Myth Busted: Huckabee Steals Votes From Romney

For weeks, the right-wing sycophants like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have made Tax Hike Mike the whipping boy of Mitt Romney’s crumbling campaign. Hannity has gone as far as to state that if Mike Huckabee had left the race after South Carolina, Romney would have been the front-runner heading into Super Tuesday. The “mainstream media”, for its part, has done nothing but perpetuate this falsehood, never questioning that “Huckabee takes away conservative votes from Romney.” It’s a charge that has gone almost entirely unchallenged by nearly everyone, save Mike Huckabee himself. Slowly and surely, almost everyone bought into the idea that Huckabee was just “in cahoots” with McCain.

But to quote the “authentic conservative”, the truth is a stubborn thing. The truth of the matter is that if Huckabee is “hurting” anyone, it’s John McCain. As evidence, I submit to you this poll taken prior to Super Tuesday. It shows that in a two-man race between Romney and McCain, Romney’s numbers remain relatively stagnant, well below thirty-percent of the popular vote. On the other hand, McCain surges with Huckabee’s name off the ballot. His poll numbers shoot up into the low sixties. There are those who argue that national polls such as this are “aged” and “meaningless”. While I would certainly argue the point, I would much rather just present the following. According to the exit polling in Florida, of the voters who chose Mike Huckabee, fifty-five percent preferred John McCain as their second choice, as opposed to the 32% percent who preferred Romney. There is also the issue of Iowa, where despite a huge Huckabee win, Mitt Romney still managed to edge out John McCain. Edge him out that is, by double the percentage points.

So why the willingness to just buy into this “Huckabee steals votes from Romney” fable? What the right-wing pundits are intentionally and the mainstream media is unintentionally leaving out is that the “conservative” votes that make up Mitt Romney’s base are a completely different brand of “conservatives” than those who support Huckabee. For the most part, although with some exceptions, Mitt is supported by the pro-business/economic growth conservatives. And for the most part, although with some exceptions, Huckabee is supported by the fiercely evangelical southern conservatives. While the Hannitys and the Limbaughs of the world know the difference between the factions, the mainstream media is largely ignorant on what the main conflicts are in the great social conservative vs. fiscal conservative vs. libertarian debate–so when they hear a right-wing pundit say that candidate X is stealing conservative votes from candidate Y, they simply run with it.

The point is that Mike Huckabee isn’t really stealing votes from anyone. And if he is in fact “hurting” another candidate, then he’s hurting McCain. The debacle at West Virginia isn’t proof that Huckabee’s supporters would go for Romney. It’s proof that McCain will use his supporters to beat Romney, even if that means giving Huckabee an adrenaline injection before the polls close. Huckabee is a southern candidate with a solidly southern constituency. And let’s face it; the vast majority of his “base” are the same types of people who would move to Canada if a Mormon was elected to office. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Huckabee. Romney needs to take his own advice and quit whining.

h/t to Jason Pye

80 comments

  1. eburke says:

    I voted for Huckabee because he best reflects my views. If he had not been in the race I would have reluctantly voted for McCain because I just don’t like Romney. He has run a mean spirited campaign, starting in Iowa. He has the loud mouths on the radio telling me that he is the true conservative despite evidence to the contrary just a few years ago. He may be a latter-day convert to the conservative movement but I don’t trust that his conversion is heartfelt, just convenient. It may be that his supporters have also been very mean spirited and negative rather than telling me what Romney is for they tell me how bad Huckabee and McCain are. The same goes for the Ron Paul supporters.

  2. Bill Simon says:

    eburke,

    SO, you’re really not a Repuplican, but a Theocrat, right? You WANT the US Constitution to be amended to reflect the Baptist view of the Bible, just like Huckabee has said he wants to do.

    Sally forth, King (James) Huckabee, and his faithful Theocrats!

  3. Doug Deal says:

    Jace,

    Huckabee has a following among non evangelicals due to his support of the Fair Tax. A sister of mine dislikes Huckabee’s religious references, but voted for Huckabee in florida because of her dislike of the IRS.

    Listen to Neil Boortz and see how many callers claim they will support Huckabee for this very same issue.

    McCain is not loved by evangelicals. Another sister of mine (this one in Ohio) is an evangelical and really hates McCain, since he views him as a traitor and supporter of stem cell research. She supports Huckabee because of his religious views, but she would most certainly vote for Romney over McCain.

    You are mistaken if you think all of Huckabee’s support comes from one monolithic band of religious extremists. There are plenty of economic conservatives that would never switch to McCain, and there is no evidence that evangelical voters would bother to even go to the polls in a primary for someone like McCain.

  4. Jace Walden says:

    Doug,

    I stated that there were exceptions. But Huckabee’s “base” is primarily evangelical.

    Look man, I tried yesterday to get you to produce some sort of evidence to back up this idea that “Huckabee steals from Romney”. I have done my part, if you can’t do yours, then I’m afraid we may not be able to go any further.

  5. John Konop says:

    The logic I heard is evangelicals in general will not vote for McCain. Yet I have not seen any evidence that the evangelicals that voted for Huckabee will vote for a Mormon.

    I have no issue with Romney being a Mormon I am just pointing out the issue.

  6. Jace Walden says:

    Doug,

    I’m not trying to be picky, but those cute stories about your sisters is nothing more than anecdotal evidence…we could go back and forth with cute little anecdotes all day if you want.

    There is no proof that they wouldn’t vote either, now is there Doug? The only proof we have on anything is that Huckabee’s supports overwhelmingly support McCain as their 2nd choice. See the original post for more information.

  7. Jace Walden says:

    John,

    You’re right. In fact, Huckabee’s constituency (based on numbers, but how accurate are things like numbers) seem to support McCain over Romney. That’s the only thing I can prove.

    The thought that they wouldn’t support a mormon because he’s a mormon is just an educated guess.

  8. souldrift says:

    The latest USAToday/Gallup poll says the same thing: Huckabee dropping out boosts McCain, NOT Romney:

    “We have a way of looking at this. In our latest USA Today/Gallup poll Huckabee supporters were asked for whom they would vote if the race came down to John McCain or Mitt Romney. The results? McCain wins over Romney as the second choice of Huckabee voters by more than a 2 to 1 margin, 64% to 28%. ”

    So how do we get the arrogant metro-Atlanta GOP supporters (and the dimwit lineup of talk radio hosts) to recognize that Romney is NOT the savior they want to believe he is?

  9. eburke says:

    Bill,
    I never said that I was a Repuplican or a Theocrat. I am for a Jeffersonian Republic, but I will settle for the candidates who best reflect my personal preferences. You are doing exactly what I described. Instead of supporting your man, you are quick to call someone names. You are not very effective at persuading anyone to come to your position whatever it may be.

    I am for Huckabee because he is for elimination of the income tax, he has had to balance a budget 10 times, he has been consistently pro-life, he has been consistently pro 10th amendment, consistently pro 2nd amendment and I am not afraid of a man who believes in the Almighty either.

    Now, who did you support and why?

  10. GOPeach says:

    Jace-

    I am a DIE HARD – HUCKABEE supporter and I would not vote for Romeny because he FLIP FLOPS …

    As wacked as McCain is – He will not flip flop – he will just vote liberal – Fiengold, Kennedy. We know what we are getting…. With Romney we have NO IDEA … He is the GOP’s John Kerry.

  11. GOPeach says:

    Who gave “The LAW” to Moses?

    Now … a <theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the civil authorities.

  12. GOPeach says:

    If we do not have a “Higher Power”, “God” to Whom we ultimately yield, then are we to lean on the goodness within men ?

    That would be the definition of chaos.

  13. Doug Deal says:

    Jace,

    I am not saying that you are wrong, just that you haven’t proven your case, and there is no way to know what would have happened in the end. Polls are not thermometers, and a lot of the accuracy comes down to the accuracy of the assumptions (dumb luck) and the phrasing of the question (bias).

    Certainly my examples are anecdotal, but I did not put them forth to disprove the general trend of Huckabee voters, but to disprove your lumping of every Huckabee voter into one big religion steeped pile. If I know one that doesn’t fit your model, by definition not all fit your stereotype.

    Speaking with less certainty (read your title) when you are conjecturing would win you more credibility for the times when you aren’t just guessing.

    I have no certainty about who Huckabee helps. My gut feeling tells me McCain due to years of experience showing how multiple competitors seem to split the anti vote against the favorite, while a single competitor coalesces the anti vote into support for one candidate. This makes him a whole lot more viable looking.

  14. debbie0040 says:

    You have some Phuckabee supporters that would support Romney but I don’t think that is a majority.

    The majority of Phuckabee supporters are hard core evangelicals. I think most have a prejudice against non Christians. I can not see the majority voting for a Mormon. I think that is wrong that they feel that way, but never the less they do.

    Phuckabee supporters for the most part are social conservatives and fiscal moderates. The majority would go to McCain…

    Most pundits said that Thompson was in to help McCain and he took votes from Phuckabee. That was not true. Most Thompson supporters went to Romney and some went to McCain, not Phuckabee.

  15. Bill Simon says:

    Peach,

    The key part of that definition is that “the deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.”

    In THIS country, we have a Rule of Law that protects us and defines our form of government.

    Under a theocracy, there would be ZERO “rule of law”, but 100% interpretation of whatever form of the Bible a group of people define to be THE source of the law.

    Do you even know what “rule of law” means? I don’t think you do, because you apparently think a society based on “rule of people interpreting God’s laws” would be a better society to live in than a “rule of law” based society.

  16. debbie0040 says:

    Peach, I bet you really believe God created man first then woman instead of the true way it happened.

    Actually, God created man, looked and said I can improve on that and then proceeded to create woman 🙂

  17. Bill Simon says:

    Debbie, Debbie, Debbie….YOU used to proclaim yourself as one of those “hardcore” people.

    YOU always sided with them in Cobb County and accused us (“us” being the non-whackjobs) of being “liberal.”

    Debbie, you’re just plain f*cking crazy, and, in case no one realized that before, now they have their evidence!

  18. dcraigwhite says:

    Huckabee won 34% of Evangelical votes yesterday. McCain won 32% and Romney won 30%(Courtesy of FoxNews).

    Clearly, Evangelicals are not the monolithic voting bloc some of you would like them to be.

    Furthermore, why is it that Evangelicals are “bigots” when they (by 2% more) vote for Huckabee? What’s wrong with a person voting for a candidate based on one or two traits. Anyone who is intellectually honest will acknowledge that this happens across the board. Mormons vote for Mitt much more uniformly, why aren’t they bigots? Blacks vote for Obama, women for Hillary, Vets for McCain.

    When your candidate loses, suck it up and quit trying to blame it on everyone else.

  19. GOPeach says:

    Well dcraigwhite –

    Let me explain that ….

    There are “evangelicals” and there are ” Evangelicals”.

    “evangelicals” – def. people who attend church at Christmas, Easter, weddings, and funerals. They send their kids to church activities, but they have no what the Bible says. They are social Christians – but are Biblically challenged.

    ” Evangelicals” -def. people who might actually miss church because they are actually studying their Bible and in prayer. People who try to live their faith in all that they do. They are devout.

    What the election showed to me was:

    Evangelicals make up 1/3 of Republican voters – the rest are evangelicals.

  20. debbie0040 says:

    dcraig, I was responding to the subject of this thread which is whether or not Huckabee took votes away from Romney. I stated why I believed he did not.

    Are you going to deny that some evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon?

    The same goes for you as far as sucking it up. Huckabee supporters and Huckabee himself pointed the finger at Fred Thompson in explaining his loss in South Carolina. At least be consistant…

    Bill, your judgement is clouded with your hatred and jealousy of anyone associated with ASH. Get over it. I have never been hardcore nor a one issue person.

    Only a complete idiot would not know I was joking..

  21. Bill Simon says:

    Peach,

    It did not come from the Bible. If it had, it would have been mentioned ALL over the Constitution.

    Again, I doubt you even KNOW what the “rule of law” means. It does not mean we are driven by laws. It means we are driven by the interpretation of laws by judges who make decisions based on the LAW, not by someone’s interpretation of the “Word of God.”

  22. GOPeach says:

    Bill-

    I know WHAT it means, dear.

    The question is WHERE did it come from?

    ALL things that exist ORIGINATED from some PLACE.

    WHERE did the RULE of LAW originate?

  23. debbie0040 says:

    Bill, I do believe that some evangelicals that support Huckabee would not vote for a Mormon. do you disagree with that statement?

    I consider myself Christian but I have never been a one issue person that only cares about abortion…

    As far as the Phuckabee, Romega started it , and Rugby has also been using that because it aggrevates GOPeach so much.

    My understanding is that the U.S. Constitution was based in part on “Blackstone’s Commentaries”.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm

  24. TrueConservative says:

    Debbie, have you ever picked a winner? Please do as Ann Coulter is about to do and back Hillary. You are a jinx to whatever candidate you back. Go Huck—- McCain/Huck dream ticket.

  25. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Do you Huckabee haters NOT get it? Huckabee’s base is not composed entirely of Christian extremists…look at the Southern states, there CAN NOT be 30+% “extremists” in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, etc. that only vote for Huckabee b/c “he’s the most religious.” The fact is, if you look at the polling, Huckabee wins many, if not most, of the rural communities in the South & Midwest. Now, while these communities are likely strong Christian areas, they’re not all full of “evangelical extremists.” Instead, they really are full of the “Wal Mart Republicans” that Huckabee claims is his base. Average people, who believe in God & Jesus Christ, live a conservative lifestyle (socially & fiscally speaking), probably have a modest to average family income, probably don’t have many investments and retirement funds, etc. Basically, average, rural people! These people aren’t all Bible thumping extremists, a few are, but most are not.

  26. Bill Simon says:

    Peach,

    A few facts:

    1) Adam and Eve, Egypt, the Jewish people discussed in the Old Testament were NOT the only “people” that existed during the times documented in the Bible.

    2) The Code of Hammurabi did not descend from the Ten Commandments, or any other part of the Judaeo history. It existed on its own, and evolved on its own in the minds of the men of the day.

    3) The Old Testament is a document of the history of a section of the world and the Jews living and interacting in that part of the world with other Jews and other people.

    To believe that NO OTHER civilization existed during that time period except that described within the confines of the Bible is to display complete ignorance and naivete.

    The rule of law did not come from “God”. The laws God defined are pretty specific and they are not “organic” with the times, unlike the rule of law.

    There would be no way a concept like the rule of law COULD have “evolved” from God’s commandments because the system would be the complete opposite of a system based on God’s laws.

    If you want to live in a country chockfull of living under “God’s laws,” move to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Dubai.

  27. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    Nope I just thought it was a funny one. Most of Hammurabi’s code goes like this…

    If a man does minor offense a, that man shall be put to death. I guess they had so-cons back then too 😉

  28. dcraigwhite says:

    debbie,

    Come now, I didn’t even single you out and you think I’m talking about you. I was talking more to Bill than anyone. No one can say “all evangelicals go for Huck.” The facts speak for themselves.

    On your comment though, I wouldn’t for a second sit here and pretend that evangelicals are ready to vote for a Mormon candidate. I am an evangelical, and I would vote for Romney, but my parents, that’s a different story. They would, but they would certainly be hesitant about it, and it would only be if he was the GOP nominee. I don’t think that makes them “bigots” though, I think it makes them people who are eager to have their ideological kin elected.

    Note that when I made the comment about “sucking it up” it was not directed at one candidate or one post on these boards, rather it was a general statement intended for all. So, in essence, the comment was consistent, consistent with my previous posts. I’ve never pointed the finger at Fred or anyone else.

    It comes down to intellectual honesty. If Ronald Reagan could some how run today, based on his record, most of you wouldn’t give him the time of day. He flipped on abortion, he raised taxes, he granted amnesty to millions, and now we consider him the founder of the modern Republican party. Change is a word that’s been used frequently this cycle, but it really is at the heart of everything Conservatives believe in. We believe people can change their lives with a little hard work and less interference from government. We believe that the ideological battle we’re fighting can be won by changing the hearts and minds of those on the other side of the aisle. Every candidate will make mistakes, it’s up to us to be honest enough to acknowledge the mistakes, but take into consideration that each candidate is flawed, most of the time none more than the other.

    As I have said many times, I have no problem with Fred, and I was initially with Mitt, but Huck is now my guy. There’s things I don’t like about all of them, but it’s a waste of time for me to sit here and write the same things over and over again bashing the person that could be our prospective nominee. I’m not a huge McCain fan, and he’s made some mistakes, but let’s not forget that the man is more conservative than anyone on the other side of the ticket. If it’s Reagan we want to emulate, I think our time would be better spent talking up our own candidates rather than bashing the others. As the process draws to a close, let’s quit giving the LibDems ammo and start firing shots at them.

    That’s just my two-cents.

    Peace!

  29. Bill Simon says:

    Heyyy…maybe I’ll take Peach’s side on this claim of Hammurabi’s laws coming from GOD. Look at this one:

    “209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.”

    Wow…so, the “unborn” back then wasn’t considered a human life.

    And, yet, we have the dunderheads of today proclaim that they are acting in God’s best interest on the whole abortion issue.

  30. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    You apparently don’t know what a shekel is. After about 3 shekels, I have heard grown men cry. After 7, most people would rather be dead.

    * from dictionary.com
    shekel /shekel/ (v) – The process of torture through the forced reading of a single blog posts made by GOPeach. After about 7 shekels, Bill Simon wished he didn’t strike that women in the abdomen.

  31. Bill Simon says:

    Rule of Law demands a humane process. God’s Laws provide for direct, and usually brutal, punishments for violations of His laws.

    It is a very clear difference.

  32. debbie0040 says:

    True Conservative, In the 2006 elections 2 of the 3 people I supported won. Can you say the same? Your person, Huckabee is not going to win either so you don’t have a very good track record. It looks like the Huckster will finish third behind Romney

    Dcraig, I support McCain now because he is going to be the nominee. I think the people that say they are not going to vote for McCain will change their minds when it gets close to the general..

    Robert Novak said that Huckabee was an evangelical not a conservative and I think that correctly describes Huckabee.

    Huckabee will not be the VP. McCain is not going to pick a VP that will over shadow him. McCain needs a strong conservative and that is not Huckabee. Huckabee also brings too much baggage with his record and statements he has made.

    The evangelical vote is dividing between Huckabee, Romney and McCain now.

    Being against abortion and gay marriage does not make you a conservative..

    Candidates can change their minds and admit to making mistakes, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with candidates telling out right lies about their record, which is what Huckabee did…

  33. dcraigwhite says:

    debbie,

    Huckabee is a conservative. He is a social conservative, and in terms of foreign policy he would be conservative. You take issue with his fiscal record. Ronald Reagan did the exact same thing as Governor of California yet went on to become one of the best economic Presidents we’ve ever had. It’s easy to use a term like “TaxHikeMike” – but it’s a cop out. Thanks to Bush the First we all know it’s political suicide to go back on a promise, especially one like “no new taxes.” Huck’s taken the pledge, and the man has cut taxes, even if not to the degree we would all like.

    It seems like in every conversation you keep claiming that Huck lies about his record – what facts are you basing this on? Again, not looking for endless editorials from his Arkansas enemies, just your claim, and the link to confirm he lied. You give it to me and I’ll drop my support for Huck that instant.

  34. drjay says:

    well sean hannity said just last nite that mitt and huckabee are splitting the conservative vote so that is all the info i need–he was on tv when he said it after all

  35. debbie0040 says:

    Dcraig, here you go on one issue:

    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4

    “I oppose and will never allow amnesty. I opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all. ”

    Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R)
    Interview With The Fix’s Chris Cillizza and The Post’s Dan Balz
    washingtonpost.com
    Tuesday, May 23, 2006; 6:00 AM

    washingtonpost.com’s Chris Cillizza and Washington Post reporter Dan Balz interviewed Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on May 16 as part of an ongoing series of conversations with potential 2008 presidential candidates. A transcript of the interview is below:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201237.html

    Where are you on the debate that rages here between the House approach on immigration and what seems now to be a consensus approach in the Senate, particularly on the issue of a path to legal status or citizenship for at least quite a few of the 11 to 12 million who are here illegally?

    I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. You shouldn’t ignore the law or ignore those who break it. But by the same token, I think it’s a little disingenuous when I hear people say they should experience the full weight of the law in every respect with no pathway, because that’s not something we practice in any other area of criminal justice in this country.

    We have everything from plea bargainings to suspended sentences to probation to clemency. There’s a whole gamut of ways in which there are lesser than the full penalties applied for a whole variety of reasons — everything from jail overcrowding to non-violent offenses.

    To think that we’re going to go lock up 12 million people, or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go, might make a great political speech, but it’s not going to happen. What should happen, however, is exactly what I think the president has proposed, and that is that we create a process where people make restitution for the fact they have broken the law.

    It’s not an amnesty, and I know that there are some who think that anything less than essentially grabbing them by the nape of the neck and tossing them over a fence, real or imaginary, is amnesty. But I think that’s ridiculous. And whether it’s Patrick Kennedy, Rush Limbaugh, or an illegal immigrant, there ought to be some rationality in how we apply our law. We do that every day.

    I would imagine if any of us checked the record of prosecutors in my state or yours there are far more sentences that are plea bargained than actually go to trial. And that it’s pretty darn rare that a person even convicted at trial gets the maximum sentence on every charge brought. It’s just not always the way we do it.

    Suddenly to say that these people that came over here to pluck a chicken, pick a tomato, or make a bed should suffer the full consequences of the law as if somehow they’ve totally violated our peace and prosperity, is absurd. Now, should they have to pay some type of fine? Should they have to get in line behind the ones who are going through the legal process? Sure. That’s quite appropriate. But criminalizing beyond what they’ve already been criminalized, I mean, they’ve already broken the law. But to make them felons and in essence to say we’re going to put our heel on their head, what’s the point of that?

    Why do you think there are so many people in your party and in the leadership of the House of Representatives … feel so strongly in a different direction on this?

    I honestly don’t know. I mean, I wish I could tell you I knew the answer to that. I’ve done a lot of town halls. I’ve done a lot of call-in talk shows, both on radio and television, in my own state. And I’ve done a lot of Q&A formats in states all over the country, from one end of the coast to the other.

    And I find that there’s a certain segment of the population that is truly exercised about this and virtually nothing but this. And they’ve gone to seed on it. You can’t get them off of it, and you can’t have a discussion beyond the classic, “what part of illegal do you not understand?” I understand it correctly. I know exactly what that means.

  36. debbie0040 says:

    Dcraig, notice these excerpts from the article, it is clear Huckabee has lied about the amnesty bill last year. Huckabee states on his web site that he never supported the bill.:

    What should happen, however, is exactly what I think the president has proposed, and that is that we create a process where people make restitution for the fact they have broken the law.

    Why do you think there are so many people in your party and in the leadership of the House of Representatives … feel so strongly in a different direction on this?

    I honestly don’t know. I mean, I wish I could tell you I knew the answer to that. I’ve done a lot of town halls. I’ve done a lot of call-in talk shows, both on radio and television, in my own state. And I’ve done a lot of Q&A formats in states all over the country, from one end of the coast to the other.

    And I find that there’s a certain segment of the population that is truly exercised about this and virtually nothing but this. And they’ve gone to seed on it. You can’t get them off of it, and you can’t have a discussion beyond the classic, “what part of illegal do you not understand?” I understand it correctly. I know exactly what that means.

  37. GOPeach says:

    drcraig-

    I personally called ARKANSAS STATE HOUSE –
    as STATE TAX ISSUES originate in the HOUSE –

    The man I spoke to made it very clear that the tax increase was voted upon by the HOUSE and the SENATE to put it on the BALLOT for THE PEOPLE ( VOTERS) to vote on…. 80% of Arkansas voted YES! THE PEOPLE VOTED YES to TAX FUEL to build NEW ROADS.

    Governor Huckabee SIMPLY signed the ACT that THE PEOPLE wanted. THAT IS the RIGHT THING to do.

    I drove through Ft.Smith Arkansas taking my daughter’s horses to Tulsa and thought we were going to have to make a chiropractor appointment and a front end alignment on my SUV… the Arkansas roads were torture. I am so glad they are better now. Thank You Gov. Huckabee!!!

  38. jsm says:

    I think the biggest thing against Romney is not his chosen religion. I believe it’s his ‘plastic’ persona. He just comes across as too polished and too slick. He also seems to have the ‘Leave It to Beaver’ image going, as well, almost as if he’s a little too happy-go-lucky. I don’t think the majority of Americans identify with that.

    However, he and Huckabilly have their only chances in a brokered convention. Huckabilly, at 176 delegates, is already mathematically ineligible to clinch 1191 delegates before voting is finished. Unless Romney, at 270, sweeps almost everything from here on, he also will soon be ineligible to clinch before the convention. I think there are less than 1,000 delegates still in play.

  39. dcraigwhite says:

    debbie,

    I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that Huck was agreeing with some of the principles Bush put forth in his bill, but I didn’t see an full-scale endorsement of what was taking place. I agreed with some of the bill, but not all of it, and I’m not for amnesty. I think the issue here is semantics. I mean, let’s be realistic, is it not okay to agree with the principle of what the President is trying to do. Huck said it himself, the portion he endorsed was the fact that people should pay for what they’ve done. That’s where he agreed with the President. Every conservative agreed that something had to be done, and we all depended on the President to do it, but that doesn’t mean we agreed with it wholeheartedly.

    This isn’t a lie. It’s a guy saying look, we have a problem, and the people who caused the problem should pay. The president proposed they should pay, and I agree.

    That’s the extent to which he endorsed it.

  40. debbie0040 says:

    He endorsed a path to citizenship and made it clear the supported the Senate/Whitehouse version not the House version.

    Read the entire interview. Huckabee did not think they needed to leave the country just pay a fine. That is what the Senate bill said.

    He clearly supported the Whitehouse/Senate version.

    He lies on his web site about it.

  41. debbie0040 says:

    Even the reporter knew he supported the White house Senate version.

    “Why do you think there are so many people in your party and in the leadership of the House of Representatives … feel so strongly in a different direction on this?

    I honestly don’t know. I mean, I wish I could tell you I knew the answer to that. I’ve done a lot of town halls. I’ve done a lot of call-in talk shows, both on radio and television, in my own state. And I’ve done a lot of Q&A formats in states all over the country, from one end of the coast to the other.

    And I find that there’s a certain segment of the population that is truly exercised about this and virtually nothing but this. And they’ve gone to seed on it. You can’t get them off of it, and you can’t have a discussion beyond the classic, “what part of illegal do you not understand?” I understand it correctly. I know exactly what that means.”

    Huckabee’s web site has this: I oppose and will never allow amnesty. I opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.

    In that interview Huckabee supported the President’s plan. Huckabee did not think they should have to leave the country, Huckabee supported them paying a fine, Huckabee supported a path to citizenship, etc. So tell me dcraig, what part of the Senate/President’s plan did he not support?

  42. jsm says:

    John Hawkins of Right Wing News writes:

    “However, when I interviewed Mike Huckabee back in April of 2006, he was a supporter of comprehensive immigration whose positions seemed to be, by and large, indistinguishable from those of George Bush.”

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/the_conservative_case_for_and.php

    “Mike Huckabee: Well, I’m not as sure that leaving and then coming back is as important as it is to acknowledge that what they’ve done is illegal, pay a fine, and then get in line behind the people that are going through the process of being here legally. It’s important that we have a legal process.”

  43. GOPeach says:

    (Governor Huckabee agreed to this pledge made
    to the American people with his public signing before the national media on Jan. 16, 2008 at North Greenville University, South Carolina.)

    AMERICANS for BETTER IMMIGRATION

    NO AMNESTY PLEDGE

    “I pledge to oppose amnesty or any other special path to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals unlawfully present in the United States. As President, I will fully implement enforcement measures that, over time, will lead to the attrition of our illegal immigrant population. I also pledge to make security of our borders a top priority of my administration.”

    Huckabee’s Secure America Plan

    1. The 12 million illegal immigrants now here will have to go home.

    2. They will not get any legal status while here that allows them to remain long-term.

    3. Once in their home countries, they may apply for re-admittance to the U.S. as immigrants, visitors or temporary workers through normal channels.

    4. Once in their home countries, they will not receive any special privileges on the basis of their having been in the U.S. illegally, such as being put to the front of a visa line.

    5. There will be no new categories or programs through which they may re-enter the U.S.

    6. There will not be an expansion of green cards in any existing categories that will speed up their movement to the front of the line.

  44. GOPeach says:

    Here’s the way I see it –

    Mitt was the Giant- Huckabee had 5 smooth stones-
    West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, & Arkansas!

    A modern-day David and Goliath.

  45. GOPeach says:

    He is officially suspending his his running. That means that he is still in the race but only to raise money to help pay himself back what he loaned to himself, according to Fox News. He is on the TV right now.

    And that is good business????

  46. debbie0040 says:

    Peach, you are so delusional. Romney stepped won for the sake of the party and country. Romney would have had to win all remaining delegates but 78. He knew that was not likely to happen.

    McCain needs to concentrate on the general not the primaries. Romney did the stand up thing because he is has character and that is something the Huckster is lacking.

    In order to secure the nomination, the Huckster would have to win all remaining delegates except for 7.

    Ain’t going to happen. Romney led the way in doing the right thing in stepping down. Huckabee needs to follow Romney’s example…

  47. Romegaguy says:

    Here is how I see it… Romney is smart enough to realize that McCain is the nominee. Phuckster isnt.

  48. drjay says:

    GOPeach // Feb 7, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    He is officially suspending his his running. That means that he is still in the race but only to raise money to help pay himself back what he loaned to himself, according to Fox News. He is on the TV right now.

    And that is good business????

    i beleive it also means he still controls his block of delegates-as opposed to releasing them-which may or may not have a useful purpose down the road-and if something changes he can unsuspend his campaign as well

  49. Bill Simon says:

    “First they Ignore You
    Then they Laugh at You
    Then they Fight You
    Then you WIN!”

    Seems a little similar to the cheer at Georgia Tech, which goes:

    Go!
    Fight!
    Win!
    Drink!
    Get Naked!

Comments are closed.