Chuck Norris fact: Chuck Norris can’t explain why he’s voting for Mike Huckabee; Update: Huckabee now second nationally?
posted at 12:45 pm on December 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Eight solid minutes of video here and the closest we come to a specific reason is that Huck has “integrity” and could be “the people’s president.” Didn’t he read his own WND column?
Huck tells him here, with all apparent sincerity, that it was his endorsement that transformed the entire Republican race. Ponder the significance of that statement being true.
Update: Remember Tuesday’s post about Huck finally overtaking Fred in Rasmussen’s national survey? The trend continues — he’s passed Mitt now too and has second all to himself, for the moment at least.
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
Chuck Norris Fact: Chuck Norris is an idiot.
liberrocky on December 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Chuck Norris Fact:Walker Texas Ranger sucked.
liberrocky on December 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Chuck Norris Fact: The “Chuck Norris Fact” thing is lame.
liberrocky on December 1, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Personally I don’t care for it when some celeb comes out for a candidate, on the left or the right. This just goes to prove that Chuck Norris is no smarter than anyone else, though he may be tougher.
Buzzy on December 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I like Chuck Norris I’ve even read his book but he shouldn’t endorse candidates and I really can’t tell you why other than he’s not very good at picking the best one.
Speakup on December 1, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I’m just waiting for Oprey Winfrey to transform the entire Democratic race.
thuja on December 1, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Well after that clip, I feel better about Huck. Here’s the logic:)
Chuck’s #1 issue is immigration. If Huck breaks rank with Chuck’s view after election, Chuck’s going to ‘feel’ (a favorite word of his apparently) betrayed, and wipe the floor with him. Where is that guarantee with Mitt or Rudy?
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Oprah Winfrey versus Chuck Norris.
Hmmm.
On the surface this match take on the appearance of a one sided Chuck Norris ass kicking but upon closer inspection…
I would be remiss to understate the debilitating dare I say devastating effect the stank emanating from Oprah’s nether regions has had on her opponents. So I’m going with a push pending the final weigh in numbers. This is shaping up to be a blockbuster.
pc on December 1, 2007 at 1:03 PM
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
Mindcrime on December 1, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Why do conservatives insist on backing candidates that aren’t conservative?!? At least all of the Dem candidates are true to their liberal ideals. Why anyone who claims to be a conservative would back Huckabee or Giuliani is beyond me.
davenp35 on December 1, 2007 at 1:08 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
/Vader
Bad Candy on December 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I’ve never gotten the impression that Chuck was a particularly bright individual, and my opinion was the same even before I learned that he wants to tattoo a slogan on my forehead that says, “In God we trust”.
I like alcohol and tobacco and mini-skirts and national sovereignty, so I don’t like Huckabee or Chuck Norris. I will not be a party to another temperance movement in America.
FloatingRock on December 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM
The power of Chuck? Or the power of having an ordained minister run for president? Personally, I was very impressed with Huck’s handling of the Jesus question at the last debate. It was refreshing.
bnelson44 on December 1, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I never thought that Chuck Norris was the sharpest tool in the shed (though he may have been the toughest!). It is particularly illogical — to my thinking — that Norris, who is someone who has expressed deep concerns about illegal immigration, has cast his lot with Hickabee — the Republican candidate with the WORST record on illegal immigration, bar none. NumbersUSA has come out and said that they FEAR Hickabee, specifically for his stand on illegal immigration. Hickabee is a pro-life, non-philandering version of Bill Clinton. I am an evangelical and, just because “Hick” makes noises about being an “evangelical” impresses me not at all. (Hell, he ALSO makes noises about the environment and tobacco that sound very leftist to me.) Hick is not a viable Republican candidate — or either the number one or the number two slot. I do think that Duncan Hunter has gotten shortshrift during this campaign. He is the total package: If the Presidential nomination remains (as it appears) out of reach for him, he would make a GREAT VP nominee for Rudy, Mitt, or Fred. (He might not be a good match for McCain due to similarities in region and experience.)
sanantonian on December 1, 2007 at 1:17 PM
With Huckabee I think he SAYS what some Social Cons WANT to hear. He wants a Human Life Ammendment, and a Marriage Ammendment! Doesn’t matter that neither will ever pass. It makes them feel good. So good, apparently, that they start
thinkingfeeling their way, like Liberals do.And, if Huck gets nominated, and loses badly, they will FEEL bad, and America will pay with a Hillary administration. And these same Social Cons will bitch and moan about needing a REAL Conservative, forgetting, of course, that they backed someone who any idiot could see was not a REAL Conservative.
If they start THINKING they will listen to the candidates on substance, and I think they will realize that Rush is right! Either you ARE a Conservative or you ARE NOT a Conservative! And, of course, Rush has already said who IS in this race hasn’t he?
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Disturbing numbers.
I’m not sure they mean much because of the primary system. I know Republicans aren’t as bad as the Dems as far as jumping on the bandwagon of the early winner, but it still happens. The Iowa numbers are pretty disturbing, for many reasons, especially why they suddenly switched.
Come on, though – Huckabee? It gets pretty frustrating to watch the GOP continually send forth crappy candidates at all levels. I think the term RINO is no longer valid. The RINOs are the majority of the Republican party now.
reaganaut on December 1, 2007 at 1:20 PM
The problem is that people seem to ignore the fact that he is a compassionate conservative. Which means that he is high tax, high spending and pro-illegal immigration. That’s the compassionate part.
But some ignorant people seem to ignore that and just see his social conservative and Christian Conservative credentials.
But I tend to agree with the people who compare Mike Huckabee’s policies to those of Jimmy Carter. He may be a good man, but his policies will do more to send this country back to the disaster it was under Jimmy Carter.
Hopefully, the majority of the people supporting Mike Huckabee right now are simply not aware that he is pro-amnesty. But if that’s true, what does that say about the majority of Republican-voters and their knowledge of the candidates. I haven’t even followed certain candidates that closely and even I know that Mike Huckabee is pro-amnesty. He is no different than John McCain and President Bush or any Democrat candidate on the issue.
I don’t understand how belief in God and being anti-abortion trumps common sense on taxes, spending and illegal immigration. But, if this holds up, then the stereotype of the Christian conservatives by the mass media and the left is seemingly coming true: all they care about is God and abortion, at the expense of anything else. A candidate’s stance on the issue of abortion is important to me, but not at the expense of destroying this nation’s economy through illegal immigration and amnesty and high spending and high taxes.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Yeah, you know what I find refreshing? Not having a Nanny State breathing down my neck. Not having someone try to turn the government into a mission church. One that believes in smaller gov’t and decentralization of power. A candidate who respects US sovereignty. We’ve seen Compassionate Conservatism already, all I gotta say is DO NOT WANT.
Bad Candy on December 1, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Yup, according to Rasmussen, todays new numbers, the Huckster is one point ahead of Fred, Fred’s climbing at a slightly faster rate that Huck, if as you say trends continue Fred will be ahead of Huck in Rasmussen’s next poll.
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Pretty good points you raise there
Gatordoug on December 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM
And yes, I’m Christian, before I get accused of being a pissy secularist.
Bad Candy on December 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Boing Boing Boing Boing – VOTE!
Splat!
Just a matter of who!
This Dean Iowa scream brought to you by……
EricPWJohnson on December 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Let’s not hyperventilate about day to day fluctuations in a statistically tied race. If you look at the long term trends they still show Giuliani 10-20 points ahead of the pack over the last 8 months or so, with the others clustered around 12-15% There was a while there when Fred looked like he’d break out, but he couldn’t get over the hump, and has fallen back with the rest of them. Expect the national numbers to remain stable until Iowa, maybe with Huck getting up to 18-20% or so, in the old Fred range. Once we’re within a week of Iowa, expect the numbers there to start becoming very volatile as people sort themselves out, followed by a smaller national sorting event in the week after that.
Big S on December 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Oh and according to Rasmussen, it appears that Fred and the Hucksters gains are at Romney and Rudy’s expense.
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Definitely the toughest, but as you say, being the toughest doesn’t automatically make you the sharpest tool in the shed.
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Actually, to me, it looked like Mike Huckabee’s gains were at the major expense of Fred Thompson.
Just go back to Oct 1st and compare to where we are now:
Rudy: 23% to 24%
Fred: 25% to 14%
Mitt: 13% to 10%
McCain: 10% to 13%
Huckabee: 6% to 15%
The biggest loser in that bunch is clearly Fred Thompson and the biggest winner is Mike Huckabee.
Without doing any detailed analysis beyond my reading of HotAir, comments here and other posts and comments at other political blogs, the conventional wisdom seems to be that Fred Thompson has the best policies, but no “gravitas”, while Mike Huckabee has the “gravitas” even without having the best policies (or people are just not aware of them yet and are being swayed by his “gravitas”).
That is really discouraging. Tells me that people are choosing their candidate by style over substance.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I agree, the way is see the Repub candidates, there is maybe 3 solid conservatives running and none in the top 3. D. Hunter, T, Tancredo and F. Thompson the rest are RINO’s and we don’t need another Bush.
oldernslower on December 1, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Well put, but I think you left out the one issue even more important than taxes and immigration, the war Islam has declared on us. Huckabee’s being a minister may mislead him into being too nice about Islam because it is a religion. He seems to believe the “religion of peace” lie and makes this Jimmy Carteresque claim on his website:
“The long-term solution is to empower moderates in the region by attacking the underlying conditions that breed terror.”
While “attack the underlying conditions” sounds good it actually means doing everything but consider that Islam itself could be the source of the problem.
thuja on December 1, 2007 at 1:54 PM
thuja – After I re-read my post, I realized that I forgot to mention that. But, I didn’t really know his stance on Islam and The Long War, so I guess I subconsciously left it out on purpose. Or that is the story I am sticking to. heh
Seriously, that is a great point. If he is of the Jimmy Carter (and now seemingly Condoleeza Rice) mentality on The Long War, that is another big disqualification for him, in my opinion. That and his amnesty position should sink him lower than Ron Paul. Ideally anyway, if people are actually as passionate about The Long War and the illegal immigration issue as it seems.
I agree with you on the issue of Islam as well. I can’t remember who stated it, but I have come to agree with the statement that “Some Muslims may be Moderate, but Islam itself is not moderate”. Those who want to “empower moderates” to fix the problem with Islam seem to be of the same mindset of those who think we can fix the “Palestine”/Israel problem by supporting “moderates” in “Palestine”. That does not take care of the root problem, which lies in the political ideology of Islam (and, comparably in the political ideology of “Palestine”).
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 2:05 PM
And people thought the era of the fast talkin’ preacher man was long gone. Here we got one that trots out what’s nothing more than another half-baked, “I don’t know why I support him and you should support him too” media celeb and Huck’s now funneling his campaign through the aura of The Chuck.
Chuck probably couldn’t even explain what Huck’s positions are, so don’t mind me if I wonder what the only man to kick the shit out of Chuck would do.
Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Chuck Norris Fact: Chuck Norris Can’t Actually Explain Why Chuck Norris Likes Mike Huckabee.
amerpundit on December 1, 2007 at 2:23 PM
OMG. What a ridiculous, depressing farce.
I like Huckabee less every moment, and him telling Chuck Effing Norris that his endorsement has “changed the race” is the most patently ridiculous thing I’ve heard yet. I now rank Huckabee just ahead of Ron Paul on my GOP list.
Mitt
Fred
McCain
Rudy
Obama
Huckabee
Clinton
Paul
Celebrity nitwit of the month: Chuck Norris.
Jaibones on December 1, 2007 at 2:33 PM
A little Fred a little Huck. They would round each other out.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 1, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Writer’s strike.
JiangxiDad on December 1, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Chuck Norris Fact: He’s further proof that Pat Sajak’s column on celebrity endorsements was right on.
Jordan Yentsch on December 1, 2007 at 3:51 PM
I think that both Jimmy I and Jimmy II wear their religion on their sleeve as a cover for what they really are. If I were the Devil himself, I could not think of a better cover. All the
bribesgifts that Jimmy II solicited while being the gubernator of Arkansas he should be in prison.One big problem may be that Huckstocchio (Huckster Pinocchio) has prononcments on his web site that make Tom Tancredo seem like Jorge Arbusto or Juan McAmnesty or Rudy Capo by comparision and no one of any influence has called him on it.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
And some folks say that Ron Paul is naive.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 4:16 PM
There may be moderates in Islam, but Islam itself is not moderate.
- Ibn Warraq (an ex-Muslim)
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM
What? You mean … that the Chuck Norris facts are true?
Well, duh.
Professor Blather on December 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Or, alternatively, because he’s a fundamentalist, he could decide it’s his God-ordained duty to wage holy war on the Muslim infidels, and launch a global nuclear strike that ends mankind.
Neener neener neener, my scenario is even scarier than yours is.
Professor Blather on December 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Two things Norris said in that 2nd video in particular stood out for his reasons.
“2 18 year olds from a website… that were supporting him”
Never voted before. Hopefully will this time. Good to get involved. When I was 18 I was very politically minded. But many are not.
“Bill Clinton said the dark horse candidate who could win is Huckabee.”
The Clinton machine wants to run against Mike.
Two 18 year old twins and Slick Willy. So this is who influences his political picks?
Oh yeah, put me down for some.
PowWow on December 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM
The real question is why is Rudy still in first place?
Jay on December 1, 2007 at 4:48 PM
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Thank you. I have read that statement in many places, but couldn’t remember the author of the quote.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Good question. Especially since illegal immigration is supposed to be a big issue to American voters. Yet, the #1 and #2 candidates right now are pro-amnesty candidates? That doesn’t make sense.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM
A lot of Republicans have been to busy shopping or something to get informed and so just believe the candidates spin. I saw a poll not that long ago where many/most Republicans did not even know that Rudolfo was “pro choice”.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 5:06 PM
In the first video, did you notice how the Huckster was leaning away from Norris? Pulling back? Maybe it was the force field around Norris, or maybe the Huckster is afraid of him.
I’ve never seen Walker Texas Ranger and don’t know much about Norris. Judging from his choice of candidates, I’m not impressed. Don’t know that I’ve ever seen an interview with Norris before but seeing all those Chuck Norris Facts on the blogs, I was expecting something better.
jaime on December 1, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Chuck Norris Fact: Chucks Kung Fu is weak.
TheSitRep on December 1, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Who wants to lower your taxes – Huckabee
Who wants to secure the border – Huckabee
Who wants us to be energy independent – Huckabee
Who is our best debater – Huckabee
Who is our most elequent spoksman – Huckabee
Who is the only candidate on an upward trend – Huckabee
Who raised taxes as a governor – Reagan
Who raised taxes as president – Reagan
Who was pro choice before he was pro life – Reagan
Who puts the marriage, ethics, borders issue back on the table = Huckabee
Huckabee is inevitable
moughon on December 1, 2007 at 7:56 PM
moughon then explain this report on the good Govren Taxforthee:
http://www.arkansasleader.com/blogstories.html
and you can check the authors facts with this source
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/2006taxhandbook/2006TaxHandbookFinal.pdf
I only found one mistake a tax cut Clinton made (a small one) that was not on the report
Seems that Huckabee did indeed do more TO Arkansas than Bill
EricPWJohnson on December 1, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Rush non-endorsement endorses Fred and… Huckabee goes up to second?
Zuh?
Can anyone else explain this?
BKennedy on December 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I like Chuck Norris! Look,, I fell for Huck as well. What choices are there here!? How many of us wanted Fred!! The selections here are just horrible! Even Rush said he liked Huck 4 months ago or so.
JellyToast on December 1, 2007 at 11:18 PM
[JiangxiDad on December 1, 2007 at 2:56 PM]
ROTFLMAO … sorry, but I just got it.
Dusty on December 2, 2007 at 1:35 AM
Chuck will never have to explain why he is voting for Huckles. Huckles will be pulling out long before Chuck will get to vote. With Rudiani-Kerik campaign collapsing, Huckles work will be done. Sorry RINOs.
saved on December 2, 2007 at 4:54 AM
Walker, Texas Ranger endorses Mike Huckabee.
Umm, precisely how is this an endorsement?
thejackal on December 2, 2007 at 5:01 PM