Two candidates for the Republican nomination in 2012 have a problem with Club for Growth: Mike Huckabee and The Donald. Should we take them equally seriously?
Posted by Karol at 03:21 PM
I really dislike Huckabee, but I think it’s unfair to put him the same category as Trump. The man spent the better part of an hour on Rush extolling the economic benefits of tariffs, not to mention, his support for eminent domain.
I have issues with the CFG too, although I personally like Congressman Chocola-would love to see him replace Dick Lugar in the Senate-and think he’s an improvement upon Toomey.
But I agree that they’re both pretty embarrassing potential nominees.
Just curious, Gerard, what are your issues with CFG?
Karol loves posting about the Incredible Huck cuz she knows no other topic she blogs about generates more interest.
funny how everyone supposedly dislikes Huck, yet he leads just about every poll.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how they love Reagan, yet bash Huck for similar thing Reagan did.
let me say this again…..Mike Huckabee is the most talented politician the Republican party has had since Reagan…and the stupidity of many in the republican party to take him out in favor of an insider or a fraud, will greatly reduce the chances the republicans win in 2012.
CFG is bought and paid for…everyone knows it…except Karol
It’s not issues so much as an issue: immigration. Amnesty, specifically. I don’t know if you remember the interview he gave to Laura Ingraham a few years ago, but he essentially came out in support of the CIR bill McCain, Graham, Martinez and Kennedy were pushing, which was supported by President Bush.
Granted, he’s walked back from that stance considerably since he’s been elected to the Senate, and the Club For Growth isn’t the negative force that Dick Armey is to the Tea Party, but it still bothers me a bit.
I always like to keep an open mind about people-especially people that I otherwise admire and respect. Circumstances change, which often changes opinions. Who would have thought ten years ago that Bill Bennet would be blurbing a book written by Mark Krikorian? But it’s still a bit of a nagging issue with me.
That said, I still think his election was a watershed moment for conservatives in Congress, and think he should have been elected much sooner, were it not for the machinations of the RNC and President Bush.
The criticism that CFG gets from conservatives (other than people like Larry who go the crazy “bought and paid” route) is that they don’t touch issues other than fiscal ones. People want to see them become an all-purpose conservative org. Was Toomey speaking for himself or CFG? I always really appreciated that CFG stuck to one area of policy only.
My biggest issue with CFG & organizations like that and the bloggers/talking heads is that there’s this unrealistic purity test. Governing is alot harder then talking.
I think Toomey was speaking on behalf of the organization at the time. I wish I could find the audio so I could jog my memory as to what he actually said, but I’m not a Laura 365 member.
There’s a brief back and forth between the commenters on this TAS thread , which really isn’t that edifying, but gives you an inkling of what happened.
Larry, someone has to hold politicians accountable for things they say and do, CFG does that and does it very, very well.
Holding someone accountable is one thing….distorting the facts is another