Vodkapundit to Iowa’s Republicans: Thanks, you “corn-sucking idiots”
posted at 2:57 pm on January 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Too far? The debate rages in the comments to the headline item. It’s being interpreted by some, I think, as a veiled swipe at the intelligence of evangelical voters, who made up 80+% of Huck’s support, or even rural voters. VP doesn’t say a word about either, although I admit to cringing at it just because it plays right into the type of identity politics Huckabee’s worked so hard to cultivate and which our own resident evangelical incisively exposed last night. Like I said when Coulter attacked him for being “easily led,” he’s trying to fuse religious, class, and regional grievances into some sort of “simple folk vs. the elites” movement. Every time an “elite” hits his supporters for being stupid, it’s more grist for the mill to allege that what those elites really find stupid is Christianity or farmers, as opposed to pretty much everything he’s said about Pakistan in the last two weeks.
The irony is, while it’s true that most of Huck’s supporters last night were evangelical, it’s not true that most evangelicals were Huck supporters. From what I hear, a little more than half broke for other candidates. We have plenty of evangelicals commenting here, first and foremost among them my esteemed co-blogger, and the Hucka Hucka burnin’ love is nowhere to be found. It bears reminding people of that, since the more his supporters are falsely equated with Christians in the public mind, the easier it is for him to disingenuously spin attacks on him as attacks on Christianity or Christmas or whatever. Which isn’t to suggest I’m accusing VP of attacking religious voters, merely that making it an issue of intelligence is the wrong “frame,” as the nutroots like to say.
I’m going to import the headline comments. You can take it from there.
Update: Here’s why it’s going to be hard to keep the Christian vs. Huckabee supporter distinction intact. The better he does, the more the media (and people like Dobson) will spin it as Christian empowerment.
Update: “So we’ve got Huckabee with Jesus as his running mate versus, it seems, the Second Coming of Jesus Himself. I guess religious voters are going to have a hard time deciding here.”
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 Next »
VP ought to be ashamed of himself for this post.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The Republican descent into Democrat “Jesusland” ala 2000/2004 is almost complete. I thought it was only the Democrats who whined and complained about the stupidity of the voters when they lost.
The more this junk goes on the farther into the Huckabee camp you (not you as in Allah or HotAir) are going to push most evangelicals. I’m not a Huckabee guy, but I find myself spending most of my time defending him or at least his supporters because I know many of them and they believe Huckabee to be the best candidate on the issues. They are not stupid or ignorant.
wardrobedoor on January 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Why? If that’s how he feels, he shouldn’t be ashamed.
natesnake on January 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Because if that’s how he feels, he’s proudly intolerant and his tactics are a sure way to divide the party and hand the reins to the Democrats.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Oh, btw. The majority of evangelicals voted for someone other than Huckabee in the Iowa caucus. Call in pro-Huck spin if you want, but there was no big tidal wave of “Bible-humping” Christian morons that voted in lock-step with their fellow evangelical Christian.
Man, I’m tired of defending a candidate I don’t even support.
wardrobedoor on January 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Yes, the point isn’t to suggest that all evangelicals are voting for Huck. It’s to suggest that those voting for Huck are almost all evangelicals.
Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
No, Bryan, he’s right. For three years I lived 10 minutes from Iowa and went there often. Dubuque, mainly, along with Cedar Rapids and Waterloo.
They’re idiots.
MadisonConservative on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
natesnake on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
T think that hat’s golden Jerry, Golden!
TheSitRep on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Except for the 14% of non-evangelicals that voted for him, which puts him right behind McCain and Thompson. And whether anyone likes it or not, he won all the issues last night. Unfortunately, many have used that to go the Democratic route and claim the stupidity of the voters.
He appealed to evangelicals in Iowa because it was his easiest (only) play. Now, I want to see what he will do from here. He’s got to do more for me than just slap a Jesus fish on his car. But if he grows into the role by surrounding himself with solid conservatives on fiscal, immigration and foreign policy issues, he could make a good candidate and president.
I lack your cynical flair Allah, but you wear it well.
wardrobedoor on January 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Rush had it exactly right yesterday.
Huck is the candidate of Identity Politics.
“Vote for me I’m a Christian.” Despite the fact that my domestic economic and foreign policy stances are COMPLETELY LEFTIST and almost indistinguishable from the Democrats.
What galls most of us is that like Rush we favor CONSERVATISM and most of the Huck voters couldnt care less about that particular cause. They are just interested in the cause of Christian Evangelism and stopping abortions.
Huck fits the Democratic leftist sterotype of an Evangelical Politician perfectly: smooth-talking snake-oil salesman, who campaigns under the Cross and is totally clueless (or stupid) about complex economic issues and foreign affairs.
Will the Evangelicals run Conservatism AND the GOP into the ground at the same time. Thats the risk we need to avoid.
And VP has nothing to be ashamed of. A lot of us feel the same way about the Iowa voters. Except I dont think they are corn-suckers. Just suckers.
Always Right on January 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Spidey senses: some HA Huckhedging is percolating…
Cuffy Meigs on January 4, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Aside from calling them “corn-sucking idiots” he’s saying the same thing about 100 other more notable conservative pundits are preaching.
Sticks and stones….
natesnake on January 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
They voted for the Huckster, someone who few informed people could consider the best choice. If the shoe fits, they can wear it.
Hollowpoint on January 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
He’d only be “right behind” McCain and Thompson if that other 86% stayed home instead of splitting, at least in part, for … McCain and Thompson. We can’t know the answer to this question, but if you subtracted Huck’s religious appeal, what would last night’s vote have looked like? I’m guessing Romney first, then Mac and Fred in some order.
Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Exactly!
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM
BillINDC on January 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM
No offense to the religious among us, but if you’re an ordained minister, love to infuse your speeches with religious allusion, suck up to Chuck Norris and find yourself in the middle of the Bible Belt, how surprising is it that you come out on top?
VodkaPundit was dead on the mark in his post.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Bravo, jacka#%, you just proved to the “evangelicals” amongst the Republicans that you hate them. You just proved that “flyover country” is full of inbred hicks incapable of making decisions. Haven’t you learned that people in flyover country don’t like being talked down to? Haven’t you learned that Hillary Clinton lost because she’s a shrew who even her own party doesn’t like?
Do I think Huckabee’s the best candidate? Not really. But I kind of hope he wins the whole thing so that the people who hate George Bush for being a Bible thumping moron will have a stroke for having a PREACHER be their president.
All my love, you arrogant cityslicker.
mjk on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Evangelicals are the Jihadis and Huckabee is the Vest Bomb and they just ran screaming into the GOP convention.
ronsfi on January 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Bring it all down man!
ronsfi on January 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
What a ridiculous analogy.
Slublog on January 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Wha? Too Subtle?
ronsfi on January 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM
SouthernDem on January 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Vodkapundit lives in CO, perhaps in Denver, but certainly in flyover country. I live in rural MN. VP spoke for me.
And I too would have serious problems voting for the Republican version of Jimmah – even against HRC (ouch, that hurt to write that).
jmuchow on January 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM
It is arguable whether which has done more harm to liberty in this country, a liberal democratic President or a liberal or “moderate” Republican President. Either Huckabee or McCain get the nod and I will gladly sit on my hands. I believe that “moderate” Republicans are far more dangerous to my liberties than leftist Democrats. We know how to fight Liberal Democratic Presidents but with the Republicans we just roll over and support the party. Well the party can kiss my ass come November if either of those two losers makes into the 08 Race for President.
PierreLegrand on January 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Sorry Bryan, I’m going with the “this was warranted” crowd.
Bad Candy on January 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
OK I have no respect for that guy, reminds me of kos.
allrsn on January 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
ReubenJCogburn on January 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM
It’s amazing how much Conservatives can sound like liberals when the don’t like the results. Remember all the headlines when Bush won a second term?
TheBigOldDog on January 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM
It is arguable whether which has done more harm to liberty in this country, a liberal democratic President or a liberal or
Zetterson on January 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM
What’s wrong with corn VP? Dang, I love polenta too – often that’s all we had, when no bread was available…
I understand fully what Bryan is saying, but it’s too late for that now. There is no uniting behind Huckabee, or we lose in Nov. The other states best shake themselves into reality and vote for someone else. We’re electing a CinC of the yet free world.
Huckabee must be taken out or it’s over for this cycle. And socialism and other -isms are very hard to roll back. The muddle of creating a viable 3rd party would take too long and any of the lefties are way too dangerous for these times.
We don’t have time to ‘find’ ourselves, and our idealisms. That Reagan tent – oh, how that man is crying from the grave. The independents are sitting eager to join, with no one to hook up to. They don’t want to be raped by an Obama/Clinton/Edwards, and they have no seat on the right. Heck, not even the conservatives have a seat on the right.
Nothing has changed in Iowa; they’ve been consistent over the years. VP didn’t have to use that language, but is frustrated. However, yesterday might have been the wake up the conservatives needed, in addition to what happened on the left.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
HA, please consider moving this out of the headlines – it has potential for debate/venting/ideas/bashings/etc.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM
i think this was a great post. there isn’t much more which needs to be said. the gop and the conservative movement have indulged and coddled the jimmy carter constituency for decades and the result is that the gop is stuck with their candidate.
good job rove. the snakehandling sky-deity voters have always been a detriment. one wonders why one bothers to participate in a party and a movement when one labors always to state ideas in small words for fear of being dismissed as a liberal by his “comrades”; when his “comrades” are no help because the arcane contents of some ancient story book comprise the absolute ceiling of their curiosity of things, and they’re proud of this ignorance.
well, it’s their party now.
jummy on January 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Agreed.
You mean like his buddy John McCain?
Anyway, I enjoyed Vodkapundits letter and don’t think we need to take it so seriously that we blame him for dividing the country.
liberalism is to blame for dividing the country with Roe v. Wade, multi-culturalism, and so forth.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Are we really judging people’s intelligence based on their locale? Isn’t Madison the same place where people get so drunk they pass out, fall into the river, then drown…weekly?
The Race Card on January 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I agree Bryan. Green sounds like a hate-filled liberal with all the anti-rural slurs, but I agree with him that supporting the Huckster is a bad move.
forest on January 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM
While this is fully so, the conservatives are dividers too. Mr. Reagan is crying from his grave.
Just left a comment on the Carter/apology thread, you might check out, if so inclined. I still read/appreciate your comments for political savvy/analysis. Yesterday must have been hard on you and BKennedy. The Fredheads all suffered, but the Mittens must have suffered too, and I’m with you. You must believe this, the fact that I understand your disappointment. I love this country, its freedom, and its beacon status (of yet) more than anything. There is very much at stake in 2008. Best regards,
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM
jummy on January 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Thanks, I appreciate it. I am down but not out. The way things were shaking out the last week, I didn’t expect Romney to win Iowa, and while it would have been wonderful, NH is more important. For what it’s worth, keep in mind that I also support Rudy.
It is going to get very nasty in NH since McCain clearly loathes Romney as much as I loathe Mike Huckabee. McNasty will not hold back in this regard, but he will be holding back the punches on his new best friend.
As for conservatives dividing us, I know this will be met with indignation, but I do blame single-issue values voters for contributing to that. Not because I disagree with their objectives, but because they believe the Presidency has more power than it really does to accomplish their goals. When they start having tantrums and threaten to stay home on Election Day if their candidate is not the nominee, I think that is not only harmful for their cause, but the dogmatic and unyielding response is divisive and creates a, shall we say, “unhelpful” backlash against Republicans.
I have been discussing this in more detail over here.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
All of you expect far too little from these candidates and overlook the one guy with strong family values, no skeletons, and an unwavering Conservative platform of vision backed up by concrete action. Duncan Hunter has been belittled, scorned, and ignored by Republicans desperately scrounging around for Reagan in the scum buckets you call the Top Tier.
Too bad everyone is willing to settle for the junk at the top of the Republican Tier, and can’t find the balls to support a true leader and staunch Conservative.
Now I’ll sit back and watch the “but he can’t win” whiners kick in. Losers all. Who thought Huckabee would get the time of day? Choke on that. I know I am.
We The People get the government we deserve. I’m pissed off enough to believe that we don’t deserve Duncan Hunter.
Redhead Infidel on January 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Nothing says you have to vote for either. If a candidate becomes the nominee and you can’t vote for him, then don’t. Why bother directly helping out the other side? In voting for the other guy, you’re still voting against your principles. Leave it blank. That’s my opinion.
CP on January 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I have to agree with Zetterson. If half the evangelicals supported someone else, good for them, but that doesn’t remove the stink of the half or third that voted Huckabee. I can only see two overriding reasons why the would have – because of his religiosity, or because of his stance on abortion vs Romney. And either way it is a stupid choice if you’re really a conservative.
peski on January 4, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I still want to know why Iowa gets first picks ????
I just wish VP didn’t suger coat it and told us what he /she really thought .
Mojack420 on January 4, 2008 at 3:08 PM
You’ve been dying to use that line, haven’t you? :p
ReubenJCogburn on January 4, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Comedy break… The Onion has the deciding factor.
MT on January 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I’m not saying I’ll directly vote for him/her. I’m saying there’s a great likelihood of me voting Democrat before I’d ever cast a vote for Huck.
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Fine, so Huck isn’t the most popular guy around here.
But to those who stated they would sooner vote Democrat, you’re saying you would honestly sooner vote for Hillary, Obama, or even Edwards over Mike Huckabee?
That is likely a very dishonest position to take.
Grafted on January 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Re: Vodkapundit – his rant was a bit much and he needs to calm down. “Corn-sucking idiots” is harsh, but I do think “children of the corn” is pretty funny.
CP on January 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I can’t agree with either of you. As much as I despise Huckabee, if it comes to a choice between him and Hidebeast, Obamination, or Silky Pony, I have to vote for the Huckster. It’s a crappy choice, but a protest vote of Dhemmicrat or independent or no vote is self inflicted pain.
peski on January 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Isn’t that what Laura Ingram and a lot of other conservatives have been doing for years? Or is it just power to my kind of people? Reminds me of the Democrats getting inoculations before going to a NASCAR event. The Republican Party use to be a party of the people, it has turned into a party of the golf club set.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Heh.
James on January 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Bryan, I think you are correct. Teams that fight in the locker room can win on the field, but teams that fight in the press? Losers.
Yesterday Identity Politics won. Today Identity Politics criticizes.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM
ROTFLMAO
Hillary – not just talking the BS, but actually living the BS.
Lol.
peski on January 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Huckabee is an uniformed jerk and those yahoos who voted for him are jerk enablers.
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Yes. Ace explained a while back:
Huckabee will be the next miserable failure Jimmy Carter. The Democrat will also miserably fail. The blame is better off lying with the Democrats.
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
VP’s post was right on and I’m a Christian Conservative.
roux on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
No its logical, Democrats will hedge their ambitions knowing that they have to be incremental in their corrosions, but, when you have a sellout, like Bush was during the amnesty debacle, having a guy with an (R) next to his name in the White House gives the (D)’s immense cover.
Bad Candy on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Or what Ace said.
Bad Candy on January 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM
What is the difference amongst all of them? Hucakbee is another Jimmy Carter.
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Its Iowa. Its just Iowa. But what ever happens, conservatives gotta do what conservatives gotta do.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Uh..Bryan,
are you saying that certain opinions are not to be expressed here? I do know that HotAir won’t permit the nuke’m all opinion, and I’ve discovered that I can no longer use my all encompassing just shoot’m answer to every problem, because too many people take me literally, and think I mean it when all I’m doing is expressing a bit of frustration over a particularly mule headed opinion with which I disagree.
rockhauler on January 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Hee, hee!
And because I’ve been gone for nearly 2 weeks, yet it’s still relevant (and ’cause my soul will let me):
HUCKASCMUCK! HUCKASCHMUCK! HUCKASCHMUCK!
Frozen Tex on January 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
80%?! No wonder this guy sounds like America’s version of the Taliban. Dear God, deliver us from Bible-thumpers, puh-lease!
And before the evangelicals get a twist in their knickers, just how much of a chance do you think Hucky-poo has if he gets the GOP nod?! The only people who want an evangelical are other evangelicals. And that’s just enough votes to guarantee a Dem victory.
Huck or Mitt = A 2008 Dem victory.
Still think Fred looks so baaaaaaaad?
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM
funny thought & true.
Ex-tex on January 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Always, and we deserve it too!
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Precisely why it will NEVER happen.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM
America’s version of the Taliban? As an evangelical, thanks a lot pal.
I’m no Huck supporter, but calling them “America’s version of the Taliban” is beyond stupid and makes you sound like you ought to be posting over at dKos. But go ahead, have fun calling people who disagree with you all kinds of names. It feels good. It’s counterproductive, but hey, let’s just live in the moment rather than thinking our way out of it.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I think the thing that seems to be worrying people the most is that voter turn out, especially for primaries, is so low that evangelicals can basically nominate him entirely on their own if they maintain the level of enthusiasm that they showed in Iowa.
bj1126 on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM
We’ve already had a preacher elected president. Google it.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I pretty much agree with the post, but the over-emotional style is moron fuel.
Plus, I think it was just against Iowans. Characterizing it as anti-evangelical is reading between the lines and then going a step futher and reading between the lines you found between those other lines.
viking999 on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM
It will be interesting how the domestic and foreign elitist media/intelligentsia will sort this out – I think I already know.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Yeah, as an evangelical, I can’t count how many times I’ve beaten a woman for not covering herself in public, beaten men for shaving their beards… oh, wait, the reason I can’t count those things is ’cause I’ve never done them, ’cause those aren’t things that evangelicals do!!!
Frozen Tex on January 4, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Sorry to say but the conservative blogs, this one included, need to share a lot of the responsibility for fomenting that kind of anger towards Huckabee.
bj1126 on January 4, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Helping Huck [Mark R. Levin]
I am informed that Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich are helping Huckabee behind the scenes. Morris has been everywhere today promoting Huckabee.
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Huckabee’s done a pretty damn good job himself.
amerpundit on January 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Dick Morris would love nothing better than a liberal, preferrably Hillary in office. His TV appearances/book sales would increase. Don’t take him too seriously.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Ouch! If that ain’t the truth!
wytammic on January 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
If Gingrich is doing that, he’s looking for a VP spot? I know some of you have said before that he’s not really a Southerner…
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Them? Re-read my post. Bring along a magnifying glass if it helps. “No wonder this guy sounds like America’s version of the Taliban.” That’s it, if it helps.
Happens to me here all the time. Welcome to America. I can live with it. A pair of shoulders are on sale at JCPenney, by the way.
And as for who is or is not an evangelical, I’m not keeping score. HA routinely posts comments from Christopher Hitchens. Do you send him hate-mail?
Oh, and I don’t care who was ever an elected minister. My post referred to Huck being elected. You think in GWB-hating America, Huck is going to be victorious over the Dems? Huck is a guaranteed loss.
“Google it.“??? And I’m supposed to post at DKos? Where did you pick up that phrase?
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
VP was right on the mark.
The evangelical voters — the force that was ultimately responsible for Huck winning in Iowa — have shown themselves to be irresponsible republicans. They want so much to have “one of them” in office that they are willing to look past all the awful position Huck holds. That, in no uncertain terms, is shameful.
As I said in another thread: religion is great. Christians are wonderful people. But you do not cast your vote based on what your preacher tells you. You do not cast your vote simply because someone shares the same faith as you. And you do not register as a Republican if you are willing to have a liberal lead our ticket.
The evangelicals are leading the party off the edge of a cliff. Very, very troubling indeed.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Dick Morris gives new meaning to the term ‘political prostitute’. Huckabee is an idiot and I am only too proud to say that.
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
You could have said the same like this, for example
Huckabee can’t win in Nov. 2008.
Fully agree with you on that.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I keep reading that Huckabee won over his evangelical supporters because of his stand on the issues.
So, evangelicals are just too compassionate to crack down on illegal immigration? Do they not care about a candidate’s level of foreign policy experience in a dangerous post-9/11 world? Are they ok with Huck’s history of raising taxes?
Perhaps now we can sadly say goodbye to the Reagan Revolution and say hello to the Bush “compassionate conservativism” movement.
CliffHanger on January 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Other blogs, yes. This one, no. Neither Allah nor I have posted anything close to the kind of vitriol you’ll find elsewhere. Some commenters have, but we haven’t.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
excellent riposte!
To those Huckashmucks posting here, chew on this phrase:
“America’s arrogant bunker mentality.”
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM
You are making the assumption that they are educated on the issues and willing to look past them. It could very well be they are charmed by his charisma. No need to assume the worst – a lot of voters go by gut.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:48 PM
“conservatism”
CliffHanger on January 4, 2008 at 3:49 PM
To the James Dobson evangelicals all they care is where a candidate stands on abortion. Hillary could be verbally “pro life” and a socialist on everything else but that would do it for them. The fact that the POTUS cannot outlaw abortion is something that is beyond their powers of comprehension. Huckabee is a lefty through and through and for the most part so is George W. Bush in his 2nd term (alas).
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Hopefully we can agree that there are nutty people in each group – many, many religious types are Paulnuts, for ex.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM
For once, we agree.
samuelrylander on January 4, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Also describes Obama’s adherents to perfection.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Yes, though there maybe a consider portion of anti-war votes there. Obama brought out the youth in a very significant fashion.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Wow. Posted, and the whole thing moved. Let’s try this again.
Agreed.
Sorry, but this just seems to be a “pass the Kool-Aid” moment. We watched Iowa drink, and some of us just lost interest. As for your problem with city boys, it’s “slickers” like me and others who have the unfortunate job of figuring out how to keep the “Madrassa Maniacs” out of our collective AOE.
While I certainly believe in God, belief does not guarantee common sense. See the Phelps-Roper crowd for a great example. The Bible can be and is a good foundation, both in the pursuits of knowledge and helping your fellow man. But in the end, it is only a foundation. You still need to build a house. If you build on a solid foundation with straw, you will still have a straw hut. Just with a nicer floor.
What Phelps-Roper is to religion, Huck is to politics. Kool-Aid of any flavor is still just sugar water. A madrassa with a cross is still a madrassa. Huck will be torn apart in a general election. Then we will be stuck with the socialists.
Suihei Deloi on January 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Huckabee, for all his flaws, doesn’t sound like “America’s version of the Taliban.” What he says is pretty run of the mill stuff for evangelical churches. Therefore, when you toss out the “America’s version of the Taliban” epithet at him, you’re creating an awful lot of collateral damage.
And you’re aware of that, most likely, and you don’t care.
Anyway, I’m done with this thread. You haters revel in it for a while and hopefully you’ll eventually cool off and start thinking instead of just hurling out insults.
You don’t want Huck? Neither do I. We’re not going to beat him by insulting him along with millions of otherwise allied voters.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Spirit of 1776,
Then they should be ashamed of themselves. If you fail to educate yourself on the issues you deserve all the scorn heaped upon you. Charisma is not a position. It’s like voting for someone because they have a lovely nose.
If I heard anybody admit they were voting for a candidate over something as silly as charisma I would be immediately repulsed. Ugh. Makes me sick to think of people actually doing that.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »