Redstate

is exactly what Huckabee is not.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I doubt he holds the same positions now that we know so much more about the AIDS virus, and now that it really does hurt people of all sexualities.

www.mikehuckabee.com

Regardless of who is pushing this story, Erick's position is now: it's okay to scortch Romney for what he said in 1994 but not okay to hold Huckabee accountable for what he said in 1992.

And then he gets really hacked off that this forces Huckabee to once again proves Huckabee's economically liberal bona fides.

I have a question for Erick: exactly when between the years of 1992 and 1994 do you draw the line that it is okay to dig into a candidate's background?

Are you aware of your extreme anti-Romney bias, Erick, or are you just completely blinded to how irrational you are in regards to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney goes out of his way to promote the causes that conservatives believe in, and yet he can do no right in your eyes. Mike Huckabee is a bleeding heart socially conservative socialist in the South American model, and you are reluctant to lay a glove on him. I'm afraid that your treatment of Romney vs. your treatment of Huckabee prove that many of your standards and principles are extremely malleable.

and so is Erick's history here. Yours? Not so much.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

...for that substantive reply to the merits of my statement. [heavy sarcasm]

You seem to believe the blog world started when you were born, so to speak. Why don't you go about a year ago into the archives and see where Erick was endorsing Romney.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

That was a long, long time ago. Erick is certainly entitled to change his mind on which candidate he endorses, but one would hope that he would adopt a consistant measuring stick to apply against all candidates in this race - which is hard to find in excuse after excuse we are fed on behalf of Mike Huckabee.

The nature of Erick's extreme anti-Romney bias since then does make me wonder what happened that fateful day when Erick turned vehemently anti-Romney and what has happened behind the scenes in the interim. I have to wonder if there isn't some personal axe he is grinding on the front pages of RedState. Which, as president and CEO, I suppose he is welcome to do - but I think that it would be irresponsible if that is what is going on here. That said, while Erick is quite comfortable in engaging in wild speculation on conspiracy theories in regards of anti-Mormon push polls, I shouldn't stoop to that level myself, so I'll just leave it at that.

I must say that I find it extremely odd that Mike Huckabee has advocated closing Gitmo, investigating Bush over the Plame fiasco, and has a record as a tax-and-spend big government Republican that is unprecedented in modern Republican political history and all we get from Erick is an occassional "you've been so good to me Mike, please say it ain't so. Prove them wrong, please."

On the other hand, every little thing that Mitt Romney does is analyzed in detail and the most negative light one can possibly imagine - no matter how outrageous it may be - is shined upon him.

Sometimes I think that Erick and others who have acted likewise are, much to my surprise, are proving that there is a faction of the Republican Party that is many of the things that I've defended the party against to my liberal friends.

When they get all crazy telling me that the GOP is a narrow-minded party that is only accepting of people of a certain type, I've always reubutted by telling them that the GOP is teh most inclusive party you can imagine. I have told them that the GOP is the Party of Ideas, and in this party regardless of who you are, your circumstanes, or where you came from - what matters most in this party are the ideals and convictions that you hold most dear.

It's been extremely disappointing and disheartening to witness people like Erick proving me to be an unwitting liar.

All I've heard are a litany of good ideas and inspiring words reafirming the basic tenants of conservatism from Mitt Romney (and Fred Thompson, to be sure) but all I've heard from Erick (and increasingly, Jeff Emmanuel also) is gripe after gripe after gripe about some of the most superfluous nature.

Mike Huckabee puts forth a campaign that is in many respect an anethma to economic conservatives and national security conservatives alike, and all we get are excuses for this man.

It is bewilering and entirely incomprehensible. The double-standards applied to the treatment of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney could not be more stark.

because it ain't the one here. Huck's taken plenty of shots, Romney as well, Rudy more, Ron Paul the most (and funny that the Republican who has taken the most shots over my 3+ years here is John McCain, now benefiting from some sipping bourbon support).

The double-standards applied to the treatment of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney could not be more stark.

No, just from your narrow point of view. What you feel might not, in fact, be reality. This is why I say that the world didn't begin 6 weeks ago. Those of us who have been around a little longer than you have seen this same exact complaints last year when the Romney YouTube was going around from 1994. So spare all you long winded words, we've heard them all before. Woe is me & my candidate... this ain't intramurals, brother!

So instead of whining about Erick and Redstate how about something like this (which is my view):

Sure there are 2 stories here, 1) the Huck issue. and 2) are Romney's people pushing this? Both are legitimate to ask/assert.

However, personally, I like this if Romney's people are pushing it. Sure it smacks of desperation, but it also lets me know that they aren't going sit there and lose. Scorch the earth! If you don't think the Clinton machine won't peddle this same stuff then you should be running for the Republican nomination.

But hey, if you want to keep playing the victim, by all means go right ahead and whine on.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

My specific complaint was at the disparate treatment that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are afforded by Erick in particular. He claims to be a conservative and yet the least conservative candidate in the field is treated with kid gloves and there is only one candidate that he has open and irrational contempt for.

He complains that people are digging into Mike Huckabee's past and implies that it is not good form by seeking to exhonerate most of the other campaigns. But he has no problem digging up and posting and reposting things about Romney from about the same time period.

This is a clear double standard and a blatant point of hypocricy. I don't see any way around that, and you certainly don't raise one.

I will say this, I am well aware of what has been written at RedState over the course of the past year or two. Suffice it to say, the time period arguments you raise are invalid, to say the least.

I am personally all in favor of combing through a candidate's record.

In this instance we have a candidate in Mitt Romney who, when confronted with his past, basically says that he has grown older, wiser, and more experienced since then and rejects his former positions. I can understand skepticism, but he at least offers plausible reasons for his changes. This is the candidate who Erick greets with nothing but impugnity.

On the other hand we have a candidate who instead of offering a remorseful mea culpa, offers excuse after excuse for his terrible record, shameful comments, and embarrassingly inept positions on matters of national security (i.e. Gitmo, Valerie Plame.) This is the candidate that Erick takes it upon himself to carry water for.

I think that it is suspicious.

Erick has bias and you don't. I gotcha. Blah blah, whining, blah blah, Life's Not Fair&trade, blah blah, more whining, blah blah, still more whining. Why doesn't the whole world see things my way?!?!

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I didn't say all that and my argument amounted to nothing of the sort.

You seem to have a problem with blatant double standards and hypocricy being pointed out. Why is that?

1. Double standards don't worry me - I'm a Republican. We're going to face one all the time, get used to it. (See the Life's Not Fair™ principle)

2. You seem to think your whining is pointing out "hypocrisy" and "blatant double standards." It's not, get over yourself.

3. I'm off to watch football, continue with your whining if you want to.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Since when is pointing out when someone is being an abject hypocrite "whining?"

1. Erick said that it is "sad" that the Romney campaign, according to him, pointed out some rather breathtaking statements made by Huckabee in 1992 that many in the electorate would find rather alarming.

2. Erick doesn't seem to think his own similar behavior in regards to statements in 1994 were "sad" or else I would think that he would not have done it - unless the devil made him do it. There's always that defense, right?

3. Double standards and hypocritical comments from the LIBERAL media have come to be expected, but should are you suggesting that we lower the bar and not expect a higher level of conduct from our own? I thought that this is what the entire conservative media was about - raising the bar, not sinking to their level.

If you want to lower the bar, go ahead. I think that is a very sad statement about yourself, however, and I won't participate in lowering my standards.

4. This has nothing to do with myself, so your statement that I should "get over myself" doesn't really make any sense.

1. No, it's not that they've "pointed it out" it that they are "pushing" this to everyone. There is a difference, you can't see it because you are biased.

2. That was argued again and again about a year ago. It's old news is why, so actually, yes, all those things were "sad" at the time. Though, here is the critical difference - no campaign was pushing that. Sure people not affiliated with any campaign were, but that's why we're discussing this.

3. Life's Not Fair™, whiner. Just pointing out a fact of life, son.

4. Yes it has everything to do with you, go reread points 1 & 2 and note that in the other circumstances no other campaign has acted this way. Read. Comprehend.

I have no faith that you will actually understand the point, but please, blather on anyways.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I never said that any particular campaign was out of line for using opposition research, I said that Erick was being a hypocrite for promoting the use of legitimate opposition research in one instance HIMSELF (in re: Romny) and looking down his nose at anyone else who dared do the EXACT SAME THING that he was doing. That's the very definition of a hypocrite.

I used Erick's history of making excuses for Huck while castigating Romney for just about anything and everything that he does to point to pattern.

Your attempt to change the subject is utterly transparent but your defense of Erick is cute. :-)

People not affiliated with a campaign are different than people affiliated with a campaign, yes or no?
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

you're missing the point completely. it is not about being affiliated with a campaign or not. Erick cannot disaffiliate from HIMSELF.

Erick here is basically saying that people shouldn't do the exact thing that he is guilty of doing himself.

Either the tactic is legitimate or not (or, "sad" or "not sad" to use Erick's terms) regardless of who is perpetrating it.

Ok Brooksrob, we're just talking past each other here. I get your point, I think you get mine, neither one of us accepts the other, though and that's not going to change.

Let's let this thread die the death it should have yesterday.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

"Back in August, following the circulation of an anti-Catholic letter by a Huckabee-supporting Iowa pastor (to which Catholic then-presidential contender Sam Brownback took offense), the Huckabee camp refused to apologize. Instead, they urged Brownback to show 'Christian character' and 'stop whining.'"

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12363

Darin...do you work for the Huckabee campaign? If not, you might fit in. Y'all both seem to think that all legitimate offense induced by outside hitmen acting on Huckabee's behalf is "whining." LOL

even less so for you. I was leaning Romney (after leaning Fred during his unofficial time), but am thinking I might just vote for McCain in the primary. Also, methinks you're a retread since you know Erick's posting history...

Oh, and stop whining.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

You are the one who is whining about legitimate criticism. So YOU stop whining. Whiny baby. LOL

See, that's where we differ. Again, please dear God, someone take this thread out back and shoot it.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

as a pose to in the fall, but if this is the only way romney can win (instead of discussing issues), what does that say about his campaign?

then again, I admit, I am a thompson guy.

"If this is the only way romney can win (instead of discussing issues), what does that say about his campaign?"

That there are a whole lotta single issue voters out there.

My comment didnt go so much to a single particular issue, but to digging up stuff like this.

There are other issues which Romney was on the other side of, I might add.

I see little difference between Rudy and Mitt when it comes to some of this stuff. Just my opinion.

I am not pleased in any case.

N/T

nt

I really don't think Rudy Giuliani wants more people than necessary reminded that he was openly attempting to defeat a Republican candidate for governor.

HTML Help for Red Staters

...story like crazy. Given all of Mitt's past positions and actions, calling for the past to be brought into the race is a really dumb move by his campaign more than any other.

Please show us some emails, reference some calls, or somethng.

The campaigns send us these things.

someone in Romney's communications operation, maybe starting with the guy who manages their contacts with blogs, and ask him for some of the "off the record" stuff he sends out.

That's what I'd do if I wanted proof.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I spoke with him off the record and told him off the record that I thought it was a bad idea and that he should be very careful.

So I can vouch that at least a part of it came from the Romney campaign and I can also vouch that I did talk to one of their campaign people tonight and I can also vouch that I think it was a mistake, probably one of the only mistakes their campaign has made thusfar.

Coming on the heels of Romney's successful speech, the only thing I can think is that they got a little too hubristic about their chances.

To the people in the Romney campaign: you need to pick your battles better than this. Don't let your heads grow too big. Get back on track and execute, but don't get freaky.

We have enough technology nowadays for you to prove this. Scan something in, copy and past an email, provide an audio file, something.

It's one thing to say you're suspicious they're behind it but to just state it as fact (as Erick did with the push-polling) without providing any evidence should be questioned.

Has Erick stated who he supports?

the off the record person who sent this off the record asked to remain off the record. It is just that we've received so much off the record stuff from this off the record person on other Republican candidates dating back to at least March that we've sort of gotten tired of this off the record smut peddling. That's off the record.

We're not suspicious of who is behind it. We have the email. The fact that you don't speaks to our relative importances in the political blogging arena.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Do you know if they are the original source for the story or if they are just passing it along?

Is this indicative of Huckabee's campaign being asleep at the wheel? Did they not know about this statement? If so then why wasn't it properly defused earlier in the year? Given the amount of attention being paid to past statements of the candidates I don't understand how they could have expected to make it through the primaries without this coming up, and coming up at the worst possible time too.

I don't understand how they could have expected to make it through the primaries without this coming up, and coming up at the worst possible time too.

It's of a piece with Huckabee getting snookered into calling for an investigation of Bush in the Plame thing. There's a "babe in the woods" quality to this stuff. He needs a dose of Street Smarts and he needs it quick.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I haven't claimed to be important in the blogging arena. I am, however, considered to be influential in more traditional political arenas, due to my pocketbook, not that I'm a political genius.

What's wrong with me asking for some evidence of this? If Erick just says he believes it, or if he even explained as you did that someone from their campaign keeps emailing it, then that would be better than what was written.

Either way, I would like to see this email if possible - you could just delete the senders name.

Keep in mind I usually keep quiet and just lurk on websites like this. Religious attacks have gotten me fired up and maybe obnoxiously so, but you would love to golf with me and talk politics in person.

Romney's past statements are already the primary (sole?) attack against his candidacy. How does it hurt him if other candidates have to start defending themselves against their past statements as well? If anything it defuses the flip-flopper association given that all the candidates have to start backpedaling from prior statements and actions.

It probably should be changed in the post to Romney's campaign and not his supporters.

Well, I say Romney because the only supporters of a Presidential candidate to send me links to the story are Mitt's supporters. No one that I of who is die hard committed to any other campaign sent me the stuff.

Fight On!

I see what you did there.

Are pro-choicers merely "expressing concern over women's freedom"?

Huckabee's stance was crazy for 1992. And he defends it today.

He explained himself already:

But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.

Does Romney have an explanation for being for Roe vs. Wade as late as 2002?

That was his statement in the last debate was it not?

1) He didn't merely "express concern." He proposed that everyone with AIDS be quarantined.

2) In 1992, the idea of a quarantine for AIDS wasn't much less crazy than it would be today. His explanation doesn't get around that, it just makes him look crazy today, too.

And yes, Romney does have an explanation. "I was wrong."

If that was the case - then people from Bill Clinton to Giuliani should be given a pass on changing position.

Again, I think in all fairness we should consider the candidates behavior and patterns..

That would be Huckabee's spending and tax behavior (as well as how he treats people and issues) and successes in Arkansas in addition to Romney's and Giuliani's (and of course Fred!).

So don't give Giuliani, Huckabee, or McCain a pass (Thompson's record is too thin to say much, so I guess he gets a pass).

Which means that Huckabee's position here should be interesting. Why does he defend such a crazy position? Why does he think that promising to spend money will fix it?

if Romney wasnt so vehemently prochoice in 2002 it would be different.. again, I want to see a pattern of the candidate's way of governing.

I wouldnt be defending the position either.. if i was huckabee i would say i screwed up at the time.. Then again, I wouldnt be as so dumb as to say people with AIDS should be quarantined.

Huckabee, before this matter, did propose an increase in AIDS funding which as you said - put him in an odd situation.

The Romney statement about not wanting Reagan/Bush again.. Or the fact that Romney apparently wants to re-instate an assualt weapons ban.. whether it was similar to that which Bill Clinton signed into law I am unsure - because he refuses to define what he means.

That makes almost half a dozen of us on this comment stream that are perplexed about how Erick can make this accusation? I just don't get it.

By the way... was there ever a true apology to Alex Gage & Co?

However, I feel that I am watching a train wreck in slow motion with Huckabee. It seems like every day there is something new

And Huckabee continues to skyrocket. Mainstream conservative voters are concerned about the issues.

My understanding is that the AP put this story together based on information that Huckabee had given the AP during his senate run. Was the AP tipped off by Romney's campaign? If so, I would love to see the evidence. Is the person inside the AP that put this story together a Romney supporter? Again, I would love to see the evidence, especially since I have long believed that there is no one inside the AP that supports any Republican candidate.

but I don't think that Huck will flame out on his own. I think this is a stupid attack, but he needs to face attacks now. He's cruising on charisma. If he isn't forced to face the ugly reality of modern campaigns before Feb 5th, we won't know how he handles it and we could be left with a candidate who will get crushed in the general.

More, every candidate has blots in their past. Getting them out now actually blunts their effectiveness later on. As much as it annoys me, the "that's old news" response works very well for the media.

Still, this isn't how it should be done...

Romney's campaign needs to learn Reagan's 11th Commandment first. Huckabee's views on almost everything under the sun would have been made public in due course. It was a waste of time and resources when they have so much else to accomplish.

It really, really puts me off - especially in light of what positions their man has taken.

It really puts me off about uniting behind him if he were to get the nomination.

Why should I vote for someone who cannot defeat someone within their own party on the basis of issues?

crap for at least seven months. Were it up to me I would have posted all his off the record smut peddling for the world to see.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You honestly are trying to tie Romney's sending out an off the record email of Hucks AIDS stance that was a major AP story to hucks caving in, and the stance itself?

Ludicrous. This is blame shifting wothy of my 3 year old.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

your campaign employs an inordinate number of dirt balls, shops smut as its primary line of business and wouldn't recognize integrity if it jumped out of the grass and latched on to their butt.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I really think you're certifiably insane sometimes, and this is one of those moments. You are so overpowered with hatred for Romney that nobody should listen to anything you have to say about him.

I find him loathsome, and the opinion has been developed by my contacts with his supporters. If he doesn't get the nomination guys like jbonham and the off the record dipstick need to stand up and take credit for torpedoing his candidacy.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

If you just knocked out the hate everything associated with Romney shtick.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

to hate him.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

If I ever meet you in person, I will buy you to lunch. Because I am not interested in piss fights, and there is no reason for two conservatives to loathe each other over a candidate.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

and I'm reading Hugh Hewitt's blog... :-)

Listening to you talk about Romney is akin to listening to Keith Olbermann talk about Bush.

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

5th grade?

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

Then this "smut" is in an email from Romney himself?

And, I always thought of "smut" as something immoral. Something that was an issue in 92 and is still an issue in 07 not so much.

If Hillary is their candidate ALL of this is going to come out anyway. Why are you so offended by it?

has a teflon coating.

Your's doesn't. Take that for what it's worth.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Worth? Nothing.

Huckabee caved in?

Boy that is some real blame shifting if I ever heard it.

If Huckabee sells out so quickly, it sounds like it's his problem.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

though that is hardly a surprise.

We get lots of emails from all the candidates. One campaign,exactly one, seems to be fixated on tearing down every other candidate. Sort of the "if I can't look good I'll make you look bad" syndrome. One campaign.

I think we have two Huckabee supporters writing, Hunter Baker and Alexham, but they didn't write this.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

and I know it's not just Romney.

And maybe you missed this....

Perhaps it is time to stick to current issues on all sides. Does anyone really want to relive the 90's? If so, say hello to President Clinton.

and this...

Sad on both counts. Sad to see Huck ditch a fiscally conservative position. Sad to see Romney supporters going after a 1992 statement given their guy's statements in both 1994 and 2002.,

You really think this is Romney's fault?

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

learn how to read try again.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

way to turn this into an insult fest.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

pretty well that you've made a name for yourself here as a shameless lickspittle for your candidate. You also know that were it up to me you and your cohort of shills would have been banned months ago.

Just wanted to reiterate that in case you've forgotten and the casual reader gets the impression that you are considered a serious or worthwhile contributor here.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

This site would have no readership.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

Personal attacks over substance, once again.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

I would say this qualifies as fourth grade material.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

your ability to recognize it.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I have about 35 5=8th grade students.

I know it when I see it.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Attacks over substance. The essence of your game.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

From a famous and infamous piece of cinema.

There is no truth to the rumor that this was secretly taped in the Romney for President War Room.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

"Does conservatism to you mean ZERO government assistance?"

"Fiscal conservatism as defined by you requires the eradication of public schools, veterans hospitals, social security, medicare, and faith based initiatives too?"

Yes, and yes, if possible. Go ahead, call me a mean, stodgy conservative. I know you want to =)

BTW, have you ever wondered just how big government got "big" in the first place?

You're a mean, stodgy conservative! :)

Unfortunately, those who take Erick's position are disingenuous at the least (there will always be some level of government assistance they want) or morally callous at most (see Huckabee's point abount not punishing children for the sins of their immigrant parents). Everyone needs some help at some point in life. That's why the government has to get involved in some things. See abortion. Those who don't believe that have not yet been humbled and might be one day. Salvation is most important above all and I think Huck understands that quite well.

None of this is to say that government is the solution to all of our problems but to a LIMITED extent it can help people and not turn a blind eye especially to grave social ills such as AIDS. After all, there was a reason why government was so heavily criticized for its response to Hurricane Katrina and it had everything to do with Americans faulting the government for doing the very thing you and Erick want it to do - nothing!

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

Did you not read Huck's explanation?

Your willingness to vote for Hillary makes me wonder if you are really even a conservative.

That was bad enough with Rudy. At the rate we are going nobody on this site is going to vote in the general.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Be assured however, I am. And just realize that its insane statements like this one (even if its from 1992) that can cause otherwise dedicated ideologues to go elsewhere for at least one term. This may be just such a time.

I hope for all conservatives' sake that we meet in the middle and vote for Mitt, or Fred.

consider a pro-choice position in 1994 and 2002 worse than wanting to isolate people infected with Aids in 1992. Huckabee can claim ignorance on his position, but Romney, well, lets just say it was 100 obvious that abortion is the murder of the unborn in 1994 just like it is now.

Romney's past moderate statements would help him in the general campaign as they will soften his current conservative positions for swing voters. Huckabee's past very conservative statements would do the opposite.

If you believe Romney's current position, which I do, then it makes him the more viable social-conservative candidate in the general.

participate in the discussion because I think there are plenty of other issues where Huckabee needs to be called out. His views are so off base with what I believe that it's too time consuming to interject my disapproval upon every story that comes up. Clearly, he took the wrong side in '92.

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie

You've been a member for 3 hours, and you bash Huckabee!!!!! I wonder which candidate you support? Could it be Romney?

I think your presence here confirms Erick's assumption.

I don't understand the relavence of your comment? I've been bashing Huckabee at every website I can find because I think he's the worst candidate the Republicans could select. He's Jimmy Carter but with a crooked eye. I do like Romney. I also like Rudy and Fred. Fred would have had my vote if he would get off the couch. I've never missed an election since 1984 and I've never voted anything other than Republican. I would never vote for Huckabee. Who cares who exposed the story. The fact is is that its true and its a sad embarrassment. It exposes how ignorant he is. If Romney supporters did find it, good for them. At least someone is doing their homework. Stories have come out about Romney and Rudy and I don't go and cry about who exposed him. If its true, then we need to know. What's sick is underhanded push-polling by Huckabee supporters.

I'm in full agreement. I will actively vote against Huckabee if he's the nominee. His position on so many of the issues are similar to John Edwards. His ethics are similar to Hillary Clinton. He's capitalizing on religious bigotry and won't condemn it(would you vote for a candidate benefitting from racism promoted by the clan and the candidate didn't condemn it?).

The only attraction that I had with Huckabee is that he supports a consumption tax. I have an economics Ph.D. and a LL.M. in taxation. I fully understand the benefits of a consumption tax. But to say that it will end the IRS is simply dishonest. You will have an equally large government agency collecting revenues from sales transactions. It will also require overturning the 16th Amendment which will never occur. The concept, while appealing because it removes the deterent from earning and moves it to wasteful consumption, is simply utopian. And for that reason, Huckabee isn't very smart.

Romney is the smartest economic candidate ever to pursue the office. Rudy may be the best candidate for foreign policy. I'll take either. But I will vote democrat before voting for Huckabee for the reasons given above. It would be better to let a democrat ruin the next four years than have a republican ruin our reputation for a generation.

the story on any other websites?

I don't like Huckabee but this story means nothing to me.

Careful how you answer that -- google is our friend

Not sure what you're saying. I think you're saying that I have posted this story somewhere - nope! This story is about the least interesting thing I've heard about Huckabee - Google away.

I have no problem with Huck claiming Homosexuality is a sin.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

How dare you! (kidding)

I'd say I agree, but then the Kossacks would take me out too ;)

Fight On!

No separation between the attraction and the action in your eyes?

I think it's quite possible some people are born with it, though not convinced either way.

But the action itself is a sin. I am predisposed to a lot of other things that if I began to engaged in, my wife and God, would be pretty upset. So I make the choice.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

First, I am not trying to blame Huck's comments on Romney and Huck's backtrack is pitifully his own.

Second, I agree on the negative emails. I get them from every campaign except Hunter and Tancredo. Had either a pulse, I suspect I would get them from them too.

Fight On!

Right now, Huckabee is in fourth place in New Hampshire. So, it's entirely possible that after the New Hampshire primary, Huckabee will have no momentum (Iowa will be a distant memory by then) and little money.

After all, there's real grassroots stuff going on. Golly, I don't want to be left behind!

Please excuse me while I up(c)Huck.

But the moRons candidate isn't polling this high. Those of you failing to take Huck seriously are in for a big surprise.

Its one thing to say Romney supporters are pushing this.

Its quite another thing to say and imply (as you do in #1 of your update) that Romney supporters are behind the story.

I can't wait to see the evidence that the Romney campaign is responsible for the Dumond story getting coverage as well.

If Huckabee's past actions get embarrassing attention in the media, it's all Romney's fault.

Aren't these guys saying that they can face the Clinton war room? And their upset that another Republican might be attacking them?

This is whining, nothing else.

And Rightly So!

I pointed that out as soon as it showed up on drudge here: http://redstate.com/blogs/mr_ed/2007/dec/08/drudge_headline_huck_wanted_...
but seem to have been dismissed as some sort of troll.

I can't think of any sort of satisfactory explanation (assuming he wasn't misquoted). The article seems to indicate that he didn't say "homosexual sodomy law are wrong as policy," but rather that he said that SCOTUS was actually right to find them unconstitutional. That is the worst kind of results oriented jurisprudence. Funny how he seems to draw all his support as a socon, yet in the one area where he will really have power over social issues (judicial appointments), he doesn't seem to have a clue.

I remember the discussion and the troll accusation. It seemed the person accusing you had no clue either. So, why is this being ignored? (And if this topic is so far off the topic -- which is?? -- why is it not getting a separate thread? Oh, I long for the old days on confirmthem....)

Under your own account name in the sidebar on the right, click the "blog entry" link if you really think your topic is that important. If it's not important enough to justify that much effort on your part, then it's not important enough to threadjack a different topic's blog.

It's only important to the people that watch the cable news networks all day long, and spent 8+ hours a day on the internet. Most people don't.

I think this is an intentional and tactical gambit on the part of the Romney campaign to overwhelm the Huckabee staff.

We will see if it blows up in their face or not.

Whether any of us like it or not, its not policy discussion... But Huckabee needs to show his mettle and that he is ready for prime time.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I know it's early on a Sunday, but you're not even remotely close.

All I'm saying is that I find the dripping irony of this post to be - to borrow a phrase - delicious given the proclivity of this author and many of the people commenting in support of his position to beat the living snot out of Romney for precisely this unceasingly over the last year.

That is all.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Can you actually point to a specific front pager in which Erick calls out Romney for something he said 15 years ago?

HTML Help for Red Staters

From Erick's front-page story of only, what?, 4-days ago?

It's like his campaign checked all the boxes before he started and expected things to just work. The problem of course, is that Romney did the same thing in 1994 and 2002 and on both occasions he checked all the boxes on the other side. You'll have to forgive voters, particularly evangelicals who've seen their hopes go up in flames before, from trusting the guy now.

So sure, not 15-years ago perhaps - but pretty much a blanket endorsement just below the fold on a front-page piece from this author.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

It just makes me mad when you sit here and smugly take shots at all these fine individuals, who flipping bend over backwards to make Red State fair to all our candidates, with no substance at all to your claim.

HTML Help for Red Staters

And, oh, I noticed your "front-pager" restriction or I could have easily pointed to Crank as a first step and then go from there.

Look, this is simple, Romney has consistently had the krap kicked out of him here - in front pages and lots and lots of diaries - over the last year for his supposed flip-flopping. And I find it interesting that now there's supposed to be some sort of moritorium on going back in peoples' records for statements that are out of place with their current rhetoric.

As to...

flipping bend over backwards to make Red State fair to all our candidates

It is fair to all our candidates in that the candidates and their supporters have the same access to the site and to its diaries. That is not my complaint. My complaint is that, were the candidates roles in this story reversed, the story would not have been "Huck's campaign digs one out of Romney's trash", the story would have been "Yet another Romney flip-flop".

Opinions being liks backsides I hold no hope of convincing you otherwise.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Any moron can come and write things in diaries, and too many of them do (well even moron would be too many, heh).

Again, to hold Erick accountable for the writing of others just makes no sense. It doesn't stand to reason, and it makes you look silly for picking that fight.

HTML Help for Red Staters

If you're ticked at me for listing Ben-through-streiff in my original comment it was simply for their defense of Erick that, somehow, this is off limits.

Is that it?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Want I should withdraw Erick's name from that comment? Fine.

Can't do it - no editing capabilities here - but consider it redacted.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

That just makes the comment a minor threadjack, but that doesn't get my blood boiling :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters

Happy to oblige, my friend.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Ben, Streiff, and the rest you listed didn't write this post :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters

But DocJ's point was that Romney 94 was under intense scrutiny here, and it seems a little crazy to read someone on the front page of Redstate claim it's not fair for a candidate's quotes in the 90's be used against him.

Also, I give you this while remphasizing the title of my comment here, and the title of this actual post:

Oh, there is homosexuality too. Mitt was going to be more gay and more abortion friendly than Ted Kennedy in 1994. Now he's not. At least he's been consistent on gay marriage since he came out in opposition to it in his gubernatorial term.

Finally, there is voting for Paul Tsongas. In 1992, Mitt Romney voted for Tsongas. He explains this now as trying to pick the weakest guy to go up against George H. W. Bush. But, in 1994, Mitt Romney said he did so because "Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton." Link

I don't have a problems with people questioning Romney on these points, he should be able to take it, I do have a problem with being told after intense questioning over Mitt 94, that we now are being told it's wrong for other candidates. I also have a bigger problem with people saying that what was is here for all to see doesn't really exist.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

But what do you want? Do you want Erick to ban the anti-Rombots?

All Erick can do is control his own writing. To criticize him for what others write is ... unreasonable.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I'm almost certain that will happen, especially after seeing all the people come on here slamming the idea that Romney was behind it and this glorious praise of the almighty Mike Huckabee, or as I'm calling him, their George Bush II.

If they silence Romney supporters like they did the other candidate it only makes that candidate look more stronger. You can silence dissent anywhere but that doesn't mean it won't go away. The other candidate is a great example, he's silence on this blog but his people raised enough money for a freakin Blimp!..

He was wrong. He should say so, but clearly doesn't support the policy now. Let's try to be factual.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

His stance was absolutely ridiculous. He knew what everyone knew about AIDS at the time, and the Surgeon General's Office had been all over it in terms of explaining to the public about it.

Instead, he put on his Baptist preacher hat and pandered right to his base, why?, because he was running for the U.S. Senate.

I don't believe he panders to bigoted fools as much as he really is one though.

Romney has run a campaign based on what his policies would be as president. He gave the speech because he had to. If anyone has played the "Religious Nut Card" it's Huckabee. His campaign is based on presenting himself as a "Christian Leader" and appealing to evangelicals. If this strategy proves successful despite the seemingly endless pile of dirt around Huckabee it will show the ignorance of our party.

On that note - I am shocked on a day-to-day basis to see how little people know about the candidate they support. We, who frequent sites like this and read everything we can about the process are a very, very, small minority in our party. The average voter in my experience looks at like this:

Huckabee - He's nice, what cute dimples, he's funny, he's a Christian so he must be conservative.

Guiliani - Strong leader, outspoken, 911.

Thompson - Wow, he looks like a president.

McCain - I've heard of him. War hero. Sadly - old.

Romney - Good looking, too good to be real. Flip-flops. Looks like a president. Very successful business executive.

This is about the extent of analysis that I get from the average voter, co-worker, family member, etc. that I encounter and discuss politics with. I think if people really knew what each candidate's policies were they would change who they support, but then again, maybe they don't even know what the party they claim to be a part of supports.