Huckabee: Diabetes bigger threat than terrorism? Update: Governor Huckabee responds
posted at 12:28 pm on May 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
See update below for Governor Huckabee’s response.
Mike Huckabee offered a strange analysis of national priorities at a conference on diabetes in Washington. He told the audience that diabetes presents a bigger threat to Americans than terrorism, which is both true and utterly pointless at the same time. He also underscored the suspicion which Republican primary voters had about his nanny-state tendencies (via JWF):
An advocate for better health since his diabetes diagnosis five years ago, Mike Huckabee warned Wednesday that the illness may pose a greater threat than terrorism to the United States.
Nearly 59 million Americans are at risk for type 2 diabetes. The former Arkansas governor said the epidemic would be “the lead story” across the country if tens of millions were in danger of terrorist attacks.
“The greatest challenge to America may not be something from without, it may be something from within,” Huckabee said. “It’s our own unhealthy habits.”
Huckabee, who made an unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination this year, was the keynote speaker at a conference on diabetes.
About two-thirds of Americans are overweight, a major diabetes risk factor. According to a Gallup survey released Wednesday, 24 percent of adults have been diagnosed with diabetes or are at risk for the disease.
I’m not about to dispute the fact that diabetes is a terrible disease. The First Mate had diabetes for over forty years until she got a pancreas transplant in 2005. It blinded her, caused kidney disease which led to three kidney transplants, and gave her degenerative neuropathy which plagues her to this day. We live with the consequences of it every day.
Millions of Americans suffer from diabetes in one form or another, which makes Huckabee’s terrorism comparison technically correct. However, diabetes control isn’t a primary responsibility of the federal government. National security is. And while diabetes is a manageable disease, terrorism isn’t. No tolerable level of terrorism exists for any nation.
The federal government has a Constitutional responsibility to protect us from attack, terrorist or otherwise. The people themselves have responsibility for managing illnesses and maintaining their health. Huckabee forgot the distinction at times during the campaign, sounding more like a nanny-state politician bent on imposing health-related mandates at the federal level, and it sounds like he still hasn’t learned the difference.
Update: I received an e-mail from Governor Huckabee at 4 pm CT today with the following response:
Ed,
There will be 50 million Americans with diabetes by the year 2025 at the current rate. I didn’t say diabetes was “worse than terrorism” and did not at all suggest or even imply that the federal government was the one who needed to fix it…quite the opposite! The point of my remarks was that it required LIFESTYLE changes of individuals and in fact I specifically stated that government can’t force people to make healthier choices. It has to be done over a generation as we change the culture from one of disease to health.
Mike Huckabee
I’ve interviewed Gov Huckabee on a few occasions and have found him intelligent, honest, and refreshing. I think, though, that this demonstrates why conducting rhetorical comparisons between anything and terrorism is problematic. When put in those terms, it implies that some kind of action should be taken by the government. Otherwise, why use terrorism at all? Why not compare diabetes to alcohol addiction, AIDS, high-school dropout rates, etc? As I noted in the first paragraph, the comparison would be apt statistically, but the implication goes much farther than what I think he honestly intended.
However, as the governor notes in his response, diabetes does require action by individuals to lower the risks for the disease, including better diet, more exercise, and a move away from high-sugar foods. And of all people in political life, the governor has the best standing to make that point — and that’s a point all of us can and should support.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
“We only object when you try to impose your fundamentalist beliefs on the rest of us. ”
And we get REALLY fired-up when you try to impose your immorality upon us!
As a fundamental Christian, I have EVERY right in this world to advocate the morality of my faith and pick the candidates I think best represents my beliefs.
Al-Ozarka on May 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Aside from the first sentence your passage looks like it could have been taken directly from an Obama speech. Change, evil corporate interests, the decline of America, etc.
phronesis on May 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I would also argue, from an evangelical Christian standpoint, that the doctrines of the “Social Gospel” have had unintended and severe consequences. One of these, the most oft overlooked, is that Christians today, instead of fulfilling their God-given mandate to carry out the Great Commission, are relying on government to impose morality.
Is your faith in God, or in man (government)?
HYTEAndy on May 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Nor do they take into account the fundamentalist Islamists freedom to live under Sharia.
Zetterson on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Jeez, what a buzz kill.
Oh, and Hucakbee wasn’t “forced out”. He could not win enough delegates to beat McCain. Period, end of story.
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
That’s okay, only sensible people agree with me.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Yeah…I knew as soon as I submitted that comment someone would bring up the impending Obama presidency. But don’t you include me in the “you idiots” thing.
samuelrylander on May 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Understood. Just wanted to make the distinction between substantive critisism and personal attacks out of anger and frustration. I believe you were doing the same.
Zetterson on May 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM
“Most of you guys are libertarians not conservatives.”
Wrong…and here’s why.
A true libertarian believes in the individual rights of all citizens. One CANNOT be a libertarian and be an advocate of abortion.
I am a libertarian. Conservatism and libertarianism are not incompatible. Liberalism and libertarianism are.
Al-Ozarka on May 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM
The liberal mindset of Huckabee is on display here. Maybe Obama should choose Huckabee as his running mate.
Travis1 on May 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Man these Huckabee threads really attract the freaks. My goodness. I can only imagine what a Huckabee rally looks like. Scary.
Zetterson on May 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM
“Aside from the first sentence your passage looks like it could have been taken directly from an Obama speech. Change, evil corporate interests, the decline of America, etc.” -phronesis
Oh…so you’re a “status-quo” type of guy, eh?
Then McCain should satisfy you.
Al-Ozarka on May 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Ummm..what? This must be “make up new rights to fit my worldview” day. I’m as sold out to Jesus as they come, but you’re off your nut here Prez.
TexasDan on May 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
“The liberal mindset of Huckabee is on display here. Maybe Obama should choose Huckabee as his running mate.”
Easy to type…but completely idiotic.
Al-Ozarka on May 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Acknowledged.
Isn’t it nice when we can discuss things in an adult manner, and not degress into the childlike states that some people here do over issues/people?
HYTEAndy on May 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Ahem, regress
HYTEAndy on May 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
phronesis on May 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Well it is becoming a culture war. I don’t agree with the sexualization of culture that is in everyones face whether they want it to be or not. This makes it harder for the millions I represent to practice their beliefs and pass them to their children.
I also think that the way government is headed is to declare religous speech hate speech.
HYTEAndy
Federalism will be a last resort, but now we can keep a national culture of good morals which is the only way we can prosper if we fight for it on the federal level. I won’t give up and go to federalism until their is no hope left.
PrezHussein on May 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
It is nice and preferred but we all have our breaking points I suppose.
Zetterson on May 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
You are absolutely correct, Danish. Good observation. This reminds me of the Ben Stein thread a few days ago when Stein misspoke in an interview, and was then quoted as saying he believed science was evil, when in reality all he meant was that science in the hands of warped minds is evil. Big difference. Context my friends. Context.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I’m not so sure those things are connected. The church flourished in Rome and Corinth, two places with roughly similar or more lasciviousness than our own. I think perhaps the truth is that our degrading culture brings a more stark contrast to the lifestyle of Christianity.
samuelrylander on May 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
You’re the type of person I was referring to when I wrote that.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Ed: My best to your wife and I hope things continue to go well for her. Terribly damaging disease diabetes. Leave it to Huck to put them both in the same paragraph. Both equally scarey in their own way.
jeanie on May 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM
And I would add, that may or may not be a good thing.
samuelrylander on May 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM
HuckaNanny: The candidate who would not go away and shut up.
rightwingprof on May 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM
“The candidate who would not go away and shut up.”
So that McCain…the PROVEN liberal Democrat Nanny-stater, open-bordersadvocate can have his way with the GOP.
Al-Ozarka on May 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM
And this is where we agree to disagree Dane. I’m not buying what you’re selling. You talk about delegates. The Media and the Republican establishment did there best to force the nomination of John McCain after they couldn’t get Romney in. They’ve helped destroy the conservative movement in America. John McCain nominee for the Republican party??? The Republican party sure is in a sad state of affairs.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Realize your foolishness. How would you like this?
I don’t advocate that, I’m just turning your comment back on you. Why do you advocate shutting up anyone? Are you a fascist?
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 2:46 PM
HYTEAndy, thank you so much for your comments. You represent the kind of decency I expect to see at HotAir.
People may not agree with each other, but there is no need for HotAir to start sounding like dKos. We know that left-wingers (including staffers at the New York Times) read HotAir, and if they read here, we probably have a few trolls that post here, too.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I’m not selling anything, dear.
The idea that the media was trying to force Romney in is quite the rib tickler.
The primary system needs to be reformed, but many of the rules are made by the states, not by the political parties – such as whether or not an Independent or Democrat can vote in a Republican Primary.
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
HawaiiLwyr, would you like to be told that your 15 mins are up and now you need to go away?
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM
What Huck fails to understand, I would rather die because I ate too many desserts, than to die at a terrorist’s hands.
Give me liberty, or give me death…if he takes away my freedom to eat whatever I want whenever I want, then I am a slave to his idea of what healthy eating is all about.
We all die…do we die as freemen, or as slaves? Do we die with a smile on our face because we ate the whole thing, or die a violent death like the people did on 9-11?
Conservative Voice on May 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM
1) Ad hominem
2) Let’s leave “schmuck” to the Kos kiddies, OK?
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I agree with both of you. I am in favor of our leaders promoting the general welfare, not trying to supply welfare. I do not want a welfare state or a nanny state. Many of you try to say that Huckabee wants a nanny-state. I don’t see that. The article linked from this post does not quote Huckabee as being in favor of a nanny-state, but it does quote him promoting the general welfare of US citizens.
I call that leadership.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Depends on what you mean by tolerable. It’s impossible to eliminate it in a free society, so some level has to be tolerable. We don’t have to like it, if that’s what you mean.
Mark Jaquith on May 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM
The decline of America isn’t because of who is elected. And Huck is a man, you guys make him out to be God himself…please.
Conservative Voice on May 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM
That I don’t like a man who wants to use the White House to start a theocracy? Sure, that says a lot about me.
I didn’t say I like McCain.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Straw man argument. Huckabee isn’t talking about taking away your freedom to eat whatever you want whenever you want. Huckabee is promoting healthy eating habits.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM
It’s not within the government’s power to promote the general welfare of U.S. citizens. That’s a misreading of Article I section 8. The “general welfare” clause is not an enumerated power, but merely something mentioned in the introduction as a goal of the enumerated powers, and those powers alone.
If the government has a power to promote the general welfare, then what was the point of enumerating limited powers? They might as well have said “oh, and by the way, the government can do whatever the f*** they want if they think it’s in the general welfare.”
Mark Jaquith on May 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Very good point. To eliminate the threat of a suicide bomber walking into a grocery store, we’d have to go through a TSA checkpoint to enter the store (and even that isn’t a guarantee of safety). If we enjoy our freedoms, we have to be willing to risk the suicide bomber. But just because we tolerate the risk doesn’t mean we tolerate the actions of the bomber. That’s why a large part of this struggle is indeed an ideological and spiritual battle.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM
All liberal positions are civil rights. Conservatives oppose liberals. Therefore, conservatives oppose civil rights.
PrezHussein on May 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I (as an anti-abortion libertarian) thought the same thing too. But it really comes down to when you grant human rights to the fetus/child. Conception? Implantation? Viability? Birth? Different answers lead to different stances on the legitimacy of abortion.
Of course, one thing most libertarians agree on is that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion (nor is there any right granted to the fetus)– it’s not a Federal issue.
Mark Jaquith on May 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I don’t think his heart’s in the wrong place. If he, as a very effective public speaker, were to do a series of PSAs promoting healthy diet, even as part of an HHS-funded campaign, I’d be cheering.
I’m just leery of the moralisms (per Calabresi’s term) in public policy. Believing we’re trying to save people makes some of us think we have license to do all kinds of mischief. Hillary’s certainly got a bad case of that.
DrSteve on May 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Mark, I agree with you.
I read Huckabee’s food stamp proposal like this…
Our welfare state government already has instituted a food stamp program. Huckabee is merely suggesting that we tweak this existing program in order to encourage (promote) healthier choices by those who are recipients of this welfare program. Doing so is good for the recipients and good for our country as a whole because it could reduce health care expenses, some of which are government-paid (Medicare). He was not trying to create new powers for government or take freedoms away from citizens.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Sorry. It’s hard to tell.
You keep responding as though the choice was between Huck and McCain. Huck lost long before McCain started winning.
So no more coffee then? No more alcohol? No more sex? No more TV?
The cigarettes don’t by themselves make you addicted. I’ve smoked before and never once got addicted.
Well, he wasn’t my guy and still isn’t. I am a Christian, but I don’t vote based on who shares my religious beliefs. Identity politics is for liberals.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Maybe a better way to put it is that while some level is tolerable, it will never be given sanction or accepted. Like any other type of murder or violence, really.
Mark Jaquith on May 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Wrong. He put diet as a higher priority than what the federal government is actually responsible for. If he wants to start a eat right campaign, fine by me…just don’t compare it to terrorism, because it implies he wants to play Al Gore, only instead of Green policies its with Food. What we eat is our responsibility…it really boils down to understanding what the role of government is…what we eat is not one of them.
Conservative Voice on May 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Really? Schmuck is just not an inflammatory word. It’s way too tame for Kos kids. If this is the only name-calling on this thread, we’re fortunate.
I think it means that even if we cannot eliminate it (which I’m sure is true) that we still must fight it. We can never rest until it is eliminated, so we can never rest.
A free society must also be safe enough to truly be free.
I completely agree.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
In a court of law, DNA evidence establishes unique identity.
Your unique identity, your unique DNA, was established at your conception.
Another commenter pointed out that the egg is “alive” and the sperm is “alive”, so when you join the two together, why does anyone question that the embryo is “alive”?
I disagree. Our founders made it clear that life itself is a God-given unalienable right. This was an obvious (self-evident) truth to them.
Our government should be defending this right, not being a party to taking it away from those who are completely innocent and not able to defend themselves from their death sentence.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
But by refusing to speak out against the welfare state, he is tacitly accepting this unconstitutional government power. He doesn’t get any points from me for perpetuating the status quo, no matter the general benefits. It’s like McCain talking against Bridges to Nowhere, while implicitly accepting the building of Bridges to Somewhere. Instead of the location of the bridges, let’s talk about bridges vs no bridges. Instead of the minutia of food stamps, lets talk about food stamps vs no food stamps. It’s really frustrating that many alleged conservatives have resigned themselves to arguing over implementation details of the welfare state. This is why gun-to-my-head, I couldn’t choose between McCain and Obama.
And honestly, I’m fairly convinced that Huckabee is not only in favor of a welfare state, he’s in favor of expanding it. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl81Pq4aOOo
Mark Jaquith on May 8, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I disagree. Huck didn’t have to “win” by getting to 1191 delegates. All that had to happen was to keep McCain from getting to 1191 and we would have had a brokered convention. I doubt that McCain would have emerged as the nominee from a brokered convention. The media kept spouting that it was “impossible” for Huck to win, when that was not the truth. The media was calling McCain the “presumptive nominee” long before he got to 1191.
I remain suspicious about the Republican primaries in Florida and Washington state. I think Florida was designed to give McCain the nomination by the Democrat’s own “Operation Chaos” on us. In addition, the media lied and said that Huckabee had left Florida on the Friday before the primary (making it appear that Huckabee was already conceding defeat). The truth was that Huckabee was still campaigning in Florida all the way up through Tuesday, but the media lied and refused to tell the truth.
Washington state sure looks like a stolen primary to me.
If McCain is so “courageous”, why did he back out of the February 28th one-on-one debate with Huckabee? That debate was one of the ones originally planned, but the wikipedia page for 2008 Republican Presidential Debates went from listing this debate, to saying it had been cancelled because McCain was the “presumptive nominee”, to (in true Orwellian fashion) being completely erased so there is no record of it ever having been on the schedule.
If McCain is so “courageous”, why won’t he do a 1-on-1 interview with Michelle Malkin?
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM
FTFY
Yeah, yeah- I know. The Huckster- with all his tax raising, nanny-statist, criminal releasing, and false promises can DO NO WRONG because he’s a “Christian Leader”. That’s all his supporters care about. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
Hollowpoint on May 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM
It was impossible for Huckabee to win. He had very little support outside of his base. If the Republicans had a proportional representation system like the Democrats to count delegates, Huckabee might have stood a chance, but the winner take all system that exists makes a brokered convention scenario all but impossible.
Slublog on May 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Well, here’s another perspective or point of view. The media bias was obvious, it was a McCain-Romney lovefest and I was amazed at how blatently one-sided it was. I’m surprised with your keen eye you would have overlooked this, especially after both the MSNBC and CNN Televised debates.
MSNBC GOP Debate – Total speaking times
Total Times
Romney: 21:11, during 13 times
McCain: 16:00, during 13 times
Giuliani: 13:50, during 11 times
Huckabee: 12:11, during nine times
Paul: 6:31, during six times
And the CNN one with Andy (bias) Cooper.
Mitt Romney was given 17 questions.
John McCain was given 15 questions.
Mike Huckabee was given 11 questions
Huckabee would have won them debates easily had he been given a chance to speak. I’m sorry, but that was NOT fair (and the bias did not start and stop there. The daily news coverage was just as bad).
No argument here, but the MSM, the most powerful force in American politics, decided to eliminate Huckabee from the race.
Dear.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 4:16 PM
The President sets the moral tone for the nation. Like a father would a household. I think your comment is being quite naieve.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM
We’re learning more about you each day.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM
NC Republican Primary Results:
Given that “No Preference” was a choice, any vote for Huckabee was a vote of true support, not a “protest vote” against McCain.
Hillary got 652,824 votes in NC. If 10% of those were Operation Chaos Republicans, then that’s 65,282 more Republicans who voted for someone other than John McCain. If that 10% assumption is true, McCain’s percentage of all Republican voters in this primary was not 74%, it was less than 66%. That’s pretty bad when McCain has been the “presumptive nominee” since Huckabee dropped out of the race over two months ago. What would McCain’s numbers have looked like if it was still an active race with both him and Huckabee campaigning in the state? I also suspect that McCain’s primary day speech in Winston-Salem, NC about judicial nominations was timed to influence last minute fence-sitters in his favor. If McCain had failed to get 50% in the NC primary, it would have looked really bad for him.
I liked the words that came of McCain’s mouth in W-S on Tuesday, but I’d like him to “show me the judges”. Provide a list of 15-20 judges he feels would make good Supreme Court Justices, and commit to picking one of them as his first Supreme Court nominee.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM
First of all, if you don’t like being called “Dear”, don’t call me “Dane”. Okay?
Secondly that evidence you supplied is meaningless. For one thing, I don’t know what debates you are citing, or where in the primary process we were. I can tell you that Mitt Romney kicked everyone’s butt in the NH debate hosted by Chris Wallace, but he still lost NH, so debates have limited value.
Next, other than irrelevant debate info, please provide a shred of evidence that the media was rooting for Mitt. It is frankly a preposterous suggestion. McCain, yes. Mitt, no.
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Who is “we”? Are you royalty?
Even if McCain had been unable to get to 1191, there’s no reason for you to believe that we would have chosen Huck.
Romney was in second place, not Huck, and one of the states Huck won, he won after Romney had suspended his campaign.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM
We know this. It is going to be a disaster in the 2008 Presidential election. That we know for sure. From here the nation goes downhill fast, and how you can blame your elected leaders is beyond me. You know full well what you put into office.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Why did Romney quit the race before McCain reached 1191?
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Because he had a better grasp of reality.
Slublog on May 8, 2008 at 4:41 PM
That’s already been well discussed. Even the President receives only 70% support in some states after being declare the presumptive nominee.
Exactly. To say otherwise is to completely forget the field day the media had on a regular basis over Mitt’s religion.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 4:42 PM
And he’s clearly a better businessman, knowing full well what a waste of money it was.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM
If you’re talking to me…
I didn’t vote in the primary. By the time it reached me, all the candidates I wanted were already out.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Nanny Stating? From Mike Huckabee? Its more likely than you think.
doubleplusundead on May 8, 2008 at 4:47 PM
apacalyps is right. The media (and a lot of commenters on Hot Air) consistently distorted what Huckabee stands for, kept trying to shut him up, and kept trying to suppress the vote for Huckabee.
Lying to the people of Florida, telling that Huck left the state on the Friday before the primary, is suppressing the vote.
Ask April Orit if her stated preference for Huckabee was suppressed here on HotAir. She herself says that she was ganged up on by many of you until she agreed to vote for Fred.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Because, in addition to having a better grasp of reality as Slubog says, he cares about this country more than his own personal aspirations, and didn’t want to do to the Republicans what the Dems are doing to each other?
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Let’s take a look at Indiana’s primary results:
Huckabee got more than twice as many votes as Romney.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 4:52 PM
IF Al Qaeda controled who got diabetes, we’d be blowing them up for that.
Akzed on May 8, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Months after both of them dropped out. Meaningless.
Slublog on May 8, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Slubbo, don’t know why you bother arguing with these starry-eyed Huck supporters…but it is entertaining to watch.
doubleplusundead on May 8, 2008 at 5:03 PM
They’ve both dropped out. That’s not representative of who would have voted for Romney or Huck if both had stayed in and still had a chance.
Most conservative I know have decided to just vote McCain as a show of party unity. My mother even gave a short speech during her birthday dinner telling my brothers (I was out of town) that since he’s our guy, we need to go ahead and support him.
But my mother never would have voted for him before.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 5:03 PM
If Romney really “cares about this country more than his own personal aspirations”, he would have stayed in the race and done everything possible to keep McCain from reaching 1191. The reality is that Romney cares more about his own personal aspirations. When he quit the race, he tried to make Huckabee quit at the same time and hand the nomination to John McCain on a silver platter. I generally like Mitt Romney, and could have voted for him in the general election, but the excuse he gave for quitting the race was pathetic:
How is that different from saying, “If I continue my run, the terrorists have won”?
It was the lamest excuse I have ever heard for exiting a run for office.
And he was trying to get Huckabee quit at the same time, because clearly if Huckabee continued his run it would be “aiding a surrender to terror”. /sarc
Romney quit for one reason only: he didn’t believe he could win the presidency, so he was doing everything he could to persuade John McCain to pick him as VP.
To suggest that he quit because he “cares about this country more than his own personal aspirations” is laughable. Sorry, not trying to be offensive, but that’s the truth.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM
By staying in, Hillary could potentially split up her party. Already the “bitterness” on each side has many potential new Republicans in the general election.
The same thing would have happened to us.
To prevent such a crack up, Romney left. It was smart politically, and it was smart financially.
Esthier on May 8, 2008 at 5:11 PM
So may I take it that since the Oracle has the Global Warming bigger threat than terrorism gig, the Huckster is going after the Diabetes bigger threat than terrorism gig?
MB4 on May 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM
That’s why Romney should have stayed in the race until McCain got to 1191.
Understand that it was in McCain’s interest (and the interest of Democrats in the media) to make McCain the “presumptive” nominee as quickly as possible. It was a whirlwind from January 3rd to February 7th when Romney quit. McCain was railroaded through in a little over a month. I respect Mike Huckabee for fighting the good fight for another month until McCain reached 1191. With all of the money Mitt spent on his campaign, he could have afforded another month. He quit because he wants to be VP.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
The Huckster is a big-government, compassionate “conservative” in the mold of Dubya. Except he’s a squish on foreign policy, too.
And that noise about amnesty being our second chance? Buh-bye Huckster.
And the fact that people here don’t support him doesn’t mean that they support McCain either.
misterpeasea on May 8, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Huckabee on Immigration:
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Yeah, well if the race had been a 2 way race between McCain and Mitt, without Huck as the stalking horse, Mitt could have won. And don’t forget that one of the turning points was when McCain threw his delegates to Huck in West Virginia, where Mitt was way ahead of both of them.
Blame it on the Huckster!
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
My thoughts exactly. Smart man, smart politics.
Domino on May 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
They’re not unlike any other rally. If normal people walking around scares you, you need to get out more. I’d look for the freaks to be at a Pelosi rally.
someguy on May 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Sounds like McCain. They’re both tough on immigration, huh?
“One of the great challenges facing us is that we do not commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with African Americans 150 years ago and beyond. We’re still paying the price for the pathetic manner in which this country handled that,” Huckabee said at a meeting of the Political Animals Club in Little Rock. The club meets monthly to hear from political figures and experts.
“I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before,” Huckabee said.
misterpeasea on May 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Huck is no stalking horse. The show of support in Indiana and North Carolina proves that.
The problem was that Mitt, Huck, and Fred split up a group that normally votes as a block.
What happened in West Virginia was 100% McCain’s doing. McCain did that because he considered Mitt a bigger threat than Huck. Don’t blame that on Huckabee.
However, I do think it is fair to blame Romney for doing what he did on February 14th. Romney had already quit the race a week earlier. What he did on the 14th (trying to “release” his bound delegates to vote for McCain instead of himself) was another attempt to get Huck to quit the race.
You think Huckabee was colluding with McCain in WV. I say Romney was colluding with McCain to try to get Huckabee to quit.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
That^^^ is how RedPill quotes Mitt, out of context, in his CPAC speech.
That is nothing like saying, “If I continue my run the terrorists will have won”, which RedPill claims it means.
This is the full text of the germane paragraphs:
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM
You frighten me a little.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Who was your candidate? Hillary?
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Uh, oh… here he is..
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Allahpundit himself was heavily invested in asking when Huck was going to quit:
February 12, 2008 When will Huck quit?
March 4, 2008 Predictions: When do Hillary and Huck drop out?
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I was quoting directly from the CPAC site, and provided the link in my comment. To make you happy, here is the larger context:
So go ahead and tell me how Huckabee staying in the race another month forestalled the launch of McCain’s national campaign and made it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.
I don’t think you can.
Romney quit the race because he lost faith in his ability to become President in 2008 and wanted to settle for VP. In my opinion, there is no other rational explanation for why Romney quit. His supporters wanted him to go on. Even I, as a Huckabee supporter, would have liked to see Romney go on, because the February 28th debate would have happened if Romney was still in. McCain couldn’t have backed out of a three man debate the way he backed out of a two man debate.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM
I don’t have time to argue the entire freaking history of the primaries with you, but citing primary results from May 6th is meaningless statistics, but I’m sure the Ronulans appreciate it.
As for Mitt throwing his delegates to McCain, he did that because he wanted to get the primary over with so we could focus on beating the Democrats.
/over.
Buy Danish on May 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Just so you know Danish, I posted a response to you, but I guess somebody disagreed with it because it didn’t make it through. Not sure what the problem was, but hey, that’s there call, not mine, and I gotta respect that. That said, I stand by everything I said in that post. It’s not anything that hasn’t been said at HA or on other blogs before.
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Guess I better stop reading Hotair and get outside in the freshair.
kirkill on May 8, 2008 at 6:16 PM
In response to Ed’s update:
Because most people tune out the statistics about alcohol addiction, AIDS, high-school dropout rates, etc. But the deaths on September 11, 2001 are vivid and painful. Mike Huckabee is trying to alert people to the truth that 50 million Americans with diabetes by the year 2025 is probably a lot more than will be harmed by terrorism (barring multiple nuclear terrorist events).
Thank you for making that point, Ed. We’re glad you came to HotAir. We find you “intelligent, honest, and refreshing”!
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I don’t think it’s the eeevil censors of free speech at work.
I went through a couple of hours the other day where none of my comments posted.
misterpeasea on May 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I didn’t mean to imply that “that point” was the point of more people suffering from diabetes than from terrorism. I understand that the point is individual choices.
I was just thanking Ed for being fair in his treatment of Mike Huckabee.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM
As a proud patriotic diabetic, I can honestly say that Huckabee is a stupid, Bible-hustling pimp.
TexasJew on May 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM
I’ve noticed that if I ever put a link to something on CNN.com my comment doesn’t post. It may be some automated filtering, not an active decision on Ed or AP’s part.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM
This is not Europe, the President is not the Father figure, he is not King. He doesn’t set the tone for the country, he doesn’t have that power. At best he sets the tone for his party.
Conservative Voice on May 8, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Buck Huckafee
redrock on May 8, 2008 at 6:29 PM
And that honorable man that you call a “stupid, Bible-hustling pimp” strongly supports Israel.
Red Pill on May 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »