Huckabee unloads on Fred: The would-be emperor has no clothes

posted at 7:37 pm on August 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Oh, Huck. If only you weren’t a Bloombergian nanny-state scold. This sort of cutting takedown makes a blogger’s heart soar:

In an interview I conducted this week in Iowa with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, I asked him to explain why Fred Thompson was getting so much attention before he even enters the presidential race.

He said, “I frankly don’t get it. I mean I’m not being unkind I just don’t understand it because there’s not a substantial record in the Senate in him having authored the landmark signature bill that changed America. There’s not been in essence the kind of thing that says boy I remember when he did and then you fill in the blank. I think a lot of it is that people aren’t sure whether they’re electing a former senator or Arthur Branch. Anytime a person is on television a lot and a celebrity there’s a sense in which people are given a unique pedestal on which to stand and it’s the celebrity more than it is anything, the attention that comes from that and the sort of gee whiz factor and I’ve seen him on TV.”

In fairness to Fred, if there’s any signature accomplishment to the Huckabee era in Arkansas aside from him losing a thousand pounds, it’s eluded me thus far.

Exit question: Whose big government would be bigger — Huck’s or Jimmy Carter’s candidate of choice?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s a cutting takedown?
I like Huckabee, and he seems like such a nice guy that this could be a cutting takedown from him. But this doesn’t seems an especially scathing indictment of ol’ Fred.

VolMagic on August 29, 2007 at 7:41 PM

The fact that we continue to follow Fred so closely, even when there is no news to report, is proof that the cult of his personality alone far exceeds anything this guy called Huckabee may have. If I was huckabee, I’d be jealous, too.

jihadwatcher on August 29, 2007 at 7:42 PM

heh gald to see that Jimmy Carter “I love John Edwards hes my type of guy” story Allah

Considering those two are so much alike

William Amos on August 29, 2007 at 7:43 PM

VolMagic on August 29, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Agreed.

jdawg on August 29, 2007 at 7:44 PM

there’s not a substantial record in the Senate in him having authored the landmark signature bill that changed America.

I guess it’s escaped Hukabees’s notice that real conservatives generally aren’t in favor of huge, sweeping legislation that changes America.

Drew on August 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM

I like Huckabee, and he seems like such a nice guy that this could be a cutting takedown from him. But this doesn’t seems an especially scathing indictment of ol’ Fred.

He’s calling him an empty suit whose appeal is entirely superficial. Pretty cutting, I’d say.

Allahpundit on August 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM

He’s calling him an empty suit whose appeal is entirely superficial. Pretty cutting, I’d say.

Allahpundit on August 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Comparing him to Obama is a real cutting comment

William Amos on August 29, 2007 at 7:46 PM

Allahpundit on August 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM

But he’s saying it so darn nicely. And you know he’s got the magic smile on his face when he says it.

VolMagic on August 29, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Exit question: Whose big government would be bigger — Huck’s or Jimmy Carter’s candidate of choice?

Edwards, but it would be a close race with Huck’s support for open borders and proposed nation-wide smoking ban. Huckabee wants to criminalize certain legal actions by legal residents and decriminalize certain actions by illegal residents. If it weren’t for his religion, I’d think he’s in the wrong party.

jaime on August 29, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Allahpundit “In fairness to Fred, if there’s any signature accomplishment to the Huckabee era in Arkansas aside from him losing a thousand pounds, it’s eluded me thus far.”

Tysons Foods thinks that Huckabee accomplished a lot. They like him a muy bien.

MB4 on August 29, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Exit question: Whose big government would be bigger — Huck’s or Jimmy Carter’s candidate of choice?

Castro’s candidate of choice perhaps?

Kowboy on August 29, 2007 at 7:52 PM

…having authored the landmark signature bill that changed America.

Conservatives don’t write sweeping domestic legislation. They write laws like this.

And they have articles written about them like this.

jaime on August 29, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Arthur Branch’s government would be the biggest. He’d need direction, stage crew’s, teleprompter operators, and script-writers all under the name of “aid to the President.”

Arthur Branch ’08: “I saw that man on TV!”

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I haven’t chosen a candidate yet. I’d like to see Fred answer this.

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 8:02 PM

What did Huck say that is wrong? I guess only HotAir commenters can unload on Fred.

MT on August 29, 2007 at 8:04 PM

What did Huck say that is wrong? I guess only HotAir commenters can unload on Fred.

MT on August 29, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Huck wants a national ban on smoking. When you go all prohibitionist on me, I kind of lose a little respect for everything else you have to say.

Kowboy on August 29, 2007 at 8:06 PM

When you go all prohibitionist on me, I kind of lose a little respect for everything else you have to say.

Kowboy on August 29, 2007 at 8:06 PM

As I’ve read on this site many times, “even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 8:10 PM

…wrong in terms of Fred I mean.

Re: the smoking ban…it’s a workplace safety issue! Borderline, but not a Huck killer for me vs the life/immigration issues with Rudy and the unnerving plasticness of Romney.

MT on August 29, 2007 at 8:14 PM

Re: the smoking ban…it’s a workplace safety issue!

MT on August 29, 2007 at 8:14 PM

Horse manure. The last 3 places I’ve worked (which covers about the last 20 years) all had designated smoking areas outside away from non-smokers. The only ones exposed to second hand smoke were the ones who chose to come out and sit with us. Workplace safety is a lame excuse. Most employers provide non-smokers with a smoke free environment already.

Kowboy on August 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Huckabee “TRIES” a premptive attack on Fred:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294662,00.html

Huckabee made several mistakes.
1) He mentioned Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Huckabeen-I havent noticed any comparisons to Ronald Reagan and Yourself whereas I think I have read a few about Reagan and Fred.
Perhaps there is a little underlying envy there.

2)Huckabee said,
“Let’s just hope Fred decides it’s just too hot this summer to even do this. Maybe he won’t get in,” Huckabee said in a broadcast interview Sunday.

Mr Huckabeen, Hope is not a strategy. To emply that Fred can’t take the heat (for various health or political reasons) is a cheap shot.

3) Huckabee mentions the polls. Huckabee said he would rather “be in a position to overperform than to get in and then underperform the expectations. And so far, that’s what we’ve done,” citing the results in Iowa and saying he has gained momentum in New Hampshire.

Mr Huckabee, it’s easy to “overperform” when you are in single digits. A 3 point jump would be a 100% jump for you right now….

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Tell me what your first instincts are when you read this quote:

“He was often described as lazy, “just an actor,”

—————————————————–
HMMM…. Who could they be talking about?
Now read this-It will only take a few minutes and it’s worth reading the whole thing in my opinion. Check out the date as well. I got the above quote here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20802-2004Jun6.html

Funny how history can repeat itself…

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM

The /snark tag didn’t stick after the workplace issue comment… I agree it’s manure, but there’s no one so far that doesn’t have some aromatics floating around.

Gimme something Fred!

MT on August 29, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Funny how history can repeat itself…

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Maybe a couple of things should happen before you jump the gun
(a) Fred announces
(b) Fred wins Repub nomination
(c) Fred wins general election
(d) IF a-c come true, wait 4-8 years to gauge his accomplishments before crowning him the next Reagan

Medved had a good column related to this
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/08/29/the_worst_gop_field_ever–or_the_best

Bradky on August 29, 2007 at 8:30 PM

“He was often described as lazy, “just an actor,”

—————————————————–
HMMM…. Who could they be talking about?
Now read this-It will only take a few minutes and it’s worth reading the whole thing in my opinion. Check out the date as well. I got the above quote here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20802-2004Jun6.html

Funny how history can repeat itself…

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM

The only thing Fred has in common with Reagan is acting. Is Fred a great communicator? No. Was Reagan a corrupt Washington insider giving PAC funds to his family? No. Was Fred ever a Governor or Reagan a Senator? No and no.

Any resemblance to Reagan Fred has is solely part of Fred’s PR campaign. There’s a reason he isn’t going to be in any debates: he wants to drum himself up as the next Reagan, no hard questions asked, no real testing of his ability under pressure. He just wants we stupid hick conservatives to buy into this Beltway Boy’s fabricated image as the second coming of Reagan.

I for one, am not going to fall for it. He’s a fraud, a beltway insider, and a Hollyweird stooge. He can bloviate all he wants about federalism, but at the end of the day we know he supports the status quo in Washington.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 8:31 PM

Kowboy on August 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM

And God bless the smokers, they help keep some money in the social security pot since they tend to collect it for fewer years.

Bradky on August 29, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Most employers provide non-smokers with a smoke free environment already.

So they’d be all set under Huck’s plan then! :-)

MT on August 29, 2007 at 8:33 PM

I never compared Fred to Reagan. Huckabee did!!! I dont believe anyone can compare to Reagan including Fred. It’s a different world now.

Do I support Fred. YES I DO!!!

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Your link to the article and musing on how history repeats itself seemed to infer a comparison. But I’ll take your word for it…

Bradky on August 29, 2007 at 8:49 PM

Reagan (who announced for president in November) was extremely active politically ALL along and not just AFTER his acting days.

Fred promises a normal guy in the White House and that’s what we want. He’s no Reagan nor would he say he is. Run Hitlery, run. You’re going to get clobbered.

Mojave Mark on August 29, 2007 at 8:52 PM

I think Huck is smart to criticize Fred. When a candidate is getting as much superficial media attention as Fred, a candidate like Huck has little to lose.

Not to make a personal comparison, but I would liken it to the “Olby Effect”. Olberman didn’t have much going for him, so he chose to go after Rush, The Factor et al. By forcing an (negative) association between himself with the biggest names in media propelled him into the spotlight and gained him favor with a precious few.

What Huck has going for him that Olby doesn’t is a high likeability factor. Huck knows that if he can just get some air-time his personality and ideas will start to stick.

realVerse on August 29, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Mojave Mark on August 29, 2007 at 8:52 PM

I really think a Thompson – Hillary matchup will result in a close win for Hillary. She will have the luxury of being able to pour most of her campaign funds (the legal ones ;) )
into Ohio and Virginia. If she takes those with what Kerry won she wins. Rudy would cause her to have to spread the money out over more states like NJ, NY and PA.

Bradky on August 29, 2007 at 8:56 PM

If he gets in, I’ll start caring. Til then…? Everyone is p*ssed at him ’cause….what? He promised us he’d do….what? If the guy gets in and does everything right, he’s out because…just because?

JWS on August 29, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Tell me what your first instincts are when you read this quote:

“He was often described as lazy, “just an actor,”
Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Sorry, drawing a blank.

I’m too busy worrying about the last two “polite and deeply religious presidents” we had: Jimmy Carter and George Bush.

I don’t want a President who “feels my pain;” I don’t want a President who’s trying to cure my malaise. I don’t want a President to “generously” give away two trillion dollars of other people’s money in additional Medicare “charity.”

I want a President who understands the difference between the job of the federal government and the job of the state governments. And right now, there is only one person on the national stage who shows any indication he is capable of doing what every grade school graduate in America SHOULD be able to do.

(And I’ll give you one clue: it’s not Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton.)

logis on August 29, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Looking at both sides (Republican/Democrat)you have to consider what the people think. (polls)

Right now Fred is 1 point behind Rudy. Fred has suffered a blistering negative MSM blitz [Mostly about not announcing] and has continued to to be competitive even though he has not announced. THAT is impressive!

Rudy has dropped off the radar in the past week…….

Hillary is the presumptive candidate for the Dems and I dont think that will change. The only mystery left is her choice for VP. NOW THAT will be interesting…..

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Huckabee wants a nation wide smoking ban. What I’d like to know is, is his motivation for the ban grounded in socialist philosophy or as part of a hoped for revival of the temperance movement? And if his apposition to smoking is based on temperance, is he apposed to Alcohol consumption as well? He’s already on record as being apposed to miniskirts so I find myself wondering, what else is Huckabee against?

On the other hand, he raises some valid points with regard to Fred. I hope Fred turns out as spectacular as some of his fans seem to think he will be because Fred’s star-power has been burning up all of the conservative-oxygen in the race. If he enters late and then bombs, conservatives may be left deciding if they would rather vote for the lib with the D or the R next to their name, or stay home altogether.

FloatingRock on August 29, 2007 at 9:13 PM

…conservatives may be left deciding if they would rather vote for the lib with the D or the R next to their name, or stay home altogether.

Yep. If a real conservative is not nominated, that’ll be the choice.

jaime on August 29, 2007 at 9:25 PM

I want a President who understands the difference between the job of the federal government and the job of the state governments. And right now, there is only one person on the national stage who shows any indication he is capable of doing what every grade school graduate in America SHOULD be able to do.

(And I’ll give you one clue: it’s not Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton.)

logis on August 29, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Then you support Fred! :)

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 9:30 PM

I support the candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton. And I won’t stay home because the person who can beat her isn’t conservative enough for me. I hope others feel the same way. Exactly what would be worse? Another Clinton or Rudy, Fred or Mitt? Or even a Huckabee? I hope once the primaries are complete, all conservatives will make the right decision and vote for anyone but Clinton.

Sue on August 29, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Funny, McCain somehow slipped my mind. ::grin:: Yeah, I’d even vote McCain, if the choice was him or Clinton.

Sue on August 29, 2007 at 9:46 PM

…having authored the landmark signature bill that changed America.

Changing America is what ‘progressives’ do.

Keeping America great is what conservatives do.

ConstantSorrow on August 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Exactly how will Fred Thompson beat Hillary Clinton again? You can be sure as hell that Hillary will be pulling out all the stops against Fred, while Fred trolls around in his golf cart and Gucci shoes, the same lazy way he always does.

A Fred Thompson nomination is a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency. Fred can’t even keep his staffers in line, Hillary Clinton will eat him alive just like she’ll eat Barack Obama, Fred’s Democrat “put all your dreams in me. I’m Hollywood” counterpart.

Fred wouldn’t last one round with Hillary. In the first presidential debate, he will be slaughtered mercilessly. He can’t hide behind Hannity and Leno’s skirts forever. Fred is so lazy and out of touch with reality that if a terrorist attack ocurred in America he wouldn’t respond to it for a full month.

Come out and play Fred, what are you waiting for? You’re all big on talking about the other candidates when you’ve got a forum all to yourself, but you’re too cowardly to even show up anywhere else.

Forget that loser Fred Thompson. I for one do not want a lazy, cowardly, indecisive, status quo loving Washington insider clown as my president.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM

You’re from MA, right?

How did Romney come across as Gov? How did he handle that liberal state? Did it conflict with his own values?

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM

I went from liking Huck to being virulently opposed to him almost immediately. I have no patience for Nanny Staters. Zero, I don’t care if its something stupid like tobacco, fried food, or foie gras or something of immeasurable value to defend liberty like speech or guns. The Nanny State has to be stopped, now!

Bad Candy on August 29, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Forget that loser Fred Thompson. I for one do not want a lazy, cowardly, indecisive, status quo loving Washington insider clown as my president.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM

You forgot that fred? is into funneling his campaign contributions to his family.

csdeven on August 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM

This is one of the arguments I use against RP too his idgit supporters. He has no major piece of legistlation sponsored by him that got signed into law. I guess that applies to Fred too, doesn’t it?

lorien1973 on August 29, 2007 at 10:40 PM

I’m not so sure I disagree with a public ban on smoking, personally. Someone smoking can affect my health. I wouldn’t allow someone to smoke in my office, I’m not sure its an unreasonable law.

lorien1973 on August 29, 2007 at 10:46 PM

lorien1973 on August 29, 2007 at 10:46 PM

You’ll regret it when your ox gets gored, and I say that as someone who doesn’t smoke. You give the Nanny Staters an inch and they will take a mile. I’m willing to endure the cost of health hazards associated with second hand smoke in the name of protecting liberty.

Bad Candy on August 29, 2007 at 11:01 PM

“Both Romney and Huckabee received a minor bounce in the polls for a few days. But, two weeks later, the national polls show that the Iowa event had virtually no impact. Romney remains mired in third place barely ahead of John McCain. Huckabee’s support continues to be measured in the mid-single digits.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary

Polls are not always right but trends are trends…….

It’s either Fred or Rudy unless……? October surprise? LOL
The Oct surprise may come a year early this time around…

There are only 4-5 months until the primary elections…..

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Get with it people! Its’ Huckabaaaaye!

TBinSTL on August 30, 2007 at 12:03 AM

I’m sensing some negative waves here.

The Republicans can run the yellow dog and still win if Hitlery is the nominee. Americans aren’t as stupid as some of you think. Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Remember? In a two way against the elephant, Hitlery loses. The media made Clinton appear more popular than he really was when he was renting out the Lincoln bedroom. You forget ALL the scandals, Clinton fatigue, and Hitlery’s bra burning “Maude” personality. She energizes the right and angers the left. All the wafflers will just stay home. We’re ready for a woman but not THAT woman. Fred is very likeable and will do fine. Breathe already!

Remember all the talk about Bush during his campaigns? It’s just an unethical propaganda media in action. Who didn’t vote for Kerry that’s gonna vote for Hitlery?

Mojave Mark on August 30, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Who didn’t vote for Kerry that’s gonna vote for Hitlery?

Mojave Mark on August 30, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Good point, I am getting pretty tired of all this “Rudy or Mitt are the only ones that can beat Hitlery” garbage. Unless a third party righty runs like Perot, (which is the only way Clinton got elected both times) I think we could run a monkey and win.

conservnut on August 30, 2007 at 12:25 AM

And by the way, the only way a third party guy gets any traction is if we nominate a lib in republican clothing.

You know the ones I mean.

conservnut on August 30, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Who didn’t vote for Kerry that’s gonna vote for Hitlery?

Mojave Mark on August 30, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Call me skeptical about your predictions.

I remember the exit polls in the 2004 election. President Kerry had won by all accounts, but then as the day went on the Dubya train just couldn’t be stopped. I think the Vichy-Americans may well pick up lots of seats but I’m not predicting a takeover in either the House or Senate. Even the seat pick-up will be viewed as a moral victory for the Dems. The Republican elitists better get their heads out of the sand (to put it mildly) and get back to true conservatism.
Mojave Mark on October 9, 2006 at 6:15 PM

“Noot” will get the nod in ‘08.
Mojave Mark on November 12, 2006 at 8:18 PM

Bradky on August 30, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Nice to see Huckabee thinks voters are so stupid about who they are voting for.

91Veteran on August 30, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Huck’s for Huck. Jimmy’s for Poney and Castro’s for Hillary/Obama. I’m for Miss Teen of S.C.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Unless a third party righty runs like Perot, (which is the only way Clinton got elected both times) I think we could run a monkey and win.
conservnut on August 30, 2007 at 12:25 AM

There are LOTS of fred? groupies that have already informed us all that if freddie boy doesn’t get the nomination, they WILL NOT vote for Rudy or Mitt! and will vote third party. Effectively giving the presidency to Hillary.

I haven’t heard that about Mitt! or Rudy fans. They are generally less willing to cut off their nose to spite their face and will not vote third party because it splits the conservative vote.

fred? groupies are like the Ron Paul loons.

csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 AM

The only mystery left is her choice for VP. NOW THAT will be interesting…..

Nelsa

Nelsa on August 29, 2007 at 9:09 PM

She’ll need a psychologist – so, she’ll pick one.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 1:23 AM

fred? groupies are like the Ron Paul loons.

csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Don’t worry, buddy. They’ll all come to their senses when the knife is close to their bone. Plus, I haven’t seen too much of “I will not vote for Rudy or Mitt”.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 1:27 AM

There are LOTS of fred? groupies that have already informed us all that if freddie boy doesn’t get the nomination, they WILL NOT vote for Rudy or Mitt!
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 AM

You are just agreeing with my point, (see above comments)

I guess that makes you my bit$h csdeven.

By the way, just for your info. I am not a fredhead. I wait to see what he brings to the party, that’s all. And I do like the fact that since he has been doing so well in the polls and driving you bit$hes crazy he has also been driving Rudy and Mitt further to the right.

Mission Accomplished.

conservnut on August 30, 2007 at 1:41 AM

Plus, I haven’t seen too much of “I will not vote for Rudy or Mitt”.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Allow me to oblige: I will not vote for Rudy, Mitt or McCain. There are other candidates I would feel comfortable voting for; among them Fred is the front-runner. After 8 years of Bush and a Republican Congress more interested in bringing home the bacon than doing what’s right for the country it’s time to play the purist card.

I’d rather fight enemies than my supposed allies.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 1:56 AM

There are LOTS of fred? groupies that have already informed us all that if freddie boy doesn’t get the nomination, they WILL NOT vote for Rudy or Mitt!

csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Not that I’ve read every comment in every primary related thread here at HotAir, but I’ve never noticed any evidence that would substantiate your statement above, at least in relation to Mitt.
However, speaking for myself, I will never vote for anybody who isn’t at least a modest supporter of the second amendment, which as far as I’m aware only rules out Rudy. “Modest support” is as far as I’m willing to compromise fundamental American principles. HotAir readers may not be the biggest second amendment supporters in the USA but I assure you there are plenty of us out there in the conservative movement who will not be voting for either Rudy or Hillary. If one of the dominant Parties is going to try to take my guns away let it be the Democrats rather than Republicans. If both Parties turn against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and consequently America, then I will take my vote elsewhere or nowhere at all. I’m an American, not a partisan. I will join the revolution, or try to start one, before I will let Rudy or anybody else try to melt down my guns in preparation for whatever they have planned next.

My understanding is that although Mitt supports the assault weapons ban, at least he “seems” to fall into the category of being a modest 2nd amendment supporter, similar to McCain. I would vote for Mitt, but I could not vote for Rudy. In my opinion Rudy is on the apposing team.

To illustrate my point, if you all had to choose between Hillary or Edwards, who would you vote for? Or might you decide not to vote for either?

FloatingRock on August 30, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Dearest Hollowpoint, let a good fight for the top spot ensue during the primaries. Once someone is selected, consider that none would ruin this beloved country faster than any of the lefties. I lived in communism for way too long – it really, really sucks. There’s no turning back from socialism. There is reversal from communism – there isn’t from socialism. It’s a terminal slow growing ‘cancer’.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 2:21 AM

There’s no turning back from socialism.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 2:21 AM

As long as the populace remains armed it will always retain the option of turning back the tide of tyranny. Whichever communist country you lived in was undoubtedly disarmed before communism was ever implemented. Disarming the people is the first rule of tyranny.

FloatingRock on August 30, 2007 at 2:32 AM

FloatingRock, I agree with you – i.e. Canada, Australia and Western Europe. Right now Venezuela and a few other South-American countries pain me the most.

Yes also on the “communist country” – it was Romania.

Entelechy on August 30, 2007 at 2:38 AM

I’m not so sure I disagree with a public ban on smoking, personally. Someone smoking can affect my health. I wouldn’t allow someone to smoke in my office, I’m not sure its an unreasonable law.
lorien1973 on August 29, 2007 at 10:46 PM

This is the core of Socialism. Neither the Nazis, the Soviets, nor any other collectivist regime ever came to power promising their supporters they would be “unreasonable.” It NEVER works that way. The road to Hell doesn’t start out with one giant atrocity; it’s paved with a thousand good intentions.

It has been decades since anyone in power stopped to ask, “Why in the Hell do we NEED to control this from one central location?” We need to start doing that again, right now.

Of course people will always say “But MY tiny little pet project won’t obliterate all freedom, so why NOT collectivize it?”

Well, because that one addiction is worse than all the others put together.

logis on August 30, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Who’s Fred? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz shit or get off the pot my man….

BadBrad on August 30, 2007 at 5:14 AM

You’re from MA, right?

How did Romney come across as Gov? How did he handle that liberal state? Did it conflict with his own values?

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM

He kept his campaign promises, one of which is that he would not change existing laws vis-a-vis abortion. That didn’t stop him from stonewalling new laws as best he could against an overwhelminging Democratic legislature.

Romney follows through with what he says, whether you like what he says or not. He wasn’t a liar then and he won’t be a liar now.

And I love the idiots (mostly elsewhere) who claim Romney supports gay marriage. They must be living under a rock or they’d realize Romney can’t do a damn thing about court rulings. All he can do is limit the scope of the law to Massachusetts and prevent fly-by-nighters and in the meantime adamantly fight against it within his own state.

Considering he was one man excercising one branch of government in a state ptherwise completely run by the opposite party, Romney did a damn good job.

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 AM

Fred! with no clothes, Rudiani wearing ladies’ clothes, Huckebee having mercy on a rapist…

These images are not good before breakfast and coffee.

At least I am not thinking of Senator Mensroom.

saved on August 30, 2007 at 7:17 AM

Huckebee’s releasing the rapist will be the straw for him. It’s all over. O-V-E-R ! I had considered him and when I heard that story, I knew he could never, ever be elected with that in his history.

No matter what his justifications for that action might be, it’s O-V-E-R. We, as a nation, are entering a “take no craap” era regarding those who break our laws.

stenwin77 on August 30, 2007 at 7:22 AM

Or might you decide not to vote for either?
FloatingRock on August 30, 2007 at 2:17 AM

I understand your point and if the US ever got to the point where those two were our only choices, it would be because conservatives values had totally broken down. In that case, I’d probably not care a whole lot about 2nd amendment rights. But the reality is that the president can only sign bills into law that the congress passes. The attack on guns from the loony left is to do away with them completely. That would take a huge majority of conservatives and Blue dog dems to jump ship and I don’t see that happening.

But more importantly, it would take a constitutional amendment or a liberal activist supreme court. The constitutional amendment will never happen.

As far as the SCOTUS is concerned, which candidate would be more likely to nominate liberal activist judges, Rudy or ANY dem?

We all know the answer because Rudy has given his word. We already know what the dems will do. So, we take a chance on Rudy at his word, or we just roll over and give it to the dems.

Sorry, but I’ll give Rudy the benefit of the doubt before I vote in a way that gives this election to the dems.

csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 AM

I have a hard time supporting Rudy right now before the primaries. He and I are just too opposite on too many issues. Having said that, I would support him over any of the Dem pack in a general election if he got the nomination. Mitt, don’t have too much of a problem with him. I am a bit disturbed by the flip flops, I guess that comes from being the Gov of a socialist state.

I am just afraid that without a true conservative in the race, too many people will just stay home and not vote at all. This is how we nearly got President Gore and President Kerry. A major move to the right will energize the base and bring them out like we have not seen in the past 25 years.

conservnut on August 30, 2007 at 7:49 AM

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 AM

Thanks. That was very helpful.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 8:24 AM

Hukckabee wanted a ban on smoking in the workplace, and only the workplace. Not resturants or bars, but in the work place. Nothing like sitting in an office and having some yokel blowing smoke in your face for 8 hrs. If you don’t like it, then change jobs, yeah good idea, you are 2 years from being vested in your 401K and you are going to quit…give the vestement up because some goon is making your life miserable.

What has been the fall out in Ark.? Did he lose support or gain support for his ban?

BTW, as the resturant association of Calif. support the smoking ban in reaturants and bars. They wouldn’t give that ban up for anything.

Smoke in your home, out on the street, in your car…not in my face.

right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 8:56 AM

You’re from MA, right?

How did Romney come across as Gov? How did he handle that liberal state? Did it conflict with his own values?

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Huckabee said it best. Mitt has changed his positions more than any adult politition should be allowed.

Mitt is everything to everyone, because his postitions have at one time appealed to everyone. Abortion…ok, not ok…conservative…I am, I’m not, gun control…yes, no, it goes on and on. He is what he thinks the voters want him to be.

Rather have a man make a mistake but take a stand, then change his mind to get votes.

right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 9:00 AM

logis on August 30, 2007 at 4:44 AM

The core of Nazi’s is not banning smoking in the work place.

One of the more foolish statements made, banning smoking in the work place, killing 6 million jews…yeah that makes sense.

And the Nazi’s banned smoking? Was that in Mein Cough?

right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 9:05 AM

The core of Nazi’s is not banning smoking in the work place.

One of the more foolish statements made, banning smoking in the work place, killing 6 million jews…yeah that makes sense.

And the Nazi’s banned smoking? Was that in Mein Cough?

right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 9:05 AM

My personal take on the Democrat’s incessant need to ban smoking (and now the Huckster) is because they want to make Rush Limbaugh suffer somehow.

Then again, liberals have always wanted to control what comes out of your mouth.

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Neither the Nazis, the Soviets, nor any other collectivist regime ever came to power promising their supporters they would be “unreasonable.” It NEVER works that way. The road to Hell doesn’t start out with one giant atrocity; it’s paved with a thousand good intentions.
logis on August 30, 2007 at 4:44 AM

The core of Nazi’s is not banning smoking in the work place.

One of the more foolish statements made, banning smoking in the work place, killing 6 million jews…yeah that makes sense.

And the Nazi’s banned smoking? Was that in Mein Cough?

right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Excellent point. And may I add that you have excellent reading skills! Except that, of course, I said that the “core” of Nazism, Sovietism, (as well as Maoism, Baathism, and a hundred others) is something called “collectivism:” unnecessarily centralized control.

And, of course, Mein Campf didn’t say a word about burning jews; and of course Lenin never promised the world a Gulag. So I’m afraid your implication that I said that sitting next to one cigarette will instantly enslave everyone on planet earth is a particularly “foolish” one.

But, yes, the belief that anyone who opposes the latest greatest federal government collectivisation must always be “in favor” of bad air, economic inequality, racism, sexism, slavery, etc., etc., etc… is indeed the core of all collectivist thought.

I hate to break it to you, but it is impossible for any government to ever give you a choice between goodness and badness. The only choice you will ever have is a choice between WHICH kind of long-term cancer you prefer “a little bit more of.”

logis on August 30, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Sorry, but I’ll give Rudy the benefit of the doubt before I vote in a way that gives this election to the dems.

csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 AM

Thanks, csd, my thoughts exactly. Although we are currently supporting different candidates, I am glad to see that neither of us will sit out this election if our boy doesn’t get the nod.

The results of even a four year klintonista administration would be devistating to our country. Think of who would be AG under her: Jamie Gorlick. And tink what type of judges she would select for SCOTUS (shudder, think 9th Circuit). We do not have the luxury to sit out this election.

Texas Nick 77 on August 30, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Huckabee is for a national sales tax and that alone prevents me from ever supporting him. As for Rudy, he’s still my top pick of Repubs. I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. I like his stand on tax reform mainly. It’s something this country has needed for a long time. It doesn’t get much play but it’s important to me, and I’ll bet, to many others. As for Fred???

jeanie on August 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM

We do not have the luxury to sit out this election.
Texas Nick 77 on August 30, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Ditto!

csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 11:52 AM

He wasn’t a liar then and he won’t be a liar now.
BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 10:15 AM

So we can expect him to take a break from the campaign for hunting season, being a self-proclaimed lifelong hunter and gun owner?

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 12:31 PM

He’s calling him an empty suit whose appeal is entirely superficial. Pretty cutting, I’d say.

Allahpundit on August 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM

So csdeven is actually Huckabee? :)

heatherrc77 on August 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

So csdeven is actually Huckabee? :)
heatherrc77 on August 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Does anybody else find it a little bit suspicious that Huckabee lost 110 pounds right before CS started posting?

logis on August 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Does anybody else find it a little bit suspicious that Huckabee lost 110 pounds right before CS started posting?

logis on August 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Ya know, now that you mention it, you never see them in the same place at the same time do you?

/smile

techno_barbarian on August 30, 2007 at 10:27 PM