Yeesh, I’m bad today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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…