Wednesday, December 05, 2007
|
|
What's Worse: Not Knowing About The NIE, Or Not Knowing That The Lawn Care Company Hires Illegals After It Promised It Would Not?
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:07 AM
|
Politico's Jonathan Martin reports on a very disturbing conversation with Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee not aware of NIE report on Iran
My colleague David Paul Kuhn attended an on-the-record dinner with Mike Huckabee and a group of reporters tonight in Des Moines.
The transcript speaks for itself:
Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...
Huckabee: I’m sorry?
Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —
Huckabee: No.
Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?
Huckabee: No.
Read the whole thing.
This is a pretty astonishing admission of cluelessness on the part of Governor Huckabee. And it places the Romney gardener story in its proper context.
My concern about the Huckabee pop is that it is hard to imagine the former Arkansas governor winning the November vote. I can see election night with a sea of blue states with the deep South voting Huck. The MSM knows this and is relentlessly boosting Huck in order to fell Romney. The Globe's obsession with the leaves on Romney's lawn underscores how agenda journalists of the left view this race: Take out Romney, bleed Rudy, nominate Huckabee, elect Hillary.
|
|
Start imagining. The deep south doesn't have a corner on principled conservative voting.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn |
|
Thank you for sharing.
Yep, you seem to be about clarity.
Taking accountability for the choice you've made to further your education; it's an investment. Not looking at it as entitlement. Also calling Huckabee out for what his platform seems to represent at this juncture. Frankly, this whole campaigning crap is too early for me and far too over done. I look forward to paying close attention next summer and early fall.
I'm not ready yet for all of the childishness circulating at the moment.
Stick around here though. This place needs clear thinking, well communicated feedback. I appreciate your input.
Oh yes, all the best to you in maintaining critical thinking and reasoned pushback to that overwhelming morass of Liberalism and Leftism in our university system. |
|
to many of us here. Thanks! Balanced, well stated, reasoned & clear. Me & Clarity can use your fairness and PL+LP can avail himself of your writing style. (Please, God!) Hope you appear here more.
PL+LP...And, those Lib-Left writer-thinkers on the scene now to gobble up Steyn, Sowell & VDH are...? |
|
Hey, girl, it's not just your "thumping", it is really about your preachy nature---the way in which you want to engage, in this very shortened format--ofttimes in very roundabout ways. Not clear. Not concise. Your LP lips have stretch marks after exercising them the way you do.
It's as if you just learned something in your Poli-Sci class, in front of your foaming professor, and you come here to regurgitate it.
Nothing wrong with that----get your own website----preach and teach and reach out to the masses----CHANGE THE WORLD! This space is too small for what you dish up.
As for the "fangs" and LABORIOUSLAWYER. You've seen mine with him. Just a month ago. That's when this pipsqueak, who advocates for all things "UNION", claimed that the entire restoration of Los Angeles, following the Northridge earthquake (1/17/94), was orchestrated by unions. I told him he's a liar and that he's doing all a disservice by saying so. I included FACTS, references, links. He never rescinded his position. The fact is, I was there throughout that whole mess as my so Cal home is in LA County along the coast. What he's selling is not TRUTH. It's more of the same from union-types. Entirely myopic. But, I understand COMPLETELY that you defend him, stand by him, and buy his whole package.
Not me. I've been through too much for that crap. And also been through too much to fall for the flowery way in which you attempt selling your wares. |
|
...and I know that I'm probably well past my max with this soundbite and platitudinous generation: initially, I thought you (CS) were likable and that we might have something resembling philosophic friendship--which is, as I've said before, the highest order of the soul. But then I noticed an increasingly nasty tone to your posts, and I just figured you were just another one of those second-raters who get angry at what you cannot control.
But this business of calling me "her" or "she" is an interesting irony. Classically, at least, and that includes Old Testament scripture, wisdom was considered a lady. And in fact, the soul herself is typically regarded as a woman. Some guy above referred to me as "gnostic." Well, I've read Eric Vogelin too, and far from being gnostic, I am the most noetic fellow in these parts. And if this "linkedness" to the life of the soul leads more flat and uninteresting people to challenge my manhood, I guess its a small price to pay. Still, it pisses me off. |
|
When I do a little chest-thumping, it is in response to the unbelievable arrogance and sense of entitlement that I see around here. People in these parts feel entirely at ease with abrogating for themselves ultimate truths about God, nation, our humanity. It is done with a complete lack of humility or even self-awareness--as though it goes without saying. My bloviating, as you call it, is the flip-side of what the center-left has to endure all the time in this country. Its a taste of your own medicine, and I can see why it might anger you.
Speaking of that, sure I want to be liked. I'm the middle of five children (no two kids grow up in the same family, as they say) and I want to get along. But many of the guys here will even bare their fangs at an amiable chap like LaborLawyer. Some of the guys here confuse political differences with differences in character. LaborLawyer is too decent, or too disciplined, to snap back, but mine is the lower path to salvation. I am more profane than pristine, and if you bare your fangs at me, I'll bare mine right back at you.
It's not about being a victim, as Neocon surmises. I volunteered for this assignment, as he rightly points out. But I believe it was Grover Norquist who said you don't take a knife to a gunfight. Nor am I especially interested in turning the other cheek. I've said many times that being Christian is something we aspire to, not something that we are. Dems turn the other cheek too much as it is. We were far too docile, and our country is the worse for it.
|
|
I find it hilarious that I keep hearing Romney being called the plastic one. The one man in this race who has actually accomplished something--who stepped out into the world and accomplished real, palpable results, is being called plastic.
This, by the supporters of a man who completely fails to understand the broad implications of our problems along our border and the dire need for economic reform in a giant grown stagnant. Huckabee represents the worst form of government: a government that sees itself taking the mantle of charity from the church and wearing it as its own.
Even from the debate the other night, Huckabee missed the point--and to be fair, Romney but lightly tapped on the counterpoint. Huckabee saw denying scholarships to children of illegal immigrants as punishment. But in what was is setting the terms of a reward (not a right...) a punishment?
I'm a student at the moment soaking up $20,000 worth of annual tuition in student loans. I ask nothing from the government, and I will pay my money back accordingly. My education is an investment. Those who do well do so because they have a vision and because they are willing to work.
Why, then, should we tell parents who were here legally all along that we have a scholarship pool of X-amount of dollars...that we know that they have been saving hard for their children's educations...but that we've gone totally soft and are going to reward the children of law breakers before their own children.
If Huckabee wants a charity case, give up politics and get back in the pulpit. Otherwise shut up and quit blowing my parents' tax dollars and quit spitting in the face of American families.
I may attend church every Sunday, but I expect more from a politician than being a Christian and liking guns. I see nothing else Huckabee offers. Zippo. His record is terrrible, simply stated. |
|
Way of your perpetual need to bombard us with verbiage. Good Lord, Bud, I didn't ask for your ditzoid opinion of the Giant Dr.Sowell. FOCUS: Who, I'm morbidly curious, would you put--from your side--up against those 3 Hugely Talented Conservative writers and thinkers?
