Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Video: Club for Growth lowers the Hucka-boom; Update: Bush had NIE for four years, Huck suggests; Update: Huck 39, Mitt 17 in Iowa, says Newsweek

posted at 4:07 pm on December 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

One of those ads using viral footage that you and I have seen a thousand times but which may open some fresh eyes. They’re not messing around, either. It’s a $175,000 buy encompassing local TV in Iowa and South Carolina and a national run on Fox News. To paraphrase Count Rugen: Good heavens, fiscal conservatives. Are you still trying to win?

Here’s another potentially fruitful vein of attack. I don’t want to be paranoid about religious insinuations vis-a-vis Mitt but I raised an eyebrow to this response he gave CNN when asked about Romney’s speech:

The former Arkansas governor said from what he had heard, Romney “seemed to have done an excellent job.”

But the Baptist minister argued that he has been confronted with questions about his faith more than Romney has, and that he would make a “God speech” too if given the airtime.

“I get all of the God questions at the debates, so you know when people say, ‘Oh, he had to make a speech,’ I’m thinking, ‘Hey you know what? If you’ll give me national television time, I’ll make you a God speech, and I’ll tell you what I’ll do, I’ll throw in an offering and an altar call to throw in with it.’”

The “Christian leader” can do that for you.

Update: Yes, I’m well aware that he’s joking. It’s patently obvious that he’s joking. My point is simply that the joke is a subtle way of reminding people of his credentials as a minister, something Mitt doesn’t have. That’s what I mean by “paranoia” — you never know when, as in the case of the “Christian leader” tag, he’s trying to play the religion card or when it’s innocent.

Update: Not enough? Then tell me, what does he mean here when he asserts that Bush had the new NIE “for four years”? The whole point of the NIE is that it reversed the previous NIE from 2005 that claimed Iran had a covert weapons program. The one that just came out is brand new, compiled over the last year or so and reportedly reliant on intel that was recently obtained. He didn’t misspeak, either; he hinted that the report was four years old in an interview on MSNBC this morning too.

Between this and the “INS” gaffe yesterday, if he doesn’t watch out the narrative’s going to shift from Dumond, immigration, and religion to whether this guy has even a basic sense of what he’s talking about. Click the image to watch.

huck-nie.jpg

Update: Amazing.

Questions about religion—in particular skepticism about Romney’s Mormonism—appeared to play a role in the latest results on the GOP side. The survey was completed on the day of the former Massachusetts governor’s much-heralded speech in College Station, Texas, addressing his religion, though most respondents probably had not heard it. Still, only a small number of the 540 Republican voters surveyed in Iowa (10 percent) said they wanted to hear more from Romney about that issue, and close to half (46 percent) said at least some Iowa Republican voters will not consider supporting Romney because of his Mormon faith. More than a quarter (27 percent) said they don’t consider Mormons to be Christians, and one in six (16 percent) said they are less likely to support Romney because he is a Mormon.

Huckabee’s religious credibility, by the same token, appears to be a key factor behind his surge. Huckabee has opened up a huge lead among evangelicals, who are likely to make up about 40 percent of GOP caucus-goers on Jan. 3, the survey found. Among all Republican voters who identify themselves as evangelicals, 47 percent support Huckabee while only 14 percent back Romney. Among nonevangelicals, the two candidates are dead even at 24 percent apiece. Even so, a majority of Republican voters indicated that other issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, health care and Iraq, are more important than religion.


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

Newsweek is saying Huck is at 39% in their latest Iowa poll?!?! With Romney at 17% in second?! And McC over Rudy?

Something’s very wrong with this picture.

techno_barbarian on December 7, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Rudy isn’t running in Iowa

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Huckabee is worthless as a candidate. Why would any Republican even THINK about voting for a fiscal liberal like him?!?

Maybe they want an alternative to a pro choice philanderer(Giuliani), and a fair weather conservative whose positions change with the wind(Romney). I know some may say then go for Thompson. Fred had his chance and he dropped the ball, his style is not appealing and he does not seem to have the fire in his belly to win. Huckabee is far from the perfect candidate but he deserves consideration just like the other candidates.

Complete7 on December 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM

What scares me is the fact that Huckabee has Chuck Norris.

As soon as Huck got Chuck, I switched to Independent so I’d have an excuse to sit out the primary.

Ain’t no way I’m ending up like those two guys on that Mt. Dew commercial.

Vinnie on December 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Don’t worry about Chuck, man. One of these days Brian Libby’s going to get out of that well, and there will be a reckoning.

ReubenJCogburn on December 7, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Rudy isn’t running in Iowa

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Actually, I misquoted the poll results:

Huck 39%
Romeny 17%
Thompson 10%
Rudy 9%
McC 6%

Got that off the web here.

Could’ve sworn the numbers were reported differently on FNC a few minutes ago. Sorry ’bout that.

techno_barbarian on December 7, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Huckabee is far from the perfect candidate but he deserves consideration just like the other candidates.

Like I said in the other thread, I did consider him. Then I looked at his record and un-considered him.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Amazing.

I’ve got my bags packed… How long till our train to the political wilderness leaves?

Lehosh on December 7, 2007 at 7:06 PM

The personal character of King David? I assume you mean before he committed adultery with Bathsheba and sent her husband off to war to be killed. Otherwise I think we had enough immorality in the White House with Clinton.

I wonder what/who you can see from the roof of the White House?

Sebastian on December 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Yea, that wasnt exactly that character trait I was thinking of. I was more thinking along the lines of knowing who his enemies were and having the balls to deal with them.

doriangrey on December 7, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Where are the professional people doing the polling getting the phone numbers for these people. Are the “pollees” volunteers? Do they call and say I would like to be included in your polls.

Ron Paul is the online winner!(give me a break!)

This is getting ridiculous.
I’m not one to believe in a conspiracy, but this is getting a little twisted…

News at 11:00? :)

Nelsa on December 7, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I was more thinking along the lines of knowing who his enemies were and having the balls to deal with them.

doriangrey on December 7, 2007 at 7:08 PM

I see three candidates on the GOP side who fit that bill.

Big S on December 7, 2007 at 7:11 PM

I wonder where csdeven’s been?
Zetterson on December 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I’m giving the bigots a break from having to be confronted with their bigotry because I see them for the disgusting bigots they are and am not afraid of telling them so.

csdeven on December 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Update: Amazing.

We deserve to lose.

Free Constitution on December 7, 2007 at 5:41 PM

One wonders, what they are smoking in Iowa? I suppose they were burning more than old corn stalks after the recent harvest. I can’t believe this.

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Bush increases spending by 40% and you’re upset that Huckabee is a fiscal liberal?
DrW on December 7, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Uhh… could there possible be a better reason not to vote for another fiscal liberal like Huckster after seeing what Bush has let Congress get away with?

You’d have a point if we were defending Bush’s lack of spending restraint, but the opposite is true- and we don’t want another big spender like Bush- or the lying Huckster.

Huck is:
Weak on defense- NIE report? Who knew… except everybody?
Weak on taxes- raised the heck out of them in AR.
Weak on spending- greatly increased spending in AR.
Weak on illegal immigration- amnesty and scholarships ahoy!
Weak on ethics- investigated in AR, has blatantly lied about his past immigration and law enforcement record.

Strong on God, guns and gays. Nothing else.

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Does this guy even read a newspaper?

Vizzini on December 7, 2007 at 7:27 PM

I’m not going to be able to vote R if Huck’s the guy. I would vote for any of the others, except Paul of course, but not him, no way.

greggish on December 7, 2007 at 7:34 PM

I’m not going to be able to vote R if Huck’s the guy. I would vote for any of the others, except Paul of course, but not him, no way.

greggish on December 7, 2007 at 7:34 PM

I don’t think I’ll ever experience a gag and nose hold reflex like I will pulling the lever for Huck in ‘08 if he’s the nominee. I mean he will be better than Hillary/Obama but . . . I don’t even want to think about it.

What are they thinking in Iowa?
Do these people even bother looking at the guys record?

I thought in the early debates, “Who’s this folksy liable eloquent guy?” and then I looked at his record and knew there was no way he could win with it. But . . .

McCain and Thompson supporters need to see they have no hope of winning and what the alternative will be.

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Uhh… could there possible be a better reason not to vote for another fiscal liberal like Huckster after seeing what Bush has let Congress get away with?

You’d have a point if we were defending Bush’s lack of spending restraint, but the opposite is true- and we don’t want another big spender like Bush- or the lying Huckster.

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM

What he said.

peski on December 7, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Come on everyone…..Newsweek, ruby slippers,….who better to put up against Hill???? Paul is about it to ensure a Hill win. The rest….it is a uphill battle that, while not looking good now, is winnable. Of course Newsweek wants Huck to get the nod. Who better to trash in the general (other then Paul)?

Limerick on December 7, 2007 at 7:58 PM

hollowpoint, you can parrot all the Romney talking points you want, but Huckabee has some very likable traits and strong conservativepositions, both socially and fiscally. his immigration plan floated on HA yesterday was impressive and specifially is not amnesty. as you say, he is no gun grabber, believes not only in the sanctitiy of marraige but even rejects civil unions, and is stongly pro life.

i month ago i had not idea who the guy was. now, i’m narrowing things down and he’s in my final two with Rudy.

DrW on December 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM

After some thinking I believe the people pushing for Huck are the same people who still think Bush can do no wrong.

I could be totally wrong but I think most Republicans, like me, want a change from Bush as well. The difference from leftists being that we don’t think he’s Bushitler just a big spending psuedo-conservative. The thing is Huckabee doesn’t even have the one thing I like about Bush security and tax cuts. He’s Bush minus the tax cuts and foreign policy. What does he offer the 39% in Iowa? The one thing Bush never faltered on: spending and being the stalwart moral father figure. That is, the Christian leader and compassionate conservatism.

They want their moralism and $mulah$.

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 8:09 PM

My point is simply that the joke is a subtle way of reminding people of his credentials as a minister, something Mitt doesn’t have.

Romney was actually an LDS bishop, which should give credential as a minister, with the added note that LDS bishops are NOT paid so they actually have to hold on to their day job. So Romney is a bishop while he continues to run his business.

But, then I read a critique of his speech and they deride him because he doesn’t explain LDS beliefs as the critic “thinks” a former bishop should. He turns his “minister credential” into a liability! Talk about bass ackwards.

Here’s the deal. Mitt’s in a catch-22 on answering questions on the LDS faith. As someone with a vested interest in dispelling concerns with the LDS church beliefs, I’d be happy to take it upon myself to answer any concerns HA readers may have about any tenet of the LDS faith that would exclude a Latter-day Saint from being president.

sweetlipsbutterhoney on December 7, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Huckabee has some very likable traits and strong conservativepositions, both socially and fiscally.

The Club for Growth disagrees, and they make a rather compelling case. Actually, Huckabee himself makes the case with his own words before the legislature.

his immigration plan floated on HA yesterday was impressive and specifially is not amnesty.

And it’s got that old-school flavah, so you know it’s good.

he is no gun grabber, believes not only in the sanctitiy of marraige but even rejects civil unions, and is stongly pro life.

What’s the big deal with civil unions? I can understand not wanting gay marriage, but extending the ban all the way to civil unions? That seems an acceptable compromise.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

sweetlipsbutterhoney on December 7, 2007 at 8:10 PM

I’ve been asking for days…..what decision, could a President of the United States make, based on his Mormonism, that would endanger the country, it’s citizens, or my dogs? Not a single answer has been offered up. That is the only ‘truth’ in this argument that I can find.

Limerick on December 7, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Apparently there’s a constituency that fears a slippery slope of gayness might doom the county

Big S on December 7, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I’m giving the bigots a break from having to be confronted with their bigotry because I see them for the disgusting bigots they are and am not afraid of telling them so.

csdeven on December 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Heh, I missed you csd, I thought you got banhammered for that Jeri thread comment. How have you been?

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM

“his immigration plan floated on HA yesterday was impressive and specifially is not amnesty.”
And it’s got that old-school flavah, so you know it’s good.
Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

The plan didn’t sound to bad, but I dont’ know how is jives with what he’s said in the past.

I get the feeling that he is going for a huge boom in Iowa hoping it carries him all the way. He wants to give Iowans everthing they want, and the one place that he’s weak in Iowa is immigration. Now he can point to this plan. Iowan Hucksters get everything they want federal $$ and their Christian pater familias. I’m telling you these 39% are the same people that think Bush hasn’t done one thing wrong the past eight years “except that immigration thing”. Not anymore.

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 8:31 PM

hollowpoint, you can parrot all the Romney talking points you want…
DrW on December 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Had to quote this just for the comedy factor. You must be new around these parts.

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM

What’s the big deal with civil unions? I can understand not wanting gay marriage, but extending the ban all the way to civil unions? That seems an acceptable compromise.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

I guess I would be okay with civil unions, provided they do NOT allow them to be considered a couple for purposes of adoption. I confess I don’t know much about the civil union idea. Is this something that would be allowed?

I’ve been asking for days…..what decision, could a President of the United States make, based on his Mormonism, that would endanger the country, it’s citizens, or my dogs? Not a single answer has been offered up. That is the only ‘truth’ in this argument that I can find.

Limerick on December 7, 2007 at 8:17 PM

In fact, I would go so far as to say the LDS Church is one of the most fervently patriotic churches in the country. Take the example of the Mormon Battalion.
In 1846, the LDS church had recently lost their founder to murder by mob, had been driven out of their homes in Illinois and had received no protection from the states or the feds through persecution in 3 states. Then President Polk had the gall to send the army to go to the exiled Mormons encamped in Iowa territory to recruit a battalion of 500 men for military service in the Mexican-American War.
Did Brigham Young eject the army recruiter from the camp? Did he thumb his nose in their face? No, he urged the church membership to enlist their men, and the “Mormon Battalion” force of over 500 men went on to complete the longest march in US military history.
Now that’s the way to NOT perpetuate victim-hood. That’s the way of a true patriot. My church’s teachings mesh perfectly with the American cause.

sweetlipsbutterhoney on December 7, 2007 at 8:49 PM

Had to quote this just for the comedy factor. You must be new around these parts.

I’ll admit…that gave me a chuckle.

Admit it, Hollowpoint…embrace your inner Mitt man-crush! :-)

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Admit it, Hollowpoint…embrace your inner Mitt man-crush! :-)

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:53 PM

I guess I have complimented him on his hair…

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Update: Huck 39, Mitt 17 in Iowa, says Newsweek

Very plausible hypothetical match ups in Iowa primary given current quality of Iowan voters:

Jimmy Carter 39, John F. Kennedy 17.
Huey Long 39, FDR 17.
Benedict Arnold 39, Thomas Jefferson 17.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 9:09 PM

I’m giving the bigots gibots a break from having to be confronted with their bigotry gibotry because I see them for the disgusting bigots gibots they are and am not afraid of telling them so until it sinks in.

csdeven on December 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 9:22 PM

If Huck is nominated, I think I’ll just sit this one out. I may be better to have a dem I did not elect screw things up than a rino who’ll screw things up that I did.

TheSitRep on December 7, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Huck is a puss. I want some one like Thompson , Hunter, Tancredo, or better still Arpaio!

No Nancy like huck, Mitt or McCain.

Big hairy MALKINS is what is needed.

TheSitRep on December 7, 2007 at 11:05 PM

I’m afraid Huck’s subtle pandering to anti-LDS bias will also now be carried over into the general if Mitt gets the nomination. Huck has neatly set up any religious person for the Democrat whispering campaign regarding a potential GOP theocracy, and it will come back to haunt him(Huck) even worse if he gets the brass ring. Using religion(any type)as has been done in this primary will give the Dems a nice solid footing to scare off any wavering independents. Worst example of short term thinking I can imagine.

a capella on December 7, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I just don’t like this guy. Regardless of attacks, I think he has peaked….pretty glad about that….not that glad about the rest of the field. Can we start this election cycle thing over again????

Dirthead on December 7, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Huck is s shuck.

One more weak mealymouth who can’t grasp that, as a politico, you have to leave rapists in prison… because The Dukakis Effect will wring your aspirations like a chicken’s neck if you decide to play with it.

It’ll Willie your Horton.

Especially when said freed rapist rapes and kills on your “good faith” dime.

And mentioning how many times you signed death warrants ( boasted about on Sean Hannity’s radio show) won’t bring back that one victim who you enabled your freed criminal to rape and murder.

Huck is a schmuck.

profitsbeard on December 8, 2007 at 1:38 AM

Carter was a born again Christian too. He was the worst president of my 49 year long lifetime. He went from being a fool of a president to now just being and old fool. Let US not be fooled by another big government Republican.

Go Fred!

Mojave Mark on December 8, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Very plausible hypothetical match ups in Iowa primary given current quality of Iowan voters:

Jimmy Carter 39, John F. Kennedy 17.
Huey Long 39, FDR 17.
Benedict Arnold 39, Thomas Jefferson 17.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Hahahahahahaha Best post ever!

I swear all the Iowan Hucksters want is federal $$ and their Christian pater-familias.

jusstjones on December 8, 2007 at 2:44 AM

Heh, I missed you csd, I thought you got banhammered for that Jeri thread comment. How have you been?

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM

I don’t even remember that thread. I remember seeing all the gibots frothing and seething to the point of uncontrollable ranting.
I been doing great. I been visiting other sites and gracing them with my exceptional wisdom and insight into politics and how it works in the real world. As opposed to the Fred loons who live in lala land believing that Fred’s scummy past as a lobbyist for dictators and as a traitorous lawyer who worked for the flight 103 terrorists, is something the American people are gonna just say “Aw shucks!! He don’t mean nuttin’ by that.”. Lets make him president!

Bwahahahahaha!!!

csdeven on December 8, 2007 at 4:23 AM

Geesh, this whole site is stretching to impugn Huckabee. Agenda driven drivel.

tizzidale on December 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Ok, how about this link:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019217.php

Looks like the Huckster is the GOP’s Jimmah Cawter.

Texas Nick 77 on December 8, 2007 at 6:39 AM

Hotair should be promoting Thompson like CRAZY!

msipes on December 7, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Well, I think AP, Bryan, and MM are not in the business to promote anyone. They are running a blog/comment line. We commenters are free to promote our favourite candidate, but they have to maintain objectivity.

Great job, everyone.

Well, except for the trolls. I could live quiet happily without reading “scumbag lobbyist” ever again.

Texas Nick 77 on December 8, 2007 at 6:49 AM

Huck is a Republican Clinton. (Even does the thumb thing.)

Tzetzes on December 8, 2007 at 7:05 AM

Guiliana was good in the second video. So was Fred, though I don’t like that purple.

Tzetzes on December 8, 2007 at 7:07 AM

…was a distraction.

If I want that kind of conversation I’ll call my ex-wife.

jaime on December 7, 2007 at 5:26 PM

I can identify with that, too. Ouch!

Texas Nick 77 on December 8, 2007 at 7:11 AM

What’s the big deal with civil unions? I can understand not wanting gay marriage, but extending the ban all the way to civil unions? That seems an acceptable compromise.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Something to do with medical insurance and survivor’s benefits. Hate to say it, but the cost of life and medical insurance is partly covered by employers. And quite a few employers are either local, state, or federal government entities. And not all employees of government entities are hetero. So, a “civil union” could cause the taxpayer to subsidize the cost of medical care for some people who have a greater chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Sorry, on nothing more than financial reasons, I decline to support any form of “gay” marriage.

Texas Nick 77 on December 8, 2007 at 8:43 AM

Pep rallies have their place but do not “mean” much else.

As per campaign tempo, to demand the culmination at the beginning would be impetuously foolish.

Fred Thompson was warmly received from the onset.

The only discontented with Fred are those demanding flash gordon, as though flash would realistically fulfill ALL expectations.

Those citizens who recognize the benefit of conservative realism enjoy getting to know Fred Thompson. His strategy works in a campaign marathon:

Andante con moto; Allegro con fuoco; Presto Vivace !

Americans need a president who, once elected, can unite the nation without equivocation of a psychological social class caste system (to which Mitt adheres).

Fred’s campaign platform is exactly what the Republican Party represents.

There is genius in simplicity.

Don’t foolishly ignore what we have with Fred just because he won’t dress up in political drag to court an impetuous John’s vote.

maverick muse on December 8, 2007 at 9:14 AM

I been sayin’ all along that Rudy wouldn’t play in the south and west but nobody wanted to hear it. We shoulda been on the Fred bandwagon from the beginning, now I’m hopin’ it ain’t too late.

Ex-tex on December 8, 2007 at 9:23 AM

All along I been sayin’ that when folks started payin’ attention Rudy would not play in the south and west. Any big numbers he got were name recognition only. I’m tellin’ ya folks are just now startin’ to pay attention to the crossdressin’ and slimy personal behavior.

I also said that Mitt was gonna have a real problem when those old videos of him supportin’ abortion and claimin’ NOT to be a Reagan conservative started showin’ up in TV ADS (not Youtube)- his trouble is just startin’.

I always hoped that Fred would be the one to get the ‘conservative’ vote, but I worry now that it’ll be Huck.
Ya’ll who read and write on polital blogs don’t get the REAL voters out there. Most of these folks Hate what’s happenin’ to the culture, they Hate bein told they’re bigots for not wantin’ 2 men to marry each other. They HATE the anti-american attitudes of Hollywood and the MSM.
The LOVE God,America,their families, and the military. They HATE illegal immigration.

WHATEVER candidate can make them feel that he is on their side in 60 seconds or less is gonna git the lions share of their votes.

Providin’ he ain’t wearin’ a dress.

Ex-tex on December 8, 2007 at 9:57 AM

I can’t wait until the general election, when Huck or Mitt get smoked by Her Majesty, and all you douchebags who supported either of them as the nominee have to answer for it.

Centerfire on December 9, 2007 at 7:33 AM

Centerfire on December 9, 2007 at 7:33 AM

I think not. Hitlery doesn’t have a chance to beat ANY Republican nominee. I hope it’s Fred but anybody running would get my vote. Bill may be the most successful sexual predator ever but Hitlery is only his enabler.

Mojave Mark on December 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.