An Open Letter
(09:14PM)
Dear Iowa Republicans,
I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?
The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter -- the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever -- and declared, “That’s our man!”
Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”
And by a pretty wide margin.
I’ll give you some credit where it's due: you guys had sense enough to give Fred Thompson a breather, and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts. But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is... every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked -- which is most of them.
So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?
All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,
VodkaPundit
PS You're making Iowa Democrats look like Albert freakin' Einstein. How's that feel?
:: Comments left behind ::
Maybe the non- inbred toothless hillbilly vote got split among the non-Huckabilly candidates?
Maybe an instant runoff between Huckabilly and Romney would have produced a much different result.
I wonder if Iowans know what a runoff election is?
:: PMC
January 3, 2008 10:08 PM
I'd vote for any of the Democratic big 3 over Huckabee. At least a Dem socialist would be fought tooth and nail by Republicans in Congress. Those same Republicans will probably support at least some of a Republican socialist's agenda out of party loyalty.
:: JohnG
January 3, 2008 10:12 PM
Huckabee wins. Time for another dry Finlandia up? You betcha!
The only reason I'd vote for Huckabee over any Democrat is to keep them from putting 2 or 3 leftist judges on the Supreme Court and elsewhere.
:: Elroy Jetson
January 3, 2008 11:03 PM
If the country's going to be destroyed by a President following a socialist agenda, I'd prefer it be a democrat that gets the blame for it. Huckabee gives the Democratic press an excuse to blame the GOP for all the things they would have done, then elect Obama in four years for more of the same, whereas an Obama or Hillary now does it, that'll pave the way for a real conservative in four years instead of another F*&^*(%%in' RINO. Unfortunately, I don't think the country can survive four years of either Huckabee or one of the Dems so I'm not sure any of this matters.
:: MarkD
January 3, 2008 11:13 PM
You said it! Please, oh God, let Iowa be a fluke.
:: Bart
January 3, 2008 11:13 PM
Arkansas and Iowa are now off my guest list for the foreseeable future. On the plus side, the look on Bill Clinton’s face during Hillary’s Ice Queen speech made me feel a little bit better. Let’s hope the NH Republicans haven’t completely lost their minds next Tuesday.
:: wyocwby
January 3, 2008 11:17 PM
Geeze, Steve, calm down. Iowa did the one thing we needed done, cleanse the party of that pandering nincompoop Romney. Mittens' Clinton-lite lying and flip-flopping would have gotten us killed in November. Huckabee did the job for the party and McCain will finish him off in NH. After that, it will be down to Fred as the only conservative left in the race.
Fortunately for us, Fred was the right guy all along.
:: K T Cat
January 4, 2008 06:23 AM
It took me all of my self-control (and the rot-gut portion of my liquor cabinet) to keep from swearing last night.
Guess it's time to clear away the bottles and start collating the blogosphere's react (and I doubt it's going to be pretty; most of my roll was set long before the primary season ever kicked off, and none of them particularily like Huck-A-Duck).
:: steveegg
January 4, 2008 06:47 AM
Out of the 60% of Evangelical Iowans, upc-Hucka(D) got 34, yet that is a 'victory' while Hillary(D) only getting 30 of the (D)emocrats is a defeat?
Talk about spin...
:: DANEgerus
January 4, 2008 08:03 AM
I blame Iowahawk.
:: Hillary Delenda Est
January 4, 2008 08:06 AM
The Carter comparison is dead on. Something about Huckabee was giving me the screaming heebee jeevees, now I know what it was.
Huck could be everything the left imagined about Bush- perpetually acting out of whatever his 'moral compass' tells him at any given moment. This guy scares the crap out of me. I'll take Hillary or Obama in a second.
:: Mark Buehner
January 4, 2008 08:07 AM
If Huckabee wins the Presidency I foresee a lot of bourbon drinking in the future. I know a lot of the readers, much less the admins here drink other hard liquor, but only bourbon will induce the kind of numbness required to endure four years of the Arkansas dream boy.
:: Matthew
January 4, 2008 08:09 AM
I think they were drinking the ethanol.
:: BlogDog
January 4, 2008 08:11 AM
Huckabee wins and I'm voting Democrat. Religious bigot. ... and why the hell do the Republicans (except for but perhaps including Reagan)always end up being drunken sailors when it comes to finances or worse than commies. Six words: Richard Nixon's Wage and Price Controls. WTF was that about, straight out of a commie 6 year plan.
:: BM
January 4, 2008 08:12 AM
I'm an evangelical. I went to a Baptist college. I know (and have lived) the type of milieu from which Huckabee was spawned. And I, too, ask the Iowans - "what the hell were you thinking?" A folksy way does not a president make. Thompson is the guy for me. And I hope the rest of the evangelical Republicans will use the last scrap of brain matter they have and vote for him in the rest of the primaries. I wish I could give more evidence of my continued, solid evangelical roots - I know who Billy Sunday was - does that do it?
:: Andrew
January 4, 2008 08:15 AM
KT Cat: I am not a fundamentalist but I PRAY - are you there, God? It's me, Stubby, and I'm PRAYING here, like only an ex-Baptist can pray - that you are right. I don't really have a favorite yet among Rudy, Fred or Maverick - I'd be happy to see any of them instead of the hillbilly or the hair guy.
And if we have to have a Democrat in the WH, I would rather it be anyone other than Hillary. Yea, even unto the Silk Pony.
And BTW - my fundie Baptist mama hates Huckabee too. Just like she hated Jimmah. Takes a smart Baptist to know a stupid one.
:: stubby
January 4, 2008 08:15 AM
All I needed to be reminded of to know that Iowa is whacky is that PAT ROBERTSON got second place there one time. SERIOUSLY!
Tells you all you need to know.
:: fred
January 4, 2008 08:17 AM
Exactly my thoughts. The party offers up 3 candidates I think would make excellent choices, one iffy option (Romney) and ends up supporting the only candidate that could compete with Carter. I think I'm going to throw up.
:: lgv
January 4, 2008 08:22 AM
It's beyond me how movie star Fred Thompson could be said to have been given a breather with 14 percent, and Ron Paul who got 10 percent, 3 times better than Rudy G., got a kick in the nuts. Whatever dude.
:: Joe Strummer
January 4, 2008 08:24 AM
Oh and BTW. I hate Bushes wasteful methods of getting things done. Would have been far cheaper to lower the embargo on Iraq and then bomb all Saddams palaces to dust after dropping warning leaflets. Along with a message stating "Want to stop worrying when the next bomb will drop. Make sure you stop funding/training/facilitating terrorists.
Then we could go after the Iranian and Saudi oil fields. What did they ever do to earn those. The west found, developed, and mans those oil fields. There's no rule that says we have to respect our neighbors property rights if he's shooting bullets at us from his land. Especially if we built his house and were holding a mortgage when he "nationalized" it.
:: BM
January 4, 2008 08:25 AM
If it's Huckabee versus Clinton, I'll vote Clinton in a heartbeat. I'd much rather have a Machiavellian b*tch facing down Ahmadinejad than a naive cornfed hillbilly who'd try to sing Kumbaya with them.
If it's Huckabee versus Obama, I'd have to give serious thought to Obama. On some level, Obama would be good for race relations in this country and would destroy the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. That and I don't see him as a radical President. He'd want to get along, which means that he'd triangulate just like Clinton did.
If it's Huckabee versus Edwards, I'm voting for Ron Paul as a middle finger to everyone--whether he runs or not.
Basically, if Huckabee wins, we'll have a Democratic Party and a Christian Democratic Party in the race. If that happens, the Reagan coalition will be broken and the GOP will start going the way of the Whigs.
:: Jay Reding
January 4, 2008 08:28 AM
First off folks. Don't Panic. One down and 49 to go. Second off. It's a caucus not a primary. The candidate who spends money and time to organize there can generate results. Huck spent the time and energy. That does not translate into a national groundswell. OK? Have an adult beverage and relax.
:: RKV
January 4, 2008 08:32 AM
Huckabee is the only candidate on the Republican side that could make me vote Democratic in November. But having said that I'm glad he won last night, because that started the process of derailing Romney, and the two candidates that I feel the most comfortable about Thompson and McCain need Romney and then Huckabee out of the race. That is the scenario that I'm expecting. Romney is all but a gonner, Huckabee was probably just a one month wonder. Guiliani looks lifeless, Ron Paul isn't a Republican. Likely McCain gets the nomination although I would much prefer Fred. If the other candidates get out of the race before the nomination is decided and the choice is between Thompson and McCain then Thompson should win.
:: Kazinski
January 4, 2008 08:33 AM
F us? Well why don't you all just wait until your state is done. I don't remember anyone else listening when 2 years ago us moderate republicans were speaking up about Huckabee visiting every baptist church, christian school, religious college and home school association out here. The record numbers at the caucus sites weren't due to your friends showing up. It was due to the massive and I mean MASSIVE hard core christian turnout. My site had to go and print more ballots as did most sites.
Inbred? How clever. Yep, me and my wife ma are fixin to cut us up some corn since we ain't got no teef to chew wif...
For those of you who are now taking Iowa off of your vacation list I guess we have learned a bit. You have never been here, Iowa was never on your vacation list to begin with (or you were just stupid to have it on. We usually go on vacation to Bali or this year Costa Rica, only an idiot would vacation in Iowa.) and we really won't miss you anyway with your revolting views of the people in Iowa.
I can't wait to see the surprise on your faces when the old Huck takes the southern baptist states...Don't say you weren't warned. Oh yeah, by the way? F u 2.
:: Todd
January 4, 2008 08:34 AM
"Maybe the non- inbred toothless hillbilly vote got split among the non-Huckabilly candidates?"
People who know nothing about Iowa probably shouldn't comment on it. People who will vote for Obama or Clinton over the Republican nominee have not been paying attention to what they actually plan to do when in office.
This is Iowa. Voting for losers is what they do. Look at the past 40 years. Means nothing. They have given Harkin employment since he got out of law school. The media pumps this up. Don't buy the hype.
:: buzz
January 4, 2008 08:39 AM
A: "Hey guys, we have this candidate with an impeccable record on the war who's leading in the national polls and who's popular among moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats, and Independents of all stripes. /Despite/ his unwavering support for an unpopular (but important) war."
B: "Screw him. Let's push Romney instead. He's a religious businessman, and he has good hair. People'll love him."
A: "But what about the war in..."
B: "Never mind that! Romney! Romney! Romney!"
(After Romney completely fails to gain traction and the religious right jumps ship for Huckabee.)
B: "OMG! Who to support now?"
A: "Guys... even though he remains an outspoken supporter of an unpopular war, and was the primary face man to sell the public the Petraus plan, McCain's gaining traction /again/ and he's still viable. He stuck his neck out for the war. And he still has the moderate support that Republicans will need to get a president into office after hurricane Bush. Here's your second chance to do the right thing..."
B: "OHHH! Thompson talks to bloggers! And he has a beautiful wife! He's our man!"
A: "But what about the war in..."
B: "Hey Fred, stop the bandwagon, I wanna jump on!"
(President Barack Hussein Obama. I hope you like the sound of that, because that's where we're heading. Way to cut and run on the one major Republican who did the most to keep our nation from cutting and running in Iraq.)
:: CGS
January 4, 2008 08:43 AM
I have never voted for a Democrat for President - I even voted for Tricky Dick and worked on his campaigns in '62 and '72. I am that dyed-in-the-wool a Republican.
Huckchuck reminds me ever so much of the Brother Jimmy -- even to the support of the evangelicals. I was in the Army during the election of 1976, and I knew Ford was finished when almost all of the other junior officers, most of whom were evangelicals or 'born-agains' as they were called then, were voting for Carter because he was 'one of us' as they openly said.
Somewhere, I still have the Doonesbury cartoon - his best ever I think- of Zonker talking to his Begonia on the day of Carter's inauguration and lampooning the "government as good as the American people" phrase, with the flower saying "but if the people were so good, why would we need government..." followed by "what do I know, I'm only a Begonia"
I have always said I would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary. I would probably either not vote or vote for Hillary or Obama if Huckchuck is the Republican nominee. No Joke.
:: CatoRenasci
January 4, 2008 08:49 AM
You want to know why Huckabee won? This is why.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/12/why-does-the-gop-establishment.html
(Start with the paragraph beginning "It's funny, but when it looked like . . .")
I'm not even a Huckabee supporter -- Thompson is my guy -- but I am a religious conservative, and so I understand that religious conservatives are getting just a little bit tired of being told they need to shut up about the issues that matter to them so we can get a RINO like Giuliani the nomination. Last night a bunch of them showed everybody exactly what they thought of that idea.
Time to reconsider the message, maybe?
:: Gina
January 4, 2008 08:51 AM
My goodness, if that isn't just the type of vulgar elitism that the GOP has long (and sometimes accurately) accused the Democrat party of voicing.
Folks, this is a good way to destroy the Republican party. Instead of insulting a loyal segment (the evangelicals) and giving credence to their longstanding worry that they are being used as useful idiots by those whose concerns are limited to fiscal and military matters, perhaps you should spend your time finding a candidate who is not the GOP version of John Kerry.
:: funnelclouds
January 4, 2008 08:54 AM
Idiot Out Wandering Around. Huckabee's chances of winning the nomination are slim. Iowa likes losers. Most of the rest of the country see Huckabee for what he is. Spent Christmas in Iowa and was amazed by the Huckabee supporters. What a clueless bunch of fools.
:: TCS
January 4, 2008 08:54 AM
My candidate didn't win! The system is broken! Iowans are stupid! Boo hoo hoo!
Grow up, Stephen, and the rest of you, too.
:: Matt
January 4, 2008 08:57 AM
Great Open Letter!
I'm for Fred!
:: Victor T
January 4, 2008 09:12 AM
The people who voted for Huckabee shot themselves in the foot.
Huckabee will appoint liberal judges. As he has often said, his favorite judge is Lavenski Smith, who he wants to appoint to the Supreme Court, but who was described even by a (liberal) Minnesota bar publication as a moderate-liberal.
Smith was also described as liberal by legal commentator Matthew Friendly, who pointed to his liberal rulings on social issues and against employers in race cases even where the evidence against them was quite weak.
Huckabee will appoint Smith because he, like Jimmy Carter, harbors racial guilt feelings, and Smith is black.
In the Frye case, Smith ruled that non-intrusive anti-abortion speech can be restricted.
I am not an ardent pro-lifer, or a social conservative, but even I wouldn't let anti-abortion SPEECH be restricted. Even if abortion should be legal, speech protesting it should be legal, too.
Do anti-abortion social conservatives really want to give away their free speech rights by voting for Huckabee?
:: Hans Bader
January 4, 2008 09:16 AM
KT Cat is right, and in the end, we'll all owe the corn-sucking idiots of Iowa thanks for the first half of knocking out Romney (Part Two looking like McCain beating him in NH.)
Huckabee can't win the nomination, but Romney can, and while Romney wouldn't be as terrible a president as Huck, I doubt he'd be a *good* one.
But Huckabee's win is a product of the weird and stupid Iowa caucus system, and the makeup of the tiny corn-sucking idiot population who votes in them. He's not going to find that in any other significant state, I don't think, and I doubt he's many people's *second* choice.
:: David C
January 4, 2008 09:16 AM
This isn't rocket science.
Huckabee took 14% of the vote and came in fourth in the Iowa caucus among non-evangelicals according to the NBC Republican exit poll [other polls come out about the same].
His big voting block came among born-again Christian Republican females living in non-urban rural areas with a population below 10,000. When Huckabee moves out of the corn fields and into America, he's going to get killed.
:: PrestoPundit
January 4, 2008 09:17 AM
Perhaps it was a vote ordained by God himself!
Hopefully...hopefully...this crushes Romney and we end up with an unbeatable Giuliani-Thompson ticket.
:: mph
January 4, 2008 09:18 AM
The problem here is that we have one of the most unappealing set of candidates on the Republican side that we've ever had. I'm a Fred Thompson guy. I got on board with him long before he officially declared, because at the time I saw nobody currently running above low single digits I had the slightest desire to vote for.
When the two front-runners are a liberal Republican from NY, and a liberal Republican from Massachusetts (who, at least, is attempting to claim he's a conservative now), things were looking dire to me, so I was looking for someone, anyone who represented my values and had a chance.
The hardcore pro-life wing of the party was doing the same thing. There was about 15% of the vote that was bouncing between Thompson, McCain, Romney. But none of those 3 are really acceptable to the hardcore pro-life movement. McCain's pro-life himself, but wants the pro-life movement to shut up and stay out of politics. Thompson, as much as I like him, was insufficiently pro-life to capture their vote. I think if he'd run a better campaign they'd have been ok with him as a compromise candidate, but that hasn't happened. And Romney's problem is that while he sounds like a pro-life conservative now, nobody with a brain outside of the National Review editors actually believes him.
So that 15% had to go somewhere, and basically decided that it was going to go to the one candidate they were sure was solid on their main issues.
And yes, Huckabee's a mess on everything else. But honestly, some of the attacks led on him are downright counterproductive. Making fun of his name, his home town and state, his profession. By constantly berating the fact that he's a Southern evangelical all the people are doing is causing those supporters to dig in.
It's like calling Ron Paul a wacko nutcase. Sure, it's true, but the more you do it, the more his supporters are going to bunker down and vote for him at all costs. And when he loses the nomination, his supporters aren't going to vote for the eventual nominee.
It will be the same with Huckabee. If he doesn't win the nomination, and his supporters feel that his candidacy was killed off because he was a Southern evangelical, those voters aren't coming back to the eventual nominee. And you know what? Without those supporters, the Republicans lose. They may lose anyways, but they definitely lose otherwise.
:: Skip
January 4, 2008 09:19 AM
Try to name somebody who won the Iowa causcuses and went on to be President (sons of former Presidents don't count). Then relax.
Carter didn't even win in 1976. He finished second to "uncommitted."
Anybody not from Iowa or Arkansas can see that this guy is as phony as a fifteen-cent piece.
:: Jim O'Sullivan
January 4, 2008 09:21 AM
Actually, given John Edwards' feckless call for a complete immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, I'd say that HE would be the Jimmy Carter clone.
And Nixon did some good things, which is more than I can say for Jimmah. I won't go to Plains to pee on his grave when he dies, but only because I don't like standing in long lines.
:: Clyde
January 4, 2008 09:21 AM
Huckabee is not a conservative. Period. If evangelicals want to kid themselves that they, alone, have elected Republicans in the past, so be it. Nominate Huckabee, and this Independent is leaving the Republicans' side.
That said, it is a long road to November, and I am staying optimistic that other states will counteract the results in Iowa. Reagan lost there, too, ya know.
:: winc
January 4, 2008 09:26 AM
The fact that 10% of Republicans gave their vote to Ron Paul alone, aside from giving Huck the win, makes me wonder about the collective intelligence of that state. Idiots out wandering around.
:: T-B
January 4, 2008 09:26 AM
Please, stop all of the McCain talk. The last thing we need is a GOP nominee who has co-sponsored most of the Democratic policies in the last 5 years.
Between campaign-finance reform and his illegal immigration stance, I don't know whether to laugh or cry if he wins N.H.
:: KED
January 4, 2008 09:27 AM
If party affiliation plays out:
42% will vote for Hitler if he were the dem nominee.
32% will vote for Stalin if he is the GOP nominee.
26% independents.
Does Huckabee think he has a chance of winning independents on a with a "look at me: I'm a Baptist" message?
Huck's single shot at winning the WH was based on a polarizing HRC as the dem nominee. He won big last night, but lost even bigger...
I'll support Obama over Huckabee, anyday.
:: paul
January 4, 2008 09:27 AM
As RKV said, it was a caucus, not an election. People act a bit differently (more herd-like) in caucuses than in elections. Watch Romney rebound (a bit), watch Huckleberry begin to fade. Watch Thompson begin to consolidate his base (he'll come in about the same next time, but he's an iceberg - you need to look beneath the surface). It's gonna be tight for a while unless something suddenly breaks just right for Thompson. But Romney and Huck have found their ceilings. They'll bounce around on it for a while, but it's hard to see how either one breaks through. If Thompson perseveres, he will eventually prevail here, because he has no built-in limits.
:: Mister Snitch!
January 4, 2008 09:31 AM
Corn-sucking idiots? Non-inbred toothless hillbillies? Do you expect to be taken seriously? That's the exact attitude that makes Iowans discount everything our self-described "betters" spew. F yourselves, asshats.
I think you're seriously discounting the effect of Democrats re-registering as Republicans for the evening--you can do so right at the door of the caucus--to vote for Huckabee because everyone at their church was doing it. Except for the Jesus, he's indistinguishable from Hillary, so they don't have to compromise any of their political beliefs to support the "most Christian" candidate. And seriously, the more you rail against their identity politics, the more they'll cling to them. Like La Raza or NOW.
:: Heather
January 4, 2008 09:32 AM
Watching McCain's interview last night...I don't know if he'll survive the primary season. He looks near death.
:: Darby
January 4, 2008 09:34 AM
TO: Stephen Green, et al.
RE: Well....
....being from Nebraska, I've never really put too much stock in what Iowans do.
After all, as a co-worker described them....
Idiots
Out
Wandering
About
On a more sober note—tongue firmly in cheek—another associate of mine was looking at the results on his iPhone and noticed that Republican caucasers outnumbered Democrats by at least one order of magnitude.
It was an interesting observation.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[A straw vote only shows which way the hot air is blowing.]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 09:36 AM
TO: Heather
RE: Really?
"I think you're seriously discounting the effect of Democrats re-registering as Republicans for the evening--you can do so right at the door of the caucus--to vote for Huckabee because everyone at their church was doing it." -- Heather
That's an interesting report.
If accurate, it shows a certain degree of dishonesty that is hard not to interrupt as anything less than an attack on all things most people hold dear.
It would certainly corroborate the impression that the Democrats couldn't be trusted to do anything other than what they think is right for them. And the country be damned.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Evil has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all.]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 09:40 AM
Welcome, Republicans, to just desserts. Pretending to be the yokel party turns out to be no different than being the yokel party.
:: Righteous Bubba
January 4, 2008 09:49 AM
Everyone's efforts should be geared toward defeating Huckabee and McCain. At least then, for me, the candidate will be acceptable.
:: Cory
January 4, 2008 09:49 AM
Stop all the McCain talk? Nope. Sorry.
I'm an Iraq vet. While I was in the Army, only one of the current crop of Republican candidates stuck his political neck out to support the war that I was risking my neck for. His name was John McCain. And McCain is the only candidate who's putting the war front and center now. That counts for a lot with me.
I'm a one-issue kind of guy. Support for the war and the men and women who are fighting it is far more important to me than the ideological purity that Thompson supposedly represents, the putty-like convictions of "consult the State Department" Romney, and Huckabee's ol' time religion.
But, whatever.
You guys are currently hopping aboard the express train to the political wilderness -- but not before throwing the defining conflict of our age underneath the wheels. Because, y'know, Fred Thompson talks to bloggers and Mitt Romney has good hair so he's electable. Enjoy the ride!
:: CGS
January 4, 2008 09:53 AM
TO: CGS
RE: McCain
McCain is also the guy who gave US McCain-Feingold; a strike at the roots of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
You may be a one-trick-pony, but fortunately there are others here who don't suffer from target-fixation.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 09:57 AM
TO: CGS
RE: McCain
McCain is also the guy who gave US McCain-Feingold; a strike at the roots of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
You may be a one-trick-pony, but fortunately there are others here who don't suffer from target-fixation.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. You, a combat veteran, remember the Constitution. Dontcha? It was something you swore to defend, against ALL enemies; foreign AND domestic.
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 09:58 AM
TO: All
RE: Sorry...
....about the double post. This system hung up on me and when I reloaded it, it wasn't there. So I added the PS and reposted, only to see both items there now.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 10:00 AM
:-)
Looks like the Christianists have figured out that they've been played. It only took them 27 years. Like you said, they're smart.
Bye-bye, permanent Republican majority.
:-)
:: John Emerson
January 4, 2008 10:00 AM
TO: John Emerson
RE: Played?
"Looks like the Christianists have figured out that they've been played." -- John Emerson
We'll see, compadre. We'll see....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 10:01 AM
P.S. Is "Christianists" supposed to be the Republican form of Clintonistas?
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 10:03 AM
YEEEEEEAAAAARRGHHHH!!!!
:: Dave in Texas
January 4, 2008 10:04 AM
Huckabee's views and positions are well within the pale for a Republican candidate. I'm excited about voting for him in the Florida primary, partly because he can actually form complete sentences containing dependent clauses, unlike the current POTUS (for whom I proudly voted in 2004).
Of course I'll vote for Romney or Thompson in the general election if that's what's required to keep a Democrat out of office. I feel no animus toward the other Republican candidates. But they have to get nominated first.
In my assessment Huckabee is the most electable.
:: Ed J
January 4, 2008 10:05 AM
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaha!
:: Mucho Sucko
January 4, 2008 10:05 AM
Couldn't agree more, especially considering I spent my share of time in northeast Iowa. Yes, they're idiots.
By the way, I'm not going to vote for a liberal so that the GOP can retain the White House. If Huck wins, the GOP will conclude that the country is moving leftward, and act accordingly in the future. I refuse to contribute to the decline of the Conservative movement. I won't vote for Hillary, Obama, and damn sure won't throw one to Edwards...but I might toss a ballot for Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman in the general, just for spite.
:: MadisonConservative
January 4, 2008 10:06 AM
Stephen, you have never been so right...
:: Jweaver
January 4, 2008 10:11 AM
You are the biggest idiot spewing filth on the internet. Please crawl into your hole and die.
:: Boston Liberal
January 4, 2008 10:14 AM
Ahh so many kindred spirits. If Huck gets the nod, I vote for the dem. I want full credit for the toilet flushing our country will go through to go to the dems.
My single issue is our country and with Huck or any of the dems at the helm, it will be unrecognizable in 4 years.
:: MM
January 4, 2008 10:20 AM
I can tell you for sure that the Huckster is not going to get the Jewish vote. Not even the Republican Jewish vote. And especially not Republican Jewish money.
Especially after the Huckster has gone out of his way to slam Romney's religion. Whats up wid dat?
What is wrong with all men are brothers (who want to be) and let each find his own way to the Maker?
BTW I'm a Thompson guy. I could live with Rudy, or Find Gold McCain.
:: M. Simon
January 4, 2008 10:20 AM
I like corn
corn good
:: iowahawk
January 4, 2008 10:20 AM
I think Skip nails things on the head:
"If he doesn't win the nomination, and his supporters feel that his candidacy was killed off because he was a Southern evangelical, those voters aren't coming back to the eventual nominee. And you know what? Without those supporters, the Republicans lose."
As a Democrat, I encourage all of the people commenting here to ignore Skip's sage observations, and to continue treating the Christian Conservative wing of your party as nothing more than useful idiots, votes to be exploited with dog whistle calls and then ignored (except for the rhetoric) after the election.
:: Pope Bob
January 4, 2008 10:22 AM
you big-daddy-loving christians-in-name-only are toast in the general election anyway, so what do you care.
and by the way, vodkapundit, do you know the difference between gay and homosexual? You're homosexual.
cheers!
:: cindy
January 4, 2008 10:24 AM
You're not alone. I made my first sale of my "I already have a Savior, what I need is a President" t-shirt less than twelve hours after the results were called (it's been for sale for about a month.)
I have to say, though, I think this really can be chalked up more to the caucus mentality (and to a feeling amongst evangelicals of having been "used" by economic conservatives who hate them) than to the relative intelligence of Iowans. On the other hand, I remain concerned about Wyoming, as every time I've tried driving through there, horrible things have happened to me.
:: Sarah
January 4, 2008 10:24 AM
It's simple, the Republicans have a field of complete losers, and the good folks of Iowa had to choose one of the losers. Get used to it.
:: Eric
January 4, 2008 10:30 AM
AHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Oh this is going to be a great election, if Hucky gets enough votes to pump his ego but not enough to win I bet he'll do an independent run and then there won't be enough popcorn for the show you and other GOPs are going to put on.
Impotent rage is always fun to watch.
:: salvage
January 4, 2008 10:30 AM
It is to laugh that having courted and made promises to the fundies they would offer up one of their to guide the country and conservatives would get really po'd.
As for the Huckster being like Jimmy I came to post because of the Vodka Pundit's mention that the left took one look at Jimmy and went that way - You are correct sir! You have to appreciate though that he was the anti-Nixon - he was a decent human who just wanted better for his nation - and people voted that way because they were sick of Nixon and Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson types - worst President ever? My Jewish friends who care all hate him and nothing I can say changes their minds so I won't try but for worst Prez ever, no one is going to top the multi-trillion looting of the US treasury and all the other terrible things that happened under jr.'s (lol!)
and you conservatives should be working against the imperial presidency as established by the current admin - it is a mistake that will hopefully be undone under the next guy's watch (no way the Dem base goes with the well-heeled candidate)
:: Nuts!
January 4, 2008 10:31 AM
I am heartened, as an American, to see that one great tradition of politics survived the night:
Anybody who doesn't vote the way you want them to is an idiot.
It's a post like that that makes me think America will be all right after all.
I love it. Democracy's messy, you know? Sometimes the "corn suckers" get their way and you just have to deal with it.
You took the religious right's votes, pandered to them, told them to sit in the corner, spoke in their churches, paid them lip service, made them a political force, made their hatred of gay people a national issue, kept a brain-dead lady "alive" to keep them voting for you, and now you're mad because their guy won? That the whole nomination process just went irrevocably off-script?
Man, who's sucking on it now? Dr. Frankenstein, meet your monster.
And this just in...Fred Thompson is still old.
:: Frankie Machine
January 4, 2008 10:32 AM
Dudes F you all. I support Huck (even though I I agree with Fred on 99%) of things is because he cant EFFING TALK. With 8 years of a retard talking, I would prefer someone who can actually make our case to the people.
:: That Dude
January 4, 2008 10:33 AM
If you had gotten the translation of "Des Moines" correct, there would have been no confusion with the results.
"Des Moines" "The Monks"
:: Neo
January 4, 2008 10:34 AM
Huckabee is the SuperCuts version of John Edwards.
:: V the K
January 4, 2008 10:38 AM
The elitism demonstrated in many of the above comments is one of the many reasons Huck won and why I will be campaigning for him here in Michigan. Maybe a lot of us are just sick and tired of the establishment like all of you trying to shove a robot with no convictions like Mitt Romney down our throats. This was exactly a vote to thumb our noses at all of the elitists like you.
As a pro-life, pro-Iraq, non-evangelical, entrepreneur, I'm one for Huck. Don't like it? Well you better start moving your votes because God forbid Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain are the frontrunners, not Romney or Thompson.
:: Mike
January 4, 2008 10:42 AM
You missed the boat on Huckabee. You're wrong.
Huckabee - Cinderella Man
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94
JOIN WITH US!
:: apacallyps
January 4, 2008 10:43 AM
Ah Cindy, injuring yourself from all the rocks rolling around your empty skull?
:: Richard Cook
January 4, 2008 10:45 AM
Isn't there something in the Bible about reaping what you sow? Just sayin'.
:: guyx
January 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Guys- worse than Huck winning was McCain and Fred in a tie for 3rd. How in hells bells could any sane Republican vote for McCain? And he apparently leads in New Hampshire?? That scares me worse than Huck. I mean, McCain has the endorsement of Lieberman!! A frickin liberal Indy! -signed, Fred Head.
:: mad bikini blogger
January 4, 2008 10:52 AM
Wow. Complaining about Jimmy Carter, when you folks now have the Worst President in the History of Mankind to answer for, Talk about the mote in one eye, etc.
Face it- at this point you guys have so crapped in your beds (so to speak) that you can't get anyone to run as a Republican except the current crop of worthless, pandering liars. One of them had to win, and let's face it, whichever one it was, we'd be spending today talking about what a pathetic character he was.
:: Carl from L.A.
January 4, 2008 10:53 AM
I think Huck gets a bad rap because he's on of the few heterosexual Christian evangelical types out there.
:: pjsauter
January 4, 2008 10:53 AM
You are so right. Amen, amen, and amen!
:: Christian
January 4, 2008 10:54 AM
"Couldn't agree more, especially considering I spent my share of time in northeast Iowa. Yes, they're idiots."
Right, a guy from Madison calling Iowan idiots. Now that is funny! The low class capital of america calling Iowans idiots. The cesspool of american politics talking trash! HA! HA! Stop it, please, I'm going to choke. Can't...catch...my breathe....HAHAHA....arrrrgghhhh.
:: Todd
January 4, 2008 11:01 AM
In all honesty, out of the entire field of candidates the GOP has. Huckabee is their best candidate.
That is more of a condemnation of the rest of the candidates, than high praise for Huckabee.
:: The Other Steve
January 4, 2008 11:05 AM
Eating their own, reaping what they sow, chickens come home to roost, etc. etc.
Ya gots to go home w/ the gal who brought you to the dance - and in this instance that girl is the product of your party's decades of mindless pandering to the apocalypse-now crowd.
What did you honestly THINK was gonna happen? That the theocons would ignore their so-called "values" and vote for a guy from the place that your party spent the last 30 years telling them was Satan's Favorite State, Massachusetts? Or maybe they would go with the pro-choice, drag-wearing NY Mayor who doesn't share their irrational hatred of teh gay?!?
Enjoy. I know I am.
:: John in Chicago
January 4, 2008 11:12 AM
Don't like it? Well you better start moving your votes because God forbid Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain are the frontrunners, not Romney or Thompson.
Which is why I'm beginning to think I could live with President Obama.
:: V the K
January 4, 2008 11:13 AM
Skip and Heather have it right. If you want to keep creating an anti-Republican-establishment backlash like we saw last night, and splitting the party further, just keep calling the grassroots "idiots." See how far that gets you and your candidate of choice.
:: Gina
January 4, 2008 11:16 AM
You want funny? I got your funny right here. My local newspaper ran an ONLINE poll for Demo/Repub candidates. Guess who won the Repub poll? Ron "reynolds wrap hat" Paul. How clueless can a "newspaper" be about Paulians and their poll gaming. Newspapers like that ought to be doomed. http://www.in-forum.com/articles/full_photo.cfm?id=211270
:: zipity
January 4, 2008 11:17 AM
pj, Huck gets a bad rap because he's a socialist, populist idiot.
:: Jaibones
January 4, 2008 11:17 AM
I want to know what makes a candidate a "RINO"... is it a social liberal/fiscal conservative, or a fiscal liberal/social conservative?
Rudy Giuliani is often called a RINO, but in my view, Huckabee is at least as much a RINO. The core Republican principles are smaller government, fiscal resposibility, and lower taxes, are they not?
As an Iowa voter who caucused with the Republicans last night, I've become convinced that the Iowa GOP has a social conservative agenda that is agnostic when it comes to fiscal matters.
:: John S.
January 4, 2008 11:18 AM
Quit whining about the future. If you really believe in Thompson send him money so he can see he has support for a long haul campaign.
No one can win without cash!!
:: FWL
January 4, 2008 11:57 AM
This is the payback you Repubs get for your embarrassing foolishness surrounding Terri Schiavo.
Look! She sees the balloon!
:: Adam Stanhope
January 4, 2008 12:04 PM
Wow. I guess Ron Paul's supporters aren't as "go down with the ship" committed to him as we thought, Stephen. A bunch of them seem to have jumped over to Huckabee's dinghy.
:: McGehee
January 4, 2008 12:06 PM
Hey, I thought it was liberals who thought the good heartland folks were rubes. Good to see the mask come off. Now the god botherers can know that they have been nothing more than dupes for the use of establishment Republicans.
:: Gus
January 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Well, well, well.....
Isn't all this kumbaya special? Let me add to the party by adding a heart-felt "p___ off" to all of you who are making comments about us "corn-sucking, hillbilly," whatever, Iowans. I'm here to tell you that the average Iowan is sick to death of being looked down upon as a yokel. We're middle America - that's part of America too, an important part, even if we are in fly-over country. Truth is, we are by-and-large a much more honest, hard-working, sincere population in the Midwest in general than I have run into elsewhere in my travels. But I digress....
As an Iowan who attended his caucus, let me say first off, people - chill. This is, after all, a state with few delegates, and a less-than-stellar record of picking winners. Huckabee won here for a couple of very obvious reasons.
For one, he spent large amounts of time, effort, and treasure here, making sure that lots of people knew who he was. He simply can't maintain that pace for long without running out of juice.
Second, he comes across (however transparently to some of us) as a nice guy. We like nice guys. I'm not saying he isn't really just another slimy politician at heart, but he is a good campaigner in this forum. He plays the good-old-boy thing well, and it works for him here, where we are honest, friendly people, who are sick of East- or West-coaster, self-styled elites who treat us with disdain (see above).
At my caucus, there was a sizeable proportion of single-issue, evangelical-type pro-lifers. These are people who are beyond socially conservative, and bordering upon obsessive in their anti-abortion verve. That's not to say that ALL Huckabee's support came from them, but they definitely showed up in higher numbers than their proportion of the population. I thinks it's a function of the caucus process itself, also; it gives them a forum for their viewpoint. This was especially obvious as we discussed and prioritized party platform planks.
Personally, I cast my vote for Thompson. I like his no-BS style, as evidenced by his refusal to play the Des Moines Register's debate "show-of-hands" game. I decided after looking at late polls that this would be a race for third, and keeping Fred in the hunt was my chiefest goal. He doesn't have to win every contest to be successful, just have a sizeable proportion of the runner-up votes. I have no doubt that Huckabee will flame out, and will never be able to pull anything like the numbers he did here.
The largest lesson for ALL the candidates, and the pundits, to come out of this is to respect the people of Middle America, and treat us like you care what we think. We're not going anywhere - ignore or discount our opinions and votes at your peril. THAT'S the message we send. And that's the message that Iowa's early caucus SHOULD send. Major elitest candidates (and pundits and bloggers!) will do well to remember that.
:: Jay
January 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Exit polls of Huckabee voters identified their reason was he was most likely to effect change. That could be translated as rejection of the GOP and its version of conservatism. Were I a gooper or a wingnut, I'd be preparing for a long dark political winter. Tsunami, boys.
:: moondancer
January 4, 2008 12:35 PM
Amy - check this out:
Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
356,000 (235K of which caucused w/ Dems)
Percentage of total vote:
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
For a state that is traditionally 50/50 dem/repub, that doesn't bode very well for the Grand Old Pontificators.
:: John in Chicago
January 4, 2008 12:39 PM
Oooh watch out. It appears the vodka is wearing off and posts are now being deleted!
Not mine -- yet...
:: John in Chicago
January 4, 2008 12:42 PM
I realize that not everyone's been lurking 'round here as long as I have, but really -- when was VodkaPundit *EVER* a bastion of evangelical social conservatives? Where are the posts where our host defends the GOP "leadership's" actions during the Schiavo affair?
I've never been comfortable with the social conservatives. Ever. They're too prone to force their morality on an unwilling electorate ("for our own good!"), and they're too prone to using government as a charity. That's the Left's territory, and for all I care, the Left can take 'em.
Of course, most of the new critics here are even more insulting toward the faithful than the worst of the VP bunch, so somehow I don't see that happening.
There's a huge swath of Americans who simply want to be left alone. Whichever party figures out how to run a "we'll leave you alone" candidate first is gonna clean up at the polls. If that means losing the evangelical crowd, so be it. I'll trade 15% for 35% any time.
And as one who spent six of his formative years in Iowa, I laugh at the faux outrage of the so-called "Iowans" above. The Iowans I know and love can take a joke with the best of 'em, and most don't give two shits what the East Coast Elite think anyway.
:: Squid
January 4, 2008 01:20 PM
P.S....
"I already know that your answer is going to be that you're on the side of the Constitution, but I've covered that already, so you can shelve it." -- CSG
There is a difference between "covering" something and abiding by it.
Don't you think?
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 01:31 PM
Hey VP. You've just gotten an ENTIRE POST on Hot Air. You might want to update your post. The addy if you'd like to be entertained is: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/04/vodkapundit-to-iowas-republicans-thanks-you-corn-sucking-idiots/
Enjoy.
:: Suihei Deloi
January 4, 2008 01:58 PM
Chuck(le),
It looks as though most of my posts and many of yours are being deleted. Unfortunately, there's no point in continuing.
I enjoyed our discussion and wish you the best.
Sincerely,
CGS
:: CGS
January 4, 2008 02:02 PM
Ron Paul supporters are about stopping all the lawmaking, like the Internet regulation, that is actively interfering with YOUR lives and you might not even know it. Take the IMBRA law for instance. It says that, as an American, you have to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to a foreigner. Check out www.onlinedatingrights.com to see what I am talking about.
Sure, if you are "happily married" and don't care about dating anymore...go right ahead and condemn single guys who might want some variety.
If you don't feel that the Bushies and McCain's gang in the Senate have taken many of your God-given rights in the past 7 years...maybe you need to go to some Ron Paul forums and ask around.
Especially now that you know that 10% of Americans are behind Ron Paul (and not about to fall behind the eventual nominee) understand that, if you do not choose Ron Paul as the nominee, Obama will be President (not good) and Ron Paul or someone like him will then have to be given the nomination in 2012.
Better to give him the nomination this year.
Be logical: Where is this 10% going to go if you don't give them what they want? Will they dissolve like Ross Perot supporters? Not likely.
Remember the Deaniacs took over the DNC. At the very least, Paulites will take over the RNC.
:: Jack Sanderson
January 4, 2008 02:02 PM
It would be great for religious fanatics to leave the party. The perception that Iowa is a bunch of idiots is that shared among the GOP right now - I'm not sure how Democrats feel about Iowa, but I'm sure they think the same things of Iowa Republicans and are laughing it up now. I wouldn't say the Iowans are all idiots, but the fact they have more religious fundamentalists than most states adds to that perception, and it is why Huckabee won, and it is them who are idiots. Take out the "religious values first" vote - Huckabee comes in forth, or so I read elsewhere.
:: RC
January 4, 2008 02:03 PM
I do indeed agree with your Jimmy comments. But I think the Huck may surprise a few folks, all the way to November.
"Change" is the meme this season; haven't ya heard?
:: Denny, Alaska
January 4, 2008 02:12 PM
Deleting posts, how charming. Here's to the GOP respect for freedom of expression!
:: guyx
January 4, 2008 02:21 PM
"I'd vote for any of the Democratic big 3 over Huckabee."
And...you're a freaking idiot if you do. I don't believe you.
VP, I'm sure Iowans just love you after this.
:: Al-Ozarka
January 4, 2008 02:22 PM
Careful guys, you need the religious right for votes. There just aren't enough libertarians and/or millionaires to support your party. Now they come along and actually elect one of their own instead of someone who kinda pretends to be one. You don't want to really let them know you've only been stringing them along, do you?
:: Mark
January 4, 2008 02:34 PM
You're forgetting the silver lining here -- the Iowa results have dealt a serious (potentially fatal) blow to the Presidential ambitions of one Mitt Romney, an unqualified poseur who was easily the biggest phony to ever seek the Republican Party nomination in my lifetime. Possibly ever.
True, the coup de grace could have been administered by someone more qualified for the job than Huckabee, but Romney was much better positioned to leverage an Iowa win into wins in New Hampshire, Nevada, Wyoming, Michegin and, from there, the nomination, because a win by an eastern seaboard preppy in the bible belt is much more impressive than a win by a preacher in the bible belt. Huckabee's win won't translate to New Hampshire and he will be a memory in a few weeks -- but fortunately, yesterday he took Mitt Romney with him.
:: Sean P
January 4, 2008 02:40 PM
TO: CGS
RE: Interesting Observation
"It looks as though most of my posts and many of yours are being deleted. Unfortunately, there's no point in continuing." -- CGS
I do believe you're right about someone deleting the posts of our discussion.
Not like Stephen to do that sort of thing, in all the time I've been here.
I wonder if it might have something to do with his 'condition' that he has begun doing such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Keep up the good work, soldier.
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 02:40 PM
Hey Squid,
You spent 6 years in Iowa as a little kid and you think you know Iowans? Well f U 2, you nasty ugly sh!t smelling cancer on everything good....What? Can't you see that it is just a joke?
See that is the problem, we can tell when it is a joke. And when it isn't.
:: Todd
January 4, 2008 02:44 PM
Carter the worst president? Not by a long shot. George W. definatly has that honor, but I wouldn't even put Carter in the top 10 worst.
:: CB
January 4, 2008 02:45 PM
P.P.S. Maybe we could continue this interesting discussion over at MY place....www.comensarations.info?
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 02:46 PM
Anyone who thinks Carter is better than Bush couldn't possibly be older than 30 because anyone old enough to have lived through the Carter years knows better.
:: Sean P
January 4, 2008 02:52 PM
With this level of perception, it's going to be so easy to do you guys.
politicalfleshfeast.com Too much for you.
:: Ormond Otvos
January 4, 2008 02:54 PM
I read that he has been visiting churches in Iowa for the past year. They voted for him because they have heard him outside the political process. He is just another preacher to them.
I would be interested to know how many of the bretheren who heard him in church did not vote for him.
I agree that Huckabee would be bad for everyone. He has the same ability as Clinton. The ability to lie to your face and be sincere.
:: davod
January 4, 2008 03:11 PM
Drive to caucus site - 10 minutes
Wait in traffic to turn onto gravel road to park - 15 min
Walking to caucus site after having to park a mile and a half away (no joke)- 10 minutes
Waiting in line to get my "ballot" - 10 minutes
The "are they out of they're mind" realization that the majority of my fellow Hawkeye Republicans voted for Huckabee - an eternity
:: RatPoof
January 4, 2008 03:12 PM
Iowa has the same demographics as Ory-Gun.... Sad, but true.
ONLY Huckabee could make me vote for Hillary.
We have seen his act before. He is Clinton w/o Hillary. He is Carter w/o the earnestness. He is smarmy. I cannot vote for that sleeze...
There is a reason that the Dems and Establishment Media want Huckabee... It doesn't have anything to do with issues of national concern...only issues of personal and partisan prerogatives...
BTW->Good Post... I enjoyed the succinct summation of my morning news.
:: AndyJ, Portland Ory-Gun
January 4, 2008 03:25 PM
Let's see...
Carter: Despite being hobbled by a TEMPORARY energy crunch (and its economic impact) and an Iran situation brought on by years of propping up oil and anti-communist dictators like the Shah, came up with a moral foreign policy that actually improved our image abroad and the morality of relationships with other peoples of the world.
Put forward energy policies which - if they hadn't been undone by Reagan - would have avoided the crippling effects our subsequent energy dependence on our foreign and domestic policies - a dependence which has warped our subsequent foreign policy ever since Reagan came into office (Iraq being only the most recent example).
Bush: Completely squandered the goodwill that came our way after 9/11, dragged us into a pointless and costly war in Iraq which continues to distract us from the much more real dangers of Afghanistan and a nuclear Pakistan (which Carter tried to nip in the bud - remember the non-prolif treaty?). Acted unilaterally and in violation of US constitutional AND international law - in the process disrupting our relationships with law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world which were actually our best hope of destroying or disrupting terrorist attacks on the US. (Also disaffecting most of the world's population, by the way.) Oh, and his administration completely mismanages that war and the reconstruction - basically turning it into a profiteering bonanza for his cronies and demonstrating their incompetance to run a post office, much less the United States.
Now, after years of Reagan and 2 generations of Bushies sticking their heads in the sand about energy independence and global warming (and irreperably tearing up a lot of National Parks in the name of one more year of ducking the issue) the arriving energy crunch is not going to be temporary (as in the 70's) - it's going to be permanent - and a lot more damaging to the US economy in the long-term than any of Carter's bitter medicine reforms (which set you squawking) were.
:: CB
January 4, 2008 03:39 PM
It is to laugh.
All of you neocon leg-humpers got exactly what you deserved in Iowa. After shoving the smirking chimp down our throats (or is it up another orifice?) for years, swearing on your own unborn infants that the socialist simpleton was a conservative and the second coming of Ronald Reagan, why do you act so shocked when the party droids in Iowa picked the guy most like the shrub?
:: Steve B.
January 4, 2008 03:41 PM
I'm no Huck fan, but ranting, raving and cussing out Iowans, Christians, Social Conservatives and others merely reinforces the "Common People/cloth coat Repuolicans vs. The Beltway GOP Elite" paradigm.
Though the Huck phenom may not last much beyond Iowa it would seem to make sense to me to instead respect the underlying dynamics which rejects the "Beltway Elite" expectations.
This should be a wake-up call with a positive outcome, not a reason to panic & attack what have been the biggest element(s) of the party's overall success.
:: karen schell
January 4, 2008 03:58 PM
Well. It was my first time here (came over from HotAir). Liked what I saw, thought I'd jump in. I wrote a comment to CGS and then came back a few times to see if he had replied back to me.
But what's this?
Good grief. My entire comment was deleted. There was no reason for it except that I addressed my post to CGS - whose comments were also deleted I see. (Way to treat a vet, BTW) Gawd - I HATE that. What a waste of time, effort, and interest. Good way to drive away traffic, genius.
I won't be back. This post will probably be deleted as well. Coward.
:: Redhead Infidel
January 4, 2008 04:01 PM
A defense of the Carter foreign policies... I think I've seen it all now.
:: JohnG
January 4, 2008 04:12 PM
Also, the reason why non-Americans liked Carter's policies is the same reason why we had goodwill after 9/11 and why Bush lost it - the world likes a weak US that is reduced to begging for sympathy and pity, but hates a US that carries out policies in its own interest or acts in any way that implies that "the world" aka Europe is not the true center of the world.
:: JohnG
January 4, 2008 04:14 PM
and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts.
Really? In the decidedly non-libertarian Iowa, libertarian Ron Paul -- defying all CW -- made it into the double digits, beating Rudy by 2-1. Paul 10%; Rudy 4%.
Bigger kick to Giuliani's nutz, eh?
:: Mona
January 4, 2008 04:17 PM
Squid - Sorry, but I didn't sense any joking in this tirade; I think he meant every word.
Second, it falls into the vein of "They can't do that to our pledges. Only WE can do that to our pledges!" Self-deprecation is OK - someone else deprecating you (is that a word?) is NOT OK.
Also, chiming in on the Carter defense - are you freakin' kidding me?!?!? I remember well the 440+ days of hand-wringing and apologetics, including an impotent "rescue attempt", while our fellow citizens sat as blindfolded "guests" of the Ayatollahs. Carter should have issued an ultimatum on day 3, followed by the judicious application of a glassy surface to the sand under the feet of the mullahs. If he had had a pair, we wouldn't be in the GWOT today.
:: Jay
January 4, 2008 04:32 PM
If you want to insult Carter's presidency, you can argue the point, but he has been a great ex-president. Also George W Bush is by far the Worst. President. Ever. so why even bother with the rankings?
PS Your elitism sucks. I am no Huckabee guy but I am thrilled to see village idiots upset.
:: Greg in LA
January 4, 2008 04:39 PM
Sockinit, Greenie. I've had it up to here with media elitists like you telling those of us out here in the Heartland how to vote.
:: William F. Binkley
January 4, 2008 04:48 PM
Kudos, Stephen. Bestest epic post evah!!111
:: Hillary Delenda Est
January 4, 2008 05:34 PM
Oh, yeah, Carter's been great. All those unsolicited trips to visit/suck up to the likes of Arafat, Chavez, Castro, and all the other close personal friends of the US.....
:: Jay
January 4, 2008 05:46 PM
You're missing the point. People are hoping he names Check Norris as SecDef.
:: Kevin
January 4, 2008 05:56 PM
The mindlessness of people like Greg is disturbing. Paraphrasing the Comic Book Guy is just so clever, but why not offer some sort of actual criticism that at least shows some understanding of something?
Considering the likes of Harding, U.S. Grant, the mediocrities pre-Civil War, LBJ (great Senator, horrible President), Carter, Nixon (such a waste), etc., it really does take a buffoon to assert that W. is even close to being the worst; OTOH, he has allowed all the attacks in U.S. following 9/11... oh, wait...
:: chrisa798
January 4, 2008 06:25 PM
Note to history-free BDS sufferers: take all of our problems in the economy and multiply them by 3--that's Carter. Let Iran attack sovereign U.S. soil without any response, and all the trouble with Iran that followed--that's Carter. Convince the USSR that you're a testicle-free clown so that they feel reasonably secure in invading Afghanistan, and that worked out really well for everyone (and then answer by ruining the Olympics)--that's Carter.
That's just off the top of my head, and I was little kid then.
The standards are so much different now that people who counter Carter with W. are showing nothing but a total lack of awareness.
:: chrisa798
January 4, 2008 06:32 PM
It would be great for religious fanatics to leave the party.
As a Democrat of sorts, I love that idea. I don't think you guys could win without the religious fanatics. They're at least half your core constituency.
Huckabee's victory brought joy to many of us. Y'all better buy him off with whores and money, because if you don't he'll kill you (either as a candidate or as a disgruntled leader). Unless something happens, he could replace Robertson, Dobson, and Limbaugh as your party's moron rescruiter.
:: John the concern troll
January 4, 2008 06:40 PM
Carter didn't start a pointless losing war, he didn't backload a bankrupt government on future generations, and he didn't try to destroy all checks and balances on the executive or all civil liberties protections for the citizenry. He also presided over a less criminal administration and passed out much less graft.
Otherwise, Chrisa798 is right.
:: John Emerson
January 4, 2008 06:45 PM
The people praising Carter were either not yet born or not conscious during his term, so their opinions are not to be respected. Yet more proof that the worst BDS sufferers believe history began the day W. entered the White House - they have absolutely no sense of historical context.
And as a libertarian sometime Republican - I'm the fiscal conservative, social liberal that many Republicans insist does not exist - I've never liked the evangelical wing of the party, and I've always thought I would welcome the day when the two wings could just duke it out and see what happens next. I would have liked for that to happen when we were not in the middle of an existential war, but oh well. I can live with Obama. I have a feeling that President Obama would not make the nutroots - hi nutroots! Haven't spent a lot of time in comments threads with ya'll recently! - happy. At all. I don't think the Dems under Obama would be raring to bring back the fairness doctrine, outlaw private health insurance or pass UK-like "religious hatred" laws abridging free speech. I think all of that is likely under Hillary. Plus, I really can't stand Hillary, and what I've seen of Obama so far, I've liked. On the other hand, I don't Hillary would be at all dovish. I think that foreign policy wise, she'd be very Bushlike. So that would be fun to watch.
I do think the nutroots' eager anticipation of Republican civil war might be a bit premature. Cos when ya'll see what Hilary's about to do to Obama - dudes. That's gonna be some seriously good theater.
And I don't think Steven is deleting posts. I think the Post Beast is eating them.
:: stubby
January 4, 2008 06:55 PM
You goobers brought this on yourselves by courting the bible-thumping wingnut vote for three decades. No one on your side seemed to have a problem when Mr. I-Can't-Find-Iraq-on-a-Map-but-my-Favorite-Philosopher-is-Jesus won Iowa in 2000. Quit blaming the hicks, look in the goddamned mirror, and behold your modern Republican party.
:: aschupanitz
January 4, 2008 07:09 PM
Geez, calm down folks. It is not the end of civilization as we know it.
I don't think it was the evangelical vote that put Huckabee where he is. If you have forgotten, Huck expressed support for the Fairtax. Fairtax supporters have a large and vigorous network. THAT, not religion is most likely what gave Huck the boost.
If Fred would get up to speed on the Fairtax he would probably jump to the head of the pack. But that goes for any of the candidates really.
I don't think the Fairtax people are all that comfortable with Huck and would leave him in a hot heartbeat if another candidate came out for the Fairtax.
:: John Dunshee
January 4, 2008 07:38 PM
TO: All
RE: Can't You Just...
"You goobers brought this on yourselves by courting the bible-thumping wingnut vote for three decades." -- aschupanitz
...FEEL the 'love'?
Give this guy the chance and he'd make Hitler look like a Sunday School teacher.
TO: Stubby
RE: The 'Disappeared'
"And I don't think Steven is deleting posts. I think the Post Beast is eating them." -- Stubby
Could be. But what is this "Post Beast"?
Never heard of it, before.
It certainly isn't like Stephen to delete posts. And I've been posting/abusing here for years now.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 4, 2008 07:40 PM
I blame Chuck Grassley. He's old and weird and kind of creepy. People who think Chuck is representative of them, I can see how Huckabee looks pretty darn flash, not just as a leader, but the guy you'd most like to have a pop with.
:: happyfeet
January 4, 2008 07:42 PM
Now the common people, in the person of Huckabee, are threatening to take over, and the secular right doesn't like it a bit.
But, I just heard through the grapevine that...
Mike Wont Back Down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCChjYK8u0Q
IT'S TIME TO TAKE AMERICA BACK!
WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN, PEOPLE!!
JOIN WITH US!!!
:: apacallyps
January 4, 2008 07:44 PM
Ok, I will help you take America back. You seem reasonable and nice.
:: happyfeet
January 4, 2008 07:50 PM
Heh.
Lie down with fundies, wake up with Huckabees.
Republicans: suck on huck!
:: fishbane
January 4, 2008 07:53 PM
"corn sucking idiots" I'll use this every day in some sort of sentence for the next month!
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOVE IT. Thanks for making me laugh in this political hell we find ourselves in today.
:: Constant Reader
January 4, 2008 08:58 PM
Hmmm. Methinks I detect just a weeeeeeee bit of HDS on this thread tonight. What is HDS? Why, Huckabee Derangement Syndrome, of course.
LOL.
:: m. r. o'donnell
January 4, 2008 10:52 PM
... Or, maybe it is REALLY EDS (Evangelical Derangement Syndrome)?
None of you guys minded when evangelicals voted for GWB, but now that they vote for one of their own, you show your true colors -- secular bigots.
Hey, I am not even a Huckabee supporter -- and I like a drink now and then, but I can smell this anti-Evangelical hate a mile away.
Try taking a bit of your own advice, would you -- and give your evangelical Party-mates some room to breathe?
I think McCain or Thompson will be the man to back, but this Huck-a-hate is truly disappointing and unproductive.
If you don't like Huck, don't vote for him in your states' primaries.
That is what I plan to do.
:: m. r. o'donnell
January 4, 2008 11:00 PM
You know, the folks who criticize Carter's performance re the hostages are really oversimplifying what was a then a new and complex problem - a problem which was a result of us propping up an undemocratic police state (one of many such "friends" we had left over from Nixon and earlier admins at the time - Suharto, Marcos, Somoza, Pinochet, Baby Doc, Torrijos, Stroessner - real nice guys!) for reasons of oil and the cold war. The only reason they can persevere in their soap bubble of self-righteousness (spewing the ridiculous un-American revenge fantasy about massive retaliation and collective punishment of Iranian civilians) is that no Republican Prez has had to make similar tough choices with civilian lives at stake. Closest I can come is Reagan bugging out of Lebanon after the Beruit bombing of the marines (sure sounds just like the "cut and run" response so much criticized by those who revere the Gipper. Hard to argue we had better reasons to be in Iraq than Lebanon, huh?
And as for the economy - Carter didn't cause those problems - he didn't have time. The main culprit was the oil shock - and it should have been a wake up call for us to wean ourselves off foreign oil. Instead Reagan came in and hit the snooze button...
In 1973 (during the Republican Nixon Administration, by the way) OPEC agreed to reduce supplies of oil available to the world market. This sparked an oil crisis and forced oil prices to rise sharply, spurring price inflation throughout the US economy, and slowing growth. Significant government borrowing for items such as the Vietnam War and the nuclear weapons stockpile helped keep interest rates high relative to inflation.
Carter's foreign policy accomplishments? Let's see: Camp David Accords (serious talks with results - not window dressing like Bush) Panama Canal; Nuclear non-proliferation; created the Rapid Deployment Force (yeah, it was Carter, not Rummy!) which was NOT under the control of NATO, by the way; SALT II.
And when he cut off grain shipments to the Soviets over Afghanistan, who protested at the sacrafice? You guys.
Bush's FP accomplishments:
Wrecked Kyoto
Went into Afghanistan (Ok, that made sense, but he is still working on screwing it up)
Disasterous, costly, misadventure in Iraq which has tied our hands militarily and diplomatically for dealing with any other problems in the world.
Alienated friends and allies
Cozied up to dictator Putin (yeah, we really went into Iraq for Democracy)
Treated the Saudis (where were the 9/11 hijackers from again?) with kidd gloves and abandoned our bases there.
Screwed up on: North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Malaysia, and counting....
:: CB
January 5, 2008 12:10 AM
TO: m. r. o'donnell
RE: Derangement
"None of you guys minded when evangelicals voted for GWB, but now that they vote for one of their own, you show your true colors -- secular bigots." -- m. r. o'donnell
I think you may be onto something there.
I encounter EDS in a LOT of venues, especially amongst atheists.
The MO is that if you say what they like to hear you say, it's just great. But if you disagree with them, they want to 'kill' you.
I'm no fan of Huckabee. But he's entitled to his say and to the credit for his Iowa victory. However, based on an earlier report, I wonder if his victory was actually his or because a bunch of Democrat did some interesting ballot stuffing by going to Republican precincts and saying they were Republicans at the door of their meeting.
I've asked my local Republican party officials to look into that allegation.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 5, 2008 05:17 AM
P.S. Looking at the replies to my questions sent to my local party officials, it does seem that anyone can walk up to a caucus meeting and claim to be whatever they want.
This seems to me to be a rather 'idiotic' way of going about doing this sort of thing.
The follow-on question I've asked is, "Do we know how many people came to the doors of their caucus and declared themselves to be a Republican while not being listed on the roles the precinct chairs had?"
The answer to that may take a bit....and could likely call for more follow-on questions.
:: Chuck Pelto
January 5, 2008 05:46 AM
Yeah, Carter mishandled that whole Iran thing, and then Reagan came in to save the day by selling arms to Tehran. Funny how that gets missed from the story.
But the point is the modern Republican Party has owed it's success to the Southern strategy of appealing to die-hard racists and to the wonder working power of evangelicals. How else are you going to get poor folk to vote for tax cuts to the rich and welfare for business?
I hope Huck wins the nomination or contempt from the party elite for the faithful continues to be voiced in public, as above, and then the permanent majority will crumble and the map will turn blue.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
:: john milken
January 5, 2008 06:58 AM
CB,
Bush wrecked Kyoto?
Get yer history straight. Al Gore was against it before he was for it. Clinton wouldn't put it up for a vote and the Senators of the time said 95-0 that they weren't interested. Not one Dem voted for it. Not ONE.
Of course Iraq is a disaster. That is why lots of Iraqis are thanking our grunts for providing security and helping their Army to quell the violence.
Alienated allies. I can see that. It is why the Brits and French are fighting over who is America's biggest friend.
NorKor? I thought XPres. Jimmah gave them a clean bill of health when he worked out the nuke deal with them. That sure worked out well.
Dude. You are so last year.
:: M. Simon
January 5, 2008 07:10 AM
EDS? Well sure why not. He had some pretty bad things to say about Romney's religion. And it is sorta Christian.
I'm Jewish and feel an Antarctic wind from the Huckster.
That "my religion is better than yours" stuff scares the shit out of the Jews. We know where that can lead. It is not a pretty place. Not very pretty at all.
We get all twitchy and start sewing gold coins in the linings of our coats when we hear that crap.
:: M. Simon
January 5, 2008 07:17 AM
Did some one say Pinochet? He fixed Chile's Social Security system. They invest the money in the real economy, making it grow.
That is better than the Rs or the Ds have done here.
:: M. Simon
January 5, 2008 07:21 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
You pandered to the xtians for years, telling them you would put them first and enact all sorts of crazy laws that they wanted.
Then, you turned your backs on them after election, and payed attention to the big $$ portion of your party.
After a few decades of this, the xtian whackos got mad at you for constantly lying to them, and now that they have a mind of their own, and not voting for who you command them to, you rip them.
Here is the sad truth: You need them to win. Without the largest voting block within the gop, you cannot compete. As you rip them more and more, you push them farther and farther away.
You guys must not want to ever win another election.
:: asdiuyaidfiasg
January 5, 2008 07:37 AM
When I went to the Iowa caucus all the candidates had a representative, except Fred.
I wish I could say that everybody here is politically sophisticated, but obviously that isn't the case.
I'm aware of a woman who voted for Obama just because she'd met him. Sorry to say, it's largely a popularity contest.
I'm a Christian but I thought Huck was undesirable and unelectable. I voted for Fred. My ideal candidate would be someone would be someone who would promise to have John Bolton as head of the State Dept to clean it up because we don't need a cabinet-level Saudi lobbyist. And promising to get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S. would be nice too. But wishes aren't fishes.
It's not my place to apologize on behalf of my state, but I'm sorry. I hope Fred gets serious and kicks some Huck butt.
:: Dale
January 5, 2008 09:49 AM
TO: john milken
RE: History Lessons, Anyone
"Yeah, Carter mishandled that whole Iran thing, and then Reagan came in to save the day by selling arms to Tehran. Funny how that gets missed from the story." -- john milken
John....would you care to explain WHY Reagan was selling weapons to Tehran during his administration?
Was there something about the Soviets invading Afghanistan?
Talk about information 'that gets missed from the story', you're prima facia evidence of that. Or, more accurately, you're 'projecting' all the evil you do yourself on others.
RE:
"But the point is the modern Republican Party has owed it's success to the Southern strategy of appealing to die-hard racists..." -- john milken
Based on my earlier observation (above), I suspect you're much more the 'racist' than the people you're decrying, buckie.
"...and to the wonder working power of evangelicals." -- john milken
Thank you for recognizing it. And furthermore, I suspect that is a major target of your form of 'racism'.
You and aschupanitz (see above) could get together and probably do something really 'interesting' about your mutual hatred.
"How else are you going to get poor folk to vote for tax cuts to the rich and welfare for business?" -- john milken
Again, with the leaving out information. The tax cuts are for everyone.
Hope that helps. But I have serious doubts that it will, based on past experience with your ilk.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Half a truth is often a great lie. -- Benjamin Franklin]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 5, 2008 10:18 AM
TO: M. Simon
RE:
"That "my religion is better than yours" stuff scares the shit out of the Jews. We know where that can lead. It is not a pretty place. Not very pretty at all." -- M. Simon
Actually, M., christians don't hate the children of Abraham. We cherish them.
As it is written, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those that curse you." Christians understand that and know the power behind the words.
People who hate Jews and call themselves christians are bald-faced liars.
"We get all twitchy and start sewing gold coins in the linings of our coats when we hear that crap." -- M. Simon
Careful about passing that information around. Democrats, or those they like to keep on welfare, might start mugging you by rifling your clothing looking for such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. -- John Adams]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 5, 2008 10:24 AM
hahahaha....oh, this is too much. You republicans made your proverbial bed by wanting a "values" candidate. and now that you have it, you are freaking out. oh, this is going to be fun to watch.
:: WineSnop2007 (because Vodka is for pussies)
January 5, 2008 10:34 AM
TO: Stephen Green, et al.
RE: Speaking of EDS
See the common thread amongst the likes of WineSnop2007, John Milken, aschupanitz, et al.?
Hatred of anything relating to Christianity.
Maybe I should look more closely at Huckabee.
Anyone who can generate THAT much hatred from THAT group can't be ALL 'bad'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you're getting close to the target when they start throwing more flak at you. -- USAF Axiom]
:: Chuck Pelto
January 5, 2008 10:56 AM
Ok, so the Evangelicals have decided on Huckabee.
Good to know.
For 2012 I'm looking for a fiscal conservative who is also an atheist, pro-life and willing to get the Government completely out of the "domestic social engineering" policy arena.
I mean, since the evangelicals have decided that the coalition is dead, and it isn't even necessary to pay lip service to any other idea but theirs, the fiscal conservatives might as well do the same. Right?
I hope the evangelicals understand that "attacking" a fiscal conservative like this is simply "going negative" and that any hatred they feel is simply a reflection on them, and not a reasonable policy indicator... because that has to work both ways.
This candidate would be acceptable for evangelicals, right? I mean we're supposed to support a candidate who gives us 0% of our side of the coalition, so giving 0% back seems perfectly reasonable.
And since any complaining is unacceptable now, when this hypothetical 2012 candidate is found, I expect no complaints from the evangelicals...
:: Gekkobear
January 5, 2008 01:51 PM
Let me get this straight; now, McCain supports securing the border first? Is this a "flip flop"? As to his foolish "immigration" bill, which he describes as not being amnesty; how would the government have gone about collecting $2000 and ensuring people speak English? Who would've decided the appropriate level of English proficiency? Who would administer the tests? What if they couldn't pass? How many tests would they be entitled to take? Would we have to tutor them? Who would audit the process? What if the "poor" immigrant cannot pay? Would we round them up? Finally, for a "small government" advocate, how did McCain expect to accomplish these tasks for upwards up 5-10 million people? How many people would it take to accomplish this "project"? Would the nation be forced to unionize the test workers and administrators and guarantee employment after completion? McCain's proposal was incredibly simplistic and (obviously) not well thought out. So, why should we make him the Republican candidate for President?
:: GREG WOOD
January 5, 2008 02:56 PM
Don't forget about taxpayer funded attorneys for illegals under the McCain immigration plan...Also, if elected, McCain would be the oldest President yet...This guy had it easy in the Senate the Presidency may kill the man. Look at what the Presidency did to GWB. And, he is still probably the most physically fit we have had. GWB ran a Marine PFT better than I did when I was a 38 year old Major. He was about 55 at the time...Gotta love the guy...McCain's old news!
:: Scott Wiggins
January 5, 2008 08:11 PM
Chuck...how was selling arms to Tehran getting tough with Iran? How was it linked to the Soviets and Afghanistan? Do you mean Iran then gave those weapons to the good guys, the ones who pushed out the Russians? Now...remind me, did Tehran support the secular opposition or the Islamofascists?
Don't worry, I know your party then made up for any over-enthusiasm there by selling arms and giving intelligence to Iraq. Nice move, and no one was hurt in that, right?
Republicans not appealing to racists - you're joking? What was the 'southern strategy'? Why did the Democrats lose much of their support in the south after the end of segregation?
Incidentally, I happen to be white, as are most evangelicals. Nothing racist about my opposition to them, I just don't want to support politicians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible - it's a blind faith vs reality thing. I think the world is more than 6,000 years old, that men never walked with dinosaurs. I don't want a leader with their finger on the button who might get hot with the idea of bringing on 'the end of days'. Pretty simple, really, someone who wants to avoid Armageddon, not welcome it.
Yeah, that inheritance tax cut is for everyone...who leaves a large estate. As for the income tax cuts, were they progressive or regressive? Is the average family in the US going to be feeling richer or poorer in 2008?
But no, just as you suggest, the Republicans are not the party of racists and end-of-timers, they don't follow policies that favor the rich over the poor, and all the while they balance the budget, protect us from government surveillance and ensure greater accountability in Washington.
:: john milken
January 5, 2008 09:12 PM
"That "my religion is better than yours" stuff scares the shit out of the Jews. We know where that can lead. It is not a pretty place. Not very pretty at all.
We get all twitchy and start sewing gold coins in the linings of our coats when we hear that crap.
Posted by: M. Simon at January 5, 2008 07:17 AM"
Apparently, Huck doesn't scare all Jews: Michael Medved, an ORTHODOX Jew, defends Huckabee strenuously on a daily basis on his nationwide talk radio show.
Yep: You have EDS. You are so busy raising alarms about your own fears that you miss the obvious fact that you are a bigot yourself.
You also to appear to need to some more reading: History shows that Jews' have NO better friend than the evangelicals.
:: m. r. o'donnell
January 5, 2008 10:20 PM
There are two Great Commandments in Christianity. One is to love the Lord your God. The other is to love your Neighbor as yourself. "On this hang all the laws and the prophets."
Mr. Huckabee and his cabal have no where to hide on this one. He's the one pushing the subjects of religion, infidelity, remarriage and moral righteousness.
He is not interested in articulating his agenda (which is pitifully liberal at best), only in judging others along his own narrow, intolerant viewpoint. Here's another scripture which might be familiar. "Judge not, least you be judged."
However the sentiment, among some Conservatives since Iowa, seems to be one I heard among my children when they are about 4 years old or so- "He started it."
It will be cold comfort when Hitlery and Osama are in charge.
:: seanmahair
January 6, 2008 06:19 AM
In 2004 W won by the slimmest of margins thanks in large part to the christianists you disparage precisely because they saw W as putting Jesus in the White House. Unfortunately for Repubs, Jesus has not been especially helpful, but Huckabee is the the ONLY real evangelical in the race. Heck, Huck said he got into politics to take back Government for Christ! (sorry, I don't have a link for this.) You (well, I) could see this coming a mile away!
The fact is that of the "viable" candidates, only Romney has a clue about running a large, diverse organization. His success as both Gov of NH and running/saving the Olympics put him far above anyone else.
McCain? You can't be serious to think he has a prayer in the GE.
Guiliani? Talk about 'out there'. 3 wives? Estranged from his kids? Is it about character or isn't it?
You need look no further than the Military Industrial Complex to see why the Repub establishment (ie mainstream) will vote Dem in droves rather than turn the power of the veto over to yet another faith-based presidency!!
:: mezon
January 6, 2008 11:32 AM
I had to say something about this...
"Sadly, No! cites VodkaPundit Steven Green re Huckabee and Iowans, It is a magnificent rant, if damn near a decade belated."
I'm certain it's evidence of the impending end of all things, or perhaps a political division by zero.
:: Graphictruth
January 7, 2008 12:15 PM
