Redstate

What Huckabee "flip-flop" on abortion are you talking about?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Being conflicted about and having compassion for the children of immigrants, and then coming out with a plan to secure the border first is hardly a flip-flop. And, it does not compare to baby killing. We pro-lifers just do not trust Mitt (Planned Parenthood) Romney.

...but I welcome your vote for Mitt in the general. You folks out there who demand total purity on the life issue are few and far between. Mitt is coMITTed to pro-life policies. He is running on them, and he will govern on them as El Presidente de United States. I, myself am a pro-lifer. Many members of my family and close friends are pro-lifers. I am confident in saying that every one of them views Mitt Romney as a pro-lofe politician who was formerlly pro-choice....and that is just fine with them.

I'm sure you know others that disagree and won't accept anyone into the pro-life movement that haven't been there from the beginning.

I believe those rigid types are not enough to stop W. Mitt Romney from conquering Iowa in the end.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

for all pro-lifers.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Apparently, I'm not pro-life. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I guess, though, that most of us think that Huck's move on immigration is politically calculated. We law-abiding citiznes just do not trust Mike (La Raza) Huckabee.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

You don't speak for me, CB.

...Begala is staunchly pro-life and is a devout man. Would he not be a perfect fit for Mike Huckabee?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

is so well known and documented that this is not likely to have any effect. Mitt has admitted to this and his position is pro-life.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

The ad shows he was pro-choice, then pro-life (2004). In the statement from 2005 he says he will stick to his campaign promise (implying he'll do it regardless of his personal position).

This ad makes me trust him more on the abortion issue, not less as is it's intent.

==== 13 ====

Life issues

Of course, this is based on the Huckster supposition that once pro-choice one can NEVER EVER EVER, under any circumstances EVER switch over and become pro-life. And if a person actually claims to do so, he/she should be treated with disdain and be made a pariah.

Apparently, Mitt Romney would go into the White House on the backs of pro-life voters and convert the West Wing into a Partial Birth Abortion Clinic and add Abortionist in Chief to the functions of the Presidency. Then, the dastardly monster would go clone multiple copies of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 18 years old, and nominate them to the Supreme Court!

Immigration

Let's see ... one governor fights for in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants, castigates opponents of that [sarcasm]brilliant[/sarcasm] plan as ungodly for not quietly accepting it and somehow, in 20 months, could not find a pen with which to sign a training agreement with the ICE so that his state's police would be able to assist the Feds in enforcing immigration law. Let's call him Governor A.

The other governor, on the other hand, vetoes in-state tuition for illegals, advocates and successfully gets English-immersion programs instituted in his state's schools, actually goes to the Feds and signs the agreement that would enable his state's police enforce immigration law. And, in addition, when this person first ran for office in 1994, he specifically listed "Tougher Measures To Stop Illegal Immigration" as part of his platform. Let's call this guy Governor B.

Governor A is supposed to be better on immigration for Conservatives than Governor B. Go figure.

Taxes

Taxes go up 47% in one state with the active support of Governor A. Redefining Conservatism to include enthusiasm for tax hikes is not exactly novel ... even if it is a [sarcasm]little[/sarcasm] dubious. After all, the New York Times has been trying to do this for quite a while.

Taxes do not go up in the other state, yet budgets get balanced for four years running, fees go up to match the cost of providing services. The Governor of this state furthermore vetoes multiple spending increases only to get overridden by the super-majority opposition. This is the record of Governor B.

Not using the New York Times definition of what constitutes a Fiscal Conservative (e.g. Ned Lamont), I would think that taxes not going up is conservative, balanced budgets are conservative, and making users actually pay for the services provided is also conservative.

However, once again, Governor A is supposed to be better on taxes for Conservatives than Governor B.

MAK scores! A beaut, Martin.