Let our pal Hugh know about this, OK? The shrill bizarre and strange spin on the Christmas ad told me a great deal about how shallow and venal a lot of people are. And I do not even like Huckabee at all.
Scott
· 2 years ago
"Just try debating a Huck fan - it invariably devolves into 'you hate Christians and America!' " - Sounds like what you will hear on any right-wing radio show when you disagree with the host. And somehow you call this a Democratic style of identity politics? Odd.
wooga
· 2 years ago
If it was just "you hate America!" it would be simply be mildly distasteful, as we are all Americans and the slur does not really 'kick you of the American club' but simply says you don't like what America is right now. But the "you hate Christians" part implies that the person is not Christian, which is deeply insulting, and presumptuous. Basically, it's a matter of degree. Huck is a level beyond Savage - (and I am not defending Savage at all).
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
Well this is the fruit of the poison tree. Romney tried to spin it as "Christians versus the Democrats." Or another was to put it is "Republicans versus non-Christians."
Starting with the "born again" crowd, being a Republican meant that you could loudly denounce other peoples religion as being less genuine than yours. If they did not have precisely the same emotional experience as you, they weren't a real Christian their opinions probably didn't count either. "And then Jesus appeared took me on a winged unicorn and took me flying......that didn't happen to you? Well you're screwed. I guess that explains you opposing school vouchers too."
So once every in the freaking party felt empowered to excommunicate everyone else, the fuse was lit and it was only a matter of time until they turned on each other.
wooga
· 2 years ago
Considering what matters the President actually controls, most social policy issues are irrelevant. So long as another Scalia/Thomas type justice appears, Roe v Wade will be overturned and abortion goes to the states. All of the Republican candidates are promising another Scalia (but not quite a Thomas).
That said, we are still a far way off from overturning the expansive Commerce Clause cases, so the presidents understanding of federalism remains crucial to understanding how he will wield the veto pen. If you accept federalism as the most important principle a Republican candidate (as I do, because proper adherence federalist principles will prevent even the most lefty social views of the President from having any meaningful influence), then candidates like Rudy become palatable to me as an anti-abortion, pro-gun guy. However, someone who has similar social and religious views to me (Huckabee), becomes absolutely unacceptable.
The reason I, and others, viciously attack Huckabee is almost exclusively because he is a statist who rejects federalism. The only time religion even factors in is because Huckabee is exploiting his faith for his own personal glory, rather than the glory of God (and thus Huckabee runs afould of Matthew chapter 6). Huckabee being an evangelical is the only plus sign in my book, outweighed by thousands of negatives.
Unfortunately, most evangelicals seem to be embracing the Democratic style of identity politics, rallying around Huckabee solely because he is "one of us" rather than looking at any of his issue. Just try debating a Huck fan - it invariably devolves into 'you hate Christians and America!' Blankley sounds very similar, incapable of distinguishing harsh criticism of Huckabee's political views from personal attacks. Has anybody called Huckabee a jerk? No, everybody says he's a likeable, charismatic guy. The attacks are as to his political views, which is how grown ups argue. Too bad Blankley doesn't like it.
AngryDumbo
· 2 years ago
The reason I, and others, viciously attack Huckabee is almost exclusively because he is a statist who rejects federalism. The only time religion even factors in is because Huckabee is exploiting his faith for his own personal glory, rather than the glory of God (and thus Huckabee runs afould of Matthew chapter 6). Huckabee being an evangelical is the only plus sign in my book, outweighed by thousands of negatives.
wooga well said.
Is it a personal attack to question Huckabee on his "arrogant bunker mentality" criticisms of the Bush administration in his Foreign Affairs article? Is it a personal attack to question Huckabee's statement that as the Governor of Arkansas he was “…really not that aware” of the issues between the United States and Cuba?
As you say Blankley is "incapable of distinguishing harsh criticism of Huckabee's political views from personal attacks." Captain, take a second read of Blankley's article and I think you will agree. If Huckabee is as thin skinned as Blankley I suggest that he change parties, put on a dress and complain about Rush Limbaugh.
As to the prospect of a brokered convention, I posted about it yesterday in the brokered convention stem. Forget the beltway CV, the MSM push for Huckabee, and the chattering classes hand wringing about the prospect for a brokered convention. Republicans want to win as bad as Democrats in 2008 and will have a unifying message delivered by a unifying candidate. Specifically, Republicans have two unifying candidates, Rudy and Mitt and two unifying issues, judges and taxes. Republicans will retain the White House in 2008.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
Those pesky evangelicals! Don't they know they're supposed to get in line and follow the party establishment? How dare they pick someone because they can identify with him? Tsk tsk.
So far evangelicals have been told that they shouldn't have a problem with Mitt the Mormon--
that they shouldn't be bothered by Rudy, the pro-choice candidate (which I personally agree with but know it's highly unlikely that most evangelicals will agree)--
that they should like Fred because he's Southern and folksy--
and well...I guess nobody tells them they should like McCain (who I think a lot of them do like).
I think a lot of them also like Ron Paul...at least based on my unscientific sampling. So ask yourself Huckabee or Ron Paul?
lonely Repub in MD
· 2 years ago
I think it is pretty obvious from the past few years that the Republican leadership is out of step with the voters. The up and down nature of the campaign reflects this. A messy primary season may be just what the party needs to reunite, as the RINOs get left behind, or gain control of the party again. Choosing a candidate just so you can win gets you John Kerry.
Christoph
· 2 years ago
You miss the point on Huckabee.
There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument. When reductio ad absurdum is in error, it is because of a fallacy in the reasoning used to arrive at the contradiction, not the act of reduction itself.
Oh, by the way, what reductio ad absurdum arguments are you referring?
captained
· 2 years ago
Scroll down to tyrannies based on Christian beliefs.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
They haven't gotten over their disappointment about Gore not running, because they figured they could coast for six months making fun of his sweaters or socks.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Actually, we can do that without him running. We can start with a static personal energy footprint 80 times that of President Bush's and just go from there.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
You just keep doing what you're doing, driving the GOP into irrelevancy
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
In your mind, Burford, in your mind. Please note that I was making fun of neither his sweaters nor his socks. If my comment concerning his hypocrisy is considered by you as "driving the GOP into irrelevancy", I'll take a second helping, please...
Jon Prichard
· 2 years ago
What's this, the 'Can't we all just get along' complaint? Although its important to engage in civil discourse we can't just drop the discourse part. The debates we're having as a party go to the core or soul of our party as it stands today. First of all, some of the candidates rose and fell without much withering criticism. Others have gotten a ton of criticism from various factions but for very good reasons.
For social Conservatives a Giuliani candidacy completely undermines the reason a lot of them are Republicans as they have nowhere else to go to battle against societal degradation as they see it.
McCain gets criticism for some very un-Republican views and actions. He deserves the criticism. We NEED to debate and weigh those views and actions.
Huckabee is getting criticism now because he's just now getting traction and starting to lead in places. Looking at his record as a governor as well as statements and essays is an absolute necessity for us as voters.
There are a number of groups and individuals who state they will not vote for a particular candidate should he be the nominee. At first that seems like sour grapes petulance. The problem is certain candidates really do tear at the core of the Party's beliefs and values.
Personally I would vote for a Giuliani because we're at war and he's tough in that arena. But I wouldn't like it, just better than any of the Democrats.
When it comes to Huckabee I would rather take my football and go home. Let Hillary or Obama have the next four years worth of problems. Do I say that because I'm petulant and dismissive of the views of others? No. I truly believe with all of my heart that Huckabee is JIMMY CARTER IN A REPUBLICAN SKIRT. As such his candidacy and, heaven forbid, Presidency, would rend the fabric of the Republican Party as deeply and thoroughly as did that of the original Jimmy Carter to the Democrats.
Better a season in Hell than a Moses-like permanent banishment to the wilderness.
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
Apparently, it's going to take the Democrats re-taking all three branches of government along with Congress, to knock some sense into the checklist "conservatives" and I'm talking about the ones who want a candidate to match all of their wants and needs EXACTLY, or they're taking their ball and going home.
From the looks at some of the message boards though, there are a lot of Democrats who feel the same way. I've seen a lot of Democrats who vow to stay home if Hillary is nominated.
So we'll see how it all breaks. I predict that once the primaries get started, a candidate will emerge and there will not be a brokered, convention.
wooga
· 2 years ago
In what way would Huckabee be preferably over, say, Clinton (or Richardson or Biden) to a fiscal conservative or even a neocon? Socially, Huckabee wants to expand the role of the federal government, but unlike Clinton, he would have an exceptionally easy time doing it (Dems wouldn't fight him, and a number of party line Repubs would go along). Militarily, Clinton would (and sounds like she will) fight a much more aggressive war on terror than Huckabee. First, she isn't going to coddle Iran like Huckabee would. Second, what Repubs in Congress would fight a hawkish move by Clinton? Given some Dems would play party line and go along with Clinton, she would have pretty much a free hand to run the war as aggressively as she wants. Compare that to Huckabee, who does not want to fight an aggressive war, and would be unable to get the Dems to play along with him - he would be handcuffed.
From a righty hawk perspective, the ONLY substantive thing Huck has going for him is the importance of the SCOTUS nominations. Otherwise, Clinton would actually be the logical choice over him. From the fiscal perspective, at least with Clinton we could blame the Dems for the bloat, but with Huckabee the right would get all the blame and none of the credit.
philwynk
· 2 years ago
Wooga, this is astonishingly wrong.
A) Huckabee is honest. Clinton is criminal. No matter what you think of their policies, bad people do not make good leaders.
B) If you actually think Clinton would fight harder against terrorists, you've apparently believed her campaign rhetoric. Please make an effort to remember that with Clinton, there is no necessary connection between her words and her intentions.
C) The problem of getting all blame but no credit is any Republican's cross to bear, so long as the news moguls all perform kneeling services for the DNC.
D) It's either criminal or heretical to affix the adjective "only" to the importance of SCOTUS nominations. Take your pick, prison or the rack.
(Unrelated to this issue, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
wooga
· 2 years ago
I disagree with A strongly, based on representations from folks in Arkansas. (who incidentally still strongly prefer Hillary Clinton over Mike Huckabee). And as far as good people making better leaders than bad people, I leave it to CS Lewis to explain why I fear a Huckabee presidency: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
B) Yes, Clinton may be lying - and I wouldn't be surprised. But the talk of the two puts Clinton to the right of Huckabee on the middle east. C) Agreed. D) What? The word "only" means there are no other reasons. It does not mean that one reason is unimportant.
terrye
· 2 years ago
Actually I agree with nodonkey. The thing is the people who hate Huckabee expect the Republicans who do support him to go out and vote for whoever else gets the nomination. What happens if all these Huckabee voters decide to stay home? You lose.
wooga
· 2 years ago
I hate Huckabee, and I expect his supporters to wake up and realize that the President does not control social policy - thus Huckabee's social conservatism is irrelevant. Social policy is a state level issue. As every Republican candidate will have the same effect on social policy (SCOTUS nomination), Huck supporters should not have a legitimate problem voting for another candidate.
BurfordHolly
· 2 years ago
No the liberals are the party of hate. Hate from the haters that hate everything decent about America. The Republicans are the party of love and tolerance.
captained
· 2 years ago
Did Huckabee turn Arkansas into a tyranny? I don't see Huey Long tendencies there.
Jon Prichard
· 2 years ago
I think that's the point. Huckabee puts an affable face on terrible policies. Huey Long is more in keeping with the robber baron aspects of the analogy, out front in his crookedness with an FU attitude. The Huckabee allusion in this is of a man who is well-intentioned and kind on his face but is conniving and secretive and puts into place policies that in the end hurt the people they're supposed to protect or help.
Perhaps quoting C.S. Lewis in this context is beyond the pale but hardly out of the typical bounds of political discourse in a Democratic society.
philwynk
· 2 years ago
As much as I admire Mr. Blankley, I humbly disagree. There was some of the same internecine bickering in 2000 between McCain and Bush, and in 2004 between Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards. Once the candidates were picked, the parties formed behind their candidates. The same ought to happen this year.
One minor concern I share is whether there would be enough time to mount a proper campaign if we don't select the candidate until August. Of course, the Democrats would not know who they were running against, either, but they'd have about 6 months of name-recognition advertising they could launch without Republicans being able to return fire. That might make some difference, but I doubt that it would affect much in the long run.
The real problem will not be getting over the primary hard shots, but getting past the disappointment if the candidate turns out to be less than conservative. While I, personally, would have little trouble voting for a Giuliani, a Romney, or a Huckabee (none of whom are true conservatives in my book), I think this year there are a fair number of voters for whom that's not the case. We could conceivably lose the election because of a disaffected base.
Let's hope the nominating process, whether in February, August, or somewhere in between, solves that problem.
(Unrelated to this issue, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
DayTrader
· 2 years ago
I have to agree with that.
There has been much commentary about the Dems that said even though they have high rates of voters that say any one but Hillary they still will hold their nose and stand behind her if she is the one.
JackOkie
· 2 years ago
I would expect Giuliani to pick up some moderate and independent voters that otherwise would not vote Republican, enougn to more than offset any disaffected social conservatives.
rvastar
· 2 years ago
Let's take a quick look at the Huckster's record and stances:
1) He's a massive tax hiker. 2) He sympathetic to the "plight" of law-breaking illegal aliens. 3) He has a history of pandering to Democrats, which means that he would most assuredly pander to the UN and to the enemy's of the US. 5) He's a Government-Can-Help! do-gooder. 6) He tries to get Pres. Bush to lift the embargo on Cuba, then later when flip-flops, states that he "wasn't really that aware" of the problems between the US and Cuba.
WASN'T REALLY THAT AWARE!?!?!?!
Vicious or not...playing into Dhim hands or not...I repeat: I will vote for any Republican the party nominates...even Ron Paul...but under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Tax-Hike Mike.
Why not? Because the guy's a LIBERAL! He's a one-issue Republican (pro-life) and the only people who are going to vote for him are the one-issue wing of the party.
He won't even get 40% of the vote in the general election, he will handicap other 2008 Republican candidates, and the fact that Republicans would be stupid enough to nominate a Southern Baptist minister for the presidency (?!#@?!#?!?) will consign the party to the political wilderness for decades!
I'm just hoping against hope that there's a lot "gaming the polls" going on and that he gets utterly annihilated in Iowa so that he can be thrown off the bus for good.
kyvrwc
· 2 years ago
rvastar,
You were doing fine pulling Huckabee apart until your second to last paragraph and then you went and @#$%ed it all up with your bold face typing and "@#$%!?" foolishness. K-Lo and the other NROniks do the same thing. Huckabee has a record as governor of Arkansas that can be pointed to and picked apart and displayed for all to see. The guy has lousy instincts (Dumond, anybody?) and embraces a statist world view that most Conservatives who are paying attention find appalling. The NROniks and you do a fine job of pointing that out, but then you always feel the need to throw one more jab at the guy and come off denigrating evangelicals.
Why, exactly, would the GOP be "stupid" to nominate a Southern Baptist minister for the presidency? Keep in mind, you didn't say that the GOP would be stupid to nominate this particular Southern Baptist minister (Huckabee) for the presidency. You said "a Southern Baptist minister." Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it reads. And just like Romney's Mormonism, what should the fact that Huckabee is a Southern Baptist have to do with anything?
( As an aside: One significant and purely Machiavellian difference between denigrating Romney the Mormon and denigrating Huckabee the Southern Baptist is that Evangelicals flat outnumber Mormons in this country by 10 or more to 1. I'm not saying that either form of attack is valid, but the cold hard truth is that coming off as attacking the Evangelical instead of attacking the Mormon is bound to tick off a lot more people and generate a much more significant backlash of sympathy for the target of the attack.)
Full disclosure: I support Fred Thompson (whose church attendance is spotty at best) and hope that the Romney vs. Huckabee sniping opens up a path for him and both of them go down in flames. My second choice would probably be either Rudy or McCain, although as a card carrying member of the NRA I have significant problems with both of them. (Rudy because he is flat- out anti- gun and McCain because of campaign finance reform.) But as the son of Southern Baptist missionaries and a member of one of those "awful" suburban Evangelical mega churches, I feel a certain amount of the Huckabots pain when I see comments like yours in the conservative blogosphere. Huck sucks for a lot of reasons and, as with Romney (who also sucks, IMO) and his Mormonism, there's enough of a record to point to without bringing up their faith.
As it is, comments like yours that have been made in the past few days in the Conservative blogosphere have given Evangelicals who want to play the identity politics game plenty of ammo for years to come. It's hard to argue with someone who says that "The GOP is happy to pay lip service to Evangelicals and social- conservatives' concerns as long as they show up to vote, but God forbid one of us try to actually be the candidate!" when they can point to posts like yours lamenting that the GOP would be "stupid" to nominate a Southern Baptist.
Respectfully, KY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
rvastar
· 2 years ago
Why, exactly, would the GOP be "stupid" to nominate a Southern Baptist minister for the presidency?
I could care less about Huck's religious beliefs...or anyone else's for that matter. But while it's one thing to nominate a person who has religious beliefs, it's quite another thing to put a clergyman in front of the American electorate!
A Southern Baptist minister - any Southern Baptist minister - has about the same chance of winning the Presidency of the United States as there is that a bear could sh!t a popcicle. It's not going to happen. Period. And what do you call choosing a course of action that has the least chance of success amongst a variety of options?
STUPID.
...have given Evangelicals who want to play the identity politics game plenty of ammo for years to come.
I never said a thing about anyone's religious beliefs, one way or the other. I said that nominating a clergyman for the presidency would be monumentally stupid, and it would be. It's the truth, plain and simple. They can take it however they want to and they can do whatever they want to with it. Doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Stupid Baptist
· 2 years ago
This stupid Baptist will sit out the general election if Flip Flopney or Dud Thompson win the nomination. All of the cheap shots and smears against Huckabee have come from these two campaigns.
rvastar
· 2 years ago
Point out in my post where I called a Baptist "stupid". I stated that the Republican party would be stupid to nominate a Baptist minister for the presidency.
If Huckabee is the nominee, don't expect a lot of Republican company at your polling station.
M. Simon
· 2 years ago
You thin the inter party fight is bad amongst Republicans?
Visit DU (if you can stand it) and see what the Ds are doing to each other.
Monkei
· 2 years ago
I like Mike.
TheYell
· 2 years ago
At times, it appears that the various factions in the center-right coalition have all attempted to demonize the candidate du jour as a means of demanding obeisance to their own candidates. In doing so, many have distorted the actual policy positions of the candidates by using reductio ad absurdum arguments that allow for no nuance or compromise at all.
"Center-right" is a negative term. It is a form of cannibalism where the winning Conservative agenda is divided and one segment is thrown to the Democrats as bait, in the hope that the surviving Conservative Republicans and crossover Independents will equal a majority of voters. It's born of undue deference to mediocre incumbents and the absence of leadership and sloth-- the old-fashioned method of committing to a platform, and rallying the country around it, and really sticking to it once elected, ruffles too many feathers in the House and Senate, and costs a lot of money, and seems very risky. Better to be "practical".
The hell of it comes when you have to choose which faction of the Party doesn't belong. Is it the pro-lifers (thus, the nominee is Giuliani)? Is it the small-government guys ( then vote Romney or Huckabee)? Is "no new taxes" too 20th century (thus, Huckabee)? Is it the judicial reformers (then McCain's the man) ? Is it those dastardly imperialist neocons ( Ron Paul)? Is it the namby-pamby RINOs (then Thompson's the one)? Who's civic dream is going to be the grist for the 111th Congress?
That's what this campaign comes down to: what Republicans aren't electable, are just a millstone on the shoulders? Who's got to lose even if a Republican majority emerges? No wonder the candidates really prefer to argue something safer and more pleasant, like whose God is better.
And why be surprised? We saw the same thing happen to the other guys in 2000, when "triangulation" cost Al Gore every Nader voter.
The negative politics of "we won't fix it either, but we're not as messy" isn't going to win another 62 million votes for a Republican candidate and will not serve our national interests ove rthe next four years. Please stop reducing us to the lowest common denominator. We're worthy of greatness.
Molonlabe28
· 2 years ago
I would rather have a slug-fest of a convention than go softly into the night with Rudy, Mitt or Huckabee.
A lot of us conservatives consider ourselves to be off the reservation of the Republican Party.
It left me, not the other way around.
JohnR
· 2 years ago
Looks like Tony may have been listening to the Hugh Hewitt Show. The formerly sane Mr. Hewitt posts round the clock anti Huck ads, and earlier he posted cancer survival stats on the day Fred announced. If Mitt wins, Hugh may have well turned off the Huck, Fred and McCain supporters he will need to win the general.
HNAV
· 2 years ago
oh my....
So now, we are supposed to be quiet if someone is a tax raiser?
Who pardons criminals?
Enables Illegal Immigration?
Captain, this is a contradiction for you.
Hoping I can help.
Maybe you aren't seeing it.
You have suggested you should not muzzle your criticisms of the Bush Administration, yet now, you seem to be crying foul, when Conservatives have genuine complaints with the populist from Arkansas, who thinks the Bush Administration's fight in the GWOT is 'ARROGANT'.
Does your expression of leans towards everyone else but Romney?
I sense, that some who are objecting to the criticism of really lackluster populist candidates, like Huckabee and McCain...
Has to do with the objection to Romney winning the NOD.
Huckabee's record seems quite similar to the policies of the Democrat Party !
How could anyone support a tax raiser, who builds the Nanny State?
Who sounds like Carter on foreign policy?
This is what Primaries are all about.
Vetting is a part of the process, and it would be problematic if it were the other way.
Mike Huckabee recently suggested Republicans are against him because of his FAITH !
FYI, neither Blankley nor I are arguing that we shouldn't debate the issues and policies. If you read more carefully, he's talking about tone and temperament creating more divisions among Republicans. Calling Huckabee "Jimmy Carter" is one example, just as going after Romney's religion (don't we want Mormons to vote Republican??). The reaction from the punditry to Huckabee's CFR piece was over the top, although provoked by Huckabee's first two paragraphs.
Blankley's coming on my show tomorrow to talk about this.
Jon Prichard
· 2 years ago
Calling Huckabee "Jimmy Carter" is one example, just as going after Romney's religion
That's crap! Comparing Huckabee to Jimmy Carter is a valid debating point. Why? Because Carter exemplifies a certain set of Liberal policies roughly mirrored by Huckabee. Nearly every Republican immediately comprehends the fecklessness of Carter's foreign policy as well as double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, double digit unemployment and malaise.
Huckabee's policy directions are nearly exact as Carter's in foreign policy and his penchant for tax and spend, command and control economic strategies, overly liberal use of pardons, arrogantly moralistic tone makes him Jimmy Carter redux.
Geez Ed, you're saying that comparing a candidate's prospective policies with the failed policies of a past president is at par with attacking a person's religion? Well what can we say in your world? We don't like this guy's policies because...well...because we don't?
captained
· 2 years ago
Oh, come on. You think Jimmy Carter would have written that CFR essay? You're simply not serious. Jimmy Carter would talk about using military intervention in Iran .... yeah, sure. Tell me exactly how what Huckabee wrote matches up with what Carter did in office (or out of it, for that matter), using specific quotes. That's argument. Calling him Jimmy Carter is name-calling. That's the difference. Calling him Jimmy Carter is exactly saying "We don't like this guy's policies because ... well, we don't!"
wooga
· 2 years ago
How about calling Huckabee "William Jennings Bryan"?
captained
· 2 years ago
Why not come up with an argument instead?
wooga
· 2 years ago
I think I've done that above. But if you want to find the closest historical parallel to Huckabee, it's hard to beat William Jennings Bryan. They were remarkably similar, and because he's a historical figure, it's not as inflammatory as the Carter shots.
Basically, "William Jennings Bryan" is a useful shorthand to summarize Huckabee's populism, scientific and religious views, prohibitionist and temperance leanings, statism, military and international policy views, charisma, and oratorical skills. This is not unfair name calling. Is there any other candidate, on either side, who exemplifies William Jennings Bryan so well?
wooga
· 2 years ago
And I forgot to mention domestic economic policies, particularly the anti-corporation bent. Really, the similarities between the two are uncanny. But of course, Bryan was a Democrat, so that somehow makes it an unfair label?
Jon Prichard
· 2 years ago
Well I'm a fan of Captain's Quarters and sometimes I post my opinions related to what you write Ed. I don't have time to fisk Huckabee's CFR essay point by point though others have from Victor Davis Hanson to John Hinderaker. Their analysis pretty much comes to the same conclusion vis-a-vis Jimmy Carter.
If you want quotes here's a few:
Huckabee CFR (Bashing Bush):
“Saying American foreign policy needs a change in tone and attitude, or an opening up and a reaching out, is as obvious as saying O. J. Simpson might be having a bad month. This Administration’s bunker mentality has been counter-productive both at home and abroad. They have done as poor a job of communicating and consulting with other countries as they have with the American people.
Jimmy Carter to Democrat-Gazette: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
Bush is to blame for both of these guys.
Huckabee CFR (We don't communicate properly): “The Administration has never done an adequate job explaining the theology and ideology behind Islamic terror, never done an adequate job of convincing us of their ruthless fanaticism.
Jimmy Carter (in a TruthOut editorial regarding Iraq War) "Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.”
Do you see the similarities? The focus isn't on the terrorists but on how poorly we market their extreme views and actions. This is baloney anyway. Every American this side of Cindy Sheehan fully understands that Saddam and the terrorists are evil, violent extremists.
Huckabee CFR (moral relativism and the need to understand the enemy and total BS) "The first rule of war is “Know your enemy,” and most Americans don’t. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists – and their suicide bombs – tick, and the Administration has not explained it well."
We know what makes them tick...they want to kill us and take over the world for Islam. The administration has explained it quite well actually. But here's Victor Davis Hanson from OpinionJournal on the attitude of the Carter Administration back in the day...
"Yet in the new world of utopian multiculturalism and knee-jerk anti-Americanism, in which a Noam Chomsky could proclaim Khomeini's gulag to be "independent nationalism," reasoned argument was futile. Indeed, how could critical debate arise for those "committed to social change," when no universal standards were to be applied to those outside the West? Thanks to the doctrine of cultural relativism, "oppressed" peoples either could not be judged by our biased and "constructed" values ("false universals," in Edward Said's infamous term) or were seen as more pristine than ourselves, uncorrupted by the evils of Western capitalism."
VDH has written extensively about Huckabee and his Carteresque foreign policy views. When a notable scholar and historian such as VDH comes to that conclusion we should take it seriously and call Huckabee what he is...a Republican Jimmy Carter.
In truth Ed, there are quotes for every aspect of Huckabees CFR essay that mirror Carters words and actions. You say Carter wouldn't touch on invading Iran but its not true, Carter's actions with regards to Iran DID overthrow the government there...too bad it was our ally the Shah who got the boot.
chsw
· 2 years ago
Permission to speak freely, Captain? Thank you.
Brokered conventions are not simply the dreams of drooling journalists. Brokered conventions in the past gave the country candidates behind which the party had a consensus. The party leaders picked someone who reflected a broad swath of the party. The person was usually a proven leader with experience at several levels of government. The VP candidates chosen in brokered conventions tended to be either old experienced hands or younger, vigorous men who could take over in case of necessity. Brokered conventions, therefore, gave the country almost every POTUS from JQ Adams to Truman. That is not a bad record, notwithstanding duds like Pierce, Buchanan and Harding. So let both parties' candidates go at it with verbal pugilsticks. And if they knock each other out, then let the states' party chairmen and governors pick the person whom they think has the best character and experience. I think that the country will be better off for it.
chsw
JackOkie
· 2 years ago
Well said, chsw. Our current setup reinforces the superficial and promotes politics of sound-bites and gotchas. I would happily go back to the smoke-filled rooms (and repeal the 17th amendment, while we are about restoring the status quo ante).
Daver
· 2 years ago
MSM manipulation is not Republican vacillation. The MSM has been trying to pick the R candidate either: 1. most easily defeated by Hillary, or 2. most like a Democrat. Don't confuse what you read with what Republicans want. The successful R candidate will attack the credibility of the media and position himself as running against them, instead of trying to kiss up to them in a vain effort to get a fair shake.
Karl
· 2 years ago
I still think the Republicans have the best field of potential Presidents. (with the exception of Paul and Keyes) Romney, McCain, Gulliani and Thompson all bring a lot to the table. I could see an administartion that combined all of the candidates to their particular areas of excellence. I do not care for anything at all on the Dem ticket, can't see how anyone would. I realize I am blinded by my views. But the fact that we have these very qualified candidates, and there is still no "inevitable" winner is a testament to the Republican field, not something to be in dismay about. I think a level of respect should be shown between the candidates, and it would be a healthier, more professional approach that the voters would be in favor of. Vitriol doesn't win the vote.
Not to say that we should not get the candidates views out- unfortunately the "debates" are sorely lacking, and their views need to be debated and scrutinized.
I will say again, I think the republicans are in far better shape than the Dem field. We have serious contenders.
Theflyman
· 2 years ago
Well, could the 800lb Elephant in the room actually be the absence of Dear Leader from the scene? Everyone mentions Reagan and even Goldwater, but what about the LEADER of the Republican Party? You all are in massive denial.
TomHolmes
· 2 years ago
My sense is that party politics during the primary season is often just as divisive as it has been t his season. We blogosphere participants have never had an opportunity to really hash it out before though. Remember that the last real contested Republican primary was in 2000, which predates the advent of this vehicle. I believe that we all feel like drawing the line and saying "if this idiot wins, I'm staying home" during the primary season. But when the call is made and the chips are down, we have to compare a Republican nominee with a Democratic nominee, and the essential objections we had back in primary season don't loom nearly as large any more. I'm not a Huck fan, but I'll vote for him. Don't know that I could vote for Ron Paul because of the sheer number of lunatics he's associated with, but Huck is no Ron Paul.
I suspect that most folks are like that, and the threats and the ultimatums are pretty much a lot of hot air being vented. If not, a few years watching the Democrats run up the score will cure what ails most of you.
Jon Prichard
· 2 years ago
Here’s a Huckabee quote made during an interview with David Broder of CBN The context is how to fight opponents who have far greater resources:
“There's nothing I can do about that other than use what resources we have and to try to tell the truth and get our message out there, but ultimately what I sense is happening - people everywhere will come to me, look me in the eye and say "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."
Now read Isaiah 54: Isaiah 54:17, KJV: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.”
This is why I find it difficult to support a Huckabee type candidate. He acts as if he’s ordained by God to win the nomination, a Victim/Crusader. To me that’s offensive and totally dismissive of the Christian ethos of his opponents.
captained
· 2 years ago
Your recent posts are much more on point, Jon. I'm not arguing for Huckabee in particular, but for a reasoned, rational debate.
apacallyps
· 2 years ago
The Christian right (and other fed up conservatives) are supporting Mike Huckabee, but the right’s pundits are not flocking to support him, and many of them are actually trying to derail him. Case in point:
All Comments
The shrill bizarre and strange spin on the Christmas ad told me a great deal about how shallow and venal a lot of people are. And I do not even like Huckabee at all.
Starting with the "born again" crowd, being a Republican meant that you could loudly denounce other peoples religion as being less genuine than yours. If they did not have precisely the same emotional experience as you, they weren't a real Christian their opinions probably didn't count either. "And then Jesus appeared took me on a winged unicorn and took me flying......that didn't happen to you? Well you're screwed. I guess that explains you opposing school vouchers too."
So once every in the freaking party felt empowered to excommunicate everyone else, the fuse was lit and it was only a matter of time until they turned on each other.
That said, we are still a far way off from overturning the expansive Commerce Clause cases, so the presidents understanding of federalism remains crucial to understanding how he will wield the veto pen. If you accept federalism as the most important principle a Republican candidate (as I do, because proper adherence federalist principles will prevent even the most lefty social views of the President from having any meaningful influence), then candidates like Rudy become palatable to me as an anti-abortion, pro-gun guy. However, someone who has similar social and religious views to me (Huckabee), becomes absolutely unacceptable.
The reason I, and others, viciously attack Huckabee is almost exclusively because he is a statist who rejects federalism. The only time religion even factors in is because Huckabee is exploiting his faith for his own personal glory, rather than the glory of God (and thus Huckabee runs afould of Matthew chapter 6). Huckabee being an evangelical is the only plus sign in my book, outweighed by thousands of negatives.
Unfortunately, most evangelicals seem to be embracing the Democratic style of identity politics, rallying around Huckabee solely because he is "one of us" rather than looking at any of his issue. Just try debating a Huck fan - it invariably devolves into 'you hate Christians and America!' Blankley sounds very similar, incapable of distinguishing harsh criticism of Huckabee's political views from personal attacks. Has anybody called Huckabee a jerk? No, everybody says he's a likeable, charismatic guy. The attacks are as to his political views, which is how grown ups argue. Too bad Blankley doesn't like it.
wooga well said.
Is it a personal attack to question Huckabee on his "arrogant bunker mentality" criticisms of the Bush administration in his Foreign Affairs article? Is it a personal attack to question Huckabee's statement that as the Governor of Arkansas he was “…really not that aware” of the issues between the United States and Cuba?
As you say Blankley is "incapable of distinguishing harsh criticism of Huckabee's political views from personal attacks." Captain, take a second read of Blankley's article and I think you will agree. If Huckabee is as thin skinned as Blankley I suggest that he change parties, put on a dress and complain about Rush Limbaugh.
As to the prospect of a brokered convention, I posted about it yesterday in the brokered convention stem. Forget the beltway CV, the MSM push for Huckabee, and the chattering classes hand wringing about the prospect for a brokered convention. Republicans want to win as bad as Democrats in 2008 and will have a unifying message delivered by a unifying candidate. Specifically, Republicans have two unifying candidates, Rudy and Mitt and two unifying issues, judges and taxes. Republicans will retain the White House in 2008.
So far evangelicals have been told that they shouldn't have a problem with Mitt the Mormon--
that they shouldn't be bothered by Rudy, the pro-choice candidate (which I personally agree with but know it's highly unlikely that most evangelicals will agree)--
that they should like Fred because he's Southern and folksy--
and well...I guess nobody tells them they should like McCain (who I think a lot of them do like).
I think a lot of them also like Ron Paul...at least based on my unscientific sampling. So ask yourself Huckabee or Ron Paul?
There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument. When reductio ad absurdum is in error, it is because of a fallacy in the reasoning used to arrive at the contradiction, not the act of reduction itself.
Oh, by the way, what reductio ad absurdum arguments are you referring?
For social Conservatives a Giuliani candidacy completely undermines the reason a lot of them are Republicans as they have nowhere else to go to battle against societal degradation as they see it.
McCain gets criticism for some very un-Republican views and actions. He deserves the criticism. We NEED to debate and weigh those views and actions.
Huckabee is getting criticism now because he's just now getting traction and starting to lead in places. Looking at his record as a governor as well as statements and essays is an absolute necessity for us as voters.
There are a number of groups and individuals who state they will not vote for a particular candidate should he be the nominee. At first that seems like sour grapes petulance. The problem is certain candidates really do tear at the core of the Party's beliefs and values.
Personally I would vote for a Giuliani because we're at war and he's tough in that arena. But I wouldn't like it, just better than any of the Democrats.
When it comes to Huckabee I would rather take my football and go home. Let Hillary or Obama have the next four years worth of problems. Do I say that because I'm petulant and dismissive of the views of others? No. I truly believe with all of my heart that Huckabee is JIMMY CARTER IN A REPUBLICAN SKIRT. As such his candidacy and, heaven forbid, Presidency, would rend the fabric of the Republican Party as deeply and thoroughly as did that of the original Jimmy Carter to the Democrats.
Better a season in Hell than a Moses-like permanent banishment to the wilderness.
From the looks at some of the message boards though, there are a lot of Democrats who feel the same way. I've seen a lot of Democrats who vow to stay home if Hillary is nominated.
So we'll see how it all breaks. I predict that once the primaries get started, a candidate will emerge and there will not be a brokered, convention.
From a righty hawk perspective, the ONLY substantive thing Huck has going for him is the importance of the SCOTUS nominations. Otherwise, Clinton would actually be the logical choice over him. From the fiscal perspective, at least with Clinton we could blame the Dems for the bloat, but with Huckabee the right would get all the blame and none of the credit.
A) Huckabee is honest. Clinton is criminal. No matter what you think of their policies, bad people do not make good leaders.
B) If you actually think Clinton would fight harder against terrorists, you've apparently believed her campaign rhetoric. Please make an effort to remember that with Clinton, there is no necessary connection between her words and her intentions.
C) The problem of getting all blame but no credit is any Republican's cross to bear, so long as the news moguls all perform kneeling services for the DNC.
D) It's either criminal or heretical to affix the adjective "only" to the importance of SCOTUS nominations. Take your pick, prison or the rack.
(Unrelated to this issue, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
B) Yes, Clinton may be lying - and I wouldn't be surprised. But the talk of the two puts Clinton to the right of Huckabee on the middle east.
C) Agreed.
D) What? The word "only" means there are no other reasons. It does not mean that one reason is unimportant.
Perhaps quoting C.S. Lewis in this context is beyond the pale but hardly out of the typical bounds of political discourse in a Democratic society.
One minor concern I share is whether there would be enough time to mount a proper campaign if we don't select the candidate until August. Of course, the Democrats would not know who they were running against, either, but they'd have about 6 months of name-recognition advertising they could launch without Republicans being able to return fire. That might make some difference, but I doubt that it would affect much in the long run.
The real problem will not be getting over the primary hard shots, but getting past the disappointment if the candidate turns out to be less than conservative. While I, personally, would have little trouble voting for a Giuliani, a Romney, or a Huckabee (none of whom are true conservatives in my book), I think this year there are a fair number of voters for whom that's not the case. We could conceivably lose the election because of a disaffected base.
Let's hope the nominating process, whether in February, August, or somewhere in between, solves that problem.
(Unrelated to this issue, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
There has been much commentary about the Dems that said even though they have high rates of voters that say any one but Hillary they still will hold their nose and stand behind her if she is the one.
1) He's a massive tax hiker.
2) He sympathetic to the "plight" of law-breaking illegal aliens.
3) He has a history of pandering to Democrats, which means that he would most assuredly pander to the UN and to the enemy's of the US.
5) He's a Government-Can-Help! do-gooder.
6) He tries to get Pres. Bush to lift the embargo on Cuba, then later when flip-flops, states that he "wasn't really that aware" of the problems between the US and Cuba.
WASN'T REALLY THAT AWARE!?!?!?!
Vicious or not...playing into Dhim hands or not...I repeat: I will vote for any Republican the party nominates...even Ron Paul...but under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Tax-Hike Mike.
Why not? Because the guy's a LIBERAL! He's a one-issue Republican (pro-life) and the only people who are going to vote for him are the one-issue wing of the party.
He won't even get 40% of the vote in the general election, he will handicap other 2008 Republican candidates, and the fact that Republicans would be stupid enough to nominate a Southern Baptist minister for the presidency (?!#@?!#?!?) will consign the party to the political wilderness for decades!
I'm just hoping against hope that there's a lot "gaming the polls" going on and that he gets utterly annihilated in Iowa so that he can be thrown off the bus for good.
You were doing fine pulling Huckabee apart until your second to last paragraph and then you went and @#$%ed it all up with your bold face typing and "@#$%!?" foolishness. K-Lo and the other NROniks do the same thing. Huckabee has a record as governor of Arkansas that can be pointed to and picked apart and displayed for all to see. The guy has lousy instincts (Dumond, anybody?) and embraces a statist world view that most Conservatives who are paying attention find appalling. The NROniks and you do a fine job of pointing that out, but then you always feel the need to throw one more jab at the guy and come off denigrating evangelicals.
Why, exactly, would the GOP be "stupid" to nominate a Southern Baptist minister for the presidency? Keep in mind, you didn't say that the GOP would be stupid to nominate this particular Southern Baptist minister (Huckabee) for the presidency. You said "a Southern Baptist minister." Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it reads. And just like Romney's Mormonism, what should the fact that Huckabee is a Southern Baptist have to do with anything?
( As an aside: One significant and purely Machiavellian difference between denigrating Romney the Mormon and denigrating Huckabee the Southern Baptist is that Evangelicals flat outnumber Mormons in this country by 10 or more to 1. I'm not saying that either form of attack is valid, but the cold hard truth is that coming off as attacking the Evangelical instead of attacking the Mormon is bound to tick off a lot more people and generate a much more significant backlash of sympathy for the target of the attack.)
Full disclosure: I support Fred Thompson (whose church attendance is spotty at best) and hope that the Romney vs. Huckabee sniping opens up a path for him and both of them go down in flames. My second choice would probably be either Rudy or McCain, although as a card carrying member of the NRA I have significant problems with both of them. (Rudy because he is flat- out anti- gun and McCain because of campaign finance reform.) But as the son of Southern Baptist missionaries and a member of one of those "awful" suburban Evangelical mega churches, I feel a certain amount of the Huckabots pain when I see comments like yours in the conservative blogosphere. Huck sucks for a lot of reasons and, as with Romney (who also sucks, IMO) and his Mormonism, there's enough of a record to point to without bringing up their faith.
As it is, comments like yours that have been made in the past few days in the Conservative blogosphere have given Evangelicals who want to play the identity politics game plenty of ammo for years to come. It's hard to argue with someone who says that "The GOP is happy to pay lip service to Evangelicals and social- conservatives' concerns as long as they show up to vote, but God forbid one of us try to actually be the candidate!" when they can point to posts like yours lamenting that the GOP would be "stupid" to nominate a Southern Baptist.
Respectfully,
KY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
I could care less about Huck's religious beliefs...or anyone else's for that matter. But while it's one thing to nominate a person who has religious beliefs, it's quite another thing to put a clergyman in front of the American electorate!
A Southern Baptist minister - any Southern Baptist minister - has about the same chance of winning the Presidency of the United States as there is that a bear could sh!t a popcicle. It's not going to happen. Period. And what do you call choosing a course of action that has the least chance of success amongst a variety of options?
STUPID.
...have given Evangelicals who want to play the identity politics game plenty of ammo for years to come.
I never said a thing about anyone's religious beliefs, one way or the other. I said that nominating a clergyman for the presidency would be monumentally stupid, and it would be. It's the truth, plain and simple. They can take it however they want to and they can do whatever they want to with it. Doesn't change the fact that it's true.
If Huckabee is the nominee, don't expect a lot of Republican company at your polling station.
Visit DU (if you can stand it) and see what the Ds are doing to each other.
"Center-right" is a negative term. It is a form of cannibalism where the winning Conservative agenda is divided and one segment is thrown to the Democrats as bait, in the hope that the surviving Conservative Republicans and crossover Independents will equal a majority of voters.
It's born of undue deference to mediocre incumbents and the absence of leadership and sloth-- the old-fashioned method of committing to a platform, and rallying the country around it, and really sticking to it once elected, ruffles too many feathers in the House and Senate, and costs a lot of money, and seems very risky. Better to be "practical".
The hell of it comes when you have to choose which faction of the Party doesn't belong. Is it the pro-lifers (thus, the nominee is Giuliani)? Is it the small-government guys ( then vote Romney or Huckabee)? Is "no new taxes" too 20th century (thus, Huckabee)? Is it the judicial reformers (then McCain's the man) ? Is it those dastardly imperialist neocons ( Ron Paul)? Is it the namby-pamby RINOs (then Thompson's the one)? Who's civic dream is going to be the grist for the 111th Congress?
That's what this campaign comes down to: what Republicans aren't electable, are just a millstone on the shoulders? Who's got to lose even if a Republican majority emerges? No wonder the candidates really prefer to argue something safer and more pleasant, like whose God is better.
And why be surprised? We saw the same thing happen to the other guys in 2000, when "triangulation" cost Al Gore every Nader voter.
The negative politics of "we won't fix it either, but we're not as messy" isn't going to win another 62 million votes for a Republican candidate and will not serve our national interests ove rthe next four years. Please stop reducing us to the lowest common denominator. We're worthy of greatness.
A lot of us conservatives consider ourselves to be off the reservation of the Republican Party.
It left me, not the other way around.
So now, we are supposed to be quiet if someone is a tax raiser?
Who pardons criminals?
Enables Illegal Immigration?
Captain, this is a contradiction for you.
Hoping I can help.
Maybe you aren't seeing it.
You have suggested you should not muzzle your criticisms of the Bush Administration, yet now, you seem to be crying foul, when Conservatives have genuine complaints with the populist from Arkansas, who thinks the Bush Administration's fight in the GWOT is 'ARROGANT'.
Does your expression of leans towards everyone else but Romney?
I sense, that some who are objecting to the criticism of really lackluster populist candidates, like Huckabee and McCain...
Has to do with the objection to Romney winning the NOD.
Huckabee's record seems quite similar to the policies of the Democrat Party !
How could anyone support a tax raiser, who builds the Nanny State?
Who sounds like Carter on foreign policy?
This is what Primaries are all about.
Vetting is a part of the process, and it would be problematic if it were the other way.
Mike Huckabee recently suggested Republicans are against him because of his FAITH !
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/...
PATHETIC
Blankley's coming on my show tomorrow to talk about this.
That's crap! Comparing Huckabee to Jimmy Carter is a valid debating point. Why? Because Carter exemplifies a certain set of Liberal policies roughly mirrored by Huckabee. Nearly every Republican immediately comprehends the fecklessness of Carter's foreign policy as well as double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, double digit unemployment and malaise.
Huckabee's policy directions are nearly exact as Carter's in foreign policy and his penchant for tax and spend, command and control economic strategies, overly liberal use of pardons, arrogantly moralistic tone makes him Jimmy Carter redux.
Geez Ed, you're saying that comparing a candidate's prospective policies with the failed policies of a past president is at par with attacking a person's religion? Well what can we say in your world? We don't like this guy's policies because...well...because we don't?
Basically, "William Jennings Bryan" is a useful shorthand to summarize Huckabee's populism, scientific and religious views, prohibitionist and temperance leanings, statism, military and international policy views, charisma, and oratorical skills. This is not unfair name calling. Is there any other candidate, on either side, who exemplifies William Jennings Bryan so well?
If you want quotes here's a few:
Huckabee CFR (Bashing Bush):
“Saying American foreign policy needs a change in tone and attitude, or an opening up and a reaching out, is as obvious as saying O. J. Simpson might be having a bad month. This Administration’s bunker mentality has been counter-productive both at home and abroad. They have done as poor a job of communicating and consulting with other countries as they have with the American people.
Jimmy Carter to Democrat-Gazette:
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."
Bush is to blame for both of these guys.
Huckabee CFR (We don't communicate properly):
“The Administration has never done an adequate job explaining the theology and ideology behind Islamic terror, never done an adequate job of convincing us of their ruthless fanaticism.
Jimmy Carter (in a TruthOut editorial regarding Iraq War)
"Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.”
Do you see the similarities? The focus isn't on the terrorists but on how poorly we market their extreme views and actions. This is baloney anyway. Every American this side of Cindy Sheehan fully understands that Saddam and the terrorists are evil, violent extremists.
Huckabee CFR (moral relativism and the need to understand the enemy and total BS)
"The first rule of war is “Know your enemy,” and most Americans don’t. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists – and their suicide bombs – tick, and the Administration has not explained it well."
We know what makes them tick...they want to kill us and take over the world for Islam. The administration has explained it quite well actually. But here's Victor Davis Hanson from OpinionJournal on the attitude of the Carter Administration back in the day...
"Yet in the new world of utopian multiculturalism and knee-jerk anti-Americanism, in which a Noam Chomsky could proclaim Khomeini's gulag to be "independent nationalism," reasoned argument was futile. Indeed, how could critical debate arise for those "committed to social change," when no universal standards were to be applied to those outside the West? Thanks to the doctrine of cultural relativism, "oppressed" peoples either could not be judged by our biased and "constructed" values ("false universals," in Edward Said's infamous term) or were seen as more pristine than ourselves, uncorrupted by the evils of Western capitalism."
VDH has written extensively about Huckabee and his Carteresque foreign policy views. When a notable scholar and historian such as VDH comes to that conclusion we should take it seriously and call Huckabee what he is...a Republican Jimmy Carter.
In truth Ed, there are quotes for every aspect of Huckabees CFR essay that mirror Carters words and actions. You say Carter wouldn't touch on invading Iran but its not true, Carter's actions with regards to Iran DID overthrow the government there...too bad it was our ally the Shah who got the boot.
Brokered conventions are not simply the dreams of drooling journalists. Brokered conventions in the past gave the country candidates behind which the party had a consensus. The party leaders picked someone who reflected a broad swath of the party. The person was usually a proven leader with experience at several levels of government. The VP candidates chosen in brokered conventions tended to be either old experienced hands or younger, vigorous men who could take over in case of necessity. Brokered conventions, therefore, gave the country almost every POTUS from JQ Adams to Truman. That is not a bad record, notwithstanding duds like Pierce, Buchanan and Harding. So let both parties' candidates go at it with verbal pugilsticks. And if they knock each other out, then let the states' party chairmen and governors pick the person whom they think has the best character and experience. I think that the country will be better off for it.
chsw
But the fact that we have these very qualified candidates, and there is still no "inevitable" winner is a testament to the Republican field, not something to be in dismay about. I think a level of respect should be shown between the candidates, and it would be a healthier, more professional approach that the voters would be in favor of. Vitriol doesn't win the vote.
Not to say that we should not get the candidates views out- unfortunately the "debates" are sorely lacking, and their views need to be debated and scrutinized.
I will say again, I think the republicans are in far better shape than the Dem field. We have serious contenders.
Everyone mentions Reagan and even Goldwater, but what about the LEADER of the Republican Party? You all are in massive denial.
I suspect that most folks are like that, and the threats and the ultimatums are pretty much a lot of hot air being vented. If not, a few years watching the Democrats run up the score will cure what ails most of you.
“There's nothing I can do about that other than use what resources we have and to try to tell the truth and get our message out there, but ultimately what I sense is happening - people everywhere will come to me, look me in the eye and say "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/290437.aspx
Now read Isaiah 54:
Isaiah 54:17, KJV: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.”
This is why I find it difficult to support a Huckabee type candidate. He acts as if he’s ordained by God to win the nomination, a Victim/Crusader. To me that’s offensive and totally dismissive of the Christian ethos of his opponents.
Rush's Hit-Piece on Huckabee (stick with it, audio of Rush)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu-ZSSaZELM
Something is very very very very wrong with this picture. Bottom line: The best candidate for the Republican nomination is Huckabee.
Huckabee - Cinderella Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94
JOIN WITH US!