Huckabee: I apologized to Mitt after the debate
posted at 5:02 pm on December 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It was, apparently, graciously accepted. I said last night I’m willing to believe he spoke out of ignorance, especially since per the update there’s some plausible reason for the misunderstanding. After you watch this, though, watch the clip below it of the statement about faith he gave to the Des Moines Register that aired during the debate. NBC and Marc Ambinder think it’s a clear shot at Romney’s speech from last week. The point of Romney’s speech, though, wasn’t to say that his faith “doesn’t impact me at all,” it was to say that it wouldn’t be the determining factor in his decisions as president. Hard to know what Huck was getting at without the context of the question but I don’t think it’s necessarily an aspersion cast at Mitt. Exit question: Or was it?
Update: K-Lo says the second clip is from April, not this week. I’ll take her word for it, but the videos she links to at the Des Moines Register site obviously aren’t the same as this. He’s seated in a well-lit room, in front of a bookcase, in those.
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
Er………isn’t this sort of like standing up in a crowd and announcing you gave money to so-n-so charity?
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I saw him walk over to Mitt after the debate. I figured that was what he was doing.
Now that this is settled, let’s never speak of it again.
Talon on December 12, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Dude.
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Would some here like to see them fighting over religion? It is bad enough their supporters are.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 5:12 PM
That screen shot is precious.
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 5:13 PM
This sounds more like “I’m sorry I’m taking heat over my sh!tty attitude towards your religion, Mitt.”
He could really be that thick, but in that case is he really cut out to be president? Either way I don’t think so…
liquidflorian on December 12, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I was hoping you’d include that second clip.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the video of Huckabee’s answer to the illegal immigration question. I don’t see how he could have misunderstood the question considering that he wasn’t the first one asked, yet his answer didn’t address illegal immigration one bit as far as I could tell.
FloatingRock on December 12, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Eh. He’lll say something stupid again tomorrow.
davenp35 on December 12, 2007 at 5:18 PM
This was the right thing for Mike to do. I think it actually was a better move then to do it during the debate, it comes across as more authentic.
Complete7 on December 12, 2007 at 5:20 PM
If you’re apologizing for something you did in public, then the apology should be equally as public as the offense. Anything less is weaselly. But then, it’s
CarterHuckabee so I’m not surprised…Laura on December 12, 2007 at 5:21 PM
It’s like they’re drowning, flailing away, dragging each other down. Mitt definitely came off as the most presidential today.
Griz on December 12, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Kudo’s to Huck if he means the apology.
I still have a hard time believing he didn’t know, though. I trust him about as far as I could throw the (old) Huck.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Done in my best Dana Carvey “Church Lady” voice:
“Wellll… wasn’t that special..”
Always Right on December 12, 2007 at 5:27 PM
He was kind of weaselly at the beginning with his explanation of why he said it. But it’s good of him to apologize, even if I don’t believe him when he says he hopes people aren’t voting for him because he’s a Baptist.
His campaign ads and public statements seem to contradict that claim.
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 5:29 PM
He should have publicly apologized, its like when the media lies or exaggerates a fact in order to maximize their propagandizing effect during the intense points of a controversy only to issue a quiet correction and apology when no one is paying attention.
Bad Candy on December 12, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Huck is a putz. If religion doesn’t matter, why are you quoting the bible and “parting the red sea” in every answer you give? What a tool. He’s against it even though he just did it.
Fred did well, but Mitt did better, so Fred just hit him in the social con pocket. $50 tax assisted abortions in Mass? oy.
sunny on December 12, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Let me guess (I’m not about to waste precious minutes watching that moron talk): He excused his remarks by saying that he “didn’t know at the time that he was wrong?”
It seems to be the only trick in the Huckabomb Pony’s playbook.
Misha I on December 12, 2007 at 5:32 PM
It’s not a very flattering choice, is it? If he really didn’t know, then you’re right - he really is too thick to be president, and all the nights at a Holiday Inn Express won’t help him.
But given that he spent a few years at a theological seminary, color me skeptical.
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Cheers on that.
I thought the first video was class. I agreed with everything he said in the second video, 100%. And, I don’t think it was a shot at Romney.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Jackass.
thareb on December 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM
And it’s too late Huck, now it’s too late
Though you really did try to fake it
Something inside you has died
and you can’t hide it
And you just can’t fake it
There’ll be good preaching times again you and others too
But you just can’t be America’s President
Don’t you feel it too
Oh it’s too late Huck
Too late Huck
You know
It’s too late Huck
- King Huckoleo
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM
If he had done that it would have been incredibly self-serving at Romney’s expense, and everyone would be criticizing him for that.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Well, the proof will be in the pudding. If it doesn’t come up again, I assume he is being honest. If it does, then we’ll know that way too.
I did think that he was disposed to be viewed as attacking Mitt just by how some perceived his ‘Christian leader’ ad as an attack on Mitt (wrongly I think).
Spirit of 1776 on December 12, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I agree. Also, Huck’s apology to Mitt is a tacit acknowledgment that an apology was necessary, but if so then he owes an apology to all Mormons, not only Mitt. This is a further justification for a public apology.
FloatingRock on December 12, 2007 at 5:41 PM
huckabee didn’t mean a word of it. the guys a con artist.
jeanie on December 12, 2007 at 5:42 PM
The video in which Huck said that was from April. So no it was not a hit on Mitt’s speech. Unless of course Huckabee time traveled, which means the Huckster has a stronger connection to God then any of us has suspected.
Complete7 on December 12, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Look, I am not for Huckabee in the least, but you guys are too cynical. I do believe that Huckabee is a sincere Christian. I don’t think he is calculating, which is making him say some dumb things. It is also why so many in Iowa like him.
We are used to the politics of manipulation. But that isn’t Huckabee. He is a nice guy. But I don’t want a nice guy as President. I want a strong able one.
Rightwingsparkle on December 12, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Has The High Reverend Huckster ever apologize to those he called “un-Christian, un-America and anti-life” who were against his instate tuition and other special treatment for those in America illegally?
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Maybe I’m need some enlightening here, but why is questioning LDS doctrine so out-of-bounds?
Rush had an LDS caller that made a point that we all need to just move past this, get to the issue, but most importantly, let’s move on. As if to say, ‘NOTHING TO SEE HERE…MOVE ON PLEASE!”
But hold on a second, why is LDS doctrine so out of bounds again?
Schweggie on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 PM
UUmmm,”Don’t know much about it”,so if you don’t
know much on the subject of Mormon,or any other
subject,why,pray tell do you insist on stepping
into it,and as Huck is finding out,it was a bit
dirty!
canopfor on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Because it’s irrelevant to his ability to do the job of president.
Cute. Almost Huckabee cute.
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 5:50 PM
It might be relevant to the way he would govern, if his faith determines his actions. But he said that the organization will not - which ties nicely into something Jefferson said, that we should judge a man’s religion by his actions and not his rhetoric.
Additionally there are the last lines of Art VI in the Consitution: “…but no religious Test shall ever by required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Of course, that has to do legislatively, so sure, it can be talked about - I think the concern of many is however, that it will cross the boundary into qualification.
Spirit of 1776 on December 12, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Because it is an American Presidential election, not an Iranian one.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 5:59 PM
What does LDS doctrine have to do with:
1. Iran
2. Iraq
3. Illegal Immigration
4. Income Taxes
5. The price of cashews
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 5:59 PM
And I’m totally down with that. Being Mormon, or any faith, should not disqualify anyone from becoming president. But I just feel like we’re not even allowed to explore the Mormon faith. It’s like I’m being shouted down…”We believe in Jesus, Capiche? Not giiit outta here!”
Schweggie on December 12, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Alight, alright, I’ll leave it there.
I’m cool with it. After all, they’re ALL reallllly nice.
Schweggie on December 12, 2007 at 6:05 PM
If he was insincere, yes, it would be. If he had said it publicly at some TV interview, that would have been good, I think.
Bad Candy on December 12, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I think that no-one should/can be disallowed from running for office because of their faith (or lack thereof). However, there is no way to stop voters from considering it, investigating it, and using it as their own personal litmus test.
aero on December 12, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I agree with the root of your argument. Which is to say that I think everything is fair to ask. If a candidate doesn’t want to answer, there is their prerogative. As I have said before, everyone is free to cast their vote in any manner they wish for any reason that they wish - it is individual liberty.
Having said that, however, the real concern as I see it is a the setting of the dialogue. If the national media focuses on the religion of one candidate they, by necessity, neglect other issues. In many ways, the national media can dampen a candidate and airing of his qualifications by the narrative they create and questions they pose. Then they fail to inform us and fail their purpose.
Spirit of 1776 on December 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Sure you’re allowed to explore it. But those questions have no relevance to whether Romney is qualified to become president. Maybe the reason you feel “shouted down” is because there is no reason, in the context of a political discussion, to get into those particulars so the motives of those engaged in such behavior are suspect.
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Not necessarily. If he sincerely believed in, say, the Great Spaghetti Monster, I’d have a hard time not questioning his sanity and consequently his fitness. Probably a lot like atheists feel all the time when they vote.
Laura on December 12, 2007 at 6:10 PM
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 6:10 PM
True,but no Presidential candidate should be encouraging it.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM
OT a tad
I’m looking for feedback on this Fair Tax proposal. I saw AP’s link to NRO article that found the concept stupid. But since then, I’ve read some things that have me doubting the NRO opinion, especially the size of the IRS’s annual budget…250 Billion a year? egads. We’ve got to be able to do better than this.
DrW on December 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Environmentalists might actually be partly to blame for beer prices.
Bad Candy on December 12, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Down with the Environmentalists then!!!
They are unfit to serve!!!
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I agree. If, as Huck said in that second vid, faith has an effect on every aspect of a person’s life, how can one not consider if a person’s faith and values are commensurate with their own?
I believe that Mitt’s values, which are based on his faith, are commensurate with my own values, and as such I would vote for him. But - I have to ask the question to get there.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 6:17 PM
And - if you all disagree with me…that’s cool. I don’t care anymore.
But can we still be friends on other threads and other topics - like the one’s on how much Hillary sucks or how Japanese robots and television is cool, and how Michael Yon is amazing?
That would be cool.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 6:24 PM
It doesn’t matter, cause neither one of these guys have a snowballs chance in Hell(the real Hell, not some twisted mormon version of it) of beating Hillary in an election…
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I can see that, but there’s a difference between broad questions of faith and values and the specific doctrinal discussions people seem to want to have regarding Romney.
Whenever there’s a debate about Romney’s faith, there’s always a few commenters who seem to take great delight in saying…sure, but do you know what Mormons really believe?
I don’t think those doctrine-specific discussions are appropriate.
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I’m down with that.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM
That’s Flying Spaghetti Monster, may his Noodly Appendage be upon you.
peski on December 12, 2007 at 6:33 PM
And what makes you so sure Hillary is going to get her party’s nomination?
thirteen28 on December 12, 2007 at 6:57 PM
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 6:10 PM
…and cafeine, not even in tee they’ll allow it.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Good on Fred for knocking the media-monkey-business. He might not make it but a few morsels will remain, for history’s sake.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Sorry, for above post - had the thread confused with the “open” one :(
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Huck is a snake. I am so tired of him preaching like a righteous jerk.
pjf626 on December 12, 2007 at 7:25 PM
We have better choices. If that is our candidate. We deserve to loose.
ronsfi on December 12, 2007 at 8:01 PM
It is called the Limbaugh Effect
Ropera on December 12, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Huck says his being a Baptist shouldn’t influence people?!
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Ha! Maybe he did!
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Dude, you can’t even use a trite phrase without getting a dig in…
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 8:32 PM
If anyone’s going to let his religion affect his policy, it’ll be Huckabee.
Convicted murderer, but he’s been saved. (”Well, if it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for me.”)
Death penalty? (”They put Jesus on a cross, but he was cool with it.”)
Tuition breaks for illegals. (”My soul won’t let me…”)
Huckabee is running as “A Christian Leader”.
Romney’s running as an American.
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 8:35 PM
How about a Mitt and Huck cage match on pay per view? Certainly more interesting than these dull debates.
Did anyone watch Katie on CBS evening news tonight? She asked all the candidates what country caused them the most concern. Most answered Iran. Silky answered China, and Mccain gave the most insightful answer of all saying it was not a nation but radical Islam, which he sighted as being a problem the world over.
paulsur on December 12, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Guy’s a snake and a liar, like a South American soccer player who tackles your ankle from behind viciously and then pats you on the head and tries to help you up, while you wait for the stretcher.
Douche.
Jaibones on December 12, 2007 at 8:59 PM
“Mitt, I’m sorry you belong to a religious cult and I never took the time to introduce you to Christ”
Hening on December 12, 2007 at 9:20 PM
What the hell?
Has this place turned into Huckablog?
Is there no one else?
Geez!
The loneliness of the long distance frontrunner has visited Huck.
Hello?
drjohn on December 12, 2007 at 9:33 PM
I sit corrected. And my sincere apologies to the pasta deity, sauce be upon him. ;-)
What I wouldn’t give to see the Celebrity Deathmatch of Romney vs. Huck… that would be so great… (sigh)
Laura on December 12, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Huck it. I’m going to bed.
km on December 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I just counted nine posts at Hot Air focusing on Huck.
Yawn. Bye.
Doug on December 13, 2007 at 10:12 AM
10…we have 10 Huck posts up at once. Another new record! And you could call it 11 since he’s in the group shot from yesterday’ GOP yawnfest in Io-way.
DrW on December 13, 2007 at 11:11 AM