Fred Thompson Goes After Mike Huckabee… Again

January 16th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Fred Thompson’s campaign continues to attack, primarily, Governor Mike Huckabee. I published a post yesterday with a video of Thompson criticizing the Huckasaint, but today there’s a brand new attack: Team Thompson published a statement after Romney’s victory in which they criticize their main opponent in South Carolina in very clear terms.

“Mike Huckabee’s campaign to be John McCain’s Vice President has hit a snag. He has gone from the mid-thirties in Iowa to 11% in New Hampshire and now about 15% in Michigan,” Campaign Manager Bill Lacy said.

As if that’s not enough, Lacy went on to say that “[o]n higher taxes and looser immigration, Huckabee has been done his best these past few weeks to mimic McCain. But this is nothing new. In fact, while John McCain was leading the Senate charge to grant amnesty for illegal immigrants, Mike Huckabee was one of the loudest cheerleaders.”

And there’s more! “And at the same time McCain was voting against the Bush tax cuts, Huckabee was in Arkansas increasing taxes some 21 times,” Lacy sneered.

Of course Thompson’s campaign also lashed out to Romney (and, as you can see above, at McCain), but it’s obvious that the main target of the Thompson campaign is the former Governor of Arkansas. This make sense: Huckabee was leading in South Carolina polls only a few days ago (he has dropped significantly ever since), and Huckabee’s supporters should be open to supporting Thompson. To a degree, they fight for the same voters… but only to a degree. Thompson’s no Christianist. Instead, he’s a true American conservative. Romney lost this battle with Huckabee, to a degree at least, because it was easy for Huckasaint to make Romney look like a flip-flopper. But he can’t do the same thing with Thompson.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Mark
    January 16th, 2008 at 16:59
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Mike Huckabee is a snake oil salesman and needs to be exposed to the light of day.
    You get a ton of facts on Huckabee at http://www.pinnaclecascade.com/huckabee.html and http://www.pinnaclecascade.com/huck2.html and you can view all five Republican candidates at http://www.pinnaclecascade.com

    No logins, no signups, no registrations, no blogs, no emails; just the facts.

  2. Jim Humphrey
    January 16th, 2008 at 16:59
    Reply | Quote | #2

    This is a garbage article with a strong bias for McCain.  The only reason why McCain has done well in the last two states is because of the high number of independent voters.  McCain is hated by millions of true conservatives, which you will see in the South Carolina Primary.  Huckabee will win South Carolina, you can bet your last dollar on that.

  3. Beverly Smith
    January 16th, 2008 at 17:04
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Frankly, I’m sick and tired of McCain’s lies.  There’s a group of Vietnam Vets who know McCain very well, and they say McCain sold out other Vietnam Vets in exchange of favorable treatment, when he was a prisoner of war.  McCain is a snake who wins votes by telling lies.  For example, "I know how to catch Bin Laden".  Sure.  You’ve been a Senator for 25 years and has gotten absolutely nothing done other than push for amnesty for illegal immigrants.  McCain is a snake who is counting on Fred Thompson to steal votes from Huckabee in South Carolina.

  4. Garry Broussard
    January 16th, 2008 at 17:23
    Reply | Quote | #5

    With all due respect to Sen. McCain. Than you sir for your service to this country and we owe you a debt of gratitude. Having said that, we don’t owe you the Presidency of the United States. You, sir, are a liberal leaning moderate, and don’t share our conservative values.

    With all due respect to Go. Huckabee for your service as Governor of Arkansas. Using your own record in your state, you demonstrated by your vote and your very actions that you, sir, are a liberal leaning Tax and Spend Democrat running on the wrong ticket. Your tendencies remind me too much of Jimmy Carter, and this country would be in very deep trouble having you representing the Republican ticket for President of the United States.

    For a clear consistent conservative voice for the Republican Ticket, I see no other option other than Fred Thompson, who has demonstrated time and time again that he has deep roots in the conservative principals that Ronald Regan made popular. I won’t say that Fred is like President Regan. He is like Fred Thompson. He has a clear view and vision for where we need to point this country to survive and prosper.

    Anyone that has doubt, please visit fred08.com and view his positions that are all out there for anyone that wishes to read. No hidden agenda, no false promises.
    Secure the border, lower taxes, strong military, real solutions to real problems…

  5. Michael van der Galien
    January 16th, 2008 at 17:28
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Jim: lol. I’ve endorsed Romney.

    Garry: I’ve endorsed Romney, but I think very highly of Thompson indeed.

  6. C Stanley
    January 16th, 2008 at 17:33
    Reply | Quote | #7

    Aghhhh….the invasion of the true believers. Just when it seemed we were safe from the Paulites, now we’re getting hit with the Fredheads.

    Why can’t people realize that hit and run comments like that don’t convince anyone?

    And BTW, Beverly, that Vietnam Vets group spreading lies about McCain is despicable, and if it comes out that any of McCain’s opponents have ties to that group then it will harm that candidate far worse than the false smears will hurt McCain. Oppose McCain on issues if you disagree with him, but cut the crap with his POW record.

  7. Bob
    January 16th, 2008 at 17:58
    Reply | Quote | #9

    This website is becoming more and more hard to read with Michael and Jason constant bashing of Huckabee. Calling him a Christianist is not accurate and over the top. But I guess he should be like all other Republicans and just pander and not actually believe in any of it.

    Sorry but Thompson isn’t even trying to win and he isn’t the second coming of Reagan. In all do regards Mr. Thompson I love you in Law and Order but I am not electing favorite actor.

    And Romney didn’t need Huckabee to paint him as a flip-flopper. Just look at his record, I haven’t seen that much flip-flopping since an Italian soccer match.

    I guess I am sick of the Huckabee bashing because it seems that Michael, Jason and their gang think the party should pander but not actually believe in any social conservative values. Also that somehow being moderate always means fiscally conservative/social liberal.

    One thing is clear, no candidate the GOP offers up is going to unite all the sides. Maybe Clinton is the only hope for that.

  8. Michael van der Galien
    January 16th, 2008 at 18:17

    Calling him a Christianist is not accurate and over the top.

    Anyone who says that the Constitution should be changed as to make it reflect "God’s Laws" is a Christianist.

    I guess I am sick of the Huckabee bashing because it seems that Michael, Jason and their gang think the party should pander but not actually believe in any social conservative values.

    LOL – you can believe in them, but stop pretending that you’re running for Pastor-in-Chief. "Christian Leader" my you know what.

  9. Jason Steck
    January 16th, 2008 at 19:28

    This website is becoming more and more hard to read with Michael and Jason constant bashing of Huckabee. Calling him a Christianist is not accurate and over the top. But I guess he should be like all other Republicans and just pander and not actually believe in any of it.

    Stop lying about what other people have or have not said.  Neither Michael nor I ever advocated that "Republicans should just pander and not actually believe any of it".

    Our problem is not with Christian belief, but rather with the willingness of a certain subset of Christian believers who want to impose their particular interpretation of Christian beliefs on others using the law to do it.  I admire those who’s faith guides them.  Unlike many liberals, I have no objection when Huckabee or anyone else responds to a question by saying he would pray about it.  But I do have an objection when Huckabee suggests that the Constitution be changed to be brought into line with what he sees as "God’s standards".  That’s real theocracy, not just faith guiding personal action.

    Also, I can’t speak for Michael on this one, but my objection to Huckabee is with some of what I see as his non-Christian beliefs, including a willingness to tacitly promote and benefit from prejudice against Mormons (which is hostile to John 3:16, among many other basic Biblical passages).  I think whenever Huckabee misses a chance to explicitly reject and distance himself from anti-Mormonism, he is exposing himself as a hypocrite, not a true Christian.

    My criticism (not "bashing") of Huckabee is based on principles that I have regarding religious tolerance and pluralism.  It is not just for fun.  Next time, try dealing with the principled arguments instead of lying about what I have said.

  10. C Stanley
    January 16th, 2008 at 19:41

    FWIW, even as someone who would vote for Huckabee and has somewhat supported him, I think the remarks about the Constitution went too far. It hasn’t quite made me feel that I wouldn’t vote for him, but it does discourage me.

    I think there’s a way of interpreting those comments (or spinning, if you will) to say that what he meant was that there’s no reason that the Constitution couldn’t or shouldn’t espouse the same values that we’d attribute to God given laws and morals. I think it’s quite possible that this is how he views it. But, that’s not what he said- and instead of drawing those boundaries more clearly so that the actual Christianists don’t throw their support to him on that basis, he’s using rhetoric that says that law should be based on theology, and that’s wrong.

  11. Buzz Daly
    January 16th, 2008 at 21:48

    C Stanley—you are too kind.  I really can’t believe Mr. Huckabee’s comments have raised nary a comment from the media.  It is truly incredible that so many folks have so little knowledge about the Constitution and the NECESSITY that we keep "godfigures",  and religion,  out of official government business.  That is exactly what living in a free society entails.  Mr. Huckabee is without a doubt, the most ignorant Believer I’ve yet come across, and, if anyone like him ever becomes in charge of anything important we are in trouble.   This guy clearly doesn’t understand anything about this country, and why the Constitution was constructed as it was.  It wasn’t an accident.  Didn’t our Forefathers flee exactly what Mr. Huckabee wants to establish?  It’s high time some Christians understand that the Constitution as it pertains to personal freedom exists to stop the implementation of  schemes like Mr. Huckabee’s narrow minded attempts to make this a "Christian" nation, which it is not, and, was never meant to be.  Read the whole Constitution sometime.  The word "god" is not mentioned at all, and the word religion is mentioned twice—both times with the word NOT attached.  The purpose of this great country is to assure that all Citizens, of many differing beliefs, and ideas about values, are not subjected to the tyranny of the majority.   The Constitution exists to protect everyone’s right to worship as they please, not to endorse their choice to believe in supernatural.  Keep "god" out of government at all costs, or, we are well on our way to ruin.

  12. David, Oregon City
    January 16th, 2008 at 22:08

    It is very sad to see desperate Fred Thompson attempting to hide his weak accomplishments and old age by expressing himself forcefully against Huckabee!

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.