Video: Plucky loser’s sour grapes turning more sour by the minute

posted at 3:14 pm on February 20, 2008 by Allahpundit

“It seems that Republicans have decided that elections are a messy thing,” he laments, after months of debates and eight weeks of primary after primary after primary after primary. Unwilling to crap on McCain — who, if you add all of Mitt’s delegates to his column, has already clinched — here we find Huck near the end of the road doing what he does best: Crapping on the party and in particular the mythical “establishment” that likes nothing more than keeping God-fearing blue-collar average joes like himself down. I said my piece about his brand of resentment politics in the update here two months ago; it’s nice to see him staying true to himself even at the bitter end.

Exit question: Is this rhetoric really doing McCain a favor on balance?


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

I have to agree with Esthier. The Huckshow may go on for a little while longer, but it is irrelevent. Mac is our candidate.

The one good thing Huck is accomplishing is by not conceding, he forces the networks to give Mac more airtime when he wins another primary. He took some great shots at empty suit last night.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 20, 2008 at 6:06 PM

I would gain a whole lot of respect for McCain if he would come out and say it’s time for the whining douchebag Huckster to pack up his bags and go back to his trailerpark in Arkansas.

The Huckster’s 15 minutes are up.

Apacalyps, what are you smoking? How do you figure Huckster’s a “true conservative”?

His record is raising taxes by $500 million.

His record is wanting to give taxpayer funded scholarships to illegals, thereby inviting more of them to come to the U.S.

His record is playing nice with terrorist countries.

His record wanting to end the embargo on Castro’s Cuba.

He’s no conservative. He’s no leader. He’s merely a whiny douchebag who needs to be put in his place.

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 6:10 PM

So you think that McCain having Huck nipping from behind won’t force McCain into holding a more conservative stance while he is engaging Obama?

RedLizard64 on February 20, 2008 at 5:58 PM

I really don’t think Huck is registering at all to McCain. I’m not a fan of Huck, but if he was pushing McCain to the Right I’d cheer him on. I just don’t see that happening.

The only thing that will push McCain to the Right (in my opinion) is if he does the numbers and actually sees how bad he’ll lose without conservatives.

Esthier on February 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM

However, Bush has been a DISASTER! He has done very little for Christians.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Funny, here I thought W was elected PRESIDENT of the United States by the REPUBLICAN party. I would have never voted for him if I thought his role was to “do a lot” for Christians. Obviously, you and your Huckasiah need to be heading over to the left with your Identity politics…they love that over there!

ihasurnominashun on February 20, 2008 at 6:18 PM

The first time I heard Huckapoo in a debate last year I was totally turned off and thought he was a bunko artist hiding behind the Bible to push his leftist agenda.

Now I think he is just an annoying punk with a smarmy attitude but still hiding behind the Bible.

Like I said before here… Evangelicals deserve better than this jerk.

Always Right on February 20, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Bah, why did I bother.

Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Excuse me, but I gave you several examples of Christian issues Bush failed to even touch in response to your original question. I asked you what Bush did to change abortion and gay marriage? He took the the social-con side… yeah, uhm, okay…. but what about changes? You never answered. I also stated Bush was pressuring litle tiny Israel to give away more of it’s land the to the Arabs who hate them, and when I told you Huckabee was the ONLY candidate who believes Israel should keep all it’s land, you ignored it. By the way when I say little tiny Israel, I mean it. Look

The issue of Israel is a significant one for Christians. You insult them.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:19 PM

I see no point in rehashing them since the Huckabots have proven themselves unable to even acknowledge them.

Hollowpoint on February 20, 2008 at 5:53 PM

I don’t want you to rehash them. There really is only one issue Huck was suspect on. Immigration. But, If changing one’s position on an issue is a disqualifier, you have no one to vote for. Fred changed from pro-choice to pro-life. Giuliani has changed svereal positions, including immigration, Romney has changed most of his positions and even McCain says he now see the light on immigration. I know, I know, Huckabee’s change was quite recent. But that would mean it is less cynical because his change wasn’t planned out months or even years earlier. Huckabee has laid out a good, solid immigration plan which is as conservative and tough as any of the front runner’s plans. You obviously have the right to not believe him. I just wanted to remind you to consider holding all these candidates equally accountable for their flip-flopping because they are all guilty. Some more and some less so.

I hope you keep that in mind.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Fred changed from pro-choice to pro-life.
apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Yeah, so did I. How can you fault someone for seeing the light when faced with the truth. I thought Christians were all about the forgiveness. Fred saw the light. He didn’t waffle, he saw the light. BIG difference.

ihasurnominashun on February 20, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Blind Huckster follower…

Fred did not change from pro-choice to pro-life. He’s been pro-life his entire career. His Senate voting record was 100 percent pro-life. That’s why National Right to Life and Right to Life committees in more than a dozen states endorsed FRED, not the Huckster.

Huckabee didn’t just recently change on immigration. He defended SCHOLARSHIPS with TAXPAYER MONEY for ILLEGALS in a debate in late NOVEMBER.

As for other important issues, like NATIONAL DEFENSE, TAXES, GITMO, CONSERVATISM, THE REAGAN REVOLUTION… Fred put the Huckster in his place.

He’s a refresher..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LrSGZ08nas

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 6:26 PM

I don’t buy that at all. This is rhetoric. Huck’s the only true conservative, a man of honor, pro-life, pro-gun rights, less taxes, securing the borders, fighting terrorism, etc., etc. McCain is waaaaay worse on these issues.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… Huck is for “securing borders” and “less taxes”?

Are you high?

I think Sen. Jim Holt and the people in Arkansas being taxed on nursing home beds would disagree.

Lehosh on February 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM

And citing the book of Genesis as sole justification for opposing a two-state solution? Beyond creepy, dude.

First of all, there is only so much room to post here y’know. Secondly, citing the Book of Genesis is certainly enough, but I don’t need it to use it to prove there has NEVER been a historical Arab Palestinian people. We often hear about the poor palestinian people…..the term “Palestinian” itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The palestinian’s today are Arab refugees. The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mention this and sods like…. ahem, nevermind… believe them.

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Muslims have “NO RIGHT” to the land of Israel. None. Nada. Zilch. It’s that simple. Read here

I see you have no real understanding of this issue.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM

There really is only one issue Huck was suspect on

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha!

One issue? ONE issue? Apacalyps, you’re lying through your teeth. The only reason you support Huckabee is because he wears his Evangelical Christianity on his sleeve. Identity politics belong to the loony left. Go join ‘em.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Muslims have “NO RIGHT” to the land of Israel. None. Nada. Zilch. It’s that simple.

Actually, no. It’s not that simple. But leave it to a fundamentalist to try and obscure a very complex issue. Unbelievable.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Hollowpoint, apacalyps has a history of that kind of drivel. He has no substance, only a false sense of religious superiority. It’s Huckabee and “The One True G-d” or bust for this jabroni. Do what I do and heckle him mercilessly.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM

We always knew this HebrewToYou. I want everyone else to know it to, especially the moderators, that you heckle others when you don’t agree with them. I’m impressed; I’ve never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Was that dude just preaching immigration? Ha! Should do standup.

Tzetzes on February 20, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I’m impressed; I’ve never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.

This coming from the guy who quotes scripture to counter a political argument! Hilarious. Your opinions are based on faith and ignorance and I’m not the only person to point that out.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Fred saw the light (on abortion). He didn’t waffle, he saw the light. BIG difference.

ihasurnominashun on February 20, 2008 at 6:23 PM

On “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican “pro-life” plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.

Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?”

“No,” said Thompson.

“You would not?” said Russert.

“No,” said Thompson.

“Each state would make their own abortion laws?” Russert asked.

“Yeah,” said Thompson.

Fred would allow abortion at the state level. If murdering babies is wrong it doesn’t make it right at the state level. And you’re comment about Christians not forgiving others was a cheap shot.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Fred would allow abortion at the state level.

As should every Republican candidate. It’s. Not. A. Federal. Issue. Neither is gay marriage. Stop trying to expand the power of the Federal Gov’t. You’re acting like a liberal.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Please do not post videos from RedLasso ever again. Take the videos, and host them on another source, but not RedLasso. Redlasso fails to load and crashes our browsers.

HYTEAndy on February 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha!

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Off your medication again I see.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Huckabee is right about the GOP Establishment.

Coulter and the corporate-cons on the right hate Huckabee and don’t know what to do about him without insulting their religious base that they’d taken advantage of for years with getting them to vote against their best interests in favor of corporate interests. It was driving them crazy that he was doing well in the polls. Watching Coulter spin on her head on this one is amusing to say the least. For the record, I was a fan, but find it hard trusting anything she says anymore. Her fault, not mine.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Your opinions are based on faith and ignorance and I’m not the only person to point that out.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM

This coming from a man who believes we evolved from a rock.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM

This coming from a man who believes we evolved from a rock.

We evolved from single-celled organisms. Rocks are simply inanimate matter. Again, leave it to the fundamentalist to obscure a complex issue. You need to get out more. The world is much larger than your holy book portrays it.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM

We evolved from single-celled organisms.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM

LOL.

Where did the single-celled organisms evolve from?

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM

How serious a candidate is Mike Huckabee?
This serious. What a goober.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:14 PM

We evolved from single-celled organisms. Rocks are simply inanimate matter.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM

I just love this quote above. Thank you, HebrewToYou. This is beautiful. Thank you.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Where did the single-celled organisms evolve from?

Strings of proteins. See, amino acids form within microbial soups created when liquid water mixes with naturally occurring organic compounds. Many folks think electricity — such as a lightning strike — is necessary to create these amino acids. I think you just need highly focused energy. Such is why you see a great deal of interesting life forms, albeit simple ones, growing around deep-sea volcanic vents.

These amino acids form polymer chains called peptides. These peptides are what combine to make proteins. Proteins are macromolecules that are integral to the development of a cell. That is how a single celled organism came to be. We grew from there.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:21 PM

I just love this quote above. Thank you, HebrewToYou. This is beautiful. Thank you.

Hey, I just hope I get you to open a book outside the scope of religion. It would really do you some good.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Why do these Bible-thumping Huckarubes spam every item about their hero? Or maybe Redpill & apacalyps are the same person. They clearly share the same brain.

ABORTION IS LEGAL EVERYWHERE IN THE U.S. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it will be unless the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

There’s nothing a President can do about it until that happens. If it does, then the issue SHOULD go back to the states.

That’s the way our country was founded…with states’ rights.

I know Huckster-lovers don’t understand the truth, but here are the facts… the Human Life Amendment HAS NO CHANCE OF PASSING. NONE.

It takes 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. Even when Republicans had the majority, it still had NO CHANCE of passing.

Our Constitution is not a “living, breathing document”, despite what the Huckster believes and says.

It shouldn’t be messed with.

Having said that, IF enough states went along with it, FRED THOMPSON WOULD sign the Human Life Amendment as President. He said so.

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM

It was driving them crazy that he was doing well in the polls.

Fortunately, we won’t have to put up with the buffoon much longer. Time to pack up that revival and head home, dontcha think?

Gabriel Malor on February 20, 2008 at 7:33 PM

On “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican “pro-life” plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.

Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?”

“No,” said Thompson.

“You would not?” said Russert.

“No,” said Thompson.

“Each state would make their own abortion laws?” Russert asked.

“Yeah,” said Thompson.

Fred would allow abortion at the state level. If murdering babies is wrong it doesn’t make it right at the state level. And you’re comment about Christians not forgiving others was a cheap shot.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Yeah, so? Fred is a Federalist…you know…what this country is based on???? He knew as we all do that there is no way in H*LL that the liberals are ever going to allow an amendment to the contitution BANNING abortion. Fred could have appointed judges who would have reversed Roe v. Wade. Fred would have made it a state issue and those states could have outlawed abortion. And my statement was NOT a cheap shot it was the truth. Fred’s voting confirmed his position on life. Just because he didn’t sign every “pledge” anyone put in front of his nose like your guy doesn’t make him not conservative. The MAIN difference between Fred and the rest of the candidates was that he was a man of PRINCIPLES upon which he based all of his policies. Huck has admitted that he only relies on the bible and we ALL know that the bible is subject to interpretation…unlike the constitution…which Fred understands.

ihasurnominashun on February 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Good post. The problem with Huckabigots like apacalyps is that they are ultimately being driven by their own selfishness. They don’t have any political leanings aside from those they identify with their church.

Religion is a great thing; it just has nothing to do with politics.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Amino acids form polymer chains called peptides. These peptides are what combine to make proteins. Proteins are macromolecules that are integral to the development of a cell. That is how a single celled organism came to be. We grew from there.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:21 PM

This is all in your imagination. In one sentence you just left science and have started talking about your religion… and.. uhm, you don’t even realize it. There is no proof for what you just said. You have to get two cells to evolve out of the rocks in the same place of the opposite sex at the same time in history. It is a big world you know? Cells are kind of small; they have to find each other. You’ve got a bunch of problems there buddy.

If you want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, and that a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today, you go right ahead, but don’t accuse me of having a religion when you have to believe this stuff. You need more faith than me and my Bible.

I’m gonna go now… but…uhm, thank you HebrewToYou. This is the funniest thing you’ve ever posted here. We all evolved from rocks…. lol.. ciao.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM

LOL…we Fredheads are a hearty bunch when someone tries messing with teh Fred!

ihasurnominashun on February 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM

LOL…

that’s hillarious… a rock..

Oh ho ho….

Okay, no really… really.. I’m going now….hahaha

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:41 PM

This coming from a man who believes we evolved from a rock.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM

I am sick of people who bash science while at the same time readily use the technology that resulted from science.

dawgyear on February 20, 2008 at 7:43 PM

There is no proof for what you just said.

Actually, there is. It’s called the scientific method.

If you want to believe life started with a big bang where nothing exploded and produced everything, and that a cosmic soup of some kind came alive and out of it the first life form found someone to marry, and something to eat, and slowly evolved into everything we see today, you go right ahead, but don’t accuse me of having a religion when you have to believe this stuff. You need more faith than me and my Bible.

Folks, this is why people like Mike Huckabee are dangerous. When you resort to willfully distorting the truth in order to maintain the integrity of the bubble you live in you put everyone around you at risk of ignorance pollution. Those are your words, apacalyps, and not mine. If you wish to belittle me, go right ahead, but you’re only making yourself look foolish.

Science has been good to you. Be good to science.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 7:58 PM

I asked you what Bush did to change abortion and gay marriage?

Full disclosure: I don’t consider myself a social con. That having been said, you got probably the best two Supreme Court Justices appointed by any Republican President of the last 50 years. Without them, the partial birth abortion ban probably wouldn’t have been upheld. It’s not like the President can just issue an executive order that outlaws abortion or gay marriage. But if a case on either of those issues ever comes before the Supreme Court, you will be very happy that Roberts and Alito are there. Even Reagan gave us squishes like O’Conner and Kennedy.

Dudley Smith on February 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM

GOMER HUCK……THAT’S ABOUT SUMS IT UP.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21615320@N06/2203519293/

awesum on February 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Fred would allow abortion at the state level.
apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:47 PM

As should every Republican candidate. It’s. Not. A. Federal. Issue. Neither is gay marriage. Stop trying to expand the power of the Federal Gov’t. You’re acting like a liberal.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

This attitude about the abortion issue is one of the reasons that evangelical Christians are moving away from the Republican base. It disgusts me. It also saddens me.

Abortion is murder. I can’t even believe we have to go over this fact anymore. It’s MURDER. We have come so far in science over the last 30 years, the facts are undeniable. So undeniable, the liberal left is once again trying to REDEFINE terms so that they can continue to kill babies without calling it murder.

They are trying to claim that pregnancy doesn’t begin until the egg/embryo attaches itself to the uterine wall. Because even THEY can’t deny that life begins at conception.

Redefining of words/terms/statements and revising history. That’s what the liberal left does to change our culture and humanity.

So Hebrew, you are stating that abortion shouldn’t be a Federal issue. You think killing babies should be a STATE ISSUE.

MURDER–a state issue. Sickens me.

Either you haven’t thought the abortion issue through (meaning that you are buying liberal lies) or your morality is different than most Americans.

Skidd on February 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 7:38 PM

That is the most ignorant post I’ve ever seen here. I’m hoping against hope it was a put on.

a capella on February 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM

So Hebrew, you are stating that abortion shouldn’t be a Federal issue. You think killing babies should be a STATE ISSUE.

MURDER–a state issue. Sickens me.

Skidd on February 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Do you Huckarubes know anything other that was the snakeoil salesman tells you?

Punishment for murder IS A STATE ISSUE. As are all crimes, unless they have federal jurisdiction.

Some states have the death penalty. Some have automatic life in prison for first degree murder. It’s up to each individual state how they choose to hand out the punishment.

I’m guessing Hebrewtoyou and most others on this board are pro-life. But unlike you and the other Huckarubes, we’re logical. Right now, ABORTION is LEGAL everywhere.

There’s nothing the President can do about it until the the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Then it should, and will fall back to the states.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO PASS. Period. Get your head out of Huckster’s ass and think logically for a second.

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Either you haven’t thought the abortion issue through (meaning that you are buying liberal lies) or your morality is different than most Americans.

Federal crimes are very specifically defined. The Fed doesn’t pursue every murder case. It’s not their jurisdiction.

I HATE ABORTION. Is that clear enough? But I went to UC Santa Cruz and know plenty of women who feel otherwise. I’m not going to argue with them. Ultimately it’s their decision and they have to live with it. But don’t berate me about why abortion sucks. I agree.

It’s just not an issue to be regulated at the Federal level. Same with gay marriage. Leave. These. Issues. To. The. States. Be a federalist.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 8:51 PM

There really is only one issue Huck was suspect on. Immigration. But, If changing one’s position on an issue is a disqualifier, you have no one to vote for. I just wanted to remind you to consider holding all these candidates equally accountable for their flip-flopping because they are all guilty. Some more and some less so.

apacalyps on February 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM

appocalyps, I never thought I would hear you say that about Huckabee. Since you admitted a fault of him I will now tell you that I am for Huckabee as he is the best of the remaining candidates. I do not consider it lesser of two evils. Rather, I consider him a good choice and McAmnesty a very, very, very poor excuse for a position in any form.

GO HUCK! Stay in there so I can vote for you in NC. Republicans, don’t demand our choices be taken away until we all have a voice. Let the system play out and then I still will not vote McCain.

I can tell you that everyone I personally know in NC that supported Fred, Mitt, Hunter, or Tancredo are now for Huck. Go figure! They also HATE McCain!

livermush on February 20, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Allahpundit on February 20, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Except that I was/am a Romney supporter and can’t stand Huckabee. My original questions stand. How do you expect to win in November when your side is too busy running a vendetta against social conservatives and evangelicals? You really think your pathetic John McCain’s support in blue states is going to last into the general election? You really think Southerners are going to vote for McCain when he despises them almost as much as you and your arrogant crowd of arrogant elitist RINOs? Lotsa luck with that.

highhopes on February 20, 2008 at 8:57 PM

I HATE ABORTION. Is that clear enough? But I went to UC Santa Cruz and know plenty of women who feel otherwise. I’m not going to argue with them. Ultimately it’s their decision and they have to live with it. But don’t berate me about why abortion sucks. I agree.

It’s just not an issue to be regulated at the Federal level. Same with gay marriage. Leave. These. Issues. To. The. States. Be a federalist.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Ditto. Although you have to admit, if we wanted to make abortion a federal issue, a Constitutional Amendment is the proper way to do it (even though it’s not realistic).

I still like Huck better than Maverick.

bigbeas on February 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Yes, constitutional amendments are the appropriate way to regulate such things at the Federal level. My argument against it, however, is that it would be suicide for the GOP. That is, if we happen to survive the slit-wrists that are indicative of the McCain candidacy

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Punishment for murder IS A STATE ISSUE.

Murder is murder. If someone murders in Nebraska, then runs to California, that doesn’t excuse them from the Nebraska murder. They don’t “get away” with it.

This is what happens when morality is ever-changing. When it goes up for sale. It’s ridiculous.

HebrewToYou, I re-read my post and want you to know that I didn’t mean to make it personal with you. I hate abortion. Makes my blood boil. So when I saw your post, I lashed out at the logic of it. That’s all.

Skidd on February 20, 2008 at 11:12 PM

I don’t think McCain cares whether Huck stays in, because Huck was never and will never be a viable candidate for President. Huck may be able to pull in a share of votes, but not sufficient to win the nomination, let alone the November crowd.

McCain and his people were agitating as early as New Hampshire for Romney to leave the race, because Romney was a legitimate threat to his hopes – he had the cash and a willingness to spend it. After South Carolina, one of McCain’s designated doucheweasels was stating for the record that Romney was “hurting America” by not dropping out. Did any other candidate get that? No. Because what’s good for McCain is good for America, and Romney stood in Maverick’s way.

Huck isn’t standing in anyone’s way. He’s a bloviating cancer on the buttcheek of American politics, but he’s not an impediment to the nomination.

I guess you could say I’m not fund of Huck.

sulla on February 20, 2008 at 11:15 PM

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO PASS. Period. Get your head out of Huckster’s ass and think logically for a second.

bigred on February 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Watch your language.

If you think that my anti-abortion stance begins and ends with Huckabee, you’re lost. Big time. It’s 34 years now that murdering babies has been legal in America.

The pro-life movement has NEVER STOPPED. We never will. The pro-life movement is gaining ground, the abortion industry is losing ground.

Your statement has a political logic to it:

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR THE HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT TO PASS.

That’s what you said.

Abortion is more than a political position to me. Stop talking like a politician. This is about human beings.

Skidd on February 20, 2008 at 11:29 PM

HebrewToYou, I re-read my post and want you to know that I didn’t mean to make it personal with you. I hate abortion. Makes my blood boil. So when I saw your post, I lashed out at the logic of it. That’s all.

No worries.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 11:29 PM

Like I said before here… Evangelicals deserve better than this jerk.

Always Right on February 20, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Bing.

Jaibones on February 20, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Abortion is more than a political position to me.

All the more reason not to discuss it here. Not everyone is a Christian and not everyone is willing to tell people in the Blue States they can’t have their abortions. It’s a divisive issue.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 11:42 PM

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Yes, sir. But I can’t promise I won’t talk about it again in the future. This is a great forum to discuss even controversial issues. I think that as conservatives, we’re grown up enough to disagree in a mature manner.

I promise I’ll watch my manner.

Skidd on February 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM

As should every Republican candidate. It’s. Not. A. Federal. Issue. Neither is gay marriage. Stop trying to expand the power of the Federal Gov’t. You’re acting like a liberal.

HebrewToYou on February 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM

I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m sincerely asking a question.

Why is it that abortion is a state’s rights issue but slavery wasn’t? Is it just because people consider slavery so much worse than abortion or is there some other reason? Or do you believe that it actually should have been a state’s rights issue?

Esthier on February 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM

I’ll be proudly casting my primary vote for Huck here in Ohio. If I have to vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils in the G.E. then I will, but I’ll be dreaming of Huck.

Vaporman87 on February 21, 2008 at 9:42 AM

In fact, reading all the negative comments towards Huck posted here has inspired me to donate to his campaign. And I’ll feel great doing it.

Vaporman87 on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Why is it that abortion is a state’s rights issue but slavery wasn’t?

Maybe because slavery is a topic specifically addressed in the constitution! The Federal Gov’t already had their hand in the issue. Abortion is not comparable to slavery.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Vaporman87 on February 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM

A fool and his money soon part ways.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Maybe because slavery is a topic specifically addressed in the constitution! The Federal Gov’t already had their hand in the issue. Abortion is not comparable to slavery.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

It was specifically addressed because it was an issue at the time. Had abortion been legal in some states at the time it too might have been addressed in the constitution.

And by making abortion legal in the first place, doesn’t the Federal Government already have its hands in the abortion issue as well?

Esthier on February 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Had abortion been legal in some states at the time it too might have been addressed in the constitution.

Abortion has always been an issue. It was omitted from the US Constitution because it wasn’t an issue the Federal Gov’t wanted to address.

And by making abortion legal in the first place, doesn’t the Federal Government already have its hands in the abortion issue as well?

What in blue blazes are you talking about? The Federal Gov’t never legalized abortion. The closest they came was the Comstock Act, which banned the advertisement of abortion services. Abortion was treated differently by each state until Roe V. Wade, at which point it became legal due to judicial fiat.

Roe V. Wade should be overturned, most certainly, but there is no need whatsoever for a Federal Abortion Ban. That is too much.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Roe V. Wade should be overturned, most certainly, but there is no need whatsoever for a Federal Abortion Ban. That is too much.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM

I’m not arguing for one.

And Roe v. Wade is exactly what I was talking about. Do you not consider the Supreme Court a part of the Federal Government?

Abortion has always been an issue. It was omitted from the US Constitution because it wasn’t an issue the Federal Gov’t wanted to address.

You misunderstand me. I have never been under the impression that abortions were recently invented. That was not my point at all. My point is that it was illegal nationwide and thus not an issue that the Constitution had to address the way it was forced to address slavery.

Esthier on February 21, 2008 at 1:32 PM

If McPain picks this swarmy hick for VP over Romney I’ll know for sure that the RNC made a deal with and the DNC, (of which John is a ‘secret’ member) or the Clintoons. Methinks that the Repubs are very weary of wielding power; and they do it so…ineffectively. If they were to make conservatism their root and foundation, the power of the Repub party would run over the cowards on the other side…

I also think that Nixon and Kevin Spacey had a love child in Huckleberry Hound.

Christine on February 21, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Do you not consider the Supreme Court a part of the Federal Government?

No. Not when they throw the constitution aside to make a judgement.

HebrewToYou on February 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2