Quin Hillyer: The case against Huckabee
posted at 9:11 am on October 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This piece made a little stir in headlines so I’m bringing it down to Times Square. On a day when we’re staring down the barrel of the DREAM Act, it seems only appropriate to give an open-borders advocate a little unwanted attention. John Hawkins has his own case against (and for) Huck out this morning amounting to “he’s George Bush with better oratory,” but Quin Hillyer gets a bit more specific. Huck’s selling points are that he’s got all the right moves on social issues and knows his way around a podium; combine that with his status as a minister and you’ve got the preacher candidate social cons have dreamed of.
Not so fast, says Hillyer.
Ask lots of folks in Arkansas, including Republicans, and a fair number will probably tell you that Huck is for Huck is for Huck. National media folks like David Brooks, dealing in surface appearances only, rave about what a nice guy Huckabee is, and a moral exemplar to boot. If they only did a little homework, they would discover a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak, and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics…
Fourteen times, the ethics commission — a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group — investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And, as only MSNBC among the big national media has reported at any real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way.
He used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor’s mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a “charitable” organization he set up while lieutenant governor — an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious “charity.”…
All of which leads one to ask two questions: First, how can voters whose primary concerns are moral look beyond so many of a candidate’s problems with ethics? And, second, if Republicans in general have concluded, as most of them have, that repeated scandals among Washington GOPers played a huge role in Republican defeats in 2006, how could they possibly nominate somebody who seems to have such big ethical blind spots?
The answer to the first question is easy: Huck is “right” on gays and abortion, particularly vis-a-vis his opponents, and that’s enough. The second question is harder and points to serious problems in a general election contest, especially if he faces Hillary, who’ll have plenty of Arkansas contacts to sniff around for other cases of ethical lapses. Exit question, and it’s Hillyer’s exit question too: Why hasn’t Duncan Hunter done better as an alternative? He’s a Vietnam vet, he’s acceptable to social cons, and he doesn’t have Huckabee’s nanny state tendencies. Is it just a fatal lack of charisma? What gives?
Note: I imported comments from the headline item into the comment thread below.
Update: To burnish his own preacher-like credentials, Huck is apparently telling people that “most” of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen. Not even close.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 pretty damning article.
Christoph on October 24, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Let me add… I was leaning toward thinking Huckabee might make your best candidate based on his debate performance and stance on social issues… but damn, that article gives a lot of reasons for pause.
Christoph on October 24, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Here’s what open-borders Huckabee thinks about all you hate-filled conservatives:
“I’m a conservative,” he said, “but I’m not mad at anybody about it.”
jaime on October 24, 2007 at 12:35 AM
i hope, for hillyer’s sake, that chuck norris doesn’t see this…
its vintage duh on October 24, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Huchabee sounds like a phony Christian.
And then of course there is this too:
From The Arkansas News - Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life. Holt, R-Springdale, replied later that Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.
Senate Bill 206, filed Wednesday, also would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and would require state agencies to report suspected cases of people living in the country illegally.
Amen to Jim Holt. Joe McCutchen, Chairman of Protect Arkansas NOW, a newly formed group supporting the bill had this to say. “They broke the law,” he said. “My angst is not with them, though. My angst is with the state and federal government for not enforcing our laws.”
People living illegally in the United State has “overwhelmed our school and welfare system,” McCutchen said. As for whether the bill reflects un-Christian attitudes, McCutchen said: “Jim Holt is as good a man and as good a Christian as any man walking this Earth.”
“Doggone it, the rule of law is not being upheld, and that’s wrong,” McCutchen said.
MB4 on October 24, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Huck the fu… wait. That doesn’t quite work.
Editor on October 24, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Works for me.
HuchabeeHucksterMB4 on October 24, 2007 at 1:14 AM
There must be something in the water in the governors mansion that brings out the scum in the inhabitants. First The Clenis and now Huck? Well, Billy Jeff has probably been scum his entire life. HEY! Maybe he infected the mansion like some kind of black mold permeating the walls?
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:17 AM
As a religious conservative, I say, “Thank God for Quin Hillyer!”
I knew Huck was squishy-soft on immigration, which is why I was slightly worried when the mini-bandwagon started rolling last weekend. Good to see the wheels come off the Huckabee Express.
A clean, solid takedown by Hillyer. Stick a fork in Huck, he’s done.
Ali-Bubba on October 24, 2007 at 4:36 AM
“After Huckabee helped secure the release of already-well-known rapist Wayne Dumond, the released convict sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri.”
—He’s done ! —Soft on crime, soft on amnesty. Me thinks the MSM and DICK Morris are pushing him too much and he’s too dumb to know that he’s one of their pawns.
stenwin77 on October 24, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Huckabee is a HUGE proponent of open borders.
GogglesPisano on October 24, 2007 at 7:58 AM
I was saying months ago that I would support him if he could get some movement. But the article last week that gave his report card on taxes as Arkansas Governor was just as damning. Club for Growth hates him.
He’s a tax and spend RINO, too.
Huckster, is right.
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Huck says “Give Hope a chance”
I say “There’s no hope for Huck!”
mrfixit on October 24, 2007 at 8:52 AM
That’s a solid critique of him. Time to move on to a new vp candidate.
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:06 AM
I figured there had to be more than meets the eye with him when he was exposed as a Nanny-stater.
flipflop on October 24, 2007 at 9:09 AM
As an Arkansas resident, I am tickled that the Huckster’s truth in governing message is finally getting out. For awhile I was beginning to believe he was going to get away with fooling all of the American people instead just us.
Maybe it’s something in the Arkansas water that can produce Clintons and Huckabees.
mhgoldwing on October 24, 2007 at 9:22 AM
To change the subject, but sort of on-immigration-topic:
Why is talk radio not ranting on the DREAM act? I’ve heard almost nothing on it. Where’s the call to the “army” to be contacting Senators? There’s a strange quiet out there.
stenwin77 on October 24, 2007 at 9:23 AM
The one SURE way for Hillary to git in the Whitehouse is for Rudy to be the GOP nominee and Huckabee to run on a 3rd party ticket.
So ask yourself why would otherwise rather liberal folks (news types) suddenly be sayin’ such nice stuff about Rudy and Huck. Present company excepted of course.
Ex-tex on October 24, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Wow, I’m afraid this article will completely destroy Huckabee’s position as a front-runner for the Republican nomination.
Darn. Just when he was within 20 percentage points of Rudy.
;]
fogw on October 24, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Do you think that many social conservatives are willing to vote for an ethically challenged nanny-stater?
Slublog on October 24, 2007 at 9:31 AM
I read this yesterday. He’d already lost me on a few comments on amnesty but this helped complete the picture. Huckster is right.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 24, 2007 at 9:34 AM
I am from Texas, and I spend a little bit of time in Arkansas since I have family there. He’s a bit of a nanny-stater too, with his exercise programs and all. I’ve never felt much for him.
My speculation is that Duncan Hunter doesn’t do well because, as a significant threat to the left, the press just ignores him and hope no one notices until it’s too late. /wishful thinking
urbancenturion on October 24, 2007 at 9:36 AM
It boggles my mind why anyone thought Huckabee stood a chance when we have seen that the most red hot issue in the party is open borders.
thuja on October 24, 2007 at 9:39 AM
A candidate who is actively on the amnesty bandwagon, for me, is a red flag for corruption and slease. If they have no problem ignoring and defying one law, what is going to stop them from defying others? Huckabee, by all measures, has absolutely no respect for the people’s laws. Not what we need in our next president of the United States.
Zetterson on October 24, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Was anyone here even considering voting for Huckabee even before this article came out???
awake on October 24, 2007 at 9:42 AM
So long as said ethically challenged nanny-stater is sufficiently pro-Jesus, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
Social conservatives, at least in their modern conception, are interested not in limiting the scope of government’s intrusion into one’s personal affairs, but, rather, in using that very power to promote, through legislation and taxes if need be, their own partisan agenda.
On what other grounds can social conservatives justify the use of government monies–that is, the revenue from taxes, the excessive collection of which social cons claim to be against–to fund, for example, pro-life pregnancy counseling centers?
tad on October 24, 2007 at 9:44 AM
I’d accept the Huckster over any of the Dems…, but I’d prefer a real Conservative… Or at least a real Republican.
Rugged Individual on October 24, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Hunter really does just have a fatal lack of charisma. He just winds up sounding like “look at me im still here!” candidates like tancredo, gravel, kucinich, etc. when a guy has something powerful to say, and winds up stuttering his way through it…you have a problem
ernesto on October 24, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Think of Arkansas as “North Louisiana”, and it all makes perfect sense.
The Monster on October 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I’ve like Hunter for a long time. Here is to hoping everyone switches to him and allows him to be the dark horse.
Tim Burton on October 24, 2007 at 9:52 AM
He’s a nanny-stater of the worst variety. He’s a pro-life version Mayor Bloomberg. And his line about amnesty for illegals being our way to repent for slavery is revolting and wrong in soooo many ways.
Clark1 on October 24, 2007 at 9:53 AM
That sort of historical manipulate drives me up the wall. It’s like Fred’s American blood line. How ’bout we not undermine the value of truth by hyperbole, O Candidates?
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:56 AM
You know, to be perfectly honest, I’m a little sickened right now. I used to make rather offhanded remarks about this being 1988 for republicans, but that’s what it’s really come down to. Conservatives have been cherry-picking candidates, and ripping to shreds any other considerations.
I don’t think I have to name names when I say that a couple of members here regularly espouse their displeasure with Fred Thompson, to the point of outright crucifiction. Now Huck is on the grill. Giuliani has plenty of haters, and Mitt is beginning to earn his own.
Folks, honestly, we’re not so much discussing who is the best candidate, as we are discussing who is the least contemptible…and it’s a really sad referendum. I’m not trying to make a “can we all get along” note, but I think this reflects horribly on conservatism today. Now I’m one of the first people to stand up and say “Don’t vote republican if they are not, to you, a true conservative”, but not for the sake of spite! I’m talking about ideals, and integrity! If you disagree with the candidate on an issue important to you, don’t vote for them! However, this kind of mass character assassination, and with a full year left before the polls open, is going to really ache in 2009.
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Don’t know, but the postmortem on Hunter’s campaign can begin anytime. Iowa and the media loves a dark horse, and Huck seems to fit the bill, but if conservatives skewer him during his turn in the spotlight then the field is probably set–Fred, Mitt or Rudy against Hillary.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Great points.
dedalus on October 24, 2007 at 10:14 AM
At one time or another I’ve heard every one of them speak to the most ignorant of the electorate. (I don’t mean ignorant to mean stupid but rather unaware of the facts) It’s sickening.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM
It is sickening. They spin this persona of ‘you can trust me’ and then make false statements for applause lines - people end up voting for an illusion. Such a pity - I’d say the electorate deserves better, but truth be told the information is out there if you want it.
Huck was a turnoff to me when he quoted Newt in that speech without referring to him. Comics shouldn’t steal other peoples material, and then the whole ‘God wants us to give amnesty to make up for slavery thing’ - nail in the coffin.
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 10:23 AM
The fact is that we must expose all the candidates weaknesses in order to deny Hillary the opportunity to drag out a surprise in the general. We get to do that vehemently. If you are so concerned about civil debate, you could start by refraining from attacking the members who do not slavishly believe everything Fred says and ignoring everything he has ever done.
Just because you are losing the debate doesn’t mean the truth shouldn’t be told. Fred will fail. Either by voter education or because he scuttles his own campaign so as to facilitate funneling his $8 million to his family and friends. The guy willingly associates with scum. Not once, not twice, not three times, but multiple times. That is a pattern that should not be ignored. Considering you are a Fred shill, I doubt you will take the time to realize that you should be finding the least contemptible candidate, because Fred is the most contemptible.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 10:26 AM
And a seemingly more honest conservative in Hunter can’t get the traction to compete. I guess we deserve what we get.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Yeah.
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I’m not competing with you, so there is no winning or losing. You personally insult members who disagree with you, and most of them, including me, do not attack you. Knowing who you are, and pointing out that you will likely say “scumbag lobbyist” if the word “Fred” is mentioned is not an attack. It’s a likely prediction.
And if I may, I think we can trust the MSM to dissect anyone opposing Hilldawg, the Messiah, or, at some point, the Only Man Who Can Save America, He Who Shall Be Known As Two-First-Names. They don’t need help. And for those people who don’t read blogs, (you know, the ones who will never hear your crusades for the truth) your claims of how horrible X candidate is will still come out election night and either remind wavering voters or shock them into thinking “Hey! Socialized medicine is FREE! It’s all good!”
And as I’ve repeatedly said, which you have completely ignored, I am not a Fred shill. I am not even sure I’d vote for him if he got the nomination. Get that straight, because I’m going to simply call you a liar if you keep it up. I understand you are passionate about your beliefs, but you seriously are suffering from FDS.
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 10:33 AM
This has been my question all along.
But he is an unknown to most of the nation. He just doesn’t have the national attention of Rudy (9/11), John (nationally recognized war hero), and Mitt (2002 Olympics).
And both his conservative politics and religious positions are not outrageous enough for the media to use to mock him.
Lawrence on October 24, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Well, I don’t know about Huck but perhaps there’s a grain of truth somewhere in there.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Kokonut on October 24, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Hey…I’m going for Thompson…not Huck who is weak(ling) on border issues.
Kokonut on October 24, 2007 at 10:43 AM
they weren’t clergymen as in preachers except for Witherspoon. However they were deeply religious and had signed Sworn Confessions of Faith back when it was a big deal.
Faith of our Founders
this is what Huckabee is blurring into one term of “Clergymen”, to get across the larger point.
or as Intellectual Giants like Francis Schaeffer have pointed out:
jp on October 24, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Huck’s a Nanny Stater (and I loathe Nanny Staters) he’s open borders, and apparently he’s a bit of a squish on taxes. Three strikes, he’s out.
As for Allah’s question on why Hunter isn’t pulling them in, Hunter’s problem is he lacks charisma, and doesn’t have much prior media exposure.
All the frontrunners have had media exposure. Mitt’s had some exposure, from the sheer shock of having a Republican as Mass. governor, to the health care initiative, and I’m guessing he got coverage in the business world, and some for salvaging the Olympics.
Rudy…we all know, and if you don’t, no worries, he’ll tell you at some point, over and over again.
Fred has his acting career, and I’m guessing he’s known in parts of the South for helping expose a Tennessee governor for corruption and bribery, who was later removed from office for it.
Huck has been featured in a lot of media pieces on governors, particularly on the weight issue, plus his book tour and talk show visits.
Bad Candy on October 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Pretty much. Remember voting for Student Council President in high school? Remember how it was a popularity contest? Yeah…it’s kind of graduated to real life.
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 10:52 AM
There they go again
tomas on October 24, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Yeah, facts always blur into the larger narrative. I believe in inalienable rights (obviously) and I believe our founding fathers were honorable men, but we do not do them or ourselves any service by misrepresenting them.
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Yeah, you hate to see us eating our own, but we need to have the public debate about our platform and I don’t want some sound bite slickster from Hope (been there, done that) to fly under the radar. The Huckster is picking up the social cons and one issue pro-lifers now, and it is important to fully vet his time as Governor of that backwater, Arkansas.
This does that, and so do this, and this.
This is a serious business; let’s be serious about it. We were all pulling our hair out when Bushco decided another amnesty wouldn’t be all that bad, but it should have been no great surprise. This time, let’s pay attention.
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I guess multiple links in a comment could trigger moderation, right?
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 10:58 AM
I disagree. Hunter doesn’t have exceptional charisma, but he has chrisma. The reason he hasn’t vaulted into a higher level is, contrary to the media’s larger narrative, Iraq is not the number one issue in voters minds. If it were Pelosi would have been successful in bringing the war to a close, but she cannot simply because the popular support is NOT there for that and they would lose power. Hunter’s strengths are considered in the national narrative in the same vein: Iraq, and it’s simply not as a great priority as we are lead to believe.
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 11:03 AM
You lose the argument because you are the one who changes the subject from the thread topic to me.
So your comment was a compliment? Bwahahahahaha!!! Pull someone else’s legs, mine are long enough. And you are lying. Almost always I am attacked first because you and others don’t like what is said about “What’s a dollar?”.
Primary election night is too late. The people who read the blogs are the ones who need to hear the truth about Fred. Once the nomination is decided, the Clinton smear machine will go into full swing to dig up every scumbag that Fred has chosen to associate himself with. Terrorists. Just the mention of the word will be enough, that the more Fred uses the standard lawyer speak about people deserving representation, the more people will turn him off. They don’t trust lawyers and they certainly don’t trust lawyers that act like Lynne F. Stewart by aidng terrorists regardless of the level of involvement. To expect differently is pure willing ignorance.
And since you claim you are not a Fred shill, where are your criticisms of Fred association with terrorists, dictators and his penchant for funneling campaign cash to his son? You don’t have to be as vehemently disgusted by Fred as I am. You could make the case instead of taking the time to attack those who you don’t agree with. THAT is your MO. Mine is to blast Fred as mercilessly as I can and then blast you and your ilk after you respond to my comments by attacking me instead of defending Fred.
Again, Y.O.U. L.O.S.E.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Hunter is auditioning to be Sec. of Defense, in my opinion.
I think if more people Knew and respected Military History, Hunter would be a much more viable candidate. he tries to talk about it in debates, but its over peopels head. They teach little if any military history in schools today, and what they do teach is never put in context.
jp on October 24, 2007 at 11:07 AM
What do you expect, a minister, by definition, is nothing more than a huckster. They sponge off society by selling the idea of worshipping a giant ghost in the sky. His entire occupation is a scam. After that, the other scams seem realtively mundane.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 24, 2007 at 11:07 AM
I never said God was a “giant”.
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:11 AM
You have got to be kidding. You might think his belief in error, but surely you don’t think ministers are all thieves. If so, I’d hate to have had your childhood.
Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Kids…behave. We have company.
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Hey, maybe that’s the deal. Jay, did your minister slap you around or do naughty things or something? Did Mom lock you in the shrine/closet with the candles, a la Carrie?
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:15 AM
So if a comment is not a compliment, it’s a personal attack? Try again.
Again, pointing out that you will come in and begin attacking Fred, which you always do (take the Colbert poll article near the top for example), is not an attack. It’s an astute observation that is nearly always right.
I don’t say much about McCain. Does that make me a McCain shill? I don’t say much about Mitt. Does that make me a Mitt shill? You commit more fallacies of logic than anyone here. Try again.
…disagreeing with you. Civilly. Yep, we’re in total agreement. Ain’t it nice?
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 11:15 AM
He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture
What is it with Arkansas politicians trying to keep furniture that isn’t theirs?
crushliberalism on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 AM
How about it?
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:20 AM
There are several reasons why Hunter hasn’t taken off: 1) Difficulty of running for national office from the House - when was the last time it happened, other than on the West Wing? It’s not a very strong basis, practically or symbolically, for running for President. 2) His widely observed lack of personal charisma. Though he’s not a national celebrity, and he doesn’t come from some theoretically underrepresented ethnic or other interest group, if he were a firebrand or a wave-maker, he might at least attract some attention and a following from among the over-excitable. He instead maintains the demeanor of a responsible grown-up. 3) There is no clear rationale for his campaign: Instead of identifying and forcefully pushing any issue, theme, or coherent positive vision, he seems satisfied to stand as the mostly passive repository of conservative viewpoints on a range of issues.
The closest he comes to staking out his own turf and staging attacks from it is when he starts talking about China, but the relevant issues don’t have a lot of saliency, especially on the Republican side, in a period of economic growth and high employment, and during a war with a different enemy. Without Tancredo in the race, he might have made more noise on immigration, and used it as a springboard, but, on this issue as on others, if Hunter ever had a plan for building his candidacy - which would have had to include elbowing out his closest competitors and tracing a tier-jumping trajectory - he never produced it.
He doesn’t have the bio, the volatility, the message, or the strategy needed to justify and propel a presidential campaign. Otherwise, he’s a great candidate.
CK MacLeod on October 24, 2007 at 11:21 AM
I’m just sick of it. Don’t like being categorized in terms where the only two options are “I know the truth” and “Fred shill”.
MadisonConservative on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM
This thread could easily go headfirst into one of the three most popular Hot Air debate types:
-Fred Thompson
-Religion
-Immigration
What’s the over/under on any of these? :-)
Slublog on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM
The line: “he’s George Bush with better oratory,” did it for me. I’ll take my chances with Mitt, thank you very much.
Or even Guliani. Thompson would make a good Veep, ala Cheney.
Down the road a couple of years look for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to be an impressive Prez contender.
Doug on October 24, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Watch out. This sounds like a hit piece to me.
Best to wait for clarification from Huckabee himself.
moughon on October 24, 2007 at 11:37 AM
I am a Christian and conservative, yet Governor Huckabee did not earn my support. Huckabee is just too liberal in too many ways…
Okay. Let’s go Hunter 08!!!
ColtsFan on October 24, 2007 at 11:44 AM
That is so true… and not to get a stiff hand from patting myself on the back or anything (I have plenty of Icy-Hot™ on hand just in case), I saw this happening way back in July/August.
Also where are the Huckabee shills?
I had a great discussion with one of them a few weeks ago on this very issue of why Huckabee doesn’t have the popularity.
I said then, that there are issues that existed from the beginning as to why he wasn’t able to raise more money.
What was my telltale sign?
Huckabee was complaining at the Iowa straw poll that he doesn’t get enough media coverage and therefore that is the reason……why he can’t raise more money!
It never fails that when a candidate complains like that, it’s over!
There’s no excuse, in this day and age with the internet.
Huck could’ve gotten his message out very early on a very low budget with his own blog!
But do you know the problem with that? He would’ve been rebuffed with bloggers tackling him on all the issues that are now coming out!
So Huckabee was a loser from the beginning!
Don’t hold your breathe, in waiting for the evangelical Huckabee shills, James Dobson et al, to come in here and try to defend him!
UN-FRIGGING-BELIEVABLE!
Mcguyver on October 24, 2007 at 11:50 AM
They grew up poor.
oooff!
Mcguyver on October 24, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Weeks ago, I was rather beat up on another site for voicing concern about Huckabee’s stand on immigration. Cruising around google found where the esteemed Mrs. Huckabee was born in… wait for drumroll… Hope, AR. Do follow the links provided by Allah. Would seem Mr. Huck is a cross between Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Drinking from the same trough, it is the water.
24K lady on October 24, 2007 at 11:58 AM
There is an Illinois based pro-life candidate, Jill Stanek, and she and her blog supporters are all good with Dobson’s 3rd party statements and lately are pushing the Huckster.
One issue, that’s all there is…
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Doesn’t have the legs for an atheist “I hate Christians because they’re just like the Islamists” thread. You need that moral relativism tie-in.
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 12:08 PM
“and you’ve got the preacher candidate social cons have dreamed of.”
The inherent bashing in this quote and many others here is getting tiresome. It does nothing more than illustrate prejudice.
Social Cons and the “Religious Right” are regular folks who are more than capable of seeing this clown for who he is and resisting the “supposedly siren call” to support him.
America1st on October 24, 2007 at 12:12 PM
The ‘values voters’ who attended the FRC’s convention would disagree.
Slublog on October 24, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Wikpedia, always the planting ground for opponent’s data, has a load of info on Huckabee’s immigration stance. To me it is ivy-league evangelism when law, borders, and sovereignity must fall to the greater kindness of global sharing. From Wikpedia;
One of Huckabee’s last acts as Governor was to donate money from the state emergency fund to help the Mexican consulate in Little Rock.
From the same Wikpedia link
I have met a person whose spouse could not find roofing work in my state, and it is very unlikely an illegal stepped directly in front of this roofer because these jobs are no longer openly marketed but held preferentially for illegals.
These statements attributed to Huckabee in Wikpedia are not Evangelical. If accurate they are Despicable.
entagor on October 24, 2007 at 12:18 PM
He’s not Southern.
Enrique on October 24, 2007 at 12:46 PM
How many of them were familiar with his record? They liked his speech, but few people know that Huck is (apparently) an ethically challenged, big government nanny stater who is weak on immigration.
No one’s bothered attacking him because of his second tier status, but if he makes gains in IA you can bet that the long knives will come out- even if Huck is a nice, likeable guy.
Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 12:48 PM
His protectionist obsession aside, I like Hunter… but it’s time for Hunter to do the right thing and go home. Let the candidates who actually have a chance of winning debate without distraction by someone polling around 1%.
Hunter ran a poor campaign and hasn’t connected with voters; he’s had plenty of time and opportunity do turn it around but he hasn’t. Blaming the media or anyone else is a cop-out; he has only himself to blame for such a poor showing.
Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Thanks for the link.
From the article. Here they go whining again.
What a whining bunch of smancy pancies!
.
.
And what about this?
What a bunch of losers does Huckabee have on his campaign team?
JUST AMAZING….?…. UN-FRIGGING-AMAZING!
Mcguyver on October 24, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I noted the other day that we could have another candidate Clinton. The national MSM pushed him even as the local media was reporting his problems.
Maybe this is why immigration was not mentioned during the latest debate.
In this case Huckabee would be destroyed by the Democrats and the MSM, but only after he becomes the Republican nominee.
davod on October 24, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Keep blathering on. You would rather attack me than talk about the topic it hand How absolutely transparent of you. Look at this thread. Once you started in on me, you refuse to let it go. You are fixated on me for some strange reason. You take it personally when someone uses the term “groupie”, yet try to convince the group that you aren’t a groupie. You protesteth when there was no reason to protesteth. Before I even respond in a thread, you attack me when you had a perfectly good topic to comment on.
You have a serious dysfunction and you need to keep it to yourself.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Re: csdeven
Folks, let’s not feed the trolls. Thanks.
rightwingprof on October 24, 2007 at 2:12 PM
That doesn’t really make their strong support for Huckabee any better - it’s like an admission that if a candidate speaks the language of evangelicalism, he can get the support of evangelicals.
Slublog on October 24, 2007 at 3:49 PM
It’s a shame, I was starting to like him.
4shoes on October 24, 2007 at 4:29 PM
That’s it, checked another one off the list, leaving only Hunter. Like many others here, I was really hoping for a different outcome, but I couldn’t seem to shake that feeling that we were not seeing the whole Mike Huckabee.
RINO_Hunter on October 24, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Blast! I just donated to his campaign!! I don’t believe it! I just don’t believe it! I’ll teach you for posting this article!! I ‘m gonna hold my breath and stomp my feet until you tell me it ain’t so!! This is a joke right??! I’m gonna hold my breath now!! You’ll be sorry!! I’m stomping!! Holding my breath!! Say your sorry!! ….I’m waiting!!… Turning red!!… Say sorry!!
JellyToast on October 24, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Bwahahahaha!!! The only comment you have in a thread that has a topic is a comment that is off topic. You’re the troll!
Jeeze! You people are simply priceless.
csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Hucksterbee!
Mojave Mark on October 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Point is- I doubt his current evangelical supporters know about his more unsavory aspects or they’d re-evaluate their support.
Hollowpoint on October 25, 2007 at 2:52 AM
Really?? I mean,, is this really true?? Why is this coming out now?? Why have we not heard about this sooner??? Even Rush said he was a nice guy and hat he liked him. Ted Nugent and Glen Beck seemed to like the guy! Why all this now just when he seems to be rising even though it is ever so little?? For now I am a little skeptical but I will keep reading. I am also a little shocked at all the rants against the religious right. The truth is, if it was not for the Christians in this country, there would be no country! There would be no freedoms! There would have been no Reagan for that matter! It is the Christians that do more that just whine on blogs! Yes, there are nutcases in churches! Big surprise! There are nutcases and hypocrites in your local supermarket and shopping mall, but you don’t condemn either of them nor do they keep you from shopping there!
JellyToast on October 25, 2007 at 8:13 AM