Your side loves to snicker at Sowell becasue he's a black intellectual of huge standing who doesn't buy your plantation and victimhood. "The Vision of the Anointed" is the biography of you & countless others. I'd suggest starting with his, "Basic Economics".
Here at HH, thank God, there are NO victims, only volunteers. That bad old Clarity beaty up on ya?
Suck it up. Geez. |
|
Hell girl, I never said I dislike you, personally, just your style, your delivery, your inept way in communicating thoughts, ideas----yeah, I really dislike that.
And, now that you bring up the concept of "organized thoughts", when are you going to grace this site with same? Really, you fall dismally short here.
Again, you make a point in writing of "achievements" and you infer that yours need to be recognized, regaled, rewarded, and, "celebrated" (your word, not mine).
Your achievements, what were they in that overinflated mind of yours?
On this site, you achieve a level of self adulation, bloviation, obfuscation, and the over arching accomplishment of, CONFUSION. Yours is an achievement of twisted lexicon; saying one thing, yet meaning it in another way---very Noam Chomsky-like. A true purveyor of linguistic gymnastics. Not a girl who believes in parsimonious patterns----but one who takes the long way, the arduous path in sharing a thought, an idea.
Yep, quite an accomplishment, er, "achievement" in your words. |
|
Thomas Sowell? Are you serious? No doubt there are many great conservative thinkers (although Sowell wasn't one of them). Allan Bloom said that all great writers are from the Right, and he wasn't wrong about that. Unfortunately, the American Right has been degraded over the past generation or so. It happened to the Left too, back when. I suppose it is the natural cycle of things--power corrupts and all that.
But the kind of spiteful bile coming from guys like Clarityseeker just goes to show that conservatism has been arguing against carictatures of liberals, not liberals themselves. Or, at least, against liberals who are emotional and ill-conceived, and not against guys like me, Western Civ liberals, rooted in our heritage, and drawing from our store, as Scripture put it, both old and new. Rationalist liberalism beats rationalist conservatism because, ultimately, liberalism is based upon the rational moral ideal, while conservatism invokes non-rational emotion as its moral foundation. |
|
Like I said, you dislike me, and encourage others to dislike me, because you are a lesser man.
And btw, this doesn't take much time at all. Just takes some organized thoughts and an eighth grade typing class. |
|
For some greasy-wonderful fixins at Bubbalou's Bodacious Barbeque(Honest!)and a meeting and come back to all these..what...Ish-Shoes!
PL+LP...So, who--I got'sta know--are the 3 or 4 Best Lib-Left icons who would blow the Best cosevatives out of the Verbal-Critical Thinking pool? Say...who would you put with pens and voices up against, say...Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson?
Cotton...I once stated here that our wordy adversary could not clear his throat in under
3-paragraphs. True.
But, he did take me by total(well, almost)surprise when he said he'd vote for Huckster if he made the nomination. Yikes! Huck, with friends like PL+LP, I'd be afraid...Very, VERY AFRAID.
'Hawk...You are Cool. This is well known among your buds here at HH. |
|
...and her theory of "achievement", Pathetic Liberal, it is quite clear what you have achieved on this site----and by the degree to which you spend time here, this is NO paltry investment for you.
You have achieved, at the very best----not resentment, nor envy (as you suggest), but a disconnected nature of understanding with your audience. Indeed, by your own admission, you claim that I do not understand you.
Taking this thought, just for a moment, it speaks volumes as to what you have truly achieved in posting among those on this site. Okay, so I do not understand you----so be it. But, how fascinating it is as to how many here, either do not understand you, or, truly dislike you----'cuz I am the first to admit that I truly dislike you as well.
fact is, if you are as "enlightened" as you like to think you are, and that you like to project yourself as being, you do your best in continuing to communicate in terms which only foment distaste, and confusion, and misunderstanding----CERTAINLY NOT A VERY ATTRACTIVE POSITION FOR ONE WHO HAS SUCH A HIGH OPINION OF HERSELF.
Milton Friedman, renowned economist, was probably revered and admired as much for his ability to communicate ideas, in simple and unabrasive manner, to his students and others.
There are many others who have been great at communicating productively with those who disagree. You, PATHETIC LIBERAL, are not among them. In fact, you reside on the opposite end of this spectrum. |
|
|
i sit. Internal enemies like elements within your party, being greater enemies than the external ones does cause me to be desperate to the Countrys' safety. Who can keep what you say, straight? I truly don't really try. I just think that your silly and not worth the read. To me, you seem to be someone who wants to be noticed. Just don't think your that extraordinary. Basically, like every other lib on the planet. |
|
well, not in the sense of physically see, I hear, er, I mean I don't actually hear with ears, what I intend to say, it's just that I, well, I read------the words of our illustrious and truly tormented one. Tormented one?
Yeah, that's correct. Anyone who likens another to Baghdad Bob----well, not morally, you know. I mean, not the way in which defined by Russian linguist, Roman Jakobson in his, "clinical linguistics" patterns. Essentially, speech and language disabilities limit one's interpretation of Baghdad Bob as a functional operative, you know, on a purely "functional" level. Albeit more sublime in nature, one must remember that it really depends upon what the word "is" is.
Truly, to keep this in perspective, it requires the proper refraction of lighting as it is shown to be shed on the "conflicting behavior effect" as proposed by Burrhus Fredric Skinner in his subsequent "consequence theories". For example, if fighting cocks are made simultaneously to fight and run away, they begin to pretend to peck at the ground.
This should, with definitiveness, clear up teh use of "Baghdad Bob" when used metaphorically vis a vis morally. Any questions?
In deference to my good friend, he who is known as NeoConScum, it is deep, very deep. Perhaps too deep for mere mortals, yet not for Neo-Liberals. For those such as Pathetic Liberal, it is quite apropos to inject the likes of, Baghdad Bob, Bobtails, Babalou's, Hobnobbing Bob's, Bobbin' and Weavin', Buffalo Bob and Howdy Doody and Bobcat Goldthwaite---just do not take it in any way other than that way intended by the "Pathetic" one.
Yes, indeed, she is tormented. And she will not be satisfied until all around her are similarly tormented. |
|
A gnostic? oh puh-leeze. How can an agnostic be gnostic?
I'm classic all the way. A Hellene to the bone. You guys are the frigging gnostics in these parts. As for your baiting about panty size, you guys are really weak. Life must look pretty desperate from where you sit.. |
|
Yeah, I wouldn't expect you to keep things straight. Between "Sandy Koufax" and "ontic coherence," life gets a little confusing for a goober. Why, it may require a paragraph instead of a platitude.
But my name is Cottoneyed. I am self-satisfied in my ignorance, and smug that book larnin' is so much eyewash. Why bother thinking when I've got my pastor and the Republican party telling me what to do. Ha ha ha. PL thinks he's so smart, but he uses too many words!! |
|
|
curve. I haven't read an entire post from this girl since she took 3 paragraphs to say the word "complete". Just to say "complete", Sandy Koufaxs' name was invoked and something about the "ontic balance of humility" was used as well!! That was about a month ago. Haven't read more than a sentence or two since then. For crying out loud, will someone please notice this woman! This is not posting to advance your position. It's auditioning for Hugh Hewitt and Townhall. com. Hugh, please notice her. |
|
Hillarious Hucka-song!
