Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

apacallyps — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:35:14 -0000

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:

Rush's Hit-Piece on Huckabee (stick with it, audio of Rush)
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

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/watc...

JOIN WITH US!

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

rvastar — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:07:40 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

rvastar — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:58:17 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

captained — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:02:18 -0000

Your recent posts are much more on point, Jon. I'm not arguing for Huckabee in particular, but for a reasoned, rational debate.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Jon Prichard — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:31:22 -0000

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."

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/...

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Jon Prichard — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:40:14 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

unclesmrgol — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:25:15 -0000

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...

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Immolate — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:12:38 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

JackOkie — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:37:12 -0000

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).

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

JackOkie — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:17:44 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Theflyman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:49:37 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Karl — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:35:52 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Ray_Van_Dune — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:17:10 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

DayTrader — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:58:54 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

wooga — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:48:21 -0000

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?

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

wooga — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:45:30 -0000

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?

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

chsw — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:03:53 -0000

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

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

BurfordHolly — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:01:59 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

captained — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:57:50 -0000

Why not come up with an argument instead?

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Stupid Baptist — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:52:19 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

wooga — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:48:44 -0000

How about calling Huckabee "William Jennings Bryan"?

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

captained — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:12:30 -0000

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!"

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Bennett — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:01:58 -0000

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?

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Jon Prichard — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:27 -0000

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.

Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks

Jon Prichard — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:51:29 -0000

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?