In an interview today, Huckabee made it clear that he does not support Dede Scozzafava because of her lack of support for human life rights and support for the stimulus.
He said he is not endorsing Hoffman because of his paid speaking engagement last week with the Conservative Party. It appears that Huckabee wants to avoid a conflict of interest so that this doesn’t look like a pay for endorsement move.
If we look back earlier this year, Huckabee came under criticism for endorsing a candidate (Les Phillip) that Huckabee also received speaking fees from. I am sure that Huckabee doesn’t want a repeat of of potential quid-pro-quo rumors and has decided to sit this one out to main ethical credibility.
Huckabee starts talking at 2:35 in the clip:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck1eKiGkLUg#t=2m37s[/youtube]
The Tolbert Report also weighs in on this at: Huckabee Refutes Accusations That He Did Not Endorse Hoffman Because of a Grudge
October 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I repeat what I said over in the other thread, if Huckabee wanted to avoid the appearance of Pay-for-endorsement, all he would have to do is return the money. That’s it. Simple. Straight forward. Problem solved. Then he could endorse Hoffman ’til the cows came home.
Are we to believe that Huckabee is so hard up for money that he cannot return a measly $30K he just earned? With all his other speaker fees coming in on top of what he gets for his TV show and radio spots?
Go ahead, pull the other one.
Could it be possible that Mike doesn’t want to admit to his populist base his real reason, which I suggested in the other thread? I’m am not saying that is the real reason, but it sure fits the facts better than this stated reason.
My newly found respect for Huckabee just took a hit, I’m afraid.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
He could simply return the speaking fees. (Thanks, Mark.)
October 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Mark, Your post wasn’t up when I posted.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
If what Huck is saying is true, then essentially it means that he is putting money over principles, as opposed to putting one honorable principle over another honorable principle.
Mike, did you think through this?
October 30th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Does anyone know why Huckabee charged Phillips (and caused him to lose a lot of money on a ‘would be’ fundraiser? Why would he have charged Phillips and no one else? Or, has he been charging others also? I honestly don’t know and would like an answer if someone knows.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I’m sure David probably knows if Huck always charges speaking fees from candidates.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
David,
Another thing. If I recall correctly, the Phelps affair was essentially laughter at Huck over the fact that the fundraiser he spoke at ended up costing Phelps more money than he took in. That was rather embarrassing.
Or am I confusing stories here?
October 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Please read Huck Pac Mission Statement:
“Our Mission
Huck PAC is founded on the principles that make America great: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our Republican Party embodies these ideas and is best suited to lead America forward.
Huck PAC is committed to helping Republicans regain control of the House and Senate, regain a majority of governorships and supporting conservative principles around the country.
Huck PAC will support Republican candidates who are passionate advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government, and individual liberty.
As part of our effort to support strong Republican candidates we have formed Team Huck. Team Huck is a grassroots volunteer organization devoted to helping Huck PAC find, endorse, and elect Republican candidates who share our principles.
Huck PAC will identify candidates who hold firm to these principles, promote their campaigns and financially support their efforts.”
Note in particular “Huck PAC will support Republican candidates.” And if you listen to his own words on Cavuto (listen to the tape), he said he would never support Dede because she violates the sanctity of life and supports TARP — right off the bat — going no further than that — he made it clear he would never endorse her or support her. He also said he would never “endorse” a candidate that was not selected by the republican party.
Period — that’s it — that is his PAC’s mission — those are his principles — he stated it as clearly as he could.
His reasons have absolutely nothing to do with his speaking fee on Tuesday. He didn’t mention Hoffman on Tuesday because the Conservative Party did not want it to become political — they wanted it to be about the awardees.
(On the other hand, everybody certainly would have been screaming about his speaking fee — just the way they did about Les Phillip — but that is not at all what he said.}
October 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Huckabee charges fees when someone wants him to speak through his booking agent. Fees are always charged unless it is an action that Huckabee is doing personally. In the case of Les Phillip, Les wanted Huckabee to speak for him and booked Huckabee. Huckabee ended up getting to know Les and endorsing him.
“Mike, did you think through this?”
–Huckabee is choosing to stay out of one race…there is nothing wrong with that.
Romney is staying out of the Rubio race and the NY-23 race…I don’t think he should be slammed for that. Now if he endorsed Crist or Dede then I would be mad.
Huckabee also said that he isn’t going to endorse people against the GOP.
Gov. Mike Huckabee himself addressed this on Neil Cavuto’s show on FoxNews saying, “I am not going to go out and endorse somebody who did not get picked by the Republicans.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Y’all missed the whole point. Watch the video.
I will summarize, “Huckabee says, Let me be clear. I would never vote for Dede because her position on the sanctity of life is a non starter for me. It is an awkward situation for me because I was contracted to do the awards ceremony dinner. People tried to pull me in to make the event about Doug Hoffman, but that event was about 5 people that they had set aside. They asked me not to make it a political event. They asked me not to come in and endorse Hoffman for that particular event. I kept true to my word. They did not think it was appropriate for me to get involved in it.” And he said it had nothing to do with the CFG.
Again, watch the video clip…before you judge what you think was his reasoning…it wasn’t about the money.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
David,
If Huck really, really wanted to endorse Hoffman and the only thing holding him back from doing so was a 30K speaking fee, all he has to do is return the fee. People would be impressed with the fact that he gave up so much money on principle, plus the Conservative Party would have 30K more than they have now, plus they get a major endorsement for their headliner candidate. Everyone wins.
But since Mike is not going this route, there has to be more to this story than he is telling us.
Ergo, Huckabee is not being entirely truthful with his answer.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
#10.Texas:”Watch the video”
I wish I could. I am at work and the firewall blocks such things. So that is why I am trying to key off only what David is saying, not what others are saying.
My basic problem still stands. If the speaking fees stood between him and his endorsement of Hoffman, all he would have to do is return the fees. But since he is not, there is more to this that what he is saying.
Now if you can show me where I am wrong from the transcript (which I don’t have), I would be in your debt.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“If Huck really, really wanted to endorse Hoffman and the only thing holding him back from doing so was a 30K speaking fee” – No 11 – MarkK
Mark, you know, I really always try to keep it vertical. But there have been at least FOUR OR FIVE PRIOR POSTS all explaining that it had nothing to do with the speaking fee — and, in fact, if you took the time to listen to the tape, you wouldn’t need us telling you anything — you would have heard it yourself directly from Huckabee. There was ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF SPEAKING FEES. And he did not “really, really want to endorse Hoffman” — because it would violate his PAC’s mission — he says it as clearly as can be — he would never endorse a candidate not selected by the republicans. But he also emphatically says, “Let me be clear about this, I would never endorse Dede.”
Nonetheless, certain of you just keep repeating the same talking points over and over again.
So I have to deduce you only want to have your talking points — much like the liberals — even when they are not remotely connected to the truth.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Huckabee said that he did not discuss Hoffman at the dinner *because he was asked not to*, they wanted it to be nonpolitical so as not to take away focus from the awardees. Apparently he was supposed to blow them off?
Huckabee made it quite clear that he would NOT endorse Scozafazza because she stands against everything he believes in. He did not endorse her, and never would. In response to whether he would endorse Hoffman — he explained that the stated purpose of his PAC is to support like-minded candidates within the Republican Party — but he repeated again — he would never endorse Scozafazza.
Hardly surprising since Huckabee has been saying that we need to reclaim the party for conservative leaders who respect ALL 3 legs of Reagan’s “3-legged stool” conservative coalition. (Clearly from the past remarks of some here, the social conservative leg means little if anything at all)
The people with Huck-derangement syndrome are so irrational – they would have it that he is only conservative on social issues & liberal on everything else, then they would have it that he is actually a liberal tool, then they would have it that he is a RINO tool. Are they all really so ignorant of political ideologies not to be able to recognize how contradictory their claims are?
Ironically, even with all these severely contradictory propositions, they are outraged that Huckabee does not endorse the conservative candidate? If he were all that they wish people to believe he is, then what difference does it make? According to their propaganda, True Conservatives *TM would be repulsed by such an endorsement — & yet their outrage in this PROVES that they all recognize that Huckabee IS IN FACT a conservative leader so his approval matters!
Hoffman’s campaign site very prominently features the video of Huckabee’s very positive remarks about Hoffman vs. Scozzafava. Hoffman has no trouble recognizing that Huckabee is a leader in the movement and is happy to capitalize on Huckabee’s praise. There is little room for doubt which candidate has Huckabee’s approval regardless of his PAC’s formal endorsement.
(And where is all the outrage from certain commenters that Mitt Romney flat out refuses to endorse Hoffman after his ploy to be Mr. Ultra Conservative Man?)
October 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
#13.voter,
Thank-you for your clarification. As I explained in #12, I do not have access to the video and can only go by what I am reading in this thread. Now later tonight at home I will listen to it.
Thank-you
October 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
#14.QVA:
Just out of curiosity, could you point to me to a commenter who is outraged at Huck not endorsing Hoffman and not upset at Romney for the same thing?
October 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
So I just got notified that I got the big F in the Washington Post pundit contest, but I have a question for lawyers (or really anyone) here. Here’s what the contest rules say:
“By entering the Contest, each entrant grants Sponsor an unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual right to display, modify, perform, copy and create derivative work from his/her Entry.”
What do you think that means? I mean, does it mean that they can then use your stuff and then not attribute to you, even if you don’t win? Does it mean that you no longer have the right to put that piece up anywhere, even if you don’t win? I wrote something I rather liked, and I’d like to put it up here, but I don’t want to end up in violation of participation rules, or copyright, or whatever.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I have to say, this was an extraordinarily weak fob off for someone normally as agile as Huckabee. He said that he wouldn’t support Dede because she wasn’t pro-life but, like, has he ever threatened to do that before with, say, Rudy Giuliani? Does he only mean when there’s a pro-life option? I think a refusal to support a pro-choice Republican, even in a general election, which be pretty significant news. And then he said he also wouldn’t support any Republican who supported TARP. That excludes, what Romney and Palin at least (though, no doubt Palin will be able to convince her fans that she didn’t mean it)? Is Huckabee really saying that he wouldn’t support two people- against Barack Obama- who probably have a combined 50% chance of being the nominee? This far in advance? What a mess of hot water he’s jumped into to justify a lame refusal to commit.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
So, basically, Huckabee is claiming he will not support Mitt or Palin if they become the Republican nominee against Obama? Wow, that is big news.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Matthew,
You care what WaPo thinks? If they sue you for using your own work (which they didn’t pay for) you’ll get pretty good publicity as a blogger. I guarantee you it’d get you a line on Drudge.
Post it.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Huckabee and Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. Huckabee and Romney are not true conservative. So, Huckabee won’t Romney or Palin if they become the Republican nominee against Obama? Hmmm! Obama will just serve one term President. There is something wrong with Huckabee. I don’t watch his show on Fox Network on weekend. He has some negative guests on his program. I prefered to watch Glenn Beck. He is excellent.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Mark, (post #16)
Here’s a link of an article where the author goes on and on against Huckabee’s not endorsing. Yet, he practically gave Romney a free pass by saying, “While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has also declined to endorse Hoffman in the race, on Wednesday he said, “I have chosen not to endorse the Republican in the 23rd.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28908.html
October 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I would keep the $30K if I were Huck. Why should Huck have to give back his salary to appease anyone?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I’m soooooooooooo glad Mitt doesn’t charge people to give his speeches.
Why is it not bothering anyone that Huckabee has basically ruled out supporting Palin or Romney if they get the nomination?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Conservative,
“Why is it not bothering anyone that Huckabee has basically ruled out supporting Palin or Romney if they get the nomination?”
How has he ruled out supporting them?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
MWS, see what Matthew wrote in #18…is that true…did he say that?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Some of you are confusing “support” with “endorse”. Huckabee supported McCain in the general, but to my knowledge never actually formally endorsed him. Had McCain not picked a running mate with solid pro-life cred, Huckabee may not have even given that support – certainly not at the level he did.
At any rate, HuckPAC explicitly states he will not _endorse_ anyone who is not pro-life, etc.
As for the TARP issue, I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard Huckabee explain elsewhere that he would not hold it against any pol who repented of their support. I’m pretty sure his remark today is referring to those who continue to defend their support of TARP and claim that it was something that just had to be done & done asap.
(MarK, those who have been to this board for any short length of time will be familiar with the most egregious of the Romney cheerleaders. I was simply pointing out the oxymoronic for the uninitiated)
October 30th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
FYI, I am now home from work and have been able to view the tape. I have now updated my original post to reflect this new emphatic “non-endorsement” by Huckabee.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
QVA.#27,
Yes, like every other camp, we Romneyians have our share of over-the-top cheerleaders. However, I cannot remember seeing any of them “enraged”, as you put it, about Huckabee not endorsing Hoffman. I won’t deny one or two of them may snarked about it, but snark is hardly rage.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
This endorsements obsession is really realy weird.
No other country is obsessed with endorsements. Most of us can make up our own minds
.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Thank you, voter. Mike is very clear on this.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
In a way it is kind of sad that neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Huckabee quite had the courage to stand up to 4 political gangsters in NY-23. I thus feel a little unfordable with the idea of either these two men leading the free world. If they cannot stand up to political terrorists, how are they going to stand up against military terrorists? Oh, well, they have a few years to build up their courage and get their acts together. Fortunately, P & P both show political courage and wisdom to promote Conservatism. They were smart enough to understand the pulse of the people, while M & M did not know what horse to bet on and r. Gingrich bet on the wrong horse and thus looks like a total buffoon.
In fairness to Mr. Huckabee, he did use his non-endorsement speech to promote life, a capitalist economy and to speak against TARP. At least he is on the right side of the issues, but it would be nice if he would grow a pair.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
OJ, I don’t think it’s sad at all. Endorsing Hoffman does not mean standing up to 4 political gangsters in NY. Political terrorists? That’s just about the silliest thing I’ve heard in all this nonsense.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
29. marK, I said ‘outrage’ not ‘enrage’. Freudian slip? LOL!
October 30th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
32. Ohio Joe, while I like Palin, it must be admitted that she endorsed Hoffman only when it was clear that endorsing Hoffman was cool. It doesn’t take that much courage to go with the flow…
October 30th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I agree with Martha at 9:49.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I wish Hoffman would have stayed in the party. Or, at least rejoins it.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
24. ConservativeRepublican, I’m curious why you say that Romney accepts no speaking fees?
http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Mitt-Romney/383439 seems to indicate that he receives them.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
37. Huckabee/Pawlenty or Pawlenty/Huckabee, I am in agreement with you! (But it makes me quite nervous to be so close to something resembling agreement with Martha there at #33, LOL!)
Perhaps the GOP will offer Hoffman an olive branch once he wins it & try to get him back?
October 30th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
#38 – What part of your posting made clear that Mitt charges speaking fees when appearing for conservative republican candidates? NONE! I think it’s obvious that Mitt could charge for speaking fees when political candidates are not involved.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
40. ConservativeRepublican, I was asking based on your own rather non-specific words, “I’m soooooooooooo glad Mitt doesn’t charge people to give his speeches.”
So, are you saying that Mitt does not charge only when appearing for conservative Republican candidates that he has endorsed or is about to endorse? Somehow that does not seem particularly remarkable…
October 30th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Much more remarkable than the Huckbabee record on the subject.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Whenever ANYbody says it’s not the money, it’s the principle—it’s the money. This is especially true for Huckabee.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
38. That link does not look current to me. I highly doubt Romney charges for speeches at this point. He has a long habit of rejecting compensation.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:08 am
Well if you say it, then we must trust that it’s true…
because apparently none of you feel any need to back up your slanderous disparagements with anything more substantive…
October 31st, 2009 at 12:29 am
I’m just surprised at how easy some people think it is to return speaking fees. There would be a lot of time-consuming difficulties to work out regarding the contract that he’s signed with the booking company. And for what? To be able to officially endorse someone?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:47 am
Those who are pretending that this is simply a matter of returning speaking fees are using an overly simplified contrivance as an excuse to bash the man they love to hate for whatever irrational reason. It is at once more complex & yet even simpler than that.
Huckabee created his PAC with the specifically stated purpose to support like-minded REPUBLICAN candidates. He has stated many times, long before he formed this PAC, that we need to fight to take back the party from the Beltway crowd who have done it so much damage. His efforts have been devoted to reclaiming the party and returning it to its core principles – all of them: social, fiscal & national security.
People donate to his PAC expecting their money to be used for that purpose. If I found out (as has actually happened in the past) that an organization to which I was giving money decided to change its stated purpose and use that money for some new purpose, I would be rather unhappy & demand my money returned. You don’t betray people’s trust like that. (And I wonder about the legalities)
Now how many of Huckabee’s PAC supporters would object to supporting a non-GOP candidate? I dunno, probably not many if any at all, but I do firmly believe that most of us expect that a funding group should be honest & adhere to its stated purpose.
So which is more principled? Following through on what you have promised to do without regard for public opinion polls or hate-filled bloggers – - or insulting your hosts, taking attention away from the men you were asked to help honor, and betraying the trust of your PAC donors, etc, etc.
And for what? There is not a Huckabee supporter out there who does not already know which candidate he favors. (Nor is there a Huckabee supporter out there who would vote for Scozzafava even if he did somehow lose his mind and endorse her like Newt did) This is much ado about nothing…
October 31st, 2009 at 2:37 am
David,
What is Chris Maiorana trying to do here? It seems that he’s trying to push a false story right where everybody can see him doing it.
http://twitter.com/chrismaiorana/status/5269200224
October 31st, 2009 at 3:47 am
QuoVA
Thanks for your thread-killer post. I am also wondering why suddenly all the Let’s-Get-Back-To-The-Reagan era conservatives are demanding that Huckabee “endorse” an independent. Reagan was Republican through and through. It is evidence of hatred for Huckabee when these same whiners suggest he has no courage and yet fail to acknowledge his very early support of Rubio in Florida and VanderPlaats in Iowa. Many of these same folks will probably jump in with former Governor Branstad who is a fine gentleman, but one who spent money on government education and social services like it was water.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:07 am
I am not sure what Maiorana is doing either, but it may be related to this story in Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28873.html
October 31st, 2009 at 5:08 am
“OJ, I don’t think it’s sad at all. Endorsing Hoffman does not mean standing up to 4 political gangsters in NY. Political terrorists? That’s just about the silliest thing I’ve heard in all this nonsense.” OK Martha, these 4 gangsters in NY-23 may not quite be political terrorists, but they are under-handed political gangsters. Maybe, you do not care if such character operate in Oregon, but I do not want such a scenario developing in my state (and as you know, I told my party chairman this) and I will tell my party chairman this again. I received a letter in the mail yesterday from my party chairman asking through a brief survey what I thought about Ohio’s economy blah blah blah and then asking me for a donation to the state party. I will simply tell him that I will give no such donation until he assures me that he won’t tolerate anymore political gangsterism in Ohio. Even though the envelop says “NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES,” I will put a first class stamp on it because I am not going to cheat my state party chairman of 44 cents. However, I lived in NY-23, I would be so hacked off that I would not even waste 44 cents on such clowns. Further, as an Ohioan, I am thankful for the people of Northern New York for standing up to this non-sense. Perhaps ironically, I think there courageousness will encourage we Ohioans to fight for the values of both our state and country.
I am still a bit baffled why Mr. Huckabee cannot stand up a little stronger against this under-handed ACORN TARP Queen.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:08 am
Huck is slammed but Mitt isn’t. That is not fair.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:10 am
“Huck is slammed but Mitt isn’t. That is not fair.” ‘Mitt’ was slammed too and that is fair.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:08 am
Just another GOP lipstick on the pig moment to ponder when we pick our ‘leader’ for the next go round.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:19 am
OJ, I think you are slamming the GOP guys in that district a little too hard. It seems to me they didn’t have a lot of good options. Until Hoffman decided to go independent, Scozzafava had a healthy lead. Their main concern seemed to be keeping a GOP seat (which isn’t such a terrible idea, right?), and it looked like it would work, despite the weakness of Dede. Then Hoffman came along. He could have waited until the primary, but he decided to be a spoiler.
He’s turning out to be less than adequate, (have you seen some of his interviews?) and I think there’s going to be some buyers remorse setting. Seriously, he wouldn’t even debate, and he doesn’t know the issues. He seems to be a real conservative, though.
The truth is that this should have never gone national. Both candidates are just too weak to have the fight about the future of the GOP resting on their shoulders.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:46 am
47. “Those who are pretending that this is simply a matter of returning speaking fees are using an overly simplified contrivance as an excuse to bash the man they love to hate for whatever irrational reason.”
1. You must not know Mark very well yet. He’s the one who first suggested Huck return the speaking fees, and he does not bash or hate Huck. He’s one of the most rational and friendly posters here. In fact, he’s always encouraging we Rombots to let bygones be bygones, and to let Huck have a clean slate. (I happen to disagree with him, as a loepard does not change his spots.)
2. You made a better case for Huck not endorsing Hoffman, than he did for himself. I have no problem with Huckabee not endorsing Hoffman, but using the speaking fee as an excuse was lame. I also highly doubt it’s that difficult to return speaking fees.
3. Do you think there might be some valid reasons why some people severely dislike Huck, or is it all irrational? I’ve found that most voters usually based their opinions on something substantial and on real facts. For instance, I like Romney because I believe he’s a complete conservative who happens to be far more qualified for the job than everyone else. He has proven leadership qualities and a record of success in life that is unmatched, basically.
The problem with Huckabee is that he has some past issues that loom large. The taxes, pardons, religion-baiting, dishonesty, and petty attitude are a concern for a lot of voters. His lead in the polls seems to be based on strength among some evangelicals, and due to his TV and radio exposure.
None of my feelings about Huckabee are irrational. They are based on the research I did during the campaign about his record, and by my own observations of how he presents himself, and the kind of campaign he chose to run. I was not impressed, and eventually I was offended by his antics.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:01 am
“It seems to me they didn’t have a lot of good options.” Well, apparently it took 4 ballots until the 3 Gangsters were able to get the 4th Gangster on their side, so they must have had some choice Martha. But, the point is that they should have had an open primary.
“32. Ohio Joe, while I like Palin, it must be admitted that she endorsed Hoffman only when it was clear that endorsing Hoffman was cool. It doesn’t take that much courage to go with the flow…”
That is not entirely true; in fact, Mrs. Palin actually endorsed Mr. Hoffman before the 2 Pro-Hoffman polls came out. So either Mrs. Palin had inside information or a sixth sense, in which case at least she has a sixth sense where M & M only have 4 senses. I say 4 instead of 5 because they are politically tone deaf.
In closing, I would like to ask all soft Dedeites from both the Romney and Huckabees camp, what make you think that Ms. Scozzafava will be such a loyal Republican just because she has an R after her name? In 2006, I donated to various GOP candidates and I received a thank you letter from the RNC. I remember one time in 2006, some young punk (telemarketer) called me to donate to the RNC (or some such national organization) and I remember telling him before giving him a small donation that I was not happy that the GOP central committee was spending on this money on a losing liberal candidate in Rhode Island and not Conservative candidates across the country who had a chance of winning. The young man said that he understood that I wanted money to be spend on Conservatives in my state, but they had no chance of winning. I then told him that if Conservatives in my state supposedly have no chance of winning, why not give money to Conservatives in PA, AZ, FL or some other state where they could win. He said that he knew better than me and that Conservatives did not have a chance of winning in those states either and that I had to give money to the national party because unfortunately Mr. Chafee was one of the few Republican in close races that would have a chance of winning. Guess what? While Conservative Republican did lose that year in my state as well as many others, Mr. Chafee lost rather badly in Rhode Island and then he left the Republican party? Mr. Specter anyone? It is average Conservative Americans like you and I who indirectly make sure that these know it all punks have telemarketing jobs by donating to the RNC and the Republican Senatorial Committee and what not all. Let’s see how smart and powerful they are now! They turn around and trash us and now they want our money.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:46 am
Martha:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:49 am
The same people who bad-mouthed Romney for his comparison ads because they thought it broke Reagan’s 11th commandment seem to have no problem whatsoever in slamming Mitt and Huck for not slamming a Republican, albeit a liberal/moderate one.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:56 am
@56. Martha, tis true that a leopard does not change his spots, but when you are looking at a tiger and saying that, well it speaks more about you than the tiger!
The speaking fee was only one consideration out of many that Huckabee gave – I simply brought them together in one place. Had he given a full all out explanation, THEN his critics would have said ‘we thinks he doth protest too much!’ and THEN his critics would have made an issue of giving such an extensive explanation for such a relatively small deal must mean there is something suspicious there!
He is darned if he does & darned if he doesn’t with some. As he put it, “I think I could walk across the Atlantic Ocean to Paris and, you know, they would come along and say that Huckabee can’t swim.”
I have yet to hear you rationally discuss any of your dislikes about Huckabee. You have a rambling list that you rattle off like a gatling gun in hopes that there will be so many bullets no one can possibly fend them all off & then when people address those issues (as GrannyT did on the other thread), you ignore them. Talking to you about Huckabee is like talking to a Dawkins disciple about Christianity.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
@57. OJ, I don’t know anyone from Huckabee’s camp who is a “soft Dedeites”, as you put it. Go back & read the last paragraph of 47. Neither Huckabee nor his supporters can FAIRLY be characterized as such.
No one has suggested that we should rally behind Dede; in fact, we have all said we cannot support such a one on the pretense of party loyalty – some principles cannot be compromised. Huckabee has shown his disapproval for Dede and spoken favorably of Hoffman several times on the national news. The speech that he did give at the dinner was encouraging conservatives to follow principles that would lead one to vote for Hoffman over Scozzafava. Huckabee’s PAC supporters in NY have been voluntarily helping Hoffman’s campaign. I am baffled as to how all that can be characterized as helping Dede and hurting Hoffman?
I cannot speak for Romney’s supporters as all I heard was that he said he only endorses Republicans with no further explanation given in that news piece, but you are making an argument that most certainly does not apply to Huckabee supporters.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Upchuckabee is such a bigot/liar that it makes me want to hurl. I’m waiting for him to hold a press conference announcing that God has endorsed him for President and that Mitt Romney is Satanist.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
So, Huckabee admits that he sold out for cash? How can such a stalwart of his principles & morals ever do such a thing?
Seriously, many can take this in so many ways to beat him over the head. Sorry, Huckabee is just not ready for prime-time.
October 31st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Matt:
“By entering the Contest, each entrant grants Sponsor an unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual right to display, modify, perform, copy and create derivative work from his/her Entry.”
This gives the sponsor protection should any of their bloggers state something too un-PC. They want legal protection to delete or alter anything which they feel could hurt their company image.
So you got an “F” rating? Seriously, I’ve always considered you an excellent blogger notwithstanding some differences of opinion. So, they gave you an “F” rating and also that legalese statement? What did you do? Make a statement like all homos should burn in hell?
(Just kidding!)
October 31st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
You guys make great PR for Romney, LOL! Keep it up!
BTW, didn’t you hear that the GOP has endorsed Hoffman? (You didn’t really think Dede dropped out on her own, did you?)
To read this statement, “NY-23 will be forgotten a week or so after the election is over. What is important is that Republicans all came together in the end, which is a very, very good thing.” and then to come here, makes me think of the stories of Japanese soldiers left on an island who are still fighting WWII long after it’s over…
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“I would like to ask all soft Dedeites from both the Romney and Huckabees camp”
You’ve got to be kidding me! First, you can count on one hand the number of Huckabee supporters who support Dede! That is just nuts! Second, Hoffman himself prominently displayed Huckabee’s unofficial support for him on his web page until Scozzafava dropped out. Third, the Conservative Party and its leaders did not at all blame Huckabee for not “formally” endorsing Hoffman.