Redstate

I am sorry, I was done with the guy once I found out about his record on pardoning criminals. The immigration and tax stuff was bad enough but at least plausible in some ways as to his explanation. The pardoning stuff, and the wild accepting of gifts, and just the continual reports about his private temper are quite troubling to me. He is simply not presidential to me, and I think he would be a disastrous nomination.

My list:

Thompson

Romney
McCain

Rudy

Huckabee

..and that's mine....although Fred is a VERY close second.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

And insert Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Sean Penn, and Barbara Streisand ahead of Huckabee.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And Rightly So!

You bought into a lot of BS. The pardons were Mike doing his job. He had 8,700 decisions to make most on people that were not in jail but on probation. Young people who needed a second chance in life. The troubling thing is Mitt giving zero, even to a war hero. That is troubling. You have no idea what Fred would do, because he never had to decide this sort of thing. All presidents pardon people. Yes, a mistake was made. A costly mistake, but we all make them. Remember weapons of mass distruction. A mistake was made. Mike would make a fine president. If all you have is the stuff you mention it is hard to believe you have read Mike's website. Do you have any posts that show you supported Mike Huckabee at all. Not questioning you other than to say it would be great to see them.

Is it BS or was it a mistake? You seem to start about six different excuses without finishing one.

??? I thought the explanation was clear??? Maybe its just not the one you wanted to hear

It just read like ramblings to me (especially the WMD part and Mike making a fine president).

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So the other 49 governors didn't do theirs? I dont agree with Mitt giving zero either, but c'mon, there is NO defense of Huck pardoning OVER 1,000 CRIMINALS, including murderers.

It's not just one mistake, it's a history of Huckabee pardoning criminals that is well documented by both facts and those who were part of it. He personally argued on behalf of many and it is a well established fact.

I have been a FredHead since day one, so no, you won't find any posts of me supporting Huckabee. I have also only been actively posting on RedState, this year, fort he past month. But I was originally for a Fred-Huck ticket back in September, as I initially liked the guy. But then I read about his record and it is UGLY.

I dont care whether you are talking about immigration (he's an open borders liberal), taxes (he loves them), crime (all the pardons), ethics (all the gifts), or his views on foreign policy (bashing Bush, closing GITMO), the man is a walking disaster.

Not only that, I find his preachyness old and tiresome. Everything I have read about him shows me he would not only be a bad president, but a dangerous one.

The easy political thing to do is to hand them out like candy to anybody who is a "safe" bet (meaning not in for violent crimes like murder and rape). He didn't throw out the verdicts of juries and sentences of judges, based on the law as it was written by the legislature on some whim. Good for him.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The easiest thing is to never give out any. Then you don't have to agonize over what might be right, fair and/or just in a given situation. You don't have to risk hearing the news that no elected official want's to hear that someone you pardoned committed a crime. You don't have to spend time, energy and effort evaluating different cases to see what might be an unjust sentence and what might not be. The easiest thing is just never to give any out - avoid the responsibility and keep sleeping easy at night.

So you have to pardon criminals to be governor??? Wow...thanks for letting me in on that tidbit. I understand now...letting convicted rapists and murderers out of jail is just doing your job...even when you were warned they would do it again (and had done it more times before). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_753... Well, I sure as heck hope that makes Carol Sue Shields' mom sleep better at night.

And I guess it was just his job when he pardoned a 4-time DWI convict who just happened to be a political donor??? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/15/519110.aspx

So can we expect huckabee to find similar compassion for those young terrorists who need "a second chance on life?" Maybe if they convert to Christianity (and for the record I am an Evangelical Christian but I think it is despicable to allow a supposed conversion to influence pardon decisions...God can forgive you but there are still consequences for your actions on Earth).

The fact is that the only thing that is BS is that someone honestly thinks mike was just "doing his job." I am sure some of those pardons were beneficial...but the fact that he released multiple murderers and rapists shows a complete lack of judgement. And the fact that he continues to downplay his involvement rather than take responsibility demonstrates a huge character flaw in huckabee. I personally don't want a president who can't admit he messed up and take the blame. The buck stopped with him as governor, and the same would be true as president...I just hope we don't have to find out what that job would "requre"

to appoint some. I find it funny that every excuse to Romney's failures is "well, it was Massachusetts". His record, his statements, etc, all the way up through 2005 and even 2006 show the guy was acting like a lib. Now, maybe he's had a huge transformation in the last 2 years -- he's certainly talking like it -- but his record is not pretty.

But it's not as ugly as Huck's, that is for sure.

That last line is unnecessary!

He did try.

It's not an "excuse" but the realities of politics in MA. You have slim picken to begin with and you have to somehow get those canidates through the judicial process.

Sure, look at his record and statements, but this is just a distraction.

The article said he was focused on appointing Democrats. This was the one area he could improve things in Massaschusetts and he didn't even make an effort. Pretty lousy record, but I hope he has changed his heart.

That DEMs outnumber GOP in MA 4 to 1.

Romney's GOP judical pick were only outnumber 14 to 9

It seems like his policy of non-partisan judge picking worked pretty well.

Here's a good jem.

"After Romney nominates the candidate, the pick must be approved by the Governor's Council, where Democrats hold eight of nine seats."

In a state where Republicans represent only 13% of the electorate, Romney nominated 9/36 judges who were clearly registered Republicans: 25%.

But the Boston Globe is well aware by now that it's feeding these statistics to people in the *Republican* party who will use them in the most blockheaded ways imaginable.

It's not like you have anywhere near the same caliber of candidates for a state supreme court that you do for SCOTUS. The vast majority of state supreme court justices, whatever party they are appointed by, completely suck. I know we don't have one decent justice on our court... and ours were mostly appointed by Republicans.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

but that's not an excuse for appointing liberals.

You come on up here to Massachusetts and walk into a Governor's Council meeting and tell them that you're not going to appoint any liberals -- or even a majority of liberals -- to be judges in this state.

What would you have suggested as a better balance given the candidates he was offered and a Governor's Council that's 8/9ths Democrat? What is your plan for fulfilling your duty as Governor of Massachusetts to fill those judicial appointments?

I've seen some unhinged attacks on fellow Republicans on RedState in the past few months, but this one really takes it.

If Mitt becomes President, he shouldn't be expected to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. After all, both houses of Congress will probably be run by liberals. Why fight them? He should appoint some liberals too just to get along.

You mean judges that agree with Huck about Lawrence v Texas, right?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There is zero evidence that Huck ever supported the thought process behind Lawrence. I asked stealthlawprof but never received an answer:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/stealthlawprof/2007/dec/14/heres_the_deal_...

Well now we have a definitive answer:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.Article&ID=138

After reading the decision I believe it is obvious that the ruling was wrongly
decided. Lawrence v. Texas is an extreme example of judicial activism. It could, in fact, be inappropriately used to attack our marriage laws nationwide.

Furthermore, As Justice Thomas said, we might disagree with the wisdom of a law, but that is the province of the Legislature, not unelected judges. No such activist Justices will be appointed as long as I am President.

It's too bad that people immediately rushed to judgement before any shred of evidence.

So he was for it before he was against it, right? I guess you guys don't care much about the "flip flopper" thing after all. Somehow it goes from "probably correctly decided" to being a "extreme example of judicial activism" after he gets called on it.

If he didn't know what the decision was about (as we all did... and we aren't running for President), maybe he shouldn't be giving his opinion of it... or maybe he should abandon his run for President and study up on current events.

He sure seems to be having to make a lot of "Durr... I didn't know what I was talking about" retractions.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...means that Huck wasn't sure when he gave that answer -- he said so himself that he had not personally studied Lawrence at the time of that answer.

The fact stands that there is zero evidence that Huck ever supported the thought process behind Lawrence.

No reason to pay any attention to it, right? I'm sure he'd pay at least as much attention to his SCOTUS nominees. Can't let a little thing like SCOTUS get in the way of his real duties: pandering murderers and rapists and looking for reasons to hike taxes.

It doesn't require poring over every word of the concurring opinion to come to the conclusion that it's crap. It was pretty obvious to most of us (at least those of us who aren't attempting to pander and give the "right" answer) that it was incorrectly decided the day it came out.

Even if you buy into his pathetic and unbelievable excuse that he didn't know anything about it at the time, then why is he commenting on it? Do you really want a candidate that's going to offer his opinion on stuff he knows nothing about?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

then why is he commenting on it?

He didn't give a definitive comment on it; he had to answer because a caller asked him the question. He dodged it at that time.

Is not a dodge. It's an opinion. "I don't know much about the reasoning behind it... I'll have to look into it" would be a dodge. Your argument now is at odds with Huck's official statement.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Just like Kerry was trying to hedge his initial pro-war vote by opposing funding.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Will there ever, in a million years, EVER be a point at which just maybe the Huckster should stop getting the benefit of the doubt on every wrong thing he says. If we were willing to give John Edwards the benefit of the doubt this often I think we could make him seem like a conservative.

I don't think it should be held against Huckabe to have give an off-the-cuff arguendo comment in response to a radio show question on a current public issue without having had time to first examine it in depth. It would have been better if Huckabee has made a disclaimer at that time to the effect that he was basing his response on the caller's statement because he hadn't thoroughly reviewed it, but people don't always cover all the bases in an impromptu situation like a talk show.

The real question then becomes when Huckabee examined the Lawrence decision in depth and formed an informed opinion about it. If he did that examination and formulation reasonable close to the time of the decision, then I'd let him walk.

On the other hand, if he's suddenly looked at Lawrence after reading Anne Coulter's criticsm, then it's another black mark against his record.

Unfortunately, I don't know if we'll be able to get an answer to that question unless someone can find a public statement or dated document to establish a date.

And Rightly So!

A constitutional right to engage in sodomy? And you have to really get into some in depth analysis to think "hey... maybe something isn't right with this decision?" Give me a break.

And just what was the "summary by the caller" that resulted in the erroneous statement? What possible justification did the caller invent that made it sound to Huckabee like "it was probably correctly decided?" Did the caller read him a copy of the Constitution that included a right to sodomy in the text? Or just a right to privacy?

I don't care when he changed his mind, if he ever actually did change his mind. If I was able to respond to that question the day the decision came out, someone who wants to be freakin' President of the United States should certainly be able to.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I spent a lot of time and thought on that discussion a few days about initiated by stealthlawprof. However, one thing that became clear from that discussion is that understanding the constitutional issues and the difference between conservative and liberal jurisprudence as it applies to that case is not something that is that obvious or easy to understand but does take serious thought.

Your comment about "a constitutional right to sodomy" rather oversimplifies the issue.

However, as I reread Huck's statement linked above, I'm not convinced that he understands the jurisprudence issue either, even now. Rather, he seems to be echoing disapproval of the outcomes of the decision rather than really looking at whether the reasoning behind the decision was sound. Moreover, I can't really make sense of his assertion "we might disagree with the wisdom of a law, but that is the province of the Legislature, not unelected judges".

However, his statement, complete with the requisite denunciation of "judical activism" and "such activist judges" overall sounds more like trying to mend fences with anti-gay social conservatives than with really answering his opinion as to whether Lawrence was "correctly decided".

This means that if Huckabee with the benefit of time is still looking at the outcome of Lawrence, then Huckabee was almost surely agreeing with the outcome of Lawrence when he spoke of the case being "correctly decided" during the talk show rather than looking at jurisprudence.

In any case, the statement doesn't rescue Huckabee, but at best shifts that for which he can be criticized. His focus on outcome rather than process doesn't affirm conservative jurisprudence. And whether he spoke hastily during the talk show and "repented at leisure", or instead he has flip-flopped since then - neither reflects well on him.

And Rightly So!