Last Huck-a-Whack of 2007
It seems the Governor's play of "we have this awesome negative ad that shows what a lying, cheating, fornicating weasel my opponent Mitt Romney is, but we are way too nice to show it" has not been well-received.
I come to whack the Governor, not bury him. His response lists the positive things he stands for:
I believe in the Human Life Amendment and will work tirelessly for it's passage.
I believe the FairTax is the best way to unleash our economy in the 21st century.
I believe and have always supported the passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
I believe we must secure our borders, end amnesty and end sanctuary cities.
I believe our country must be energy independent.
I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life.
I believe in the Surge.
And I believe that Americans aren't interested in politics that divide us, they want their leaders to focus on what will lift them up and make things better.
I almost forgot that today in the face of the withering barrage of criticism we have endured over the last few weeks from my rivals. I say almost, because our negative ad won't run.
I know we believe in the same things. It is these things, these ideas, that have bound us together in this campaign for President. These ideas are why you first became interested in me and these ideas are why I am running for President. Let everyone know, that we are campaigning for these ideas and that we are working overtime to lift America up.
- I believe in the possessive version of "its" and will work tirelessly to promote it's [sic] proper use. (Cheap shot from a guy who types like me, but he has staff!)
- I'll pass on the life Amendment. I'll work to overturn Roe v Wade, but then let's leave it to the States.
- I believe consumption taxes would have been a better choice. If I get a time machine, I'll go back to 1908 and campaign for it. Considering the 16th Amendment, I give up. Maybe it's the way Governor Huckabee tells the story, but I find I have lost interest.
- I believe government should be less involved in marriage, not more.
- I believe the market should dictate energy use, I'm not going to grow my own food, I don't expect my country to generate all of its energy.
- I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. And I believe in the surge, making me two-for-two with the Governor. Yet how does this comport with his claim that the chief prosecutor of the war and the ultimate commander of the Surge has "damaged this country with a bunker mentality?"
- I believe I should probably lay off the Governor, and engage in a more positive and uplifting blogging experience.
Naaah.
2008 Race
Posted by jk at December 31, 2007 8:18 PM
jk, this was like a Romney "attack" ad. Don't you realize that you are not allowed to contrast your opinions with those of the Huckster?
In all seriousness, this was a great takedown of Huckabee.
jk, this was like a Romney "attack" ad. Don't you realize that you are not allowed to contrast your opinions with those of the Huckster?
In all seriousness, this was a great takedown of Huckabee.
Posted by: HB at January 1, 2008 9:30 AMThanks for the kind words. The Governor assures me that he has some very compromising pictures of you from a Mexican vacation a few years back, but that he is seeking to elevate the tone.
Posted by: jk at January 2, 2008 6:06 PMLet's correct the corrector-
"I don't expect my country's *energy corporations* to supply all of the country's energy from domestic sources despite the fact they could do so in spades (and at a fraction of current prices) if not for the bald-faced obstructionism of our federal legislative and judicial branches."
Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2008 4:07 PMA fraction of current prices, perhaps, but probably never cheaper than importing it -- would you disagree? I'm all for developing domestic production, but I find it hard to believe that we could supply all of our needs at a cost lower than importing it.
I think we're on the same team, here. The "energy independence" crowd is going to boost domestic energy through regulation (let me know how that works out for you, kids...) But you are the first person I have heard posit that we could supply 100%
It's another form of trade bashing that leads to subsidizing Ethanol to prevent buying oil.
Posted by: jk at January 3, 2008 4:58 PMWell, domestic sources of energy doesn't mean ONLY oil. Environmental regulations have blocked and, in at least one case, even prompted the DESTRUCTION of a hydroelectric generating station. The cleanest, cheapest, most sustainable and lowest impact method of energy production was dynamited solely so that poor fishes would not "be forced to use man-made ladders to return to their breeding grounds." I swear it makes me want to puke.
Nuclear is also a promising domestic source. Just ask the French.
Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2008 11:52 PMThe idea of a nation being energy independent is ludicrous. There's no reason to buy energy from residents of other nations. Unfortunately, the goddamn Democrats started it (where the hell where they in the 1980s when *conservatives* started the movement?), and Republicans jumped on board.
http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/democrats-new-myth-of-energy.html
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 4, 2008 12:59 PM | What do you think? [6]