I knew you were cool enough to be a friend!
|
|
You are a gnostic of the third order. Nothing special or unique about you. Your worldview is as old as Babylon.
And I still want to know your panty size. |
|
Lord almighty,
I feel my temperature rising
Higher higher
Its burning through to my soul
Mike, Mike, Mike
You gonna set me on fire
My brain is flaming
I dont know which way to go
Your debate answers lift me higher
Like the sweet song of a choir
You light my morning sky
With burning love
Ooh, ooh, ooh,
I feel my temperature rising
Help me, Im flaming
I must be a hundred and nine
Burning, burning, burning
And nothing can cool me
I just might turn into smoke
But I feel fine
Its coming closer
The flames are reaching my body
Please wont you help me
I feel like Im slipping away
Its hard to breath
And my chest is a-heaving
Lord almighty,
Im burning a hole where I lay
Cause your debate answers lift me higher
Like the sweet song of a choir
You light my morning sky
With burning love
With burning love
Ah, ah, burning love
Im just a Huck, a Huck of burning love
Just a Huck, a Huck of burning love
Just a Huck, a Huck of burning love...
|
|
|
...much of the criticism of me in these parts, whether CS or Cottoneyed or whomever, seems to be based upon resentment and envy more than anything substantive. This is America, guys. We respect achievement here--we don't resent it. That I have a rational, historically-true, liberal-minded, comprehensive and cohesive worldview is cause for celebration, not spite. |
|
|
Nah, I don't claim to be deep. Words are at the bottom of my soul--how deep can I be? I am just a little more better-conceived. The average right-winger is more logical than the average left-winger. That's true. But the best left-winger beats the best right-winger every time. |
|
Really Deep. Deeply Deep. Truly Deep. Deeper than Deeply Possible. Beyond Deep.
This is well known here. |
|
|
...CS only hates me because he has not figured me out. He thought he knew what a Democrat was, and I come along, expropriating (in the name of the people, of course) conservative terminology and turning conservative concepts back on himself. I am not your run-of-the-mill contemporary multicultural liberal. CS hates me for that. Tough luck. As I said before, cry me a river... |
|
|
|
First of all, Hugh, Brian Ross of ABC News had a scorching piece this morning about Huckabee and the rapist he pardoned who subsequently raped and murdered two other women. Huckabee has been dishonest about his involvement and deserves to be called to the carpet. However, it certainly makes your wild-eyed visions of media bias seem less than credible.
Also, while we're discussing Romney, i found your comments on air interesting yesterday. You don't think that Mitt's religion should be an issue. You don't think anyone should bring it up....but correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you write a book entitled "A Mormon In The Whitehouse"???? Way to leave the religion out of it. |
|
...CS has spared me the smackdown before, but today he has a little time. Oooooo. I better run and hide. I don't want to get in front of THAT polemical threshing machine. I might end up being called...a he/she.
Spare me the phony umbrage about "Baghdad Bob." I was not making a moral comparison, for Chrissakes. In fact, I said he was "the functional equivalent." Which, btw, is a darn sight better than the consideration many on your team give, when they literally compare, straight up, Democrats to America's enemies.
Hugh is a shill for Mitt, as Baghdad Bob was for Saddam. That is not to say that Hugh equals Bob or that Mitt equals Saddam. No wonder your side is so discredited these days--your fuzzy thinking leads to false outrage. |
|
in and I'm all better now. Whew, scary agreeing with something PL+LP said! Back to normal now and
willing to share the Prozac with our friend, Clarity, who appears on the brink of spinning himself into butter over the Wordy One.
Clarity...Clarity...S M A C K!!!...Okay...Better.
PLDS...PL Derangement Syndrome can be very scary. |
|
The RNC wants amnesty candidate.
Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, GOP voters know that, why doesn't the RNC? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty trio (McCain, Huckabee, Rudy) is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP
|
|
Look, if you don't like Hugh's opinions, which is the main reason I read this site, don't come here. There is this underlying venemous hatred spewing between the lines, here, that frankly I find sophomoric.
------------------------------------
One could also reply that if you do not want to read the comments of the readers - don't go to the comments and instead just read Hugh's posts.
Speaking just for myself - I have listened to Hugh and read his site for many years. Over those years, I have also called the show a few times. I have emailed Hugh and he has emailed me back.
I think Hugh was once one of the best things about both blogs and talk radio. I am saddened by the way he has let his support for Romney alter the content of both those forums.
Before Townhall - Hugh's site had no comments. I still read it every day. Now he has chosen to have a forum for comments.
Frankly, I find those like yourself who desire a bubble mentality around here to be the ones acting sophmoric.
Hugh can close the comments if he desires..and you can choose not to read them. As long as this forum is open - those of us who were once HUGE fans will continue to voice our concern over what we feel is a downfall around here. |
|
but if it comes down to Huck v. Hillary, I will vote for Hill. He has 11 months to convince me otherwise, but foreign affairs are issues numbers 1 through 10 with me, and he is dangerously naive and untrained on these issues. Hillary, at least, is serious in that field.
Huckabee 08 will be like Goldwater 64 - the Dems will come out with a filibuster proof Senate, a veto proof House, the presidency, the the potential to name 3 Supremes with no effective conservative deterrant. |
|
I cannot believe there are that many people that are stupid enought to believe that Huck is not a political hack. Or are there really that many Mitt or Hugh haters that troll this site?
Look, if you don't like Hugh's opinions, which is the main reason I read this site, don't come here. There is this underlying venemous hatred spewing between the lines, here, that frankly I find sophomoric.
But, one thing is for sure, the lefties love Huck, cause they think he is a true conservative; and they KNOW, YES THE KNOW he can't beat anyone on the Dem side. That is why the media is a gushing over Huck the Schmuck. |
|
Well look at this, for all the Lib's who tell us all the time to (shut up) on ones faith. Now they can't stop talking about it.
|
|
My perception wasn't that Huckabee didn't know anything about the situation in Iran, just that he hadn't heard what the latest news about the situation was. He immediately questions the claims of the report (showing that yes, he is aware of things), saying that he has been hearing recently that Iran was actually accelerating their nuke program.
In addition, I suspect that if he had to make a major presidential decision, it would actually be BETTER if hadn't been briefed on this NIE, since there's questions that it may be a politically motivated document (the authors are Bush-haters, according to Rush).
The headline "Huck is ignorant of NIE" is embarassing, but the story didn't seem to me to live up to the headline. |
|
I have, of late, ignored much of the pathetic banterings of this version of liberal, AKA "PL".
Today, I had a bit more time than usual, and was unwilling to let this one pass. |
|
that you can provide ridiculous analogies, under the guise of proffering "intelligent" dialogue.
In other words, PL thinks that he/she is engaging a bunch of conservatives, and the like, in some rather robust conversation. YET, he/she injects these rather "drama-queen" type comparisons in likening Hugh Hewitt to a member of a very despicable, despotic, desparate regime---in this case Saddam Husseins.
Frankly, it is this very behavior which long ago turned me off to this individual's (divisive) version of conversation. Hugh Hewitt is no more like "Baghdad Bob"----as suggested by Pathetic Liberal, than is Achmadwackjob is to "Earnest T", that country bumpkin from the Andy Griffith show of the early 60's.
Now he/she attempts to enter the room with a hat-in-hand, "who-me?" kind of attitude in attempt to paint me as the twisted one.
Get a life, Pathetic Liberal.
|
|
The LDS Church is not the same as Scientology...the LDS Church is not like that, it is a legitmate mainstream faith.
-------------------------------------
So a religious test IS allowed - do determine if one belongs to a "legitimate, mainstream faith."
May I note that the teachings of Smith and Young 70-80 years ago would not have been seen as mainstream.
Likewise, if Scientology stays around another 80 years or so and grows in converts - then will it too pass this religious test?
There is a reason that Hugh refuses to answer the Scientology question that other callers have offered. Instead someone gets labelled a bigot.
If I ask someone in favor of affirmative action if they approve of a less qualified black individual getting the job, student slot etc. over a white person - and they answer by calling me a racist...
well, you get the point. Hugh has become James Carville. |
|
|
This reminds me of someone in the 2000 election asking Bush if he knew the names of various foreign prime ministers, and (if I remember correctly) he wasn't able to answer. |
|
Having a couple illegals mow the lawns = bad if he hired them personally, not so bad if he hired a lawn service that employed a couple.
Not being briefed on the NIE = not that bad considering its not his job to know that, and it's unlikely he would have the time to pick up a paper or peruse the web considering he's spending his time shilling for power. If anything, it reflects poorly on his campaign manager for not getting that to him in a morning briefing.
And I'm still not voting for either. |
|
..you are living proof of what I have long said: that Republicans are living proof that men of fine character are not necessarily good at assessing the character of others. Because I am many things, but "pathetic" and "a girl" and "pantywaist" is not among them. Yeesh. You guys really are flummoxed, aren't you?!
As for Hugh's "integrity": I also noted that one can earn it back. Hugh's incessant shilling for Mitt has surpassed rational constraints. He's not an honest broker, and when you aren't an honest broker, it speaks to your integrity. Cry me a river. Hugh challenges the integrity of his political rivals all the time.
One last thing. Clarityseeker says: "as stated many times before, go get your own website and edify those who choose to listen to your crap." Here is a difference, and it speaks to our respective character. I like hearing your opinions. I already know what I think and I like to test my ideas against those who have contrary opinions. It comes from a humility of spirit, if I may say so.
CS, in contrast, evidently just wants to hear what he already believes. Where is the benefit in that? What is it with this generation of conservatives that they want their own little enclosed community? Is their worldview such a rickety house of cards that all "bad thoughts" must be purged? In my book--and it is a book steeped in the authority of our cultural and moral heritage--that kind of thinking is illiberal, mediocre, and ultimately un-American. |
|
why is Romney crying....the media has and will continue to attack Huckabee Far more than they have queried Mitt on his beliefs. Huckabee pointed this out Monday night on Nightline. Even George will attacked Huckabee's "religious view" -creationism..(which I guess mr. Romey does not believe in the account in Genesis)
Mitt- Whining
Huckabee- Winning |
|
In an earlier post I whistled in the dark hoping that somehow Hugh would come to his senses and jettison the whole gotcha thing double-standard.
The green cards of Mitt's lawncare guys is a triffle (although, as someone pointed out, it does make Rudy's debate jab less mean-spirited). Not knowing about NIE briefings in relative real time isn't a tremendous sin either. The guy isn't sitting around all day watching Fox or reading blogs. He's campaigning. Now, his people should have briefed him but he doesn't have the entourage that Mitt and Rudy have surrounding them.
Now, if he still doesn't know it by next week, yeah its a problem. But as another commentator said, you've got to like Huckabee's honesty in just saying "No, I don't know anything about it."
He obviously wasn't concerned that saying no made him weak or ignorant. It made him honest. Can we talk substantive issues, please? |
|
|
on something at 12:32pm. The "pathetic one" is a girl. She tried throwing us off over Thanksgiving with her post about being sore from tackle football. Thank you, Clarity, you've nailed it. |
|
Romney can win the "purple" and red states in the General Election. His approach is balanced, unlike Huckabee's. Huckabee is only socially conserative. By contrast, Romney is that and so much more: he is socially conservative (I am certain of this), economically savvy, and serious about protecting America. He should appeal to thoughtful Republicans and Independents across the board. Ironically, those who vote for Huckabee in Iowa and elsewhere are only helping Guliani win the nomination, and then they will have the very thing they did not want: a socially liberal Republican that cannot effectively distinguish himself from Clinton. Lastly, and most importantly, Romney is the best for the American family.
MSS |
|
|
I love, love, LOVE Hugh's pivot to attack the Boston Globe on this. Just like Larry Craig and his cry that he isn't really gay; it's that the Des Moines paper that is out to get him. Nothing to dispute the facts of the story, just spin that there is an "agenda." Hypocrisy knows no bounds, but Hugh has become a total joke; a parody of a parody. He makes Stephen Colbert look authentic. |
|
|
I love, love, LOVE Hugh's pivot to attack the Boston Globe on this. Just like Larry Craig and his cry that he isn't really gay; it's that the Des Moines paper that is out to get him. Nothing to dispute the facts of the story, just spin that there is an "agenda." Hypocrisy knows no bounds, but Hugh has become a total joke; a parody of a parody. He makes Stephen Colbert look authentic. |
|
I saw this thing about Romney's lawn "issues" on RealClear. I thought, "I wonder how Hugh is spinning this one, it should be pretty hillarious." He doesn't disappoint!
Hugh is now Baghdad Bob, insisting the wheels aren't coming off the Mitt bus. I think this story is going to be a disaster for Romney. Beyond the obvious, here are three reasons: (1) Romney is going to get a lot of attention tommorrow for "the Speech" which was now been hyped to the point of inevitable letdown if it is less than the Emancipation Proclamation or the Sermon on the Mount. But now, with all the attention, mention will be made of the fact that Mitt not only employed illegals, but continued to do so for a year after the discovery was made. It may be a silly thing to derail a presidential campaign, but since Romney has a credibility problem alreadys, he will be hurt by this more than, say, Duncan Hunter would. (2) The mansion issue. McCain was smart here, pointing out he didn't have illegals working at his CONDO. Americans are skeptical about a privledged East Coast elites to begin with; heres a family that contracts with illegal aliens to manicure their two mansions on the same block. (3) Finally, buried in the Globe story is the reason the company wasn't fired until today: the owner is a Mormon. With all the focus on Mitt's religion, this won't play well in Peoria.
This has nothing to do with Huck's knowledge of the NIE. That was a bad gaff for Huck, no doubt. Welcome to the top tier. But Huck hasn't run on a platform of attacking Iran. Romney HAS run on a platform of fighting illegal immigration. Like most things Mitt, the talk is little more than, well, taIk.
|
|
Take your Prozac man! Any agreement with the silliest (PL)of all posters is dangeous, Bro!
Her silly phylos-o-fizing is summed up in this one "Opinion moves on a different plane than knowledge." Well at least that explains why Dems always have advantage in the polls!hahahhaha The incessant bloviation and indignant attitude toward Hugh is priceless, when you consider Hugh's generousity in allowing the gnostic to speak here.
She is a useless gnostic and Clarity has her completely pegged," What is PL's panty size anyway!!!" |
|
With all due respect, I would love to hear interviews of all of the other candidates on the release of the NIE report. I would venture that the majority of them, if not all, were unaware of this collaborative report (at least during the same time period this question was asked of Huckabee).
Hell, Edwards and Obama probably would have guessed that "NIE" was an expression taken from one of the Monty Python movies,
"to the dreaded Knights Who Say "Nie!" |
|
|
The GOP is known for its foreign policy understandings. It is known for its understanding of military and political threats to get what we want. Foreign policy is to be in our interests, not the UN's, the EU's or any other Third World nation filled with thugs. So Huck did not know about the Iranian thing. Well, he will and we know that the NIE is not perfect. As the Israelis know, intel from the West often downgrades threats as well as upgrading them. Israel and other nations now are saying that this report is not on the mark either. And Bush was very very clear that he doubted it. He did a far better job in explaining the real dangers of Iran in the near future than Joe and others give him credit for. See WSJ and other editorials today on that. No matter the feet of clay on all our GOP guys. They are vastly superior to any Dem. If you don't believe that, you are as big a surrender monkey as the entire leftist Dem leadership is! |
|
Calls herself, Patriotic Liberal, however, she is, in essence, a PATHETIC LIBERAL.
Why?
Here's only one of her quotes from her windage today (referring to Hugh Hewitt's role):
"He's become the functional equivalent of Baghdad Bob".
First things first. Baghdad Bob was paid by Saddam Hussein. Baghdad Bob was the equivalent of a "press secretary" for the leader of the country.
Hugh Hewitt is neither paid by G.W. Bush, nor paid by any government entity in the USA. Hewitt is not a "press secretary" equivalent.
For PATHETIC LIBERAL to paint this picture of Hewitt as a "Baghdad Bob", is ridiculous. Hewitt is a pundit. Hewitt is a political commentator. He voices his opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Hewitt gets paid from the revenue derived through the commercial advertising which is sold as air time on his programming.
He also writes books and gets paid for same.
It's all straight forward.
It's all public.
There is no covert apparatus going on here as suggested/inferred by, PATHETIC LIBERAL. Baghdad Bob was part of the Saddam Hussein machine---one of despicable, despotic, and desparate machinations.
Pathetic Liberal, as stated many times before, go get your own website and edify those who choose to listen to your crap. |
|
Yesterday you were jumping around with glee that the MSM was going to knee-cap Huck over Wayne Drummond and today you claim that they're engaged in a conspiracy to get him elected. So which is it?
You are starting to come across as mentally unstable. |
|
Hugh Hewitt Believes Governor Huckabee's appeal is due to the press who have conspired together to get Huckabee the nomination So Hillary can beat the republicans!!!?? He also criticizes Huck for not knowing about the NIE report (re: Iran's threat status)that came out yesterday!!??
Yeah hugh it's a vast left wing conspiracy.
The other cansdidates have time to look at the NIE report that came out yesterday because they are not surrounded by a ton of media and interested voters like Huckabee is in Iowa!!! Huckabee is too busy responding to all the fallacious charges, coming from the jealous republican establishment (yourself, George Will, Novack etc..) that are piling on him. He does not have a huge paid staff like the others..he is virtually running a one man campaign. I will help defend him with the truth to one of your ongoing critiscm's. SUCH AS YOUR FALSE TAX CHARGE-as cited below:
According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged--- from 30.3% (39th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32nd place). In the words of George Will, Slightly altered Hugh, you are a "Horrible Hack!!!!!!!!"
|
|
|
I read the whole thing. Just because Hugh says it is disturbing does not make it so, it simply makes it sensationalism. He answered the question, READ THE WHOLE THING Hugh! |
|
But it all cancels out. The media was gleefully reporting on the rise of outsider Huck, but they're not causing it all. He's popular in his own right, just as Rudy and Mitt are.
And you'll note that now that Huck is now a strong option and not just a rising outsider, GMA, etc. have started going after him. He was only the media's favorite son when he was rising from 4% to 12%, discomfitting Rudy. At 18%, he's an MSM target himself.
You can't let the media push your buttons either way. I'm not going to jump off a cliff because the Washington Post tells me too, but I'm also not going to jump off a cliff just because CNN tells me not to. |
|
|
John McCain, The Maverick? Fickle little nitwits, aren't they? If the Leninist Bill Press and the Crazed Moonbat Carville are shucking for Huck, then they're in panic mode over Mitt or Rudy being our guy. Why? Either can beat the drawers off Missy C. |
|
All you have to do is look at the bad press for Mitt and Rudy and the glowing press for Huckabee.
The media is trying to tell the republicans who to pick and they want Huckabee.
When you get all these liberals saying the same thing "we love Mike Huckabee" then it's trouble.
Why some in the G.O.P. can't see this is beyond me. |
|
Hugh's thinking is this - hey losers, I am Hugh Hewitt - Lord of GOP.When I say I like a candidate and write a book and get "serious" people to agree that they also like my candidate, how dare you common folks (yes, even steelers fans) even think of considering another candidate. I have done the thinking for you because dang it, I am Hugh Hewitt.
Also, it appears Hugh discovered that politics is unfair where they pick on irrelevant stories with these candidates - lawn mowing, taxi service for the loved ones, kindergarten essays, stock holdings,etc....but lil Hughey wets his pants when it comes to his candidate..waaa waaa waaaa...time to change diapers for lil Hugh.. |
|
I read history and sadly some still play out of Hitlers and others hanbook.
The media does try to tell you how to think. That's why two stations can report the same story differently.
MSNBC reported the Iran story with glee and Fox reported it with reserve. This is to influence there audiences on how to view the story.
The media has built up Huckabee and every liberal that comes on TV loves him. Of course they are trying to pick the republican nominee.
When you have people klike Bill Press, Peter Fenn and James Carville singing Huckabee's praise this close to an election it's not because they like him it's because they are rooting for him to be the nominee. |
|
They “loved” insurgent Huck for the same reason they “loved” Fred and Paul. Anything that hurts the leader of the pack is good news to them.
They loved McCain back when he was a useful roadblock to Bush. They loved Rudy when he could be used against early leader McCain. They’ll periodically latch onto the flavor of the week in third place if that makes the front-runner weaker. But once let Huck get the nod and be one on one vs. Clinton and you’ll see the knives come out.
Not that I agree that this supposed love actually exists or is universal. Didn’t Rolling Stone just blast Huck as a lunatic Christian, crazier than Ron Paul? Wasn’t the whole CNN debate designed around the idea of making Huck out to be a fanatical science-denying creationist? |
|
I'd like to see Romney pull a surprise on all the 'conventional wisdom' hammering him for Iowa right now. I don't have the time(or appetite)to watch those TV guys you're quoting, but if little Chrissy Matthews has lump on for the Huckster, I smell fish in the air!
What's next, PL+LP for Huck?? Actually, PL did confess to some luvin feelins for Huckster on a more recent thread. And, to my utter astonishment,
I find myself nodding in some agreement with PL+LP at 10:20am here. This is a sure sign that I'm getting low on my Prozac. |
|
Hey Harry Oz,
Thanks for being so honest and letting us all know that you value the political and social observations of Hitler. I bet you'd like to have another Hitler at the helm - he'd know how to take care of the liberal media, and he'd also be pretty good at articulating the thoughts that obviously inhabit your conspiracy-riddled and paranoid brain.
Huckabee is popular because he's the least nutty of the current GOPers. People tend to like him. His performance in the debate is behind the bump in popular interest. During the debate people saw a GOP candidate that didn't seem like a war mongerer, a racist, or a scrooge. He's a nice alternative to the rest of them, and would be a nice counter to Clinton in the general. |
|
|
People have got to stop these conspiracy theories all the time. I'm surprised that Hugh would succumb to it. The MSM doesn't care about who the Republicans are going to choose. They probably do prefer a Democrat wins, but what they really prefer is a good story. Their thought process goes no farther than that. Huckabee is doing well in polls, and he's got a good personality, so he gets written about. There's nothing more devious involved than that. Right now Romney is running 5th, so he doesn't get the pub. If he rises in the polls, there will be plenty of stories about Mitt. |
|
It's funny how some in the G.O.P. is so blinded. They want Huckabee as the nominee because they can marginalize him in the general.
I didn't think people in the G.O.P were that gullible but Hitler said it's a fortunate thing for governments that the people don't think.
Hitler also said, people are generally stupid, you repeat the same thing over and over they will eventually believe it.
Tucker Carlson said every liberal in the media he knows loves Huckabee.
The liberal of liberals Chris Matthews said the liberal media has a love affair with Huckabee.
When this happens close to an election, this means the liberal media is trying to pick the republican candidate.
They don't want Mitt or Rudy and that's why they both get the worst coverage and Huckabee gets glowing coverage.
I thought the G.O.P. was smarter than this but there not. |
|
|
..because he has become low integrity (it's okay--you can rally out of it. Just takes some time). I understand that Hugh is a pundit, not a reporter, but truth is not relative, even for pundits. Opinion moves on a different plane than knowledge, but there are still standards. Hugh violates those standards. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, who uses his pulpit to shape perceptions, rather than articulate what he thinks is the truth. He has severely discredited himself over the past months. He's become the functional equivalent of Baghdad Bob. What he says is loaded and is said with the idea of manipulating thinking. He has been so consistently opportunistic, so consistently propagandistic, and so consistently wrong, that I think he has forfeited his right to be taken seriously. |
|
Huckabee only has evangelical support in Iowa and Romney has support in most other demographics. Evangelicals will not be the only ones to show up at the caucus and that's what Iowa polls never take into account.
Two recent polls from Iowa show Romney ahead in most if not all categories by double digits except evangelicals. |
|
with No politician SOP-babble in this instance. I'm not a Huck supporter and truly don't much like him, but this puts a grin on my face. How refreshing to tell one of these press dweebs "NO".
What a concept !
Thaale and BG both make some good strong points. |
|
|
Neither of these stories are that big of a deal. So Huckabee hadn't been briefed yet. Big deal. I don't think he has the best conservative package in the primaries even if he had been briefed. |
|
There's only one bit of fantasizing here:
"The Globe's obsession with the leaves on Romney's lawn underscores how agenda journalists of the left view this race: Take out Romney, bleed Rudy, nominate Huckabee, elect Hillary."
and that is the Romney part. The MSM outside of Boston largely hasn't addressed Romney because he's such a non-threat. Yes, there's an efficient division of labor whereby the NYT and News snipe at Rudy, the Globe harps on Mitt trivia, and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette does its part to discredit Huck. I'll note that you could be considered the MSM's western branch of the anti-Huck useful idiots.
Should Huck have been aware of the NIE finding? Probably. He's not actually the president yet. If he were, he'd be receiving the PDB and would be up on the latest developments. Huck's been busy campaigning; if the question had been asked of Fred and he had demonstrated his familiarity with the NIE, you'd be sneering that he didn't have anything to do but read reports.
How much of a duty does a candidate have to act as if he were already president? Some. No one wants a president who isn’t up on the issues at all. But it’s unrealistic to expect instantaneous response to each new item from men whose schedules are so jam-packed. But I’ll grant that at the very least, Huck’s admission of ignorance gives the appearance of cluelessness, which is as bad as true cluelessness for electability purposes.
Is it possible for a candidate to err in the other direction and be guilty of almost setting up his own shadow government conducting its own foreign policy, Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson style? Yes, and I’ve found it quite off-putting to read the official-sounding pronunciamentos (open letters to Ahmadinejad, etc.) from the ex-governor of Massachusetts as if he had any actual standing. Rudy’s more balanced approach, knowing the issues without pretending to a standing he does not have, is the preferable attitude. |
|
|
I will concede that Huckabee's ignorance of the NIE puts Romney's lawn care company's practices if Hugh will concede that his constant shilling for Romney puts Rush Limbaugh's analysis of the Republican primaries in context. I still lean toward Romney, but good grief, since when was it Hugh's job to do all the heavy lifting for the Romney campaign? He knows that it would be counter-productive for Romney to go negative on Huck. So Hugh steps in, citing every blog and editorial that finds fault with Huck -- including George Will's anti-evangelical animadversions. I guess Hugh has a rather selective understanding of what counts as anti-religious bigotry. Talk about a double-standard! |
|
|
Huck travels around with a driver, that is his entire entourage. He does not have millions like Mitt to bring lackeys along, nor does Huck have his own radio show. Hugh is just trying to change the subject from aliens in the grass. |
|
It's no surprise that Hugh Hewitt is supporting Romney since he is owned by Salem Communications and their chairman is a Romney supporter. How sad that a "Christian" organization has sold out to Romney and their business interests. I was just reading an article on their site crosswalk.com and it's nothing but articles on why evangelical Christians should forget their beliefs and back a Mormon occultist for president---this is shameful.
Governor Huckabee is honest, sincere, and a man of conviction. I would much rather have someone like that in office than someone like Romney who changes his "beliefs" to win elections. How can you ever know or trust what he will do once elected. He puts his political career over personal conviction. When he ran against Ted Kennedy he said he was not a Reagan republican, he was pro-choice and for gay rights. Will the real Mitt please stand up!
The Iran news story just broke within the past day or two and Huckabee not being up on this is not as big of a deal as Romney employing illegals in his yard. As a governor of a state, he has a responsibility to make sure he is obeying the law. It would have been so easy for him to request a signed statement from the company he hired confirming that no illegal workers were employed.
Mitt Romney is deceitful, dishonest and is part of the Wall Street Republican establishment. There is also evidence that he has business ties to Iran. I'm tired of big business running our lives. Think about the only group that prompted Jesus to turn tables over in the temple....the money changers.
Romney and all of his big business friends want to continue getting filthy rich off the backs of hard working Americans. These are the people behind all of the attacks on Huckabee in the media.
|
|
"It's a good thing Romney has The Speech to dominate much of the campaign talk this week, because the rest of the news is pretty bad for him. . ."
Illegal aliens on Mitt's lawn, despite the blow up over this last year.
and
Push polling in Iowa against Romney by a firm that worked for Romney. "How do you feel if you're Mitt Romney, and a firm you hired - a firm headed by one of your donors! - is running push polls against you?"
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjQ5ODNiYTgw MmI5ZmZhNWY3MTI5ODZhM2IyZjYyMTc= |
|
|
I put in salt in the NIE report. Just like they missed all the intel before 911, what makes you think they are right now. I trust Israel on intelligence not our State Department and all the rest. Most of them are Anti-Bush and Anti-Israel. Just propraganda that the Mad Man of Iran canf use against the United States. Don forget they are masters at illusion. They have been at it a long time. Remember the term "Hudna". And it has been pulled over the eyes of the world again. |
|
|
Huckabee's not concerned about foreign policy, he'll let Chuck Norris worry about things like that! Haven't you been listening to him and watching his ads? Very presidential, right up there with Jimmy Carter!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Trying to change the subject are we? Mitt and the gardeners are way to much fun to drop this early.
|
|
You certainly are stretching, Hugh. Yes, Huckabee should have been familiar with it. Is it fatal that he wasn't? Of course not. A leader is not solely measured by his intelligence--or, in the case of Romney, his "presidential," plastic image--case-in-point, Exhibit 1: Bill Clinton.
A leader is measured (1) by his humility to know that he does not and cannot know everything and must be willing to seek wise counsel from others; and (2) by his ability to stick to what he believes, regardless of the vacillating political winds. I'd rather have a humble man of character in the White House who may not have the Ivy credentials or the powerful connections.
Hugh, you and the rest of the political punditry from both sides of the aisle will need to have some humble pie once you realize that you have lost touch with everyday Americans and what matters most to us...NOT "electability," NOT academia, NOT "accomplishments" enabled by powerful connections.
We want authenticity, sincerity of convictions and beliefs, and humility. We want Mike Huckabee. |
|
|
But as a long-time listener/blog-follower of yours, I've got to admit that you've created a bias against Romney for me that I've got to struggle to overcome. Not sure why, since pamphalateering in support of your candidate is nothing new and can be found throughout the blogosphere. I think I resent it so much here because of your continued protestations of "objectivity" when it is clear that Romney is your guy. Unfortunately, this resentment has tarnished Romney in my eyes as well (unfairly, I admit) and I have to work very hard to overcome this emotional bias and look at his policies/positions objectively. Turn this story around... There's NO WAY you would be presenting it this way if the name were "Romney" instead of "Huckabee". If you bothered to mention it at all, it would be to downplay its significance (as it should be). I believe you will support whichever Republican candiate gets the nomination. However, you owe your listeners and readers more than you're giving them now. You need to publicly acknowledge your support of Romney. |
|
|
Advise Huck on how to exploit Romney's religion by emphasising his evangelical roots? This is the sense I'm getting and he even ran ads doing this directly. Huck has down played his relationship with Morris but he advised him when he was running in Ark for Gov.There's even word that Huck got hold of a Christian e mail list and used that to contact the evangelicals in Iowa.His poll numbers went up in Iowa when he hadn't even appeared there in person since Nov. 8th. The other thing is this so called non partisan group that has directly endorsed Huck.I think there's going to be an investigation on this. Right now my main concern is these lawnworkers are going to show up on Larry King or something with a huge sob story. I'm also wondering if Huck's poll numbers are going up because people think he's that Campbell Soup Chef in their ads ;) |
|
|
Here's the media narrative for the next few days. Romney is going to ask for religious tolerance in his speech but at the same time he's running on intolerance of immigrants and gays.The timing of the landscape firing couldn't have been worse.He should have never given the speech and should have just put more emphasis on his bio as a turnaround guy in the business world.Somehow Romney always winds up in a lose/lose situation.Romney's inner circle are all well meaning people who are factually correct in most instances but they are not media saavy.The media has found a way to savage Bush on every issue since he's been President. They are not going to be fair to a Republican. You have to consider this before doing anything political.I'm telling you,the media is salavating over how to tie the landscaper story in with the speech.Romney could be 100% correct on firing these people and in the context of the speech but that's not the way it'll come out. |
|
|
of campaign cash he can always swap his Target gift cards he accumulated while Gov. of Ark. for some TV ad time.Seriously though, if this guy was as on fire as every one says why isn't his campaign coffers running over? He is completely a media driven rockstar of the moment. The MSM hates a bible thumper,it's one of the main reasons they hate Bush,so they have a hidden agenda for humping him. The same thing is going on with the dems and Obama. Obama is a total empty suit.Hillary's problem is Bubba. It makes it look like she can't run on her own. |
|
RG always needed to get MR out of the picture because of his deep pockets. MR is now helping him by (a) people not trusting him (read LAT poll this morning (b) getting into this Mormon thing - a real snake pit (c) getting set up by RG at the last debate on the gardners - just as RG got set up on Judith deal before the last debate, MR now will have an entire pre "Speech" day devoted to the gardner, Think anyone will interview the gardner and suppose the gardner says "MR knew". It is then game set and match.
Every media and talk radio outlet today will drill down on the gardner story with opening of RG bringing up the issue. The one thing a candidate can't handle is being laughed at ... that is MR today.
RG and MH have formed a pact. Duh!
MH can't go the distance - even middle distrance. There is not a lot of there there. With exposure MH is going to collapse quicker than FT. The media is all over him with the "idiot" and "court jester" tag.
Rush and others hate McCain. He seems to like FT but clearly does not dislike RG.
RG is building a further hard core of economic conservatives and that will emerge.
FT will get another look but where exactly can he win a primary outside the South in next 60 days?
|
|
|
I was somewhat impressed...seemed sensible, seasoned and sincere. Before I thought Fred was half-dead. We'll see...can he turn up the energy? |
|
|
|
Agree or disagree with the claims...but you cannot refute that the claims were made. This is the dividing line between true Christianity the others. Jesus did not reject WORSHIP from his disciples. There was nothing to misunderstand when Jesus made a claim that he was equal with God the Father. Gospel of John 10:30. The Pharisees started to pick up rocks because this was considered blasphemy. When people started to worship Paul and Barnabas after they had performed a miracle they said for them not to do this..because they were just men. Jesus NEVER said this. He accepted worship. The question is do Mormons WORSHIP Jesus as Lord or do they think him and Joseph Smith are equal? Jesus does not leave people with alot of options....you can have only one of 3 conclusions about Him as CS Lewis noted...Either Jesus is Liar, Lunatic, or LORD...His claims leave you with NO other options. If Mormons believe he is LORD,equal to the Father, the unique only Son of God to be worshipped as such, then Fine...they ARE Christians...otherwise they put Joseph smith on the same level and this is unacceptable to Historic Christianity. I didn't write this. The disciples did ,so If you don't like it take it up with them.
I happen to like Mormon people,.( not their theology). I have good friends that are Mormon and my choice, if it were between Hillary & Romney- I would vote for Romney, no question.
Because I know either way if a kid named his teddy bear Jesus or Joseph Smith we would not threaten to kill them.
|
|
|
I meant not to judge you. |
|
|
You are perfectly free to reject a candidate based solely upon his religion. But don't expect people to judge you as bigoted if you do so. |
|
My contention is, and has been, that the Govt can make no religous test acc to Article 6 of the constitution regarding who runs for President. The VOTER on the other hand can use any criteria they so choose. Their are many irreligious people who this very thing and that is their legitimate right...however unfortunate it maybe for the candidate.
When people attack you with ad hominen they usually have the weaker argument. |
|
and ethical right to reject a candidate for whatever reason they choose, including for religion. There is nothing immoral, un-American, or unconstitutional about it.
It is more likely bigoted to call someone a bigot for exercising their political and religious beliefs.
Those who accuse people of being intolerant for including religion in their choice of candidates are asking that religion be relegated to irrelevant trivialities.
|
|
Huck is clueless on foreign policy. However, Rudy and Romney are not strong in that area either. McCain has been in the Senate all of his life and does not really have any real experience running policy. He has had lot of briefings.
Bush 41 was strong but Reagan was not.
Out of the Romney, Rudy and Huck. I like Romney better. I like the way he makes decisions. He gathers a lot of information and then plots a strategy with contingent options. He is way ahead of the game, much like a chess match.
Rudy is shoots from the hip and is stubborn.
Huck is not into Foreign policy. It is not his strength.
|
|
No one will want Huck as VP. What does he bring? This is a very revealing major flub. If Romney had made it, some of you guys would be having a field day! Admit it, now.
Looks like Huck is not quite ready for prime time and that's the reason he never had traction before. His move up is entirely due to artificially favorable press.
How can any candidate today not be aware of the NIE report? Seriously? ? ?
I feel like Fred must be kicking himself right about now. He should be in Huck's place - he deserves it and Huck simply doesn't. |
|
The LDS Church is not the same as Scientology. It is bigoted to dismiss Romney merely because he is Mormon. Beause the LDS Church is not like that, it is a legitmate mainstream faith.
Judge Romney as a man. Many think he is the best man. I disagree with them. There are others who I believe are more qualified. But Mitt Romney is a good man. And if he is the GOP nominee, I will proudly support him. |
|
Yeah...The other cansdidates have plenty of time to look at the NIE report that came out yesterday because they are not surrounded by a ton of media and interested voters like Huckabee is in Iowa!!! Huckabee is too busy responding to all the fallacious charges, coming from the jealous republican establishment (, George Will, Novack, Club for Greed etc..) that are piling on him. He does not have a huge paid staff like the others..he is virtually running a one man campaign. I will help defend him with the truth to one of your ongoing critiscm's. SUCH AS YOUR FALSE TAX CHARGE-as cited below:
According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged--- from 30.3% (39th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32nd place). In the words of George Will, Slightly altered what a bunch of "Horrible Hacks!!!!!!!!"
|
|
Lets analyze this. President Bush learns of an NIE that has startling new developments in August. But he is too disinterested to ask the contents and instead waits three months to learn that all his rhetoric about Iran and World War III was erroneous. Huckabee, on the other hand, also learned of the NIE, yet because it took him at least 24 hours to read it, is clueless.
Hugh, you have gone over the deep end. You are like a girl with her first crush who is obsessing over the boy she cannot have. It is truly embarrassing how you are conducting yourself of late.
Oh Hugh, enough with the left-leaning, MSM as the bogeyman in all of this. You really need to remove your cranium from Mitt's posterior to realize that it is not the MSM being polled. Rather it is ordinary, every-day Americans who want no part of an unprincipled, flip-flopping, snake oil salesman who will say whatever he can to get elected. |
|
Hugh ducked my question ON air last night:
Q: "Hugh are you telling me if someone like Tom Cruise, a prominent Scientlogogist, ran for President you would not take his "religious views" into consideration before voting for him?."
"Yes or No? A: Hugh "Blah blah"
Hugh, Yes or No? A: Hugh "blah blah"
Then he called me a bigot and hung up.
It was GREAT!
I will contribute $100 dollars of my hard earned, non-elitist money to the Romney Campaign if Hugh, Mitt's Minister of Misinformation, will openly & honestly answer this question.
Hugh Why are you ducking this question?
|
|
With all due respect Hugh, this isn't Earth-shattering. It's obvious that Huckabee has been on the campaign trail a lot lately and probably hasn't had time to keep up on the left's view of foreign affairs (that's all this NIE report really boils down to.)
I think you're taking the newfound interest in Huckabee a little too personally. But I guess that's to be expected considering Mitt can do no wrong.
I do like Romney, but lets be honest. He's made some mistakes in the debates and on the campaign trail and some voters just aren't liking what they're seeing. |
|
|
Homosexual rights, Abortion, Immigration; is there *any* position that Romney has kept, without fip-flopping to pander to some special-interest group? Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have *nothing* on Mitt. Wake up Hugh. Romney is not worth losing this much credibility for. |
|
|
Rasmussen said it was not an isolated poll- Huck is in High Tide ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!!!!! |
|
you know that if Romney were at the same dinner and asked the same question, he'd have a ready answer. In part, because of his superior organization, but more so because he's on top of this stuff.
Intellectually, Huck can't hold a candle to Romney. Look at Romney's life accomplishments. Then look at Huck's. There's really no comparison. |
|
|
he was probably out campaigning and hadn't yet been briefed. It's a pretty big story (THE story) and it has huge foreign policy implications, so he *should* have been aware of it (does anyone he works with watch the news?), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. It does, however, show that his organization is inferior to most other candidates. |
|
He is not happy about this!
Doesn't Mitt know he is screwing up everything! |
|
As we witness Huckabee's spectacular rise with amazingly-low advertising expenditures (only $2 million total -nationally), if I am not mistaken), pro-life conservatives are seeing that we don't have to settle for Romney's manufactured slickness, flip-flopping on abortion and pandering on immigration or farm subsidies.
Mike can win.
Romney's toast.
USA Today/ Gallup poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-12-03-p olitics-poll.htm
|
|
Yeah hugh it's a vast left wing conspiracy.
The other cansdidates have time to look at the NIE report that came out yesterday because they are not surrounded by a ton of media and interested voters like Huckabee is in Iowa!!! Huckabee is too busy responding to all the fallacious charges, coming from the jealous republican establishment (yourself, George Will, Novack etc..) that are piling on him. He does not have a huge paid staff like the others..he is virtually running a one man campaign. I will help defend him with the truth to one of your ongoing critiscm's. SUCH AS YOUR FALSE TAX CHARGE-as cited below:
According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged--- from 30.3% (39th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32nd place). In the words of George Will, Slightly altered you are a "Horrible Hack!!!!!!!!" |
|
but he may be the VP. And he may be the VP for someone other than Romney.
Romney better bring his A game on Thursday. |
|
over the NIE? Isn't that more disturbing?
Mitt screwed up. He will get over it. But it is embarassing. Just admit it and move on and stop trying to blame Huckabee for Romney's slopiness. |
|
Or maybe...
¡Vamos amigos! ¡El mormón blanco rico apoyado de pago de nosotros otra vez! |
|
|
|