The Huckabee (Immigration) Plan

PoliPundit ^ | December 08th, 2007

[VOA]

“The Huckabee (Immigration) Plan “

This should be filled on “Greatest Policical About-Faces of All Time”.

[2ndDivisionVet]

"And Lincoln only one, because the democrats (the opposing party at the time) split. It’s near impossible for a representative to win an election. Even Lincoln wouldn’t have, if it weren’t for that split."

Yes, and it was a THREE-WAY split IIRC. I don't think it's a coincidence that no congressman has won since.

[VOA]

"Quite amazing. Fortunately, the Huckster's open borders, pro-invasion
record is there for all to see."

Gotta' admit, it's dazzling as a "Total About-Face Exercise."

Maybe that's how Huckabee keeps the weight off.

[BillyBoy]

>> The difference, of course, is that Fred is serious about this issue. <<

Yeah, Fred was sooooooooo much better on this issue than Huck when he was IN office, right?

Fred Thompson's PRE-Iowa record on the matter.

Voted to grant amnesty to close to one million ILLEGAL ALIENS from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997

Sen. Thompson voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States ILLEGALLY since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population.

"I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship"
-- Fred Thompson, Hannity & Colmes, 2006

Fred Thompson: No Restrictionist Hero

[Travis McGee]

Huckster took his weight off the easy way, with a surgical gut bypass.

[Vigilanteman]

I like both Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. Huckabee has zero credibility on immigration based on his record as governor and his Hispandering since. The Huckster isn't running for president anyway. He's running for VP on a Guilani ticket.

I think the only thing that will stop them is if the four acceptable candidates (Thompson, Romney, Tancredo and Hunter) work together.

I'm not voting for Guilani and Huckabee even if it means the witch gets into power. The sheeple are more likely to revolt against the Queen than they are against a slow surrender plan by Guilani-Huckabee.

[Man50D]

It's not based on media speculation; it's based on mentally sketching out probable reasons for voters to favor one candidate over another.

Mentally sketching? That statement lacks any validity without hard facts for support regardless whether the socialist media or yourself concocted that term. Is this the same "mental sketching" the socialist media used in their exit polls to declare Al Gore the winner in 2000? LOL!!!

As for the direct competition between Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, I guess I find it hard to imagine why someone who supports Duncan Hunter over Fred Thompson wouldn't also support him over Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Maybe you can enlighten me why you assume I don't support Hunter over the other candidates even though I never made any posts either implying or out right stating I do not support Hunter over the other candidates. Common sense dictates supporting a candidate means doing so over all other candidates. Thinking otherwise would defeat the purpose of supporting any one candidate.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I myself have long since graduated from that immoral position that somehow I (and my vote) will be scared into the (ahem!) "loving arms and embrace" of a RINO, by the prospect of a Liberal Democrat (in this case, an absolute bitch) getting into power.

It is like chosing between cyanide and anthrax as an additional flavor for your coffee at Starbucks.

Will NOT be going GOP if Rudy, McCain, or Huckabee are the nominees. I will probably require several days of quiet thinking and whiskey to even go in a pull the lever for Romney, at that point, and just might back out at the last moment and give it to a Conservative alternative Party.

Paul is a no brainer for me, I would not vote for him if you paid me. But Osama bin Ladin and Kim Jong il would. I wold not be absolutely thrilled about Thompson, especially if he moderated his positions for the General Election, but I could be talked into it.

The choices are so poor this year, IMHO.

[John Valentine]

Keep in mind that the discussion subject is Fred Thompson so your entire quote is about Fred. Here's the quote:

The difference between us is you vote for a candidate solely on the basis you think he can win simply becausethe socialist media anoints certain candidates as the so called "front runners".

True that you didn't use the term "darling", but the word "anoint" is just as revealing, and I was calling you on your attempt to run away from what you had said. Your assertion that the "socialist media" has "anointed" Fred Thompson as a "front runner" is what I have termed ludicrous. As it is.

[Man50D]

Your assertion that the "socialist media" has "anointed" Fred Thompson as a "front runner" is what I have termed ludicrous.

Are you serious? No where in the statement do I refer to Thompson or any particular candidate. I refer to candidates not candidate and front runners not front runner. Both are in the plural, not singular form!

You incorrectly quote my very simple and clear statement that includes all candidates and in doing so refute your own postion and support mine! LOL!!!!!!!

[John Valentine]

If that’s what passes for logic in your household....

[supercat]

Maybe you can enlighten me why you assume I don't support Hunter over the other candidates even though I never made any posts either implying or out right stating I do not support Hunter over the other candidates. Common sense dictates supporting a candidate means doing so over all other candidates. Thinking otherwise would defeat the purpose of supporting any one candidate.

My question was why anyone who supported Hunter over Fred Thompson would not also support him over all other candidates.

To use a more specific example, is there any reason why someone might have Romney as a first choice and Hunter as a second? I would think that someone who supported Hunter over Thompson would have Hunter as his first choice.

To put things another way, in what way would Hunter supporters see him as being better than Fred Thompson, other than the fact that he's more conservative? If Fred Thompson isn't adequately conservative for someone (evidenced by their supporting Hunter over Thompson), why would not any of the other top candidates be any less unacceptable?

I can imagine reasons why a voter might have Romney as a first choice and Thompson as a second. I can also imagine reasons for Huckabee/Thompson. What reason would there be for someone to support Romney or Huckabee first and Hunter second? Perhaps some of Romney's and Huckabee's supporters will break for Hunter, but I really don't see any plausible reason for it.