Maybe that’s why I’m voting for Fred, his Church attendance is much more like mine than either of them.

So why aren’t you as hard on Huckabee for taking money from the company that produces the morning after pill? After all, Romney doesn’t personally benefit from the abortions performed by MassCare, but Huckabee was able to deposit some of that sweet, sweet morning-after mammon in his bank account.

NOTE: the “morning after pill” is not an abortion pill. It is a contraceptive pill, just like the one that women take daily to prevent pregnancy (same stuff, just in a higher dose). If you’re already pregnant when you take it, it will not end your pregnancy.

This is a common misconception. (ha!)

his web guy sent it to us

That’s “Dude” worthy.

- The Cat

However, do I want to pay for all those unwanted children via health care, education, etc,. or, take them into my own home as foster care. Ahh, not really.

So, for all of you militant Pro-lifers, I applaud your conviction, I really, really do (I AGREE with you !) but how many of you are foster parents, “Big Sisters and Big Brothers” or help society in any other way to see that unwanted children are raised in a healthy way ?

Just wondered.

EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Coulda Woulda Shoulda with a Democrat controlled legislature. As it was Mitt had to accept Dem demands for various provisions in the insurance legislation that he didn’t want. The chances of him being able to bring the death penalty back were…zero. He vetoed hundreds and hundreds of Democrat bills. He did what he could under preexisting conditions (no pun intended).

Dismissing Romney’s guilt simply because he divested after he was caught seems to be quite a bit larger a stretch.

I wasn’t “dismissing his guilt,” just pointing out that he’s made restitution of a sort for his actions.

Huckabee hasn’t made any such move, which shows he doesn’t see any sort of conflict between his stated principles and his actions. Why doesn’t he give the money to charity or something?

EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM

To Novo, but not to the company that makes the morning after pill.

Also, if he cares so much about these issues, why not speak for free?

What’s the difference between that and Ron Paul?

As for Romney–what, he bought stock in the company, then sold it? If the stock was not a new issue, none of his money went to the company at all. And for a man with 250 million, with a solid strategy of divesting your portfolio–wouldn’t it be hard to never inadvertently invest in something you disagree with?

Dismissing Romney’s guilt simply because he divested after he was caught seems to be quite a bit larger a stretch.

The key word “TAKING” money. If you take money from them, they can’t use it on the morning after pill.

Nonsense. He still financially benefited from something he disagrees with. Your attempts to turn it into a noble act because he somehow removed that money from its intended purpose are a stretch, to say the least.

We’re going in circles here.

That’s a GOOD thing.

For Huckabee, perhaps. But for the idea that one should abide by principle and not take money from those with whom you disagree, even if taking that money can be justified as harming it?

Not so good, really.

I don’t get the rationale for returning money to the company.

Standing on principle. Huckabee has denounced the morning after pill. Taking money from a group that wants more people to avail themselves of it seems…well, it’s not quite “Ron Paul takes money from Nazis” bad, but it’s not good.

Huckabee spoke explicitly on one issue. And then took money AWAY from them.

That’s a GOOD thing.

I don’t get the rationale for returning money to the company. That’s 35k that they could invest in researching a better morning after pill.

What matters is what benefits the company, not Romney or Huckabee. Investing in them encourages growth of the company. Taking their money does not.

Kind of thin. Romney could just as easily make the argument that his investment helped cure people, but Huckabee’s actions only benefited Huckabee.

Also, Huckabee isn’t exactly loaded. I’m not saying he NEEDED the money by any means, but when you’ve been making squat for 10 years it’s nice to start making some good cash.

Finally, the reason he spoke was in support of diabetes awareness, a disease of which he suffered.

But at the end of the day, he didn’t invest in them and make them better.

Too, too funny.

Has Huckabee returned the $35,000 in speaking fees?

One helps make the company grow, the other takes money away from the company. Seems pretty clear to me.

But in both cases, there is a financial benefit.

Different companies. Romney invested in Novo Novorisk, which does the research (although not currently, if I remember correctly).

Huckabee took money from them, but also from the Public Health Institute, which works to expand access to the morning after pill. It does not actually make the pill, so I was in error there.

As a special bonus, he also took speaking fees money from a gun control group.

conservnut on January 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM