Fred camp on Huckabee: We need a president, not a court jester
posted at 1:20 pm on December 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
When asked by Don Imus this morning about his lack of foreign policy credentials, Mike Huckabee joked: “And the ultimate thing is, you know, I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy – but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (WABC Radio, 12/04/07)
“When confronted with a serious question about his lack of foreign policy experience, Mike Huckabee makes a joke. The security of Americans and our allies is no laughing matter. What Americans are looking for in their next president is a commander in chief, not a Court Jester,” added Bob Haus, Executive Director of Iowa Friends of Fred Thompson.
He’s not first in just Iowa anymore, either. The Daily News has a piece out about Giuliani aides rubbing their hands with glee at Huckabee’s surge in Iowa but eyeball the latest daily numbers from Rasmussen. That’s five consecutive days of decline for Rudy and five consecutive days of either holding or gaining ground for Huck, and that ain’t the only poll where Rudy’s sagging. If the trend continues tomorrow, Huckabee’s all by himself as the national frontrunner.
Exit question: Is the candidate who so enjoys telling others their policies are un-Christian behaving in an un-Christian manner himself?
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]
Boom, head shot.
liquidflorian on December 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM
And only Nixon could have gone to China. Sorry AP, only Bryan can mock the Christianists.
In all seriousness, have you ever thought of guest blogging at AoSHQ or something similar? I really miss your more cutting edge blogging that was on your original site.
Bill C on December 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM
There weren’t muggings or anything like that. The cops blamed them on “gang initiations”, that is, kids killing people randomly in the middle of the night to prove how tough they are. It’s not like the movies, where you see and confront your assailant. Random shots with no warning, that’s it.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Exactly; were they killed by a sniper that no one ever saw? Shot in the back by someone they didn’t know was there? Maybe there was no way for them to save themselves, armed or not, but the exception doesn’t negate the overall validity of the premise of the Armed Society.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM
A firearm is not a +10 magical amulet of protection.
_Not_ having a firearm is a 100% guaranteed effective way of pre-emptively removing a range of survival options from your (decidedly less-than-certain) future.
Having that option available to you _may_ make the difference, and the more you practice, the better your odds…just like any other martial art…and yet even a 5th Dan shotokan master will tell you he can still be beaten.
What do you suggest? If we don’t have a 100% perfect way of protecting ourselves then we should do nothing? When has that _ever_ been a rational way to approach life?
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Don’t tell me “Deadwood” is a lie.
Some things can not be forgiven.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 3:32 PM
I was impressed with the way “Jericho” dealt with the whole “taking up arms” thing…very compelling.
Avenge me boys
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Ignore them, they’re just a bunch of filthy c*cks*ckers.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM
It’s a character flaw.
I’m working on it though.
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
this election isn’t “Last Comic Standing”.
no more joking around. get to the damn issues.
madmonkphotog on December 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Nothing but nothing is ever going to protect anyone from that, except a change in the mentality that permitted the gang violence atmosphere to incubate and grow in the first place.
The atmosphere that allowed and even encouraged that mentality to grow and thrive was the high degree of confidence of gang members that victims of gang violence have no reasonable way to resist the gang members.
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
You work down at the dockyard too?
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Given his record and beliefs on national security, I think that’s what Huckabee is trying to avoid.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
I understand that. We give some of the responsibility for our own personal safety to government authority, i.e. the police. When our “amulets” can’t protect us, as is the case in cities with huge amounts of random violence (e.g. NYC in the early 1990’s), the government needs to be able to step in and take measures to protect us. In some cases, for that to be effective requires greater scrutiny of the ownership and use of weapons. The reason why gun rights supporters fear Giuliani is that he proved that enforcement of gun control laws can be effective, and an “armed society” is not the only way to ensure public safety.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
It is, however, the only constitutionally protected one.
Sure, ‘gun control’ law enforcement can be effective. I wouldn’t want to live under it though. Why not have the death penalty for possession of a firearm, with hordes of heavily armored para-military cops patrolling the streets. That’ll work too.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Like this??
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Just referencing the most used word on “Deadwood”; one of the reasons I stopped watching the show was me getting tired of that being used as every second word by several of the characters.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM
“Deadwood”…”c*cks*ckers”…was it a show about necrophilia?
I don’t gets the channels thems rich folks gets
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Yeah, the language on the show was a bit too much. If they toned it down quite a bit, the show would be more watchable.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Not to worry. I just like his mind. You can love all of him. I’ll never take him away from you, or anyone else.
Noted, but please don’t go changing.
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Are you arguing that police power is not constitutionally protected?
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:51 PM
No, The reason why gun rights supporters fear Giuliani is that he proved that he doesn’t believe in the second amendment. Furthermore socialism is only a precursor to totalitarian communist rule. The first rule of establishing a totalitarian communist state is, convince the people that only the government can guarantee their safety, and for the government to do that every citizen must surrender any weapon that they might posses.
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM
How many of those criminals that Rudy whupped were using legally obtained firearms?
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I love the term “knuckleheads”, and it fits the HA commentariat, lovingly.
On the question, I’d just love it if you, or someone like you would run. The field on both sides is devoid of leaders for this time. Though, I think this could have always been said.
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Yes. There is no specific constitutional protection of, nor requirement for, police power.
There is mention of “calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union”, however…which is why I support privatizing all law enforcement.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Are you on some love-fest trip today or what?
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Aren’t there already? ;-)
Mark Jaquith on December 4, 2007 at 4:19 PM
The Constitution protects your right to own a gun, it also provides a mechanism to alter that right, so why is it that we are fine with restricting that right through means other than the one prescribed to do so?
Also, the USSC ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you from harm. Look up DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Many states and local jurisdictions have similar rulings on the books.
Defense Guy on December 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM
You’re assumption that some firearms are legally obtained and that others are not is an implicit endorsement of the rationale behind gun control laws, which is such anathema to 2nd Amendment fundamentalists.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Polls are worthless. Theres so much pushing and leading questions and dishonest answering.
Look back at many elections and you’ll find that polls - especially early polls, were way off.
From here foward I’m not reading any threads that are centered around polling data.
amend2 on December 4, 2007 at 4:33 PM
If that was even remotely true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The ‘gun control’ movement is sociopathic fascism masquerading as public law’n'order policy.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM
How so? Saying that some firearms are illegally obtained proves that gun laws are broken. More gun laws would be meaningless to those lawbreakers. End of story.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Quite the opposite. It’s a condemnation of the effectiveness of such laws.
That’s madness, that is.
TexasDan on December 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Oh no I fvcking don’t.
Cops exist to take photos and draw chalk outlines
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I’m speechless. No police power at all? You guys are insane, and I’m glad I have laws and an executive authority to prrotect people like me from people like you.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM
You do realize that Savage is all an act right? He gives his money to lefty liberal politicians. I hope Fred! does not make the mistake of going on Mr. Weiners show.
Sammy316 on December 4, 2007 at 4:44 PM
You’re lost in the fog, dude. Police catch people after the fact. We’re not denying that. But they cannot, and cannot be expected to, catch people in the act. When that act is being perpetrated against you…you think the police are going to get there in time? Dream on.
How idiotic to think you need to be protected from us. Take some deep breaths from a paper bag and think it over a bit.
TexasDan on December 4, 2007 at 4:46 PM
You’re glad to have the police protect you? Fine. I’m glad to have my 9MM protect me, because it takes about 3 minutes and 55 seconds less time for my friend Mr. Heckler Koch to make an appearance.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM
You’re right; I mis-stated my case:
How many were used for legitimate purposes?
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I’d argue that this case is not philosophically distinguishable from the last one you made, with the only difference being whether or not the “legitimate purposes” were written into law. As soon as you define “legitimate purposes”, you’ve given yourself grounds for taking the gun away.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:11 PM
I bet you can imagine exactly how much I value your amateur psychological assessment. Banana hammock.
And exactly what magical spell does the law, or the superheroes in the executive branch, weave that prevents anybody from harming you? Does this same magical law instantaneously transport a cop to stand between you and a bullet with his magical shiny badge of unkillability?
Do you invest in “My Little Pony” stock?
lol…you have a _lot_ of waking up to do!
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 5:11 PM
How ’bout Robbery? Murder? Stuff like that?
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Should I say: Defining “Illegitimate” purposes? As in, using a gun for illegitimate purposes would be grounds for having the gun taken away; any use not associated with something otherwise illegal would be fine, theoretically.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:20 PM
I hope this guy gets all of his guns taken away. (From Ace’s place)
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:20 PM
There’s a lot of gray areas there, like criminals keeping guns to protect themselves during the course of their illegal businesses. If a drug dealer carries a gun, for nominally “self defense” purposes, would you consider that legitimate?
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM
No, because he’s still engaged in an illegal enterprise, and needs to go to jail anyway. And he certainly can’t keep his gun there.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:29 PM
So you don’t approve of Firearms For The Flatulent?
(Just kidding)
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I’m constantly on one - you just need to learn to discern the different kinds of love. Regards,
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 5:37 PM
No, they’re dangerous enough already.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Logic alert!
If you don’t even know who the assailants are … obviously you don’t know the specifics of the crime - unless it happened to be caught on video? Was it?
Assuming not - assuming these people were gunned down without witnesses - then how on Earth could you possibly have any idea whether being armed might have helped or not?
Let’s try backwards logic if that won’t get you: if someone is planning to shoot you, and they have a gun … how exactly would YOU having a weapon do anything OTHER than increase your odds of survival?
Logic, please. Not ideology. I really want to hear how exactly it’s a disadvantage for me to be armed, if people are planning to shoot and kill me. It’s certainly not going to make me any MORE dead.
Professor Blather on December 4, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Never mind. Should have read the whole thread. Plenty of other folks pointed out that gaping logical gap:
Professor Blather on December 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I
Exactly. It’s not necessarily going to help protect you. People on this board, and others, have held the position that an armed citizenry is the best way to prevent gun violence, but it won’t prevent all, or even most, of it. When there is a situation, in which these kinds of crimes are common, it is legitimate for the government (democratically elected) to try to do something about it, (contrary to what some on this thread may think.) The question comes down to when a police force may deny somebody their second amendment rights.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 5:55 PM
True enough. However, look at it from a basic psychological level. You have two situations.
Situation 1 - Guns cannot be carried by citizens. They are carried only by police officers, dressed in uniforms, driving easily recognizable automobiles. As long as the police are not around, you have no threat of having a gun used on you if you commit a crime.
Situation 2 - Guns can be carried by citizens (and lets assume that includes concealed carry). They are also carried by police officers. Any person you meet or see could be packing a gun. Anyone, including your intended victim, could pull a gun on you if you commit a crime.
Now, tell me, which situation prevents more crime?
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Um. Do you wilfully misunderstand or are you, you know, special?
So by all means let’s throw in the towel. I mean, if it’s not 100% effective, the hell with it, I quit.
The police fairy isn’t real, you know. Talk about not necessarily going to help protect you.
The answer is never never never ever, unless you’re fond of a police state. If you want to lump criminals in with “somebody” as some wierd sort of gotcha, then I give up on you.
TexasDan on December 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM
This is where you are wrong, area’s where there are conceal and carry laws have dramatically lower gun and violent crime rates. This is a well documented fact, not unsupported conjecture.
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I encourage you to compare the Virginia Tech shootings with a similar event that happened at Appalachian School of Law. The situation at Virginia Tech showed the limits of police protection - remember the video of police setting up a perimeter while shots are clearly heard coming from the building?
I’m not saying an armed student or professor could have prevented what happened that day, but they certainly could have lowered the number of dead by either killing Cho or forcing him to focus on an armed opponent rather than an unarmed victim.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Don’t mind the “fundamentalists”, they were probably educated at public schools and have no clue about what constitutes a free society. But just because there are bad arguments for gun rights doesn’t mean that there aren’t any good ones.
Maybe, maybe not. Here are several cases of people who thwarted drive-by shootings. Not all of them are applicable to your example, but you must admit that sometimes guns have been used effectively for even this very difficult case. Also, as others have noted, the fact that guns do not protect everyone doesn’t mean that they don’t protect anyone.
I wouldn’t say it is always the best way but it is certainly a valid way and in some circumstances the only effective way. John Lott’s study shows pretty clearly that violent crimes go down in direct proportion to the presence of concealed carry permits and effective punishment of criminals.
I agree with the first half, to a point. As Hobbes says, civilization is the balance between individual rights and group responsibility. Where to draw that line is the difficulty and that’s why discussions like this are so valuable for a free society.
But I would suggest that the second half of your point doesn’t follow. Giulliani combined effective law enforcement with gun control. He got good resultes, but it is at least possible — and based on the Lott study I mentioned above, I would say more likely than not — that Giulliani would have gotten even better results if he had allowed private citizens to defend themselves. We will never know in that case, but in other cases that pattern is pretty consistent.
JackOfClubs on December 4, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Oops. Screwed up the link for John Lott’s book. Here it is.
JackOfClubs on December 4, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I agree with you. I’m a pretty good shot but if someone drives up behind me and starts shooting, I’m not all that protected by a firearm in my posession, or on my person.
But I’m not protected by a gun-lock law, a 7-day waiting period or a background check, either. In fact I’m less protected.
Wouldn’t it be great if we would execute murderers? And you know, just punish the hell out of people who commit crimes with guns? How about a manditory 25 years with no possibility of parole for armed robbery?
Dork B. on December 4, 2007 at 8:32 PM
I believe Cohen’s right about this. Somehow, faintly, I also believe Obama would be the first president to try to do away with at least one of these symbolic photo-ops. I don’t know why. Just a feeling.
Captain Scarlet on December 5, 2007 at 6:50 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]