Duncan Hunter endorses … Huckabee? What?

posted at 3:37 pm on January 23, 2008 by Allahpundit

Mr. Border Fence is backing a guy who accused opponents of Bush’s immigration plan of nativism? Two days after Fred drops out because he can’t pull enough conservatives to beat John McCain?

Dude?

“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail,” Huckabee said in a statement. “Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China’s emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America’s industrial base.

“Along with these issues of national security, border enforcement and protecting the U.S. industrial base, I see another quality of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy that compels my endorsement,” he added. “Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed. The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well.”

The man who wants his foreign policy driven by the golden rule is the man to tame the Chinese dragon?

Am I hallucinating?

Update: What’s even odder is that Hunter’s often touted as a SecDef in the next Republican administration. Endorsing McCain, the frontrunner, would have helped him in that regard and given Maverick a boost with conservatives. Instead he throws his endorsement away on someone who’ll be done by February 6th.

I guess he just likes the guy.

Update: Joe Carter, Huck’s former research director, e-mails to say the nativism quote is being taken out of context:

Here is what he really said:

“I do believe some of it is driven by racism or nativism,” he said of the opposition within his party to Mr. Bush’s view that illegal aliens should not be deported but rather fined and eventually allowed U.S. citizenship.

When asked directly by the reporter if there wasn’t some xenophobia behind the opposition, Huckabee made the error of telling the truth. Having talked to more than a few anti-immigration extremist while on the campaign trail, I can attest that there is a segment of voters that is all for “throwing out the brown people.” Is that the majority of Republicans? Of course not. But it’s silly to pretend that the GOP doesn’t include its share of extremists.

Fair enough. Huckabee’s record on immigration goes way beyond that quote, though. Trot through Lonewacko’s archives sometimes and drink it in.


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

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8

“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail,” Huckabee said in a statement.

Captain Scarlet on January 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Hahaha. I thought masturbation was considered a sin by evangelicals?

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:30 PM

I’d take Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh the republican establishment attack dogs over Duncan Hunter the true conservative anyday.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:26 PM

That’s better

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:31 PM

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Classy

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:31 PM

gone.

jerrytbg on January 23, 2008 at 10:32 PM

On this subject you have lost your mind. You are ranting like a nut.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 10:06 PM

Just keep on smoking. It will all be fine.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Huckabee is only holding 33% of the Evangelical vote. And simple math will leave you with what? 67%?
Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 8:25 PM

I’m not sure about you Greg. You seem to like attacking other Christians, especially Mike Huckabee. I wish you wouldn’t.

On these numbers up top, I’d ask who did the poll and can it be trusted? Secondly, how many of those “Christians” are real Christians and not in name only. I know alot of people living ungodly lifestyles who call themselves Christian who are not. When you say “most Christians dislike Huckabee,” I think you’re deceiving yourself.

None of this will matter to you. You’ll continue to post your lies even though you’ve repeatedly been shown they are false.

Lies? Like I said show me one lie I have posted to the forum. I think you should re-evaluate your postion buds… if you’re a God-fearing man you’re on the wrong side.

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Captain Scarlet on January 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Who knows? Could be just like today when McCain went on and on about “Putin, the President of Germany”.

Even I don’t think that McCain is that completely stupid; He is just tired and shooting from the lip as both He and Huckster do when they are getting above their level of competence.

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Just keep smoking, but try inhaling it yourself since you don’t seem to think there’s anything dangerous about it. Don’t be such a hypocrite. Smoke as much as you want. Enjoy it.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 10:19 PM

One does not inhale with a cigar.

I will smoke as much or as little as I want, but thanks anyway.

Do you go through life wearing a gas mask?

Got a gas mask on each of your kids?

If you don’t you better get on the ball before it’s to late.

Seriously, I hope you are not messing up your kids minds with all manner of fears and jihads. Not good.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Why are you responding to your own comment? It’s no longer a secret you’re both the same person.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Everyone has the right to be stupid but you abuse the privilege.

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:36 PM

On JD Hayworth’s talk show this afternoon, Duncan Hunter appeared to like Romney’s ties to China even less. It wasn’t all about immigration.

desertdweller on January 23, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Just keep on smoking. It will all be fine.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Just keep on obsessing. It will all be fine.

They have pills for that now days.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Apacalyps and I are not the same person.

But,

Great minds just think alike.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 8:44 PM

Rock on partner… woohoo!!!!!

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM

You left out when Huckabee incorrectly talked about martial law in Pakistan and then related it to immigration and said that there were “more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities, except those immediately south of the border.”

Huck and McCain are idiots.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:39 PM

You Huck supporters do realize that your guy held a Federalist position on abortion prior to running for the republican nomination?

LodeStar on January 23, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Do you realize that Willard Romney is selling America’s top secret anti hacking defense secrets to the chinese and terrorists?

Duncan Hunter on Willard Romney’s chinese connections

“Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a “clear statement” to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM.

Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.

“I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney’s company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner,” stated Hunter. “Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible.”

A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; “The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States .” A copy of this resolution is provided.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, “…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

“Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation’s connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, “a strategic partner” in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do.”

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Rock on partner… woohoo!!!!!

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Mike is that you? You dink sock-puppet.

Jaibones on January 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM

This nonsense is still on-going. I underestimated the 500 thread number.

I said this a few days ago, during a similarly nonsensical Huckabee-sycophants discussion – if (and he will NOT) Huckabee would be the nominee, this would be a daily, and repeated thread here. Should he, by the miracle of his Lord win, we’d have this going on for 4-8 years. “Good Lord” as some atheists like to say.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM

good points but I’ve had exp with him before and I think imho, he is an adult, immature yes,truly uninformed yes.
I’m no Constitutional scholar but I certainly know more than he does. who knows.
jerrytbg on January 23, 2008 at 10:25 PM

I was just using that as an example; Just look at it this way: If an average computer literate 13 year old could do it; Just imagine how easily a 27 year old multi-millionaire, semi-retired deal maker, with a 180 IQ and his Lord and Saviour directly advising him could do it.

(That last phrase was just snark, by the way; I haven’t seen any claims of direct two way communication with any part of the Holy Trinity.)

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Just read the Duncan Hunter article about Willard Romney over and over again and realize it is either him,Juan Mcamnesty,Hildebeast Clinton,Hussein Obama or Mike Huckabee who will be president!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM

I just got back from hearing the real conservative in this race, Alan Keyes, speak his message of hope for a great country such as ours that is to be governed by the consent of, by and for the people, who elect peers to run the affairs of our governance, that is, through our mutual consent, not lording it over us like McCain with the McCain/Feingold, etc. and
Huckabee with a smoking ban, etc. etc.

What I don’t understand is why the Huck shills like popularpolitics, apacalyps, HaraldHardrada don’t stand on principle and jump on the Alan Keyes bandwagon, for so many reasons.

One is simply because they wouldn’t have to be embarrassed by so many inconsistencies that come with Huckabee, such as his campaigning for the Democrats and snubbing Bush and the list goes on and on.

Here is just a sampling of the reasons they should support Keyes:

Not only did Alan outshine all other Republican hopefuls in the debates (including our current president), with his articulate logic and appeal to common sense, but he greatly influenced the national agenda itself — increasingly forcing abortion to the fore, along with the “tax slavery” our income tax system represents, and other issues critical to moral conservatives.

Said Alan of his goals at the time:

I aim to strengthen the foundations of political liberty in America. . . . I will labor to abolish the income tax; liberate entrepreneurial and charitable initiative; honor marriage and the family; respect the equal dignity of all human beings, born and unborn; reclaim American sovereignty from global bureaucracy; and show, by word and deed, the role of statesmanship in a free republic.

In the 2000 debates, that’s exactly what Alan proceeded to do, winning a million grassroots supporters in the process, along with the respect of his adversaries.

Later that year, Alan debated Harvard law professor (and professed agnostic) Alan Dershowitz on the importance of religion, in a heralded event sponsored by Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The debate is reportedly one of C-SPAN’s best-selling videos, and is still widely disseminated among moral conservatives.

In his formal debates and speeches, Alan is famous for the fact that he uses no notes. He speaks entirely extemporaneously, relying on his faith in God and the exceptional communicative talent God has given him to make his case to his listeners……
…more…

It still befuddles me why Dr. James Dobson for example would not support Alan Keyes instead of Huckabee.

More reason why:

Alan Keyes is a genuine Reagan Republican who served in the U.S. State Department during the Reagan years. He was ultimately appointed by President Reagan as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations.

In that role, Dr. Keyes oversaw the development and implementation of U.S. policy regarding international organizations. He also served on the National Security Council staff.

As an Assistant Secretary of State, Dr. Keyes managed the work of diplomats in Washington and in several U.S. missions in New York and overseas — diplomats who worked on issues ranging from peace, security, and counter-terrorism, to democracy and human rights.

As part of his responsibilities over the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Dr. Keyes also managed U.S. policy relating to issues before the UN Security Council…
…more…..

And before you say well it’s because he’s not electable and all that…..

He would be electable if all you who claim to stand for a real conservative would stand up for Alan Keyes.

Just like Dr. Dobson said on the media circuit last year: “If everybody voted their conscience then a candidate like Huckabee would be electable.

Why not Alan Keyes?

The bottom line is, all you who don’t support Alan Keyes, because of whatever stupid excuses you might have, truly are not voting your conscience, or, you really don’t care about the true conservative principles upon which our country was founded!

PERIOD!

End of story.

And yes, that includes you Dr. James Dobson.

So screw all of you, for getting behind the wrong candidates and not getting behind Alan Keyes!
Screw YOU!

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Just read the Duncan Hunter article about Willard Romney over and over again and realize it is either him,Juan Mcamnesty,Hildebeast Clinton,Hussein Obama or Mike Huckabee who will be president!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Now, fight to also eliminate Juan Mcamnesty, as you say; then the two lefties later.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM

This nonsense is still on-going. I underestimated the 500 thread number.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Nunca tantos han dedicado tanto tiempo la consecucion de tan poco.

Oh, I am so sorry, I forget that most of you here are slow learners.

What i said was, “Never have so many spent so much time accomplishing so little.”

You stupid Gringos. You should be doing something productive, like LEARNING SPANISH!!!

What are Juan and I going to do with you?

VinyFoxy on January 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998. The deal with Bain Capital and China’s Huawei Technology was in 2007.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:55 PM

Mcguyver I thought you were a Willard Romney shill?

I have a lot more respect for you if you support Keyes!

I do like Keyes and would support him but Huckabee is exactly what this country needs right now and is the right man for the job!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 10:55 PM

The vast majority of Willard’s billion dollar plus fortune is in Bain capital.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM

…either him,Juan Mcamnesty,Hildebeast Clinton,Hussein Obama or Mike Huckabee who will be president!
HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM

That is what has most of us rational people worried. It is going to be really bad no matter which one gets picked. Now we are down to trying to figure out which one is at least moderately competent in some of the necessary areas and will screw over Mr. & Mrs. Average American the least.

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Well, we’ve made progress. Many of you are switching to Mike Huckabee following Duncan Hunter’s endorsement. As Laura Ingraham noted many of the elites missed the boat on Huckabee. You weren’t listening to the people. But, now thankfully, this all changed starting today, and you’re going to make wrong right again.

Welcome aboard! You are now formally a Huckabee Ranger!!

Are you a Huckabee Ranger yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcyDrYsqoC4&NR=1

JOIN WITH US!!!

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Keep in mind as you read Duncan Hunters report this is the same Bain capital who just bought clear channel.

Fox news supplies over 100 clear channel stations with news content. Romney basically owns Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the others on Fox Programs. Bain capital is one of the major contributors to the Romney Campaign Commonwealth PAC.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:00 PM

If there were a thread on McCain, we could be bashing him, to split the effort of nothingness, to this point

Nunca tantos han dedicado tanto tiempo la consecucion de tan poco.

Oh, I am so sorry, I forget that most of you here are slow learners.

What i said was, “Never have so many spent so much time accomplishing so little.”

Maybe something gets accomplished – it sours the HAheads on Huckabee, the exact reverse of what HH, apacalyps, and the 3rd, 4th, etc. Doppelgängers, or similarly inclined nuts want to achieve. Good job boys/girls. Your man is proud of you.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:01 PM

What are Juan and I going to do with you?

VinyFoxy on January 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM

I don’t know what you have in mind, but my Spanish is pretty good, and I might be able to fool both of you.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Thompson was used by the GOP establishment, which is aligning behind Romney. But before they could really push Mitt, they needed the evangelicals in the fold. So, to force the evangelicals (or at least a large enough number of them) to back Mitt, they needed to get Huck out of the way.

So guys like Rush Limbaugh spent days on the air talking up Thompson like he was a viable candidate, persuading just enough gullible Christians in S.C. to back Thompson instead of Huckabee.

The result? Huck loses S.C. narrowly, allowing them to pronounce Huck’s campaign dead, drying up his fundraising, while simultaneously claiming that McCain didn’t actually win S.C. This allows them to turn the rest of the primary season into a two-man race: Mitt vs. McCain.

Don’t let them decide for us.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:03 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:00 PM

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Romney headed Bain Capital for 14 years and left in 1998. Of course Romney made a LOAD of money. That’s capitalism. The deal Bain Capital made with a Chinese firm was in 2007 way after Romney left.

Nothing wrong with making a lot of money and keeping it.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 11:07 PM

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Five years ago I would have been right there with you on supporting Alan Keyes; He was a great man. I voted for him in the ’96 & ’00 primaries.

Notice the WAS: He went a little nutty around the time he packed his carpetbag (admittedly at the request of Party leaders) and headed for Illinois.

Since then, I have heard and read too many things that he has said that will not allow me to put any hope in him again.

And as to your nice little sign-off on that post: Right Back At You, Pal.
(Nothing personal; I think we are all grasping at straws now.)

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Great minds just think alike.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 8:44 PM

In the case of you two, it’s more like “sick minds go under together” – you’re delusional.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:08 PM

I never said anything was wrong with making money…but you think that Romney doesn’t have the ability to stop them??

He has almost his entire forune with them and founded the firm.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM

laissez faire

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Think about that for a second. If true, that would mean he smokes cigars because why? It looks good? It makes him feel powerful? Why exactly? If you’re not going to inhale it, why do you smoke it? But that’s not what’s important. What’s important is that he makes the choice to “not inhale” but then FORCES others to inhale it instead. Well now wonder he’s so healthy. It’s too bad he doesn’t have the same consideration for others.

How obnoxious is THAT?!

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 8:35 PM

Retard. Yes, you.

Cigar smokers rarely inhale. That’s not the point.

Try a little research, son. Or ask any cigar smoker.

Here’s your sign.

Professor Blather on January 23, 2008 at 11:21 PM

In the case of you two, it’s more like “sick minds go under together” – you’re delusional.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Those are the kinds of Gringo minds that I like best. Juan and Miguel both have them too. I can manipulate and control a sick unstable Gringo mind much better than a healthy one. That is why I will be successful and you Gringos will all have to learn to speak Spanish or be deported to New Orleans.

VinyFoxy on January 23, 2008 at 11:21 PM

I’m going to say it again:

I just got back from an Alan Keyes event.

The more I listen to him the less I understand why Dr. Dobson, et al, don’t get behind him.

It just absolutely boggles my mind!

I mean this is not the first time Keyes has been in the political picture!

He is accredited as bringing so many of the conservative issues to the forefront in debates because of his vast knowledge of the issues that our country was founded on, including the sanctity of life, etc. etc.

Sure, I’ve heard about him before. But it usually came with a bit of scorn or some kind of negativity tagged on to it, so I didn’t pay much attention to him.

Now, I’m getting really pissed that he has had so much scorn poured onto him, for whatever reason.

But James Dobson is older, much older than me, and has by all accounts been paying more close attention to politics, for much longer than me.

So I just don’t understand why Dobson wouldn’t support Keyes instead of Huckabee!

It seriously boggles my mind!

Does anybody have an answer?

You social conservatives surely don’t mind a little persecution for voting your convictions do you now?

Or, are you just another brand of wimps?

What gives?

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Cigar smokers rarely inhale.

Try a little research, son. Or ask any cigar smoker.

Professor Blather on January 23, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Retard. Yes, you.

Maybe it’s a really tough concept to grasp. The argument is about OTHER PEOPLE being forced to inhale his cigar smoke.

Got it?

But thanks for reinforcing my exact point, that cigar smokers don’t inhale their own smoke, but they don’t mind forcing it upon others.

And in case you’ve missed the other multiple times it’s been pointed out … the discussion is about smoking IN PUBLIC and not on your own private property.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM

In the case of you two, it’s more like “sick minds go under together” – you’re delusional.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Those are the kinds of Gringo minds that I like best. Juan and Miguel both have them too. I can manipulate and control a sick unstable Gringo mind much better than a healthy one. That is why I will be successful and you Gringos will all have to learn to speak Spanish or be deported to Alaska and then to New Orleans when things heat up because of Al Gore’s Global Warming.

VinyFoxy on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Mcguyver, how much chance would your guy have? This has got to be one of the weirdest threads in this weirder than weird political season. There’s a new one on McCain, on the right side.

I’m bored with this one.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:28 PM

And in case you’ve missed the other multiple times it’s been pointed out … the discussion is about smoking IN PUBLIC and not on your own private property.

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM

No, no, no!!!

Look at your comments on smoking your holy war.

A jihad for sure. Very clearly one.

Again, I hope that you are not psychologically abusing your children with your obsessive fear of every little particle of smoke or pianos. It is not healthy for them to scare them about life so much and if they think that their father is some kind of jihadi, well not good either.

Think of your children.

And please don’t make them wear gas mask when they leave your hermetically sealed house.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Doesn’t Alan Keyes want to tax the internet?

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 11:37 PM

As far as I’m concerned this Duncan Hunter story about Willard Romney’s company buying the leading top secret anti hacking software company should disqualify him from the race…and Juan Mccain is not a possibility let alone a republican.

See the connection. Duncan Hunter exposes Romney’s complete lack of ability to protect this country and Duncan Hunter doesn’t pick Mcamnesty.

Duncan Hunter made the best choice for president, Mike Huckabee!

Wake up conservatives!

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:40 PM

As far as I’m concerned this Duncan Hunter story about Willard Romney’s company buying the leading top secret anti hacking software company in a joint venture with the communist party and terrorists, should disqualify him from the race…and Juan Mccain is not a possibility let alone a republican.

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 11:41 PM

MB4, there’s a new thread, on the right side, bashing McCain. Your effort is sought.

Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 11:43 PM

The argument is about OTHER PEOPLE being forced to inhale his cigar smoke.

Got it?

Gregor on January 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM

No one is being forced to inhale my cigar smoke, not you or your surely psychologically abused children, not anyone.

Got it?

BTW, are you forcing people to inhale your Honda Civic’s exhaust pollutants or do you only drive your car inside your hermetically sealed house? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt now and “assuming” that a righteous man like you must at least drive a small car to kill fewer of other people children anyway.

MB4 on January 23, 2008 at 11:45 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM

You’re the problem, like Dr. Dobson, not voting your conscience.

You should be so embarrassed of yourself, going from a losing campaigner to a loser for a candidate, all because you are not voting your conscience and you don’t want to stand up to be counted.

You are some very special kind of losers there you Huckabee supporters, and that includes you, Dr. Dobson.

You are some very special kind of wimps is what you are!

You’re embarrassing me, in that, I have to be counted with you, standing for the real conservatives that you say you do, but, you don’t want to be counted in when the going gets really tough.

So screw you! Screw you for not really supporting real conservative issues!

Screw you for being such damn wimps!

Screw you for being political hacks!

Screw you for doing things only for political expediency and supporting someone only because you think he can beat Hillary!

And just generally all around, screw you!

Get a backbone and then come debate me!

Until then, SCREW YOU!

And just to be clear, SCREW YOU!

AND IN CASE YOU DON’T THINK I MEAN IT, SCREW YOU!!!!!

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Somebody peed in Mcguyver’s cheerios this morning.

CABE on January 23, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Alan Keyes on Economics:

What’s the root of economics? “Economics” comes from the Greek “oikonomos.” The word oiko meant household, and nomos meant the rules or regulations governing the household.
Economics was the study of that which was required in order successfully to manage a household.

Economics is founded upon the family.

When somebody’s telling you they’re going to take care of economics, while they stand by and let your family be destroyed at its very heart, in its very principle, they couldn’t possibly be telling you the truth.

But we don’t get it. We think economics is about money. No, it’s not. If you really understood it, you’d realize money is not economics.

It’s about whether or not you have sustained the strength and integrity of your household, of your family relations, of all the strengths that can come when that network works the way it’s supposed to.

Have you noticed how people prosper when that’s true, and how hard life gets for them when it’s not? There’s a reason for that.

People say, “Well, Alan, you’re always talking about how we need to respect the marriage-based family, how we need to do what’s necessary so we’ll maintain the moral discipline to commit ourselves to the future, to raise our children up decently, to put aside our own gratification so we can educate them in the way that they should go.

You’re always talking about how we must instill in their hearts that faith in God that is the true foundation of self-respect.

Why are you always talking about morality
?”

Well, I’ll tell you why: because without that moral integrity, we can’t have strong families, and without strong families, we will not have a strong economy.

The family is the basis of our economic success.

….more…

Mcguyver on January 23, 2008 at 11:56 PM

They must have been handing out Meth laced with fast acting steroids at that Keyes speech to make someone THAT full of rage.

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Alan Keyes on:

Campaign finance reform

Any acceptable proposal for reforming the way that American political campaigns are financed must be based on the premise of the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of association.

The right of free association includes the right to associate our money with the causes we believe in, and to do so in any amount that we think is necessary to get the job done.

For government to dictate what we can do under the rubric of “campaign finance reform” is a total violation of our constitutional rights, and we should force our politicians to abandon it.

Campaign finance reform typically turns out to be incumbency protection, anyway.

Professional politicians are unlikely to devise a system that isn’t in their own interest.

We need to devise instead a system for financing our political contests in the interest of our freedom.

The premises that should govern such a system are simple.

The first principle is that there will be no “dollar” vote without a ballot vote.

Only people who can walk into the voting booth and cast a vote for a candidate should be able to make a contribution to his campaign.

There must be no financial contributions whatsoever from any entities that are not actual, breathing voters.

The whole world should know who is giving how much, and to whom, so that the voters can enforce the result.

If we have this simple system of liberty based on our constitutional rights, then we will be able to police the system effectively without the help of ambitious politicians.

The people at the voting booth will decide what special interest should be driven out of politics, by driving out the politicians who represent them.

We should not try to have bureaucrats and politicians enforcing this kind of political discipline.

At the end of the day, it’s up to us, the voters, to discipline the political system.

But we can’t do so if we don’t have the information we need, of which the money trail is a principal component.

Rich people who choose to give large sums to candidates and causes they believe in should be forced right out into the open political arena, into the heat and dust of the political fray.

They should not be permitted to hide behind PACs and camouflage, but must rather stand publicly behind the support they are giving, If they are willing to bear that kind of heat, then let them make their contributions.

Many of the less scrupulous contributors who are manipulating the system today would not be willing to stand this kind of public scrutiny.

And that will itself regulate participation of money in our politics.

Ultimately, publicity tied with informed voting is the best way to regulate this system.

It is the only regulation truly consistent with our rights and duties as free citizens, and happens also to be the only kind of proposal that will pass the constitutional test.

I therefore absolutely oppose the McCain-Feingold Law, and I urge all grassroots Americans to lobby tenaciously for its repeal.
…more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM

They must have been handing out Meth laced with fast acting steroids at that Keyes speech to make someone THAT full of rage.

LegendHasIt on January 23, 2008 at 11:59 PM

I hear that Chris Benoit endorsed Alan Keyes before he died.

CABE on January 24, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Alan Keyes on Religious freedom:

The “separation of church and state” doctrine is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibition of established religion aims at forbidding all government-sponsored coercion of religious conscience. It does not forbid all religious influence upon politics or society.

The free exercise of religion means nothing if, in connection with the ordinary events and circumstances of life, individuals are forbidden to act upon their religious faith.

I would do everything in my power, through public discourse and persuasion, by proposing legislation, and by careful scrutiny of the candidates for judicial appointments, to turn the tide against constitutional rulings that undermine religious freedom.

I oppose any efforts to use government power to impose views that contravene religious conscience on matters such as abortion and homosexuality.
…more..

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Alan Keyes on Health care

I don’t believe in government-controlled health care, and I think that what we need to look at is ways in which we can put the consumer in proper charge of their own health care plan, so we can drive the cost down, instead of up.

Part of the problem with our present system, which I think has contributed to skyrocketing costs, is the fact that we have a third-party-payer system.

You go home after you get the service, and you don’t even know what it costs. If we bought cars that way, what do you think would happen to our car industry?

We need to adopt plans, such as the one that President Bush is talking about, where people can set up tax-deductible medical savings accounts and combine that with catastrophic insurance that will guarantee them against the major liability and at the same time give them greater freedom, greater control, and a greater reward when they are making good, effective judgments on how to get their health care.

This would put them in a better position to actually monitor the relationship between price and quality — and help them keep prices down by not giving their patronage and services to inefficient health care providers.

We also need to redefine what we are trying to pursue. I think the objective of the system should be health, not just health care, and that means taking what we’ve learned about the importance of diet, exercise, and fitness and including those in our concept of health care.

We need to start putting together an approach that will aim at keeping people healthy, by using the knowledge we have about what needs to be done.

Studies show that a lot of the diseases that are now debilitating people, especially in the area of cardiovascular disease, could be eliminated by changes in diet and exercise.

To help lower health care costs, we also need to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe, and do other sensible things — based on free-market principles — that will give consumers greater choice of health care options.
...more...

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Alan Keyes on Taxation / government spending:

Tyrannical taxation, and excessive government spending and borrowing, are not only threats to our economy — they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility.

The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income.

Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed.

We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty.

The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government — the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere “reform” of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.

Only the abolition of the income tax will restore the basic American principle that our income is both our own money and our own private business — not the government’s.

Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would rejuvenate independence and responsibility in our citizens. True economic liberty and moral revival go hand in hand.

A national sales tax would also put the American citizen back in control of fiscal policy. The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes, because they can’t spend what they don’t get. With a sales tax, we could deny funds to a spendthrift government — and give ourselves a tax cut — whenever we make the private choice to alter our spending and saving habits.

But we must also take away the government’s credit card.

With limits on both tax revenue and borrowing, the Federal government would finally be forced to get serious about spending cuts.

That’s why a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, with barriers to both borrowing and spending, is the best way to secure budget discipline.
...more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Alan Keyes on Law and order:

Even some folks who call themselves conservatives believe that, somehow or another, if you don’t obey every court order, whatever it may be, you’re guilty of some disrespect for law.

I do hope we remember — as, say, Hamilton did when he was making his case for judicial review in Federalist 78 — that the Constitution, or, in the case of the states, our constitutions, constitute within their purview and jurisdiction the supreme expression of the will of the people.

And that will constitutes the ultimate authority on which the claim of lawfulness is based in America.

Law is passed by our represented legislatures.

It represents, therefore, the constitutionally-determined will of the people.

It is law.

It was passed and ratified by the people, by their representatives, or through convention and so forth.

And because it has the stamp of that ratification, it is law.

That is the constitutional version.

If I am a judge and what I say has no basis either in constitution or law passed by duly elected legislatures, from what does my opinion derive its authority as law in this country?

Well, if you’re trying to tell me it has some authority as law, you’re telling me that there is some way for something to derive authority of law that is not passed through the constitutional process of representation.

And that would mean that we are no longer a sovereign people, we are no longer a free people.

It would mean that we are subject to the vagaries of the arbitrary determinations of so-called “law” made by judges whom we do not elect, who will not respect the embodiment of the will of the people, either in laws or in our constitutions.

It would mean — to put it profoundly, simply — that we have destroyed our republic, we have destroyed self-government, and we have destroyed the hard-won place of a self-governing people.

I frankly don’t understand how this can be hard for people to understand.
…more….

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Alan Keyes on Immigration:

Our country’s immigration policy should encourage legal immigration to be maintained, and illegal immigration to be curtailed.

The policy should be enforced through existing laws.

It’s a travesty when those who have abided by the law and become citizens through the proper means are considered no different than those who have not.

If we start extending all the privileges of life and citizenship to people who are not citizens and who are not here legally, then we’re breaking down our own laws.

And in breaking down those laws, we’re creating a situation that will eventually damage our economy, damage our ability to deliver social services, damage our ability to maintain schools on an equitable basis, and so forth.

It doesn’t make sense.

That’s why I believe that we have to enforce our immigration laws, and that we shouldn’t be putting laws on the books that will extend to non-citizens the privileges of citizenship, because I think you are actually inviting people to violate the law when you’re doing that, you’re decreasing the respect for the law.

Let me stress that I believe that immigration in the true sense is good for America.

This would mean policies aimed at assuring that, by and large, the people who come to America come with the intention of becoming full and responsible citizens of the republic.

It also means discouraging any who think they have the right to establish foreign enclaves in our midst, so to speak, in order to gain economic advantages for themselves without fully committing to help us build this free society.

Immigration, yes; colonization, no.

The first prerequisite, therefore, of any effective immigration policy is to regain full control of the borders of the United States.

Proposed legislation in Congress falls far short of what is needed to achieve this goal.

Until our political leaders put in place the tools and forces needed to control our borders, responsible and moral Americans should oppose any measures that would signal our acceptance of the de facto colonization of our country.

President Bush’s guest-worker proposal and the Senate’s amnesty bill are such measures.

They may serve short-sighted business interests intent on cheapening the cost of labor in our economy, and they may serve the corrupt interests of Mexican and other foreign elites seeking to relieve the pressure created by their own policies of greedy exploitation, but they do not serve the common good.

Serving the common good demands policies that give preference in immigration not just to workers seeking jobs and money, but to those who seek liberty and the responsibilities of citizenship.

Let me add that it is incongruous that in the midst of the struggle we are now waging against the international terror network–a struggle that has taken various forms, including, we are told, the effort we are making on behalf of self-government and liberty in Iraq–

I think it’s incongruous that we should be putting forth such a maximal effort of sending our men and women over there to risk their lives and spill their blood, and meanwhile we are being told that we don’t have the right to defend the integrity of the identity and the borders and the self-government of our own people.

You can’t have freedom in principle if you won’t defend it in fact! And if we let our borders collapse, the facts that support our freedom will be gone, and you know it!
...more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Alan Keyes on Judicial activism:

I think it’s time for all people of faith and belief to wake up. What the judges have been doing is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution says.

We are living in a world that reminds me of the song that was played at Yorktown, as the British marched by after they had surrendered. “The world turned upside down.”

Instead of living in a society where the sovereignty of the people is based upon our acknowledgment of the authority of God, we now live in a society where the authority of God has been denied, where the sovereignty of the people is usurped, and where the Constitution of the United States is now a sham, imposed upon by the judges and by unscrupulous money and special interests in order to remove the people from their rightful place, and undermine — among other things —

both their courage and their capacity for freedom.

Now, why do I say this?

Because in addition to these intellectual shackles — where words like “separation of church and state” can be used to mislead Christian believers into thinking, “We can’t talk about God in here, so we won’t bring Him up” — what has been the result?

Well, the result is that we no longer get decisions that respect the requirements of our God-shaped, God-fearing moral consciences.

We get legislation and decisions, instead, that no longer take any account of those things.

…more…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:27 AM

Alan Keyes on Judicial supremacy:

You have the Constitution — or you have the judiciary.
Which is supreme?

Which is superior?

The Constitution.

Now, some people will assert, “But it has been accepted as law in our country that the judiciary has the ultimate say on the Constitution.”

No, it hasn’t, by the way. It’s merely an argument, not a law.

I have no problem at all accepting a correct understanding of constitutional review.

You know where I have a problem?

I have a problem with the notion that somehow or another this is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary —

since, the last time I looked, those who compose the legislature take the same oath to uphold the Constitution,

and the president or the governor takes the same oath.

If the argument holds for the judiciary — and we say it does — then it also holds for the other branches, when it comes to the fulfillment of the oath they have with respect to the power they exclusively control under our constitutions.

We have a system of checks and balances. The word “check” means literally “to stop, to hinder, to put an obstacle in the way of, so that action cannot be taken.”

And that means, to put it in simple language, the power to say, “No.”

So, a judge — let’s say — issues an order.

The executive looks at that order and says, “This is incompatible with my oath, because it’s contrary to the Constitution” (or with the law, too, by the way).

And so he looks at the judiciary and says, “No, I will not carry out your unlawful, unconstitutional order.”

Of course, somebody’s going to object and say, “Well, if the governor says that or if the president says that, that’s disrespect for law.”

No, it’s not! That’s respect for law.

Last time I looked, respect for law meant that if the law says it, you respect that.

Now, is there something the judiciary can do when the executive refuses to enforce a court order?

Well, the judiciary can appeal to the legislature for help, if it’s a judicial order that’s not being executed.

But what if the governor and the legislature agree? Well, if the governor and legislature agree, then the judiciary can have whatever opinion it likes, but it is not the law.

I take this rationale directly from the reasoning whereby the judges themselves claim the power of judicial review — because, if you do not have the right on the basis of a conscientious view of constitutional authority to say “no” when you’re the governor or the legislature, where on earth would the judges get it?

Last time I looked, the legislature, with the concurrence of the executive, makes the law.

If a judge refuses to carry out the provisions of that law, why isn’t the judge the lawbreaker?

Either the logic of constitutional review applies to all the branches, or it cannot apply to any of the branches.

I would argue that it’s meant to apply to all of them — so that we will have a system in which all three branches feel responsible to the Constitution, and will express their sense in the pursuance of their particular duty of what the Constitution requires.
…more….

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:33 AM

Time to go to bed, you wimps..

See you tomorrow.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:34 AM

Yeah see what the resident deity is doing already?

he’s to chicken to address me here so he goes over here and leaves me this:

Allah Pundit said…

You went to one Alan Keyes event? YOU ARE EASILY PERSUADED / gullible. For shame.

P.S> Alan Keyes is a homosexual.

Spreading lies already.

And who cares about his sexuality, Jack? I thought we’re supposed to be tolerant!?

Screen cap on the way…

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:40 AM

The above screen has been capped.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:41 AM

O.K. now back to the issues.

Alan Keyes on Homosexual rights:

In terms of civil rights discrimination, it is wrong to treat sexual orientation like race, for race is a condition beyond the individual’s control.

Sexual orientation, however, involves behavior, especially in response to passion.

If we equate sexual orientation and race, we are saying that sexual behavior is beyond the individual’s control and moral will.

We cannot embrace such an understanding of civil rights without denying the human moral capacity, and with it the fitness of human beings for life in a free society.

The effort to equate homosexual and lesbian relations with legal marriage represents a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family.
….more….

Doesn’t exactly sound like Alan has homosexual rights in mind does he? Regardless of what his sexual orientation might be.

Go to bed, you wimps… there’s always tomorrow.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:45 AM

I go out on a date and the world goes crazy.

baldilocks on January 24, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Good grief Mcguyver – why the manifesto?

Bradky on January 24, 2008 at 1:05 AM

He went to an event today. He’s all Keyed up.

Deety on January 24, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Well…there it is.

Jaibones on January 24, 2008 at 1:33 AM

Fascinating!

I’m pretty excited about the Huckabee/Hunter ticket but I certainly wouldn’t prefer a Huckabee/Keyes ticket!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 1:40 AM

I mean would prefer a Huckabee/Keyes ticket!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 1:41 AM

Ahh, making friends & influencing people….

Security Mom on January 24, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Hey, Mcguyver can you repeat that?

countywolf on January 24, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Look Owt! A monstah cum outta teh urth!

An anothar monstar cumz form teh earth! Dis 1 can has too horn liek a lamb but soundz layk a dragn. An he haz teh powurz layk teh othar monstar. Ppl liek him 2. An he maeded Graet Wunderz: He r casting majik missel unto Urf. Scarey! An Evry1 wuz trixored. Letz maek a akshun film bcuz teh monstar iz strongar then Stevan Seegul. An Teh othar monstar maed evry1 watch teh film or he casted majik missil at tehm. An He maeded evry1 by it on vidio an dvd an teh speshun editiun. An maeded evry1 has markz on teh hed17 An U has a markz!! Or no moar cheezburgerz!

Wisdom, I has it. Teh clevar ppl can do dis sum – wat iz 6 hundrad addad 3 tiemz twentey addad six. Taht is teh numbar of teh monstar!

Deety on January 24, 2008 at 2:13 AM

I smell the dirty feet of sock puppets in this thread

As for Alan Keyes. He is a brilliant man, but not a good strategist thus making him unfit to be a politician.

His 9-27-2000 debate with Alan Dershowitz about religion is one of the great debates I have listened to and he leaves Dershowitz in a puddle on the floor.

I would say Keyes opened the door for people to be publically religious again after years of self censorship

Even without the patter of little puppet feet, the election grows curiouser and curiouser

In this election I would ask: who is real?

I would ask the same question of this thread

entagor on January 24, 2008 at 2:49 AM

I put the wrong link to the Keyes/Dershowitz debate.

The correct link is CSPAN Product ID 159474-1

entagor on January 24, 2008 at 2:55 AM

We need to get together and defeat McShame and Willard.

They would each be a disaster in the general election!

Mike Huckabee/Duncan Hunter is the only ticket that can defeat Hildebeast Clinton/Wes Clark!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:02 AM

Alright fine:

Romney
Rudy
Keyes
Suicide (never voting for McCain or Huck)

CABE on January 24, 2008 at 3:02 AM

Willard Romney is a DISASTER!!!!

Do you realize that Willard Romney is selling America’s top secret anti hacking defense secrets to the chinese and terrorists?

Duncan Hunter on Willard Romney’s chinese connections

“Presidential candidate and current Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, today called on former Governor Mitt Romney to send a “clear statement” to the leadership of the company he founded, Bain Capital, to terminate a proposed business deal with a controversial Chinese corporation seeking to acquire U.S. defense contractor 3COM.

Bain Capital is attempting to form a business arrangement with Huawei Corporation, a Chinese corporation founded by an officer of the Peoples Liberation Army of Communist China, which faces allegations of assisting Saddam Hussein in the targeting of U.S. aircraft and in helping the Taliban develop surveillance equipment.

“I am extremely concerned that Governor Romney’s company would tout a highly suspect Chinese corporation as a strategic partner,” stated Hunter. “Forming a business partnership with a corporation known to have direct ties with terrorists and dictators while, at the same time, openly seeking to acquire a major U.S. corporation that performs vital cyber security work for the Department of Defense, can only be characterized as irresponsible.”

A resolution has been introduced in Congress, H.Res. 730, which states; “The preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly suggests that as currently structured, the proposed transaction involving Huawei threatens the national security of the United States and should not be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States .” A copy of this resolution is provided.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, “…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

“Further, while the Committee on Foreign Investment has yet to rule on the Huawei transaction, this corporation’s connection to Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and the Army of Communist China should clearly disqualify them from becoming, in the words of your former company, “a strategic partner” in acquiring a U.S. firm such as 3COM, which performs vital cyber-security work for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“This letter is a request that you immediately issue a statement of policy that this transaction should be terminated on the grounds of national security. Please let me know what you intend to do.”

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:21 AM

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:21 AM

We’ve been over this before.

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998. The business deal in question occurred in 2007.

You want Romney to tell Bain Capital what they SHOULD do even though it’s been 10 years since he left.

CABE on January 24, 2008 at 3:27 AM

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS….THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!

The chinese have been attempting (and successfully at times i might add) to hack into U.S. defense dept. systems for years.

According to CIA there are now the same amount of spies (both Russian/Chinese and islamist) in the U.S. as there was during cold war and WW2!!!

Don’t forget the soviet commies had spies in every level of gov’t practically…they even had spies in the manhattan project team!! That’s how they developed nuclear weapons.

Romney’s company is purchasing the company that developed THE DEFENSE DEPT.’s anti hacking systems in a joint venture with the Chinese communists and taliban allies!!!!

Wake up people!!!! This is the message Duncan Hunter has been trying to get across for months! He tried to bring it up at the end of a debate(iowa I believe)but they cut him off!

AP or Bryan this is a message that deserves a story!

We can’t let the traitor Romney (or McShame)win!!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:33 AM

This is a matter of national security CABE don’t be ridiculous.

Romney should be kicked out of the race for not stopping this!!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:36 AM

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:36 AM

He left the damn company 10 years ago. He has no control over it.

That’s like saying you’re responsible for your sons speeding ticket 10 years after he left the home.

CABE on January 24, 2008 at 3:45 AM

Give me a break.

Hunter stated in his letter to Governor Romney, “…while it is true that you no longer control Bain Capital, the contributions you have received from its principals as its founding member indicate that your influence within the company remains strong.

Not to mention the fact that Romney has about a billion dollars invested with them and founded the firm.

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:49 AM

A true patriot would stop this from happening without a second thought!!

Romney is not a true patriot!!

HaraldHardrada on January 24, 2008 at 3:51 AM

What has happened to Hot Air? Perhaps the better question should be, where are the mods?

I thought the purpose of this place is to create a welcome place for substantive discussion and general comaraderie.

Denizens are going to find other places to go.

Darksean on January 24, 2008 at 7:48 AM

Duncan Whatshisname endorses Huck The Schmuck? Just one nobody endorsing another for all I care.

pilamaye on January 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM

I wasn’t around at all to post on this yesterday. I’d like to take this time to say I’m sorry for pushing for Hunter in his early run. I used to ask why people didn’t pay attention the real conservative. Yeah I was wrong. I apologize.

Chucklebee, Really? Wow.

PowWow on January 24, 2008 at 8:09 AM

He left the damn company 10 years ago. He has no control over it.
CABE on January 24, 2008 at 3:45 AM

HH is a vile disgusting gibot. His rant about Mitt started with his gibotry towards any differing faith.

His money grubbing narcissistic pastor has him brainwashed into thinking that only he holds the key to all truth. And consequently, in order for HH the gibot to access those “truths”, he must give the pastor money. So, this so-called “pastor” has to spew the giboted bile that his giboted congregation wants to hear. And then through the grapevine, more of these gibots disguised as “Christians” find their way to HH’s giboted pastor.

HH’s entire community of “Christians” are vile disgusting gibots. He has no more clue what it is to be a true disciple of Christ than he does to be a rational person.

csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 9:00 AM

I think you should re-evaluate your postion buds… if you’re a God-fearing man you’re on the wrong side.

apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Again – ICK. This is what I hate about people mixing religion and politics – and it goes back to what I originally said about Huck supporters thinking he’s God’s Chosen Candidate.

Redhead Infidel on January 24, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Ahh, making friends & influencing people….
Security Mom on January 24, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Luckily I don’t have the burden of making friends here.

Rather I have the burden of standing on conservative principles, which the Huckabee shills and many others, refuse to do.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 9:53 AM

I’m not easily offended, but Huckabee offends my conservative sensibilities deeply. There is something so wrong about him, not the least of which is that he is a liberal campaigning as a conservative. I always grimace when I hear anyone cite his religiosity, because he is actually not a moral man, in his personal life or his public one.

All of this has already been well covered on HA, but some of the recent commenters on HA have missed it so I will compile some of it here – they obviously need a dose of reality.

The following comment from Huckabee, of whom I expect the worst, is beyond the pale.

From Arkansas News Bureau, an article by David J Sanders:

In 2001, when conservative Republican lawmakers opposed a higher sales taxes and fees the governor supported, he began calling them “Shiites.” Huckabee’s positions on fiscal policy became indistinguishable from Democrats’ positions.

And this isn’t the first time Huckabee has called us conservatives “Shi’ites” (it infuriates me just to type that!). In December a Daily Press article chuckled over Huckabee’s special little nickname for us:

There’s a species of Republican true believers right here in Arkansas who’ve always suspected his bona fides as an honest-to-goodness fiscal conservative and social reactionary. They’re largely to be found up in the hills, which tend to be Republican territory in any Southern state because of complicated historical, ethnic, economic and geological reasons having to do with soil, slavery and the plantation system. Back when he was a feisty, hefty pol instead of a walking –– no, running –– advertisement for weight loss, Brother Huckabee used to fondly refer to such critics as Shi’ite Republicans.

Here at HotAir, Bryan mused about Huckabee’s use of the Shi’ite moniker: “He started using it in 2001 and continued using it afterward. It’s the kind of attack that conservatives regularly get from the likes of the Daily Kos and other leftists who gleefully refer to conservatives and particularly Christian conservatives as the “Taliban wing” of the GOP or “America’s Taliban.” It’s a smear, and one that no Republican should lob at others and particularly not at conservatives, who are the base of the party.”

I know that calling names in campaigns is de rigueur. Usually it’s one candidate smearing another candidate. But Huckabee, in his liberal zeal, has the unmitigated gall to smear fellow Americans with the abominable label of the very fanatical barbaric creed that wreaks terror and death around the world. HOW DARE HE?!

Huckabee is DESPICABLE. He has crossed the line of decency! He is NOT witty, he is NOT funny, and he can take his chortling little one-liners that seem to hold his numbskull followers in thrall and chuck ‘em where the sun don’t shine.

How on earth is there anyone out there – including HUNTER – who still somehow believes that Huckabee is a conservative? Because the Republicans in Arkansas have no such illusions – and they would know. From an article by David Sanders in the Arkansas News Bureau:

In 2000, Huckabee insisted on controlling the state party’s separate Victory Committee, but the committee’s finances were so poorly handled that a Federal Election Commission investigation resulted in the largest fine ever handed down by the FEC to a state party. That same year Republican Rep. Jay Dickey lost the 4th District seat he’d held for eight years.

In 2001, when conservative Republican lawmakers opposed a higher sales taxes and fees the governor supported, he began calling them “Shiites.” Huckabee’s positions on fiscal policy became indistinguishable from Democrats’ positions. A year later, he openly campaigned against a ballot initiative to remove the sales tax on food and medicine. While he and Rockefeller won re-election in 2002, Sen. Tim Hutchinson didn’t.

In 2003, Huckabee not only begged lawmakers for new taxes to make up a budget shortfall, but he rebuffed conservatives’ (Republicans and a couple of Democrats) plan to cover the shortfall by tapping one-time money and cutting pork. In 2004, President Bush won re-election, but Huckabee campaigned for some Democrats – even some who had Republican opponents – and Republicans lost state legislative seats for the first time since 1990.

In 2005, a term-limited Huckabee frustrated conservatives when he pushed a bill to give in-state college tuition and scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. The next year, Democrats swept Republicans in every race for statewide constitutional office and Republicans lost legislative seats for the second consecutive election cycle.

HA: The bottom line? Under Huckabee: taxes up, government up, Democrats up and Republicans down.

Sanders followed up with Bryan, providing specific names of Democrats Huckabee campaigned FOR:

As for a race in which Huckabee worked to defeat a Republican, there was a legislative race in Mountain Home, Arkansas, where Huckabee helped Democrat Benny Magness in his race against Republican Shawn Womack. Womack won.

In 2002, he campaigned for Rep. Bobby Glover, D, over Rep. Randy Minton, R, in a state senate race.

In 2000, he campaigned for Barbara Horn, D, in a Dem. primary against Dennis Young, D, and Spencer Plumlee, R, dropped out because Huck didn’t support him.

Bryan said: “Add it all up. Huckabee campaigned with Democrats and hurt the Arkansas GOP, which hurt conservatism in that state. He smeared Arkansas Republicans as “Shiite Republicans.” He raised taxes rather than cut spending when confronted with that choice. He pushed a bill to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. He would close Gitmo and move the terrorists there to US soil, which is the same position that the ACLU promotes. He’s an Obama supporter’s choice to make trouble for other GOP candidates in the Michigan primary.”

BLECH. Seriously. I’d rather eat my own hand than vote for a guy who thinks fiscal Republicans are Shi’ites and who campaigns for Democrats to lose the Republican majority in his own state!

Redhead Infidel on January 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Who would Ronald Reagan support you ask?

Let’s see if the great communicator can speak to us from the grave, in these critical times, shall we?

“I have never known a more stout-hearted defender of a strong America than Alan Keyes. – Ronald Reagan

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Do you need further evidence that Ronald Reagan supports Alan Keyes from his grave?

“Alan as my Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, you have opposed with every ounce of strength in your body, all those who have served to foster and legitimize state sponsored terrorism.” – Ronald Reagan

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM

See, I have come to the conclusion that all of you who do not support a true statesman, patriot and defender of true conservative American values, like Alan Keyes, is because you are just pretenders.

The reason you are pretenders is because you are afraid of what others might think of you.

You, who do not support Alan Keyes are afraid that if you support a true conservative you will be persecuted for your beliefs.

And of course everybody knows that your little feelings are more important than what’s good for the country.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Biography, Alan Keyes:

Seasoned statesman. Former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes spent 11 years with the U.S. State Department.

He served in the U.S. Foreign Service and on the staff of the National Security Council before becoming Ronald Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations (1985-88).

In the interim, from 1983 to 1985, he served as ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, where he represented America’s sovereign interests in the U.N. General Assembly.

Genuine conservative. Keyes was President of Citizens Against Government Waste (1989-91) and founder of National Taxpayers’ Action Day.

As the two-time Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland, he challenged liberal Democrats Paul Sarbanes (1988) and Barbara Mikulski (1992).

In the 1996 and 2000 Republican presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes eloquently elevated the national political debate as a candidate for president.

With his unequivocal pro-life, pro-family message, he forced the GOP leadership to address America’s moral crisis.

His political views are consistently based on America’s founding ideals, those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

Alan hosted his own syndicated radio show throughout the 1990s, America’s Wake-Up Call, and a television commentary show, Alan Keyes is Making Sense, during 2002 on MSNBC.

He is currently writing books and speaking publicly on America’s moral crisis.

Well-educated leader. Keyes has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory.

He served as Interim President of Alabama A&M University in 1991.

He speaks French and has studied Spanish, Russian, and ancient Greek, and is the author of Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America (1995); and Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America’s Moral Destiny (1996).

Pro-life champion. Keyes has unashamedly and consistently raised the standard of unalienable rights — and Biblical truth — in defense of the unborn.

He confronts the culture of death with compelling and inspiring reasons why abortion must be banned from our land.

Dedicated family man. Keyes and his wife Jocelyn have three children: Francis, Maya, and Andrew.

Alan’s stated purpose in life, like that of America’s Founders, is to provide a secure future for our posterity.

Ronald Reagan’s response to you wimpy, pretender conservatives for not supporting Alan Keyes is one of disbelief.

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM

How dare you wimpy conservatives, who do not support Alan Keyes, claim to revoke, remember, quote, or even mention the name of Ronald Reagan!

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM

You wimpy conservatives who don’t support Alan Keys are an embarrassment to be around!

All you’re doing is trying to prevent your feelings from being hurt!

SHAME ON YOU!

SHAME!

SHAME!

SHAME!

SHAME!

Ronald Reagan would be so embarressed of you!

Go crawl into a hole if you don’t want your feelings hurt!

Go into some cave in the Rocky Mountains or a bomb shelter in Idaho if you do don’t really care about this country enough to get your feelings hurt!

SCREW YOU!

Mcguyver on January 24, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Hunter is a Fair Tax supporter. This is not a one issue race. The tax issue for many is a big issue. It may never get off the ground, but to even be discussed on a national level is huge.

tommuck on January 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Allahpundit has Huckabee endorsing Huckabee.

“I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail,” Huckabee said in a statement. “Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China’s emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America’s industrial base.
“Along with these issues of national security, border enforcement and protecting the U.S. industrial base, I see another quality of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy that compels my endorsement,” he added. “Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed. The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well.”

maverick muse on January 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8