December 21, 2007


At this point Mike Huckabee has distanced himself from his own belief that illegal immigrants should be entitled to pay instate tuition as well as distancing himself from his own disbelief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The other day Huckabee raced to assure Larry King, of all people, that his own disbelief in evolution would in no way change or effect his public policy if elected president.

Today Huckabee, in response to Condi Rice's ardent defense of Bush foreign policy, is essentially backtracking on his comments about the Bush administration's "bunker mentality" as he called it. He's parsing, dodging, and weaving even suggesting that he was not responsible for writing his own commentary which appeared in the most recent issue of "Foreign Affairs Journal".

Huckabee is man who seems to come out proudly and say the wrong thing and when pressed on it, rather than admit he was wrong, he prefers to backtrack and/or obfuscate. "Did she actually read the article?", he said today in an obvious attempt to muddle the issue by suggesting that his criticism of the Bush Administration has been some how misinterpreted or taken out of context. No Mr. Huckabee, nice try though. We all knew what you meant. We've heard the exact same refrain countless times from your leftie brethren and other agenda driven critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

I'd have more respect for Hackabee if he just flopped and said," I was misinformed or mistaken and I'm sorry, I was wrong." Instead we have this bad Bill Clinton impersonation of parsing the truth. "My comments were taken out of context." Yeah... sure they were.


commentator 1 said...

Are you on Huckabee’s case because this is a serious issue or just because he’s taken the lead away from your candidate (who BTW scares me a lot, he comes across as a very polished politician who stands for nothing other than his own ego, perhaps he should explore a career on television)?
What do you see in him, is it his perosnality you are attracted to, or is it just that there are a lack of leaders who support what you believe in?

Jaz said...

As I've detailed on many occasions, Romney is clearly the cream of a pretty decent crop of Republican candidates. Huckabee is a charlatan and a Republican in name only.

Romney is guy you send in to reduce wasteful spending primarily. You put him in charge of an operation and he makes the sometimes difficult decisions necessary in order to streamline and make things more efficient. I believe that the federal government and therefore the American people would greatly benefit from improved efficiency and less wasteful spending.

I agree with all of his positions on the issues and he is a man who seems to command sufficient respect from those who works underneath and around him.

It's truly sad if a guy like Romney scares you. I guess you're the type of person who is more scared of Romney than you are of the homicidal maniacal terrorists who would love nothing better than to behead every last American citizen.

young_activist said...

Wasteful spending is a problem, however it accounts for only about 10% of the budget deficit. First off, a lot of it is a Congressional issue (i.e: pork) that has nothing to do with the presidency and secondly wasteful spending is only one of many issues facing the country. One strength doesn't compensate for many flaws.

Jaz said...

If you imagine that congressional spending has nothing to do with the presidency than you apparently have not heard of the word 'veto'.

Romney is a big fan of the veto. He has no problem exercising his veto power whenever a given spending bill is, to his way of thinking, wasteful.

That is one of the reasons he was elected governor in the predominantly Democratic state of Massachusetts. Even Massachusetts Democrats were smart enough to understand that you need a conservative executive with the ability to veto to offset the countless handouts and entitlement programs that Democratic legislators come up with over and over again.

young_activist said...

A President would never win a row with Congress over pork unless there was considerable public interest and I just don't foresee that. Defense of pork is about the only think that has both parties moving in lock step. A veto of pork alone would be overridden easily.

Kent said...

I don't think there's any question that Rudy or Mitt would be more fiscally responsible than President Bush has been.

As it turns out, Bush is a social Liberal, except on abortion, which Young Activist likes.

Jaz said...

Yet he probably sees Bush as the anti-Christ and and Bin Laden as a misunderstood revolutionary.

young_activist said...

You have avey distorted understanding of liberalism.