Video: Huckabee defends the Christmas ad on the Today Show; Updated

posted at 10:49 am on December 19, 2007 by Bryan

The conspiracy theories about Huck’s Christmas ad are not only unfounded, they’re playing right into Gov. Huckabee’s hands. Huckabee gets to spend the first two minutes of this segment defending the ad on perfectly defensible and sensible ground instead of defending his record. Then he pivots to go on the offensive against Mitt Romney for not granting clemency to some kid instead of having to defend his own 1000+ clemencies and whether any of them were bought and paid for. Later on, he is asked about Rich Lowry’s “Huckacide” article, which Huckabee deftly uses to make the case that he’s an outsider to the Washington power establishment rather than have to attack the article’s substantive arguments against him. All in all, very well played. The line about blinking in code made me laugh. If his policies weren’t so liberal and his foreign policy wasn’t so obviously naive, or especially if I didn’t pay attention to either of those things, he’d win me over.

Update (AP): What Huck doesn’t understand, or pretends not to understand, is that it isn’t his saying “Merry Christmas” that’s caused a fuss. If it was, Giuliani’s and Paul’s ads would be getting the same scrutiny. It’s his using something as innocuous as a Christmas ad to inject yet more religion into his “Christian leader” campaign while studiously feigning a little-boy “who, me?” naivete about what he’s doing. Playing it off as an objection to season’s greetings is his typically cynical way of connecting the ruckus to some sort of antipathy to Christianity, a la the “war on Christmas,” in the minds of his supporters.

As for the part about clemencies, what does he mean that no one walked out of jail a murderer? What about Maxwell?

But never mind that. The amazing thing here is the last two minutes, which echo eerily Lee Harris’s whine yesterday about some phantom east-coast conservative establishment that can’t stand Huck not because he’s bad on taxes, or crime, or immigration, or terrorism, but because he’s an evangelical who came up the hard way. It’s two different types of populist demagoguery rolled into one: class resentment, per his “Main Street vs. Wall Street” shtick, and religious resentment, per his suggestion that Beltway Republicans don’t want Christians to be “part of the discussion.” Part of the discussion? Hey, Huck — who is it who’s been threatening for months to torpedo the party if they don’t get a pro-life candidate? You own the discussion.

He can’t win on the issues so he’ll try to win on antagonism and spite, all the while professing to be the picture of innocence. Awful.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

If his policies weren’t so liberal and his foreign policy wasn’t so obviously naive, or especially if I didn’t pay attention to either of those things, he’d win me over.

So, basically, if you were his current base of support…

amerpundit on December 19, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Morse code! I love it.

Its Tommy on December 19, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Something’s wrong somewhere. Viera was way too nice to him.

If he were POTUS, I would not be able to stand listening to any of his State of the Union addresses, speeches or press conferences full of tired cliches, metaphors, bromides and analogies. That’s his technique of sayin’ a lot of nuthin’.

Brat on December 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Good for him. This is the stupidest sideshow I think I’ve ever witnessed. I’m not even a supporter. I mean, I’m pretty sure a case could be made that the alcohol vapors rising from Christopher Hitchens are the Holy Spirit.

What’s Huck think of the Constitution? That’s what I want to know. Well, that and whether he still thinks Canada’s parliament building is an igloo.

Drum on December 19, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I’m not able to watch the video at the moment, but is the “some kid” he’s referring to the Iraq War vet whom Romney denied a pardon to? The one who’s crime consisted of shooting a friend in the arm with a BB gun when he was 13 years old and is preventing him from becoming a police officer?

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Slick…..

Plays right into Fred’s hands though. This just sparks more Mitt vs Huck sound bytes as they trade barbs. Fred gets to stay on the side lines and pick up the disaffected. Mitt needs to not take the bait and go on with his own policies and vision of America. Mudraking with Huck is only gonna hurt.

Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM

this guy is good, you have to hand it to him. I’ve ran into people that are hardcore Dems that say they may vote for him.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Pretty hard to argue with his points about clear communicated goals. And also about the politicians interfering with the actions on the ground – that’s long been a sore spot and this administration has engaged in it, even with other countries – namely Isr in the Isr-Hez war.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:13 AM

I’ve ran into people that are hardcore Dems that say they may vote for him.

Which is one of the reasons why I don’t buy the argument that he’ll get slaughtered in the general. I think people are taking name-recognition and projecting it as political outcome when none of those factors are stagnant.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Next Pelosi/Reid will demand an investigation.

F15Mech on December 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM

this guy is good, you have to hand it to him. I’ve ran into people that are hardcore Dems that say they may vote for him.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Though I’m sure you’d agree anything but good on actual policy- he does make a good impression in terms of likeability.

While social cons do have considerable influence in the Republican party, I think the “Christian Leader” angle is overplayed; I think a lot of his appeal is a result of him coming across as a nice, genuine, honest guy… even though many of us know he ain’t so honest or genuine. Everyone else just hasn’t gotten past his TV interview skills yet- hopefully they will before it’s too late.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Doh!

Disregard comment above its in the wrong thread.

F15Mech on December 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM

F15Mech on December 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Actually you probably are right to just leave it here.

Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Why dont we amend the Constitution and PROHIBIT any ex-Minister, ex-Rabbi, ex-Imam or ex-Wiccan Priest from running for ANY FEDERAL office.

Once you take your religious vows, you are out of elective politics. Yeah, I know, Father Berrigan will have to give it up posthumously.

At least THAT would help get Religion out of our election campaigns. And good riddance.

Always Right on December 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM

yeah, I think everyone is sick of washington politics and the nastiness of it all. And Huck and Obama for the Dems, are the two that bridge the gap so to speak.

I just hope Huck isn’t as much a lightweight with policy, especially foreign policy, that he appears and he’s just playing a poltical game to get elected.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Which is one of the reasons why I don’t buy the argument that he’ll get slaughtered in the general. I think people are taking name-recognition and projecting it as political outcome when none of those factors are stagnant.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM

It’s not a relative lack of name recognition that leads us to believe that he’d get slaughtered in the general election- it’s his record and the related closet-dwelling skeletons.

His apparent lack of foriegn policy knowledge, the pardons, the flip-flops and vague policy stances (illegal immigration)… he’s a weak candidate who’s not suited to a tough election campaign. Obama would kill him simply because there’s so little difference between the two in terms of policy.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

He can’t win on the issues so he’ll try to win on antagonism and spite, all the while professing to be the picture of innocence. Awful.

It’s about as cynical and manipulative as you can get. And an ironic aspect of the whole thing is he’s actually doing damage to the standing of evangelical Christians in the party rather than enhancing it, but those that have cast their lot with him are too blind to see it.

thirteen28 on December 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM

And my nominee for the dumbest comment made today goes to…

Always Right on December 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Nonesense. Everyone but Paul and Fred have their supporters saying that they will pick up some Dem voters because they are more centrist. So spare me the centrist = losing votes.

I do think you are right, however, on the Washington politics bit. 8 years of BDS…maybe everybody is ready for a breather.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Nonesense. Everyone but Paul and Fred have their supporters saying that they will pick up some Dem voters because they are more centrist. So spare me the centrist = losing votes.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

And you find it implausible that some Republican voters will be too uninspired by Huckabee to bother to vote? More than a few people on this very blog have said as much.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Huckabee’s been compared to Carter. In this case though, he’s more like Bill, thinking he’s the brightest bulb in the room and taking childish/devious delight in the manipulation of others.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM

I do think you are right, however, on the Washington politics bit. 8 years of BDS…maybe everybody is ready for a breather.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Bingo.

Huck would go along way with me if he’d let us know what his cabinet would look like. Like say a John Bolton as Sec. of State and/or a Duncan Hunter as Sec. of Defense. Then he could put a Centrist face to it as POTUS. This is basically what Clinton did, its brilliant politically.

the POTUS is basically a PR position as much as anything and there is no doubt Huck would be good in that aspect I think.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:37 AM

It’s his using something as innocuous as a Christmas ad to inject yet more religion into his “Christian leader” campaign…

All due respect, AP, my own differences with Huck notwithstanding, too much has been made of both the Christmas ad and the “Christian leader” ad.

Christmas is a religious holiday. Why does mentioning Christ and having a cross in the ad push it too far?

Huck is, in fact, a Christian leader. Many people participating in the primaries are looking for a Christian leader. Why is it wrong of him to include this in an ad? I know, some people take is as an implication that the others are not Christians. But, also, there is an aire of too-much-PC having infected the ranks as well and over-analysis makes it worse than it really is.

CP on December 19, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Always Right on December 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM

That would probably be an unconstitutional “religious test.” And if you think people are faith are annoyed at politics now, just wait until you try to ban preachers. And secondarily, wait for the Revs Al and Jesse to claim discrimination.

It would make for some entertaining blogging.

Bryan on December 19, 2007 at 11:37 AM

And you find it implausible that some Republican voters will be too uninspired by Huckabee to bother to vote? More than a few people on this very blog have said as much.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM

with the prospect of President Hillary along with a Dem Senate and a Dem congress, and atleast 2 looming SCOTUS nominations coming down the pipe…..I would call their bluff. I hope this works the same way with Social Cons who are threatening this if Rudy is nominee.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM

And you find it implausible that some Republican voters will be too uninspired by Huckabee to bother to vote? More than a few people on this very blog have said as much.

No, I don’t find it implausible, but the HA reader is better educated politically than the average voter I imagine. Though there is plenty of emotional reasoning to be found here as well.

There are a couple of things that money can’t buy: charisma and telegenic persona. Huck’s charisma gets people to listen to him AND to give him a pass on things that they might otherwise object to. Rudy is a fine example of this too. I think the disregard of Huck’s general election changes are wishful thinking by pundits.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Yes

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM

the POTUS is basically a PR position as much as anything and there is no doubt Huck would be good in that aspect I think.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Dangerous words there. And applicable perhaps to crappy leaders or good press secretaries. Huck for press secretary is fine though.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Have to agree with “Huckacide

and hope the fallout from the Huckaboom doesn’t make us all radioactive to swing voters.

petefrt on December 19, 2007 at 11:41 AM

changes=chances

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM

“Christian leader” ad
CP on December 19, 2007 at 11:37 AM

When anyone plays the race card or the gender card they are called on it (at least on this site).
How is playing the “religion card” any different?

BTW Huck plays these interviews very well. He has to be sincere because no one is that good an actor.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:43 AM

He has to be sincere because no one is that good an actor.

Bill Clinton got away with the lip biting, jutted jaw, faux anger, etc. for quite a while before we caught on to his shtick. Won him a few battles for sure, if not elections.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:40 AM

yes, but in modern politics its the political reality of it all. for better or worse, TV and technology has changed everything.

my point is if Huck lets us kinda know what his cabinet would look like its a way of tipping his hand to us on where he really stands. I can live with him if he surrounds himself with some heavyweights, not so much otherwise.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Obama would kill him simply because there’s so little difference between the two in terms of policy.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Obama may, but Hillary is neutralized on all these issues (except foreign policy). She really can’t bring up flipflops, pardons or vague policy statements within taking some splatter that she can’t afford.
And that could very possibly mean that the election would, once again, come down to likability instead of substance. Obama beats Huck, Huck beats Hillary.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:50 AM

When anyone plays the race card or the gender card they are called on it (at least on this site). How is playing the “religion card” any different?

I just don’t get why people are going crazy over this stuff. *gasp* “Overt religious references!”

Huckabee is an ordained minister. It’s who he is. It’s only natural for him to talk about stuff like this. But, he’s no Al Sharpton, ok?

Many of the voters, they are religious people. Many of them feel our government and political leadership have suffered because of a lack of moral leadership. That is where this comes from. “Christian leader” does not mean “theocratic” leader, but too many people have been re-educated by our PC-society to think that whether they admit it or not. Too many politicians use the “I personally believe X, but politically, I’m for the opposite”. I think people are tired of that and I think that is why this has helped fueled support for and criticism of) Huckabee.

