Um, Seriously, I'm With Ace: Hillary In '08
Like I said below - Gilchrist made a deal. But then, that's what car salesmen do. Right? And Huckabee called Romney a tattletale for exposing his previous immigration stance? What does that tell you?
Gilchrist said factors other than immigration went into his decision, but declined to get into them.
h/t Hot Air headlines -- I'm surprised to see Ace say he'd vote for Hillary before Huckabee. The fact is, I have been thinking about this for days and reached the very same conclusion last night. And, yes, I mean it, too. In fact, if, given his record and how he is now obviously pandering to evangelicals and who knows what he promised Gilchrist to get his endorsement, if he buys the Republican nod with a smile, a prayer and empty promises, I'm done.
That Presidential "R" in 2008 will stand for nothing I believe in. The guy is slick but doesn't even look competent. And if Republican primary voters are that stupid, they deserve to lose next Fall. To pass over McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani ONLY because someone's slick and a Jesus Freak, which makes him your average televangelist - forget it.
I will hold my nose and either vote for the Democrat because I prefer to know what I'm getting, even if I'm getting screwed, or a Third Party conservative if one comes up. I am done voting for Republicans who don't represent what I believe in, low taxes and small government. Frankly, I think Huckabee just might be worse than Hillary on that score and if we have a Republican President advocating the above and the foreign policy stuff Ace lays out below - I will not enable it.
You aren't.


There's always room for a patriot like you under the big tent.
Posted by: The Clintons | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 02:52 PM
To me he(Ron Paul) seems like a nut but a libertarian friend of mine says check out Ron Paul. Ron Paul strikes me as another Ross Perot. I would not vote for Huckabee or Huck Finn or Huckelberry Hound or Hillary either. The idea of 8 more years of Clintons truly makes me sick. I kind of like John Edwards even if he is pretty boy.
Posted by: joeb | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Can I select [none of the above]?
Posted by: Techie | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:04 PM
To be honest Dan...
... this may well be the beginning of the end for te GOP, as all life coalesces back into the Dhimmicrat party.
I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee... and if any of them get the nom over McCain or Fred Thompson... I might as well just do my part to speed this doomed and damned nation to her demise at the hands of almighty Hillary and the Dhimmi-socialist party.
Mark my words though: Unless Fred or John McCain by some divine miracle win the nomination - the GOP is FINISHED. Dead rotting elephant carcasses. Permanent Dem single-party rule for the remainder of my generation, and then, civil war once what is left of an American sense of liberty can no longer stand the hellish bed of totalitarianism we have made for ourselve.
Woe unto our generation, and to that of our parents, who will ruthlessly hewn down and consumed by our own greed, as our children and grandchildren will never trust their elders after the horrors to be visited upon them because of our carelessness and failure to pass down to them the values of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers who built America up in the Edwardian and Victorian ages.
Perhaps after the revolution, I might be fortunate to find myself in whichever of the new nations emerge from the coming American Civil War II has something resembling the country I once knew... or perhaps not, as we all degenerate into a filthy, stinking sub-Saharan African-style cesspool of tribal and local governments and cycles of ethnic cleansing before the Lord Jesus comes in His full glory to redeem His people and destroy this present world and slay the wicked with the breath of His mouth.
Were it not for the hope of the Kingdom to come, this would be extremely depressing.
Lord Jesus, come soon!
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:05 PM
"Ron Paul strikes me as another Ross Perot"
Ummm, no.
Posted by: Yoda | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:12 PM
"--- Ron Paul strikes me as another Ross Perot ---"
to be more accurate - he'd be like an anti-Perot.
The only way that will come to pass is if he attempts an independent run with all those money bombs he generated.
And he won't do even half as good as Perot, except only to prove that independent-running Texans with gobs of cash do not equal a president. Instead, he'll only manage to hand the election to the Dems.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:19 PM
That is exactly what I meant. If Ron Paul runs as an independent and gets the 17 per cent Perot got the first time he ran he will hand the election to Hillary just like Perot handed it to Bill Clinton in 1992.
Posted by: joeb | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:42 PM
Who think Ron Paul is a nut? Is he or isn't he?
Posted by: joeb | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:43 PM
I've made no secret that I support Mitt Romney because I think he is the smartest and most qualified candidate in the race. But, I would vote for Thompson, McCain, Hunter, or Guiliani if it came to one of them. I am so angry right now at Huckabee's buffoonery and smarminess and his Carteresque foreign policy and McGovern-like attitudes, I could not bring myself to vote for him under any circumstances. However, that said, I would never vote for Hillary or Obama. Edwards is moot so I don't even remember half the time that he is still in the race. If Huckabee, by some miracle for him, won the nomination, I would plan to be on vacation on election day and not vote at all, a first for me since 1968. I would have to hold my nose on McCain and Rudy drives me nuts, but I would put aside my personal animosity toward his "Me me me" and overlook the fact that he is a prosecutor through and through and give him a chance.
Wake up GOP primary goers. The DNC and the MSM are pushing Huckabee because they know he is a loser.
Posted by: Sara | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Romney will be getting my vote as well. That aside, however, Huckabee is a disaster! He is very weak on illegal immigration (despite the recent endorsment), weak on foreign policy, weak on fiscal conservative, and on and on and on. Who are these people supporting him right now?!? I think they're in need of a good slap. If Evangelicals manage to get him nominated and he then loses big to Hillary, they will have hell to pay from me and other conservatives!
Posted by: Cory | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 04:09 PM
I hope and pray that the Huckster so completely discredits himself that the average Joe will clearly see that he something to be avoided - untouchable even with a ten-foot barge-pole.
As for this:
"--- Who think Ron Paul is a nut? Is he or isn't he? ---"
Ron Paul is as nutty as a Mars Bar. (nut-filled candybar).
But Ron Paul supporters are far, far nuttier.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Cory:
You forgot that Huckabee is also weak on crime. Hillary Clinton, with pardon gate on her resume, is tougher on crime than Huckabee.
Posted by: Shtetl G | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 04:15 PM
You people completely amaze me. I would expect to read what I have read above from BobinStamford, or perhaps one of his sock puppets, but not from supposed rational conservatives. I'm ashamed of you.
Posted by: jj | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 04:27 PM
I hope Clinton won't be able to overcome her reputation for avoiding the truth, Edwards is an empty suit, Obama and Huckabee are Carter clones. Paul and Kucinich are nuttier than squirrel tu*ds.
Where's Fred when you need him?
Posted by: Louie | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 04:54 PM
"Wake up GOP primary goers. The DNC and the MSM are pushing Huckabee because they know he is a loser."
OMFG! Conspiracy!
"Who are these people supporting him right now?!? I think they're in need of a good slap. If Evangelicals manage to get him nominated and he then loses big to Hillary, they will have hell to pay from me and other conservatives!"
You're kidding, right? Hell to pay? You gonna go after the libertarians next for promoting Ron Pau... oh, it appears you already have. So the Jesus wing can't nominate their ideal candidate because he's too progressive. And the small government wing can't nominate their ideal because he's too "nutty". Guiliani is out (for some reason I haven't been clued in on yet). Does that mean Mitt's going to win this by default?
"Where's Fred when you need him?"
Probably asleep. It's past his bedtime.
You guys are a perpetual laugh.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Huckabee's supporters keep saying I should support him because he is a "populist" b ut no one has articulated a single policy designed to support this. What the hell is a populist. His tax policies make no sense and he raised taxes dramatically as a governor. How are higher taxes going to help me? He was for spending my hard earned tax dollars paying for tuition for illegal aliens when my sons had to take out loans to pay for college. His idea for keeping me and my family safe is to try and talk rationally with the likes of Ahmadinejad who would like nothing better than to see me dead.( I am Jewish). He let hard core convicted felons out of jail because they had a religious conversion. Now I read that he thinks women should be subservient to their husbands. I'm with Sara - I would vote for Hillary(who I despise) before I would vote for Huckabee.
Posted by: Sharon | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 05:18 PM
Islamo: A conspiracy? It ain't the JFK assassination dip shit. Anyone who watched the last two CNN travesties could figure that out. It's a double win for the MSM to keep their mouths shut on Huckabee. Make us take him down? Win. He get's the nomination? Slam dunk win.
In 2004 NR ran a big issue with Dean on the cover that read, "PLEASE NOMINATE THIS MAN." You too stupid to see the corollary? You must draw a huge paycheck at the think tank.
"We're a perpetual laugh?" That's Gold Jerry. Thank you Islamo. I will never again under estimate the predictability of liberal stupidity.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 05:51 PM
This may be the most entertaining story since George Allen graciously welcomed that godless brown person to America. Thank you bible-bangers!!! Your reward will be in heaven!!! I can't wait for President Clinton to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.
I implore you patriots to join the ESTEEMED Chuck Norris and the redneck that started the Minutemen and SUPPORT Mike Huckleberry!!! The LORD is counting on your support!
Posted by: BobInStamford | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Bob, you ignorant slut -- neither presidents, nor congress repeal constitutional amandments.
Posted by: Yoda | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 06:55 PM
George Allen!? Why, Bob...you up thare in ole Stamford with a thankin' cap...you read you a book! Will miracles never cease. I do declare. Youz a dadburn geenus!
Us conservinums cain't read ya see. Us durn bible-bangers are just plum flumoxed! Mista Huckabee hassa tell us what da good book say. Oh Loa'rd, oh Lo'ard! How is we fools to vote!? Tell us preacha' Huckabee!
You jackass.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 07:45 PM
From IL:
"--- So the Jesus wing can't nominate their ideal candidate because he's too progressive. ---"
Well, we never said that the Jesus wing was perfect either. Just because some idiot comes saying that he "goes forth in the name of the Lord" does not mean he is God's chosen candidate.
From BiS:
"--- I can't wait for President Clinton to get the 2nd Amendment repealed. ---"
Indeed, you would want that, you godless communard. Unfortunately, that will come back to haunt you one day when some criminal scumbag hoses down your loved ones, or worse, the vicegerents of a runaway Big Momma government drunk with power guns them down for thinking incorrectly.
Luckily as Ace/Yoda observed - it takes a quite a bit more power to overtrun an amendment... but a even amendments can be undermined by the strokes of a million legislative pens. Either way, it won't happen overnight; so please, keep holding your breath on that one. :)
From JJ:
"--- I would expect to read what I have read above from BobinStamford, or perhaps one of his sock puppets, but not from supposed rational conservatives. ---"
This is so. And do forgive me my diatribe and my early fits of Huckabee-hysteria upthread. But it is awfully frustrating when you see your political party going down the toilet, and the one candidate that *should* be rising to the occassion and slaughtering the opposition with his sensible and rational approach to our problems seemingly asleep at the wheel.
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 09:26 PM
Exactly right. No way I vote for Huckabee. There's no way he'd win, but if he did, then he would simply take the fall when the combination of him and a Dem Congress sent the country into financial ruin. Let a Dem win the presidency so we can at least have a 1994-type shake down of Congress in 2010.
Posted by: Dudley Smith | Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 10:11 PM
You people simply have no, no, no idea of just how bad it is going to be.
Posted by: vanderleun | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 01:58 AM
I'm a small government conservative, and I would vote for Hillary over Huckabee. I'd rather have a lib Prez (Hillary) and a conservative opposition than a lib Prez (Huckabee) and a liberal opposition.
Posted by: Terry Notus | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 02:20 AM
To paraphrase something that someone once wrote, the rednecks giveth (George Bush, twice) and the rednecks taketh away (Mike Huckleberry). Sounds like justice to me. That's why I kicked Mike a few bucks last night. I figure reading his Jesus-freak emails should be entertaining for a week or so.
Amen, patriots and Chuck Norris disciples. Please practice the following: MADAM President and PRESIDENT Clinton.
Posted by: BobInStamford | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 07:16 AM
"You people simply have no, no, no idea of just how bad it is going to be."
Umm, Could you flesh this out a mite? Like how bad what is going to be?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 05:56 PM
Jesus Freak...?
It's these same Jesus Freaks who gave you nearly 8 years of complete Republican rule, so show some respect to your Freaks.
Posted by: Sirkowski | Friday, December 14, 2007 at 04:16 PM
I'm right there with ya, buddy:
http://gullyborg.typepad.com/weblog_archive/2007/12/huckabee-women.html
Huck would destroy the GOP. On the upside, at least his crushing defeat in the general would probably put an end to the political influence of snake-oil peddlers like Dr. Dobson.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Friday, December 14, 2007 at 07:09 PM
"It's these same Jesus Freaks"
I disagree. There are Baptist ministers I'd vote for and plenty of Baptists. Huckabee doesn't appreciate the difference between church and state - THAT makes him a freak to me, not his faith.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Friday, December 14, 2007 at 08:03 PM
"Can we please just get Jesus out of the process all together!" -Barry Goldwater
Posted by: Brian Heiman | Friday, December 14, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Fred Thompson, curiously ommitted from much of this discussion, is the only one who can defuse the Huckbomb and rally all of the representative coalitions which compromise the Republican party. Romney’s problem is his credibility. Rudy’s problem is that he is a RINO who abandons the social conservative planks of the party. And Huckabee’s liberalism outside of the social conservative sphere combined with his nanny-statist ideals makes him probably the weakest candidate of them all. Huck fans- there is nothing wrong with “negative” ads, so long as they are true, when they are about issues of import. Politics, after all, is about drawing distinctions between yourself and the other fellow. What has been particularly disappointing is the lack of Huckabee supporters who really want to debate the substance and merits of a Huckabee candidacy. It seems all his supporters want to do is marve at his current surge, and run the clock out- substantive discussions about his policy stances be damned.
Posted by: Vince | Friday, December 14, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Huckabee = Harriet Miers
I'm sure Harriet Miers is a good person. But she wasn't/isn't Supreme Court Justice material. That's why there was such an uproar when she was nominated.
I like Huckabee as a person. He is not 'Presidential' material. I'm sorry. He just isn't.
Posted by: Big Jay | Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 09:43 AM
"Jesus freak", eh?
I thought only the Anti-Christian Left used words like that.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Seems like an overreaction to me. Huck sucks, of course, but no more so than all the other people in the running. The few conservatives in the race are barely hanging on. If the GOP really was a conservative party then people like Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo would be doing a lot better.
After all the fury I recall from the 2006 elecctions, I really thought the party would swing to the right for 08. Looking at Huck, Rudy, etc its clear that if anything the GOP has moved left.
Posted by: Jon Sandor | Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 05:03 PM
Hillary: "It Takes a Clinton to Clean Up After a Bush"
Posted by: Bill | Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 08:17 PM
Well put Big Jay.
I am a conservative atheist so yes we are out there and cringe at Jesus in politics.
Posted by: Brian Heiman | Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 08:33 PM
I'm with you guys on this. If we have to settle for the liberal agenda, it's best to make sure it is labelled as such.
I'm personally for Paul, as a republican. I know enough about this blog to not try and sell you guys on him, but when i see stuff like this it's very encouraging.
Posted by: chris matthews | Monday, December 17, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Can you imagine the appointments Huckabee would make? It's the stuff of nightmares. Gonzales and Harriet Meiers would look statesmen by comparison.
Posted by: Betsy | Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 07:19 AM