Friday, January 04, 2008
|
|
The Next Few Days: Ideas v. Identities
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:15 AM
|
The New York Times' David Brooks is gleeful that Huckabee has monkeywrenched Romney. Huck can't be president, Brooks assures us, but it was good to see the party establishment humbled and McCain's way forward cleared. "Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded," Brooks enthused. "My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike."
Is the picture clearer this morning for all those Iowa evangelicals on why Mike Huckabee got the gentle treatment after his bizarre news conference Monday? Why his record was left largely unexamined? Why Russert played nice with Huck this past Sunday? Huckabee was the stalking horse of the anti-Romney, anti-Rudy folks who want the GOP to get blown out in November, running either behind a 72 year old "maverick," or a guitar-playing Baptist preacher --neither of whom has much of a chance. Brooks is not among the gang that wants the Democrats to win the November election in the next three weeks, but he is in love with the story, and John McCain.
National Review's editor emeritus John O'Sullivan has a different take. "It seems clear that we should do all we can to help revive the Romney campaign. If that fails, we face a choice between Huckabee and McCain," wrote O'Sullivan. "Neither looks like a good bet against a surging Obama candidacy."
Thanks for the clarity, Mr. O'Sullivan. But how to do it?
First, by rejecting the idea that caucus and primary voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan can overthrow the party's platform, widely shared and embraced by Republicans from coast to coast. Romney as a mainstream Republican could have used the slingshot from Iowa to ride the platform forward, but anti-platform candidates have to fight all the way to St. Paul. The hundreds-of-thousands of individual donors to Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson haven't agree to the media's rules for wresting the party away from them, and the voters of 1994, 2000 and 2004 certainly haven't. If McCain holds on to his lead in New Hampshire it will be a long, long campaign.
Second, there has to be a recognition that if any candidate takes matching funds it is an admission of an inability to compete until September against the Obama phenomenon. Mitt Romney has given his campaign millions, but so have thousands of individual donors, and his willingness to spend on behalf of the campaign and thus the party is why I expect 527s from the left to pour resources into Huck and McCain in the hopes of driving Romney from the field. Rudy too has the ability to get a fresh infusion of funds from Romney donors should Romney not get a second wind. Huck will never get the dollars necessary to compete, nor will McCain --the prince of campaign finance reform-- be able to both seek funds and avoid getting branded a McCain-Feingold hypocrite.
Third, the conservative activists have to realize that there is an attempted coup underway. Brooks attacks by name Wall Street and K Street, Rush Limbaugh, The Club for Growth and President Bush, asserting that they constitute the "leadership class," and that Huckabee's war on them all was fueled by a knowledge of "how middle-class anxiety is really lived." Brooks adds that Huck is forging:
A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.
What utter nonsense. Did the tax cuts help families making less than $50 K a year? Did the prescription drug benefit? Does not getting attacked since 9/11 benefit only the middle and upper classes?
Will such neopopulism work? Nah. Even Brooks disowns it in the space of a couple of lines. Here is one of the most cynical graphs ever written on the day after an election:
Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
Let me translate the NewYorkTimes-speak: "Thanks, you bozos in the sticks. We played you like a fiddle. Now it is time to bleed your guy to get our guy."
Brooks' guy is McCain, but the MSM's guy is whoever the Dem is.
So what to do? The markets may tell us a bit over the next couple of days or weeks, but the investor class has to be wondering about equities this time next year, even if Pakistan's nukes stay stable, Iran doesn't unveil its own NIE-confounding device, and further North Korean shipments to Syria are interdicted. President Obama and strengthened majorities in both Houses won't wait long to bring the pain that precedes the "politics of hope," however, and you can't expect markets to wait to get clobbered.
The debates of Saturday and Sunday may be interesting as well. Expect a wounded Romney to go on the offensive against John McCain's long record of sticking it to the GOP. Rudy may be tempted to do so as well, or may wait for the Florida long ball. Huck may get an encore in South Carolina, but he's already over for the reasons Brooks noted.
My Townhall column today is about how Romney can pull this off, but even if he clarifies and amplifies the message of running on Reaganism, he'll need the party regulars to get off the bench. Independent-powered victories for McCain in New Hampshire and Michigan won't matter if they are understood as such, but Romney has to let the party of Reagan know that both Huckabee and McCain want it broken up and sold off in pieces. He or Rudy need to win in Florida, or achieve a three way tie with McCain to put the campaign back into the hands of the people who built the party over the past 28 years.
O'Sullivan is absolutely right on: "It seems clear that we should do all we can to help revive the Romney campaign."
I'll be listening to Rush, Sean, Laura and the rest (my friend Michael Medved has thrown in with McCain) and reading the blogs to see if surrender has set in, or whether the coalition that Reagan built is worth fighting for.
|
|
|
As I have opined in a letter that I hope the New York Times will print, Hugh and the usual caustic-cons will all say the Democrats want Huckabee so they can easily defeat him. Whatever. The truth is it will take the force of positive populist conservatism to defeat the government expanding populism of Obama. Only Huck can deliver this. You old school right wingers need to get out of the shallows and launch out into the deep with Huckabee. He is not a candidate. Huck is a force. |
|
Hugh, just get over it. We don't like Mitt. We don't like him even a little. He is way too calculating and triangulating and insincere.
The message from Iowa and the one you will get from New Hampshire is that after people get to know Mitt, they won't vote for him. His message has been blanketing both those states. There are no more excuses. He's not a winner.
Please consider supporting Fred. |
|
They just get in the way, right Hugh? Wonder if you'd have wrote the same thing had Mitt won all three contests, which he has approximately zero chance of doing.
("It seems clear that we should do all we can to help revive the Romney campaign. If that fails, we face a choice between Huckabee and McCain," wrote O'Sullivan. "Neither looks like a good bet against a surging Obama candidacy."
Thanks for the clarity, Mr. O'Sullivan. But how to do it?
First, by rejecting the idea that caucus and primary voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan can overthrow the party's platform, widely shared and embraced by Republicans from coast to coast.) |
|
this is really getting sickening. I guess Hugh is going to stand by his man until the bitter end.
Let's hope that's not much longer.
Mitt Romney would be a HORRIBLE general election candidate. He simply does not connect with people.
He is about to get another butt kickin' in NH next week.
Hugh, come back to reality, while your reputation is still a little intact. |
|
|
Thank you for your uplifting comments this morning.I too will be listening to Rush to get my spirits up. The idea of an election between Obama and Huckabee has me wondering if the country has gone insane. Identity politics will be the ruination of this country. I think the problem is the conservative vote being split between Romney and Thompson. Combining their vote totals is a truer reflection of the Republican party's will. Too bad they can't run as a ticket - Romney/Thompson would be the ticket to continue the legacy of Reagan. |
|
Huckabee is a principled conservative.
He will fight to extend the bush tax cuts, and make the 16000 page tax code simpler.
He will secure the border and fight muslim terrorists wherever they are.
He will move us toward energy independence.
He will protect life and marriage, period.
He will protect and defend the scond amendment.
He will reach out to african-americans who most republicans ignore and whose votes we cede to the democrats.
He appeals to women voters with his charm and communication skills. He is a genuine authentic conservative who does not sound like a hater.
Not only is he going to maintain the Reagen coalition, he can bring more women and minorities into the coalition.
It is disengenious if not blatantly deceitful to characterize Huckabee as a fiscal liberal. Look at the totality of his record. He cut taxes dozens of times. Outside of government pass throughs, he controlled spending. He improved infrastructure.
He is bringing younger voters into the coalition and the "powers that be" are afraid of losing their power and influence.
|
|
...Hewitt romp yet.
Pointing fingers everywhere but at this guy.
Sigh.
I was a guest on a radio show last night and all agreed (a panel of about 5 bloggers) that Hugh was probably being admitted to the nearest cardiac unit last night!
LOL |
|
Is that BO won. In NH with the MSM wins at his back he will be huge magnet to the independents in NH - the left flank of JM's support.
MR and co. have taken a severe body-blow in Iowa largely of their own doing by putting so much effort into it. Now we will see how a challenged MR performs - particularly in the debates. They haven't lost, as Ali beat Norton even after he had his jaw broken, MR's campaign has a lot of pain and sacrifice ahead if he hopes to win.
Having said that, Rudi looks like a genius right now and if MR loses badly in NH, his supporters and their money will flood to RG. |
|
I really enjoy your show a lot, Hugh, though as an independent, many of my views are vastly diferent from yours. Still, I find you thoughtful and your interviews are the best on radio, bar none.
But your attempt to blame Romney's loss on the MSM is just dead wrong. The media was just as shocked at last night's results as everybody else. I don't think anyone realized just how much anxiety there is out there about the future of our country, and Huck's populist message and likablilty factor were much more important than any media conspiracies or religious issues.
You won't like this, but Romney's image as the millionaire patrician who is working for upper class interests is the main reason he will not, I predict, win in either NH or Michigan, and will be out of the race shortly. |
|
|
If it's relevance you seek, you have failed miserably. |
|
|
If you think you are having a lousy day, how do you think Dems who want to win the presidency feel this morning. Unless the reps field a candidate like Huck which has zero chance of happening - NH and Super Tuesday will see to that - the dems have no chance with BO as their nominee. they will be staring a loss as bad as McGovern in '72. |
|
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2008/01/huckfreude.html
|
|
Romney needed Iowa to stem the Huckabee surge and he didn't get it. Now it looks like McCain will take NH. I don't see Romney winning any other states in the early primaries. Even Michigan may slip through his fingers. Rudy will dominate New York, California, New Jersey and possibly Florida. The hill Romney has to climb just gets steeper with every primary.
Sorry, Hugh, Romney is not going to be the GOP nominee.
|
|
..not in the White House it would appear.
I'd rather see Mitt than Huck, but it doesn't look that way.
Then again, I'm a Fred man so I feel your pain Hugh. |
|
Romney's problem, if anything, was he and his family were too perfect, a charmed life -- evoking a kind of jealousy (like those envious of the best-looking, most popular senior high class member etc.) Romney needed an injury (like if the identical Romney had one leg, he would evoke some sympathy and undoubtedly be winning now).
NOW, ROMNEY HAS SUCH AN INJURY -- YOU SEE, EVEN HE'S GOT PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH (investing millions in time and money in Iowa and losing). Or, like Romney has received a come-uppance (sp).
Now, Romney may be perceived as NOT SO PERFECT & with problems AND THIS NEW PERCEPTION MAY VERY WELL HELP HIM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. |
|
|
|
let's post it. As much vitreol as you guys have for Huckabee, you would think he has done something awful. He hasn't. His talking points are in line with conservative principles. What does he say that you really disagree with?
Extending Bush tax cuts? Fighting for victory on the war on terrorism? All to point out he didn't land on these ideals yesterday. You might not like his style, you may not like his personality, but he is not a disaster. He is one that has been given opportunity by this great country, and he feels indebted to this country. I am astonished at the hatred. Mitt Romney could have won if he spent his millions on promoting his Ideas, he has good ones, he's a good man. |
|
Hugh,
The conspiracy theories bandied about in your entry today are ridiculous. You have one small state with a quirky process that had enough voters that either liked Huckabee's message or just got plain sick of Romney. That's no MSM led conspiracy or liberay 529 group coup. That's what can happen in a democracy.
Huckabee won't have the same constituency in other states, and other states won't have had to endure a year of Romney's face on their TVs, in their coffee shops and at their rotary clubs. Romney fatigue won't be in play other places.
So its obvious to most that Huckabee won't win the nomination. So stop eroding your credibility with conspiracy claptrap and stop insulting the voters of Iowa.
And McCain doing well in NH is no invention of the media either...he's won the state before. His message resonates with a piece of the electorate there, just let it be and confront the issues. |
|
Mike Huckabee got the gentle treatment?
Huckabee's record was left largely unexamined?
I don't know what race Hugh has been watching, but it sure as hell isn't the 2008 presidential race. |
|
I'm still pulling for Romney, but obviously I'm worried.
Question: If Huck carries some Iowa momentum into NH and gets a significant up-tick, does that come more from JM or MR, who are neck-and-neck right now (per RealClearPolitics)? Maybe the Huck win in Iowa helps Romney hold off McCain in NH? Just asking.... |
|
Shock or Disbelief
Denial
Bargaining
Guilt
Anger
Depression
Acceptance and Hope
|
|
Hewitt is done.
His credibility is laughable.
His opinion is worthless.
I warned from the beginning that he was in danger of committing credibility suicide over this stupid Romney experiment.
Hewitt lives in his own cocoon...wishing doesn't make it so.
You're not a leader Hugh...you're a pitiful clown, a buffoon, a dufus, an out-of-touch beltway elitist.
You're as in touch with the grassroots and middle-class as a snob at the polo club.
You sold your soul for this...and payment has come due.
Hugh Hewitt...is not to be trusted as an analyst. |
|
Ted,you're worse than Hugh.
I know Mitt's your guy, but t's time to move on. No one's going to pity Mitt losing his millions, Ted, that doesn't make him a "real guy with problems."
He's toast, Ted. Find someone else to support.
How about McCain? Give the guy a second look! |
|
The Huckster is a one-trick pony, and he was playing to a stacked audience in Iowa. This makes the result all but meaningless, but it will be used to pound Romney.
Pastors are sales professionals with the unusual distinction being that they regularly sell to crowds rather than individuals and then shake hands after the preaching (how perfect for politics). This puts Huck at home behind a podium and in a crown of believers, a situation (as in Iowa) in which he has had years of practice. Most outsiders apparently don't recognize a polished salesman operating in his mileau when they see one.
Unfortunately for Huck, pastors don't get questioned by bright non-believers after a sermon, and he constantly fails that test in this new context. He is toast, with nowhere to go but down. There is no substance behind the patter, and "decent human being" won't be nearly enough for very long at all. A moment in the sun... |
|
McCain, maybe Thompson, are the best contrast to Obaama. The world is still a very dangerous place and people know that.
Listen to Medved Hugh, he knows what is best! |
|
The 700 vicious, ugly, snarling Huck spammers have struck again. Huck said he commissioned them to choke up Internet comments and that he could not have surged without them. We need to recognize all the Huck spams for what they are -- annoying
background noise -- and nothing more. We must do all we can to help revive the Romney campaign. |
|
Hugh:
This is classic Republican Party establishment against the people. We have a history of this. For those who remember, Ronald Reagan was not the party establishment candidate Gerald Ford and Bush 1 were. We heard the same comments about Reagan that we hear about Huckabee.
This has been occurring as far back as Teddy Roosevelt who was not supported by the Republican establishment and was put in the VP slot to keep him out of the way. Unfortunately for the establishment McKinney was shot and the rest is history.
When the corporate greed and power become unchecked as they are today a backlash occurs just like it did against the Trusts of Roosevelt’s day. This is what the Huckabee surge is about. All the spinning by Hugh and others can’t change that.
Huckabee is a true conservative and concerned about giving the average person a chance to realize the American Dream just like Ronald Reagan did. Romney is just the opposite all corporate, all the time. The problem for him is that he can't hide it no matter how hard he tries.
“A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending."
|
|
Sorry Hugh, but you cracked me up with this line..
"but he is in love with the story, and John McCain". I've seen an awful lot of manlove on this blog the last few months! |
|
We've all been wrong about this.
Everyone's been talking about which GOP candidate is the next Ronald Reagan. The answer is: none of them. But there is another Reagan out there, in the only sense that it matters:
In 1980, Reagan's stunning victory had much less to do with his politics, than with his personality, charisma, sunny optimisim ("Morning In America") and his ability to garner votes from independents and the opposite party.
Forget ideology: the next Ronald Reagan is -gulp-Barack Obama. |
|
"Romney's problem, if anything, was he and his family were too perfect, a charmed life -- evoking a kind of jealousy"
It's not jealousy, Ted. It's his pandering and shape-shifting. We don't like the guy. If you want a likeable candidate with core principles that Romney can only pretend to have, support for Fred. |
|
In a poll conducted for The Associated Press of voters entering Iowa’s caucuses, Huckabee voters indicated that values outranked electability in importance for them. Six in 10 of his backers said the most important quality in picking a candidate was someone who shared their values, while a third of his supporters said he says what he believes.
Here's the clincher:
Nearly two-thirds of Huckabee voters also said it was very important that their candidate share their religious beliefs. One in five of Romney’s voters felt that way.
So, Rush is right. Huckabee voters DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT RELIGION.
Not Huck's liberal record, his commutations of criminals, his deceptions, his stupidity on the issues, his Bush-slamming, or his shabby campaign tactics.
You have to be wondering about the IQ of Iowa evangelicals, do you not?
|
|
Watching this giant, bloated, cynical GOP machine come apart at the seams is even more entertaining than I had hoped.
How does that big steaming helping of karma-flavored desperation taste, Hugh?
It's hilarious after reading such a screed to see it ended by accusing Brooks of being cynical. Did you even read what you wrote?
This is going to be fun.
|
|
"Why his record was left largely unexamined?"
Maybe it's just me, but I thought Huckabees 'record' was examined, criticized, scrutinized, and hollered about ad nauseam.
"Let me translate the NewYorkTimes-speak: "Thanks, you bozos in the sticks. We played you like a fiddle. Now it is time to bleed your guy to get our guy."
"He or Rudy need to win in Florida, or achieve a three way tie with McCain to put the campaign back into the hands of the people who built the party over the past 28 years."
I'm not positive, but I think this is the kind of condesending attitude 'the bozos in the sticks' are quite fed up with from national conservative leaders.
Who built the conservative party over the last 28 years? Could conservative candidates have been elected without the bozos in the sticks?
Just wondering. |
|
Sorry Hugh - I used to love your show and I still think it is probably the most intellectually stimulating radio broadcast on the airwaves. However, your hatred for the Huck and your love affair with the phoney conservative - Mitt - is forcing me to question the integrity of the content and substance of your radio product. To me, Mitt comes off just like a John Kerryy - rich, elitist, out of touch, etc.
Personally, I do not think the Repubs stand a chance of winning the presidency regardless of the candidate. But, I do think theHUck will give us the best chance. He is the most normal of the candidates out there. True conservatives are offended by 3 times a lady Rudy; Rich Mitt; and wacko McCain!! (As a party, we have not done a very good job of promoting presidential candidates).
As for the Huck's foreign policy experience - do you think that W had the experience? Look where we are today? In Hayeks's The Constituion of Liberty, he posits the notion that democracy cannot be forced upon people - and that is exactly what W attempted in Iraq!! What a colossal mistake! I do not think the Huck would ever make that kind of a foreign policy blunder! A true conservative would never try to force democracy upon people from a top-down model.
Now, let's get over it Hugh. Your rich man lost; it is time for you to open your eyes and mind and get behind the true conservative - HuckaA+!!!!!!!! |
|
Hugh, I love your stuff. I listen to you and got into blogging because of you. Your books have often impacted me as an evangelical Christian leader and author. Thanks!
Your take on Romney is misguided, however. He will never widely capture imagination and appears too much as a wonk and a CEO. America will not elect a CEO but someone they fell can really, truly lead us, proven or not. McCain might be too old, Giuliani a bit too liberal socially (his present marriage disturbs me more than his past ones), and Huckabee is dead in the water long-term as you note, so it comes down to Romney, McCain and Rudy. I think we will know in four weeks but I fully expect McCain to rise from the ashes because he speaks the truth, takes his hits, and keeps on being who he is. This resonates with people like me.
I suppose if he is the nominee you will support him since the alternatives do not bode well for national security, which you regularly remind us is "the big issue" ahead. |
|
What made Reagan great was not primarily his personality, optimism or charisma.
What made Reagan great was his devotion to conservative principles, and his extraordinary ability to articulate them and move them forward against overwhelming odds.
Men with charisma are a dime a dozen, but only a precious few possess the intellect, vision and drive that Ragan had.
|
|
“…the anti-Romney, anti-Rudy folks who want the GOP to get blown out in November, running either behind a 72 year old "maverick," or a guitar-playing Baptist preacher --neither of whom has much of a chance...”
We all know that’s just not so, regarding McCain. The McCain danger is that he would win the November race, not that he can’t. Your audience is too well-informed not to know that it’s Huck and especially Romney who are the unelectable candidates, whereas McCain is the strongest GOP candidate in head-to-head polls vs. any Dem.
“First, by rejecting the idea that caucus and primary voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Michigan can overthrow the party's platform, widely shared and embraced by Republicans from coast to coast.”
Surely you’re joking, Mr. Hewitt? You’ve spent a year telling everyone that IA and NH will determine how everyone votes, because you though Mitt was going to buy wins there. Now Mitt loses and you suddenly see the virtue of a national race? At least you’re finally on the right side, even if it’s for a very wrong reason.
“Romney as a mainstream Republican could have used the slingshot from Iowa to ride the platform forward…”
But he’s NOT a mainstream Republican; that’s the whole point. You’d might as well talk about Rudy the mainstream Republican. John Ellis’s column on RCP said it all:
“Romney was never going to be the ‘conservative’ candidate, he was the former governor of Massachusetts...Romney's only real choice was to run as a Republican Gary Hart, the candidate of ‘new ideas’...Instead, his handlers framed Romney's candidacy in a fallacy. We were asked to believe that he was something that he was not. Iowa didn't buy it and neither will anyone else.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/a_hard_lo ss_for_romney.html
|
|
stock market tanks.
Anyone want to guess at the Dow next November? |
|
|
Mike is right. The "Great Communicator" of this generator is Obama. Do not discount this factor regardless of your political views. Bill Clinton was also a pretty good communicator. This quality is not easily measured but you could feel it in his speech last night. He now has incredible energy and will only get better. Contrary to the pundits he has grown in this in Illinois and I have watched it from before he became our Senator. Even his Republican opponents respect this man as a person and he the same for them. He is decent, speaks the truth and can win. Conservatives had better not go "mad" or "angry" or they have no chance at all. |
|
|
In short, Hugh, you need us to protect your relevance as a political player, and we should care? The Washington elite need to get over themselves. This column is exactly why Huck and Obama won last night. I'll support Flim Flamney when hell freezes over. |
|
Romney isn't out. We'll need to drive a few more stakes through his heart.
Not that I'm particularly happy with the alternatives.
Something tells me if we ran 'None of the Above' for President, we'd win in a landslide.
"Did the tax cuts help families making less than $50 K a year?"
Yes, in the short term. No, because our beloved Dear Leader neglected to demand spending cuts and threw money away like Ted Kennedy at a cash bar.
"Did the prescription drug benefit?"
Absolutely friggin' not. It saddled the nation with billions of dollars of obligations at a time when we're already saddled with trillions of dollars of looming debt and a stark choice coming between massive tax hikes, inflation, or bankruptcy.
"Does not getting attacked since 9/11 benefit only the middle and upper classes?"
You're assuming a cause here without any concrete proof beyond the word of an administration that has a less than stellar track record when it comes to the truth or openness. |
|
Huck supporters, tell us how Huck's populism would be acted upon. I'd really like to know. How does it translate into legislation?
We are not children, folks. Do we need a man to feel our pain, again? Or a man who will give us every gift that Hillary puts under the tree?
The colossal ignorance on TH about economic prosperity and what drives it is simply stunning. |
|
Huckabee and Rollins have abused everyone except the Evangelicals in the Big Republican Tent.
The questions is "Will the Fiscal conservatives and Foreign Policy Republicans want to get anywhere near Rev. Huckabee's Revival Tent?"
Hint: 87% of non-Evangelicals voted against Huckabee. -Source Huckabee apologist Michael Medved.
Hint:
Romney led among non-evangelical voters by 2-to-1 or more. - Source AP Report.
|
|
|
NYTimesian brain seep has set in for their token Conservative. Kind of cute & predictable. |
|
I don't know what the folks in Iowa saw besides the preacher in Huckabee, but where I sit in Ohio I see a rube playing class warfare and the Bible card.
Elect me, somebody you might work with, not the guy that laid you off? On what planet does that make sense? Sure, don't vote for that big, bad capitalist that makes jobs that pay taxes; elect me, the guy that will sit at the bar with you and talk about how he got screwed out of his seniority.
Yuk, yuk, yuk... Laugh it up, Huck fans; but in its own way, this was Huckabee's "Dean Scream" moment. He'll never see better than 3rd again. |
|
My wife and I were talking about the Huckster and what it is about him that we don't like. I couldn't really pin anything specific to that real, human level dislike at first (other than his aweful governing record, open boarder policies and use of religion as a political weapon - which is in direct opposition of the Constitution).
Then it dawned on me. He is the Republican version of Bill Clinton. Seriously. He is the same kind of snake-oil salesman. Same kind of back-handedness. Same attack dog mantality. Heck, even the same state and Governorship. Throw in some trailor trash (heaven forbid)and he'd be a spittin' image of wild Bill.
Anyway, I hope you folks take care with your Huckster fun. People like me and my wife will be staying home if he is the nominee. I won't be voting for another Bill. I don't care what label you give him, a Bill is a Bill... Twisted.. |
|
|
last night, britney spears went crazy and was taken away in am ambulance. the ambulance drivers' next stop should be at hugh's house. |
|
Everyone remember this line from Hugh a few weeks ago....
"Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst".
So taking his own advice, I'm not going to trust Hugh as an analyst anymore.
Hugh, with your contrary track record picking candidates, will you please go ahead and write a book now about a "Black In The Whitehouse" so we Republicans will have a fighting chance of winning later this November.
|
|
|
I have news for you, my man. Reagan couldn't stand up to today's revisionist history image of Reagan. He was a great POTUS, for sure...but he wasn't perfect. He raised taxes in California when he was governor. He signed a no-strings-attached blanket amnesty as POTUS. He left a huge deficit. If you are looking for the perfect Ronald Reagan...it wasn't even him. So to try looking for the next one is futile. What you need to find is the person who brings what Reagan brought to the table. He brought the social conservatives, middle class suburbanites, blue collar workers and religious folks into the Republican Party. It was their numbers and votes that fueled the GOP rise. You need a communicator who can inspire voters...not scare them. You need someone with vision and who isn't afraid to buck the establishment. You need someone who can connect with the average American. Mike Huckabee might not be perfect, just as Reagan wasn't...but like Reagain did, Huckabee can go the distance. Just as Reagan had to run against the GOP establishment candidate -- G.H.W. Bush -- Huckabee has to run against Romney. Reagan had the people and the votes on his side. Bush #1 had the money and the the GOP power-brokers on his side. The rest is history. |
|
|
he's a talking head. Nothing more, nothing less. A lawyer who doesn't practice, just spouts his opinions on the radio. No substance there and certainly no objectivity! |
|
"...Why his record was left largely unexamined? "..
what? what? What about Dumond, about his statements as a pastor, about his clemency details, etc. etc. How about all the links you posted from LA Times to NYT to Politico over the past week..
So, lets get this straight, LOSER Hugh - the MSM is faulty for focusing on Romney's statements as a governor (Abortion, bush tax cuts, etc) and instead should should have focused on his current positions; but the MSM is then at fault for not looking at Huck's prior positions hard enough when clearly they did...
Explain that LOSER Hugh..looks like you want have to the cake and eat it.
Huck has a line for you and Romney(might sound familiar) - I WIN; YOU LOSE |
|
"The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign"
Ah yes, the good old days of when Democrats were writing about George Bush.
The chickens are coming home to roost. Bush's foreign policy knowledge is still on par with Huckabee's. Bush is still amateurish. In fact, let's take a national poll of who is more amateurish, Bush or Huckabee.
See that's the problem when you lower the standards so low and then call them something else. Dick Cheney is on record as calling Bush "a genius."
In this crazy world of modern U.S. politics, up is down and black is white.
When Bush beat Kerry the media fawned it was because, "Bush was more approachable and was the kind of guy you'd like to sit down and have a beer with."
Well, well, well. Meet Mike Huckabee. The right wing media has been propping up an intellectually challenged President for years in favor of a "beer guy" and now the chickens have come home to roost.
No surprise here.
How ironic it is that right wing media's attacks on Huckabee these days sound exactly like the liberal media's attacks on Bush back when Bush was running for office.
|
|
|
Hugh, you just don't get it. Mitt Romney is the same product only with sexier packaging. The problem is that people are tired of the product. It has been an assembly line of wealthy, privileged, pre-selected nominees with no significant change in decades. The middle class still gets hammered with taxes. Social Security dollars are still being deducted from our paychecks with little to no chance of us ever seeing a dime of the money we earned...Clinton and Bush2 each had 2-terms to do something...16-years...nothing, nada, zip...still no fix in sight. We have spent hundreds of billions to fight our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which I support) and yet we can't spend 15-billion to build a fence to protect the homeland??? We have the technology to become energy independent of the terrorist oil nations and yet we have done nothing since the oil embargo years of Carter to take even a single step towards weaning ourselves of mideast oil! That's 31-years of idling. Mitt Romney would be the same kind of President. He would be plugged right in to replace Bush and NOTHING would change. Status Quo preserved for another 4 to 8-years...result? The wealthy, big oil and backroom power mogels all happy for another season...while middle class Americans try to make ends meet as gas approaches 4, 5, 6-dollars a barrel and the dollar loses another 50% of its value against other currencies. Inflation ticks up and everything costs more. The rich can afford it...while everyone else suffers...but that's okay isn't it, Hugh? It's just the way things are done. |
|
The Huckster is a two-fer.
With him we get the slick, lying, I feel your pain Bill, combined with the Hildebeast and her not so cleverly disguised socialist gifts under the tree, which we will have to pay for ourselves!
Yes, we get the two of them all wrapped up into one affable, funny, sleazy, religion-baiting Huckster.
What a deal! |
|
McCain wins in NH, Romney wins in MI, Who cares who wins in Nevada. All the while Huckabee does no worse than third. Huckabee wins in SC and goes on to win in Florida. Yes, WIN in Florida. By that time he's got twice as many delegates as his next closest rival. By then maybe, just maybe, the establishment GOP elitists will realize that he could win and stop treating him like Goober.
The establishment GOP elites are split among Romney, McCain, Giuliani and even Thompson. Poor old Huckabee. All he's got is the PEOPLE. |
|
|
|
Romney
Giuliani
Rush
Can he withstand 5 days of being painted with the RINO brush? Consider that he will NOT have all the Independents to bail him out this time (they'll be voting Obama).
Nope, McCain is done. Romney wins NH in a walk. |
|
You're assuming that any other candidate wouldn't be as bad or worse with the goodies they lavish on their special interests.
Aside from Paul, who is a lot less likely to pull out a win now, I don't share your optimism.
All of them would lavish more money on defense spending (despite currently outspending the rest of the world combined) without demanding reform or reassessment of the way the current billions are being spent.
Romney, at least, has a track record of messing around with expensive government health care schemes.
McCain is a so-called moderate who would let the government continue to grow as long as it was bi-partisan and he could share the blame.
Huckabee is Huckabee. I'd expect more social gospel programs.
Guiliani might actually get a few mild reforms, but his foreign policy stances, by necessity, would demand more money for new campaigns in the Middle East.
As I said, None of the Above is looking pretty darn good right now.
|
|
|
many of the Huckabee bashers are shallow people who are hung up on the superficial. All the comments of goober, crooked teeth, unattractive family, etc...speaks volumes about your own values. |
|
I actually don't see anyone in our pack that can beat Obama. My biggest concern last night was Obama beating Hillary. We can beat her; NOT him.
What we don't understand is the tectonic shift in demographics. WWII Gen is not a voting force for the 1st time in this election. And the Boomers (like me) are yesterday. WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE. When Obama wins, I will pull my car off to the side of the road and weep for joy - because I'm a white guy who grew up in the deep South (and still live in the new South); and it's time. And I will be glad because Obama is a truly nice guy with a nice family, and a man of character.
Then I will weep for the GWOT, and our economy, and the right to life, and our healthcare, and the environment, and energy, and food, and... who is John Galt, anyway? |
|
Brian and others:
Please stop the talk about Huckabee being in direct opposition of the Constitution when discussing his faith. People who do so only show their ignorance of the Constitution.
The Constitution states that the Government shall have no religious test for office. It is not against the Constitution or freedom of speech to discuss your religious beliefs when running for office. If the voters don’t want a candidate because of their religious beliefs fine, but let’s not start trying to limit free speech.
I can only assume that Huckabee’s statements of his faith are effective with some voters and you want to limit his freedom of speech or you are ignorant of the Constitution.
If want to attack Huckabee’s faith or positions fine, but what he is doing has nothing to do with the Constitution. If it did Romney would be guilty as well for discussing his Mormon faith.
|
|
|
"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my kindergarten teacher," - Barak Obama |
|
The sound of Republican talking heads exploding.
This is certifiably hilarious. A guy wins a primary. What are his characteristics? He is a likable fellow with an appealing personality. He appeals to the religious right. He has little or no foreign policy experience or awareness. And after Ronald regan and George Bush, these have suddenly become bad characteristics?
You guys are too much.
|
|
The Huckster/McCain busline is selling premo tickets to the ride of your life. It will be exhilarating in a terrifying sort of way, but the only price you will be required to pay is the checking of your conservatism at the curb.
Before you have a chance to change your mind and hop off, you will find yourself blissfully flying right over a cliff.
Somehow, I don't think very many real conservatives are going to buy that ticket. |
|
If, by some freak combination of events, Mike Huckabee manages to gain the Republican nomination, he will not have my vote.
I'm a conservative. I have been a Republican because the Republican Party has been the vehicle for conservatism since at least the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. (And, although I was very young then, I've been a committed member of the conservative movement since those days. My much older brother took me into the polling booth with him, and permitted me to mark the ballot for Senator Goldwater. My parents voted for Lyndon Johnson.)
If the Republican Party is commandeered by Mr. Huckabee's brand of populism, I will leave the Republican Party.
And my departure will be made easier by the fact that I regard Mr. Huckabee not only as an exponent of a populism that rejects my conservative principles but as a cunning practitioner of a divisive religious tribalism that excludes my Mormon faith -- and does so not very subtly. |
|
|
JG wondered when Hugh would be writing the new book, "A Baptist in The White House?" |
|
"It's a two man race!" yet none of the two men that Hugh has raised as the standard bearers showed up to be first place.
I think Huck is a shame too, but the idea that he wants to get rid of the IRS is extremely appealing (whether he could do it is a different story).
Mitt can't connect with the people. All the money he spent in Iowa does nothing for him, and it's just going to get worse.
Mccain screwed himself when he bashed Evangelicals years ago.
Fred is the guy that can beat Huck. I'm putting my Money...and my support behind Freddy T. |
|
|
Nominate Hucksterbee, the Dem's and the MSM will beat him like a drum in the general election, and you can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye. Hope you enjoy the big shift to the left in the court because that is what you are going to get. Abortion on demand, payed for by your taxes.Human cloning. Under God out of the pledge. I could go on and on. The values agenda will be dead. |
|
|
|
It's true that Ronald Reagan was not the candidate of the Republican establishment back in 1976 and 1980.
But that supposed parallel to Mike Huckabee shouldn't be pushed too far.
Ronald Reagan WAS the candidate of National Review and movement conservatives. (I know. I've subscribed to National Review since I was twelve. I was a Goldwater supporter when I was still in elementary school.) And Ronald Reagan's presidency transformed the Republican establishment.
Mike Huckabee is NOT the candidate of National Review and movement conservatives. They have denounced him across the board. They -- we -- are horrified by his rise. Not because we "fear the people." Because he isn't a conservative.
For the first time in my life since the Goldwater revolution, I'm seriously contemplating the possibility that conservatism may have to find a home outside the Republican Party. But WHERE would THAT be? Huckabee's ascension is potentially catastrophic for the conservative movement. |
|
Hugh, GET OVER IT!!
Us bible thumpin' ignorant hayseeds know a conservative when we see one. No matter how much you try to gussy up Mitt Romney, he still looks like a pig with lipstick smeared on it. Everybody knows you don't sleep with the hogs-unless you are one of them there sissy boys from the beltway.
Anyway, we ain't a buyin' what you be a sellin'. |
|
When you are interviewing people across the spectrum, when you are analyzing issues as Hugh, is the best bar none.
But your work on behalf of Romney demeans the rest of what you do and hurts your credibility.
The distinction between the rest of your work and your work for Mitt is plain to anyone who listens to you - especially your friends and fans.
Romney is, at some deep level, not connecting with voters in a good way. I like him. I could even vote for him. But it is clearly not going to happen.
You are only hurting yourself by being in denial about how much you are an obvious partisan in this.
|
|
Is it just me or is Huchabee a Gomer Pyle look alike. I keep seeing him open his mouthe and saying "Shisaam"
He will not be the Republican nominee. |
|
If any other group (blacks, jews, etc.)had been dissed this way there would be he** to pay this morning.
The MSM is attributing Huck's victory on his fresh face, his populism, and that he is some kind of a "change" agent. That's B A L O N E Y.
They are virtually ignoring the truth that he ran a divisive campaign designed to exploit anti-Mormon sentiment. And it worked. 2/3 of Huck voters admitted that an important factor for them was their desire for their candidate to be of the same religion. (i.e. NOT LDS.)
I don't much appreciate Huck, his voters, or the willingness of the pundits to ignore the truth about this travesty.
I'll actually vote for Obama/Hillary rather than go along with a religion-baiter who seeks to disenfrancise the most reliably conservative group of voters in the country.
If this is the direction of the GOP, I'm outta here.
|
|
|
JG wondered when Hugh would be writing the new book, "A Baptist in The White House?" |
|
|
|
The real story is that twice as many Democrats turned out as Republicans.
If that trend continues it is not only the Presidency that the Republicans can kiss goodbye in 2008.
The right wing media needs to start ramping up on the other important races or just concede total defeat in 2008.
|
|
|
I agree that there is some anti-Mormon sentiment, and I deplore that. But do not for a second think Mitt lost by 9 points due to that alone. Mitt lost because guys like Hugh tranformed him from a pragmatic moderate into FrankenMitt the Conservative Juggernaut, and conservatives were not buying it. |
|
"The values agenda will be dead."
Maybe it should die.
Maybe the fight shouldn't be to impose a values agenda through the Federal State, but to fight for Federalism and fight to dismantle Federal authority so we have the freedom and liberty to live and convince others of our values in a grassroots way.
|
|
|
Too bad it's already been posted ad nauseum by others before you. |
|
|
is Hugh and Rush...more than Romney is. |
|
|
Gomer Pyle was an honorable character who would have never stooped to the shabby behavior of the Huckster! |
|
Not this year. As Obama says, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. You can also have the right political philosophy and the wrong philosophy, witness Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neocons.
I believe that enough Americans have seen enough to understand this,so that they are looking for the "right ideas" rather than any experience running an investment firm or running NYC. |
|
I am not sure why some are so certain that Mr. Huckabee can't win. We'll see after a few weeks what the people have to say about it.
Our Congress (either side of the aisle) has failed to do anything about energy independence, health care reform, tax reform, etc. Why would any thinking person attribute leadership experience to anyone whose only credential is membership in a do nothing organization like the Congress??? |
|
|
The big national and world story is Obama as a change from the staus quo. Huckabee winning in Iowa as a break from the status quo is a blessing. Huckabee's win has the GOP results spun right into the Obama story and Huckabee and the GOP can draft behind this Obama-mania and look like they are also ready for a fresh approach to politics. If Romney won Iowa, it wouldn't have even registered on the radar. It would've been swept away in the Obama tide. Now the GOP is part of the "change" story...thanks to Huckabee. |
|
|
Come on, guys. Huck is the perfect Republican candidate. Dead solid perfect - a compassionate conservative with no foreign policy experience who thinks that Jesus wants him to be president. It's like President Bush getting another term. Thank you, Lord! You've proven again that you are a Real American! |
|
Gee Hugh, thanks for telling us what the Republican elites really think about rural America. God forbid they should reject your choice as Republican standard-bearer. I think we'll put that on a bumper sticker come general election time.
Oh ana btw Huckabee got plenty of tough coverage. He just handled it well. Last night for example Keith Olbermann asked him a very tough question about how well his evangelism would play with the non-religious. He gave a great answer, basically that good will and honest belief are what voters want, citing his respect for Pete Stark's athiesm(!) as an example of such honest belief. He totally disarmed Olbermann, and did it without insulting him. |
|
The challenge for McCain will be not to remind conservatives why they have so often found him so irritating. In 2000, it was not only his positions on issues that drove them away from him, but his self-righteousness when criticized. He has been starting to show the same trait, and relying too much, as he did back then, on the support of the media. McCain can win the nomination, but not if he throws it away—as he did in 2000, and almost did last year.
Conservatives are giving McCain a second look, and seeing a largely conservative record. Romney needs to make sure that they also continue to see his flaws, especially in New Hampshire. Criticizing McCain on taxes and immigration, as Romney has done, makes sense. But Romney’s critique of McCain on immigration has veered between sloganeering about amnesty and nitpicking about the details. His critique of McCain on taxes has been backward-looking, reprising the debates of 2001 and 2003. He needs to explain what he would do differently from McCain in both areas as president, and how it would affect ordinary voters.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGJjNDRmZjgyMjAxNDJjND g1OTQ0NzE2OTI3MThmNDc=
Listen to Medved Hugh, listen to Medved! |
|
Hugh,
As many have observed here, your over-the-top partisan shilling for Romney has genuinely undermined your credibility. Although I disagree nearly 100% with your views, I enjoy your radio interviews, particularly with people with opposing views. Face it, your party is now rudderless, thanks to the policies and actions of Rove and Bush.
|
|
He had virtually nothing to do with Romney's losing Iowa. He just doesn't have that much influence.
It's obvious that Huck's religion-baiting worked. Look at the polls - the evangelicals who voted for him overwhelmingly said religion was an important factor.
I.E. EVANGELICALS HATE MORMONISM.
Perhaps you are not completely educated about the degree to which some evangelicals go, to try to destroy the LDS church. It's an on going major effort for them. (BTW -it's a one-sided. The LDS church does not reciprocate.)
Really Joe. Why else would an otherwise very conserative group of people vote for the most liberal, ethically challenged, and issues ignorant candidate who released 1000 criminals?
There is no other explanation. Ir Romney were evangelical, he would have creamed Huck last night. |
|
|
There are only 2 Republicans that can't win in November - Huckabee and Paul. OK, Huck's had his 15 minutes of fame, and Paul was proven to be a pretender. Now let's get back to defeating the Democrat, whoever it is. |
|
If the MSM has gone easier on Huckabee it's because:
1.) the GOP elite are doing a fine job of smearing him themselves or
2.) they have the same arrogant mentality to believe he'll be easier to beat than Romney or Giuliani IOW they're just as out of touch with the rest of mainstream of America as conservatives have been saying.
What many of you are failing to see is that Huck is leading not just in IOWA among evangelicals, but across the nation with ordinary rank and file conservatives, even (gasp) women, minorities and independents. What we have here is a conservative that actually has the ability to get things done. His ability to speak to and inspire ordinary people will broaden and expand the conservative base. Can any of you conservatives see the potential here to really score a huge victory for the conservative movement over the creeping cultural advance of the left? United we Republicans can stand firmly against the left, but divided we fall right into their hands, or at the very least we continue sliding helplessly towards socialism and tyrrany.
It's time to pour a big strong coffee and breath it in, once your up to speed and come to your senses you'll see Gov Huckabee is a consistent conservative candidate and experienced leader that all Americans can get behind and support enthusiastically.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com |
|
|
It's too late to save the Reagan coalition, Hugh. George Bush already dismantled it. And you helped. |
|
The spin by the media is that just grass roots Evangelicals and Home Schoolers got out the vote for Huckabee. However, this is just spin. FairTax.org has a huge grass roots movement that came out in force for Huckabee. If you want an ultra conservative tax policy that takes power back from the government and gives it to the people take time to really read what the FairTax is all about at http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Huckabee will do much better in NH then expected. The FairTax support is strong there. And in SC they have an army of supporters who will get out the vote for Huckabee.
Get used to crying over spilled milk Hugh, your beloved Romney is going to tank to Huckabee based on the issues and the supporters of the FairTax and true government reform who will come out in force to support him. Romney is up against multiple grass roots movements and all his money can't buy that kind of support.
|
|
Do some research on Huckabee. This guy is a mind bending charlatan.
Huckabee has used religion to promote his political ambitions. He has preached political sermons, collected moneys for giving non-profit speeches, made anti-Mormon jabs at Romney, claimed God performed a miracle for his campaign, etc...
The only thing more comical than his latest shananigan are the people, including the media, who bought into it and ate it all up. It reads like a bad sitcom script... I was going to release a negative ad, but had a change of heart, but if you want to see it I'll show it to you. It must have been another act of God that made it available to the press to play nationally. Oops, I forgot to pull it off of a couple of television stations in large metropolitan Iowa markets... my bad!
Let's not forget to mention that the Huckster was indicted and found guilty of corruption in office as the Governor of Arkansas, stold $ 70,000 in furniture from the Arkansas Governors Mansion, was listed as one of the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2007 by Judicial Watch, scored an "F" for his tax and spend mentality as Governor of Arkansas by the Cato Institute, etc...
This guy is no better than the other crook that was born in Hope, Arkansas... what was his name... oh yeah, Bill Clinton.
If want to follow this guy as your Pastor in Chief let me give you a SOUND word of warning... DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!! |
|
I knew there would be some Mormons on here crying persecution and bigotry as the only reason their guy lost.
And now they claim they will take their ball home and pout in November - so that the ACLU approved, baby-killer candidate (that will be the Democrat) can win. Tells you something about stewardship of the vote in LDS circles, not to mention the commitment to the pro-life, pro-family cause.
Never mind the fact that apparently 33% of the Huck supporters could care less about religious agreement. Never mind the fact that a whole lot of those evangelicals probably have major issues against Southern Baptists
Never mind the fact that if you watched the focus groups, many of the undecideds fled Romney when he went on the attack against Huckabee.
But I know, I know..Hugh assured us that those weren't attack ads.
Just seems those pesky voters didn't see it that way.
Comfort yourself in your persecution complex though..Scream loud and often
You will be doing wonders for the next Mormon candidate..who might actually be a conservative with some solid core principles that evangelicals (like me) would be more than happy to support.
And in full disclosure - whether you guys choose to believe it or not - I would without hesitation vote for Romney over Huck in only a 2-man race. I am not a Huck supporter.
But I do not support Romney now because of WHO HE IS - not his Mormon faith. I am not alone. Deal with it.
And I will be there in November voting to defeat the baby-killing Democrat, whoever the GOP nominee happens to be. Sorry you can't say the same. |
|
PC and Others:
Speaking for myself as an evangelical Christian and many others I know, we do not hate Mormons and we are tired of being characterized as stupid bigots by Romney supporters. Most of the Mormons I know have the same feelings about social issues as I do.
Actually Mitt loves to have the anti Mormon message promoted because it takes attention away from the real reason for his loss which is his multiple positions on issues. He is just not sincere.
This is why Mitt and his crew continue to beat this drum as an excuse for why they lost. They hope people don't find out the real reasons.
At this late date stop winning about Mormon attacks that aren't happening and get on with your Campaign.
When you lose in NH is it going to be because all those evangelical Christians voted for John McCain against a Mormon.
Look at the CNN polling data (Thanks to Joe Carter)
Let's look at CNN's entrance polls to see what type of people are drawn to Huckabee:
* In Vote by Ideology he took both "Very Conservative" and "Somewhat Conservative" while McCain and Romney split the "Moderate" vote.
* On the four top issues listed (illegal immigration, war in Iraq, economy, and terrorism) he had the top percentage.
* Took 40% of the female vote--more than Giuliani, Hunter, McCain, Paul, and Thompson combined (34%)
* Took the top percentage in every category on the "Events in Pakistan"
* Took the top percentage in "Feelings About Bush Administration" in every category except "Angry" (which Paul took, naturally).
* Took the top percentage in every category "Vote by Income" except "$100,000 or More" (which Romney took, naturally).
* Took the top percentage in every region of Iowa
* Took the top percentage in every age category. |
|
|
The truth is, conservatism has been killed by those who can't define it except in economic terms: Hugh, Rush, U.S. Senate, etc. It is appalling to hear how you denigrate Huckabee as being a liberal; yet, you insist that Giuliani and Romney are legitimate conservative candidates. We're all supposed to believe Romney today because Hugh says so. We're supposed to believe that Romney is the true conservative standard bearer, even though he has instituted state funded abortions, gay marriage, and gun control measures. Come on, we're not the bigoted dufus-butts you assume we are. We like Mike because Mike seems to understand conservatism better than our conservative leaders, and he hasn't gotten a fair shake from any of you (except Medved). Romney is not electable. He is a worse fake than John Kerry ever thought of being. I'm just waiting on him to announce that he invented the internet. Maybe that'll help vault him back to the top. |
|
The Fair Tax proposition is a joke. What will happen is that you will have to pay taxes on everything you purchase in the form of a 20+% federal sales tax. You will lose all of your income tax deductions... all of them!
How will they differentiate between the high income and low income purchasers for the low income tax breaks? Just what I want... more governmental records regarding my personal life available to everyone that I make a purchase from.
Anyone who understands cause and effect should know how to deal with taxes... cut government spending. It is really that simple. Pass legislation that forbids the government from spending more than they take in. You and I have to do it... why not the government. |
|
You are way off base Bruce.
Mitt created and held his speech on religion because the Huckster painted him into a corner using dirty tricks. He IS the Republican version Bill Clinton.
Religion should play no part in our voting for the POTUS. The continuation clearly states that religion tests will have no baring on elections, yet the Huckster forced one on Mitt. It should never come up. Ever. The Hucksters victory and the voter breakdown prove what the left has been saying all along:
The bible-belt zealots are political Neanderthals. I'm embarrassed for my former party.
Hey, I'm all for Joe Smoe winning and becoming POTUS. Lets break the corrupt cycle. But if Joe is going to win the nomination, he better at minimum represent social and fiscal republican values. The Huckster does neither. You might as well nominate Ron Paul at this point.
I pray the Huckster will go no further. There have got to be smarter republicans out there somewhere.
|
|
|
What is with all this Huckabee-or-McCain-or-Romney talk, not just here, but all over the place? Hello, Thompson came in third!! So people think he's low-key and has less "fire in the belly" -- big whoop. He's still a more solid conservative than McCain, and isn't that what we say we want? |
|
.."yet, you insist that Giuliani and Romney are legitimate conservative candidates"
Who in the world said that? I left the republican party but I have no idea what they are any more. I know I'm conservative. So I choose none of the above. This is yet another year were conservatives are stuck voting for the lesser of the lessers.
If its Huck, I'll sit home. I won't vote for another Clinton-type weesle. |
|
|
|
|
Fred's biggest problem is he wants to sit on his couch and hope he can win the nomination. If he's not fired up at the prospect of a Fred Thompson presidency...why should anyone else be? |
|
. . . these past couple weeks? I don't think so.
I get that he got in late and that he hasn't had a whole lot of momentum and that he shouldn't have waited so long before campaigning in Iowa. But are we choosing our candidates based on their principles and policies or their campaign strategy? People who really look at the guy recognize that his conservative credentials are good. That's what matters. |
|
|
I like Fred, but he is barely serious in his run for the nomination. That's just not going to cut it with voters who are looking for a candidate who is ready and willing to roll up their sleeves and get things done. It's not the voters fault that Fred isn't catching fire. It's Fred's fault. He had all the media attention and all the talking heads behind him and waiting for him to make a big splash. Instead, Fred comes in and putzes around for a couple of months cracking jokes that it really doesn't matter to him if he wins or loses...and now expects to be taken seriously? God bless him, but it's not working. After he gets drilled by Huckabee in SC, Fred will be able to go take the long nap he seems to be craving...and needing. |
|
Than 8 of Huckster. Why?
Because if the GOP nominates a liberal, and a corrupt one at that, our party is dead, over, finished. And the evangelicals would be the ones who killed it. Nice job, Iowa!
I'd rather take my chances with the dems and allow some time to educate the foolish dupes in our party who haven't got clue one about what conservativism means and need some serious learnin'.
It's pretty funny that Rush revealed who Huck's main voters were yesterday. Rural, home-schooling moms. Way to go!
(Maybe home-schooling is more dangerous than anyone ever believed.) |
|
|
It's not just campaign strategy. It's about leadership, and Fred doesn't seem to have any. If he did, we wouldn't be looking at the disaster of yesterday. |
|
"Why his record was left largely unexamined?"
Because the Romney camp did a good enough job of that for them. |
|
"Who in the world said that? I left the republican party but I have no idea what they are any more. I know I'm conservative. So I choose none of the above."
Um yeah, you have a friend in Ron Paul. |
|
|
You know the Conservative movement has stalled when people start calling huckabee a true conservative. If Huckabee or McCain win the nomination the conservative movement will not be dead just on vacation for a decade or so. |
|
|
... pulling a Dean scream after the Michigan primaries. It's pretty entertaining to watch. |
|
was spinning the Hucka-win just like you are, PC. Rush didn't mention that Huckabee won Iowa's largest, most urban and least evangelical county (Polk County), by even a larger margin than he did overall. Nice try Rush and PC. You are both hopelessly out of touch.
The only conservatism that interests Rush and the elites is the conservatism that keeps them wealthy. They are willing to compromise on everything else...including all of the social conservative issues...in the name of the almighty dollar. |
|
"I like Fred, but he is barely serious"
"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone capable of getting themselves made President should by no means be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem." |
|
I'll take getting lumped in with Rush any day of the week!
But your other stuff was just plain nonsense. Rush is a voice for ALL conservative causes. You would know that if you listened.
You seem to have a class-envy problem. |
|
Did it ever occur to you that the rural, home-schooling moms were sick of having Giuliani shoved down their throats for months with the message, "Shut about the social issues, this is the RINO we need to get the nomination?"
What we saw was a backlash that's been building for a long time. I disagree with Rod Dreher about a lot of things, but he nailed this one:
"It's funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn't see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented, even though as Ross points out, Giuliani hasn't exactly been deep on policy (I had to research Giuliani for our Dallas Morning News editorial board debate on which candidate to endorse, and I was genuinely startled by how vague he was on many things). I think it's fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.
"But lo, it turns out that the candidate who's caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It's not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years?"
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/12/why-does-the-g op-establishment.html
If you want to see more Huckabee, just keep pushing social liberals and/or flip-floppers at the grassroots and watch what happens. |
|
|
I understand what you mean, but you might as well have that conversation with H.L. Mencken's ghost. |
|
Brian:
Just in case you missed it
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths Section 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This states that no law can be written by the US Government that imposes a Religious test for office and was in response to the Church of England.
A candidate speaking about his beliefs is not imposing them on someone through the force of law or Government. It is simply free speech. You may not like it but it is not against the Constitution.
Huckabee is not imposing a Religious test by discussing faith during a campaign. If he were promoting that a law be passed that only Baptist could hold office this would be against the Constitution and probably not supported by many, myself included.
Being against something in the constitution may be stupid but it is not illegal as long as you are only debating ideas.
This is beauty of our system and is why we have the 1st amendment which allows for the free exchange of ideas. Once to start to limit freedom of speech you limit your freedoms.
Please check out the first Amendement
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
|
brentwood writes: "Elect me, somebody you might work with, not the guy that laid you off? On what planet does that make sense? "
Since I'm one of those who got laid off, it does make sense to me.
Have YOU ever been laid off?
I discovered something the hard way: Capitalists lay off workers who are between 40 and 60 years old, so that they can replace them with newly hired young workers who can work for lower salaries. Those capitalists you refer to, have found it's much cheaper to keep hiring new young workers fresh out of college at low salaries.
And I'm sure that Romney would do the same thing. Any CEO would. It's simple economics. Older workers are expensive: They demand higher salaries. They have bigger mortgages. And as they get older, they pick up chronic illnesses that hurt their productivity and raise health insurance premiums. So just put them out to pasture. It's the capitalist way.
|
|
Not everyone was on board the Guiliani train. Why else did so many big name conservatives come out and endorsed Romney?
Keene - (American Conservative Union and next pres. of NRA.)
Robert Bork
National Review
Paul Weyrich
And more. Anyone who cares about the Reagan coaliton was pretty unhappy about a Guiliani nomination.
We are going to see a big effort to help Romney, now. More people are going to endorse him in hopes of heading off Huckabee and McCain.
Let's hope it works.
|
|
I do not know wy so many people sho claim to be conservative adopt the 'noble loser' stance so easily, as you have.
Winning is the only thing that counts.
Getting a candidate in who is closer to my side of the table is all I care about. I have no interest in Barak Hussein Obama or Billary giving us a 'lesson'. |
|
|
I'm actually doing quite well as the owner of a small business. I don't envy the wealthy, that's for sure...nor do I begrudge them their money. Nevertheless, I'm not at all happy with the direction the GOP power-brokers have taken the party and the country. When I look at Mitt, I see one of them. That doesn't mean Mitt is a bad guy. I think he's a good guy...but I also think he's hopelessly out of touch with Main Street U.S.A. So is Rush. He's insulated himself in his Palm Beach compound. The only thing he likely left his house for in the past several years is to score some Vicodin. Rush is a shadow of the great conservative voice he once was. He's now just a mouthpiece for the RNC and a hypocrite. He's certainly not someone I identify with, any longer. |
|
It is delusional for anyone to blame the New York Times, Tim Russert or the MSM for Huckabee's big win. The fact is, Iowa was Romney's to lose and he lost it -- big. He lost it because he is a weak candidate who chose an even weaker strategy.
Medved is right in this respect: What did Romney do to advance your holy GOP platform? The only difference between Romney and Fred Thompson is that Romney talks faster. Oh, and there's another difference: Thompson believes what he says, while it was transparently clear Mitt was using mainstream conservative rhetoric as a protective coloration.
John Ellis says, and he's right, that Romney could have been the candidate of change. His most compelling claim to fame is his turnaround of the winter Olympics. How'd he do that? What lessons would he apply to the federal government? But someone obviously talked Romney into the idea that he should run as the Next Reagan, and it just didn't take.
My guess is the ultimate beneficiary of all this upheaval will be Fred Thompson. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Thompson has no enemies. His campaign is modeled on your precious GOP platform; he has hardly varied from it in his career. He will probably lose to Obama, but he won't embarass the Republicans like Huckabee would, or divide them like Giuliani or McCain would.
O'Sullivan notwithstanding, if you want to stop Huckabee, Romney has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not the one to do it. |
|
I'm sorry for those who have been laid off, but not that much. My husband has had ups and downs in his career, and one huge business failure. We've been through times where we didn't know where our next meal would come from, and we lost our home. But we've never blamed anyone but ourselves, and never expected or taken government assistance. He struggled and overcame, and now has one of the best jobs of his life, making more money than ever.
I don't want whiners in my party. I want people to understand that the American Dream is available for anyone who wants to work hard and try to solve their own problems. |
|
Immigration is the threat within that is going to change everything.
In 10 years the hispanics will have cultural and political control. Instead of NJ apologizing for slavery you'll be seeing TX and AZ apologizing for stealing land from the mexicans.
We can see the indian tribes fighting for cessation today - what do you think the mexicans will try to do in 10 years?
You can change the laws on abortion, environment, trade etc. but once we lose the border we can never go back to being a sovereign country.
McCain is liberal on immigration. That is why we must oppose him. Defeat this blowhard in NH and send him packing.
Iowans voted for a preacher - america will vote for a president.
Go Mitt!
|
|
I give Hugh zero influence over Iowa caucus goers, but I know Hugh talked Mitt into converting into a Uber-conservative (from a pragmatic moderate fiscal conservative). As soon as Mitt decided to do that he was doomed as a candidate because his past came to haunt him. The flip flops, the YouTubes, etc, etc. Rather than focusing on Mitt's stregths, it became about his weaknesses. It is not about the LDS Church, it is ultimately about that.
Hewitt is kryptonite to Mitt. And that is why Mitt will probably not get the nomination and if he does why he can never win the general. David Brooks nailed it last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r =2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Michael Malking said it too, noting that Hugh Hewitt was strangely enough Mitt Romney's worst enemy: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/07/mitt-romneys-worst-en emy/ |
|
|
Notice how Hugh thinks we poor slobs of the heartland need the ruling class to think for us? He and Rush and the other caustic-cons (always negative) want to have the Master Morality for us all to fall in line with. Sorry, we loyal social conservatives read Kant and believe in categorical imperative. Hence we are for Huck, but what do we underlings know? Join the Reject Rush crowd and lets send his ratings lower than Romney's vote count in Iowa. |
|
Gina writes: "Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years?"
I'll tell you what it says: It says that social conservatives don't have the money to contribute to campaigns that the fiscal conservatives do.
Larry Kudlow can make a few phone calls to his Wall Street friends, and presto! Millions of dollars in campaign contributions for Kudlow's favorite candidates.
The fiscal conservatives can draw on Big Oil. Agribusiness. Big Pharma.
For their campaign contributions.
Without social conservatives, the GOP is still a party with a big war chest. But without fiscal conservatives, the GOP is flat broke.
|
|
|
Hugh, after the 2006 losses of Rep. in the Congress and in the Govenors races, the Republican Party is in shambles. I supported Bush I and II but today I am changing to an independent voter. The Rep. in Congress are for the most part , disgusting, covering up scandals, pork barrel spending, favoring CEO's and big business special interest, and not staying true to the values and principles conservatives believe. I am sick of you and all the media elites who think they know better the voters who is best to govern and lead this nation. Goodbye forever from my interest in Townhall or your program and blog. Sandra in East Texas |
|
David Brooks makes a poor case for McCain. In the process of assailing elements of the Republican Party, Brooks undermines his own candidate.
John McCain represents each of those elements. He courted Jerry Falwell; he sold Americans on the “easy, easy, easy” war in Iraq; and he bagged big dollars from lobbyists.
Independents have compiled the reminder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&eurl=http://ther ealmccain.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/1 2/30/AR2007123002848.html
Brooks misses the real case. Republicans governed poorly, and McCain is at the heart of that poor governance.
Illegal immigration is an excellent example. Over the holidays reports have shown that illegal are packing their bags—because of the economic down turn and because of the threat of law enforcement.
We need change. Not Democratic Leadership Council change.
I had a colleague toss the Tomasky’s book review at me. It was the argument of Frum and Heilbrunn.
It was déjà vu of Harriet Myers. Dump conservatives. Send a poor signal to those that have fought in the trenches on real and reasonable and solid arguments.
I will never forget the experience of professional degrees on the East Coast. As candidly as possible, the international students from South America hated the US and the liberals hated the US.
And now Frum wants to tell me that those fights for conservative principles are worthless. My answer is no. The greatest shift in capital since the 1870’s is underway and Frum wants to make the United States into France while the East and Asia become superpowers. Again no.
|
|
Listeners to talk radio have paid attention. If there was any message Hugh and Rush beat into our heads in 2004 was Beware of Mass Flip Floppers.
And we listened. And it was such a timeless lesson it still holds true in 2008!
Mitt ended up like Hillary, the more votes got to know him, the less the liked him, plus all those flips that flopped on youtube. Thanks, Hugh for informing us about the new media, Mitt might have been able to snooker us last cycle. |
|
|
By the way, Mitt came in second among Evangelical voters in Iowa; the bigotry card won't hunt any more. |
|
I doubt Hugh had much influence over Romney's overall strategy. I think Romney enjoys Hugh's support, but not much beyond that, and I would be very surprised if Romney considers him as an actual advisor. He would be crazy if he did, because we know he has an army of better qualified men helping him strategize.
I think on TH it tends to look like Hugh is a bigger part of the Romney team because he is such a big supporter, but it's just not that likely. |
|
... is conceding NH and Michigan already...
To all those bagging on Hugh, and his barely coherent, "it's all the media's fault" rant, remember this: It must be hard to be Hugh right now. Faced with twin blows to his ego ("How could I be so wrong about the Republican electorate?") and his wallet ("A Mormon in the White House" will soon be on that table OUTSIDE Borders, with all the other books they don't care if people walk off with...) Hugh is allowed to have an off day. Remember, this is a guy who was euphoric after "the Speech," ready to pick Romney as his God-emperor for life.
Let's give him some time to recover. Let him have a day or two.
And give him credit; at least he hasn't claimed it was all because of anti-Mormon bigotry. Yet.
|
|
|
Truehawk, My philosophy always told us that if Immanuel Kant, the Kubla Khan. |
|
That maybe people don't like Mitt. He tried to buy Iowa and Iowa said were not for sale. People aren't a thing to be bought or sold. Romney's strategy was say all the right things, and spend time and money in Iowa. Sure if you think of people as sheep that works. But Ronald Reagan won everyone.
1980
Popular vote 43,903,230 35,480,115
Percentage 50.7% 41.0%
1984
Popular vote 54,455,472 37,577,352
Percentage 58.8% 40.6%
I'm sorry but your narrow minded GOP is not the party of Ronald Reagan. The party of Ronald Reagan was made of Evangelicals, Neo cons, Dixiecrats, Libertarians, Goldwater Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, everyone. Ronald Reagan was a sincere man who inspired a nation, read the Reagan Diaries to find out how sincere he was. The man never told America I believe what you believe like Romney. Ronald Reagan said this is what I believe and I will make this country great again. People didn't vote for Ronald Reagan because he pandered, They voted for Ronald Reagan because made them proud to be American.
The Party of Mitt Romney is the party of George Bush.
2004
Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,111
Percentage 50.7% 48.3%
2006
Popular vote 35,657,353 42,255,280
Percentage 44.32% 52.52%
I tell you this, The party of Ronald Reagan Could get 70-80 million votes today. But Ronald Reagan is no longer with us. The party of George Bush is missing almost 30 million members. Mitt Romney cant even get those votes back.
Disagree all you want, but Iowa did not like Mitt. |
|
Can anyone translate Hugh's incoherent post? What in heaven's name is he talking about?
As far as I know there was a caucas conducted by fair rules, reslulting in a winner and some losers, that's how its supposed to work? So what' all this malarkey Hugh is spouting off about?
On the old HH show he was a model of lucid thinking and argument. Is it me, or has gone off the rails? |
|
Guess which candidates are real and which is fake:
Huck, McCain, Rudy: Real
Romney: Fake, fraud, flip-flopper, smear campaigner.
You know whats truely scary about romney, he attacks his opponents on issues on which he has a worse record. He thinks we are all dumb and everything he stood for before 2004 is forgotten.
This is unbelievable. |
|
How in the world can you say Romney is a conservative when he signed into law; which still stands today that any woman in Mass. can get an abortion for $50.00?
How can you be sure what type of judges he would appoint.
As for Rush, whom I listened to for 10 years, until his meltdown on Mike Huckabee; man am I disappointed. First Rush called the people who supported Mike a cult. Then he acted offened because Mike wouldn't call him before Christmas. Then Mike tried to contact Rush by e-mail over the Christmas holidays and Rush was too much of an eletest to respond because he doesn't want to talk to Mike, Rush is on a mission to ruin him. Now he's spending two to tree hours a day trying to destroy Mike Huckabee's campaign. But, last night Rush really pulled a cheap trick calling in to Fox News about midnight. He got Susan Estrige, Michael Ducacas's former campaign chairman to work together with him to tagteam Mike Huckabee by saying Democrats wanted a lowly Christian, Mike to run for President and loose so they could end a Christian ever running again in the United States for President. Think of it. A liberal siding with Rush to Bash a Christian. Man it's getting whacky out there.
Maybe both are afraid of Mike Huckabee!
|
|
Iowans proved to me last night that they will vote for the limelight and a bigot, before a qualified man like Mitt. sorry folk, you'all are huckalemmings, and your 'christian' values are nothing but a shield for what is truly wrong with the system.
Mitt will take it. Iowa is just a blip. I'm sure you remember President Pat Robertson? or, how about President Howard Dean?
If by some satanic chance the huckayuck gets the nom, this one will sit it out and laugh through the next 4 when Mitt then will sweep. |
|
|
So your point is that money = power and those of us with little money don't matter? I'm sorry, but theres more of us then you, and we will take back our party. Your not even the fiscal branch. Thats Ron Paul, Your the greedy Big business Pro NAFTA branch. I notice Ron Paul and Obama raised a TON, through regular people. So with out our votes The Evangelicals, the Anti War, the anti big business welfare, where are you? Mitt tried to buy votes and we see how useful that is. Face it your man lost because 75% of voters decided they didn't want to see Mitt Romney as president. If you want money get Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. We are a Republic We have Democratic Elections We are not an oligarchy. I'm sure you'd like it better in the middle ages kissing a lords boot, But NO man is any better then any other man because of his wealth. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes:
If by some satanic chance the huckayuck gets the nom, this one will sit it out and laugh through the next 4 when Mitt then will sweep.
Idiots like you should not be voting anyways.
|
|
|
Mitt should call a conference on Sunday, after church. THEN say he's got a negative ad. Show it then say he's 'chaged his mind'. THEN book Leno for Tuesday night. More free air time. Huckayuck is swarmey. He reminds me of that charcater on 24 - the president after the black one. I'm just waiting for Jean Smart to come on stage holding a drink. I know as a mormon, I'd like to be honding one, but will hold off. Mitt is up in nationals polls. Guess not everyone is a handclapping re-born lemming. |
|
Anyone elso noticed that JimM is a little truth-challenged?
he knows the $50 abortion law in Mass is court ordered and has absolutely nothing to do with Romney.
And I don't think he's listening to the same Rush show that I am. |
|
Did anyone hear Rush today? Man, did he sound depressed. I have been a listener for over 15 years and today he sounded like he was at a funeral. What have MItt and Rudy promised these talk-show hosts? None of the candidates is close to being a Ronald Reagan; we are being asked to blindly vote for Mitt or Rudy. Mitt is no closer to being a REagan clone than is Huck. In many ways, Huck is much more conservative than MItt or Rudy. So why all of the hand-rrining over Huck by these nervous nellies?
I hope Rush is not back on the pipe...
|
|
Google it PC and everyone else out there, you Google it too. Page after page; story after story. Romney could have done lots more, but he didn't.
Truth-challenged. The man that pushed this issue against Romney was Fred Thompson, you know the guy running for President. Is Fred Thompson truth-challenged, too. All of you Google it. Don't take this as truth from a Truth-challenged person like old JimM. It pays to be informed and Google is a great place for information. |
|
It seems that most of you are "born again" believers, evangelicals(60%, last night). Huckabee would have finished fourth without you. My comments are directed at you, and you only. Feb.12th,1989, i gave my heart to the Lord Jesus Christ, in an instant, my life changed. This still represents the most important moment of my life. If, i identify with any Presidential candidate, it would be Mike Huckabee. I understand that he was a Baptist Minister and i'm sure i would agree with 95% of his sermons. He seems engaging and i would have no problem seeking his counsel on matters concerning our precious savior. It is these sermons that i would now like to direct my comments. If Mr. Huckabee is successful in his quest for the Republican nomination these sermons will become the primary focus for the left. You must assume, that the DNC has all of them. 30 minutes after they see that he has secured the nomination, their production companies will begin producing one attack ad after another. They will parse ever sermon, they will take even the most benign remark, and they will portray him as homophobic, sexist, racist, and bigoted. David Duke will look tolerant after they get through with their mis-characterizations. Make no mistake, they hate him and us. Continued.......
|
|
That's the nature of politics, big fella'.
Huckabee has been through this in Arkansas already and his skin is thick enough to handle it. |
|
|
Mr. Hewitt, you aren't a little paranoid are you? |
|
We scare them and they consider us a much greater threat than the "Jihadist" who will, if given the chance, separate them, from their own heads. There is no chance that any of them would ever vote for one of us or him. As, Christians, we are taught, the "prince and the power of the air" is Satan. Simply put, he controls most of the airways(media). Cleverly, the left, now allows favorable press but this will change instantly, once he has the nomination. They will take this opportunity to once and for all defeat their "great Satan" the religious right. Look at their hatred for the President, based primarily because he is "born again". Don't let them deceive you, for we are also taught, "to be meek as doves, wise as serpents".
My objective is not to advance any particular candidate, but for you to consider the "craftiness" and the motive of the left. They are the enemy and they see a tremendous opportunity before them, the control of not only congress but the Presidency and Supreme court nominations. They will never be serious about National Security, therefore, this election is the most important of our lifetime's. We must understand and see our primary enemy, the left, because they clearly see us and they have a plan. One of their emissaries "laborlawyer" in his comment at 12:47pm is an example of their craftiness. You might read this and say, "gee, he may support our guy". Don't be fooled, the last thing in the world "laborlawyer" would ever do, is vote for a "born again" Christian. Theeeeeee.......very last thing. |
|
|
Remember when Talk Radio was about the fair exchange of ideas? Hosts generally piqued the interest of listeners with their insightful commentary--but never used to endorse a candidate so enthusiastically that they gave over the majority of their show for months to the singular purpose of parading their chosen man or woman. Now, Hugh Hewitt has all but destroyed his show for the sake of the Romney campaign and the sale of his book. Even Rush Limbaugh has seemingly prostituted his show to new heights all to promote his establishment-approved candidate. I wonder... Had Rush never reached his level of fame and fortune...had he still been a struggling radio talk show wantabe making probably 30K a year, in that scenario, who would Rush be supporting today? Having left the middle class long ago to join the elite of the elitist, Rush has forgotten what is like to work a normal job and try to make ends meet with so many taxes and the high cost of healthcare taking so much of the take-home--away. He now fancies himself a "king-maker" and he probably doesn't care if his show is barely listen-able anymore. He has his million$ in the bank, so having principles no longer works to his advantage one way or the another. You have to actually care about others for that to be the case. Rush only seems to care about himself these days. Talk Radio has become like one of those clever info-mercials that may fool you for a few seconds into thinking they are a real show...then you discover they are simply vehicles to promote a product. Rush, Hugh and a growing list of others have sold out their listeners...and surprise their audiences are starting to dwindle. Remember, Rush HAD 20-million listeners a few years ago...now estimated and 15-million and falling...hmmmmm. |
|
It seems like nothing anyone says about Mike Huckabee will be heard by you. If someone tells the truth about Mike working behind the scenes to release a rapist (Wayne DuMond)and the creation of a charitable organization that paid Mike to give speaches around Arkansas,you act like it's a lie and an attack on Mr. Huckabee's Christian faith. Isn't it possible that Mr. Huckabee is using the name of the Lord and Bible verses to deflect any reasonable and truthful questions about his ethics and public policies when he was governor of Arkansas?
I,for one, am sick of politicians using my faith in Jesus Christ to fool me into voting for them by naming the name of Christ (George W. Bush).
Never again will a politician get my vote by using Christian talk with phoney liberal rhetoric behind it. |
|
Blah, Blah, Blah ... vote for Mitt the Fraud else its the end of the world.
Yeah we get it. Integrity does not matter. Only Mitt can save america. How anyone can vote for this slimy fake looking used car salesman is beyond me.
|
|
|
Rush was never on a "pipe". Also, Tadpole, he has never faced anything close to what he will face from these lefties if he wins the nomination, little frog'. He won't know what hit him. "They loved me in the primaries", what happen? Ever sermon he ever gave, the DNC, now has. One must assume that and they will make him out to be David Duke on steroids. As a Christian, myself, i don't want this to happen but they will attempt to bury, forever, the religious right. You better wake up, the left is orgasmic, over this possibility. Each sermon, is a 30 sec. chance for them portray him as a bigot, homophob, sexist, racist, goodness knows what else they'll come up with. Thick skinned, he better wear body armour and move around in a tank. |
|
I caught some of Rush too, and yes, he was totally depressed. Time is passing him by, I fear.
We elected Reagan with two landslides before Rush and Hugh and all of talk radio came along.
After Rush came on the scene, we have had Rhino Bush 41, two terms of Clinton, and two terms of 'compassionate' conservatism. Draw your own conclusions.+ |
|
Iowans voted for a preacher - america will vote for a president.
Go Mitt!
|
|
I'm talking like ads like the above, where Romney comes across as Ray Kurzweil crossed with Joel Osteen. I'm talking about the way he sounded when he burst out with his famous "we ought to double Guantanamo" line - like an ad man proposing a brilliant new sales pitch, not a would-be President grappling with a difficult issue. I'm talking about how phony he seems when he puts on his most serious face and talks about the looming threat of an "international jihadist Caliphate." I'm not talking about his flip-flops, but the graceless way he flip-flops; as Ryan Lizza wrote, "he not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances," which makes all those (equally-passionate) old YouTube clips all the more damaging. And I'm talking about the way the off-message Mitt seems no better than the on-message Mitt: the former seems phony, but the latter ranges from tone-deaf to just plain weird.
I still think Mitt Romney might make a good President. But that's based on his resume and his record; based on the campaign he's run, I'm pulling hard against him. I've been hoping for a candidate to emerge from the Republican primary who's at once electable in November and interested in reforming the GOP; at the moment, Romney looks like loser on both counts. And by golly, he annoys the ever-living heck out of me.
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/my_mitt _romney_problem.php |
|
The establishment are dividing up to stop Huckabee. There is a McCain camp and a Romney camp.
Giuliani doesn't inspire a camp because everybody knows he is too flawed and can't stand the poltical microscope. Each time he gets sustained scrutiny his poll numbers go down. Also, until Feb. 5th Super Tuesday, the elite don't need his firewall, most elite think his strategy is too little, too late.
But McCain? David Brooks is having a sexual fantasy about Bob Dole -- he's delusional.
The "it's my turn" mentality won't work with a factured and distrustful rank-and-file.
That worked when the "little people" had trust in the leadership of the party -- they don't trust. |
|
Hard to believe that anyone who watches Huckabee can't see through his shananigans. One word for describing Huckabee... SHYSTER!
Hopefully the voters in New Hampshire will have more common sense than blind allegiance.
We really need to ask ourselves as conservatives the type of candidate we want to represent us.
McCain is a liberal republican.
McCain has been edorsed by a democrat and is getting strategic support against Romney by the liberal press. McCain has a history of siding with democrats on key issues... even co-authoring bills with them on liberal issues.
I find it strange that people are put off by how Mitt Romney "looks". Can you think of a more superficial reason to not like someone. It seems strange to hear people make a comment like that and not be embarassed by it. I have never experienced "not liking" a person on the basis of how they look. I don't understand how one can connect anything meaningful with the way a person looks.
Look objectively at the records and history of the candidates.
McCain has been in the senate for 16 years. Please name one meaningful accomplishment he has had in office. All you will find is a trail of failed bills, most of which are liberal in nature. McCain has lived on his "war hero" status.
McCain receives the majority of his funding from lobbyists... in other words, he is tied deeply into the Washington status quo. He is a "Beltway Boy".
Just facts... |
|
Hard to believe that anyone who watches Huckabee can't see through his shananigans. One word for describing Huckabee... SHYSTER!
Hopefully the voters in New Hampshire will have more common sense than blind allegiance.
We really need to ask ourselves as conservatives the type of candidate we want to represent us.
McCain is a liberal republican.
McCain has been edorsed by a democrat and is getting strategic support against Romney by the liberal press. McCain has a history of siding with democrats on key issues... even co-authoring bills with them on liberal issues.
I find it strange that people are put off by how Mitt Romney "looks". Can you think of a more superficial reason to not like someone. It seems strange to hear people make a comment like that and not be embarassed by it. I have never experienced "not liking" a person on the basis of how they look. I don't understand how one can connect anything meaningful with the way a person looks.
Look objectively at the records and history of the candidates.
McCain has been in the senate for 16 years. Please name one meaningful accomplishment he has had in office. All you will find is a trail of failed bills, most of which are liberal in nature. McCain has lived on his "war hero" status.
McCain receives the majority of his funding from lobbyists... in other words, he is tied deeply into the Washington status quo. He is a "Beltway Boy".
Just facts... |
|
Here's one...
Team Hewitt and Romney don't like the FairTax. Understandable. Elites paying taxes would be a new and frightening experience. Most rich and uber-rich don't show income on their tax returns due to tax hedges and offsets (I speak as a CPA who has prepared many 1040 returns).
Hewitt once stated on-air, "Hedge fund? What's that?" "I want one!" Maybe he sorta got one.
Any of this audience remember Hewitt's support of uber-rich Peter Coors in Colorado's senate race. Coors lost.
Anyone see a pattern here? |
|
Sorry Hugh...
I'm a regular guy and can't make your luxury cruise on Seven Seas Navigator (both inclusive and exclusive audience). I faithfully worked 35 years, raised three boys and helped them get to college. I'm pinching pennies in retirement.. I know, I know...I should have worked that third and fourth job. What a slacker I've been!
|
|
Mitt Romney is a looser, he cannot relate to the General Public.He has personality in his feet! He is in the top 1% of wage earners in America and just cannot get down there with the Average American! He will fall away just like Forbes. He is not the Next President! His history on conservative issues is sad! He has more flip flops than a Floridian wears in a lifetime!
|
|
As strange as it sounds..its almost a relief to have the old guard play their hand. We all know that they think what Hewitt espouses here (witness the 'conservative' hatefest on talk and in print media)Maybe we should all just call this battle what it is.
There is a coup happening. It's true! This is a battle for the soul of the party.
What I find so amazing, is the desperation with which they are tying to hold on to the old! They cry for the 'coalition' in which only the fiscal cons had any real power, yet fear a coalition that allows the values of social conservatism and inclusion to actually be an ACTIVE leg in the three legged stool.
Sorry Hugh, Social conservatives have woken up...and we're not going back to sleep. We don't reject fiscal conservatism or national defense...but you WILL learn to play nice, or you can take your power hugry selves and go.
How much power will you have if you don't have 'gullible' christians to get your puppets elected? This is why they fear the breakup of the coalition. They need our voter turnout for elections. The GOP was powerless in the wilderness until they wooed 'values voters' into the fold.
It's about time we get a piece of the pie. |
|
|
What "ideas" does Mitt have? What is his plan for Iraq? How is he going to save American jobs? How exactly is he going to cut wasteful spending? Other than decry the devolution of the culture, what has he done to address it? What is Mitt's plan to combat Jihad? "Double Gitmo!"? |
|
...if Romney or his surrogates had gone from Mormon meeting to Mormon meeting, campaigning for votes and donations?
Do Pastor Huck's politics matter?
Read on, please:
http://lybberty.com/ |
|
|
"the rise and fall of a mormon presidential candidate" is where Hugh will blame the anti-mormon bigots for Romney's miserable loss. However, he will note that Utah rose above bigotry and voted overwhelmingly for Mitt for reasons other than - he was a mormon. That is the logic of the Romney camp. |
|
"What would Evangelicals do....
...if Romney or his surrogates had gone from Mormon meeting to Mormon meeting, campaigning for votes and donations?"
If Romney had done that, evangelicals would have not done anything.
The fact that Romney didn't have to may have more to do with their vote. |
|
|
Soon Hugh too, will be fired. |
|
Hewitt lost any reputation long ago when he started whining and begging for free tickets to all the sporting events.
I could care less what he thinks about anything, but am glad to see his man taking a beating.
Go Fred Thompson! |
|
|
|
You'd think unity would be a priority, and that would mean we all play nice. Unfortunately, the Republican establishment came out backing Giuliani as the only "electable" candidate. Funny... didn't he come in 6th in Iowa? Not terribly electable if you ask me.
After supporting Giuliani and realizing that 25% of the *general* electorate would vote for a third-party pro-life candidate, they instead moved to Romney. A far better candidate to be sure, but his conversion wasn't quite trusted, and so social conservatives went with someone they could trust.
Now the fiscal conservatives are indignant that their guy did not win, that they couldn't force social conservatives to vote for someone who was a social liberal, and that when they did put up a convert to social conservatism, social conservatives by that time were sufficiently distrustful that they just said no.
A coalition operates on the basis of respect. Attacking social conservatives' economic well-being, and then saying that the "values voters" agenda is better dead will not endear them to social conservatives. Big surprise. |
|
If the conservative pundits keep telling us Huckabee fans that we're not "real" conservatives if we back him, and that he himself is not a "real" conservative, then perhaps we have to begin to honestly ask ourselves if all of you aren't, perhaps, right?
