Huckabee: Investigate Bush.
By mbecker908 Posted in 2008 — Comments (91) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mike Huckabee appeared on Hardball shortly after Scott McClellan's book was released. When asked by Chris Matthews about McClellan's comments about Valerie Plame, here's what Bubba Jr. had to say...
HUCKABEE: Well, I’m just hearing it this afternoon for the first time. It’s stunning. It’s one of those moments where I’m very glad that I’m not a Washington insider. It would not be a good time to have a Washington address.MATTHEWS: Do you think this smacks of the problem of cover-up and sleaze and underhanded behavior, when even the president is apparently, according to his spokesman, party to a cover-up, willingly or not, wittingly or not putting out false information and then commuting the sentence of the person who shared in that party line, which was to deny any criminality?
HUCKABEE: Well, Chris…
MATTHEWS: In other words, Scott…
(CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: … these are serious allegations…
MATTHEWS: Scott was told to do something, Scooter did it. I mean, it’s fairly parallel here.
HUCKABEE: Well, they’re serious allegations, but we don’t know yet whether they’re true. Scott’s not saying this under oath. It’s not being denied under oath. And I have a feeling that before it’s all finished through the wash, that’s what’s going to happen.
But these are serious allegations. They deserve to be thoroughly examined, investigated, and the truth brought to the American people.
MATTHEWS: Do you think the American people deserve a statement from the president in this regard, personally?
HUCKABEE: Oh, I think he will have to respond to it, because the closeness and the fact that Scott McClellan was one of his most trusted aides and in the position of press secretary.
Highlight is mine.
The video is at ThinkProgress... I couldn't find it at MSNBC.
So, Bubba Jr. wants to close Gitmo and he wants an investigation of President Bush in the "Plame matter".
Go ahead, just try and convince me this jerk is a Republican of any stripe.
____________________________________________________
UPDATE: See Robert Hahn's comment on this here... In my anything but humble opinion, his comment is a 1,000 times better than my original post and deserves a place in the Redstate Hall of Fame.
I'm not a Huckabee guy. I'm against him.
But this is not even news. If you read the quote by Huckabee, it doesn't seem at all offensive.
Isn't it better to say, "Let's investigate" than to say, "I know that Scooter (who has been convicted by a federal jury) did no wrong"?
At what point do you decide to stop defending those who are already thrown under the bus?
I don't think that Huck said, "Investigate Bush". I think that he just said that the matter should be investigated.
No harm there. The dems are already doing it.
Romney/Barbour 2008
See Robert A. Hahn's comment below.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Just retired from public life. Like Ron Paul Bubba's time in the public eye has come and gone. He is the poster boy for the Peter Principle.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
At least he could take a Senate seat away from the Dems if he ran for it in Arkansas.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
How about "We've already spent years and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money investigating this. The prosecutor found no underlying crime. How much more time and money should we waste on the investigation of something that wasn't a crime?"
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
At this rate, he will get it.
I mean this guy with his "we are the world" and socialist desires to take care of everyone, it's to much.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
....to produce any shred of evidence that Huckabee is a fiscal conservative. Do NOT say "FairTax", because that is a non-starter. What fiscal conservative policies has he advocated? What pro-growth policies has he advocated?
Now comes news that he wants to investigate Bush and close Gitmo. What's going on here?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Huck is my last choice of the big five, but there is no fire here.
Of course, it's a serious allegation if Bush is lying. He never says INVESTIGATE BUSH like the headline charges.
Give me a break.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "What is Thompson's path?" on First Cut Politics
Scotty says "It was Bush..." Bubba Jr. says "Investigate the allegation...". Who do you think they're going to investigate? Harriet Miers?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
- He never says INVESTIGATE BUSH like the headline charges.
Of course he doesn't. Huckabee is a master of using the passive voice to sound like he's advocating something that others can then deny he said.
He doesn't say "Investigate Bush." He says the allegations "deserve to be thoroughly examined, investigated, and the truth brought to the American people." See that? He isn't going to investigate, things just "deserve to be investigated."
He doesn't say, "I support protectionism." He says "We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed." See that? He isn't going to fix it; it just "needs to be fixed."
He doesn't say "The government needs to set corporate salaries," he says "We can't have the kind of economy where CEOs make 500 times what their workers make." See that? Nobody can say he proposed setting CEO salaries because he didn't. But "we can't have it."
He doesn't say, "I'm selling snake oil" either. But somehow, snake oil is being sold.
He's doing exactly what Hillary Clinton is doing: he's talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. He's just better at it than she is.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Robert's comment for "Best Comment Ever On Any Subject" for the Redstate Hall of Fame.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
my own blog, I'm tempted to flaunt the gods and recommend it just for Robert's comment. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
He doesn't say, "I'm selling snake oil" either. But somehow, snake oil is being sold.
He's doing exactly what Hillary Clinton is doing: he's talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. He's just better at it than she is.
...is both the funniest and the wisest thing I have ever read on RedState. In one fell swoop, Bob has laid bare the two most repulsive candidates for either party's nomination.
I also agree with something Becker wrote earlier. Let the Ronulans return. Even they were somehow less offensive than the Huckbots.
I was going to use the fuzzy guy, but the job is yours if you want it. If fuzzy gets out of line about it, I'll kill him and eat him. Today I don't think our pretty lady will care. Heck, I might even get an extra treat so if you can decide this afternoon it would make me a happy dog.
Woof!!
Franz' 11th Commandment: If anybody messes with you, kill them and eat them invite them to a State Dinner at the White House...
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
ouch, zing, bang, boom. Nough said. I'm logging out. Nothing I can ever add.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Huckabee was criticized quite aptly there.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Baad Spelarz Uv Tha Wurld, Yunyte!
This will be on the End of Year Best Comment Nominee List.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
There is nothing more condemning than one's own words.
Meant a lot to me. Gotta tell you, though, it was nothing on this. Nothing.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I don't suppose you have links for any of those quotes? Yes? No? Maybe? Should I even bother asking for evidence? No? I didn't think so.
I suppose I also shouldn't bother pointing out that the Huckabee quotes are being taken badly out of context, and that they stem from an interview taken at a time when nearly everyone in the whole world believed that Scott McClellan had accused his former boss of lying to the public (he didn't say that, of course, but his publisher and the media played it that way). And I suppose it's also pointless to ask for proof, any kind of proof, that Huckabee ever actually proposed passing laws to limit corporate salaries. Proof is an alien concept to all the Romneyites and Rudy supporters who've been writing these "Get Huck" diaries.
Surprisingly, the title of your post was very apropos. The truth is being fudged here. But you might consider amending the title of future posts like this to say "The truth is about to be fudged ..."
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Go watch Bubba Jr. on the video.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
- I don't suppose you have links for any of those quotes? No? I didn't think so.
Oh no, you're going to rip my credibility to shreds. Well, if you insist.
The first quote, about investigating Bush, is from Huckabee's November 20 appearance on Hardball. The transcript is here. You don't like their transcript? OK, watch the video here. Watch his lips move. Listen to the words. See if you think it was Videoshopped.
The second quote, about the "unfair trading arena that has to be fixed" is from mikehuckabee.com. So far as I know, he's Mike Huckabee and he approved that message.
The third quote, about the CEO salaries, is also from Hardball, on August 8. You can watch that one here. He sounds just like John Edwards, but without the hair.
- I suppose I also shouldn't bother pointing out that the Huckabee quotes are being taken badly out of context
No, you probably shouldn't point that out. By insinuating that I could not produce these links, you essentially claimed that Huckabee had never said these things. Now you follow that up by saying the statements were taken out of context. How could you know? You didn't even know he'd said them. Do you realize how plastic that looks? Here you are saying they were 'out of context' when you already admitted you didn't even know what he said.
- I suppose it's also pointless to ask for proof, any kind of proof, that Huckabee ever actually proposed passing laws to limit corporate salaries
Not pointless, but certainly redundant. That was the whole point of my note: Huckabee says these things in such a way that shills like you can come along later and claim he never said any such thing. But listen to him: "We can't have an economy where CEOs... blah blah blah. That's not acceptable." What is a reasonable listener to take away from that? He's either making a campaign promise to "not have that kind of economy," or he's blowing smoke out the nether orifice. In my note, I do not claim that he intends to propose any such law. I do claim that he's selling snake oil, which I will now add he does by blowing smoke out his nether orifice. He tells people stuff that makes it sound like he's going to do something about these issues, but even you admit he intends to do nothing. He's a smooth talkin' fraud.
A whole bunch of people are relying on his statements about what he'll do on right-to-life issues. I sure hope they fare better than the CEO-zappers will. I can't imagine how they know they will.
- nearly everyone in the whole world believed that Scott McClellan had accused his former boss of lying to the public
Huckabee might have said, "I haven't seen the book, so I'm reluctant to comment on it." Instead he played Media Whore, handing the drive-bys one of those "Republican says Bush should be investigated" stories they love so much. Why would he do such a thing? To get written up in US News and World Report:
GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball said McClellan's charge is "stunning" and that "these are serious allegations. They deserve to be thoroughly examined, investigated, and the truth brought to the American people." Huckabee added President "will have to respond to it."
See? I even had a link for that one. Maybe you should write to them and tell them they took it out of context. If you insist, they might even print a correction next month at the bottom of page 71, where everyone will see it.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
return?
I'm sure Keith Olbermann is about to heart Huckabee. Let those folks back, because they are lightweights.
... just asking you to establish it in the first place. If you had read any of my previous work on this site you would know that I am not committed to any GOP candidate, so I can hardly be a "shill." In my time here I've defended McCain, Thompson, Rudy, and yes, even Mitt Romney from Ratheresque attacks like the one you're perpetrating now. I do that because, on a deep, gut level I believe in fair play, truthfulness, and transparency when it comes to facts and evidence.
First of all, with regard to the first quote about the Bush "investigation," I already made it clear in my first post that the problem I had was that it was being taken out of context, not that it was inaccurate, per se. When mbecker wrote this diary he chose to portray Huckabee's response in a certain way. The very title that he assigned to the blog reinforced that interpretation. Huckabee, it seemed, wants an investigation (of some unspecified kind) into Scott McClellan's accusation that the President lied to the American people. In fact, Huckabee only wanted an investigation, for about one day when the entire American media was abuzz with the news that the President's former press secretary had turned informer on his boss. And no, at that moment the appropriate response would not have been to decline to comment. It was a serious question about serious allegations, which (appeared) to come from a man formerly in the innermost circle of the Bush administration. Huckabee's response acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations while cautioning that more evidence was necessary. Under the circumstances, I would have said basically the same thing.
Second, there's been a big problem on a lot of these diaries recently with people attributing quotes or statements to this or that candidate. Then when you trace the links back to the source (if there are links in the first place) you find that they either didn't say those things, or said them in such a radically different context that the way the blogger portrayed them was, for all practical purposes, a lie.
I take, as a case in point, your argument that Huckabee is a closet protectionist. You quoted him as saying "We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed." Because you didn't provide a link I had to search for that quote myself. Guess, what? I couldn't find it. So I asked you for a link, and you act like your honor has been insulted. Well, tough nuts. It's your responsibility to establish your credibility with evidence. It's not my responsibility to believe you because you're a nice guy, or because we happen to share the same party.
Now that you have provided the link it becomes apparent that you've been even more dishonest with the evidence than I'd given you credit for. A simple fabrication is one thing, even forgivable, but this is deception of a truly elegant kind. Yes, if you scroll down to the second to last paragraph on the page you've cited you find the one sentence you've quoted. Oh, guess you've got me ... except the "fix" he was talking about has absolutely nothing to do with raising tariffs to protect American goods. What does Huckabee think is the root problem behind the American trade deficit and outsourcing. He actually answers that question several paragraphs above in the very document that you cite:
The FairTax will instantly make American products 12 to 25% more competitive because the cost of those goods will no longer be inflated by corporate taxes, costs of tax compliance, and Social Security matching payments. When we buy products now, those taxes are built into the cost, so all of us pay corporate taxes indirectly on top of the personal taxes we pay directly. Compliance costs are just make-work with no real added value, yet they consume as much as 3% of our gross domestic product annually. These costs are an especially heavy burden on small businesses, which generate most of our jobs.
If you buy a bottle of domestic wine, you're paying the taxes/compliance/matching payments of all the folks who produced the grapes, the wine, the bottle, the cork, the label. If you buy a bottle of French wine, the producers had their Value Added Tax rebated to them when the wine was exported. So French consumers pay those taxes, but you don't. Our current tax system puts our goods at a disadvantage both here and overseas. Other governments give their goods an advantage on the world market, an advantage estimated at 18% compared to American goods.
So no matter how hard Americans work, no matter how innovative and creative we are, no matter how superior our products are, we suffer from a built-in competitive disadvantage simply because of our tax system. A recent study by MIT found that our tax system deprives us of about $1 billion in exports annually. When you export over-priced goods as we have, you inevitably end up exporting jobs and industries as we now are. We are the square peg trying to fit into the round hole of international trade. The rest of the world isn't going to change, it's time that we do.
There's not one word in the entire document about trade protection. Not one word. The word "tariff" doesn't even appear in the document. Not once. Huckabee does talk about how globalization can be done "right" and "fairly," but the specific policy remedy that he proposes is the Fair Tax and deregulation, not jacking up tariff rates to reduce competition. You, Mr. Hahn, chose to read his words as an endorsement of protectionism, just as you chose to present them as such to the readers here. And since I since I believe that you're a smart guy, I can only assume that you knew what you were doing at the time. In other words, I can only assume that you knew you were lying.
The root of the disagreement that we're having right now is not one of candidates or policies. If your man (whoever he may be) wins the primaries it's almost a sure thing I'll vote for him over Hillary or even Obama. No, the basic difference here is one of intellectual values. For whatever reason, you seem to think that under certain circumstances it's OK to a) list multiple quotes without giving sources, and b) to distort other people's words. I don't. There are very few things in this world that I believe in with absolute certainty, but one of them is the bond between writer and reader. If I put words between quotation marks I am making a pledge to my reader that I have a source, that I have ascertained the accuracy of that source, and that in selecting a portion of that document to quote I have in no way left anything out which distorts or misrepresents the intended meaning of the text I have quoted. If I fail to do any of the above unintentionally, I should be very embarrassed. If I fail to do these things intentionally I perpetrated intellectual fraud of the worst kind.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
If you had read any of my previous work on this site you would know that I am not committed to any GOP candidate, so I can hardly be a "shill." In my time here I've defended McCain, Thompson, Rudy, and yes, even Mitt Romney from Ratheresque attacks
and I admire you for that. It is important work. I have been accused of shilling in the past - for Romney and for Bloomberg (at least) - though I have yet to endorse any candidate. I share your view that all should be treated fairly.
like the one you're perpetrating now.
However, I can't share your view that this is what Bob is doing here. Candidates should be defended from unfair criticism, but not from all criticism.
Oh, guess you've got me ... except the "fix" he was talking about has absolutely nothing to do with raising tariffs to protect American goods.
I am afraid he really did get you here. You see Bob never made the claim that Huckabee was explicitly advocating protectionism. This is staw man, and runs completely counter to what Bob actually wrote. To accuse Bob of lying you had to, well, put words into his mouse. ("Put words into his mouse" . . . I like that. I'll use it again).
This quote from Huckabee is exactly the sort of thing that Bob was writing about. The dog whistle campaign. The use of the passive voice. Huck declares that he finds something unacceptable but he precisely avoids the obvious corrollary. He can thump the tub with Edwards, but if anyone calls him a protectionist, he can always say that he didn't actually say that.
If this was the only example it would certainly be unfair of Bob to highlight it in the way that he did. Sure, in this case, he talked about other changes that could address the situation, while never actually disavowing protectionism. You see? Clever isn't it? If you want him to be a protectionist it is fully compatible with his words. And if you want him to be a crusading free trader . . . well that's compatible with what he said too.
There's a lot to be said for your comments on mbecker908's original blog. While I can think of a dozen ways in which Huckabee could have handled this better, I am certainly not saying I could have done so in a live interview. With hindsight he said the wrong thing, but given what he knew at the time, it was not appalling, and it is not fairly represented in the headline of this blog.
But, but, but, there is a pattern here. And Bob set it out very well. I notice you didn't pick up the comment about CEO salaries. Here is Huckabee commenting on something he seems to find unacceptable, yet he leaves the door completely open to, well, accepting these things. He doesn't say he is going to do anything about CEO salaries. He doesn't say he is going to leave them alone. He says, well, that he doesn't like them.
That's perfectly ordinary behaviour for a preacher. Maybe he thinks CEOS should tithe. Perfectly good and defensible idea. But he is not running for Chief Prelate. He is running for President. The point about being President is that you get all the guns. You get the monopoly on the legal initiation of violence. So when the President - or a candidate for that office - starts saying that this or that should happen or should not happen, people are entitled to get a bit concerned. It's not the President's job to worry about the immortal souls of CEOs. It's his job to run the government. Saying that CEO salaries are too high invites the assumption that he thinks the government should be determining such things. If not, well what does it have to do with him?
Reading between the lines - especially when the candidate has form for this sort of thing - is not unfair behaviour. And let's be clear, Bob never said that he was doing anything other than that. He expressly said that Huckabee had not advocated government control of CEO salaries or high tariff barriers. He expressly said that Huckster had implied support for these things without specifically advocating them.
So Bob did not misrepresent what Huckabee said. But you, sir, have misrepresented Bob.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Re: Huckabee and trade.
If the words that Rob had quoted were taken in isolation they might fairly be construed as a reference to protective trade policies. But not when they are taken in the context of an extremely long policy discourse in which he discusses at length how American regulatory practices and taxes put American products at a competitive disadvantage, and proposes specific remedies for the problem (Fair Tax and deregulation) which do not include higher tariffs. The meaning of the document was in no way unclear, and to read it any other way is either stupid or a lie. And since I don't believe Rob is stupid, well ...
BTW, this is also why I'm such a Nazi about sources and links. You may have thought I was being rude to Rob about the links issue, but if I hadn't he'd have never given those links in the first place.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
If the words that Rob had quoted were taken in isolation they might fairly be construed as a reference to protective trade policies. But not when they are taken in the context of an extremely long policy discourse in which he discusses at length how American regulatory practices and taxes put American products at a competitive disadvantage,
He didn't say that Huckabee had advocated higher tariffs. That was his point. Huckabee does not specifically say one way or the other on these things. He makes statements - not just this statement, but statements plural - that imply things without saying them. If it was just this point you would be right. But in the context is his pattern of using dog whistles and that is worth condemning.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
That it is exchanges such as the one between you and Robert Hahn that bring me to RedState. While I think you are mistaken in this, you make your case extremely well. However, you have unfairly accused Bob of dishonesty and that is something I think you should withdraw.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
So far Huckabee has signed up to produce two Constitutional Amendments. To ban abortion he needs a Human Life Amendment, and to get the Fair Tax he'll need to get the 16th Amendment repealed (please do not suggest that sane people would allow the government to enact a national sales tax without making sure that the income tax is dead, dead, dead).
You are free to believe that he will accomplish these things, and to vote for him with that expectation. Good luck.
My belief is that should he be elected, abortion will not be banned, the "unfair" trade situation will not be "fixed," and CEO remuneration will continue being "unacceptable." In other words he isn't going to do anything about any of the things that he so eloquently says are wrong. Without a Vulcan mind-meld I cannot be certain that he intends to make false promises, but that's the way to bet; there is no evidence that he is stupid, while there is plentiful evidence that he is a silver-tongued devil.
On the Bush thing, Huckabee got snookered like a rookie by a media that set him up to produce a Bush-bashing quote that they could (and did) use to produce "Republican support" for their BushDidIt™ mantra about Plame. Let's see if he gets snookered again. We do not need a president that naïve, and we do not need a president who is that anxious to be a Media Whore.
As for your other comments, so's your Old Man.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
You forgot the FMA.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What brand of coffee are you drinking? I WANT SOME!
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Baad Spelarz Uv Tha Wurld, Yunyte!
Others need them to keep up with your blogging rate.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
You have to be careful about linking to Huck's website as a source of quotes. In another thread somebody noted that Huck had pulled his own quote about support for a path to citizenship with a token punishment for illegals when he realized it was wildly unpopular.
For the longest time I have been uncomfortable with Huckabee for reasons other than his tax policy and never really been able to point out exactly why, but Hahn's post sums up exactly what the problem is. Huckabee is the master of illusive language (reminds me of another Governor from Arkansas). I am sure Huckabee is sincerely great guy and caring pastor, but I will really have to wonder what has become of the Republican Party if this guy gets the nomination, or any of the early states for that matter.
Also, Bob Hahn >>>>>>>> me (but I've known that for a while now)
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
and what a gift it is. 5, Nick. Just a sincere 5.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
"But he opposes abortion!" Brilliant. It proves my point: social conservatives use abortion as the litmus test. Exhibit A: Rudy Giuliani. Pro-choice in the '90's. Everything else he's done right - immediately discarded. Next.
So what? There's no reason the GOP can't nominate a candidate who has executive talent and whose conservative principles aren't just limited to life.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Or does your litmis test require that the candidate attend the same church as you?
Romney/Barbour 2008
Under today's "litmis tests" on abortion and taxes, Reagan could not get through the GOP primary.
And if these tests had been in place in 1979, we would have lost our best president ever.
Romney/Barbour 2008
I think we all want a solid social conservative to win the nomination, but there is more to being a President than just opposing abortion, and I haven't seen a thing in Huckabee that makes me think that he has anything more to offer the country.
The MSM has already written the narrative if Huckabee gets the nomination "There they (the Republicans) go again. Always abortion and gays. They nominate a candidate because he agrees with them on those two issues, even if he raised taxes (as Hillary threatens to do) and supports more liberal policies on immigration and criminal justice than most Republicans."
Huckabee is a tool.
Romney/Barbour 2008
I agree. In an ideal election, we would have Ronald Reagan v.2. What we have now is a national front-runner, Giuliani, who isn't an anti-abortion "activist", but very strong on lowering taxes, criminal sentencing and foreign policy. Flip side of Giuliani is Mike Huckabee. Somewhere in between is Thompson, who is going to be leaving the race after South Carolina (at the latest), and Mitt Romney and John McCain who will be out if they don't do well in New Hampshire.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
that I was dubious about recommending this blog until I read Robert Hahn's comment. Please treat my recommend as being of his comment.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
the original blog there should be a way to promote his comment.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Could you possibly edit your post and give him major props for his comment?
Or maybe he needs to make his comment a blog.
I'll agree with any mbecker post which contains the sole word "Done."
I've coined a new description for the GOP to use, thanks to mbecker. It's "Complimentary Conservatives."
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
contain the words "crusty old fart". It will then win the approval of both Mrs908 and Franz Prince of Dogness.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I had a similar reaction to this when it broke, and I'm not trying to spin anyone.
To my ears, and possibly Huckabee's, this sounded like a bombshell...
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
What part of no crime was committed don't you get? What part Joe Wilson should be prosecuted don't you get?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sounds like a bombshell at this point? Has he been in a coma the last several years?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"Clinton was impeached over a ..." don't need to finish it. Same general concept.It's irrelevant what the alleged lie was about. It sounded for half a day that folks in the White House, including the president, asked McClellan to cover up for them on a possible crime. I think that's serious.
Again, it ended up being a tempest in a teacup, but I remember having the same basic reaction. I don't think this White House lies, frankly. That being the case, if they knowingly sent McClellan to lie, that would have been a big deal.
If this quote came in the time between the original statement and the retraction, I'd be willing to cut Huck a little slack.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
for the reason becker and zuiko state. I like Huckabee. I'd probably still vote for him if he's nominated, and probably still enthusiastically, with the caveat below. But, without echoing becker's last sentence, or any of Hahn's post, I too find this statement EXTREMELY disappointing and maddening. However, I think it is possible you may have the right of it in this respect: the media loves to lie, and unfortunately sometimes our candidates don't realize it - an understandable, but still aggravating and wrong, occurrance - so we sometimes should give them the benefit of the doubt by taking their comments as a conditional, assuming the hypothetical proposition of the media's parallel universe.
that doesn't change the fact that he SHOULD have known better, especially on this matter, and that it is a major disappointment from one of our candidates, and if he doesn't move to strike those comments from the record upon learning of his being deceived, it will be a major strike against him in my book.
and I'll say this, on a somewhat tangental note: while the thought of having to vote for Rudy sometimes makes me vomit a little inside my mouth, he is surprisingly the least likely to try to loudly "distance" himself from President Bush, and for that alone, I give him enormous credit and thanks, and for that alone, I am willing to vote for him if he is the nominee.
I am not saying it is exatly simialr to that of the last big thing Iowa, since I don't think Huckabee howls.
But it is close enough for politics.
... first of all, a little bit of context is needed here. As we all know by now, the publisher of Scott McClellan's book chose (for reasons of their own) to issue a press release containing out of context quotes from the book which appeared to indicate that the president had knowingly and willfully contrived to have Mr. McClellan release false information to the press. No matter how you slice it, that revelation was big news at the time, that is until the publisher released a "clarification" stating that the original press release had been incorrect (or at least misinterpreted). McClellan's book did not, according to the publisher, reveal that the president had lied to his press secretary. Bush had merely passed on incorrect information that he himself believed to be untrue at the time. [1]
What you have done here is to take Huckabee's fairly measured response to the original story, which would have been an appropriate reaction had that story been accurate, and interpret it as an expression of Huckabee's alleged hostility to President Bush. Had the story been accurate (in other words, had McClellan actually intended to accuse the president of deceiving the public), then an investigation of some sort would have been absolutely necessary. Keep in mind that nowhere does Huckabee endorse the purported charges against Bush. In fact, he makes a point of saying "we don’t know yet whether they’re true. Scott’s not saying this under oath. It’s not being denied under oath." In other words, Huckabee endorsed an investigation only to determine the truthfulness of the allegations. What on earth is wrong with that?
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aoeVzcoWZAqc&refer=h...
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
And what part of this has been investigated to death don't you get.
Hey, maybe we should reopen the investigation of Kennedy's assassination while we're at it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
In all seriousness, what are you talking about? When did I ever say this needs to be investigated further? You're the one dragging this out, bud, not me.
Here's what happened: There was a story - a one news cycle story - involving Scott McClellan's book. The facts supporting the story were totally wrong, but while it was being circulated someone (Chris Matthews) asked Huckabee about it. He replied that the allegation was serious (and it was), that the facts were unclear (and they were), and that the matter should be "investigated." Obviously, the publisher's subsequent "clarification" obviated the need for any investigation, something which I am sure that no one in the Republican Party including Huckabee disagrees with. Story over, right? Oh, except that there's a presidential race on so now bloggers with an ax to grind are dragging this up again to score cheap political points against Huckabee over his perceived "disloyalty" to the president.
Let's try a thought experiment:
It's 2008, three months before the presidential election, and Keith Olbermann goes on the air to say that he has proof ("Proof, I tell you!") that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is a closet polygamist with two extra wives and six extra kids hidden away in a Utah trailer park.
The story is bunk, and three days later Olbermann commits ritual suicide in a fit of disgrace (doesn't take too much imagination, does it?), but in the meantime Larry King interviews [insert high profile Republican politician] and asks what he thinks about all this. Said Republican politician responds, "Well, it's a serious allegation, but we don't know if it's true or not. We haven't seen any evidence yet, and we need to thoroughly investigate these allegations to determine if they are true."
Has said Republican politician committed political treason, or has he simply stated the obvious? Should he have immediately denounced the allegations, sworn to Romney's innocence, and thereby painted himself into a corner? Or should he have simply withheld judgment until all the facts are known? Pretty obvious choice, if you ask me.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Re: Kennedy's assassination. Let me set your mind at ease. Oswald did it. The CIA didn't. Neither did the mob. Neither did Castro. But he was glad about it when it happened ... the bas***d.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
This brouhaha was in response to some advance promotion by McClellan's publisher...
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
I guess his willingness to clone GWB stops at the water's edge. THat's a shame. He imitates most of GWB's mistakes, and supports none of his positive achievements.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men