Comments on: VIDEO: Mike Huckabee At Defending American Dream Summit

By: Chase

Chase — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:58:35 +0000

Oh boys.

You know how Hillary is going to win this election, don’t you? It’s really a simple formula. She’s going to turn it into a referendum on Clinton vs. Bush. Whoever the Republican nominee is, the Clinton’s are going to morph that man into George W. Bush.

Then, the question the Clinton’s will want people to be thinking as they cast their ballot: Which did you like better? President Clinton or President Bush?

If she can define the election on those terms, Hillary Clinton will be the 44th President of the United States… in a landslide.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:22:47 +0000

Yes, because without abortion and gay rights as campaign issues, poor, rural southerners might actually realize that the policies of the Republican party have actually worked against their economic interests.

By: Chase

Chase — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:01:44 +0000

Nominating Giuliani will be an outright disaster for the Republican Party. Put 2 pro-choice candidates on the ballot for President and a lot of other issues are going to get oxygen that wouldn’t if the Republican nominee were pro-life.

That’s why it’s no surprise to see Hillary Clinton leading Giuliani in recent head-to-head polls in states like Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas.

Mark my words: If you put Giuliani up against Hillary Clinton, she will take a number of southern states and be the 44th President of the United States.

By: HT

HT — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:58:39 +0000

I think Huckabee is going to be the Veep no matter which of the front runners is nominated. They are going to have to appease the religious right and Huck is the best choice for that. Plus the media (even the lefty media) love him because he’s a good interview, funny and smart.

And who are you all kidding. Republicans have been for bigger government and more intrusion into our personal affairs for about 30 years now! The only person running who even pretends they would change course on those issues is Ron Paul, and you can see how well he’s polling.

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:35:12 +0000

#8
Help me out. Which muppet was that? Can’t says I’ve ever heard of a Polk vacuum cleaner, but he’s the namesake of Imperial Polk County where I live.

By: Huckabee isn't that bad

Huckabee isn't that bad — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:26:13 +0000

Huckabee’s stance on the FairTax would really be the only reason I would vote for him. I love that he is actually bringing the FairTax into the public eye. I just wish more of the gay community would understand the unique equalities that FairTax would bring. The left seems uninterested, although FairTax does not call for any spending decreases. Their special entitlements remain.

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:05:40 +0000

Not only is Huckabee a tax hiker, he’s also a nanny stater, not unlike Bloomie.

By: The Livewire

The Livewire — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:52:49 +0000

#4 Ouch
#5 Come on… We’ve elected Filmores, a President named after a muppet (yes I know he came first, but it was a good line) a Polk and a guy who shares his name with a vaccuum cleaner.

With that record is ‘Huckabee’ a disqualifer?

By: Crow

Crow — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 04:09:32 +0000

I know people from Arkansas. They call him swears, won’t even mention him by name. They despise him. He’s not called “the socialist” around the political pools for nothing either. He seems nice enough. He also is the kind of guy that is favorable to authoritarian government.

Huckabee supported 5 tax increases. Club for Growth called him a “liberal in disguise,” CATO gave him a F for “spending and tax policy in 2006,” and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform labeled Huckabee a “serial tax increaser.” Sorry, but people that back Huckabee, while being aware of the above, are not fiscal conservatives.

By: HardHobbit

HardHobbit — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:18:13 +0000

No one whose last name is ‘Huckabee’ will ever be elected President, no matter his positions, his elocution, his weight loss.

By: Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » VIDEO: Mike Huckabee At Defending American Dream Summit

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:40:18 +0000

[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]

By: GayPatriot

GayPatriot — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:26:14 +0000

Eh, trust me…. I saw Fred today in person. He ain’t no Ronald Reagan.

A fellow blogger said, “People want Fred to be the Reagan of 1979… but he’s coming off as the Reagan of 1989.”

Nuf said.

By: chukmaty

chukmaty — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:21:15 +0000

Big government Huckabee? Are you on drugs? He was not a Tax raiser, look at his record, he was the first tax CUTTER in over a century for Arkansas. Maybe you don’t like corruption SMASHERS, maybe Mike is going to be bringing the gravy train style government, you became accustomed to, to a sudden halt… I guess you and the rest of the Club for Greed should be scared out of your pants the the hidden withholdings taxes and secret methods of taxation would come to an end under Huckabee.

Compared to the anti gov libertarians maybe, but not by anybody else’s standards.

By: Roberto

Roberto — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:19:43 +0000

I could see him in the vp slot. It goes back to the old fashion idea of a balanced ticket; a northern moderate on social issues with a social conservative. Thus Huck brings in the southern votes and the social conservative votes that Rudy would not get if he had Romney on the ticket. Also he is young enough to be presidential candidate (assuming eight years of Rudy). Mc Cain is too old to accept the vp slot considering his desire to be president. The question is would a Rudy/Huck ticket have coattails long enough to brling back majorities in the house and senate? My bet is still on Fred. I would like to think he is another Ronald Reagan.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:52:02 +0000

How are the liberal Rudy, or the tax raising, big government conservative Huckabee, in any way attractive to those that believe that the US Constitution is more than a piece of paper to be ignored at all costs?