The Short, Fast Ride:
My 30-Day Crash Course In Presidential Politics

Politics — By Joe Carter on January 2, 2008 at 4:34 am

Before I announced that I was going to work for the Huckabee campaign, the news broke on NRO’s The Corner. I suppose it’s fitting then that my departure was also told first on an online media source. While I was planning to announce my leaving closer to the day of the caucus, Jonathan Martin from Politico beat me to it. There has been a lot of speculation about what it portends, but the actual details are rather banal.
At the end of November Family Research Council generously gave me a 30-day leave of absence so that I could go to work for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign. I thought working on the campaign would be an invaluable experience so I jumped at the opportunity, knowing full well that it was only a temporary measure. At the time Governor Huckabee was still behind in both the Iowa and national polls. The question “What if he has a chance to win it all?” was something I figured I’d have to deal with when the time came.
Now the time has come for me to return to my job and my longsuffering wife. I am extremely grateful to FRC and to my family for their generosity and patience. I’m also thankful to the entire staff at the Huckabee campaign headquarters for allowing me to be a part of the team. Hopefully, after Governor Huckabee wins several primaries (and opens an office closer to the DC area) I’ll be able to help him once again in an official capacity.
In the meantime, I’ll share some of what I learned on the campaign trail. Although I can’t share any secret inside-the-campaign information there are a few lessons I learned during my 30-day adventure. None are particularly profound and some are quite obvious. Much of it may even be particular to the fact that I worked with such a small team. Still, I thought it might be worthwhile to share some of them in order to confirm what you might already suspect about Presidential politics.


The Pace is Brutal — While it may not compare to the blistering schedule of the candidates, staffers generally put in some brutally long hours. Most days started before 8 AM and ended well after 10 PM. Even on Sundays, the morning talk shows and the inevitable controversies that sprang from them required our attention. The media machine never stops and requires constant monitoring. Unlike some campaigns, we did not send out a dozen emails a day announcing when our candidate would be taking bathroom breaks. Instead, we tried to focus on the major issues which came with enough regularity to keep us fully employed.
The Other Side Doesn’t Matter (At All) — No one on the campaign ever seemed to take an interest in what was going on with Clinton, Obama, Edwards or any of the other non-GOP candidates. For all we cared, the Democrats might as well have been in an alternate campaign universe. All that mattered was what was happening on our side.
Pundits Don’t Know Anything — Six months ago, how many pundits would have predicted that on the 1st day of 2008 there would be a four-way tie in the national polls between Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, and McCain? The fact is that they don’t know any more than you do. Indeed, the closer they are to DC, the less they are likely to know what actual voters are thinking.
This is Truly the Age of the Soundbite – Remember the controversy over Wayne Dumond? Remember hearing about how Dumond was castrated and the local sheriff kept his testicles in a jar on his desk; how there was some DNA evidence that could have potentially exonerated him; how the largest newspaper in Arkansas conducted an independent investigation and concluded he was likely completely innocent; how newspaper accounts provided proof that two of the parole board members who claimed the Governor had pressured them to parole him were caught lying…? You remember all that?
Of course not. Since it couldn’t be put into a soundbite, the real story never permeated the public consciousness. Instead, bits and pieces floated out that led people to conclude the Governor was guilty…of something, though nobody was quite sure what it was.
That was the sort of thing I dealt with every day. People wanted an explanation but didn’t want to stick around to hear it if it took more than 30 seconds.
Not Everything is Planned — Although most people couldn’t be bothered with actual facts, they had plenty of time for absurd speculation. The era of Karl Rove has created a climate of conspiracy in which people think that nothing happens by accident. And I mean nothing.
For example, the campaign first heard about the “floating cross” controversy in the Christmas ad from reading about it on the Drudge Report. No one had any clue what that was about so we watched the video several times before someone pointed out the bookcase.
Apparently, a Christmas ad in which the Governor mentions “the birth of Christ” was too subtle. We needed to use a bookcase that looked like a cross so that people would get the point that he was secretly sending a message to Christians.
To this day, some people still claim that the “floating cross” was intentional. Those people are idiots.
Campaigns Are Staffed By A Narrow Range of People – Much like tax preparation or lettuce picking, campaign work is short-term, seasonal, and semi-skilled. I identified five main grouping of staffers: (a) local hires and people who have previously served with the candidate, (b) young singles that work cheap, (c) financially independent volunteers, (d) high-priced veteran advisers, and (e) semi-competent/semi-experienced temps. (I fell into category (e)).
The Mainstream Media Ain’t So Bad — Many bloggers (including me) have a knee-jerk reaction to the mainstream media. We “just know” they have a liberal bias and that they can’t be trusted to report accurately on Republicans and conservatives. If my experience is any indication, then most of what we know is “just wrong.”
My job wasn’t to spin the press but to present the facts for the Huckabee campaign’s side of the story. I expected that I’d have the toughest time with the professional journalists but most of the reporters that I dealt with (especially Michael Luo of the New York Times and Jonathan Martin of Politico) were quite fair and always professional. Even when their coverage was cringe-inducing I rarely could fault them for being inaccurate or putting their own biases ahead of the facts.
Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media.
My rapid response list included a broad range of journalists, pundits, and bloggers and variety of outlets–everything from The New York Times to HotAir. Often they would ask me to clarify statements made by the Governor, defend claims made by the campaign, or offer evidence on a point of contention. Almost always the mainstream media from the “liberal” outlets were more fair and balanced than were the ones from the “conservative” side of the media.
Some conservative outlets, of course, were notably fair and accurate. Although he never pulled his punches, Jim Geraghty at NRO’s The Campaign Spot always let me present a rebuttal to the claims of other campaigns. The same can be said for NRO’s Byron York, one of the few conservative reporter/pundits that seemed more concerned about getting the facts straight than he was in shoring up the conventional wisdom of the GOP establishment.
But while there were a few other exceptions that I could praise (e.g., Terry Eastland from The Weekly Standard, Phillip Klein and Jennifer Rubin from The American Spectator, the guys at RedState), far too many of the conservative outlets refused to present any evidence that conflicted with their typical anti-Huckabee narrative.
I even sent out personal emails to a number of prominent pundits and bloggers who had criticized Huckabee for being insufficiently conservative. I told them that if they would send me a list of their grievances I’d provide a personal response from the campaign addressing their concern. My only condition was that they would post the exchange in its entirety. Not one of them took me up on my offer.
As a campaign staffer, I found such behavior frustrating. But as a consumer of conservative media I found it infuriating. There are a number of pundits, bloggers, reporters, and radio hosts that I will never trust again to be “fair and balanced.”
(To clarify my last point, let me say that I had only one expectation from my fellow conservatives: that they apply the same standard to every candidate. I had no problem with a conservative pundit bashing Governor Huckabee for raising the sales tax by a penny in Arkansas…as long as they also bashed Governor Romney for raising “fees” in Massachusetts. I had no problem with their complaints that Governor Huckabee wanted to establish diplomatic relations with Iran…as long as they hammered Mayor Giuliani for the same sin. Very few even made an attempt to be consistent in their criticism. That was what I found so disappointing.)
McCain Ain’t So Bad Either — I gained a great deal of respect for Sen. McCain and his staff. I’ve often been critical of him and his policies and still have qualms about whether he would make a great President. But he’s proven himself to be a man of character and surrounded himself with honorable staffers. He’s moved up in my estimation to be my second choice for the GOP nomination.
Thompson Is a Typical Politician–But a Very, Very Bad Campaigner — You have to admire the dedication of the FredHeads. They want Thompson to be the President much, much more than he wants the job. They’ve even bought into the idea that his not really wanting the job makes him somehow more qualified to be the leader of the free world!
I jumped on the Fred bandwagon from the beginning but am glad I got off long before the wheels fell off. Like many others I bought into the hype that Thompson was going to run a different kind of campaign. It is definitely different, I’ll give him that. But its also uninspiring. His hiring of Mary Matalin was the first sign that he wasn’t going anywhere. She’s not as skilled as her husband at negative campaigning so when Fred went negative it just made him look like a grouchier version of Bob Dole.
The FredHeads didn’t see it that way, of course. In their view Fred should be able to just skip this whole election nonsense and go directly to the coronation ceremony. Fortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Most of us want a President who doesn’t think its “pandering” to actually care what we think.
The Ron Paul Phenomenon is Not About Ron Paul — It will take a more astute political mind than I possess to comprehend this Ron Paul phenomenon. All I know is that it has less to do with the candidate than about people’s desire for something different. When Rod Dreher, Andrew Sullivan, Vox Day, John Derbyshire, and the 9/11 Truthers all agree on a candidate its safe to say that they aren’t all seeing the same thing.
My Opinion of Giuliani…Hasn’t Changed — Is he still in the race? Why? Mayor Bloomberg has a better chance of being the next President.
Mitt Romney will never be President — I won’t be surprised if Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucus. I will be surprised, however, if he’s still in the race when the South Carolina primary comes around. [Section deleted -- see here for explanation]
It’s not just his flip-flops on the issues, though that should be enough. (It’s hard to take seriously all those conservatives who bashed John Kerry for being inconstant while turning a blind eye to Romney’s politically expedient changes of heart.) No, what will destroy Romney’s chances is that he will lie about an issue, know that he is lying, know that you know he is lying, and say it anyway. It’s not just that he’s dishonest. It’s that he thinks we’re stupid.
Now it’s true that in the short term, we do tend to be stupid. Indeed, the reason that Romney’s dishonest campaign tactics have helped him in the short run is that most people have yet to realize–as have the other campaigns and the mainstream media–he is a liar. But eventually the public catches on.
If he had reserved his dishonest tactics solely for Governor Huckabee he might have got away with it. But he and his campaign (his communications team appears to be just as despicable and unprincipled) send out dishonest attacks on McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani too. Because most of it is done behind the scenes (i.e., scurrilous emails sent to reporters and influential bloggers) it is difficult to point out the most egregious examples. Don’t take my word on it, though. Ask around to the other campaigns and media outlets.
Supporters of Romney will no doubt be offended by my criticism. I could counter that I’m offended that conservatives are backing a man that, until recently, was just another Massachusetts liberal. Instead I’ll just hold my tongue and wait for Romney’s campaign to implode. His “lie and buy” strategy may get him a narrow victory in Iowa but he’ll flame out soon enough.
Which brings me to the final lesson I learned…
Primary Politics Isn’t Worth Losing Friends Over — People often ask me what I think about the “Huckabashing” carried on by my friend Hugh Hewitt. While I am concerned that his shift from candidate-favoring pundit to propagandist for Team Romney may hurt his reputation, it hasn’t affected the affection I have for my “blogfather.” Hugh’s wrong–dead wrong–about Romney. But he’s right about enough other stuff that I still respect his opinions. And aside from his poor taste in candidates, he’s still the same great guy that I’ve admired for years.
The same holds true for my friendships with pundits and bloggers that differ with me about which candidate will make the best President. I’ve had some heated disagreements and have said things that have likely damaged my reputation with some people (i.e., all fans of Romney). But when all is said and done, I care more about people than punditry or partisanship.
That’s not a profound lesson but it was something I re-learned on the campaign. Even if I took away nothing else, that alone would have made the 30 days in Little Rock worth the trip.
‘



Print This Post Print This Post
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • Baggi

    MTR,
    What about Huckabee claiming, “I’ve corresponded with John Bolton, who’s agreed to work with us on developing foreign policy” and then Bolton responding with, “I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet.”
    Also, Joe, you’ve been pretty quick to call Mitt Romney a liar. What about the above?

  • MTR

    Baggi -
    “Corresponded” with doesn’t mean “talked to”. For instance, we’re corresponding right now, but I’ve never talked to you.
    Mitt’s lies are flat out, unmistakable, can’t-be-understood-any-other-way lies!
    “I marched with my dad and MLK”
    “I got an NRA endorsement”
    “I’ve been a hunter my whole life”
    You think the Republicans made John Kerry look bad when he said, “I voted for the $87M before I voted against it”?? (That was actually a true statement, by the way.) What they did to Kerry doesn’t begin to compare to what the Democrats will do to Romney, if given the chance. They don’t just have wishy-washy sounding truths – as in Kerry’s case, but they have flat out lies – several of them – on video!! We need to eliminate Romney so the Democrats don’t get the chance to completely eat his lunch at the expense of conservatives.
    Why is that hard to see?

  • http://sierra-faith.com/ Sierra

    Joe,
    Unfortunately, it is you who appear to be Nixonian with the Romney smear, and this is most disappointing.
    I am a Romney->Thompson->Guiliani supporter.
    If you have information that you think disqualifies Romney from being the GOP nominee or President of these United States, please do share.
    Plutarch made a data-rich case suggesting that Huckabee wants to enforce a Dietary Nanny State while taking the easy route out.
    The Huckabee camp has made an unequivocal denial, and Plutarch has now lost credibility.
    Is your Romney smear merely a Plutarch-like concocted rumor, or do you have any facts?
    If rumor, please stop.
    If you have facts, please provide.
    If true, I will gladly support Thompson.
    I cannot support Huckabee — we can ill afford another President who apologizes for America to the rest of the world.
    Lastly, I have always enjoyed your blog, and will continue to do so — after all, Primary Politics Isn’t Worth Losing Friends Over, and I agree.
    Peace.

  • Chris M

    Could this impending rumor be related to the push polling efforts? Joe says it could hurt Romney, but it could also end up hurting Huckabee if it’s not true. Perhaps the rumored scandal is that Romney’s behind the anti-Romney push polls. And perhaps the danger to Huckabee is that the investigation could possibly reveal that Huckabee is behind them instead. Both Romney and Huckabee have publicly denounced these efforts– so it would be a scandal to find out that either one of them were behind it.
    Just a guess…

  • Chris M

    As for the Romney/Porno connection, I think the rumors are mainly around the idea that Romney was on the board of the Marriot hotel chain, and the Marriot hotel chain offers pay-per-view porn. The question is, did Romney try to stop it or did Romney simply allow Marriot to continue making millions off porn? Romney says the topic never came up…
    More info:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288253,00.html

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Joe:
    Thanks for the pardon/clemency explanation.
    C’mon, Jeff, that’s a pretty big leap in logic. Are you really saying that we should let a person’s theological views on denominational appointments be used as a litmus test for what type of federal judges he would appoint?
    I am not saying anything about a “litmus test” and I do not think it is a big leap in logic at all. I am merely suggesting that people should take it under advisement. To say that the issue was simply about “a person’s theological views on denominational appointments” is a glossing over of the facts.
    The struggle over control of the SBC was a hard-fought political battle as heated as anything we see on the national stage. Segments of the organization wanted to take the SBC in the same direction as the so-called mainline denominations. We all see how that went. The Word is compromised for the sake of political expediency or to conform to society. Gov. Huckabee was on the wrong wide of the issue.
    I see many similarities in the SBC battle over the integrity of scripture to current cultural struggles, especially concerning the integrity of the constitution. In both cases there is a call for a return to first principles and maintenance of a creed. In both cases, interpretation and hermeneutics are critical. When Huckabee had the chance to espouse and fight for conservative principles in the past, he chose not to. You can call it a “leap in logic” if you like. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  • AMR writes

    This is the first and last time I will read this blog. How can you possibly share a “pending” rumor and think that it is in any way Christ-like. Is winning an election now more important than the truth? Rumors? Pending rumors? Scandal to come?
    Joe, you should have left this alone. You dishonor the FRC and the body of Christ by joining in on this type of negative pandering.

  • http://www.mindfulmission.com dave

    The ad absolutely does not lie … in fact it is completely truthful … Mitt has carried out “no executions”, period.
    Come on… are you serious? While it is true that it is not technically a lie, the ad is misleading and dishonest.
    To attack Romney for having “no executions” is just either foolish or blatantly misleading.
    Then again, with Huckabee’s lack of knowledge regarding other things, maybe it was just ignorant.
    But I doubt it.
    Huckabee wants to try and make Romney look “soft on crime” (ugh… I hate that phrase…) by attacking him for something that was never under Romney’s control. You don’t find that misleading?
    By the way… I am not a Romney supporter. I just find the “dishonesty” attacks against Romney to be pretty hypocritical.

  • http://www.bothinonetrench.com Ray Robison

    This piece is self-indulgent drival of the highest order. I having dealt with the media as well know that the liberal media will twist stories to fit their template just as Joe claims the conservative media has. Joe doesn’t have the objectivity on this to understand that what he is seeing is not fairness to Huckabee, but favoritism by the liberal media that wants him in the general because they are sure he can be beaten. The democrats have out right admitted it and Joe couldn’t see it?
    Joe dismisses the controversy over Wayne Dumond. This is mere deflection. The real story here is Huckabee’s clemency for a slew of people, anybody that seems to have “come to Jesus”.
    Now I am a Christian and I actually like Huckabee personally, but Huck was supposed to make these judgements based on secular reasoning, not on the whims of his faith. To just dismiss this issue as a soundbite is astoundingly dishonest on Joe’s part.
    I don’t know Joe, never read him before but I have to say this entire post reads like it was written by a victim of Stockhom Syndrome and is worthless analysis to the point it iritates me that I took the time out of my life to read it. What really annoys me is that it confirms to me what I am seeing as a trend to sleeze in the Huck campaign. I am now to the point were I will go actively negative on Huck considering the kind of people (like Ron Paul) I see supporting him.
    You call Romney supporters out for conservatives complaining about Kerry flip-flops yet giving Romney a pass. The plain simple fact is changing one’s positions over time is not flip flopping. Changeing one’s positions on an issue back and forth depending on the audience, (I was for it before I was against it) in order to capture both sides of the issue simultaneously which is what Kerry did, is flip-flopping. I have no love for Romney, but to put them in the same league is idiocy.
    I think you should expand your volunteer catagories to “f”) people who are fooled by dishonest Hucksters into thinking anybody who doesn’t support Huckabee is evil and anybody, including the NY Times that gives Huck a pass is good….you know…morons.
    Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents’
    http://www.bothinonetrench.com

  • http://www.mindfulmission.com dave

    I have no love for Romney, but to put them in the same league is idiocy.
    Not really. I can give you many more examples of Romney’s “flip-flops” than you can give me on John Kerry’s “flip-flops.” And it wouldn’t even be close.

  • Kent

    “To this day, some people still claim that the “floating cross” was intentional. Those people are idiots.”
    Obviously, you think we are.

  • http://baptistreform.blogspot.com/ Travis

    Joe,
    “Unfortunately, the same can not be said of the conservative media.”
    This is painfully true. The list of people who have outright disparaged Huckabee is disappointing. Drudge, Limbaugh, Hanity have all made remarks that let people know that Huckabee was not “their man”. Bill Bennett said on his radio show that he would vote for four of the Republican candidates but would not vote for Huckabee. In the past two weeks, Bennett has used words like “liberal” and “disingenuous” to describe him. You never heard those adjectives for the months that he and other conservative media were proping up Giulliani.
    I’m glad you were able to participate in this campaign. Many of us wish we could.
    TBH

  • http://www.bothinonetrench.com Ray Robison

    “Not really. I can give you many more examples of Romney’s “flip-flops” than you can give me on John Kerry’s “flip-flops.” And it wouldn’t even be close.”
    I would love to see examples of Romney arguing both sides of an issue at once. I am iffy on him, would help me make up my mind. Please provide if you have them. And again, changing one’s mind once is not flip-flopping. It is perfectly logical to change ones’ mind as one gets new information. Another example of flip-flopping is the Hillary drivers licenses for illegals position stating she supports both sides of the issue at a single debate. What has Romney done like that?

  • http://www.mindfulmission.com dave

    I would love to see examples of Romney arguing both sides of an issue at once.
    If that is how you define it, then I am not sure that I have concrete examples of this. Though, of course, I am not sure that there are concrete examples of Kerry doing this either, unless you count a ridiculous sound bite tat took him out of context.
    But hey… that is what campaigning is about, right?

  • http://www.bothinonetrench.com Ray Robison

    Dave, well yes, why do people think that just changing your mind is flip-flopping? Wouldn’t that just be a flip without the flop? Have you never changed your mind on an issue? I sure have.
    By the way, that “ridiculous sound bite” is what he actually said. That makes what he said ridiculous, not the sound bite. Hurts doesn’t it?
    Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents’
    http://www.bothinonetrench.com

  • http://www.mindfulmission.com dave

    why do people think that just changing your mind is flip-flopping?
    Okay… then let me put if this way. Romney has changed his mind in order to fit the election that he was running for more than any other candidate in either primary.
    Is that a more fair way to say it?

  • http://www.bothinonetrench.com Ray Robison

    Dave: “Okay… then let me put if this way. Romney has changed his mind in order to fit the election that he was running for more than any other candidate in either primary.”
    With the exception of Hillary who has done this just as much (and flip-flopping) then I would agree with that. Which is why I am iffy on Romney. But I am iffy on most New England Republicans because they would be democrats if they held those positions in the mid west.
    But frankly, my main issue is security and understanding of the threat posed by the rise of Islamic extremism and Romney is solid on that, so I can give in some on social issues. Just how I roll.
    Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents’
    http://www.bothinonetrench.com

  • JohnW

    Why does Huckabee think it was a bad thing that Romney had “0 executions”?
    Also, why can’t someone put out an ad that just says something like: Romney is a phony and just looks fake.

  • http://www.stevenjcamp.blogspot.com Steve Camp

    Joe
    You said, “The lies are mostly public record, so that’s not just something I’m saying. Also, I never said he had some “dirt in his past.” What I’m referring to is something completely different.”
    My brother, this is double talk. Let your yes be yes; and your no be no. Anything else is… politics.
    State is clearly:
    1. what is the rumor (that is a matter of public record)?
    2. if you think your concerns are factual and not conjecture, then it is not rumor and you can place those “truths” before your readership.
    3. if they are factual, then you would have nothing to “make right” or apologize for. BUT, if whatever you are referring to is not completely factual, and IS rumor at best, then it is terribly irresponsible for you to promote that leaven in anyone’s thoughts about another candidate (btw, I am not a Romney supporter).
    The Apostle Paul deals with this kind of tactic in Eph. 4:30-32. What you are doing is called gossiping… Now, whether malice is part of your political motivated thoughts is for you to sort out before the Lord.
    As another commenter has already said, “How can you possibly share a “pending” rumor and think that it is in any way Christ-like. Is winning an election now more important than the truth? Rumors? Pending rumors? Scandal to come?
    Joe, you should have left this alone. You dishonor the FRC and the body of Christ by joining in on this type of negative pandering.”
    You’re better than this Joe…
    Cordially,
    Steve

  • http://gadgetmann.blogspot.com/ What did/does Romney Lie About?

    No, what will destroy Romney’s chances is that he will lie about an issue, know that he is lying, know that you know he is lying, and say it anyway. It’s not just that he’s dishonest. It’s that he thinks we’re stupid.
    Could you cite some specific topics that Romney has lied about? For all his unabashed Romney support, I find it hard to believe that Hugh Hewitt is that stupid.
    But he and his campaign (his communications team appears to be just as despicable and unprincipled) send out dishonest attacks on McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani too.
    I followed the immigration debacle last summer somewhat closely, I’m confused how Romney has distorted McCain’s positions on immigration.

  • Chris M

    For a long list of topics on which Mitt has changed his mind, there are some good examples at the following site:
    http://www.romneyfacts.com/redblue.php
    One that I found interesting and was new to me regarded Mitt’s Desire to Serve in Vietnam:
    “I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam…” – Boston Herald, 5/2/94
    “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.” – Boston Globe, 6/24/07
    I’m sorry, but I still can’t help but think that Mitt is a shady business man — he’ll say anything he needs to in order to close the deal.

  • Rob

    I agree with the Romney prediction. While the American public may be the last ones to catch on to his lies, they will catch on. Always place character and integrity above the issues. Without a good character and strong integrity, a person’s “stance” on an issue is meaningless and empty.

  • Dogtown

    I’m no apologist for Romney, but Huckabee came on Leno’s show last night claiming support for striking writers. He crossed a picket line to do so, then later claimed he didn’t know the writers were striking NBC.
    Now, striking writers may seem like a tangential issue to the country, and I wouldn’t disagree. But that is beside the point. Huck is as much a liar as he claims Romney as being.

  • http://www.mindfulmission.com dave

    By the way…
    Why would Huckabee say that all of his executions were “not something I’m proud of“, and then attack Romney for having no executions in a state that doesn’t allow executions?

  • http://www.mindfulmission.com dave

    By the way…
    Why would Huckabee say that all of his executions were “not something I’m proud of“, and then attack Romney for having no executions in a state that doesn’t allow executions?

  • Joe Johnson

    You mean, unlike McCain, Romney wouldn’t pick Huckabee as his VP? No wonder McCain is such an “honorable” man and Romney could “never” be president. Romney threatens Huckabee’s candidacy for VP.

  • Chris M

    While the subject of VPs is up: I don’t think Romney could pick any of the running candidates as his VP and I don’t think any of them would pick him. He certainly hasn’t made any friends among the current pool of candidates. I think even if he *did* choose Huckabee, Huckabee would decline. Who wants to work with Mitt after the way he abandoned his lieutenant governor in MA?

  • scotty

    This visceral hatred of Romney from the Huckabee and to a lesser extent the McCain camps is a red flag for sure. But, against the Huckabee and McCain folks. To respond to “attack” ads is the appropriate action not crying and throwing tantrums. I can’t have my President lying in the halls of the Whitehouse, crying, kicking and screaming as if their mommies took away their candy when bin Laden strikes a second time. If there is a Romney scandal, speak now or consider yourself not a serious candidacy.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com WOSG

    “I’m not trying to convince you that Romney is dishonest, Baggi. All I’m saying is “wait and see.” Keep your ears open and you’ll soon see what I’m talking about.”
    Uh, yes you are. That’s about as transparent as Huckabee’s bizarre press conference. If Huckster is running to be McCain’s VP candidate and wants to tag-team on Romney, fine, but don’t act like you’re not implying what you want everyone to believe.
    Joe, its sad to see you stoop to the level of the Clinton campaign with this “there’s a scandal out there”. I hope it backfires as much as Clinton’s similar misdirections against did. It’s gutter politics.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com WOSG

    “This visceral hatred of Romney from the Huckabee and to a lesser extent the McCain camps is a red flag for sure. But, against the Huckabee and McCain folks. To respond to “attack” ads is the appropriate action not crying and throwing tantrums. I can’t have my President lying in the halls of the Whitehouse, crying, kicking and screaming as if their mommies took away their candy when bin Laden strikes a second time. If there is a Romney scandal, speak now or consider yourself not a serious candidacy.”
    I agree 100%. Both Huckabee and McCain have shown that their temperments are not suited for the oval office. Huck has been the least honest and least “Christian” in his behavior as a candidate, yet arrogantly claims a high road he doesnt deserve.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    In other words, the court ruled that the admission of some inconclusive DNA evidence would not have swayed the jury.
    I wrote up a longer post on this but I think Joe has it in his spam filter. If you look at the 12 page decision you will see:
    1. The test was not a DNA test but a test for ‘genetic markers’. Yes genetic markers result from DNA but they aren’t DNA in itself.
    2. The test was done with the assumption that the sample was ‘pure’, meaning not mixed with any vaginal fluids from the victim. The doctor who did the test testified his conclusions would not be valid if that assumption was false.
    3. The court noted that there was a large semen stain on the victim’s panties whose proteins matched the stain on her pants indicating that they were likely from the same source. Dumond’s lawyers argued that the jean stain was from oral rape that the victim then spit out. This is important because that would be the only way the pant stain could be ‘pure’ and the only way the test could validly assert the stain was produced by someone other than Dumond.
    4. Attempts to do an additional test failed because back then the samples were not stored with the care they use now.
    5. If you read the summary of the evidence there is no way to believe Dumond was innocent. Perhaps Joe can pretend it was believable that Dumond was incredibly unlucky that another guy who happened to have his blood type and lacked sperm (probably due to a vascetomey) decided to rape someone in his town and this guy happened to drive a pick up truck just like his and happened to have the same type of gun that he does and happened to look just like him. Joe cannot pretend, though, that there was a DNA test that vindicated Dumond.
    Hopefully Joe will clear my previous post from his spam filter.

  • David

    “I would love to see examples of Romney arguing both sides of an issue at once.”
    Well he woud be a fool to argue both sides AT ONCE…but a few weeks apart, he has no problem with.
    Regarding Discrimination:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1127/p09s01-coop.html
    Regarding ENDA:
    http://www.race42008.com/2007/12/31/mitt-romney-flip-flop-or-slip-on-enda/

  • Baggi

    Scotty wrote;
    This visceral hatred of Romney from the Huckabee and to a lesser extent the McCain camps is a red flag for sure. But, against the Huckabee and McCain folks. To respond to “attack” ads is the appropriate action not crying and throwing tantrums. I can’t have my President lying in the halls of the Whitehouse, crying, kicking and screaming as if their mommies took away their candy when bin Laden strikes a second time. If there is a Romney scandal, speak now or consider yourself not a serious candidacy.
    Totally agree, scotty. I think this hatred has infected a lot of what Joe writes here.
    I hope he cools down soon and loses this hatred he has for Mitt Romney. Joe’s soul is much more valuable than the outcome of this election.

  • Larry

    I’m new to this blog and I was intrigued by your comments about Gov. Huckabee. I heard Huckabee on NPR a few months ago – a station I rarely listen to – on an extended, in-depth interview. I liked what I heard. Unfortunately the Iowa primary has intervened. As a 53-year old Jew and Reagan Republican who has NEVER voted for a democrat at any level, I’ve been disturbed by Huckabee’s blatant appeals to evangelicals – not on the basis of faith or morality, but on the basis of specific religious precepts. I’m as disgusted as anyone with regard to our country’s moral compass at this moment, but people of ALL faiths should be included in Huckabee’s appeals and language. I didn’t have a problem with the Christmas ad, per se, but the floating cross was a bit much.
    Last, I have son at West Point – he’ll be graduating in 18 months. I don’t trust Huckabee’s judgment with regard to placing our armed forces in harm’s way. John McCain knows what it is to do battle, he knows the suffering of our troops in wartime, he has son’s in the military, and I trust him to balance the security of our country against the troops he’d be putting at risk.

  • ucfengr

    The test was not a DNA test but a test for ‘genetic markers’. Yes genetic markers result from DNA but they aren’t DNA in itself.
    I am not sure what you are saying here Boonton. Are you disagreeing with me or are you pointing out that I may have gotten some technical terminology wrong? The point of my post was to show that the court case Joe cited supporting Dumond concludes that he was the rapist and that even if the evidence he requested was admitted, it wouldn’t have changed the original jury verdict.

  • http://pursuingholiness.com Laura Curtis

    Joe -

    Are you really saying that we should let a person’s theological views on denominational appointments be used as a litmus test for what type of federal judges he would appoint?

    When you run ads that say you’re a “Christian leader” you’re saying that your theological views are a feature, not a bug, and you’re inviting voters to conclude certain things about you based on those views. Including the appointment of judges.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    ucfengr
    I am not sure what you are saying here Boonton. Are you disagreeing with me or are you pointing out that I may have gotten some technical terminology wrong?
    My point was that there never was a DNA test that showed someone else’s semen was at the rape scene as claimed by Dumond’s supporters. The test that was performed was not the sophisticated as the one’s used today. What was done was more like a blood type test but more specific.
    We are both in agreement I think in that there never was any DNA test that vindicated Dumond. The test spoken about in the appeal had serious flaws and the court was probably correct in not allowing it. More importantly, even if you feel the court should have let it in, there’s no reasonable way to believe it would have altered the verdict or to assert Dumond was innocent.

  • http://dukeofdata.blogspot.com David Chamberlin

    Enough with the “rumors.” I’m not a Romney or Huckabee fan but for someone that takes their faith seriously, you’ve got to cut it out. I used to work at FRC and was disappointed to see this behavior by a staffer.

  • jones

    Wow, this tripe is written by a Christian? God help us and keep us safe from rumor mongers. I have been sickened by the underhanded way Huckabee has played the victim while using invectives all the while. This post is more of the same, and you should be ashamed. I suggest a little time on your knees before you post again.

  • RA

    I’m an evangelical christian who attends a Baptist church. It is a disgrace among evangelicals that they are ignoring this Jimmy Carter wannabees liberal record.
    Huckabee agreed when the SCOTUS found sodomy to be a constitutional right. He said you can’t legislate personal behavior and then he wanted to ban smoking! Is this a Baptist minister?!
    Huckabee ran a sanctuary state for illegals. He fought to give illegals scholarships and lower tuition over American children! He will find a way to amnesty 15 million new Democrats who will vote to turn this country into a socialist welfare state. Say good bye to prosperity!
    He is soft on terrorism and Iraq. He is ignorant of foreign policy which means the liberals in the state dept. will run our foreign policy.
    Jimmy Cater was a born again christian and was the worst president in the 20th century.
    Huckabee has bought into the global warming scam. He will carbon tax us into recession all because of a hysterical scam that has no scientific basis.
    Huckabee is a train wreck and I am ashamed of my fellow, ignorant evangelicals for supporting him!

  • beth

    It seems awfully disingenuous to delete the rumor but leave all the details in the comments.

  • Scott

    Fox news is just setting up Huckabee to be perceived as a moderate for the general election. He is actually a wolf in sheeps clothing. We don’t need another christofacist leading our party. We need someone who will keep our religion safe from government. Look how much hatred of religion has been caused by Bush using religion for political purposes. We don’t need more of that. When will a real American run for president as a Republican? We don’t have one yet.

  • Ken

    It will take a more astute political mind than I possess to comprehend this Ron Paul phenomenon.
    Not “astute”. Just looking at it from a different angle. It’s not political, it’s Religious.
    It’s called “Messiah Politics”. “Ron Paul supporters” are not supporters, they’re converts who have Accepted Ron Paul As Their Personal Lord And Savior and are now Witnessing.
    I saw exactly the same dynamic with Ross Perot in ’92; both my parents were Born-Again Perotistas.

  • Mark

    “Not “astute”. Just looking at it from a different angle. It’s not political, it’s Religious.
    It’s called “Messiah Politics”. “Ron Paul supporters” are not supporters, they’re converts who have Accepted Ron Paul As Their Personal Lord And Savior and are now Witnessing.
    Oh for Pete’s sake. That is arguably one of the most ignorant and ill-informed observations of Ron Paul’s campaign I’ve ever heard.
    Honestly, even what passes for journalism these days has been able to provide better analysis than that.
    No, the RP phenomenon is what happens when you have a wide base of people who believe in a common cause (individual liberty in this case) and who have gone years without any representation followed by someone with credibility, standing, and ability taking up their standard.
    If you’d ever actually been a part of it you’d realize that when RP supporters get together they talk very little about Ron himself, and rather talk a lot about monetary policy, limited government, and rule of law. Things the rest of the crop of candidates don’t even have a passing familiarity with.
    I’m more offended than I can possibly express that you would make such a blasphemous accusation as to suggest I or any of the rest of his supporters have accepted him as “personal lord and savior”.
    When I talk to people about supporting Ron, I rarely talk about Ron himself, I talk about Liberty. Once you get to a point of understanding the proper (and biblical) role of government in society, and the rule of law in this country, and truly understand the depravity of man, supporting Ron just naturally follows. Not because of anything special about him, but because he happens to be the one who stepped up to the plate who believes the same way.
    It just seems odd to so many because we’re so used to dirty, corrupt, worthless liars/politicans that this kind of enthusiasm is foreign to us. But the cause of liberty is more than enough to get most people excited.
    As Lord Acton said, “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end…liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition.
    – Lord Acton
    (Of course, the obvious exception to this statement is that those who are currently in power and getting their way by suppressing liberty generally do have sincere opposition.)

  • Anon

    It’s called “Messiah Politics”. “Ron Paul supporters” are not supporters, they’re converts who have Accepted Ron Paul As Their Personal Lord And Savior and are now Witnessing.
    Oh my. I am not a frequenter of this site and came here through JT’s link. However, I just have to respond to this. I am simply astonished by this, not only that “Ken” would say such a thing, but that it would be left for each reader to see. It at least borders on blasphemy, if not leaping completely off the edge into it.
    I am a conservative, reformed Christian, and I am a Ron Paul supporter. My decision to support Dr. Paul was a political one, driven, of course, with the understanding that God is sovereign and ultimately who becomes the next president, and to what end, is completely in His hands. Your words here show either your willful ignorance of the facts, or a childish attempt at marginalizing thousands of conservative Christians who support Dr. Paul, a fellow Christian.
    I know many, many people involved in Ron Paul’s campaign, and the vast majority of them are Christians. Not one of them considers this a religion, or worships at the feet of a mere man. To suggest so is grossly offensive. You certainly show your desperation if you would knowingly offend literally tens of thousands of Christian brothers and blaspheme Christ’s holy name in an effort to marginalize Dr. Paul’s campaign.
    I am astonished.

  • http://bamapachyderm.com Beth

    Joe, seriously, you expect bloggers to be “fair and balanced?” Really?
    Really?
    I have to tell you honestly–although I’m not Michelle Malkin or Ed Morrissey or any of those guys, *I* never got any email from you or anyone else doing blogger outreach (if there is anyone else), and I had even signed up for email updates at the Huckabee site. I do, however, get email from the Thompson, Romney, and McCain campaigns–and in the case of Sen. McCain, it has made a difference. It’s not email asking me what I don’t like, either; it’s email telling me what they think I should know, with what I get from two campaigns being more useful than the other (I’m sure you can guess who “the other” is). I take all that email using “trust, but verify” as my mantra, but I don’t write about all of it; frankly, it’s more than I can keep up with, and in the case of one campaign, I won’t use (and don’t care to even read) the negative information they send about others. (Nor does anyone else, from what I can tell.)
    I’m certainly no defender of the blogosphere in general–actually, I’m highly critical of bloggers myself. But I think that realistically, you’re asking too much if you expect Joe McRomnianison Supporter or whomever to give pixelspace to pro-Huckabee stuff. They/we aren’t the news or other MSM where objectivity (or at least the pretense of such) is expected.
    Just my well-meaning two cents. :)

  • http://fairtax.org Brian Pearson

    Some have asked just how or what Romney has lied about. I’ll give you and example. He has used Club for Growth as a source. That “source” is lying by omission.
    If you watch this short video, it gives the impression that Huckabee is a liberal, begging for tax increases.
    BUT, if you see the entire speech from which that clip was taken, it will give you needed context and background.
    Also, Romney has been seen lying about the FairTax. Anyone familiar with the FairTax knows immediately that Romney, in that youtube video, clearly is either lying or he doesn’t know what he is talking about. My guess is that he has not taken the time to familiarize himself with the FairTax. He cites the Presidents Commission on Tax Reform and that it took a look at the FairTax and rejected it as unworkable. In point of fact, that commission did not look at the FairTax at all.
    I’m wondering how he would be a good president if he is going to be spouting misrepresentations and outright lies.
    Oh and by the way, someone above claimed that the FairTax was regressive. It is not regressive, the current system is regressive. Click on my name for good information about the FairTax.

  • http://www.kmsn.colywva.com wqnljeriy txefrdwv

    mcoy nmcagr wimcnqg cbplzdrv frwzdl slbwyfk ycjoz

  • http://www.kmsn.colywva.com wqnljeriy txefrdwv

    mcoy nmcagr wimcnqg cbplzdrv frwzdl slbwyfk ycjoz

  • http://www.kmsn.colywva.com wqnljeriy txefrdwv

    mcoy nmcagr wimcnqg cbplzdrv frwzdl slbwyfk ycjoz

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →