Coming soon: Huckabee touts mystery announcement; Update: “New political entity”?

posted at 2:30 pm on April 9, 2008 by Allahpundit

Prime fodder for a slow news day. The countdown clock points to April 15, which means smart money is on something having to do with the Fair Tax, but NBC notes that he’s giving a speech that night at Cornell on religion. Any guesses? I’m thinking a remake of “Voyagers” with Chuck Norris as Phineas and Huck in the Meeno Peluce role. Or, just possibly, the unveiling of a new PAC.

Exit question: Is he really going to make taxes the cornerstone of Huckabee 2.0? It’s red meat, but at this moment in time just sort of … random.

Update: Headlines comments imported!

Update: His daughter told NBC that the countdown had to do with a website redesign. It’s a little more ambitious than that:

Mike Huckabee will hold a conference call with supporters tomorrow night to discuss his plans for a new political entity and to assure them that he plans to keep an active presence in this campaign and in future cycles, according to an aide.

He’ll be joined on the call by Steve Strang, a Christian publisher and Huckabee backer whose magazine, “Charisma,” just ran a very flattering cover piece on the former candidate that touts his future prospects.

“You will hear insider information about Huckabee’s scrappy campaign that surprised the nation and stunned Republican Party elites,” promises Strang in an email to Huckabee backers. “The ‘preacher who dared to be president’ will also discuss his plans for the future and reflect on the changing state of the conservative movement.”

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL



SkinnerVic on April 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Not press the submit button before ready (dumb) ;)

SkinnerVic on April 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM

OK – So, after sifting through all this thread, having my round with Apacalyps, you having a round with him, and both of them popping up here again hijacking this thread to spout off nonsense with St. Olaf and RedPill, I’ve notice the following disturbing trend (I think Cold Steel and Tzetzes picked up on this – I’m slooow)…

We have these self proclaimed Arbiters of who is a Christian™

The thing is many, many so called Christians are Christians in name only i.e. not real Christians at all.

SaintOlaf on April 10, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Just so we know what I’m defining below, lets roll this beautiful bean footage:

Claim A:

The definition of Christian is in the Bible. End of story. Period.
apacalyps on April 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Claim B:

These are the doctrines that make the distinction between Christianity and the world of cults. The essential doctrines are,

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)

Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these. Oh, and you have a seventh doctrine that strikes me as a functional necessity, that is the ultimate authority of Scripture without which none of the other truths can be affirmed or asserted with confidence. As long as a person believes in these essential doctrines, it’s pretty safe to say they are Christian.
apacalyps on April 9, 2008 at 7:59 PM

The trend is simple, They assert Claim A, and when other people (those whom they deem non-Christian) can classify themselves under their posit definition of Claim A, the Arbiters move the goalpost to Claim B. Now, B has a serious problem – it contradicts A because the basis for A is that it required no other proof or reference, hence sola scriptura. Unbeknown or oblivious to the Arbiters, Claim B incorporates BOTH Scripture and interpretations of ecumenical councils (See specific points 1,5,6 above.)
What’s even more hilarious is that it’s self-contradicting within the same post, as the “seventh doctrine” asserts Claim A once again.

The point I’m illustrating is that until these Arbiters have the intellectual honesty to come clean (like answering simple questions, etc), stick to one Claim (A or B – I don’t really care, just pick one, own and work it) and decode the doctrinal mess that is readily apparent by the fruits of their efforts here, we’re going to get 400+ posts of “hot messevery time.

SkinnerVic on April 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Tzetzes on April 11, 2008 at 2:25 AM

Amen. The cult of personality that is the Huckster defines these fools. His supporters are blindly following a fallen blind man. As one SB minister said elsewhere, the fact that a minister actively pursued a career in politics only goes to show that the ministry was never his true calling, rather like Obama, used the church as a springboard to politics. Yet the weak-minded swallow his false teachings hook, line & sinker.

Simply put, Hucky is a socialist and figures a “true christian leader” could succeed where Marx, secular & libertine leaders failed. Hucky wasn’t paying attention when Jesus said that the poor will always be with us – either from folly or by destiny. Furthermore, the Apostles were explicit about individual responsibility. Wealth redistribution was never part of plan, let alone to illegals who deserve nothing from us.

AH_C on April 11, 2008 at 5:50 PM

tom on April 11, 2008 at 12:56 AM

You absolutely correct on every point. Thanks for edifying my shock-jock treatment of St.O. In any case, I think I’m done with those idiots for this thread, time to move on to other topics.

AH_C on April 11, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Dabnab it, I was going to leave this thread alone…

Tzetzes, your links to other debates with St. O-laugh and others were entertaining to say the least. At least we have it on their “doctrinal logic” that Jesus lied to the one thief, that was crucified with him, saying that that he would be in paradise that day.

Likewise the denominational controversies in the early Church between the followers of various Apostles. To whit, some thot eating unclean meats or otherwise not following Jewish tenets vs those who found no problem with it.

Those clowns would do well to heed Matthew 23:15 with regards to their style of “witnessing”. As for defining sin/salvation, Romans 3 would be required reading. Bottomline, everyone sins- hence our mortal bodies. Salvation does not make one, such as St. O-laugh, perfect & w/o sin, faith merely justifies — i.e. made blameless or innocent — one before God on judgment day. Because there is nothing else we can do to save ourselves, not even successfully avoiding any and all sin for the rest of their natural lives.

Hence, no matter one’s preferred denomination, even Catholics, Copts, Eastern Orthodox & Mormons could be saved, provided their faith is centered on redemption via Christ. By the same token, plenty of Hucksteristas, evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, Methodists, as well as the aforementioned “fringe groups” could find themselves on the other side of the great gulf looking in because their faith was misplaced.

If nothing else, Roms 3 should give the sanctimonious clowns reason to refrain from throwing stones at those who don’t believe exactly as they do. Faith/Salvation is a intimate interaction between God and the individual and not subject to the opinions of others. After all, even Jesus marveled at the faith of the (evil according to Obambi’s pastor) Roman Centurion.

Here’s couple parting shots at the clowns:
1) The Bible commands us to obey the laws and pray for our leaders because God has ordained their rule, whether we like them or not. The exception being commandments to give upor compromising the faith. By the same token, God has reserved judgment for rulers who do evil. Thus, it’s not the end of the world for me if Obambi or the Hildebeast wins the WH. There’s no way I would vote for the Huckster, McVain (depending on VP) or the Dems, but if one of them wins, so be it.

2) Polygamy is not a sin against God. For us Americans, it would be a sin in that it is against the “legitimate” law of the land, but not in countries where it is legal. The only stipulation against polygamy, as well as drunkeness, etc is the criteria for selecting leaders. The rationale is that it’s hard for one to focus on shepherding a flock if he is beset with familial or personal burdens. I assure Red Pill and others that there are polygamists in heaven.

3) Fornication is not the same as pre-martial sex, nor is pre-marital sex necessarily a sin. Then there’s concubines & surrogate spouses. It boils down to intent & commitment, or the lack thereof. Hence common-law marriages & shot-gun weddings etc. OTOH, adultery is extramarital and is a sin. To understand the nuances, Leviticus would be a good starting point for the Biblical perspective as opposed to societal norms & protocols.

But then again, I think the clowns can’t handle these simple truths, lest their widdle heads explode. Ta-ta.

AH_C on April 11, 2008 at 8:04 PM