Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Huckabee was referring to Romney in the “if a man’s dishonest” clip

Huckabee was referring to Romney in the “if a man’s dishonest” clip

What is going on in the Republican Party?

Mike Huckabee claims that Newt is using a clip from Huckabee in 2008 out of context because Huckabee was not referring to Mitt Romney, but in fact Huckabee obviously was referring to Romney.

Here’s the video of Huckabee voicing his objection (the discussion starts at 2:10)

Here’s the relevant part of Huckabee’s statement, as reported by Fox News, Huckabee: Gingrich should pull “Deceptive” Ad:

Former GOP presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee “would love for” Newt Gingrich to pull a political campaign ad that features a comment he made during the 2008 campaign that appears to slam Mitt Romney for being “dishonest.”

“I know Newt Gingrich at the end of the ad says I approved this message, well let me just say, I didn’t approve that message,” Huckabee said in an interview Friday on Fox News.

The former governor of Arkansas said his words were “taken out of context” and were also ” deceptive” because he was not referring to Romney, one of his 2008 primary rivals.

“That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. It was a general statement,” Huckabee, has not endorsed anyone so far in the 2012 presidential race, and says he doesn’t plan to do so.

Really?  The Huckabee ad was quite famous at the time.   Huckabee, furious at Romney’s attacks on him, showed the ad at a press conference in announcing that he would not run the ad to stay positive.  It was marketing genius because he didn’t have the money to run the ad but the press coverage was better than advertising.

Here’s the Huckabee ad, he obviously is referring to Romney as the ad entirely is about Romney’s dishonest attacks on him (h/t conservativegram in Tip Line):

Like I said, what is going on here? I like Mike Huckabee, but to see him come out in defense of Romney by making a statement which plainly is not correct is just more evidence of the damage done in the name of electing Romney.

Support or defend Romney if you want, that’s fine, but don’t ask us to be deaf and blind.

Update: Huckabee has offerred a similar statement through HuckPAC.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

You like Huckabee? That vicious, nasty, backstabbing little twerp? Ew! What The Huckster is doing now is par for the course, Wm. I betcha he was smiling when he said he didn’t approve the ad. Jerk!

Please, Prof.!!!

Hucksterbee is one of the LEAST honest guys out there…and THAT is going some.

Newt should leave that ad up, and MAYBE add a part that asks who the HELL Hucksterbee was referring to if not Romney?

Me thinks the Huck needs to be careful or his true colors will be revealed.

listingstarboard | January 28, 2012 at 9:16 am

The political class of both parties are getting rich under the Obama regime. It is an equal opportunity pillaging of the taxpayer. The current political parties are just opposite wings of a corrupt vulture that exploits the hard working honest taxpaying citizen. Republicans in power do not want to end their gravy train, they are riding it alongside their Dem counterparts. If anyone was honest —Romney stands for Gun Control, Amnesty,Government run health care,and Cap and Trade. For goodness sake, why would any patriot vote for him?

    Yep. This sounds just like the cozy treatment that when down with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there either gave every out-of-work politician a “job” or bought them off to stay quiet.

Kinda OT, but I’m ‘enjoying’ Drudge’s current banner headline:

“SUNSHINE STATE TURNS CLOUDY” w/ downcast photo of Gingrich.

Gee, Drudge, how does it feel having *made* the news that resulted in the change in weather?

    Windy City Commentary in reply to ECM. | January 28, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Drudge continues the big Newt headlines and they are all negative. Yet, Rush and Levin decided to defend Drudge yesterday and say he is only just displaying the news, he doesn’t write the articles. Plus Levin had to say what a great friend Ann Coulter is.

      This is why I trust them no more than anyone else. You would think they would at least stick to one side or the other.

        Midwest Rhino in reply to wodiej. | January 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm

        They tried to stop doctors from accepting trips for prescribing expensive drugs, but allowed meals. They found even small “bribes” will influence behavior.

        When so much media and money is leaning one way, it is difficult impossible to not be influenced. Even if the “bribee” sees the Mitt dishonesty, he will likely equivocate away the bad behavior when he feels his bottom line might suffer.

