Filed under: 2008 elections, Immigration, Mike Huckabee — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 13, 2008 @ 6:34 pm CET
Although Mark Krikorian defends Mike Huckabee at the Corner, I have to say that I agree with the WaPo columnist who decided that it was time to spend some attention to the fact that Huckabee basically copied an immigration plan Krikorian came up with and wrote down somewhere last year.
As Dan Riehl points out, Huckabee acted as if the plan was his. He, among other things, said that he has “created a nine point immigration policy that says there is a 120 day period in which people go to their home country and start the process from the back of the line.” The problem is, of course, that Huckabee developed no such plan, he simply stole someone else’s (because his campaign didn’t have the money to hire someone to come up with an original plan probably).
Dan overdoes it, however, when he argues that this information will destroy Huckabee’s chances. Whenever something happens, Dan concludes that Huckabee’s going down. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but not at this time; I don’t see how this could destroy Huckabee. No, he’s probably in it for the long run. He has a strong base of support.
There’s simply no way that he’ll disappear as quickly as he suddenly came into the picture.
Huckabee is here to stay and Republicans who aren’t too fond of him should wake up to that reality. Huckabee’s base forms a major part of the GOP’s base, and this group of voters has been an important voting bloc for the GOP: without them, the GOP can’t win elections.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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
willfully 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 use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(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 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.
