As everyone knows, I’m a Fred Thompson supporter, and I believe that he still can win. Now, I have never published a post making any bold predictions because I like to try and stay out of the guessing game because nobody can accurately predict what will happen. I will stay with Thompson through victory or defeat. At the same time, I realize that with the current GOP race so wide open, he has just as much chance of losing as he does winning. So, over the last weeks, I reassessed the rest of the candidates on what would influence my choice below Fred.
There have been quite a few shifts between my second through fifth choices. For most of the year, the only consistant candidate had been Mitt Romney, in dead last. For a good while, McCain and Huckabee traded off second and third choices, with Giuliani being my usual second pick. After I researched Huckabee fully, I realized the full extent of what type of candidate he would be and the type of tactics he was campaigning on.
Lately, Mitt Romney has risen up to become one of my alternate choices. I could see myself rallying around him because I think he does have a certain appeal. I had pretty much decided that I wouldn’t rank my 2-4 choices because I had started to like each one of them.
Then came this morning’s interview on Meet the Press. I’m not turning against Romney again, but the thing is, I missed the first fifteen minutes of the program, which meant that I came in right at the end of Russert’s religious questioning. So, I missed what I have now read was his most convincing response, in some aspects. I like still like Romney, and am not rejoining the anyone but Romney crowd…
Having said that, the next forty five minutes were ones of pure brutality. I actually felt sorry for the guy because of how tough Russert was on him, but what was so effective about Russert’s questioning was that it reminded me of why I was so skeptical of Romney, in the first place.
I have a lot more to discuss, but since my biggest problem with his appearence today is being reported by the Washington Post:
Romney Claims NRA Endorsement He Didn’t Receive
Maybe it was the pressure of the moment. Being under the Tim Russert spotlight can get to anyone. Under Russert’s grilling about guns on this morning’s “Meet the Press,” former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney claimed an endorsement he’d never won.
In answer to questions about whether he would sign an assault weapons ban, Romney said: “Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support.”
Later in the interview, he added the following:
“I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA.”
The problem?
He was never endorsed by the NRA, and didn’t have their official support during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The NRA declined to endorse in that race, as was acknowledged by Romney’s spokesman this morning.
“The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign,” said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney’s comments. “Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, and when he was governor he had the support of the NRA and the Gun Owners Action League in relaxing some of the state’s burdensome licensing regulations.”
What Madden didn’t say was that Romney’s Democratic opponent in the governor’s race, Shannon O’Brien, was given a more than respectable “A” grade by the NRA, according to its website.
The issue of guns has repeatedly dogged Romney, who as a U.S. Senate candidate in 1996 was in favor of several gun control measures. Earlier this year, Romney was mocked for saying that he was a “small varmint” hunter.
Romney really screwed up on this answer. I am extremely anti-gun control, and Romney again damaged his credibility with me. Romney still supports anti-gun legislation and apparently tried to gloss over it with an endorsement that he never recieved.
This wasn’t my only problem with his interview, but this is a huge pet peave of mine. Now, I’m going to listen to Romney and try and give him the benefit of the doubt, but this was a huge unforced error for a voter like myself.
UPDATE: Here is the official Transcript from Meet The Press:
GOV. ROMNEY: I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA. And so…
December 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Tommy, I respect your opinion, but you seem a little too fickle to take seriously in your arguments above. To have your vote hinge on this one ‘unforced error’ is silly given how many every candidate has had– your candidate in particular being the king.
And did you watch last week with rudy? Russert grills everybody hard. I thought Romney did well, but didn’t do a great job rebuttin the flip flopping accusations. They are weak accusationa nd he needs to find a better way to respond to those that is not so defensive.
overall, i thought he did very well.
unforced errors are never good though and why he did that is stupid!? I wouldn’t have my support hinge on that however. you are probably not making that claim in reality, but I wouldn’t call it a deal killer. If that were so, by the same logic you would have had to leave Thompson a long time ago.
my suppor tof romney hinges completly upon his ability to be a great president. he has what it takes in my opinion. has he ran a great campaign yes. perfect no, but very impressive.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Romney gave a solid performance. But this point by Tommy was a weak sport.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Is there a pattern here, or was it just a momentary misspeaking?
And what is wrong with an assault weapons ban?
Are you in favor of RPGs being sold freely? How about surface-to-air missiles?
December 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Oh, geez. It’s like Romney is thinking in his mind “Be the perfect candidate. Be the perfect candidate. Say that the NRA endorsed you. Say it.” So he says it. Only later, when it’s too late, does he get the second memo: “DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE!”
And the Romborg explodes, leaving all the little Rombots scrambling to find an explanation, which is obvious to everyone except them.
:sigh:
December 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I think we need to hear the full story on this. For Romney to suggest this twice tells me there is more to it than what this little news blip is saying.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Mitt, it’s the NRA, not NRO! They’re different organizations!
December 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
John Galt,
It wasn’t so much the unforced error, as it was the fact that he still supports legislation that I consider to be very wrongminded, and then still made the error.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Tano,
What is the point of an assault weapons ban?
December 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
steve,
That was the part of the interview that caught my attention. I was writing this article before it was even picked up by the media. I was going to discuss my problem with his gun control answer, but then I saw that article, and rewrote the second part of it.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
#6. haha! good one.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Mr T,
The same as a ban on RPGs or SAMs.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
tommy – is it a fact that the NRA never supported Romney? and where is the info on that?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Tano,
I’m not going to debate the merits of certain bans on weapons, but what’s the difference between being shot with a rifle or an uzi? Either way, you’re going to wind up dead.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
10
I’m guessing it was a just a typo by one of his programmers. An honest mistake, with no harm done.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Exactly, Tommy
December 16th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Steve,
Yes. It’s a fact.
http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/State.aspx?y=2002&State=MA#GOVERNOR
December 16th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
#14. LOL. But he did say it twice.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
One misspeak pushes you away from Romney? Jeez. So much for considering his actual message.
anyway, this isn’t going to be a story. Romney misspoke, and if he does get a question about it, that is all he has to say. Basically, this isn’t a story.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
The incorrect reccouting of the endorsement is more significant than the lack of endorsement
December 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI3YTk0NjA4MTQwMGNjZTMyNTQxZmIyMDRjN2Y5NDI
Could Somebody Explain This?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
16 – Tommy – that is not prrof that they didn’t support him.
they simply gave him a “B” grade which isn’t tto bad:
B A generally pro-gun candidate, but a “B†incumbent may have voted for some restrictive legislation in the past. A “B†candidate who hasn’t held office may have made some statements or taken positions against the NRA on some issues.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
ACT Blog,
It goes into his message. Gun control is the problem I have. The endorsement claim just adds on to my frustration.
I’m not jumping off the Mitt-possibility wagon, but i’m not going to ignore my problems with him just because I like him. He’s not my first choice, and he hasn’t completely won me over as alternative. I’d still vote for him over Huckabee, but this isn’t just misspeak, but I am somebody who is trying overcome their skepticism, and thins like this hurt his credibility with me.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
steve,
He didn’t recieve the endorsement of the group, like he claimed. The candidates who were endorsed are marked on the page. He didn’t get it, and said he did.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
21 – since he was first term candidate the rated him B which means he q:
B A generally pro-gun candidate
December 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Steve — YES, IT IS PROOF THAT THEY DIDN’T ENDORSE HIM. ROMNEY SAID THAT HE WAS ENDORSED. HE WAS NOT ENDORSED. GET OVER IT. YOUR DEITY MADE A MISTAKE.
*ahem* Moving on…
December 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Joseph,
I am not going to get into the religious debate and refuse to criticize Romney over it.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Generally progun. I am very opposed to the Brady Bill, which Romney supported, and still supports.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
How many points is Huckabee crushing Romney by today in Iowa?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
‘but what’s the difference between being shot with a rifle or an uzi?”
Once you are shot, not much. Same is being hit with an RPG.
Your propensity to getting shot with an uzi is rather higher than with a rifle though.
Especially if you are a bystander.
It is absolutely proper for a society to constrain a right in order to fulfill its primary function of providing basic security to its citizens. There are no absoute rights. We constrain free speech if it interferes with national security (no free speaking of national security secrets).
Given that there is no legitimate use for an automatic weapon in civil society, and the dangers – maybe not where you live, but certainly for a lot of citizens – are high, there is certainly good reason to ban them.
Just like with RPGs.
Where do you draw the line, and how do you justify it?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
“What Madden didn’t say was that Romney’s Democratic opponent in the governor’s race, Shannon O’Brien, was given a more than respectable “A†grade by the NRA, according to its website.”
http://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/State.aspx?y=2002&State=MA#GOVERNOR says otherwise. This is a big reason why a lot of the criticism of Romney doesn’t stick: you can’t say Romney isn’t telling the truth when you aren’t telling the truth yourself.
Regarding the actual interview responses by Romney, I need to sit down and read the transcript for context. It’s worth noting that according to the quotes given, Romney does not say he was endorsed in the 2002 election. He only says supported. He uses the term endorsed when referring to his actions as governor. If the NRA endorsed a particular bill that was supported by Romney during his term as governor, then Romney’s claim is legit.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Tommy I’ve been reading your comments for a while, and while I respect your opinion, I don’t think there will ever be a time you really support Romeny (unless he gets the nomination). You’re a in-closet Romney hater, but that’s ok
That’s what this whole thing is about–people havin their opinions. I think there have been times where you have disliked Romney less, but deep down inside you don’t like him at all imo.
Anyways I’m more disappointed with the fact that Huck has been your number 2. I like most of the canidates but how anyone can support Huck is beyond me :S
December 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Tommy,
Thompson is coming out swinging, but believe me there is plenty of crap on him.
Shall we start with Global warming?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Fred has been my #2 for a long time. I’ve posted that many times. The only two major viable candidates with the full package of social / fiscal / security conservatism are Romney & FDT.
Romney can sell Republicanism much better.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I agree with Tano.
We as Americans have the right to bear arms. That does not mean by extrapolation that we have the right to bear *any* arms. Obviously, there need to be limits. The right we are given is the right to defend ourselves, not hold whole armies and nations (or police forces) at bay. The right of the individual ends where the need for the safety of the public begins.
Should we allow anyone who wants one to be able to acquire:
Nuclear weapons?
scud missiles?
surface-to-air missiles?
Of course not. We are just quibbling over where to draw the line, not whether there should be a line at all. Personally, I believe that civilians should be allowed weapons that defend themselves, but do not permit them to go on a mass offensive. That is outside the right of the individual.
Therefore, I believe Romney’s stance to be the only sensible one; some restriction is required. And btw, I’m a member of the NRA (at least until recently), but I still think they are way out there on some issues. Romney mispoke, for whatever reason, but I couldn’t care less if the NRA doesn’t endorse him.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Sorry Tomy,
I should add I think you are being honest in your post, but I think this kind of scrutiny would hurt your guy just as well.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Jason,
This doesn’t have to do with Thompson. This is what Romney said and I have a serious problem with it. I’m not trying to start another fight, but I will still voice my disagreements when he does something.
#2- I have no opinion on FDT’s remarks about the abortion answer. I’m not going to question romney on it.
This mistake didn’t come from Thompson’s campaign, this came from me.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Jason,
Fair enough. I get it. I’m trying to be fair, but this one really bugged me.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Tarheel,
“I like most of the canidates but how anyone can support Huck is beyond me :S”
Here’s your answer (I ripped this from my man MWS because he can express himself in writing much better than me):
1. Huckabee’s unfailing and untarnished commitment to the right to life.
2. He has more executive experience than any other candidate.
3. He took Arkansas from a budget deficit to a budget surplus.
4. He has lived the American dream, starting in poverty.
5. He knows that Republicans can and should address the concerns of the poor and economically vulnerable as a conservative principle, and rejects the absurd mentality that mentioning poverty makes one a “socialist.â€
6. While taking a tough stand to secure our borders, he also recognizes that illegal immigrants are also made in the image and likeness of God.
7. He recognizes that our rights and responsibilities come from God, not government.
8. He is committed to moving America towards energy independence.
9. Crime in Arkansas cut in half during his term.
10. He is a committed Christian, sharing the values and principles of that which made western civilization great.
11. He is committed to setting things right in Iraq, while pursuing a less bellicose foreign policy.
12. Huckabee recognizes that markets exist to serve people, and not the other way around.
13. He is willing to stand up for what’s right over what is popular, such as when- as a 25 year old first time pastor- he insisted over heavy protest that his church integrate.
14. He supports scrapping the IRS in favor of a tax system that will rejuvenate our manufacturing base.
15. He supports market based reforms for health care that will cover more people and drive down costs.
16. He is not slavishly devoted to free trade at any cost.
17. He communicates his ideas effectively.
18. He can effectively reach out to Reagan Democrats.
19. He can effectively reach out to minorities, having one 48% of the black vote in his last race for governor.
20. He is a man of principle and vision.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Tommy,
Do not despair. Fred is going to win this thing. His strategy has been the most consistent from the start and he may be one of the few candidates who can hold together the whole coalition and keep Reagan’s stool intact.
Here’s a question: What do George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all have in common.
Answer: 1. They all went on to become the Republican Presidential nominee. 2. All of them lost in either Iowa or New hampshire. 3. None of them lost South Carolina.
The road to the nomination runs through the Palmetto State and I believe that whomever is victorious there this cycle, just as in the past, will win the nomination. Look out for Fred to turn the burners on in the home stretch and win this thing going away.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
when was the last SC poll and when is the next one?
December 16th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
lets all agree that what Romney said was either a misspeak or poor phrasing, ok? good. Thats one non-issue out of the way.
–
now, about the weapons ban…
I support the right to bear arms, but I think we draw the line at weapons designed only for mass destruction. You show me another pratical purpose of an RPG launcher, and then we can talk.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I taped the talk.. If you want to know exactly what he said, I can go check.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
“he may be one of the few candidates who can … keep Reagan’s stool intact.”
Oh geez, not the image I want as I am about to sit down to dinner!
December 16th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Sorry Tano,
That should have read, “Reagan’s three-legged stool intact.”
December 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
lol
December 16th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“I support the right to bear arms, but I think we draw the line at weapons designed only for mass destruction”
Not being an armaments expert, my guess would be that you can do at least as much damage with an assault weapon than an RPG. Right?
December 16th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
This one is mine, and I know Tommy will concur, at least on this:
21) Rock solid on the 2nd Amendment. Huckabee actually gets it, it’s about freedom, not hunting.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
#43 – that gave me a good laugh. I needed that. I’m getting the primary crazies.
mac – your guy is a liberal on almost everything but abortion, guns and gays.
he’s also as slick as a rock in a deep creek.
the more i learn about huckabee, the more he reminds me of another sociopathic liar from Hope, Arkansas.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Romney lettered in dodgeball as evidenced by his artful dodging on MTP. I
December 16th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
22) From the mouth of Ed Rollins, who said the same thing on my local Christian radio station back in October(long before HE contacted Huckabee asking to join the campaign):
“Governor Huckabee has probably inspired me as much as Ronald Reagan. He had an ability to connect with people and he was a great communicator. I’ve looked for a long time for another candidate to do that.
“People are always asking: ‘Who’s the next Ronald Reagan?’ Well, I was with the old Reagan. I can promise you that this man comes as close as I’ve ever seen.”
December 16th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Beth,
I’m here to defend my man Huck, not trash other candidates. I believe we have a great bunch of candidates. Mitt Romney is an incredibly impressive man and, if elected, would probably be a good to great president. I happen to believe that Mike Huckabee is the better candidate for this time in our nation’s history.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Unrelated, but do you see Rudy is cutting back on New Hampshire?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1207/Rudy_cuts_back_NH_ad_buy.html
Thats big news, Rudy is now totally reliant on a muddied race heading into Florida. He now NEEDS Huckabee to win Iowa, and McCain to win NH. If Mitt Romney wins both the game is over.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Tano,
Define ‘damage’. RPG’s have more explosive power for disabling vehicles and targeting close groups of people. Also, accuracy isn’t as necessary with explosive ordinance.
As for an assault rifle, depending on the caliber, lethality is variable and more aiming is required to be deadly.
As for where the line should be drawn, I believe it should be somewhere between automatic-rifles and artillery. The tougher the weapon, the harder it should be to get.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
mac,
That level-headed attitude should be emulated by followers of all candidates. I really like Huckabee a lot. I saw him speak for the first time 13 years ago (back in the rotund years) in Washington DC and he left an indelible impression on me. I expect great things to happen from him no matter the outcome of the race.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I like Romney, but he needs to chill with the three-legged stool. Seriously.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I have no problem with Huckabee talking about the economy and poverty and reaching out to the lower middle class and the poor. It is his policy that I have a problem with.
Free trade brings lower consumer prices. Tarriffs or controls on imports increase consumer prices, which hurts lower middle class and the poor.
