He says, "If you want a president who gets elected because he attacks the other guy, I'm probably not going to be your choice."
Then he says people "want a president who makes his decisions based on what's good for the people he's served, not what's good for his own political future"
and,
"I didn't grow up with a last name or a Rolodex to open a lot of doors. ... I didn't go to an Ivy League school"
and,
"Some people are going to tell you everything and anything based on what they think you want to hear just so you'll vote for them — and that's not leadership."
Whether you agree with his statements or not, whether they're true or not, aren't these "attacks"?
Saying that you're not going to attack someone is all fine and well, if you can hold to it. But if you can't, then just admit that you're wading in.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_po/huckabee_woe_is_me;_ylt=Ao1adJyScOoH3nwDlLFgMJcb.3QA
2007-12-20
10:18:16
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Paper Mage
5
in
News & Events
➔ Current Events
His statements are jabs at his opponents. Everyone who runs for office has a duty and an obligation to tell voters why they're different, and better, than the other candidates. I don't have a problem with Huckabee doing that. I have a problem with him pretending that he's not doing that.
2007-12-20
11:28:33 ·
update #1