Huck compares Christmas ad analyses to Beatles’ “Paul is dead” hoax; Update: Respect Huck’s fundamentalism or we’ll walk, warns Lee Harris
posted at 4:30 pm on December 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
From Jesus to the band that’s bigger than Jesus:
“Actually I will confess this, if you play this spot backwards it says ‘Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead,’” the presidential candidate joked to reporters in Houston Tuesday. “So the next thing you know, someone will be playing it backwards to find out the subliminal messages that are really there.”…
The former Arkansas governor said the spot was last-minute and ad-libbed: “They had a bookshelf behind me, a bookshelf. So now I have these people saying, ‘ahhh there was a subtle message there,’” said Huckabee. “….I never cease to be amazed at the manner in which people will try to dissect the simplest messages, can’t even say ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore without somebody getting all upset about it.”
Even this goofy little aside is evidence of Huck’s shrewdness. Matt Taibbi began his sneering profile of Huckabee with the story of how the candidate sought him out after an event, knowing he was from Rolling Stone, and charmed him with the saga of how he came to pardon Keith Richards. The media stereotype of evangelical Christians is one of hopeless squares, almost hermetically insulated from the culture they live in; for Huck, as a minister, that goes double. Dropping classic rock references on them is instantly disarming, the near equivalent of an in-joke in referring to a shared experience. The press loves it, too, hence the frequent mentions of Huck playing bass in a band. Why, he’s almost human!
Anyway, how silly of us to have detected any sly symbolism in this studiously non-political ad that offers nothing but goodwill and visions of dancing sugar plums to all who behold it. And how cynical of Ace to wonder why, being studiously non-political, it’s only running in the key early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
Exit question: Anyone here signed up yet for, er, Huck’s Army? They are, in fact, waging war against dark forces.
Update: After endless threats from Christian conservatives like Dobson to bolt the party because McCain and then Giuliani and then Thompson weren’t good enough, I suspect I speak for a lot of Republicans when I say we’re in no mood for this.
More and more, the attack on Huckabee has become a not very subtle attack on his Christian fundamentalism. This would pose no problem if the Republicans could dispense with the vote of Christian fundamentalists, but it cannot hope to win the indispensable states in the South without them. This is simple arithmetic. Now all would be well if the Christian fundamentalists were the clueless morons that they are alleged to be by those cultured despisers, but they are not. At the very minimum they have the same intelligence of sheep who, if fleeced once too often, will begin to think that they are merely being used, and not looked after. The Left has long charged the Republican establishment with cynically manipulating Christian social conservatives in order to further the agenda of the vested interests, duping the hicks with promises of cultural conservatism in order to get them to swallow tax breaks to the greedy rich. If the Republican establishment is really interested in self-immolation, they need only give Christian conservatives a good reason to suspect them of such crass manipulation of their deeply held convictions by those who look down on them with contempt and derision.
In short, handle Huckabee with care. Oppose him, if you wish, but do so in a way that preserves both his dignity and those of the people for whom he speaks so eloquently. Otherwise sooner or later they will find another home, and it will not be in the Republican Party.
Precisely the sort of unifying resentment Huck’s trying to nurture by injecting religion into his campaign and then waiting for the attacks to come. Harris refers earlier in the piece to the “Anybody But Huckabee tsunami” sweeping the GOP, which he traces to some sort of establishment panic at the fact that Huck didn’t cater to monied interests to earn his lead. Pure garbage: It’s because he’s suspect on nearly every major issue. Suspect on crime, suspect on taxes, suspect on immigration, suspect on terrorism per his “do unto others” policy — which, I suppose, qualifies in Harris’s mind as the sort of attack on fundamentalism at which he’s threatening to balk. If you’re looking for a reason to be offended, odds are you’ll find one. The great conservative crack-up was bound to come sooner or later; I guess this is it. Let’s get on with it.
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 »
Goo goo goo joob!
mram on December 18, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Good for Huck’s Army, but in all fairness, the Paulnuts are an easy target.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 18, 2007 at 4:35 PM
And if you play a FRED! spot backwards, it says “I… Bury…. Huckabee…”
Just kidding. If you really play a FRED! spot backwards, it says “Hey, cut that nonsense out!” then glares at you for daring to think FRED! needs to hide his intentions.
Frozen Tex on December 18, 2007 at 4:36 PM
OMG republican candidate makes funny joke involving popular culture! truly we are at the end of days.
I still think he is pretty cool.
zane on December 18, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul freaks are a disgusting bunch, aren’t they?
BJ* on December 18, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Does all this war on the christmas ad stuff make Huck O’Reilly’s candidate?
Spirit of 1776 on December 18, 2007 at 4:41 PM
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 4:46 PM
im telling you he is the evangelical Bill Clinton, and he may be the only one who can really beat the real Bubba.
/cat amoungst pidgeons, set.
zane on December 18, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Don’t kid yourself, O’Reilly is O’Reilly’s candidate.
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 4:46 PM
A great song to listen to, play, or sing after you’ve had a few. Or more than a few.
Bigfoot on December 18, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Ron Paul is pretty frightening himself. He is the one who started to talk about fascism when he saw the commercial
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Right I meant for the bottom of the ticket:)
Spirit of 1776 on December 18, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Story behind the Christmas ad
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Onward, Christian Soldier
Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Maybe Paul and the Ronulans (which has a very ’60’s band’ ring to it, actually) took all that “Paul is Dead” stuff as a veiled threat, and are lashing out. You’re talking about nuts and Truthers here, after all. They’ll believe pretty much anything.
And that may just be a bookcase behind him, but somehow I doubt that no one in the Huckster’s camp noticed the cross effect when they were preparing the ad for release. This is just more of his “too cute by half” crap.
ReubenJCogburn on December 18, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Hey, the fundementalists can always vote for Bloomberger.
Go Fred.
Griz on December 18, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Yeah, didn’t you link to something (AP) the other day that said if some Evangelicals don’t feel Huck’s been given a “fair chance”, they’ll walk out on Fred and Mitt, too?
amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Ref the update. That is a mighty big horse you are sitting on there Mr Harris.
Limerick on December 18, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Yeah, the WSJ speculated about that. The question is, what constitutes a “fair chance”? No one but no one is saying the guy should be disqualified because he’s an evangelical Christian. Bush is an evangelical too. But if he says homosexuality is on a continuum with necrophilia (as Mother Jones is claiming today), do I get to criticize that? Or am I being insensitive to fundamentalist claims?
Allahpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Welcome to the Christian Party. What’s next?? Coalitions to form a government?
ChrisM on December 18, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Allowing him to win? Seriously though, you make a good point. Where is the line they distinguish between criticism and not respecting his fundamentalism?
amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Great God almighty, this has become an identity war. If so, I know which side I won’t be on, Lee. Hope your parochial, regional party has fun, because we won’t be there to buttress your sorry politics.
Vizzini on December 18, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Wow, that is absolutely baffling coming from a mind such as that of Lee Harris. And of course, like every other Huck defender, he makes no mention of the fact that it was Huck himself that so forcefully injected religion into the campaign while baiting other candidates on their differences with his.
C’mon Mr. Harris. I read your first book and I know you are smarter than that. Wake up.
thirteen28 on December 18, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I’m not a Huck supporter by any stretch, but come on guys. He’s got no money, no staff, no national experience and yet he comes up with these completely ingenious—coded for the faithful—unassailable by the competition without forcing more folks into Huck’s Army—campaign ads. Good grief! Sometimes a Christmas wish is just a Christmas wish.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM
WTF? Did he really say that?
Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Huck’s raised almost $5 million this quarter, signed on Ed Rollins, and is only running the Christmas wish ads in early states.
amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Where the heck will they be?
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Yup. In a book no less.
Vizzini on December 18, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Not clearly enough that I’m going to make an issue of it in a post, but he said this in his book: “It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.”
Publicly endorsed necrophilia?
Allahpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:17 PM
“Say, don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Let ‘em. If they can’t even get behind Fred, who’s an excellent conservative candidate, they aren’t worth having.
I’ve been hoping that we can compromise and come down to Fred or (blech, and no, not blech cuz of Mormonism, his policies suck) Mitt. But if stubborn evangelicals want to do this, what else is there to do but let ‘em and hope they get their sh*t together and realize how badly they effed it up when they get smacked down?
Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Heh, the nonbelievers are the “evildoers”. This is going to be a thread for the left side.
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 5:18 PM
To the truly-committed (in more ways than one), it means, “Either our guy wins or he didn’t get a ‘fair chance’.”
steveegg on December 18, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Exactly. It’s ok in Mr. Harris’s mind when Huck engagaes in some not-so-subtle Mormon baiting, completely off the cuff and with no provacation, with the goal of dividing the electorate and getting evangelicals to run to him … but when someone calls Huck out on it, they are being bigoted against Christian fundamentalists … and written without a trace of irony.
I’m really disappointed in Lee Harris.
thirteen28 on December 18, 2007 at 5:21 PM
To quote King Gorilla, “I don’t respond to threats.” Especially not from guys with two first names. Sorry, pal, but Huck sucks on the issues, and I wouldn’t give a crap about his religion if he wasn’t shoving it in my face every two seconds.
ReubenJCogburn on December 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Where do you expect him to run them? TV costs money. The early states are the ones with campaign fatigue—which is the overt message of the ad.
Add that to the $650,000 he had at the end of the third quarter and it’s still less than peanuts in a presidential race.
From all the talk you’d think that Huck was Karl Rove’s mentor.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
The more I see of the far left and the far right, I yearn for a third viable party, but not one of Mr. Bloomberg. He is just another Left.
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Amid all of the political shell games being played in this thread, nobody has expressed what is not only undeniable and should be blatantly obvious:
Magical Mystery Tour is the crappiest Beatles movie.
ScottMcC on December 18, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Funny, I didn’t get a Christmas wish from Huckabee… But then again, my state’s primary is pretty late in the season.
Lehosh on December 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM
As an evangelical, fundamentalist, Christian conservative - I am NOT voting for Huck. For many reasons, but primarily for the fact that he is not the conservative he wants us to think he is. I think that people who spout this “be nice to Christians or else” rhetoric have no other argument to fall on and do more damage to thier cause than they realize. I do think that many in the GOP establishment take folks like me for granted too often, but we’re not stupid. Huckabee is Hillary-lite, nothing more.
jdawg on December 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Sheesh, he says that like it’s a bad thing.
Mark V. on December 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Ding.
peski on December 18, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Maybe he’d prefer privately endorsed necrophilia? I’m just asking questions here, not alleging anything.
ReubenJCogburn on December 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I didn’t mean cash on hand, if that’s what you’re implying. His goal for online fundraising for the fourth quarter was $5 million, and he’s almost there.
But see, that makes it a political ad.
amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Nice, so he blames school shootings on acceptance of gays? I’m assuming this is part of his thesis? Well, I can tell you, as someone who’s actually been in a school during a shooting, acceptance of gays is about at the bottom of the list of root causes. Aaaaand with that bit, I would literally vote for Ron Paul before Mike Huckabee. Brilliant, Mike.
Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Unfortunately, in the current environment, he’s the wrong kind of “do unto others” type. Although there is a time and place for the good Christian “do unto others” type, the middle of a war is not it. A Machiavelli “do unto others” type may be a better choice.
As well, a schism may create a third or more parties, resulting in the further fragmentation of the electorite. Although short term, it would be interesting, at least for the pundits (and blogs), it’s unlikely to affect those in the left party, resulting in a whole bunch of changes that aren’t good for anyone.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
If it hurts the “Dignity” to point out the fact that the candidate of choice for evangelicals IS NOT EVEN CONSERVATIVE THEN I DON’T WANT THEM IN THE F*CKING PARTY TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!!!
thareb on December 18, 2007 at 5:27 PM
If Huckabee wins GOP race well, Introducing the President of the United State Hillary Clinton. Nothing aginst him but he can’t win the general
KBird on December 18, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Yes, of course it’s a political ad. But all the drama of hidden subtext and coded warnings/messages are just way paranoid.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Sorry, but this is a man that inserts his religion and somewhat subliminal messages at every turn. Then comes an ad with a book shelf lighted in the shape of a cross.
And if it’s a political ad, it’s not “just a Christmas wish”.
amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:36 PM
By all means.
Like Rush says, redefining conservatism is the worst possibile outcome of this election, beyond even defeat.
And this is why we’ll have redefined conservatism if Huckabee becomes our nominee.
Very well written, AP.
Hawkins1701 on December 18, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Lee Harris has no street cred among evangelicals so is obviously only speaking for himself.
Though you would not guess that from his haughty tone.
His mindset brought us the likes of Jimmy Carter and compassionate conservatism.
Valiant on December 18, 2007 at 5:37 PM
As a Christian, I have ALWAYS been a bit uncomfortable with the more zealous “evangelical” types for this one reason:
They often appear to be the MOST JUDGEMENTAL OF OTHERS !!!
- Judge not lest ye be judged.
- What you do to the least of thee, you do also unto Me.
Only in the final Judgement, will the true intentions of the Heart be Discerned, and That judgement is not ours to make.
singlemalt_18 on December 18, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Numbah nine, numbah nine.
I like the Sherman tank logo for Huck’s Army.
Hening on December 18, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Exactly, and what I fear even more than the Dems winning in 08.
Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Sounds to me like Harris is asking for a respectful way out of this mess. And we damn well ought to give it to him. They walk out with their weapons and dignity intact, or the Republicans are a-holes.
JiangxiDad on December 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Yeah, then how do you explain Mr. Compassionate Conservative dominating the polls right now?
Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
This is David Corn in Mother Jones. I suppose, technically and theologically, it is in a continuum with necrophilia since neither produces new life, which is the primary theological purpose for sex. Sure, you can criticize it, but it is, although kinda gross, theologically accurate. And a continuum is a pretty long line. The points on a continuum can be very far apart. I would like to read the actual quote rather than David Corn’s interpretation of the book. Corn has not exactly been noted for accuracy. Corn also said, “He also declared that people who do not believe in God tend to be immoral and to engage in “destructive behavior.” Which is what the Pope said the other day as well. The book is: Kids who Kill and it was co-written.
bnelson44 on December 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
He talks like every other Baptist preacher out there.
I’m with Mark Steyn regarding the subtext of this ad:
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Very much so. And he’ll be sure to have my vote when he runs for High Reverend.
amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:55 PM
This spoiler group, which many of us are referring to as “social cons,” are NOT conservative. As I’ve said before, they favor big government and massive taxpayer spending programs. The only difference between these folks and Democrats is the kinds of programs they want to spend our money on. They are a better fiscal fit with Dems–they share with Dems the belief that they know better how to spend our money the “right” way than we do, and that we won’t do “good” things if they don’t force us to using the power of the federal government–but they can’t bring themselves to join the party that calls killing babies a “right” and wants to change the definition of marriage. We need their numbers, but we are finding ourselves at odds with them because they simply are not conservatives. They will not get on board with our core tenet of small government.
aero on December 18, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Newdow was on Cavuto to discuss Huckabee’s ad. It is the first time (and will probably be the only time) I’ve ever agreed with Newdow on anything.
But I said something here a few weeks ago. If Huckabee is the nominee, the next year will be all-religion-all-the-time. If he actually was elected, and if you think Congress does nothing now, just wait until the anti-Bushites turn into the anti-Christians. BDS ain’t nuthin’ in comparison to CDS.
Connie on December 18, 2007 at 5:56 PM
So far, This is wha we know about Huckabee:
He thinks gays are evil
He thinks women should know their place
He wants to unite the country under one religion
He has no problem covering up crimes of his family
He lets his religion dictate all of his policies
So, how is he different from say, the taliban? I think Ron Pauls quote was DEAD on.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Uh, not the ones I know (including my father). My Dad’s been a Baptist preacher (trained in a Southern Baptist seminary) for over 35 years, and I doubt you’d ever hear him sound like Huckabee; he’d sound more like FRED!, actually.
Frozen Tex on December 18, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Harris is right. The attacks have gone beyond the issues in many quarters. There’s a post up at Red State right now saying Paul got one right. The fact that HotAir hasn’t gone down that road doesn’t mean others haven’t.
I’m not voting for him, but this fascist stuff goes over with me about as well as Chimpy McHalliburton.
John on December 18, 2007 at 6:03 PM
The great conservative crack-up was bound to come sooner or later; I guess this is it. Let’s get on with it.
I think it started with Schiavo with libertarians roasting evangelicals for standing up for a brain dead woman. Many like John Cole virtually left the party that day and we’re going to see a lot more of that if Huckabee somehow manages to hornswaggle enough evangelicals and others to vote for him.
rick moran on December 18, 2007 at 6:03 PM
There’s a subset of “social cons” called “compassionate conservatives”. We would do well to differentiate which ones we don’t particularly like in our movement.
I know there’s at least one “social con” who doesn’t want the government to move every time someone hurts.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Hey, where’s Hot Air’s resident Southern Baptist reporter/analyst? I’d be interested in hearing his take on this.
Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:03 PM
As an ill-thought out, knee-jerk reaction to the war on Christianity.
Connie on December 18, 2007 at 6:04 PM
So, how is he different from say, the taliban?
Case in point.
John on December 18, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I didn’t mean that Baptist preachers all endorsed nannystatism—just that they used biblical allusion and God-talk in everyday speech.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Nice moral equivalence you got going there.
I think he’s for beheading non-believers, too, so you be careful out there.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Ron Paul’s quote was as ridiculous as the comparison you just made. I disagree with Huckabee, and with Lee Harris’ threat, but let’s not get carried away.
Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:13 PM
@ jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I am not equating their morality, I am saying that he advocates a LOT of positions that we seem to find in our enemies. Of course he doesnt have the same record of killings, but he sure seems to think similarly.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:14 PM
@ Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:13 PM
RP quote was right on. He is basically saying that fascism isnt going to come to this country in an unfamiliar way, that the ONLY way fascism could rise would be in a familiar form under familiar circumstances. We arent going to find ourselves supporting a leader who has killed thousands and advocates genecide. What we WILL elect is someone who plays up nationalism and religion and then after the election takes these principles too far.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Bwahaha. Karl Cameron just reported that Mitt Romney is back in the lead in Iowa.
Backlash!
Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:17 PM
@ Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Thank god, maybe he can stop crying now.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:19 PM
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:17 PM
The question is, why is he talking about fascism at all when asked about Huckabee’s Christmas ad?
John on December 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Basically just a smear job then?
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Didn’t you see the freaking bookshelf, John. Open your eyes, man!!22!!
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Darnthank you, John. I was just about to make that same point. His quote is a severe over-reaction to the fact that Huckabee was sitting in front of a bookshelf.Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:23 PM
jinx
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:25 PM
@ John on December 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Maybe because of the things Huck himself has said?
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:26 PM
@ jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Not JUST a smear job, but i DO hate Huckabee and think he is worthless. I think he should bring his extreme views back to arkansas where they can’t really hurt anybody.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:27 PM
No it wasn’t. Ron Paul was staying on message on why he is running. That is nothing like comparing Southern Baptists to Taliban. Huckabee is not preaching fascism. But he is certainly willing to take a stroll down that lane to see where it ends.
sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I’m not a Huckabee fan, so I hate to say that he has a point here. Lately it’s seemed like the very act of saying “Merry Christmas” in public is a political act of defiance.
JohnTant on December 18, 2007 at 6:28 PM
In response to a Christmas ad, though?
Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:29 PM
@ Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:29 PM
He was ASKED about the ad.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Err…thy name is hypocrite, fundamentalists.
SouthernGent on December 18, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Yes, I know. That doesn’t make his statement any less ridiculous. If anything, it makes it more. Christmas greeting with “cross symbolism” = creeping fascism?
Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Christmas greeting with cross symbolism and mention of jesus + “I want to take this country back for Jesus” = ?????
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:34 PM
So engage us about who he is or what he represents that you don’t like:
-scary on immigration
-not reliable on WoT
-stump-tooth, potted meat-breath, hayseed Xtian, evolution-disbeliever
but don’t do moral equivalence. It’s lazy and ineffective.
…and don’t ever quote Ron Paul favorably.
jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Where? I say it all the time. The only time it seems an issue is when people keep claiming that their Christmas viewpoint is being suppressed. That’s a liberal game of victimhood. Say “Merry Christmas” to all who will listen. The whole “war on Christmas” is manufactured by blowhard talking heads.
Almost Forgot Merry Christmas
sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Then throw in all of Hucks other views on subservient women and evil gays, and that those who dont believe in christ are “evildoers” and that morality is DERIVED from belief in jesus.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Why do you keep thanking god, small G? Just a turn of phrase, I guess, but it sounds like Creeping Fascism to me.
Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM
The people who see the subliminal meaning of the bookshelf cross most clearly, are somehow incapable of seeing the insinuation Ron Paul made by quoting Sinclair Lewis, author of Elmer Gantry (about a religious huckster) and It Can Happen Here (about a fascist presidential candidate written with Adolph Hitler in mind).
This stuff cuts both ways. That’s all.
John on December 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM
No a political ad by the current front runner who just may be the next POTUS.
sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:37 PM
@ jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I am voting for Ron Paul, so he is one of 2 candidates that I will quote favorably. I think we have gotten beyond having to point out reasons not to vote for Huckabee. I would venture to guess that if made aware of his comments and record, 90 percent of people in this country would exclude him from their consideration outright. He is a lunatic. His viewpoints are ridiculous on several issues, and severely outdated on others.
muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »