Shock polls: Huckabee leads in Iowa, Rudy craters in South Carolina; Update: Falwell family endorses Huckabee
posted at 12:12 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Imagine if Huck had money. Actually, if this keeps up, you won’t have to imagine:
[T]he trend is unmistakable—Huckabee has gone up and just about everybody else has gone down. Huckabee’s 28% support represents a twelve point increase from a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted earlier in the month. Romney is down four points while Giuliani and Thompson are each down three points from the previous survey. John McCain is down two points and earns just 4% support. Ron Paul picked up a point and is now at the 5% level.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Evangelical Christians support Hucakbee. That’s more than all the other candidates combined. Romney attracts 16% of the Evangelical vote.
Remember, he’s doing this without the benefit of any big evangelical endorsements. Might be time to re-read this post. As for Rudy, South Carolina’s not a state he was expected to win but the fact that he’s been in the hunt was taken as proof that he could put even social-con states in play. Oh well:
The [SC] poll shows Romney in the lead among Republicans with 17 percent – up from his fourth-place, 11 percent finish in the same poll in August. Fred Thompson is in second place at 15 percent, down from his first-place, 19 percent showing in August. Mike Huckabee is in third with 13 percent, well up from his fifth-place six percent in August. John McCain is in fourth place with 11 percent, down from his third-place 15 percent in August. And Rudy Giuliani – who was virtually tied with Thompson for first place with 18 percent in August – is in fifth place with nine percent in the new poll. Giuliani’s nine-percentage-point drop is the biggest in the field. Finally, Ron Paul is in sixth place with six percent – up from one percent in August.
All of those numbers are smaller than the 28 percent who say they are undecided.
Rich Lowry thinks this is less a function of social-con disaffection with Rudy than with the fact that he’s getting killed in advertising, but it’s hard not to hear the Dean Scream when you look at those numbers. He’s still doing gangbusters business in Florida, where the number of delegates vis-a-vis Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and SC will leave him in decent shape for Big Tuesday even if it’s the only early primary he wins (especially if Mitt and Huck split the other four somehow). But even if he takes it, and New York and California too, how does he win the nomination if he can’t win in the south? That’s what this poll suggests. We’ll know soon enough if it’s an outlier.
Update: Don’t forget, Huckabee’s surging in Rudy country too.
Update: Scratch what I said about Huck having no major evangelical endorsements. The Falwells just jumped aboard. Floodgates opening?
Governor Huckabee is not the first presidential candidate to visit the Liberty campus. He is the apparent choice for the Falwell family though. After watching the former Arkansas governor praise Christian values, promote a pro-life agenda, and reinforce the importance of traditional marriage, we asked Jerry Falwell Junior, is Mike Huckabee your choice for President? Without hesitation, he told us he is.
Update (Bryan): Slublog pointed me over to this statement on Huckabee’s website. It’s Rev. Rick Warren all but endorsing Huckabee.
“I know most of the candidates running for president but I’ve known Mike Huckabee the longest, since we did our graduate degrees together in the late 70s. Mike’s a man of vision, compassion, and integrity. I’ve watched his uncanny ability to identify with normal people in ways that many leaders don’t. That’s probably why TIME named him one of the five best governors in America. He’s definitely presidential material. But honestly, what I find most appealing is his self-deprecating humor. That’s a key sign of a spiritually and emotionally healthy leader – someone who is comfortable with himself, is authentic, doesn’t wear a mask, and is secure enough to be humble. People love that.”
I’m not a fan, but Warren is among the most influential pastors in the world via his Purpose-Driven industry. He’s probably the single most influential pastor in the US, much more influential these days than Pat Robertson or anyone else (though Joel Osteen might give him a run). As near-endorsements go, this one was huge yet didn’t make a splash when Warren offered it around the beginning of November. Fwiw.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Statistical noise.
Big S on November 28, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Well that’s depressing. Score another victory for identity politics, I suppose.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:17 AM
What did you think was going to happen?
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:19 AM
So, people weren’t ok with Rudy, but they’re fine with Tax Hike Nanny Mike? Wonderful.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Ugh. I’m glad the early states’ voters are looking at the second and third tier candidates, but for crying out loud–NOT HUCK! It just makes me want to go to Iowa, NH, and SC and shake every Republican voter I can find and shout “Don’t you realize he’s a fiscal liberal?!” in their faces. What are they thinking?! If they’re going to raise someone from the third tier as a more conservative alternative to the frontrunners, PICK HUNTER! Oh, I am so freaking tired of being stuck with early voting states’ fickle choices.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 11:20 AM
He’s got the holy mojo, baby.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Honestly, I figured Thompson would become the social conservative pick. But they’re willing to go with a guy who’s good on one or two issues and terrible on all the rest? It’s depressing.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Could this be a sign of conservatives finally starting to look for a conservative candidate?
I know, Huck’s somewhat of a nanny-stater, but aside from the WoT, Rudy’s almost pure liberal.
Kowboy on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
But, it isn’t surprising, is it? I mean, he has the evangelical street cred. And, isn’t much of politics “identity politics”?
nailinmyeye on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
I dont think Rudy has been down in SC much recently, he has been in NH and IA a lot more, plus fundraising in some big markets.
I admit the erosion in SC kinda shocks me, but things is just gettin warmed up. I think the more people look at Huck’s actual fiscal and legislative record the more they will reassess his creds as a true conservative.
But hey, thats just me, Mr Rudy supporter.
Always Right on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Oh how I wish they would. He’s the one true conservative in the bunch.
Kowboy on November 28, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Yeah, but Fred’s brand of social conservatism is the federalist type. Appealing to me but to hardcore “abortion is murder”/”Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” types, how do you justify letting the states decide for themselves?
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:24 AM
No, he’s not. He’s a fiscal conservative, too. He’s a proven tax-cutter and free market guy.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM
If so, why go with Huckabee? He’s simply not a conservative.
And apart from a few social issues, so is Huckabee.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Time to hit Huck with the illegal alien card.
Theworldisnotenough on November 28, 2007 at 11:26 AM
No, I suppose it’s not surprising. But it is disheartening.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here (yes, pun) but in some sense you have to realize that politics and religion play under different rules and that religious absolutism should not always translate into political absolutism. In other words, what right to I have to make non-Christians operate under the rules I have chosen for myself?
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Huckabee’s achilles heel is his support for the Fair Tax. Funny he doesn’t really talk about it any more, now that he’s got some traction. I’m pretty sure both Rudy and and Mitt have come out against it, and are both capable of arguing against it effectively. It’s the obsession of a small group of anti-IRS fanatics, and will end up spooking a lot of mainstream Republicans when it’s finally brought up.
Big S on November 28, 2007 at 11:28 AM
And the tax card , and the nanny state card, the Mexican consulate card, etc…
Which would be bad for Rudy so I doubt anything comes from his camp.
Theworldisnotenough on November 28, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Basically it’s Rudy who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative vs Huck who is a social conservative and a fiscal liberal.
The votes will be split in the party based on what is more important to each voter. This is the result of having no true conservatives to vote for.
Benaiah on November 28, 2007 at 11:30 AM
No, but there is an opportunity for Thompson there. At the moment, he is the only candidate who can stop the Huckabee surge. At this point, he’s got nothing to lose, so his refusal to go hard after Huckabee’s record is very strange.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Maybe they don’t know about his tax issues. After all, Rudy did much better when few knew about his stance on abortion.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 11:31 AM
That was the main thing I liked about Fred, and the reason I hoped he’d do better than he has. I could have gotten on board with Fred if he’d taken off. I’m a social con, but I don’t think the federal government has any business whatsoever in 99% of social issues. I vote for federal office holders based on economic and foreign policy/military issues first.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Let’s parse this for just a sec. Fred supposedly always a federalist, but didn’t come to the pro-life game until the profound moment of the sonogram. So not connected.
As far as the states deciding, it’s that the big push. I though with South Dakoda’s law the whole point was to push the Supremes into putting it back into the hands of the state so they could axe it there. Same with the marriage amendment.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:31 AM
What do you mean by “coming to the game,” though? My impression is that he was ambivalent on the issue until the sonogram moment. How is that inconsistent with federalism?
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Can you explain this? I’m not arguing. I just don’t know a lot about him.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 11:33 AM
The good news here (no matter which candidate you favor) is that the GOP is finally having the kinds of dialogue with their candidates which will vet out the one who has the kind of grassroots support necessary to win in November ‘08. The “rats” made a tactical mistake in ‘04 by going with the candidate that the party activists deemed “most electable” The GOP doesn’t want to follow suit and simply rubber stamp Rudy or Mitt.
That being said, my prediction for some time has been Rudy with Huckabee as the VP. A social NE Liberal with conservative Southerner- both from places where Hillary has a history and might get significant votes. To win Hillary would need to keep all the places that Kerry won and then get at least one other state. This ticket could stop that (though I think the bigger worry for the GOP is if Virginia will go blue for the first time since Kennedy was elected).
highhopes on November 28, 2007 at 11:34 AM
The only thing conservative about the Huckster are his religious views. He’s a born-again Harry Reid.
I’m starting to get really depressed.
Where’s my small-government, low taxes, national defense, protect the borders, free trade, personal freedom (2nd amendment) and responsibility (end welfare and affirmative action) candidate? Every one of these hacks has some serious flaw.
peski on November 28, 2007 at 11:34 AM
But his support has increased all of a sudden. Something must be causing that. Rudy had excellent name recognition, known as America’s Mayor and lead the polls when he entered the race. Huck was a long-shot, not well-known candidate. Something’s causing an increase in support.
I hope you’re right, though.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:34 AM
He criticized Huckabee’s record but that only seemed to be news on the internet…
The current debate formats are cartoonish. I wish PBS would feature a knock down, drag out, ideological knife fight of a debate. A guy with the best platform but does not have a willing media is kind of stuck.
Theworldisnotenough on November 28, 2007 at 11:35 AM
The candidate needs to get 1259 delegates to win the nomination. Rudy is in good shape in states that have about 600 delegates (CA, CT, NJ, NY, DE, FL, PA, RI, MA). If he lose IA and NH, creating momentum for Huck or Mitt or Fred it might be hard to see where Rudy picks up the additional 600+ delegates he needs.
Maybe the media’s wet dream of a brokered convention will come true.
dedalus on November 28, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Very quietly, if you know what’s good for you!
In all seriousness, every informed pro-lifer knows that overturning Roe MEANS letting the states and not the judiciary decide. That’s the reason for the Human Life Amendment. It’s a two-pronged strategy. Appoint judges so that you can get the court to change. If you can’t get the court to change, use the legislature to overturn them.
BKennedy on November 28, 2007 at 11:42 AM
You’re right, I agree. The ambivalence is not inconsistent with federalism, the point of where the power lies has nothing to do with opinion of the topic.
By ‘coming to the game’, I mean he is trying to pick up the SocialCon vote. Let me parse myself. I mean he is pushing two (independent) themes now. Federalism and Pro-lifeism. What I’m saying is that alot of pro-lifers are working via federalist method. I think SD shows that and I think alot feel that is where the greatest opportunities lie.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:42 AM
He was known as a Nanny-Stater. The Club for Growth said he raised taxes at least 5 times, increasing state spending by (supposedly) 65.3%. National Review wrote:
By the end of his second term he had raised sales taxes 37 percent, fuel taxes 16 percent, and cigarettes taxes 103 percent, leading to a jump in total tax revenues from $3.9 billion to $6.8 billion. The Cato Institute gave him a failing grade of “F” on its fiscal report card for 2006 and an only marginally better but still embarrassing “D” for his entire term
Arkansas’ general obligation debt shot up by approx. $1 billion.
During a State of the State Address, he complained that a Hispanic student couldn’t get financial aid for college because he was an illegal alien. He supported a bill giving state funding for colleges to illegal aliens. He opposed a bill denying state benefits to illegals because it was, and I quote, “un-Christian”.
It goes on and on. You can read more about him here.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Because many of the states are ready to go with existing laws that outlaw the murder of babies. Roe overrode those laws, but they weren’t stricken from the books.
Plus its a lot easier to focus enacting change at a state level than the Federal level.
dominigan on November 28, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I mean ads. Nice juicy red-meat ads that outline Huckabee’s record on taxation, immigration and his view of government power. I’m thinking of giving money to the Club for Growth to stop Huckabee’s surge.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:45 AM
ahhhhhhh, i can’t wait for huck to tell me how to run my life.
its vintage duh on November 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM
If it goes into the legislature politicians will be accountable to an electorate that is somewhere near the “safe, legal and rare” camp.
dedalus on November 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM
But many other states would end abortion completely. Isn’t that a good outcome to work toward?
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Uhmmmm… methinks you have Congress and the President confused. Congress enacts the laws.
dominigan on November 28, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Huckabee?? Why do Republicans want to elect a Democrat again??
Somebody dig up some f’ing dirt on this nanny stater so we can get rid of him forever please. Dig up something that will make him beg for God’s forgiveness. That ought to keep him plenty busy for a while and out of my hair.
Zetterson on November 28, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Excellent. Now tell that to Huckabee, who thinks it’s the proper role of government to institute a nationwide workplace smoking ban.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Uhmmm… I think that was what I was alluding to. Many states already outlawed abortion. Others would like to. Overturning Roe would reinstate existing state laws outlawing abortion, and allow other states to enact those laws.
dominigan on November 28, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Huckabee just gave a SERMON in South Carolina. Could Rudy do that? I mean even at a Catholic Church in South Carolina? That in and of itself is pretty impressive for most Christians. That’s why Huckabee’s numbers are increasing in SC.
Again, these are the best of the worst people. There aren’t any good candidates. Bush had a tax cut, but was awful on spending. Huckabee was bad on illegal aliens, but so was everybody else from Bush to McCain to Guiliani, etc.
Guiliani’s national poll numbers are misleading because he is way ahead in states with large populations because of name recognition. So he would lose closer in NY and CA than any of the other candidates, he’d still lose the electoral votes for NY and California.
There was never any way Rudy would win in the South unless he ran as a Democrat. Southerners still don’t much trust Yankees because since the Civil War ya’ll have been telling us what to think and how to live without having to deal with the consequences of actually living and working here. It’s the same now.
Huckabee is bad on taxes and immigration, but he’s socially conservative and that’s good enough for most voters. I’d vote for Huckabee over Rudy any day.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Paraphrasing Mark Levin: ” Republicans believe in major change through gradual processes.”
What I am observing, this election cycle, is that principal being applied, however in the wrong direction. I see the Republican/Conservative movement moving left or more centrist. I would prefer the left be distressed about a more conservative/republican governance than vice versa.
captivated_dem on November 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Again, whatever! (to quote my teenage daughter)
The President can state his opinion all he wants, but it is STILL Congress that must pass the law.
dominigan on November 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM
“Ummmm…” that’s my point. Those who support Huckabee don’t see that as a good thing – they want an all-or-nothing Human Life Amendment to take the choice from the states completely. Personally, I like the federalist approach, as I think it’s more effective.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:54 AM
El Huckster is an inveterate pathological liar.
Mike “Tyson Foods” Huckster basically said that anyone who did not roll out the red carpet for illegals was un-American and un-Christian. Yet he has the following on his web site, which makes Tom Tancredo sound like an shamnesty shill plantation supporter by comparison.
Huckabee on illegal “immigration” from his web site
He makes Bill Clinton seem like Honest Abe by comparison.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM
But the president has to sign it. The fact that Huckabee not only considers signing such a bill a good thing, but has in fact committed himself to doing so indicates he’s a statist at heart.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I, for one, want a President — not a church leader. As I’ve said before, I already have one of those. But that’s just me.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Thanks.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 11:57 AM
And in all likeliness, we’ll have a Democratic Congress. You think if he proposes a smoking ban, Dems won’t send him a bill to sign?
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 11:58 AM
That’s all well and good, but it is likely the D’s are picking up seats in the coming election. And given the facts, which is more likely to increase the power of the government, dems or ‘pubs? The expectation of a R president would be to hold the line.
I’m sure Congress would give a R president any nanny-state bill he would be willing to sign. And Huck, I might add, thought signing the recent socialized medicine bill was not a shabby idea for political reasons. That should tell you something right there.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:58 AM
So did my pastor. Last Sunday. It was a good one, too.
But I’m not going to vote for him based on that.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Exactly. If you go to his website, you’d think he was conservatism incarnate.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Watching you folks melt down over Huckabee is funny.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 12:00 PM
I agree. That is, in my opinion, a very good observation.
I do wish Fred was doing better.
nailinmyeye on November 28, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Tasty, tasty irony from this summer: Huckabee: Dems would label Romney a flip-flopper.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:01 PM
From the beginning I’ve been convinced that the only way the GOP could lose the White House in 08 is by being stupid. If Huckabee is a trend, this proves me correct. What Republican voter in his right mind could ever believe Huckabee had a snowball’s chance in hell against the Democrat nominee, whoever that may be? It’s electoral suicide – and for the sake of what? Feel-good togetherness on Bible stories? How Soros/Clinton Inc. and the Islamists must be laughing at this.
Halley on November 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM
He has as much experience as Rudy in government as the Governor of a state. AND he actually beat the Clintons (or who the Clintons were backing) unlike Rudy ‘I am the only guy that can beat Hillary’ ‘look at the polls’ Guiliani.
He is not a minister now. But he could be. He is not a church leader now, but he could be. Shouldn’t that be seen as a positive? I know you Catholics think all preachers are child molesters, but Southerners have a pretty high opinion of the personal moral fiber of someone who can give a sermon.
I’m not looking for a preacher either. . . but I am looking for someone with character (which Rudy has none).
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative
From Dick Morris on Real Clear Politics:
As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.
In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.
And he can win in Iowa.
When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one.
Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.
But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medical spending,” he says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html
EduardoOTI on November 28, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Well, I’m glad we can provide you some mirth and merriment.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:04 PM
agreed.
I’m excited about the HuckHeads to come over here and say ‘if you don’t vote for Huckabee, you give Hillary the presidency’.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I don’t know about the rest of the conservatives, but I would not vote for Huckabee in the general election – no way, no how, never.
Nanny-staters are the worst sort of people. The absolute worst.
progressoverpeace on November 28, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I’m a lapsed Catholic. Currently, I attend a non-denominational protestant church. A Christian church. Huckabee and I would doubtless agree on many theological doctrines and I would gladly allow him to speak at my church, because I think he’s a gifted speaker.
I am not going to allow my theological agreements with Huckabee, though, to cloud my judgment of his shoddy record on issues that I find important.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Imagine comprehensive amnesty landing on Huck’s desk.
Speakup on November 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM
It’s all packaging and people never do read the fine print. Huckabee looks conservative, sounds conservative, and is an unashamed Christian. Not enough people have looked at the fine print on the package to read the Made in Mexico label etc.
I’m not sure that all of this will be all bad. Depends on if Hunter, Tancredo, or Thompson decide to talk about all that junk in Huckabee’s trunk. Hunter and Tancredo need to start acting like they’re in the front row for a change and Fred needs to start acting like he’s running for President of the USA and not class president at highschool.
Buzzy on November 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Whew. Now let’s hope Huckabee falls prey to “Dick Morris is always wrong” syndrome.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM
No way Rudy wins a Southern State. Good God. Dear God. Could Huck win? If he does, I’m joining your team AP.
RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I’m just fascinated at the liberal like shrillness and double standard being applied here. But we’ve had this discussion before.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Yes, Huckster makes John “I voted for that before I voted against it” Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar.
The man is unreal and he is getting away with it.
He is a bigger liar than OJ Simpson.
I think that I will call Huckster Pinocchio from now on.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Oh, so now it’s “shrill” and (horrors!) “liberal” to point out the record of a man on issues such as taxation, immigration and the limits of government power?
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Rudy is left of Hillary, Huck is worse then Kerry. Time to clean the googles, and look again.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:13 PM
This thing is just warmin’ up!
Hang on- it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Huckster Pinocchio.Huckocchio.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 12:16 PM
It’s the Chuck Norris endorsement…you’re all missing how important the nun chucks / hair replacement / home gym vote is in Iowa.
DrW on November 28, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Me too! I’ll be voting for Hunter in the primary though. I’d LOVE to see him get some traction somehow.
MT on November 28, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I just cleaned them real good, looked again, and Rudycapo and Huckocchio still look the same, maybe even worse.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Heh.
SouthernGent on November 28, 2007 at 12:21 PM
MT on November 28, 2007 at 12:19 PM
You really have to wonder why Hunter hasn’t done any better than he has. I mean really, we’ve gone from Rudy’s inevitability to Thompson coming from nowhere to now Huckabee getting momentum at the right time. . . and all of this has happened while Hunter has been campaigning.
What is Hunter doing? Does he need a blimp? Why can Huckabee come from nowhere with no money and Hunter not? Hunter’s message should vote with every core Republican in the country. I don’t understand it really.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Huck win CA, PA, FL, NY, OH, TX, MI?…..not a chance…not even a hope. The RNC must be ingesting Chinese toys.
Limerick on November 28, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Well, that’s all I can legitimately ask fro. Carry on then.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Allah
I was wrong, Giuliani will not evaporate in 6 weeks – it will be much sooner
EricPWJohnson on November 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I absolutely agree. I cannot believe that Hunter is so far back and so ignored. I think he’s too much of a serious adult for this joke of a campaign process we have.
progressoverpeace on November 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM
No not at all but that’s not what is happening here. His record is being cherry picked and blown out of proportion, especially in perspective of his opposition, with insulting names being crafted and stupid tags like nanny stater that have little foundation in reality. You can find the same thing happening on DU or Kos and it’s something we’re usually critical of liberals for.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Hunter is a protectionist fear monger. I’ve grown quite sick of his China is the devil crap.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 12:35 PM
AllahPundit – You do realize that there are non-religious reasons to be in opposition of abortion and homosexual marriage, correct? I know the lobby groups like to frame these issues as evangelical vs non-religious (as in anyone who is against abortion and homosexual marriage is simply a religious nut and anyone who is in favor of each is a logical non-religious person), but I know a few atheists who also believe in the sanctity of human life and thus are against abortion and also see homosexuality as a sexual perversion and hedonism and thus are against homosexual marriage so that our society does not promote hedonism.
Simply framing the abortion debate and the homosexual marriage debate in the way you did is a disservice to the issues. While it may be true that a majority of the people who are against these issues are religious, the issues themselves are not religious.
Just as you and other atheists here like to point out that atheists shouldn’t all be assumed to be immoral leftists, so too should these two issues not be branded as “religious vs non-religious” issues.
Michael in MI on November 28, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Hm. Silence on the info provided in the Morris article.
Shocker.
I guess I always thought it was just the Dems who were short sighted and fell for soundbites and bulletpoints from their friends at the Daily Kos.
But I guess Republicans can fall for the ‘less than full story’ that the Club for Growth/Novak puts out too.
EduardoOTI on November 28, 2007 at 12:37 PM
No, we are usually critical of liberals for their uncritical lock-step thinking.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Some of that is true, but Slu isn’t a hack. Just on the issues though, take illegal immigration. Huck said something along the lines that he thought God was giving us an opportunity to make up for slavery. Really?! How do you square that up with the border-security first view he now espouses?
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Careful. Labels, tags, proportion.
Wouldn’t want to be like Kos or anything.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I read it. To give it cred, I have to verify it, that’s all.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I am an atheist and I think that past about three months abortion is murder.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I did a modest post on this just recently. It’s frustrating. Maybe he is not overtly Christian enough… even though his positions should match up with evangalicals quite nicely. He isn’t as charismatic as Huck, so the reality may be that’s more important than being right. No revelation there.
MT on November 28, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Dude. It’s Dick Morris. He’s chronically wrong about everything.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Yeah, it’s a Dick Morris article.
/sarc
Honestly, I simply don’t find the “he may have raised taxes but at least he didn’t raise them as much as other states” defense to be all that attractive.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Reading some of your rationalizations make me feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I invented the piano key necktie, I invented it! What have you done, Derek? You’ve done nothing! NOTHIIIING! And I will be a monkey’s uncle if I let you ruin this for me, because if you can’t get the job done, then I will!
EduardoOTI on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM
One stinking minute. :-)
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 12:48 PM
PBS? Surely you can’t be serious.
I still say we need a Hot Air debate.
steveegg on November 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Slublog
this maybe of interest
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html
Shows Huckabee did raise taxes every year during his reign
EricPWJohnson on November 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Well, the only thing I’m concerned about is whether Huck surged too late for him to be examined fairly. See, this campaign has had several candidates ride in on white horses to save conservatism. Fred was the major one, but he’s fizzled. Huck is now the latest in that craze. But Huck is no conservative!
I have to go back to Romney’s three legged stool: there’s fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and security oriented conservatism. Each of the major candidates has a varying set of views on that stool: Rudy’s a pure security guy, McCain is the same. Rudy’s stool has nothing in the social conservative leg, and McCain has issues with the Campaign Finance thing (among others). Huck is a social conservative, but his security (immigration ) and fiscal legs of the stool are gone. Fred just never got any traction for some reason. Romney has all three legs, though. I believe Hunter does too, but he just can’t catch a break (it’s hard for a House member to do so).
So once people realize that Huck’s missing two legs of the three-legged conservative stool, his support will crater, I hope. The question is whether there’s enough time to do that–maybe the debate tonight will help expose Huck.
Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »