Huckabee strikes back: Fred did nothing in eight years in the Senate; Update: Huck camp to phone every evangelical pastor in Michigan for GOTV
posted at 11:25 am on January 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not true. He was quite the wingman for McCain on campaign finance reform, wasn’t he?
This attack, oddly enough, parallels Fred’s insofar as it too works to Maverick’s advantage. Even the most idgit-y of idgit voters knows McCain’s name, knows he has loads of Senate experience, and knows that he’s accomplished a lot there. What they might not know, especially given his surge vogue of late, are the specifics of those “accomplishments” — pushing amnesty, voting against the Bush tax cuts, CFR, etc etc etc. And since Fred’s unwilling to remind them, it may come down to a simple question of who’s more likely between the two of them to get “results,” irrespective of what those results might be.
I tacked on a bit of unrelated red meat at the end, devoured by Huck with appropriate gusto.
Update: Via Ace, here’s what the “Christian leader” message means on the ground.
[P]ro-Huckabee organizers say they are focusing their entire effort on turning out evangelical church goers. They plan to call every evangelical pastor in the state over the next few days. Those ministers can’t endorse any candidate from the pulpit — but they can tell their parishioners that “it’s their Christian duty,” to turn out on primary day, said Glenn. “And we know who they’ll be voting for.”
To help drive that message home, thousands of volunteers will be dropping leaflets and waving signs in church parking lots across Michigan this Sunday. Glenn says there will also be several news conferences across the state through the January 15 vote featuring groups of pastors announcing their personal support for Huckabee, an organized wave of callers into Michigan’s Christian radio stations, and phone trees targeting the state’s largest churches from within.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Did some research. You’re right. It is illegal.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Huckabee and Shiite Republicans. Google it and you will see when he was governor he was no friend of the evangelicals. There are some church goers out there that need to wake up and smell the coffee.
There is something in the Bible I think about false prophets and the like.
Just A Grunt on January 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
From this
it sounds to me like Wise Golden is claiming these Christian groups are PACs. Is that correct?
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM
In Huck’s case, it’s called “bearing false witness.”
jdawg on January 11, 2008 at 12:45 PM
On IRS codes, tax exempt status, and endorsing political candidates, it’s tricky, but in time you can understand it.
1) Churches are organized generally as 501(c)3 charitable organizations.
2) Unions are organized as 501(c)5 organizations.
3) 501(c)3 groups are prohibited from endorsing candidates for political office.
4) 501(c)5 groups CAN endorse political candidates for office.
The other tax exempt groups like a business alliance such as the US Chamber of Commerce also can endorse candidates for political office. These groups are organized as 501(c)6 groups.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Nope — not saying that at all. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t communicate on issues that are common and that they don’t have mechanisms for forming policy (binding or not — if groups follow, it has the effect of being policy.)
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM
As a pastor, I know personally that this is a violation of 501(c)(3) status. someone might want to look into this if people are actually handing out leaflets and waving signs in church parking lots since they are owned by the church, that is no different from doing it from the pulpit.
ConservativePartyNow on January 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM
He’s not a prophet. Just another sleazy televangelist-type disgracing the Name by his sorry example.
Shay on January 11, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Thank you. I do understand that Dave is correct. It is illegal.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I was hoping someone would bring this up. This is the problem with the kooky evangelicals. They are so beholding to their beliefs that the constitution takes a back seat. They justify stomping all over it to further Gods work on this earth. We even have a commenter here in this thread claiming that endorsements from the pastor are legal. See, the constitution means nothing as long as they can get the “Christian Leader” elected to POTUS. Then, as a different commenter said yesterday, he can govern as a Christian and cast off the morally corrupt government.
This is the type of misguided thinking that real Americans are up against.
Please God, protect us from those people.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Wise Golden
See here.
Can’t say it enough.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
And then they’ll lose their tax-exempt status, right?
joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM
But here’s the thing. Churches are communities and the people within them talk politics just like everyone else at this time of year. How would you ever prevent that, and frankly, why would anyone want to?
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Huck should consider Mk 12:17 when thinking he will govern as the Jesus candidate.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 12:53 PM
ConservativePartyNow: That’s questionable. I believe the law does permit people to hand out political flyers in a church parking lot. They may even be able to hand them out inside the church at the discretion of that church.
I don’t know how the Protestants handle this issue. I’m Catholic. The Catholic churches tend to, not always and not unanimously, push politicking for candidates outside the church. Move it to the sidewalk or the church steps, but just keep that activity outside the church.
In terms of policy positions like abortion, the death penalty, or social justice, the Catholic church permits this discussion inside the church. Pastors often will use the pulpit to talk about these issues as they relate to elections, but as they relate to candidates.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 12:53 PM
A pastor is the shepherd of his flock.
And in Huck’s case, he’s giving them a good flocking.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Mind telling us what those mechanisms are? We already have a clear thinking pastor who agrees that parking lot flyers probably are a violation. I’d be interested in hearing how those mechanisms work and stay legal. F’instance, do they include one on one counseling in a home?
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Ergo the perfect example of how the lemming mentality builds within certain groups inside the congregation that lead them to vote for Huck because he is the Jesus candidate.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I said that I was mistaken. I admitted to that. Is there a law that is currently being broken? Are you able to prove it? Have you reported it to the police?
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
There’s a difference between people talking about politics inside the community, and the pastor (who can be thought of as the leader of the community) telling the people who to vote for. Someone wearing a “Huck for Pres.” button to church is one thing, but if people are allowed to wave signs saying “Huck for Pres.” around the church, that would be the same as the church itself endorsing Huck (even if the sign wavers aren’t members, the church would be allowing them to stand there).
smithinmich on January 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Knights of Columbus. Many other similar organizations of different faiths.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Did you intend for this sentence to have a “not” preceding “as they relate to elections” or “as they relate to candidates”?
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM
He’s not a shepard of any flock that I am aware of. He is not an active Minister.
He is a Republican Govener.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I already told you that I don’t read ahead. Climb down off the cross why don’t ya?
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:03 PM
According to wikipedia (and please correct me if this information is wrong), Huck got a BA in religion from something called “Ouachita Baptist University.”
Infidoll on January 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM
They use think tanks and specialized Ministies such as the Faldwell Group and many others. Those groups form doctornal peices that are widly followed.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
And Huckabee is the cliff.
FloatingRock on January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Don’t tell Huck that. He’s running as the “Christian Leader” candidate.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM
You’re coming acrossed as testy.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
You are probably correct. I thought I read that his BA was in communication and wondered at the time if that didn’t explain his ability to deny and deflect, but it must be just in his genes. I didn’t care enough to check further.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
You’re coming across as a thin-skinned ‘tard.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I’m on his web-site. I don’t see that.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I must be oon target because I’m taking flack.
Ha!
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM
When Huck starts to collapse, I expect a desperate “Jim Jones drink the Kool-Aid” moment from him to his flock. Not in the literal sense, but certainly in the allegorical sense. Something like the country is doomed and they all need to move to Antarctica and wait for the rapture.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM
When Huck starts to collapse, I expect a desperate “Jim Jones drink the Kool-Aid” moment from him to his flock. Not in the literal sense, but certainly in the allegorical sense. Something like the country is doomed and they all need to move to Antarctica and wait for the rapture.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Are they PACs? And, is individual counseling on preferable candidates by church representatives allowed? Candidates, not policy.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Wise Golden: I don’t know what you are implying here. What is your point about citing the Knights of Columbus?
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM
wccawa giggle
Wise Golden says we need Huck to bring the fun back to GOP politics.
Yep, calling fellow republicans Shiites is fun!
Calling opponents of amnesty and special financial benefits for illegal aliens un-Christian and un-American is fun!
Class warfare is fun!
funky chicken on January 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Answered here. I wouldn’t have said ‘tard, but it works.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM
I think the main difference between the Huck supporters and those who dislike him is that the Huck supporters are not actively offended by his former position as a Baptist Minister and are therefore a little more willing to hear what he says.
Generally speaking, it’s not hard to like any of the Republicans when you allow them to talk about their ideas. I mean after all, they didn’t get to where they are by being unlikable (or for that matter, frequently wrong.)
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Me either. It’s an insult to ‘tards.
Shay on January 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I didn’t say that?
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM
This is at least 3 times you have been shown this ad by Huck.
You don’t see it on his website because he, like Elmer Gantry, manipulates very trusting and easily lead people by presenting himself as the “Christian Leader” and then lying about his record that he now finds inconvenient.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Heh. He’s just diluting it out a bit. It can’t be bad it they all do it. Next up,..The Chamber of Commerce and PTA.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Bwahahahahaha!!!
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Seriously guys — is that all you got? I’m a tard.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Wow, I don’t think we’ve ever seen that around here before.
ChrisM on January 11, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Like the NH NEA and the Huckster.
Connie on January 11, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Why attack Huck for pushing doing the “get out the vote” thing with the folks he thinks are most likely to vote for him. Every politician does this. He’s just proving he’s a typical politician, and not a saint.
Though I dont think he should assume that all evangelical will automatically vote for him. The anti-Huck forces should figure out the issues that are attracting them to Huck and prove he has no cred in those areas. On abortion, Fred has the NRTL endorsement, not Huck. Why? That’s got to mean something.
BTW, I listen to evangelical programs. I haven’t heard any “Vote for Huckabee ’cause he’s one of us” talk yet. Though I have to admit there were lots of discussions on “Can we vote a mormon to the white house” and “Can we vote for a pro-choice candidate”. Not even from the Southern Baptist programs. Go figure.
AverageJoe on January 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Whats going to be interesting is we are going to see, clear as day, the division within the Republican party right here on this blog. There is a Thompson base that has been building for some time now and there is a new Huckabee flock that slipped through the cracks when the comment section became open to more people the other day. The Thompson crew actually cares about conservative principles and wants lower taxes, secure borders, federalist ideals, smaller government and strong national defense. The Huckabee crew thinks that Jesus was the founder of the Republican party. They could care less about everything else so long as their leader is a “Christian conservative”. I think the term is “compassionate conservative.” They are blind to lies flung in their general direction by their sleazy leader. It, quite honestly, ought to make for some pretty painful debates here in the comment section of this blog. Its a microcosm of the current state of the Republican party.
Zetterson on January 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I was citing it as one way that politics get discussed in churchy settings.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
a capella: I did leave out the “not”. Here’s the error and the correction.
Error: Pastors often will use the pulpit to talk about these issues as they relate to elections, but as they relate to candidates.
Correction: Pastors often will use the pulpit to talk about these issues as they relate to elections, but not as they relate to candidates.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
No. The fact is you have ignored most of what they got and now asking you if you are retarded is the the end of trying to reach you rationally.
All kidding aside though, how many times do you have to be shown the “Christian Leader” ad before you admit that Huck is running as the “Christian Leader” candidate?
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Dude, one of my best life-long friends is a Baptist minister, and I have the utmost respect for him. If he was running instead of Huckleberry, I would be behind him 100%.
Why?
Not because he is a Baptist and/or minister, but because he espouses the same values that Republicans used to stand for, much like Fred today.
It matters not one iota to me that Huckleberry is a Baptist and/or minister. His positions and political history do.
Having said that, I despise Huckleberry because (among other reasons) he trots out the fact that he is a Baptist and/or minister to conceal the very ugly truths about him. It speaks to his values, his integrity, his judgment… or lack thereof.
Speaking of which, if you believe in judgment, Huckleberry is gonna get some. Plenty of it.
And that’s just off the top of my head.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You are moving away from the discussion of church based campaigning, but I’m sure some of us would like more of your views on acceptable techniques intended to avoid separation of church and state.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Interesting. And out of curiosity, what kind of responses did you hear about voting for Mormons or pro-choice candidates?
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Wise Golden: I don’t know your definition of “churchy settings”, but the Knights of Columbus do not meet inside the actual church. Most groups have their own “lodges” per se where they maintain their own leases. Those that don’t, may hold meetings on the grounds of the Catholic Church. Most have a meeting hall of some sort that can be leased at the discretion of that Churches leadership. The Knights do have official status within the Catholic Church, but this doesn’t make them within the wings of the tax exempt status for the Catholic Church. The Knights maintain their own, independent relationship with the IRS.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Or your wrong. Something to think about there, Wise Golden.
Bill C on January 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Im surprized Huck didnt call them saying God wants them to vote for him
William Amos on January 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I don’t think Pastors encouraging people to vote is a violation of their IRS tax exempt status. It’s a good thing in my view. I wouldn’t think a pastor telling me to vote at the end of mass was any different than a local party committeemen urging me to vote.
The only concern is when someone is telling you FOR WHOM to vote. I do not know if church goers know that 501(c)3 organizations cannot tell you for whom to vote, but if they do know I hope they will speak out against this kind of illegal and immoral politicking from the pulpit.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
What makes you think I’m in favor of violating church and state? I’m just saying that these things happen and it’s not likely to stop. Was any of this offensive to you when it was used to elect Reagan? Or Bush 43 (both times?)
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Has James Dobson endorsed anyone yet?
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Sigh. You guys can poke the ‘tard if you want, but I’m bored with him/it. Pointless.
Fredmentum!!!!!
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Yeah. And you must be a Catholic man who attends church regularly to belong. And the priest often comes to the meetings. That’s kind of churchy.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
You know, I’ve heard people say that Eisenhower was a lazy guy who didn’t do anything for 8 years either. I think ol’ Ike did just fine.
funky chicken on January 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Not sure what you want to hear…you want me to just be in favor of Fred? I’ve got no problem with Fred.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Full disclosure: I’m an evangelical pastor. From everything that I’ve researched, encouraging people to vote is not a violation. Telling them who to vote for is definitely a violation. By using some sort of “code” to imply a particular candidate is a playing fast & loose with the law & I think it’s deceitful.
BTW – Pastors CAN discuss political viewpoint in personal conversations, when they aren’t acting in their “official” capacity. I’ve had several conversations along these lines when people have brought it up, and I’ve been very critical of Huckabee.
Tim on January 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
When the enemy is attacking our core principles, yeah, they’re gonna get flak.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Not yet. He has kinda sorta anti-endorsed Rudy.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM
My parents were Southern Baptists, I was raised a Southern Baptist, if I regularly attended church I would be at a Southern Baptist. I know Southern Baptists, and I can’t believe they are for Huck.
Maybe I’m just upset, since I remember church folk as being smarter than this.
Is this what ‘compassionate conservatism’ did to our party?
dean_acheson on January 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I don’t mean for you to view my comments as an attack.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
And I’m not your enemy.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Bryan, you’re not conservative. You’re ultra-conservative. Huckabee is conservative, but just not conservative enough for the folks that now believe themselves to be main-stream conservatives (right wingers.) Basically, what I think is happening is that the true middle of the conservative movement, the group that would likely include most Christians, has become dissatisfied with the voices in the Republican Party, including people such as Rush, Michelle, and Ann. They have too many negative opinions and they don’t allow for any other thought – it’s not fun anymore.
I’ve said it on many occasions that the conservatives are loosing their voice by being this way. Just as Moveon.org, code pink and the Kos have lost their voices, so will the extreme right. People are just sick of the type of one-sidedness that this rhetoric represents.
And gaining voice as a result? People who cross lines. Obama. Huckabee. Those are the two who will be running in November. Decide which one you can best live with.
Wise Golden on January 10, 2008
Yep, calling fiscal conservatives Shiite Republicans is so positive and fun.
funky chicken on January 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Your candidate and you espouse beliefs that are the enemy to conservatism.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Their Christian duty is to render unto God what is unto God; unto Caesar what is unto Caesar, and to give Romans 13 a good, hard read before blindly endorsing a former minister who has shown ZERO understanding of that chapter.
Wayne DuMond. Google it.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I wonder of the Dutch Reformed will pimp for Huckleberry.
rightwingprof on January 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
This strawman argument has been disproven over and over again. But you simple do not want to listen to the refutation.
shick on January 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Quoth from the Book of Huckleberry, 2:ELEVENTY!!!1!
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM
The belief that I am expounding is a belief in the political process and the right of all Americans to hold their opinions and vote upon their beliefs. That makes me an enemy of nobody.
I never called Republican’s Shiites. I’ve said that the one-sidedness of the conversation and the negative personal attacks are what is causing us to loose voice. We’re under scrutiny from Independents and some Democrats who have not yet made up their minds. Furthermore – some of the attacks on Huckabee in particular are simply false and that just causes defenses to be raised.
Politics is about convincing people that an idea is good – not ganging up and hushing other voices. Reagan did this so well. He had an ability to tell people that they were wrong and not wind up with an enemy in the process. In fact, he’d usually have a friend when the conversation was over.
I get it – you guys don’t like Huckabee. Why not try to convince people of a different alternative that you find more palatable? And at the end of the day guys, if you view what I’m saying as hostile, then I’d suggest you’re allowing my comments to become personal and that’s hardly possible.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM
At Last The Truth About Lemmings
According to Snopes . . .
It’s time we end the lies and untruths of Suicidal Rodents!
geckomon on January 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Wise Golden: These are not things that call into question the tax exempt status of the Knights nor the Catholic Church.
Wasn’t that your point? That these groups conduct affairs that call into question their IRS status?
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Another that wants to redefine conservative.
shick on January 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I’m not even sure I know what a conservative is not anymore. I thought that a good reading of Russell Kirk told me what one is, maybe not. Or maybe I need to do a bit more reading.
I’m for Edmund Burke. I’m for James Madison. I’m for Ronald Reagan.
Strong Defense. No more stupid programs. Get rid of the ‘Education’ department.
I’m against FDR. I’m against large chunks of the New Deal. I’m not a fan of JFK. Nelson Rockefeller was a joke. Nixion had too many programs.
I’m for SDI. I’m against a “department of peace.”
I’m for NATO. I’m against the NTB treaty. I supported the war in Iraq. I still support the war in Iraq. I will continue to support the war in Iraq. I was not very excited about war in the Balkans. Don’t ask me to go on nationl building trips very often, since I don’t usually have the stomach for it.
I believe in God. I believe in free will. I think that while some of them might have been deists, the founders believe in the same basic Judeo-Christian God I do.
I DON’T vote for whoever I think believes in God the closest to my personal values.
I don’t really care if you like same sex arrangements. But don’t parade it in front of me and ask me to jump up and down in favor of it. You don’t get special rights. You are not the new Civil Rights movement. You just like to do odd things, it ain’t because your skin is a different tint than mine.
The Civil Rights movement was good. Jumping up and down on me because I am white, and wanting the Federal Government to redistribute more of my check is bad because of what some of our great great great grandparents might or might not have done to yours.
I belive that all men were created equal. That DOES NOT mean that after they were born they stayed that way. I sure don’t want a government that tries to make us all equal again.
I prefer liberty over equality.
I guess here are some of my views.
I’ll take Fred over Huck or McCain or Romney. I think he’s the closest to where I am. I thought that when he was in the Senate and I was interning there watching him.
dean_acheson on January 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM
You mean you have no problem voting for an ‘ultra’-conservative?
shick on January 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
No sir. I’m just saying that churches have long standing techniques that allow them the ability to have political types of conversations, legally, in both informal settings (K of C,) and also formal settings (focus on family.) K of C is a Catholic example. There are others that are Protostant and Jewish and Muslim.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Huckleberry tries to defend his “conservatism” by stating how much the libs in Arkansas hated him. How about the way the Arkansas GOP feels about him and that they endorsed Fred! Shows the politician Huckleberry is, only stating as much of the facts as suits him. He must be defeated in the primarys.
Mallard T. Drake on January 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
This statement is trying to dry the cement on the personal nature of politics.
Opposition to Huckabee is not about opposing the man, Mike Huckabee. The opposition is to the positions he has taken, the positions he pledges to take, and the methods employed to make the case on both.
You can stop pretending that criticism of Huckabee’s positions are statements that folks just don’t like Mike Huckabee. I’ll jog for Jesus with Mike Huckabee. But we’re jogging to the steeple, not the White House.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Actually, it was. I’ve always been uneasy with the Falwells and Robertsons, much more so than with JFK or Mitt, who I think were able to keep their faith as a private source of strength, not a tool to be used to gain power.
a capella on January 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Here’s Fred’s response
American-Infidels.com on January 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
OK. I see your point. I agree. I think we can move on.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I’ve said many times that I’m going to vote for the Republican who gets the nomination.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
In Illinois we have a Democrat governor that did have Presidential aspirations. His name is Governor Rod Blagojevich. I think his time in office in Illinois has put him in an identical position to Huckabee in Arkansas. The Illinois Democratic Party would likely endorse the opponents of Rod Blogojevich if he were to run for President as a Democrat.
It certainly should mean something that the Arkansas GOP has endorsed Fred Thompson. However, Mike Huckabee can just revisit his “establishment” talking points over and over on this.
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Are you taking “ultra conservative” as an insult? It wasn’t meant that way. If you’re proud of being conservative, wouldn’t “ultra-conservative” be even better?
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Look at it this way…
Close your eyes. Pretend for a moment that Huckleberry is not a Baptist minister. Pretend that religion was never brought up- by him or anyone else. Pretend that he was simply a smooth-talking Arkansas governor running on his record.
Open your eyes. Who would be left standing in front of you?
Yup. Cletis.
wccawa on January 11, 2008 at 2:19 PM
lol
This is a funny image.
http://www.blogsforfredthompson.com/huckativity.thumbnail.jpg
gabriel sutherland on January 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Well, then is it offensive that Unions are being organized to support candidates? And what about VFW’s? What about AARP?
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I’ve said many times that I’m going to vote for the Republican who gets the nomination.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
shick on January 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Let me try that again.
Not good. What many have been trying to show you is that Huckabee’s record shows him to be a consistent liberal (except on abortion and gay marriage)
The labels: christian, republican, conservative, mean nothing if someone is trying to use it for political gain and then turn around to continue to do the opposite.
shick on January 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Huck is bad news all over the place. I really hope the Republicans in this country have not been so blinded by religion as far as to vote for this loon. I hope he gets nailed for trying to scheme the church vote in Michigan illegally as he is trying to do.
A country with this moron as President scares me. His background tells me he knows nothing about economics, a separation of church & state, crime enforcement, need I go on…
FLcapitalistthug on January 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Funny.
They are very different though. Huck did a lot more for AK than Clinton ever hoped to. No Republican deserves that comparision.
Wise Golden on January 11, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »