Poll: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin or Pawlenty?

Huck, Newt, Sarah & T-Paw

Huck, Newt, Sarah & T-Paw

Solely for human interest I place this hypothetical situation before you: Romney does not run in 2012. There are four candidates who have composed formal campaigns to win the GOP nomination – Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, and Pawlenty. You are standing in the booth, ballot in hand. Who do you cast it for? Sorry no write-ins here. (Of course this poll is aimed at Romney supporters, but if you are not among them feel free to vote up your candidate.)

[poll id="3"]

If you care to explain who you cast your vote for and why, please do so in the comments. Civility is required.

(BTW- I chose these four because they are in my opinion the most likely to run in 2012, though I don’t believe two of the above are actually going to do so. Can you guess which ones I’m thinking of?)

~Nate G.

Nate owns and manages a small souvenir manufacturing business. He and his wife of 12 years have 2 children. Nate has been blogging for Mitt Romney since late 2006 and is co-founder and editor of MittRomneyCentral.com.
View Posts | View Profile

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ YouTube 

Tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

316 Responses to Poll: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin or Pawlenty?

  1. di says:

    NEWT: He is VERY smart and experienced. Good talker.Likeable. But I am asking people to look at Thaddeus McCotter

  2. di says:

    NEWT: He is VERY smart and experienced. Good talker.Likeable. But I am asking people to look at Thaddeus McCotter

  3. I could never see myself voting for Mike Huckabee. Apart from his support for the FairTax, which I do not support, and his skewed view of the situation in the Middle East, particularly as pertains to Israeli/Palestinian concerns, I find him to be a generally … not-likeable person. His conduct during the primaries and caucuses was, in my opinion, reprehensible.

    Newt Gingrich is an intelligent, ideas-oriented man, and he’s clearly a leader; but his hypocrisy in condemning President Clinton for his affairs while carrying on his own makes him less credible in my view. I see him more as the conservative counterpart to Al Gore, more valuable in the private sector than he could be in public office.

    Sarah Palin is an exciting woman, and Was an exciting candidate; but whether her slip-ups were of her own doing or the confluence of being thrust into a hostile media environment and whirlwind national campaign before she was ready, I cannot get over the fact that she left the governorship of Alaska before she had even completed one full term. All her pluses considered, they cannot overcome that moment when I heard she was resigning and said to myself, “she’s not a leader; not a strong one, anyway”. I hope she continues to stand for conservative principles and excite people, especially women, to live by their convictions; but I can’t see myself voting for her as president.

    Tim Pawlenty doesn’t have any strength that his opponents don’t have; but as little as I know about him, I can’t think of a reason to Not vote for him. Maybe more time in the national spotlight will give me a reason, but right now, of these four, he would be my pick.

  4. I could never see myself voting for Mike Huckabee. Apart from his support for the FairTax, which I do not support, and his skewed view of the situation in the Middle East, particularly as pertains to Israeli/Palestinian concerns, I find him to be a generally … not-likeable person. His conduct during the primaries and caucuses was, in my opinion, reprehensible.

    Newt Gingrich is an intelligent, ideas-oriented man, and he’s clearly a leader; but his hypocrisy in condemning President Clinton for his affairs while carrying on his own makes him less credible in my view. I see him more as the conservative counterpart to Al Gore, more valuable in the private sector than he could be in public office.

    Sarah Palin is an exciting woman, and Was an exciting candidate; but whether her slip-ups were of her own doing or the confluence of being thrust into a hostile media environment and whirlwind national campaign before she was ready, I cannot get over the fact that she left the governorship of Alaska before she had even completed one full term. All her pluses considered, they cannot overcome that moment when I heard she was resigning and said to myself, “she’s not a leader; not a strong one, anyway”. I hope she continues to stand for conservative principles and excite people, especially women, to live by their convictions; but I can’t see myself voting for her as president.

    Tim Pawlenty doesn’t have any strength that his opponents don’t have; but as little as I know about him, I can’t think of a reason to Not vote for him. Maybe more time in the national spotlight will give me a reason, but right now, of these four, he would be my pick.

  5. Amanda says:

    Governor Huckabee is my pick for 2012! He is winning the polls (some by a landslide) as the frontrunner for the GOP race in 2012. Gov. Huckabee is an honest, descent man with great morals and values, and he is for small gov’t, family, and the fairtax! He cares about the people… he would be someone who would work for the people! He would NOT be one of these politicians who think that we work for them! I look forward to President Huckabee!

  6. Amanda says:

    Governor Huckabee is my pick for 2012! He is winning the polls (some by a landslide) as the frontrunner for the GOP race in 2012. Gov. Huckabee is an honest, descent man with great morals and values, and he is for small gov’t, family, and the fairtax! He cares about the people… he would be someone who would work for the people! He would NOT be one of these politicians who think that we work for them! I look forward to President Huckabee!

  7. t says:

    Well, I actually don’t remember much about Gingrich…and Palin is cool, but not the sharpest tool in the shed….and I don’t know much about Pawlenty.

    As for Mike Huckabee, based on his behavior in the 2008 election, I don’t believe he could take the oath of office with any integrity at all. If it weren’t for THAT, he would have been my top choice of the 4 listed above.

  8. t says:

    Well, I actually don’t remember much about Gingrich…and Palin is cool, but not the sharpest tool in the shed….and I don’t know much about Pawlenty.

    As for Mike Huckabee, based on his behavior in the 2008 election, I don’t believe he could take the oath of office with any integrity at all. If it weren’t for THAT, he would have been my top choice of the 4 listed above.

  9. t says:

    I believe that he is fully aware that he works for the people, especially after everything that has been happening this year….but he’s also the guy that threw Mitt under the bus and endorsed the HORRIBLE John McCain….and that’s why Obama is destroying this country even as we speak.

    I’m not angry, but I don’t feel the urgent need to reward him either. He should stay on Fox and play his bass w/Lynyrd Skynyrd : ).
    @Amanda

  10. t says:

    I believe that he is fully aware that he works for the people, especially after everything that has been happening this year….but he’s also the guy that threw Mitt under the bus and endorsed the HORRIBLE John McCain….and that’s why Obama is destroying this country even as we speak.

    I’m not angry, but I don’t feel the urgent need to reward him either. He should stay on Fox and play his bass w/Lynyrd Skynyrd : ).
    @Amanda

  11. Chris says:

    Huck and Palin off myliste. NEVER will i vote for either. (for different reasons). newt… too much baggage, but he at least has something the other 3 don’t: original thoughts.

  12. Chris says:

    Huck and Palin off myliste. NEVER will i vote for either. (for different reasons). newt… too much baggage, but he at least has something the other 3 don’t: original thoughts.

  13. Chris says:

    Amanda, is there another huckabee that’s hiding and we just don’t see him? Honest? Values? cares about people? Fair? That’s not the Huck I know and loath.

  14. Chris says:

    Amanda, is there another huckabee that’s hiding and we just don’t see him? Honest? Values? cares about people? Fair? That’s not the Huck I know and loath.

  15. Amanda says:

    Chris,
    If I were to guess, I’d say you were a Romney fan! :) Look a little harder, and try not to listen to the past media about Gov. Huckabee and Romney’s ads… It’s good to seek the truth! :)

  16. Amanda says:

    Chris,
    If I were to guess, I’d say you were a Romney fan! :) Look a little harder, and try not to listen to the past media about Gov. Huckabee and Romney’s ads… It’s good to seek the truth! :)

  17. Linda says:

    Chris, I don’t know what you base your opinions of Governor Huckabee on, but a finer man never entered politics!! Can you give me some facts that cause you to say you “loath” him? Those are rather strong words for a member of YOUR own party. You ARE a Republican, aren’t you?? Somehow, when it comes down to Huckabee aganst Obama I think you will begin to look at him more favorably.

  18. Linda says:

    Chris, I don’t know what you base your opinions of Governor Huckabee on, but a finer man never entered politics!! Can you give me some facts that cause you to say you “loath” him? Those are rather strong words for a member of YOUR own party. You ARE a Republican, aren’t you?? Somehow, when it comes down to Huckabee aganst Obama I think you will begin to look at him more favorably.

  19. Rick says:

    Newt is an idea man with alot of experience and the author of the contract with America. Although Mitt is my first choice, I would like to see Newt run. Newt will be pretty old by 2012 though. Maybe a Newt-Romney ticket?

  20. Rick says:

    Newt is an idea man with alot of experience and the author of the contract with America. Although Mitt is my first choice, I would like to see Newt run. Newt will be pretty old by 2012 though. Maybe a Newt-Romney ticket?

  21. Luke says:

    I picked Sarah Palin, because I don’t want to be accused of being sexist (joking).

    @Linda, If it comes down to Huckabee vs. Obama, Huck would have my vote.

    @Amanda If it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, would Mitt get your vote?

  22. Luke says:

    I picked Sarah Palin, because I don’t want to be accused of being sexist (joking).

    @Linda, If it comes down to Huckabee vs. Obama, Huck would have my vote.

    @Amanda If it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, would Mitt get your vote?

  23. Amanda says:

    I’m not trying to bash Romney, but I truly don’t understand why the media painted Gov. Romney as a true conservative during the last primary! Romney’s record on gay rights and abortion (Massachussets health care plan: $50 abortions which still exist)… is not conservative. Neither is his record of the economy (raising fees as Gov.), or the socialist healthcare system he put in place are conservative. If one has moral values, he couldn’t stand behind Mitt. I’m just saying…

  24. Amanda says:

    I’m not trying to bash Romney, but I truly don’t understand why the media painted Gov. Romney as a true conservative during the last primary! Romney’s record on gay rights and abortion (Massachussets health care plan: $50 abortions which still exist)… is not conservative. Neither is his record of the economy (raising fees as Gov.), or the socialist healthcare system he put in place are conservative. If one has moral values, he couldn’t stand behind Mitt. I’m just saying…

  25. Nate Gunderson says:

    Thanks for the comments everyone. Just a reminder to keep it civil. I don’t want this to turn into a bash fest. I’ll moderate any comments that are unnecessarily harsh, especially since we have a lot of new visitors.

    I can understand not liking other candidates, but it is possible to convey those sentiments with tact and like an adult. Remember the true opponents here are the liberals.

  26. Nate Gunderson says:

    Thanks for the comments everyone. Just a reminder to keep it civil. I don’t want this to turn into a bash fest. I’ll moderate any comments that are unnecessarily harsh, especially since we have a lot of new visitors.

    I can understand not liking other candidates, but it is possible to convey those sentiments with tact and like an adult. Remember the true opponents here are the liberals.

  27. Amanda says:

    @Luke I vote and stand on principle! If America as a country doesn’t want to hold true to the very principles this country was founded on, so be it… I’m not going to back down… I’m not going to stand behind anything less. If the only two candidates to choose from are Mitt and Obama, I will stand firmly on my word, and I will write in a candidate whom I believe to be steadfast and strong where principle is concerned. Voting for someone who does not have a strong moral stance will get our country nowhere. One is no better than the other if they do not hold dear to the principles this country was founded on!

    Principle matters! Life matters! Those babies deserve LIFE! Not death! I will not stand behind someone that will throw away a life in a heartbeat. That’s coming straight from the heart…may come across offensively… but if it offends… so be it… I’d rather be unpopular, than for a baby to lose its life!

  28. Amanda says:

    @Luke I vote and stand on principle! If America as a country doesn’t want to hold true to the very principles this country was founded on, so be it… I’m not going to back down… I’m not going to stand behind anything less. If the only two candidates to choose from are Mitt and Obama, I will stand firmly on my word, and I will write in a candidate whom I believe to be steadfast and strong where principle is concerned. Voting for someone who does not have a strong moral stance will get our country nowhere. One is no better than the other if they do not hold dear to the principles this country was founded on!

    Principle matters! Life matters! Those babies deserve LIFE! Not death! I will not stand behind someone that will throw away a life in a heartbeat. That’s coming straight from the heart…may come across offensively… but if it offends… so be it… I’d rather be unpopular, than for a baby to lose its life!

  29. Nate Gunderson says:

    Now Amanda, I take that personally when you say I don’t have moral values for backing Mitt. In fact that is utterly insulting. What do you know about my morals and values? That is the first and number one reason I support Romney.

    The fact is that you believe an entirely different set of facts in regards to Romney. You believe you’re right. I believe I’m right. You have to accept the fact the not everyone sees things the way you do.

    I can and have disputed your claims against Mitt many times before. That’s fine to state you think he’s not right guy, but there is no need to paint millions of people who supported Mitt as without values. I have as strong feelings towards Huckabee, but I chose to keep them to myself because I found repeatedly that it does no good for Romney, nor for the party in general.

  30. Nate Gunderson says:

    Now Amanda, I take that personally when you say I don’t have moral values for backing Mitt. In fact that is utterly insulting. What do you know about my morals and values? That is the first and number one reason I support Romney.

    The fact is that you believe an entirely different set of facts in regards to Romney. You believe you’re right. I believe I’m right. You have to accept the fact the not everyone sees things the way you do.

    I can and have disputed your claims against Mitt many times before. That’s fine to state you think he’s not right guy, but there is no need to paint millions of people who supported Mitt as without values. I have as strong feelings towards Huckabee, but I chose to keep them to myself because I found repeatedly that it does no good for Romney, nor for the party in general.

  31. Nate Gunderson says:

    @Amanda
    BTW – You are absolutely incorrect when you attribute $50 abortions to Romney. Take your own advise and look for truth. The answers are there. Just make sure your sole source is not Huck’s Army or Gregg Jackson. I respect Huck’s Army greatly, but I don’t think they have the facts right in this case. As for Jackson, I don’t respect him so much.

  32. Nate Gunderson says:

    @Amanda
    BTW – You are absolutely incorrect when you attribute $50 abortions to Romney. Take your own advise and look for truth. The answers are there. Just make sure your sole source is not Huck’s Army or Gregg Jackson. I respect Huck’s Army greatly, but I don’t think they have the facts right in this case. As for Jackson, I don’t respect him so much.

  33. Courtney says:

    @t

    Not sure if you support Romney, but he also endorsed McCain.

  34. Courtney says:

    @t

    Not sure if you support Romney, but he also endorsed McCain.

  35. Courtney says:

    I voted for Gov. Huckabee. He is the person who is most in line with my views. He has the executive experience (10 years) to lead this country.

  36. Courtney says:

    I voted for Gov. Huckabee. He is the person who is most in line with my views. He has the executive experience (10 years) to lead this country.

  37. Nate Gunderson says:

    Amanda- You can let Polly know that I have no intention of using your email addresses for anything. You have my word on that. There is no ulterior motive here. Just have a friendly discussion is all. Yes, you may even use a fake email address if you wish.

  38. Nate Gunderson says:

    Amanda- You can let Polly know that I have no intention of using your email addresses for anything. You have my word on that. There is no ulterior motive here. Just have a friendly discussion is all. Yes, you may even use a fake email address if you wish.

  39. Amanda says:

    Nate, I’m not bashing. I’m stating what I believe, and was responding to Luke’s question. As you do, I have a right to beliefs, opinions, and thoughts. :) As a Chrisitian, I believe the Holy Written Word of God to be the truth! I also believe that we, as Christians, should abide by His word. Unfortunately, the gov’t involves itself when it comes to Biblical principles such as life, marriage, family. It forces those of us who do believe…to get involved and stand up for those that do hold to Biblical principles such as life and marriage, and stand against those that do not.

    I’m not sure what you base your morals from. If they are not from the Bible, than I can understand why you would disagree with me, but if you do claim to be a Christian, and you do claim to believe, then how can you back someone that does not abide by those principles (life, traditional marriage)? Just very curious. I’m not trying to bash you. I’m really trying to be both civil and honest! I’m sorry if honesty hurts.

    I don’t recall debating or discussing with you before. It’s possible… maybe we have crossed paths, maybe not.

    I don’t believe in bashing… and that’s not my aim here. I’m just trying to reason with Romney supporters… I just don’t get their reasoning behind their support (and that’s to those that claim to be Christian conservatives). Have a nice night!

  40. Amanda says:

    Nate, I’m not bashing. I’m stating what I believe, and was responding to Luke’s question. As you do, I have a right to beliefs, opinions, and thoughts. :) As a Chrisitian, I believe the Holy Written Word of God to be the truth! I also believe that we, as Christians, should abide by His word. Unfortunately, the gov’t involves itself when it comes to Biblical principles such as life, marriage, family. It forces those of us who do believe…to get involved and stand up for those that do hold to Biblical principles such as life and marriage, and stand against those that do not.

    I’m not sure what you base your morals from. If they are not from the Bible, than I can understand why you would disagree with me, but if you do claim to be a Christian, and you do claim to believe, then how can you back someone that does not abide by those principles (life, traditional marriage)? Just very curious. I’m not trying to bash you. I’m really trying to be both civil and honest! I’m sorry if honesty hurts.

    I don’t recall debating or discussing with you before. It’s possible… maybe we have crossed paths, maybe not.

    I don’t believe in bashing… and that’s not my aim here. I’m just trying to reason with Romney supporters… I just don’t get their reasoning behind their support (and that’s to those that claim to be Christian conservatives). Have a nice night!

  41. Amanda says:

    I see you visited Huck’s Army! :)

  42. Amanda – I read HA daily. I have a few accounts there. I even comment often. I avoid article on Mitt so I don’t get kicked out again. I know well who you are.

    I do claim to be Christian. I feel that I live a Christian life. I am first most a Social Conservative. I don’t subscribe to the same set of facts that you do in regards to Romney. And I’m not alone. I believe Romney to be fully in right concerning life and marriage etc. I can’t say that he always has been, but then again neither was Reagan, and look what a fine person he turned out to be.

  43. Amanda – I read HA daily. I have a few accounts there. I even comment often. I avoid article on Mitt so I don’t get kicked out again. I know well who you are.

    I do claim to be Christian. I feel that I live a Christian life. I am first most a Social Conservative. I don’t subscribe to the same set of facts that you do in regards to Romney. And I’m not alone. I believe Romney to be fully in right concerning life and marriage etc. I can’t say that he always has been, but then again neither was Reagan, and look what a fine person he turned out to be.

  44. Amanda says:

    Nate, I was going to try to bring in a newspaper article about the $50 abortions, but I’ll just drop it. You have a right to choose, and a right to your opinion. I don’t think either will change the others mind. I’ve stated my beliefs, and I’m sticking to them. Thanks for the poll!

  45. Amanda says:

    Nate, I was going to try to bring in a newspaper article about the $50 abortions, but I’ll just drop it. You have a right to choose, and a right to your opinion. I don’t think either will change the others mind. I’ve stated my beliefs, and I’m sticking to them. Thanks for the poll!

  46. Amanda says:

    By the way… who is Gregg Jackson? I sincerely do not know whom you are referring to!

  47. Dan says:

    Whatever, whoever … better be smart as hell about economics and not just throw out a bunch of platitudes.

  48. Lynn says:

    I think Huckabee has the best shot at winning against Obama. I hope Republicans have enough sense to vote for him in the primary. Huckabee can carry the base of the party and also appeals to the independents because he makes a lot of sense when he discusses any issue. I know a lot of dems who say they really like him. He’d also pound Obama in a debate!

  49. Lynn says:

    I think Huckabee has the best shot at winning against Obama. I hope Republicans have enough sense to vote for him in the primary. Huckabee can carry the base of the party and also appeals to the independents because he makes a lot of sense when he discusses any issue. I know a lot of dems who say they really like him. He’d also pound Obama in a debate!

  50. QuoVadisAnima says:

    Hi Nate! Do you live in NJ, by any chance?
    While I am another Huckabee fan, I would pick him out of that lot anyway by process of elimination.

    I’m strongly suspecting that the GOP is going to largely back Pawlenty this time out as long as he shows adequate fund-raising abilities. But that may well be the kiss of death for T-Paw. Many of us are disgusted with the party leadership & looking for a sea change in the GOP. T-Paw looks fairly good, but he is not a charismatic speaker. Put him up against the smooth-talking Obama & the contrast will be rather stark. People will have to be reeeally unhappy with Obama for it not to be a factor in our American Idol age.

    Regardless of how one feels about Romney, you have to be honest & recognize that Mass-care is an albatross — & Romney couldn’t overcome his unfavorables even back when healthcare wasn’t an issue. Now that healthcare is major & corporate businessmen are even more evil to the general public than they were before, he isn’t going to sell.

    I admire much that Gingrich has done & has to say, but he is too old & has a whole lot of baggage that I doubt he could overcome.

    I believe Palin is not likely to run (if she’s smart) because she already had a tough row to hoe before she resigned. She would do more damage to the conservative cause than she would help because she would be dividing the base (& goodness knows, we have too much division already).

    Our country desperately needs a leader who is capable of bringing Americans back together. Someone who is capable of being faithful to conservative principles without offending & alienating those who are not. Of all those currently under scrutiny, I am convinced that Huckabee is the one most capable of doing that.

  51. QuoVadisAnima says:

    Hi Nate! Do you live in NJ, by any chance?
    While I am another Huckabee fan, I would pick him out of that lot anyway by process of elimination.

    I’m strongly suspecting that the GOP is going to largely back Pawlenty this time out as long as he shows adequate fund-raising abilities. But that may well be the kiss of death for T-Paw. Many of us are disgusted with the party leadership & looking for a sea change in the GOP. T-Paw looks fairly good, but he is not a charismatic speaker. Put him up against the smooth-talking Obama & the contrast will be rather stark. People will have to be reeeally unhappy with Obama for it not to be a factor in our American Idol age.

    Regardless of how one feels about Romney, you have to be honest & recognize that Mass-care is an albatross — & Romney couldn’t overcome his unfavorables even back when healthcare wasn’t an issue. Now that healthcare is major & corporate businessmen are even more evil to the general public than they were before, he isn’t going to sell.

    I admire much that Gingrich has done & has to say, but he is too old & has a whole lot of baggage that I doubt he could overcome.

    I believe Palin is not likely to run (if she’s smart) because she already had a tough row to hoe before she resigned. She would do more damage to the conservative cause than she would help because she would be dividing the base (& goodness knows, we have too much division already).

    Our country desperately needs a leader who is capable of bringing Americans back together. Someone who is capable of being faithful to conservative principles without offending & alienating those who are not. Of all those currently under scrutiny, I am convinced that Huckabee is the one most capable of doing that.

  52. Amanda says:

    @Dan
    Have you checked out http://www.huckpac.com lately? How about http://www.balancecutsave.com Balance the Budget, Cut wasteful spending, Save American families!

    Gov. Huckabee also has a lot of common sense ideas as far as the economy goes! Listen to his Huckabee Show on Fox, his Huckabee Report radio program, read his books, listen to his comments on other shows, and see for yourself!

  53. Amanda says:

    @Dan
    Have you checked out http://www.huckpac.com lately? How about http://www.balancecutsave.com Balance the Budget, Cut wasteful spending, Save American families!

    Gov. Huckabee also has a lot of common sense ideas as far as the economy goes! Listen to his Huckabee Show on Fox, his Huckabee Report radio program, read his books, listen to his comments on other shows, and see for yourself!

  54. Dan says:

    How can Romney be blamed for all of the failures of health care in mass. when so much was changed after he left and when his vetoes were over-ruled?

  55. Dan says:

    How can Romney be blamed for all of the failures of health care in mass. when so much was changed after he left and when his vetoes were over-ruled?

  56. Jed Merrill says:

    Mitt 2012. No one else can deal with the economic situation we are heading into, and I know there are a LOT of Independents and even Democrats who will vote for him–far more than for the other candidates mentioned.

    Obama is a disaster. He was the worst possible pick, in spite of his historical significance as our first black President.

    We need a candidate who will make sure Obama goes from making history in 2008 to being history in 2012. That candidate is Mitt Romney.

    If I had a second pick? Of those mentioned, Pawlenty is more likely to beat Obama (Huckabee has little chance, and may play spoiler for the GOP as he did in 2008), but Palin would be my preference for an actual President, besides Romney. Both she and Romney would handle putting aside Washington’s current corruption well. Even though the economy is at its worst point in 26 years, Americans still consider corruption the #1 issue in Washington, and perhaps the cause of our economic meltdown that has been so aggravated by Obama, Pelosi, and Co.

  57. Jed Merrill says:

    Mitt 2012. No one else can deal with the economic situation we are heading into, and I know there are a LOT of Independents and even Democrats who will vote for him–far more than for the other candidates mentioned.

    Obama is a disaster. He was the worst possible pick, in spite of his historical significance as our first black President.

    We need a candidate who will make sure Obama goes from making history in 2008 to being history in 2012. That candidate is Mitt Romney.

    If I had a second pick? Of those mentioned, Pawlenty is more likely to beat Obama (Huckabee has little chance, and may play spoiler for the GOP as he did in 2008), but Palin would be my preference for an actual President, besides Romney. Both she and Romney would handle putting aside Washington’s current corruption well. Even though the economy is at its worst point in 26 years, Americans still consider corruption the #1 issue in Washington, and perhaps the cause of our economic meltdown that has been so aggravated by Obama, Pelosi, and Co.

  58. Amanda says:

    Yes, the economy is very important…

    Just a thought… last time folks voted in the primary, they voted “electability” and “economy” from what I recall. Some voted principle.

    If “Christians” put God first by voting for someone who would abide by his principles, God would most definitely take care of us (economy included). He blesses nations that stand for HIM! That’s a biblical principle, and it’s hard for people to grasp, it seems! We would be so much better off if we trusted in HIM!

    Gov. Huckabee would be the perfect choice because of his strong stance for principle/values… and for common sense ideas and small gov’t. If we stood for someone like Gov. Huckabee, we would be prospering as a nation! I truly believe that!

  59. Amanda says:

    Yes, the economy is very important…

    Just a thought… last time folks voted in the primary, they voted “electability” and “economy” from what I recall. Some voted principle.

    If “Christians” put God first by voting for someone who would abide by his principles, God would most definitely take care of us (economy included). He blesses nations that stand for HIM! That’s a biblical principle, and it’s hard for people to grasp, it seems! We would be so much better off if we trusted in HIM!

    Gov. Huckabee would be the perfect choice because of his strong stance for principle/values… and for common sense ideas and small gov’t. If we stood for someone like Gov. Huckabee, we would be prospering as a nation! I truly believe that!

  60. Luke says:

    I think Mitt is right on the money when it comes to principle/values!

    http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/american-culture-and-values/

  61. Luke says:

    I think Mitt is right on the money when it comes to principle/values!

    http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/american-culture-and-values/

  62. Jed Merrill says:

    For those mentioning $50 abortions in the same sentence as Romney, Mitt did not support them and they are not mentioned in the Massachusetts health care bill. Mitt had opportunities to sign pro-abortion legislation and never would.

    The health care bill, even though it has his name on it, was a bipartisan affair. He is justifiably proud of its success in reaching its stated goal of insuring 97% of Massachusetts residents for only 1.2% of the state budget. The best parts of it were his ideas, and would have kept it deficit neutral. Unfortunately, nothing is safe from liberals in Massachusetts…

    If Massachusetts is going bankrupt, it has more to do with general liberal spending, as in California, than on health care. (For that matter, they were already pretty much bankrupt when he got there, and he helped bail them out, balancing the budget for the first time in how long?)

    Mitt is currently the most popular politician in Massachusetts, following Kennedy’s death, in spite of turning (or starting out) right on many issues and standing for them while in office. That is impressive in a Dem state. He has nearly ten times the popularity of the current Democratic governor or of John Kerry, according to a poll published by Politico at the time of Kennedy’s death!

  63. Jed Merrill says:

    For those mentioning $50 abortions in the same sentence as Romney, Mitt did not support them and they are not mentioned in the Massachusetts health care bill. Mitt had opportunities to sign pro-abortion legislation and never would.

    The health care bill, even though it has his name on it, was a bipartisan affair. He is justifiably proud of its success in reaching its stated goal of insuring 97% of Massachusetts residents for only 1.2% of the state budget. The best parts of it were his ideas, and would have kept it deficit neutral. Unfortunately, nothing is safe from liberals in Massachusetts…

    If Massachusetts is going bankrupt, it has more to do with general liberal spending, as in California, than on health care. (For that matter, they were already pretty much bankrupt when he got there, and he helped bail them out, balancing the budget for the first time in how long?)

    Mitt is currently the most popular politician in Massachusetts, following Kennedy’s death, in spite of turning (or starting out) right on many issues and standing for them while in office. That is impressive in a Dem state. He has nearly ten times the popularity of the current Democratic governor or of John Kerry, according to a poll published by Politico at the time of Kennedy’s death!

  64. Matthew says:

    On the record, Mitt Romney is going to run unless he gets sick or something. In a Republican primary, it would be foolish to vote for Palin or Gingrich because they are way to polarizing for moderates and independents. Pawlenty and Huckabee both seem roughly the same in how conservative they are. It depends on who would poll better. I’d vote for any of them in a general election.

  65. Matthew says:

    On the record, Mitt Romney is going to run unless he gets sick or something. In a Republican primary, it would be foolish to vote for Palin or Gingrich because they are way to polarizing for moderates and independents. Pawlenty and Huckabee both seem roughly the same in how conservative they are. It depends on who would poll better. I’d vote for any of them in a general election.

  66. QuoVadisAnima says:

    What kind of conservative could even come up with Mass-care in the first place? Especially one who is alleged to be some kind of economic wunderkind? (Being a successful businessman does not make you an economic genius – it just makes you good at your particular business niche like Bill Gates or Sam Walton.)@Dan

  67. QuoVadisAnima says:

    What kind of conservative could even come up with Mass-care in the first place? Especially one who is alleged to be some kind of economic wunderkind? (Being a successful businessman does not make you an economic genius – it just makes you good at your particular business niche like Bill Gates or Sam Walton.)@Dan

  68. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    That might be true if Mitt just ran a single business, but his business was to take failing companies of all kinds and turn them around. That’s what made him so good at turning around the Olympics, Massachusetts, and hopefully soon America!

    http://mittromneycentral.com/about-mitt/

  69. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    That might be true if Mitt just ran a single business, but his business was to take failing companies of all kinds and turn them around. That’s what made him so good at turning around the Olympics, Massachusetts, and hopefully soon America!

    http://mittromneycentral.com/about-mitt/

  70. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    You still fail to answer the all important question of what kind of conservative could even come up with Mass-care in the first place? Especially one who is alleged to be some kind of economic wunderkind?

    Please explain to me how Mitt’s ability to take a failing company apart & sell off the pieces will help America’s economy?
    Please explain to me how Mitt’s being able to effectively boss around those under him is going to help him deal with an uncooperative Congress who doesn’t need him for their paycheck?
    Please explain to me how all these vaunted economic skills turned Massachusetts economy around when he was governor & why he did not run for a 2nd term there (hint: it had to do with polls in MA rather than the presidential primaries)?
    And finally, please explain to me what kind of economic wizard with solid conservative principles would back TARP? Giving a blank check to the Fed is so irresponsibly stupid that only Congress could do it…

  71. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    You still fail to answer the all important question of what kind of conservative could even come up with Mass-care in the first place? Especially one who is alleged to be some kind of economic wunderkind?

    Please explain to me how Mitt’s ability to take a failing company apart & sell off the pieces will help America’s economy?
    Please explain to me how Mitt’s being able to effectively boss around those under him is going to help him deal with an uncooperative Congress who doesn’t need him for their paycheck?
    Please explain to me how all these vaunted economic skills turned Massachusetts economy around when he was governor & why he did not run for a 2nd term there (hint: it had to do with polls in MA rather than the presidential primaries)?
    And finally, please explain to me what kind of economic wizard with solid conservative principles would back TARP? Giving a blank check to the Fed is so irresponsibly stupid that only Congress could do it…

  72. Steve says:

    I wouldvote for Mike Huckabee. He has the most executive experience out of any of the candidates. He also is an amazing speaker. We need an amazing speaker who will not use a teleprompter to go up against Obama. As for the social-issues, America is becomming more pro-life and will need a former pastor after what Obama has done to the country morally. Also, I can not understand why the same GOP leaders are attacking Obama and his healthcare plan and calling is socialist, when they endorsed Romney who basically made Mass. a socialist healthcare state. If Huck wasn’t in the race, I would vote for T-Paw.

  73. Steve says:

    I wouldvote for Mike Huckabee. He has the most executive experience out of any of the candidates. He also is an amazing speaker. We need an amazing speaker who will not use a teleprompter to go up against Obama. As for the social-issues, America is becomming more pro-life and will need a former pastor after what Obama has done to the country morally. Also, I can not understand why the same GOP leaders are attacking Obama and his healthcare plan and calling is socialist, when they endorsed Romney who basically made Mass. a socialist healthcare state. If Huck wasn’t in the race, I would vote for T-Paw.

  74. Nate Gunderson says:

    Thanks Steve. It is interesting to me that as a Huckabee supporter you pick T-Paw second. (BTW- I’m not collecting email addresses. It’s not necessary to use a fake one.) Thank for visiting.

  75. Nate Gunderson says:

    Thanks Steve. It is interesting to me that as a Huckabee supporter you pick T-Paw second. (BTW- I’m not collecting email addresses. It’s not necessary to use a fake one.) Thank for visiting.

  76. Sam says:

    Mike Huckabee all the way.

  77. Sam says:

    Mike Huckabee all the way.

  78. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I’m not from NJ sorry. But I did live in Southern Jersey ten years ago.

    I’m surprised (actually not really, since I’ve heard it many times before) that you use a liberal talking point when talking about Romney’s experience in helping failing companies. It actually shows your lack of understanding how companies and economies work, and that you know very little of Romney’s success of turning around hundreds of companies.

    When a company is failing people most often people need to be laid off. Usually it is a small percentage. Sometimes it’s many. But what happens if the corrective actions are not taken because jobs were protected? Pretty soon the company goes belly-up and guess what, everyone is then out of a job.

    Bain Capitol wasn’t always successful in turning companies around companies and when they couldn’t they had to try recoup their losses. But the net jobs that they saved and created is well into the hundreds of thousands! That is good economy.

    I’ve got more responses but I have to go to a meeting right now.

  79. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I’m not from NJ sorry. But I did live in Southern Jersey ten years ago.

    I’m surprised (actually not really, since I’ve heard it many times before) that you use a liberal talking point when talking about Romney’s experience in helping failing companies. It actually shows your lack of understanding how companies and economies work, and that you know very little of Romney’s success of turning around hundreds of companies.

    When a company is failing people most often people need to be laid off. Usually it is a small percentage. Sometimes it’s many. But what happens if the corrective actions are not taken because jobs were protected? Pretty soon the company goes belly-up and guess what, everyone is then out of a job.

    Bain Capitol wasn’t always successful in turning companies around companies and when they couldn’t they had to try recoup their losses. But the net jobs that they saved and created is well into the hundreds of thousands! That is good economy.

    I’ve got more responses but I have to go to a meeting right now.

  80. Michael says:

    Why anyone could seriously consider voting for Huckabee is beyond me. He’s out of his league.

  81. Michael says:

    Why anyone could seriously consider voting for Huckabee is beyond me. He’s out of his league.

  82. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    97% insured, well within projected costs, high approval rating among citizens, no government take-over… I don’t see what the problem is here? Is the Health Insurance in AR all that glorious after Huck left? http://www.healthinsurancefinders.com/images/ar-pie.jpg …..Nope.

    And AR just may be one of the states that is most at risk: http://commentsfromleftfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/fattest-states-2008-big.gif

    The only economy Huck knows is that working for Fox News pays pretty well and playing killer bass with Lynyrd Skynyrd might pay even better.

  83. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    97% insured, well within projected costs, high approval rating among citizens, no government take-over… I don’t see what the problem is here? Is the Health Insurance in AR all that glorious after Huck left? http://www.healthinsurancefinders.com/images/ar-pie.jpg …..Nope.

    And AR just may be one of the states that is most at risk: http://commentsfromleftfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/fattest-states-2008-big.gif

    The only economy Huck knows is that working for Fox News pays pretty well and playing killer bass with Lynyrd Skynyrd might pay even better.

  84. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Nate, I was discussing Romney’s unfavorables in the general – being a member of the corporate world is definitely not a positive to the average voter, not just the liberals, at this time, regardless of how I personally think about it & that’s what’s going to matter in 2012. Romney’s unfavorables are worse now than they were in 2008 & even a ton of money couldn’t come close to buying him the presidency back then. (and for the guy out there with the tired old saw about Huckabee being a spoiler, the polls clearly showed that it was NOT Huckabee who took votes from Romney – the vast majority of his supporters trusted McCain more than Romney and THAT’s saying a LOT!)

    (Personally, I think the evidence is pretty darned strong that the current GOP leadership favored big business corporations to the detriment of the rest of the economy & believe they made a mockery of Reagan’s “trickle down economics”. Yes, the Dems are far worse to the other extreme – doesn’t mean we should accept the status quo & help them continue to screw small businesses.)

    Meanwhile, regarding Mitt’s business experience – I am still waiting to hear how it translated into something useful while he was governor of MA or how it would help our economy recover if he became president. What were his political accomplishments as governor that I am supposed to be impressed with?

    As for the claim that he couldn’t get things done because MA is so liberal, well Huckabee had his door nailed shut by the Democratic legislature in AR – that’s some major antagonism there – & he still managed to get a lot of bureaucratic house-cleaning done as well as take their multi-million deficit & turn it into a ~$3bn. surplus. All without compromising his conservative principles or values.

  85. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Nate, I was discussing Romney’s unfavorables in the general – being a member of the corporate world is definitely not a positive to the average voter, not just the liberals, at this time, regardless of how I personally think about it & that’s what’s going to matter in 2012. Romney’s unfavorables are worse now than they were in 2008 & even a ton of money couldn’t come close to buying him the presidency back then. (and for the guy out there with the tired old saw about Huckabee being a spoiler, the polls clearly showed that it was NOT Huckabee who took votes from Romney – the vast majority of his supporters trusted McCain more than Romney and THAT’s saying a LOT!)

    (Personally, I think the evidence is pretty darned strong that the current GOP leadership favored big business corporations to the detriment of the rest of the economy & believe they made a mockery of Reagan’s “trickle down economics”. Yes, the Dems are far worse to the other extreme – doesn’t mean we should accept the status quo & help them continue to screw small businesses.)

    Meanwhile, regarding Mitt’s business experience – I am still waiting to hear how it translated into something useful while he was governor of MA or how it would help our economy recover if he became president. What were his political accomplishments as governor that I am supposed to be impressed with?

    As for the claim that he couldn’t get things done because MA is so liberal, well Huckabee had his door nailed shut by the Democratic legislature in AR – that’s some major antagonism there – & he still managed to get a lot of bureaucratic house-cleaning done as well as take their multi-million deficit & turn it into a ~$3bn. surplus. All without compromising his conservative principles or values.

  86. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    With his ‘door nailed shut’ he still managed to sneak $70,000 worth of furnishings that didn’t belong to him in it? ….Impressive.

    http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68c98333-95ea-42e9-a9ce-a901f2a02148

  87. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    With his ‘door nailed shut’ he still managed to sneak $70,000 worth of furnishings that didn’t belong to him in it? ….Impressive.

    http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68c98333-95ea-42e9-a9ce-a901f2a02148

  88. Luke says:

    @Aaronius

    Ooooh, all this time the Hucksters have been talking about ‘not compromising values’… what they really meant was not compromising VALUABLES. Ha ha!

    Mitt 2012!

  89. Luke says:

    @Aaronius

    Ooooh, all this time the Hucksters have been talking about ‘not compromising values’… what they really meant was not compromising VALUABLES. Ha ha!

    Mitt 2012!

  90. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    That’s a political slight of hand – Mass-care has been receiving a *substantial* amount of money from the federal govt. & that is the only reason that it has not sunk the state – YET. It doesn’t take much searching to find that the program has had huge cost overruns that well exceeded the projected expenses.

    And claiming that it is not a govt. program is another verbal shell game like claiming he didn’t raise taxes when in fact he imposed FEES which amount to the same thing (a thief by any other name still picks your wallet).

    If Mass-care is not a govt. program, then who is handling the penalties for their play-or-pay program? And be honest, if Huckabee had been the one to implement a program like this, you would have been screaming about what a socialist liberal he is. No true conservative would defend this program – being forced to use govt. healthcare or pay a fine is offensive to all that we value.

    Meanwhile, Romney’s polling well NOW in MA because the Dems are polling so badly at this time, but the key point is where were Romney’s numbers at the end of his term? Pols always poll better after they have been under the radar for a while because the voter has a notoriously short memory.

    But let’s go ahead & pretend that Romney’s current MA numbers are meaningful – is that really going to have any significant effect on a 2012 run? Not really, because the national polls still show him with high unfavorables, even now when people are trying to forget 2008 – But we did learn from 2008 that the more voters see of him, the less they like him. Why is that going to be better in 2012?

  91. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    That’s a political slight of hand – Mass-care has been receiving a *substantial* amount of money from the federal govt. & that is the only reason that it has not sunk the state – YET. It doesn’t take much searching to find that the program has had huge cost overruns that well exceeded the projected expenses.

    And claiming that it is not a govt. program is another verbal shell game like claiming he didn’t raise taxes when in fact he imposed FEES which amount to the same thing (a thief by any other name still picks your wallet).

    If Mass-care is not a govt. program, then who is handling the penalties for their play-or-pay program? And be honest, if Huckabee had been the one to implement a program like this, you would have been screaming about what a socialist liberal he is. No true conservative would defend this program – being forced to use govt. healthcare or pay a fine is offensive to all that we value.

    Meanwhile, Romney’s polling well NOW in MA because the Dems are polling so badly at this time, but the key point is where were Romney’s numbers at the end of his term? Pols always poll better after they have been under the radar for a while because the voter has a notoriously short memory.

    But let’s go ahead & pretend that Romney’s current MA numbers are meaningful – is that really going to have any significant effect on a 2012 run? Not really, because the national polls still show him with high unfavorables, even now when people are trying to forget 2008 – But we did learn from 2008 that the more voters see of him, the less they like him. Why is that going to be better in 2012?

  92. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Luke
    Isn’t this the kind of garbage that Nate requested we refrain from? Or shall I begin discussing Romney’s career as a poll dancer? ;-)

    Please if you can’t debate substantively, at least don’t stand on the sidelines lobbing spitballs…

  93. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Luke
    Isn’t this the kind of garbage that Nate requested we refrain from? Or shall I begin discussing Romney’s career as a poll dancer? ;-)

    Please if you can’t debate substantively, at least don’t stand on the sidelines lobbing spitballs…

  94. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    You’ve nailed the biggest problem I have with the Huckabee movement – populism. The stick-it-to-the-man attitude. All corporations are evil. Huckabee personified that when he said “People want someone who worked next to them, not the guy who just laid him off.” To me that is an ignorant attitude to have. Capitalism is not the enemy here. People who start and run businesses respectably are at the core of our economy.

    It’s not our job to educate you as to how Romney could help the economy. He knows businesses, how they develop, why some fail, how tax codes and legislation affect them. There is much he can do with his experience. If you really want to know, and I don’t think you do, try reading his book Turnaround.

  95. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    You’ve nailed the biggest problem I have with the Huckabee movement – populism. The stick-it-to-the-man attitude. All corporations are evil. Huckabee personified that when he said “People want someone who worked next to them, not the guy who just laid him off.” To me that is an ignorant attitude to have. Capitalism is not the enemy here. People who start and run businesses respectably are at the core of our economy.

    It’s not our job to educate you as to how Romney could help the economy. He knows businesses, how they develop, why some fail, how tax codes and legislation affect them. There is much he can do with his experience. If you really want to know, and I don’t think you do, try reading his book Turnaround.

  96. Linda says:

    Jed, Governor Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Obama. I don’t know if you are keeping up with him at all, but he is following in the path of Ronald Reagan with his tv show and radio commentary. He is reaching the American people in masses and they are “liking what they hear.” He was recently called “America’s knight in shining armour.” While I will vote for Governor Romney if he is the candiate, he doesn’t ignite excitment within the party. Tim Pawlenty is “dry” and a boring speaker, though certainly better than Obama. I believe these are the only three main contenders for 2012.

  97. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    Favorability ratings: as bad as you say Romney’s are, they are not. His ratings and pollings are very comparable to Huckabee’s right now, and he hasn’t needed a variety show to keep to sustain or boost it. His numbers are actually improved since the campaign as well.

    But, the most important thing to remember is they mean squat right now. Two years can and most likely will change everything.

  98. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    Favorability ratings: as bad as you say Romney’s are, they are not. His ratings and pollings are very comparable to Huckabee’s right now, and he hasn’t needed a variety show to keep to sustain or boost it. His numbers are actually improved since the campaign as well.

    But, the most important thing to remember is they mean squat right now. Two years can and most likely will change everything.

  99. Nate Gunderson says:

    @Linda
    “Jed, Governor Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Obama.”

    I don’t buy that in the slightest and it is merely opinion stated as fact. If a reelection were held today I’d venture to say that any of the GOP candidates could potentially beat Obama. My guess is that Obama will be vulnerable in 2012 and any opponent can will stand a good chance.

    Will Huckabee be the best to go up against him? I don’t think so, but he can beat him.

  100. Nate Gunderson says:

    @Linda
    “Jed, Governor Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Obama.”

    I don’t buy that in the slightest and it is merely opinion stated as fact. If a reelection were held today I’d venture to say that any of the GOP candidates could potentially beat Obama. My guess is that Obama will be vulnerable in 2012 and any opponent can will stand a good chance.

    Will Huckabee be the best to go up against him? I don’t think so, but he can beat him.

  101. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    This is a rather strange response, Nate. Mitt supporters here are the ones who are claiming that we are ignorant as to all of Romney’s talents – which, as I said, I have been unable to find enumerated anywhere – and you respond to that with the claim that it is not your job to educate me?

    This is a novel debating tool. Have you found this to be a very persuasive approach?

    We are told that we need to defend every accusation ever made against Huckabee no matter its source or validity (ie. the furniture thing from the left-leaning AR-Times paper, even though ethics complaints are a traditional weapon of AR similar to the garbage Palin was enduring in AK – you can’t steal furniture that belongs to you. The Huckabees put the governor’s mansion furniture in storage & used the furniture in question. When they left the mansion, they took their furniture with them & put the original mansion furniture back.)

    Whereas Romney’s supporters do not even have to deign to respond to questions that directly apply to his ability as a political executive. Sweet…

  102. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    This is a rather strange response, Nate. Mitt supporters here are the ones who are claiming that we are ignorant as to all of Romney’s talents – which, as I said, I have been unable to find enumerated anywhere – and you respond to that with the claim that it is not your job to educate me?

    This is a novel debating tool. Have you found this to be a very persuasive approach?

    We are told that we need to defend every accusation ever made against Huckabee no matter its source or validity (ie. the furniture thing from the left-leaning AR-Times paper, even though ethics complaints are a traditional weapon of AR similar to the garbage Palin was enduring in AK – you can’t steal furniture that belongs to you. The Huckabees put the governor’s mansion furniture in storage & used the furniture in question. When they left the mansion, they took their furniture with them & put the original mansion furniture back.)

    Whereas Romney’s supporters do not even have to deign to respond to questions that directly apply to his ability as a political executive. Sweet…

  103. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    “Mass-care has been receiving a *substantial* amount of money from the federal govt. & that is the only reason that it has not sunk the state”

    You do realize that this money was coming in before the changes to HC in MA right? You do realize that is was being used by people who showed up at the ER without insurance to get free treatment. Is there something wrong with routing it instead to help get people insured, thereby promoting personal responsibility? You think it would have been wise for them to return the money to the FEDS? Oh yeah, that would go over well with the state. They simply found a better way to apply the money that was already coming in from the federal government.

    The end result is they got system that works much better, with very little net cost to the state taxpayer. That is innovation. It’s not perfect, but it is an improvement.

  104. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    “Mass-care has been receiving a *substantial* amount of money from the federal govt. & that is the only reason that it has not sunk the state”

    You do realize that this money was coming in before the changes to HC in MA right? You do realize that is was being used by people who showed up at the ER without insurance to get free treatment. Is there something wrong with routing it instead to help get people insured, thereby promoting personal responsibility? You think it would have been wise for them to return the money to the FEDS? Oh yeah, that would go over well with the state. They simply found a better way to apply the money that was already coming in from the federal government.

    The end result is they got system that works much better, with very little net cost to the state taxpayer. That is innovation. It’s not perfect, but it is an improvement.

  105. Luke says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    Just playing… I just don’t think that Mike Huckabee holds the patent on values. If Huck fans truly looked at Romney’s values, they would see that they are similar to Huckabee’s.

    http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/american-culture-and-values/

  106. Luke says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    Just playing… I just don’t think that Mike Huckabee holds the patent on values. If Huck fans truly looked at Romney’s values, they would see that they are similar to Huckabee’s.

    http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/american-culture-and-values/

  107. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Oops, forgot the populism line. You misunderstand mel I have nothing against corporatiosn that provide jobs, etc – if you go back & re-read, you will see that I spoke of a detrimental imbalance. There is a reason that the GOP has acquired a reputation as the party of big business.

    Being a principled conservative means that you recognize the value of big business, but not that you support it disproportionately & to the detriment of all the other players in the economy.

    Populism is one of those words whose meaning has been corrupted (just as liberalism used to have an entirely different meaning than it does now) – John Edwards was a populist in the sense that people who make a lot of money do it by stepping on the backs of “the little people” and so the solution is to force the corporations to “give it back” (ie. redistribution).

    Huckabee believes that people should be able to make as much money as they are willing & able – including corporations – he just believes in a reasonably level playing field that allows small businesses to thrive & compete as well. That is solidly in line with traditional conservativism.

  108. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Oops, forgot the populism line. You misunderstand mel I have nothing against corporatiosn that provide jobs, etc – if you go back & re-read, you will see that I spoke of a detrimental imbalance. There is a reason that the GOP has acquired a reputation as the party of big business.

    Being a principled conservative means that you recognize the value of big business, but not that you support it disproportionately & to the detriment of all the other players in the economy.

    Populism is one of those words whose meaning has been corrupted (just as liberalism used to have an entirely different meaning than it does now) – John Edwards was a populist in the sense that people who make a lot of money do it by stepping on the backs of “the little people” and so the solution is to force the corporations to “give it back” (ie. redistribution).

    Huckabee believes that people should be able to make as much money as they are willing & able – including corporations – he just believes in a reasonably level playing field that allows small businesses to thrive & compete as well. That is solidly in line with traditional conservativism.

  109. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I mean to say I’m at work. I don’t have time right now. Information is there and it is abounding. You can find it yourself. Basically, I have very little reason to look it up right now because it has very little ROI for me. You have deaf ears. You will raise the question again and again, even after it has been answered.

    “Have you found this to be a very persuasive approach?” It’s one that I only use one close-minded people. I don’t ever try to persuade ardent Huckabee supporters as yourself because the end result is nothing happens and I waste my time. Now if you really did want to know I would spend the time and look up the links. But the odds of it having any effect on you is 0% percent. So why bother? So I can say that I won a debate? My ego doesn’t require that.

  110. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I mean to say I’m at work. I don’t have time right now. Information is there and it is abounding. You can find it yourself. Basically, I have very little reason to look it up right now because it has very little ROI for me. You have deaf ears. You will raise the question again and again, even after it has been answered.

    “Have you found this to be a very persuasive approach?” It’s one that I only use one close-minded people. I don’t ever try to persuade ardent Huckabee supporters as yourself because the end result is nothing happens and I waste my time. Now if you really did want to know I would spend the time and look up the links. But the odds of it having any effect on you is 0% percent. So why bother? So I can say that I won a debate? My ego doesn’t require that.

  111. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    You are right on all accounts concerning populism, but you can’t deny that Huckabee, and some supporters as well, exploited the stick-it-to-the-man mentality to adversely affect Romney.

    You can’t rightly claim either that Romney is an enemy to small business. He has started, aided, saved more small businesses than anyone can think of. And somehow that is bad. That’s what liberals and some Huckabee supporters believe.

  112. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    You are right on all accounts concerning populism, but you can’t deny that Huckabee, and some supporters as well, exploited the stick-it-to-the-man mentality to adversely affect Romney.

    You can’t rightly claim either that Romney is an enemy to small business. He has started, aided, saved more small businesses than anyone can think of. And somehow that is bad. That’s what liberals and some Huckabee supporters believe.

  113. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Huckabee used politics against Romney that were effective? Outrageous! Doesn’t he know that he’s supposed to just sit back & let his opponents smear his record without fighting back? Or at least only fight back ineffectively! ;-)

    And now you use another tried & true debating technique of responding to questions by maligning your opponent as obstinately closed and lumping “some” supporters (implying those who think like me) with the liberals as an excuse for not condescending to provide answers. Think about it – you have a blog – you are not just talking to pigheaded lil ol’ me.

    Anyway, here is Mitt’s wikipedia profile -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
    Nothing about his friendship with small business, but we all know how unreliable wiki is so we continue to await enlightenment from you or whoever else here might be in the know the answers to these questions about Romney’s abilities.

    And, for the record, no one says that you have to do this while at work – I am leaving for work myself – so I am more than willing to wait until you can do justice to it.

  114. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Huckabee used politics against Romney that were effective? Outrageous! Doesn’t he know that he’s supposed to just sit back & let his opponents smear his record without fighting back? Or at least only fight back ineffectively! ;-)

    And now you use another tried & true debating technique of responding to questions by maligning your opponent as obstinately closed and lumping “some” supporters (implying those who think like me) with the liberals as an excuse for not condescending to provide answers. Think about it – you have a blog – you are not just talking to pigheaded lil ol’ me.

    Anyway, here is Mitt’s wikipedia profile -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
    Nothing about his friendship with small business, but we all know how unreliable wiki is so we continue to await enlightenment from you or whoever else here might be in the know the answers to these questions about Romney’s abilities.

    And, for the record, no one says that you have to do this while at work – I am leaving for work myself – so I am more than willing to wait until you can do justice to it.

  115. VoxPatriota says:

    I don’t think Newt will run. I am not sure if Huck will run either. And anyway, he’s a better talk-show host than he is a politician. Palin will run because everyone expects to her to do so, although I am not sure what she will point to as credentials, other than a memoir and being popular. Hmm, sounds familiar.

    Pawlenty (I voted for in this poll) has the most executive experience of the 4, he brings a blue state into play, and has not yet totally imploded.

    Whoever the GOP nominee is ought to highly consider Paul Ryan for VP.

  116. VoxPatriota says:

    I don’t think Newt will run. I am not sure if Huck will run either. And anyway, he’s a better talk-show host than he is a politician. Palin will run because everyone expects to her to do so, although I am not sure what she will point to as credentials, other than a memoir and being popular. Hmm, sounds familiar.

    Pawlenty (I voted for in this poll) has the most executive experience of the 4, he brings a blue state into play, and has not yet totally imploded.

    Whoever the GOP nominee is ought to highly consider Paul Ryan for VP.

  117. Len Sacks says:

    If all you Romney bashers really believe Masscare is socialism than read the non-partisan Mass. Taxpayers Foundation report. It clearly states it was run well within budget projections, insured about 97% of its residents, and that it actually saved the state lots of money. It was only after Romney left office with an overzealous Democratic state legislature did it run into problems. I’m afraid any reform [even a good one], will always be seen by some as socialism, as if they have been indoctrinated to the status-quo. Again read the report and stop commenting out of ignorance!

  118. Len Sacks says:

    If all you Romney bashers really believe Masscare is socialism than read the non-partisan Mass. Taxpayers Foundation report. It clearly states it was run well within budget projections, insured about 97% of its residents, and that it actually saved the state lots of money. It was only after Romney left office with an overzealous Democratic state legislature did it run into problems. I’m afraid any reform [even a good one], will always be seen by some as socialism, as if they have been indoctrinated to the status-quo. Again read the report and stop commenting out of ignorance!

  119. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    You truly miss the meaning of my words with every comment. Prodding and poking my every word to find fault, keeping up an endless and fruitless debate.

    1 – I’m not saying that Huckabee can’t fight back. My point is the arguments Huck made falsely portray successful business owners as the bad guy because their ill-gotten gains were somehow taken from the work of suffering underlings. Many buy into that mentality and Huckabee exploited that fact, and that is wrong.

    2 – The only reason I used the word “some” is to avoid a harsh over-generalization by saying “all”. I’m actually trying to avoid lumping them all together.

    The fact is that the liberals first used the argument that Romney was an evil big business person, slashing companies and selling off their assets. This is how they campaigned against when he was running for governor. “Some” Huck supporters have picked up this mantra. I have seen them link to liberal sources to make the same argument for them. I’m not saying by any means that Huck supporters are liberal, but “some” in their zealous efforts to promote anything anti-Romney erroneously use the liberal talking points for their argument.

    3 – I am stating that you are obstinate and closed. Not to malign you, but my reason that I offer no response to your inquisitions. I admit there is nothing you could show me the convince me otherwise as well. Unless there are any further developments I am purely in the Romney Camp. I mean, lets be serious – what are the odds that any evidence I give you will convince you. ZERO% Anything I say there is always some other comeback. It’s obvious that we subscribe to a different set of facts. You have sources that you trust and believe, and I have others. I’m willing to accept that fact and not waste my time on pointless argument. The pointless argument I refer to is not this one, but the argument of you trying to convince me that Romney is an evil liberal, or me trying to convince you that Huckabee is not the right person for the job. You notice I’m not even trying to make that argument. I did mention the populism, but only in response to one of your attacks on Romney.

    I have a better idea. Why don’t you promote Huckabee by leaving positive comments about him as several other from HA have done? When I comment at Huckabee blogs I never do so to tell them all why I think Huck is bad, but to defend the slander against Romney. I try to remain civil while I do so also: avoiding accusations and over generalizations, building on common beliefs, respecting other people’s opinion, while stating my opinion purely as my own opinion and not as fact. It’s not that I don’t have strong feelings about Huckabee, but out of respect other people who also have strong feelings for him. Sowing seeds of discord will only hurt our party. I’m trying to overcome that so we can have a more unified party when 2012 rolls around. Should Huck or Mitt win the nomination they will both need the supporters of the other in order to win the general.

    This poll was not meant to turn into a bash fest, just merely human interest. But I understand some just can’t refrain.

  120. Nate Gunderson says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    You truly miss the meaning of my words with every comment. Prodding and poking my every word to find fault, keeping up an endless and fruitless debate.

    1 – I’m not saying that Huckabee can’t fight back. My point is the arguments Huck made falsely portray successful business owners as the bad guy because their ill-gotten gains were somehow taken from the work of suffering underlings. Many buy into that mentality and Huckabee exploited that fact, and that is wrong.

    2 – The only reason I used the word “some” is to avoid a harsh over-generalization by saying “all”. I’m actually trying to avoid lumping them all together.

    The fact is that the liberals first used the argument that Romney was an evil big business person, slashing companies and selling off their assets. This is how they campaigned against when he was running for governor. “Some” Huck supporters have picked up this mantra. I have seen them link to liberal sources to make the same argument for them. I’m not saying by any means that Huck supporters are liberal, but “some” in their zealous efforts to promote anything anti-Romney erroneously use the liberal talking points for their argument.

    3 – I am stating that you are obstinate and closed. Not to malign you, but my reason that I offer no response to your inquisitions. I admit there is nothing you could show me the convince me otherwise as well. Unless there are any further developments I am purely in the Romney Camp. I mean, lets be serious – what are the odds that any evidence I give you will convince you. ZERO% Anything I say there is always some other comeback. It’s obvious that we subscribe to a different set of facts. You have sources that you trust and believe, and I have others. I’m willing to accept that fact and not waste my time on pointless argument. The pointless argument I refer to is not this one, but the argument of you trying to convince me that Romney is an evil liberal, or me trying to convince you that Huckabee is not the right person for the job. You notice I’m not even trying to make that argument. I did mention the populism, but only in response to one of your attacks on Romney.

    I have a better idea. Why don’t you promote Huckabee by leaving positive comments about him as several other from HA have done? When I comment at Huckabee blogs I never do so to tell them all why I think Huck is bad, but to defend the slander against Romney. I try to remain civil while I do so also: avoiding accusations and over generalizations, building on common beliefs, respecting other people’s opinion, while stating my opinion purely as my own opinion and not as fact. It’s not that I don’t have strong feelings about Huckabee, but out of respect other people who also have strong feelings for him. Sowing seeds of discord will only hurt our party. I’m trying to overcome that so we can have a more unified party when 2012 rolls around. Should Huck or Mitt win the nomination they will both need the supporters of the other in order to win the general.

    This poll was not meant to turn into a bash fest, just merely human interest. But I understand some just can’t refrain.

  121. Matt says:

    Palin has the highest integrity of the four – what’s more important? Only Palin has a resume that includes experience campaigning nationwide and fighting corruption in her own party – who else has done that? After four years of Chicago-style corruption, we’ll need a strong conservative to reform Washington, on both sides of the aisle.

    Besides that, SHE’S A MOM! Even Democrats love their mother’s (don’t they?) so, when it comes down to being alone in the voting booth and your choice is that sleezy Progressive marxist from Chicago or that honest Governor from Alaska, they’ll vote for the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY!

    The rest would make good cabinet members – nothing more. Newt would be a great VP – the wise old Speaker who can help Palin navigate Washington. Huckabee could be Secretary of the Treasury – the Fair Tax is a fantastic idea whose time has come. Pawlenty could be …never mind – he’s weak on everything. Jindal could be Secretary of State – the perfect job to set him up to run after Palin’s 2nd term.

  122. Matt says:

    Palin has the highest integrity of the four – what’s more important? Only Palin has a resume that includes experience campaigning nationwide and fighting corruption in her own party – who else has done that? After four years of Chicago-style corruption, we’ll need a strong conservative to reform Washington, on both sides of the aisle.

    Besides that, SHE’S A MOM! Even Democrats love their mother’s (don’t they?) so, when it comes down to being alone in the voting booth and your choice is that sleezy Progressive marxist from Chicago or that honest Governor from Alaska, they’ll vote for the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY!

    The rest would make good cabinet members – nothing more. Newt would be a great VP – the wise old Speaker who can help Palin navigate Washington. Huckabee could be Secretary of the Treasury – the Fair Tax is a fantastic idea whose time has come. Pawlenty could be …never mind – he’s weak on everything. Jindal could be Secretary of State – the perfect job to set him up to run after Palin’s 2nd term.

  123. Aaronius says:

    @Len Sacks

    Amen! Regarding Masscare – read the Mass. Taxpayers Foundation report people…. its all there!

  124. Aaronius says:

    @Len Sacks

    Amen! Regarding Masscare – read the Mass. Taxpayers Foundation report people…. its all there!

  125. Luke says:

    @Matt

    I am voting for Ann Romney then because SHE’S A MOM!

  126. Luke says:

    @Matt

    I am voting for Ann Romney then because SHE’S A MOM!

  127. Claire says:

    None of the above, because NONE of them could beat Obama — and isn’t that the key?

    Palin has higher negatives than Hillary Clinton. She is in no position to win a general election even though she could no doubt win the GOP nomination. Are we that stupid?

    Newt has too much baggage and is not very appealing. He’s smart, but so is Mitt. He’s got good ideas, but so does Mitt.

    Pawlenty is okay, but why do we need him when Mitt Romney is around? Mitt provides everything Pawlenty can deliver, plus he’s got plenty of stuff Pawlenty doesn’t have like – charisma, proven debate skills, nationwide name recognition, money, a committed fan base & campaign organization, proven economic expertise, gravitas etc…

    Many reasons not to vote for Huckabee (in addition to fact he uses religion as a weapon):

    Mike Huckabee disses Americans, Mexicans, promotes illegal immigration
    http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005609.html

    Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html

    While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this “racists”…
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html

    Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill, “anti-Christian” and “un-American”…
    http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html

    Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens…
    http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html

    Huck’s opposition to the illegal aliens bill:
    http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html

  128. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    I had to wonder who the “non-partisan” “Mass. Taxpayers Foundation” is and why I should care about what they had to say on the Massacare.

    One of the first links that popped up came from “Citizen for Limited Taxation” and the “Citizens Economic Research Foundation”
    http://www.cltg.org/mtf_trojan_horse.html

    And then there was this curious BBB charity review
    http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/boston/massachusetts-taxpayers-foundation-in-boston-ma-7078

    Meanwhile, the Cato Institute does not agree with MTF, & while Cato certainly does not walk on water, I would trust them before I would trust the mysterious unknown entity MTF.
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10488
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/18/false-accounts-of-massachusetts-health-reforms/
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10268
    http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_cannon9_08-09-09_73F9ICH_v9.3f8e6eb.html

    Does Romney have any ties to the leadership of the MTF perchance? Dunno, but at least part of the federal govt subsidies to Massacare came from Medicare. Going to have to look up some of those many cost over-run articles again & find out the rest of the assistance that was involved.

    At any rate, how can Massacare be a paradigm for the rest of the country since the federal govt. won’t be able to assist itself? (Or at least cannot continue to do so at its present rate! </sarcasm)

  129. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    I had to wonder who the “non-partisan” “Mass. Taxpayers Foundation” is and why I should care about what they had to say on the Massacare.

    One of the first links that popped up came from “Citizen for Limited Taxation” and the “Citizens Economic Research Foundation”
    http://www.cltg.org/mtf_trojan_horse.html

    And then there was this curious BBB charity review
    http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/boston/massachusetts-taxpayers-foundation-in-boston-ma-7078

    Meanwhile, the Cato Institute does not agree with MTF, & while Cato certainly does not walk on water, I would trust them before I would trust the mysterious unknown entity MTF.
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10488
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/18/false-accounts-of-massachusetts-health-reforms/
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10268
    http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_cannon9_08-09-09_73F9ICH_v9.3f8e6eb.html

    Does Romney have any ties to the leadership of the MTF perchance? Dunno, but at least part of the federal govt subsidies to Massacare came from Medicare. Going to have to look up some of those many cost over-run articles again & find out the rest of the assistance that was involved.

    At any rate, how can Massacare be a paradigm for the rest of the country since the federal govt. won’t be able to assist itself? (Or at least cannot continue to do so at its present rate! </sarcasm)

  130. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Re-read what you wrote. I was hardly nit-picking. Your intentions simply did not come across with your words.
    #1. My point was that you were lumping Huckabee in with John Edwards-type populism which is completely inaccurate if not patently false. Do you assert that big business has not recently done anything to merit its reputation as putting greed before people & country? Or that the GOP has done nothing to merit its reputation as being in bed with those same profiteers? Are the Wall Street excesses or the “golden parachute” problem a liberal myth or an unhappy reality?

    Additionally, faulting a politician for using an opponent’s weakness with voters is passing strange. That you insist his was a false portrayal of Romney’s business resume means little since you have yet to provide any substance to the contrary. Huckabee’s point is consistent with the wiki article I linked & I certainly would certainly rather have a guy in office who knows what it is like to work in the trenches as well as in the towers.

    #2 Re-read what I wrote. I had no problem with the word “some” – it was the guilt by association game of saying, “Liberals think x; some Huckabee supporters think x; therefore —”. And when reading that, it’s hard not to remember that “some” Romney supporters falsely accused Huckabee of being a social conservative who was liberal on everything else.

    #3. My first post here was my own opinion evaluating the top 2012 possibilities which I thought was part of the invitation to your poll. The rest of my posts were simply answering some of the Huckabee snipers & responding to those who didn’t like my evaluation of Romney’s electability problems.

    If you look back at my initial post, I did not offer my own personal perceptions of Romney’s unfavorables (which is far longer), but rather was discussing the issues of electability – I brought up those issues which are clearly on the voters’ minds at this time, and so simply from a practical perspective, I do not see how he can overcome them – barring the unforeseen of course, but even then his position now looks worse now than it was in 2008.

    I am not sure why that is perceived as an attack other than the fact that it came from a Huckabee supporter.

    As for sticking to pro-Huckabee comments, I am not supporting Huckabee because he is without flaw, but because I believe he is the best option thus far. That entails explaining not only his resume, but also why he is a better choice than his competitors which then entails discussing their flaws or drawbacks.

    And as I already pointed out, this is not a private conversation between you & I, or I would agree with you – it is the readers passing thru who I would think you would want to encourage & enlighten on your preferred candidate’s talents.

    I am sorry if I have offended you, but I honestly do not see that I have initiated anything. Nor do I believe that I have been vituperative in my responses. I have made an effort to keep my responses based on fact. And seriously, if you cannot discuss problems with your candidate to members of his own party, then how would you handle real attacks from the real opposition?

  131. QuoVadisAnima says:

    P.S. And yes, I would vote for Romney in the general – if I had no other choice

  132. QuoVadisAnima says:

    P.S. And yes, I would vote for Romney in the general – if I had no other choice

  133. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    Forgive me, I mean no offense, but I just have to ask, is your name a deliberate play on the word “erroneous” or is that just a funny coincidence?

    Anyway, I had to wonder who the “non-partisan” “Mass. Taxpayers Foundation” is and why I should care about what they had to say on the Massacare.

    One of the first links that popped up came from “Citizen for Limited Taxation” and the “Citizens Economic Research Foundation”
    http://www.cltg.org/mtf_trojan_horse.html

    And then there was this curious BBB charity review
    http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/boston/massachusetts-taxpayers-foundation-in-boston-ma-7078

    Meanwhile, the Cato Institute does not agree with MTF, & while Cato certainly does not walk on water, I would trust them before I would trust the mysterious unknown entity MTF.
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/18/false-accounts-of-massachusetts-health-reforms/

    Does Romney have any ties to the leadership of the MTF perchance? Dunno, but at least part of the federal govt subsidies came from Medicare. Going to have to look up some of those many cost over-run articles again & find out the rest of the assistance that was involved as it’s been quite a while.

    At any rate, how can Massacare be a paradigm for the rest of the country since the federal govt. won’t be able to assist itself? (Or at least cannot continue to do so at its present rate!)

  134. Masscare is not a paradigm for the rest of the country. Romney does not promote it as such and neither do we. There is no one-size fits all for every different state. Romney would not promote it on the national level, nor should he. Things like this should be left to the states. The only things that should be done at the national level are things to help bring down the costs of healthcare that the states aren’t able to do alone: open up the market between states, tort reform (states can do some but no enough on this), and fixing the entitlement programs: SS, medicaid and medicare. Besides that the federal government should stay completely out.

  135. Masscare is not a paradigm for the rest of the country. Romney does not promote it as such and neither do we. There is no one-size fits all for every different state. Romney would not promote it on the national level, nor should he. Things like this should be left to the states. The only things that should be done at the national level are things to help bring down the costs of healthcare that the states aren’t able to do alone: open up the market between states, tort reform (states can do some but no enough on this), and fixing the entitlement programs: SS, medicaid and medicare. Besides that the federal government should stay completely out.

  136. Nate Gunderson says:

    Holy tight race Batman. 200 votes and all candidates are within 2 votes. I bet some are even thinking that we rigged it. I assure you we did not. Frankly I am quite surprised. I had honestly thought Palin would carry it away by more than a small margin.

  137. Nate Gunderson says:

    Holy tight race Batman. 200 votes and all candidates are within 2 votes. I bet some are even thinking that we rigged it. I assure you we did not. Frankly I am quite surprised. I had honestly thought Palin would carry it away by more than a small margin.

  138. Jacob says:

    Friends,just look at what happened to the country now by the inexperience hand that never done any thing in the business job Obama,just good in talking,laughing,lying,and promising every thing what ever he can do or not,just say all to get elect but when come to the table know nothing and doesn’t know where to start,because never done it.Just think that the country is a company and they are opening for application for an engineer or a manager, after they look at all the application,Mitt is the person they hire for the job.
    All the 4 they all are good but :
    1./Mike is not a national leader,he the kind of weak leader, he is a discrimination religion gov,he doesn’t has leadership style.
    2./Newt is a smart person but his sound is too soft,is not the sound of a president.
    3./T.Paw is not strong enough to be a national leader,he need more training and more experience.
    4./ Mrs.Palin is too weak to handle the job of government,only the job of gov,she couldn’t finish,she is not ready for the presidency yet,she is enjoying campaigning around the country why she quieted because the taste of campaign is too sweet but the job in the office may be too boring for her.
    The winner come from personal character and personal leadership style,only Mitt has that kind of leadership in all of them even all democrat leader,just look the way Mitt walk,Mitt stand,Mitt speech,and Mitt seat,he look like a president,he has strength in his own body,his own character,only Mitt has strong voice and loud sound like Obama but Mitt look smarter,stronger,and look more presidential than Obama and other, Mitt is the real leader,Mitt is the true,Mitt is the top, Mitt is the hope of America dream in 2012,Mitt can beat Obama by landslide,no doubt about it.Mitt will lead America to prosperity and America will lead the world by his leadership,the war in Afghanistan had changed right now because they don’t afraid Mr.Obama leadership,he is weak,may be after America withdrew their troops from Iraq,some thing will happened there too.who’s know? the terrorist are prepare and waiting for it.Reagan won the cold war by his strength,his leadership style,his star war,only Mitt has Reagan leadership style, Reagan character,and Reagan strength.

  139. Jacob says:

    Friends,just look at what happened to the country now by the inexperience hand that never done any thing in the business job Obama,just good in talking,laughing,lying,and promising every thing what ever he can do or not,just say all to get elect but when come to the table know nothing and doesn’t know where to start,because never done it.Just think that the country is a company and they are opening for application for an engineer or a manager, after they look at all the application,Mitt is the person they hire for the job.
    All the 4 they all are good but :
    1./Mike is not a national leader,he the kind of weak leader, he is a discrimination religion gov,he doesn’t has leadership style.
    2./Newt is a smart person but his sound is too soft,is not the sound of a president.
    3./T.Paw is not strong enough to be a national leader,he need more training and more experience.
    4./ Mrs.Palin is too weak to handle the job of government,only the job of gov,she couldn’t finish,she is not ready for the presidency yet,she is enjoying campaigning around the country why she quieted because the taste of campaign is too sweet but the job in the office may be too boring for her.
    The winner come from personal character and personal leadership style,only Mitt has that kind of leadership in all of them even all democrat leader,just look the way Mitt walk,Mitt stand,Mitt speech,and Mitt seat,he look like a president,he has strength in his own body,his own character,only Mitt has strong voice and loud sound like Obama but Mitt look smarter,stronger,and look more presidential than Obama and other, Mitt is the real leader,Mitt is the true,Mitt is the top, Mitt is the hope of America dream in 2012,Mitt can beat Obama by landslide,no doubt about it.Mitt will lead America to prosperity and America will lead the world by his leadership,the war in Afghanistan had changed right now because they don’t afraid Mr.Obama leadership,he is weak,may be after America withdrew their troops from Iraq,some thing will happened there too.who’s know? the terrorist are prepare and waiting for it.Reagan won the cold war by his strength,his leadership style,his star war,only Mitt has Reagan leadership style, Reagan character,and Reagan strength.

  140. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Frank
    DYODD, Andy Martin is not a guy that anyone should take too seriously since the courts no longer do -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)
    And Huckabee’s petition did not require people to donate in order to sign on so the suggestion that he knew he would profit by people signing his political petition is just silly.

  141. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Frank
    DYODD, Andy Martin is not a guy that anyone should take too seriously since the courts no longer do -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)
    And Huckabee’s petition did not require people to donate in order to sign on so the suggestion that he knew he would profit by people signing his political petition is just silly.

  142. Frank says:

    QuoVadisAn – Wikipedia is not a reliable source – everyone knows anyone can go in there and edit and write. If that is your source for convincing people, you need to do more research.

  143. Frank says:

    QuoVadisAn – Wikipedia is not a reliable source – everyone knows anyone can go in there and edit and write. If that is your source for convincing people, you need to do more research.

  144. Frank says:

    Also interesting that they are requesting all of Palin’s emails mentioning Mike Huckabee – http://www.adn.com/palin/story/965388.html

  145. Frank says:

    Also interesting that they are requesting all of Palin’s emails mentioning Mike Huckabee – http://www.adn.com/palin/story/965388.html

  146. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Frank
    Frank, I think everyone of high school age or above is now informed as to Wikipedia’s not counting as a reliable source for information, hence the DYODD in my post (Do your own due diligence). Just because wiki is not *necessarily* reliable does not mean that it can be blithely dismissed. It is what could fairly be called a place to begin — and gives you some direction worth considering for your further research.

    We have an idiot like Martin here in the Houston area who is a perennial candidate & constantly filing lawsuits. He is considered a nuisance. Martin’s credibility – if he had any left – was destroyed in his birther lawsuits with his additional allegations of a conspiracy to “silence” him. If this gets any traction at all, it will only be because someone is hoping that it will make headlines while the dismissal will only reach the back half of the paper.

    I would like to believe that conservatives are above that kind of thing.

  147. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Frank
    Frank, I think everyone of high school age or above is now informed as to Wikipedia’s not counting as a reliable source for information, hence the DYODD in my post (Do your own due diligence). Just because wiki is not *necessarily* reliable does not mean that it can be blithely dismissed. It is what could fairly be called a place to begin — and gives you some direction worth considering for your further research.

    We have an idiot like Martin here in the Houston area who is a perennial candidate & constantly filing lawsuits. He is considered a nuisance. Martin’s credibility – if he had any left – was destroyed in his birther lawsuits with his additional allegations of a conspiracy to “silence” him. If this gets any traction at all, it will only be because someone is hoping that it will make headlines while the dismissal will only reach the back half of the paper.

    I would like to believe that conservatives are above that kind of thing.

  148. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Frank
    Yes, Huckabee – along with dozens of other people. Are we to believe that they are all guilty by association? Really, Frank, this is grungy – surely you are a better human being than this…

  149. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Frank
    Yes, Huckabee – along with dozens of other people. Are we to believe that they are all guilty by association? Really, Frank, this is grungy – surely you are a better human being than this…

  150. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    Forgive me, I mean no offense, but I just have to ask, is your name an anagram for ‘Avoid Quasi Man’, as in avoid the quasi-populist Huckabee. I thought so.

    I kid. I know it’s latin. Quo Vadis = whither goest thou. But I don’t know what the Anima means. I looked that up and it says, breath, life or soul? Care to enlighten or should I keep DMODD’ing?

  151. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    Forgive me, I mean no offense, but I just have to ask, is your name an anagram for ‘Avoid Quasi Man’, as in avoid the quasi-populist Huckabee. I thought so.

    I kid. I know it’s latin. Quo Vadis = whither goest thou. But I don’t know what the Anima means. I looked that up and it says, breath, life or soul? Care to enlighten or should I keep DMODD’ing?

  152. @QuoVadisAnima

    That guy sounds like that Brian Camenker.

  153. @QuoVadisAnima

    That guy sounds like that Brian Camenker.

  154. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    Actually, it’s an anagram for ‘Avoid Querulous Man’ which is why I avoid Romney!

    Yeah, okay, now that we got that out of the way, you pretty much pegged it – it actually means “Where are you going, soul?” It’s a moniker I began using in apologetics, but when I started getting more into politics, it amused me how similar discussions of the subjects of politics & religion are, and it was an economical use of my neurons so I held on to it!

  155. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Don’t know much about Camenker or Mass Resistance, but this bit at the infamous wiki was amusing:
    “In November 2005, Camenker appeared on a Daily Show piece by reporter Ed Helms. In the interview, Camenker discussed how Massachusetts was worse off after the decision to legalize same-sex marriage and how, if given enough time, he could link same sex marriage to homelessness, crime rates, and air quality.”

  156. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Don’t know much about Camenker or Mass Resistance, but this bit at the infamous wiki was amusing:
    “In November 2005, Camenker appeared on a Daily Show piece by reporter Ed Helms. In the interview, Camenker discussed how Massachusetts was worse off after the decision to legalize same-sex marriage and how, if given enough time, he could link same sex marriage to homelessness, crime rates, and air quality.”

  157. Amanda says:

    @frank I wouldn’t take anything too seriously posted by Kevin Tracy. If you post truth on his website (without attacking him), he deletes your posts because he doesn’t want others to know the truth. He seems to be a disgruntled individual, and has resorted to attacking Huckabee in anyway that he can. I’m not too fond of him… and I take everything he says with a grain of salt. Just FYI! :)

  158. Nate Gunderson says:

    I’m afraid that is argument is a little weak Amanda. He is entitled to his opinion and is a former Huckabee supporter. Is his viewpoint not valid because he turned to the dark side? I remind you also that HA just the same doesn’t want the truth as I’ve seen them screen, delete, silence, ban any opposition to their viewpoint. It seems that Hucks Army gladly accepted accepted Weyrich’s un-endorsement of Romney, and if it were the other way around they would have said he’s insane.

  159. Amanda says:

    @Nate yes, i agree that he is entitled to his opinion…but that’s just it… it’s his opinion…not based on facts. When someone shows how good HuckPAC has done on his own website, he deletes it. That’s all I really need to say… I’d rather focus on Huckabee for 2012!

    HuckPAC is doing wonderful… in fundraising, in making phone calls, in getting petitions signed, in gaining new members, etc.! TEAM HUCK rocks, and so does Huckabee! :) I’m very excited to be a volunteer for HuckPAC! It’s the most awesome experience! I look forward to the present and future projects!

  160. Amanda says:

    @Nate yes, i agree that he is entitled to his opinion…but that’s just it… it’s his opinion…not based on facts. When someone shows how good HuckPAC has done on his own website, he deletes it. That’s all I really need to say… I’d rather focus on Huckabee for 2012!

    HuckPAC is doing wonderful… in fundraising, in making phone calls, in getting petitions signed, in gaining new members, etc.! TEAM HUCK rocks, and so does Huckabee! :) I’m very excited to be a volunteer for HuckPAC! It’s the most awesome experience! I look forward to the present and future projects!

  161. Amanda says:

    If you want to pull together… why not sign the petition: BALANCE, CUT, SAVE!!! Balance the budget, Cut wasteful spending, and Save American families! http://www.balancecutsave.com Please spread this petition around to your friends, family, and co-workers. Please tweet on twitter, and share on facebook! Let’s send a message to Washington that “YOU WORK FOR US!!!” Not the other way around!

  162. Amanda says:

    If you want to pull together… why not sign the petition: BALANCE, CUT, SAVE!!! Balance the budget, Cut wasteful spending, and Save American families! http://www.balancecutsave.com Please spread this petition around to your friends, family, and co-workers. Please tweet on twitter, and share on facebook! Let’s send a message to Washington that “YOU WORK FOR US!!!” Not the other way around!

  163. Nate Gunderson says:

    HuckPAC is doing very well Amanda on most accounts. Their organization and volunteering is very good. I would not agree on the fundraising.

    I notice you did not address what I said about HA though, and their “deleting” ways. I know that expressing concern about Huckabee there is strongly discourages and promptly moved to a private forum or deleted. I know you are not leadership there so there’s nothing can do about it. But think it’s very applicable to note that, just the same as Mr. Tracy.

    Thanks but no thanks on the offer. I agree with others that it is most likely a way to gather email addresses of possible Huck 2012 supporters.

  164. Nate Gunderson says:

    HuckPAC is doing very well Amanda on most accounts. Their organization and volunteering is very good. I would not agree on the fundraising.

    I notice you did not address what I said about HA though, and their “deleting” ways. I know that expressing concern about Huckabee there is strongly discourages and promptly moved to a private forum or deleted. I know you are not leadership there so there’s nothing can do about it. But think it’s very applicable to note that, just the same as Mr. Tracy.

    Thanks but no thanks on the offer. I agree with others that it is most likely a way to gather email addresses of possible Huck 2012 supporters.

  165. Aaronius says:

    @Amanda

    Can you not see that there is something wrong by having the “Balance, Cut, Save” petition run through the same website as Huck’ PAC? It is clearly a way for Huck to get people (via announcements on Fox News) to funnel to his PAC site (with the obvious intention of gathering emails and hopefully donations) under the facade of a greater, not related cause.

    Imagine if Mitt Romney, or any other potential 2012 candidate for that matter, had a show on FOX News and asked everyone to sign the petition for breast cancer awareness (a cause that most people can get behind)… then gave them a phony email address like http://www.balancecutcheckyourbreast.com and it forwarded you to their PAC page, asked for your email in hopes to keep you connected with the breast cancer awareness movement (while secretly just wanting to keep reminding you of why X candidate is awesome and you should donate to his cause)… Its a bunch of bologna. I would be fine with it if he didn’t flaunt it around on TV acting like that isn’t his intention.

  166. Aaronius says:

    @Amanda

    Can you not see that there is something wrong by having the “Balance, Cut, Save” petition run through the same website as Huck’ PAC? It is clearly a way for Huck to get people (via announcements on Fox News) to funnel to his PAC site (with the obvious intention of gathering emails and hopefully donations) under the facade of a greater, not related cause.

    Imagine if Mitt Romney, or any other potential 2012 candidate for that matter, had a show on FOX News and asked everyone to sign the petition for breast cancer awareness (a cause that most people can get behind)… then gave them a phony email address like http://www.balancecutcheckyourbreast.com and it forwarded you to their PAC page, asked for your email in hopes to keep you connected with the breast cancer awareness movement (while secretly just wanting to keep reminding you of why X candidate is awesome and you should donate to his cause)… Its a bunch of bologna. I would be fine with it if he didn’t flaunt it around on TV acting like that isn’t his intention.

  167. Luke says:

    @Aaronius

    Ooooh, all this time the Hucksters have been talking about ‘not compromising values’… what they really meant was not compromising VALUE$. This time I mean it!

    Mitt 2012!

  168. Luke says:

    @Aaronius

    Ooooh, all this time the Hucksters have been talking about ‘not compromising values’… what they really meant was not compromising VALUE$. This time I mean it!

    Mitt 2012!

  169. Courtney says:

    Huckabee is not requiring a donation to sign that petition. If he does take those email addresses and sends out campaign emails to them (for a presidential run) then I would have a huge problem with that.

  170. Courtney says:

    Huckabee is not requiring a donation to sign that petition. If he does take those email addresses and sends out campaign emails to them (for a presidential run) then I would have a huge problem with that.

  171. @Courtney

    You can guarantee he will. I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest because it is actually a normal things to do. The thing that I think is interesting is that it is a URL redirect because he’s most likely not allowed to advertise his PAC on his Fox Show, but that is clearly something they would like to do because they know there are millions that watch who aren’t participating on his PAC.

    Someone on HA mentioned that when Huckabee was on Greta’s show she mentioned that he was on Twitter and all of the sudden he got a lot of brand new twitter followers @huckpaciowa. Most of them new registrants. That is what they want. New followers. New blood to add with the old ones.

    http://forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20936&start=75

    Of course they want to harness all these possible future supporters. They’ve just found a way to side-step directly mentioning HuckPAC.com on the air.

    Huck’s Army is not feigning ignorance on this either. Here is a quote from the exact page linked to above:

    “When Obama was running for President, he had a huge database of people so he could contact them directly.

    Mike Huckabee needs to make such a huge database from all these posters to use to ask for funds, support, VOTES, etc. These people will be a huge asset in the future.

    Can anybody contact Mike and ask him to do that?”

    There is zero doubt in my mind that he is already doing this.

    Sure it is a noble cause, but just as much it is also disguise to build a database for a future campaign. Don’t mistake my pointing this out as a knock on HuckPAC at all. It’s a smart move. Any other person/campaign would do this if they could (meaning if it is actually legal), including Romney. But, I don’t know that it is not legal so, more power to them.

  172. @Courtney

    You can guarantee he will. I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest because it is actually a normal things to do. The thing that I think is interesting is that it is a URL redirect because he’s most likely not allowed to advertise his PAC on his Fox Show, but that is clearly something they would like to do because they know there are millions that watch who aren’t participating on his PAC.

    Someone on HA mentioned that when Huckabee was on Greta’s show she mentioned that he was on Twitter and all of the sudden he got a lot of brand new twitter followers @huckpaciowa. Most of them new registrants. That is what they want. New followers. New blood to add with the old ones.

    http://forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20936&start=75

    Of course they want to harness all these possible future supporters. They’ve just found a way to side-step directly mentioning HuckPAC.com on the air.

    Huck’s Army is not feigning ignorance on this either. Here is a quote from the exact page linked to above:

    “When Obama was running for President, he had a huge database of people so he could contact them directly.

    Mike Huckabee needs to make such a huge database from all these posters to use to ask for funds, support, VOTES, etc. These people will be a huge asset in the future.

    Can anybody contact Mike and ask him to do that?”

    There is zero doubt in my mind that he is already doing this.

    Sure it is a noble cause, but just as much it is also disguise to build a database for a future campaign. Don’t mistake my pointing this out as a knock on HuckPAC at all. It’s a smart move. Any other person/campaign would do this if they could (meaning if it is actually legal), including Romney. But, I don’t know that it is not legal so, more power to them.

  173. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    “he’s most likely not allowed to advertise his PAC on his Fox Show”
    I have heard him mention his PAC on Fox, though I am not certain about his show specifically.

    As for the censorship thing at HA, I am not “leadership”, but I have been there for ~2 yrs now. Many of us there have criticized something that Huckabee has done or said – none of us believes that he walks on water – without having our posts censored.

    The only thing I can figure that even remotely fits what you’re talking about is Kevin Tracy coming over there to vent his anger against HuckPAC. Since it was anything but constructive, full of heat & virtually no light, I don’t see why you would argue that it should have been allowed to continue – to what point?

  174. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    “he’s most likely not allowed to advertise his PAC on his Fox Show”
    I have heard him mention his PAC on Fox, though I am not certain about his show specifically.

    As for the censorship thing at HA, I am not “leadership”, but I have been there for ~2 yrs now. Many of us there have criticized something that Huckabee has done or said – none of us believes that he walks on water – without having our posts censored.

    The only thing I can figure that even remotely fits what you’re talking about is Kevin Tracy coming over there to vent his anger against HuckPAC. Since it was anything but constructive, full of heat & virtually no light, I don’t see why you would argue that it should have been allowed to continue – to what point?

  175. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Claire
    Have you considered laying off the caffeine? ;-)

    Look, guys, it’s not just Huckabee supporters -
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/checking-in-on-tim-and-mitt.html

    Mitt’s got bigger problems this go round than he had last time. I don’t say that because I don’t want him to win the nom, but because it’s true. If Huckabee had committed a Massacare in AR, he’d be in the same boat & I would be disappointed, but I wouldn’t pretend it wasn’t going to be a problem.

    Why do you think so many of the higher ups in the GOP are openly encouraging Pawlenty to give it a go? That *means something* in politics… it means that Mitt’s not even going to get the same level of political support he got last time either.

    Yeah, things could change & I do believe in miracles, but come on we’re talking possibility over probability…

  176. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Claire
    Have you considered laying off the caffeine? ;-)

    Look, guys, it’s not just Huckabee supporters -
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/checking-in-on-tim-and-mitt.html

    Mitt’s got bigger problems this go round than he had last time. I don’t say that because I don’t want him to win the nom, but because it’s true. If Huckabee had committed a Massacare in AR, he’d be in the same boat & I would be disappointed, but I wouldn’t pretend it wasn’t going to be a problem.

    Why do you think so many of the higher ups in the GOP are openly encouraging Pawlenty to give it a go? That *means something* in politics… it means that Mitt’s not even going to get the same level of political support he got last time either.

    Yeah, things could change & I do believe in miracles, but come on we’re talking possibility over probability…

  177. Courtney says:

    @Nate Gunderson

    Like I said, I’ll have a big problem if he does that. But if he doesn’t, I hope people remember that and maybe admit they were wrong.

  178. Courtney says:

    @Nate Gunderson

    Like I said, I’ll have a big problem if he does that. But if he doesn’t, I hope people remember that and maybe admit they were wrong.

  179. @Courtney

    Will gladly admit it, if someone can remember to point it out to me in the future. That will be a long time from now.

  180. @Courtney

    Will gladly admit it, if someone can remember to point it out to me in the future. That will be a long time from now.

  181. First place: Newt Gingrich with 57 votes. Last place: Sarah Palin with 54 votes. It doesn’t get any closer than this.

  182. First place: Newt Gingrich with 57 votes. Last place: Sarah Palin with 54 votes. It doesn’t get any closer than this.

  183. ReaganTMan says:

    I selected Palin because I think she has the talent and the philosophy to lead this country. Despite what the main stream media and the elites think of her, she is not a snap shot in time, but actually an evolving candidate who could not have taken the time to research the issues, write a book and prepare herself for future office if she had stayed on as Governor and been run into bankruptcy from more frivolous ethics complaints designed to take up the time and resources she would need in order to prepare herself for a bigger role on the national stage.

  184. ReaganTMan says:

    I selected Palin because I think she has the talent and the philosophy to lead this country. Despite what the main stream media and the elites think of her, she is not a snap shot in time, but actually an evolving candidate who could not have taken the time to research the issues, write a book and prepare herself for future office if she had stayed on as Governor and been run into bankruptcy from more frivolous ethics complaints designed to take up the time and resources she would need in order to prepare herself for a bigger role on the national stage.

  185. Jozie says:

    Sarah exudes such honesty and integrity that’s very hard to find in any politicians these days. She’s a fighter and speaks common sense truth. And most importantly, I understand what she’s talking about.

  186. Jozie says:

    Sarah exudes such honesty and integrity that’s very hard to find in any politicians these days. She’s a fighter and speaks common sense truth. And most importantly, I understand what she’s talking about.

  187. Dan says:

    @Amanda
    Amanda, I wonder if you are on the Huckabee rapid response team? I bet you are. Exactly what Conservatism does the Hucksters record actually have? Increased taxes in AR? Huck may be socially conservative, but that does not make him a Conservative.

  188. Dan says:

    @Amanda
    Amanda, I wonder if you are on the Huckabee rapid response team? I bet you are. Exactly what Conservatism does the Hucksters record actually have? Increased taxes in AR? Huck may be socially conservative, but that does not make him a Conservative.

  189. I just have to comment on dual milestones we’ve just reached here on our young blog. This is the first post to get 1000 views, and the first to reach 100 comments. Thanks all.

  190. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate, looks like Palin’s peeps have just found you, lol!

    @Dan, have you seen this article? http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?p=203

  191. Courtney says:

    @Nate Gunderson

    I didn’t neccisarily mean you. Just people in general who think that Huckabee is up to something. But like I said, I will have a problem (and will write Huckabee and HuckPAC) if I hear that he does use those email addresses for a future campaign.

    Just trying to be honest here. :)

  192. Amanda says:

    @Dan You can claim that Huckabee raised taxes… the truth is he cut them at least 94 times and only raised when he forced to (4 times). There was a lot of improvements made to Arkansas during that time. BTW… Romney claims he didn’t raise taxes, but he certainly rasied fees…. I guess that doesn’t make him conservative?

  193. Amanda says:

    @Dan You can claim that Huckabee raised taxes… the truth is he cut them at least 94 times and only raised when he forced to (4 times). There was a lot of improvements made to Arkansas during that time. BTW… Romney claims he didn’t raise taxes, but he certainly rasied fees…. I guess that doesn’t make him conservative?

  194. Alex Libman says:

    Ron Paul is the only republican I’d vote for.

  195. Alex Libman says:

    Ron Paul is the only republican I’d vote for.

  196. @Alex Libman

    I considered adding him because I know there is a support group there, but I’m almost certain Ron Paul isn’t running in 2012 so I didn’t add him.

  197. @Alex Libman

    I considered adding him because I know there is a support group there, but I’m almost certain Ron Paul isn’t running in 2012 so I didn’t add him.

  198. Courtney says:

    I haven’t heard anything about whether or not Ron Paul is considering another run. Has he said anything?

  199. Courtney says:

    I haven’t heard anything about whether or not Ron Paul is considering another run. Has he said anything?

  200. RovingPoet says:

    You missed the best candidate which is interesting, but it would be Jindal with Marc Rubio for VP. Sarah lives in duplicitous times and the feminazis are more nazi than fem. Sarah isn’t and can do more good out of the SNL mockathon. Their last laugh will precede hers but our ignorant and indoctrinated pop culture hasn’t arrived on the self-governing scene yet. So see things as they are. Time to throw ‘em some new blood into the mix. We’ve got many conservatives like JimDeMint, also, waiting in the wings. We can pick to win right. Both words need to campaign together if you value your values.

  201. RovingPoet says:

    You missed the best candidate which is interesting, but it would be Jindal with Marc Rubio for VP. Sarah lives in duplicitous times and the feminazis are more nazi than fem. Sarah isn’t and can do more good out of the SNL mockathon. Their last laugh will precede hers but our ignorant and indoctrinated pop culture hasn’t arrived on the self-governing scene yet. So see things as they are. Time to throw ‘em some new blood into the mix. We’ve got many conservatives like JimDeMint, also, waiting in the wings. We can pick to win right. Both words need to campaign together if you value your values.

  202. @RovingPoet

    I considered Jindal, and I think he would be an excellent candidate, but I think the likelihood of him running in 2012 is not very great. Very likely he could be up for 2016 or perhaps 2020. I think this time around would be a little premature.

  203. @RovingPoet

    I considered Jindal, and I think he would be an excellent candidate, but I think the likelihood of him running in 2012 is not very great. Very likely he could be up for 2016 or perhaps 2020. I think this time around would be a little premature.

  204. Amanda says:

    @Nate
    When is the poll ending? Thanks!

  205. Amanda says:

    @Nate
    When is the poll ending? Thanks!

  206. It didn’t have an end date. I guess I’ll close it Thursday at midnight how does that sound?

  207. Amanda says:

    @Nate
    LOL… that’s cool! I was just curious! Sounds good!

  208. Amanda says:

    @Nate
    LOL… that’s cool! I was just curious! Sounds good!

  209. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I was banned from Hucks Army and I actually was a supporter of Huckabee. Romney was my second choice for awhile and I asked back during the campaign if it was a smart move to have Huckabee to show reporters the attack ad that he wouldn’t run and I got banned. After that, I tried to contact the board administrator and when that didn’t work I tried to make a new account to plead my case. Then, my new account was banned and my IP was banned.

  210. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    Dan, who was the board administrator who banned you? I was part of that conversation and was one of the ones saying that he should not have shown it. Obviously, I did not get banned for it so it sounds rather strange that you did. In fact, I have criticized several of the things that Huckabee has done or said without getting anything more than polite disagreement. I’m not sure what happened in your case, but I will be happy to look into it for you if you like.

  211. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    Dan, who was the board administrator who banned you? I was part of that conversation and was one of the ones saying that he should not have shown it. Obviously, I did not get banned for it so it sounds rather strange that you did. In fact, I have criticized several of the things that Huckabee has done or said without getting anything more than polite disagreement. I’m not sure what happened in your case, but I will be happy to look into it for you if you like.

  212. Mrs. P says:

    Hi Nate Gunderson!

    I’m from Huck’s Army, which, as I can see from your comments above, is a site you regularly visit. Obviously we’re each supporting a different man, and sooner or later we’ll probably end up debating each other, especially in a few years when 2012 is closer. However, I like to be friends with my polemic opponents. So consider this post a type of “handshake before the debate”!

  213. Mrs. P says:

    Hi Nate Gunderson!

    I’m from Huck’s Army, which, as I can see from your comments above, is a site you regularly visit. Obviously we’re each supporting a different man, and sooner or later we’ll probably end up debating each other, especially in a few years when 2012 is closer. However, I like to be friends with my polemic opponents. So consider this post a type of “handshake before the debate”!

  214. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    I don’t know who banned me because my screen just says that my IP has been banned now and I can’t even read the threads anymore. I go on the Ron Paul forums often and I have engaged in many debates there. I think the admin knew I was starting to lean towards Romney when he banned me, but I still don’t know why that means I should be banned. I like Mrs. P want there to be as much unity and constructive dialogue among all the different parts of the GOP.

  215. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    I don’t know who banned me because my screen just says that my IP has been banned now and I can’t even read the threads anymore. I go on the Ron Paul forums often and I have engaged in many debates there. I think the admin knew I was starting to lean towards Romney when he banned me, but I still don’t know why that means I should be banned. I like Mrs. P want there to be as much unity and constructive dialogue among all the different parts of the GOP.

  216. Thanks for the facebook link who ever put up, and for doing it on time. Sarah is back on top where she needs to be!

    For those who want to join a winning team join Sarah Palin’s facebook page at http://facebook.com/sarahpalin

  217. Thanks for the facebook link who ever put up, and for doing it on time. Sarah is back on top where she needs to be!

    For those who want to join a winning team join Sarah Palin’s facebook page at http://facebook.com/sarahpalin

  218. Bill Metzger says:

    It amazes me that people still keep making comments about Sarah Palin like “not the sharpest tool in the shed”.
    Sarah is my choice for the exact opposite reason. I think she is the sharpest tool in the shed.
    It isn’t like she hasn’t accomplished anything.
    She has the ‘fire’. She can get people excited and motivated. When the ‘Left’ hates someone as much as they hate Sarah then I am real sure she is the one I want.
    We have a whole gaggle of ‘sharp tools’ in power now. You can keep your version of ‘sharp tools’.
    If I had no choice I’d vote for Huckabee.. only then. whereas for Sarah .. I will do anything and everything in my limited and humble power to help her win and support her. I believe in her like I believed in Ronald Reagan.

  219. The patriot says:

    people only dont like sarah because she talks to the ppl and at their level she makes everything make sense and it confuses libs

  220. The patriot says:

    people only dont like sarah because she talks to the ppl and at their level she makes everything make sense and it confuses libs

  221. Rudolph says:

    I see that Sarah Palin is leading in the voting at this time. It just amazes me how many people buy into the left’s bashing of Sarah’s intellectual ability. If you have studied her accomplishments in any degree, she comes out as a person with great political instincts, great integrity, and yes, high intelligence. Just check the facts, not the slams.

  222. Rudolph says:

    I see that Sarah Palin is leading in the voting at this time. It just amazes me how many people buy into the left’s bashing of Sarah’s intellectual ability. If you have studied her accomplishments in any degree, she comes out as a person with great political instincts, great integrity, and yes, high intelligence. Just check the facts, not the slams.

  223. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    What screen name were you using, Dan?

  224. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    What screen name were you using, Dan?

  225. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Bill Metzger
    I like Palin, but am at a loss as to how she can be compared to Reagan once you discount the Convention speech she delivered (which was awesome, but was merely recycled for the rest of the campaign, with nothing to indicate her capable of coming up with such a speech on her own – which was quite frustrating as it was impossible to refute the accusations of same from the left).

    Her political career more closely resembles Dan Quayle who was a decent guy with a lot of potential until the lefties shredded his reputation (meanwhile allowing a guy like Biden who appears to be in the early stages of senile dementia to continue on for decades unnoticed).

    The damage that has been done may be surmountable, but look how long it took poor Quayle to move beyond it – he never really did.

  226. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Bill Metzger
    I like Palin, but am at a loss as to how she can be compared to Reagan once you discount the Convention speech she delivered (which was awesome, but was merely recycled for the rest of the campaign, with nothing to indicate her capable of coming up with such a speech on her own – which was quite frustrating as it was impossible to refute the accusations of same from the left).

    Her political career more closely resembles Dan Quayle who was a decent guy with a lot of potential until the lefties shredded his reputation (meanwhile allowing a guy like Biden who appears to be in the early stages of senile dementia to continue on for decades unnoticed).

    The damage that has been done may be surmountable, but look how long it took poor Quayle to move beyond it – he never really did.

  227. Tammy Miller says:

    Would love to see a Palin/Huckabee 2012 ticket. That’s a winner!

  228. Tammy Miller says:

    Would love to see a Palin/Huckabee 2012 ticket. That’s a winner!

  229. William Henley says:

    @VoxPatriota
    Why you continue to say things about Sarah Palin that are NOT true just makes you sound silly. Sarah has 13+ years of Executive Experience. She is way more intelligent than the other 3 choices and has millions more followers. When she stepped down as Governor of Alaska, she saved millions of dollars for Alaskan citizens and most likely several hundreds of thousands of dollars of her own money by no longer having to fight fake ethics charges. She accomplished more in under two years as governor than the other three combined. She put several of her own party in jail for being RINO’s and corrupt. The other 3 choices above are RINO’s and need to go the route of a dead fish, down stream. Palin is the only choice that America has to survive. I have voted for her and will continue to do so as long as she chooses to run.

  230. William Henley says:

    @VoxPatriota
    Why you continue to say things about Sarah Palin that are NOT true just makes you sound silly. Sarah has 13+ years of Executive Experience. She is way more intelligent than the other 3 choices and has millions more followers. When she stepped down as Governor of Alaska, she saved millions of dollars for Alaskan citizens and most likely several hundreds of thousands of dollars of her own money by no longer having to fight fake ethics charges. She accomplished more in under two years as governor than the other three combined. She put several of her own party in jail for being RINO’s and corrupt. The other 3 choices above are RINO’s and need to go the route of a dead fish, down stream. Palin is the only choice that America has to survive. I have voted for her and will continue to do so as long as she chooses to run.

  231. Robert Shannon says:

    sarah has more backbone than any republican or democrat. when she says any thing it is simple and to the point so everone can understand it none of this riding the fence like most others

  232. Robert Shannon says:

    sarah has more backbone than any republican or democrat. when she says any thing it is simple and to the point so everone can understand it none of this riding the fence like most others

  233. David Zimmerman says:

    I am a 100% supporter of Palin. She is not beltway…she is citizen with governing skills. She cleaned out the deadwood in Alaska and she will clean up DC. Huckabee screwed Romney in South Carolina. This gave us McCain then Obama. I want a true conservative with principles. He ain’t it. Romney was the man for 2008. The economy needed fixing and he was the man. However forget “fixing” the economy. This is panic time. Newt wouldn’t carry Georgia. The quandry is who will be HER VP!

  234. David Zimmerman says:

    I am a 100% supporter of Palin. She is not beltway…she is citizen with governing skills. She cleaned out the deadwood in Alaska and she will clean up DC. Huckabee screwed Romney in South Carolina. This gave us McCain then Obama. I want a true conservative with principles. He ain’t it. Romney was the man for 2008. The economy needed fixing and he was the man. However forget “fixing” the economy. This is panic time. Newt wouldn’t carry Georgia. The quandry is who will be HER VP!

  235. Nicole Coulter says:

    Bill, I echo your comments. Nothing against Mitt, Huck or Tim, but I would literally mortgage the house for Sarah Palin. I would walk across hot broken glass in a snowstorm to campaign for her. Objectively, I understand it’s an uphill battle. But then I look at what’s really going on in our country. This isn’t just about Republicans and Democrats. This is literally to SAVE our Republic from radical revolutionaries that are attempting to transform us into a socialist/Marxist nation. These are not ordinary times. And we must not kid ourselves that we can nominate an “ordinary” candidate, someone who will offend the LEAST amount of people. (Didn’t we do that last time with McCain?)

    We need someone who IGNITES PASSION in true patriots. We need a risk taker who is not afraid to smash mouth the enemy, and has a massive megaphone with which to do it. If you followed the 9/12 march, there were SARAH pictures overwhelmingly — moreso than Huck or Mitt or even Ron Paul.

    You say Sarah is polarizing like Hillary Clinton. Well, Hillary got 18 million votes in her primary, same as Obama. And were it not for fraud in the caucuses, she would currently be president, I have no doubt.

    Sarah has the ability to transform an election. She attracted 60,000 to a rally in Florida. 45 million watched her nomination speech. She went toe-to-toe with a six-term Senator in the most-watched VP debate in history. She has 927,000 Facebook fans. Her yet-to-be-released memoir is a bestseller. Everything she touches turns to gold. And for this she is “not a strong leader”?

    Sarah never claimed to be interested in impressing the fringe media. We conservatives do our cause harm when we listen to our enemies’ opinions of our strongest candidates.

  236. Nicole Coulter says:

    Bill, I echo your comments. Nothing against Mitt, Huck or Tim, but I would literally mortgage the house for Sarah Palin. I would walk across hot broken glass in a snowstorm to campaign for her. Objectively, I understand it’s an uphill battle. But then I look at what’s really going on in our country. This isn’t just about Republicans and Democrats. This is literally to SAVE our Republic from radical revolutionaries that are attempting to transform us into a socialist/Marxist nation. These are not ordinary times. And we must not kid ourselves that we can nominate an “ordinary” candidate, someone who will offend the LEAST amount of people. (Didn’t we do that last time with McCain?)

    We need someone who IGNITES PASSION in true patriots. We need a risk taker who is not afraid to smash mouth the enemy, and has a massive megaphone with which to do it. If you followed the 9/12 march, there were SARAH pictures overwhelmingly — moreso than Huck or Mitt or even Ron Paul.

    You say Sarah is polarizing like Hillary Clinton. Well, Hillary got 18 million votes in her primary, same as Obama. And were it not for fraud in the caucuses, she would currently be president, I have no doubt.

    Sarah has the ability to transform an election. She attracted 60,000 to a rally in Florida. 45 million watched her nomination speech. She went toe-to-toe with a six-term Senator in the most-watched VP debate in history. She has 927,000 Facebook fans. Her yet-to-be-released memoir is a bestseller. Everything she touches turns to gold. And for this she is “not a strong leader”?

    Sarah never claimed to be interested in impressing the fringe media. We conservatives do our cause harm when we listen to our enemies’ opinions of our strongest candidates.

  237. greg says:

    I would not for for Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, or Gingrich.

    Romney couldn’t beat an unpopular McCain in 2008.
    Huckabee doesn’t play well except in the South, and maybe Kansas
    Pawlenty is my governor, and the only way he got elected here in MN is by being democrat lite, he only started turning conservative about Nov 6th, 2008. Right now he is essentially drawing a paycheck while he runs around the country chasing his dream of running for president. He’s as interesting as wallpaper paste, I doubt if he would be able to raise enough money to compete on an anywhere near even playing field with 0bama.

    Newt, too many divorces. My wife says that she and a lot of women wouldn’t vote for him for just that reason. Smart guy, but will be in late 60′s in 2012. He’ll have the look of another McCain.

    Palin is my candidate. She’s not perfect, but she is a woman of strong convictions, solidly conservative, just didn’t turn that way recently. She can out campaign all the other potential candidates, while they are drawing crowds of 50-100, she’ll be packing in thousands. That is a huge psychological factor. Huge, enthusiastic crowds translates into volunteers and donations. Going head to head with 0bama, she’ll be able to more than hold her own.

  238. greg says:

    I would not for for Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, or Gingrich.

    Romney couldn’t beat an unpopular McCain in 2008.
    Huckabee doesn’t play well except in the South, and maybe Kansas
    Pawlenty is my governor, and the only way he got elected here in MN is by being democrat lite, he only started turning conservative about Nov 6th, 2008. Right now he is essentially drawing a paycheck while he runs around the country chasing his dream of running for president. He’s as interesting as wallpaper paste, I doubt if he would be able to raise enough money to compete on an anywhere near even playing field with 0bama.

    Newt, too many divorces. My wife says that she and a lot of women wouldn’t vote for him for just that reason. Smart guy, but will be in late 60′s in 2012. He’ll have the look of another McCain.

    Palin is my candidate. She’s not perfect, but she is a woman of strong convictions, solidly conservative, just didn’t turn that way recently. She can out campaign all the other potential candidates, while they are drawing crowds of 50-100, she’ll be packing in thousands. That is a huge psychological factor. Huge, enthusiastic crowds translates into volunteers and donations. Going head to head with 0bama, she’ll be able to more than hold her own.

  239. @greg

    You may recall in 2008 it was the whole field against Romney. Had the results tilted very slightly Romney might have won instead. In retrospect I’m in fact relieved that Romney didn’t win the nomination because I don’t believe any of the Republicans would have won last time. I was very glad and energized when Palin was picked as VP, but it still wasn’t enough to push the ticket through.

  240. @greg

    You may recall in 2008 it was the whole field against Romney. Had the results tilted very slightly Romney might have won instead. In retrospect I’m in fact relieved that Romney didn’t win the nomination because I don’t believe any of the Republicans would have won last time. I was very glad and energized when Palin was picked as VP, but it still wasn’t enough to push the ticket through.

  241. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    dnlchisholm was one of them.

  242. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    dnlchisholm was one of them.

  243. BTW – if anyone is looking for where the sudden rush of Palin voters has come from you need not look any further than Sarah’s Facebook page. Big onslaught coming in from there. I think they’ve selectively put this thing away.

    What is interest to me is that when the poll had only 160 votes, and before some other supporters sites caught on to it, the poll was a literal 4-way tie, all contestants receiving exactly 25% each. I guess not anymore.

  244. BTW – if anyone is looking for where the sudden rush of Palin voters has come from you need not look any further than Sarah’s Facebook page. Big onslaught coming in from there. I think they’ve selectively put this thing away.

    What is interest to me is that when the poll had only 160 votes, and before some other supporters sites caught on to it, the poll was a literal 4-way tie, all contestants receiving exactly 25% each. I guess not anymore.

  245. Dave Aurand says:

    I agree with a lot that has been posted, except My choice would be Newt, with Sarah as the VP. I believe one thing, if given the tools, and responsibilities, Sarah would shine as a bright STAR! She could be VP for 8 years, then Be President for another 8 years. I believe she CAN, and will clean house, and tell these wacko’s to go to their corner, and shut up!I believe Newt can, and will teach Sarah many of the ropes of D.C. Under both of them, there is the possibility of cleaning house.

    I do know if Sarah was in obama’s shoes, this country would be much safer, less of a deficit. We would also be drilling here, and drilling NOW!

  246. Dave Aurand says:

    I agree with a lot that has been posted, except My choice would be Newt, with Sarah as the VP. I believe one thing, if given the tools, and responsibilities, Sarah would shine as a bright STAR! She could be VP for 8 years, then Be President for another 8 years. I believe she CAN, and will clean house, and tell these wacko’s to go to their corner, and shut up!I believe Newt can, and will teach Sarah many of the ropes of D.C. Under both of them, there is the possibility of cleaning house.

    I do know if Sarah was in obama’s shoes, this country would be much safer, less of a deficit. We would also be drilling here, and drilling NOW!

  247. Amanda says:

    Now something is very odd… just a few hours ago, I came to this polling site… and Huckabee was winning by about 10 votes to Sarah Palin. I come back and she smeared Huckabee… and now has 197 votes. For at least a week or so, this poll has been up… why at the last minute is there over 100 votes added in the last 3 or 4 hours.

    Huckabee was around 91 votes…and gained 6 votes in the last few hours. Sarah gained 100 plus… I’m not accusing anyone… but you have to admit… the numbers see off considering the amount of people that showed up the whole time the poll has been up. It’s almost like one person voted over and over and over again.

  248. Amanda says:

    Now something is very odd… just a few hours ago, I came to this polling site… and Huckabee was winning by about 10 votes to Sarah Palin. I come back and she smeared Huckabee… and now has 197 votes. For at least a week or so, this poll has been up… why at the last minute is there over 100 votes added in the last 3 or 4 hours.

    Huckabee was around 91 votes…and gained 6 votes in the last few hours. Sarah gained 100 plus… I’m not accusing anyone… but you have to admit… the numbers see off considering the amount of people that showed up the whole time the poll has been up. It’s almost like one person voted over and over and over again.

  249. @Amanda
    I don’t know if you saw my comment above but I checked out where all the inbound links were coming from and it was very easy to see they came from Palin’s facebook page where she has nearly 1,000,000 supporters. I looked at the page and saw no less than 5 people leave the link there recently. A few of them spread it to twitter also namely @PAmom4Palin. And then some from js.kit.com which looks like it is the comments add-on for conservatives4palin.com.

    Until that point I have not seen any links from any Palin sites. No, actually there was one earlier for C4P, but that hadn’t affected the poll as much.

  250. @Amanda
    I don’t know if you saw my comment above but I checked out where all the inbound links were coming from and it was very easy to see they came from Palin’s facebook page where she has nearly 1,000,000 supporters. I looked at the page and saw no less than 5 people leave the link there recently. A few of them spread it to twitter also namely @PAmom4Palin. And then some from js.kit.com which looks like it is the comments add-on for conservatives4palin.com.

    Until that point I have not seen any links from any Palin sites. No, actually there was one earlier for C4P, but that hadn’t affected the poll as much.

  251. Aaronius says:

    @Amanda

    Our polls here at MRC are tamper proof – one vote per ip address. There has been a huge surge of traffic coming from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page (which has almost a million fans and many times the traffic of Hucks Army). Yes, the votes came in a random burst, but I assure you they are all legitimate. You can even view the history of visits to this site, its no secret: http://live.feedjit.com/live/mittromneycentral.com/

  252. Aaronius says:

    @Amanda

    Our polls here at MRC are tamper proof – one vote per ip address. There has been a huge surge of traffic coming from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page (which has almost a million fans and many times the traffic of Hucks Army). Yes, the votes came in a random burst, but I assure you they are all legitimate. You can even view the history of visits to this site, its no secret: http://live.feedjit.com/live/mittromneycentral.com/

  253. Amanda says:

    Thanks, Nate. I guess that explains it. It just seemed odd… but I guess if the link is put on her site… it will bring in the supporters. Thanks. :)

  254. Amanda says:

    Thanks, Nate. I guess that explains it. It just seemed odd… but I guess if the link is put on her site… it will bring in the supporters. Thanks. :)

  255. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @David Zimmerman
    David, while that has been a very popular claim amongst Romney fans, it just ain’t so. If you go back & actually look at the numbers, Fred Thomson was clearly the spoiler in SC.

    The same Fred Thomson who just so happens to be very good friends with John McCain & helped run his 2000 campaign. Think about the ramifications of those facts…

  256. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @David Zimmerman
    David, while that has been a very popular claim amongst Romney fans, it just ain’t so. If you go back & actually look at the numbers, Fred Thomson was clearly the spoiler in SC.

    The same Fred Thomson who just so happens to be very good friends with John McCain & helped run his 2000 campaign. Think about the ramifications of those facts…

  257. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    The whole field against Romney? You’ve really got me curious here.
    Do you mean because the other candidates clearly disliked him after his tactics in IA & NH and really smacked him down in that one debate following his breaking of the 11th commandment in his efforts to win at all costs (literally)?
    Or do you actually have some serious numbers to back that up?

  258. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    The whole field against Romney? You’ve really got me curious here.
    Do you mean because the other candidates clearly disliked him after his tactics in IA & NH and really smacked him down in that one debate following his breaking of the 11th commandment in his efforts to win at all costs (literally)?
    Or do you actually have some serious numbers to back that up?

  259. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    What was the other – the original one?

  260. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    What was the other – the original one?

  261. EB says:

    Tim Pawlenty may not currently have the name recognition of some other candidates, like Sarah Palin, but he is the best man for the job. I believe that he could win in a race against President Obama. We need real leadership in Washington, we need a person in the White House like Pawlenty!

  262. EB says:

    Tim Pawlenty may not currently have the name recognition of some other candidates, like Sarah Palin, but he is the best man for the job. I believe that he could win in a race against President Obama. We need real leadership in Washington, we need a person in the White House like Pawlenty!

  263. tj says:

    I supported Mike Huckabee with my time, my money and my vote and I will do it again in 2012. He has what it takes to turn this country around, if we still have one left when “O” is done with it.

    GO MIKE HUCKABEE!

  264. tj says:

    I supported Mike Huckabee with my time, my money and my vote and I will do it again in 2012. He has what it takes to turn this country around, if we still have one left when “O” is done with it.

    GO MIKE HUCKABEE!

  265. Nicole Coulter says:

    I’m surprised nobody is suggesting Mike Pence or Jim DeMint! I like those guys. Not as much as I like Sarah Palin, but at least they’d bring a new energy to the debate if they had any interest in running. I’m simply not that interested in rehashing the 2008 primaries with more Mitt and Huck. They couldn’t even beat McCain. Why do we have confidence that they’re going to suddenly ignite the Republican base?

  266. Nicole Coulter says:

    I’m surprised nobody is suggesting Mike Pence or Jim DeMint! I like those guys. Not as much as I like Sarah Palin, but at least they’d bring a new energy to the debate if they had any interest in running. I’m simply not that interested in rehashing the 2008 primaries with more Mitt and Huck. They couldn’t even beat McCain. Why do we have confidence that they’re going to suddenly ignite the Republican base?

  267. Amanda says:

    @Nicole
    Are you kin to Ann Coulter? Just curious! :)

    Huckabee did awesome during the Primary…on a shoestring budget, too! A lot of people didn’t know Huckabee then…and he got as far as he did with little money. Now that people know him… there are a lot more supporters…and a lot more excitement for him to win in 2012. I’ve been reading many comments that have mentioned that they did not support Huckabee during the primary, but they do now because of his tv show… they have gotten to know him and what he stands for! 2012 is going to be awesome!

  268. Amanda says:

    @Nicole
    Are you kin to Ann Coulter? Just curious! :)

    Huckabee did awesome during the Primary…on a shoestring budget, too! A lot of people didn’t know Huckabee then…and he got as far as he did with little money. Now that people know him… there are a lot more supporters…and a lot more excitement for him to win in 2012. I’ve been reading many comments that have mentioned that they did not support Huckabee during the primary, but they do now because of his tv show… they have gotten to know him and what he stands for! 2012 is going to be awesome!

  269. Michele says:

    PALIN 2012! PERIOD!

  270. Michele says:

    PALIN 2012! PERIOD!

  271. Barri says:

    Republicans need a candidate that is true to the Constitution of the United States and able to solve problems without infusing ever more socialism into our economic system . Free market reforms , not government regulation , interference , take overs , bailouts , thats the same route as Obama and most Washington DC globalist elitists in both partys . Wouldn’t it be great if someone just came out of the wilderness with fundamental American beleifs in God, the founding documents of the United States , capitalism that gained the voice of the people , thereby the power to make the needed changes ,, and the devout will to eliminate corruption regardless of party lines , and the courage to do uphold American values and intrests internationally ,,, Like she did in Alaska ,,, My vote goes to Sarah ….

  272. Barri says:

    Republicans need a candidate that is true to the Constitution of the United States and able to solve problems without infusing ever more socialism into our economic system . Free market reforms , not government regulation , interference , take overs , bailouts , thats the same route as Obama and most Washington DC globalist elitists in both partys . Wouldn’t it be great if someone just came out of the wilderness with fundamental American beleifs in God, the founding documents of the United States , capitalism that gained the voice of the people , thereby the power to make the needed changes ,, and the devout will to eliminate corruption regardless of party lines , and the courage to do uphold American values and intrests internationally ,,, Like she did in Alaska ,,, My vote goes to Sarah ….

  273. Nicole Coulter says:

    I am Ann Coulter’s unacknowledged adopted sister ;-)

    I realize some people think Sarah Palin’s not a credible leader for our movement. But look at who DOES support Sarah:

    - Rush Limbaugh
    - Glenn Beck
    - Ann Coulter

    These are arguably the 3 most popular media pundits on our side. If you want to listen to the David Frums, and the Peggy Noonans of the world who have very little influence– well, fine. I’ll listen to Rush. Sarah is the future of this party. Liberals are revealing to us who our candidate should be. Conservatives outnumber liberals almost 2 to 1 in this country, so why would we try to please the Left?

  274. Nicole Coulter says:

    I am Ann Coulter’s unacknowledged adopted sister ;-)

    I realize some people think Sarah Palin’s not a credible leader for our movement. But look at who DOES support Sarah:

    - Rush Limbaugh
    - Glenn Beck
    - Ann Coulter

    These are arguably the 3 most popular media pundits on our side. If you want to listen to the David Frums, and the Peggy Noonans of the world who have very little influence– well, fine. I’ll listen to Rush. Sarah is the future of this party. Liberals are revealing to us who our candidate should be. Conservatives outnumber liberals almost 2 to 1 in this country, so why would we try to please the Left?

  275. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nicole Coulter
    With all due respect, why would you want us to take the advice of ANY media talking heads? While they can be a source of information, nevertheless, these guys make a living off of sensationalizing problems, fomenting division, and demonizing the other side — do you really think that is the answer to our country’s ills?

    How far do you think you can take an ideological war before it becomes a physical one? I really don’t want to repeat the Civil War.

    Much as I like Palin, she has been forced to ground zero of that ideological divide which is the opposite place of where we need to be; I much prefer your earlier point about DeMint & Pence.

    We need someone who can breach the divide in our country & initiate healing rather than continue the sick contemporary political game of promoting discord for their own profit at our expense. I believe that Huckabee is the one most able to do that at this time, but I am open to whichever candidate can do that – our country is in serious trouble…

  276. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nicole Coulter
    With all due respect, why would you want us to take the advice of ANY media talking heads? While they can be a source of information, nevertheless, these guys make a living off of sensationalizing problems, fomenting division, and demonizing the other side — do you really think that is the answer to our country’s ills?

    How far do you think you can take an ideological war before it becomes a physical one? I really don’t want to repeat the Civil War.

    Much as I like Palin, she has been forced to ground zero of that ideological divide which is the opposite place of where we need to be; I much prefer your earlier point about DeMint & Pence.

    We need someone who can breach the divide in our country & initiate healing rather than continue the sick contemporary political game of promoting discord for their own profit at our expense. I believe that Huckabee is the one most able to do that at this time, but I am open to whichever candidate can do that – our country is in serious trouble…

  277. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    With all due respect, your candidate of choice IS a ‘media talking head’ and promotes this ‘ideological war’ just as much as the other ‘talking heads’ do. That’s how they boost ratings. That’s how they make money. And in the end, that’s what is going to keep Huckabee from running. He’s too comfortable in front of the camera and on the musical stage to leave it for another run at the Presidency. If he could only find a way to funnel supporters/money from his talk show to advance his PAC?! …www.balancecutsave.com petition anyone?

  278. Aaronius says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    With all due respect, your candidate of choice IS a ‘media talking head’ and promotes this ‘ideological war’ just as much as the other ‘talking heads’ do. That’s how they boost ratings. That’s how they make money. And in the end, that’s what is going to keep Huckabee from running. He’s too comfortable in front of the camera and on the musical stage to leave it for another run at the Presidency. If he could only find a way to funnel supporters/money from his talk show to advance his PAC?! …www.balancecutsave.com petition anyone?

  279. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Aaronius
    If all he is doing is playing to his comfort zone, then why would he care about advancing his PAC? Can’t have it both ways here.

    You can indeed argue that technically he is a member of the opinion media like Limbaugh & Coulter, but he is clearly not the same. Notice that Huckabee is promoting his ideology, BUT he is not promoting the war. There is a clear & positive difference between what he is doing with his show and how he handles his guests vs. the game that Coulter & Limbaugh are playing.

  280. Amanda says:

    Check this new poll out!!! From Rasmussen!

    Huckabee 29%
    Romney 24%
    Palin 18%
    Gingrich 14%
    Pawlenty 4%

    Source: Rasmussen Reports

    http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/gop_2012_huckabee_29_romney_24_palin_18

  281. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    RebelRoss0587 I think was the other one, but dnlchisholm might have been the original. I can’t remember which one came first.

  282. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    RebelRoss0587 I think was the other one, but dnlchisholm might have been the original. I can’t remember which one came first.

  283. Pamela says:

    Wow, this is painful stuff, Nate. Kinda like banging your head against the wall for hours.

    Is it always like this – over-run with die-hard Hucksters? What do they hope to gain by coming to a Romney site and rehashing the same old lies that no one believes?

    What bothers me is that they refuse to use a known set of facts as a foundation. There is no basis for reasonable discussion when one side refuses to acknowledge what is really true. It’s not just a disagreement about how to interpret the facts, it’s blatant cognitive dissonance on their part.

    Bless you, though. You are doing the Lord’s work.
    If this is what it’s like here all the time, I would never come back. Who needs such nonsense? The Hucksters cannot be won over.

  284. Pamela says:

    Wow, this is painful stuff, Nate. Kinda like banging your head against the wall for hours.

    Is it always like this – over-run with die-hard Hucksters? What do they hope to gain by coming to a Romney site and rehashing the same old lies that no one believes?

    What bothers me is that they refuse to use a known set of facts as a foundation. There is no basis for reasonable discussion when one side refuses to acknowledge what is really true. It’s not just a disagreement about how to interpret the facts, it’s blatant cognitive dissonance on their part.

    Bless you, though. You are doing the Lord’s work.
    If this is what it’s like here all the time, I would never come back. Who needs such nonsense? The Hucksters cannot be won over.

  285. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Pamela
    Wow, sneering condescension delivering patronizing insults followed by Christian blessings for the wrap up – who needs Dawkins’ disciples?

    Tell you what, I will resist the temptation to refer to Romney’s followers as Rom-boughts if you will attempt to moderate your delivery into something that resembles the Christianity you apparently profess. ;-)

  286. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Pamela
    Wow, sneering condescension delivering patronizing insults followed by Christian blessings for the wrap up – who needs Dawkins’ disciples?

    Tell you what, I will resist the temptation to refer to Romney’s followers as Rom-boughts if you will attempt to moderate your delivery into something that resembles the Christianity you apparently profess. ;-)

  287. Amanda says:

    @QuoVadisAn

    Good response to Pamela.

  288. Amanda says:

    @QuoVadisAn

    Good response to Pamela.

  289. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    As you can tell from her post, she doesn’t come here often. Please don’t judge all Romney supporters based on one person. I don’t dislike all Huckabee supporters, but I do have a problem with certain ones like David Schmidt who does a great disservice to Governor Huckabee.

    and to Pamela, welcome to MRC! I know it can sometimes be frustrating when people don’t agree, but it is in all of our best interests to try to unite as many people as we can together (even if we have some differences) so we can move America forward.

  290. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    As you can tell from her post, she doesn’t come here often. Please don’t judge all Romney supporters based on one person. I don’t dislike all Huckabee supporters, but I do have a problem with certain ones like David Schmidt who does a great disservice to Governor Huckabee.

    and to Pamela, welcome to MRC! I know it can sometimes be frustrating when people don’t agree, but it is in all of our best interests to try to unite as many people as we can together (even if we have some differences) so we can move America forward.

  291. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    “RebelRoss0587″ was a member on HA & posted comments thru 11/17/08 with no sign of a dust up. That’s also well past the campaign ad controversy that you are referring to.

    “dnlchisolm” only very recently showed up & had only one post arguing that Romney did not flip-flop on TARP at the Value Voters Summit, but mainly was banned for troll-like behavior that included pm’ing board members to incite action against one of the board’s moderators for some of his off-board efforts against Romney.

    You yourself admit to being uncertain about your posting there; perhaps you are confusing HA with some other forum?

    Huck’s Army has had non-Huckabee people show up there for discussion without banning them. The difference is that they identify themselves & explain their purpose there rather than trying to pose as a supporter & then appearing subversive.

  292. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    “RebelRoss0587″ was a member on HA & posted comments thru 11/17/08 with no sign of a dust up. That’s also well past the campaign ad controversy that you are referring to.

    “dnlchisolm” only very recently showed up & had only one post arguing that Romney did not flip-flop on TARP at the Value Voters Summit, but mainly was banned for troll-like behavior that included pm’ing board members to incite action against one of the board’s moderators for some of his off-board efforts against Romney.

    You yourself admit to being uncertain about your posting there; perhaps you are confusing HA with some other forum?

    Huck’s Army has had non-Huckabee people show up there for discussion without banning them. The difference is that they identify themselves & explain their purpose there rather than trying to pose as a supporter & then appearing subversive.

  293. @Amanda
    Sorry Amanda, I had to remove your comment. It went a little to far and the modest peace we have here would have certainly broke out into anarchy with reactionary comments.

    While I don’t condone Pamela’s statement, I have heard the exact same things written at HA many times (but vice-versa) and you can now understand my frustration that I can’t pop on their and make corrective comments. Not even simple defenses to give opposing viewpoints.

    I think we should all just turn down the sensitivity to our reactionary comments and try a little more to understand other people’s viewpoints and how our words will make them react. Sometimes I feel people don’t realize that opposing GOP candidates are not the enemy here, ESPECIALLY since it is not primary season. Obama, his administration, and liberalism in general, should be our target.

  294. Amanda says:

    @Nate
    I really wasn’t being hateful in my comment. It may have sounded harsh, but I didn’t say anything that God would disapprove of! I stated facts… and I stated what the Bible says… I only responded to a post that was distateful. It’s funny how the distasteful post stays while the response to the distasteful post gets removed. As for you on Huck’s Army… I have no clue what screenname you are… Huck’s Army does try to remain positive… vertical politics!

    No offense to you… but I still don’t get how you and others eyes have the wool pulled over your eyes about Romney… he sways which ever way the wind blows… he has no real stance on anything as far as principles are concerned. It boggles my mind… that’s all!

    I do understand that the GOP candidates shouldn’t be so against each other… but I strongly feel that Romney is not a principled conservative…therefore he can’t really be a part of the GOP in my opinion! He doesn’t stand for core principles we are striving to get back to!

  295. @QuoVadisAnima
    First time I registered there I openly claimed that I was a Romney supporter and that I would be very civil and would never say anything against Huckabee. I was banned before I made one post.

    The next time I registered as tommy.winter and after I gave two mild defenses (they were not my only posts) of Romney I got PM’s from mod’s telling me not to defend Romney because there were many on the forum that had “strong feelings” Romney. A while later I made a third comment to give an opposing viewpoint and my account and all my posts were deleted and I got an IP ban.

    Now I keep a few profiles and only comment on unrelated stuff. I’ll probably loose one of them someday when I’m forced to make another blatant defense for Romney. But then it will quickly be deleted, and it will be to no avail.

  296. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    ok, I’m glad you can check that stuff for me. RebelRoss0587 was my original name and dnlchisholm was the one I made to try to make my case. RebelRoss0587 was orginally not banned, but my ip adress was banned so when I moved I was able to get back on again. Then, RebelRoss0587 was banned. After, I made dnlchisholm which was also banned. I am definetly not getting HucksArmy confused with anything.

    Also, the time between RebelRoss0587 and dnlchisholm occurred because it took forever for dnlchisholm to get approval despite multiple e-mails that I sent to the board administrator.

  297. Dan says:

    Part of the problem you might be encountering is that so many of my posts and topics got deleted.

    @QuoVadisAnima

  298. Dan says:

    Part of the problem you might be encountering is that so many of my posts and topics got deleted.

    @QuoVadisAnima

  299. @Amanda

    Now there’s your problem Amanda. Between you and me who is to decide what God’s will is in these matters? Should I believe you just because you say you have the bible as your source? Do you know how many contradictory things I heard people say, all of them claiming the bible as their source? Do you not realize that I’ve studied and read the bible, I believe it’s true, and I somehow don’t feel the same way as you? The problem is that you don’t realize that other people can possibly have different opinions and that you can’t force your opinions on them. Really it is like banging you head on a wall for hou

    You keep saying “no offense to you” and then go on to offend me. You are basically calling me and millions of others completely stupid for supporting Romney. Sometimes there are things that, though you may feel strongly about them, you just shouldn’t say them.

    The reason your comment was taken off and hers stayed is that hers wasn’t directly attacking anyone. When people don’t direct their comments at specific people and don’t offer anyone points to back-up their argument I ignore them. Yours was a direct attack on Romney. You essentially said he was an evil baby-killer and a sinful gay rights activist. First of all it was very rude and tactless. But more importantly there would have been a strong and hateful backlash, and it would have escalated more and more. I don’t need that here on this blog.

    ….

    Do you think it’s even remotely possible for people to change? I’d like to know what you think about Ronald Reagan. Far more babies were killed by his actions as governor than anything anyone could ever accuse Romney of.

    I believe Romney to be social conservative, not only that, but a strong social conservative. I believe people can change. The only thing Romney changed on was his view of governments role in abortion. Romney believes in gay rights. Same-sex marriage is not a gay-right. He has never believed is should be. He fought against discrimination of gays, not for the right for them to marry? Do you think people who transgress sexual laws should be discriminated against in the workplace? Jesus sure didn’t when he told the woman taken in adultery to “go and sin no more”. She still had here freedom to seek life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, just as gays should. And if they are doing wrong, God will be the ultimate judge, not you or me.

    If everyone subscribed to the viewpoint that GOP should be an exclusionary party as you do, we can surely count on liberalism taking over in every part of the government, and subsequently every part of our lives.

  300. @Amanda

    Now there’s your problem Amanda. Between you and me who is to decide what God’s will is in these matters? Should I believe you just because you say you have the bible as your source? Do you know how many contradictory things I heard people say, all of them claiming the bible as their source? Do you not realize that I’ve studied and read the bible, I believe it’s true, and I somehow don’t feel the same way as you? The problem is that you don’t realize that other people can possibly have different opinions and that you can’t force your opinions on them. Really it is like banging you head on a wall for hou

    You keep saying “no offense to you” and then go on to offend me. You are basically calling me and millions of others completely stupid for supporting Romney. Sometimes there are things that, though you may feel strongly about them, you just shouldn’t say them.

    The reason your comment was taken off and hers stayed is that hers wasn’t directly attacking anyone. When people don’t direct their comments at specific people and don’t offer anyone points to back-up their argument I ignore them. Yours was a direct attack on Romney. You essentially said he was an evil baby-killer and a sinful gay rights activist. First of all it was very rude and tactless. But more importantly there would have been a strong and hateful backlash, and it would have escalated more and more. I don’t need that here on this blog.

    ….

    Do you think it’s even remotely possible for people to change? I’d like to know what you think about Ronald Reagan. Far more babies were killed by his actions as governor than anything anyone could ever accuse Romney of.

    I believe Romney to be social conservative, not only that, but a strong social conservative. I believe people can change. The only thing Romney changed on was his view of governments role in abortion. Romney believes in gay rights. Same-sex marriage is not a gay-right. He has never believed is should be. He fought against discrimination of gays, not for the right for them to marry? Do you think people who transgress sexual laws should be discriminated against in the workplace? Jesus sure didn’t when he told the woman taken in adultery to “go and sin no more”. She still had here freedom to seek life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, just as gays should. And if they are doing wrong, God will be the ultimate judge, not you or me.

    If everyone subscribed to the viewpoint that GOP should be an exclusionary party as you do, we can surely count on liberalism taking over in every part of the government, and subsequently every part of our lives.

  301. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    Turns out it was winter.tommy – the posts welcoming you to the board are still there.

    I have scrapped my original response. Instead I would like to ask you – when you first joined & announced yourself openly as a Romney supporter, what was your purpose – stated or otherwise – in being there?

    I don’t usually go to sites of other candidates unless there is a reasonable purpose. For example, I came to your blog because of your poll & the invitation to comment on 2012. It’s generally understood that the comments area of a blog is pretty much a public discussion with varying degrees of censorship depending on the blog’s owner. Still, recognizing this is mainly a gathering place for Romney fans, I limited my responses to my opinion on the direction of the next potus election & defenses of my pov + Huckabee from some of the comments made by others.

    OTOH, a forum is a discussion area with varying degrees of privacy as well as censorship that is made for a specific purpose — which is why membership is required to comment. Huck’s Army was made for the specific purpose of providing support, information & fellowship for current or potential Huckabee supporters.

    I suppose it is possible that some of the moderators have been a little over-zealous, however, I have watched a lot of trolls pass thru there – no small number of them working very hard to play political “gotcha” because they knew that at least one news outlet had a guy who was monitoring us. That kind of garbage – plus other sites where you can have the kind of discussions you are talking about, like redstate & race42012 where the exchanges are frequently really nasty – have to be influencing factors in that.

    Still, even beyond the desire to keep the board discussion there civil & productive, I am genuinely puzzled as to why you would think it unreasonable for them to block a Romney supporter from stumping for Romney there?

  302. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    I am having a hard time following the timeline of your explanation; it is a bit disjointed.
    However, I actually remember “dnlchisholm” because it was only just very recently that name popped up on the board – and I was one of the members you spammed.
    An odd way to make your case. ;-)

    I think it best to refer you to my post to Nate above from here…

  303. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    I am having a hard time following the timeline of your explanation; it is a bit disjointed.
    However, I actually remember “dnlchisholm” because it was only just very recently that name popped up on the board – and I was one of the members you spammed.
    An odd way to make your case. ;-)

    I think it best to refer you to my post to Nate above from here…

  304. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    You said, “The reason your comment was taken off and hers stayed is that hers wasn’t directly attacking anyone.”

    Um, well, being a Huckabee supporter, perhaps I perceived it a bit more keenly than you. Let’s see, Pam referred to us as “Hucksters” – what is the definition of a huckster? (Hint – it’s not something that most people aspire to be!)

    She accused us of spreading lies – which would make us either liars ourselves or deluded – but she went on to say “that no one believes”, therefore, we can only be liars.

    She accused us of having no facts, reason or rationality in our arguments. You might agree with her assessment, but that would be opinion not supported by the facts. ;-)

    And she blames our differences of opinion not on spiritual retardation or ignorance, but the intellectually superior psychological diagnosis of “cognitive dissonance”. (Truly ironic given the number of self-professed fiscal conservatives, free market independents & libertarians defending Romney’s healthcare program in MA)

    Now, while my relationship with God is the most important thing to me, I’m still not quite sure why I am not supposed to be bothered by someone instead attacking my character, morals & intelligence for not supporting the same politician they do – particularly when it is coming from someone professing to be one of my brethren in the Lord.

    I’m not advocating deleting her post or anything, FWIW, but I have to say that I think Dan did you more credit here with his response than you did in yours.

  305. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Nate Gunderson
    You said, “The reason your comment was taken off and hers stayed is that hers wasn’t directly attacking anyone.”

    Um, well, being a Huckabee supporter, perhaps I perceived it a bit more keenly than you. Let’s see, Pam referred to us as “Hucksters” – what is the definition of a huckster? (Hint – it’s not something that most people aspire to be!)

    She accused us of spreading lies – which would make us either liars ourselves or deluded – but she went on to say “that no one believes”, therefore, we can only be liars.

    She accused us of having no facts, reason or rationality in our arguments. You might agree with her assessment, but that would be opinion not supported by the facts. ;-)

    And she blames our differences of opinion not on spiritual retardation or ignorance, but the intellectually superior psychological diagnosis of “cognitive dissonance”. (Truly ironic given the number of self-professed fiscal conservatives, free market independents & libertarians defending Romney’s healthcare program in MA)

    Now, while my relationship with God is the most important thing to me, I’m still not quite sure why I am not supposed to be bothered by someone instead attacking my character, morals & intelligence for not supporting the same politician they do – particularly when it is coming from someone professing to be one of my brethren in the Lord.

    I’m not advocating deleting her post or anything, FWIW, but I have to say that I think Dan did you more credit here with his response than you did in yours.

  306. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima
    If my time line sounds complicated I guess it might be because it is. I would happy to talk to you over the phone if you want. However, as I said before, the messages I sent out were my last resort after I had my topics and posts deleted which were a combination of trying to make my case and also trying to ask members of HA to truly practice Vertical Politics and avoid trashing other republicans three years out from 2012.

    The message I sent out was the only way I could think of to see if anyone at HA really believed in Vertical Politics or if their foolish allegiance to David Schmidt would render them hypocritical. As I’ve said before, Huckabee was my top choice until around August 2007 and he remained my 2nd choice for awhile, but I cannot stand idly by while David Schmidt does the atrocious things he does.

  307. QuoVadisAnima says:

    @Dan
    Well, Dan, I’m not sure exactly what you think vertical politics means. At HA, we generally don’t speak negatively about Huckabee’s opponents except as it relates to a specific topic we are discussing. (I say generally because we are human and sometimes emotions get the best of us)

    For example, another troll that was just recently rejected from the board was a person who first began posting attempts to get everyone ragging on Romney. When that got them little satisfaction, they then tried to stir up something similar with Palin. They got no traction even before they were banned.

    As for your outrage over David Schmidt’s activities outside of HA, I am a bit surprised that you are so outraged by trueromney.com. I didn’t know about it until you sent it to me, but it is a website that posts negative news articles as they come out about Romney. Do I think Huckabee would approve? Nah, probably not. He generally just critiques things that Romney has done rather than the man – that’s still vertical – actions rather than people.

    Do I think it is atrocious? Not particularly. David, like many of us, believes that Romney is the GOP version of Bill Clinton (or maybe John Kerry would be more accurate). He is not blogging about his own personal opinions or muckraking for dirt. He is simply posting articles as they come up on the news bots. He is also doing this on his own & completely independently of Huckabee or HA. If he were doing something dishonest or vicious, I might see your point, but it appears that your strongest point against him is that he believes Romney’s dark side needs some light.

    Frankly, you haven’t really laid out a case here. It puts me more in mind of the people who cite Scripture’s “Judge not lest you be judged” to tell us that we shouldn’t judge people but really meaning we should not criticize what they do & call it sinful. They’re just trying to use Christian words to create a Christian gag. Well, the Lord certainly did not intend for us to refrain from naming sin for what it is; He simply meant that we cannot judge the state of anyone’s soul. IOW, actions *can* & *should* be judged as most of us know.

    Similarly, vertical politics allows for judging political actions. It does not mean turning the other cheek while your opponents mischaracterize you, damage your reputation, and stomp all over you because vertical politics does not mean giving up the right to defend oneself – or one’s country for that matter. So don’t expect it to work as a gag. Its intent is to keep the discussions on debating issues as opposed to personalities.

    While David may have focused on one particular pol, he is still limiting it to the actions & issues of the man rather than going after the man himself. I do not see where he has seriously crossed any lines of concern.

  308. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I know very well what vertical politics was supposed to be. I got over 200 hits for Huckabee’s site during the very first Vertical Politics Day. I was supposed to get a bumper sticker and and t-shirt I think. However, despite multiple attempts to contact the campaign, I never received them. Obviously, I wasn’t doing it to get the prizes just like I wasn’t raising money for Mitt for the commission, but that little debacle is part of what led me to leave Huckabee for Romney. The Huckabee campaign just seemed in way over its’ head and if it can’t even handle a little contest like that, how would a Huckabee administration be able to handle all of the problems a president faces?

    Plus, if Chip and Ed Rollins are any indication, you can’t count on Huckabee picking the best people to surround himself with. No matter what you think about Mitt, you have to admit he runs the tightest ship.

    Also, if Huckabee didn’t have enough resources to keep his promises with something as simple as campaign t-shirt and bumper stickers, then why did he make the promise in the first place? That signifies a HUGE deficiency as a leader when you can’t keep your word on things like that.

    Next, I don’t understand the idea that Huckabee got so much more bang for the buck when Mitt still had a better chance to win than Mike. If Mitt runs and spends $0 in 2012, Mitt will surely get the most bang for his buck, but if you don’t win, it is a mute point.

    Finally, I also hope Huckabee has learned some things from 2012, but his attacks in his book and his attacks of Mitt since then have led me to think that either Huckabee hasn’t learned which side he is on, or he just wants to stop Mitt at all costs (even if it costs him and the republicans a chance to stop Obama in 2012).

  309. Dan says:

    @QuoVadisAnima

    I know very well what vertical politics was supposed to be. I got over 200 hits for Huckabee’s site during the very first Vertical Politics Day. I was supposed to get a bumper sticker and and t-shirt I think. However, despite multiple attempts to contact the campaign, I never received them. Obviously, I wasn’t doing it to get the prizes just like I wasn’t raising money for Mitt for the commission, but that little debacle is part of what led me to leave Huckabee for Romney. The Huckabee campaign just seemed in way over its’ head and if it can’t even handle a little contest like that, how would a Huckabee administration be able to handle all of the problems a president faces?

    Plus, if Chip and Ed Rollins are any indication, you can’t count on Huckabee picking the best people to surround himself with. No matter what you think about Mitt, you have to admit he runs the tightest ship.

    Also, if Huckabee didn’t have enough resources to keep his promises with something as simple as campaign t-shirt and bumper stickers, then why did he make the promise in the first place? That signifies a HUGE deficiency as a leader when you can’t keep your word on things like that.

    Next, I don’t understand the idea that Huckabee got so much more bang for the buck when Mitt still had a better chance to win than Mike. If Mitt runs and spends $0 in 2012, Mitt will surely get the most bang for his buck, but if you don’t win, it is a mute point.

    Finally, I also hope Huckabee has learned some things from 2012, but his attacks in his book and his attacks of Mitt since then have led me to think that either Huckabee hasn’t learned which side he is on, or he just wants to stop Mitt at all costs (even if it costs him and the republicans a chance to stop Obama in 2012).

  310. QuoVadisAnima says:

    If you have no misconceptions about vertical politics, then I remain perplexed as to the inconsistencies in your posts and your efforts. I’m sorry, but I makes it hard to give much credence to your further complaints here.

    I will acknowledge that Huckabee’s ability to develop a national operation was weak, but to compare him to Daddy Warbucks Romney and claim that it was due to better judgment is even weaker. How is it that Huckabee was able to get 10x more bang for his buck than Romney with weaker judgment and inferior fiscal wisdom? Your view creates quite a paradox.

    No, I think it is safe to say that the only area in which Huckabee is weaker than Romney is in fund-raising — and that was mainly a product of Romney’s corporate connections coupled with the GOP’s animus and their mutual desire to sink his campaign. If Romney had not been funding his own campaign, he wouldn’t have even gotten the little success he managed.

    As for Chip & Rollins, this is politics – you don’t necessarily pick people that you go to church with. You generally pick people who have the specific skills that you need. Let’s be honest here – it’s not as if Romney has surrounded himself with saints – more like roller derby professionals. You don’t really believe that Rollins is an aberration in political campaigning, do you?

    I will be curious to see if Huckabee works with them again in 2012. Chip may still be too controversial, though maybe not – people have such a short attention span & it’s not like Huckabee can be painted as a racist. Chip seems a good man overall & I’m not sure why you’ve targeted him as a liability – unless you want to feign outrage over the Obama riff cd, too? I may be wrong, but I suspect that Rollins will be less involved this time if at all. The conflicts caused by the disparity between Rollins’ advice & Chip’s led to the public embarrassment with the campaign ad. I suspect that was another factor in the problems with developing a national campaign as well, but even Chip said that they needed the benefit of Rollins’ experience campaigning on a national level at the time. So, we’ll see.

    I’ve no delusions that Huckabee is infallible, but he is head & shoulders above the rest of the pack. He has had some time to reflect on 2008 and consider what might have been or should have been done differently. In contrast to Romney, he is going in to 2012 with much more in his favor than last time. There is more than ample reason to remain optimistic about his efforts.