Coulter: “Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter”
posted at 6:39 pm on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Lowry opted for a Howard Dean analogy but the basic point abides. “I’m getting tired of this being blamed on the evangelicals,” says AC of Huckabee’s rise, laying fault instead at the feet of ye olde reliable mainstream media. That’s convenient nonsense: There’s been plenty of coverage of Dumond, and the NYT piece from a few days ago had some choice details about Huck’s ignorance in key policy areas. The simple fact is that he wouldn’t be on the cover of Newsweek if evangelicals hadn’t handed him 35% of the vote in Iowa. Krauthammer’s piece today focuses on Romney’s speech last week but his point, that piety is not itself a qualification for the presidency, applies even more forcefully to Huck. The question now is whether Iowa is an outlier, as it was for Pat Robertson in 1988, or whether Huckabee’s going to leverage his “one of us” appeal in South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida, too. Fred’s worried enough to be organizing photo ops like this in Mississippi.
As for the Dems, she shares my opinion that the sooner the Glacier melts, the better.
Update: Forgot to flag Nauert picking on Huckabee’s old quote about wifely service to her husband. As loathsome as her burqa comparison is, you’re getting a whiff here of the sort of contempt that’s going to greet that concept as it circulates through the public square. Meanwhile, See-Dub appeals to James Dobson’s critics to consider their hypocrisy if they threaten to walk away from the party over Huck after having howled at Dobson for threatening to walk away over Rudy. It’s not the same, though. For one thing, Dobson and the social cons made that move first and are forever holding it over the heads of the rest of the conservative coalition. There’s some savory payback here in giving them a taste of their own medicine. Also, the objection to Giuliani is essentially on a single issue. The objections to Huck are omnibus — so much so that religious conservatives should themselves be considering walking away, on conservative grounds, if he’s the nominee. The question isn’t why Ace or I might boycott Huck; it’s why James Dobson might not.
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 »
Hasn’t that already been said here a few dozen times already?
Frozen Tex on December 14, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Ann Couter thinks like me. Wooohooo!!!!
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Thank you.
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Here’s my question:
Is there a single Huckabee supporter in the world who is NOT an evangelical Christian?
Since we can’t really answer that, is there a single one posting on this site?
I get a kick out of AC, and I’m no defender of the mainstream media, but if Huckabee is the nominee we have no one but the Christianists to blame.
peski on December 14, 2007 at 6:45 PM
gibson couldn’t get away from the women should submit to their husbands thing fast enough, could he?
lorien1973 on December 14, 2007 at 6:45 PM
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Reading HotAir, it’s a tough call, since it seems that none of the evangelicals that frequent this site support the Huckster. That being said, it certainly seems to be where he is drawing his support from, because he’s been hammered on all the things you mentioned and it appears that his supporters have just dug in their heels even more. And that’s pretty scary.
thirteen28 on December 14, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I’d like to see Hillary go out in the primary. I think that the idea that she can be mowed down in the general I think is flawed as it assumes that all things remain the same.
What I wonder is if the evangelical base just isn’t that conservative…starting to look that way, though granted MSM loves them some Huck.
Just as a side-note, replacing the black dress is a great idea. She looks very nice in this clip.
Spirit of 1776 on December 14, 2007 at 6:49 PM
I also think Ann’s pretty much wrong about the evangelical agitation.
see-dubya on December 14, 2007 at 6:49 PM
I’m not sure it is the evangelicals that are driving these polls. Are the majority of the politically active conservatives in Iowa evangelicals? I have never put much faith in polls anyway. Liberal or conservative organization, they are delivering a product to their customers and then want to keep the customers happy. When actual votes start being cast we’ll see if there is any real support for Huckabee. if the evangelicals are somehow behing him and get him nominated then the evangelicals can deal with all the changes President clinton implements.
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Despite what sitting down to pee liberals say about her, she always looks
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Great. Ooops.
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:52 PM
This might turn into what “came first the chicken or the egg” debate. But maybe he gained support from evangelicals in Iowa because much focus on debates (which he has given some good performances at)and interviews have been on his religion. Before his surge you had Bill O’Reilly asking him if he believed in evolution and so forth.
Also, I didn’t like Coulter’s “dead body” comment.
terryannonline on December 14, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Remember…Carter ran as a conservative and did a complete about face when elected.
GogglesPisano on December 14, 2007 at 6:54 PM
What is the percentage in the overall population? Will they be able to really swing the primary vote his way? Huckabee being the niminee will be disastrous especially if hillary is his opponent. They probably know everything he has done for the last 40 years. It will be a scandal a week during the general campaign.
peacenprosperity on December 14, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Just listened to the boys on Special Report. Surprisingly, they all predicted a possible fall for Huckabee. Man, they’re fickle. ;)
Connie on December 14, 2007 at 6:57 PM
new tagline: “A republican Jimmy Carter is still better than the real thing”
jp on December 14, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I agree with Allah for the most, its not all evangelicals, it could be the remnants of the compassionate cons *barf*, and a few people sucked in by the slick bastard, but the guy is a master of identity politics…how liberal.
But look, its a start! Even though I can’t stand Coulter, she has some sway with people, and the more people we can get sounding the klaxon on what a disaster he’d be, the better. We can turn this around, we can sink Huck.
Bad Candy on December 14, 2007 at 6:57 PM
That he’s a New Yorker?
Big S on December 14, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Er, its largely evangelicals, but there are others is what I wanted to add.
Bad Candy on December 14, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Awesome post see-dubya. It just confirms my worst suspicions, that the Huckster is riding a wave of evangelical Theocracism.
I’m on my knees praying to the FSM that he will reach down with his noodly appendage and slap some sense into these morons. But, unfortunately, I know he doesn’t exist.
peski on December 14, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Agreed. And I’ve been lashing Dobson for it all along (though, admittedly, more so when he was picking on my top choice.) It remains a punk move no matter who does it though. We GOPers fight it out, have the primary, pick a nominee, and pretty much anybody but Paul is going to be better than Hill/Barry/Pink Sapphire/DoddBiden/Richardson.
Disagree, unless abortion, guns, immigration, and ethics (mistressgate) are a single issue.
see-dubya on December 14, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Its not a single issue, and its not that he’s a New Yorker, its all the issues that people were told to keep their mouth shut and accept Rudy found a guy who is almost literally the exact opposite of Rudy, and is ideal on their important issues. Now we run the risk of damaging the coalition unless we derail Huck AND Rudy.
We can break Huck, and then move on to stop Rudy, Mitt or Fred might not be what people want, they might not win, but either will keep the coalition intact.
Bad Candy on December 14, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Are those Dobson’s objections to Giuliani, though? That’s my point about the single issue. Huck is perfect on that same single issue and look what else evangelicals are willing to forgive him.
Allahpundit on December 14, 2007 at 7:05 PM
These groups need their tax-exempt status yanked, stat!
NTWR on December 14, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Yeah, The whole Democrat Party!
BobH on December 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM
I friggin’ hate FSM.
Bad Candy on December 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Not all of them, thanks.
Connie on December 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM
If you want me to argue with you about Dobson, I won’t. I’m not familiar enough with the specifics of his objections to Giuliani; if you say it’s all abortion and nothing else then fine. (I have to think gay marriage, at least, factors in there too.) I don’t know specifics but I do know I’ve lost a lot of respect for him after his ham-handed and ungracious involvement in this election.
see-dubya on December 14, 2007 at 7:09 PM
The “coalition” is dead. Let it go, dude.
Big S on December 14, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Huck and Mitt are the only ones he hasn’t torpedoed yet. If he has various and sundry problems with Rudy’s conservatism, then why wouldn’t he have torpedoed Huck for the same reasons?
Likely answer: Because, like that 35%, he’s a one-issue voter.
We essentially have two groups of one-issue voters within the party now: war voters and abortion voters. There may yet be some nascent variation on the latter, i.e. religion voters. Any group that adheres that strongly to a single issue is really better off forming its own party.
Allahpundit on December 14, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I’m going to second that.
Peski, I’m not lumping all atheists together, so please give us the same courtesy.
Esthier on December 14, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Also, I would like to say Huckabee’s likability plays somewhere in here. Obama and Huckabee have presented themselves as the “nice” candidates who won’t mud sling and look at who’s leading in the polls in the Democratic and Republican Party.
terryannonline on December 14, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Quick, change the subject before Ann make one of those wild statements like men should respect their wives and women should respect their husbands.
imshocked on December 14, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Notice I said “Christianists”, not Christians.
peski on December 14, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Great poker face on Ann when Heather made that absurd burka comment.
baldilocks on December 14, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Hmmm. Something I can actually agree on this time.
mram on December 14, 2007 at 7:18 PM
It isn’t dead. Not yet, anyway. Its shaky right now, and could get busted up soon if we aren’t careful, but its basic framework is still there.
Bad Candy on December 14, 2007 at 7:18 PM
As I restated for Connie, that’s not what I said or intended. I know there are many true conservative Christian who don’t support Huckabee – including Ann Coulter and many on this site.
peski on December 14, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Payback’s, uh, Hades.
Vizzini on December 14, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Hey, you want proof Huck is bad news? Jane “DNC talking points” Fleming said she liked him on Dunce & Eyebrow yesterday.
Bad Candy on December 14, 2007 at 7:20 PM
It’s gotta be the self-deprecating humor. He had me hoodwinked for second in the beginning before I took a look at his record. We need to realize not all likely voters are political junkies like we are.
But that “parting the red tape” “joke” was inexcusable. He knows who his main audience is.
NTWR on December 14, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Lol.
peski on December 14, 2007 at 7:20 PM
I think you’re being too charitable, actually. I think that third variety is exactly what this rising phenomenon is.
Look, if you wanted a devoutly pro-life candidate, and only that, you’d have been satisfied with McCain, Thompson (endorsement from National Right to Life), Hunter, Ron Paul, even way back with Brownback and some of the others.
But it isn’t Huckster talking about abortion that has propelled him into the stratosphere; it is his “Christian Leader” shtick.
I hate to say this–because I am a Christian and I believe religion is properly present in the public sphere–but I think the politicization of the evangelical movement has gone too far. I think certain people believe that adherence to Christ is all that is needed to run and guide America.
This has terrifying implications for the future of not just the Republican party, but for all conservatives.
Nessuno on December 14, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Allahpundit on December 14, 2007 at 7:12 PM
I kinda agree. To me, there seems to be two “visions” (If I may borrow from Sowell) of the USA among the members of the Republican party. The first considers economic and military strength as prerequisite for the health of the nation; once those things are taken care of, the rest will fall into place. The other vision takes the spiritual health (read: Christian morality) as the road to national greatness; if we embrace God’s laws, the economy and foreign policy will be easy to deal with. These visions were natural allies when we were in a global struggle against “Godless Communists”, and stuck together to beat “Godless Liberals” in the 1990’s and early 200’s, but now they seem to be at odds again.
Big S on December 14, 2007 at 7:22 PM
This is rich. After the many years of her pandering to the Religious Right and social cons she can’t believe they’ll pick a Huckabee? Who the heck did she think she was peddling her book, Godless, to?
Alan on December 14, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Ditto the other people who called AP on this one. But I implore someone, ANYONE please define for me ‘evangelical’ Christian. It gets thrown around so much, but it is as descriptive as ‘air breathing mammal’.
With the post this morning about Catholic evangelism, please someone, ANYONE define who exactly are these evil, awful, nasty, terrible ‘evangelicals’ that people speak of. Thank you.
ThackerAgency on December 14, 2007 at 7:25 PM
You have to wonder how many of these “Evangelicals” have a chip on their shoulders, as in, “any attack on a Christian candidate is an attack on Christians.”
I think we (and possibly Huckabee) saw the potential for that with the Harriet Miers nomination, which to this day I consider Bush’s ham-handed effort to repay the “Christian Right” who supposedly swung the ‘04 election for him in Ohio. That battle left a lot of hard feelings, and I think Huckabee, opportunist that he is, is hooking into that.
Nichevo on December 14, 2007 at 7:25 PM
I wonder if the Democratic Party can say the think. Dems like diversity but apparently not diversity of thought.
terryannonline on December 14, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Correction: I wonder if the Democratic Party can say the same.
terryannonline on December 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Big S on December 14, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately the second group is wrong. Without security we won’t have the time or place to get our morality figured out.
NTWR on December 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I’m one. I pretty virulently anti-abortion, but I think Huck isn’t even the best on that issue. He’s not really a deep thinker so much as an opportunist. I get the same feeling about him that I always got about Billy Jeff: Used-Car Salesman.
A much better candidate for evangelicals is Thompson, and Huck lucked into Thompson’s strategy, and slightly beat him to it–which makes all the difference. Hopefully, he’ll peak before Iowa, since Fred! has decided to invest there, but I htink the major candidates should start to re-think taking Iowa too seriously, and concentrate on real primaries, starting with New Hampshire. The bowing and scraping at the feet of ethanol is a real economic threat to this society. (BTW, I have no idea how Fred! feels about ethanol–I hope like me.) (Ever notice how the letters in FRED make a neat little square on the keyboard?)
Huck is a big-government liberal on taxes and busy-body-ism, which is mainly why I can’t stand him. But he also seems disingenuous–most of the time (thus my aforementioned feeling).
I think the polls that show Huck in the lead are being conducted at Huck rallies.
I like Krauthammer’s line about “None of your damn business” which is usually the right answer to that question. But I think he’s wrong to criticize Romney for quoting JOHN ADAMS in saying that you can’t have freedon without religion. The argument is a bit deep, but it’s not that deep. Charles cites the relative freedom of Wurope, but how much is that freedom threatened by their irreligious, governmental silliness which results in the grave threat of massive, unchecked immigration of Muslims (who really aren’t religious, just tyrannical).
Then a thought experiment: An formerly religious people now irreligious, living in a country, ruled by laws, subject to gross manipulation, but unscrupulous, power-hungry leftists, soon becomes irreligious, decadent, and self-destructive. Sound familiar? The decency of the nation founded by (mostly) Christians is slowly fading to indecency.
Where are the “tolerant” non-Christian countries? Where is any atheist country? Who else besides a Christian country could be a fair mediator? Can anyone imagine what a country run by Dawkins or Hitchens wouild look like? Dare I violate Godwin’s Law? We already know what muslim countries look like. The Chinese opted for totalitarianism rather than decency. The Russians were so similarly damaged by theri incarnation of same that they are now more comfortable with their oppression than with the mild uncertainty of freedom. The apparently milder socialism of western Europe is just as tyrannical, but instead of rifles, they have unelected, unaccountable, self-appointed bureaucrats.
Really, what other option is there?
urbancenturion on December 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM
NTWR on December 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM
The thing that scares me about Huckabee is that he is basically the embodiment of the second vision I wrote about above. His qualifications on the economy and security are not very good, but apparently a lot of voters think that will “fall into place” once we get God’s man in the White House.
Big S on December 14, 2007 at 7:30 PM
peski, that’s ok. I just never use the term and probably most Christians don’t either. I save the “ist” for Islam because it is foreign to Western thought, where Christianity is not – but I get your drift, especially in light of the article see-dubya posted.
Huck’s people are trying to say that it is because of his religion that people are attacking him. First off, it’s not, as there is plenty other ammo. But even if he were as conservative as I like, I would still have a problem with his former pastor status because he hasn’t shown me that he doesn’t think he still is one. He doesn’t just mention God like President Bush does, he preaches. I don’t want that in the Oval Office. Maybe he’s playing that up because that’s where his support seems to come from, but it’s very unwise.
I still think, however, that Huck’s support comes from gullible people who fall for his smarm and then get their feelings backed up by the MSM, w/o understanding why the MSM is playing him up.
Connie on December 14, 2007 at 7:33 PM
MB4 on December 14, 2007 at 7:34 PM
You’re right. That’s why I can’t come to grips with the idea of him being so popular at the moment. Hopefully his bubble will burst over the weekend. A Huck nomination will be disastrous for the Republican party and the nation, as it will assure we get some Democrat who has socialized medicine or global warming at the top of their priorities.
NTWR on December 14, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Connie on December 14, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Yes, see-dubya’s link to that letter on patterico really set me off.
Go read the post that see-dubya linked above. That’s who they are.
peski on December 14, 2007 at 7:38 PM
I hope you are wrong on that Allah, that is a scary thought.
With the candidates we have to chose from we cannot afford to be single issue voters in this primary. The number one objective in this election cycle must be to keep socialism out of our lives. To meet this objective we must have an open mind and vote for the over all wisest and culturally oriented person.
In my opinion this already leaves too many or our candidats out.
allrsn on December 14, 2007 at 7:55 PM
And the very real God above who answers their prayers.
Dork B. on December 14, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Ann; hot and spot on as always. I hope all the Hucksters here were takin’ notes.
Mojave Mark on December 14, 2007 at 7:56 PM
This isn’t quite accurate. There’s plenty of reasons to not vote for Giuliani.
bj1126 on December 14, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Between Huck and Hillary, can’t we just put Arkansas on Double Secret Probation or something as far as politics goes?
Farmer_Joe on December 14, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Huckabee is a RINO.
Fiscal Liberal
Immigration Liberal
Fred Thompson baby!
msipes on December 14, 2007 at 8:02 PM
You can’t be serious. If I pray for Hillary to win, and she does, has God answered my prayer?
Big S on December 14, 2007 at 8:06 PM
No, I’m just kidding. Simply engaging in a little good-natured atheist-baiting, nothing more! Thanks for letting me off the hook!
Now, in answer to your question, if you pray for Hillary to win and she does, God has not answered your prayers. She wins because He is punishing this nation for the sins of abortion and sodomy.
Dork B. on December 14, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Yes, it certainly strange that HotAir can have someone as RINO as me, but not a single Huckabee supporter. I hate to be ageist, but does his support consist solely of evangical ministers and their captives in nursing homes or needing homecare?
thuja on December 14, 2007 at 8:27 PM
FRED.
everyone elseamend2 on December 14, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I almost hate to ask, but why in particular those two? As opposed to lying and adultery? Or theft and biting your bottom lip?
Spirit of 1776 on December 14, 2007 at 8:31 PM
FRED/ANN ?
ok.. nm. FRED/the O?
nm.. FRED/LIZ DOLE?
hmm.. FRED/… ok FRED’s WIFE.
;)
amend2 on December 14, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Yes it has, which proves that many folks who post here, could do as well as any talking head, even the OVERrated Coulter.
Gatordoug on December 14, 2007 at 8:40 PM
It was a reference to comments made by prominant evangelical leaders after the 911 attacks that were way out of line. Again, just a joke.
Dork B. on December 14, 2007 at 8:45 PM
You could be on to something. Other possibilities are (1) bogus polls, unlikely, or (2) HA Christian posters are uncharacteristic in their ability to see Huck’s Jimmmahtude (kudos), or (3) some folks aren’t being forthright in admitting that they support Huck in spite of his leftist tendencies (depressing, and hopefully not likely).
peski on December 14, 2007 at 8:46 PM
I’m leaving the party if Huck is the nominee. If the evangelicals and social cons are gonna have a stranglehold over the party at the expense of fiscal conservatism and other conserative ideals, then it is time to look for alternatives and start again from the ground up. Let the evangelicals have the Republican Party; let the conservatives be done with it and start their own.
RW Wacko on December 14, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Doh. [Smack my forehead] Thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on December 14, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen a single poster here at Hot Air who supports Huckabee. I find that quite interesting. It shows me how irrelevant the blogosphere is.
I don’t appreciate the aspersions thrown at Christians though. The problem is that all of the candidates are bad. I like AC a lot and she looks uberhot in this video. But you people act as though the Christians are these awful people who have your worst interests at heart. Every single president has been ‘evangelical’ – EVERY one of them. Now all of a sudden, ‘evangelical’ is bad.
At this point, I won’t mind a D victory because the R’s are all crap. I still live my life, pay my taxes, and try to figure out how to raise a family here and now. But whoever is president doesn’t make a difference in my life.
All the R candidates are bad. Where is Jack Kemp? We need about 4 or 5 different parties to choose from. The 2 party system has run its course. Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Huckabee are ALL bad. To say that you prefer one over the others doesn’t say much about that one.
It’s a D year folks. Unless the GOP figures out that the opposite of Liberal is Conservative, it’s going to be a D year for a long time. Because even if you choose one of these R’s, it’s a D. Vote none of the above.
ThackerAgency on December 14, 2007 at 8:50 PM
ALIPAC has put out the following email alert:
Gregor on December 14, 2007 at 8:55 PM
No, they’re here; not in great numbers, though. You have to plough through all the comments sometimes to pick them up, but they will usually complain that there are too many “anti-Huckabee” threads (with no reference to why that is, of course), or they’ll mumble that atheist Allah, or other posters, unfairly hate Huckabee because he’s
God’s annointedChristian.Nichevo on December 14, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I also wonder if there are a lot of Huckleberries who read here but lurk and don’t usually comment–maybe they’re not registered.
It would be interesting to see a poll of Hot Air readers’ preferences again.
see-dubya on December 14, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Who gave you the impression the blogosphere was relevant?
Allahpundit on December 14, 2007 at 9:05 PM
I dunno, the blogosphere handled itself pretty well with the Shamnesty debacle and the McCain campaign. Talk radio can’t be discounted, of course.
Dork B. on December 14, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Dan Rather and Rathergate told me the blogosphere was/is relevant.
Does anyone think those TANG memos would have been proven fake without the work of the blogosphere? It certainly was not talk radio or Bill O’Reilly or the mass media who were leading the charge on that.
Michael in MI on December 14, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I think it’s relevant in some ways. For example, exposing media lies and rallying grassroots support. But swaying the American electorate? Uh, no. Not yet, at least.
amerpundit on December 14, 2007 at 9:31 PM
If it wasn’t for Rosie’s blog I would have never known the stark raving beauty of moontard haiku.
Dork B. on December 14, 2007 at 9:34 PM
The thing Coulter likes about Huckabee is his questioning of Darwinian evolution? Ann’s wrong if she thinks a smart path for the well-being of the GOP is to pit science and faith in confrontation. Sure, confrontation is Ann’s long suit but science is an area were one can be upstaged by facts.
Huck is actually excellent at answering the evolution question in a way that doesn’t make him look unreasonable.
I’d rather see Fred or McCain, perhaps Mitt, get the nod over Huck. Perhaps though, part of Ann’s problem with Huck is his refusal to vilify his opponents, and maybe it’s just that quality of Huck’s that is boosting his poll numbers.
dedalus on December 14, 2007 at 9:59 PM
I don’t imagine the blogs are too influential, but clearly here at HotAir we are not representative, either. We don’t have any Huck fans at all, but the pollsters seem to find plenty of them.
We have lots of Christianists, so what are we missing?
Jaibones on December 14, 2007 at 10:08 PM
What makes you say that? I didn’t hear that anywhere. She seems to find him disingenuous.
Jaibones on December 14, 2007 at 10:09 PM
We’re just regular folk. I think among the politically aware/active were probably pretty representative of the general public. That’s why I expect when the actual voting begins sanity will emerge.
edgehead on December 14, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Ann’s MO is to vilify her opponents, and she sometimes relies on religion to help her. Huck’s flavor of Christianity is more “Golden Rule” and charity. I was inferring her thoughts based on her writings (e.g., Godless) rather than her comments to Gibson.
dedalus on December 14, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Huckabee may cause something which I never thought I would see happen: Mormons walk away from the GOP, at least in 2008.
WasatchMan on December 14, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Actually, Huckabee is being disingenuous. He is vilifying his opponents when he says they’re all coming after me because of my faith. He knows it doesn’t have anything to do with his faith, but he’s trying to make his supporters think it does because it causes them to be reactionary in his defense, and keeps them from the desire to research his past – or to believe that research.
It’s much like Hillary blaming everything on the VRWC. There is no VRWC and never has been (until Huck maybe), but there is very large VLWC. Conservatives have never had it together enough to conspire to do anything, except maybe, to ferret out the truth. Besides, it would pretty much go against the very idea of conservatism, which places more value in the individual.
But Hillary was able to convince many that there was. New young voters didn’t live through Hillary the first time around, so when they hear her blame the VRWC, they believe it, and it keeps them from researching her past.
What has worked for Hillary is now working for Huckabee.
Connie on December 14, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I think Huck should appear in the last debate by rising up from below the stage with spotlights beaming down on him, nailed to a giant cross, with a full orchestra and choir in the background and begin all his answers with “my children fear not…” After the debate the orchestra and choir can hit the crecendo and in a flash of light, with some invisible chords attached to him, he could be raised into the air above the crowd and have Ed Rollins run out and scream, “Look! He hath risen!!!” Ann Coulter could come out and play Magdalene (the first Christian whore) and Bush could make a cameo as the Roman soldier by running in and screaming, “Truly this is the Son of God!” as the orchestra and choir play the finale music.
This is what the Republican Party has come to. What a travesty.
revolution on December 14, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I was referring to his comments along the line of Christians need to heed the charity lessons of Jesus and spend less time using the Bible to condemn others. Huck is a little subversive because he conveys that the Bible ought not to be used as a tool for moral superiority.
Is Huck insincere? A used car salesman? I guess he could be. As I said above he isn’t my candidate but I’d vote for him over Clinton 2.0.
dedalus on December 14, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Same thing. It’s not nice to come after me. Just let me win. I won’t ever say Lucifer is the brother of Jesus again and I will make a public statement condemning Dobson for saying Thompson is not Christian enough. Just be nice and let me win.
Connie on December 14, 2007 at 11:01 PM
They all want to win, and the ones who don’t fight aggressively–like perhaps Obama–can get painted as soft and not tough enough or wily enough for the job.
If you are accusing Huck of being a politician, you are right.
dedalus on December 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM
As Ann has stated before, either the Christian Coalition is everyone who votes Republican and believes in God or it’s Pat Robertson. There’s no such thing as an Evangelical sect that rules the Republican party. Go ahead, ask your friends, who’s a member of the Christian Coalition? Ech, you won’t get an answer. The reason Huck is getting noticed is the MSM. Ann’s right.
wryteacher on December 14, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Preposterous, AP! I’m against Rudy for a variety of reasons, & so is most of the religious right.
–immoral lifestyle
–scandals (firefighters, etc.)
–open-borders
–taxes
–guns
jgapinoy on December 14, 2007 at 11:46 PM
and, of course, the “single issue”, abortion.
jgapinoy on December 14, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »