Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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.
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
VP ought to be ashamed of himself for this post.
Why? If that’s how he feels, he shouldn’t be ashamed.
natesnake on January 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
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.
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
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
Bryan, the way to divide the party more is to allow Huckabee to win. There’s a large segment of us that’d vote Democrat before we’d ever vote Huckabee. Huckabee wins, I’m betting so does a Democrat.
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.
I seriouly doubt Vodka’s opinion will turn the election results. Why not lump Rush into the mix? He’s staunchly against Huck and that didn’t seem to have any impact.
The biggest lesson learned is that the DNC candidates are doing a better job managing internet campaigns than the RNC. Conservative views on the internet seem to be falling on deaf ears.
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…
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
Except for the 14% of non-evangelicals that voted for him, which puts him right behind McCain and Thompson.
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.
They voted for the Huckster, someone who few informed people could consider the best choice. If the shoe fits, they can wear it.
Exactly!
davenp35 on January 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM
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.
Honest question: proudly intolerant of what, specifically, that shows an irredeemable prejudice. Iowa voters? Or are you hinting at/jumping to anti-evangelical bias?
If Huckabee wins the GOP nomination, I will not support the GOP nominee, nor will many registered R’s, as noted in previous threads. There’s simply no clear benefit for me, as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Hawk. (note capital H) So that’s its own way of dividing the party.
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
mjk on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Bring it all down man!
ronsfi on January 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Evangelicals are the Jihadis and Huckabee is the Vest Bomb and they just ran screaming into the GOP convention.
Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”)
Rude, yes, but hilarious none-the-less.
SouthernDem on January 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
mjk on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 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.
You just proved that “flyover country” is full of inbred hicks incapable of making decisions.
mjk on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I just proved that flyover country is full of inbred hicks? Wow! And I wasn’t even trying.
PS: Switch to decaf. The holy water has an unpleasant effect on your sanctimonious personality.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter — the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever — and declared, “That’s our man!”
Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”
And by a pretty wide margin.
I don’t know, Bryan. Other than a quibble over who is the worst 20th C president (I think it’s Carter), I can’t find much to disagree with there.
I think Mark Steyn said it best last night:
I’d also disagree with Ramesh’s idea that this was a good night for Christians reaching across the aisle. It would be truer to say that for a proportion of Huck’s followers there is no aisle: he’s their kind of Christian, and all the rest – foreign policy, health care, mass transit, whatever – is details. This is identity politics of a type you don’t often see on the Republican side.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
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
Bryan, this VP post is a result of the division that has already taken place, certainly not the cause of an impending division. It is an epression of frustration about the division that is wide, gaping and staring us square in the face right now. The division was finalized when the Evangelicals voted in favor of higher taxes, bigger government, more governemnt spending/programs, pro illegal immigration, weak foreign policy and national defense and general nanny state populism. There is no room for that in the Republican party, but there is plenty of room for that amongst the Evangelical Christian voters who turned out in droves for Huckabee.
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 “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
All I can say Pierre, is you and I are going to have warm hands. I’m with you 100% bud.
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
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Agreed.
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.
wardrobedoor on January 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM
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
MadisonConservative on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
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
VP ought to be ashamed of himself for this post.
Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM
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
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
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
I enjoyed Vodkapundits letter and don’t think we need to take it so seriously that we blame him for dividing the country.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM
right. i’m not trying to tempt the banhammer, but i found that to be really disgusting on bryan’s part. that’s the same sort of dishoonest emotional redirection one expects from a commie; disagreement with him is an act treason against us all. because you see, his worldview is the rock upon which our unity is based. divergence from his worldview is “divisiveness”. we need him to assert his worldview to defeat this “divisiveness” and preserve “our” “unity”.
maybe he’s been moonlighting at thinkprogress and absorbed their stylesheet or something. next thing you know, people who oppose the huckster will be against “hope” or something.
but i can’t be a conservative because i don’t think the federal government should ban gay marriage, so don’t listen to me.
jummy on January 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 2:24 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
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.
I have been discussing this in more detail over here.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
We agree and I have stated this ad nauseum, often. And have received much grief for it too, often from those who say they like me. That’s our number one disagreement, often. I’ll go read your linked comment.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Entelechy,
I can’t find you comment. Did you post it at Joe Carter’s blog or at Hot Air? I don’t see it at either place…
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I did, but that headline has dropped off (it’s a busy morning). In summary, it was agreement on what you’d stated on topic.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Heh, BD, AP moved this down. It’ll be a neat thread, I think.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM
A SECOND LOOK AT CORN SUCKING IDIOTS!!!
blatantblue on January 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Agreed.
mjk on January 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
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 3:43 PM
Suihey Deloi, this has moved down – good thread going.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
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
Bryan, the way to divide the party more is to allow Huckabee to win. There’s a large segment of us that’d vote Democrat before we’d ever vote Huckabee. Huckabee wins, I’m betting so does a Democrat.
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
I seriouly doubt Vodka’s opinion will turn the election results. Why not lump Rush into the mix? He’s staunchly against Huck and that didn’t seem to have any impact.
The biggest lesson learned is that the DNC candidates are doing a better job managing internet campaigns than the RNC. Conservative views on the internet seem to be falling on deaf ears.
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
Honest question: proudly intolerant of what, specifically, that shows an irredeemable prejudice. Iowa voters? Or are you hinting at/jumping to anti-evangelical bias?
If Huckabee wins the GOP nomination, I will not support the GOP nominee, nor will many registered R’s, as noted in previous threads. There’s simply no clear benefit for me, as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Hawk. (note capital H) So that’s its own way of dividing the party.
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
Rude, yes, but hilarious none-the-less.
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
You realize, of course, that you could just as easily be referring to the Huckster with that comment.
ReubenJCogburn on January 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I just proved that flyover country is full of inbred hicks? Wow! And I wasn’t even trying.
PS: Switch to decaf. The holy water has an unpleasant effect on your sanctimonious personality.
thejackal on January 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I don’t know, Bryan. Other than a quibble over who is the worst 20th C president (I think it’s Carter), I can’t find much to disagree with there.
I think Mark Steyn said it best last night:
thirteen28 on January 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Bryan, this VP post is a result of the division that has already taken place, certainly not the cause of an impending division. It is an epression of frustration about the division that is wide, gaping and staring us square in the face right now. The division was finalized when the Evangelicals voted in favor of higher taxes, bigger government, more governemnt spending/programs, pro illegal immigration, weak foreign policy and national defense and general nanny state populism. There is no room for that in the Republican party, but there is plenty of room for that amongst the Evangelical Christian voters who turned out in droves for Huckabee.
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 “moderate” Republican President. Either Huckabee
All I can say Pierre, is you and I are going to have warm hands. I’m with you 100% bud.
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
right. i’m not trying to tempt the banhammer, but i found that to be really disgusting on bryan’s part. that’s the same sort of dishoonest emotional redirection one expects from a commie; disagreement with him is an act treason against us all. because you see, his worldview is the rock upon which our unity is based. divergence from his worldview is “divisiveness”. we need him to assert his worldview to defeat this “divisiveness” and preserve “our” “unity”.
maybe he’s been moonlighting at thinkprogress and absorbed their stylesheet or something. next thing you know, people who oppose the huckster will be against “hope” or something.
but i can’t be a conservative because i don’t think the federal government should ban gay marriage, so don’t listen to me.
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
We agree and I have stated this ad nauseum, often. And have received much grief for it too, often from those who say they like me. That’s our number one disagreement, often. I’ll go read your linked comment.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Entelechy,
I can’t find you comment. Did you post it at Joe Carter’s blog or at Hot Air? I don’t see it at either place…
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I did, but that headline has dropped off (it’s a busy morning). In summary, it was agreement on what you’d stated on topic.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Heh, BD, AP moved this down. It’ll be a neat thread, I think.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM
A SECOND LOOK AT CORN SUCKING IDIOTS!!!
blatantblue on January 4, 2008 at 3:29 PM
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 3:43 PM
Suihey Deloi, this has moved down – good thread going.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Sorry, misspelled your nic
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 3:55 PM