Tuesday, May 27, 2008
|
|
Huck: "... I Would Have Won."
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:18 AM
|
Check out these quotes from a recent Mike Huckabee Interview:
"... if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won, and if the Democrats have played by the rules of the Republicans, Hillary would have won this long ago." And ...
"The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government."
And
...... Fred Thompson's presence took votes from me. We would have won by 10 points had Fred not been in the race. We would have won handily in South Carolina, but because the conservative vote split, in essence, three ways, and even though I had more than Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney combined, the fact is, their presence kept me from the two points I needed to beat John McCain in South Carolina. [He lost 29.9 percent to McCain's 33.2 percent.]
(Emphasis mine.)
|
|
I listed the following candidates as drawing Gov't salary while campaining for POTUS (I didn't include Romney on the list):
John McCain
Ron Paul
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Bill Richardson
Duncan Hunter
Sam Brownback
Tom Tancredo
When I use the word "salary" I mean wage compensation for current work being (or --in this case-- not being) performed. Not "retirement" checks. Bob Dole was "retired" during the '96 general election, as was Jack Kemp, as was Ronald Reagan in 1980.
This time I will list those reported to be in the millionaire club:
Mitt Romney
John Edwards
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Hillary Clinton
Fred Thompson
Barack Obama (likely)
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Duncan Hunter
Sam Brownback
Ron Paul
Tommy Thompson
Those major party candidates not in the millionaire club AND also not "on Gov't salary", include:
Mike Huckabee
Mike Gravel
Unknown: Jim Gilmore |
|
QM7: 'Shilling for cash from a pulpit, is not a real job.'
ME: Your problem is you are informed mostly by your own stewing imagination.
Mike Huckabee is a public speaker (has been for years --long before the Presidential thing came along) on issues of public concern. He's considered to be an expert on the politics of public policy issues of education, health, and leadership.
That is why his fellow governor's elected him chairman of the National Governors'Association, and chairman of the Southern Governors' Association, and he chaired the Southern Growth Policies Board, the Southern Region Education Board, the Southern Technology Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and the Education Commission of the States http://www.ecs.org .
Mike Huckabee only speaks from a pulpit occasionally.
He's more likely to be found at things like:
Health & healthcare Education Conferences
"ENGAGE 2008"
http://www.healthmedia.com/engage2008
Executive Leadership conferences, like:
"Urner Barry's Executive Conference and Markeyting Seminar" http://www.urnerbarry.com/executive/2008/tcp.html
BENEFITS, like:
"Wiregrass Children's Home Benefit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV-XgYHpREs
And a great variety of events, like:
"Yom Yerushalayim Gala Celebration Dinner"
http://www.5tjt.com/news/read.asp?Id=2471 |
|
C'mon, Matt,
Huckabee supporters can live with criticism of Gov. Huckabee --after-all there is plenty of it. But, it is disappointing that your latest innuendo-laden (by decontextualized quote-mining) piece on the HuffPO interview didn't include an in-the-interest-of-fairness explanatory note that the interviewers expressly asked Mike Huckabee for his analysis on why he lost to McCain.
For shame, Matt.
I usually like your stuff. |
|
Your rules
MISTER huckabee (note the little h for a petty little man) is not qalified for dog catcher, let alone veep or president.
And check again, Ron, Huckles -er huckabee, drew retirement salary for the good state of Arkansas. |
|
Huckabee also got his 'retirement' salaray from the good state of Arkansa, for serving as their gov. So, he made bucks while campaigning too.
Sorry if facts bother you. |
|
Mitt drew a salary? Not. check again. BUT in Huckles case, one must actually HAVE a job, in order to draw a salary.
Romney also did not take salary as Gov. of Mass, donating it to charity. He did not take salary as CEO of they Olympics, setting the example of volunteerism. |
|
You missed my point. I have said that Huckabee would fit in well as a cast membet on Hee Haw. Put a straw hat on him, hand him a pitchfork and he'd fit right in. You take that as I hate him because he's from the south? Au contraire.
He's the one who likes to play up that "ah shucks" country boy humor. I loved Hee Haw.
My point was that you self righteously claim to be above the fray and don't call people names while poor, poor Huckabee and his supportes are continually called names. Here are just a few of the words I copied from your posts referring to others who don't support your guy - "arrogant egotist", "idiot", "stupidity knows no bounds", "elistist snobs".
Those words are aimed at me, since I don't respect or support Mike Huckabee, and that's okay with me. Just stop your self-righteous, hypocritical whining about everybody else being mean.
I supported Mitt Romney in the primaries. Shall I list the names I have seen him called? They would make "Huckles, Huckleberry, Gomer Pyle, etc." seem very very mild. You need to grow up, and if you don't like name calling, maybe you should stop it yourself. |
|
Refers to his comedy routine. You know? Chuckles the Clown?
I would NEVER call him Gomer PYle. I had a cruh on Jim Neighbors when I was a young lass. |
|
Your the one with rose colored glasses on!! Personally, I've never worked for a poor man/woman. I have more respect for folks who are working class and actually WORK, pay their mortgage and is honest.
Yes, I do not respect huck. Would I go to one of his comedy club routines? Maybe. But vote for the guy? no way!!
So ron, just flag me or ignore me. No, I don't respect Huck. When he was given the chance to stand up for religious freedom - and not just his definintion of religion - he was silent. His silence spoke volumes to me. But then, your eyes and ears are shut, so long as your brand christian is in power, right? What if Leavitt or Huntsman Jr. were pegged as Veep? both are rich. In fact, one is the son of a LDS GA (look it up). Not qualified because they have a dollor or two more than you? Both have worked REAL jobs.
Serving God should not be a means to make a living. |
|
|
'working class'. One must have a rEAL job to be working class. Shilling for cash from a pulpit, is not a real job. |
|
QM7: 'Huckles makes far more cash than my family. Were not elite snobs, but we do live within our means and can actually MAKE our mortgage payments.'
ME: Of course he's not broke. Please don't be obtuse. For those who don't know to what QM7 is referring, its comments Huckabee made about having to "make his mortgage payments", as a reasoning for making a paid speech in the Grand Cayman Islands during the campaign. (Mum, that was supposed to be a mild witticism).
He was simply saying that people should cut him slack about earning his living (a) He is not independently wealthy (like pretty much the rest of the field), and (b) was not drawing a government salary while campaigning, like pretty much the rest of the field, or (c) both, like the majority of the field.
Drawing Gov't salary while campaining for POTUS:
John McCain
Ron Paul
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Bill Richardson
Duncan Hunter
Sam Brownback
Tom Tancredo
Second, I started to list those that are independently wealthy, but decided it would be easier to say that all the candidates reported assets into the millions, except:
(1) Barack Obama, at the time of reporting last year was on the cusp of being a millionaire in assets, but the reporting only comes in ranges. Likely, in a year's time of continued book sales he has pushed well into the lower millions.
(2) Joe Biden
(3) Mike Huckabee
(4) Mike Gravel
(5) Dennis Kucinich
(6) Tom Tancredo
I couldn't find asset info on Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore.
So, in the NOT clearly independently wealthy group, of those, Biden, Kucinich, and Tancredo were on Gov't salary.
Obama started the campaign comfortable, but not wealthy. Likely, he qualifies as wealthy now. And, is on Gov't salary.
Of the entire field that only leaves Huckabee, Gravel, (and possibly Gilmore) in the uncommon dual-category of not independently wealthy --and also not drawing a Gov't salary. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Oh ya, he did get more votes That is correct. But it took Mitt dropping out, to give Huckles the edge. So, your right. He got more. It just took him a month and a half more, and a half dozen or so primary's do so.'
ME: My last two or three posts I've been writing about "South Carolina", ONLY. Are you saying Mitt actually dropped out before South Carolina (unbeknownst to the MSM) and that is why Huckabee had more votes THERE than Mitt? |
|
Okay, I'm beginning to tire of your whining self-righeousness. I know you like Huck. That;'s okay. Others of us do not. That's also okay, but for you to constantly tell us how open and accepting you are while at the same time denigrating everyone who disagrees with you and your guy as hateful elitists is getting tiresome. You are beginning to look plenty hypocritical yourself.
I have heard not one person who says they don't like Huck because he's from the south - can you show me someone who has said that? We have plenty of reason to be against him, this whining is just the latest. Your whining is starting to sound like your guy Huck. Get over yourself. |
|
|
Oh wow. Credible! I looked up my name on that web site. (it's there - I'm there) and the info was not correct. I send them a e-mail to correct their info. To date, not corrected. Who's doing their reseach? Huckles followers? |
|
IO don't hate huckles. I don't respect him. I am not voting for a jester in chief, class clown or even pastor in chief. I'm voting for men/woman who will without question, repsent me. Huckles had his chance to stand up for religious freedom, but only fueled the bigotry.
Oh, and exactly WHEN will he be releasing his bigoted comments he made as the keynote speaker in 1999, at the Anti mormon confact sponsored by his faith in SLC?>
Never? Does not want his comments out there, eh? |
|
That is correct. But it took Mitt dropping out, to give Huckles the edge. So, your right. He got more. It just took him a month and a half more, and a half dozen or so primary's do so.
yea, he did not major in math. He also did not look at a calendar as to when his nemissis dropped out. But keep fooling yourself.
PS. Huckles makes far more cash than my family. Were not elite snobs, but we do live within our means and can actually MAKE our mortgage payments. Guess I got budgeting class in college too. (Huckles and I are the same age). |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Sorry to burst your huckabubble'
But Rmney would be the nom, had it not been for 1. dirty tricks by both huckles and McCain
2. Thompson.'
ME: I wasn't referring to the "nomination" specifically (though that might follow) my post was entitled "South Carolina". Which is one of points Huckabee is commenting on. Only Mike Huckabee and John McCain won counties in SC, according to this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008RepPrimarySC.PNG
Dark Red equals counties won by Huckabee, and bright red equals counties won by McCain.
According to the results posted at Wikipedia, the popular vote numbers are:
(1) John McCain 147,686
(2) Mike Huckabee 132,943
(3) Fred Thompson 69,651
(4) Mitt Romney 68,142
IF Romney pulled EVERY vote from Fred Thompson he would've overtaken Huckabee by 5000 votes (but still remained 10,000 behind McCain).
IOW, Huckabee's vote total is nearly double that of Romney or Thompson. Whereas Huckabee would've needed only to have pulled 15,000 more of the Thompson voters to overtake McCain (assuming McCain had maxed out). |
|
[And, obviously you would have to keep the greatest most efficient delivery system (U.S. military logistics units) in port, in hangers, and in barracks, and forego the benefits of the swiftness, and ability to handle large payloads, because it is not "the job" of the U.S. government to provide Tsunami relief to Sri Lanka.]
Well, given that I'm in favor of giving up a lot of those foreign bases, it's a moot point.
[Is it your position that the Congress of the United States should pass a law forbidding the U.S. Coast Guard from interfering with vessels in peril, and confine themselves to the exclusive task of protecting American beaches from foreign invasion?]
But even under those circumstances, rendering aid to those in immediate distress of loss of life has long been a traditional function and duty of the military and is not outside of its constitutional mandate, IMO. |
|
[ME: Well, to be consistent about this you would have to oppose all federal disaster area declarations --and leave the residents of the various states (and the states and localities themselves) to their own devices following tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, etc.]
It's not the job of the Federal government to do this. It belongs to the States.
And even stating that, I'm not saying, 'You're on your own', given that private organizations and charities have been far more efficent in dealing with need and relief, the past few years, and it was the Feds who hindered them. |
|
An interesting artile on Unitethegop.com (VP News). Pretty much, it shows how someone who lost, should respond, and how they should not. The writer cites 2 candiates, and how they have handled defeat.
Me, me, me. I I I . That's all I hear from Huck. Never 'We'. |
|
I just think we don't need a class clown for president or vice president.
He lost my respect when he just stood there and let Romney be torn down for his faith, and did not stand up for religious freedoms. Then, when I was prompted by this to actually LOOK into his ethics void....
Sorry, we can't take a chance on this guy. He's Obama with dimples. |
|
But Rmney would be the nom, had it not been for
1. dirty tricks by both huckles and McCain
2. Thompson. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Actually The numbers proved that Thompson DID indeed takevotes away - but from Romney, and not Huck.'
ME: Actually both you and Huck are right. If not for Fred, it would have almost certainly been, different for all:
(1) Huckabee
(2) McCain
(3) Romney
Most major news organizations (PBS, NYT, CNN) in their post SC coverage said someting similar to:
'...analysts ...say Huckabee likely would have won had Thompson not siphoned off support from social conservatives.' -- The Arizona Republic |
|
Joe writes: 'Because as much as some of you hate McCain, Huck's version of "compasionate conservatism" has about as much conservative bonafides as "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (East Germany) had with Democracy. It is 1984 New Speak.'
ME: Please don't be idiotic. It doesn't help anything.
Huck's conservatism, to those on the right not afflicted by ADD, and can focus for more than 30 seconds at a time, is a conservatism. Its not libertarianism < anarchy-lite), but it is a conservatism, viz. it conserves that which we value.
Neither is it socialism, or any form of statism. Rather, it is modeled on the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity.
Essentially this is the same thing as the federalist concept of governing at the lowest level appropriate. So, the federal government shouldn't write city parking tickets and state legislatures shouldn't declare war on foreign countries, and city councils shouldn't try to control airspace.
But (assuming, for a moment, there should be a war on drugs) federal, state, localities, and NGOs of all sorts (churches, etc.) have a role to play in it.
While it is true that the federal gov't shouldn't make regulations regarding how people in Milwaukee WI run their bowling leagues, it is also equally true that private militia groups shouldn't insert themselves in a foreign theatre of combat where the U.S. military is engaged.
In subsidiarity, all entities have their role in the conserving of our society. In Libertariaism, when the NGO institutions of society break down, the society is doomed to atrophy, since the government has no role in conserving society.
Indeed, a consistent libertarian, has to say social breakdown is actually desirable because the fact that it is happening proves the people want it. |
|
Dread writes: '...it's not new. It's been around since our founding.'
ME: True, but we gave up The Articles of Confederation as nationally unworkable.
Dread writes: 'Second, it's hardly heartless, callous, or soulless. It merely asks that government remains within set limits, and leave everything else to we, the people.'
ME: Well, to be consistent about this you would have to oppose all federal disaster area declarations --and leave the residents of the various states (and the states and localities themselves) to their own devices following tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, etc.
And, obviously you would have to keep the greatest most efficient delivery system (U.S. military logistics units) in port, in hangers, and in barracks, and forego the benefits of the swiftness, and ability to handle large payloads, because it is not "the job" of the U.S. government to provide Tsunami relief to Sri Lanka.
Dread writes: 'We can take care of ourselves and our own, be it through the family, the community or the church.
We don't need a king or satrap to save us. We are adults, not children.'
ME: Is it your position that the Congress of the United States should pass a law forbidding the U.S. Coast Guard from interfering with vessels in peril, and confine themselves to the exclusive task of protecting American beaches from foreign invasion? |
|
|
Seriously, can we just muzzle this idiot. Every time he opens his mouth he makes an *ss out of himself and makes Republicans look bad. |
|
|
No comment needed for that one. |
|
[If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government]
No one disputes that morals and a civic ethic is needed. The points of dispute involve
a.) To what degree morality and legality are linked. That which is immoral should not necessarily be illegal in a free society.
b.) Whether or not it is primarily the role of government to impose morality in a top-down dictatorial manner, or whether or not social bonds and morality should filter from the bottom up through families, communities, and churches.
I say the latter method is a much more preferable way because giving the government too much latitude in defining morality and linking it to the law leads to a costly set of unintended consequences which can be even worse. (See War on Drugs) |
|
If there is something truly worth quoting, it's the second part where Huckabee demonstrates what social conservatism has to offer economic conservatism:
"If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before."
Again, eminently reasonable. |
|
Huck noted in the article that the states he won split proportionately and the states McCain won were winner-take-all. Saying he would have won had the rules been different is probably true.
On the second quote, here's the full thing:
"Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for."
Again, eminently reasonable and in touch with political reality. Ending the quote prematurely makes it look like he's mindlessly advocating for greater government intrusion.
And finally, on the last point, he's probably right about South Carolina. It does little good to reminisce and say "if only things were different" but it's nevertheless true. |
|
McCain Haters and Huckabee Haters United. |
|
|
|
Still trying to make us feel good about the RINO McCain, eh.
Your enthusiasm is almost contagious.
Wake me up when someone finds a good and positive reason to vote for McCain. |
|
The numbers proved that Thompson DID indeed takevotes away - but from Romney, and not Huck.
Step away from the rose colored glasses, huck. |
|
Two words:
Reality bites.
|
|
"... if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won"
Problem is that the RNC wanted a "different Democrat" to lead the ticket so we needed different rules and got McCain. |
|
|
"The only good conservative is a liberal, the only good Republican is a Democrat" |
|
|
Are you making sense? Say it ain't so. |
|
|
Everyone is giving their own opinoions without refuting his claims. This is why Republicans may loose if they keep this type of attacks up. We are so quick to say Liberal, RINO, etc but we don't present any counter-arguments to expose those with these viewpoints. If Huckabee is exposed as a closet liberal, then do so on the merits and not by attacking him. |
|
And you would have won if the clouds parted and God himself came down and put his arm around your shoulder.
Oh wait, I thought that's what happened. And you lost anyway? |
|
We love it! Your gaffes, your populist mumbo-jumbo, and downright stupidity. We especially love it when you threaten to shoot someone.
Please, keep talking and remove all doubt (for the obtuse among us.)
It's becoming embarrassing for any evangelical to support this man.
|
|
For giving us John McCain.
Because as much as some of you hate McCain, Huck's version of "compasionate conservatism" has about as much conservative bonafides as "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (East Germany) had with Democracy. It is 1984 New Speak. |
|
|
... behind your name to a 'D' and leave us alone. They WANT a nanny state. |
|
|
a little cheese to go with that. |
|
|
Thank God for Thompson and Romney. |
|
|
Does this man have no shame? |
|
[it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.]
Cute.
First, it's not new. It's been around since our founding.
Second, it's hardly heartless, callous, or soulless. It merely asks that government remains within set limits, and leave everything else to we, the people. We can take care of ourselves and our own, be it through the family, the community or the church.
We don't need a king or satrap to save us. We are adults, not children.
|
|
|
|