Same for “energy independence”. That requires buying energy from someone other than the low cost provider, which by definition increases prices.
This is a political pander by Huck. Huck has no undertsanding of markets. This political pander shows a lack of principal. Headline grabbing is a poor substitute for understanding market capitalism.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
To all: I taped the whole interview, and pertaining to any wording regarding the support of the NRA, this is what was said:
…and I, also, was pleased to have the support of the NRA. I sought it. I seek it now. I’d love to have their support……
There honestly was no saying it twice… I listened to it through three time to make sure, and that is all that was said about it regarding support.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
mac,
I could name about 20 more reasons why I support Huckabee, but one, among many, that Romney lacks is a sense of the middle class and humanity as a whole.
Another Florida poll shows Huckabee ahead:
http://www.datamar.net/pdf/floridarepublicanPPdec07.pdf
GO HUCK!
December 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
David Keene is next in line for the presidency of the NRA, as well as being the president of the ACU, and has strongly endorsed Mitt, and is working hard for his nomination. I have seen the NRA praise Romney, which constitutes support….and Mitt never claimed endorsement….only support. So, this thread is about a non-event.
BTW Tommy, how could you have had Huck at #2?? The Horror!
December 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I thought I heard him say “endorsement” too. Now I will have to watch it again – great
December 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Wow, #56 clearly shows this post’s premise is blown out of proportion.
Support is not synonymous with endorsement.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
tommy has this posted up top:
“UPDATE: Here is the official Transcript from Meet The Press:
GOV. ROMNEY: I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA. And so…”
December 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
#30 NGthag
“Regarding the actual interview responses by Romney, I need to sit down and read the transcript for context. It’s worth noting that according to the quotes given, Romney does not say he was endorsed in the 2002 election. He only says supported. He uses the term endorsed when referring to his actions as governor. If the NRA endorsed a particular bill that was supported by Romney during his term as governor, then Romney’s claim is legit.”
This is ta good point
December 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I can guarantee you that what is posted in #56 is exactly what it said
December 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
oops!! I missed some words, sorry, Here it is accurately, “…and I, also, was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for Governor. I sought it. I seek it now. I’d love to have their support.”
I’m sorry I missed typing the “when I ran for Governor portion”
December 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
#50 – mac – I understand where you’re coming from, but I have very serious concerns about Huckabee.
I liked him at first, but when he started to rise in the polls, I started researching his policies and his background as governor.
I see a very liberal man who is pro-life, pro-gun and anti-gay, but in every other way, he governed as a liberal and sounds like a liberal.
Jimmy Carter was born again, also. And oh, so sincere. I see Huckabee as the Republican version of Jimmy Carter.
And I have to be honest with you, I believe Huckabee has a penchant for lying, misrepresenting the truth, twisting, spinning, whatever you want to call it – in order to promote himself.
He said on several occasions he had a theology degree. He does not, and anyone who knows anything about going through the process of attaining a theology degree would NEVER misrepresent themselves as have a theology degree (Master of Divinity) when they only went to seminary for one year and then dropped out.
People get fired for doing things like that.
As a born-again evangelical Christian and an ordained Southern Baptist minister, Huckabee should know better.
And mac, this is not the only time he has misrepresented the truth.
Just because someone is a great communicator and comes across as sincere does not qualify them to be the President of the United States.
There are so many reasons not to support Huckabee, I just can’t believe the blind loyalty of his supporters.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
There was no wording even remotely similar to the #61 post.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I think that this is an area where Governor Romney’s faith tradition could help him and be a strength. Many people view Huck as a liberal and they look at past Southern Baptist presidents such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and see their liberalism as unbound by their faith. Romney, on the other hand, has a whole dedicated and committed constituency (the LDS) that will be watching him and will not let him deviate from his commitment to Conservative values.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
65 is right. You would not believe the list of long time AR conservative activists that think just what 65 things about Huckabee. Don’t be fooled, he is a phoney.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Ben1,
It’s good to see so many of my fellow Floridians agree with me!
December 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Wait is this a joke? Why are there so many posts on this issue? It seems pretty clear. He said he had an endorsement which he just didn’t have. Either he didn’t know or just lied about it…I’m not sure which is worse!
Anyone here discussing assault weapons, or whatever is just trying to obscure the issue.
The narrative of Mitt saying whatever is the expedient thing at the time is proved time and time again. I cannot even fathom how you could defend this…he LIED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, just a blatant lie.
Oh, and that’s why he is losing almost everywhere and at only 15% nationally.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
#66 – Illinoisguy
are you saying the quote that Tommy uses is incorrect? That would change eveything. If that is the case it would be very misleading and must be changed in this post .
December 16th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
#69 – sigh … this is what happens when the Democratic Party goes off the far left looney edge – those that are democrats are left without a party.
I fear that there are lot of folks out there like mac and Ben1 that are supporting Huckabee because of his stance on the old standard democratic policies. Perhaps they won’t like his pro-life stance, perhaps they do, but they will hold their noses and vote for a Republican just to have someone in the White House who will use the government to take care of them and comfort them in their frail and helpless humanity and protect them from those they consider to be (in the words of Huckabee’s supporters) country club elites and neocons (rich Jews).
I wonder how many “welfare-mentality” people are really excited about the prospect of a pastor/president/shepherd/protector being in the White House in the person of Rev. Mike Huckabee? You know, “one of us?”
Anyone care to comment on this? QuackHack, Abe – others, what say you?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
QuackHack,
Mitt Romney is the only candidate with an MBA, so if he’s your guy and “understanding the market” is your top priority when selecting a candidate, it seems you’ve made the right choice. But to say that Huckabee has “no understanding” of the market is way over the top. He is a bright man who ran a government for a decade. My guess, sit those candidates down for a pop quiz on the economy, Romney would probably ace it, but I’d bet that Huckabee’s score would compare favorably with everyone else.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
73, I wish you were right, but you are not.
His policy proposals show a lack of basic understanding of the policy choices we have to make.
He claims to be pro environment and is for energy independence. Both of these policies result in higher gas prices and higher electric bills. Much of the middle class angst that Huckabee seeks to address is related to gas prices, yet he vaguely takes policy positions which are popular with so called moderates and seems to have no understanding that environmentalism and energy independence necesarily result in higher energy prices.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
72, that would explain his appeal to some Dems, but not appeal to Repub primary voters.
Appealing to some dems is generally a good thing, but the idea that you can out nanny state Hillary is silly. An appeal to those who are going to vote Dem anyway is a failed strategy for Nov.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I think, if I remember correctly, Metro suggested to Kavon that MWS would make a good Huckabee front page poster to fill the void. I would second that suggestion.
We could use a rep. from that corner in light of the recent explosion of ink regarding the other guy from Hope.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
71 Absolutely, what I posted in #64 is precisely correct, and he didn’t stutter!!
December 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Bethopaz & QuackHack,
As a frequent visitor to Race42008, I’m very well acquainted with all the faults, real and imagined, of Mike Huckabee. The man is not perfect, none of them are but no, I don’t believe he is the congenital liar, phony, idiot, socialist thief that he is made out to be here.
I want as little government intervention in my life as possible, but I’m thankful for our strong military, brave and dedicated law enforcement, and safe roads to drive on. I’m well aware that there’s no convincing the two of you, and several others on this site, of the many fine qualities of Mike Huckabee. However, I will continue to visit this site and defend Mike Huckabee.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Claiming that Romney received an NRA endorsement is nothing compared to Romney refusing to say that abortion is murder:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/171067.aspx
December 16th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Mac (78) I used to agree with you about Mike Huckabee while supporting him in 1992 1993 1996 1998, and 2002.
Over time, I saw that he wasn’t committed to keeping taxes down or reducing spending, he was soft on crime, and his media strategy always was to marginalize and attack conservatives in order to appeal to moderates (This is the triangulation strategy of Bill Clinton and Dick Morris).
Now that he is running for President, Huckabee sounds like he did early in his career, but I know he doesn’t mean it because of how he acts once he decides he can take for granted the support of true conservatives.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I am very, very sorry. Later in the interview he did say what Tommy said in his post and he did use the term endorse the second time. I’m very sorry for misleading you, and I’ll shutup from now on. I feel pretty stupid….I didn’t think they had come back to the issue, but they did briefly. Sorry everybody and Tommy in particular.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Its only a lie if he intentionally attempted to mislead people. At this point, we have no evidence that it is anything more than a misspeak.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Was it me or did Russert look a little ridiculous in his line of questioning. I felt as if he were trying to really come up with some “gotcha” moments but was forced to use a strained voice as a substitute for reason. The worst example was when he tries to set Romney up with the “what do you think of Hucks comments on Bush” knowing that Roneny would disparage them. The “gotcha” so to speak was that Romney had challenged the management of the war. Russert kept going over this as if it were some huge dichotomy.
I could tell Romney got a little exasperated with Russert, as any intelligent human being knows the difference between the two situations.
Unfortunately, for gullible, Russert’s performance played right into alot of people’s pre-conceived misconceptions.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Regarding energy independence, Huckabee says
“We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.”
POTUS is a managerial job, but it’s also national pitch man. We have to suck it up and build several new nuclear power plants; I believe Huckabee has the ability to sell that necessity to the American public.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Let’s not be surprised at the ease at which these lies roll off Slick Willard’s tongue.
Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win.
–Fred Thompson’s campaign
The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.
– Barney Frank
December 16th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
ACT,
Come on man…how plain is this? He used the fake endorsement as a way to show how great his record is. How is that not meant to mislead? He was making an argument using a fake fact…that is the definition of misleading.
I can’t believe how people defend things like this!
December 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Today’s attack on Bush is a perfect example of Huck’s media strategy always was to marginalize and attack conservatives in order to appeal to moderate.
Rather than line out specifically what he disagrees with Bush’s foriegn policy on, he uses langage that you normally find on Daily Kos, then retreats to generalities when asked about specific policies. He wants to get along better with allies. How so? Surrender to them on global warming, which our allies think we should pay most of the costs of? Agree with France and not attack Iraq to preserve French economic ties to Saddam?
The was no substance to his agrument, just a headline grabbign slogan to appeal to moderates by attacking Bush.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
85, who isn’t against that if you assume it doesn’t raise utility or gas bills? Every candidate in both parties say that same thing. That is meaningless sloganeering, and when combined with envirnmentalist rhetoric, it is dishonest, because carbon taxes and renewable portfolio mandates INCREASE energy costs.
The problem with “alternative” energy is there is a reason why we arn’t doing more of that now. The reason is because it costs more. ALOT more. In order to pretend that alternative energy doesn’t cost more, the government subsidizes it.
A real candidate would address the issue not sloganeer.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
88.
11. He is committed to setting things right in Iraq, while pursuing a less bellicose foreign policy.
We don’t need to surrender on global warming to have better relations around the world. Huckabee’s message, if you take the time to read it was borrowed from Teddy R: Speak softly but carry a big stick. W, voted for him twice and still love him, hasn’t been able to master that concept.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
The best military in the world costs more, A LOT more. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t build our military, or pursue energy independence TOMORROW.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
For Iraq, but less bellicose?
Iraq is the most bellicose thing we have done, the thing that most disturbs our allies. Pro Iraq but less bellicose crumbles to nothing with even a minute of thought.
This is clintonian slickness. Its not a serious foriegn policy idea, its a headline grabbing strategy. Marginalize conservatives to appeal to moderates. The sloganeering and headline management dictate the policy.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
make that TODAY.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
91, then why doen’t huck tell us how much more at the gas pump we should pay? How much more in electric bills we should pay? So much for appealing to the economic concerns of the middle class.
Higher gas prices, higher electric bills, how is that for a platform?
You just made my point. Its not a serious policy proposal, its a public relations stunt.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Tommy, you can’t be surprised that Romney is misrepresenting his record, can you? The guys entire political career is nothing but a history of calculated, dis-ingenious, politically-expedient opportunism.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Our Interstate Highway system, an incredibly expensive government expenditure, was built for national security but it has been a catalyst for our economy. We need to make a similar investment to attain energy independence.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
96, we? who is we? Whoever solves the problem is going to make so much money it makes Bill Gates look like a pauper. Why should we subsidize that person with my tax money?
Let those who will reap the profits bear the risk of the investment. Basic economics, basic capitalism. Of course, Huckabee call them the club for greed.
ANd you havnt answered my question: IF you position is the same as Huck’s why hasn’t Huck been so upfront about the costs? Higher gas prices and higher electric bills?
December 16th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
96, do you propose to nationalize the energy business so that “we” can make this expenditure? Or do you propose to subsidize energy companies so that they can make this expenditure?
In a few minutse of discussion, we have reduced what you call a serious Huck policy proposal to either socialism or energy subsidies. Do you think that that appeals to the middle class?
December 16th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
If we, in a private/public partnership, build 20 nuclear power plants over the next ten years, gas and electric bills would stabilize and we would be much more secure as a nation. It’s an investment in the future, much like the interstate highway system.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Tommy, I have a lot of respect for you, but if #57 – Illinoisguy is correct, and you don’t correct your “update” then I will lose a lot of respect for you.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Let’s see here:
Illinoisguy,
Apology accepted. I watched the interview and was positive he said it, then I heard he only said “support of the NRA,” and then I read the Wapo, and back and forth til I actually found the transcript.
Dan,
I’m trying not to be skeptical. Surprised? Of course not. But I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. It’s actually the position and the error together that bugged me. The position and description of it bugged me more, plus I didn’t particularly think he defended himself well, and got really caught on a couple of answers that kind of poked holes through the “only changed on abortion” line, but I am cautiously optimistic for his misspeak. VERY cautiously optimistic…
mac,
Although Huckabee’s foreign policy proposal absolutely offended and sickened me. You’re right, he’s rock solid on the second amendment.
Dave in #59,
That was a long time ago and in a galaxy far, far away… say back in May before I actually examined his record and watched the whisper campaign, foreign policy proposal, etc…
December 16th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
beth,
No, Illinoisguy corrected himself in 82 and he acknowledged that he said it.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
We? Public/Private partnership? Hahaha. That is where the public takes the risk, and the private get the reward. That is a dressed up way to say “corporate welfare”.
Huckabee seeks to appeal to the middle class, which certainly doesn’t support corporate welfare, their middle class tax dollars being handed over by the government to rich private corporate entities.
This is the problem you have when you borrow the idiotic rhetoric of the left when running in a primary of the party who knows better.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
ok, Tommy, I didn’t see that.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I just watched the entire interview, and I thought Romney was impressive. The “200 promises made and kept as Governor” factoid was one thing that impressed me rhetorically. I thought he did much better than Giuliani’s interview with Russert last week, where Giuliani kept giggling to deflect criticism (reminiscent of Rodham Clinton’s same tact in other interviews when asked difficult questions).
December 16th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I thought Romney did well countering the drilling that he got from Russert. I was impressed with the fact that Romney answered the questions, and didn’t try to side-step them. I think that under the pressure he probably got a little over-anxious when he said the NRA had endorsed him, but compare that to the (ahem) Theology degree for Huckabee. All in all it was a good showing by Romney, and the guy just seems so sharp. I must admit that I have not seen the other candidates on MTP, but I thought that Romney did well. BTW is there somewhere that we can go to get the video of the other candidates on MTP? Just curious.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
This may be what Romney had in mind when he said he had the endorsement of the NRA. Obviously not the same thing, but I could see how in an interview situation he could have mispoke given he is endorsed by a major (former) NRA official:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Craig_Sandler
December 16th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Romney is too bright to think he could claim a false endorsement and not have all the political bloggers and blog commenters in cyberspace picking up on it. I’m certain he simply misspoke and I’m waiting for his clarification. I’m more and more impressed with Romney the more I hear about. Huckabee has slid downwards from my #2 choice a couple weeks ago.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! Romney’s too perfect! HEY EVERYBODY, ROMNEY MADE A MISTAKE! TIME TO POUNCE!
December 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I posted this on another thread, but I thought it was an interesting comparison with how Rudy handled the “grilling” and how Romney reacted:
“While I was looking for video of other candidates on MTP, I ran across this link. I thought it was an interesting contrast between Rudy and Mitt. Granted, I am sure a few of these were warranted, but it does remind me of the Hillary “cackle†when hard pressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35s17704Qsw
I wonder if it is a subconcious reflex when hard-pressed to just try and laugh it off.”
December 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Unrelated to this post, Dan Fogelberg, a musician and artist, just passed away at age 56 from advanced prostrate cancer.
He made some really beautiful music and it is sad to see him go. He will fill the heavens with his beautiful artistry.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:48 am
A month ago i said russert would turn mitt into a puddle. I didn’t exactly mean in literally when he started to cry. and i didnt know mitt would tell a bold faced lie. but alas, tis true.
http://race42008.com/2007/11/13/poll-alert-rasmussen-daily-tracking-poll-1113/#comment-176823