Video flashback: Fat Huckabee gorges on taxes

posted at 12:28 pm on November 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

Portrait of a man qualified to model for Leonard Nimoy. It’s Huck, back before he added health issues to his nanny-state repertoire and was still doing his part to wreck the rides at Disneyland. Aside from his shape, there are no surprises here: the man’s a devoutly religious Democrat, basically, so watching him beg for a tax hike isn’t exactly out of character.

As usual with these ancient oppo research clips, it’s the only video credited to the account of whoever uploaded it. Your exit question, then: Which camp is responsible for digging it up? I assumed (with no evidence) that it was Mitt’s, just because of the Dobson rumors that were floating around last week, but more than one campaign has been circulating it via e-mail this morning. Maybe they know something we don’t and are trying to get out in front of the news cycle? Hmmm.

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

I wouldn’t automatically assume Mitt. Fred recently called him a “Pro-Life Liberal”. And, yes, I shamefully self-linked. I’ll go sit in the corner, now.

amerpundit on November 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Don’t know and don’t care which campaign (if any) is behind it- it could just as easily come from the Club for Growth folks or other independant organization. As long as it’s not dishonest by taking quotes out of context and such, one’s record should be fair game for scrutiny. Between his big government philosophy and weakness on illegal immigration, Huck has some ‘splainin to do.

But fat jokes? Maybe a little too far…

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM

I’d vote for Hucksterbee over Hitlary in a nanosecond. But, the Huck would be another 4 or 8 years of GW Bush; even bigger government and a ticking time bomb of no national borders.

Mojave Mark on November 12, 2007 at 12:35 PM

True. It HAS to be Fred. I mean, how could it NOT be him?

Darksean on November 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Huck, Huck, Huck, you just sunk your own ship…but then there are the Mitt supporters who believe that you can “re-invent yourself, that you can “grow” in political awareness, that what you believed in before you can denounce with impunity.
So, Huck will say, that was another time, taken out of context, that he is a “born again” conservative.

right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Portrait of a man qualified to model for Leonard Nimoy.

That is brutal…I still laughed.

Bad Candy on November 12, 2007 at 12:39 PM

If a candidate has ever been for raising taxes in his career, that’s a dealbreaker for me.

Guess I’m a single issue voter.

Zach on November 12, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Portrait of a man qualified to model for Leonard Nimoy.

I knew I shouldn’t have clicked that link!!!!!

RW Wacko on November 12, 2007 at 12:48 PM

And the context of this is…? This is a meaningless video. Mike’s history of tax increases and tax cuts is public knowledge. This video provides no information what what is being discussed, why, and when. I could produce a video of someone pushing for a national sales tax of 23%, and it would sound dreadful if the context (abolish all income/capital gains taxes and the IRS) were missing!

Jared White on November 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

This video screams “taken out of context”, whether it’s a good or bad thing for Huckabee, I never trust something that is spoon fed to me.

Tyrs Fury on November 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

This is a meaningless video. Mike’s history of tax increases and tax cuts is public knowledge.
Jared White on November 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

I seriously doubt that most of the public is familiar with Huckster’s fiscally questionable record. He’s not yet gotten the scrutiny the (other?) front-runners have.

However, it’s clear that his supporters would just assume keep it buried…

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM

It looks to me like Huckabee is eager to sign an actual tax hike.

right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM

You never wonder why the butchered out of context “flip flops” of Romney are all about theorectical things from campaign footage and not his actual policies or perfomance?

Resolute on November 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Read my lips, Any new taxes. Jeesh tax & tax & tax don’t even think about cutting spending just TAX thats the answer. If everyone looks like a dem then there are less things to pick on us about. TAX TAX TAX thats OK with me just do it.

mjkazee on November 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Man that Fred Thompson campaign has really taken off hasn’t it?

Hilts on November 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

And the context of this is…?

Huh. When have the social conservatives ever given Giuliani and Romney the benefit of context? Heck, people knock Romney for having the audacity to actually get elected and govern in a deeply blue state.

And yet when a video of the social con darling begging for tax cuts is unearthed, suddenly we hear the cries for context. That’s some rich, creamy nuance.

Slublog on November 12, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Jared White on November 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Nothing but my profound thanks

Even out of context, any politician who would make that claim, is not very smart.
Profound thanks for raising taxes?…no thanks, think I will look elsewhere for another leader. I can’t afford your gratitude.

right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 1:07 PM

You never wonder why the butchered out of context “flip flops” of Romney are all about theorectical things from campaign footage and not his actual policies or perfomance?

Resolute on November 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

You never wonder why all the support for Romney is all about things from campaign speeches or TV ads and not his actual policies or performance?

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM

And the context of this is…?

Jared White on November 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

This video screams “taken out of context”,

Tyrs Fury on November 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

The context appears to be of Huck enumerating all of the many splendorous ways that he would support raising taxes. The best part is when he starts combining multiple taxes and calling them “hybrid”.

Is that wrong?

FloatingRock on November 12, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Resolute on November 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

His tax increases are a matter of record. Oh yeah, I forgot, his fee increases weren’t tax increases, they were just fees…

Anti-tax advocates are scrutinizing Mitt Romney’s (R) record as governor of Massachusetts and focusing on the fact that he increased fees in the state by $500 million and proposed nearly $400 million in business tax increases.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, published a fiscal-policy report card for 2006 that gave Romney a C grade, ranking him behind 11 other governors, including Democratic White House hopeful Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico.

Well if he is not a flip flopper, then he still believes in raising taxes.
Do you want the link with him backing down to Teddy, when Teddy called him a Reagan Republican? We see how much out of context that was. He buckled under the pressure, not reassuring for CINC. Mitt ran from Reagan (and conservatives) faster than Hillary when offered to debate Rudy. Please ask for it.

right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 1:20 PM

You never wonder why all the support for Romney is all about things from campaign speeches or TV ads and not his actual policies or performance?
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Yep, that’s exactly right. SLC Olympics? That’s a soundbite. Bain? A tired talking point. Balanced budgets in MA? Yawn. What I want to hear from Romney is a southern drawl and good ol’ boy, red-meat platitudes. That real performance!

Splashman on November 12, 2007 at 1:21 PM

You never wonder why all the support for Romney is all about things from campaign speeches or TV ads and not his actual policies or performance?
Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM

….says the person who, in other threads about Romney, totally ignores the fact that Romney had to try and veto hundreds of crazy liberal policies. Where are all the examples of the things he got wrong as govenor? Every one of the Mitt flip flops viral videos has been theoretical ideas from campaign speeches and questions.

Huckabee, in contrast, seems to be talking about real policy here.

Resolute on November 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM

True. It HAS to be Fred.

It could be Fred, but uploading a video seems like it might be too much effort for Fred. Especially since it was just the weekend. Maybe he found time by not campaigning in New Hampshire.

dedalus on November 12, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Every one of the Mitt flip flops viral videos has been theoretical ideas from campaign speeches and questions.
Resolute on November 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM

As opposed to the theoretical ideas from his current campaign speeches and questions, which now apparently we’re supposed to accept without question? Was he just saying whatever was necessary to get elected then, or is he doing it now? Or both?

Vetoing bills from liberals is hardly a conservative coup; given the big government spending programs he’s advocated (ag subsidies, corporate welfare for the auto industry, increased foreign aid, Medicare, education, etc), would he veto spending increases that weren’t quite as liberal? I doubt it.

Simply defending every questionable aspect of his record- including past statements- can’t simply be written off by saying that he ran and governed in a liberal state; that excuse still doesn’t address how he’d govern as President.

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Every one of the Mitt flip flops viral videos has been theoretical ideas from campaign speeches and questions.
Resolute on November 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM

So if he says them and they do not happen, then they are just theory from campaign speeches.
So if he tried to impose taxes, but he got voted down, he is not a tax raiser. And if he says this:

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

Because of this:

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

That is just a theory he is talking about? Mitt is a very theoretical guy…do you want a leader who leads by theory? A theoretical president…you are desperate.

right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Splashman on November 12, 2007 at 1:21 PM

You can balance every budget by raising taxes and fees. Nearly a billion dollars in tax and fee increases, any liberal can do that.
Bishop Mitt is the one that publicly backed away from Reagan conservative economics when questioned by Teddy. He retreated under pressure.
Take another look on who bailed out the Olympics, make it easy on yourself, just look at his current corporate campaign donors and leaders. They’re the same ones, which happen to be the same ones that he was a “consultant” for, and that hired his son. What a coincidence.

right2bright on November 12, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Wow! That was his epitaph. It is rare for someone to give their own eulogy.

TheSitRep on November 12, 2007 at 2:43 PM

I want a different Republican Presidential candidate. All the current ones have too many warts. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a single person out there that can fill the bill.

saiga on November 12, 2007 at 3:19 PM

He is also a MAJOR MAJOR open borders republican too

GogglesPisano on November 12, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Man, he HAS lost some weight!

freakagriep on November 12, 2007 at 4:13 PM

saiga @3:19 – wanting another candidate….too many warts.

I watched Glenn Beck Friday night – Duncan Hunter was a pleasant surprise. Impressed the heck out of me, and changed the mind of another person in the room to consider him.

As far as Huck, it’s like looking into the past and seeing Clinton all over again. Hope, AR must have some funny water.

24K lady on November 12, 2007 at 5:14 PM

I wouldn’t automatically assume Mitt. Fred recently called him a “Pro-Life Liberal”. And, yes, I shamefully self-linked. I’ll go sit in the corner, now.

amerpundit on November 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Fraud! is happily floundering around in first place. He really came into the race too early, all his fame died off. Funny how I predicted that so very early on.

BKennedy on November 12, 2007 at 6:47 PM

*fourth place

Yeesh, I’m bad today.

BKennedy on November 12, 2007 at 6:47 PM

I can’t believe I sent him money. Thankfully it was only $5.00.

JellyToast on November 13, 2007 at 8:12 AM