Counter-Spinning Begins: "Pay no attention to Mike's economic policies. Look at this instead!"
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (79) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here's funny spin from the Huckabee fans. Their tag line now, to discredit the rumored NRLC endorsement of Thompson, is that Thompson did not have a 100% pro-life record in the Senate.
Of course, if you actually look at the data they cite, it's because NRLC scored McCain-Feingold. Take out the campaign finance reform votes and Thompson has a 100% record. I'd remind everyone likewise that Fred was endorsed by NRLC when he ran for the Senate.
More importantly, the Huckabee folks write
Fred Thompson opposed and opposes the Republican Party Platform regarding abortion and a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
That's not true at all. In fact, Thompson was on record, again, just this past week re-iterating his support for the Republican Party platform's plank on life.
The Huckabee fans might want to spend more time explaining away Mike's tax increases and quotes on executive compensation and carbon offsets than attacking Thompson, who in fact did have a 100% pro-life record in the United States Senate.
Let me add something else here too — I would suggest, given Thompson's personal biography, that people not begin suggesting he is less than supportive of life. As he's said in the past, going from the death of one child to the birth of another, there is no way Fred Thompson could be anything other than 100% pro-life.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The rumor of the day [UPDATED] — Comments (88) »
Counter-Spinning Begins: "Pay no attention to Mike's economic policies. Look at this instead!" 79 Comments (0 topical, 79 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You guys can say what you like, the fact of the matter is Fred said No to Tim Russert when asked if he would support an amendment abolishing abortion. He said No, twice because Russert could not believe he said No.
If you still want to bury your head in the sand about this issue, go look it up. They have transcripts and video of the interview.
- Fred said No to Tim Russert when asked if he would support an amendment abolishing abortion.
Let me try to explain this to you in layman's terms. If you do not want to see Rudy Giuliani giving an acceptance speech at the Republican convention next year, then stop trying to corral his opponents in a pen that's too small to defeat Rudy.
Right now Rudy Giuliani leads in all the polls. If enough supporters of the other candidates coalesce around any one of them, that candidate would be ahead of Rudy. Mike Huckabee is not going to be the guy to do that.
No amount of bluster and BS is going to convince anyone that Mike Huckabee is anything other than a pro-life Democrat. For those who are pro-life, that may be appealing. But you will not get many Republicans to join you in nominating a Democrat.
Therefore. Pick someone who is an actual Republican, that other Republicans could see voting for, who in general supports what you want to get done concerning abortion. Many people, including apparently the leadership of the NRLC, believe that Fred Thompson is such a one. Maybe Romney is another; I don't know. What I do know is that if you don't combine forces with some other Republicans, you're going to get Rudy.
I could go along with Fred Thompson. So could most of us. In the end, most of us could live with Romney, or even McCain. But that won't happen if ardent pro-lifers insist on purity to the point of wanting a Democrat just because he'll support an amendment that will never pass anyway.
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
I am used to seeing this kind of open in-your-face lying from Democrats, but I think the Huckabee campaign is the worst I have seen on our side. They go way beyond spin into outright lies to attack their opponents and defend Huckabee's indefensible record.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I think Fred's said recently that Huckabee is only focusing on the life issue because that's about the only conservative position he's got. He can't explain his huge tax increases, his environmentalist views, and his weakness on illgal immigration. When social conservatives become for educated on his record, they'll flock to Thompson in droves.
FRED 08
...for VP. I really don't think Huck will be picked by the eventual nominee. Fred, if he'd want it, would probably be a solid choice for either Rudy or Mitt.
He will not be needed. He is only a social conservitive...sot of. He is pro-life and for that I give him credit. But other than that he is Bill Clinton with morals.
GO FRED GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"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)
Thompson is a former lawyer who worked for Planned Parenthood lobbyists.
Just last week he said to Tim Russert on national TV when asked, as a candidate, would he run on the 2004 Republican platform that endorsed a ''human life'' constitutional amendment banning all abortions.
''No,'' Thompson replied
''You would not?''
''No,'' said Thompson, adding ''that's been my position the entire time I've been in politics.''
Can anyone in Fred's camp give me a rational explanation for WHY this is stated? I had not heard this being a part of his record. If it's just purely a defamation, I understand that, but if there's a reason they mention it, please post it up.
idiots who are trying to deflect from the fact that Huck is a budding socialist. (red meat)
1. Fred was "of counsel" at a Dc firm. He was not a partner and did not chose or bring clients.
2. He was asked by a partner to consult with their client.
3. He billed a minimal number of hours (less than 30) and spoke with the client on a couple of occasions.
4. There is no record of Fred contacting anyone on behalf of the client and he did not put together a lobbying plan, he simply responded to questions.
5. After this, when he was in the Senate, his pro-life voting record was 100%.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
He met with them because it was his job to do so for the law firm. He didn't make a single call to any administration official on their behalf.
And why has Huckster consistently lied about the fuel tax being on the AR ballot when it was not. He had already put in place.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
A crucial question still remains: Why did Fred accept this job from Planned Parenthood to lobby for reduced restrictions on abortion counseling clinics?
I would think that Fred would have had a choice to either accept or deny. And he did lobby administration officials for 3.3 hours, although we do not know what they talked about:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/tcgeol/2007/nov/02/huckabee_impressive_but...
And why has Huckster consistently lied about the fuel tax being on the AR ballot when it was not. He had already put in place.
Read Joe Carter's comment -- he said that a fuel tax was indeed on the ballot (although I am waiting for an official source). I agree though that both CfG and Huckabee should be more direct on this issue.
A quick correction: I said that Fred met with the abortion group leader 33 times. It was actually 22 times.
partners of the firm BECAUSE IT WAS HIS JOB AND HE WAS BEING PAID TO DO IT.
He didn't select the client, he didn't bring the client, he didn't personally lobby for the client.
You are being a raging idiot about this and the HLA and you are doing your boy no good.
Huck is nothing but a pro-life Democrat. Get over it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
First of all I do not like the tone of your answer. It sounds to KOS for me and 1 thing I like about this site is that we argue and debate with civility.
That said, you are right. Thompson was acting as a lawyer giving legal advise. Thats all. Dont mistake the lawyer for the client. This is such a red haring. Are we supposed to ignore Thompson's 100% pro life record because he gave legal services to a client he disagrees with?
whether you like my tone. These guys have been arguing about how many angels you can get on the head of a pin for the last week and my patience is now gone.
My tone won't get any better and you also won't find any profanity in my comments.
Let me remind you, on this point you said it yourself, I'm right. Hang out for a while and you'll see the same people making the same idiotic and totally discredited points over and over.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
he didn't personally lobby for the client.
Why do you repeat the claim, when the article said he lobbied for 3.3 hours? Do you have a counter-article?
You might want to repeat your downstream suggestion. I've just had it with this discussion.
And Anteater, fwiw, no more than 28 angels can dance on the head of a pin at the same time. Unless you're SBC, then no angels will dance on the pin because SBC teaches against dancing.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
No one in their right mind would vote for a "Huckabee". It sounds like something rednecks do to each other or have amongst themselves in a group.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
That's not true at all. In fact, Thompson was on record, again, just this past week re-iterating his support for the Republican Party platform's plank on life.
Thompson opposes it, but does not want to see it changed:
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- imwithfred --
and admit you're wrong trying to advertise Huck supporters as being "not true at all" in this post. Here's the transcript:
You say:
"More importantly, the Huckabee folks write
Fred Thompson opposed and opposes the Republican Party Platform regarding abortion and a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
That's not true at all."
Here's the actual transcript from last week:
"MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.
MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics..."
This post of yours is misleading at best, and needs correcting.
But I will just say that if you look at Fred's full comments on MTP he goes on to point out that his record and his beliefs are 100% pro life.
Now Fred's position on the HLA is really based on the fact that it isnt passable. Thats not to say he is against it in principle. Clearly he is not against it. Rather he just believes what we all know to be true, that the HLA has zero chance of being passed, ever. He has other ideas and suggestions to move the country in a more pro life direction.
I don't think thats what he said at all. Though you could have inferred that I suppose. Rather I believe he was simply stating the obvious. it isn't going to be passed ever because its not practical in modern politics.
But again, its clear by both his record and his statements on the campaign trail that he supports the HLA in principle.
On MTP, Thompson said that he opposed the HLA in principle. He didn't even mention the practicality of it during the MTP interview. It wasn't until the next day that he realized he was in trouble. Now he only talks about it in terms of practicality, in hopes that people will forget what he said on MTP.
Lets assume your interpretation of his comments on MTP are correct. Whats your point?
Is this suppose to somehow prove that Fred is pro choice?
I think you must know the answer. Why else would you have claimed so many times in this thread that Thompson supports it in principle when he clearly and unequivocally stated the opposite in the MTP interview? Your insistence on calling a spade an "interpretation" rather than a spade shows that something doesn't sit right with you about what Thompson said.
"No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion."
I have two problems with Thompson on this issue: first, he's running scared from his MTP statement and trying to avoid the issue by bringing up practicality. This is a Clinton tactic. Second, he's pro-choice on the state level. He thinks it would be anti-freedom to deny states the choice to allow abortion.
As a person who is very pro life I just don't see it that way.
Look, Federalism does not equal liberalism, or pro choice positions. We are not talking about empowering Courts to decide by fiat, but empowering people to decide.
"Second, he's pro-choice on the state level"
If Fred where Governor he would still be 100% pro life. No doubt about that in my mind. If he could stand up for the pro life agenda in Washington I have no doubt he would do so as Governor of his state
Your position that Fred's opposition on the HLA makes him pro choice is totally simplistic IMO. I am proudly pro life but this is a democracy here and we are conservatives who believe in that process not liberals who undermine it with judges, just how on earth are you going to compel people to vote pro life? You want to hold a gun to their heads?
The fact of the matter is that Fred's position on abortion, i.e. returning it to the states is the right one, both practically and morally. We cant wave a magic wand and make Massachusetts suddenly pro life. That needs to happen by changing peoples hearts and minds about the issue. Thats the only way to change their votes.
By the way is anyone here going to defend Huck's economic policies or are all you Hucksters just conceding he is wrong on those issues?
...that you realized that Thompson did say that he opposes the HLA on principle, despite all of his misdirections about practicality since.
I guess you can take it how ever you want. I cant control what you think, but i was very clear on what I think and you cant have any say in defining that.
Frankly the entire HLA discussion is meaningless. Its never going to happen.
Is Fred pro life? Yes 100%
Going from there we should be discussing how to implement the pro life agenda, which is what Fred is doing. This attack is not going to get Huck anywhere sine he still has no way to answer on his terrible tax and economic record.
HLA, Fred's record and Huck's ducking his economic record we agree 100%.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
After this, it's not clear whether you realize that Thompson opposed the HLA on principle and then switched his reason to practicality (implying that he did support it in principle (and fooling you in the process)) when he realized he was getting into trouble.
Not that it's important what you personally think. I just wanted to stop the spread of misinformation about Thompson and the HLA.
That Huckabee misleads when he said that Fred "opposed" the HLA. As a Senator he had a 100% pro life voting record, so how is it anyone can say that he opposed the HLA? It doesn't make any sense. I honestly don't know if the HLA was voted upon when Fred was in office but I cant see how he accumulated a 100% record if he was against such a measure.
Look if Huck is trying to argue that support for the HLA and not a candidates actual record on pro life issues should be the measure of a true conservative then that is just ridiculous. The HLA is just a symbolic stance, not anything practical or workable in modern politics and thats all that I think Fred was saying.
And frankly I agree with his position, instead of pushing the HLA we should be trying to find other ways to advance pro life movement, and Fred's federalist stance is by far the best way to go about doing that.
It is absolutely true to say that Fred opposes HLA.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/thompson_on_human_life_am...
Huck said he "opposed" the HLA. Really? What did he do as Senator to oppose it?
I believe you cant find 1 thing in his record to show that he did. In fact hsi 100% pro life voting record clearly indicates otherwise.
Now perhaps you can make a case the he opposed it now based on his comments on MTP. Feel free to make that case but really that doesn't hurt Fred at all, clearly the NRTLC has no problem with his comments, and the reason should be obvious.
The HLA is totally symbolic. The principle idea behind the HLA, respect for life in the womb, is an idea Fred totally supports. So this argument IMO is really quite trivial, and more about Huck trying to score political points on the 1 issue he can use as a hammer.
Every one of his columns predicts some kind of doom and gloom scenario for Republicans. The tone of his pieces are increasing cynical and negative and I've been really turned off.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Fred messed up his answer to this question because he answered it literally, and from a lawyers and legislators perspective rather then a politicians perspective. The man has a 100% pro life record so I guess he felt he had some room to speak analytically without being criticized.
But what he said was totally true, the HLA is not workable or practical. Everything in Fred's record clearly indicates he supports the principle's of the HLA and would take measures to promote the pro life agenda as POTUS. So frankly this is why I find Huck attacking him on this issue so silly. One pro life candidates should not be going after another pro lifer on this issue, especially with pro choice candidates in the race.
Not a single one of the Huckster's supporters have addressed his economic platform or his disasterous performance as governor. All we've gotten from them is that Fred doesn't support the HLA or the FMA.
If this was "a meeting" guys you'd be pulled aside by your sponsors and lectured on denial.
After this weekend I'm longing for the good old days with the the Ronettes.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
is "pure" as the driven snow on all the issue's that count to each and every one of us.
I have not spent the better part of every election voting for the "lesser of two evils" because they are. Think Bush 2004 and you get the point.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
No candidate is perfect, not even Reagan had a perfect record. The question in every election that I ask is "Who is the most thoroughbred conservative?" And then i vote for the guy or gal that comes closest to that standard.
Thats why I am voting for Fred.
Thats why I find Guliani totally unacceptable in the primary but would not enthusiastically vote for him the general.
Well so far we established a few things in this discussion.
-Fred has a 100% pro life record
-Fred has been endorsed by the National Right to Life committee
-Huck has a terrible economic record and cant defend it
Interesting how Huck and his supporters chose to go after Fred on the narrow issue of the HLA, rather then attack on Fred's economic record.
Why? Simple, Fred has a strong conservative economic record , Huck does not. Winner of this debate? FRED!
And corrects the inaccuracies on this blog...
http://huckamania.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/redstate-pay-no-attention-to-...
Fred's issues directly without trying to deflect to an entirely different issue and candidate.
They've also not been bagged lying for their candidate.
Huckster and his supporters will not address "his" issues and are bagged red handed lying about his record on fuel taxes. And btw, it appears that the deisel taxes were NOT on the ballot. See Neil's blog.
The classic comment from a new guy - who is a raving idiot - to the effect that "sure Huck is lying, he's a politician & they all lie, so what he's the best on social issues and they're THE most important".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Fred is 100% Pro-Life, and you can't spin it.
WE ARE GOING TO GIVE FRED A THANKSGIVING DAY GIFT:
But Fred has stated time and time again that he opposes a Human Life Amendment to the constitution... He also lobbied for a pro-choice client. Far from 100%, especially when you factor in McCain-Feingold.
- He also lobbied for a pro-choice client
We're all familiar with the allegation. It's been posted dozens of times. We're done with it. We looked into it. We threw it into the same box where we keep "Bush lied" and "Rove outed Valerie Plame." Bringing it up again was unwise; attempting to debate it again would be very unwise.
When liberals do what you're doing, we ban them. When the Ronulans started doing what you're doing, we banned them. Do you have pattern-recognition capability?
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
That person has been a member for almost TWO HOURS. They have tons of cred built up here.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
...along with your childish namecalling as a vaunted 'leader' of this little empire would only serve to make more irrelevant this echo chamber.
Huck fans are less insistent in bringing up the facts about Thompson having lobbied for Planned Parenthood and being specifically clearly against the Human Life Amendment than a greater # of others are here who attempt to insist that Fred supports it and is "100% prolife"; if redstate wouldn't headline posts (like erick's yesterday) saying WE are the one's misleading/spinning this issue when Fred was clear and direct on not wanting any federal laws or the HLA in this area, (look at his Schiavo comments also about government staying out of these issues in the transcript).
...that you don't get to talk to moderators like that. Which is why your next post is going to consist of an apology to Bob, and why in the future you are not going to get in the way of the people moderating this board. Drop us a line via the Contact link if you don't like what he - or anybody else - is doing.
This is me being nice about it. Hint, hint.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Hey people, we're better than this. I know that I haven't been here that long, but I feel the need to speak up. I'm a Democrat, but the reason why I post here is because the discussion is always civil, the people are great, and the debate is interesting. I know that we all lose our cool sometimes--heck, I did it the other night. However, if I wanted a free for all where people call each other "idiots", I'd go post on The Daily Kos. Anyway, I'm exhausted and I'm going to bed. Y'all have a great night and God bless. :-)
We've tolerated hundreds of posts from would be Hucksters over the past few days that are nothing but lies repeated from Hucks own lips (fuel taxes), obfuscation and misdirection (the subject is Hucks economic policies and record and all of upthread is dedicated to them howling about Fred and the HLA).
This is a forum to discuss issues. The Ronettes got squashed because they did the same thing the Hucksters are doing. Every other candidate's supporters will at least honestly attempt to address their guy's "problem issues" but according to the Hucksters their guy has none. One poster went so far as to suggest that sure Huck's a liar, so what. He's the best on social issues and those are the MOST important.
These people are idiots. They are not acquainted with the idea of forming a cogent argument around an issue and they are imbuing Huck with a Messiah complex (he's not pushing that one). They keep repeating the same disproven arguments over and over like repetion makes stupidity into the truth (see the commentary about Fred's lobbying work).
Bottom line, we're being overrun with a new group of idiots. Sorry if you find that offensive... actually, I don't really care one way or the other.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
the litmus test of a pro-life stance? I have noticed that Social Conservatives seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes being "pro life" or against Gay marriage. Those supporting Huck point to these two things to essentially say that Fred is not a social conservative, which is a ludicrous statement. He just does not support the same solutions that Huck and many (quite frankly politically naive) SoCons support.
But the point of the thread has been proven out in the discussion. Huck and his supporters use Fred's statement on the HLA to avoid discussion about Huck's fiscal history. The recent videos that have surfaced on the Gas tax and Huck being for just about any tax should eliminate him from a Republican nomination, but we have a lot of mis-direction going on.
THE HLA is not the litmus test. Hucks are trying to use it to deflect Fred's 100% pro life record, NRTLC endorsement, and as a way not to talk about Hucks liberal tax policies. Thats all. Its a total sham.
Hucksters have not even TRIED to to address the subject of this thread. i.e. Hucks economic policy troubles, simply because they can not.
Its the same strategy Guliani uses, he can not defend his liberal views so he attacks Hillary. Difference is at least he aims in the right direction.
He just does not support the same solutions that Huck and many (quite frankly politically naive) SoCons support.
Is the Arlington Group naive about FMA?
Yes, I think that they are naive about FMA. Neither an abortion ban nor a federal definition of marriage will pass as Constitutional amendment in the near future (by that I mean during at least the next 8 years). Neither will pass out of Congress, and if passed out of Congress they will find a very difficult time passing through enough states to become amendments. The fight needs to be somewhere else.
I think Thompson's idea of making the Defense of Marriage Act a Constitutional Amendment is achievable (though many posit that it will not happen unless DoMA is declared unconstitutional). I think Thompson's idea of nominating originalist justices to get Roe v Wade overturned is achievable.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I am going to premise my response to some of the Thompson aggressors blogging on this subject...
1. I am new to this site
2. This is my first blog
3. My knowledge about both Thompson and Huckabee appears more limited than others.
Two years ago, I could not wait until the 2008 primaries, so I could watch McCain sail away with the nomination and crush Hillary on to the White House. When McCain plummetted I had to watch the debates to determine who was the candidate I could truly support.
After watching the debates and interviews, I had to go with Huckabee. Since Reagan was president, the Repuublicans have not had a new communicator. Bush's greatest failure was not his handling of the war, the lead up to the war, or his domestic policies. His failure was an inability to comminicate with the electorate the same way he did when he campaigned. It's like he would campaign, win, and then get to work without updating us with progress, explanations, and rebuttals to various liberal attacks. His father suffered some of the same problems.
All of the top five candidates show promise (notice how I included Huck, even though he is not a realistic option for president yet). (1) Guiliani has cross-party appeal, and communicates very well, (2) Thompson also has cross party appeal, with a moderate tone, (3) McCain is the likliest candidate to win (if you believe polls), with honesty and integrity on his positions even when they are unpopular--earning his trust with the American people, (4) Romney is an outsider with success in business and politics, and finally (5) Huck who is an outsider/social conservative who communicates very well with a mixed record on fiscal conservative. [ALL WLL BE STRONG ON NATIONAL SECURITY]
The negatives: (1) Rudy--socially liberal, three marriages, Kerik, (2) Thompson--lack of fire or passion in this race, did not rise to the expectations laid out for him, (3) McCain--blew his chance with a horrible campaign, illegal immigration liability, (4) Romney--flip-flopper in the mold of Kerry making him appear as opportunistic as Kerry, (5) Huck-not fiscally conservative enough.
I support Huck for the simple fact that he is socially conservative, communicates far better than any previous candidate (except for maybe Rudy), and does represent change for the Republican Party. I gave up on McCain just weeks ago when I realized he could not run an effecive campaign. That leads me believe he will not either effectively run a general election campaign or the White House. The smae can be said for Thompson who had all the momentum and still has failed to capitalize on it.
Huck is enduring criticism for tax increases in Arkansas. I am not address that issue, b/c I am not fully informed on that issue. What I will say is this Huck has risen on a message of hope and promise that has inspired many others to jon his campaign despite lackluster coverage and resources. This is similar to the inspiration created by Reagan in the 60's and 70's. I believe those who hate Huck are frustrated with his rhetoric about working Americans and assisting them along with the poor. What I don't understand is why this rhetoric is so concerning. Reagan did the same thing. We do not want to be the party of social conservatives and those who are successful financially. Any government leader should include those on the lower end of the tax brackets in their list of priorities, because it will add to our overall economic output. Isn't that what Reagan did when he cut taxes. Isn't that what we are doing when we try to expand the economy.
Huckabee inspires people. He is conservative. You know where he stands. We have a real opportunity to redefine our party from George Bush to a party of restored values, restored optimism, and restored success.
None of the other candidates present that package. I understand that we are going to disgree, but I will not bring you or othrs who disagree down with insults and innuendo. Let's show the other party that we are the intelligent, eloquent, and mature partisans who discuss without disparaging. Good Luck Huck, and the rest of the Republican Hopefuls.
Hope this was an acceptable debut.
While I don't necessarily agree with you, this is how Huck's supporters should act. You avoided going negative on the others, you made a case, and you presented it well.
It's late, so I am not able to read it carefully and respond, but again, that's the kind of post I like to see on Redstate.
I simply feel that if National Right to Life is going to endorse someone, that voters are entitled to know the candidate's entire records and entire positions. Why do Fred Heads want to hide Thompson's lobbying for pro-choice groups, opposition to the human life amendment, and strong support for McCain-Feingold?
Going negative consists of calling loyal conservatives making the case for why their candidate is the strongest and best nominee perjarative terms such as 'Huckabots', insulting our intelligence, and threatening to ban us if we bring up unflattering aspects of your candidates record. Fredheads seriously need to be a little more secure in their support for their candidate and a little more mature in matters of political discourse.
Oops, I see I misspelled 'blam'.
Nice is good. But the exact same nice, over and over and over again, is not so good.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Let's not let this thing devolve into a Kos style discussion. We debate and argue hard but we don't make it personal and we care more about other people than our own views. That is what makes Redstate and conservatives distinct from the other side.
Both Huckabee and Thompson are clearly in our tent. There are legit complaints about both. But when we raise those complaints we've got to keep it respectful because we desperately need each other when this thing gets to the general.
I have deep respect for both candidates and their supporters. I wish Erick's tone were a little different in addressing Huckabee but he probably knows more about it than me.
I would define 100% pro-life as someone who believes abortion is wrong and should be outlawed in all cases with the exception of where necessary to save the life of the mother. How we outlaw it is a separate and legitimate question but it doesn't have a bearing on whether someone is 100% pro-life.
So my question is this: Does Thompson take the common rape and incest exception or does he stand as a real 100% pro-lifer?
That Thompson opposes a human life amendment but otherwise supports all pro life measures.
Let's also assume, arguendo, that Huckabee has a clear record of supporting tax rises and subsequently trying to blame others for his tax rises.
What would that tell us about their potential performance as possible presidents.
Thompson would sign every pro-life measure that could conceivably cross his desk. He would also appoint judges he thought likely to overturn Roe v Wade. In short he would do everything he could possibly do as president to advance the pro life cause. The one thing he would not do is support an amendment to the Constitution on this question. Whatever the merits of this position it has nothing to do with the office of POTUS. Amending the Constitution is almost the only purely legislative function in American politics. Congress proposes amendments and state legislatures ratify them. There is no presidential assent or veto involved.
Huckabee would support tax rises. If Congress proposed one, his history suggests he would sign it. Without his signature, unless there was a veto proof majority in Congress, these tax rises could not go through.
So here is the question for the Hucksters: if Huckabee feels so strongly about the human life amendment, why isn't he running for Senate? Congress is the only place from which he could propose such an amendment.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Not sure it is possible for anyone to answer that question on behalf of Huckabee but I think the President, even though he's not a part of the official process of amending, would have more influence over Congress and public opinion than an individual Senator would. What are the chances of an amendment if President Thompson came out opposed? Seems like the chances of passing would be higher if the president supported it.
The tactical argument of what is best for eliminating the holocaust of abortion is a legitimate one. The problem I have with Thompson (although my problem is helped by the NRLC endorsement) is that he just doesn't seem that interested in abortion. It makes you wonder if he'd rather not deal with it aka Bob Dole. His answer to Russert's question on the GOP plank was terrible. You add it all up and it just makes one nervous about whether he really believes abortion is wrong or whether he's just triangulating the issue.
I would really love to see Thompson as President and will support him if he gets the nomination, but my problem with him has always been that he wasn't that impressive while in the Senate. I love all the ads and the radio stuff he's done this year but where was all that back when he was in the Senate? And McCain-Feingold, ugh. What a painfully horrible assault on free speech. All of those things are forgivable offenses in my view. Just sharing my view.
look at the ERA. It was introduced with tremendous fanfare, incredible support in the House and Senate and Presidential support as well. The anti-ERA groups (thank you Phyllis Schlafly) mobilized and killed it with a pointed and very well thought out and presented campaign. They not only killed the ERA, but you can make a good case that the failure of the ERA killed the growth of feminism.
Now, moving right along to the HLA, it would start with overwhelming opposition in the House, in the Senate, from the Democratic Party and from the drive-by media. There is absolutely no possibility that you'd get it through either the House or Senate and the hearings would likely make the Bork confirmation hearings look really tame.
I'm convinced that the inevitable really bad loss would irreperably damage the right to life movement and could harm the President's ability to appoint SCOTUS justices who would likely vote to overturn Roe. So you end up with a debacle and a loss on the HLA and incredibly focused opposition on SCOTUS.
This is passed off as a "stand for principle". This one will give some people the warm and fuzzies they are taking the battle to the enemy, but they will get their clock cleaned so badly that abortion will be with us as a matter of law forever.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Hucksters is to ignore the issue from Huckabee's perspective and point to an issue on Romney's site.
They will not address the fact that his fiscal record would fit well in the Democratic debates. It's all sleight hand with the Huckster.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.