February 21, 2011

For Huck, it’s Personal With Romney

Hatred of a fellow GOP candidate is a healthy reason to run for President, right?

This morning, Mark Halperin notes that the Washington Post doesn’t believe Huckabee is running for President. But if he does, Politico gives the reason he may jump in the race: to stop Mitt Romney.

Mike Huckabee may be especially tempted to run in 2012 by a lingering feud between him and Mitt Romney, a severe hangover from the 2008 campaign that has created a lasting and bitter rift between the two, Republicans who know both men say.

“[Huckabee] hates Mitt, and his goal in Iowa last time was to stop him,” said one prominent Republican, who’s known both men for years. “If he sees an opportunity to cut Mitt off [during the nominating process], he will take it”…

As Huckabee weighs whether to run again, several Republicans with ties to Huckabee say his disdain for Romney is a real factor in his decision-making about whether to mount a second campaign for the White House…

Asked to comment for this article, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail that “Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee ran a competitive race against each other and had their differences, but Mitt has always had high regard for Mike Huckabee as a person and as a governor.”

As they say, read the whole thing.

For what it’s worth, Hogan Gidley (executive director of HuckPAC) responded to the story by saying, “Only someone who knows precious little about running for president would put forth the ludicrous notion that a person would go through the rigors of running for president due to some personal grudge.”

I would note that when asked to respond to these “several Republicans with ties to Huckabee,” Romney’s team responded by complimenting Huckabee; Huckabee’s team responded by attacking those making the charge – with still nothing nice to say about Romney.

Courtesy of these (anonymous) sources, we now a better idea of why Huckabee is proceeding the way he is. If Mitt is the frontrunner come July, look for Huckabee to jump in as the knight on the white horse to save us from ourselves. If Mitt is losing ground to Pawlenty, Daniels, or some other surging candidate, expect Mike to sit it out and just lob grenades from the sidelines.

by @ 12:01 pm. Filed under Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rumor Mill
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2011/02/21/huck-it%e2%80%99s-personal-romney/trackback/

169 Responses to “For Huck, it’s Personal With Romney”

  1. Stephen Hall Says:

    Rumor-mongering with the same anonymous resources from Politico. How quaint.

  2. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    It will backfire if he does jump in.

    Lets assume, for just a minute, that Huckabee is stupid enough to give up his television show, put himself on questionable financial ground, rush to restart a Presidential Organizaiton on short notice, all out of a personal hatred for the man who spoiled his power ambitions last time…even though, post-2008, Huckabee arguably came out in a better position. Lets assume all of that for just a minute.

    Do you really think the public will buy it? If Huckabee drags his feet until summer, jumping in only when he thinks he has a good shot to knock down Romney (probably at his own expense, as well), he will look both opportunistic and petty. Not unlike how he looked at the end of the 2008 campaign, when he refused to drop out.

  3. Benjamin Says:

    This rumor-mongering is the left’s attempt to make it a personal issue between Huckabee and Romney. This is about trying to make Romney look good at Huckabee’s expense. Huckabee will run because he wants to run to serve and to make a difference not because Romney is or is not running or that Huckabee is afraid of Romney winning.

  4. Ray Brun Says:

    I know this will put me at odds with some of my friends on here but I have always maintained that Mike has a personal hatred for Mitt and that will factor in to his 2012 decision.

  5. SteveT Says:

    This article actually quotes – Ed Rollins – Huck’s former campaign manager. It looks like that Huck also disdain’s Sarah Palin if you read the whole article.

    Rollins Quote,“I don’t think he particularly likes Romney,” Rollins said, although the strategist insisted Huckabee “doesn’t’ think much about Romney or Palin”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49895.html#ixzz1EWNGh2cm

  6. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    ““doesn’t’ think much about Romney or Palin””

    I think that is to imply that he doesn’t devote much mental power towards the subject of Palin or Romney – not that he think lowly of them.

    —-

    “I know this will put me at odds with some of my friends on here but I have always maintained that Mike has a personal hatred for Mitt and that will factor in to his 2012 decision.”

    I don’t think Huckabee likes Romney either – but I highly doubt that would factor into the decision. Huckabee simply has too much to lose for that kind of a vanity/vendetta run.

  7. Dave Says:

    I don’t know what Huck’s feelings are about Sarah, but as to his hatred for Romney, there can be no doubt. It’s not a matter of speculation, it’s a matter of historical fact. More than that, everybody who follows Republican politics closely knows it.

    As for motivation, THAT’S a matter of speculation. I surmise that it’s some combination of religious intolerance and class envy. What’s certain is that there is no action or statement of Mitt’s in the public record that would explain it.

  8. Christy Akreport Says:

    Huckabee is a cry baby.

  9. Max Twain Says:

    This is who Huck is; he spites people that oppose him, he dishes out pardons to people who helped take down Jim Guy Tucker. He is all about the kick-backs from friends and vengeance for enemies. It’s the worst kind of mentality to have in a President, and a dangerous one at that.

  10. tallahassee Says:

    Huck would much rather see Obama get re-elected than Mitt be President.

  11. Metro Says:

    As much as I don’t like Huck, I think this simply reflects Huck’s statement that Romney has no soul. And I agree with him on that.

  12. Metro Says:

    (Although I’d support Romney to stop Huck.)

  13. wateredseeds Says:

    This is bull crap. I don’t think Huck really has a great opinion of Romney, but i don’t think he has a hatred for anyone. I also wouldn’t quote rollins on anything. Especially since rollins came late to the party last time, and is kind of a nutjob. I think Huck would do much better if he kept Saltzman and Rollins off of his campaign staff this time around. For one, they blew it on the south carolina question. He should’ve been there instead of michigan…and possibly instead of new hampshire. Huck could’ve been swinging back and forth in both south carolina and florida while the others were wasting time up north. He would’ve done better i think.

    As far as mitt romney being a factor in whether huck runs or not….i think that actually has some merit. Not because of hatred, but because of trust. Huckabee has the support of so many that don’t trust romney on core issues. If romney looks like the consensus nominee without him in the race, then huck might run to save the soul of the party. Whether the soul of our party needs saving or not is up for debate of course…but i think that might end up being a factor. I would almost bet that if huck were president, he would want romney in his cabinet. Personally, i favor romney for secretary of state. I think he has a commanding presence, and has experience over seas, especially in devoloping business relationships.

  14. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    NATIONAL TRENDS: POLLSTER.COM FAVORABILITY ..as of TODAY 8)

    Obama ……. 51.6% / 41.3% … +10.1 {up 1.7 points since 1/18/11} BO’s had a good month
    Huckabee …38.4% / 29.3% … +9.1 {down 1.7 …} Mike’s still looking great overall

    Romney…. 35.5% / 34.8% .. +0.7 {down 2.3 …}
    Palin ……. 32.0% / 55.3% . -23.3 {down 5.5 …} :(

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/0 … 25761.html

  15. Bob Hovic Says:

    Rollins Quote,“I don’t think he particularly likes Romney,”

    Wow — that’s really powerful stuff.

  16. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    14. (better link)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/fav-huckabee_n_725761.html

  17. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Hogan Gidley (executive director of HuckPAC) responded to the story by saying, “Only someone who knows precious little about running for president would put forth the ludicrous notion that a person would go through the rigors of running for president due to some personal grudge.”

    ===

    So another non story. Nice try though. ;)

  18. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Anonymous sources are so reliable.

  19. mac Says:

    3. I agree with everything you wrote except the source of the rumors which appear to me to be from Mike’s enemies on the right(including an assist from Pastor Matt Coulter).

  20. TEX Says:

    It’s still way too early,but stories about
    Huckabee that are not very positive for him
    has begun.Soon,no more free ride from MSM.

    Let’s see the polls 5-6 months from now.
    It will be fun to watch Huck’s supporters
    run to the hills.

  21. Matt "MWS" Says:

    I know this one guy who heard from this other guy who was talking to this guy he knows who said Mitt’s only running for President because he thinks it will fix his bed wetting problem.

    I don’t know, but that’s what the sources say…..

  22. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Matt C,

    “I would note that when asked to respond to these “several Republicans with ties to Huckabee,” Romney’s team responded by complimenting Huckabee; Huckabee’s team responded by attacking those making the charge – with still nothing nice to say about Romney.”

    Oh, paleeeeeeeeze. It was a hit piece on Huckabee, so of course his people were defensive. And everyone who’s been in politics more than 15 minutes knows that when there is a hit piece on a rival, you kill them with your kindness.

  23. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Sorry no mention of Romney by Mike on GMA ;)

    But he did tell Stephanopoulos this..

    “I am VERY STRONGLY considering a run” –

    “very strongly” — with emphasis on each word.

    And this by Governor Huckabee on Good Morning America this morning:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/excerpt-mike-huckabees-simple-government/story?id=12949063

  24. Dave Says:

    Verification of this story comes in the form of Huckabee’s 2008 retrospective entitled, absurdly enough, “Do The Right Thing.” The malice toward Romney was explicit and incontrovertible.

    He’s on record.

  25. Freddy Ardanza Says:

    “As Huckabee weighs whether to run again, several Republicans with ties to Huckabee say his disdain for Romney is a real factor in his decision-making about whether to mount a second campaign for the White House…”

    ******

    And all in the name of Jesus.

  26. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    24. 25.

    ..let the whining noises begin.

  27. Watchinitall Says:

    Huck left an opening for such a hit piece by his own pettiness and smallness during and after the 2008 campaign. This is a non-story in the same way lots of non stories are non-stories . . . it’s leftovers from the untidiness of the last go-round, and Mike Huckabee, that strangely likeable guy, is responsible for the odor that’s still lingering.

  28. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    So many Rombots still living in 2008 on Iowa caucus night.

    Move on, let it go, it’s much healthier.

  29. Watchinitall Says:

    Since this is a crowd that pays attention to presiedential politics, I have a question for all of you: Is there anyone since Richard Nixon who has been more spiteful of an opponent, more vindictive, personal, envious, derisive, petty, and unrepentently so, than Mike Huckabee has been with regard to Romney? Can anyone out there remind us of any instance where Romney returned the favor?

    Craig?

    And by the way, this isn’t whining. Temperament is more than fair game in presidential poitics, it’s half the question voters need candidates to answer.

  30. Watchinitall Says:

    28: Great advice that Huckabee should have taken, but didn’t, and Romney never needed.

  31. Fredrick Says:

    Move on? Let it go?

    Why not try telling that to your Huckster idol?

  32. MPC Says:

    Nothing will change until we really go rogue and put a Ron Paul type in the White House, or at the bare minimum, until we send the most relentless axeman we can find and pray he picks the right battles.

    We need a Jacksonian candidate. Let’s see if it’s us or the Democrats who find him first.

  33. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    I don’t see a Huck supporter putting up a post like this at Race…

    It had to be a Romney supporter, of course living in the past.

    Let’s look forward to Iowa ’12, SC ’12, and Florida ’12, shall we. And let the best man/woman win. :)

    ‘O8 is over.

  34. Zeek Says:

    It takes restraint not to pile on, so let me just say I appreciate Huckabee’s redeeming quality on the life issue.

    Zeek

  35. mac Says:

    29. ….As alleged by enemies of Mike Huckabee who largely exhibit most of the malicious tendencies they accuse Mike of possessing and, strangely enough, several of whom on this site are or once aspired to be members of the clergy.

  36. Lori* Says:

    True or not, if Huck announces a run, everyone will be thinking the reason is to stop Romney. Once you put forth this idea, its hard to ignore it.

    Fred Karger was reported to only be running so he could bash Romney for being member of a church who successfully worked to pass Prop 8. Its personal with him.

    I believe it is personal for Huck too. He is thin-skinned and vindictive as evident by his book where clearly, no one who embarrasses him escapes unscathed. So even if he cannot beat Obama, he would not support the one who could. Advice to Huck: get over it.

  37. Jeff Fuller Says:

    Huckabee writes a book after the campaign and lays into Mitt time and time again. Romney writes a book after the campaign and not even a mention of Huckabee.

    Huckabee’s line from his book that Romney was “anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.”

    Then Huckabee himself builds a multi-million dollar mansion in Florida. What a hypocrite.

    I can’t stand Huck. I’m glad that Mitt’s above slapping that snippy dog biting at his heels . . . because I’d punt him as far as I could, given the chance.

  38. Max Twain Says:

    Getting closer and closer to being able to end the Huck 2012 nonsense once and for all!!!!

    “Asked how he’d run differently in 2012, the former Arkansas governor told Tumulty: “Money — lots of it. One thing I’m certainly going to gauge over the next few months is, would there be substantial financial support. … I don’t plan to jump in a pool that has no water.”

    Yet even though he knows he’d need more cash this time around he’s done seemingly nothing to cultivate the GOP donor class. When Ben and I wrote a piece a few months back on Huck’s role in 2012 we asked an adviser if the former candidate had been calling contributors. The response: “they’re calling him!” Which is to say — no.”

  39. letmeeatmywaffle Says:

    Huck will keep his TV show; why would he run for President when he has already moved to Florida. He would love to play kingmaker though in IA; so watch what he does. People are right on this board: he could endorse Pawlenty as the last, electable social con standing.

  40. Max Twain Says:

    Huck’s bitterness is very Palin-like, he just puts a happy face on it and people tend to gloss over it.

  41. Bob Hovic Says:

    “True or not, if Huck announces a run, everyone will be thinking the reason is to stop Romney.”

    Everyone? I doubt many non-Rombots will think that.

    I don’t doubt that Huckabee dislikes Romney. But I don’t for a moment believe that he’d undertake a very demanding, very expensive run for the presidency as a result of it. If he runs it will be because he decided he wants to be president more than he wants to be a TV commentator.

  42. Adam X Says:

    If Huckabee gets in the race and stops Romney I’m all for it. We’re not going to win with Romney.

  43. Adam X Says:

    But yeah – Bob is right. Huckabee wouldn’t waste his time with a presidential run if his primary motivation wasn’t to become president.

    Stopping Romney would just be the icing on the cake.

  44. Chris L. Says:

    I’m not a great fan of either one. A “grudge match” between those two would not be helpful. I believe that the GOP would be better off if neither ran so that we could focus on selecting a candidate from amongst our newer faces, some of whom have very good records of accomplishment.

  45. Adam X Says:

    44,

    Well yeah. That would be much better.

    But Romney’s all in. That’s the reality.

  46. Thunder Says:

    Reply to 44. What bothers me, is Romney shouldn’t have to take a step back because Huck has personal issues. Frankly, I don’t see a candidate out there besides Romney I could support right now.

    Right now, Romney is in the best position to win the Primary and the presidency, the only question is if Huck will put his personal issue before the needs of the country. He did it in 2008 and that gave us Obama, is he will to do it and give us Obama II. The other problem is that Huck supporters are in denial of who Huck really is. Many of the rest of us see it.

  47. heath Says:

    The inescapable fact is that Huck is fat again. That must mean something.

  48. Adam X Says:

    Romney shouldn’t have to take a step back because Huck has personal issues

    First of all – you’re basing that assumption on some hearsay and no solid evidence.

    Romney is in the WORST position to win the primary because he is out of sync with Republican Primary voters on the basic question of what is the proper role of the federal government. he’s in the WORST position to win the general election (with the exception of Palin) because he cannot and will not rally the Republican base because of his ideological mismatch. Romney has a McCain problem.

  49. Adam X Says:

    If Huckabee can spare the GOP of the “I like mandates” candidate – then that is just hunky dory.

  50. Matt "MWS" Says:

    heath,

    “The inescapable fact is that Huck is fat again. That must mean something.”

    Yes. It means that he’s consuming more calories than he’s burning.

  51. Thunder Says:

    # Adam X Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    If Huckabee can spare the GOP of the “I like mandates” candidate – then that is just hunky dory.
    ===============================
    So have you taken your RINO pills today. So you don’t mind it when someone gets free medical care without paying for it. You don’t mind wasting tax payer money. All liberal ideals. Or have you drunk the cool aide that says that ObamaCare and RomneyCare are the same.

  52. Fredrick Says:

    Romney currently enjoys very strong leads in NH and NV which run back to back in their respective primary and caucus. Large victories in both states can and likely will translate into momentum going into SC and Super Tuesday.

    So Romney is NOT the WORST POSITION to win in the GOP nomination. He’s in one of the best positions, if not the best. We all know know Adam that you despite Romney so much that you’d have no problem libeling him, but let’s GET REAL here.

  53. Matt "MWS" Says:

    Thunder,

    Are you guys going to continue with the absurdity that it is conservatives who support mandates clear through the primaries?

  54. Adam X Says:

    51,

    If you think that the “freeloader” argument is going to wash with the larger GOP electorate then you’re the one overdosing on the RINO pills. And why not? RINO pills are everyone’s god given right. Right? Even when we force other people to pay for them.

    52,

    Except that they hate him all through the South, he can’t wain Iowa or South Carolina, and Nevada doesn’t matter.

  55. Tweets that mention For Huck, it’s Personal With Romney | Race 4 2012 -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012! and Judigal, Norsu. Norsu said: http://race42012.com/2011/02/21/huck-it%E2%80%99s-personal-romney/ For Huck, it’s Personal With Romney #2012 Slow news day [...]

  56. mac Says:

    47 Beware my svelte friend excessive lbs are in vogue this cycle…exhibit A, the gov of the great State of NJ.

  57. Adam X Says:

    Seriously. Y’all should listen to yourselves.

    Forgot about me. My opinion of Romney means diddly squat (as does yours). But you have to actually sit back and THINK.

    Think about the current state of the GOP. Think about the Tea party. Think of the focus on fiscal sanity.

    Now it’s gut check time. Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that the Republican electorate is going to swallow your rhetoric on MassCare. You honestly believe that Romney is going to convince these folks that he’s conservative and everyone else is insane for seeing the government expansion and intervention for what it is?

    Really folks. Really.

  58. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Nevada never matters because the front-runners won’t contest it

    Iowa and NH cancel each other out because no one can win both. BUT you better win one!!!

    So what really matters then? Definitely South Carolina and very likely Florida.

    Guess who trends best in both key states? http://www.wiserepublic.com/4527/viewing-the-2012-gop-race/#comment-2898

  59. Stephen Hall Says:

    I hope when an inevitable hit piece on Romney comes, that we will view it with the same jaundiced eye that we view this hit piece on Huckabee.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  60. Fredrick Says:

    Considering that the Tea Party is about states rights and the 10th Amendment, yes I do believe they will eventually listen to Romney’s explanation for implementing Masscare. I am sure many people already have. Perhaps you Adam should listen to, instead of just spouting your blithering non-stop anti-Romney rhetoric.

    The fact is, based on polls, no other GOP puts purple states into play like NV, CO, MI, and NH like Romney does. He’s the best chance to beating Obama and putting Obama on the defensive because he’s actually DEALT with the health care issue. Obama cannot paint him as part of the part of NO IDEAS, like he will with Palin and Huckabee.

    Think about it — if more governors had tried to implement some form of health care reform in their states, it could have prevented the DemocRATs from brainwashing the masses that Obamacare was necessary.

  61. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    56. And Newt. And Barbour. And Mitt’s put on a few lately I’ve noticed.

    Must be winter. :)

  62. Thunder Says:

    # Matt “MWS” Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Thunder,

    Are you guys going to continue with the absurdity that it is conservatives who support mandates clear through the primaries?
    ============================================================
    Do you support mandates on Care insurance. Or is it just because you don’t like Romney.

    I don’t see the issue of taking money that the State already had and using with more wisdom. Yes, require individuals to pay for their own health care is Conservative. Having the tax payers pay for it is liberal.

    So, unless you have a better solution.

    The issue of Obama care among other things is it is a counter fit to what Romney tried to do. Its also an issue of State rights versus Federal interference.

    You would prefer candidates do nothing rather than look for solutions.

  63. Bob Hovic Says:

    53: “Are you guys going to continue with the absurdity that it is conservatives who support mandates clear through the primaries?”

    What’s the alternative, Matt? They (and Romney) pretty much stuck with that position, and with defending expensive insurance-based approaches to health care. It’s very unlikely to work, but Romney can’t back (too far) away from his creation.

    He can pretend (as he does with his book revision) that he never intended it as a national model, but he can’t totally repudiate it.

  64. Stephen Hall Says:

    Thunder, sometimes doing nothing is more preferable then doing something and making things worse.

  65. Adam X Says:

    You would prefer candidates do nothing rather than look for solutions.

    You’re right. I would. The imperfect system is better than Romney or Obama’s alternative.

    The fact is, based on polls, no other GOP puts purple states into play like NV, CO, MI, and NH like Romney does.

    Romney has never led in Michigan. He’s never going to win Michigan in a general election. Michigan is a pipe dream. And I’ll see your NV and raise you the far more important and likely Republican pickups (given the right candidate) of Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina.

    He’s the best chance to beating Obama and putting Obama on the defensive because he’s actually DEALT with the health care issue.

    He’s DEALT with the issue in a way that nearly unanimously angers the very people whose support he is counting on to win in a general election

  66. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Huck responds to POLITICO report
    By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 2/21/11 3:17 PM

    “Laughable” is how Mike Huckabee characterized our story about Romney driving his 2012 thinking.

  67. Stephen Hall Says:

    Thats true Bob, they have sold their souls to the mandates for healthcare, and they will die believing that position is correct as long as they can get their candidate to the presidency.

  68. Adam X Says:

    Let me repost this more clearly.

    THUNDER asserts that: You would prefer candidates do nothing rather than look for solutions.

    My retort is that:

    YES YES YES YES. A Thousand times, YES!!! You’re right. I would RATHER DO NOTHING. The imperfect system is better than Romney or Obama’s alternative.

    THIS IS EXACTLY ROMNEY’S PROBLEM. 80 TO 90 PERCENT OF THE GOP AGREES WITH ME!!!!!

  69. Stephen Hall Says:

    Adam X, all Obama has to do in order to divide his opposition if Romney is the nominee is to continuously remind the Republican voters as to who backed the prototype of Obamacare.

  70. Adam X Says:

    69,

    I couldn’t agree with you more. That’s exactly why I continue to contend that Romney is the ABSOLUTE WORST candidate the GOP could nominate (with the possible exception of Palin). The public agrees with the GOP position. Hence, their massive repudiation of the Obama Democrats at ballot boxes all across the fruited plain just a few months ago.

    In nominating Romney we give away all of our leverage. I for one find that unacceptable.

  71. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Stephen Hall Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    “I hope when an inevitable hit piece on Romney comes, that we will view it with the same jaundiced eye that we view this hit piece on Huckabee.”

    ===

    One consistent character of POLITICO is they bring up dirt and go after ALL of our Republican candidates almost daily… ;)

    MAGGIE HABERMAN | 2/20/11 1:09 PM EST

    “The New York Post takes a look at Mitt Romney’s “spotty” job-creation record, saying the former Massachusetts governor was actually a job-killer during his tenure at a Wall Street private equity firm.

    The piece looks at Romney’s time at Bain Capital, saying his large personal wealth “was made on the backs of companies that ultimately collapsed, putting thousands of ordinary Americans out on the street.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49883.html#ixzz1EWp3WrBj

  72. teledude Says:

    Huckabee knows, if he gets in he splits votes with Palin, thus handing the nomination to Romney.

    If Huckabee doesn’t run, there is a strong likelihood Romney won’t run, as he knows he can’t beat Palin without someone siphoning off some of her support, and Huckabee is the only serious candidate that can do that.

  73. teledude Says:

    http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/02/mike-huckabee-i-dont-plan-to-jump-in.html

  74. mac Says:

    61 Yep, even Mitt is slapping on a side of biscuits and gravy.

  75. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Health Care Bill Repeal Oppose 40.0%, Support 56.0% / Rasmussen

    And that’s not just Republicans.

    For Republicans only, see Adam’s posts.

  76. teledude Says:

    There is one candidate that is in great ‘shape’ to run.

    http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1695/palinheels.jpg

  77. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    teledude Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    “Huckabee knows, if he gets in he splits votes with Palin, thus handing the nomination to Romney.”

    ===

    Why would Huck with VERY high overall national favorables step aside for the most disliked political figure of our times?

    Palin ……. 32.0% / 55.3% . -23.3 {down 5.5 in past month …}

  78. Bob Hovic Says:

    “You would prefer candidates do nothing rather than look for solutions.”,/i>

    In order of preference I would prefer:

    1) Governor who did the right thing
    2) Governor who left bad enough alone
    3) Governor who did the wrong thing

    An argument could be made as to whether #2 or #3 is worse, but we don’t have to choose between them, since we have an option who did the right thing (a voluntary, free-market program) in regard to health care.

  79. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    72. Dude from Cons4Palin,

    I prefer Bachmann over Palin if we only go by looks. Thank God, our country is to smart to choose either one. Both, especially Palin are not even close to being ready. Give ‘em 5-10 years and we’ll talk..

  80. teledude Says:

    Pence – out
    DeMint -out
    Thune – out
    Jeb – out
    Huckabee – out
    Christie – out
    Romney – dropping like a rock (hence the Daniels & Christie promotions in the establishment media) – will he run without the backing of the party elites?

    The establishment knows, with Huckabee out, Romney has no chance to beat Palin. And normally they might be able to entice Huckabee to run (that’s why we’ve seen nothing but positive polls for him non stop, in an attempt to turn his head)but his hatred of Romney won’t allow him to play along (and he’s miffed they don’t get behind Him.)

    This thing will be over before a shot is fired.

    You guys might as well get comfortable with the idea.

    Read this, it will help:
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41914

  81. Stephen Hall Says:

    80, I know your living in a dream world, but leave us out of it.

  82. Bob Hovic Says:

    “that’s why we’ve seen nothing but positive polls for (Huckabee) non stop”

    So that’s the explanation: PPP is controlled by the Republican establishment.

    We should have realized it — thanks for letting us know.

  83. teledude Says:

    Craig for Huck in 2012, I love you man, but you are placing WAY too much credence in these PPP polls.

    They are published to sway opinions, not reflect them.

    Huckabee isn’t going to run this time, I’m sorry. you can still watch him every Saturday night on Fox!

  84. teledude Says:

    82. Bob…no.

    PPP is a democrat poll, they refer to Huckabee as ‘easy out.”

    We don’t want the candidate that the dems want us to run. They ‘say’ they want to face Palin, but their actions belie their true intent.

  85. Bob Hovic Says:

    PPP is a democrat poll, they refer to Huckabee as ‘easy out.”

    So there are two conspiracies going on for Huckabee? I better order an extra tinfoil hat.

  86. teledude Says:

    yeah, they all want Huckabee, cause he’s so easy

  87. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    86.teledude Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    “yeah, they all want Huckabee, cause he’s so easy”

    ====

    EASY = Competing against Palin’s Favorables …

    32.0% / 55.3% . -23.3 {down 5.5 in past month …}

    EASY = Obama versus Palin …

    General Election: Palin vs. Obama Polling Data

    Poll Date Sample Obama (D) Palin (R) Spread

    RCP Average 12/9 – 2/14 } Obama +16.5

    PPP (D) 2/11 – 2/14 } Obama +12
    FOX News 2/7 – 2/9 } Obama +21
    Democracy Corps (D) 1/9 – 1/12 } Obama +10
    Rasmussen Reports 1/7 – 1/10 } Obama +11
    McClatchy/Marist 1/6 – 1/10 } Obama +26
    NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 12/9 – 12/13 } Obama +22
    ABC News/Wash Post 12/9 – 12/12 } Obama +13

    EASY = Debating against Palin (even Biden mopped the floor with her)

  88. Bob Hovic Says:

    PPP
    FOX News
    Democracy Corps
    Rasmussen Reports
    McClatchy/Marist
    NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
    ABC News/Wash Post

    The problem, Craig, is that all those organizations are in on the conspiracy.

  89. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    PPP (D) 2/11 – 2/14 } Obama +12

    Hey, PPP actually treats her nicer compared to FOUR of the other polling companies!!!

    ALL of these conspiracies against her are mind-boggling for us non-Sarahcudians!!!

  90. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    You got it, Bob. It’s bigger than we EVER imagined! ;)

  91. Welby Says:

    wateredeeds:
    “Huckabee has the support of so many that don’t trust romney on core issues. If romney looks like the consensus nominee without him in the race, then huck might run to save the soul of the party.”

    Oh, how magnanimous of Huck.

  92. teledude Says:

    Now who’s losing credibility” Did you even watch the debate with Biden? LOL

    I think you’re trying to convince yourself, dude.

    Huckabee isn’t running. I’m sorry.

    You should watch how Palin handled unscripted questions for over an hour from a democrat moderator in front of a mixed and sometimes hostile crowd in New York. She mesmerized them.

    If she can change their perceptions she can change everyone’s.

    http://www.palintv.com/2011/02/20/governor-palins-qa-at-long-island-association-february-17-2011/

    She is inevitable.

    She has been since she first came on the stage.

    They all know it and they can’t stop it, and it drives them to insanity.

  93. Welby Says:

    # tallahassee Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Huck would much rather see Obama get re-elected than Mitt be President.

    I’m sure if Huck were asked if would support Romney as the nominee, he would say yes.

  94. teledude Says:

    “…Asked how he’d run differently in 2012, the former Arkansas governor told Tumulty: “Money — lots of it. One thing I’m certainly going to gauge over the next few months is, would there be substantial financial support. … I don’t plan to jump in a pool that has no water.” ‘

    Does anyone know if Huckabee has raised a lot of money? How’s his fund raising been?

    That would be the best clue.

  95. Franklin Says:

    There’s no doubt that Huckabee and Romney disagree on social issues. That’s the reason why Huckabee stayed in after SC and split the anti-McCain vote in 2008. I have the same concerns.

    I think Huckabee may be hanging back to see what Palin will do. She’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room. A lot of people realize that her polls reflect the caricature that has been created by the media. If she can overcome that then she is more formidable. That’s why Huckabee said that “she could run away with it”.

    The problem for Huckabee is if Palin gets in, she draws from the same base that he does in Iowa. If she draws enough then Romney could slip by both of them and that’s probably the ballgame. Also there’s a real question whether he can raise enough money. Romney’s Pac raised $4.1 million, Palin $3.5 million and Huckabee $944,000. That is nothing short of embarassing for a frontrunner.

  96. Thunder Says:

    # Matt “MWS” Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Thunder,

    Are you guys going to continue with the absurdity that it is conservatives who support mandates clear through the primaries?
    ==============================================
    What is absurdity is saying that medical freeloaders is okay. Or saying that a national plan is no different from a state plan. Absurdity is doing nothing about the health care freeloaders and calling it conservative.

    So, what is your plan to get the free loaders off of the government free medial system when they can afford to buy insurance and don’t.

  97. teledude Says:

    Right on Franklin, right on.

    It’s so obvious, if you’re not blinded by the spirit of Huckabeesus

    They are ALL hanging back waiting to see what Palin will do.

    At this point in the last election, ten democrats had announced and five republicans.

    Today, nada…..

    They are all afraid of the girl.

  98. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Yep Dude,

    And you forgot to add that Obama is shaking in his boots.

    RCP Average 12/9 – 2/14 } Obama +16.5 over Palin

  99. Vote for Truth Says:

    I see we have some Palin supporters on this post. Give it up, she can’t win, and for her to compete just means she cares more about herself than the country or the Republican Party.

    I have told you Rombots that Huckabee doesn’t like Romney, but, Max, given that Huckabee has a problem raising money does it make sense to you or any others that he would go through a campaign and come out with a huge debt to stop Romney?? He knows what it costs now, in 2008 he really didn’t realize.

    Mike Huckabee cares about our country, Israel and protecting our greatest ally, and protecting the unborn children that some other candidates don’t even think about. He wrote those things in his book,”Do the Right Thing” because he wanted to make sure people realized just exactly the kind of person Romney really is, and how we can’t trust him to lead our country. If the polls showed a certain way, that’s where Romney would go with his decision making. We need a President who can make a hard decision and stick with it no matter what the polls say…that’s called leadership.

    For those of you who are worried about Huckabee’s future if he got into the race and didn’t win, this is a man who was offered a position at least three different networks, and he would be more known. He won’t have any trouble getting another position on TV or radio. He has the talent, and that’s what it takes to make it in those fields.

    Yes, this is a hit piece on Huckabee, and, of course, the Rombots jumped on it. I have tried to refrain from posting, “I told you so” when Huckabee wins these polls (which of course not many Rombots comment on) because I don’t want to gloat. But, since all of you LOVE to jump on Huckabee’s non-story, I will be glad to return the favor when it presents itself…and it will.

    Huckabee would definitely support Romney if he wins the nomination…he supports fellow Republicans.

  100. Fredrick Says:

    Hey Adam, if Masscare is SUCH a toxic issue in and of itself — why wasn’t Romney attacked over it in 2008? Why wasn’t there outrage against him then? It’s because people like you suffer from RDS Romney Derangement Syndrome will attack him on anything even if it defies rational thought.

  101. Vote for Truth Says:

    I did attack Romney on that and all the other non-Conservative issues Romney had in MA. He’s supposed to be such a businessman guru, but MA was among the bottom three states in the country with the highest unemployment during his tenure. This was when most other states were having a lot of success with unemployment. We don’t need him FIXING America like he fixed MA with jobs!!! All the Republican pundits on radio and TV ignored his actual record because all they could see was MONEY in their eyes and somebody who had MONEY is the only person who can win. Right!!!

  102. teledude Says:

    Obama is shaking in his boots.

  103. Bob Hovic Says:

    “if Masscare is SUCH a toxic issue in and of itself — why wasn’t Romney attacked over it in 2008? Why wasn’t there outrage against him then? It’s because people like you…”

    An alternative explanation might be that something happened in the meantime in the area of health care that made it a more prominent issue.

    I can think of one development in 2010.

  104. Adam X Says:

    Hey Adam, if Masscare is SUCH a toxic issue in and of itself — why wasn’t Romney attacked over it in 2008? Why wasn’t there outrage against him then? It’s because people like you suffer from RDS Romney Derangement Syndrome will attack him on anything even if it defies rational thought.

    Yeah sure. That’s it.

    Or, you know, it’s the fact that our radical liberal president BORROWED ROMNEY’S IDEA AND IMPLEMENTED IT NATIONALLY.

    Maybe, just maybe, that had something to do with it?

    Either that or you have to believe that every Tea Partier who opposes health insurance mandates has some sort of diabolical hatred of Romney.

  105. teledude Says:

    Huck’s not running.
    Romney is toast due to RomneyCare.
    Daniels has no facial features and causes narcolepsy.
    Gingrich is damaged goods with no chance.
    Pawlenty is…would anyone recognize this guy on the street? You can’t run for president incognito.

    I respectfully ask you to keep an open mind, you are in for a surprise. You guys are way to invested in the pop culture narrative…it is easily changed. Easily.

    Just keep an open mind.

  106. Bob Hovic Says:

    “Daniels has no facial features”

    None at all? Darn, I seem to recall a nose, and maybe even an eyebrow or two.

  107. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Teledude,

    You’re asking folks here to keep an open mind at the exact same time you’re not.

  108. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Here’s a counter piece at Huffpo:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/mike-huckabee-mitt-romney_n_826068.html

    Excerpt:

    Naturally, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Huckabee isn’t a big Romney fan. I suspect that Romney fans are pretty few and far between in the field of elite GOP figures who flirt with White House ambitions. I still remember how much John McCain seemed to relish his artful takedowns of Romney in their debates together. And I suspect that Huckabee’s capable of doing the same, all while coming across as sweet as honeysuckle.

    However, it’s safe to say that having the opportunity to stick it to Mitt Romney is a side benefit of running for president, and not a reason unto itself.

  109. teledude Says:

    I know things.

    This is not speculation.

    My mind is open, that’s how I learned what I know.

    Did you know Herman Cain is being financed by Romney money? To split the conservative vote. If Romney doesn’t run (a more and more likely scenario now), watch Cain drop out as well.

    Two who will run are Gingrich and Santorum, as Santorum is being financed by Gingrich money (divides the social conservatives, thus diluting their political power)

    @Bob, you have far greater skills of visual detection than most of us have. Seriously, you saw an eyebrow?

    Of course, I may have seen Daniels standing behind a 5 foot podium…kinda hard to see his face then too. But the guy is pretty bland. Still, he is the flavor of the week. He’s the Jeb place holder until 2016 now that Romney is fading (yes, the establishment wants to lose this time)

  110. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    teledude Says:
    February 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
    “I know things.”

    ===

    Like how to put on tin-foil hats.

  111. Dave Says:

    The essential points have been made on this thread long ago…..Huck’s petty and spiteful vindictiveness toward our probable nominee, the man with the best skill set to take a scalpel to the budget and functions of the Federal Leviathan, and the man most polling demonstrates to be our most electable candidate.

    The only remaining question is what lengths Huck will go to to give us Obama II.

  112. Bob Hovic Says:

    “Did you know Herman Cain is being financed by Romney money?”

    Yet another conspiracy!

    It must be tough to keep track of them all.

  113. Jerald Says:

    I can’t guess why Huckabee would or would not run.

    But whether he runs or not, look for him to be smiling and waving with one hand and tossing grenades at Romney with the other…

  114. Jerald Says:

    teledude, are you sober?: “Did you know Herman Cain is being financed by Romney money?”

    I was needing a laugh.

    Uh, I think Herman Cain has plenty of his own money, and I would tend to think Cain would be much more of a threat to Romney than Huckabee…

  115. Stephen Hall Says:

    “Hey Adam, if Masscare is SUCH a toxic issue in and of itself”

    The fact that your using “Masscare” instead of “Romneycare” speaks for itself.

  116. Granny T Says:

    Huck responds to POLITICO report

    Mike Huckabee called “laughable” a POLITICO story today citing Republican sources who say running against Mitt Romney could prove especially tempting because of a long-standing personal and policy rift between the two cemented during the 2008 race.

    The piece was “what I thought was one of the most absurd arguments I’ve heard,” he said, “that the whole purpose of my potentially running was a whole feud with Mitt Romney.”

    He said that anyone familiar with running for president, and the rigors it puts on one’s family, knows that “you don’t make decisions…like this over some personal issue. It’s absurd. It’s beyond absurd.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49917.html#ixzz1EdjRJs2y

  117. Stephen Hall Says:

    “Yes, this is a hit piece on Huckabee, and, of course, the Rombots jumped on it.”

    Of course they will. They have such a grudge against Mike Huckabee…

  118. hamaca Says:

    I wish my fellow Romney supporters wouldn’t try so hard to defend mandates. Even Mitt’s original plan didn’t call for them.

  119. Fredrick Says:

    Hey Alex, didn’t the Clintons attempt to do what Obama did with health care reform back in the 90′s? So Obama borrowed nothing from Romney he just want idiots in the Republican party to think so. You, divide and conquer. You just want it to be because you cannot in any way be intellectually honest what Masscare was all about it. You understand NOTHING about the 10th Amendment and state right. You just want to hate Romney.

  120. Dave Says:

    Stephen,

    MassCare is far more appropriate verbiage for the healthcare initiative in that state than RomneyCare, which would imply that it was solely Mitt’s thing.

    It was partially written by The Heritage Foundation, was passed by the legislature 198-2, and had virtually NO opposition. It’s still overwhelmingly popular in the state, despite a great deal of subsequent input by Dems.

    So why give all the credit to Romney?

  121. Fredrick Says:

    If passing Masscare was so inherently evil as anti-Mittbots such as Alex claim it to be, there should have been an uproar long before Obama hijacked something that states had constitutional authority to do and implemented it on a national level, which is unconstitutional. The fact that people like Alex were silent about what Romney did in Massachusetts in 2008, but now find it totally evil in hindsight because Obama abused his power by implementing it for the entire nation shows how irrational so many conservatives can be. You act as if Romney implemented Obamacare! He didn’t implement Obamacare and has ALWAYS been against implementing such a program on a national level.

  122. Fredrick Says:

    Dave, those facts you use are TOO MUCH for people like Alex. They just want to live in their fantasy world so they can hate, hate, hate Mitt.

  123. Adam X Says:

    Mitt Romney’s Romneycare dilemma: Heritage Foundation disowns mandates

    http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-boston/mitt-romney-s-romneycare-dilemma-heritage-foundation-disowns-mandates

  124. hamaca Says:

    “You understand NOTHING about the 10th Amendment and state right. You just want to hate Romney.”

    While there may be a few that fall into that category, I think the majority of commenters here are not that irrational. RomneyCare is fair game. It’s an issue. It goes to the very core of whether Romney is conservative or not, since it’s one of his major achievements.

    I happen to think he’s very well qualified to be President, not because of it, but despite it. I think he gets a bad rap from people who try to simplify what was going on in MA at the time, but that’s politics and whining about opposition isn’t going to anyone in any camp very far.

  125. hamaca Says:

    121. Who is Alex? I don’t see a comment from anyone by that name.

    122. I haven’t read the article yet, but it doesn’t surprise that they would disown the mandates part of RomneyCare. I would doubt it’s part of what they helped create. It morphed into something that neither they nor Romney originally envisioned. But, Romney signed off on it, Heritage did not. So Romney owns it.

  126. Adam X Says:

    Robert Moffitt, deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Reagan administration and director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation:

    Yes, in the early 1990s, we, along with other prominent conservative economists, supported the idea of such a mandate. It seemed the only way to solve the “free-rider” problem, in which individuals can, under federal law, walk into any hospital emergency room nationwide and rack up big bills at taxpayer expense.

    Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it. In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis.

    The president and his supporters invoke the Heritage Foundation to convince the American people that his health bill is somehow a middle-of-the-road approach. It isn’t. So please, Mr. President, stop it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802727_2.html

  127. Jerald Says:

    Adam X in #122.

    Wow Adam, I’m disappointed in you. The heritage foundation has made a blatant flip-flop and you are supporting them.

    I can’t believe it. I thought you had a principled stand against “flip-flops” anywhere, anytime.

    Where are your morals? Where is your spine? How could you get behind any organization that suddenly changes their position? Does a 180 on what they “believe”?

    What is the world coming to…

  128. Adam X Says:

    126,

    The Heritage Foundation didn’t sign the policy into law. Romney did.

    I don’t care what Heritage thought in the 1990′s. What matters is what’s constitutional. And the growing consensus (likely to be settled by SCOTUS) is that the individual mandate is not constitutional.

    And the very suggestion that anyone supporting Heritage (and I made no such claims anyway) despite flip flopping is the most hilarious thing ever when coming from a ROMNEY supporter…

  129. Jerald Says:

    #125….Adam X

    So Adam, you provide us this nice post that says it took the Heritage Foundation TWO DECADES to realize that mandates were not working well to solve the freeloader problem and only started suggesting alternatives in 2008 well after Romney was no longer governor and…

    …this somehow makes Romney and evil non-conservative danger to the country?

    Like I have said before, this smells like a lame excuse you and others use to justify other reasons for opposing Romney.

    Of course, you are fully justified to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason. No need to window dress it…

  130. hamaca Says:

    “Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it. In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis.”

    I agree. It’s also what politicians should be able to do in cases such as this. Problem is that a significant proportion of the base are chained to the concept that you can’t evolve on any position whatsoever. I get that you have to be solid on certain principles–those are non-negotiable. However, being flexible enough to move in different directions in other areas when there is overwhelming evidence in favor of them should be seen as a sign of strength.

  131. Jerald Says:

    #127…No quite as hilarious as your unnecessary fear that Romney would destroy the country by sending it down in flames by enacting martial law, or whatever, to force it on the country…

    I’m must practicing being as silly as your are being…

  132. Jerald Says:

    #129…hamaca…..such herasy you speak.

    How dare any politician keep working on a problem to find increasingly better solutions.

    If they can’t push through the magic solution the first time regardless of other people being involved in the process, then hang them…

    Of course, I’m being rude and snarky, and, well, basically acting immature, but it’s all an act to make a point.

    Too much of the opposition to our GOP candidates from within the party is just plain childish. If this keeps up, Obama will clean our clock again….

  133. Fredrick Says:

    Amen Jerald. Republicans like Alex X are so more than willing to eat our own.

  134. Doug NYC GOP Says:

    “You should watch how Palin handled unscripted questions for over an hour from a democrat moderator in front of a mixed and sometimes hostile crowd in New York. She mesmerized them.” — Teledude

    Hositle crowd? You think these professional businessman paid up to $300 to be histile to Palin. I watched the news accounts, they respectful and she handles herself well.

    Get real or get sober.

  135. Doug NYC GOP Says:

    Adam X’s just frustrated that after nearly a year of crowing how Romney’s HEalth Care experience would be his doom, it has yet to materialize. Keep spinning your wheels brother, it’s fun to watch.

  136. Jerald Says:

    #133…LOL

    Mama Grizzly was scrapping for her life and fighting like a deranged baracuda……trying to keep from having to give them a refund…

    Now if she could just get the “lame stream media” to pay $300 bucks a person to take pot shots at saracuda…

  137. Jerald Says:

    #127….more hilarity…

    You keep talking about what is constitutional.

    MA supreme court ruled the MassCare mandate is constitutional for the State of Ma.

    US has so far ruled the ObamaCare mandate for the entire US is not constitutional.

    You have got to keep your stories straight man…

    (No please note, I’m not taking a position on state mandates. The states have a right to try them, and get rid of them if they want to, and the voters of the states have a right to say whether or not they want to try them or get rid of them.)

    You are sounding increasingly like a “nanny-stater” trying to tell the good people of MA how they should handle their healthcare issue. Kind of like Obama busing in protesters to WI…

  138. Adam X Says:

    136,

    Really? That’s your argument? You can’t defend STATE mandates and refuse to take a position on them, but NATIONAL mandates are bad?

    Seriously dude. That’s laughable.

    The Tea Party folks are in control. You just try and explain your “it’s ok if it’s only done on the state level” position to the Pitch Fork Crowd.

    I don’t care (and virtually all Republicans won’t care) that Romney says he won’t do this on a national level. When he was actually in charge and had actual constituents he forced a mandate on his constituents.

    That’s disqualifying in a GOP primary. Just watch and wait.

  139. Adam X Says:

    And as for this,

    Adam X’s just frustrated that after nearly a year of crowing how Romney’s HEalth Care experience would be his doom, it has yet to materialize

    Yeah? How have the trend lines been looking for Romney?

    If I were him I would have been happier a year ago.

    You’re awfully quick to proclaim that it has yet to materialize. Wait until the primaries and the debates when Mitt gets lambasted in every direction from his GOP opponents.

  140. Jerald Says:

    Adam X, you are sounding like an armless man in a wrestling match.

    You said “constitutional” which does not equal bad.

    Further, Romney is not peddling mandates (Like you said, he has to get that message across), so the whole mandate fearmongering you folks are engaged in is groundless. Plus, if mandates are not solving the freeloader problem, neither Romney or anybody else will have any interest in them and MA will get rid of them.

    Also, mandates are not the only problem, or even the most serious one with ObamaCare, so you folks would better serve the party to redirect your fire…

    And Adam X, when you say “Romney forced a mandate on his constituents” you either remain willfully ignorant or are willfully misrepresenting the facts. Sure, they were forced on a minority of freeloaders but the major of the folks in MA were for them. If they aren’t anymore, they can get rid of them.

    If folks in the primary don’t want Romney, that’s their business.
    That doesn’t make your arguments less emotional and more factual…

  141. Adam X Says:

    Jerald,

    “Unconstitutional” most certainly DOES equal bad when YOU INSPIRED THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. This is ESPECIALLY ture in a GOP primary. You really can’t see that? Are you insane?

    And what do you mean Romney isn’t peddling mandates? It DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. IT MATTERS WHAT HE DID. And he DID force a mandate on the citizens of Massachusetts. I guarantee that most Republicans in Massachusetts don’t appreciate that. How do YOU think that is going to play in a GOP primary debate?

    The mandate is the most outrageous problem with ObamaCare. That is what the Tea Partiers resent the most. That’s what led to the mass demonstrations. Are you nuts? That you don’t understand that is a clear demonstration of how out of touch you are with the very constituents your man is going to need to woo .

    I’m not misrepresenting anything. The Massachusetts residents opposed to the plan are forced to pay for insurance they don’t want. Period.

  142. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Yeah? How have the trend lines been looking for Romney?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fav-romney_n_725770.html

  143. Texas Conservative Says:

    Notice that this “hitpiece” on Huckabee came out the day that Mike Huckabee started his media events for his book tour. Little side distraction, wouldn’t you say?

    Also of note, that the day that Palin was speaking at the Reagan Ranch, Romney had a special conference call to let supporters know that he was running down the road. Another little distraction.

    What about Pawlenty starting his booktour and Romney dropping breaking news that he has hired Beeson and Newhouse. Another little distraction.

    Politics is a hardcore game. Huckabee knows it-he has said many times, Politics ain’t beanbags. It’s a bloodsport.

  144. Jerald Says:

    #140….OK, whatever…

    By the way, you can find voters everywhere that are opposed to all kinds of things, but in a democracy, it’s the majority vote that counts unless something is found to be illegal or unconstitutional. So everyone in the minority is being FORCED to comply with the majority decision. Once again, you are being emotional and not logical.

    Like I said, your mob of pitchfork branding folks (to use your term) can vote for whomever they want. I just hope the consequences are not too bad.
    Just being a little better than Big O won’t save the country…

  145. Ci2Eye Says:

    Folks, if you think Romney is dead beacause of the Massachusetts healthcare legislation, I would present Exhibit A, B, C, and D.

    The Exhibits all come circa the 2008 campaign and John McCain.

    Exhibit A: John McCain did not support the Bush tax cuts. He is out of sync with the party.
    Exhibit B: John McCain supported McCain-Lieberman (Climate Change). He is out of sync with the party.
    Exhibit C: John McCain supported McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Act (AKA Anmesty). He is out of sync with the party.
    Exhibit D: John McCain supported McCain-Feingold (Campaign Finance Reform). He is out of sync with the party.

    How many times was McCain called a RINO and hammered on this issues above? Ann Coulter pledged to campaign for Hillary if McCain won. Immigration reform was especially contentious with the base and yet, in spite of it all, John Sydney McCain won. Primaries are complex. There will be no perfect candidates and the race will amount to far more than simple popularity among those who stay fully engaged in politics.

    In 2008, I really didn’t want McCain as the nominee but my vote was canceled out by the many who only paid attention at the last minute and for whom advertising, endorsements, and personal narrative weighed heavily. McCain had a great story, he was fluent on the issue of the day (Iraq) and, most importantly, he had racked up the endorsement of nearly every Senator and key Governors like Crist in Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. I would argue that those two endorsements were the key to his win. So, at the end of the day, he emerged as a nominee in spite of stances on issues that were out of sync with the base and that many considered to be deal breakers.

    Romney can still win. He may have to walk the proverbial tightrope on Massachusetts Care as McCain did in ’08 with Immigration Reform but he’s far from dead. He very wisely he spent all of 2010 working his butt off for candidates around the country that just might provide him with a few endorsements come 2012.

  146. Fredrick Says:

    Adam X, do you have any idea what the 10th Amendment means?

  147. Adam X Says:

    144,

    You make a good case – but I think there are some imporant points to keep in mind. First of all, McCain DIDN’T win majority support from Republican Primary voters. In fact, much of McCain’s success in the 2008 primary campaign can be attributed simply to luck. There was no grand strategy. McCain simply benefitted from the GOP rejection of Romney and the Giuliani implosion, as well as the fact that Thompson failed to catch fire.

    If Huckabee was able to nab an extra 8K votes in SC – then McCain would have lost. Had McCain lost SC he probably would have lost FL to Romney. And if that happened then Huckabee would almost certainly have swept the South. Had Huckabee remained viable for even a little longer past FL – the delegate math would have favored him. Romney really didn’t come close in the vast majority of states (excepting his three “home” states and caucus states).

    Also, McCain was the “war” candidate in a cycle where the war issues were paramount. There is no guarantee at all that Romney would benefit from the set of issues that will dominate in 2012. All of McCain’s deviations from party orthodoxy were less important in the national discussion that health care surely will be given the almost certain hearing by SCOTUS. It’s going to be awfully tough for Romney to ride this one out and hope that the subject somehow changes.

    Also – even with all of McCain’s skeletons in the closet – none of those positions generated massive public demonstrations on the scale that we saw from opposition to the health care law. That will hamper Romney’s efforts to do what McCain did successfully. I would submit that a Crist endorsement or a Schwarzenegger endorsement were a lot more beneficial in 2008 than in the Tea Party dominated GOP of today.

    What is indesputable is that the Establishment is held in far lower esteem among the GOP base than what we saw even in 2008. That fact alone does Romney no favors.

    145,

    The constitution allows children of immigrants to automatically become citizens. Do you think the average GOP voter cares a whit about that? It makes no difference that Romney COULD sign MassCare into law in Massachusetts. What matters is whether he SHOULD have done that.

    Again I challenge you to tell the Tea Partiers that what Romney did was ok because it was only on the state level. See if they care.

  148. Fredrick Says:

    Hindsight is always 20/20 Adam. That’s what you seem to forget. No one was criticizing Romney in the campaign for 2008 for signing Masscare into law. In fact, people praised him for actually trying to deal with the health care issue.

  149. Ci2Eye Says:

    Adam X,

    As I said, primaries are complex. They aren’t merely about who has matched their stance on every issue to sync with the base. Sometimes a guy like McCain wins even with unfavorable positions because of endorsements, narrative, the primary schedule or because two other people split a key voting block.

    In 2012, Palin and Huck could split the blue collar evangelical vote and if Romney’s demographic (higher educated, higher income Republicans)isn’t also split, he could easily win.

    If the prevailing issue of 2012 is the deficits and the economy, I’d say Romney is in luck there too. If, as you indicate, the Supreme Court has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional then again, Romney benefits. The issue is settled nationally and Massachusetts will become a test-case for the other states as they individually wrestle with the issue.

    On the other hand, Romney could run against Daniels who has similar appeal and Huckabee could sit it out (very likely) with Palin being the benefactor.

    For all the noise the Tea Party made in 2010, their results were mixed so I wouldn’t yet label them the kingmakers of 2012. While they were largely a force for good, they pushed some unelectable candidates through the primary season and Republicans lost the chance to take Harry Reid out of the Senate Majority Leader’s chair. My opinion is that the Tea Party caused Republicans to lose in Alaska, Nevada, and Delaware. The Tea Party also cost us NY23. On the other hand, Mitt Romney was a big force behind the biggest upset of the year and the sweetest victory; Scott Brown taking the “Kennedy Seat”.

    Romney has a challenge to get the nomination but so does everyone else out there. At this point, there is no real frontrunner and anyone could win. The question Republicans need to ask themselves firstly is which one can take down Barack and then rescue America from doom. That should be job 1 for the Red Team. We must pick the candidate who can win and then orchestrate a radical turnaround in Washington. They absolutely must be able to accomplish both of those missions.

  150. Jerald Says:

    #148…thanks for some sane conversation…

  151. Stephen Hall Says:

    “So why give all the credit to Romney?”

    If Romneycare is such a boon to the Mass. constituents, why not take all the credit? Is it because Romney is inept at politics? Or is it because Romney knows the legislation the he championed is an albatross around his neck with the Republicans ?

    Everyone one of you knows that as well, which is why you all refer to it as “Masscare” instead of “Romneycare”.

  152. Dave Says:

    I love the way the race is shaping up. Huckabee and Palin are woefully unprepared for the run-up to the first four. None of Mitt’s potentially serious competitors, such as Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune, or Huntsman, are over 5 or 6%. Romney owns two of the first 4 states and is competitive in the other 2. And Florida is positioning itself to come immediately afterward…..a state in which Mitt has polled very well.

    Little wonder the RDS crowd is losing it.

  153. Dave Says:

    Stephen,

    Mitt is far too humble, and far too competent at coalition building, to take all the credit for ANY of his spectacular achievements in life. He credits Ann 100% for how successful all 5 of his sons turned out. He credits his former employees for the fact that the business he started is now managing $65 Billion. He credited bipartisanship by both parties for getting Massachusetts out of the biggest fiscal crisis in its history while HE was governor.

    He even credited his many volunteers for the success of the Olympics he turned around.

    That’s why it’s MassCare, and not RomneyCare. Mitt’s too humble and magnanimous to take the credit.

  154. Vote for Truth Says:

    Dave,

    Is Romney too humble and magnaminou to accept credit when he stabs his competitors in the back. Oh no, that’s when he lets his surrougates do it, so his hands can stay clean. You talk about a hypocrite!

  155. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Dave Says:
    February 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 am
    “And Florida is positioning itself to come immediately afterward…..a state in which Mitt has polled very well.”

    ===

    Huck is leading in Iowa, SC, and FLORIDA. The deciders.

    Byw, Nevada doesn’t matter, never has, and never will in ’12 because Huck won’t contest it.

    Huck wins IA, SC, FL } Game. Set. Match.

    And that’s why you pray every night that he doesn’t run.

    Huckabee has won 14 of the 33 states plus tied for 1st in one (IL, AK, KY, VA, MO, IA, PA, FL, TX, NC, WV, NE, GA, TN, tied in NJ) and 2nd place in 8 states plus tied for 2nd in 1 (CT, MT, OH, WI, MI, SC, AZ, NM, tied for 2nd in CO) – giving him 1st or 2nd place wins in 9 Southern states, 7 Midwestern states, 5 Western states and 3 Northeastern states.

    Romney has won 9 of the 33 states plus tied for 1st in one.

  156. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    Byw = Btw ;)

  157. Craig for Huck in 2012 Says:

    “That’s why it’s MassCare, and not RomneyCare.” – Dave

    ===

    Dead wrong. It’s because RomneyCare is an albatross around his neck.

  158. hamaca Says:

    I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head in any camp who traffics more in distortions, spin, rumors, fabrications and untruths than Vote for Truth.

    “And that’s why you pray every night that he doesn’t run.” I hope he and the others run–would be good to gain more perspectives on issues.

  159. Jerald Says:

    #157…hamaca

    The level of hystria against Romney is really starting to rise for some Huckabee and a few Palin supporters.

    I guess the fear is starting to set in.

    I think their fear is premature–Romney has a lot of work to do if he even wants to get close to the nomination, but I guess they are feeling the heat from Romney on one side and the second tier candidates on the other.

    I don’t understand their need to demonize Romney, but that is neither here nor there.

    Anyway, the Romney Derangement Syndrome seems to be spreading among some hard core posters here and on other blogs. As Doug of NY puts it, that’s a sign they think Romney is a challenge to their preferred candidate…

  160. TEX Says:

    Romney is in good position and he’s a good
    man.Glad to see him run,hope he gives the
    best he’s got.

    As Sarah Palin said:”If I run,I’m in it to
    win it”.I’m sure Mitt feels the same.

    In few months the campaign will start.
    Let the best woman or man win.

  161. Fredrick Says:

    So Nevada is worthless because Huckabee is not competitive there? Sorry, Craig, but you really are delusional. Yeah, a state is only worthwhile if your idol is competitive. Whatever. Nevada was only recently made an early state. Last time the caucus was held the same day at SC, so the state’s impact was shadowed by the SC hoopla. However, it was enough to keep Romney well in the game going into FL.

    Next year however, Nevada will come before SC and Romney will win BIG there, right after winning BIG in NH. That will propel him nicely in SC where he will receive endorsements from Haley, DeMint and Graham. He may not finish first, but after two BIG wins in a row, a second place finish will be enough to take him into Super Tuesday winning lots of BIG states, not the small flyover states you keep touting to believe Huck is going to win the nomination.

  162. MPC Says:

    Nevada is only worthwhile if someone knocks off Romney.

    Any state where Mormons can flood the primaries and caucuses means nothing, its like Huckabee winning Alabama.

  163. MPC Says:

    “Anyway, the Romney Derangement Syndrome seems to be spreading among some hard core posters here and on other blogs. ”

    It is usually in proportion with how much his devotees are pushing him.

    I still don’t care much for him, he’s always been the most slogan driven politician in existence (but Newt and Huckabee keep it close). I’d rather have someone that believes what he is saying.

    I’m voting in 2012 entirely with an eye to shake up the system as much as possible. That’s my goal. So I’m not even going to think about people that won’t.

  164. David Shedlock Says:

    “Do you really think the public will buy it?…he will look both opportunistic and petty.”

    I don’t think the public even pays much attention until after Thanksgiving. If you took a poll in January of 2008, less than 10% of the caucus/primary voting public could have told you when the candidates got in the race. You’re making it up.

  165. Jerald Says:

    MPC, I respect you and your vigor of youth, which is an important asset.
    However, one thing that comes with age is that you learn that far more gets accomplished over time if you are a little patient, are willing to take the time to win others over, and keep at it.

    In a democracy, upheavals usually cause as many problems as they solve and are subject to a backlash.

    Achieving a shift in the fundamentals is more lasting and productive.
    That’s what made Reagan a succes. And he did it by winning people over by changing their perspective……not by turning the world upside down…

  166. RUBIOZONE Says:

    Guys, do republicans really need to waste time and effort discussing such BS issues as this?? Huckabee would support Romney and vice versa.

  167. John Galt Says:

    This is just embarrassing for Huck. Hopefully its not true.

    One thing that always gets old with romney huck debates is the mormon issue. can we just let it go already.

  168. John Galt Says:

    Huck seems to have disdain for anybody that crosses him or stands in the way of his own ego. He is surely the most small-minded and vindictive of the bunch. He takes everything personal. It is what turned me off to him the first go around. Well that and his love for using government as a solution to so many things.

  169. David Shedlock Says:

    “is the mormon issue. can we just let it go ”

    I think we had until YOU brought it up.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Site Meter

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main