Vodkapundit to Iowa’s Republicans: Thanks, you “corn-sucking idiots”
posted at 2:57 pm on January 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.”
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 »
Kinda reminds me of evil Mormonism being compared to Islam from Evangelicals in the blogosphere. Yeah, getting a dose of your own medicine doesn’t feel so great does it (fyi not speaking of you personally Bryan). All of it is disgusting.
But make no mistake about it, it is evangelicals who on the basis of religion have (so far) stopped Romney. It is these same evangelicans who are responsible for the rise of Huckabee. Any and all hostility towards this hijackning is fair and justified, imho. It will only get much, much worse if this (Huckabee support) continues, and our party and coalition will undoubtedly be destroyed.
Patriot33 on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
SECOND LOOK AT CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP!
Allahpundit on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Oops! Forgot one last detail. I’m not your pal, hotshot! I’m one of your precious lost sinners for whose eternal soul you have to pray for redemption!
Now drop on your knees and pray for me boy, and you better pray good!
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Everybody just STOP right here right now.
These people in Iowa know that Christianity is under attack in this country and they supported the man that they thought connected best with their concerns. That is all that there is to this issue. People trying to find hope where they can. It does not make them uneducated hicks. It does not make them radical. It does not make them wrong to vote for the man that gives them hope.
I believe there is a better choice, but I do not presume the authority to cast thier votes for them, or to deney them thier right to vote thier heart.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
He sure does have a purty mouth!
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Bryan, do you think Rush is just as guilty as VP? He’s been just as vicious in his attacks against Huck (barring reference to an entire state) and has more political pursuasion.
Allah, why did you insist on inferring that VP’s rant was an attack on evangelicals when you moved this article out of the headlines? I didn’t read that in VP’s rant.
I know how much you like a Christian Cat Fight, but holy crap, could you load any more conjecture into your opening?
natesnake on January 4, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Don’t forget the RINOs.
I’m an evangelical but Huckabee is not to be supported if you’re at all concerned with illegal immigration, national security and having an investment-producing tax policy.
CliffHanger on January 4, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Something in these remarks. Fred, Guiliani seem to have had a lot of disinterested Hillary type moments. The Iowans who actually vote these elections think their vote is a big deal.
McCain could have gained on the lettuce picker remark in that farm state but he has lost a measure of credibility, even for ‘admitting’ he was ‘wrong’ on shamnesty..
Did Romney do badly or did Huck simply do better?
Both Huck and Bam-Bam acted like they cared.
Do they really care? Not the question. Huck had the advantage of not relegating his faith to Sunday talk shows. That gave him a huge edge in likability among serious Christians in a nation that has been under anti-Christian seige for years
These opressed citizens have been boiling and ready to blow while their nation encourages practice Ramadan sessions for school credit yet pulls the Bible from school shelves
Huck was the only one who was in your face about his right to religious expression
Obama is another Carter. The voters didn’t like the others. Obama has no track record on issues so he can be all things to all people. Like Carter he can be elected if he can remain unknown until election day
Romney cannot flaunt his non-mainstream faith the same as Huck, but he can flaunt his stern morality and that is not all bad. Yet, is Romney for the people, or for the GOP? That is my worry about Romney.
I can’t take another Bush or another 4 years of open borders while the middleclass dies off
Huck can win Iowa, but he could die under his remarks that he never saw a man who lost his job to an illegal. Not in this economy. A thousand pardons is a lot of Willie Hortons
entagor on January 4, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Bryan, just because some idiots have mischaracterized the issue and used silly phrases like “american taliban” doesn’t mean there isn’t a real problem here.
Evangelical Republicans are wearing blinders with regard to the actual political issues in play. Huck has no credentials as a conservative and yet his supporters try to paint him as a Reagan-esque candidate. Huck is, as I’ve said many times now, a Democrat in Republican clothing. If these people wish to vote for him, fine, but they should simply stop registering with the GOP for the primaries.
If you think Huckabee is an ideal GOP candidate you are out of touch with reality. That’s the bottom line.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:01 PM
The calming voice of reason. I concur.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Patriot33 on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Also those evangelicals threatening to sit it out or vote for a 3rd party candidate if Rudy Giuliani got the nomination - enjoy a taste of your own medicine Mojambo!
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Perhaps so, but it does not make them evil, it makes them ignorant and perhaps irresponsible.
Nobody says that, but it is and always has been impactful.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Leanright, it makes them Democrats.
And that’s the problem.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Nicely said there.
Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Bingo. I didn’t call them evil. I called them foolish, naive and misguided members of the Democratic Party.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Exactly.
This has nothing to do with Huck’s evangelical background and has everything to do with his record. Vodka Pundit is angry that the majority of GOP voters in Iowa are so ill-informed.
Allah is stirring the pot with his anti-evangelical opening. Several of you (including Bryan) is buying this hook/line/& sinker. VP made no such refference in his letter.
natesnake on January 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Mitt Romney’s Hair/John Bolton’s Mustache for Prez ‘08!
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Would you say then that this would also hold true?
Ex-tex on January 4, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I am finding all this indictment of “evangelicals” a little troubling. I have been one all my life, and most of the people I know fall into this category. I only know 1 person who talks about Huckabee with a smile on his face. Something is amiss, because the comments I’m reading here, and the stories I’m reading from the media do not match up with what I know to be true about “evangelicals.”
A lot of people think that the media is building Huck up so that the GOP will be an easy take down in the general. I think this makes sense.
My theory about these “evangelicals” is that they lack any real substance and probably subscribe to many of the much more liberal denominations within the Church, or are attendees of these seeker friendly Megachurches which do very little in the way of instruction of Christian doctrine and principle, and are more like feel good seminars. These people, like Huckabee, are easily led.
samuelrylander on January 4, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Yes, Ex-tex. I think Mitt supporters are just as irrational as Huck supporters. Two sides of the same coin.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Most Muslims aren’t terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim.
Most evangelicals don’t support Huck but nearly all Huck supporters are evangelical.
Jihad On, Brain Off.
Huckabee On, Brain Off.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM
No sir, it does not. But your attitude just might.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Actually, that was La Crosse. Madison was the home of “Fighting Bob” LaFollette, who started the Progressive Movement. That’s far more shameful considering what it is today.
MadisonConservative on January 4, 2008 at 4:17 PM
So you’re switching your support to Ron Burgundy?
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Truer words have never been spoken.
If it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog, wears a collar like a dog and rolls over like a dog, it’s probably a dog.
Huckabee is a liberal. Do you deny this?
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Ooo! Nicely put!
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Perfect summation!
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Without resorting to wiki, wasn’t that part of the temperance movement?
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 4:27 PM
My problem is electability. Here from Rush and it speaks volumes.
And then Susan Estrich has the money shot:
The MSM will turn on Huck and turn him into Bush 44. They will abuse him day in and day out and we will lose in a landslide.
broker1 on January 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM
A totally conservative GOP candidate,..”the ideal GOP candidate”, couldn’t get elected, or perhaps even nominated in today’s world. In fact, I doubt one exists who will satisfy all conservatives AND the GOP moderates. It’s that big tent thingey. And, the big tent is rapidly becoming several smaller ones.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 4:29 PM
As I recall, it was rallied more around anti-trust movements and “worker’s rights”. You know, back when anti-trust suits weren’t about a company including a superior browser with their operating system and a crappier browser crying its eyes out over that fact.
MadisonConservative on January 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Yes sir, I do. Having liberal tendencies does not a liberal make. Huck will never be a hero to me, but he would always appoint conservative judges and no liberal would ever do that.
Cute, but I would hope your thoughts run deeper than you indicate.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Oh, and before some Huckuenaut accuses me of equating Huck supporters to terrorists, I’m not. Terrorists blow shit up and hide behind the skirts of women and the backs of children. Huck supporters are just blinded by Huck’s demagoguing, class warfare, and “Christian leader” bloviations.
BKennedy on January 4, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Fred! could and hopefully will. His only blemish in my eyes is McCain-Feingold support, but I think he was on the right track. I think campaign finance reform is a very noble goal — it just wasn’t done appropriately that time.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Wouldn’t Jesus be better as Sec of State and someone like Pat Boone be a better veep?
amend2 on January 4, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Actually, yes, it does. If you hold liberal views, you are liberal. If you govern your state as a liberal, regardless of political affiliation, you are a liberal. If you don’t talk the talk, you can’t walk the walk.
Ha! Again, if Huck isn’t a liberal then what is he? Because he’s no moderate and he ain’t conservative either. He’s a Democrat in Republican clothing. No “if’s,” “and’s,” or “but’s” about it.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:37 PM
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
You need more than praying, seriously, and not so…
While I think leanright nailed it, I still agree with BKennedy because these decisions have such major consequences. Apparently 10% of those dedicated Huckabee adherents believed that he’d make a bad president, but voted for him anyway.
Also, Bryan, and quite a few other objective Evangelicals/Christians here don’t support Huckabee, but object to the attitude/tone/language. It’s the civility, stupid (she says to herself, as a kind reminder, also).
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 4:39 PM
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Well, we do agree that Fred is an excellant choice. I fear he is just not viable. Our loss.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Don’t call us stupid or we’ll do something really stupid!
/Iowa Caucus
Lehosh on January 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Absolutely.
A friend of mine asked me “Why do I get the feeling if Huck gets the nomination the Republicans will lose 40 states?”
My answer: “Because you’re an optimist.”
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Ahem. From Wikipedia (hardly my favorite source, but it’s so tedious to copy-and-paste from a hardcover edition of The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language):
Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to Christians (i.e. Orthodox) or non-Christians. The intention of most evangelism is to effect conversion to Christianity. Evangelism is done in obedience to the Great Commission; instruction from Jesus to his disciples to proselytize, as recorded in the New Testament. Christians who specialize in evangelism are known as evangelists.
“Evangelical” is an adjective, not a noun; therefore, nobody is an evangelical. They are an evangelist.
Further, evangelism as a practice is not even remotely exclusive to Christianity. Muslims are highly evangelist, as there is a very strong tradition of conversion (both enticed and forced) in Islam. Nobody here is silly enough to doubt this, I trust? No? Good. Glad to hear you’ve all been keeping up on world affairs.
Now. Before any more of us try to skewer (as I so richly enjoy) Huckabee because he is an evangelist, let’s begin by recognizing that I have no problem with Huckabee as an evangelist. It is with Huckabee as an evangelist, with evangelist supporters, running for president, that I have a problem. Perhaps some of you share this sentiment. Perhaps not. No probs.
Bryan and his evangelical ilk, if they so choose, have my blessing to evangelize until the cows come home; however, whatever his strengths or weaknesses, Huckabee should have left his pastor’s cross at home as soon as he threw his hat into the ring.
And, yes, the man is a liberal. He is a Christian liberal. An evangelist, Christian liberal.
If calling Huckabee an evangelist, Christian liberal is name-calling…WOW! Am I ever guilty!
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 4:46 PM
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:37 PM
He is what and is where he has to be in this day and age to be viable.
He will not be my first choice in the race for the White House, but what candidate isn’t morphing their positions? There are few choices given to us that are not or have not been liberal on something.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 4:47 PM
While I believe that most of Huck’s supporters voted for him because of their shared Christian identity, I realize that a vast majority of Christians, including most evangelicals, do not support Huckabee.
The rest of them support Obama!!! /dives into foxhole.
(j/k)
FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 4:52 PM
There is only one. And he stood up on stage and said that he would get rid of the NEA of which has endorsed Huck. Also stood on stage in the middle of Iowa and said he would put an end to farm subsidies. You know what I call that.
Convictions to conservatism…
broker1 on January 4, 2008 at 4:53 PM
FloatingRock may be attempting to find humor in that statement, but it’s truer than I think he/she realizes.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Well said, broker1. Well said.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The Florida democratic voters from the 2000 presidential election want to thank the Iowa Republicans for taking the Dumb Voter award away from them.
rmgraha on January 4, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Huckabee is polling about 15% in New Hampshire now. . . another ‘evangelical stronghold’?
ThackerAgency on January 4, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Oh, I agree. You reinforce my point. Fred is a fine choice for the conservative block. But, the conservative block isn’t the main influence in the GOP anymore. Look at the WSJ’s position on the shamnesty bill, for example. Big business conservative interests mesh with socially liberal amnesty legislation to serve major capitalist’s agenda. Someone like Fred won’t be welcomed with open arms by all the GOP.
a capella on January 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM
broker1 on January 4, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I have sent Fred $650.00, not much but all I can afford. I fear, however, best wishes won’t be enough.
I am not defending Huck, just trying to explain where some of his support may be coming from. I really don’t believe he would be liberal in his judicial choices, thats important to me. Just thinking out loud.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Fred’s got another fundraising campaign going:
$540k by Jan 11th
http://fred08.com/
bnelson44 on January 4, 2008 at 5:08 PM
It’s not what you said, it’s how you did.
You can sneak out already, because you were so right :)
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 5:17 PM
What’s the difference, Policy-wise? Huckabee is a dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks liberal.
I would never vote Democrat, but I will either stay home or go third-party if Huck’s the nominee.
crazy_legs on January 4, 2008 at 5:18 PM
That’s what I heard at my caucus.
As for those attacking Iowans, based on your idiotic comments I would have to say that most Iowans I know are much smarter than those casting dispersions. Don’t throw stones in glass houses.
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Gianni, then why did they vote for Huck? He would lose against any democrat they throw out against him. He’s basically a MORE religious George W. Bush, and most of the country is pretty tired of that guy.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM
That is a great example of illustrating the opposite of what one intends to convey.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 5:37 PM
!!!!!
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Not gonna happen. The unmatched stupidity of the Florida voters in 2000 won them a lifetime achievement award that is theirs for perpetuity. We can’t complain too much because it kept Gore from the White House. Must be frustrating if you’re a Dhimmicrat though. You can’t even get your people to figure out how to read a ballot.
Mojave Mark on January 4, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Engaging in personal assasination instead of staying on the issues used to be the domain of liberals and moonbats. It looks like prolonged exposure to said individuals allows the spread of this contagion.
MarkB on January 4, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I saw on another post here, one commenter noted that Huck had 40% of the evangelical vote. If that indeed is the case, it is interesting - very interesting - to me, then, that more than half of evangelicals went for another candidate.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Wow, that right there says a lot about where you are coming from.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Quod erat demonstrandum!
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 6:04 PM
I am one of the FEW people who still support GWB, actually. But I live in Los Angeles and not a day goes by where I don’t hear about how awful GWB has been. Most — read: more than 50% — of our country doesn’t think too highly of GWB.
1) He blew it on Immigration
2) He’s not following Michelle’s mortgage market advice
3) His approval rating is just SLIGHTLY better than a do-nothing congress
Again, I think the GWB presidency was a fairly good one. But when it comes down to it, the general public will see Huckabee as a more religious GWB administration. I cannot stress that firmly enough.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Just got my sample ballot for the Feb 5th primary in CA. What is interesting is that if you decided to go non-affiliate,like I did, during any of the GOP debacles then the only parties that you can vote in for the primary are….Democrat and American Independent. Those parties have adopted a rule permitting unaffiliated voters to cast for their candidates.GOP, nope.won;t allow it.
bbz123 on January 4, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I’m with VP on this one. We should declare war on Iowa, which is clearly an unacceptable threat to the future of global democracy.
Bush doctrine: Pre-emptive strike. Send the B-52s, nuke Iowa until it glows, and wipe out those corn-sucking idiots before it’s too late.
Except for Iowahawk, because he brings teh funny.
Ali-Bubba on January 4, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Wait, that isn’t enough.
You may be pretty tired of the guy, as most of the country is in your opinion. But I thank God every day that he is my president. He has shown compassion, tolerance, and perseverance in the face of adversity.
He is stalwert in his mission to make this world safer for those of you who chide him at every opportunity. And for those that have known nothing but oppression.
He takes a shellacking from the press and other left wing news organizations without complaint or retort.
People like you wouldn’t make a pimple on his butt! How dare you!
My oppologies to those I may have offended, I’m out of here- going to shower off HebrewToYou ’s offensive remarks.
leanright on January 4, 2008 at 6:15 PM
All I saw was a weak retread of Ann Coulter minus the redeeming humor and with the addition of (I’d guess) at least three cocktails.
John on January 4, 2008 at 6:16 PM
I don;t regret voting for GW Bush as he would be better then Kerry, however let us not forget the incompetents in his administration and his general failures:
1. Shamnesty
2. Dubai Ports
3. Harriet Miers
4. Alberto Gonzales
5. Michael Brown
6. Norm Minetta and George Tenet
7. Pouring money down the rat hole of the terroist PLO
8. Clueless Condi Rice
9. the 2006 loss of both houses of congress
10. Karen Hughes and Frances Townsend and their burkas at the mosque in Washington D.C. as well as Laura Bush wearing that shmata on her head in Saudi Arabia
Bush spends like a drunken sailor and is not much of a conservative either.
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 6:25 PM
FYI, I wouldn’t bother posting a comment at Vodkapundit’s. He’s deleting posts left and right. It’s weird. He deleted an ongoing conversation between an Iraq vet who supports McCain and a guy who supports Fred. I replied to the Iraq vet, and that was deleted as well. It was not heated - and we’ve all seen far worse - nor was it ugly or profane, and nowhere near as vehement as VP’s own post.
Nothing pisses me off like being nuked for no reason. The irony is that I agreed with VP’s rant. But VP must have more traffic than he knows what to do with if he’s driving away new visitors and regulars alike.
Redhead Infidel on January 4, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I think that the Bush family loyalty (both father and son) is what dooms their presidencies. Loyalty to incompetents is not a virtue. Also please let us not have the GOP establishment try to foist Jeb Bush on us in 2012 as a “real conservative”.
Hilts on January 4, 2008 at 6:34 PM
My point is stop attacking all Iowans. All Iowans don’t like Huck. I’m getting tired of the BS. I’m being attacked and I can’t stand Huckabee, its BS.
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Ya know. It’s kind of funny that all this stuff has generated from somebody else’s blog (VodkaPundit) calling Iowans a bunch of corn-suckers.
My god, I love this country! This is democracy in full bloom. Freedom of speech and expression. The right to disagree, sometimes with Tabasco sauce.
Too cool!
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Yeah, I hate it when that happens.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I don’t think people are tired of Bush because he’s a “religious guy”. I also don’t think it’s fair to compare how Huck is using religion (which is positively Machiavellian) to the heartfelt, humble, unobtrusive, and quiet way that Bush expresses his faith.
Agree with much of your assessment of Bush. He has made errors, some larger than others, but overall he has been a fine President, has done a remarkable job of leading us after 9/11, and his character is unassailable.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM
How Howard Dean’s letter to his chronies started out today:
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Sorry, I was pissed off. I’m tired of being attacked for the last month. I obviously meant aspersions.
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 6:55 PM
It was obviously just a 21st Century Goldwynism and Gianni, you could be his heir apparent.
:)
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM
LOL :)
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 7:10 PM
It’s now offensive to call GWB an unpopular president? News to me… Or was it calling Huckabee a Democrat that set you off? Either way, both are correct.
Hey, I wasn’t the one to go and give your state First In The Nation status. Your people gave the win to Huck, so who else can we lay blame at the feet of? Iowans are the only guilty party at the moment. I’ll bet the folks in Wyoming don’t make that same mistake…
It’s not my comparison! I live in a liberal stronghold and that is exactly what I’m hearing from my peers. Huckabee seems to be pulling the compassionate conservative routine just like GWB did, only this time it’s much less believable. And if you think Democrats aren’t going to focus on the G-d issue, wait and see what happens if Huch gets the nomination.
Howard Dean is already plucking at those strings! It’s something we have to recognize and deal with: much of the country, at least the East and West coasts, despises folks who are proud of their religious convictions. GWB was despised for being an openly religious white male; there is no doubt in my mind the same will happen with Huck, especially if he competes against Obama.
I like Bush, too, but pay close attention to Hilts rundown. Bush has dropped the ball quite a bit.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM
And I was? I voted for Fred dumbass.
So does that mean I can blame you for Democrats being in control? Can I call you an idiot because you live in a liberal stronghold? Is that correct? I’m sure my representative is much more conservative than yours, considering he’s one of the most conservative in the country, but I’m the idiot?
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Hey guys, if Huckleberry has a big ‘victory’ after Super Tuesday, then we should worry. Iowa and even Old Hampshire are not representative of the country. We go thru this every Presidential election. Yes, it’s ‘bully for him’ for ‘winning’ Iowa. So What! Let’s see how the rest of the country feels about another Hucklhead from Arkansas. The country is still reeling from the last one.
countywolf on January 4, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Oh, for heaven’s sake. VP is just hyperbolizing, as most Populists do.
Call it irony.
Huckabee is pandering to you!
Love,
Randy
“A man needs to know his limitations.” (Harry Callahan)
williars on January 4, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Hey Allah, HebrewToYou said you were an idiot because you live in New York and they voted Clinton into office, are you going to take that?
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
And did I say, “Hey, Gianni, way to go and vote for Huck!”? No. But it was your state that did so and unfortunately all Iowans are now ultimately responsible for this travishamocrisy.
In a primary election there is nobody to blame but your fellow party members. In a general election you cannot avoid certain fate. So, no, you cannot blame me for Democrats being in charge of California’s legislature. But should the wrong candidate win the CA primary, sure, you can heap blame on me for not getting the word out about Fred!
Primaries, Gianni, are the issue. Not general elections. I hope you can understand the difference.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM
It doesn’t matter if its primaries or general its still the state thats at fault, at least if you by into your BS. I’m thinking you are a liberal yourself, you sure sound like one.
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 7:40 PM
should be buy
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Besides Iowans were being attacked long before we even voted. I’m just finally fed up with it.
Gianni on January 4, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Vodkapundit commentor makes the point that a RHINO president would further liberalize everything to the point of no return.
maverick muse on January 4, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Divide and conquer. Howard Dean smells it in the wind.
Reagan said something (I can’t remember specifically what) about how conservatives should stick to the strongest conservative line. Not attacking other conservatives.
This is happening.
I don’t believe Huck is a conservative (Chuck Norris might, but he’s a moron). Let’s keep our eyes on the ball people. GWB, for all his good points (whatever they are) is extremely unpopular. The GOP is the underdog right now. It’s either a conservative pres in 2008 or a nightmare with bells on.
Find the best conservative candidate and push hard! Or else, get used to Hillary Clinton as Pres in 2008.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Uhhhh, yes it does. A primary is when a single political party whittles down its candidates. The only folks responsible for that result are the members of that party who vote. It is your responsibility as an Iowa GOP member to get the word out about which candidates are unacceptable. The result of the Iowa GOP primary is firmly in the hands of, *GASP*, Iowa Republicans.
A general election, however, is not similar to a primary. Anyone can vote for anyone, regardless of party affiliation. This is a subtle but important difference. I hope you can come to terms with it. Ultimately, you — as an Iowa Republican — have to be held responsible for the results within your state. I’m not saying YOU are to blame, but the Republicans within your state surely are. And I imagine you count yourself among them.
Such is why I believe Vodkapundit to be snarkily correct in his post.
LoL. When in doubt, call a conservative Californian a liberal. Works every time. I don’t fit the bill, however.
Cry me a river, Gianni, and then grow some thicker skin.
EXACTLY! Well said, thejackal.
HebrewToYou on January 4, 2008 at 8:15 PM
The word ‘evangelical’ is mutating as we speak.
The definition now depends on who is using it.
It used to be a cover word for fundamentalist Christians, who take the scriptures literally, thus accepting miracles to be miracles, and the commandments to be direct orders, including one of Christ’s final orders to his disciples, to be apostles and take the Word to all the world
It is now being used as a cover for the feel good mega’s mentioned above
This semantic game was used to advantage by the gun control crowd as they re-defined ‘guns’ or ‘arms’ as instruments of hunting which are also sometimes used to great detriment for self defense or the ultimate misuse, to rescue a nation
The MSM is spewing the ‘E’ word faster than bacteria reproduces to divide and conquer the right
entagor on January 4, 2008 at 8:17 PM
That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this site.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM
It’s the MO when a non-regular comments, especially when there’s disagreement or misunderstanding (which is usually the case that provokes a newbie to respond). Happened to me here and at other high-traffic blogs. Don’t let it get you down and stay dry!
–a fellow Conservative Californian but not a fellow
baldilocks on January 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM
I lost my long harangue into the ether, so I’ll summarize as “Leave VodkaPundit Alone!” He has it exactly right — corn sucking idiots.
Jaibones on January 4, 2008 at 8:28 PM
AP sure is a scoundrel…whippin this thang out here almost as slick as some sort of dustup over some cartoons…
lots of similarities…
yeah, I said it, but if you’re takin the bait…
Wind Rider on January 4, 2008 at 8:36 PM
And oh, yeah, I agree completely with Stephen’s rant. Which, oh by the way, has NO religious component whatsoever. Cept what ya bring yer ownself.
Wind Rider on January 4, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »