Huckabee: Romney didn’t hit conservative “political puberty” until he was 60

posted at 11:27 am on January 31, 2008 by Allahpundit

This from a guy who had his epiphany about illegal immigration within the last two months. I don’t mind the pointed metaphor here any more than I did the Metamucil dig at Fred, but isn’t it curious that the third-place candidate prefers to spend his time knocking the second-place guy instead of the frontrunner.

Exit question: When does McCain hit conservative puberty, Huck? When he’s 80?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

Not your best argument.

It’s not an argument…it’s a judgement. You must be a McCain supporter. You sound just like him.

orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 3:17 PM

He has shifted his position on abortion in recent times, but the shift has been in the correct conservative direction — he has “flipped” on that issue, but he has not “flopped” on it — and I see no reason to suspect that he will.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Actually Mitt has both “flipped” and “flopped” on abortion. While running for governor of pro-choice Mass., Mitt related the story about when he had an epiphany on abortion after a close family member of his died having an illegal abortion. This epiphany convinced him that abortion must always be safe and legal. True to his word he forged with Ted Kennedy and other Democrats legislation that assured everyone in Mass. could have an abortion for a mere $50 co-pay. That was his “flip”, then he “flopped” right before announcing his run for POTUS for the pro-life Republicans. And what motivated this second epiphany? What moving experience was sufficient to erase the horror of the loss of a loved one to an illegal back alley abortion? Why research into stem cells, of course. What is more moving to you, staring at a dead relative in a coffin or a few cells in a petri dish? How could you believe the second epiphany in light of the first.

Take your BS elsewhere. I’m not surrendering my ability to reason and judge character just because the “true” conservatives couldn’t find a candidate worth jack.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Hey, this sort of moronic low brow humor still plays well down in Dogpatch!

SuperCool on January 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM

The Ralph Nader spoiler of the Republican party.

Guaranteeing a weak candidate (McVain = Bob Dole II) losing to Hillary or Obama.

Thanks Schmuck.

profitsbeard on January 31, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Heh. That’s a clever line. But puberty is non-reversable, so as long as he is a man now, great.

Spirit of 1776 on January 31, 2008 at 11:33 AM

So I guess that means you fully endorse Huck’s 9 point plan for dealing with Immigration and aren’t going to demagogue his previous proposal for offering merit scholarships to those who earn it; as if he’s committed the unforgivable sin ?!?

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 8:22 PM

The Huckster’s douchebaggery knows no bounds. Thank God Fred Thompson exposed him as the liberal that he is. It’s laughable now that he’s trying to win over Fred Heads in Southern states by claming to be an authentic conservative.

Demagoguing…Freddie didn’t expose anything. He read the script that was written for him for the debate.

Huckster…you raised taxes by $500 million. That’s not conservative.

Demagoguing…he actually balanced his State’s budget, cut taxes, and wanted to rebate the surplus back to the people…and you know that.

You support giving taxpayer funded scholarships to illegals. That’s not conservative.

Demagoguing…he dealt with a specific issue in His State (he wasn’t a Federal Governor) for reasons that you don’t want to consider…and you know that…(you might want to read his 9-point plan)

You blame America first and want to give Gitmo detainees access to our court system. That’s not conservative.

Demagoguing…he knows that the detainees WON”T get into our court system and was the only candidate that made reference to the recent court decision (wish I had the link) supporting that…and you know that.

Frankly, I’m surprised John Kerry endorsed Obama and not Mike Huckabee. Their views are almost identical

pure stupidity…it’s statements like this that fill this blog and make it hard to believe that a majority of folks here can have a reasonable discussion of the facts. Many sound just like the Democrats mis charactering Republicans when they attack Huck in such non-substantive ways.

I wish that the Huck said these things about Romney earlier in the campaign. Romney’s about as sincere as those two guys riding their mountain bikes up to your front door with white shirts and ties and want to tell you about how happy they are that you’re already committed.

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 9:06 PM

There has always been tension between Baptists and LDS. Baptists HATE LDS and need to show it every chance they get.

Geronimo on January 31, 2008 at 11:45 AM

There has always been a tensions between religions that are open and based on truth versus those that are secretive and based on illusion.

Baptists love Mormons – but despise the deceptive manipulations and mis characterizations that they promote against biblical Christianity. There’s a difference there – whether you understand it or not.

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 9:11 PM

You would think the evangelicals would be cringing in the pews over this guy if he is supposed to be representative of their, ah, segment of the Republican base. What a jerk.

What exactly do you think should represent the “evangelical segment of the Republican Party?

Actually, what in the world do you even think that an “evangelical” is in the first place?

(oh, and don’t assume that all evangelicals “sit in pews”-some of us have nicely padded chairs thank you)

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 9:19 PM

I have a son who is a Baptist preacher in Texas. If I find out he’s supporting or intends to vote for this sorry excuse for a Christian then I will take him to his own woodshed and give him a proper whuppin

So you don’t want him voting for Romney?…

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 9:26 PM

I can buy a true change of heart on Abortion, hope for the best on guns, and stomach a pre-”flip” civil unions as opposed to gay marriage. But its tough (perhaps thats the answer to my question)

Why is it that Conservatives are suppose to give Mitt a pass on these issues, but are suppose to fall in line with the demagoguing of Huck’s positions as a State governor – who apparently understands federalism and makes those distinctions as a candidate for POTUS?

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Need I go on? I’d be glad to provide links for you if you need them, but HotAir has documented all of the aforementioned shadiness.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Yes…if you could just link your last two points I’d appreciate it. Unlike a lot of lemmings around here, I’d actually like to see the context of what you are referring to. As far as your first three points – I think that you are just predisposed to look at it that way (perception is reality?)

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Whoa! – Where’d everybody go?…I gotta get a life…

HERMES on January 31, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Hucklebee: “as they are so-called called.”

Tzetzes on February 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2