LAT poll: Huckabee out to big lead in Iowa over Mitt, 37-23

posted at 7:24 pm on December 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

Hugh Hewitt on suicide watch? Nah — Mitt still leads McCain by 13 in New Hampshire and a new Strategic Visions poll, which HH will surely tout as the more reliable, has Iowa a virtual dead heat.

Even so, from the LAT:

“I am a religious man myself, so that is something that appeals to me,” said Chuck Taylor, a retired truck driver in New Sharon, Iowa. “Some of the other candidates don’t coincide with my values.”

The poll found Huckabee dominates Romney and the rest of the field not only among born-again Christians and regular churchgoers in Iowa, but also among women and disaffected voters.

He was supported by 46% of the women surveyed, and 44% of the people who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Huckabee has argued with other Republican candidates, saying the party needs to acknowledge the pocketbook anxieties of middle-class voters.

Fred’s tied for third with McCain at 11%, but needless to say, if there is some sort of post-Bhutto bounce for anyone, it’s likely to break that tie to Fred’s disadvantage.

In honor of everyone who’s beating up on Huck for what was obviously an innocent misstatement, I offer you these two clips ripe with other innocent yet easily twistable rhetoric. Insinuate away!


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

I wouldn’t say “game over”…maybe 6-5 in the fourth set of a 5-set tennis match with Huckster serving to win. As Miss Coulter says in her latest column there’s a reason the dinosaur media love the Huckster, so I don’t take these polls too seriously.

SouthernGent on December 27, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Meanwhile Rasmussen has Mitt sinking towards Fred’s numbers nationally.

SECOND LOOK AT GUILIANI !

William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Watching Allah with these poll stories I now know how the dogs feel when I throw the ball so that they have no chance of catching it.

Limerick’s poll has Huck finishing fourth behind Mitt, Fred, and McCain. Paul pulls 1%. (Crow precooked just in case I need it)

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 7:33 PM

LAT? Hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha……

Editor on December 27, 2007 at 7:34 PM

“game over” my arse…Look back to the 2000 election…After skipping Iowa, McCain pulled out a big win in New Hampshire then, and look what happened to him…he lost.

I mean, where else is Huckabee polling that high, other than Iowa for now? Even if he wins big there, NH is a different story, as is South Carolina (which went McCain by over 40% back in the day).

Me thinks we put too much weight on these early caucus/primaries.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 7:36 PM

From AP News (no not Allahpundit News)

AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dig beneath the surface of the raucous Republican presidential race and you will find even deeper turmoil: Four in 10 GOP voters have switched candidates in the past month alone, and nearly two-thirds say they may change their minds again.

None of the GOP candidates has reason to feel secure, according to an ongoing national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News.

Highlighting how restless Republicans are, a fifth who said last month they wouldn’t change candidates did so anyway — along with half who said they might change. Only a third of Democrats who said they might change moved to a different contender.

People’s drifting sentiments even pushed them across party lines, with 14 percent changing their loyalty as Democrats, Republicans or independents in roughly equal proportions. Among them was Anne Marie Pontarelli, who shifted from the GOP to Clinton because she liked her equivocal initial response to the controversy over states granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

“There are many shades of gray” on issues, said Pontarelli, 30, a consultant from Downers Grove, Ill. “The way she responded took a lot of guts.”

William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Wasn’t Dean way ahead in all the polls going into Iowa? How far down was Kerry?

Jaynie59 on December 27, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Opps read a little more and this stood out

The intensely religious were even more restless — and more smitten with Huckabee. Among evangelicals who are conservative and attend church weekly, 54 percent switched candidates last month — and 61 percent of the switchers moved to Huckabee.

“He believes in what I believe in. I’m a Christian,” said truck driver Jerry Steadman, 53, of Inman, S.C.

Yet even Huckabee is not immune to voters’ evolving tastes — 83 percent who moved to him said they were open to changing again.

William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 7:40 PM

I mean, where else is Huckabee polling that high, other than Iowa for now?

So he has the support of cows? Not phesants apparently.

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 7:42 PM

McCain has made notable gains in recent months as he has campaigned heavily there and won influential newspaper endorsements in a state that backed him against George W. Bush in 2000. McCain has jumped into second place with 21% of the vote — up from 12% in September.

He edged out Giuliani, whose support in New Hampshire dropped nine points to 15%.

Like Clinton, McCain may benefit if voters’ concern about international affairs increases with the turmoil in Pakistan. Even in Iowa, far more Republicans say he would be the best candidate to handle foreign affairs than any other candidate. And when Republicans were asked if McCain is well-prepared for the presidency, 78% of New Hampshire Republicans said he was.

No other candidate, in either Iowa or New Hampshire, drew such a heavy vote of confidence. But that may not be enough to sway voters who are looking for a fresh face.

“When I hear McCain I feel comfortable that he may do a better job with the war,” said Ray Buffery, a retiree in Concord, N.H., who is nonetheless supporting Romney. McCain, he said, “has been in the Senate quite a while. [Romney] is a younger person.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll28dec28,1,4485248.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=2

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 7:45 PM

I’m sure that Republican nausea over HH’s pro-Romney shilling accounts for at least 7% of Romney’s declining support.

Ali-Bubba on December 27, 2007 at 7:47 PM

In that 1st video it sure looked cold out there.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 7:47 PM

LAT poll: Huckabee out to big lead in Iowa over Mitt, 37-23

The time of his coming in nigh!

Lehosh on December 27, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Huck’s rise in Iowa and today’s events in Pakistan help McCain. A win by Hillary in Iowa would also help McCain in New Hampshire by pushing more independents into the Republican primary.

If the GWOT remains a bigger story in November of 2008 than the economy, McCain would do well against either of the Dems.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 7:53 PM

These polls are just so out of whack with each other, I’m starting to think they’re all outliers.

We’re just going to have to see what shakes out on January 3 (and 5, and 15, and 29).

steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Still with Fred!

With Fred’s foreign intelligence and nuclear proliferation experience, I think the Bhutto situation gives Fred the advantage.

McCain may be a stalwart on Iraq, but without effective interrogation and Gitmo-type holding pens, we might as well just shoot them all and take our chances that we got the right ones.

And on Rudy’s WOT experience, maybe I don’t know anything about it, but I haven’t heard much about what he has done or even proposes to do internationally about it to support him as “stong on terror”.

Huck’s a joke. I would vote for Paul or Obama before him.

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM

SECOND LOOK UNDER A ROCK!

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 8:11 PM

Whoever was filling in for Rush today made a solid point about Huck. He was talking about how blogs are in a sense a community and that evangelicals have been forced into the shadows because of the stigma these days of being one in the open. And that Huckabee make evangelicals feel like they dont have to be ashamed of who they are and to be proud and proclaim it from the roofstops, . Hence this is their community. Im a Fred man myself, but the reasoning to me has been baffling as to Hucks rise in the polls and this might help explain it.

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:14 PM

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Fred doesn’t seem to be doing to well. He can’t seem to raise the money he needs for a TV ad in Iowa either.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 8:15 PM

BTW the beautiful, creamy Laura is hosting the Factor tonight.

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:17 PM

The Stupid Party decides.

thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 8:19 PM

It would be foolish lend much credence to the likes of the LAT. Indeed it would be foolish to put much stock in any of the polling at this point. In regards Iowa, what matters shall be who and how many bother to vote. By the way, now at $126,000.00 or there abouts, Fred passed the half way mark to his fund raising goal about an hour or two ago.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 27, 2007 at 8:19 PM

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:14 PM

I’m offended by the idea that Huckabee is considered a representative evangelical.

Lehosh on December 27, 2007 at 8:21 PM

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Hey, Fred’s just waiting in the weeds for the opportune time to leap out and exclaim “AHA!!!”.

hahahaha

csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 8:22 PM

The L.A. Times is conducting phone polls from across the country to Iowa which indicated the least electable candidate for the general election is moving towards taking the nomination. I’m shocked!

Resolute on December 27, 2007 at 8:22 PM

By the way, now at $126,000.00 or there abouts, Fred passed the half way mark to his fund raising goal about an hour or two ago.

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 27, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Maybe Fred should blame America for something so he can tap into some of that crazy (worthless!!!) blimp money.

Big S on December 27, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Who is the best match for you?

After assigning wight to the issues, I got Romney first, Tancredo second, Hunter third and actually got both Huckabee and McCain a little lower than Obama.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:34 PM

“…obviously a misstatement…”

Yes, obviously. After all, The Huckster certainly isn’t known for making idiotic campaign pronouncements on foreign policy…or anything.

Jaibones on December 27, 2007 at 8:35 PM

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:14 PM

That would be Mark Belling from WISN-AM in Milwaukee. He is, somewhat reluctantly, a Fredhead.

steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 8:35 PM

@ MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:34 PM

1. Paul
2. Giuliani
3. Hunter

Didnt think i was close to giuliani at all, time for a second look I guess.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Hey, Fred’s just waiting in the weeds for the opportune time to leap out and exclaim “AHA!!!”.

hahahaha

csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Mitts just combing his hair in the mirror waiting for you to corrinate him.

Bwwaaahhhaaa

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:44 PM

Iowa has been socialized to death, and fed so much left wing propaganda and subsidies over the last 40 years, tht it no longer reflects middle America. It’s time for the GOP to start the GOP primary process with a solidly conservative state (Wyoming?), and not give rat’s ass when or where the Dems hold their first primary.

,.
RINO problem fixed.

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

@ broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:44 PM

Paul’s just waiting above both of them in his blimp, waiting to surprise the world.

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 8:47 PM

neat link MB4

I was closest to

1) Duncan Hunter
2) Mitt Romney (at least with whatever positions he’s taken today)
3) Ron Paul (because im a bircheresque crank)

amish on December 27, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Why are Republicans supporting Huckabee? Don’t they read what this guy is about? Good grief. Vote for him just because he’s a Christian? I’m sorry. That isn’t enough of a reason to vote for him for President.

katieanne on December 27, 2007 at 8:49 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:34 PM

I came out with Thompson, Romney, McVain in that order. I think the thing is a bit flawed, because it assumes that the candidates stated positions are sincere positions, and I flat out don’t believe that. I certainly don’t believe there is anything about McVain that would make him rate over Hunter in my way of thinking.

If I had to pick off the top of my head instead of the quiz, I would have picked, in order, Fred, Hunter, and Romney. Too bad Romney is the only one of those 3 that probably still has a decent shot of winning (as much as I would like to believe otherwise about Fred, but don’t see it happening).

thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 8:51 PM

According to Wikipedia, these are the winners in Iowa:

Democrats
January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
February 8, 1988 – Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
January 21, 1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 – “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
January 24, 1972 – “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%) [3]

Republicans
2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan

So in 2000, they picked Dubya, and in 1976, Jimmah came in a distant 2nd to “uncommitted.” Closest they have come to propelling someone into the Oval Office.

silverfox on December 27, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Iowa has been socialized to death, and fed so much left wing propaganda and subsidies over the last 40 years, tht it no longer reflects middle America. It’s time for the GOP to start the GOP primary process with a solidly conservative state (Wyoming?), and not give rat’s ass when or where the Dems hold their first primary.

,.
RINO problem fixed.

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Agreed. Time to have the first primary/caucus in a state that is actually conservative. Wyoming would do. Or maybe we can make it Utah, just to piss off Huckabee.

thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 8:53 PM

VDH: If there is any fallout from this tragedy at home, it is to remind us that radical Islam has the ability to change world affairs in a matter of minutes (at least if taking out a democratic leader vying for control of a nuclear Pakistan qualifies), that the war against Islamic radicalism goes on, and that we should look carefully at those who wish to be commander-in-chief in the years ahead.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 8:59 PM

2) Mitt Romney (at least with whatever positions he’s taken today)

amish on December 27, 2007 at 8:48 PM

…Or at least with whatever USAToday has interpreted his positions for today are, which may not be accurate.

Thanks for the link MB4, but I think I’ll pass on USATodays personalized recommendation. I just don’t trust it.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Heads up; Thompson’s live on Hannity and Colmes.

steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 9:01 PM

LAT polls have been notoriously inaccurate. Other pollsters have lodged complaints against their methods. I would never put much, if any, faith in a LAT poll.

Blake on December 27, 2007 at 9:06 PM

F*ck the Republican party.

thareb on December 27, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Why do Republicans in Iowa hate America?

frankj on December 27, 2007 at 9:08 PM

I caught part of a special the other night that explained how the caucuses work in Iowa. The mock caucus looked like musical chairs for dummies, with many people exhibiting blank stares on their faces as they listened to all of the options on the table. The process is an absolute joke, and I have to wonder if the final results will carry any weight at all.

I’m with a few other commenters here today. It’s time to move this insane nominating clusterf*ck to the back of the line.

fogw on December 27, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Next up on the Hannity-less H&C, Giuliani.

steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 9:15 PM

I can’t see a man named Huckabee being elected POTUS. It’ll never happen.

manfriend on December 27, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Mitt isn’t electable either. From 1838 to 1976 it was legal to “exterminate” Mormons in Missouri:

http://www.answers.com/executive%20order%2044

It had better be Rudy or Fred.

manfriend on December 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM

What money can buy
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has purchased two-minutes of airtime during the six o’clock local TV newscasts in all eight Iowa media markets to make her “closing argument” on the night of January 2nd.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 9:28 PM

It had better be Rudy or Fred.

manfriend on December 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM

Fred doesn’t seem to be alive in any state right now.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 9:29 PM

@ bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 9:29 PM

He didnt look alive in the debates either. Seriously, I thought the man was dead.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 9:46 PM

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 8:44 PM

I haven’t made any decision except for which candidate is totally unacceptable because of his history of being in cahoots with terrorists and dictators. That would be Fraud Thompson.

csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Thanks for the link MB4, but I think I’ll pass on USATodays personalized recommendation. I just don’t trust it.

FloatingRock on December 27, 2007 at 9:01 PM

It’s a series of questions that you answer that are matched against what the candidates have said on those issues.

Not perfect I’m sure, but not their personalized recommendation.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 9:48 PM

thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Did you go over to the right and weight how important each issue is to you? Not saying it’s perfect for sure, hell Sanctuary City Guiliani came in second for me before I wieghted the issues, but should be of some value anyway.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 9:53 PM

I always go to the site ontheissues.org

It lists all of the candidates, their positions on all sorts of topics, what they have said, voted on, etc. Its less of a take a quiz and get an answer, but its more of a know WHY you agree with a candidate on certain issues site.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 9:56 PM

steveegg on December 27, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Thanks! Fred did the same slow and steady, and refused to critisize McCain.
.

Rudy said he was the Mayor of a large city (guess which one).
.
Mitt said, in answering what foreign policy experience he had that “you can reach way down in the State Dept. for someone who knows about foreign policy”. Amazingly ignorant answer, sorry.

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 10:05 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 9:53 PM

I did use the sliders to weigh the issues, and had immigration all the way to the right. Thus, in a realistic scenario, any option that leans towards enforcement on the issue instead of amnesty should have pushed McVain way down. It appears the quiz is based on what the candidates are saying now, not on their past actions or what they probably really mean – because I don’t believe for a second that McVain has any intention whatsoever of securing the borders or enforcing immigration laws in the interior.

thirteen28 on December 27, 2007 at 10:11 PM

What the hell is up with this from CBS?
Huckabee on Musharrif

The news story is footnoted with ‘clarifications from the campaign’? Who else on the Rep side gets this courtesy?

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 10:15 PM

These reporters who travel with the candidate tend to start pushing for them. That happens every campaign.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM

Ok….just haven’t seen any other reports from the campaign trail where the candidate gets to rebutt the reporter or make clarifications that are published in the same report.

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Don’t look now, but Fred is gonna bust that $248,000 goal by the dealine.

Fred.

The big “mo.”

Inevitable.

Gonna squash you like a bug on the windshield, csdeven, and I’m the wiper blade.

wccawa on December 27, 2007 at 10:35 PM

Not that this means anything, but I haven’t voted since 1992. I moved twice and never bothered to register. I lived in Rhode Island and now Massachusetts and my vote doesn’t matter anyway so I never got around to registering after each move.

But if Fred is the nominee I will get off my ass, register, and vote for him.

I may even give him some money. I have NEVER even THOUGHT of giving ANY politician my money before now. But now? Yeah. He’s getting $100 bucks from me.

And I’m not even a conservative.

Jaynie59 on December 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Jaynie59 on December 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Welcome back to the American experiment.

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 10:40 PM

And I’m not even a conservative.

