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

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 2

isn’t it curious that the third-place candidate prefers to spend his time knocking the second-place guy instead of the frontrunner.

I will now do my best Mr. Spock with Raised Vulcan Eyebrow impersonation:

“Indeed!”

Always Right on January 31, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

Tacitus on January 31, 2008 at 11:33 AM

I grow weary of saying this, but I will keep it up as long as is necessary…

HUCKASCHMUCK! HUCKASCHMUCK! HUCKASCHMUCK!

Frozen Tex on January 31, 2008 at 11:33 AM

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

Huck’s really one to talk about some of this stuff.

someguy on January 31, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Huckabuck hasn’t hit emotional puberty yet, which is why his sense of humor goes over so well with 30-something males.

Connie on January 31, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Huck is right. Mitt is conservative in rhetoric only. He is a CIRO®

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Which is interesting, tommy, because Huck isnt even a conservative in rhetoric….

Always Right on January 31, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Sincey they are so fond of resurrecting Reagan, at what point did Ronaldus Magnus hit his conservative puberty? He was a democrat first, after all.

McCain has yet to hit his, and I’m not sure the Huckster will ever hit any kind of puberty.

Oh, right. I need to shut up and get in line. Sorry.

Darksean on January 31, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Exit question was all that needed to be said. Anyone that still supports this guy and is blind to how two faced he is really needs to get help.

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

Also an excellent point – Romney is now there, McCain is still hairless and faking a deep voice with peach fuzz I guess.

Voidseeker on January 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM

You know what’s better than anal warts? Mike Huckabee.

You know by how much? Very little.

natesnake on January 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM

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.

Authentic snake oil salesman is more like it.

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

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

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

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

bigred on January 31, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Oh, right. I need to shut up and get in line. Sorry.

Darksean on January 31, 2008 at 11:37 AM

You already are in line, behind a CIRO named Mitt.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Nobody likes sarcastic humor more than I do, but there’s no place for it in the presidential arena. It’s fine among friends, but I don’t want to hear it from someone who wants to lead this country. I agree with some here…I don’t care when Romney became conservative as long as he is one now.

As for Huckabee, he should quit now and avoid further embarassment.

orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

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

Oh, but…but Johnny said he gets it. And he’s going to CPAC to prove it too. Huck? When his heart tells him. Or the polls.

PowWow on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

tommylotto, compared to whom? Huckabee? McCain? I don’t care for either of the three because not one of them have any claim to conservative scruples! How can anyone put faith in these candidates?

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

I get the feeling that Huckabee hated the Romney-types back in High School.

Jealousy is evil Mikey. Careful now.

Montana on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

I wish Huckabee would have went after Romney like this during the debate last night. Hopefully he pushes it constantly during on the campaign trail.

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

Well McCain was way more of a Reagan conservative during the actual Reagan years then Romney. But I guess we are supposed to believe that in 2005 that Romney had a miraculous Reagan conservative conversion. Believe me, Romney will revert back to his prepubescent moderate state if it becomes politically appropriate.

Complete7 on January 31, 2008 at 11:44 AM

F you Mike, I don’t want to hear anything more out of you. As of right now you serve no purpose other than being the Nader of our primaries

RightWinged on January 31, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Huckabee, you don’t have a chance man, go away.
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

I don’t care when Romney became conservative as long as he is one now.
orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

It doesn’t bother you a bit that Mitt’s supposed “conversion” or “puberty” came micro seconds before his decision to run for President as a Republican? Did you know that the word “gullible” is not found in the dictionary? Don’t believe me? Go try and look it up.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:46 AM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:46 AM

As opposed to Huckabee and McCain, both of whom have never embraced conservatism.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 11:50 AM

You already are in line, behind a CIRO named Mitt.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:41 AM

You know this….how?

Darksean on January 31, 2008 at 11:51 AM

It doesn’t bother you a bit that Mitt’s supposed “conversion” or “puberty” came micro seconds before his decision to run for President as a Republican? Did you know that the word “gullible” is not found in the dictionary? Don’t believe me? Go try and look it up.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Yes, gullible is anyone who believes Guiliani has any respect for conservative values or constructionist judges.

As to Huck, Huck never hit puberty, he just got really fat and then trimmed down later.

BKennedy on January 31, 2008 at 11:51 AM

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

Lol.

Buy Danish on January 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM

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.

If Huckabee hadn’t won Iowa, things would be very, very different today.

BigD on January 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM

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

To be fair, McCain hit conservative puberty around 1980, now he’s entering into senility and detriment.

BKennedy on January 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Gee, when will Huckabee become a Christian minister?

Dusty on January 31, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Of course, to Huckabee hitting “political puberty” means signing a pledge of some sort.

Slublog on January 31, 2008 at 11:57 AM

tommylotto, compared to whom? Huckabee? McCain? I don’t care for either of the three because not one of them have any claim to conservative scruples! How can anyone put faith in these candidates?

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM

None of the remaining candidates (except Paul) can be trusted on their rhetoric alone — and Paul’s rhetoric is insane. So, it comes down to character. Who has it and who does not? Mitt is a popular political winds rhetoric spewing robot with no real character other than his own ambition. McCain has repeatedly proven himself willing to be swept into the dustbin of history sticking to what he believes is right. While Romney was trying to triangulate his position on Iraq, McCain was strolling through Baghdad markets putting his high value target ass on the line in an attempt to prove it was safe and there was progress — when it was not safe and before there was progress. Give credit where credit is due. McCain helped save our effort in Iraq, while Romney hedged his bets so that his political ambitions would not be injured regardless of how it turns out on the battlefield. Imperfect rhetoric with character beats a CIRO with no character.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Huckadoodle has struck a deal with McCain. Did you notice all of the warm glances McCain sent his way during the debate last night?

If you loathe McCain, the only alternative is to back Mitt Romney. Fred is out. Rudy is out. Huck is preparing to join the status quo in joining McCain. That leaves Mitt, who closely trails McCain in delegates & total votes, contrast to Huck, who has won nothing since Iowa and is in a distant third place.

If Mitt cannot beat McCain, no one can (except, perhaps, Hillary). So the conservative GOP base better get its act together quick. It has until next Tuesday to mend the split in its ranks. If it fails to do so, McCain wins. Game over.

So all this pissing & moaning about never ever ever voting for “McLiar” is an utter waste — besides being SO nutroots. All these McCain haters who are themselves lying about McCain’s record out of pure spleen (which is not necessary, because the factual record is damning enough on McCain) are no different in their tactics than the lying fascist morons who infest the Daily Kos. So quit all this pathetic crybaby crap and either push for Mitt or shut the hell up.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Clown Of The Ass

LimeyGeek on January 31, 2008 at 12:00 PM

H
U
C
k
a
b
.
.
.________________________________but he doesn’t know it…
yet. Sorry Harry/Apocolips

jerrytbg on January 31, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Yes, gullible is anyone who believes Guiliani has any respect for conservative values or constructionist judges.
BKennedy on January 31, 2008 at 11:51 AM

And that has what to do with the topic of discussion? What does my former support for Rudy have to do with Mitt’s conservative bona fides? What do Rudy’s positions on judges etc have to do with the fact that Mitt is a manipulative CIRO?

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 12:01 PM

And your consevative testicles Mr Huckabee have yet to descend!

jawbone on January 31, 2008 at 12:03 PM

McCain has repeatedly proven himself willing to be swept into the dustbin of history sticking to what he believes is right.

But what he believes is right is not RIGHT [of center]. McCain is a liberal Arizona legislator who has no interest in serving conservative interests. His patriot/profit line is a perfect indicator of that. The man is a joke of a candidate yet people are bending over backwards to show him love.

Imperfect rhetoric with character beats a CIRO with no character.

This is ridiculous. You aren’t voting for a good figurehead. You’re voting for the leader of the party. And if you put McCain at the helm the GOP is kaput. Done for. Disintegrated. He is, simply put, a cyanide capsule in the GOP’s tooth — and naive folks like you are tonguing it with anticipation.

Blech. Just thinking about McCain makes my stomach churn.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:03 PM

isn’t it curious that the third-place candidate prefers to spend his time knocking the second-place guy instead of the frontrunner.

Not really. The second place guy is a rich prick trying to buy the election with false rhetoric and stealing potential votes from Huck. It makes sense for Huck to get rid of or attack Mitt.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 12:04 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’

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Isn’t the Huckster so cute?

Eugh. Get this guy out of the race.

NeoconNews.com on January 31, 2008 at 12:07 PM

I’m all for Mitt (esp. with Coulter endorsement) and I’m realistic in that it is mainly fed my by animus towards McCain’s proven record of being anti-conservative. Can someone give me some reasons for Romney that don’t include McCain?

I like this logic from Bryan :

Romney, more than any other candidate, sought to make himself acceptable to conservatives over the past couple of years. . . . You can knock him for that and many have, but the fact is Romney looked at the GOP base not as a hostile world but a constituency that he would need. He took a businessman’s approach to a political problem.

But at the same time I’m conflicted with a vote for Mitt because he is unprincipled and can be swayed conservative.

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)

In short, I guess I’m not to happy, I may have to just revel in my McCain Derangement Syndrome and keep pushing for the Mitt.

infidel2 on January 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM

…isn’t it curious that the third-place candidate prefers to spend his time knocking the second-place guy instead of the frontrunner.

As has come to be the usual MO around here, one finds something that Huckabee says where the context is sufficiently cut out, so that one can make it look like anything. Sounds to me like he was explicitly asked about Romney being the conservative candidate. But we don’t know for sure due to some clever editing.

The guy’s running third place, and people are still trying to find every way possible to bash him.

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:11 PM

I will give the first 60 million people to vote for me (as a write-in) $1 each

Now that’s buying an election!

LimeyGeek on January 31, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Kinda funny how our resident Rudy shill went to a McCain shill immediately after Rudy dropped out and endorsed McCain.

Doesn’t change the fact that McCain is almost certainly going to win, but still…

Hollowpoint on January 31, 2008 at 12:12 PM

The guy’s running third place, and people are still trying to find every way possible to bash him.

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Because he’s playing Perot, without the same mental capacity.

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 PM

The guy’s running third place, and people are still trying to find every way possible to bash him.

With good reason! Huckabee is a shady guy.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 PM

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Correct. But McCain’s show of character vis a vis Iraq is belied by his lack of character on so many other issues. If you looked hard enough, you’d find similar things to say about Mitt– examples of good and bad character. So it comes down to which bad behavior pisses you off the most. Find that, and vote for the other guy.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 PM

What strikes me about this is the way on the one hand Huck is all “I wouldn’t slander thy neighbor”, etc., etc…
But time after time, like when he wouldn’t show the negative ad but showed it to the press, was a joke.
I’d take Mitt anyday over McCain. I thought Mitt looked great last night, now if everyone would back him that would be great. I’m imagining the seniors in Florida did the voting to pull McCain through and have no clue how much of a democrat he is or for that matter care. They just know he’s their age and a war hero. They aren’t on HA or listening to talk radio or Fox for that matter.
But for anyone saying they’ll stay home and not vote, that is ridiculous.

Conservatives R Us on January 31, 2008 at 12:14 PM

If Huckabee hadn’t won Iowa, things would be very, very different today.

BigD on January 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM

If we’d had an authentic conservative candidate with fire in his belly, Huck wouldn’t have won it.

flyfisher on January 31, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Doesn’t change the fact that McCain is almost certainly going to win

I wouldn’t be so sure. McCain has a couple of prime wins under his belt, but I reckon SuperAwesomeTuesday will reveal just how much of America has fallen away from that goon’s reach.

I’m optimistic for Mitt – he’s not my perfect candidate (who is?), but I would at least support his run for the big show.

LimeyGeek on January 31, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Mitt’s new campaign slogan, “I’m not that guy”.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 12:16 PM

The guy’s running third place, and people are still trying to find every way possible to bash him.

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:11 PM

I think at this point he’s running for McCain’s VP.

Brat on January 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Huck’s new campaign slogan – “God’s Holy Testicle”

LimeyGeek on January 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Way to go Huckster.

He sure is settling nicely into the role of McCain’s lapdog.

This is a joke.

Both McCain and Huckabee have done a great job of coming across as egotistical pricks throughout this whole campaign.

Their not-so-subtle blackballing of Mitt Romney isn’t helping.

Yeah, I get it, it’s all about winning, and these guys want to be POTUS and VP.

But I will never again suppose that classlessness is just on the Democrat side.

Hawkins1701 on January 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM

You stay classy, Christian leader.

Please don’t call him that, it’s so insulting to the rest of us. It’s like calling Jesse or Al black leaders.

pecan pie on January 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM

infidel2 on January 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM

You are looking at this like a sober rational person, but I fixed Bryan’s quote for you:

Romney, more than any other candidate, sought to make sell himself as acceptable to conservatives over the past couple of years. . . . You can knock him for that and many have, but the fact is Romney looked at the GOP base not as a hostile world but a constituency chumps that he would need deceive. He took a businessman’s used car salesman’s approach to a political problem.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM

McCain has repeatedly proven himself willing to be swept into the dustbin of history sticking to what he believes is right.
tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Exactly. Too bad what he believes (amnesty, restricting free speech, voting against tax cuts, derailing conservative judges, exclusively hamstringing the US economy with global warming regulation) is not conservative.

Cuffy Meigs on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Mike Huckabee’s sucking up to John McCain reminds me of that Monster.com commercial with the little kid:
“When I grow up, I want to be a brown-noser”.
How disgusting. Even more disgusting when you realize that this zero is going to end up in a Mccain adminstration somewhere.

paulsur on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 PM

I think it is clear (whether you like him or not) that Huckabee has run the best (in terms of overall success) campaign of any of the candidates (Democrat or Republican). He began with no name recognition and no money, and he surged to first place nationally while pocketing a first-place finish in Iowa. I don’t recall Ross Perot having such success, but perhaps that was only because his mental capacity far surpassed Huckabee’s.

Now, do you seriously believe that Huckabee accomplished all of this because he is stupid; because he lacks mental capacity of a third-party nobody?

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:13 PM

On what basis do you make this claim?

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:21 PM

As if Huck is even close to conservative puberty.

Valiant on January 31, 2008 at 12:21 PM

How disgusting. Even more disgusting when you realize that this zero is going to end up in a Mccain adminstration somewhere.

paulsur on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM

As “Brownie,” Mac’s FEMA director, holding hands and singing Kumbaya with disaster victims.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:24 PM

On what basis do you make this claim?

Huckabee has been tacitly endorsing illegal push-polling in South Carolina.

Huckabee has now resorted to agist remarks twice.

Huckabee claimed to refrain from running a negative ad, showed that very ad to the press, and then proceeded to run the ad anyways.

Huckabee campaigned for Democrats running against Republicans in Arkansas.

Huckabee called fellow Republicans “shiites.”

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

natesnake on January 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM

That’s the first time I’ve ever burst out laughing at work over a HA joke.

Well done.

James on January 31, 2008 at 12:31 PM

Huck had to do this now because he wasn’t given enough time to attack Mitt suck up to McLame last night.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 31, 2008 at 12:31 PM

Who’s up for destroying the Republican Party right now, you know, just to get this over with?

McCain/Huckabee!!

CliffHanger on January 31, 2008 at 12:35 PM

To be fair, McCain hit conservative puberty around 1980, now he’s entering into senility and detriment.

BKennedy on January 31, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I don’t think that’s a joke. He seems to sputter in thought sometimes as well as almost disoriented. I watched my Nana go down that way and it’s no joke. He’s getting up there.
I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, even Juan McCain.
Juan Hernandez? Maybe.

Geronimo on January 31, 2008 at 12:36 PM

paulsur on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM

What in the world makes you assume that McCain will win in November? He has no chance.

revolutionismyname on January 31, 2008 at 12:36 PM

I don’t recall Ross Perot having such success, but perhaps that was only because his mental capacity far surpassed Huckabee’s.

