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

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?

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? :)

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?

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

Ditto!

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.

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.”

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.

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?

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.

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.

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 AM

Thanks. That was very helpful.

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.

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.

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.

These images are not good before breakfast and coffee.

At least I am not thinking of Senator Mensroom.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.