        So many of these conservative ladder climbers are largely climbing some corporate ladder, so they try to jump on the bandwagon and play loudest. Others that have a solid market share want to wait, watch and waffle.

        Long live alternative online media!

      You left out the part where they defended Newt and criticized Drudge as being part of a hit.

Eh, I think there’s a lot of political plotting out there, everyone waiting to see how this shakes up before they make any endorsements. My guess is (and it’s just a guess) that this is less about Huckabee defending Mitt and more about him not wanting to have looked like he endorsed or attacked anyone.
I realize he did attack in ’07/’08 but those things are forgotten when primararies end.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to tsrblke. | January 28, 2012 at 9:30 am

    There is a difference between not wanting to endorse anyone and lying. Huckabee, as usual, was lying.

      Eh, lying goes part in parcel with trying to position one’s self in the best place to be oppertunistic. I’m not saying Huckabee wasn’t playing fast and loose with the truth, just noting that it’s likely less about Newt as Newt and more about political oppertunism. Newt was only the target because he released the ads. I don’t think Huckabee’s in it for Mitt (or against Newt), I think he’s in it for Huckabee. That of course isn’t really any better of a position, it’s just an explaination.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to tsrblke. | January 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm

        Huckabee declined to run in large part due to his Fox show ($$$), which he’d have to quit. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. Rupert Murdoch has tweeted in opposition to Gingrich. Huckabee values his paycheck more than his own integrity. This means he is perfectly suited to reenter politics.

Yeah … it’s about money and power, in the context of TARP and Stimulus where a couple trillion were tossed around willy nilly. That can buy a lot of political favors and commercials. I hear the Romney camp is outspending Newt about 6:1 in Florida.

Tea Party “founder” Rick Santelli railed against unregulated derivative markets and “shadow banking” for years, as well as the bailouts. There was estimated to be some $650 trillion in derivative exposure spread around God knows where. That is why we saw domino financial company failures, and amazing market gyrations. Where has all that “easy money” sloshed around to, with the help of government “stooges”?

Obama may have been right, it was irresponsible and “unpatriotic” for Bush to add $5 trillion to our debt … so Obama in three years has added another $5 trillion and plans to add at least a trillion a year more, if things go well.

Something has to give, and these power players want to make sure they have their man in DC when chaos ensues. They want to own BOTH presidential candidates. (as I see it) Never let a crisis go to waste.

What is going on here? you ask. It’s simple:

Huckabee wants to dissociate himself from Newt who chose to attack Romney on Bain. Huckabee even went so far as to defend Mitt by issuing a newsletter to his supporters:

Romney has come under a lot of fire for Bain Capital’s investments in some companies that were then scaled down with layoffs to become profitable,” the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate writes. “That’s been demonized thoroughly by the media as corporate raiding, But it’s surprising to see so many Republicans embrace that leftwing argument against capitalism.

One could even make the argument that Newt’s campaign is guilty of defamation. (Cue the Professor.)

Bottom line: Huckabee is justified in requesting that he be removed from an ad that supports Newt when Huckabee does NOT endorse Newt’s tactics.

    Ragspierre in reply to MerryCarol. | January 28, 2012 at 10:29 am

    “Huckabee is justified in requesting that he be removed from an ad…”

    Perhaps.

    He is not entitled to lie, though. (He may disagree, thinking he IS entitled to lie, since he’s done it SO much.)

    Hucksterbee is no friend of economic liberty, either. Ironic, no?

    Midwest Rhino in reply to MerryCarol. | January 28, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Bottom line is Huckabee is lying about the context of his ad. He now supports liberal Romney, so wants to rewrite history.

    Huck is apparently very forgiving … he now forgives/accepts Mitt’s dishonesty. He forgave hardened criminal Clemmons too, who was serving 95 years and never should have been out. I’m sure the Huckster would like to erase that history too, of the four officers killed in cold blood by the hardened criminal he pardoned.

    MerryCarol in reply to MerryCarol. | January 28, 2012 at 11:22 am

    These are the facts:

    During the 2008 campaign, Huckabee is remembered for calling Romney on the carpet for lying.

    Huckabee is now walking back on that: “That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. It was a general statement.”

    You can dislike Huckabee for it (calling him a RINO and a huckster is way over the line, in my opinion, but I will save that argument for another day), however his statement is TRUE.

    Now it’s 2012, and Huckabee is calling Newt on the carpet for lying — about Huckabee supporting Newt.

      Ragspierre in reply to MerryCarol. | January 28, 2012 at 11:34 am

      You didn’t view the ad, did you, dear?

        MerryCarol in reply to Ragspierre. | January 28, 2012 at 11:57 am

        Rags, “honey pie”, do your research. Huckabee dropped that ad, came out publicly denouncing it as falling into the negative campaigning trap, and then ran many more campaign ads that did not mention Romney by name.

        And please refrain from the condescending “dear” in the future; trying to make yourself appear bigger than me does not make your argument any stronger.

          Ragspierre in reply to MerryCarol. | January 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

          Oh, I see now. He “dropped” the ad. Thus unringing the bell.

          So now he gets to lie about the fact he DID air the ad.

          Hmm…

          I am a lot older than you, dear. One prerogative of age.

      Mitt Romney is mentioned in the first 10 seconds… just incase you missed it.

Old politicians never die, they just RIP (retire in place)

What you are seeing here is Chicago politics in all its rotten glory on a national scale. The Chicago way is for both party insiders to pluck the taxpayer chicken and blame the other guy for it. Newt does not buy into that way of doing business. Some of the attacks on Newt are being driven by the same people who created the atmosphere that resulted in him resigning the speakership, they really do hold a grudge.

What you can glean from all of this is who needs to be out of the political arena at the earliest available opportunity as they have now shown themselves for who they are and what they stand for.

And Huckabee has just demonstrated again who he really is, a modern day Elmer Gantry.

Most politicians want their cake and want to eat it too. Perhaps this is why McCain called Romney Obama when he endorsed him. Funny.

Questioning business practices is no different than questioning medical practices. Businesses and medicine impact society at large. Whether a business defrauds the government or doctor defrauds the government, they both need to be held accountable.

Newt Certo!

I don’t know that much about Huckabee except he was an Arkansas governor who let out some wild animals from prison. I don’t know if he can do anything about Gingrich using this ad but if not, then Gingrich should keep it up. Sounds like Huckabee is already in Romney’s liar corner anyway.

I’m thinking that Gingrich’s SuperPAC should just carpet-bomb this ad in full, with no extra commentary, in Florida & upcoming states.

I’m wondering about copyright issues, though. The SuperPAC could just take the hit, and fork over cash after the election, but if airing the ad in full is a clear violation, then TV stations might themselves be violators, and thus decline to air the ad. Maybe someone who knows something about copyright law can weigh in on this one.

The establishment is angry that the tea party candidates in the house are throwing a wrench in the works. They refuse to go along with tax increases and insist on reducing spending, they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling but would rather have a principled fight over spending and debt reduction. They are willing to go against the grain to try and save the nation but it makes the leadership look bad so they must be stopped. Mitt, if elected president will use the office of the President to whip the Tea Party caucus into shape. He will attempt to co-opt them and put all the tax increases, spending and other big government wish list in place. He will use the R after his name to legitimize Obama’s governing style.

This appears to be like most RINO and Leftist politicians who seem to have an individual mandate to be liars as a “condition of breathing.”
At least Newt won’t owe them anything when he gets elected and that is a good thing for us.

In other news, Romney surrogate Pam Bondi (Florida AG) announces Romney’s plan to push for RomneyCare in all 50 states. Details with video at TheGatewayPundit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/were-screwed-florida-ag-pam-bondi-claims-mitt-wants-romneycare-in-every-state-video/

I guess it depends on what you mean by “conservative”.

We are amidst a collective fleecing of the American taxpayer unprecedented in history. The end is to separate the American taxpayer from as much of his money as possible, and then pour it into a thousand dubious government programs, ‘investments’, and schemes so that protected, vested interests may rake their cut off the top in their implementation.

For instance, the Obama ‘tax the rich’ plan, however formulated, would increase taxes on those whose money comes from investments and business. Those who hold these investments and own these businesses will treat the new taxes as an unfortunate new cost and simply pass them on by raising prices and rates in their myriad businesses, thereby passing the cost on to their customers – you and me. In other words, it’s a ‘pass-thru’ tax on every taxpayer in America. The beauty of it – for Obama and the Democrats – is that they get the tax money to blow on their cronies, but the American people gouged for it will blame the business owners, the ‘rich’, who are forced to raise their prices to cover it. It’s a sweet, sweet gig.

It becomes clearer each day that this GOP establishment purge of anyone not moderate and centrist is a play to gain control of the money, orchestrated among current GOP elites who will play the exact same game as Obama and the Democrats, changing only the vector for the rape of the American taxpayer. Once collected, they’ll blow our money too, on a different, Republican-themed set of government programs, ‘investments’, and schemes so that a different, Republican set of protected, vested interests and cronies may rake their cut off the top in their implementation.

The forced choice before us: Shall we be raped by Obama and the Democrat Party or by Romney and the Republican Party?

Given ten minutes and two cups of hot chocolate, any one of us could explain to a 12 year old that the predominant needs of the American government is to regain fiscal solvency by budget cuts accomplished through entitlement reform, tax reform, and reductions in spending. It is not rocket science. It is basic budgeting at 6th level grade math. And yet, what are the issues least mentioned, most glossed over, in this 2012 existential race for the future of our country? They are entitlement reform, tax reform, and reductions in spending. If mentioned at all, it is lip service, without detail, and sans sincerity.

Though there are many organizations formed under the banner of the Tea Party – I co-chair just such a group in NC – the Tea Party is not a political party, nor anything like a single organization. In fact, the true Tea Party is not an organization at all. It is a set of deeply held common ideas and beliefs shared by a responsible, hard working, tax paying group of Americans as diverse in their demographics and geographics as any political party. Liberal and conservative media both have declared the Tea Party to be on the wane, a short-lived grassroots uprising which lost its steam after the 2010 mid-term landslides it provided the Republican Party. They mistake the diminished number of organized Tea Party activities for a diminishment of their ideas and beliefs themselves. Our current political times hardly seem calm, but compared to the period of 2009 through 2010, with the uproar over bailouts, the stimulus monster, and the grotesque way in which Obamacare was forced down our throats, 2011 and forward has been comparatively calmer, a parade of little hurts rather than large violations. Hence, formal Tea Party activities have lessened in number and frequency.

But make no mistake – that collective set of deeply held common ideas and beliefs shared by a responsible, hard working, tax paying group of Americans called the Tea Party has not lessened one iota. Renewed activity requires only a unifying, call-to-action spark around which Tea Partiers may once again rally to their cause.

In opting for a “we decide the nominee, not you, so sit down, shut up, and vote for Romney because it’s his turn” path to choosing a GOP nominee to oppose Obama, the GOP establishment has thrown under the bus the very group which provided the 2010 landslide victories all up and down the ticket, with vast turnovers to the GOP of state congresses and state offices as well as the major gains in the US House and Senate. The GOP establishment has said to the Tea Party idea, “Piss off, we don’t need you this time. Besides, who are you going to vote for, Obama? You’ll support us because you have to. Let’s not pretend otherwise, chumps.”

The GOP, having Pearl Harbored the Tea Party, may well have wakened a sleeping giant.

As for me, I will support no GOP candidate who has not at the top of his agenda, offered with sincerity, a platform of entitlement reform, tax reform, and reductions in spending, and I don’t care what the outcome of my choice may be. If I am to be forcibly raped, it matters little to me who the rapist is, and if Obama wins, at least my violater is the expected devil, not my supposed ‘friend’ from the establishment GOP.

I’ve had just about all I can take and I am prepared. Libs, anarchists, and subversives do not own the phrase, “by any means necessary.”

Let’s just suspend the elections right now and coronate Romney.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to KT Cat. | January 28, 2012 at 11:12 am

    My first-termer governor, Beverly Perdue (D-NC), suggested exactly that – a suspension of elections so the NC and US congresses could get things done without worrying about reelection. And she was serious. Needless to say, that and other gaffes, an approval rating in the low 30s, plus the indictments of half her campaign staff – including whispers that she too will be indicted – have led her to announce she will not seek reelection. For three years, she has been incapable of completing a sentence that didn’t include the phrases “raises taxes” and “for the children”, no matter what the topic or issue.

Windy City Commentary | January 28, 2012 at 11:08 am

And now John McCain is saying the Newt won South Carolina because of anti-mormonism. McCain, did you lose to Obama because of anti-christianism? You would never allege that would you, but the Tea Party is your enemy?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/28/mccain_sees_anti-mormonism_in_romneys_sc_loss_112948.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/were-screwed-florida-ag-pam-bondi-claims-mitt-wants-romneycare-in-every-state-video/

Well…isn’t THAT special…

“Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, let the cat out of the bag last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state.
She also said she would be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president.”

Somebody has some ‘splaning to do…

Does that mean she was promised something in return for her support?

    OldNuc in reply to Say_What. | January 28, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Well, sure sounded like it. I thought that was not allowed. Must be an exception for the “next in line” though.

      Say_What in reply to OldNuc. | January 28, 2012 at 11:47 am

      Yep, I too thought it was illegal to peddle Gov’t positions in return for support.

        Ragspierre in reply to Say_What. | January 28, 2012 at 12:26 pm

        Naw. It would be if there was a quid pro quo that was proven.

        But, consider that candidates often name people who they would nominate if elected.

Et tu, Mike?

Professor Jacobson, I wanted to let you know that I referenced and linked to this post in my new article on Conservatives4Palin:

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/huckabee-engages-in-stalin-esque-re-writing-of-history-for-romney.html

Thank you for the information!

Mary Beth House

Don’t forget, Huckabee works for Fox now, and Fox is clearly in the tank for Romney. They probably pressured him to release this statement of denial.

holmes tuttle | January 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Of course that Huckabee ad was about Romney. It wa sthe work of Ed Rollins who invented the technique of “we don’t have the money to air this aid all over the place so what we’ll do is call a press conference and say ‘this is the ad we were going to air but chose not to’ because we wanted to take the high road, meanwhile all the media outlets see it and they all air it for free without the campaign having to spend anything and everyone ends up seeing it anyway.

The thing is the Huckabee ad is actually more succint and to the point than many of Newt’s ads have been. Newt doesn’t need to show Huckabee, but he would be wise to use the content of the ad.

[…] Straight with The Huckster Posted on January 28, 2012 11:30 am by Bill Quick » Huckabee was referring to Romney in the “if a man’s dishonest” clip &#8211… Like I said, what is going on here? I like Mike Huckabee, but to see him come out in defense of […]

I think he means “out of context” in the same way that both Newt and Romney would disavow the Obama campaign’s use of their comments to hit the other if either becomes the nominee.

Yes, Huckabee said it. But that was a different campaign and a different set of circumstances. If he wants to remain neutral, what else can he say?

It’s exactly the problem Sarah Palin pointed out for Gov. Christie’s “rookie” mistake. You don’t want to be making comments for the opposition’s use no matter how deeply you’re involved in the present campaign.

    tsr in reply to T D. | January 28, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    I agree.

    creativegeek in reply to T D. | January 28, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Sorry but that’s not an accurate representation of what he said.

    ““That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. ”

    That’s not someone who doesn’t want their quote from a previous campaign being used in a current one.

    That’s someone deliberately lying about the content of his own ad in order to generate the headlines that call Newt out as a liar when he’s the one who’s lying.

[…] Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has posted a video recorded during the 2008 primaries in which former Arkansas Governor and 2008 […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend