t figure out which end is up! And I bet he was the other shooter in JFK’s assassination! And I bet he is a closet communist and probably a spy for the reds! And I bet he is part of the secret Vatican conspiracy to take control of the world! Well, that last one’s probably going a bit too far since we *all* know that *all* Baptists hate Catholics as much as they hate Mormons… :rolleyes:
Look, while you are engaging in your conspiracy theories, look up Huckabee’s speech at the SBC convention in Utah. He made a speech that had nothing to do with Mormons or Mormonism & then immediately had to leave for another state without even doing any book signings or any of the usual convention type stuff. What was anti-Mormon about that?
As a Catholic, I have had to put up with a lot of anti-Catholic garbage from both ends of the spectrum & I know well the ugly history of protestants against Catholics even here in the US with parish bombings, shootings, cross-burnings, etc. So while I am also aware of what the LDS has endured, I cannot for the life of me figure out the bizarre & un-Christian paranoia that so many Mormons have been exhibiting on this topic.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
128. Yes, it was the kind of dud that most people would never even think of. It was funny how he had it right there ready though, wasn’t it? That guy is brilliant.
Seriously though, the gaffes are just one more thing about Huck that makes him undesirable.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Let’s play the PAC money game & see who’s the winner!
Oh, look! It’s Newt Gingrich! We have our winner!
Yes, clearly the man with the most money is the one who will lead us out of the desert and back into an economy flowing with milk and honey!
Thanks for playing! You betcha!
October 31st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
126. I’m sorry, that’s just plain hooey, and you know it. Yet, Huck folks keep bringing it up as though it justifies what he did. That just doesn’t fly. Huck knew exactly what he was doing. But he apologized for it don’t you know??? Um, okay. Sure was a convenient ‘mistake’, was it not.
Again, no one else in the field chose to play Romney’s religion against him. It says a lot about Huck, and it’s not too pretty.
(PS – I’m a fifth generation Mormon, and I’ve NEVER been taught that Jesus and Satan are brothers. I think it’s been explained about a gazillion times in the past 2 years, but somehow, you Huckanuts seem to miss the point over and over and over again.)
October 31st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
@130, uh, if you actually listened to it, it was clear that he was trying to do it off the cuff, you know – extemporaneously? But okay, that puts him on par with Biden now. Mitt, OTOH, has NEVER made a gaffe, has he?
October 31st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
@132. Martha, I went to the official LDS website & it was there. Are there factions within the LDS? (Besides the polygamists)
October 31st, 2009 at 8:50 pm
127. You must have not been paying much attention to your guy in 07 and 08.
He was all over the religious angle, and used it like a hammer to beat Romney over the head. Everyone knows this, but you guys act like he’s an innocent as a little puppy.
It never ceases to amaze me how little Huck’s supporters really know him. He is a clever, cunning and dishonest man. The evidence is plastered all over the ‘08 campaign for anyone who isn’t afraid to admit the truth.
I have noticed that it’s a common tactic of Huck’s supporters to claim that Romney’s supporters are the ones who use religion against Huck. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a destructive attitude.
Better to admit what happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. The only thing worse that what Huck did, is his supporters who deny it.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
134. Where?
Anyway, you showed your colors with the polygamy remark. Thank you, now there is no doubt as to what kind of Huck fan you are.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
131. Newt’s organization is not in the same category as Huck’s, Romney’s and Palins, and doesn’t apply. I’d sure rather have Newt than Huck, though! Yeah, I’ll take someone who is responsible with money over someone who is not, any day.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
133. Very few. He doesn’t think that way. He’s not always looking for the next gag.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
134. It’s so refreshing to see you reveal your true self.
But FYI, polygamists are not LDS. You know this, you just couldn’t help yourself. Sooner or later, the truth comes out, and I just love it when that happens!
October 31st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
QVA,
I have a feeling this has been explained to you many, many times. I believe you know perfectly well what Mormons believe about Jesus and Satan. But you, like Huck, insist on using religion against Romney. You are no better than he is.
We believe that Heavenly Father created all of us. We believe that Satan was once the Father’s son, as we are all His sons and daughters.
But we do not believe in any way that that relationship continued. Jesus and Satan are NOT brothers, and as I’ve said many times, it is not Mormon doctrine, nor is it taught – by missionaries or otherwise. Mormons simply do not feel that way.
Now you know. You are no longer free to make the accusation without being dishonest.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:16 pm
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Devils
This is the article written for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and orignally published by Macmillan in the 1990s.
In the lengthy explanation about what Mormons believe about the devil, the word brother does not appear.
So, as Martha explained … although you can technically say Mormons believe this, it’s kind of like saying Christians believe in cannibalism because the eat the blood and body of Christ.
It’s just not how Mormons think about it, and it’s an unfair characterization and I believe Huckabee knew full well it was an unfair question when he asked it.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Well, Martha, thank you for so aptly illustrating that paranoia & suspicion I was speaking about! And thank you for your confidence in my knowledge about Mormonism, but it’s not quite as extensive as you seem to believe.
I had read that there were several sects who separated from the LDS because they wanted to retain polygamy. Okay, so the LDS has disowned them – my apologies – do I refer to them as protestant LDS or what?
I’ll rephrase my question now that I have been so charitably corrected: Are there any other disowned groups from the LDS besides the polygamists? Are there different factions within the LDS on some points of doctrine as there are even within the SBC?
Meanwhile, it was at the official LDS site on one of the pages for members to ask a lady whose name I have forgotten questions about the faith. I’ll have to relocate it, but it shouldn’t be hard to find since it was cited in numerous blogs wondering at the hysteria.
Yes, I have followed Huckabee since early on. You failed to bring up the floating cross conspiracy & – my own personal favorite – the secret Scripture coded phrases he used in his speeches!
This crap sounds goofy enough coming from hysterical libs & atheists, but when it comes from people who profess to be rational as well as Christian believers, it’s just mind-boggling.
@138, I can agree with you there – our guys do not think alike. Huckabee makes more gaffes than Romney because he is comfortable speaking extemporaneously & not worried about his own self prominence, while Romney is more a prepared speech (TOTUS) kind of guy. And Huckabee has a sense of humor while Romney has a sense of, well, just to please you, we’ll play nice & call it prestige.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
142
Yes there are Mormon splinter groups, but the are mostly much smaller than the main LDS Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#The_Movement_Today
The Mormons, like the Catholics are centralized, so there are not really splinter groups that dispute doctrine within the church.
There may be some academic discussion on small points of doctrine, but most Mormons respect the authority of the leadership.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I guess that “gaffe of a joke” was only funny to us hillbillies that “cling to our guns and religion” because I actually thought it was funny and NEVER even thought of anyone actually shooting Obama. I just got a mental picture of that loud noise really being Obama ducking under a chair as one of the nra members pointed their gun while saying “you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.” (like you see on bumper stickers) IMO Huckabee is so comfortable with blacks that he is virtually color blind and NEVER though of it as anything racial. And how was Huckabee or the nra members at that meeting supposed to know that there were actually threats on Obama’s life? Sometimes things said “off the cuff” aren’t appropriate. Huckabee apologized when he realized people thought he meant it to be racial or a threat. Everyone makes gaffes sometimes. How about Romney’s “Who let the dogs out?” while marching on Martin Luther King Day? I’m sorry; but I thought that was funny, too. Lighten up, guys!
October 31st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Found it! Go to http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 and scroll down to “How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?”
@G, I thank you for your gentle explanation & I can appreciate the analogy. I have been hit with the cannibalism remark more than once. It is not the LDS doctrine that is the issue *here* so much as the response that I find strange.
I have never attacked any person who questioned my faith based on anti-Catholic stereotypes as a bigot or an anti-Catholic or any such thing simply because of an ignorant question – the vast majority of those asking do so without malice. I gave them the benefit of the doubt & proffered an explanation. Some have been willing to listen; others have not.
I did my best not to judge even those who were not willing to listen as anti-Catholic bigots though. I understand what it is like to grow up being taught something as fact & then be confronted with information that contradicts those beliefs. It is not always easy to recognize, let alone receive, Truth when it comes to us and we are not always prepared to accept it.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
do I refer to them as protestant LDS or what?
The largest (or at least best-known) of the polygamist groups calls itself the FLDS — Fundamentalist LDS.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Waterseeds – I didn’t say that Huck said Mormons worship Satan, I said that the intent of his “innocent” question was to insinuate such. I know what Mormons believe and you can be certain that Huck does too. My problem was with his feigned innocence – as a Baptist preacher he is trained to use tactics like this. By the way, this is NOT paranoia – I’ve seen these tactics in action. His “question” was dishonest in it’s intent.
QVA – I’m not paranoid, one doesn’t even have to be particularly observant to see the type of person Huck is. I happen to believe that he is a very clever man. I don’t trust him. Research his ethical problems, his policy on illegals in Arkansas, his judgement on pardons. If you have no problem with his dishonesty I say vote for him next time around. I’ll vote for him if he becomes the nominee against Obama but it will be the second election in a row that I leave feeling sick.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Let me explain why I think Mormons reacted the way they did.
There was going to be some people who opposed Romney simply because they could not accept the idea of Mormon president, but Huckabee’s question was a signal to many Mormons that he was actively embracing them and their tactics as part of his campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28repubs.html
At a recent Huckabee event in Iowa, Glenda Gherkey, an evangelical from Evansdale, posed a question to the candidate.
“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues,” Ms. Gherkey said. “I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.”
She wondered, Would Mr. Romney’s prayers “even get through”?
In response, Mr. Huckabee said he did not want to “speak for any other candidate or denigrate them at all.”
But he added: “My views are what they are. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden where they come from.”
He then tried to make a joke: “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did.”
So Huckabee went from ‘not caring’ why people voted for him, to asking ‘innocent’ questions about Mormon beliefs.
It was very telling to see on the Democratic side where Hillary refused the support of people who wouldn’t vote for a black man, and Obama refused the support of people who wouldn’t vote for a women … while Huckabee at first doesn’t care, and himself begins to use the distorting tactics of those making the personal religion of a candidate as political leverage.
It is not fair to hold any political responsible for the actions of their supporters, but I think it is not too much to ask for Huckabee to refuse the support of people who’s only concern is to make sure that a Mormon not be president.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@G, I am aware of the political climate in which the question came up (and have often wondered at the context of the conversation in which it arose that was conveniently left out by the reporter).
However, it is very offensive to speak of evangelicals as if they are all, or even a simple majority are, anti-Mormon because that IS bigotry. If disagreeing with Mormon beliefs is all that it takes to make one guilty of being an anti-Mormon, then I guess I & many believers of other faiths are as well.
It is also offensive to suggest that all Huckabee had to do was to bring up this particular tenet of LDS beliefs to drive evangelicals away from Romney & toward him. Evangelicals do not have the same level of theological unity & organization that the SBC does – and if you know how diverse the beliefs can be within the SBC, then you recognize the understatement in that.
Evangelical support of Huckabee was split roughly along the same lines as the rest of the population; the same was not true of Mormons, btw.
What my question boils down to is this – Romney’s faith had already made lots of press. Even in the Fox piece covering Huckabee’s apology to Romney, Romney said, “I’ve talked about ‘my faith’ a number of times, and I don’t imagine anybody is confused about what faith I have.”
Those relative few who were going to oppose him for being a Mormon were already aware and so already opposed (& those who supported him for being a Mormon, contrariwise!)
So, honestly, if he were really the wickedly calculating manipulator that he is being portrayed to be, why would Huckabee have thought it would make a more helpful rather than harmful difference at that point?
October 31st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Yes, well that would be a powerful argument if I had ever said that all evangelicals are anti-Mormon.
But there are, like i said “some people” who would oppose Romney based on his Mormonism … like this guy from that same NY Times article:
“Mormons spend two years of their lives as missionaries, preaching an anti-Christian doctrine,” she said. “I don’t want someone out there, if I can help it, who’s going to be acting on an anti-Christian faith as the basis of their decision-making.”
I said there were ’some people’ who felt this way … and it is not their existence that bothers me. What bothered me was Huckabee’s eager embrace of their support.
As for your question … why did Huckabee think it would be more helpful than harmful? Maybe because there’s a lot of evangelical Christians in Iowa, and if some of them feel like our friend quoted in the NY Times they would probably be easy to motivate to vote in the caucus. By embracing their tactics and reason (and maybe appearing as a guest pastor in their church the week before the caucus) Huckabee was able to expand his support.
Oh, and in Iowa, evangial support was hardly split like the rest of the population … unless you think the rest of the population went 60-40 for Huckabee.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#IAREP
October 31st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
cwpete (#115)
I don’t think you understand that Huckabee won’t need near as much to compete this time around; because he will have the name recognition and the supporters to volunteer. If he was able to average “roughly $49,649 per delegate” with more supporters (as the recent polls imply) and no Fred in the race…it can be a whole new ball game. The reason Romney is able to raise more money is because the majority of his supporters are wealthier than Huckabee’s. But, there are a lot more of us lower to middle income wage earners than there are upper income wage earners. (The reason Huck can get more votes per buck) I appreciate the fact that it is the wealthy Americans that create the job for those of us less “fortunate” or those of us less willing to take risk. I LOVE the fact that more people have become wealthy because of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. I think that is why so many of us Huckabee supporters like the FairTax (so “productivity isn’t penalized”) There is an amazing story of a nearby high school dropout (his girlfriend got pregnant) that went on to be on the Forbes 400 list for a few years http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Kenneth-Hendricks_J389.html (although his widow is on the list now due to an accident around Thanksgiving last year) Sorry I got off topic there…
Huckabee has the communication skills and charisma to get many more people to support him as he continues to take his message directly to the people. He has the debate skills to beat Obama. Obama only won because people were star struck and some of that had even started wearing off in the later primaries.
I look forward to the 2012 primaries and hope no one chooses their candidate based on their religion.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
“Oh, and in Iowa, evangial support was hardly split like the rest of the population … unless you think the rest of the population went 60-40 for Huckabee.”
Were there any other states that Romney and Huckabee were the only two that were REALLY competing for?
October 31st, 2009 at 11:35 pm
G,
Did you see the results at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/is-mike-huckabee-new-jesse-jackson.html that says Huckabee won about 37% of the overall evangelical vote (prior to Romney’s dropping out) compared to Romney’s 25% of the “evangelical” vote. Did Huckabee do anywhere near that in the Mormon vote? (Although, I thought Mormon’s would be classified as evangelical, too. Don’t they “evangelize” others to their religion much like the Baptist?…maybe I’m wrong) Regardless, Romney received “84%” of the “evangelical” vote in Utah; which is very impressive for a bunch of so called “bigots”
Here’s a quote from the link I posted at the top of this reply:
“Evangelicals make up a larger share of the Republican primary electorate — about 40 percent, than black voters do of the Democratic primary electorate — about 20 percent. But Huckabee was nowhere near as dominant among evangelicals as candidates like Jackson and Barack Obama have been among blacks He won the evangelical vote in about half the states that voted through Super Tuesday; almost all of those wins were in the South. But John McCain and Mitt Romney won the evangelical vote in other states, and Huckabee wound up with only about 37 percent of the evangelical vote overall (weighting for the approximate number of evangelicals in each state). As Barone suggests, a Republican candidate could potentially win the nomination if he absolutely ran the table among evangelicals, even if he had little support elsewhere.”
October 31st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
149. It was not left out by the reporter. He said he was finished with the interview, and that Huckabee asked the question out of the blue, and that it took him by surprise.
Would you seriously have us believe that Huckabee, who first – is no dummy, and second – who knows this is a BIG INTERVIEW, and that everything he says will be scrutinized, would ask a NYT reporter about Mormon doctrine in one of the most important interviews of his life?
That is just about as far-fetched as it gets, and one of the reasons why many people think Huck is a snake. I can’t believe the way you Huck people underestimate your own guy.
I know some of you don’t, though. You know exactly what he does and why, with lots of little wink winks.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
QVA – read the blogs written after Huckabee made his statement and you will see that he got exactly what he had hoped for! Go to the SBC website and read their suggested “questions for Mormons.” By the way, those questions twist LDS doctrine and take a lot out of context. Go to Evangelical blogs and read what many say about Mormons. If you do that you will see that Huck made a very calculated statement.
While it is true that there are Evangelicals that have no issue with Romney based on religion, there are a large number who do and Huck knew very well the odds were in his favor. Again, my issue wasn’t with his question – it was with his dishonesty. That question had an obvious agenda.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
QVA –
What do you make of Huck’s close relationship with some anti-Mormon supporters?
Do you think he should have put a stop to the anti-Mormonism being stirred up by many of them?
Where does leadership come into play here?
What about the pro-Huck websites which featured a lot of anti-Mormon comments?
Do you think he could have persuaded them to remove anti-Mormon comments?
Do you think he should have condemned the dishonest anti-Mitt for VP ad campaign which was instigated by a lot of anti-Mormons?
Are you aware that he knew about it beforehand and did nothing to stop it? (Essentially, they had his blessing.)
I’d really like to know how his supporters negotiate all of these little inconvenient truths.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
#112
You completely missed my point. Romney couldn’t sell a space heater to eskimos. He has no X factor.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:08 am
“Fiscal”
If Romney has no X factor, what does Huck have?? At the time Romney dropped out, he had more than a million more votes than Huckabee had, and it would have been far more than that if the caucus states he won, and was massively popular in, would have had primaries instead.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:33 am
The Road Less Traveled…
Of all the candidates pictured on the left side of this page, only Gov. Sarah Palin is taking the road less traveled and garnering attention left, right and independent… and and is taking more hits than all of the other candidates combined… and continues leading the pack because she knows her own mind and does a very good job of expressing herself.
I like Sarah…
Sarah Palin’s Influence In Perspective
When she speaks, people listen
When she doesn’t speak, people wait for her to do so
No other political leader has this power
November 1st, 2009 at 12:38 am
@150. G, Sorry, I was addressing you & at the same time speaking to others here who do seem to hold to that idea.
Still, you do seem to be intimating that the statement was calculated to influence enough people to be helpful rather than hurtful which does raise the question of just how susceptible to such an idea you think these people are?
I do not deny that anti-Mormonism exists; I deny that it exists to the extent implied by that. How many evangelicals heard the accusations against Huckabee & were driven away from voting for him because of it? Judging from the internet scuttlebut at the time – I believe it was more than is assumed to have gone against Romney.
As I said, those who had a problem with Mormons would have already made their choice – there was nothing in that question that would have alarmed a significant number of those who remained. Was there a jump in the polls following that episode? If there had been, you can be sure the eager press would have latched onto it. They were salivating for division.
And Huckabee is not so stupid as Martha wants to believe he is – even if Iowa was rabid with anti-Mormons and his plot might succeed there, the backlash following Iowa would make such a move too costly. Were he calculating in such a way, he would recognize that there would be negative repercussions as well.
If the situation were different & Romney was a Catholic, and Iowa was loaded with Southern Baptists & Huckabee had asked the cannibalism question or the ever popular “Don’t Catholics worship Mary?” my response would be no different.
Baptists are well known for their anti-Catholic teachings as well. So it is not unreasonable to suspect that Huckabee may have some anti-Catholic beliefs that need straightening out, too.
Regardless of the *possibilities*, Huckabee’s time as Governor in AR demonstrated that he did not discriminate – he looked for the most effective people he could regardless of race, creed or religious affiliation (which is why he received 48% of the black demographic there, for just one example right off the top of my head).
When there is a doubt about a person’s intent, it is reasonable to look at their past history to see which possibility is more likely. There is nothing prior to that presidential run to support the accusations & much to testify against it from his service in AR.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:55 am
johnny b, #23 wrote:
Huckabee is genuine and like Ronald Reagan?! Huckabee is a petty, egotistical charlatan. You need to get your personality-detector tuned up.
Huckabee is also a buffoon–a gaffe disaster, train wreck just waiting to happen AGAIN. Many Iowans are unaware of or have forgotten huckabee’s joke about obama being in fear after someone pointed a gun at him. Once Iowans learn about this, they will NOT risk giving the nomination to unviable huckabee, knowing there would be non-stop coverage/video of huckabee’s dark and creepy joke.
The Dems wanted huck to be the 2008 nominee; you can bet after huck’s vile “joke”, they’ll want him EVEN MORE next time around. And once huck got the nomination, the Dems would chew him up and spit him out for saying something like that about their president!
http://www.tmz.com/2008/05/17/huckabee-jokes-about-obama-assassination/
November 1st, 2009 at 1:03 am
@154. Which brings me to Martha’s response about the reporter: Why are you only cynical about Huckabee? Like the reporter was the good guy? From the NYT? I just don’t share your faith there either.
The reporter said he was finished with the interview? Then why was Huckabee’s question included *after* being told they were done? Kind of reminds me of Connie Chung’s trick on Newt Gingrich’s mother with that “off the record” business.
So they finished the interview in which the reporter had pressed repeatedly for Huckabee to say something about Romney’s faith & to which Huckabee kept refusing, saying it was not an issue, requesting that the interview stick to the real issues, & that he was no expert so the guy should ask Romney if he really wanted to know.
In Huckabee’s account, _after saying the interview was over_, the reporter then began talking to him about Mormonism. Huckabee’s question was within the context of that “casual” conversation.
Think about it – if you were going to try to deliberately manipulate a conversation, you wouldn’t immediately pop your question directly out of the blue like that as the reporter was claiming. It would be too obvious.
I’ve had the misfortune to know a few manipulators in my lifetime & I assure you they are not that open-handed. The reporter’s claim sounds unlikely at best – he was fudging something in there & he behaves like a manipulator.
The NYT was significantly more underhanded in its reporting in 2008 – Huckabee never had a problem like this prior to that campaign. So whose story deserves more credibility?
The one who would have at least as much to lose as to gain from it? (see my response to G above if you don’t get this)
Or the one who would have nothing to lose & everything to gain from it?
Not only that, but I will be quite frank here, of all the things that Huckabee could have asked about Mormonism, there were several significantly more volatile issues he could have brought up that would have even had some non-evangelicals scratching their heads & feeling a little doubtful. The spirit brothers thing sounds mythic, but not the degree of outrageous or offensive you all seem to fear.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:06 am
@158. Dave, which states did Romney get all his votes from? Therein tells a tale (that is supported by all the current polls for 2012, btw)…
November 1st, 2009 at 1:10 am
#162,
Let’s not forget huckabee’s negative Romney ad that he decided not to run, but then made sure all the media saw it so they could run it. huckabee is a deceitful snake in the grass.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:10 am
@156. Martha, the GOP & conservative parties attract a lot of good people, but they also attract skinheads, Klansmen, etc. The liberals use that to “prove” that all Republicans & especially conservatives are bigots & racists like them. Are they right? Of course not. And if their attempt in that smear is wrong, then so is yours.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:14 am
Yes, he did speak out against it explicitly & unequivocably…
WALLACE: I want to come at this a slightly different way, because this raises the whole question of prejudice and, as Krauthammer seemed to be saying, that you were playing the religion card.
Do you think it’s intolerant — do you think it’s prejudice — for voters — I’m not asking you; for voters to consider the tenets of Mormonism in judging Mitt Romney?
HUCKABEE: I do think that’s inappropriate. I think people should judge Mitt Romney on his record. Is he consistent? Does he say and believe the things now that he said and believed before? That’s what ought to be the criteria.
I don’t think his Mormonism ought to be a factor in it. And I wouldn’t vote for or against somebody because they were Mormon. It simply wouldn’t be that big of an issue for me.
If it is for others, they’ll have to explain that. It isn’t for me, and ***it shouldn’t be for anyone***.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316253,00.html
November 1st, 2009 at 1:20 am
#166,
Of course being interviewed on TV huckabee would say that. He’s not that bright but he’s also not dumb enough to go on record saying he’s a bigot. ACTIONS always speak louder than words.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:30 am
Money will not be an issue for Huckabee this time around when you apply simple, analytical reasoning:
In an active campaign:
1. Candidates either require lots of money to obtain votes; or
2. Candidates’ high polng numbers automatically draw money to their coffers.
Of course, that is as relates to compaigns and candidates — neither of which is currently relevant (although strangers to this blog might be hard put to comprehend that).
Look, you can say silly nonsense — i.e., Huckabee can never win the general election — even while seven consecutive polls show he performs best against Obama than any other candidate. You can say Romney is the superior candidate while Huckabee only appeals regionally – yet Huck beat Romney 44% to 39% in a head to head in Rasmussen’s latest poll (and beats Palin 55% to 35%). In the last month and a half, Huckabee has won, by a sizable amount, the Value Voters Straw Poll; Rasmussen’s Poll; the CNN poll and seven consecutive PPP polls. And in each of those polls, he was winning between 5 to 7 points (+16 in the Value Voters Straw Poll) — outside the margin of error.
Now, I know the old standby is that, this early out, all these polls tell us is who has the name recognition. But the point is — they ALL have name recognition, and Huckabee is still fearing better. And you can trot out his FOX news exposure (which actually I brought out several months ago and nobody seemed impressed at that time and frankly discounted), but there you go — he has it, and will continue to garner the exposure right up to if and when he decides to run — a free weekend infomercial upon which he is steadily building his bona fides, his communicative skills and his downright likability. And you can argue that, when pitted again Romney, Huckabee will pale — but history has shown just the reverse. Huckabee’s popularity improved after every debate — because, as the writer of this blog suggests — it is charisma and communicative skills that win the day at the ballot box — Huckabee speaks to — not down to but directly to — people in the middle income classes (which, by the way, constitute the majority of voters); because Huckabee wins the trust of those who believe that he can relate to them — and there are many in that category.
That is why he is doing well in the polls — and he appeals across the board. He doesnt’ appeal to the ardent haters among you — I certainly in no way put everybody into this category — but those who are unrelenting and hate motivated. For that very reason, you are not a trustworthy group to gauge the emotions of likely voters who are not so self-maligned nor their opinions of a candidate’s potential success.
At the end, if both Mitt and Mike enter the race (I don’t think Sarah will, but in either case — with no disrespect intended — I believe she will be irrelevant), one of them will survive and earn the nomination. Those of you who automatically discount Huckabee out of hate or loathing (justifiably or otherwise — of course, I think it is completely unjustified) are not preparing yourself for a 50% probability.
I am ready for either one. Of course, I will be jubilant with Huckabee, but I am ready for Romney. That is what makes me “rational.”
November 1st, 2009 at 1:38 am
#168,
huck polls well, espeically in polls by Dem pollsters, because they want him to get the nomination for an “easy kill”.
Perception from liberals and Democrats
“On December 11, 2007 the Drudge Report found out that the highest levels of the Democratic Party told their officials to avoid any criticism of 2008 Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, until he would secure the nomination. One Democrat said “He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill.” The last time the Democratic National Committee criticized Huckabee was on March 2nd, 2007.[54]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Mike_Huckabee
November 1st, 2009 at 1:52 am
Granny T Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Yep…that’s apparent to all who are paying attention…and that’s quite a “message” huck’s got!
“That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.” — Mike Huckabee after his speech to the National Rifle Association was interrupted by a loud noise
November 1st, 2009 at 2:02 am
Just a taste of what huckabee would get in return for all his “charisma” :
http://capitolstreet.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/huckabee-tasteless-joke-to-nra-convention-of-obama-avoiding-gun-shot/
Huckabee Tasteless Joke to NRA Convention of Obama Avoiding Gun Shot
May 19, 2008…6:07 pm
“Former Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee was interrupted by a loud crash off stage last Friday as he addressed the National Rifle Association in Kentucky, commenting that the noise was Democratic candidate Barack Obama falling off a chair as he dodged a gun aimed at him.
“That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him, and he dove for the floor,” Huckabee told the NRA convention.
Are you kidding me?
Exactly how racist and overtly callous are the Republicans? I mean, its one thing for conservatives to laugh about Obama getting off-ed around the dinner table, its quite another to do it while speaking at one of the largest annual conventions in the country as it airs on CNN.
Obama, who if elected in November would be the first black U.S. president, was campaigning in South Dakota on Friday when Huckabee made the comment. This type of violence potentially leveled at Obama has been a concern of many voters during this presidential campaign. Realizing this, Obama requested the U.S. Secret Service to protect him beginning in May 2007, the earliest a presidential candidate has ever received protection.
Huckabee later issued a statement saying he did not intend his “offhand remark” to offend the Illinois senator. “I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention,” he said.
Right.
A remark made about the only serious black presidential contender in the history of this Republic, getting greased at an NRA convention was offhanded? Call me kooky, but I’m guessing it was a remark that Huckabee was just itching to make in front of a friendly racist-conservative crowd. Its no mystery that white conservative Republicans basically yearn for the days of lynching at the hands of the Klan, so why is anyone surprised that Southern whitebred baptist, good-ole-boy, Arkansas’s favorite redneck son, Mike Huckabee made this comment?
I had a grain of respect for this guy at one time regarding his political skill and tact on the trail – not now. He crossed the line.
Obama should demand a public apology from Huckabee, and if he doesn’t get it, the progressive blogs and the Democratic party should make this statement from Huckabee a centerpiece of the Fall ad campaign.
No breaks on this.
I say beat Huckabee and McCain over the head with this at every turn, just like the Republicans did to Obama with the Wright controversy. If these jackasses want to play hardball, I say lets play.
None of this can go unchecked. None of it.
This comment was outrageous and made by a man who obviously is willing to tow the Republican, closet racist agenda, in a bid to be vice president.
His comment was disgusting and reprehensible, and I for one, expect a higher standard of public conduct from a minister.
Huckabee should be ashamed of himself.”
November 1st, 2009 at 2:03 am
@167. Shelby, catch up. Your Romney peers just finished criticizing Huckabee for NOT saying anything against it. You need to get with the others & coordinate your attacks so they are not so blatantly aimed at damning the man regardless of whatever he says or does contrary to all of your accusations.
@169. Well, one can claim anything, but actions speak louder than words & the most liberal of the libs worked to keep Romney in it: “Democrats for Mitt: Because the GOP deserves the very worst.”
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59649
“Michigan is Romney’s last stand. He has pulled all advertising from other states for a last-ditch effort there. It’s sink or swim time for Romney, and we’re going to throw him a lifesaver.”
November 1st, 2009 at 2:12 am
#172,
Between the Mormons upset with huckabee and the blacks that will be upon seeing huck’s creepy, sick joke, huck hasn’t got a chance.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:41 am
Wow! While not my intent to really get into the doctrine of mormons…i was stating WHAT I WAS TOLD BY MORMONS. I lived in Northern Wyoming for 2 years, and many of my friends while I was there are mormon, and i lived 2 doors down from the missionaries(always 2 girls, and during that time there was about 6 or so of them). I had a wonderful relationship with all of them and absolutely think the WORLD of them. Probably some of the nicest people i’ve ever met in my life. Definitely have a love for Jesus…although in my theology, it is dilluded and perverted to focus on works rather than faith as a means for salvation. I was given the book of mormon(which i still have in my home)…and i read the book of mormon. I was told that if I prayed sincerely and asked God for the wisdom of whether it was true or not, that i would get an answer. I did, and came away believing that it was a good story, but not true at all. We had many discussions, but i got the feeling each time and was even told by them that they had never met someone who was both so willing to dialogue with them, and better versed in the bible than them. I showed them how their beliefs did not line up with the bible…and their answer was that the bible had been changed. I said, that is why we have the original languages to compare. I don’t trust any english version of the bible, only the hebrew, greek and aramaic. Now, to be fair the things that we were separated on theologically weren’t that far apart. I have some of the same discussions with other “christians” over whether faith is enough to save, or if works “must” be a part of salvation. Personally, I believe we are saved at the point of faith(Ephesians 2:8-9)..but that we are “called” to do works.
To be quite honest, i have a greater admiration for many mormons than i do for most christians i know. One, because they live a more sanctified life(still not perfect, because that is impossible)…and quite simply because they expressed love for me even though i wasn’t one of them. I do not know if i will see these wonderful people in heaven one day, but i pray that i will and that what part of their theology is flawed would not be enough to keep them from our Father in heaven. They are absolutely wonderful people…and i especially appreciated the cookies that they would sometimes make me. Probably the funniest conversation i ever had with them was when i answered my door without my shirt on(it was late at night)…which was hilarious as the girls tried so hard not to look at me, but didn’t seem to mind my state of dress. I have no doubt that wherever they are right now, they are doing much more good in their lives than we could ever accomplish in a political light.
November 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am
#167 “Of course being interviewed on TV huckabee would say that. He’s not that bright but he’s also not dumb enough to go on record saying he’s a bigot. ACTIONS always speak louder than words.”
Are Mormons really that totally unforgiving that they won’t accept Huckabee’s numerous apologies and explanation? If “ACTIONS always speak louder than words”; wouldn’t Huckabee’s endorsement of David Harmer (a Mormon Brigham Young University graduate) PROVE he isn’t a bigoted as you perceive him to be?
#173 “Between the Mormons upset with huckabee and the blacks that will be upon seeing huck’s creepy, sick joke, huck hasn’t got a chance.”
EVEN Obama didn’t buy into Huckabee gaffe joke being racial! Huckabee’s “ACTIONS speak[ing] louder than words” will PROVE he is not racist. Blacks that know him and his reputation KNOW he has been a champion of racial equality. Maybe you missed the fact that “Huckabee was endorsed by three dozen African-Americans” leaders “After leaving the King ceremony”???
November 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Over the weekend, he also apologized personally to Senator Obama, who told him not to worry and that he knew he meant no ill will.
It was a one day story.
The press let it go. Black leaders kept quiet and did not give Huckabee a hard time about it. A few people on the web tried to escalate the situation but were overwhelmed by many more who spoke up to defend Mike and accept his apology. It seems like almost everybody knew that Mike had simply made up a very bad joke without thinking about its context and that there wasn’t anything else to it. And the way people have reacted to the Huckabee gaffe illustrates something interesting about him as well as a lesson for the rest of us. When you build a long reputation for seeking racial harmony, people tend to give you the benefit of the doubt when you make a mistake.”
Was written on The Values Voter’s Blog (one of my absolute favorite black Huckabee supporters) “Why black voters love Mike Huckabee” http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!821.entry
November 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
Sorry the link didn’t work. I’ll try it again
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!821.entry
November 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
How clueless does one have to be to make a joke about the assassination of the first black nominee, especially when there had been recent discussion about the safety of Obama? If you remember, the joke went over like a lead balloon. No one laughed.
I’m supposed to be impressed that Huck endorsed a Mormon? Listen, Huck did his damage and then conveniently apologized. He’s the worst ‘what, who me?’ guy I’ve ever seen. You guys are free to keep living in LA LA land, I guess. Me, I prefer to see things the way they really are.
Huck sought out the anti-Mormon vote. He did it on purpose because it was the only shot he had for attention. He never distanced himself from any of them – indeed he could not or he would lose them. We will see what happens in 2011, 2012. He will not be so blatant again, but he will make sure the fire remains lit, and simmers under the surface.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am
176. I don’t want a president who has a habit of making very bad jokes at the wrong time, or any time. I don’t want to have to forgive Huck for all his continuing nonsense time and time again. I much prefer a man who isn’t prone to making stupid comments, or hell-bent on sowing division.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Martha, so much anger is not healthy. Learn to forgive, my friend.
You’ll live a longer and happier life by doing so. Cheer up, my friend.
Mike is NOT out to get you.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
#175
“Are Mormons really that totally unforgiving that they won’t accept Huckabee’s numerous apologies and explanation? If “ACTIONS always speak louder than words”; wouldn’t Huckabee’s endorsement of David Harmer (a Mormon Brigham Young University graduate) PROVE he isn’t a bigoted as you perceive him to be?”
I think Huckabee’s use of religion against Romney was the lowest of low blows. I have many issues with Romney concerning his philosophy and his record as most people know. His use of religion against Romney is going to remind a lot of older Catholic voters of the time when they were subjected to discrimination by Protestant Preachers, and this reinforces a natural suspicion which Catholics have about electing a Preacher (like Huck) as President.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Did McCain won IA? Mike win IA,SC,OK,AK,VA,MO,and other,Mitt win NH,NV,MI,FD,CA,NY,CO,TX,UT,and other,by the economy matter Mitt will get the nomination in 2012,yes he is the right choice for the country to turn the economy for American people.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Who cares if he can win the nomination. The Huckabee administration would be as much a feckless disaster as the current Obama administration (if not more). Good, folksy speaking skills do not a leader of the free world make. If you can’t run a good PAC (or a state, without raising taxes left and right), what makes you think he’d be an effective president? After the primaries, the rest of the voting public would not be fooled. We need competence! I don’t want “one of us”, I want something better!
November 1st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
frozone,
What would you describe Reagan as. Many people made the same claims about him….guess what? THEY WAS WRONG!
November 1st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Were they wrong because what they said was false or were they wrong because he was entirely different as president?
November 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Sarah, Newt, Pawlenty, Pence, Santorium, Judd, Cantor, Guiliani, Boehner, Thompson, Coulter, Rush, Hannity, Ingram, Krauthammer, Hewitt, Praeger, Frum, Parker, NRO, Levin, Kristol, The Weekly Standard, McCain, Medved, Morrissey, many evangelical leaders, all fiscal Republicans, every moderate Democrat and every Independent that likes their job, likes their money, wants less government in their lives and wants an honest, trustworthy, decent politician to lead America…..they will all back Mitt Romney in 2012.
If Huckabee fans really believe that an unattractive man, who can be mean spirited, thin skinned, treats his wife shabbily, has a proclivity for religious bigotry and making racist comments can win the presidency over Obama, you are not living in reality.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
If the Republican Party cannot quit knocking the knees out from under our own; we don’t deserve to win another election. The negative campaign ads in the early primaries were a disgrace. At the first debate Thompson decided to show up for; the candidates were able to show any ad they wanted. Thompson decided to show a negative ad against Huckabee. Romney and his CFG buddies ran numerous negative Huckabee ads in Iowa. The anti-Huckabee comments on this thread are horrible. How many anti-Romney comments are there compared to anti-Huckabee comments? It is a shame we can’t have an adult conversation without resorting to name calling. Or are there just a bunch of children pretending to be adults here?
Obama is the most liberal President in America’s history. Huckabee, Romney, Palin, Pawlenty, and so many others are all so much further to the right than Obama; any of them would be an improvement. The Democrats are probably all very happy they keep us arguing amongst ourselves. We’d be smart to quit the bickering and just point out our favorite candidate’s strong points than pointing out the “weaknesses” of their competition. Let’s stop shooting our own soldiers and get back to the real battle. Let the voters decide in 2012 who our nominee will be.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
#175,
I can’t speak for Mormons’ level of forgiveness because I am not Mormon (but I have dear friends that are). And Mormons, like everyone else, are individuals with unique tolerances and personalities. But huckabee’s underhanded use of anti-Mormonism during the election was disgusting–many know this (Mormon and otherwise) and will vote accordingly next time around.
Once again, (God you huckabots are determined to be deluded with your heads in the sand!) of course Obama would not publicly acknowledge any shock nor outrage at huck’s fine joke about his assassination! But if huckabee were ever to get the nomination, YOU KNOW THIS WOULD BE A MAJOR ISSUE and would point to huckabee’s judgment (lack of) and a seemingly dark and creepy feeling towards the president. In a tight presidential race, you’ve got to be off your rocker if you think the Dems would not use this to the MAX!
I’ll post this once again and maybe it will sink in this time:
Perception from liberals and Democrats
“On December 11, 2007 the Drudge Report found out that the highest levels of the Democratic Party told their officials to avoid any criticism of 2008 Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, until he would secure the nomination. One Democrat said “He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill.” The last time the Democratic National Committee criticized Huckabee was on March 2nd, 2007.[54]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Mike_Huckabee
November 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Martha, #179 and Sheryl, #186,
Great comments! I think you both are spot on!
November 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, is commenting on how they couldn’t believe their good luck when Mccain chose the unqualified to be VP/Pres palin as his nominee, which totally undermined McCain’s argument that Obama was unqualified.
I could just see Plouffe 3 years and 4 days from now saying: We just couldn’t believe our good luck when the Repubs nominated huckabee, WHOM HAD JOKED ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION OF OUR PRESIDENT.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I just found a follow up article in the “Democrats for Mitt” plan to destroy the Republican Party by helping keep Mitt in the race as long as possible. This thread sure speaks volumes to how successful they were!
“Mitt for Michigan II
by kos
Digg this! Share this on Twitter – Mitt for Michigan IITweet this submit to reddit Share This
Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:28:29 AM PST
Let me answer some feedback on the Mitt for Michigan campaign we’ve started here.
1.) This isn’t a pro-Romney effort. We’re not saying, “Romney is the best of their lot”. Now granted, Romney is pretty much anything to everyone, the guy has no core principles, and he’ll sell out his kids (the way he’s selling out their inheritance) in a heartbeat if it meant a few more votes. His record makes that clear. So who knows what he believes? I doubt he himself knows. But that’s irrelevant to this effort.
We’re also not saying, “Romney is the best candidate to run against”. He probably is, but any “electability” argument is fraught with danger. So we’re not supporting Romney because he polls shittiest of all the Republican candidates in head-to-head matchups. Those numbers could quickly change.
[b]Nope, we’re pushing Romney because at the end of the day, Romney is spending a lot of money on ads trashing his fellow Republicans. We want more of that money spent trashing his fellow Republicans. We want an unsettled field with Republicans fragmented and fighting. We want the theocons (Huckabee), the neocons (McCain), and the corportate cons (Romney) to maintain viable top-tier candidates in the race for as long as possible, since it fuels their civil war.[/b] Heck, if we truly hit the jackpot, we might even get a brokered GOP convention.
To summarize, this isn’t a vote for Romney. It’s a vote for “cluster[bleep]“.
And by sowing doubts about the validity of any theoretical Romney victory (especially a close one), we also pollute his victory. So even if Romney wins, he loses.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/11/132847/518/150/435128
And we were obviously gullible enough to fall for it! Or maybe Martha, Shelby, and some of the other “haters” are really part of the Daily Kos????
Isn’t there anyway at all to disagree without destroying our Party?
November 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Oh GrannyT! You’re posting dailykos material?! You have become desperate indeed! NOTHING you post is going to erase huckabee’s assassination joke about our president. You can’t unring the bell…
November 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
My opnion;
Palin is not for the national stage.
Mitt can not be trusted. He also has a baggage of coming form a backgroundn of a Mormon Bishop.
Huckabee is the right choice for 2012 GOP presidential candidate!
November 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Shelby,
Do you deny the possibility that they really did mess with the Republican primary in Michigan to get even with Republicans messing with their primaries in previous elections? I expect they will do their best to cause their own “operation chaos” in our future elections; especially where they don’t have their own primary battles to fight. (Just like they did in Michigan in 2008)
Once again I will quote The Value’s Voter:”When you build a long reputation for seeking racial harmony, people tend to give you the benefit of the doubt when you make a mistake.”
Here’s another of his quotes from his blog last Nov., “Mike Huckabee on race” “This is just one of many reasons why I will do anything – give money, knock on doors, make flyers, make bumper stickers, work phone banks, write books – to get this guy elected as the 45th President of the United States.” http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!1477.entry
As I said before…The Value’s Voter is one of my favorite black Huckabee supporters.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Granny T, you are right on. There are a few here that are Romney Party members…
and that’s it. Kinda funny though. Because they fool no one but each other.
Mike will win Iowa, South Carolina and Florida IF he decides to run.
And Martha and her very very few bitter friends will whine and complain. And the sun will set and rise…
November 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
195. I think it’s really quite sad that Huckabee supporters are more upset with Mormons who were offended by Huck, than they are with what Huck did to Mormons in the first place. It really says a alot about a person.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
193. “He also has a baggage of coming form a backgroundn of a Mormon Bishop.”
What are you trying to say here?
November 1st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Martha, it is very clear that Loon is opposed to Romney because he is a Mormon.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Huck AND Mitt said stupid things in the past. Remember Mitt’s “Who Let the Dogs Out. Who, who, who, who, who?” Yeah, you guys just point out what Huck said. Be fair and balanced. Also Martha, Huck endorsed a mormon candidate in California last week, so I don’t think he is anti-mormon.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
No one of substance or party standing is going to endorse Mike Huckabee in 2012. The man still has debt to Chuck Norris to the tune of $23K from his last campaign…..this isn’t a serious man.
The only reason Mike Huckabee will run is to try and beat Mitt Romney who he still has a deep seeded jealousy about, no other reason….it’s in this pathology.
Huckabee isn’t a serious person and his personality is more suited to a mildly successful TV talk show host…..that’s his lot in life…..he’s not presidential.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
199. Romney’s who let the dogs out was excruciating, but harmless. It’s funny how hard it is to come up with a Romney gaffe, though isn’t it? Can you find another one? It’s the only one I ever see, whereas Huck’s are so numerous I can’t remember them all.
But, but, Huck endorsed a Mormon!!
Suzie, I don’t really care Huck endorsed a Mormon. The day he endorses a Mormon for POTUS is the day he might, – MIGHT – be exonerated from his 08 shenanigans.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Will Huck endorse Romney if he is the nominee? Don’t count on it.
Will Romney endorse Huck if he is the nominee? You can bank on it.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
No Huckabee isn’t anti-Mormon until he’s running up against one….then he’ll use it. That’s who Huckabee is, a dirty politician who’ll use a person’s religion to win over rubes and close minded boors.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:31 pm
LOL…..Romney’s “who let the dogs out” moment was nothing but Romney being a dork. So what? Obama’s campaign team is going to use that against him…for being a square about a rap song…..I don’t think so because that would be pretty weak. Especially when there guy wore “mom jeans” to a baseball game. This is stupid crap.
Huckabee’s “joke” infered America’s first black President was shot and he said it to get some laughs….it’s in a whole different ballpark. Mix that with his flag comments in South Carolina primary and you don’t have a winner.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
#191,are you talking about one more defeat?if so you can repeat it again,but American can’t wait until 2012 to get the economy go ahead,they will go with Mitt,the Mr.turned around to take the country to the right track. #193,we are choosing a president,why you talking about choosing a church leader? educated friend,if we choosing a church leader,your Mike is the #1 qualify for the job,but we choosing a president to run this great country,so Mitt should better qualify for the job,because he was the most experience in the economy and look presidential than other.Please take the winner,no more loser.Mike is a religion discrimination person,he is not qualify for the national leader and the presidency.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Which recent governor led all governors in pardons for his state?
You guessed it. Ronald Reagan, with 575.
http://search.ca.gov/search?q=cache:–WVDeRW8hUJ:www.gov.ca.gov/press-release/2421/&proxystylesheet=xfix&output=xml_no_dtd&client=xfix
Governor Davis: none
Governor Wilson: 13
Governor Deukmejian: 328
Governor Brown: 403
Governor Reagan: 575
November 1st, 2009 at 9:09 pm
David, Reagan made 575 pardons. And what was the population of CA back then, something like 20 million? Huck made 1033 pardons, and what population was Arkansas, about 2-3 million? Pretty lame comparison.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
Well written Dave,
One can only hope that the American people will wise up and choose competence over populist appeal next time. Perhaps after four years of Obama, we’ll know we need sustance over prose and the notion that we should select a President based on who is most like us or who we’d feel most comfortable having a beer with will be banished from our thinking forever.
Huck liked to refer to himself as ‘the common man’ in the 2008 primary and garnered a lot of support with that approach but I am not looking for a common man to be President. I am looking for the uncommon man; one who stands head and shoulders above all others. A man who may have come from among us but who has clearly risen well above us. A man who has the extraordinary intellect, skills and capabilities to be the leader of us. That’s what I want in a President.
Romney meets my critera for a President even though I might prefer having a beer, and sharing a few jokes with Huckabee.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 am
Wow! I am sitting here stunned at the miracle that has been wrought here!
I have heard one of those infected with Huck-derangement syndrome admit, “No Huckabee isn’t anti-Mormon”. Halleluia! Half way there!
And almost at the same time, Martha finally acknowledges the truth – that she will never forgive Huckabee *regardless* of what he says or does (with the only *possible* exception being endorsing Romney for POTUS rather than running himself).
IOW, she now admits that she really is determined to remain a close-minded bigot & the truth will never be able to set her free from it. At least she is now being honest about her stance rather than recycling the same tired old lines! This is progress!
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 am
QVA,
Please kindly stop lying about, and distorting my comments.
It’s not my place to forgive Huckabee or not. I said nothing about forgiveness, I said he could possible exonerate himself if he endorses Romney for POTUS. And, I think it’s very true. The many denials, and the half-assed fake apologies from Huck were entirely transparent and pointless. He can take responsibility for his actions, and overcome his past by ‘doing the right thing’ in the future. I hope he does, because it would be a great example to his followers, but I’m not going to hold my breath!
My place is to use the information available to determine the best candidates in elections.
I’ve never said anything that would lead you to conclude that I am a closed-minded bigot. But I know your projection tactic well. We see it all the time in Huck supporters. They can’t square Huck’s actions with his so called “Christian Leader” claims, so they try to turn the tables and make the offended the offenders.
I have a hard time believing you are really that stupid, but I guess if you support Huckabee, there must be something amiss in your critical thinking skills.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
We all have our own reasons for choosing our favorite. Mine is because I did numerous of the voter’s match quizzes and matched closest to Huckabee EVERY TIME! I researched his record and read his books. I compared his record to those of the other conservative candidates. It was after the first few debates and those quizzes I took that I decided to support Huckabee. I compared Huckabee’s record to Romney’s and Thompson’s. Huckabee’s record is rock solid on the values issues; which is the most important issues to me. Because politicians have to work with those on the opposing side to pass any laws; politicians can fail; but God has NEVER failed me! So, I vote biblical values and let God take care of the financial issues.
I lost respect for Romney and Thompson when they started spending more money on destroying my candidate than they did in telling others why they should be the best choice. And when I compared their negative ads to Huckabee’s record; I found numerous half truths and outright lies. No wonder Huckabee forgot “those who sling dirt lose ground” when he listened to Rollins and temporarily decided to fight back. Huckabee lost more ground with Romney supporters when people perceived his question to be bigotry. (Or use it as an excuse to portray it as such)
It is very obvious that neither the die-hard Huckabee supporters or the die-hard Romney supporters are going to change each others’ minds. Like I’ve said numerous times; let’s grow up, quit bickering, and move on!
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I can’t not tell the truth about Huck’s record and lack of character, Granny T.
But I would be interested to see those half-truths and outright lies that Romney supposedly told about Huckabee. I don’t buy it, because Romney didn’t run his campaign that way. His ads may have been considered negative, but they were not lies.
It was Huckabee supporters who are the ones who flat out lied about Romney, while Huckabee gave them the go-ahead. The Anti-Mitt for VP ad campaign that Huckabee knew about was a perfect example. After McCain won the nomination, Huck would not let go, and neither did his supporters. They threatened McCain many times not to choose Romney. The Anti-Mitt ad was just full of disproven lies about Romney. But we all know that the underlying message of it was that we just CAN’T HAVE A MORMON VP!
Sorry Granny. If you vote Biblical values, Huck is not your guy. It takes a lot more than just calling yourself a “Christian Leader.” You’ve got to have the courage to look farther than that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Huckabee would likely have won the nomination THIS past election had “no hope” Fred Thompson not bled enough of Huckabee’s support away to give the state to McCain – and all of you know it. Last time, he went from unknown to winner of Iowa and finishing second only to the nominee on NO money and swimming against the Romney tide of self-financed egomania. Huckabee won’t be under financed next time, and he wont be starting from ground zero. Buckle you seat belts Romney lovers. You’re about to waste your precious energy (again).
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
@212, Once again you suggest that the only reason anyone could be opposed to Romney is because he is a Mormon – despite all the reasons provided to the contrary.
Romney could be any faith you like or none at all and it would make no difference for me or the vast majority of those who see nothing to be impressed about politically and every reason not to trust him either. (In fact, I would go so far to say that if Romney lived his LDS faith in his political life the way those I know here do, he would have done enormously better in 2008)
So Huckabee occasionally tells dud jokes while Romney lies about marching with MLK & being a member of the NRA? Huckabee apologized for the lame attempt & Romney tried to lie his way out of his lies. Yeah, Romney is definitely more dignified & presidential – if Nixon or Obama is your standard of presidentiality…
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
To clarify #214, this should have been: (In fact, I would go so far to say that if Romney lived his LDS faith in his political life the way those I have known do, he would have done enormously better in 2008)
Unfortunately, I am unable to give such credit “here”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
And let’s not forget that Romney NEVER attended a Planned Barrenhood event.
But gaffes are worse than lies to you, apparently…
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
202 brings the lol. in fact most of marthA brings the lol.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 am
There is good all around if we look for it
http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
217-spot on…
The day Romney endorses Huckabee is the day Martha puts away her HuckaHate.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 am
*edit 219* make that Martha and Shelby
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The reason for raising the number of Reagan’s pardons was neither to diss Reagan nor inflate Huckabee nor compare the two on the issue. If you compare Reagan’s numbers to other Democrats, his numbers are very large. The point is that simply giving the number of pardons tells you absolutely nothing about whether the candidate is soft on crime.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
A little tidbit for those who claim that Huckabee is beholden to party interests to the setting aside of principle”
“In fact, I would say that the Republican party right now, for the most part, doesn’t have enough organizational capacity to put together a two-car funeral, must less a major protest.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1933816,00.html
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
NO. He ruled Ark. more liberally than Clinton. He is a Republican, but NOT a conservative by any stretch.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Palin will be like Hoffman…. a woman of principles and will not compromise those principles. Everyone else on the sidebar has been compromised in some way or another.
Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!! Pa-LIN!!!
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
They all freakin suck. Right now, Huck just sucks more.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I don’t know how to explain it but Huckabee seems phony to me. I’ve noticed when I see him on TV how the cameras try not to reveal how obese he has become.
Palin doesn’t have a chance because she’s a quitter. America does not like quitters.
Romney also comes off as a phony to me.
Of all the possibles I like Gingrich though he needs some minor tweaking. Whatever skeletons he has in his closet have to be 20+ years old now.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Most of Gingrich’s skeletons are on his front lawn, not in his closet. His open support of Scazzafava tells you something, surely.