Maybe we're not "real" "conservatives" as the Republican Party defines conservative?
Maybe we only came to the Republican Party because the Democrats turned their backs on the Pro-Life movement? And on the family? And on cultural "conservatism"? Maybe we only "thought" we were "conservative" because we found a home - perhaps only a temporary one - in "your" Party?
And maybe now that the Republican Party (with Guilliani and Romney) is likewise prepared to turn its back on the Pro-Life Movement, maybe this party too is willing to let us go elsewhere to find those who are "conservative" in the same "wrong way" we view ourselves as being "conservative"?
There is no way we are ever going to vote for a Romney or a Guilliani. Ever.
But I know plenty of Liberal Catholics who have held their noses and voted for a pro-choice Democrat because they viewed the Republican Party positions on the poor, women, blacks, etc as far more unpalatable, being (as they saw it) too unkind to the "already born."
I can see those folks voting for Huckabee: Pro-Life, Pro-family, Pro-poor...
But I don't see any of us Conservative Catholics EVER voting for a pro-abortion Republican - and I don't care what his economic and political positions are.
It would be to say that - in the end - it isn't really family, and faith, and life, God, country, home - that matters, but rather - pocketbook. Or worldly security.
And that wouldn't make us much different, in the end, than the Democrats.
|
|
Domers for Huckabee:
http://domersforhuckabee.net/
|
|
Take your income tax rate add 7 or 15 percent social security and multiply by the college costs and private school costs your family is likely to have. That's how much more you would have to earn under the current system vs the Fair Tax to send your kids to school. What other plan is offering those kinds of savings for everyday American families?
For ours thats an almost 40% savings in taxes on likely one of the top two investments in our lifetime. It also offers much more than any school voucher plan currently proposed.
I call that fiscally conservative! |
|
Huckabee beat Hugh-itt's poster boy Romney and now Hugh is doing all he can to spin Huck as the MSM's darling, when Romney/Rudy/McCain/Fred have been it all along.
And Paul even beat Rudy in Iowa!
Huck/Paul '08! |
|
BJ, maybe you aren't a conservative. so you don't believe in Iowa or NH or Mass or Georgia or Texas or Oregon controlling their lives with respect to abortion, government spending and other social issues. And you also agree with the government taking your money and your freedom because they know better how to education your kids, when sex should be taught in school, stopping you from praying at a high school football game, how to redistribute wealth to the poor whether they are in the US legally or illegally..
if you are liberal, just don't believe in abortion, then go back to the Democratic party and good luck getting things changed. As the government influences grow, the less chance you (and I mean you BJ) have to influence your life and how you live it.
Semi-conservatives are part of the problem. If you are really not conservative relative to fiscal and national security issues, then be liberal and work to change your real party to support life.
Personally, I don't want Barack or Mike telling me that we have to mandate a certain curriculum in my kids schools. Or that I have to work until May to cover my
fair share" of the money they want to spend. Or, as Bill and Al did, drive our young, entry level, military members to the food stamp line while claiming to reduce the size of government by eliminating 300,000 military jobs and maintaining the inefficient Washington bureaucracy. |
|
My, my, my! There seems to be a-much a-wailing and a-gnashin' of teeth over this blasphemous hick who can take a lick or two from all the conservative Pharisees who have beared false witness against this new upstart apostate who calls himself the Huckabee.
All the revered elders from Chief Rabbi Rush to the esteemed "Emeritus" John O'Sullivan have concurred that this Huckabee is a Huckamess.
Not appreciating the wisdom of the sages, the dim witted Gentiles, scorfully labeled "conservative activists" or worse yet-"evagelicals", have rescued their prophet of Hope, who led them out of the wilderness of Arkansas. Sy
|
|
If you have not figured it out, the MSM is not the Republican's friend. They will spin like a top to get us to support a loser in '08.
Huckabee is that loser - he has the honesty of Clinton and the competence of Carter.
He is an unprincipled opportunist. He never heard of the FAIR tax before he got to Iowa, but when he found out there was organized support for it - he embraced it. He would not talk about his faith until he found out how many evangelicals go to the IA caucus - then he referred constantly to it. He changed his position on immigration THREE times while he was in Iowa!
He did everything he could to bring illegals into Arkansas short of picking them up in Mexico - but private companies in Arkansas did exactly that when he was Gov. and got away with it. I moved to Iowa to get away from them!
His ignorance of foreign policy is truly unbelievable and his comments are rash and dangerous.
His solution to abortion and gay marriage is a constitutional amendment. Why has there never been an attempt to amend the constitution to stop abortion. BECAUSE IT WON'T PASS! DUH! It would only mobilize our opposition. He offers that as a solution because it is not the Presidents' responsibility to start it or get it passed. He is sidestepping it entirely - he might as well say - I'm not going to do anything!
He appeals to voters with his charm and communication skills. He is a phony conservative who sounds like a populist.
He will bury us and our chances of winning in 08.
|
|
|
on principle and not party i.e. lower taxes, security and promoting the culture of life. We will absolutely defeat the democrats. Unfortunately, the elitist old republican guard can't get past picking one of their own (Romney). If they actually supported a combined ticket of two men who are not elitist but are able to win, we could stand a chance. Unfortunately, the nomination of Mitt will turn many new republicans into independents and alienate the republican party. Remember when Lieberman lost as a democrat and ran as an independent and won? He realized principles tramp party all the time. Republicans can learn this lesson in the primaries or in the general election - but they too will learn that principled voters do not compromise. They will stay home if the new born again conservative Romney is nominated, leading to a democratic win. Actually that maybe a good way for the republican party to transition from party politics to principled politics. |
|
Republicans looking for a presidential candidate to inspire them are now faced with a tax-and-spend religious rightist who would have the federal government regulate everything from restaurant menus to local schools. As Dorothy Parker would say, "What fresh hell is this?" (Cato Scholar David Boaz, executive vice president)
Time to write a check to the Romney Campaign...Enough is enough...I'm getting worried.....McCain is NOT an option...
Hang Tough Mitt....I've got your back! |
|
Ideas instead of identity?
The ideas Americans like are based on principle, on moral absolutes, on unshifting sands.
Once Mitt understands that and remains a conservative for 10 years or so he should come back and run again. |
|
I can't wait till Huckabee's soundbit discussing Obama is played on the news.
He rose above the fray. Romney may look Presidential and sound like President, but he can't connect with the voters.
Everyone has doubted Huckabee like they doubted Reagan in 1980. |
|
|
I guess you're joining Hillary in her belief of a vast right-wing conspiracy. |
|
|
Quote! The little minx could really put a tag on things. Yep, I think it's time I nimbled up my fingers, got out the fountain pen and sent Mitt a check. He's Adult and hugely able and principled. Any EeeeekK changes he's made have been in the right direction and To The Right. Works for moi. |
|
Please join your fellow Team Mitt members from across the nation for a special Call at Home, tonight, Sunday, January 6, from 5pm – 8:30pm EST and Monday, January 7, from 2pm - 8:30pm EST. Just email "count me in" to CallAtHome@MittRomney.com to participate in this nationwide rally of support and volunteerism for Governor Romney. We will be reminding Romney supporters to turn out for the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 8.
Who: You and your fellow Team Mitt members. Goal: 5,000 callers.
What: New Hampshire Get-out-the-Vote calls.
When: Sunday, January 6, from 5pm – 8:30pm EST
Monday, January 7, from 2pm – 8:30pm EST
Where: From the comfort of your home.
Why: Send Governor Romney to Victory in New Hampshire and on his way to the White House!
How: By emailing "count me in" to CallAtHome@MittRomney.com. You will then receive a USER NAME and PASSWORD and simple instructions.
The people of Wyoming took the first step towards bringing true conservative change to Washington. Tuesday the people of New Hampshire will take the next and we need you right there with us.
Ask your friends, ask your family and tell them how important it is that they too make calls from their home. For those of you who participated in this high tech program in the past, you know how easy it is – spread the word!
Tonight is the next step to bring conservative change to Washington. Let's win New Hampshire, let’s win the White House and let’s rewrite the history books.
--The Romney for President Team
|
|
Attention cyber Republicans who want the most qualified candidate for America that CAN WIN and put a stop to Obama/Hillary and Huck who ALL are spewing socialism disguised as populism. All the answers for any individual condition reside within one’s Self and NOT THE GOVERNMENT…Willard Mitt Romney back to basics; free markets, free enterprise, lower taxes, self-reliance, and individual responsibility. (And don’t forget those Supreme Court Justice nominations)
…Let’s get it done!….Turn OFF the TV..There is always another football game….Get off the internet boards for a little time and DO SOMETHING!...Enough cyber-chat. Call and talk with some real folks about Romney who vote!
It’s easy to register. I just did. The interface requires flash so if you are running Vista 64bit such as me; make sure you use your 32bit browser.
CallAtHome@MittRomney.com and then visit http://www.MittRomney.com/CallatHome
|
|
“Yes, the first governor (Romney MA) to install universal healthcare” (Mark)
It’s called Universal Coverage. Everyone is required to have healthcare insurance just like auto insurance. The EMPLOYER is the backbone (80%) of this “universal” system. It is NOT one payer/universal such as what Obama/Hillary/Edwards spew. It safeguards YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTHCARE COVERAGE and gives an incentive to YOUR employer to keep offering/supplying YOUR healthcare coverage.
You get one of these socialist candidates (Obama/Hillary/Huck) who can actually get close to getting you “universal/one payer” coverage like the “congress has” you can kiss your employer sponsored healthcare coverage GOOD-BYE…YOUR employer will terminate YOUR employer healthcare coverage. There is NO federal law requiring ANY employer to supply you with healthcare coverage…
“universal/one payer”; your taxes will sky rocket, your health care will go down and good luck trying to get a doctor’s appointment. What would it be like at ANY Dr’s office? Try your local DMV office and take a number.
Canada? Don’t make me laugh. They run down here for their healthcare needs. Canada has a population of what? 30 Million? What is the USA? 300 Million? Canada can NOT get it done and WE would go broke trying.
USA government provides healthcare when you reach social security age. Then there is Medicare/Medicaid. WE CAN’T EVEN AFFORD THAT NOW! HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY GIVE IT TO EVERYONE?.....Pie In The Sky.
Get real….Support an ex-Governor, successful businessman, and family man with integrity who CAN BEAT OBAMA AND/OR HILLARY. That man is Willard Mitt Romney………
|
|
PC writes: "I don't want whiners in my party. I want people to understand that the American Dream is available for anyone who wants to work hard and try to solve their own problems."
I wholeheartedly agree.
But I'm still not going to reward the CEOs with my votes.
|
|
Mitt's decision to campaign in Iowa, rather than punting on the state like Rudy did, turned him into a phony.
To try to win Iowa, he tried to reinvent himself as a Christian social conservative. It was patently phony and it turned voters off to him. And in the end, he failed to win Iowa anyway.
If Mitt had punted on Iowa and concentrated on winning New Hampshire and Michigan as his first two big wins, he wouldn't have had to put on a devout Christian persona to go after evangelical votes.
In retrospect, Rudy was right to bypass Iowa. Folks here think Rudy is authentic even if they disagree with him on abortion or whatnot. To have a chance to win Iowa, Rudy would have also had to adopt a false persona. So he didn't. Good for him.
|
|
Romney never called himself the "Christian social conservative", that was Huck, but the fact is that he IS a Christian, and a social conservative.
I don't know how much you know about Mormons, but they ARE devout Christians. There's nothing he can do about that - he is what he is, and it's not phony. He just didn't choose to crow about it like Huck. |
|
|
You have a personal problem with CEO's, I get that, but it's pretty silly to base your vote on it, as if there is something inherently wrong with being a CEO. You sound like a dem, are you? |
|
I predict that Huckabee will be a disaster, another Jimmy Carter that will result in a Democractic landslide.
Will someone explain the 1033 pardons and commutations. How do you justify that? Why do you trust a theologian as a commander in chief?
Regardless of the vitriol spewed by Romney haters, he is an honorable man. No ethics violations. No destroying of comuter hard drives. No stealing of furniture.
Judicial Watch, an independent conservative group, named Huck the 6th most unethical politician -- after #1 Clinton, but before #8 Obama. |
|
|
|