Posted by
Dwayne Horner on Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:55:50 PM
Ok, so he has come around on Immigration...good for Huck. (Side note, why doesn't Romney get slammed for his flip flops on the social issues at the rate Huckabee has been clobbered this week on coming to our side on Immigration?!?!?) But the transformation came before he became the front runner:
During an Interview with Scott Wilder (The Word, 100.7 FM Christian Talk Radio) on his June 15th show, Huckabee
answered a question about the then Immigration Bill in the U.S. Senate and said:
"Tell me a person crossing an international border shouldn't have to provide some
kind of documentation to say 'Here's who I am. Here's where I am going. Here's
why I am going there and here's what I am going to be doing. That's the first thing
American's want. The second thing. This current bill [Senate Immigration Bill]
gives people status and then says now you can take some steps to earn what we
already have given. It needs to be the other way around, here are the steps you
must take and if you take these steps and faihfully discharge them, then we will
discuss your capacity to earn status, that is the difference between Amnesty and
their ability to earn their way back."
This is not a johnny come lately of the last month, clearly it was a belief at the beginning of his campaign. Was it how he governed in Arkansas, no. Did he duck Laura Ingraham's question today on matricula consular cards, yes. Should he have been roasted by Laura and Michelle, yes. What Michelle said is so true, we cannot have that as our policy. As Michelle said, he was asked a direct question - and he needs to give a direct answer. He has done that before, with the SCHIP question on (UGH, yes) Hugh's show. This is why he needs a better staff around him, he is no longer a second tier candidate and cannot run a second tier campaign.
However, I do not agree with Michelle's quote "a conversion of pure expedience." Go back to
his July interview with Scott Wilder, note his
response to a question about the need to have voters support him now rather than later:
"What he [the candidate] believes is what's going to govern the way he decides and
if you preceive that a candidate really doesn't believe like then what's the point of
supporting him? Or if you perceive that a candidate is saying what you believe but
you don't think he believes it deep down and he has changed it already that means
he would very likely change it again he's a politician of convenience and not conviction,
then what's the point?"
adding....
"Political Games for just the sake of just Political Winners and Losers is just a waste
of my time and the waste of the money of the people out there."
We're told that Mitt Romney can be trusted on his
switch from pro-choice to pro-life
("I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this
country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she
ran in 1970 as a US Senate Candidate.) but we cannot trust Huckabee when he changes from a soft to hard stance on Illegal Immigrations.
I'll say the same thing that I yell at the screen during a Cowboys game about the referees, "call it both ways." We already know what uniform one west coast pundit is wearing.