The Latest Huckabee Meltdown

Vanity ^

[CaptSkip]

Yup. Likely so.

Despite his wacky religion. He’s a Governor from a Blue State, and he is a very handsome man.

[samtheman]

He showed the ad before he DIDN'T show the ad!

[redgirlinabluestate]

Romney did not go negative. Romney pointed out the truth about Huckabee's liberal policies in Arkansas.

In my mind, an ad is negative when it attacks someone’s personal character. John McCain uses the MSM newspaper endorsements in an ad to call Romney a “phony.” That’s negative and personal. It doesn't address one's policies or the issues at hand. Additionally, Huck's use of religion as a divisive tool is negative, not factual or policy based.

When Romney runs an ad contrasting himself and Huck on a matter of public policy, he’s not resorting to an ad hominem attack.

None of Romney's factual contrast ads have not been disputed factually by Huck or McCain. They don't deny the truth of the allegations, but instead they call it an "attack" or "mean-spirited" or "hostile." Poor babies. LOL.

[redgirlinabluestate]

And that’s all they’ve got on Mitt. Good luck with that. I’m sure Romney has got his own Hillary/Obama/Edwards flip-flop youtubes ready to go and then some. That is such an old, tired argument. People tune it out because they know ALL politicians are forced to change positions. Some do it over years. Others have switched over the course of one campaign. By the time things heat up in 2008, that will be a dead issue.

[kingu]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/12/31/huckabee.pulled.ad.cnn.cnn?iref=videosearch
http://thepage.time.com/huckabees-negative-ad/

I mean, damn, McCain pulled this stunt, Edwards did it, heck, I even think Gore at one point called a press conference to pull an ad. Only difference, least from what I recall, is that the candidate comes out, decrys the ad, then staffers, after being /asked/ for a copy of the ad, then distribute it to the media, conveniently in a form that can be played on campaign supplied equipment right there, as well as a printed transcript of what is in the ad.

There’s a reason why the media started laughing when Huckabee stated he was going to run the ad - it completely undermines the entire strategy of taking the high road, means that if there’s any backlash you can’t blame it on anyone other than the candidate. Perhaps I’m a veteran of far too many campaigns, but the Huckster’s campaign is like a parody done by Mad TV of every other campaign in modern history.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Give it a rest. I’m tired of the Mittbot waltz . It’s getting old and we know a Lib when we see one ...

Adjustment is one thing , total realignment is another . Mitt is a flip-flopping panderer . You know it and I know it ....

Happy New Year !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Huckabee: I can’t take it anymore! Mitt looks better than I do, anyway!

[RooRoobird20]

“Perhaps I’m a veteran of far too many campaigns, but the Huckster’s campaign is like a parody done by Mad TV...”

Put this “I’m-not-going-to-accuse-my-opponent-of-being-a- child-molester” stunt together with the other Huckster gaffes: you get something as bizarre and hilarious as the funniest Mad TV skit.

WOW. It’s definitely amateur hour.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Ed Rollins? The same Ed Rollins who elected Clinton (by way of Perot) and who's now pronounced the end of the Reagan Coalition?

“The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, antitax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore.” ~~Ed Rollins
Reagan Coalition dead?

Here's a nice compilation of Iowa endorsements. Mitt's got more than any of the other Republicans--a lot more than Huckabee:
Iowans overwhelmingly endorse Mitt

“I see Huckabee as more of a Prairie populist than what I would consider a traditional conservative,” said former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a stalwart of the conservative movement once considered a 2008 presidential contender himself. “I don’t see how he takes that show across the East Coast or even the Midwest.”

No kidding, Rick.

[wastedpotential]

I think that Rollins is trying to get him to “fight back” against Mitt and his hit pieces. Perhaps I am too much of a believer, but from what I have heard, Mike actually stunned Rollins with this move. He genuinely does not want to run negatively in Iowa.

[kingu]

It also describes most of the campaign in Iowa by everyone - it is a total joke. Look, I’m at a coffee shop, I’m a man of the people... Oh, and this will be the last time you’ll see me in a coffee shop until we get to New Hampshire when I’ll be in a plaid flannel jacket or cap, so I’ll be just like the locals, then we’re off to the churches of the Carolinas...

[CARTOUCHE]

Clintonian in its purpose and effect.

[kingu]

Mike actually stunned Rollins with this move.

Rollins gets a percentage of media buys; I'm sure what shocked Rollins is that he's probably going to be able to keep his cut out of the media buy. Rollins has a particular style: buy your candidate into the White House. It's a poor style, always will be, but ever since Reagan won, it's been the 'success formula' but everyone promises to do it better than Rollins did.

[wastedpotential]

I can support Fred, Hunter, heck maybe even McCain, but Romney is my least favorite candidate. His stance on the homosexual agenda, even after his supposed conversion to social conservatism, as well as abortion, are enough for me to say, “thank you, but no.”

Unlike many, I don’t look to my favorite politician, author, talk show host or think tank to tell me who to support. I support those who I believe in and can feel passionate about.

BTW - I disagree with Rick. I think the Republican party is a red state party, and the best way to keep those red states red is to run the strongest social conservative we can, coupled with a populist rhetoric (and conservative policies). That will mean an electoral college victory for the Republicans.

[Checkers]

“TRAIN TRECK”

Are there Tribbles?

[CARTOUCHE]

Reagan WAS one of the people. Perot WAS NOT. That’s the big differnace and Rollins didn’t have the upstanding to say so. Just another political ‘ho.

[Checkers]

“Will Ed Rollins stay with the campaign?”

Only until the Bloomberg check clears.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Total realignment? Your credibility goes completely out the window when you say things like that. You missed the 1994 campaign flyer where Mitt opposed Teddy on nearly every issue and took the conservative position?

Just one more time --- just for you, NP:

In the 1994 Senate race, Mitt Romney held the solid conservative position for 23 of the 24 issues listed; the only exception being the pledge to maintain the status quo in Massachusetts regarding a woman's right to choose. A pro-choice position in Massachusetts in 1994 was a socially moderate stance accommodating the large majority opinion of voters in the state.

Mitt freely admits now that he was wrong and has changed his position on this issue to a public pro-life stance consistent with long-held pro-life beliefs in his private life. However, it's understandable how a first-time candidate in 1994, and former businessman, running a crusade for fiscal conservatism with solid conservative positions on crime, welfare, the economy, foreign policy, school choice, health care, and congressional reform might accept the status quo on a social issue respecting the liberal constituency he would represent.

[stocksthatgoup]

New Fred Campaign Ad Link

[CARTOUCHE]

Too good.