Video: Huckabee smacks Mitt on immigration; Video: Mitt responds to Huckabee

posted at 1:09 pm on November 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

Ladies and gents, your soundbite of the day. You’ll know it when you hear it; Hemmer set him up and darned if Huck didn’t knock it right down. Mitt actually got off easy here: Huckabee’s preferred response to critics of his immigration policies is to accuse them of being un-Christian, a tactic we may yet see from him in this campaign but probably not vis-a-vis Romney since it would be perceived as a veiled dig at his Mormonism. After you watch, take a stroll through Lonewacko‘s archives on Huckabee, especially this post. The campaign’s saying all the right things these days but those Arkansas poultry-processing plants weren’t going to just staff themselves. Sounds like that consulate in Little Rock is paying big dividends already.

Update: Here’s Mitt’s response from this afternoon’s Live Desk.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

gabriel sutherland on November 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Once again..Legal citizens are legal citizens and are due equal rights. The problem with anchor babies is they are just another incentive for illegals to come here. If we want illegals to stay home or go home, we must eliminate the bundle of incentives they seek. I am very much pro-legal immigration because those people demonstrate that they are law abiding and they have the tenacity to run the legal immigration gauntlet. Illegals are shortcut cheaters that demonstrate they prefer to violate our laws for selfish reasons.

saiga on November 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM

JiangxiDad on November 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Honestly, I am not thrilled with any of the candidates. Damn shame really. Need to throw away idealism for pragmatism.

captivated_dem on November 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM

saiga on November 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM

We should be getting rid of the whole anchor baby scenario. If your parents aren’t U.S. citizens yet you are born in the U.S. that should not be enough reason to qualify as a citizen. Maybe you get to go to the head of the line once you’re 21, but you should still have to take citizenship tests, pass background checks, et cetera to qualify, and your parents should not be able to benefit from your situation by becoming eligible for benefits.

Of course changing this is like touching the third rail, so it’s unlikely to happen.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Of course changing this is like touching the third rail, so it’s unlikely to happen.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM

It would take a Constitutional amendment. That’s a pretty big hurdle. What we can do (and what Fred advocates) is change the way that immigration policy favors relatives of the anchor babies.

Hollowpoint on November 14, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Hollowpoint on November 14, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Agreed.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM

You agree with Ron Paul on the Iraq War, cutting off support for Israel and the like – which are among the issues he is most vocal about.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I agree more with Paul, and Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald and Diana West, on Iraq than I do with Bush. I do do favor cutting off support for Israel.
You do a very poor job of summing up my position on things. You should probably try another line of work.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 4:55 PM

I do do favor I do not favor

And no, that was not a Freudian slip.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM

I know the conversation has moved on, but regarding quoting Club for Growth as a counterpoint to Huck’s own campaign statement regarding the context of his initial and temporary tax increase plan, that’s pretty weak. It’s become painfully obvious that they have a huge and rather astonishing agenda to smear Huckabee as a candidate, and when a group shows such outrageous bias, their level of credibility descends into the toilet.

Jared White on November 14, 2007 at 5:02 PM

I do do favor cutting off support for Israel.

You just equated Israel with poop!!!!111!!

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM

I want to talk about the candidates, like Rudolfo and Huckster, and how bad they are.
Some, like Buy Danish, just want to talk about little ‘ol me and try to put words in my mouth.
Probably easier doing that than defending the Republican liberals.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 5:10 PM

MB4,

Spare me the innocent ingenue routine. The reason you become the topic is because of the nonsense that you habitually from questionable sources, along with your silly evasions.

Did you or did you not say that you opposed giving foreign aid to Israel? You just said that you wanted to cut off funding. How did I misrepresent poor, misunderstood MB4?

I also doubt very much that Robert Spencer is ignorant of the connection between the NAZIS and Islamofascism (which you are) so I doubt he’d be thrilled to think you are representing your views as the same as his. Moreover, I doubt he routinely characterizes supporters of the war as chicken hawks.*

*In so many words of course. You never actually use those words, you just make those arguments and then feign innocence.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Sorry. Insert the word “post” between “habitually” and “from”.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM

I know the conversation has moved on, but regarding quoting Club for Growth as a counterpoint to Huck’s own campaign statement regarding the context of his initial and temporary tax increase plan, that’s pretty weak.

Have the tax increases gone away? Were all of these taxes temporary?

Sales Tax, 1996 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/07/96)
Gas and Diesel Fuel Taxes, 1999 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 04/02/99, 04/25/99)
Sales Tax, 2000 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 09/25/02)
Cigarette Tax, 2001 (Associated Press, 04/02/01)
Nursing Home Bed Tax, 2001 (Associated Press, 06/25/01)
Sales Tax, 2002 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/15/02)
Income Surcharge Tax, 2003 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10/09/07)
Tobacco Tax, 2003 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10/09/07)
Internet Taxes, 2004 (Bond Buyer, 02/24/04)

And a nursing home bed tax? Really?

It’s become painfully obvious that they have a huge and rather astonishing agenda to smear Huckabee as a candidate, and when a group shows such outrageous bias, their level of credibility descends into the toilet.

Yes, I have a bias against Huckabee. It bothers me that he uses theology as a cover for his bad policy and makes agreement with him a litmus test for what constitutes a good or a bad Christian. It bothers me that he believes it’s the government’s job to regulate what you can and cannot do with your body. It bothers me that he is being disingenuous about his record.

If pointing out Huckabee’s record as a tax-raising nanny-stater who wields the bat of faith against those who disagree with him is smearing him, then yeah…I guess we have. But I think the public record and behavior of a candidate is fair game.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM

I don’t object to tax hikes of that nature. Given a choice, I’d much prefer fee increases to income or property tax hikes, but I do agree with you about his using a litmus test to define a good Christian versus a bad one.

I completely recoil at those tactics.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Well said, and I couldn’t agree more.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Allow me to amend my 5:43 a bit. I do object to these particular tax/fee increases:

Income Surcharge Tax, 2003

Internet Taxes, 2004 (Bond Buyer, 02/24/04)

As for the sales tax increases, I’d have to see what the circumstances were. Was another tax cut in exchange? For instance, in Georgia they are trying to eliminate property taxes but increase sales taxes to cover the lost revenue.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Wait, what week is this. Is this the week Mitt is for McCain-Feingold or against it?
Is this the week he is pro-amnesty or against it?…or is it the week that he is pro gun?
I don’t know how he keeps track of what week is which…

right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM

As for the sales tax increases, I’d have to see what the circumstances were. Was another tax cut in exchange? For instance, in Georgia they are trying to eliminate property taxes but increase sales taxes to cover the lost revenue.

As a general rule, I favor some consumption taxes. My experience with “tax trades” in Maine has been that a new tax is created or an existing tax is raised, but the tax it was supposed to replace remains “temporarily.”

And it never goes away.

As for fees, if they’re for elective services, then that’s fine. But mandatory fee is just another word for tax.

Slublog on November 14, 2007 at 6:13 PM

MB4,

Spare me the innocent ingenue routine. The reason you become the topic is because of the nonsense that you habitually from questionable sources, along with your silly evasions.

No, the reason I become your topic is you have an unnatural obsession with me and you can not defend your candidates.

Did you or did you not say that you opposed giving foreign aid to Israel? You just said that you wanted to cut off funding. How did I misrepresent poor, misunderstood MB4?

I am not poor and most folks who have proper reading compression can understand me and don’t try to put words in my mouth.

I also doubt very much that Robert Spencer is ignorant of the connection between the NAZIS and Islamofascism (which you are) so I doubt he’d be thrilled to think you are representing your views as the same as his. Moreover, I doubt he routinely characterizes supporters of the war as chicken hawks.*

The subject there was Iraq, not “connection between the NAZIS and Islamofascism” and I did not say that Robert’s views where the same as mine, even on that. What I said, go back and try to read it again, was “I agree more with Paul, and Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald and Diana West, on Iraq than I do with Bush.” Find one comment of mine where I used the term “c#i#k#n h#w#s” and why are you so afraid of that term anyway?

*In so many words of course. You never actually use those words, you just make those arguments and then feign innocence.

No, you just assume and sometimes just out and out make things up.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 5:36 PM

You have the reading comprehension of a pet rock and are much more annoying.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 6:17 PM

I know the conversation has moved on, but regarding quoting Club for Growth as a counterpoint to Huck’s own campaign statement regarding the context of his initial and temporary tax increase plan, that’s pretty weak. It’s become painfully obvious that they have a huge and rather astonishing agenda to smear Huckabee as a candidate, and when a group shows such outrageous bias, their level of credibility descends into the toilet.

Jared White on November 14, 2007 at 5:02 PM

The Club for Growth isn’t some astroturf campaign group- they’re legit. But if you’d rather believe a political candidate’s campaign rhetoric over a respected, independent advocacy group, you go right ahead.

I mean, Huckster would never lie, now would he?

If you can refute the points they make, go right ahead- but right now you sound like a whiner who hasn’t considered the notion that perhaps they have good reason to question Huckabee’s fiscal policy.

Hollowpoint on November 14, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Well gosh, MB4 you just called Rudy a “draft dodger” next door. That is a chicken hawk argument, and you are making a fool AND a liar out of yourself when you continue to deny that you do it.

There are plenty of people here at Hot Air who don’t like Rudy but I can’t think of a single one of them who tries to slime him, or other candidates, because they didn’t serve in the military.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Wait, what week is this. Is this the week Mitt is for McCain-Feingold or against it?
Is this the week he is pro-amnesty or against it?…or is it the week that he is pro gun?
I don’t know how he keeps track of what week is which…

right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM

One never can tell- the best way is to stick your finger in the air, and whichever way the political winds are blowing at that particular moment, that’s the stance he’ll have. Once his campaign advisors give him permission to speak, of course.

Hollowpoint on November 14, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Carl Cameron just did a report on the Huckabee/Romney/Giuliani situation as part of Brit Hume. He claimed that when Huckabee left office he had a billion dollar surplus and cut gazillions of taxes.

Fact checker needed!

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:41 PM

There are plenty of people here at Hot Air who don’t like Rudy but I can’t think of a single one of them who tries to slime him, or other candidates, because they didn’t serve in the military.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

It’s not that he didn’t serve in the military, it’s that he pulled strings to get a questionable draft deferrment. Whether that’s considered “draft dodging” is a matter of opinion, but you can be certain that if he gets the nomination, the media will dog him on it almost daily.

Hollowpoint on November 14, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Update! Huckabee is now the topic of the nightly roundup…

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:43 PM

MB4, given that just about everyone here (including me) thinks you’re an idiot, there are two possibilities:

1) You’re an idiot.
2) Everyone else is an idiot.

Occam’s Razor, idiot.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 6:48 PM

The establishment of a consulate office in Little Rock financed by taxpayers is a deal breaker for me. There can be no valid reason for doing so, other than to provide support for his states illegal work force. I don’t believe another Hope, Arkansas president is in the best interest of this nation.
captivated_dem on November 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM

In other words: we have one leading Republican candidate who ran a sanctuary city, and one who ran a sanctuary state.

Quick question: what in the Hell is up with that?

This has nothing to do with “compromising our principles.” 80% of American voters disagree with Hillary Clinton’s position on immigration. If Republicans put up a candidate with a weak record on that issue, we will be giving her a gigantic electoral gift.

And why, exactly, is that a good idea?

logis on November 14, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Well gosh, MB4 you just called Rudy a “draft dodger” next door. (Well gosh, I sure did and, well gosh, that is what he is.) That is a chicken hawk argument (Oh, well gosh, so now you have changed to “c#i#k#n h#w# argument” from, well gosh, “c#i#k#n h#w#k” itself. You are so transparent. BTW, why are you so afraid of that term and why do you seem to think that it is about the only term in all of creation that is VERBOTEN?) and you are making a fool AND a liar out of yourself when you continue to deny that you do it (No, I am not making a “fool AND a liar” out of myself, you are making a continuing a$$ out of yourself with all this putting words in my mouth, twisting my words and often just making things up AND with your continuing extreme UNNATURAL OBSESSION with me [You may want to seek professional help for that as it has now apparently reached a very advanced stage].).

There are plenty of people here at Hot Air who don’t like Rudy but I can’t think of a single one of them who tries to slime him, or other candidates, because they didn’t serve in the military. (I have not “slimed” him. He is a draft dodger. That is what he is. “He (Rudy) applied for a deferment but was rejected (first attempt to dodge the draft). In 1969, MacMahon (low friends in high places?) wrote a letter to Giuliani’s draft board, asking (using and abusing his influence) that he (Rudy) be reclassified as 2-A, civilian occupation deferment, because Giuliani, who was a law clerk for MacMahon, was an essential employee (It would be hard to
think of anything LESS essential. Even DOD employees seldom got 2-A’s. Even U.S. Army civilian employees at a “secret” Army testing facility in Utah didn’t get them.)
. The deferment was granted.(second attempt to dodge the draft successful)” Do you not even know what a draft dodger is? Do you not even have a clue? Do you know nothing about the late sixties? The only way for him to not be one would be if there was no such thing.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

You are just wasting all too much of my time. Maybe you think that you can keep me occupied so that I will not find more truth to tell about Rudolfo or the Huckster. I think that from now on I will just respond, when I do respond, to you with a “canned” reply of “You have the reading comprehension of a pet rock and are much more annoying.”

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 7:21 PM

MB4, given that just about everyone here (including me) thinks you’re an idiot, there are two possibilities:

1) You’re an idiot.
2) Everyone else is an idiot.

Occam’s Razor, idiot.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Your thinking, such as there is of it, is very uncoordinated.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority (PARTICULARLY if a Danish and a Splash are part of it), it is time to pause and reflect (REALLY reflect if a Danish and a Splash are part of it).
- Mark Twain

So many fools, so little time.
- Somebody or other

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Didn’t MB4 tell us just the other day that he “doesn’t do rants”?

Splashman,

If I might steal a line from one of MB4′s favorite authors, “Elementary my dear Watson”.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Heh. Touche.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Wow, just got home and a chance to hear the clips.

Geebus Mitt, even when you b*&^hslap people you come off as an A-class nice guy. Killing with kindness.

BKennedy on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Didn’t MB4 tell us just the other day that he “doesn’t do rants”?

That was not a rant. I didn’t even put the shift into second gear. No need. Why use a hammer to swat a fly.

Splashman,

If I might steal a line from one of MB4’s favorite authors, “Elementary my dear Watson”.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 7:37 PM

You would choose the one vacuous one.

BTW on:

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Get a room!

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 8:08 PM

BTW, Buy Danish, your obsession with me is still showing, you don’t seem to be able to control it, remembering everything I say, even if mostly incorrectly. You really need to pause, take a deep breath, and reflect on that.

MB4 on November 14, 2007 at 8:14 PM

Vote Huckabee, unless you hate children.

Also vote Huckabee if you want college educated gardeners.

JamesP on November 14, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Do you realize this man is a nanny stater carbon taxer? Did you hear his statements about raising taxes?

This man is not a republican. He is a religious liberal.

Zetterson on November 14, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Exactly.

Huck is just like John Edwards. He’s more honest than Edwards about his social conservatism. And Edwards is more honest about his economic liberalism.

JamesP on November 14, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Huckabee would be the last person I would vote for (other than Ron Paul, which should be obvious). I liked most of his positions, except his positions on illegal immigration, so that was an immidiate no from me. My favorite was Duncan Hunter, whom I supported and still support. Huckabee would be dangerous in the White House – I think he is looney toons and given his corrupt past in Arkansas, I simply cannot trust him. I am now leaning more and more toward Romney (if Duncan doesn’t make it). Everytime I see him talk – whether at a debate or on this thread in response to Huckabee, he seems levelheaded and sure of himself. Guilliani is too liberal for me and I won’t vote for him because the press says “he is the only one who can beat Hillary…” bs.

Neocon Peg on November 14, 2007 at 10:45 PM

The Huckster is an OPEN BORDERS ZEALOT that loves Tyson chicken….

DfDeportation on November 14, 2007 at 10:51 PM

logis on November 14, 2007 at 6:58 PM
This has nothing to do with “compromising our principles.” 80% of American voters disagree with Hillary Clinton’s position on immigration. If Republicans put up a candidate with a weak record on that issue, we will be giving her a gigantic electoral gift.

And why, exactly, is that a good idea?

It’s not a good idea IMO. What I have been observing over the past few months; whether it is a social conservative issue of importance, or an economic issue, or it’s the immigration issue or foreign policy; none of the candidates are a good fit in all. I’ve read here at HA, that a candidate that agrees with you 70% is your friend. If that is the case, then which principles within the 30% category, have to be compromised to elect a Republican president? Which issues are we willing to let slide?

captivated_dem on November 15, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2