As if the comparison of Huckabee to the horribly immoral Bill Clinton were not enough, we have also seen equally horrid and outrageous comparisons from other opponents and members of the top echelons of the GOP who also tout themselves as “true conservatives.”

            Ron Paul’s thinly-veiled comparison of Huckabee to fascists is totally ridiculous, arrogant, and viciously mean-spirited. Upon being questioned about the “controversy” over the “floating cross” (actually just a bookshelf) in Huckabee’s Christmas ad, he had this to say: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross.”

            Hmm…think that he was referring to Huckabee? Most people seemed to think so, forcing Ron Paul to issue a lame clarification about “not meaning to name anybody.” Yeah, and Ron Paul supporters don’t mean that either. Right. If you believe that, you might also believe that Dennis Kucinich really did see a UFO a few years ago.

            I’ve seen enough explanations to get the idea of where Ron Paul and his goons are coming from: They mostly say that “Ron Paul was not calling Huckabee a fascist, and that the whole episode was misinterpreted by people under Huckabee’s control in order to smear Paul….Oh, and by the way, Ron Paul was right about Huckabee being a fascist.” You couldn’t make this stuff up.

            If Huckabee’s use of Christianity, the cross, Christmas, etc., in politics is a portent of fascism, then the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (yes, Jefferson!), Patrick Henry, and nearly all our Founding Fathers could basically be accused of being fascist by the same line of reasoning.

            Don’t get me wrong: Evil ideas can be promoted under the guise of patriotism and religion. After all, that’s how Hitler established himself in Germany. But Huckabee’s ads the latest example of Hitler’s scheming this world has seen? Absurd in the extreme.

            Some argue that it’s quite a stretch to say that Ron Paul was referring to Huckabee when he made his ominous statement about the disguise of fascism. If I said that Mitt Romney’s ad about Mike Huckabee reminded me of Hitler’s oft-quoted axiom, “If you tell a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, people will believe it,” would you not at least take my statement to imply that I think Romney is a liar? You probably might even conclude that I implied Romney and Hitler are somewhat comparable. Wouldn’t you find it hard to believe if I said I didn’t expect either of those conclusions to be drawn? I’m sure you would.

            I contend therefore, that Ron Paul knew exactly what he was doing and what he was saying. There is also evidence that he would be motivated to attack Huckabee in that manner, as he has dedicated campaign funds and personnel for the specific purpose of attacking Huckabee in Iowa, and possibly other places. Also, Huckabee is the single greatest obstacle to Paul’s chances of getting the nomination, for without Huckabee, it is almost certain that Ron Paul would attract the majority of evangelical and values voters. There definitely is motivation for him to attack Huckabee, and this is a predictable way in which he would attack. After all, "everyone else" is doing it...

Mitt Romney and his SmearTroopers Get Really Nasty

As I noted in the previous post, Mitt Romney has begun focusing his attack machine’s full forces on Huckabee. With Huckabee getting away from him in the first rounds, Mitt’s looking to get a few below-the-belt shots in to “even things up.”

His latest low blow? A speech earlier this morning by Mitt compared Huckabee to Bill Clinton. I won’t go into all the details, but needless to say, that is a very low blow. Not only below the belt, but bare-knuckled, too. Comparing a former pastor and governor to a whoremonger and liar is nothing short of despicable. Anybody wanna disagree with that? Try comparing Mitt Romney with Ted Kennedy, then. If you think that’s bad, that’s exactly the level of comparison here. Michael Medved was right on when he called this move by Romney “a very low blow indeed” early in his show today. I appreciate that he is not jumping on the “I Hate Huckabee” bandwagon.

I stand by my belief that Romney is behind the anti-Mormon push-polling in Iowa. Nothing has been presented that proves his campaign is not behind it, for one, and the questions that I have raised have not reasonably been answered (as far as I have seen) to the point that it is even plausible that Huckabee would resort to such tactics as push-polling when they are entirely unnecessary and actually self-damaging at this point.

I really cannot remember any Republican Presidential primary sinking to this level of debate. Tossing around petty epithets, airing more dirty laundry than ever, trying to “make” dirty laundry even, taking quotes farther and farther out of context, then blowing them extremely out of proportion: Most of the same old stuff is being repeated over and over again about Huckabee (more so than about any other candidate, mind you). Regardless of who you want to win the primary, you have to wonder about this stuff. If they are so concerned about Huckabee leading the polls right now, why didn’t Giuliani get this heat? Consider the evidence: What other candidate has been so vehemently attacked from all sides in this election? You will find none. Something is up, and it isn’t just about  Huckabee’s foreign policy. I think it has mostly to do with the fact he is a Christian. Romney may be doubted over his Mormonism, but he’s not being attacked as viciously. Rather, he’s the one doing the attacking here.

Funny thing is, Mitt has no more foreign policy experience than Huckabee, and has had little to say about it. It seems that with the pressure on Huckabee, no questions are being asked about Romney’s policies, just like very few have been asked about his record as governor of Massachusetts. Beware, conservatives: What you don’t know about Mitt will hurt you.

With this latest comparison of Huckabee to Bill Clinton, it is sickening and frightening to think of what Romney will use next. I think most of you political minds out there can get an idea pretty fast. You may not want to think of what Romney’s SmearTroopers will come up with next…it could make you sick.

I can only hope and pray that people will see Romney’s ruthless smear tactics for what they are, and recoil in horror at them, causing Romney to lose what steam he has left. Again, regardless of who you support, this is unacceptable. Romney and his supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for dragging this primary campaign into the mud.

P.S.—I’m compiling a list of Romney supporters who are attacking Huckabee either with the earlier recycled nonsense and out-of-context quotes, or with nasty, disproportionate comparisons. Such people are the “SmearTroopers” I have just briefly mentioned. Get ready for some names of those people in my next post.

Wow….Pretty harsh, huh? If any Romney supporters read this, either prepare to get really mad at something you can’t do much about, or prepare to reconsider your candidate. So why do I find him to be deceptive and conniving? Read on—read the case before dismissing it as just another angry tirade from someone who happens to support another candidate:

Mitt Romney has been planning a Presidential run for at least two years. Based on very solid evidence, Romney has been shifting his verbal positions on key issues (particularly abortion and homosexuality) in order to appeal to a much broader base of voters than the decidedly liberal-leaning people of Massachusetts. See this link: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record

Not only has Mitt been quite liberal as governor of Massachusetts, he is flat-out lying about his record, making statements like, “I have always been a supporter of traditional marriage,” when the opposite is actually true. Romney has been a pro-homosexual activist. Again, if you don’t believe me, check out the above link, and read it. Try to dispute those facts from a Massachusetts pro-family activist. Somebody’s lying here, and it has to be Romney, for the author has nothing to gain by taking the time to conjure up numerous points against Romney.

By the way, Romney’s response to this exposing paper? Attack, cut down, and defame. Check this link: http://www.massresistance.org/romney/  Towards the bottom of the page, there is a link to Romney’s response attempting to defame Brian Camenker (who wrote “The Romney Deception.” He also got pretty nasty with a reporter who questioned his actions regarding the state supreme court ruling on marriage, which is also linked on the above-mentioned page.

Note also that, in the CNN/YouTube debate, Romney, in response to Rudy’s “sanctuary mansion” attack (yes, I consider it an attack, too), slammed Rudy even harder. He almost lost it emotionally. What has been Romney’s response to Huckabee’s surge? Roll out all the “big guns.” (Some that come to mind are the National Review and “The Drudge Report.”)  It seems that Huckabee’s rise has brought much more criticism than Thompson’s or Giuliani’s…Why do you think that is? I think it’s because Huckabee is a greater threat, since neither Thompson nor Giuliani have appealed so well to social conservatives. Oh, and guess who’s releasing this election’s first negative attack ad, and who do you think he’s attacking in that ad? That’s right: Romney is releasing a smashing attack against Huckabee in his upcoming ad. ‘Nuff said there.

I see Romney’s actions as carefully contrived and calculated maneuvers to gain the nomination: His change in political positioning, his heavy attacks against Huckabee, his payment of conservative groups to gain support and endorsement, his use of personal funds to run his campaign and buy votes, and other things we may not know about.

The most egregious of Romney’s attack-machine tactics is noted here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZkMWNkZDkzOTk1YTM0NTNkNmJlZThmYjJmM2ZmOGE . While not absolutely conclusive, the evidence is there. The Romney campaign, while of course denying that Romney would push-poll against himself, has not shown any strong evidence that his campaign did not do it. Think about it, though:

• -How could Huckabee have come up with the money to do push-polling? He’s not doing it in any other states, and he has hardly enough to keep his campaign functional, much less begin adding to his tactics with phone-polling.
• -Why would Huckabee want to push-poll with such a nasty emphasis when it’s obvious that the polling is creating only a negative backlash, and is very out-of-character for his campaign so far?
• -Why would Huckabee want to push-poll against someone who he is over 15 points ahead in the polls in Iowa? He didn’t get there with the push-polling, so why would he shoot himself in the foot now that he’s out front?
• -Wouldn’t it be really ingenious (though not ethical or fair) to have push-polls done in a really nasty, negative way against yourself so that people who hear the polls will be outraged at them, and be sympathetic to you (assuming a different source)? It would be hard to conclude that you had planned them, since they are negative about you, but they are also damning to your opponent, who is assumed to be the source.

• -Who has the money to pay for such an elaborate, complex move?
• -Who stands to gain the most from this debacle? (Huckabee has gotten nothing but negative backlash for the push-polls, and sympathy is building for Romney, who seems to be attacked in the push-polls for being a Mormon. Hmmmm….)

It’s obvious: Romney wants to be President bad. Really bad. And he’s willing to do anything: lie, cheat, steal, defame, connive, deceive…anything. Romney’s done a good job so far: He’s cast himself as a “true” conservative; he’s acquired endorsements from big names in Christian circles; he’s spoken about his faith (even claiming to be a “born-again Christian!!!); and now he’s playing the “religious bigotry” card for all it’s worth. You gotta admit it, he’s slicker than slick. He may even have the Ron Paul campaign helping him out. The Paul campaign has sent two former Arkansas legislators who served under Huckabee to bash him in Iowa.

Romney’s fighting hard and nasty now. He has shown he will do everything he can to get the Presidency at any cost.

Looking over some of the recent vitriol directed at our man Huckabee, I have observed a particular constant among them: They all make allegations, but offer no proof from more unbiased reliable sources. Chuck Baldwin's latest hate-Huckabee piece is a prime example:

He opens fire with the statement: "Robert Novak recently wrote a column about Mike Huckabee entitled, "The False Conservative." Robert Novak had some things to say, but only cherry-picked evidence to back up his points. He pointed to Huckabee's raising taxes by “47%”, [the legislature is actually responsible for this] but of course left out any mention of the circumstances, or of the fact that he also proposed and signed the biggest tax cuts in the state's history. Oh, and I’ve heard from others that it was more like 36%. Or was it 57%? Or…you get the idea. Hard to get everyone’s accusations the same, you know. ;)

Baldwin quotes Novak, who goes on to quote a known anti-Huckabee journalist named Quin Hillyer, who accused Huckabee of unethical dealings with state funds (again, no evidence, just accusations), and personally attacked Huckabee by labeling him "thin skinned," "nasty," and "vindictive."

And this is the "evidence" Baldwin produces to show that Huckabee isn’t the man people think he is. Pitiful. Frankly, this a pretty low blow coming from a conservative Baptist pastor. In fact, I’m hard pressed to find a non-Christian who has been more vigorous in attacking Huckabee. Sure, there’s a post or two on a blog out there, but you expect some words from non-conservatives.

Then Baldwin really stretches it by quoting one person’s letter to the World Net Daily Editor. For all we know, this person (David Ulrich) might be an anti-Huckabee activist too, or in the pay of Ron Paul or some other rival of Huckabee’s.

A reference to Jerome Corsi, founder of the Minutemen, says that Huckabee’s actions with regard to Mexico “may have been illegal.” A whole slough of conclusions is then drawn from that statement. By the way, statements like “may have been illegal,” “may be guilty of the following,” etc., are common attack statements used by any candidate’s opposition against them. Inference is a powerful weapon.

Then this reference to “the ethics commission.” What ethics commission? I assume it is some commission based in Arkansas. I’ll believe that junk when hell freezes over. I know a couple government officials who were referred to this state’s ethics committee. Every time, it was trumped-up charges of one sort or another. To its credit, the committee usually throws them out, at least here. This whole ethics thing is just more boilerplate that is usually rolled out by opponents against their most hated candidate.

As if the first reference was not enough, Baldwin goes on to quote someone who quoted that Quin Hillyer again, leveling all sorts of horrible accusations, without any evidence produced. Also, I wouldn’t blame anyone, especially Huckabee, if they attacked an enemy’s methods of criticism, particularly when they reach a desperately low level, like Hillyer’s attacks have. But to Robert Novak and Chuck Baldwin, that must mean “thin skinned.” I would love to see their reactions to similar baseless attacks on their character. If they defend themselves and criticize the attacker for unfair methods, they also should be considered “thin skinned,” by the same line of reasoning.

Then this talk of Mike’s smoking ban proposal. Who cares? He can’t enact anything like that anyway unless Congress is in agreement. I wouldn’t howl too loudly about the right of people to commit gradual suicide by inhalation of tar. :D

And Chuck tops off his smear piece with the warning “Mike Huckabee will ‘most definitely’ endorse Giuliani.” Oh??? Is that so? Did Mike say something? Did he tell Baldwin something that he wouldn’t tell the rest of us? I don’t like Giuliani any more than Baldwin does, and I probably would be at best very reluctant to vote for him.  However, such speculation is unnecessary: Mike’s on a roll, and he won’t have to endorse Giuliani—because I expect Mike to get the nomination. I’m not so sure that Mike would endorse Giuliani anyway. He’ll probably just bow out and leave the scene.

“Big government, establishment politician”: Doesn’t everyone say this about their most-hated candidate? ‘Nuff said.

It’s obvious why Baldwin is rolling out these overused, stale arguments: Huckabee, probably more than any other candidate, stands in the way of Ron Paul’s chances at the nomination. Baldwin is a total Ron Paul nut. He wrote an article stating that the evangelicals’ only choice in ’08 was Ron Paul.

Sorry Mr. Baldwin, but you’d have to be kinda liberal to go with the real Ron Paul. I’ll just hit the “highlights”:

1.       Ron Paul opposes federal marriage and pro-life amendments, or any sort of federal law in general.

2.      Ron Paul has been very friendly in his voting to the narcotics industry. A hemp activist group gave him very high ratings, according to Ontheissues.org

3.      Ron Paul is shrilly anti-Iraq-war, proposing that we withdraw our troops immediately. He doesn’t want to let the troops accomplish the task that they desperately want to finish. Also, it seems he agrees with the ludicrous allegations that President Bush staged 9-11 to get “his war.”

4.      He is against federal regulations on pornography (which should be enacted on that level) and other “private” issues.

5.      He is essentially anti-Israel, considering them a “waste of resources.” He has also attracted support from anti-Jew groups.

If that is Chuck Baldwin’s idea of a “perfect candidate,” then he’s not quite the Christian he seems to be. Using his own reasoning, how could someone like Baldwin (who I assume is very pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage) support someone who finds measures to protect those things across the states “unnecessary?” He couldn’t…unless…

Also, Ron Paul isn’t even Christian himself: he believes in evolution, thus refusing to acknowledge the creation, which I would think Mr. Baldwin believes in.

I have no problem with people bringing up legitimate, verifiable concerns. But simply quoting other people’s statements which also provide no evidence is unacceptable. Mr. Baldwin should quit demonizing his fellow Christians just because he considers them a threat to his favorite candidate.