CP on December 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Huck can do the nuclear option going into NH or Florida. Pick Lieberman for his VP. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Bill Clinton got away with the lip biting, jutted jaw, faux anger, etc. for quite a while before we caught on to his shtick. Won him a few battles for sure, if not elections.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Yes, but everyone was complicit when it came to “the man from Hope” his didn’t inhale line and Gennifer Flowers were out long before the election. I think Huckabee believes what he says at a level that doesn’t even exist in Bill (or Hillary).
Example, when he talks abouts pardons it is obvious that he still feels that he was doing the right thing.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM

For the next two weeks the discussion on Huckabee ought to be relative to the details penned by Joe Klien for Time Online that Huckabee is talking to Richard Haass for advice on foreign policy. Haass is a GOP turncoat that advised the Kerry campaign in 2004.

gabriel sutherland on December 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM

The line about blinking in code made me laugh.

Eh, it’s just a reworking of the Pelosi State of the Union joke. Points for delivery, though. And recycling.

I’m fast approaching the Clinton Threshold with this snake oil salesman, where I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth. He’s a smooth talker, no doubt about it, but I’m already sick of the feigned innocence and too-cute-by-half crap.

ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Many of the voters, they are religious people. Many of them feel our government and political leadership have suffered because of a lack of moral leadership. That is where this comes from.

So field a qualified nationally known Christian conservative. If one doesn’t exist, why not? Perhaps it’s a failing of that constituency.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:58 AM

I just don’t get why people are going crazy over this stuff. *gasp* “Overt religious references!”
CP on December 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM

A man on the leaderboard for the Republican nominations who is on record saying raise any tax, soft on immigration, ignorant (not just wrong) of foreign policy, who wants to shut down Gitmo, ban water boarding, etc etc is saying “Vote For Me I’m A Christian”
That is why I’m going crazy over this stuff, because it seems to be working. That screams volumes about many in the electorate.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM

There are a couple of things that money can’t buy: charisma and telegenic persona. Huck’s charisma gets people to listen to him AND to give him a pass on things that they might otherwise object to. Rudy is a fine example of this too. I think the disregard of Huck’s general election changes are wishful thinking by pundits.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM

That only goes so far- “attacks” by the Republican candidates against each other won’t compare to what the Dems will do to whomever the Republican candidate is.

The ethics investigations, the inexcusible pardons, the overall weakness on policy- it wouldn’t be terribly hard to frame him as a polical lightweight with poor judgement and ethics. If Obama could make Huckster look too inexperienced and shallow, he’d be done for.

Also, one of (if not THE) biggest selling points for the Republican party is national security, especially in a time of war. Does Huckster really strike you as a strong wartime President who’ll lead the country in a fight against terrorists?

No? Me neither, and I imagine that quite a few others would feel the same way.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Example, when he talks abouts pardons it is obvious that he still feels that he was doing the right thing.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Perhaps you’re right. If so, that reminds me of a kind of leftist liberalism, (coming from a different motivation perhaps), that leaves me cold.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 12:01 PM

So field a qualified nationally known Christian conservative. If one doesn’t exist, why not? Perhaps it’s a failing of that constituency.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:58 AM

That’s why Huckabee is getting support from many Evangelicals. They feel that by voting for him, they are fielding a qualified nationally known Christian conservative.

CP on December 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM

I wish we could all just get past this for “Huck’s” sake. Heh

saltydogg14 on December 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM

A man on the leaderboard for the Republican nominations who is on record saying raise any tax, soft on immigration, ignorant (not just wrong) of foreign policy, who wants to shut down Gitmo, ban water boarding, etc etc is saying “Vote For Me I’m A Christian”
That is why I’m going crazy over this stuff, because it seems to be working. That screams volumes about many in the electorate.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM

I don’t agree with a lot of Huckabee’s policies (or lack thereof) either and I do agree that many Christian evangelicals haven’t properly vetted the other aspects of Huckabee’s positions and it is frustrating. I’m just saying, the criticism of the religious references themselves is what bothers me.

CP on December 19, 2007 at 12:05 PM

No? Me neither, and I imagine that quite a few others would feel the same way.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Bryan or AP referred to them I think as “defense” voters. I’m kind of that. Had some small connections to the twin towers coming down that still, literally, leave me with nightmares of people jumping from the windows.

If you’ve never been there, the WTC was in a part of Manhattan next to the river, and not really near other tall buildings. To be up inside it was unnerving–like being on a precipice with nothing but down. Jumping from it, holding hands with strangers and leaping, never leaves me. So in the end, I’ll vote for someone who I trust will commit to war when necessary. Huckabee is not the man for that, even if everything else about him were genuine.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 12:07 PM

That only goes so far- “attacks” by the Republican candidates against each other won’t compare to what the Dems will do to whomever the Republican candidate is.

Sure, but that’s true across the board, regardless.

Does Huckster really strike you as a strong wartime President who’ll lead the country in a fight against terrorists?

No, but his line is about the same as Fred’s: let the generals decide. Everyone of the candidates has to walk a line on the wot, especially at is regards Iraq. His criticisms of Bush policy aren’t going to hurt him in the center.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM

In one breath he talks about running positive ads at Christmas time and changing the tone of the campaign. In the next breath, he slams Mitt Romney. Very nice, Mike Huckabee.

bigbeas on December 19, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I do not understand the furor over Huckabee’s Christmas spot. I have a lot of differences with the guy, but the “controversy” over this ad is inexplicable. It’s a video Christmas card! This reminds me of Barbara Walters’s concern that all of a sudden (not!) GWB is sending out cards with Bible verses on them.

If you are upset that Huckabee actually mentions the birth of Christ in this ad, I suggest you find a copy of Stan Freberg’s classic satire “Green Chri$tma$”. The set up is a bunch of advertising execs meeting to find new ways to profit from the holiday. One of them suggests running an ad that just expresses a simple Christmas wish. The others all suggest adding on various commercial tie-ins and hooks, but the guy says they’re forgetting one thing: whose birthday we’re celebrating. “Green Chri$tma$” was and still is considered a great work of satire, and nobody has fretted over the fact that it actually references the birth of Christ.

PS: AOL lets you listen to the entire thing here.

johnny dollar on December 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Rush has been gently criticizing Huck and Huck voters for the past two days. I expect him to continue. Strangely, he had a new advertisement a few minutes ago–for Pastor Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Rush has been gently criticizing Huck and Huck voters for the past two days. I expect him to continue. Strangely, he had a new advertisement a few minutes ago–for Pastor Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM

I’ve noticed this too. Rush has said he wasn’t going to endorse in the primaries, but I do think he has some concerns about Huckabee and is subtly using his influence here. I don’t disagree with it. And, I think people want to know what Rush thinks and I think it could have some effect on the Huckaboom.

CP on December 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM

No, but his line is about the same as Fred’s: let the generals decide. Everyone of the candidates has to walk a line on the wot, especially at is regards Iraq. His criticisms of Bush policy aren’t going to hurt him in the center.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Come on, there’s little comparison between Fred and Huck when it comes to expressing defense and foreign policy. Only a diehard Fred-hater would suggest that Fred looks as weak on defense policy as Huck.

As to the center- what of the pro-defense centrists, of which there are quite a few? Huckster wouldn’t offer much of an alternative from the Dem candidate, essentially forfeiting that natural advantage the Republican party has.

Neutralize the national security angle (border security and the WOT), and you end up fighting on things like health care- and which party is going to win that battle among centrists?

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM

No, but his line is about the same as Fred’s: let the generals decide. Everyone of the candidates has to walk a line on the wot, especially at is regards Iraq. His criticisms of Bush policy aren’t going to hurt him in the center.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Fred’s been saying that the Golden Rule should be our guide in dealing with other countries? Really? Because that’s what Huck said, which makes him sound (not coincidentally) like another Jimmy Carter. That’s a disaster that we don’t need to repeat.

ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Come on, there’s little comparison between Fred and Huck when it comes to expressing defense and foreign policy. Only a diehard Fred-hater would suggest that Fred looks as weak on defense policy as Huck.

I’m not a Fred-hater, so I’ll repeat my point in different language to make it clear.

Every candidate except John McCain has nuanced the wot. Even Rudy, who is a ‘security’ candidate, downplayed Iraq earlier when it looked like it might be going badly by saying it was just a battle in the war. Fred said that the policy in Iraq would be dependent on the input he got from the people over there. Here Huck makes 3 points: clear goals, overwhelming force, and let the generals do their job. That’s actually more specific then Fred has been in the past.

As to the center- what of the pro-defense centrists, of which there are quite a few? Huckster wouldn’t offer much of an alternative from the Dem candidate, essentially forfeiting that natural advantage the Republican party has.

Outside of Rudy or John, I doubt this will be a moving factor among centrist voters enough to shift parties. All R’s better than D’s on defense across the board.

Neutralize the national security angle (border security and the WOT), and you end up fighting on things like health care- and which party is going to win that battle among centrists?

Depends on the person. Winners of centrist voters on Health: Mitt and Obama. Mitt because he has private sector involvement, and Obama because his is universal access, not universal mandate. Both a shade short of Hillary or Edwards socialism, so will both appear a ‘welcome’ answer on an issue that will probably eventually happen.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:38 PM

ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM

No, Fred said that he would base his policy from the people serving in Iraq. It’s kind of a weak answer frankly, I think it was a side-step at the time, but doesn’t really matter. He should reflect the view of the voters that put him in the office.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM

My good friend has alerted me to the Ron Paul Christmas message that has two French doors filled with crosses. Good God, the implications!

Drum on December 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Update: Oh Jesus, there’s a picture circulating of John McCain talking with Ronald Reagan and in the background … you guessed it: windows filled with crosses! If you look carefully enough, you’ll notice they’re all over the White House. Hey, I’m not voting this election. This is too troubling. No one is safe.

Drum on December 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM

No, Fred said that he would base his policy from the people serving in Iraq. It’s kind of a weak answer frankly, I think it was a side-step at the time, but doesn’t really matter. He should reflect the view of the voters that put him in the office.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Weaker than “be nice to everybody, and they’ll be nice to us”? Hardly, because it doesn’t get any weaker than that. But I’ll admit, what the Huckster said today sounded good, he’s just had too many 11th-hour conversions for me to believe that he actually means it. Maybe you do, but when a guy goes from the Golden Rule to talking tough in the space of a week, I can’t help but conclude that he’ll say anything to get elected. It’s the equivalent of his soul not letting him deport illegals a month ago, and suddenly last weekend he wants to deport them and their kids who were born here. I’m not buying it. “Huckster” suits him perfectly.

ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Weaker than “be nice to everybody, and they’ll be nice to us”? Hardly, because it doesn’t get any weaker than that.

You are putting words in my mouth, I’m going to have to pass.

Maybe you do

This has nothing to do with me or my opinion, just comparing at the cards on the table.

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Yes, but everyone was complicit when it came to “the man from Hope” his didn’t inhale line and Gennifer Flowers were out long before the election. I think Huckabee believes what he says at a level that doesn’t even exist in Bill (or Hillary).
Example, when he talks abouts pardons it is obvious that he still feels that he was doing the right thing.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM

So you’re going to disregard your lying eyes, (Huck’s record), and concentrate on his soothing words? How is that any different than, “Yes, but everyone was complicit when it came to “the man from Hope””?

JiangxiDad is right; Huck’s oratorical skills are of a kind with Bill Clintons.

FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Not putting words in your mouth, just paraphrasing the Golden Rule, which did come out of Huck’s mouth as the basis for his foreign policy, what, a week ago? I’m not picking on you, I’m just saying that the Huckster has no credibility with me, given the number of 180s he’s done in a very short period of time.

ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM

No, but his line is about the same as Fred’s: let the generals decide.[…]

Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Yes, but the day before that it was: do unto others.

FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 1:41 PM

So you’re going to disregard your lying eyes, (Huck’s record), and concentrate on his soothing words?
FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 1:23 PM

I’m not disregarding anything, I was making two points. First, he does real well in this setting (and people respond to that). Second, I believe that he is sincere. Wrong on almost every issues, but sincere.

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM

JiangxiDad is right; Huck’s oratorical skills are of a kind with Bill Clintons.

FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Agreed; he’s a douche.

Jaibones on December 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM

this guy is good, you have to hand it to him. I’ve ran into people that are hardcore Dems that say they may vote for him.

jp on December 19, 2007 at 11:11 AM

I’m not surprised, the policy differences between say Obama’s plan and Huckabee’s Governor record are hard to notice.

Higher taxes, more spending, bigger government, nanny state Government control of personal decisions, “feel your pain”, lead with your heart not your head… what is there for a Democrat not to love?

I missed the parts where a Conservative would have a reason to support Huckabee, but I can certainly see where a Democrat would think he’s a great candidate.

For my personal choice, I’d like to see Fred Thompson get the Republican nomination, and Giuliani get the Democrat nomination. Then I’d have the same level of security that Democrats will have if Huckabee wins the primary.

gekkobear on December 19, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Huckabee is beginning to remind me of Hitler.

He used the same diversion and exaggeration, why is everyone picking on me, I’m just an innocent little boy, I didn’t do all that, kind of shtick.

There was one speech in particular that I am thinking of but can’t find it.

MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM

sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM

After my comment above I realized from one of your later posts that I had misidentified you as a Huck supporter. Sorry.

You may be right about Huckabee’s sincerity, however perhaps unlike many here, I believe that in his own mind, Bill Clinton was sincere as well even while he was lying. I’m not a psychologist and can’t explain it technically, but the more I listen to Huck and note the stark contrast between his words and reality, the more he reminds me of Bill Clinton, albeit perhaps a morally superior one. (Although who can really say: his son may have hung a stray dog, what kind of a parent was Huck for his son that he would do that?)

I think that in the minds of Bill Clinton, Huck and many other politicians, they can do no wrong, and thus their actions never conflict with their sincerity. There is a wall between them.

FloatingRock on December 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Huckabee gets away with not directly answering questions and the MSM new anchors are so poorly informed that Huckabee can get away with anything.
I would like to see Huckabee come on Fox News tonight and answer questions for an hour from Michelle Malkin about illegal immigration, his pardons and commutations, his ethics in government, and his tax increases. When Michelle was finished with Geraldo, Geraldo was so outsmarted that he resorted to saying that he was being picked on because he is Hispanic. And of course, the only one who ever mentioned Geraldo’s ethnic background was Geraldo. Geraldo could not intelligently answer one question from Michelle. So let’s see if Huckabee will do any better. My guess is that he will do no better than Geraldo.

Larraby on December 19, 2007 at 2:25 PM

To hell with Republicans. If they nominate this asshat I’m not voting this year.

Screw ‘em all.

thareb on December 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM

That this man has to apologize for, or defend, this ad is pitiful. That a man can come under fire for stating his religious beliefs is an indictment of just how far this country has sunk.

If you don’t want to vote for him, because of his religious beliefs, don’t vote for him. If you don’t want to vote for him, because of his political beliefs, don’t vote for him. If you want to vote for him, for either, or all, of the above reasons, then vote for him.

Unless something has happened, recently, the whole point of voting – is to vote your conscience.

No man should have to apologize for, or defend, himself, because of his religious beliefs. Even if he’s running for political office.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 2:38 PM

No man should have to apologize for, or defend, himself, because of his religious beliefs. Even if he’s running for political office.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 2:38 PM

No one’s prodding him to apologize for or defend his religious beliefs- he himself made his religion a centerpiece of his campaign and uses his religion to deflect criticisms of his record.

Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 2:48 PM

No man should have to apologize for, or defend, himself, because of his religious beliefs. Even if he’s running for political office.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Since his “religious beliefs” include such vile attacks on others as:

Huckabee heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as “inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery.” He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.
Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.”

and

He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice. My faith says don’t make false accusations against somebody.

and

Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.”

and

Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?

just to site a few

then he most certainly does need to apologize and/or try to defend himself.

MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Since his “religious beliefs” include such vile attacks on others as:

Huckabee heaped criticism upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as “inflammatory . . . race-baiting and demagoguery.” He also challenged the Christian values of its main sponsor.
Huckabee said the bill, seeking to forbid public assistance and voting rights to undocumented immigrants, “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.”

and

He singled out Holt, who often talks of his strong Christian beliefs, saying, “I drink a different kind of Jesus juice. My faith says don’t make false accusations against somebody.

and

Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.”

and

Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?

just to site a few

then he most certainly does need to apologize and/or try to defend himself.

MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Don’t vote for him – like I said. Apologies are for the politically-correct, cattle – who seem to enjoy making others kowtow to their own beliefs.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 2:59 PM

What a doofus, attacking Mitt for one (or lack of)clemency, and his 1,000, some against the advice of parole officers and prosecutors. One mistake, as opposed to hundreds? Well we now know he is no mathematician or scholar.

right2bright on December 19, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Apologies are for the politically-correct, cattle – who seem to enjoy making others kowtow to their own beliefs.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 2:59 PM

That sounds like The High Reverend Huckster all right.

MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 3:13 PM

He can’t win on the issues so he’ll try to win on antagonism and spite, all the while professing to be the picture of innocence. Awful.
posted at 10:49 am on December 19, 2007 by Bryan

This is the brand of ‘Christianity’ that is most irresponsible. Many of the Christian leaders in the country that wield power have character flaws which turns them into egotistical hypocrites. Blind faith is a dangerous substitute for exercising ones God given free will in the voting booth!

sonnyspats1 on December 19, 2007 at 3:32 PM

I don’t even like Huckabee, but after watching his Christmas ad, I think people are really grasping at straws for this. There was nothing wrong with it, and wasn’t offended by it in any way.

asc85 on December 19, 2007 at 3:43 PM

“I’m an outsider… hope I don’t get in trouble saying ‘Merry Christmas’… attack ads…”

I knew Huck was a Christian, but I didn’t know he was a martyr.

Tzetzes on December 19, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Huckabee is beginning to remind me of Hitler.

Everyone says dumb things. This is supremely dumb and unhelpful. Huckabee’s “faults” are political in nature, not personal or venal.

JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 4:21 PM

I’m pretty sure a case could be made that the alcohol vapors rising from Christopher Hitchens are the Holy Spirit.
lmao

sonnyspats1 on December 19, 2007 at 6:43 PM

You know the same case being made against Huckabee, can be made about everyone running, on one issue or another. I live in L A and so far Huckabee and Giuliani are the only two Repubs my very liberal friends say they would vote for. So if it comes to Hillary or Huck or Giuliani or Obama or Huck or Giuliani I think Huck or Giuliani woud keep a Repub in the White House. I like Huck the best and I believe he will stand firm against Islamofacist, He gets the illegal immigrant issue (they arent’ going back )so why alienate Hispanics if you don’t have to. He’ll build the wall and stop the flow. Anyway, so far he is my number one choice. I do not care all that much for the rest of the top tier. McCain, Giuliani, Romney. They all have the same baggage or worse.

CCRWM on December 19, 2007 at 8:54 PM

he is right on about this Christmas ad. The media played right into this. So what if he put a floating dross in there or not. IT’S CHRISTMAS! Now everyone else is out there copying him!

JellyToast on December 20, 2007 at 7:43 AM

From George Will’s latest column at realclearpolitics.com:

OUCH!

“Huckabee’s role in this year’s ’70s Show is not merely to attempt to revise a few Republican beliefs. He represents wholesale repudiation of what came after the 1970s — Reaganism.”

Bradky on December 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM

If Mike continues to speak this way he wins. He is the best speaker I’ve heard. He jabs, fients and counters in the same sentence. He’s speaking runs circles around McCain, Fred and Rudy. Mitt is smooth alos but he seems a little too smooth. Mike is just smooth enough. I can understand the fear in the elites minds. This man will destroy their power base. He is like Ron Paul without the nutty crazy economics and conspiracy theories.

Most people wrote him off because of his name. This is getting good. As far as I can tell we don’t have a conservative in the race. Fred is the closest thing. So if its a choice between Mike and Hillary I’ll vote Mike. I would rather FRED catch on but between Mike and Rudy. Mike at least gives gun owners a fighting chance. MCain and mike….hmmm two liberals tough call but again Mike gets the nod due to the immigration issue. Mike might be for immigration but MCCain IS for it. Mitt and Mike….very tough call. I’ll go for Mitt I think due to his knowledge of economics. So Fred, Mitt, Mike, McCain then Rudy would be my choices.

unseen on December 21, 2007 at 1:18 AM

The last question she asked him was so completely utterly ridiculious… god i hate reporteres.

VinceP1974 on December 23, 2007 at 1:13 AM