Jaynie59 on December 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM

I’ll bet you are, and don’t even know it. lol

Anyway, that is a fairly impressive testimony. I am truly impressed, and you’ve given this regular guy a lot of hope with your post. Thank you.

wccawa on December 27, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Jaynie59 on December 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM

You go girl. Welcome to the core of the American conservative movement (with a little spice thrown in to make it interresting).

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM

Do any of you grouchy Fred cranks have any clue when Fred is going to leap out of the weeds and win the nomination? I understand that losing every state is part of his brilliant strategy, but really, when can we expect it?

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 12:26 AM

In honor of the fact that cs didn’t type “terrorist, dictator, abortion, anti-(cs)gay or lobyist”, please consider helping Fred run his Iowa ad before the caucus:

http://fred08.com/

AZCON on December 28, 2007 at 12:32 AM

It is truly sickening how crappy of a campaigner Fred is. He is one of the best candidates running, but he can’t even raise enough for an ad? He really ran one of the worst campaigns I have seen, ever. If he had one tenth of the support online that RP did, he would easily be the frontrunner and have millions stored away.

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Welcome to the stream roller, csdeven.

Prepare to be assmiliated.

SECOND LOOK AT ASSIMILATION!!!!!!!!11!!!!!2!

wccawa on December 28, 2007 at 12:43 AM

Do any of you grouchy Fred cranks…

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 12:26 AM

The day the Fredheads get grouchy is the day the Republican Party dies. Mark that date well.

It’s just that important. And you know it’s true.

wccawa on December 28, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Who is the best match for you?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:34 PM

As usual on those tests I got Fred first by a big margin. Interestingly I had Gravel next with Hunter third.
Definitely would get behind a Fred/Hunter ticket.

I’m real iffy about Mitt but I am definite, given the current state of the world and US politics, that Huckabee, Guiliani and McCain will not get my vote. If any of them gets the nomination I don’t think I can vote for him in the general election. But lots can change in the next 11 months.

deepdiver on December 28, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I haven’t made any decision except for which candidate is totally unacceptable because of his history of being in cahoots with terrorists and dictators. That would be Fraud Thompson.–csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 9:47 PM

You are an absurdly juvenile and mentally deranged individual.

As per Thompson, he spent 3 hours as international counsel on WHERE to try a terrorist who was subsequently convicted.

csdeven is dishonest.

maverick muse on December 28, 2007 at 1:23 AM

Fred is at $141,384.00.

Q: WHO THE HELL GAVE HIM $4?

A: ALL OF THEM!!!

AZCON on December 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Hucklebillies unite! Uncle Jed, director of homeland security or secretary of d-fense. Granny, Chief of Staff. Jethro runs the department of education.

I sympathize if I have offended anyone.

saved on December 28, 2007 at 7:26 AM

Thank God Iowa doesnt get the final say. However, they do leave me disappointed in their choice. I was sure Iowans could not be so easily fooled. Plane folk doesn’t mean plane stupid, so I am holding my breath and praying they wise up.

leanright on December 28, 2007 at 7:38 AM

Bad joke, I just plain don’t know whats wrong with me.

leanright on December 28, 2007 at 7:40 AM

Might be better to wait for the vote, rather than go with the the LATimes or USA Today spin on the vote.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 8:58 AM

Huckabee lacks discretion at hunt.

Shotguns fired over reporter/cameramen at pheasant.

“This is what happens if you get in my way!” Huck quips holding dead birds up for show.

Geez, what an oaf!

maverick muse on December 28, 2007 at 10:12 AM

I don’t normally like to pull out the ad hominem attack, but are people in Iowa really that stupid?

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 10:26 AM

The day the Fredheads get grouchy is the day the Republican Party dies.
wccawa on December 28, 2007 at 12:46 AM

WHAT!? ALL the Fred kooks are grouchy! That is why they are so quick to attack those who report the truth about Fraud Thompson. They know it’s the truth but their biased mindset wont let them accept it. Their response is to attack the messenger. It’s typical for those who have nothing left to defend their candidate with to resort to name calling. All you have to do is watch any Fred thread. I never attack a fellow HA member personally. I skewer that scumbag Fred at every chance I get. EVERY SINGLE TIME some Fredhead starts the personal name calling. Considering that FACT, is it any wonder why their demands to have me banned fall on deaf ears? Even when I was off exploring other venues for two weeks, the Fred whackadoodles would continue with the personal attacks against me. Bwahahahaha!!! What a delicious bit of schedenfreud that was!

I attack Fred. The cranky Fred kooks attack me. I respond by insulting the people who attack me. Watch ANY Fred thread and you’ll see that scenario played out every single time. What is hilarious is the Fredbots perception of the way it plays out.
In a different thread, one of these dopes started referencing hard-ons etc. I never responded to that comment. The next thing we see is some Fred whacko claiming Fred performed a unspeakable act on me with his hard-on. The very next comment was a different Fred crazy claiming I was taking the discussion into the sewer! Bwahahahahaha!!! These idiots have become brainless liberals when, just like blaming Bush for the WOT, they blame me for the vile comments of others. This is why many of the Fred bozo’s have become exactly like the Ronbots. EXACTLY like them.

The Fredbots don’t recognize their behavior for what it is, but we rational thinking honest conservatives do. And those rational folks include those who have the power to ban me.

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Here you go wccawa. The case in point.

You are an absurdly juvenile and mentally deranged individual.
As per Thompson, he spent 3 hours as international counsel on WHERE to try a terrorist who was subsequently convicted.
csdeven is dishonest.
maverick muse on December 28, 2007 at 1:23 AM

This jagoff has nothing of substance to defend Fred with so his personality disorder comes forth and motivates him to attack me.
He knows that those terrorists avoided justice for 11 years During that eleven years, there is no telling how many countless fledgling terrorists learned at their knees. They were heroes for thwarting America during their ELEVEN years of freedom. The families of the victims are very upset at the US lawyers that helped those scumbags. Fred was one of those scumbag lawyers. But Fred’s history of associating with scum was much more involved than that. He helped a dictator who murdered people by putting a burning tire around their necks. He funnels campaign cash to his son. He gave us McCain/Feingold. He has an open borders puke on his staff. He lies about his pro-choice past. He fought against Americans who had been victimized by their employers who had recklessly exposed them to asbestos.

Fred is a typical scumbag lawyer/lobbyist, and though that kind of reprehensible life is relished in his circle of fellow scumbags, it isn’t in the office of president. And the Fred whackadoodles who think otherwise are willfully ignoring the absolute DISGUST regular Americans have for such scumbag lawyers/lobbyists.

Fred is the worst possible candidate on either side. Heck, even Hillary hasn’t given legal advice to terrorists!

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 10:54 AM

the truth about Fraud Thompson.

It’s typical for those who have nothing left to defend their candidate with to resort to name calling

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Heh!

leanright on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 PM

This jagoff has nothing of substance to defend Fred with so his personality disorder comes forth and motivates him to attack me.
He knows that those terrorists avoided justice for 11 years During that eleven years, there is no telling how many countless fledgling terrorists learned at their knees. They were heroes for thwarting America during their ELEVEN years of freedom. The families of the victims are very upset at the US lawyers that helped those scumbags. Fred was one of those scumbag lawyers. But Fred’s history of associating with scum was much more involved than that. He helped a dictator who murdered people by putting a burning tire around their necks. He funnels campaign cash to his son. He gave us McCain/Feingold. He has an open borders puke on his staff. He lies about his pro-choice past. He fought against Americans who had been victimized by their employers who had recklessly exposed them to asbestos.

Fred is a typical scumbag lawyer/lobbyist, and though that kind of reprehensible life is relished in his circle of fellow scumbags, it isn’t in the office of president. And the Fred whackadoodles who think otherwise are willfully ignoring the absolute DISGUST regular Americans have for such scumbag lawyers/lobbyists.

Fred is the worst possible candidate on either side. Heck, even Hillary hasn’t given legal advice to terrorists!

csdeven on December 28, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Good Lord, your a real piece of work! Maverick muse is right, you rave like a lunatic.

leanright on December 28, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Candidate match game results

1. Paul
2. Thompson
3. Hunter

Dead-on. But Giuliani is right on Hunter and Thompson’s tail, which isn’t right. That gap would have been bigger had abortion and gun rights come up.

Mark Jaquith on December 28, 2007 at 1:38 PM