What serious presidential candidate destroys their gubernatorial records when leaving office? Only one unserious person.
Posted by Karol at 10:49 AM
hahahahaha…way too funny.
You Huck haters sure try hard. First it’s the Natalie Portman nonsense; then it was him saying that 0bama grew up in Kenya…now it’s re-hashing the old news about his gubernatorial records missing.
I’m waiting for you guys to find a real issue, like Romneycare.
Huck is dominating the polls and all the haters are running scared…trying to crawl under any hole to find something…..please get back to me when you actually do.
This has nothing to do with hating. I actually like Huckabee as an individual. I just don’t feel he is a serious candidate for the presidency. Before you respond, I’m not supporting a Romney candidacy either. Both of those guys have issues that make it difficult to for conservatives to consider them for higher office. Both of them were to varying degrees nanny state liberals. Acting like they know whats best for us peons. No thanks.
Fundys will not pull the lever for a mormon. Sad but true.
Here we go again with this nanny state nonsense…let me guess…you’re talking about the smoking ban he supported….when people bring that up; they make it sound like he wanted to completely ban smoking; when actually it was just a ban on smoking in the work place; which I agree with.
one other thing…
I’m so sick and tired of this conservative purity test…all you so called conservatives who cry about nanny state and taxes, etc..Reagan is your hero and he raised taxes and his immigration policies weren’t exactly conservative.
spare me the BS with your purity…the Huckster raised taxes that 80% of the people of Arkansas supported. He governed with a 90% democratic state legislature, the highest percentage in the country.
You know that’s not why he can’t win. He’s a Latter Day Saint.
Some of my friends that aren’t ever politically inclined and have subsequently realized that being that way has given us Obama, like Cain. What are your thoughts ?
Shorter version of Larry’s argument:
“Yeah, Huck has betrayed conservative principles in the past, but everything you bring up isn’t a real issue because it’s against the Huckster so shut up and vote for him anyway.”
Proof of point: Romneycare is an issue _but allowing governor records to be destroyed_ is not? Oh, wait, maybe we should talk about that *bleeper* he pardoned who went on up to Missouri and killed a woman? Oh, wait, that’s not a real issue either.
So basically your argument for Huck boils down to “He’s not Obama, he lost a lot of weight, and he plays a mean guitar.” Because _obviously_ you don’t want us to talk about anything substantive, because at that point people start remembering why they voted for John “I’m such a flawed candidate I make Bob Dole look viable” McCain during the GOP primaries in 2008.
As to Romney–yeah, the Mormon thing is a non-starter even without the stinking albatross of Romneycare. I’m actually ashamed of GOPers who say that, but the fact is enough do to make me think there’s probably about 1/3 of the Republican electorate who feel this way even if they won’t say it. Let’s also not forget his gaffe of stating his sons were serving the country by helping to get him elected. Mmm, no, you have that many boys that haven’t put on the uniform _and_ you’re from the Northeast? Good luck with that Mitt.
James, all politicians have stuff that supporters choose to ignore. You hear people say “I held my nose and pulled the lever for…”
Reagan is a great case in point. He did things that were reprehensible. I mean really, really bad. The things we have criticized Obama for he did and far worse. The point is how we felt with him in charge. Romney, Trump, Palin, McCain are not the right stuff.
Give it a rest…the issue of his Gubernatorial records is old and has no merit…try something new.
Yes, you’re right…it has no merit. Because the last time we elected an empty suit on a “trust us, he’s good for it” has turned out sooooo well thus far. So I assume that since the issue “is old and has no merit” that Huck is no longer going to trumpet his experience reaching across the aisle or anything else he did in Arkansas while governor? Because if we throw out his gubernatorial experience then what was the main reason for electing him again?
Can’t have it both ways Larry. You can blather and say “give it a rest” all you want, but like the pilot whose windscreen is rapidly filling up with terrain covering your eyes and screaming “there’s no mountain!” doesn’t change the fact you’ve effed up.
Captain Oilybird–what did Reagan do that was “reprehensible?” Because when the credit column has “put the finishing touches on the Soviet Union,” your debit entry better be a doozie. I’m not saying the man was perfect, but getting us out of the Cold War without nukes going off is not a minor thing.
Huck responded in the last few days…I suggest you go read it…and the blog that posted this is a liberal site…I’m sure they gave all the facts.
I don’t think Huck is perfect…no such thing in politics..
here is a fact….the man was governor for over 10 years and had an approval rating in Arkansas of over 60 percent.
James, many things. From laying flowers at the graves of SS members to his cut and run in Lebanon. From laughing at AIDS victims to selling weapons to our enemies to fund a brutal and illegal war. He conned the religious right into voting, and then betrayed that base. The War on Drugs. His many tax hikes…any more needed?
If you read what I typed, you would read that it was more about how he made people feel. Just because I will not buy in to the romanticizing of Saint Reagan does not mean his tenure wasn’t any good. The point I made was that none of the possible front runners could touch his contrail.
About the cold war. The Berlin Wall came down 10 months after he left office, and when he left office, he was already showing signs of the terrible Alzheimer’s that he had. Unless you are using the “Clinton was at fault for 9/11″ schtick, I think crediting the guy for the final collapse of the untenable system in the Eastern Bloc is a reach.
On the plus side: he supported improvements in the environment, he realized that immigration was necessary, he talked to people he opposed for the greater good, he made people feel better about themselves.
Cold War: I’m not the only person who gives Reagan credit. For starters, try John Lewis Gaddis, i.e. the foremost historian on the Cold War. Then go to Mikhail Gorbachev (who, um, just might know what caused the Soviet Union to implode), the late Pope John Paul II, Dame Thatcher, just about every 20th Century historian still active, etc., etc.. Sorry, but if you’re trying to imply everyone who believes that is suffering from mass hypnosis then I’m afraid I’m going to have to see more than a pseudonym that makes me think of Exxon Valdez victims. Given the tax hikes were to pay for the Reagan military build up (wow, imagine that, raising taxes to go to war?!!), I’m not thinking that was a bad plan.
As for the rest–those are no more “reprehensible” than what Qaddafi was doing in Libya was genocide. Mistakes? Certainly in some cases. However, the “SS members” was part of paying respects to German war dead. Furthermore, if you read Reagan’s full remarks, he even acknowledges the SS was reprehensible at the time even if the soldiers involved may have been replacements. BTW, if you ever read _The Wages of Destruction_, _The Wehrmacht_ by Tette, or _Hitler’s Willing Executioners_ then you’ll understand that pretty much any German war cemetery has “reprehensible” people in it. The War on Drugs, as I recall, was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress in response to hysteria. Likewise, the same Congress informed the President they weren’t ready to go to war to secure Israel’s northern flank. While I don’t agree with leaving Hezbollah (or for that matter, Syria) in one piece after the truck bombing, I also think that was a case of picking what hill to die on. Either way, neither of these rise to “reprehensible” in my mind.
In short, I am hardly saying Reagan was a “saint.” However, I think calling him “reprehensible” is a bit of stretch unless you’ve got a whole lot more evidence than just throwing out examples.
Larry: I think Clinton had a pretty good approval rating in AK in 1992. Pardon me if that pretty much pisses away the credibility of the good people of Arkansas. As to Huck’s alleged response, which was basically his records were disposed of by his predecessor, that doesn’t change the fact _that his records were destroyed_. Once again, when your actions are the same as Bubba Clinton’s that tends to be, shall we say, _problematic_.
Sorry, Huck’s response actually made things worse. Unless you have a different article than this one (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/05/huckabee-slams-mother-jones-over-missing-documents-story) the guy seems even less ready for prime time than I originally thought. *sigh* And it was such a pretty airplane…
You have no evidence of anything…I have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to Huck’s response.
I’m amazed at the straws you huck haters grasp onto.
I have no evidence of anything with Huck’s response? Strange, that hyperlink looks active in my web browser. That tells me that you didn’t read the article (at which point, see point about closing eyes and screaming loudly to deny any contradictory evidence) or, yeah, you’re basically going to keep talking about “Huck haters” and “straws” no matter what is put before you.
Either way, if you’re response is going to be the 5 y/o “No it’s not! No it’s not!” no matter what is said, I’m going to stop wasting effort. I think the fact your answers are shrinking in both size and coherence pretty much proves my point as well as demonstrates which one of us is getting his a** kicked in this argument. When you want to say something intelligent that contributes to the conversation I’ll be happy to respond. Until then, feel free to keep shrieking at the top of your lungs from the kid’s table about how the big, bad meanies keep picking on Huck. At least the Ron Paul folks are entertaining.
I read Huck’s response….what’s the smoking gun?…Enlighten me please.
nobody cares about this issue, James…as Huck stated; there was a frivilous lawsuit that went nowhere.
you want to bring up his clemency/Pardon record; that’s fair…you want to talk about his immigration policy; that’s fair….but this nonsense makes you Huck Haters look as foolish as the Obama Birthers
I notice you swerved around the whole selling weapons to our enemies to fund a brutal and illegal war thing. Ditto the scam he played on the religious right.
I don’t think Israel can be classified as an enemy.
Dan, I was talking about Iran.
Larry–I’m glad that you feel certain things are “fair” to bring up about Huck and certain things aren’t. I’m pretty sure that Mitt Romney’s supporters don’t think it’s “fair” to bring up Romneycare, but that’s why we have primaries. I’m sure Huck’s opponents will be good and “fair”
Here’s your “smoking gun” since apparently you can’t spot the weaseling making your man as suitable for the Presidency as I am for Grand Kleagle:
“Even a frivolous lawsuit filed over this was dismissed with a thud because we carefully and meticulously followed state law and practices with the official records (which were properly filed with the Secretary of State or left for the incoming governor) and my personal papers and articles donated to the archives of my alma mater, Ouachita Baptist University.”
Real leaders don’t say “my papers were properly filed,” they say “My records are at _______, and I have signed the release form for them to be given to the press” or they say “Secretary of State _______, for reasons unknown to me, destroyed my records. My other papers are at Ouachita Baptist University, and I have asked (insert Dean’s name here) to make immediate copies at my expense.” Punks who don’t deserve to even come close the presidency, however, wring their hands and say, “Well, gosh, I’d really like to give you my records but, dangit, in the last four years I just haven’t gotten around to doing the requisite arm twisting necessary. Gee whiz, won’t you guys drop this so I can be put in charge of the Federal Government? Because I’m sure I’ll find a set of gonads if you put me in the White House, as it’s not like I’ll have to force someone to do something hard there.”
That clear enough for you? Or are you going to give another two synapse response about how we “Huck Haters” just need to let things go. Thanks, we’ve already got one guy sitting in the Oval Office whose hidden his records and that has turned out sooooo well.
Oilybird–really, you’re going to trot out Iran-Contra as “reprehensible”? That’s the best freakin’ thing you got to counterbalance _eliminated the nation’s most dire threat since its inception_? You want to talk about swerving, I notice when I broke out the Cold War evidence that you suddenly realized “Holy sh*t, I don’t have a Ph.D. nor have I written a book…better shut my pie hole…”. Tell ya what sparky–I’ll grant you that Reagan sold the Iranians what most people estimate to be about 75-100 BGM-71s TOWs and some small arms. In return, go look up Operation Praying Mantis. No, wait, I’ll do it for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis). So, yep, those Iranians sure came out the better end of that deal. “Yay, we’ve got some TOWs…and the sharks in the Persian Gulf just got fat off our sailors. Oh, and we’re basically throwing in the towel versus the Iraqis. But hey, we got some obsolescent missiles that we can’t really use effectively because the Iraqis have figured out things like how to electrify the swamp when we do human wave…sh*t, we got screwed!”
That anvil to your forehead clear enough for you, or you want some more where that came from? I never said Reagan was perfect–I just said that he wasn’t “reprehensible.” If all you’re going to bring to the party is “Gosh, he sold the Iranians some first generation ATGMs at the same time he helped them with the naval reduction program…” then I’ll be happy to keep delivering rhetorical beat downs to whatever targets you want to present. Yep, arms for hostages didn’t go so well–neither did the first couple years of the Civil War or the first six months of World War II. If you’re waiting for a perfect leader, I suggest you go sit next to that Christian family down there who said they’re waiting for Jesus to return. Either you, they, or both will get your wish around the same time…
Speaking of Christians…I didn’t swerve around the religious right, I just figured your presentation was so weak it didn’t deserve a response. However, lest someone think that I’m avoiding it because I don’t have an answer and you actually presented something that could be considered intellectually sound, I will address that now. You know, the election of George H.W. Bush in 1988 after the Christian Right basically abandoned Pat Robertson would be a rather big, how shall we say, CLUE LIGHT that good religious folks of all stripes obviously weren’t that upset with Reagan’s policies. Furthermore, I don’t know what universe you live in, but most of the religious folks I knew back in the ’80s considered the Soviet Union to be a godless abomination. Funny, most of Reagan’s policies were successfully devoted to crushing the Evil Empire. Oh, and we won’t even get into all the religious outreach done by the Vatican into Eastern Europe that the U.S. covertly supported. But you tell me–how did the religious right get “scammed” in your opinion? Because obviously you have some secret knowledge source that the rest of the world seems to have never found. I mean, I suppose the man didn’t pass constitutional amendments on things like abortion while he was busy, you know, wrestling with a bear. I missed the part where we had some Old Testament stopping of the sun going on in the 1980s, as I could’ve swore there were still 24 hours in a day back then. Hmm, constitutional amendment on abortion or reduction of the odds that United States will get turned into a parking lot…well, hey, at least then the Christians would’ve been happy, huh? (”Wow, I’m here at the pearly gates with my whole family and I didn’t even have to wait on the Rapture! Super!”)
Will you please spare me the BS?
Let me tell you what real leaders do…
they balance budgets
they improve infrastructure
they improve education
they improve healthcare
guess what?…tha’s what the Huckster did…that’s why he was voted one of the top 5 governor’s in the country….that’s why he had a 60+ percent approval in Arkansas
to compare these records to romneycare is foolish beyond belief.
So, the ends justified the means? How was funding the Contras against a democraticly elected gov not a reprehensible thing? And he funded it with money from the guys who kidnapped US embassy staffers. That is fine?
Did people serve jail time for this?
If it was so good, why was it kept so secret?
Before 1980, the religious right spurned voting.
Maybe you should book a ride on that clue train too. I said at the start that the bad things were as naught to how he made people feel. When he spoke of bad things “being on” his “watch”, that was a great admission.