Huckabee: Palin’s getting more media buzz than me because she’s attractive

posted at 7:00 pm on November 9, 2009 by Allahpundit

I’m a little surprised Sarahcuda hasn’t gone after him for this. Too early, maybe?

Palin is the party’s rock star.

“Some of the people who had excoriated me and really been very dismissive of me for views that I had taken, and labeled me anything from a populist to an ignoramus — the same people have been very defensive [of] and laudatory to Sarah Palin,” Huckabee noted, adding that he’d invited her to appear on his weekly Fox show but “could never get any contact.”

“I’m glad she’s getting the props — I know I’m not nearly as attractive,” he said with a guileless grin.

If pressed on this, no doubt he’ll go into “aw shucks” mode and insist he was merely paying her a compliment, but this isn’t the first time he’s attributed Palin’s appeal to her looks. Remember this from last November?

Neither was he quite so unperturbed by the Palin pick: “I was scratching my head, saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute. She’s wonderful, but the only difference was she looks better in stilettos than I do, and she has better hair.’ It wasn’t so much a gender issue, but it was like they suddenly decided that everything they disliked about me was O.K. . . . She was given a pass by some of the very people who said I wasn’t prepared.”

He polls well with women and she polls badly, so from the standpoint of pure cynical self-interest, she could score an easy point on a potential rival by challenging his rhetoric as sexist here. Why doesn’t she? Is it because she doesn’t want to call attention to the fact that she and Huck are pretty similar, actually? Or is she thinking strategically, that if she runs and he doesn’t she’ll need his endorsement down the line? Her book tour does include a stop in Iowa

Don’t laugh at the idea that Huck might not run, either. Does this sound like a guy who’s trying to make friends ahead of 2012?

But some attitudes don’t change. Huckabee met in the spring with Pat Toomey, then the president of the Wall Street-backed Club for Growth, which had attacked him during the 2008 campaign for raising taxes in Arkansas.

“It wasn’t very productive,” he said of the meeting. “I realized then that these guys are just what I thought they were — they’re pay for play, and they do it anonymously on behalf of people who don’t want to be known as the funders of these hit operations. I find that repulsive.”

Given that fiscal conservatives are the people Huck will have to win over to beat Romney, TNR calls this knock on CfG “the functional equivalent of Mitt Romney trashing evangelicals.” Exit question: Is Huck running or not?


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 4 5 6

Let me phrase you question in a way I expect you are familiar with. Didn’t the Jews ask Jesus who he said he was? The Son of God? Well, was he or wasn’t he. If he was then why did they crucify him over telling the truth? Were they stirring up hatred? See how that works.

TechieNotTrekkie on November 11, 2009 at 12:21 AM

They crucified Him not for the truth, but because of His threat of Him removing their power. They weren’t seeking the truth…anymore then Huck or the Mormon who falsely accused Huck was seeking the truth…they are seeking an advantage.
Which is why those questions go unanswered…which is why a Christian will answer the questions and challenges to his faith and not hide behind a fabricated wall of bigotry.
Pretending that a challenge is just a bigoted remark, sometimes it is someone seeking the truth.
When I have challenged Christian’s, they go to the books and answer…when I challenge a Mormon, more often they begin to cry bigot or “Mormon hater”.
Months ago a Mormon challenged me and called Luther an anti-semite…and he was correct, I agreed…but when I called Joseph Smith a child molester, the Mormon got angry. Even though it is plain he married child brides, as did Young.
He tried the good ol “well it was common” and when shown statistics that it wasn’t and that it was unlawful, then the “bigot” card was played.

Just admit what is the truth, and it will set you free…

right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 12:46 AM

when I called Joseph Smith a child molester, the Mormon got angry. Even though it is plain he married child brides, as did Young.

right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 12:46 AM

This isn’t really the place to have a religious debate but if you’d like to have your questions answered, I would be more than happy to answer your questions about the LDS faith and try to explain them to you.

Is there a way we can discuss your questions about the LDS faith in a private format like e-mail or something?

As for Joseph being a molester and marrying child brides, I’d suggest you read here and here.

I also think its important to tell you that in 2005, a scientist performed genetic research in an attempt to verify the paternity of several people alleged to be children of Joseph Smith through alleged plural wives. Orrison Smith, the first son of Fanny Alger, was found not to be Joseph Smith’s son. Four other likely candidates were also ruled out. Presently genetic research has revealed no descendant of Joseph Smith through any woman other than his first and only publicly acknowledged legal wife, Emma Smith. Emma Smith bore Joseph nine children and his descendants through her number in the hundreds today. (Source)

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 2:28 AM

righttobright…you are showing yourself rightNOTbright…before you make scurrilous charges about the LDS faith you know nothing about except through your Anti-mormon literature, ask a member that will give you a true honest answer about polygamy.
Since you are an admitted Christian you will know that polygamy was a practice by many of the prophets in the O.T. WHEN commanded as well over and over the commandment by the Lord to take handmaiden’s for HIS purposes.
Polygamy was a commandment at the time only given to the upmost righteous members (5%) of the church and it was to help take in many times wives who husbands had been killed or murdered. As you know there were extermination orders for Mormons (here in America-land of religious freedom). The LDS were chased from state to state, many times in the middle of the night in the freezing snow all because of their/our beliefs! Many people turn this whole polygamy into some type of sexual thing. THAT was not the point and it has since been commanded to the prophet over hundred years ago that it was no longer required. Not because of whatever nefarious reasons you and your “Big Love” Hollywood crowd like to think.
Any faithful LDS member is more than willing to discuss our doctrines openly. We are not afraid or ashamed of the doctrine. Mormons love this country as fiercely as any. We just do not want to see another four years of Obama. I’ll vote for Palin, Romney, or Huckabee. However, “as for me and my house” Huckabee, will be a vote like it was for McCain for me.

g2825m on November 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM

Huckleberry is right…..

She’s more attractive.
She’s more genuine.
She’s apparently alittle better on policies.
And if we’re still allowed to have primaries in 2012, she’ll probably prove to be a better candidate.

Huck keep your day job.

PappyD61 on November 11, 2009 at 6:37 AM

I still get acid reflux when I think that if it wasn’t for Huckabee teaming up with Mccain in the West Virginia primary, it is probable Mitt would now be President and the nation wouldn’t be turning in the current meat grinder.
-
I tend not to reward bad behavior.
-

Romney – Palin 2012

diogenes on November 11, 2009 at 9:11 AM

What a shame that Palin can’t be considered only for the person she is, what she says and does and not what she looks like. Sigh. It shouldn’t be such a big deal. Many of us conservative women manage to be both intelligent AND attractive.

CarolinaGirl6 on November 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM

I know of at three occasion Huck as used Palin as the bud of his jokes. We have the two like we have here and one when he was hob nobin at some NYC dinner and took a shot a Palin when Couric was in hear shot.

Now on to his show, why would Sarah give him the satisfaction of using her to boost is own show. His viewers are more likely are going to buy her book anyway. Also, being on his show doesn’t have a political benefit to her at all. Sarah already has Huck’s demographic Sarah needs the Oprah/BOR demo and not Huck. One last thing it was Hannity or Huck. Sarah chose Hannity.

Sarah also has a date to give a speech at the College of the Ozarks 12/6. And the nite before is the gridiron speech in DC. Are you getting the picture now. If not I can’t help that.

I forgot one thing I would like to hear you rationalization on Huck’s postilion on NY-23. To me he was a post turtle.

Clyde5445 on November 10, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Clyde5445,

Mike Huckabee made a contractual agreement to appear in NY to give 4-5 awards to recipients at the Conservative Party function held on Oct. 26 (I think)over a year ago. That was way before Hoffman was even in the picture. He could not endorse Hoffman because Hoffman was supposed to attend that function and because Huckabee was getting paid to be the main speaker, it was a conflict of interest in that some people might say that Hoffman was paying Huckabee to endorse him.

Mike Huckabee stated that he would never support Scozzafava because of her positions. He believes in principles above party. MH has an contractual agreement with Huck Pac that they will only financially support Republican candidates with Conservative values and principles. He has also stated that third party candidates usually end up with the candidate winning that nobody wants, in this case, the Democrat, and that’s exactly what happened. He said in interviews that he supported Hoffman, and Hoffman’s camp seemed to be very satisfied with that because they put up that statement on the front page of his website. After Scozzafava left the race, Mike Huckabee endorsed Hoffman – he wasn’t the third party candidate any longer, and the function that MH spoke at was over. He didn’t say anything about Hoffman at the dinner because he was asked not to bring politics into the function because the aim was to give honor to the people who were getting the awards.

Mike Huckabee had a very good reason for not endorsing Hoffman.

VFT on November 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Well after the dinner then where was he nowhere to be found. As I said post turtle. I noticed you wrote an essay for a one sentence statement I made then convenient forgot to state your opinions on the rest of my original comment. Your silence speaks for itself in regards to the rest of my post.

Clyde5445 on November 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM

After Scozzafava left the race, Mike Huckabee endorsed Hoffman – he wasn’t the third party candidate any longer, and the function that MH spoke at was over.

VFT on November 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM

If this is true then I am mistaken but it does not change the facts of the underlining issue.

Clyde5445 on November 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Give it up Huck… great show though

shar61 on November 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

I used to like H until I read the following. Now I wouldn’t vote for him if someone gave me a million or so dollars.

Son’s Past Could Bite Huckabee

blr2449 on November 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM

g2825m on November 11, 2009 at 2:40 AM

Give it a break…you are saying that the OT rules and the rules of 1850 are the same?
Nice try, and btw, here is a quote from your official website, I don’t quote from anti-Mormon sites, I use your own words.

Helen Mar Kimball was nearly fifteen (see pp. 487, 499). She herself explains that her father took the initiative to arrange the marriage: “Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth”

Smith accepted her under those terms, like a slave, which I guess was okay in the OT so okay now? By your arguments.
It goes on to say he had sexual relations…by any definition that is child molestation. Imagine a 30+ old minister, taking a child bride, having sex with her (along with 20 or so others), and being admired for his faithfulness.

I also think its important to tell you that in 2005, a scientist performed genetic research in an attempt to verify the paternity o

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 2:28 AM

Was that the same genetic research that proved that the American Indians were not descended from Judiasm…here is an article
or here.
Regardless, Huck is not much better…they are men and men are corruptible, even men who are theologians and create new religions.
Men are full of sin…and defending the sinful nature is different from forgiving.

right2bright on November 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Clyde5445,

I don’t know what you want me to say about the “shots” you say Mike Huckabee made against Sarah Palin. If they are like what was posted in this article, they are not “shots” it is only in your perception. You know he jokes all the time, so why would he say something against Sarah Palin when he has many times and in many ways spoken of Sarah with respect and kindness? It doesn’t make any sense. Many people are always trying to make something bad about what he says or does that isn’t really bad because they don’t like him.

As far as his schedule, Mike Huckabee’s show is the top ranked show on the weekend, so he doesn’t “need” Sarah Palin to give him good ratings. The demographic she would get with any other Fox News show is the same as Mike Huckabee’s. It’s really too bad because I know if Sarah got to know Mike Huckabee, she would really like him, and if either one of them didn’t run in 2012, it might help the other to “want” to campaign for them. She wouldn’t get that advantage from O’Reilly or Hannity or Beck.

I hope I answered your questions. I didn’t respond because I know how you feel about Huckabee, so no matter what I say about his comments not being a “shot”, you probably won’t believe it anyway.

VFT on November 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Huckabee’s question about Mormonism is actually quite relevant to this topic. In both cases, what Huckabee said was actually quite true: Palin is more attractive than Huckabee is, and Mormons do in fact believe that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. That fact can be found quite easily from official LDS sources.

But in both cases, Huckabee’s comment was designed to help him politically by painting himself as a superior choice. He could say he doesn’t have Palin’s baggage by way of past media attacks, or Romney’s baggage from being part of a religion out of the American mainstream.

Contrary to some posters here, though, it’s not always easy finding out what Mormons believe just by asking one. My experience has been that they will tell the truth about their doctrines if asked point blank, but will tend to downplay the doctrines that are harder to square with traditional Christianity. One good example is trying to dodge the “Are Jesus and Lucifer spirit brothers” question.

And they emphatically believe they are not a cult, so there’s certainly no point in asking that question.

But then, nobody wants to be considered a cult, whether Moonies, or Jehovah’s witnesses, or “Christian Scientists.” If you want to answer the question for yourself whether or not any group is a cult, you will always have to look at sources from outside the group.

tom on November 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Give it a break…you are saying that the OT rules and the rules of 1850 are the same?

Yes. It is God who gives permission to marry more than one wife.

This is biblical. The story of King David is a perfect example. God gave David plural wives (2 Sam.12:8) and explained that a King cannot take more wives unto himself unless God permits it. (Deut 17:17). David already had two wives (1 Sam. 27:3, 2 Sam. 2:2)and yet he had more wives and children (2 Sam. 5:13). However, when David went after Bathsheba, God was angry for taking another wife without his permission (2. Sam 11:27, 2. Sam 12:9-11) and was against the commandment given in Deut 17:17.

The Book of Mormon explains the same concept that it is God who gives the authority to have more than one wife in Jacob 2:23-30. The Doctrine and Covenants explains the same principle in D&C 132:29-41

The Biblical principle is clear. God is the only person who allows polygamy to happen or not happen.

Nice try, and btw, here is a quote from your official website, I don’t quote from anti-Mormon sites, I use your own words.

What official site!? There are several official LDS sites. You say its from an official site and then you “conveniently” neglect to cite it.

It goes on to say he had sexual relations…by any definition that is child molestation. Imagine a 30+ old minister, taking a child bride, having sex with her (along with 20 or so others), and being admired for his faithfulness.

Show me the exact quote. You say that the website said he had sexual relations. Sorry, but I’m not going to take your word on what was said. Prove it or it never said it.

Was that the same genetic research that proved that the American Indians were not descended from Judiasm…here is an article
or here.

Conducting genetic research from 1830 compared to doing genetic research into whether or not Isrealites came to America is much easier.

Genetic research on Joseph Smith proved that he didn’t have any sexual relations with his plural wives with his first and only publicly acknowledged legal wife, Emma Smith.

As for proving DNA for groups migrating into the United States, there are several problems with the DNA research. Its a complex subject and there is not enough space here. Thus, I suggest you do ALOT of reading by looking here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Finally, I recommend you watch these YouTube video presentations on the DNA issue here and here.

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM

blr2449,

What does what his son have to do with Mike Huckabee’s ability to be President? This is so petty, it’s ridiculous. The boys said they were putting the dog out of it’s misery, but they apologized for the incident. Mike Huckabee is a father trying to help his son. MH also claimed that the man who was fired was alienating the entire police force. If you don’t think that chief, Bailey, who was appointed by Clinton could have been doing that, think again.

I guess if you think a person should not be voted for because of what their children do, then you won’t be voting for Palin either, right?

VFT on November 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Torn,

Mike Huckabee has nothing against the Mormon religion, and nothing against Mitt Romney for being a Mormon.

VFT on November 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Contrary to some posters here, though, it’s not always easy finding out what Mormons believe just by asking one. My experience has been that they will tell the truth about their doctrines if asked point blank, but will tend to downplay the doctrines that are harder to square with traditional Christianity. One good example is trying to dodge the “Are Jesus and Lucifer spirit brothers” question.

Trying to find out about a person’s faith can be challenging.It doesn’t matter which faith it is. I have met Jewish, Christian and other religious people who have been life time members but simply don’t posses the knowledge of their doctrines whereas I’ve met other people who do study the doctrines of their faith and are quite knowledgeable.

Fore example, I have two good Jewish friends. One couldn’t tell you the doctrines of the Jewish faith even if her life depended on it while the other one could explain even it if his life did depend on it.

If you have any questions about the LDS faith, I strongly suggest going here and looking to see if a question of yours has been answered. If you have a question about the LDS Church, that website will most likely have an answer for it and will explain it in a straight forward way.

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Clyde5445,

I notice you don’t make a comment about Mitt Romney never endorsing Hoffman. It’s only about Huckabee isn’t it?

VFT on November 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Give it a break…you are saying that the OT rules and the rules of 1850 are the same?

Yes. It is God who gives permission to marry more than one wife.

This is biblical. The story of King David is a perfect example. God gave David plural wives (2 Sam.12:8) and explained that a King cannot take more wives unto himself unless God permits it. (Deut 17:17). David already had two wives (1 Sam. 27:3, 2 Sam. 2:2)and yet he had more wives and children (2 Sam. 5:13). However, when David went after Bathsheba, God was angry for taking another wife without his permission (2. Sam 11:27, 2. Sam 12:9-11) and was against the commandment given in Deut 17:17.

The Book of Mormon explains the same concept that it is God who gives the authority to have more than one wife in Jacob 2:23-30. The Doctrine and Covenants explains the same principle in D&C 132:29-41

The Biblical principle is clear. God is the only person who allows polygamy to happen or not happen.

That’s an impressive job of reading what you want into scripture. But the statement about giving David his master’s wives was in the context of God giving David everything that belonged to Saul, his master. It was hardly a statement that God was giving His OK to polygamy. In fact, God simply allowed polygamy in the Old Testament. There is zero indication that it was reserved for only particular people, or that anyone was given special dispensation for polygamy anywhere else in the Bible. See for example 1 Samuel chapter 1, where the tale is told of Elkanah and his two wives, one of which became the mother of Samuel. The fact that the man had two wives is given absolutely no special attention.

And the problem with Bathsheba was nothing to do with exceeding David’s allotment of wives. It had to do with adultery, and the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. Skipping over these two offenses to claim David’s sin was in exceeding his allotment of wives is breathtaking in its audacity. God even criticized David especially for taking the wife of a man who only had one wife, while having multiple wives — and concubines — himself.

I find this attempt to prove special dispensation for polygamy offensive. God gives no man special dispensation. The same laws apply to all.

Of course, it’s not surprising that you would defend it this way, since Joseph Smith himself claimed a special revelation directly to himself from God that he was permitted to have more than one wife. In fact, that special revelation included a command to his wife, Emma, that she must receive any new wives he took.

On the other hand, it was Jesus who made it clear that from the beginning God intended it to be man and woman. The polygamy that God had “winked at” in the past was never God’s intention, and the church had a higher standard. You could not be a bishop or deacon in the church if you had more than one wife.

Nice try, and btw, here is a quote from your official website, I don’t quote from anti-Mormon sites, I use your own words.

What official site!? There are several official LDS sites. You say its from an official site and then you “conveniently” neglect to cite it.

It goes on to say he had sexual relations…by any definition that is child molestation. Imagine a 30+ old minister, taking a child bride, having sex with her (along with 20 or so others), and being admired for his faithfulness.

Show me the exact quote. You say that the website said he had sexual relations. Sorry, but I’m not going to take your word on what was said. Prove it or it never said it.
….
Genetic research on Joseph Smith proved that he didn’t have any sexual relations with his plural wives with his first and only publicly acknowledged legal wife, Emma Smith.

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Do you really claim that Joseph Smith married multiple wives, but only had sex with one? That strains credulity, to say the least.

tom on November 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Contrary to some posters here, though, it’s not always easy finding out what Mormons believe just by asking one. My experience has been that they will tell the truth about their doctrines if asked point blank, but will tend to downplay the doctrines that are harder to square with traditional Christianity. One good example is trying to dodge the “Are Jesus and Lucifer spirit brothers” question.

Trying to find out about a person’s faith can be challenging.It doesn’t matter which faith it is. I have met Jewish, Christian and other religious people who have been life time members but simply don’t posses the knowledge of their doctrines whereas I’ve met other people who do study the doctrines of their faith and are quite knowledgeable.

Fore example, I have two good Jewish friends. One couldn’t tell you the doctrines of the Jewish faith even if her life depended on it while the other one could explain even it if his life did depend on it.

If you have any questions about the LDS faith, I strongly suggest going here and looking to see if a question of yours has been answered. If you have a question about the LDS Church, that website will most likely have an answer for it and will explain it in a straight forward way.

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM

My point is simple, really. Official sources for any religion are necessarily going to be somewhat biased towards that religion.

tom on November 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM

If you have any questions about the LDS faith, I strongly suggest going here …

Conservative Samizdat on November 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM

I know a lot about the Mormon faith. Mormonism basically says that Jesus dying on a cross makes it possible for you to get your own planet, where you can have your own wives, and create your own spirit babies. Now, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want. I don’t care what you believe. But, I’m just telling ya you’re deluded if you think that Mormonism is Christianity. Mormons are NOT Christians. Thank you.

apacalyps on November 11, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6