You mean Drudge was right about something? That the DNC is laying off him because he’s deadmeat in the General?

So he’s not extreme enough for them. Doesn’t mean he’s still not absolute crap.

Maybe it’s just because the corporate media likes him, and they hate the media with the intensity of a million suns.

(Enemy of my enemy) NOT = (My friend)

No, gents, I think it boils down to this:

He can’t win. He simply can’t. The GOP establishment similarly went after Buchanan when he challenged Bush I, not because they disagreed with his policies per se, but because they knew he’d be crushed in the general election. Same goes for the Huckster, and they know it.

Huckabee = Right do not want?

Well, I know one crazy wingnut who doesn’t hate Huckabee: Mark Noonan.

Dude- I only want Huck for the GOP nomination because I think he’s more guaranteed to lose in the general than Mitt, Rudy or McCain. Doesn’t mean I think he’s right about anything.

That’s why I was rooting for Mitt.

OK, but why do you believe he would be more likely to lose than the others? If he’s polling well, doesn’t that seem to indicate that he could possibly do well?

He’d do well, but only because the democrats will once again blow a sure thing.

Huckleberry represents the fundy wing of the GOP, not the economic elitist wing. All those bloggers suckle at the teat of wingnut welfare – i.e. the economic elitist wing. Therefore, they hate Huckabees.

The media certainly doesn’t want both Huck and Hilary to win the noms. I mean, two teams from Arkansas? Who’s gonna watch that game?

one thing’s sure–the forthcoming Howard Deaning that Huck’s gonna get will be GOOD.

All those bloggers suckle at the teat of wingnut welfare – i.e. the economic elitist wing. Therefore, they hate Huckabees.

Maybe that’s the reason. In any case, I would not expect people like Malkin or Hinderaker or any of the ‘wingnuts’ to have any special skill at choosing winning or losing candidates. All they really have is special skills at sucking up to the rich conservatives who pay them.

So this strategy of picking the one they hate doesn’t seem sound to me.

That chart shows that Edwards is the strongest Dem. I keep hearing that he’s way behind Hillary and Obama

Yes, but he’s doing well in the general election polling, if not the Dem primary polling. If Edwards is sincere, then I like him. But as we’ve seen over the past couple of years, a lot of Dems talk a good game but then can’t wait to grant telecom immunity. Fairly barf-inducing, really.

for all you kitty-cat lovers out there : )

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2007/12/123_15447.html

So let me see if I have this straight: anyone loony enough to win the Republican nomination is likely going to lose the general election, since they won’t be mainstream enough to capture the middle-of-the-road Regan democrats?

Tell me…how did the Democrats lose ANY election since Reagan?

Edwards is polling the best? Wow, that’s great. After Kucinich he’s my fave.

You are half right. He will get schooled by any dem, but he’s the best they got.
Boehner was in tears this morning, because nobody likes his party anymore.

I’ve heard some people say that he gets emails directly from God. That’s even better that George W who only gets gastric distress messages from God. Go Huck!

Boehner was in tears this morning, because nobody likes his party anymore.

I hope someone told him to shut up before we give him something to really cry about.

Is he still on my mailing list? Christ, I thought I deleted him a long time ago.

I saw 10 seconds of the repuke debate today, why the hell was Alan Keyes involved? Did the GOP need a black man involved? That would make sense, too bad they couldn’t find a sane one.

I thought you were for me? Now you’re for Huck?

When was the last time you actually had a functioning left wing in America?

There you go, HTML, harshing my buzz with your sane talk about moving the Overton Window. I would trust Huckabee even less than I trust Willard, if that were possible, and on a purely personal level Teh Huckster wants to make my life much more difficult than Giuliani does. But, if we could only be certain that Elmer Gantry’s nomination would fracture the Republican, or Thug, Party into its half-dozen unpleasant components (the Talibangelicals, the Ratfvckers, the Greed Lizards, the Jackboot Fans… ), then, yeah, Go Huckaboob!

On a more enticing note, I like what John Edwards has been saying about universal health coverage and jobs, jobs, jobs. And there is much joy to be contemplated in a match-up between the two exemplars of Smooth Southern Likeability — the 21st-century Trial Lawyer versus the 19th-century Preacher. I’d put $20 on Edwards, even if losing would mean sending the money to the Young Earth Foundation, or the Mormons, or some other ridiculous and unworthy organization.

Huckabee is a Talibangelical 100%. He’s a Baptist preacher, for cryin’ out loud. His agenda if elected president would be to ban Federal assistance to any school that teaches evolution, appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, take money away from public schools and give it to religious schools and churches, and all the other baggage that comes with being a Talibangelical.

The Huckster has one, and only one, redeeming quality: He actually believes the shit he preaches. Other than that, he’s just as much a scumbag as anybody else on the Republican side of the tree.

He actually believes the shit he preaches.

bzzt.

Other than that, he’s just as much a scumbag as anybody else on the Republican side of the tree.

Yep.

But I’m with Bradrocket. Hucklebee (my preferred spelling as well) will get creamed. However, because the GOP is a top down organization, he’ll never get close to the nomination. The rubes might like him, but the big boys don’t for whatever reason (the guy would sell out without haggling over the price, but don’t tell them that) and they’ll torpedo him when they feel most threatened.

Probably just after New Hampshire when they have to coalesce around Romney.

Look, right now, he’s getting the flavor-of-the-month treatment. They all have at one time — The Mormon, Skeletor, Il Douche, Perot Jr., but they all fell back. Ol’ Elmer was as ‘fresh’ a face as they could find in that pack of low-rent retards and mean fixers and it’ll take exactly another month before they force themselves to fall in love with Mitt’s shoulders again.

I’ll bet anybody here a candy bar that Huck could take Hill in the general election.

It’s actually a variation on a scenario I’ve been predicting (and having nightmares about) for around five or six months now.

And I pray that we don’t end up in a situation that allows my wager to actually be tested.

and on a purely personal level Teh Huckster wants to make my life much more difficult than Giuliani does.

I disagree. Just because Giuliani dresses in drag and has a few gay friends doesn’t mean that in practice he’ll be more socially liberal. He’ll nominate the same sort of Scalia-clone Phalangist to the Supreme Court as Huckabee.

Where I was going on this topic before I saw that Brad had dealt with it, and mostly because I’m an asshole (but also because I want to push back the part of the Left that is drunk on Tom Schaller’s theories), is to make the point that just because Huckabee seems to be the perfect Nightmare of a Wingnut (Southern, rural, Talibangelical, all Alfalfa Bill Murray in his yokelness), doesn’t make it true. Giuliani will bomb Iran if elected. Expanded war, in turn, empowers the Right — talibangelicals among them. Willard will “double Guantanamo” and probably bomb Iran, too. So Huckabee is *not* the worst among the field, he just looks that way to a Left so damn yokelphobic (thanks to Schaller’s thesis which so verrry conveeeeeeeeniently dovetails with typical liberal cultural bias) that it would spit on 1896 model WJB, and kick 1976 model Jimmy Carter in the balls.

I also was gonna use your awesome phrase “Pellagra Belt” — and with due credit.

The rubes might like him, but the big boys don’t for whatever reason

Dude, it’s not “whatever reason.” There are reasons, they are easy to deduce, and they matter. Huckabee is a mere villain. “The Big Boys” have long ago descended to cartoonish super-villainy.

Expanded war, in turn, empowers the Right — talibangelicals among them.

I don’t buy it. Iraq is a failure both as war and as issue.

The Manchester (NH) Union Leader, a far right and very influential newspaper in NH, published a front page above-the-fold story Monday on the Wayne Dumond issue and Huck’s affinity for pardoning musicians, gubernatorial grounds crew workers, and relatives of his campaign workers. The UL has endorsed McCain. Huck is gonna be toast after NH!

Well, to be honest, HTML, I don’t see any good reason that the left wouldn’t spit on WJB and kick Carter in the balls. Unless you’re claiming that either have a decent claim to some sort of leftist heroism.

Also, Anne Laurie:

I like Edwards, too. But if he doesn’t straighten up on the war, I’ll have to go with Kucinich or Richardson, even though DK is silly (“text ‘peace’ to the Pentagon”) and Richardson is to the right of The Economist (for God’s sake!) on fiscal issues.

But in re: Edwards and yokelphobia: Edwards is evading the wrath of Schaller’s minions because of the political dexterity of Elizabeth and because he’s a “known quantity” being Kerry’s VP pick. Also, it’s early. If he survives very long into the primaries, look for Obama and Hillary to start questioning his social liberal bonafides.

Oh, and the wingnuts’ continually tarring Edwards as a sissy has helped him, for now, stay in the Schallerites’ sympathy.

I was listening to NPR disecting today’s rethug debate while driving home from skiing today (it was nice powder, thanks for asking), and when they started explaining Huckleberry’s tax plan I realized, shit, this guy could win if he got nominated.

Thing is, there is no way in holy unshirted hell* that he’ll get the nomination. The corporatists will see to that.

* I’m still trying to figure out what that metaphor means, but I thought I’d take it for a spin and see if anyone salutes.

instead of the sorry fucking excuse for Left-wing (socially liberal — oh yes of course — but economically conservative and, on foreign policy, de facto wingnut) that comes with letting the wishy-washy, disaffected, liberal -Republican, Kevin-Drum types take over the movement.

Er, Kevin Drum is pro-withdrawal from Iraq, anti-war in Iran, and economically is just as liberal on taxes, on social spending, and on unions) as John Edwards. You would know these things if you actually read him, instead of just tossing out slander.

I get the Buchanan comparison, but isn’t Bush I missing this time around? In all the years I’ve watched politics, there’s always been an annointed GOP candidate, with a handful of scrappy pups to tangle with him until the inevitability plays out, when the press gives the nod and asks for the check.

But who is Bush I, II, Dole, this time around? Who is the chosen establishment candidate? Is there one at all? Just seems like it’s usually more predictable and nasty by now.

I think the story that best illustrates the real Huckster is this one:

As governor, he had a ghost writer write a book called “Kids Who Kill” and published it mere months after the Jonesboro school shootings. So here you have a book by “Governor Mike Huckabee”, governor of the state where the school shooting perpetrated by the youngest assailants (at least up until that time) had occured, and he’s got a book for sale about “kids who kill”.

When local press asked if profits from sale of the book would be going to the victims’ fund, he turned huffy and petulant and asserted his right to profit from capitalizing on the murder of some of his youngest constituents. Among the excuses offered was one about how his kids would be starting college soon, and he had every right to pile up cash in any way he could to pay for it.

None of the proceeds went to the victims’ fund.

And of course, that’s exactly how Jesus would have done it himself.

BTW, I meant to mention: here in Arkansas, Huckster’s wife is widely known as “Jethrene”.

HTML, I don’t see any good reason that the left wouldn’t spit on WJB and kick Carter in the balls.

Well, maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t.

Am I vague enough? I have a fever and feel terrible so apologies for any (or further, should I say) incoherence, but…

Here’s the kernel of my angst: I’ve grown to hate the current Left because of its double standards wrt the *kind* of radicalism it deems acceptable. I’m a socialist — but, and Jillian will appreciate this, a Right Opposition type, a Bukharinist, so that bullshit, neocon-lite internationalism is not for me — and I’m sick of class issues being on the back burner. Social issues? Cultural issues? Identity issues? You can’t be too radical! But economic issues? Foreign Policy? Oh, let’s be moderate and Sensible, please!

I’ve had this vague dread for a long time now that The American Prospect was actually a microcosm of the current Left. Now, who got elevated there? What kinda Liberal gets a gig from TAP, moves from blogshantytown to Teh New Village? Scott Lemieux, for one. An unhinged anti-Naderite, he, following the awful Jonathan Chait, blames every depravity of the Bush administration on Ol’ Ralph. How Sensible! But there’s no feminist argument too radical for him, though. Even Garance Franke-Ruta’s anti-First Amendment garbage garnered a defense from Scottolli. See? A certain kinda radical, a certain kinda moderate — reflecting the values of the Left itself. Then there’s Bob Farley, whose idea of fun is war-gaming a U.S. vs. China conflict over Taiwan. He’s also the guy who, like Yglesias, admitted being for the war because the hippies at his college were against it. He’s also the guy who’s so quick to insist on Madisonian conservatism in government — he loathes popular sovereignty, even in places where Madison has no historical weight and the U.S. Constitution does not apply (like, say, fucking Venezuela!). How moderate! Then there’s Ezra “Maybe Iraq needs a strong man” Klein, who was also pro war, and whose first blog post I can find was dedicated to extolling the virtues of David Brooks; but then Ezra is no doubt gay-friendly and secular and is just swell on the topic of immigration, etc. And the whole thing is a project of Bob Reich, who.. well, just read this.

…all of which is about where we are as a movement. So yes, compared to a Left like this, WBJ in ’96 and Carter in ’76 are fucking heroes.

None of this means *I’m* a social con. I’m not. But it bothers me that the only acceptable radicalism is socio-cultural. Why *just* that? How *dare* people think that it matters most — or, worse, only! Please don’t make me side with the mid-period Daniel Bell or the late period Michael Lind! But that’s what’s happening.

At any rate, every day I come to see General Glut as just as much a prophet as that other, more famous quit-blogger, Billmon. Teh Gen’l always said that what I’m observing is the real trajectory of the so-called Left, being taken over by what used to be known as California Republicans, a bunch of socially-liberal but economically-conservative urban technocrats with pro-war instincts who have as little clue about the working class as they do other cultures and what’s more, don’t care to learn.

andrew levine said:

I shoudl be nice but I’m sick and in a foul mood, so fuck you. But do you want the whole archive or just a few posts?

Or do you mean that *you* only read Kevin Drum now, with no sense of his history, and little concern that the shit he types *now*, when it’s easy to be a bit more decent, is so divergent from the shit he typed *then*, when it actually took some moral courage (and could have done some good)?

Great comment by Jennifer. And actually, *that* is the kinda of attack that makes Huckster apoplectic. Attacking his Xtianity from within, as it were, is the way to drive him batshit.

thing is, there is no way in holy unshirted hell* that he’ll get the nomination. the corporatists will see to that.

* i’m still trying to figure out what that metaphor means, but i thought i’d take it for a spin and see if anyone salutes.

i salute you, sir! i saw that metaphor on firedoglake the other day, and left a comment which said, in its entirety: i prefer unholy shirted hell.

i also have no idea what that means. but i love it when a meme is born!

but, back on topic, i also wonder how it is that edwards can be polling so far behind obama and clinton, and yet be so far ahead of either of them matched up against the repubbbs.

what in unholy shirted hell is that about?

This, my dear Mencken, is why I always get such a HUGE kick out of people who think that “Liberal = Socialist”, or even that liberals and socialists are natural allies.

The seeming confluence of the two is an illusion, the result of an accident of history. In some ways, “liberals” are BIGGER enemies of the “left” than conservatives are.

In all honesty, I really do love my liberal buddies. But that’s because I’m convinced they’re actually on MY side – they just don’t know it yet. They’ve all bought the liberal lie for too long. Not all liberals, mind you: the Sensible Centrist liberal hawks are NOT my buddies, and can kiss my bodacious white girl ass. But my liberal buddies aren’t those guys. My liberal buddies hang out here, and places like here, and I am quite convinced that the vast majority of them are way, way farther to the left than even they realize.

Sorry you aren’t feeling well – wish I could send you some soup!

but, back on topic, i also wonder how it is that edwards can be polling so far behind obama and clinton, and yet be so far ahead of either of them matched up against the repubbbs.

what in unholy shirted hell is that about?

Democratic primary voters vs. general election voters… which of those hells is the unholy and shirted one is left as an exercise for the reader.

I have a very good friend who married a guy from Ireland and lives there now and she got so disgusted by politics (part of the Repug plan, and she knows it) that she pays very little attention to American news (especially politics) and that is very easy in rural Ireland, but she is visiting the states and we were talking yesterday, and she said, “Who’s this Huckabee? Is he a real candidate?”

So I explained about him being a former gov. of Arkansas, and a Baptist minister, and having a degree in theology, and being endorsed by Chuck Norris, and his claims he talks to God, and about quarantining AIDS patients, and his stand on a woman’s place, and the Dumond pardon, and his positive stance on creationism.

She gave me a weird look and I wondered if I looked crazy.

Then I started to explain that he wasn’t the worst of the Republicans running for president. And she didn’t want to hear any more.

Oh, and as far as the Edwards thing goes – remember Dean’s position in the days leading up to the Iowa caucus. Remember how quickly the whole thing collapsed.

When push comes to shove, Americans vote for staid, placid seeming male crackers every time. I suspect the same thing is going to happen here – and when push comes to shove, I think Iowans are going to go for the bland cracker guy again. Last time it was Kerry – this time it would be Edwards.

Just a feeling I have – take it for what it’s worth. Believe it or not, I suspected the same thing would happen to Dean last time around.

The seeming confluence of the two is an illusion, the result of an accident of history.

Your point is well taken, Jillian, and you can count me in with those who are much further left than “liberals”. I think part of the “liberal = socialist” confusion, if not most of it, is also due to the ridiculous stew of misconceptions that have been bleated out for, what, 70 years now, but more so in the last 25. The whole “communist = socialist = evil = liberal = everyone who disagrees with up-to-the-minute rightard talking points.”

I also was gonna use your awesome phrase “Pellagra Belt” — and with due credit.

I knew you’d spot that, since I lifted it from the original Mencken .

Giuliani is pure evil, but I’m a middle-class white woman who’s too old to need an abortion and I don’t have kids, so there’s about two-thirds of the American population on his “naughty” list ahead of me. On the other hand, since I’m a fat pagan MCWW, Huckabee wants to put me in a camp, purely for the good of my soul and metabolism of course. Either one of these monsters actually makes it as far as the Oval Office, and we’re alllll of us here completely S.O.L., so it’s like arguing about the virtues of dying from melanoma versus dying from SARS.

Who knows, maybe Newt Gingrich will change his mind and start campaigning after all. “Vote Newt — Why Keep Settling for the Lesser Evil?”

Yeah, very much so, Sam – it was a very deliberate talking point in Spiro Agnew’s arsenal. Which is funny, because when Nixon ran against Kennedy, Kennedy ran as a liberal who was MORE anti-red than the conservative Nixon.

The historical roots of it go back to the liberal revolutions of the nineteenth century in Europe. It was only in the context of a liberal state that socialist ideas could be promulgated, anyway, so many socialists were happy to promote liberalism – that’s one of the biggest themes in the Communist Manifesto, actually. And most of the liberals of the day were foolish enough to think their kinder, gentler Poor Laws and their colonialism that was only designed to “bring civilization to the savages” was enough to make them “all socialists now”. Of course, the biggest fools of all were the folks on the left who fell for that line of bollocks from the liberals in the first place.

Is it Friday yet? This is a much more fun conversation with a good beer.

I’m in wholehearted screaming agreement here with m’man Mencken.

But then, so what?

It’s kind of a “how many angels” question.

We don’t get to choose. We don’t have any control. We don’t have the money or influence.

Votes? Pssshhh. Gimme a fuckin break.

The machines will choose the nominees, and we’ll vote for what they feed us.

Yeah, hell yeah you guys. Let’s work within the system.

Yeah, we’ll have it all fixed up in no time.

Hillary or Obama.

Huckabee or Romney.

Implosion or long(er) decline.

Take it back, or live with what they have built.

And future generations will drown in the rising seas, die in the droughts or from the toxics or diseases. In gross economic distress, with nothing to sell to the wealthier nations.

This sucks. But the solution will take courage and sacrifice. If we can’t provide it, the next will, because they will have to…

mikey

From “Paul” at PowerLine:

The editors of the National Review examine Mike Huckabee’s views about foreign policy and find, as I did, that his views contain a Carteresque naivety.

What’s a naivety?

What’s a naivety?

It’s like a nativity, but for screaming, howling, gibbering morons. It’s the shrine you make to your own colon when that colon is the only thing you can see.

Ann Laurie – your comment reminded me of this.

I predict Cthulhu will rise from his watery slumber to emerge as the GOP flavor-of-the-month sometime around Christmas, precisely so Republican primary voters do not have to settle for the lesser evil.

Thanx, Jillian. Still trying to get the wingnut speak down.

The historical roots of it go back to the liberal revolutions of the nineteenth century in Europe. […]

Interesting. Thanks for this – I’m still a n00b with all things political and governmental, having only become interested through a sense in the last few years that it was time to start paying attention or get seriously fucked (and unfortunately that’s late enough in the game that it’s seeming like that should read “and/or” instead of just “or”). Having been raised by compassionate people, though, I’ve always had a reflexive distaste for the kind of faux-manly-man shit-on-the-poor sort of stupidity that passes for government these days – Utah is way ahead of the curve for atrocious popular philosophy, so I’ve encountered plenty of it. The nakedly insane stuff that you usually only hear in Republican conventions and hate radio was commonplace among my elementary- and junior-high-school classmates.

I’d be interested in getting a real grounding in what the actual political left believes, not the “Ah, the Left” left but the honest-to-goodness article. Is there a primer for that?

Oh, and it’s not Friday as such, and I suspect we live hundreds of miles apart, but if the chance arises I’ll buy the first round.

Depends on if you’re interested in the historical twists and turns that got us to where we are today, Sam, or if you’re just interested in where the actual Left stands on things as of today. If you’re interested in the latter, there are worse places to start than right at the source itself.

The Greens aren’t bad, either, at least as far as their platform goes. I haven’t really followed what they’ve been up to since the party split in the late nineties. You can check ’em here and here.

Truth to be told, most socialists drive me crazy. I can’t stand the factionalism, the in-fighting, and the utter and total lack of anything resembling a sense of humor most of them have. If you don’t have the patience to listen to the six remaining Stalinists in your area bitch for two hours about how the two remaining Maoists in your area are RUINING THE ENTIRE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT with their refusal to be more vanguardist on nationalist issues (as though there were such a movement in this country anymore, and as if it could be destroyed by something so petty if there were), you’ll probably end up feeling much the way I do. Read some stuff, join some mailing lists, listen a lot, and practice separating the wheat from the chaff.

If you’re looking for the historical stuff, the best place to look is here. It’s a lifetime’s worth of reading, though – be forewarned. Gets addictive after a while, too.

When was it that Huck got caught with that 13 year old girl

That is a McCain smear. It has never been proven that she was 13 and most informed folks believe she was 16. Romney was going to go with the smear but opted out after his own little tryst would have likely been uncovered by his doing so. In any case, McCain should get his facts straight And no, the girl was not a Mormon. She was a Baptist.

Read some stuff, join some mailing lists, listen a lot, and practice separating the wheat from the chaff.

Thanks for the links and advice. I’ll begin chasing some stuff down. I think the historical part is going to be where I’ll end up; your description of Socialist social dynamics reminds me a lot of why I was always much more interested in reading first sources about religion than in any actual ongoing religious practice (I hold a B.A. in what amounts to comparative religion, which surprises no one more than me. It’s an unusual sort of degree for a programmer, we’ll just say).

Sam. I can so relate.

My degree is in killing.

For a Northern California hippie surfer with a love for motorcycles and LSD, one might think that’s kind of weird.

Hell, I think its kind of weird.

And yet, try to find a way to give it back…

mikey

I shoudl be nice but I’m sick and in a foul mood, so fuck you. But do you want the whole archive or just a few posts?

Or do you mean that *you* only read Kevin Drum now, with no sense of his history, and little concern that the shit he types *now*, when it’s easy to be a bit more decent, is so divergent from the shit he typed *then*, when it actually took some moral courage (and could have done some good)?

What do you mean that taking a bold stance on economic issues does no good, and takes no moral courage? How many media voices are supportive of bold progressive tax reform, stronger unions than we’ve had in decades, and single-payer health care? How many were strongly opposed to hawkishness on Iran, back pre-NIE when the anti-Iran voices were dominant? Why do you brush this aside so glibly?

Also, was Kevin Drum so influential in the media back in 2002 that his position on Iraq could have “made a difference” if he had been on the side of the angels then? Answer that question honestly. He was still a small-time blogger back then, another one of the few hundred million Americans who got duped by Bush and the establishment media and the entire Republican party and the Democratic hawks. It’s you, not me, who is focusing on one narrow aspect of his writing and failing to look at the larger picture. You cannot look at his views and say that he has no moral courage, or that they are characteristic of a “moderate Republican.”

FWIW, Mikey, I think it’s much nobler to be a hippie surfer with a degree in killing than a killer with a degree in surfing.

I’ve just ended up being a programmer who’s a somewhat broader conversationalist than most.

“Who is the chosen establishment candidate?”

Well, that would be Lou Dobbs, who gets brought in to sort things out after they fall apart in early February.

Well, that would be Lou Dobbs,….

Hm. I’ve wondered about the establishment candidate too. I’d assumed that it was McCain, but that things have gone so haywire on the Redoublechin side that it goobered up his coronation.

i just want to add that you can’t really trust polls this far out from an election.

well let me qualify that. It is especially hard to believe those “matchup” polls this far out from the election when they involve a candidate who is unknown like Huckabee. With say a H. Clinton vs maybe a Mccain they can be trusted a little more. Consider that Huckabee was considered a long-shot only months ago. Also remember a previous relatively unknown Arkansas governor defeated an established incumbent.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/410/how-reliable-are-the-early-presidential-polls

Huckabee looks slick and personable already. Wait till the Republican money machine gets behind him–he could be highly electable.

what I’m saying is, he could present a tough challenge right now, one of the main reasons he polls low is cause few people know who he is.

I DID IT

just because Huckabee seems to be the perfect Nightmare of a Wingnut (Southern, rural, Talibangelical, all Alfalfa Bill Murray in his yokelness), doesn’t make it true.

Should we doubt his word that he thinks women should not leave the home, or that gays should have been rounded up, or that he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion? That last is from his own website, btw.

Giuliani will bomb Iran if elected. Expanded war, in turn, empowers the Right — talibangelicals among them. Willard will “double Guantanamo” and probably bomb Iran, too. So Huckabee is *not* the worst among the field,

Why do you say that? Why do you think he is different? Here’s what he has to say, again from his own website. Go look for yourself:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

“Iraq is a battle in our generational, ideological war on terror. General Petraeus and our troops are giving their all to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraq government to succeed, while the Democrats are running for the exit doors.”

More:
“…setting a timetable for withdrawal tells our enemies they don’t have to win, they just have to wait. We have never in our history declared war until “a week from Wednesday,” we have always declared war until victory.”

So you’ve called it right. He’s a dead-ender on Iraq. Just like every other Repub.

Now, I seem to recall from your Paul apologetics that you consider ending the war to be your single most important issue. You remember, back in that post where you lambasted people for having a single most important issue?

Read his issues page on his webpage and explain how exactly his foriegn policy differs in any way from the current misadministration. You can’t because it doesn’t.

But wait! There’s more!

“I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god.

You say he’s against torture. His website doesn’t say so. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but he does say this:

This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. I will fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.

Not conventional war? Not conventional enemy? Fight the war with the intensity it deserves?

Can you really not hear the dog whistles screaming in that?

Speaking of dog whistles…

“If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an “occupation with a light footprint” that was our paradigm for Iraq always struck me as a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Occupation inevitably demands a lot of boots on the ground.”

See, he could have made this a simple criticism of Bush’s leadership. Which it is; he goes on to say how he’d have listened to Shinseki. But the part I’ve emphasized indicates that he doesn’t consider an expanded war out of the question. That’s the whistle I’m hearing, anyway. YMMV.

He does have some sensible things to say about empowering moderates and breaking the oil addiction… But then, Bush has been saying this as well. Talk is cheap.

But here’s my favorite part of his foriegn policy position:

“Our current armed forces aren’t large enough – we have been relying far too heavily on our National Guard and our Reserves, we have worn them out. When our enemies know that we are spread thin, they’re more apt to test us by provoking a crisis. Having a sizeable standing army actually makes it less likely that we’ll have to use it. So I will increase the defense budget. We have to be ready to fight both conventional and unconventional wars against both state and non-state enemies. Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. I would return to that 6% level. I believe we can do this without raising taxes. I will limit increases in other discretionary spending and rely on the normal increase in federal tax revenue that is generated annually as Americans’ incomes rise.” (emphasis mine)

“We don’t need universal health care mandated by federal edict.
“We do need to get serious about preventive health care.
“I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs.

Like private enterprise need government incentives to lower their costs.

“I value the states’ role as laboratories for new market-based approaches.”

Ah, more states’ rightsy goodness.

Still not seeing how he’s any different from any other GOPer. Yep, there’s some common-sense stuff about energy independence. And the usual bipartisan farm gimmes. Says he’ll promote arts and education, but doesn’t say how he’ll do that while cutting discretionary spending as needed to fund his hugely expanded military. So I’m guessing that’s a load of hooey.

Now, I’m aware that you are not supporting him, HTML. You’re pretty clear about that.

I just don’t get why you think he or Paul are shifting the Overton Window at all. A close examination reveals him to be just another Christian Reconstructionist in populist clothing, just as Paul is just another Neo-Confederate in constitutionalist clothing. Populist is NOT left. Hard-core fundamentalism doesn’t shift the Window our way one bit.

But here is where you lose me every time:

he just looks that way to a Left so damn yokelphobic (thanks to Schaller’s thesis which so verrry conveeeeeeeeniently dovetails with typical liberal cultural bias) that it would spit on 1896 model WJB, and kick 1976 model Jimmy Carter in the balls.

Oh, blow it out yer ass, ya hillbilly. For someone who can’t seem to post anything serious without whining about “identity politics” you sure do get sensitive when folks make fun of your own kind.

You’ve chosen your moniker well: when you’re going for the funny, there’s few who hit it as well with such deliciously biting satire. You’re funny. That’s great. Seriously, I love your work. Cracks me up every time.

And, just like your namesake, whenever you try to get serious about politics, you come across as an asshole. Not saying you are one; I think you’re not. But you sure can sound like one whenever you pull that “Identity politics sucks; quit picking on us rural folks!” crap.

Except with a much thinner skin than the original. Old H.L. didn’t have a lot of patience for whiners or hypocrites, as I recall.

Jennifer, think about it: Have you ever seen Cthulhu and Newt Gingrich in the same room?

God I suck at long posts. Should have closed italics tag in a few places.

Anyway… back to studying for my last final for the semester… Sorry for the long-ass post; they always seem to come when I’d rather be doing anything but studying. Go figure.

Truth to be told, most socialists drive me crazy. I can’t stand the factionalism, the in-fighting, and the utter and total lack of anything resembling a sense of humor most of them have. If you don’t have the patience to listen to the six remaining Stalinists in your area bitch for two hours about how the two remaining Maoists in your area are RUINING THE ENTIRE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT

Yeah, just got back from Colombia, where one of the few happy things in the late 90s was when the FARC turned on M-19 and started liquidating them because their brand of revolutionary leftism was insufficiently ideologically pure. Of course, a large part of the underlying reason was that the FARC was under pressure from the paramilitaries, and to survive had made a deal with the capitalist narcotraficantes to help move the powder in return for crates of weapons.

Have you ever seen Cthulhu and Newt Gingrich in the same room?
Would you retain your sanity afterwards, and be able to speak coherently of the sight, rather than gibbering disjointed phrases about ‘non-euclidean angles’ and ‘the colour out of space’?

Huckabee, like Buchanan, is a truly flaming wingnut but on a few topics is actually decent (if through indecent reasoning). Like Buchanan, Huckabee is a populist Christianist: Not averse to spending gummint dollas on social programs, he’s against Free Trade, speaks to a lot of working class concerns.

Interesting point HTML.

At any rate, every day I come to see General Glut as just as much a prophet as that other, more famous quit-blogger, Billmon. Teh Gen’l always said that what I’m observing is the real trajectory of the so-called Left, being taken over by what used to be known as California Republicans, a bunch of socially-liberal but economically-conservative urban technocrats with pro-war instincts who have as little clue about the working class as they do other cultures and what’s more, don’t care to learn.

Damn, HTML. This really resonates with me. Yes, it’s a personal fear of mine, too.

And, actually, it speaks to me personally as well. Almost my entire adult working life has been spent at a commodities trading firm. I don’t know that I could easily move from there at this point. If I am honest, I am pretty much some kind of left-liberal or democratic socialist, something like that. But until 2003, I didn’t think about it too hard. I was apolitical until the invasion of Iraq. It was so obviously a shitty idea that it forced me to think it through. My work, however, seems to make something of a mockery of these ideas.

(Actually, maybe it is just Chicago. I can think of two people off the bat, total leftists, who worked in the markets in some capacity. A lot of people work in or near commodities markets, in Chicago.)

It also sometimes seems to me that some urban and sub-urban ‘liberals’ have a too-easy disdain for rural types and this frustrates me as well. I put ‘liberals’ in quotes because these people often seem more like libertarians, or just centrists, in reality.

And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?

But as a fundy magnet, Huck has pretty much guaranteed his position as the VP on the GOP ticket. This would put him under the radar for those averse to his theocratic ways (“he’s just the VP”), and will still attract the theocratic loonies to the ticket. NOT a good development for the Dems, and should the Dems manage to lose the general election, not a good thing for the country.

UNLESS the Dems could highlight the Hucker’s radical position on things. This would first requrie the Dems to locate both a backbone and some teeth.

In other words, Edwards schools everyone. As a consolation, Obama can be prez after eight years as VP.

Edwards schools everyone.

You are assuming that the Democratic leaders would act with strategic intelligence. All evidence to this point suggests that, rather than do that, they are going to continue under the spell of the same old ideas and goals they have had for decades, and try to run towards what they think is the ‘center’. That this ‘center’ is a fiction of the stupidest, most corrupted, and least honest people on the whole planet, our deeply shitty US media, probably won’t occur to them.

[…] of the worst right-wing blogs — and accordingly does the schadenfreude dance. Oh, and P.S. see Brad at Sadly, No! to get your “I heart Huckabee” bumper sticker. Posted by Mona @ 9:49 pm, […]

It would be a mistake to underestimate Huck. If he takes Iowa and shows in NH he will be a serious threat. In the General. He would reinvigorate the right’s grassroots and could, easily, placate enough of the middle to win. No, Huck should be taken very seriously.

Rob, I know you think you’ve done a real gotcha on me, but ya haven’t.

I don’t give a shit about *my* identity. I give a shit that a political movement which supposedly cares about poor people is so quick to write off a huge bloc of them. But then I also know that this supposedly virtuous movement is almost totally hijacked by the upper middle class, and if there’s one group that bunch loves to hate, it’s poor white trash. If you think pointing this out makes me a full-time Identity Politics blogger, forever on the lookout for photoshops of giant sammiches so I can accuse an ally of some sort of hate crime, then you’re crazy.

Man, I love this website. I’ve been reading it for a while, and one of my secret hopes is that at some point during the campaign, a democrat grows the spine necessary to just use one of your posts as a speech. Ahh, dreams.

Anyway.

HTML, here’s the thing. As someone who comes from the south, who was the first in his family to go to college, blah blah blah, allow me to suggest that a fairly large portion of them (at least the ones I know; fun with anecdotes!) SHOULD be written off. The vast majority of them are simply not going to change. The memes of “Left = evil” and mindless patriotism and all those other things have been festering here for so long that, while I reject the idea that we should write them off permanently, it seems pretty clear to me that this should not be one of the top priorities of any sort of leftists. To talk pragmatically, this is one place we should cede the ground to the republicans and use resources elsewhere until we have enough political capital to actually fix it.

And, by all means, I would love to have my mind changed about this. I want to see the light about what can be done here. I loathe the idea that we should write off a large chunk of the people that I do care about (family, remember) politically. But I don’t see a way around it, because as long as they are “poor white trash” then it seems that they’re going to vote for the American right. It just seems to be one of those cases where the most effective avenue to political change seems to be waiting for all the old ones to die off.