Now, do you seriously believe that Huckabee accomplished all of this because he is stupid; because he lacks mental capacity of a third-party nobody?

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Ever check the harm Perot did to Bush? Caused us to endure Clinton.

Huck is now doing the same thing. His lapdog impersonation for McCain may in fact give McCain the nomination versus yet another Clinton.

If it comes down to McCain versus Clinton, I’ll vote for the registered Democrat (Instead of the registered RINO) or not vote at all.

I suspect if you took a poll among conservatives you’ll find that to be a consistent position.

But a more direct answer, no I don’t think Huckabee to be stupid just another Arkansas fraud.

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:36 PM

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:25 PM

I don’t want to turn this into a giant forum. If I were so inclined, I would quote everything you offered specifically. I’ll just allude to each by numbers. 1) Huckabee has not been tacitly endorsing push polling. See here, here, here, and here. I don’t know how it gets any clearer than that. 2) Huckabee makes jokes; what’s wrong with that. Here he used the metaphor to explain his point. Do you disagree with the metaphor, or with the point he made? 3) I will grant this was a mistake, though I have serious doubts as to whether it was intended to be malicious. 4) I would like a link for this one. 5) So what? How is this any different from conservatives attacking McCain as being a liberal, etc. Is it always inappropriate to criticize a Republican? I don’t think so.

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Huckabee is like that guy who likes to hang out with teenagers because they think he’s so funny. But adults can’t stand him.

melda on January 31, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Huck’s comment about Romney echo this post by Joe Carter, his former research guy, on his blog, Evangelical Outpost.
Of Romney, Carter said this:

One of the reasons that McCain will be the nominee is because the establishment tried to sell Mitt Romney as the “full-spectrum conservative” candidate. Apparently, the pro-Romney pundits thought we GOP voters are either extremely gullible or, more likely, that we have very short memories.

As primary voters in IA, NH, and FL discovered, Romney has previously supported many liberal positions, including abortion rights, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a ban on “assault weapons”, government mandated health insurance, etc., ad naseum. Holding these positions today, however, would make him unelectable so he had to discard his deeply held pro-choice, pro-gay principles in favor of ones more palatable to the GOP base.

While it’s difficult to discern when the flip-flopping metamorphosis into a “full-spectrum” conservative was completed, we can be generous and say that it occurred in 2003, the first year he was Governor of Massachusetts. That would have given him a few months to backtrack from all his campaign promises. Now let’s put that date into perspective.

When Romney became a conservative he was 56 years old (4 years older than Mike Huckabee is today). The year Romney became a conservative we invaded Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein. The year Romney became a conservative Ruben Studdard won American Idol, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won the Oscar for Best Picture, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy premiered on Bravo. The year Romney became a conservative is the year I started this blog.

Think about that for a moment. Not only have people being reading blogs longer than Romney has been a conservative but people have been reading this blog longer than Romney has been a conservative.

Personally, I prefer to have a President who has spent a bit more time becoming familiar with conservative arguments, principles, traditions, and values. I suspect that outside of the elite pundit class, most conservatives feel the same. Romney may have been endorsed by National Review. But most conservative prefer to endorse a candidate who has actually read National Review.

flyfisher on January 31, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Huckabee is like that guy who likes to hang out with teenagers because they think he’s so funny. But adults can’t stand him.

melda on January 31, 2008 at 12:38 PM

I sure am sick of hearing him already– and have only heard him speak a few times during debates. Or should I say tell stories and make jokes. No matter what he’s asked, he goes into some long, drawn-out, off-topic, wandering story about hearth and home or some other feel-good cutesy crap that belongs at a youth group meeting.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Did you have the same problem when Fred took votes from Huckabee in South Carolina, causing Huckabee to lose the primary? I didn’t have a problem with that. That is politics, and that is how politics goes. If Romney can’t make the case that Huckabee supporters should support him instead, then so be it. As far as I’m concerned, it is very inconsistent to fault Huckabee for something, but not fault Fred for doing the very same thing.

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Not really. The second place guy is a rich prick trying to buy the election with false rhetoric and stealing potential votes from Huck. It makes sense for Huck to get rid of or attack Mitt.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM

This is idiotic because Huck has not had a win since Iowa and his trend line ever since has been down down down. He’s out of it. The bubble popped. And now he is openly aligning himself with McCain. Which should surprise no one, because McCain’s views on shamnesty and the economy match those of the Huckster.

Mitt is the natural conservative candidate here, but he has the MSM, the most independents, and, increasingly, the GOP status quo aligned against him. This combined with the fact that Mitt’s greatest strength is by no means his campaigning abillities means that John McCain has very good reason for the the sh*t-eating grin spreading across his old inside-puncher face.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 12:44 PM

flyfisher on January 31, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Because of that fine comment, and similar ones about McCain, we will have a very weak candidate going up against what by all rights is a weak Dem in Hillary Clinton.

And most likely we will lose, whether it’s Mitt or Mac.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Did you have the same problem when Fred took votes from Huckabee in South Carolina, causing Huckabee to lose the primary?

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Nope. That was great because Fred isn’t a fraud.

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Mitt is the natural conservative candidate here

Mitt is anything but a natural conservative. Of the three folks remaining (excluding Paul, of course), he’s the most appealing candidate to true conservatives. But that doesn’t make him a conservative. He’s still a New England politician and the result of that is a trend towards populism.

I wont be voting for any of the three remaining Republicans. I can’t hold my nose and do something that just isn’t right. But for the folks who can stand a little personal indignity it would seem Romney is the only appropriate choice.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:50 PM

When is this guy going to finally run out of cash and get out?

The quarterly filings are due by the end of today. It’ll be interesting to see the bump he got in fundraising from New Hampshire and Iowa.

If it was alot, unfortunately, he’ll be around for awhile. If not, he’ll be renting a Piper Cub to fly staff just so he can continue to be a spoiler for Mitt until the well finally runs dry.

BacaDog on January 31, 2008 at 12:50 PM

But for the folks who can stand a little personal indignity it would seem Romney is the only appropriate choice.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:50 PM

LOL!! How’s the air up there?

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:51 PM

Ever check the harm Perot did to Bush? Caused us to endure Clinton.

Huck is now doing the same thing. His lapdog impersonation for McCain may in fact give McCain the nomination versus yet another Clinton.

So you’re saying that Huckabee might as well be on Hillabee’s payroll? ;)

Connie on January 31, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 12:48 PM

That is fine, but I find that rather unprincipled.

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:53 PM

LOL!! How’s the air up there?

Ha ha. A bit smoggy.

I didn’t intend for that to come off as high & mighty, only to imply that a vote for Mitt is not exactly a vote for conservative principles. It’s just the closest thing the GOP has left to it.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:53 PM

for Mitt is not exactly a vote for conservative principles. It’s just the closest thing the GOP has left to it.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Yup, seems to be one of the two main takes on this situation. The other being the exact opposite. LOL.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:57 PM

flyfisher on January 31, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Because of that fine comment, and similar ones about McCain, we will have a very weak candidate going up against what by all rights is a weak Dem in Hillary Clinton.

And most likely we will lose, whether it’s Mitt or Mac.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM

That’s the way it’s shaping up isn’t it? We need a narrative changing event. Not a terrorist attack because that is bad for America. How about a scandal? The Clinton’s are riddled with shady friends and connections, so just maybe…

flyfisher on January 31, 2008 at 12:57 PM

When Squirrelly McHypocrite actually becomes a conservative himself–which, as far as I can tell, he has no desire or ambition to do–then he’ll have room to criticize somebody else’s conversions. And even Reagan didn’t come out of the womb as a full-blown conservative–he spent much of his adult life moving in the right (and Right) direction. McCain’s assertion last night that Reagan never ever changed his position on anything couldn’t be more asinine. Most people actually learn as they get older–unless of course they’re emotionally stunted somewhere around the junior high level, like the Huckster appears to be.

ReubenJCogburn on January 31, 2008 at 12:59 PM

flyfisher on January 31, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Agree with you.

JiangxiDad on January 31, 2008 at 1:01 PM

So you’re saying that Huckabee might as well be on Hillabee’s payroll? ;)

Connie on January 31, 2008 at 12:52 PM

yep

Onager on January 31, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I wont be voting for any of the three remaining Republicans. I can’t hold my nose and do something that just isn’t right. But for the folks who can stand a little personal indignity it would seem Romney is the only appropriate choice.

HebrewToYou on January 31, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Neat! Well, enjoy your churning stomach.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:14 PM

the gop is in serious trouble with clows like huckabee and mccain, who are devoid of any character and decency. be we already knew that, didn’t we? here’s to the end of the gop as we know it!

therightwinger on January 31, 2008 at 1:25 PM

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

This comment, and other comportment, proves that Huckabee is still in the puberty stage.

Entelechy on January 31, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Can someone give me some reasons for Romney that don’t include McCain?

infidel2 on January 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM

No problem. Go with the stated positions he has given, and stuck to, since entering the contest for president:

He is the strongest of the candidates with regard to rejecting amnesty & enforcing US immigration laws.

He lacks McCain’s hand’s-on military experience, but he has been consistent in his support for the Bush doctrine on Iraq and he is pro-Victory all the way.

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.

He praises judge Alito (unlike McCain) and states that he will appoint constructionist judges.

And his greatest strengths BY FAR are his administrative, executive, and business assets, which hardly need enumerating by now.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Good clip. Hits all the reasons I will never vote for the MA phony. And people wonder why he can’t seal the deal.

JStew on January 31, 2008 at 1:38 PM

I will now do my best Mr. Spock with Raised Vulcan Eyebrow impersonation:

“Indeed!”

Always Right on January 31, 2008 at 11:31 AM

NO FAIR USING YOUR FINGER!!

ej_pez on January 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Yeah, I get it, it’s all about winning, and these guys want to be POTUS and VP.

But I will never again suppose that classlessness is just on the Democrat side.

Hawkins1701 on January 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM

I sure do agree with that. And I have learned from far too many HA posters that the nutroots mob has no monopoly on lying disinformationists & petty demagogues.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM

I think it is clear (whether you like him or not) that Huckabee has run the best (in terms of overall success) campaign of any of the candidates (Democrat or Republican).

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Don’t quit your day job.

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:45 PM

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Ok, who has run the best campaign, in terms of success?

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Tommylotto, Romney converting micro-seconds before the primaries is better than McCain and Huckabee still being liberal. Do you know the meaning of the word “stupid”. Go look it up in the dictionary. You’ll probably find your picture.

orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Ok, who has run the best campaign, in terms of success?

medguy on January 31, 2008 at 2:10 PM

McCain. Sadly.

Spirit of 1776 on January 31, 2008 at 2:58 PM

derailing conservative judges,
Cuffy Meigs on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 PM

That is really an unfair attack. The Democrats were refusing to give Bush’s whole slate of appointments an up or down vote based upon Senate rules. The Republicans were threatening to rewrite the Senate rules (a terribly short-sighted solution as one can see by the results of the 2006 election). McCain stepped up and helped form a coalition that assured votes for a long list of a bunch of really great strict constructionist judges and assured that a filibuster was not used on Roberts or Alito. That was a very good deal for Republicans, who still have the option of busting out the filibuster if President Clinton / President Obama attempt to appoint another Ginsberg to the Court after Scalia chokes on a cannoli.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Do you know the meaning of the word “stupid”. Go look it up in the dictionary. You’ll probably find your picture.

orlandocajun on January 31, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Not your best argument.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 3:09 PM

He praises judge Alito (unlike McCain) …

argos on January 31, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Funny, McCain was responsible for getting Alito a vote in the Senate and actually voted to confirm him. What did Mitt do again? Oh, he “praised” him, after he realized that saying one likes Alito is a “buzzword” and we know how Mitt likes to throw around those buzzwords.

tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2