More Reasons I <3 Huckabee
Oh baby, the hits just keep on comin’. This time we have super-wingnut Rich Lowry practically begging Iowa evangelicals to stuff ice down their pants and vote for Romney:
Huckacide: A shiny Christmas present for the Democrats.
By Rich LowryThe ghost of Howard Dean haunts the pundit class. As soon as a candidate of either party spikes up in the polls, he is compared with Dean, who had a spectacular boomlet in the second half of 2003 only to deflate as soon as people began to vote in early 2004.
After many false prophecies, Dean circa 2008 has finally arrived. He is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Not because he will inevitably blow himself up in Iowa. But because, like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.
This is the best reason yet to support Huck’s nomination by the GOP! GO HUCK, GO HUCK!
a description.
Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States.
Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it’s hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him.
The GOP’s social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can’t be the message in its entirety.
Y’know what, Richie-Rich? You schmucks made your damn bed with this one, and I can’t wait to see you try to un-crap it. You guys encouraged Evangelicals to see themselves as persecuted and to find common cause with a similarly persecuted Jeebus-lovin’ soul (a.k.a., George W. Bush) in the 2004 election. You trashed John Kerry because you considered his faith in JEEEEEEEE-ZUS-AAAAAAAAH!!!! to be insufficiently sincere. You gleefully reported that Bush’s key to success in the ’04 election was his ability to get homophobic crazies fired up about them elitist sodomites up north try’nta git hitched just like us God-fearin’ folk. You went out of your way to fire up the wackos who wanted the federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo affair, and even compared her death to the deaths of Jews under Nazi Germany.
But something happened in between the 2004 election and today. All the scandals and broken promises by Bush and the GOP have really ticked the Evangelicals off. You guys promised them that you’d end abortion (hasn’t happened), ban gay marriage (ditto) and force popular entertainment to clean itself up (pfffffffft you’re kidding, right?) And while Bush has spent precisely zero real political capital pimping for these social-con issues, he’s done a hell of a lot to promote tax cuts for the rich and Social Security privatization. The Evangelicals finally understand that their purported Lord and Savior Jesus W. Bush is a complete fraud, and they want someone real.
Someone needs to tell Huckabee. His first TV ads in Iowa touted him as a “Christian leader,” and his target audience of evangelicals has responded. But according to a Pew poll released in early December, only 1 in 7 nonevangelical Republicans support him in Iowa and 1 in 20 nonevangelicals in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Huckabee has declared that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party.
Bush has spent his seven years in office appointing creationist loons to key posts at USAID and unqualified anti-science cronies to key government science programs. And only now you guys are concerned about being seen as anti-science? How the hell could Huckabee do any worse?
He’d do the same on taxes. In general, the public tends to support Democratic proposals for bigger government, which Republicans counter by saying that the proposals will require higher taxes. Huckabee will be equipped poorly to make this traditional Republican comeback, given his tax-raising history in Arkansas. Huckabee tries to compensate with a sales-tax scheme that allows him to say he supports eliminating the IRS, but is so wildly implausible that it would be a liability in a general election.
Then, there’s national security, the Republican trump card during the Cold War and after 9/11. Huckabee not only has zero national-security credentials, he basically has no foreign-policy advisers either, as a New York Times Magazine piece this Sunday makes clear. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September, Huckabee struck notes seemingly borrowed from Barack Obama, hitting the Bush administration for its “bunker mentality” and strongly supporting direct talks with Iran. A foreign-policy debate with a Democratic nominee would be a competition over who can promise to be nicer to foreign countries.
And this, it seems, is the one honest argument in the whole piece: Huckabee is dangerous because he won’t give enough money back to rich people and he won’t start enough unjustified wars. NRO doesn’t give a rat’s behind about Huck’s passion for Biblical literalism; their main concern is that he might think twice before giving more major tax breaks to their corporate masters. That, and he might not be as eager to bomb Iran as Preznit Rudy might.
None of this is a winning formula. Huckabee has been running his campaign out of his back pocket, and has done it extremely well. There’s a reason, though, that serious candidates surround themselves with policy experts. It’s necessary to running a campaign based on more than sound bites. Wherever you scratch Huckabee on policy, he seems an inch deep. Do Republicans really want to enter what is already a tough political year with a candidate apparently allergic to preparation, and who has shown no predilection for organizing or fundraising, when he can do cable TV appearances instead?
Again, you guys have spent seven years enthusiastically cheering on George W. Bush, the least qualified and least competent preznit in the history of the preznincy. Why? Because he started wars for no reason and gave tax cuts to rich people. And, voilà! It doesn’t matter that he’s screwed up everything he’s touched; as long as NRO’s corporate masters can get tax breaks, all is well in the universe.
In the Huckabeast’s defense, I think his foreign policy experience is at least equal to that of the Bushenfuehrer in 2000, and is, in fact, greatly superior to the preznit’s 2007 foreign policy experience as the preznit has been shown to be a total and unmitigated douchebag in this arena.
(I know, I know, that’s a very uncivil thing to say about the president if the president is a Republican.
And I also know how politically correct the Republicans can be when it suits them.)
When did the Republicans ever run a campaign that wasn’t based on sound bites? I am trying so hard to remember …
This is the best reason yet to support Huck’s nomination by the GOP! GO HUCK, GO HUCK!
Then again, these guys are wrong about everything. It’s all so confusing.
A foreign-policy debate with a Democratic nominee would be a competition over who can promise to be nicer to foreign countries.
OhMyGod!! When being mean to “foreign countries” has worked out so well for the US!
Also: “promise to be nicer”? What is he, a kindergarten teacher? Oh—I guess that was a form of Rethuglican sarcasm. Or something.
As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious
Wow. I now know what passes for subtlety amongst the GOoPers (emphasis mine).
“A foreign-policy debate with a Democratic nominee would be a competition over who can promise to be nicer to foreign countries.”
Oh no that’s so terrifying. How will Pantload feel like a badass without the international bullying?
The Republican Party married the radical religious right. It was a marriage of convenience and now they are full of regret. Too bad.
A Christmas Card for you.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/T-13/x.jpg
LibVet
hahahahahaha.
Really. These people gave us George W. Bush, John Ashcroft, Condoleezza Rice, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Snow, Paul Wolfowitz,Trent Lott, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, George Allen, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Harriet Miers, Ron Paul, Ted Stevens, Thune, Inhofe, John McCain, Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby …
and Richard B. Cheney.
They got a lot of DAMN GALL going off on Dean because he raised his voice at a political event.
Hey. Repugs. If you have ANY arguments or discussion points that honest decent intelligent people might be interested in, it’s way past time to lay them before the people.
O/T somewhat, I’m sorry, I do concur with the rise of Huckabee so that all 50 states can be in play, but I just have to tell someone that I just saw Ron Paul’s blimp at lunchtime.
Ron Paul has a blimp?!?!?!?
I love blimps!!!!!!!!!!
Ron Paul is my candidate! Libertarians, neo-Nazis and blimpomaniacs can all band together against … people who aren’t Libertarians, neo-Nazis or blimpmaniacs.
REVOLUTION!
Ron Paul has a blimp? This changes everything.
I think he’s taking it nationwide, if I’m not mistaken. Do check out the photoshopped pictures at the bottom.
http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/
Huckabee needs to respond with a hovercraft.
Where? Where did you gaze at such awesomeness?
Oh my. This could get bloody.
Hang on, lemme make some popcorn.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, I’m good…
mikey
I’m in Raleigh, NC (not pictured in the skylines on the website).
It was a huge ass blimp. I guess maybe that’s inherent in the definition of a blimp.
[…] to Jen for the […]
Ron Paul’s blimp has a Web site! Wow!
Those people who support Huckabee because Chuck Norris endorsed him? THIS will make them think twice!
Until Romney unveils his heavily armored, nuclear-powered Mormon dirigible! With a big black skull on the side!
“Take that, Ron Paul blimp!”
I’m holding my vote for the first candidate with a flying submarine. Like Thunderbird 4.
James Pinkerton in Newsday says the Huckster is practically unbeatable. Says Reagan and Clinton were underestimated too:
It’s happened before. Long ago, I worked in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. And I well remember Democratic politicos insisting that Reagan was the weakest Republican opponent that Jimmy Carter could face as he sought re-election that year. Was that “psychological warfare” by the Democrats? Or did they really think that the 69-year-old “cowboy” ex-actor – not yet known as “The Great Communicator” – would be the easiest Republican to beat? Probably a little of both.
But we all know this for sure: Reagan carried 44 of 50 states in the election against Carter. So the moral of the story is that predictions from hired-gun spin doctors are not to be trusted.
So Huckabee is an “easy kill”? Don’t believe it. He has to get nominated first, and that won’t be easy. But if he does, he will be formidable in a general election, just like that other Razorback.
Pinkerton’s usually nuts, though. I think the Huck would be crushed Goldwater-style in the general.
Nice of him to admit that.
I hear Huckabigot is coming out with an Ark.
One thing I’m really looking forward to next year is all of the backtracking by the various GOP factions and their media pals when a candidate is finally selected. They really haven’t had a tough primary since what, 1976? Maybe 1980? This is the first time in a long time that Republican has slung mud at Republican. It’s should be fascinating to watch.
Mike Gravel should unveil his Mike Gravel Surface to Air Missile.
Now that would be sweet!
You wanted a candidate with a flying submarine?
Allow me to present FS-1, the only REAL flying sub.
Admiral Harriman Nelson for President!!
mikey
I’m voting for the first candidate who tools around the campaign trail in this beauty …
http://www.spencer1984.com/image/m232a.jpg
The Evangelicals finally understand that their purported Lord and Savior Jesus W. Bush is a complete fraud, and they want someone real.
I used to laugh at the evangelicals when their chosen candidates played this shell game on them year after year. After the elections, promised legislative items were either half-heartedly proposed or were like dignity and self-control at an Old Country Buffet — entirely absent.
No more will I laugh. This Democratic Congress makes Vidkun Quisling seem like Patrick Henry. I wasn’t asking the Democrats to win every vote; I knew that was impossible with the slim majorities they held. I just wanted them to stand up for things I didn’t know were controversies until Bush came along: prohibitions on torture, limitations on surveillance, etc. Obviously these problems won’t be solved by electing Republicans, but I don’t see that electing more of these same Democrats will fix the situation either. As bad as 2004 was, I don’t think I’ve ever been this depressed about politics.
Until Romney unveils his heavily armored, nuclear-powered Mormon dirigible! With a big black skull on the side!
I’m betting he’ll go for an armored minivan. Poorly-driven minivans with eight little blond toddlers in the back seat are known as “Mormon Assault Vehicles” around here.
I’m betting he’ll go for an armored minivan
With a dog strapped to the roof and a hose coiled neatly around the spare tire (in case poochie shits himself in terror and needs to be sprayed down when they stop for gas).
Poorly-driven minivans with eight little blond toddlers in the back seat are known as “Mormon Assault Vehicles” around here.
That is, as they say on the Internets, full of win.
And, voilà! It doesn’t matter that he’s screwed up everything he’s touched; as long as NRO’s corporate masters can get tax breaks, all is well in the universe.
Yes indeed. And the one and only reason the right wing hates Bill Clinton so furiously is because practically the first thing he did as President was raise the percentage rate of the highest tax brackets.
Look. They accused Clinton of unforgiveable sexual immorality. Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston accused Bill Clinton of sexual immorality! No one actually ever gave a damn about his sexual morals.
They accused him of playing fast and loose with the civil rights of American citizens. Waco Waco, Janet Reno, black helicopters, New World Order. This is the same party that is virtually unanimous today in favor of throwing away habeas corpus and legalizing torture. Try and imagine the right wing actually being upset over a President whose actions may have truncated the average citizen’s privacy or civil rights!
They called him a bloodthirsty warmonger when NATO bombed Serbia. They accused him of “wagging the dog” when he Tomahawked bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan. Then they blasted Iraq to bloody shreds in order to protect the American public from the desperate imminent threat of anthrax bombs being manufactured in canvas-sided semi-trailers, being delivered by pilotless aircraft made out of balsa wood.
It’s always all about the class war. Taking from the poor and giving to the rich is the only thing the Republicans have ever been really serious about.
Said it before, will say it again: Huckabee / Paul in 2008! A true “Dream Team”…
Is this where we’re supposed to shed a tear for the GOP’s “Jebus Problem”?
Allow me to quote myself (as if you could stop me!):
None of the current crop of creeps even comes close to satisfying all of the stitched-together parts of the Republican Frankenstein monster. I’ll soon be marketing “Schadenfreude” brand popcorn, w/ real butter!!
That’s Dick Cheney’s vice-pimpmobile, right?
Whuh?
Haven’t they seen Footloose?
The GOP’s social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing.”
This sentence was a real puzzler, until I realized that by “limited government” the GOP’s Thousand-Year Majority is simply referring to Halliburton and Blackwater, et al.
Rock on, Brad.
As for candidate super-vehicles, I’m a nostalgist. Bring back The Silhouette!
[…] He kindly and graciously documents the GOP anxiety over the monster of their own creation. Hilarious stuff. There’s more all over the place, and as usual Sadly, No! has a good summary. […]
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? And all for nothing—
For Huckabee!
What’s Huckabee to him or he to Huckabee
That he should weep for [him]? What would he do
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appall the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed
The very faculties of eyes and ears.
Rich Lowry needs to get in touch with his non-elitist side.
Wait. Rich Lowry doesn’t have a non-elitist side.
Someone should tell him that, sitting around all day, dreaming up anti-Huckabee tomes is going to make him a dull boy. Get the message: Huckabee is what Leadership looks like!
Be careful Richy. Your readership may drop off with your continued rants.
Now, will you please get on the correct side of the FairTax. For goodness sake, man, we want to get the paws of politicians and lobbyists out of our paychecks. We want to pay for government the way that working Americans are paid – when, and because, somethin is sold!
OK, now that I’ve stopped laughing over the Death Star…sort of….
What Sender said. Add annoyingly cutesy jokes and some Jared-like weight loss that doesn’t help anything. Aww, the Huckster. Really, though, he doesn’t want to bomb everyone?
Huck doesn’t stand a chance because his constituency doesn’t have any money.
He doesn’t have a foreign policy advisor? Is that worse than having one in John Podhoretz?
He doesn’t have a foreign policy advisor? Is that worse than having one in John Podhoretz?
It’s better, but if he were to get the nomination the vacuum would almost certainly be filled by someone just as bad.
Jesus W. Bush? Ok, now, I really have to take offense to that.
Branding is important. May I suggest, W. Satan Failure, or perhaps, George,…. W.T.F iswrongwithme. Please do not associate the Christian savior with this piece of shit president.
OK, now that I’ve stopped laughing over the Death Star…sort of….
i’m late to this party, but I have to add that the pantload with the deathstar picture cracks me up every time
[…] and their little bait-and-switch isn’t working anymore. There have been a number of gleeful commentaries about this, but the best is clearly from the great James Wolcott. (Bush’s compassionate […]
@Ian
Like “Death Tax”, the rebranding of VAT as the “Fair Tax” is a great idea if you are a plutocrat and is pretty good or at least inoffensive if you are in poverty, but is a mighty sucking wind of suckitude for the 80% of us in the middle. Yeah, let’s be “fair” to the richest people, ’cause, you know, their wealth in no way has anything to do with the rest of us. The money they get is simply created out of the aether in response to their merit. Why should they shoulder more of the burden than anyone else?
It’s their money dammit, they earned it, they didn’t need us to get it and they sure don’t need us taking it from them for some so called “shared interest” or other governmental nonsense. Are there no workhouses?