Fred camp on Huckabee: We need a president, not a court jester
posted at 1:20 pm on December 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
When asked by Don Imus this morning about his lack of foreign policy credentials, Mike Huckabee joked: “And the ultimate thing is, you know, I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy – but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” (WABC Radio, 12/04/07)
“When confronted with a serious question about his lack of foreign policy experience, Mike Huckabee makes a joke. The security of Americans and our allies is no laughing matter. What Americans are looking for in their next president is a commander in chief, not a Court Jester,” added Bob Haus, Executive Director of Iowa Friends of Fred Thompson.
He’s not first in just Iowa anymore, either. The Daily News has a piece out about Giuliani aides rubbing their hands with glee at Huckabee’s surge in Iowa but eyeball the latest daily numbers from Rasmussen. That’s five consecutive days of decline for Rudy and five consecutive days of either holding or gaining ground for Huck, and that ain’t the only poll where Rudy’s sagging. If the trend continues tomorrow, Huckabee’s all by himself as the national frontrunner.
Exit question: Is the candidate who so enjoys telling others their policies are un-Christian behaving in an un-Christian manner himself?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
God save us from a man who jokes about national security…
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Well maybe he and Hillary can get together for a former presidential candidates comedy tour.
Brat on December 4, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Fred’s been handed a good shot here…I just hope he takes it.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 1:28 PM
When Huck is exposed…it’s going to be ugly.
Hey, did you hear the one about the two jets that flew into buildings…
What do you call an immigrant who rapes a girl?…
Waterboarding? I thought you said….
Two border patrol agents were standing guard, one says to the other, let’s get us a….
ID, for voting, I don’t no need a stinkin…
Huck your a laugh a minute.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Is that as bad as a man joking about the 2nd amendment with his ‘I love you’ phone call from his wife while he’s front and center?
I don’t want Huck either, but I like him better than Rudy.
ThackerAgency on December 4, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Worse, I think. Huckabee’s comment showed a complete lack of forethought about this question, which he should have anticipated. While Rudy’s behavior showed a lack of taste and respect for his audience, Huckabee’s comment displays a weakness on an extremely important issue.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Fred and Duncan need to start making some noise now that the media anointed “front runners” are stumbling. I can’t say they are stumbling, more like a Republican Awakening. Remember when everybody was saying with the holiday season upon us and no one would be paying attention to politics? Well it looks like plenty of folks are and they don’t like what they see.
I am hoping Fred and Duncan can get some attention now. It is time to strike while the iron is hot.
LakeRuins on December 4, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Rasmussen’s “likely voter” screen is crap. Just like Fred was ahead of Rudy by 12 (yeah, right) nationally, now Huck has him tied. Gives the anti-Giuliani idiots something to crow about for a few days, but all of the internals of all of these polls (second choice, best leadership, most likely to win in the general, etc.) still show the same major advantages for Rudy.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Yeah, we wouldn’t want someone who takes a phone call from his wife during a speech. The guy who wants to close Gitmo, jokes about foreign policy and takes positions based on what his “soul” lets him do, is so much better.
amerpundit on December 4, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Come on Fred! Draw blood! Blooood!
frankj on December 4, 2007 at 1:36 PM
This nation needs a tough SOB as POTUS,
He has to battle Islamo Radicals,
He has to battle this nations slip toward socialism.
He has to battle his own party.
This nation needs a man who is who he is – and does not apologize for it.
RUDY
jake-the-goose on December 4, 2007 at 1:36 PM
The Holiday Inn Express line is funny as a joke, but the problem for Huck is that his foreign policy platform is also a joke, because he doesn’t have one. Seriously, Mike, it’s time to quit joking around.
CP on December 4, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Hey Huck, whats with all the jokes already?
Who do you think you are, Al Franken?
Always Right on December 4, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Positions aside, Huckabee is not ready to be President. Hopefully that will become common knowledge before the primaries. The MSM, however, may want him as Hil’s opponent.
JiangxiDad on December 4, 2007 at 1:40 PM
That article is beyond stupid, its not up to Huckabee to decide whether or not Mitt Romney is a Christian, or even answer whether or not Mormonism is a Christian religion. He simply said its a personal choice whether or not a person is a christian which was the right thing to do.
Complete7 on December 4, 2007 at 1:43 PM
The media love Huckabees’ jokes. They’ve convinced themselves that it will be entertaining in the general, and then their candidate will trounce him.
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Oh they are going to love his working to parole murdering rapists!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/03/politics/main3569614.shtml
Enjoy your 15 minutes HUCK!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 4, 2007 at 1:47 PM
I’m a Thompson leaner at this point. I hear the media trying to label him as lazy, I guess the typical stupid label couldn’t be justified.
I like his laid back style and agree with his positions.
MRegine on December 4, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Fred! is essentially calling Huck a communist… because we all know from Fred! that the average Ruskie, son, don’t take a dump without a plan.
ScottMcC on December 4, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Come on, Fred! Now’s the time to pull out that last jaunt to the top! I don’t like the infighting, but Rudy, Mitt, and Huck and made the rules clear: Battle Royale, Winner Take All.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Jokes are fine, as long as they’re along the lines of “we start bombing in five minutes”…
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I thought it was a pretty lame article. One question I have about it is:
Since when are issues of belief and reason mutually exclusive?
I agree that religion should not be a test for public office – but not because religion is unreasonable or a characteristic of the ignorant, which is what the author seems to imply.
nailinmyeye on December 4, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Fred is absolutely right.
Besides, Huckabee is not really very good at it anyway.
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Hmmm, kind of a contradictory statement there, did you perhaps slip up on the punch line, or the joke???
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Aren’t we all overlooking the most important point of this whole exchange?
That is, the fact that Huckabee agreed to appear on Don Imus’ radio show?
THE Don Imus… who called a girls’ basketball team “nappy headed hos?” Sharpton? Last Easter?
Um… I guess that’s sort of calmed down, huh?
saint kansas on December 4, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I am just glad that Fred Thompson has called this as plainly as it appears! Huckabee is joke. I have always thought of he and Romney were wolves in sheeps clothing since they entered the race. Liberals both! And Rudy is a good “Lieberman Democrat” But he’s no Republican. Who is he trying to kid?
OSUBuciz1 on December 4, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Heh heh heh I actually heard that when RR did it, to this day it is my favorite RR line…
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I agree, but only because I think Imus sucked way before that.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 1:59 PM
After reading the following article, I am decidedly soured on the prospect of Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee.
“Mike Huckabee, the False Conservative”
So much so that, should he get the nomination, Donald Duck will become my candidate for president.
From the article:
That and NumbersUSA’s scathing review of his record on immigration are enough to make me say no thanks.
I don’t want to throw out everything Reagan and Goldwater stood for, thank you very much.
Hawkins1701 on December 4, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Somebody wake me up when Fred goes on Savage’s show.
Dave Shay on December 4, 2007 at 2:01 PM
The American people obviously…With the Hill running as the Democrat nominee he couldn’t run as the liberal democrat that he is…soooo….
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Because he’s pro-choice and pro-civil unions? That’s a mighty narrow definition you’ve got there.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Go Fred Go!
I think Fred needs to return to his Tennessee roots and start carrying around a big whuppin’ stick on the trail like Buford T. Pusser. I will settle for it being a metaphorical one like he used on Huck here. There is still time for him to make a move in Iowa if his organization gets it together there.
Dudley Smith on December 4, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I saw Huck on Fox, and he’s really turning me off. He doesn’t get the war on terror. He doesn’t get the economy. What good are is being “socially” conservative without the economic and foreign policy conservatism? The whole reason social conservatives came to the Republicans, was that the recognized big government as the source of many of society’s ills. He’s like the libs who think you can dictate values from on high. Fred and Hunter have got to step up and whack this guy.
Iblis on December 4, 2007 at 2:13 PM
You have all heard of the Teflon president…Fred is becoming the Graphite candidate, the radar barely picks him up.
Step it up Fred, or you will be off the radar, the stealth candidate, there–but no one sees him.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Don’t forget about that little 2nd Amendment problem of Rudy’s.
All of the front-runners have problems, but I don’t think Rudy, Mitt, or Fred! are going to raise my taxes.
Huck? That’s something else entirely.
Come on, Hunter! Make your move!
Nethicus on December 4, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Yeah, I was a teen, and our family was on vacation, driving north of Seattle when it came on the radio; I thought it was awesome!
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Pro-gun control is THE biggie for me. For all his ‘credentials’, Rudy won’t be able to save me from harm should I need to exercise my 2nd amendment rights rather than wait for the police to arrive.
Other than those PLATFORM republican positions, Rudy is a great Republican. Again, I question why he campaigned in the most Democratic part of this county when he came here yesterday. The only way he will win the South (any southern state – even Florida) in the general is if he runs as a Democrat.
ThackerAgency on December 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM
…until he nukes ya ;-)
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Huckabee’s rise is rather hard to explain by anything other than religion. He’s owning the “Duh Lord done created duh world in a week… ’bouts 6,000 years yonder” evanjihadi crowd. He utterly lacks conservative credibility on immigration and fiscal matters, and he lacks foreign policy experience altogether. Hell, he doesn’t even seem interested in foreign policy for anything other than comedy material. Hopefully the “Flintstones is historically accurate” folks will realize that soon. God help our country if faith-based politics wins.
Mark Jaquith on December 4, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Oh, yeah, I forgot. He’s gonna take your guns away!
Scary stuff.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 2:23 PM
If I ever wrote anything like that in a post, there’d be petitions to Michelle to have me fired. Heh.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Yes, without a doubt. Cohen hit it square on-I read the transcript. Huck is trying to gain the world of politics and doesn’t seem to mind exchanging his beliefs for it.
INC on December 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM
That’s Rudy alright as he has been battling the Republican party and its principles for decades.
MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 2:27 PM
As much as I’ve railed against “one-issue” voters in the past, I’ve gotta say that I find an individual’s stance on 2nd Amendment issues to be a profoundly revealing barometer.
I says a lot about a person when they cannot look you in the eye and give you a straight answer about whether or not they consider the unalienable right to life as manifest in our right to preserve that life with all means available.
When a person cannot support my liberty to choose whether I wish to own and carry a firearm without “reasonable limits”, they reveal themselves as contemptible fascists with higher regard for their political career than the lives and freedoms of millions.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM
It’s funny. However, MM’s too smart to fire you, ’cause she’s got a rare find, a jewel. We do too!
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Any one see Fred on Blitzer last night?
Good interview, red meat throughout… but I doubt very many saw it and this is the only place I’ve seen it on the intertubes today.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Or, reworded slightly:
He’s going to do what he knows is right, whether it’s Constitutional or not!
See Roe v Wade, McCain-Feingold, etc.
saint kansas on December 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Are you against the idea of reasonable limits on gun ownership?
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM
He’s the only ‘Republican’ who HAS. I know that guns in NY seem about as important as cars in NY, but cars are important to the rest of the country. As are guns.
There is never a reason to trample on the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. Rudy (and the Democrats) think there is. Rudy even SUED the gun manufacturers for making a gun outside of NY that he banned in NY.
The fact that he is so ’sue happy’ makes me think that he will abuse any system he is allowed to abuse. He wants to make sure everyone knows that ‘he’s the boss no matter what the Constitution says’. I don’t have a problem with a ‘take charge’ type. As long as he doesn’t ‘take charge’ of my rights by taking them away – AS HE HAS.
ThackerAgency on December 4, 2007 at 2:32 PM
So it’s chuckles at “evanjihadi” now?
TexasDan on December 4, 2007 at 2:32 PM
You can be so sober at times, seriously,
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 2:32 PM
I love AP more than you…biatch ;-)
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:33 PM
YES.
Because it all comes down to “reasonable”. Dems think government-run health care is “reasonable”. They think the situation in Sudan is “reasonable”. They think Hugo Chavez is “reasonable”.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Makes you want to just quit and become a commenter, doesn’t it?
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
It isn’t about ‘for or against’. IT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION. For all the people who love to talk about the founders and what they wanted. I guarantee you that every one of the founders recognized the importance that the government not be allowed to disarm the public. Once that happens you are asking for a dictatorship in the future.
If a person does something to lose rights (commit a crime – felony) then that would be the only ‘reasonable restriction’ to gun ownership that the federal government should be allowed to consider. If the person is a law abiding citizen then the government has no Constitutional privilege to take my 2nd amendment right way.
ThackerAgency on December 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
If Fred had knocked off his Uncle Joe act back in July (the other Uncle Joe, movin’ kinda slow, to the junction), there would have been a little less oxygen for Huck to suck up. Together, strife between them helps to splinter the hardcore So Cons into two sub-groups – Federalists and Evangelicals. Fred now has what’s normally a very difficult task: Take Huck down, but help himself more than Mitt, Rudy, or John in the process. On the other hand, he might in the process convince people that he really did intend to campaign, not just virtually campaign. This particular line of attack – on readiness to be C-in-C – might help Rudy or John more than Fred, but for the relatively narrow group whose leadership he’s seeking, Mitt and Huck are the nearer enemies. He can deal with the wreckage if and when he’s re-established that his significance.
Paul has also benefited from Fred’s fumbling. Fred was supposed to be the nutty if not nougat-y internet insurgent. While he’s taking on the role of roving assassin, he might want to save some a little ammo for Ron, who these days seems to be doing about as well.
CK MacLeod on December 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I’m not chuckling; I’m offended.
I won’t riot over it, though.
Frozen Tex on December 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I’m against the idea of anyone else on this planet making decisions that affect my life, and the lives of all free people, on such quicksand foundations as “reasonable limits”.
…and then enforcing such limits with guns.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
But no limits to that whatsoever? I tend to agree with ThackerAgency:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put those sorts of limitations on who we allow to own firearms.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM
He is around, it is frustrating that the media doesn’t “spot” him. He is there, but unreported. Maybe they think if they ignore him, he’ll go away.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
But Slu, don’t you sorta/kinda lose some rights when you are convicted of a crime…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to mind.
I don’t this falls under the ‘reasonable restriction’ thing.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I see where you’re going…and you’re confusing issues.
What I object to are arbitrary, pre-emptive limitations on all aspects of liberty (not just firearms)…you are confusing this (and muddying the waters) with a posteriori denial of liberties through our penal code.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Absolutely, and I will tell you why, nothing scares me more than the idea of who eventually gets to decide the definition of “reasonable limits”…Furthermore could you please direct me to the phrase in the second amendment that permits any limitation on gun ownership, because as I read it, the second amendment states unequivocally “shall not be infringed” Just for relevance here…
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I don’t think this falls under…
wow.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Obviously, criminality has an effect on numerous rights. Your fourth amendment right is worthless if they have a warrant. You have no freedom to leave jail until your term is up. It’s an infirmnia.
However, on the gun ownership rights of the average, non-felon citizen? Not a one. Not a trigger lock, not an AWB, not a machine gun ordinance, and not a single friggin’ lawsuit against a gun manufacturer until you start suing judges for letting criminals walk free to begin with.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
What the Dems need is a reasonable candidate. If they had one this would already be over. The only trouble is that at this point I can’t think of one except Joe Lieberman who would choke the ultra liberal left.
duff65 on December 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Is it really confusing issues? If gun ownership is an absolute, unequivocal right, then why should anyone be denied that right. Don’t people who have committed crimes have the same right to self-defense as those who did not?
Personally, I see background checks to determine criminality as a reasonable restriction on firearm ownership, although I believe the seven-day waiting period is unreasonable.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
The 2nd Amendment makes no provision for the manufacture and sale of guns, unless you decide to get into emanations and penumbras. Try again.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
No, what the dems need is a lobotomy and about 1000mg of clozapine a day…
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 2:50 PM
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
r2b, it seems to be working, sad but true.
I think Fred would have to kill somebody to get attention at this point.
To much substance…not enough style.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:50 PM
What’s an AWB?
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Well apparently the answer, according to you, is no, so why did you even ask the question?
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Automatic Weapons Ban…I think.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Yes. You are conflating a before-the-fact view of rights with an after-the-fact view.
From birth until the point in time when I am convicted of a crime, I am essentially innocent, and no authority or justification can be rightfully assumed by other, equal, human beings to suppress my liberties.
Once I am convicted, then the public system of law, and the penal code, will deliver justice that can include various denials of rights. It wouldn’t be much of a penal code otherwise, would it?
Keep the ‘before & after’ separate in your mind.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM
For the same reason everyone asks questions: to get answers from those who might think differently. Personally, I think limiting gun ownership to law-abiding citizens is a reasonable limit, although the manner in which our current law determines who is law abiding and who is not is unreasonable in how long it takes to actually purchase a firearm.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM
ftfy
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
You need a license to operate a car, no? I’m not sure you want to take the argument down this path.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM
An assault weapons ban. Which meant that if your long gun had a pistol grip, a folding stock, a bayonet mount, or a flash suppressor, it suddenly went from being a regular weapon to being an assault weapon. It also said that a 15 round clip was more deadly than a 10 round clip.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Thanks.
A flash suppressor? Heh. Deadly things, flash suppressors.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
That Cohen article AP linked to is really dead on. Behind his “aw shucks” demeanor and sense of humor, Huckabee’s Iowa campaign at this point really is “Vote for me because I’m the most Christian.” That’s sick, that’s identity politics, and it doesn’t belong in a GOP primary, that’s the Dems cup of tea.
In Milwaukee a few years ago, we had a black candidate for mayor whose campaign slogan was “It’s time.” In other words, “It’s time Milwaukee elected a black mayor.” It was naked identity politics, and it was sickening to behold. This Huckabee campaign is in the same mold.
Enrique on December 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Strawman.
Lawsuits against firearm manufacturers, and legislation to protect them, is not a 2nd amendment issue at all.
It is a tort/liability issue.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Thanks, I was just about to do that.
I suck at this, back to lurking.
ChrisM on December 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
A priest, a rabbi and a suicide bomber walk into a bar . . .
Labamigo on December 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
No, it wouldn’t. However, my point is that if rights are self-evident, then any denial of them or limitation placed on those rights could be seen as an affront to freedom. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but believe it could be the basis for a pretty darned interesting discussion on the source of rights.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
That’s my point. When gun rights advocates use this as evidence that Rudy’s anti- 2nd Amendment, they’re misrepresenting the issue.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
No you do not.
You need a licence to drive on the public road infrastructure.
That’s the problem with the CHP/Driver license analogy. The driver license permits you to _operate_ a vehicle in public, whereas a CHP permits mere _possession_ of a firearm in public.
Maybe we should have “shooting licenses”…you can carry a gun all you want…you just can’t pull the trigger without permission from the gubmint.
Then we’d realize how absurd the whole ‘permitting’ situation really is.
The 2nd Amendment _is_ my CHP
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Ah…OK…didn’t pick up on your intent :-)
He’s still a greasy gun-grabbin’ wop though…
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM
After my first night shoot, I learned the value of such suppressors ;-)
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM
I’ve never fired a rifle with a suppressor on it. Only without, at dusk. Needless to say, my first shot was good. The rest? Not so much.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Don’t you know that to the Fremen Fred Thompson is a killing word? Of course you know because I stole that joke from you.
Please more Fred hyperbole!
Bill C on December 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I subscribe to the theory that rights truly unalienable and beyond the reach of man. Rights never ‘go away’. Rights are never ‘destroyed’…they are only ever _suppressed_ to varying degrees (including ‘not at all’).
Yes…criminals have the right to life, liberty, self-preservation, arms etc…but if we are to also enforce a concept of justice within our society, then we have to agree on public standards that define the extend to which we will deny rights as a form of punishment – giving rise to a penal code.
Crimes of a certain nature do, I suggest, shatter public trust in the level of respect the criminal has for others’ rights…hence I agree that suppressing their right to own arms is justifiable – we will not knowlingly allow criminals to possess the tools they could turn to evil.
I think greater thought needs to go into how rights can be restored to ex-cons. Very careful thought.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM
So out of idle curiosity … is there a candidate you knuckleheads actually DO like?
I mean, the Fred-hate bounced right off last summer’s Fred-rapture and grew to mammoth proportions. I think the FDS brigade lynched the last surviving Fred-head sometime last Thursday.
The Rudy hate grows daily, he’s pretty much dismissed as an anti-gun pro-gay pro-choice liberal (although predictably, the Rudy hate isn’t so loud … now that he’s not so hot in the polls).
Ron Paul’s the looniest loon in the bin … and McCain, well, not much needs to be said about McCain. We were all against him … even before we were against him. Although once again, there’s that curious phenomenon in which that McCain massacring is a little muted now that he’s running at Ron Paulian levels in the polls.
And Huckabee? Huckabee came from nowhere, riding on the Mighty Right Roundhouse Kick of Chuck … and the wave of Huck-hate here has risen to meet his ascendancy in almost exactly equal proportions. That equal and opposite reaction thang all over again.
Which leaves … Mitt. Is that our boy? Do we hate Mitt least?
Or are we overcompensating to try to show how open minded we are about the whole Mormon thang? Is the relatively minor Mitt-hate a reaction to the anti-Mormon brigade … since reactionary reactive reactions seems popular ’round here? Or is it just because we all know he won’t get the nomination … so we might as well like him?
Or is it his awesomely Presidential hair? It really is awesome, you know. That kind of hair got John Kerry nominated.
Speaking of Kerry … is that what we’re doing? Falling into the same “electability” trap that killed the Democrats in 2004? I’m starting to think so.
Oh. Wait. I know. We’re just WAITING to hate Mitt … until he has a big popularity surge? Then we can all jump on him. He is from Massachusetts, after all. You know how they are.
So how about it? Who do we hate least? Cuz at this point, all I’ve learned is that every one of our candidates is either a theologically brainwashed lightweight or a closet liberal or weak on terror and immigration or nuttier than a fruitcake.
Or are we all secretly Hillary voters? Hey, that’s cool. I dig pantsuits. They’re always in style.
You know what’d be great? How about a whole thread full of people saying “this is my guy – and here’s why,” touting all the positives, and skipping all the negatives for a change.
I personally would just love to hear one post or one comment trying to persuade me – positively – to support one candidate.
Alternatively … maybe we could all gather round and kick the shit out of Obama and Edwards for a while, and skip the FDS and Huck-hate? That’d be fun. A little palate cleanser, if you will.
What’d ya say? I’ll bring the beer. Ron Paul lovers, you’re invited, too. But you guys sit in the back. You smell funny.
Professor Blather on December 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with that. The fallacious assumption in that statement is that once an individual has been convicted of a crime that they can never be trusted again. Furthermore it equates to any individual convicted of a crime the perpetual status of not being a law abiding citizen.
I will use as an example for my beliefs the contrast between fiction and reality in America’s old wild west. Everybody knows the fiction, that guns were so prevalent that gun violence was a matter of daily life. Constant gunfights and armed outlaws dominated the landscape.
That is the fiction, the reality is that gunfights were very far and few between, so far and few between that perhaps the most notorious gun slinger of all times Wiatt Earp, killed a grand total of tow men in his entire career, and the fastest gunslinger of all time, Harry Longabaugh (The Sundance Kid) was never actually confirmed to have killed anyone.
No, the reality is what has been demonstrated in cities with conceal can carry laws. Gun violence is far less likely to happen when any and everyone is known to be carrying a weapon. To quote Robert A. Heinlein
doriangrey on December 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Agreed, but I think it depends on the crime. I think it’s reasonable to deny those with a history of violent behavior the right to own firearms.
Of course, people like that should probably remain in jail, but that’s an entirely different issue…
And statistics bear this out. My state has a very high rate of gun ownership, and very little personal crime. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a state to show caution in what sorts of rights are restored to those who have committed violent crimes.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Nope. Seriously. They’re all just contending for the top floater award in a big bag’o’shite.
When I think of the magnificent vision of the founding fathers, and the character of the men that forged this nation (and the women that knew their place)…I just freakin’ weep for the future when I look at todays pathetic rabble of window-lickin’ monkeys.
I thought I saw a flame of hope in Fred once…now…not so sure.
I’m a very dissillusioned man.
Ochlan on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I’ve been within 5 city blocks of two random incidents of gang violence in the past two weeks, when someone walking home from work was gunned down anonymously by unknown assailants. Carrying a firearm would not have given either of them any better chance in their situations.
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Hence why the internet is the cesspool that it is.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Explain that to me. They had no defensive capability. If one of them had been proficient with a pistol, they could have fired first or even in reaction time enough to stop them.
MadisonConservative on December 4, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »