New Media tanks rolling to supress grass roots revolt in GOP December 26, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Huckabee, Hugh Hewitt.trackback
As my latest Townhall column prophesies, the New Media tanks have begun to roll in an effort to suppress those grassroots social conservatives in the GOP who heretofore have refused to bow at the altar of the Republican Establishment.
Hugh Hewitt leads the charge with his latest post today:
Huckabee’s lunge left may not have been premeditated, but it clearly displayed a candidate with no anchor in the GOP’s tradition of fiscal restraint, free trade and low taxes and a very limited understanding of the world’s most dangerous forces.
. . . . .
As actual voting approaches, GOP regulars have to ask themselves who can beat either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Mike Huckabee will never rally the GOP base to his standard given his populist rhetoric –the sort of nonsense that President Bush and every GOP nominee since Reagan has blasted away at.
Hugh’s committment to the GOP status quo is mind boggling given his leadership in the formation of the New Media. The bumper sticker on the back of Hugh’s tank reads: No fresh thinking allowed in the GOP.
I think what Hugh and other’s like him (FOX Tongue Slingers like Hannity and O’Reiley, Ann Coulter, Gary Bauer - and the like) fail to realize is - that Huckabee not only can rally the GOP base - but he can rally the Democrat’s in November. He’s already rallying many Democrats - especially those Yellow Dog Southern kind that Thompson might also appeal to, but he can’t get off his keister long enough to run a campaign. He even LOOKS like he needs to retire, 4 years in the oval office will either do him in - or do us in trying to motivate him to motivate the country.
I have a similar “Queazy feeling” as mentioned on your website home page - but my queaziness is from a different source. My queaziness comes from the feeling of “where will I go if Mike doesn’t get nominated” because of the anti-Christian attacks on Mike from his own GOP family and even his Evangelical family like Gary Bauer.
I won’t vote for Fake Faith Mitt. I struggle with Pro-Abort, Anti-Family Rudy, Fred’s turned me off recently (my former strong 2nd choice) with his Washington Biz as usual position and attacks on the Huck, and McCain has done more to hurt the Pro-Life movement in Washington than any other candidate offered us - plus I now believe his McCain-Feingold Brainchild Bill was a bit self-serving - and well Ron Paul - I just won’t go there. So who’s left? Hunter? He’ll bow out after the Primaries then I guess we’ll just have to see. For me it’s Mike Huckabee or I’m in deep trouble in finding a GOP to vote for. I’m tired of “lesser of 2″ voting.
Yeah I can’t stand reading Hugh’s blog anymore. He’s drinking some serious Kool-Aid.
Seriously distorting Huckabee’s record. Joe Carter wrote a good piece on this at http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004151.html.
But you guys are fine with this kind of trash?:
But the former governor said he had a change of heart shortly before the media assembled. Easels outlining the attacks on Romney were still standing in the room, and Huckabee stood in front of a banner that read “Enough is Enough.”
“It’s never too late to do the right thing,” he said.
In the ad, Huckabee says that Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts allowed for $50 co-pays for abortions.
At the end of the ad, Huckabee again makes the point that Romney’s attacks on him have been “desperate and dishonest.”
“If a man’s dishonest to obtain a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job,” Huckabee says in the ad.
Huckabee acknowledged that his decision not to run counter ads to Romney’s is “a huge gamble,” and he conceded that Romney’s ads targeting him had hurt him.
But, he said, “if you gain the whole world and lose your soul, what does it profit you?”
Can you really not see right through this clown?
Paul —
Just reading through your Townhall column. I’m a bit confused over this paragraph:
“But wait! Romney is a changed man,” you say. We’re all for death-bed repentance, but social conservatives rightly question whether a man who has exerted all of his political energies his entire political life for socially liberal causes can be trusted to appoint justices who will be strict constructionists.
Isn’t this more than a bit of an overstatement? What about gay marriage? How socially liberal is he on that one? What about the sanctity of marriage? How many times has Romney been married? With all of that opposition research grinding away for more than a decade, how many extramarital affairs has he had? Ronald Reagan, surely one of the greatest social conservatives in history, was a late-bloomer on abortion. Why not Romney?