Redstate

Now if he excepted the endorsement of the Pope then you would know that he is not actually an Evangelical Christian but a political poser...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

love child or was this some horrible cloning incident gone wrong? I wonder if Conan would create a picture of just what a MikePaul looked like?

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

not in Dallas, which is about 200 miles away.

Anybody else in this thread not know their Texas geography?

Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth

HTML Help for Red Staters

One of these days the old duffer and I are going to escape the People's Republic of Mexifornia, and scoot down to the Lone Star Republic. I am already working on my geography, cause I heard a wrong turn can get you Waaaay off target.

I think the question is: Who in this thread does know their Houston from Dallas. And where the heck is that darned Alamo?

Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Glad I support Rudy.
______________________________
"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

Your drive by's on Fred's lobbying are tiresome. You seem to be the only one who can't get over the fact that lawyers occasionally have to represent clients for whom they do not have great esteem.

It is typical Huckabot MO to deflect criticism of the Huckster by attacking the opponent. For you, that seems to be Fred, more and more often.

I think you’re getting a little nervous.:)

Just why did it take a lawsuit to convince Bubba Jr. that the furniture in the Governor's Mansion didn't belong to him?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Fred didn't "lobby" for anything, as you well know. Working for the firm doing the lobbying isn't the same, as you well know.

Why you think your slash and burn nonsense will ever work I continue to fail to understand. If your strategy at Redstate is to convince people that the only candidate who is pro-life is Mike Huckabee, you are wasting your time, and ours. And that clearly is your strategy.

Lame.

absentee

| | |

Even mbecker knows this.

His representation of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which was trying to overturn the ban on abortion counseling, put him at odds with the anti-abortion movement, which considered the ban a crucial victory.

The billing records, along with meeting minutes from the association, show that Arent Fox was hired to help overturn the ban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=3&ref=p...

So much for material cooperation, eh? The enemy of my enemy ...

"In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said"

In which case, I wonder, who calls it lobbying? The abortion group, who clearly has an interest in burning down Thompson? The NYTimes, same problem? Anteater, same problem?

Thanks, but just because the New York Times says he lobbied doesn't make it so. At least, not a real conservative. Maybe to a shameless campaign bot.

And if I may add, it's hilarious that you take three unspecified billable hours by Thompson to "prove" he's not pro-life. Good thing the National Right to Life foundation is interested in a little more substance. You know, on account of his getting a 100% rating. But you don't care about those pesky little facts. They don't jive with your ridiculous slash and burn strategy.

The dishonest bot behavior of the anteaters of the world is one more compelling reason to oppose Huckabee at all costs.

absentee

| | |

In which case, I wonder, who calls it lobbying? The abortion group, who clearly has an interest in burning down Thompson? The NYTimes, same problem? Anteater, same problem?

Thanks, but just because the New York Times says he lobbied doesn't make it so. At least, not a real conservative. Maybe to a shameless campaign bot.

Fred definitely lobbied. I can hardly believe that you are arguing with the plain facts. Fred's lobbying is public information and has been reported in the news plenty of times. Fred didn't deny that he lobbied (actually his campaign did deny it initially until they were presented with records).

This is the New York Times making the accusation, and if it is false, then Fred should call them out.

______________________________
"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

Fred does deny that he lobbied. He said he did work. You are intentionally trying to turn that into the word lobby because it suits your purposes. How oddly coincidental that those purposes line up so nicely with the New York Times purposes. Interesting.

You are dishonest, anteater. Your repeated attempts to paint Thompson as not pro-life are belied by real evidence, not New York Times nonsense. Things like voting records, endorsements, 100% ratings, those are evidence.

Your little "lobbying" comments are nothing but a tactic. An attempt to paint a pro-life candidate as not pro-life because you absurdly believe that you'll be able to frame Huckabee as the only pro-life candidate.

It's an ill-conceived strategy, poorly executed, and it IS dishonest.

absentee

| | |

Well done.

In the AP interview, Thompson said he had no regrets over any of the lobbying jobs he took before entering the Senate in 1994, including his representation of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The abortion-rights work complicates Thompson's efforts to court social conservatives, most of whom strongly oppose abortion.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/18/ap_interview_thomp...

How you can present that as if it is a refutation of my post, or in any way Fred saying he lobbied for abortion rights, is beyond me.

Your crusade to prove Fred Thompson isn't pro-life is preposterous, for reasons pointed out to you ad nauseum. Thus, it is a dishonest crusade, motivated by nothing more than shilling for your guy. How very admirable.

"The abortion-rights work complicates Thompson's efforts to court social conservatives, most of whom strongly oppose abortion."

OH, do they? Wow, anteater, news freakin flash there. As a social conservative I find this information stunning. Now that I know social cons oppose abortion, I guess I better find a pro-life candidate.

OOOH, got one! Fred Thompson.

absentee

| | |

Anteater is nothing but a See-and-Say. He simply parrots whatever comes from the category you point him to. Turn his dial, pull his string, and he spouts off the same line, every time. He ignores everything around him and every bit of evidence that proves him wrong and simply responds when the string is pulled.

You are hung up on the word "lobby" -- but even if we don't use that word, Fred's actions are still troubling. The fact is, Fred was paid to consult with 1) the head of the pro-abortion group 22 times and 2) administration officials for 3 hours with the expressed purpose of reducing restrictions for that abortion rights group. These are the facts.

You are switching the issue from Fred's lobbying activity to a general characterization that Fred is not pro-life. There are different gradations of being pro-life. Fred is pro-life, but there are very troubling signs in his record. Fred has also made very troubling public remarks.

By the way, Fred does not deny his activities:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4908.html

If he did deny it, the burden is on you to find evidence that he did deny that his actions above ever took place (22 meetings with pro-abortion group leader and 3 hours of lobbying with administration officials).

An easy way to answer these charges is to simply admit that Fred was somewhat pro-choice back then (see Ramesh Ponnuru), and to say that he has gradually changed his position to a pro-life one.

I haven't switched the issue in the least, as the barest review of my commentary in this thread will make abundantly clear. Nice try.

Your incessant bleating about his work on the client is a blatant attack on him as a pro-life candidate. Talk about semantics!

And you clearly acknowledge that my problem is the use of the word lobby, and then, again dishonestly, try to imply that I suggested he denied doing the work in the first place. Again, silly.

Your final comment is the most telling of all. After your denial, you make the assertion again that he is not prolife, by way of implying he is merely paying lip service. It is preposterous, as his record far outweighs the paltry contrary evidence that you carry from thread to thread like the Holy Grail of Pro-Abortion-Fred- ... osity.

Face facts, spin doctor. You are never going to convince people that Huckabee is the only social conservative. The evidence flat contradicts it. The only thing you are accomplishing is further discrediting your username at Redstate.

absentee

| | |

You do not deny that this activity takes place. Since you are unwilling to define it as "lobbying", we will call Fred's activity X. X should be very troubling to pro-lifers.

Your final comment is the most telling of all. After your denial, you make the assertion again that he is not prolife, by way of implying he is merely paying lip service. It is preposterous, as his record far outweighs the paltry contrary evidence that you carry from thread to thread like the Holy Grail of Pro-Abortion-Fred- ... osity.

Are you arguing against Ramesh Ponnuru's point that Fred was once at least marginally pro-choice?

______________________________
"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

How is my having to repeat the thing I initially said "progress"? How is being required to expose your mischaracterization of what I said progress when we are already talking about your mischaracterization of Thompson.

It seems I can add "progress" to the list of words you don't seem to understand, along with "lobbying", "pro-life", and "truthful".

absentee

| | |

I already gave you a huge concession by using your definition of what "lobbying" is.

No, you suggest that I denied he did work, and then changed my mind later. That's called lying.

I'll say this again too. As long as you try and sell this line that Fred is not pro-life, or not sufficiently pro-life, as you tend to respond when challenged, you are nothing but a dishonest slash and burner.

No social con with an intellect will find anything "very troubling" in Thompson's record on life issues. I know. I am one. And a real authentic, individual one, not a shameless, dishonest campaign tool like some.

Huckabee is not the only social conservative. That is just campaign spin nonsense and the more you sell it, the worse you look.

absentee

| | |

Fred does deny that he lobbied.

No he doesn't. This is the main argument. Where did Fred ever say "I did not lobby".

And it's nice to see that you have no argument against Ramesh Ponnuru.

I didn't read your red herring link, and why would I? You've no credibility whatsoever.

We also can play the link game all day. How about you go first. Fred admits he lobbied? Where is that link, I wonder?

His denial is evident in his campaigns repeated responses, like my very first response to you on this issue two months ago, and at the top of this thread tangent, when he says he did work on the client as part of his firm, and that is all he did. He also never retracted his campaign's statement "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period."

I'll make this all easy for you, anteater. I'll allow you to concede that Fred's pro-life record is impeccable (if you don't like impeccable, you may use 100%, like the NRLC) and that Huckabee isn't the only pro-life candidate. In return, I'll stop thinking of you as a malicious spam program. How does that deal grab you?

absentee

| | |

Anteater you would know from lack of credibility.

You have people who aren't even Fred supporters lining up to smack you down.
______________________________
"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

______________________________
"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

______________________________
"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

There will be a cutoff.

HTML Help for Red Staters

NR's editors said that Fred lobbied:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGI2Mzg1ZjQwOWM0ZmI2ODQ3YTExZWI2NDY...

Fred Thompson’s campaign has hit its first bump even before it has officially begun. The Los Angeles Times claimed that Thompson, 15 years ago, did lobbying work for a pro-abortion group. Thompson’s campaign denied the story at first. Then Thompson argued that a lobbyist can help his clients promote their positions without sharing them. Now the New York Times has found billing records showing that Thompson did indeed lobby to make it possible for family-planning clinics that make abortion referrals to get federal funds.

The correct word for Fred's actions is "lobby".

you can't discredit hard evidence by pointing out who posted brought it forward, (That's what the Chapequa Hillbilly's do). Are they actual billing records or not? Did Fred bill them for the time or not? If he billed them did he do the work or not? if he didn't do the work,isn't he guilty of Fraudulent Billing ala Web Hubble?

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

But I'm not wearing your green eyshades.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

In this case it would be nice if you had something a little more than did work for client.
______________________________
"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

He billed the hours, he did the work. If he was a defense attorney and billed 3 hours to a murder case, would it then follow that he supports murder? Should attorneys refuse to accept assignments from their employers if they don't approve of the client?

This is such a lame transparent attempt to malign Fred's pro-life record. He's pro-life, always has been, always will be. Ask the National right To Life.

Sheesh!

That article was hardly hard evidence. And I certainly can call the assertions by anteater into question if, so far, his only source is the New York Times. I not only can, I do. You call a few billable hours lobbying? I don't. Certainly not three unspecified hours that, so far, I only see the Times and anteater interested in.

The "evidence" is further called into question by motive. Anteater and the Times have the same goal, make Fred as not pro-life. Which is absurd, based on, as I said above, actual evidence.

He's pro-life. It's a fact. I'm sorry if that destroys anteaters world, or his pathetic strategy to prove Huckabee is the only pro-life politician on the face of planet earth, but there you have it.

absentee

| | |

This whole strategy of defending Huckabee by attacking everyone else is just so horribly counterproductive. All it does is just permanently tick off anyone who is supporting the people you attack.

Then there is the matter of the rabid support for Huckabee. While there are candidates that are acceptable number 2s for Hucks supporters. Huckabee is rarely an acceptable number 2 for anyone elses supporter. His candidacy is practically designed to cause division in the party. Your mode of support just aggravates the already problematic nature of his candidacy.

So fess up. You work for Hillary don't you ?
______________________________
"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

One could say the same for your anti Huck Posts and his supporters.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

Which is pretty much the kind of response I expect from Huck and his supporters.

But please show me where I respond to charges against my candidate with attacks on the other guys ? (That is if you even know who I support)

______________________________
"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

My point is the contempt heaped on Huck Supporters. After heaping the hose manure on us that other conservatives have heaped upon us, how can the party ask us to line up behind their candidate and do the legwork that we always do when they get to the General Election?

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

Don't get upset if you get puke on your clothes.

And no I don't expect anything from any faction this time around. Quite frankly its beginning to look like we are going to need a Carter to reunify the Pro America factions with the GOP again. I certainly don't blame SoCons or TheoCons. I do blame Huckabee for hitting their hot buttons and playing identity politics games within the party. (Even the Dems know better than that, you practice Identity politics externally not internally).

Anyway as to the general do you really expect Huckabee to win as Pro Life Hillary lite ?
______________________________
"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 was fired up and disgusted before Huckabee ever showed up as a viable option. Check my Diary of you doubt me. I've settled on Huckabee after the crap I was fed when Guiliani was the heir apparent. Romney was my second choice at the time before Fred came in. I had reservations about Romney but was willing to vote for him till recently. His Al Gore act during the debates and his sniveling attacks on everyone else, (Including McCain and Guiliani who I don't trust), has annoyed me beyond belief and has me off completely.

At this point I am going for Huckabee first and am willing to switch to Fred if he can make himself viable without crapping on me. As for the rest of them at this point? If they were all on fire, I wouldn't piss on any of them to put them out, (Metaphorically speaking of course).

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

Any more than Guiliani, Romney, or McCain are.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

You're right! He's 100% Hillary. All he needs now is universal day care.

I agree with anything you've said on this subject.

Fred worked for a law firm, he was not a partner, he had no say in their client list, he was asked to consult with this client as part of his job, he did.

And, interestingly enough, nothing came of it.

Why did it take a lawsuit to convince Huck that the furniture in the Governor's Mansion didn't belong to him?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You also argued against the word "lobby"

http://spainishirish.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/counter_spinnin...

and saying something like "there is a saying in the Airforce . . . " (sarcasm off)

Thompson would really silence the doubters if he'd just say "Look, I may have done a little lobbying in my past, and I may not support the HLA, but I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express last night."

Isn't the same thing being done to Huckabee with this post i.e.

Fred was a lobbyist because he worked for a lobbyist firm vs
Huckabee must be anti Catholic because he was seen with an anti Catholic?

BTW Didn't Fred vote for McCain Fiengold...Wonder why no one brings that up when he's painting Huckabee as a Liberal.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

Yeah, no one at Redstate ever brings up McCain-Feingold.

"Wonder why no one brings that up when he's painting Huckabee as a Liberal."

Just a crazy guess, but, just maybe, because the blog wasn't about Fred Thompson? Perhaps you should ask anteater why his napalm attacks on the other candidates don't have something nasty about Huckabee in them while you're at it?

Silly.

absentee

| | |

I don't always agree with Anteater's approach but at the same time, why is it OK for others at Red State to carpet bomb Huckabee Supporters when the Bombs they're dropping could acquire their candidate as a target if dropped in too close a proximity to said candidate?

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

The point is you asked why he didn't mention it. It was a blog about Huckabee, not Thompson. Simple.

absentee

| | |

So that makes two anti-Catholic candidates, neither of which are mine! I love this.

McCain-Huckabee: the anti-Catholic alliance.

Interesting....

I think I'll stick with my favorite Mormon in this race...

Because sometimes I don't think evangelicals inside the bible belt realize theat Catholics make up the single largest religious denomination in the US. I think its wrong and I am personally offended. His opposition wasn't theolgical. It was ridiculous, personal and venomous - "Hitler's Pope" type of crap. But practically speaking, it's poltical suicide. Catholics arent some minority faith like Jews or Muslms. The GOP is finished as a national party if Catholic vote Democrat in bulk.

Should evangelical pastor's not express their concerns about Catholicism, ever, because it will offend voters? This is America isn't it?

I was raised Catholic and 60% of my family is still Catholic, we debate theology every chance we get, but we don't disrespect one another, think any less of each other or take our discussions personally.

Hagee does't discuss theology as much as call Catholics nazis, rapists and murders.

Hagee may be anti Catholic, (A subject that is debatable at a later time) but what does that have to do with Huckabee...Can you show one quote where Huckabee has attacked Catholicism in non doctrinal ways?

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

of many religions, given his comment "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

This man is toxic to the Republican party and I worry for our party that so many members have been duped into voting for this fake conservative.

"demonizing Values Voters"

That's just absurd. Who is demonizing values voters?

Absurd.

absentee

| | |

I've been posting to Red State and other blogs off and on for years and the contempt that many in the Republican Party have for religious conservatives is undeniable. I've also been to State Conventions after the 1994 sweep of congress which came about with a huge turnout of Values Voters and I can tell you the Backlash from the elitists of the Party was palpable. That Backlash brought us Boob Dole as a matter of fact).

After we turned out so big in 04 for Dubya, I'm expecting as much of a backlash from them at our conventions this year.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

______________________________
"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

OK SoCons if you wish...it's all the same

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

I may have mentioned about a dozen times this weekend, in defense of Huckabee's response to the husbands/wives question at the debate I might add, that I happen to travel in religious conservative cirles myself. Not only as an every day Southern Baptist, but as the son of a recognized and very well respected evangelical professor and author. Part of the reason I blog anonymously is I want my opinions to remain my own and not be attributed to my father.

I hear this line about contempt often (mostly from anteater but, believe me, that is often). It is not undeniable. In fact, I deny it.

Furthermore, your greatest error would be in attributing any small pockets contempt you did experience to the fact that you are religious. Look at anteater. People don't get angry with anteater because he is religious. So what could it be, I wonder?

Think about that.

absentee

| | |

No, We were attacked and shut out at our conventions. Things didn't settle down until SoCons/Values Voters quit in discouragement or crawled back into their shells so the rest of the party could get back to lording their power over us.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

I have closely followed the conventions since 72 and got to attend in 80. I must have missed the one you speak of.
______________________________
"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 was stunned at the knee jerk reaction we got when we tried to participate in our conventions after 1994.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

It would be really upsetting to me know that any group was excluded from a republican convention because of religion. Give me a group and a convention, please??
______________________________
"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

We weren't excluded per se but the rhetorical barbs and backlash were shocking. Quite Frankly I was stunned to be attacked and belittled as we were. The State Convention was pretty bad as well when we brok up and caucussed.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

Insulted religious people ??

I am going to lift my jaw off the floor. There are few things I have universally observed in politicians. One is they will get close an be nice even to ugly children and smile when doing it. Two the last thing they do is offend church leaders. Esp of their own church.
______________________________
"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

We were seen as a threat to the status quo at the conventions. It's an unspoken rule that we are allowed a place at the table so long as we keep our mouths shut and expect nothing in return for our work for the Party.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

______________________________
"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

______________________________
"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'm also a religious conservative. Do I then hold myself in contempt?

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====

You may be the exception that proves the rule. or you've fallen for the Anti Huckabee propaganda being spread here.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

I've researched his positions. I'm also one that saw through his class warfare statements before others. I've also seen him trying to use my religion as a political weapon against others. To be honest, it's that more than anything that sickens me.

I don't see that I'm the exception either. His greatest detractors here are also evangelical Christians from what I've been able to tell.

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====

I haven't seen him use his religion as a weapon. I did see him introduce himself as a Christian which is what I do any time I introduce myself to someone for the first time. It's the most significant thing about me. I have yet to hear him say to vote for him but not the other guy because he's not a Christian.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

he's God's Chosen Candidate.

And I'm different than you about how I introduce myself. I prefer that people notice that I'm a Christian before I say I'm one. If they don't notice, then apparently I'm not a very good one.

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====

Give quote, Time, Place and in context.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

Here you go ace.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13838.html

I prefer that people notice that I'm a Christian before I say I'm one. If they don't notice, then apparently I'm not a very good one.

I'm with you there NightTwister. Excellent way to say so much more than the words you are typing.

-------------------------------------------------------

"I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

25+ year Christian conservative, former member of SBC, E-Free, and currently a member of the PCA (considered one of THE most conservative denominations in the USA). Can't stand Huckabee, and haven't liked him since day one. I can be quoted on RedState as one who has stated he would vote for NOTA instead of Rudy Giulaini due to his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and gun control policy positions. Didn't have a candidate to support (was, and still am mildly for Mitt) until Fred Thompson declared.

Huckabee's track record, his overt "vote for me because I'm the Christian" message and his appalling amateurishness on foreign policy, and his attempts to frame himself as a ficon (fat chance, Huck) doomed him in my eyes. Every time the guy opens his mouth, I throw up in my own mouth.

I was hoping I could support Huckabee back when I first started seeing him, and hearing from him. And at first I did like him. I liked the possibility that there was a great debater, orator, and general communicator in a conservative Christian who didn't think politics was inherently too dirty for Christians to participate in.

But then I started to hear more. And learn more. It started when I heard Huck in a radio interview talking about how CEOs get paid too much. I hate opportunistic populism and class warfare. And it was all downhill from there.

You're not insinuating that Huckster supporters are Values Voters are you?