Quote of the day
posted at 10:10 pm on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists…
As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It is self-defeating to attempt too much too soon: doing so could mean holding elections that the extremists would win. But it is also self-defeating to do nothing. We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts — which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest. If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing…
Sun-tzu’s ancient wisdom is relevant today: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Yet we have not had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years; the U.S. government usually communicates with the Iranian government through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries. The reestablishment of diplomatic ties will not occur automatically or without the Iranians’ making concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship…
Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran.”
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] 3 4 »
Heh
The real cause of Global warming: fatuous speeches
AY-yi-yi-yi. Sanitation, healthcare, education, jobs. By that list our hillbillies should have become al quaeda in the last century.
Lack of free press and fair courts do not create al queda, they are al quaeda. The 911 bombers were living high on the hog over here under our free press and fair courts. They should have rolled over and started gathering rosebuds. Instead, they did their best to tear down our free press and fair courts to be replaced with sharia, Peanut Boy
Heh
Even match? Both trying to hurry up and figure out war and stuff. Oh the humanity
entagor on December 15, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Ahem . . . ‘Scuze me, O Purple one, doesn’t it hurt when you jerk your knee that way?
I thought the gist of this thread was regarding the policy statement made by one man. — apparently I didn’t get the memo about Huckabee speaking for all us backwoods, cousin shtuping, un-scientific, iggerant evangelicals.
least1 on December 15, 2007 at 2:03 AM
entagor on December 15, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Good points. It is not lack of foreign aid from America and other Western nations which is keeping Muslim countries from being prosperous, it is Islam. But no Western leader has the cajones to (1) recognize that and/or (2) state that.
Until Islam goes through a reformation, the problems in the Middle East will not go away.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Peanuts are indignant.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:08 AM
AP has a point in considering the aid for rebuilding. However, with these perpetually whining types, they’ll find a way to blame the West/rest, no matter who helps, nor how much help comes their way.
MiM, you, and MB4 earlier, identified the root cause, the diagnosis. The prescription lies with them in great part. Left to their own devises completely it doesn’t go well either. For sure though, Mr. Huckabee will not be the one with the magic wand to solve it. If he’s the nominee we’ll lose for sure. I’m just back from FL/GA and they hate Hillary there, passionately. However, an Obama/Huckabee will be no contest.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Yep. That is exactly the sentiment I was addressing in my earlier comment. I am reading this sort of thing in many places. As I said, Mike Huckabee is promoted as representing all Christians. So when he makes ridiculous statements and puts forth ridiculous policy positions, it makes all Christians/evangelicals look bad (especially when they apparently are voting for him in tracking polls, expressing support for him).
But I suspect that some of the support is simply as backlash to the anti-Christian sentiment in the country. So, ironically enough, Mike Huckabee’s rise could be due to the Christian-bashing that has been going on the last 5-10 years or so (”culture wars”, “war on Christmas”, not allowing any kind of mention of faith in the public square, “separation of church and state”, etc).
So instead of blaming evangelicals, maybe some of the blame should be placed on Christian-bashers for lighting a fire under evangelicals to express this backlash.
And yes, I understand they are supporting him solely based on Christianity at the expense of pretty much all his other non-conservative policies. But really, how is this any different than those who were pushing conservatives to vote for Rudy, at the expense of conservative principles?
If pundits and conservatives would stop with the focus of “electability” and focus on policy positions, we would get good support behind a true conservative candidate. But all I have heard for the past year is that we need to set aside our conservative principles for the sake of “electability”. Well, that doesn’t inspire many people. And with those same people torpedoing Fred Thompson (in my opinion, the only conservative in the race, save maybe Duncan Hunter) in order to help their RINOs MItt and Rudy, that left only Mike Huckabee for conservatives and Christians to rally around.
The irony is that if pundits and conservatives from the beginning would not have put unrealistic expectations on Fred Thompson, and instead treated him like any other candidate, with the same expectations and focused on his policies, instead of his supposed “laziness”, we might be talking about Fred Thompson/Mitt Romney/Rudy Giuliani instead of Mike Huckabee/Mitt Romney/Rudy Giuliani.
I believe some Mitt and Rudy supporters thought that taking down Fred Thompson would help make it a two-man race between them, but all it did was lead to the rise of Mike Huckabee.
I’m just hoping that Huckabee supporters will wise-up and go back to supporting Fred Thompson. We shall see.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:20 AM
At the end of WWI Germany was not nazi.
At the end of WWII Germany was not allowed to stay nazi.
Islam is “nazi”.
Also we have already spent an awful lot of money in Iraq and the Saudis and others are getting about $90 for a barrel of oil.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Absolutely.
If Gillian Gibbons, the British schoolteacher, was not incarcerated somewhere in Sudan, the whole Teddy Bear called Mohamed incident would be comical. But it serves to remind us once again that fundamentalist religion and Western values do not sit together. And it rubs in that we should spend more time promoting secularism around the world and worry less about spreading democracy.
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West’s advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course, both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern only in relation to God [or Allah].
The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. Democracy implies not just one person one vote, but no less important, that the political process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first.
- Peter Watson
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 2:33 AM
I have no problem with helping. I support what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. And I have been reading milblogs for years now and reading stories from soldiers on the ground telling of the appreciation from the Iraqi people and the relationships we are building there with the adults and the children. That is going to go a long way. Along with making sure they get info from the outside world on the facts of what is going on, instead of the propaganda that happens in most Islamic countries (see “Palestine”, for example).
But, in most cases, the West has been dumping foreign aid into countries like “Palestine” and Egypt for years, Billions and Billions, and they are still crappy countries. Iraq was like that too. We had the UN Oil-for-Food program and what did they do with the money? They spent it on supporting terrorism, building palaces and whatever else Saddam wanted. So, the problem is not lack of money, in my opinion, it is not having good leaders in charge in those countries to spend it properly and cultivate a good society.
Am I saying we should just go depose all these leaders all over? No. But, at the same time, we also shouldn’t just be handing over foreign aid to places with corrupt leadership, year after year, billions upon billions.
That said, it goes beyond leadership. Because we can look to Western countries such as Denmark, Britain/UK/London, Australia and Canada (and even in some cases here in America) where Muslim immigrants are pushing for Islamic sharia law and, in some cases, practicing it (such as the Canadian father who strangled his daughter to death for not wearing a hijab). These people live in wealthy, prosperous nations, not poor, bassackwards Middle Eastern countries. People like to blame it on the host country not assimilating them or whatever else. But the root cause is Islam. No other immigrants are causing problems in these Western countries, only Muslims. And it is because of their teaching from Islam that they act in this manner.
So while I can support helping these countries, they also have to want the help and want to improve. The Iraqis have shown over the past couple years that they want to improve. They are working with our Coalition forces to improve their nation and we are building great relationships with them for the future. The same cannot be said of places like “Palestine”, where they are teaching their children to hate Jews and infidels and Americans and teaching them to aspire to be martyrs… at age 5. Yet we keep funnelling them Billions each year. That’s ridiculous.
I agree that Mike Huckabee does not understand this situation to know how to work it. Granted, not many of our elected leaders understand it. Or, if they do, they are so castrated by political correctness, that they don’t dare state the obvious about Islam. Unfortunately, until we get a true leader in a position of power in a Western country, we are going to continue to deal with this problem.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:34 AM
so basically Huck is saying ‘Iran is indeed a clear enemy, they will be so for the foreseeable future, we aren’t really getting anywhere with our current policy, lets slightly change course, maybe be a little more open and flexible, get our allies behind us in ways we haven’t and can’t with this administration, maybe pick up some new allies, and see if we can’t neutralize, and contain, Iran.’ sounds reasonable. but maybe im reading it wrong.
treyevans on December 15, 2007 at 2:34 AM
I’ll tell you at least why I’m even considering Huckabee. I respect McCain, but he has been labeled a ‘Rhino’ by many Republicans and considered a traitor by others for years. His recent support of the immigration legislation was the nail in the coffin for McCain. I would love to support him, but he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in even the primaries. I am proud of my vote for him in the Republican primaries of 2000. I wish it would have been him on the pile of rubble on 9-11.
Rudy doesn’t have my values. And I’m not talking about the ‘one issue’. I’m not ‘evangelical’ so let’s not even go there with me. I’m a gun-owning, Catholic, hunting/fishing, four-wheeler riding, college-educated Southern computer geek who likes to read John Chrysostom for kicks. I don’t fit your molds, so at least listen to what I have to say before dismissing me. The only indication I have that Rudy will stand up for me are the words of a philandering nepotist. Sorry, I can’t buy it.
I would vote for Romney in a heart-beat if I felt he was genuinely conservative. I’m more than willing to give the man a chance. His recent speech and debate performances have me leaning towards supporting him. If the primaries make it to Mississippi and my vote actually has a chance of counting, I’ll seriously consider Romney. However . . . I will be the first to admit that ‘the one issue’ is an issue of great concern to me with Romney.
Thompson was my guy from the start of the rumors he was running. Then he put it off. And put it off. And put it off. It gave me pause, really. He never recovered from that delayed entry into the fray. It didn’t come across as passivity or a lack of ‘fire in the belly’. It simply came across as a poor decision, and perhaps one made with trepidation. Yet, Thompson will be another I will heavily consider come my time to vote.
Huckabee intrigues me. Not least because so many who vociferously were assuring me that a vote for Rudy was not a betrayal of my core values are now telling me that a vote for Huckabee is surely a betrayal of ‘true conservatism’. I can relate to him, but I can see the qualities in him that turn others off. So I’m leery of his chances in the primaries. He is not running as a Southern Baptist minister, yet others are trying to force him into that role. He was governor for ten years after all. That’s longer than George Bush Jr., yet here on HotAir and elsewhere are screaming about his ‘lack of experience’. Please. Now the threats of boycotting the election if he’s the nominee. I can’t say much to that considering I’m a member of Catholics Against Rudy and I’ve avowed my intention to do the same if Rudy is the nominee. Still, it has drawn my interest.
So there are my three choices as I see it. Mitt, Huck, and Fred. I hope that by the time Mississippi votes, and if it matters by then, that I’ve weighed each candidate fairly. I do not envy Iowans.
tizzidale on December 15, 2007 at 2:36 AM
The Germans/Japanese were thoroughly defeated first, and had no options left. In the Middle East, those who organize terrorism are not poor. Many others woldn’t have to be poor, with all the oil there.
Same in Africa. How is it that Nigeria, one of the most oil-producing countries in the region, has the highest energy shortage? Terrorism springs from the backward ideology, and is in great part financed by very rich entities. No one could do more to fight it than the moderat Muslims but so far very little is evident in this regard.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 2:39 AM
As an evangelical who lives in a state that belonged to the Confederacy, all I can say is: I trust Giuliani more than I trust this guy! That is not to say that I prefer Giuliani as my first choice! I prefer Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson before Huckabee. Hell, I would take Ron Paul before Huckabee.
sanantonian on December 15, 2007 at 2:44 AM
s/b “moderate Muslims”
MiM, we’re saying the same, in different words.
There is, however, one important fact to consider. Culturally, these types respect strength. They will consider a Huackabee or an Obama sissies. This is not to be underestimated.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 2:47 AM
At least McCain did not say that those opposed to in-state tuition, and well pretty much rolling out the red carpet, for illegals were “un-Christian, un-American and anti-life” as the Huckster did.
McCain said that “Americans would not pick lettuce for $50 an hour”.
That’s not nearly as bad.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 2:48 AM
tizzidale on December 15, 2007 at 2:36 AM
If you’re considering Huckabee over McCain on the immigration issue, then you haven’t read or informed yourself about Huckabee’s history on this topic.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 2:50 AM
I hate to break this to you, but evangelical support is largely responsible for the Huckaboom. That’s not to say all evangelicals support him (thanks for the red herring!), but it damn sure isn’t foreign policy hawks, fiscal conservatives, & small government libertarian types lining up behind this clown.
Purple Fury on December 15, 2007 at 2:52 AM
Bullshit.
This basically amounts to, “You’re MAKING us support Huckabee… because you HATE CHRISTIANS!”
Purple Fury on December 15, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Ok, so lets look at his Governorship from the 5 points I take as a small “l” libertarian.
Taxes - They went up, quite a bit. And if you think he can really work the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the FairTax deal that is his current shield, I wonder what else you’d believe.
Size and scope of Government - Went up quite a bit. And supports several significant and costly programs in his platform… I must have missed any planned reductions.
Social intrusion - increased significantly. Do we really need the Federal Government to get involved in smoking regulations? Is a “one size fits all” policy better than Federalism?
SCOTUS picks… Well, his record of “following his heart” on Juducial matters and pardons is similar to how we got the Liberal Republican nominees we have now… so that’s no good.
Domestic and National security - Well, Governors don’t deal with national security (as his lack of knowledge of the Cuban embargo shows) but he has Domestic history. He “followed his heart” and wants to “give everyone a second chance” and seemed really interested in pardoning felons rapists and murderers. He seems a lot more interested in forgiving the criminal than worrying about the victim… that’s not a winning strategy in my book. His rate of pardons was greater than Bill Clinton’s, and some of them were areas where even Democrats would fear to tread.
So, his track record is a moderate to dismal failure on all five of my major points.
That’s not going to win support from the libertarians in the coalition. I can’t speak for others, but he’s quite possibly the worst candidate on record from my point of view.
Now I’ve not brought up his “Southern Baptist minister” qualifications, but even as Governor he led from the left of Bill Clinton. I don’t know what “true conservatism” is, or what betrays it, but can it really be left of Bill?
gekkobear on December 15, 2007 at 2:54 AM
tizzidale - I have to disagree with you here. I have only been following Mike Huckabee for really the past month or so and this is exactly how he comes across to me. In my opinion, he claims his position as Baptist Minister qualifies him for President in the same way that John Kerry claimed his Vietnam Veteran status qualified him for the Presidency. In pretty much every debate and interview, he mentions something about the Christian faith and how it should affect decision making in government and how it affects his decision making, etc.
And not only does he speak of how his faith affects his decision making, but he also attacks other faiths. It is one thing to be a Christian and disagree with other religions, but to just actively go out and attack Mormonism for political reasons is mean and intolerant, in my opinion.
Mitt Romney is not my 1st choice, because I just don’t trust him from all his changing positions on issues, which seem to be politically motivated. However, from what I have seen of Mitt Romney, he hasn’t made his Mormon faith a feature of his candidacy. The only reason he has even had to address it is because others have attacked him on it, specifically Mike Huckabee. This is contrasted to the way that Mike Huckabee openly campaigns on his faith.
If you don’t see his campaign that way, that’s fine. We all interpret things differently. But this is just how I see Mike Huckabee’s campaign and it has nothing to do with what others are saying and everything to do with what I see and hear from him.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 2:54 AM
MiM had posted on his concern on Evangelical-bashing by the media. If they insist on Huckabee being their candidate, and he definitely will lose, this will be the headline the day after “The Christian era in Ameriaca is over”, and they will have themselves to blame, and not the media.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 2:55 AM
s/b “in America” - girl, there is a “Preview” button now.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 2:58 AM
In the context (the rest of your comment) in which you presented that, I do not disagree.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 2:58 AM
Bingo!
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:00 AM
While I agree with you, the end result, of him losing, w/b their reaction to pick him, for this or any reasons. Therefore they should also get the blame. Better that it not materialize like this.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:04 AM
If you want to interpret it that way, fine.
I’m simply posing a hypothesis, since from all we can see about Mike Huckabee, it doesn’t make much sense for anyone calling themselves conservative to be supporting him.
People support candidates for many reasons. Personally, I am not going to get bullied into voting for a candidate because he is “electable”, but many people are doing just that. I think that’s ridiculous.
You think it’s bullshite that someone would support a Christian candidate simply because they want someone unabashedly Christian to fight against the culture war and war on Christmas and the separation of church and state culture we have growing here in America. I find that quite plausible actually. Just as there are people who vote on superficial things such as “being a woman” or “being a black man”, there are people who vote based on “being Christian”.
Some people may be voting for Hillary, simply as backlash because they feel this is a paternally dominated society. Some people may be voting for Barack Obama, simply as backlash because they feel this is a racist society.
Are these ridiculous and superficial reasons to vote? In my opinion, yes. But I wouldn’t call them bullshite, either.
I simply posited that part of the reason many may have flocked to a unabashedly Christian candidate is because of the open hostility to many things Christian in the culture for the past 5-10 years. No one “made them” flock there. They simply did it as a reaction.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”
People start pushing too hard with Christian-bashing and Christians eventually push back, even if the reaction is illogical (which I believe supporting Mike Huckabee is). But that is what happens when some of the Christian-bashing is illogical. In this case, illogical, over the top bashing resulted in illogical over the top support for a bad candidate.
Again, just a hypothesis.
Which, ironically, came to mind as a result of me constantly seeing people bashing evangelicals over the rise of Mike Huckabee. :)
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:05 AM
Yah, if that was the top qualification for POTUS, I should have been nominated for Prez instead of Kerry!!!
Drat!!!
I was there longer than him and I out ranked him.
Of course, I did not go on secret missions to Cambodia and I did not defeat a whole battalion of NVA with my bare hands though like he did, so never mind.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Oh, I agree. I’m not saying that the Mike Huckabee supporters are blameless. Not at all. I’m just saying that the stereotype that they are all bigoted, ignorant, knuckle-dragging, anti-abortion homophobes and that’s the only reason they are lending support to Mike Huckabee doesn’t necessarily have to be the only hypothesis here.
Especially since I’m getting annoyed with all the Christian-bashing, solely because a small percentage of the country (25%?) supports Mike Huckabee.
Besides, he could fall as fast as he has risen in the polls, and those same evangelicals everyone hates this week could prop up their candidate in the polls next week and then where are we? Are those same evangelicals now geniuses all of a sudden? No, the bigoted Christian/evangelical-bashing is still out there to say otherwise.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Redemption.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Hmm, well how are you at saluting and “reporting for duty”? That may have given you the edge over J Francois Kerry.
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:19 AM
Heh. Excellent. :)
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:20 AM
You’d definitely be a more interesting candidate, and alive one, than he ever could. The thought of 4-8 years of him puts me to sleep.
On the latter part of your comment, no, you did your duty, went home and led a life. You don’t even consider Soldiers to be that special, though I will always counter you on that. Today I witnessed how a first class gent gave his seat in Atlanta to a Soldier. The attendant came back to laud the San Diego businessman, in coach.
He, Kerry, bragged about his awards, then ‘threw’ them away, then they weren’t his, testified like a moron about imaginary things, went to Paris, married two rich women…So long as his records will not be open, I don’t believe that he earned a thing. He has to prove otherwise.
You’re the man and he’s the sissy.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:21 AM
If Kerry had been in the Army and “saluted” like he did at the dim convention, he would still be doing push ups.
Benny Hill saluted better than him.
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:25 AM
That would hold up a little better if Fred “Leno” Thompson wasn’t such a media whore. If you want somebody to stand up to the establishment media, vote Giuliani.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 3:26 AM
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Again, I’m not in disagreement with you. Your analyses are always very thoughtful MiM, and your writing is impeccable. Above all, I enjoy reading your comments, even if occasionally I don’t feel/believe the same.
Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 3:28 AM
You’re not seriously trying to make that argument, are you? It just proves my point again…nominal “conservatives” deciding that they can’t compromise their own little peculiar institutions for the good of the country. The civil war came about largely due to southerners being unable to let go of antiqueated values. Hmmm… sounds familiar.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 3:31 AM
Benny shows John Francois Kerry how to salute
MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 3:39 AM
In keeping with the whole star wars theme:
IT’S A TRAP!
MSM loves Huck cause they know he’s no electable in a general election. They’re hoping GOP is stupid enough to nominate him just because they say we should….
unamused on December 15, 2007 at 3:52 AM
The problem is that the Republican Party is not a Christian party; it’s a coalition party in which Christians have a significant but nonexclusive role. If a single faction of the coalition succeeds in imposing their will on the rest of the party then the other portions of the coalition will be unrepresented, or at least underrepresented. While some of them may still vote for the R team no matter who the nominee is, many will not. Huck has a limited appeal to the Republican base thus will have a problem drawing a wide enough cross-section to the polls in November, but one group of voters we can be certain he will motivate in droves are the Democrats. Huck would not only hinder the Republican Party, he would simultaneously strengthen the Democrats.
However, I don’t really blame the evangelicals… not solely. The Rudy supporters have also attempted a coup of the Republican Party. I understand they’re very enthusiastic about their candidate but they’ve also disregarded the necessity of the coalition. They have discounted and ridiculed the social conservatives and written them off as history, which may have played a role in Huck’s rapid rise in the polls.
Both sides appear to have forgotten why the coalition was so essential in the first place. Both factions seem to be under the mistaken impression that the conservative movement is so fantastically strong that it can be broken into pieces and a single portion can still somehow win the White House. Or perhaps they feel that Hillary is so bad that the unrepresented portions of the coalition will have no choice but to vote for their usurper candidate.
I’m not a fan of Romney and I have problems with Fred, although I like him well enough. I prefer Duncan Hunter but he’s gotten very little attention for whatever reason. Heck, I’m not even a Republican, I consider myself a conservative Independent, yet I support Fred and Romney because both of them have tried to appeal to the entire coalition. We are in the midst of a war and this is no time for separatist movements.
Do we really want a Christian Republican Party running against a Libertarian Party and a National Security Party and an Economic Party all individually pitted against each other and the Democrats? If so, the Democrats will win.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 4:14 AM
Huck is a Democratic evangelical running in the Republican primary.
ot: LSU Shooting
Lord Nazh on December 15, 2007 at 4:25 AM
This is pretty off topic, but here’s Obama answering a 5th grader about terrorists, immigration, and Mitt Romney. Video at the link
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 4:49 AM
If they were nominal they wouldn’t be an issue. Compromising you’re convictions is never good for anything.
Besides all these types of conversations are meaningless. No one will get ahead talking down the other guy. Like in sales (and a campaign is nothing more than a large scale sales pitch), you let a person know why your product is good for them and, if there is competition, why yours is the better. Talking bad about a competitor will only make you look week.
- The Cat
P.S. And for the record I’m with Fred.
MirCat on December 15, 2007 at 5:21 AM
Would that be the SNL crossdressing Guliani you speak of? Gimme a break! Rudy would accept a spot on “The Surreal World” if he thought it would garner him more attention.
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 AM
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 AM
There’s a big difference between going on SNL for the fun of it and pulling silly stunts to try to upstage your opponents during policy discussions. Fred has a habit of doing that, from Leno on debate night to acting all high and mighty about answering a question at a later debate. It’s amusing how the supposedly anti-MSM conservative base of the Republican party goes gaga over stupid media tricks by the Hollywood candidate. They’re being played, and they don’t even know it.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:26 AM
I think we’re all quite capable of thinking for ourselves and determining if we’re “being played”.
Without addressing the utter silliness of your complaint, I’ll tell you I like Fred because he’s the most conservative, honest, and genuine candidate of the group. His record since he’s been in public life backs up what he’s saying now. And he can win next November.
I like Rudy personnaly but you can’t deny that he is a liberal RINO. Rudy is as liberal as any Republican can be. He’s said in the past that he is NOT a conservative. In preparation for running for President, he has changed his position on virtually all of the important domestic issues Republicans care about. He’s pro-choice but personnaly pro-life then he’s some sort of hybrid choice-lifer. He’s stromgly for gun contol, then for gun rights (anywhere but NYC). He’s strongly in favor of sanctuary cities, now he wants a fence and tough immigration enforcement. It goes on and on. If it wasn’t for the leadership Rudy showed on 9/11, he wouldn’t be pulling 2% nationally. Hell, he wouldn’t even be running.
I wish Rudy would just have enough integrity to be honest about his positions. He’s liberal and that’s fine. Just admit it. If you like Rockefeller/Bloomburg/Gerald Ford style Republicans, then Rudy is your man. If you prefer a more Reagan variety, then Fred’s the only choice.
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 7:10 AM
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 7:10 AM
And if Fred didn’t basically play Rudy on TV, he wouldn’t be running either. He’d be another ex-Senator of little consequence, remembered more for being John McCain’s mini-me before Lindsay Graham got the gig. At least Rudy’s name recognition is based on something of consequence; Fred’s is really just make-believe.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 7:18 AM
waaa waaa waaa!!!
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 7:21 AM
Talk about “being played”.
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 7:22 AM
The WWJD meme only goes so far. If you extend to the US what happened to Jesus, then I wouldn’t wish the end result on anyone.
davod on December 15, 2007 at 7:27 AM
Yes he would. For exactly the reasons he’s laid out. There was no solidly conservative candidate among the top tier Republicans.
Rudy would never have run because he has no constituancy to speak of, in the Republican party. He’s anti-2nd amendment, pro-abortion, big government, pro-illegal immigration, and pro-gay marriage. He stands arm in arm with Al Gore and the Global Warming nuts. Rudy talks a good game on the war against islamo-facism. That’s it! Even in that though, he has no real experience. I guess he would have to rely on trusted advisers like Bernie Kerik.
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 7:34 AM
I’m glad to see we’re still engaging in intelligent converstion. One more thing…
These are generally moderate positions, which Rudy has not changed all that much. He’s tried to explain why he shouldn’t be scary to the conservative wing of the Republican party, but he hasn’t really moved. If he were pandering he’d sound a lot like Mitt Romney and Fred, who’ve both “evolved” significantly from their views in previous incarnations of their political careers. I’ll give you the move to the right on guns, but on immigration, gay rights, and abortion, he’s moved less than pretty much all of the other major candidates. If you fail to see how his positions on those issues are consistent with his past pronouncements, I suggest you try looking again, FOR YOURSELF, instead of just parroting the usual lines from the other campaigns.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 7:35 AM
Ah. I see where you’re coming from now. You’re a fool.
Big S on December 15, 2007 at 7:37 AM
Huck’s a nice guy, but unimpressive overall. In a contest for 2008, Hil would eat him for breakfast. (Hope he doesn’t do too much damage before he’s done.)
petefrt on December 15, 2007 at 8:12 AM
No. Not so much.
Jaibones on December 15, 2007 at 8:50 AM
This left wing media creation is a Christmas gift for the Democrats.
rplat on December 15, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Ok….I took Allah’s advice, went to bed, and reread the statement this morning. Here is my simpleton take on Mr.Huckabee and his position…
This is the primaries where the candidates are playing for the hard core of the party. That statement IS his hardcore position. Then comes the general. We all know what happens….the Rep tacks back left, trying to draw in the independents and BlueDogs. Great! What modifications to building up corrupt theocracies will he make to that speech?
The basic tenant of his remarks is ‘I will show the world how nice we are’….we have been doing that for 231 years. The despots don’t want our ‘nice’, they want our wallets and our children.
We need less George Bailey and more Mr.Potter in the next president. Huckabee IS Jimmy Carter on an elephant.
Limerick on December 15, 2007 at 8:57 AM
bnelson44,
The “show of hands” video over at Fred’s site is no longer available on YouTube.
Hmmm….
Makes me wonder about YouTube.
Kokonut on December 15, 2007 at 9:06 AM
If he’s the nominee I’ll stay home.
LtE126 on December 15, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Huckabee is a disaster!
davenp35 on December 15, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Its because of evangellicals like you, Bryan, that this Douchebag is gouing to win the nomination!!!
Jimmy the Dhimmi on December 15, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Over the last 60 years the world in general has been ‘playing’ America for whatever they can get out of her. We’re the dumb neighbor known for easy pickins. Scam after scam. In the 80s and 90s we kept the UN on a leash. Since GW came to town we’ve done nothing but kiss their azzes. All I’m saying is throughout the world America is known as ‘the suckers.’ That hasn’t gotten us very far.
Currently we’ve dumping $Billions$ into Iraq. Is there anyone that doesn’t realize we’re actually financing the terrorist movement against us? The Russians think we are morons. The Arabs think we are morons. The Chinese know we are morons. We might just be.
Griz on December 15, 2007 at 9:44 AM
“I like Rudy personnaly but you can’t deny that he is a liberal RINO”
Yeah but…HE’S the guy (and McCain) Mookie and the rest fear the most. He’ll pull the trigger.
LtE126 on December 15, 2007 at 10:09 AM
This isn’t true. One or two candidates for the donks are (pragmatically) to the right of Huckabee… that is, assuming Huck knows what he’s talking about and isn’t just yammering nonsense.
Lehosh on December 15, 2007 at 10:10 AM
No, the stereotype is that they’re simply evangelicals and that if Huckabee enters the political stage speaking their language and flaunting his evangelical-cred, they’ll flock to him like flies on crap. He’s “one of them”.
It has nothing to do with whatever positive or negative qualities they might otherwise possess.
Purple Fury on December 15, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Wouldn’t it be ironic to have two messiahs running against each other in the general? Huck would have to tack back sharply left and undo all that tough talk we’re hearing now about government bailouts being bad and enforcing the borders. Hard to keep up.
a capella on December 15, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Well said, he is a dream cvome true for the Dems to run against
Gatordoug on December 15, 2007 at 11:09 AM
This is sad. I am a Christian and supported Huck for about 3 weeks or so. I only even seriously considered him after giving up on Fred. I first heard he was a Baptist preacher and was pro life but had little chance of winning. I didn’t know a lot about him, admittedly. Once I started reading, at first I just thought he was being smeared. Then,, realized this guy is horrible! I think the “Baptist Minister underdog” thing swayed me and a lot of others. That and with a top 3 that are just plain horrible! This is shaping up to be a sad sad election! So much at stake and we have so little to offer. There is a certain dynamic at play here. You have a large group of conservatives unhappy with all the top choices and searching and hoping for something better. Then,, out from underneath comes this “Baptist preacher pro life underdog!” It plays to the hope inside of conservatives. You don’t think too much at first. It’s almost like the cavalry coming to the rescue! The thought just doesn’t even enter the mind that the cavalry is actually coming to rescue the enemy!
JellyToast on December 15, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Good points, no one sw Huckabee coming, but like Dean in 2004 his mouth will get him and none too soon. I think it is also true that some folks thought getting Thompson out of the way would help the chosen two. Of course, after Huck fades Fred will still be there.
Gatordoug on December 15, 2007 at 11:13 AM
So Mohammad started his Jihad rampage against the world because of sanitation problems?
(Unless the Huckster means mental santitation?)
profitsbeard on December 15, 2007 at 11:16 AM
What kind of people actually support this Hucklberry guy? I can’t believe after all the country has gone thru since ‘lustful’ Jimmy, that Huck Finn Huckabee would garner ANY votes for nomination among thoughtful voters. Of course a lot of voters are not thoughtful, are they?
countywolf on December 15, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Pretty self rightous with the “intellegent conversation” huh?
Sir if you follow the pack in the “Global Warming”, oh no, it’s now “Global Climate Change” hoax, then you are not only a fool, but a mindless lemming. No wonder you’re such an insulting fanatic for Rudy.
And you say Rudy hasn’t changed much? HAVE YOU SEEN HIS IMMIGRATION COMMERCIAL?!
edgehead on December 15, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Is this what you call “reaching out”?:
“American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists…
It sounds like he’s “reaching out” to John Effing Kerry voters.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 11:39 AM
That’s a rhetorical question, right?
Purple Fury on December 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Yep, this is what I suspect as well. Social Conservatives were told they were no longer needed when we were talking about Rudy Giuliani, so they decided to go support someone else. That’s what happens when people decide to insult a large portion of their base. I bet evangelicals would have stayed together in the Republican coalition if they had not been treated as if they did not matter anymore and the country was going forward without them. But the Rudy supporters made a tactical mistake and it has cost them. And seems to now be costing the entire Party as evangelicals decided to prop up a bad candidate. Not that Rudy was much better, but at least he was better than Mike Huckabee.
What is ironic is that if Rudy is the nominee, many social conservatives will sit out. But if Mike Huckabee is the nominee, many non-social conservatives will sit out. It would be interesting to see which constituency makes up a larger portion of the GOP base. Keeping in mind though that not all social conservatives support Mike Huckabee (I am one who does not support him. I support Fred Thompson and dislike Mike Huckabee as much as I dislike Rudy Giuliani.)
Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 12:04 PM
The Huckleberry just doesn’t get it! And probably never will. Anyone who wants to lead this country and has not identified Jihad as the root cause of the world’s problems today, should not be allowed anywhere in the halls of power.
JimK on December 15, 2007 at 12:09 PM
You said it right!
Gatordoug on December 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I don’t get something here. Evangelicals have flexed their muscle and now have the opportunity to greatly move the other candidates to the right in return for their blessing.
Huck is not qualified for the job. Rudy is, but is too liberal. So hold his feet to the fire. If he (or Mitt) promises something, is the feeling that he won’t keep his promise? He wants the job afterall.
Seems like the evangelicals have, perhap inadvertently, played their hand perfectly. They are now the kingmakers. Why pick up and go home? I don’t get it.
JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Instead of Huckabee let’s figure out a way to keep Bush for another eight years!
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM
The underlying “condition” that breeds all of the Arab world’s problems would be the Koran. I noticed that Mike left that out.
Mojave Mark on December 15, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Did you even read the article from the link?
Guardian on December 15, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Oh please! People like myself have very patiently tried to explain to people like you that Rudy is not a “liberal” and that there is very little that he can do on issues like abortion that are of primary concern to social cons except appoint “strict, constructionist judges” which he would do - as promised.
Rudy is far more conservative than Huck where it matters - on issues where a President actually does have direct power and authority, but many of you define “liberal” and “conservative” by social positions alone and ignore his record on welfare reform, prosecuting the war on terror, reducing crime, fighting the ACLU, and so forth. Now people like you (and unseen on December 14, 2007 at 10:37 PM) want to blame us for Huck’s ascendancy, which is absurd.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Huckabee Speaks with Catholic Online
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Is that kind of crap necessary? There are plenty of evangelicals that post on this site, including Bryan, who don’t buy the Huckster’s snake oil and have been saying so all along. As a matter of fact, it’s hard to find an evangelical on Hot Air who’ll admit to supporting Huck. Which you’d know if you’d been paying attention at all. But if you want to continue saying stupid things to insult one of your hosts, by all means go ahead.
ReubenJCogburn on December 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM
This makes Pat Robertson’s support of Giuliani look almost genius.
baldilocks on December 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Where it matters to you, sure, but not to a large portion of the conservative coalition, hence Huck’s rise in the polls.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 12:59 PM
From Huck’s article:
Then he says that the
This makes sense to me.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM
I think a lot of you didn’t bother to follow the link.
Guardian on December 15, 2007 at 1:02 PM
One more time, the things the “conservative coalition” (read: Evangelicals) prioritize are issues where the President is effectively powerless, except in Judicial appointments.
You think it’s a “lack of sanitation” that inspired the 9/11 hijackers? Did you miss the part about Bin Laden being a gazillionaire, and most of the hijackers being super well educated, and coming from upper middle class backgrounds?
Sheesh.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
In Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and many other places we are fighting insurgencies. And what the government can supply and how it treats its population is crucial. This idea isn’t anything new, read: The Pentagon’s New Map
That we have been thinking we should hold elections and somehow that will turn the middle east into Europe or Japan has been shown over and over again to be foolish. The approach should be to connect the unconnected countries and convert them to democracy because democracy and freedom are things that are rooted in men’s souls and things everyone craves. You don’t do that by not talking to people. Anyway, we are talking to everyone now (even Iran and North Korea), so Bush has changed his toon on these items anyway.
What Huck is proposing is not that different than what Bush is doing today and not really that different than what Romney is proposing.
This also makes sense, from Huck’s article:
[quote]
A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity — religious, ethnic, racial — it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is “know your enemy,” and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick. Very few Americans are familiar with the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian radical executed in 1966, or the Muslim Brotherhood, whose call to active jihad influenced Osama bin Laden and the rise of al Qaeda. Qutb raged against the decadence and sin he saw around him and sought to restore the “pure” Islam of the seventh century through a theocratic caliphate without national borders. He saw nothing decadent or sinful in murdering in order to achieve that end. America’s culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists’ culture of death.
[/quote]
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:15 PM
There are so many fallacies in Huckabee’s statements.
First he calls Bush “arrogant” which is right out of the MoveOn.Org play book. Seriously, I’d really like to know how Bush’s “arrogance” has harmed us in the war on terror. Sure the Left can come up with a lot of nonsense about his poor diplomatic skills and other elitist garbage, but I can’t think of any substantive arguments to substantiate that charge. Indeed, I can think of few politicians who are more humble and less arrogant than George W. Bush.
Next Huck claims that we have “thrived on diversity” which is patently false, and is another leftist talking point. We have thrived on assimilation, and the divisive emphasis on diversity and multi-culturalism has harmed us greatly.
Finally, if 9/11 didn’t convince Americans of how fanatical these Islamofascists are, then there is very little that the President can do. It’s as if the unconvinced Americans are all a bunch of O.J. jurors.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 1:16 PM
You make it sound like Rudy is as conservative as conservative gets on all matters where the president has any influence, which is a canard. Rudy is a big lib on the 2nd amendment and illegal immigration, which is certainly within the president’s influence, and those are just two issues that I care about even though I’m not religious. I can understand why other members of the coalition disagree with you as well.
The coalition is more than just evangelicals; there are several overlapping interests within it and to pretend like Rudy represents them all and everybody in the other groups are being unreasonable and should get bent for disagreeing with you is not going to strengthen the coalition.
FloatingRock on December 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Well, a goodly portion of the population thinks Bush blew up the WTC. So someone isn’t communicating to the American public very well.
I know you are trying to support your guy and attack Huck because he is an opponent. But a lot of what Huck wrote makes a lot of sense to me and frankly, surprised me. I think it deserves a read anyway.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Looks like Romney’s going negative
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Hmmm. The phrases “bring it on” and “mission accomplished” immediately come to mind. I don’t know to what extent how much more difficult the war became because of them but I’m sure that saying things like that didn’t help us at all. In my opinion his arrogance probably did make it worse. Not that I blame him for it. Hell, I wanted him to be arrogant. I was pissed and still am. But he could have handled it a lot better.
Guardian on December 15, 2007 at 1:29 PM
One problem all the candidates face is that they really only have next week, then everyone will be steeped in the Holidays and very few will be paying attention to politics. After that, the Iowa caucus and the other primaries start. For a race that everyone was saying was too long, there is no more time.
bnelson44 on December 15, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »