Quote of the day
posted at 11:15 pm on January 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
 |
|
posted at 11:15 pm on January 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
|
|
GreenRoom
- Don’t Cry For Me, America
- Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, No Breast Exams for Mama
- Obama Continues His Decline
- NY23: Hoffmania Misinterpreted
- Imagine No al-Qaeda, It’s Easy If He Tries…
- Inside ACORN’S Political Plans: Ensuring a Democrat Majority
- A Day in the Life of Michelle Obama
- Tapping the Golden Vein
- 2010: Even more alarm bells for Dems, in MO, NC, AR, etc.
- “Not Getting It” as the New Democratic Religion
Hot Links
- Right Channels
- Left Channels
- War on Terror
- Cartoons/Satire
- Audio podcasters
- Entertainment
- Industry/Internet TV
- Hangouts
- Talkers
- Hot Air Affiliates
Feeds
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I’m an evangelical Christian. I don’t support Mike Huckabee at this point in the game. Just because he’s a Christian, does not make him qualified to be POTUS. From a thinking, reasoning, non emotional viewpoint, he has too many flaws for conservative support. Simple. I have said before, Jimmy Carter is a Christian brother, too, and his failures as POTUS are legendary. I lean towards Mitt and Fred. Because of Mitt’s track record of fiscal managerial successes and because of both of their conservative views on immigration, taxes and the military. I prefer to believe that the political distillation process will continue as it always has and the best man for the job will float to the top. If Mike Huckabee is not what he appears to be (or says he is), he will naturally sink out of sight. That’s how the process works.
Roger Brown on January 8, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Dittos.
someguy on January 8, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Some late entries for Quote of the Day:
After being read a quote on ABC News, in which Obama obliquely compared himself to both JFK and MLK, Hillary was asked if she had any reaction and (in so many words) said “Senator, you’re no MLK”.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney at a rally asked a rhetorical question to Obama: “How many Olympics have you changed?”
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 1:48 AM
I think your observation is right on the mark.
FloatingRock on January 8, 2008 at 1:48 AM
As a Conservative, and as an Evangelical Christian that’s recently become even more serious about his faith, for the life of me, I seriously cannot understand the appeal of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has been shown to be anything BUT Conservative, and has shown himself to be very well disposed to resort to tactics that aren’t exactly Christian. Making an opponent’s religion a campaign issue, and trying to curry favor among the voters that do the same isn’t exactly WWJD (unless you were talking about a muslim, Satan-worshipper, etc, then I could see his taking issue with that). As someone had previously stated: he’s looking like nothing more than a cartoonish representation of a Christian Evangelical, and it’s not a very flattering cartoon. Putting him in the Oval Office would do far more to hurt the GOP, and the United States, as a whole, than it would to help it, and, as far as the liberal democrats who have ‘bought and paid for’ the democratic party: our (Republicans, Christians) loss is their gain.
I am certainly not a Romney supporter, but in his defense, he certainly does not strike me as somebody looking to become Christian-in-Chief, but Commander-in-Chief. If anybody’s looking like they’re angling on becoming the next Oliver Cromwell: Lord Protector, it’s Huckabee. Hell, he seems to have more in common with [Bill] Clinton, than with anybody Conservative (being well-known as tax-and-spend, having an annoying habit of flaunting musical instruments on TV, etc.). I’m still voting for Fred. Insult him all you will about not pounding the podium and making a spectacle of himself to show how much he wants to be elected, accuse him of having a hand in McCain/Feingold, talk about his past as an attorney, but I still think he’s the most consistent on Conservative issues, and the most stable of all the Republican candidates. He doesn’t lower himself to profanity to denegrate those that want a border fence, like McCain; he doesn’t flip-flop on illegal immigration, like Rudy; he doesn’t flip-flop on the gay agenda, like Romney; and he doesn’t see it as fine-and-dandy into bed with white supremacists, like Paul. Criticize me all you want for supporting Fred, but I couldn’t care less about that, either.
Virus-X on January 8, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Kini,
I have most of George’s and Dancing Cat records albums.
DC is a great effort by George. Love’em all.
Just what I needed: instructions on how to pee in space. Thanks a lot Kini.
And you sure are scratching dirt trying to show snow on Mauna Kea. :)
.
.
Roger Brown,
That’s how the process is supposed to work.
It’s the campaigns that have to take the weak ones down.
Mitt started it.
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Shining the floodlight of truth,Rush is right as usual,
but I don’t understand why we don’t have a Republican
election team hammering away on message.
Yes I know we need the nominee first,but Obama and Hillary
are on a media roll already,and yes Hillary is approaching
critical mass ready to emplode,tomorrow will know for sure!
canopfor on January 8, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Scratching Dirt? I’m just a bad photographer. But da snow is there brah!
Roger Brown makes a good point. Governors have been traditionally elected President rather than congressional members. Mitt just seems a tad shy of Huck’s colors. Vetting process will determine that. Fred has my attention because he demonstrates an “care less about what the press thinks” attitude. The MSM does drive the process like it or not. This medium takes much of that power away from them. All good.
Kini on January 8, 2008 at 2:12 AM
What the hell are you Hawaiian’s smoking?
I was looking forward to visting.. now I’m not sure…
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 2:16 AM
When it comes to personal temperament, Governor Romney would rate the highest for his even keel, regardless of what events are swirling around him, with Rudolph Giuliani a close second.
Temperament is far more important for a President than for a candidate. A President has to be on an even keel 24/7, for four long years, despite crises that can break out anywhere in the world at any time.
John McCain trails the pack in the temperament department, with his volatile, arrogant, and abrasive know-it-all attitude. His track record in the Senate is full of the betrayals of Republican supporters that have been the party’s biggest failing over the years and its Achilles heel politically.
- Thomas Sowell
Very spot on.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 2:16 AM
It may be way too early and too crowded a field for Rush to commit.
The redefinitions of conservatism is what Huck and Mitt are bringing. It sounds too much like populist campaigning.
MSM has been and always been demo. The new media is ours.
Kini on January 8, 2008 at 2:19 AM
I WOULD RATHER HAVE A DEMOCRAT WIN THEN HUCKABEE
At least a republican wouldn’t take the blame.
Let it be super liberal full of hope Obama fall on his face.
That said I think Romney or Rudy could beat Obama.
tottoritodd on January 8, 2008 at 2:21 AM
The elder President Bush’s betrayal of his “no new taxes” pledge was the classic example, but the current President Bush’s attempt to get amnesty for illegal aliens, with Senator McCain’s help, was more of the same.
President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon probably cost him the 1976 election and cost the country the disastrous Carter years.
McCain’s betrayals include not only the amnesty bill but also the McCain-Feingold bill that violated the First Amendment for the illusion of “taking money out of politics.” His back-door deal with Democrats on judicial nominations also pulled the rug out from under his party leaders in the Senate.
The White House is not the place for a loose cannon.
- Thomas Sowell
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Smoking mostly VOG, but not our choice.
If you do visit…., look me up; however if you wanna see snow on Mauna Kea, you’d betta hurry up. I think Dallas has direct flights.
Tomorrow’s show should be interesting.
Kini on January 8, 2008 at 2:28 AM
What about Bunker Mentality?
Kini on January 8, 2008 at 2:30 AM
MB4
Hit and run comment to you here. Rush goes after McCain constantly. He can’t stand the guy. He is daily more brutal on McCain than anyone in the GOP race. The only reason he is going after Huckabee more often right now is because he sees that people don’t seem to see through his shtick and so he knows he needs to open people’s eyes about him. People are well aware of McCain. The only reason McCain is even being considered now is because conservatives won’t stick to principle and are more concerned with “who do we vote for who can beat who we detest more than McCain?”
Michael in MI on January 8, 2008 at 2:38 AM
I like solitude, not snowbirds.
I want to hit the guitar festival in the fall sometime.
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 2:45 AM
Does anyone begin to hear a note of fear and anger in Rush’s voice?
He knows what really is as stake in this election, talk all you want about the Supreme Court, war on terror, taxes or the economy….think for a minute….liberal super majority, socialist in the White House….
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ON STEROIDS.
First 100 days baby.
Enjoy your Iphone Allah… Brian and MM, you have approx. 14 months left in your blogging careers, after that you’ll either be offshore, underground or out of work.
A heart felt welcome to the newbies, enjoy it while you can.
A. Weasel on January 8, 2008 at 2:50 AM
Heh! Kanikapila happens everyday.
Kini on January 8, 2008 at 2:51 AM
I’m not for McCain, but should we nominate Ronald Reagan on principle then, even though his chances of winning in November aren’t so good?
Principles are important, but principles divorced from any reference to reality turns us into… Ron Paul.
Look, I think *I* would make a bang-up President. After all, I agree with every single one of my own principles, 100%. But I won’t be voting for myself, because I recognize that:
a) I do not have a reasonable chance to win, and
b) By not supporting a candidate who agrees with me a little less, but *does* have a reasonable chance to win, I am making it more likely that somebody who I *least* agree with will.
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 2:54 AM
But MB4:
What is this nonsense about Gerald Ford being a “loose cannon?” Can you imagine Nixon – a former president – being sent to prison? Ford did the right thing in pardoning him after he resigned. Look at all these current idiots calling for Bush to be impeached and arrested. Ford knew that what he did would make him a target, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Then he hunkered down for the next two years and waited for the knife to fall. And it sure did..
Ford was a poor choice for ‘76, in any case, being saddled with a dislikeable VP (Bob Dole) and facing a media lovefest of Jimmy Carter (much like this Obama-mania nonsense).
In retrospect, it is horrifying to read some of the old 1976 tripe about Jimmy Carter. I remember Time magazine photographing Carter leaning back in a rocking chair (a la JFK) and comparing the idiot bucktoothed peanut farmer to the mega-photogenic late president.
On “Saturday Night Live”, which was at its all-time viewing peak in those days, Chevy Chase was constantly mocking Ford (a former All-American) as a braindead klutz while the truly braindead klutz Carter was never satirized
What cost the country the Carter Years was not Ford, who was a sort of placeholder, but Nixon’s bizarre paranoia, VP Spiro Agnew’s corruption (he would have at least provided a relief valve for Nixon after his resignation if he had been able to get into the Presidency) and the full flowering of the MSM’s hatred of the Republican Party.
Comparing poor old boring middle-of-the-road Gerald Ford to a foaming egotistical wackjob like McCain is defaming the memory of President Ford – the man who gave this country one of its greatest gifts – Golden retrievers.
In fact, I’ll bet you one of my old Gerald Ford WIN (”Whip Inflation Now”) buttons on that against your own six-pack of “Billy Beer”.
TexasJew on January 8, 2008 at 2:55 AM
[eyes drooping]
Huh?
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Look, if the GOP nominates Huckabee, I promise 100% to vote for whoever the Democrats put on the ticket. I’m an independent voter, and I’m susceptible to go either way in 2008.
Seixon on January 8, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Like a woman (or man I suppose) who just stays with one man (or woman) because some other one might/would abuse them even more.
So sad.
Someone needs to do an intervention or maybe even an exorcism.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 3:14 AM
Well it seems all it takes to be a successful candidate is to be a snake-oil salesman. If you take the top tier candidates from both parties there really isn’t much difference. Hunter, Thompson,Tancredo, and even Biden aren’t salesmen. They give you the scenario and the way to accomplish it. I’m sure they feel that if they give you the facts, your educated enough and adult enough to be able to figure it out. But on the other hand it sure is hard to resist that sales pitch even if it is a lemon.
Go RHINO’s Go!
N4646W on January 8, 2008 at 3:16 AM
Must be nice.
I only agree my myself about 90% of the time.
Sometimes only about 80% of the time.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 3:17 AM
Damn, the new posters are making the comments sections almost unreadable.
Patriot33 on January 8, 2008 at 3:25 AM
I don’t think that Sowell meant that Ford was loose cannon.
MB4 on January 8, 2008 at 3:31 AM
What about the abortion questionnaire that he filled out in Tennessee?
(oh yea, I forgot.. you just want a Panderer-in-Chief)
Thank you come again…
next time, try not to use propaganda
from a candidates website.. LOL
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 3:35 AM
but Fred is soooooooooooooooooooooo boriiiiiiiiiiiiing
=(
Richard Bushnell on January 8, 2008 at 3:41 AM
Richard, Fred just won two debates over the weekend…that “boring” enough for you?
RJS2 on January 8, 2008 at 4:29 AM
Evangelicals, like myself, have every reason to vote AGAINST Mike Huckabee.
ColtsFan on January 8, 2008 at 5:10 AM
Mega-dittoes. Might as well stop with the strikeouts before you wear yourself out. But, hey, HA gets the hits, and that’s what counts nowadays. Quantity trumps quality, much the same way that form trumps substance.
Oh, well, at least AP’s gonna have fun with the “red meat” threads.
Nichevo on January 8, 2008 at 5:13 AM
Evangelicals know better! We are NOT supporting the Huckster! I don’t know who is (besides the MSM) but it’s not us!
LonelyMassRepublican on January 8, 2008 at 5:42 AM
Is this your first presidential election?
Good grief!
Bradky on January 8, 2008 at 6:22 AM
I just don’t understand the “boring” label for Fred. Do you want to be entertained by your President?
Frankly I think it’s refreshing that Fred is more substance and less bravado.
frode on January 8, 2008 at 6:48 AM
The problem with this race is Romney. Romney is just another country club Republican that will suck up to the Saudis and the PLO, will support the HMO’s as they deny people medical services, will kill the Constitutional right of getting a jury trial in civil cases by supporting the kind of tort reform the protects insurance companies and Fortune 500 corps and screws the little guy.
Ronald Reagan would never have supported someone like Romney
georgealbert on January 8, 2008 at 6:59 AM
We, the Faithful, need a safe country with our God given Freedoms intact. The Huckster is a GOP version of Jimmy Carter and we do not need another featherweight like Carter leading the fight in the War on Jihad. Like Weight of Glory, I cannot support Huck.
Zorro on January 8, 2008 at 7:03 AM
That’s what I’m talking about!
Fredalanche©.
Rush does not endorse candidates during the primaries but he has basically implied an endorsement for Fred Thompson on many occasions. He may just break his own role and just say it
TheSitRep on January 8, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Let’s take a look at the “1.2%” of the time that Rush is NOT right. On yesterday’s show he beat up on a guy who stated that the HSLDA (Homeschool Legal Defense Assoc.) endorsed Huck, and Rush did some quick research (probably Google) and said that HSLDA didn’t endorse Huck-but it was some guy in the organization. Technically Rush was correct; but Rush failed to point out that it was the the HSLDA PAC that did endorse Huck, back as early as June of last year.I received this information via an email from HSLDA (the organization) about what the PAC was doing (I’m sure that groups need to distance themselves from one another to some degree.) The man who sent out the endorsement information isn’t “just a guy at HSLDA” – it’s Mike Farris – who is one of the founders of HSLDA and is stil the Chairman and General Counsel for HSLDA the group, while running an excellent school in Purceville, VA. The email is signed by the president of HSLDA (J.Michael Smith)himself. I know facts are boring posts, but I just wanted to “shine the light of truth” to some of the “hot air” around here.
HERMES on January 8, 2008 at 7:30 AM
The Huck experiment will probably set in motions the factors that will ruin the Evangelical movement
GogglesPisano on January 8, 2008 at 7:40 AM
I will bring the ammunition!
TheSitRep on January 8, 2008 at 7:42 AM
I must say right off, that I support Fred. Simply because he seems to be the most straight talking individual amongst the group of current republican candidates. He seems the least like a politician – a very good thing. The least handled or packaged of the whole lot.
Isn’t it time we the people, not the MSM decide what we want? Why should we care if Fred doesn’t get much play time on the airwaves, that’s what we are for. We have friends and family; talk with them, convince them that Fred is the Man for America. We live everywhere, we post, we blog, and we reach more people than we realize. It is up to us to get the message out. So, we can support the other group of trained monkeys, or support Fred. Don’t whine or complain, do something. I lived through the Carter years – I never want to have to repeat that experience; There is only one candidate that offers an alternative to that – Fred!
saukeye on January 8, 2008 at 7:47 AM
I’m not sure if he’ll hurt the evangelical movement, but he’s sure doing a number on the conservative movement.
flipflop on January 8, 2008 at 8:06 AM
would it be a tad inappropriate of me to call Huckabee the Anti-Christ?
Pcoop on January 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM
I’d like to hear Huck explain the “you don’t get bad fruit from a good tree” lesson in the Bible…
landlines on January 8, 2008 at 8:33 AM
I think Fred has a lot more grass-roots national support than the MSM realizes or is willing to admit.
frode on January 8, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Yup.
Ex-tex on January 8, 2008 at 8:39 AM
I’m a Christian and I would not vote for Huck. There are only two conservatives running as I see it. Fred and Hunter. Apparently, republicans do not want a conservative for president.
You can’t lay the blame for Huck-a-mania completely on the “evangelicals”. That is just stupid. Huck has gotten a hell of a lot of support from the non-evangelicals. The numbers prove it.
Is it the evangelicals that are pushing Mitt’s popularity?
Maverick is no conservative. Who is supporting him?
Looks more to me like the republican party is purging the conservatives.
Talon on January 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Sorry, Rush, they’re still mesmerized by the floating cross. Huck has to snap his fingers three times for the spell to break.
argos on January 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Here is a perfect example of the kind of economic turndown we can expect with a RINO in the WH.
sonnyspats1 on January 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM
The funniest thing about that whole segment was all of the Huckabee supporters calling in and trying to redefine consrvatism to Rush. Especially their description of Club for Growth. I laughed out loud during this exchange:
RUSH: I have not seen the Club for Growth’s ads, I’ve not read — I know Stephen Moore who heads up the Club for Growth. (interruption) Oh, Stephen Moore is not in the Club — okay, that’s how much I know about it, the guy I thought running it has been gone for two years, his name is Stephen Moore. What is he, at some think tank or something?
CALLER: Well, he’s the political rival –
RUSH: Started a new thing. Then, see, a good guy left the Club for Growth and some bunch of perverts has taken over attacking Huckabee and the new conservatism.
As someone said earlier, Evangelicals aren’t looking for a conservative, they are looking for one of their own. If you love the compassionate conservatism of W, you’re going to LOVE Mike Huckabee.
RobTN on January 8, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 3:35 AM
pandering? lol
Rudy has said many times in the past that hes pro-choice, its not a secret, don’t try to play it like Rudy has a better pro-life record than ANYONE in the republican field, much less Fred..
How many pro-life endorsements has Rudy landed?
stlpatriot on January 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Rush is SO right. Hucko is Dubya Dubya II. Go, anyone but Hucko or McCain!
Spanglemaker on January 8, 2008 at 8:53 AM
I don’t think that’s really true, I just think many of them aren’t paying enough attention to the details to realize that’s what they’re doing.
someguy on January 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Me too. As an Evangelical Baptist, and a conservative, I’m supporting Fred. The Huckster is just a populist. He’s a Republican Jimmy Carter.
wearyman on January 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Just to add one more evangelical voice to the mix…I am a strong evangelical who is both a fiscal & social conservative. I cannot under ANY scenario envision myself voting for Huckabee.
I’ve had several conversations with other evangelicals about the subject & what comes up consistently in NOT Huckabee’s faith, but his stand on social issues (re: abortion, primarily). No question Huckabee has the strongest record/credentials on this issue.
My challenge has been trying to convince them that other candidates are just as committed to life – even if they aren’t pushing a “Right to Life” amendment which has no chance in Hades of getting passed.
In short, I’m finding evangelicals (and yes, we’re not a voting block, but that’s the core of Huckabee’s support) aren’t supporting Huckabee because of his faith, but because of his stance on a single-issue. And as with ANY single-issue folks, the challenge is getting them to see the broader picture.
Tim on January 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Fred Thompson not supporting a HLA to the Constitution is as far away from Federalism and the closest to expediency you can get.
Frederalism, which is Fred’s version of Federalism, means limiting political speech through McCain-Feingold. It means that amending the Constitution should never be done because of “states rights,” despite the fact a constitutional amendment would require a supermajority in both houses and the approval of 38 states.
Fred is a man of principle? If he were, he wouldn’t care about whether something is viable, he would support it either way and fight for it on the highest level.
But then, Fred isn’t known for fighting. He’s known for having a pulse.
It’s funny how the same people who criticize those of us who haven’t jumped on the “clear conservative choice” bandwagon as not having principles will shamelessly support a man whose pro-life principles begin and end at campaign rhetoric. Same with his tax proposals, foreign policy proposals, and immigration proposals. If he thought these were all such important principles, why has he never done anything but sit in his Senate seat and gather dust.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Just consider that it is not about what you say but what you actually do. Has Huckabee really done anything that the Clinton Mafia has not approved.
In the grand scheme of things the Demoncrates are hoping that Huckabee is their opponent because he is easy to beat and discredit.
MSGTAS on January 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM
That’s why Huck was Governor for 10 years, I guess?
faraway on January 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM
When you’re as corrupt as a dem and they can blame all their faults on the Republican Party of the Governor, they tend to get along just swimmingly. After all, just get his something from his wedding gift registration and you’re set.
BKennedy on January 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Rush reads the blogs about him.
He will discredit you on the show without mentioning your name and make you look like a fool.
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Rush will not endorse a candidate because he does not want to alienate his listeners who support other candidates. That would be a ratings suicide and a sponsor nightmare..
It’s clear that Rush thinks Fred is the most conservative candidate and I agree.
Nelsa on January 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Huck was governor for 10 years because of mush brains like you.
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM
If I weren’t a new commenter I would not waste my time responding, but since I am new…
You just did to me what the media and Harry Reid did to Rush over the “phony soldiers” discussion. In order to understand Rush, you have to listen to what he actually says. In order to understand me, you have to read what I actually write. You employed the facist tactics of modern liberals everywhere, so who is the troll? Certainly not me.
Back to my point…I know people who really believe Rush is in the tank for Romney, or at least giving him more favorable coverage than he might, because Bain Capital bought Clear Channel. They are sending emails to that affect to every person they know. I am unfamiliar with the ends and outs of that deal, but according to the emails I have received, Clear Channel and Bain merged sometime in December 2007. Ergo (according to the conspiractists), for the past few weeks Rush has been pressured to make Mitt look good.
Just so Billy won’t misunderstand me…I DO NOT BELIEVE RUSH WOULD ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE COMPROMISED OR INFLUENCED BY CLEAR CHANNEL and I never said I believe that.
Calling me a liberal is so rich. I don’t know how old you are, but I have a long history with the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I am proud to say my first political involvement was as a volunteer for the Reagan campaign. I was President of the local Young Republicans. In law school I joined the Federalist Society, a very unpopular group on my campus. And this year I have been supporting the only remotely viable conservative, Fred Thompson, since last summer.
From now on, please read a person’s post before resorting to name calling.
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM
McGuyver, try not to be so emotional.
faraway on January 8, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Really? What numbers? Huck got 34% of 120,000 votes in Iowa and has nothing in New Hampshire. So, about 40,000 votes in Iowa — you don’t think there are 40,000 evangelical nitwits in Iowa?
His next big state is South Carolina, so again … are you kidding? He won’t win a single state that isn’t full of Baptists. So what numbers are you talking about?
Jaibones on January 8, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Just a little anecdote here. My sis-in-law is an evangelical christian and my husband and I were sitting around the table talking one day a few weeks ago and she said she liked Huckabee. We both nearly spit out our drinks and then asked her why. “Well, he’s a baptist minister, he’s very conservative”. Uh, no he’s not and we proceeded to educate her. Our neighbor also likes the Huckster and it’s simply because he is a man of God. Now this neighbor knows the issues very well and is still willing to cast his vote for Huckabee despite his record. Just because he’s a minister. Just two people out of many, but it was kind of an eye opener.
jewells45 on January 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM
It’s obvious you haven’t been here very long. You have a lot of growing up to do.
There’s a lot of commentators here that have really grown up since they came here.
If you don’t want to grow up, LEAVE NOW!
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
the NRL on why they endorsed Thompson:
http://www.nrlpac.org/Public%20statement.htm
stlpatriot on January 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Rush should rip Huckabee a new one on all the promises of constitutional ammendments – four so far:
Let me play a role here and address Huckabee (and his supporters) just like I would talk to a little boy:
“You dumb little shit!”
And that goes to you TOO faraway, GROW UP FOR GOD’S SAKE!
Mcguyver on January 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
BKennedy,
When Fred was in the Senate, he voted against the Good Samiritan Law because of his belief in federalism, and was the ONLY one in the Senate to do so. (The vote was 99-1) I’m sure it would have been much easier for him to go along with the crowd, but he chose not to. I just don’t see Fred as a person who does things in the name of political expediency, despite McCain-Feingold.
Jodella on January 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Jodella, you are spot on about Fred. The man has backbone and character. Part of his problem is that becoming President these days all-too-often seems to require a person todemean themselves act a fool (think Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio, answering questions about his underwear) Apparently Americans have become so pathetic we want people who “feel our pain.” It’s just sad.
By the way, I’m a Tennessean who has followed Fred Thompson since he represented Marie Ragghianti in the Tennessee pardon scandal. Fred helped expose a corrupt Democrat governor, Ray Blanton, who pardoned the son of a crony and then started selling pardons. (Libs like Clinton and Huck love pardons.) For as long as I’ve been paying attention to Fred, he has been his own man. He acts on his well-defined principles. When he was in the Senate, he didn’t take polls before voting. If he were merely trying to satisfy his Tennessee base he would have voted Clinton guilty.
flyfisher on January 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
The head of our state’s GOP just said he is heading Huckabee’s campaign here in MN. Al Franken is running for Senate against Norm (RINO) Coleman.
I still plan to go to my caucus, shake my fist in the air, and vote for Fred. The republican party has been heading left, leaving the conservatives behind. It is not the Ronald Reagan party any more. If Huckabee wins the nomination, I think the true conservatives will bolt.
conservativegrandma on January 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Actually, allah, I thought Rush’s best line was that TV debates were geared just solely toward quips and cute lines. No depth.
Plus he linked that with an endorsement of Fred’s! good social security message: The social security message that didn’t float because it was too involved. Which is why TV debates reekth and always will.
JJ.1 on January 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Wow, this sure shows what kind of political neophytes that are on here. So Rush’s radio program started in 92?
I started listening in college in 89 and he was popular well before the Clinton came into office. There were liberals around long before the Clintons came to the forefront.
ClassicCon on January 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM
flyfisher: Thanks for some more background info on Fred. I knew I was making the right choice in backing him.
It’s interesting to see Rush refer to Fred so often when talking about who the conservatives are for the GOP candidates.
I have been sending in money to the Thompson campaign and am going to do my best to get the word out on Fred to my political group here (live overseas). Go Fred08!
Renwaa on January 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM
What causes Rush to believe that Christians are searching for a “true conservative?” We’re not – we’re searching for Christ. We, Christians tend to believe that it is in fact our teachings that define what has previously been known as “true conservative”’ and I can only speak for myself, but I know a lot of Christians agree that the conservative movement has left us – not visa versa. The fact is that our opinions are rooted and have not changed in any dramatic fashion in over 2000 years, while the American political movements changes daily, and it seems now, hourly.
Many Christians are becoming, or have become disenfranchised with conservatism. Rush is not, and has not behaved in a Christianly manor in many decades. Ann Coulter does not and has not behaved in a Christianly manor. Mitt does not give me a feel good Christian vibe when he starts talking about sending families that I have seen in my church back to Mexico. I don’t think that’s my form of conservatism. And frankly, if that is what conservatism has become, then I would suggest that it be renamed because I have not changed – politics have.
So Rush that’s your answer from at least one Christian.
Wise Golden on January 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I’m an evangelical and I am not fooled by Huckabee. Look at his credentials. A Time magazine endorsment? Didn’t Time just pick Putin as MOY?
I needs me sum FRED!!!
MechEng5by5 on January 8, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 3:35 AM
Rudy STILL is Pro-Choice!
And thats WHY I TRUST HIM!!!!
He doesn’t change his positions from day-to-day just to pander for votes!
He tells you the TRUTH!
(Damn that used to mean something to some people)
And since he tells the truth thats why I trust him on Strict Constructionist Judges!
Him personally being Pro-Choice, DOES NOT disqualify him from wanting to get rid of Roe v Wade.
Rudy is a Federalist, he believes in States Rights, he wants the States to make these decisions…
I strongly believe that he feels Roe was wrongly decided, since it oversteps the States Authority.
From a debate
Would probably not sign federal ban on all abortions
Q: If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?
A: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision. I think that the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 3:35 AM
Rudy STILL is Pro-Choice!
And thats WHY I TRUST HIM!!!!
He doesn’t change his positions from day-to-day just to pander for votes!
He tells you the TRUTH!
(Damn that used to mean something to some people)
And since he tells the truth thats why I trust him on Strict Constructionist Judges!
Him personally being Pro-Choice, DOES NOT disqualify him from wanting to get rid of Roe v Wade.
Rudy is a Federalist, he believes in States Rights, he wants the States to make these decisions…
I strongly believe that he feels Roe was wrongly decided, since it oversteps the States Authority.
—————–
From a debate
Would probably not sign federal ban on all abortions
Q: If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?
A: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision. I think that the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM
How about Tommy Thompson, Pat Robertson and Ted Olsen
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
No, as one Christian to another many Christians have ceased to be Christian in anything other than name. So there is a family in your church who broke US immigration law to be here and you are ok with that? Shame on you. Have you never read the bible?
Do these ring any bells with you? Remember what the Apostle Paul said about casting people who refuse to adhere to Christian doctrine out of your church?
No, its not that the conservative movement has left Christians, it’s that many Christians have been seduced by liberal socialist ideology. Not knowing what the doctrines of Christianity are they fall for any feel good wishy washy mush preached at them.
doriangrey on January 8, 2008 at 6:10 PM
How about Texas Governor Rick Perry?
Chakra Hammer on January 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM
More wisdom from the golden EIB microphone. I wish I could pick up AM radio at my office.
Mooseman on January 8, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I guess it’s OK to flat-out lie, if The High Lord Rush states it and Hot Air repeats it.
Um Rush, you MAY want to actually read Huckabee’s education page before you start making an ass of yourself…. again.
Oh, and I’m a heavily three-leg conservative evangelical, and I don’t know that I’m voting for Huckabee, either. But dang, at least GET THE FRACKIN’ FACTS RIGHT!!!
psrch on January 8, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Just send all the Evangelicals these links…
Ann Coulter: “Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter” (Video) (4min)
Ann Coulter: “Huckabee Stupid and easily led” (Video) (2min)
Ann Coulter: “Liberals Adore Huckabee” (Video) (3min)
There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute (Ann Coulter, Human Events)
“I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians” – Ann Coulter
Mike Huckabee Roundhouse Kicked (Video) (1min)
Huckabee on Education: No to Vouchers, Let Government Fix It (Standard Newswire)
Homeschoolers beware! (WorldNetDaily)
- Huckabee received the endorsement of the New Hampshire NEA
HomeSchoolers Lose Ground with New Law signed by Governor Huckabee (Home School Legal Defense Association)
Obama: Mike Huckabee is My Favorite GOP Candidate (Newsmax)
Christian conservatives: Beware of Huckabee (WorldNetDaily)
Huckabee: Raising Taxes OK (Video) (1min)
Poptech on January 8, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Internet.
Jaibones on January 8, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Is that you, Kinky? :-)
sanantonian on January 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Thanks Rush!
Go Fred!
christophercube on January 9, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3