logis on January 2, 2008 at 1:38 AM

Call me an ass if you will. Maybe you can find something as asinine as your “man-crush” remark, which you have still failed to justify.

I gave you an opportunity to amend your comment by saying that I may have misunderstood you.

You have not done that from which I can only conclude that you are proud of that, dare I say, “passive-aggressive” attack on csdeven who said nothing on this thread to warrant that loaded response.

I don’t know whether you have the same frantic grin on your face as Mike Huckabee has when he does it, but it’s not nearly as much fun as you guys make it out to be. It doesn’t even rise to the level of annoying, or even boring. It’s more like – just plain pathetic.

logis on January 2, 2008 at 1:38 AM

This web site needs some little icon figures with frantic grins, smirking grins and little halos.

I am trying to be on my best behavior and not call out fellow commenters for making an ass of themselves, 1
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 11:19 PM

More than fair. So I suppose I can prove my wonderful good-heartedness by not calling you a jackass too!

Seriously though, I don’t see the fascination with this passive-agressive schtick. I don’t know whether you have the same frantic grin on your face as Mike Huckabee has when he does it, but it’s not nearly as much fun as you guys make it out to be. It doesn’t even rise to the level of annoying, or even boring. It’s more like – just plain pathetic.

logis on January 1, 2008 at 11:02 PM

I am trying to be on my best behavior and not call out fellow commenters for making an ass of themselves, but unless I misunderstand you (which I doubt) this comment is completely devoid of substance or merit:

And no one is saying your man-crush is a “bad” thing; only that it’s not nearly as deep and spiritual as you feel the need to constantly constantly proclaim it to be.

So all the people of both sexes and all ages who found, say, JFK attractive just had a “man-crush”?

Or maybe “your” and “you” refers to the collective “you” and not specifically to csdeven?

And like Buy Danish said, those are not intellectual reasons NOT to vote for a candidate. Skewer him on his supposed flip-flops and missteps, but not on superficial appearance.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Excellent point. Except that, of course, no one makes fun of people like Mitt Romney and John Edwards because WE are superficial. Any grown man who spends four hours a day on hair care and defoliation gains points with a certain segment of the population, and that’s perfectly fine. But by the same token, he’s also taking on a significant burden when he asks normal people to take him seriously.

And no one is saying your man-crush is a “bad” thing; only that it’s not nearly as deep and spiritual as you feel the need to constantly constantly proclaim it to be.

maxine on January 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Bingo.

Michael in MI on January 1, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Speaking of silly hats, if I hear one more person complain about Rudy having appeared in drag, I’ll…I’ll…Grrrrrr.

Actually to be perfectly honest, when I saw Huck with his dorky orange hat on it did nothing to improve my opinion about him. I think some of that sort of criticism is natural, But as far as Romney is concerned, he has always been attractive, always been conservative in his dress and appearance, he’s been married to his lovely wife for a very long time, she’s always been lovely, et cetera.

It’s not as if he’s a vain metro-sexual.

Thanks. I appreciate knowing that someone else sees what I see on a subject.

Maxine on January 1,2007 at 8:38PM.

Maxine:Absolute glowing Kudos,in your comments you have
defined Rush Linbaugh,and the show perfectly.
If anybody is confused or not sure,your post
is a must read,and needs to be framed.

Michael in MI on January 1, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Err, Michael, that’s going a little too far. Nobody deserves that!

Skewer him on his supposed flip-flops and missteps, but not on superficial appearance.

csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Exactly. If our primary campaign is based on “silly hats”, superficial appearance, red trucks, Jesus fish and other such superficial nonsense, then we deserve to have Hillary as President when we cannot even treat our primary in a serious manner.

He is mostly careful about Republican negativity because he does not want to have his words hanging out in cyberspace to be redirected back at himself in the General election when he is advocating for the Republican and against the Democrat.

maxine on January 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Exactly right.

Of course, the Conservative and Republican blogosphere has done plenty of that (negativity about every Republican candidate), so all the Democrats have to do is go back in the archives of right-of-center blogs to dig up what is wrong with the eventual nominee and they can make their campaign commercials from that.

This is why I have never understood why people have gotten so nasty about all the candidates (except the one they support), because if the GOP nominee ends up being someone other than their candidate, they are left to say “yeah, I said a lot of negative stuff about him, but now I am saying vote for the guy I have been telling you for months does not deserve to be President”.

Mitt has pretty much dolled himself and his family up and presented them to the American public as the Barbie and Ken all American family.
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM

If that is what you think you have no clue about Mitt’s life. His family hasn’t had to change a thing.

And like Buy Danish said, those are not intellectual reasons NOT to vote for a candidate. Skewer him on his supposed flip-flops and missteps, but not on superficial appearance.

Then you haven’t really been paying attention.

wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Yeah, you’re right. I’m sure that’s it. And not the fact that there are probably more posts about this poll, that poll, everywhere a poll and its results and support going this way that way, upside down for every which candidate for the past two months on all the political websites on the web.

Nah, I just haven’t been paying attention. Sorry, I’ll pay attention more.

He is mostly careful about Republican negativity because he does not want to have his words hanging out in cyberspace to be redirected back at himself in the General election when he is advocating for the Republican and against the Democrat. I think Huckabee crossed the line that Rush tolerates by making things to personal to Rush. That, coupled with Huckabee’s liberalism in a number of areas, is the reason Rush may drop a large load on Huckabee.

Also keep in mind that Rush leans Federalist.

It seems like the only group of people who stand loyally behind their candidate no matter the poll numbers are the Ron Paul supporters.

Michael in MI on January 1, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Then you haven’t really been paying attention.

Mitt looks and acts of a stand-up guy,with integrity.
May the best candidate who gets caught up in his own lies and stories loose,the nominee.

Especially Liberal Moonbat’s who call in to discuss
how out of touch Republican’s are,ya I laugh my !ss
off on those calls,some shows if your lucky,you’ll hit
the jackpot,a BDS caller chimes in,hehe,never mind the
cow bell,reel out the rope,lot’s of rope.

If Rush is pushing for Mitt,he must have his reasons,I’m
sure he will elaborate,but lets not get confused a bit.
From what I’ve seen Republican’s for the most part check
out the stories,and the facts,Republican’s are not lock step mind-numbed robots,we leave that up to the Liberals.

bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 7:46 PM

You implied very clearly that this is just an act he dreamed up. To complain that he’s too darned nice and attractive is mindboggling. Not to worry though! You are not alone in this assessment.

I could understand if it was the code pinko crowd who was complaining, but to hear this from conservatives sounds petty and partisan.

Maybe he needs to spend a week in a POW camp and get roughed up by some North Vietnamese Communists to meet your criteria?

Puhlease. That is so ludicrous. He is what he is.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Exactly.

bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Puhlease. That is so ludicrous. He is what he is. He’s always been that way. It’s not an act that he put together for this campaign!

And I find it hilarious that so many conservatives complain that he’s too buttoned up, just like a …conservative.

flipflop on January 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM

LOL. It has nothing to do with him being a “celebrity” or not having access. He doesn’t even have guests on his show, so why on earth would he care about “access”? Not that any candidate would be foolish enough to cut off his “access” anyway.

He stands with “conservative principles” and he points out attributes and deficits but doesn’t endorse candidates in primaries.

Why don’t you listen to him when he comes back?