August 25, 2008

"Obamans think the smartest veep pick for Senator McCain would be ... MIKE HUCKABEE."

So that means it's the dumbest, right?

107 comments:

TMink said...

Two big government big tax guys on one ticket makes perfect sense to me. Huckabee was always Obama in Thompson clothing anyway.

Trey

bearbee said...

Yuk, yuk, **gag**choke** pooey, pooey.....

Paddy O. said...

If McCain was going to go that route the smartest VP pick would be Rick Warren.

We'd have a purpose driven country in no time!

rhhardin said...

Going through a mental check of people who have said things I pretty much always agreed with, I'd say the only choice is Cheney.

Trevor Jackson said...

I don't see it as disingenuous in the way Kristol says Obama should have picked Hillary. From my perspective, McCain's biggest challenge will be convincing Americans that he is in touch with economic concerns. His house confusion reveals this, not as an attack on his age or even that he is rich, but because, at the very least, it's a complicated question for him. For most Americans, this is not a complicated question, even if you have investments in properties.

Huckabee is the only Republican with name recognition right now that can shore up McCain's economic deficiencies.

Salamandyr said...

Of course Obaman's think Huckabee's a smart pick; other than all that God stuff, they pretty much agree with him on everything.

SteveR said...

I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs

Peter V. Bella said...

Who are they to talk about smart picks, or even being smart? They gave Hillary and Bill the convention, they treat losers as winners, and then they complain when they get run over. They are like those large, inflatable punching toys; they get hit, just to bounce back and get hit again. Smart? Obamans and smart- two plus two equals seven and a half.

Simon said...

Echo Salamandyr. Huckabee is a larsonite.

P. Rich said...

"So that means it's the dumbest, right?"

Duh.

Trevor Jackson said...

Simon: Huckabee likes The Far Side?

Sloanasaurus said...

I see McCain picking Pawlenty. He has blue Collar roots, great on the stump. He will be able to bring in Clinton Democrats. Moreover, he does realistically put Minnesota in play. Pawlenty is popular there.

Of course picking Jindahl or Palin would be the more maverick picks.

Roger J. said...

I sincerely hope not! what a terrible pick that would be

ricpic said...

Given that McCain is seriously considering that absolute nothing, Tom Ridge, anything is possible.

Romney's the obvious choice, except for the very real problem that evangelicals have with Mormons.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be a smart choice, moderately conservative and would peal away a good chunk of the female vote.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hickabee would be a terrible terrible pick for VP. The only reason he is as prominent now is due to the MSM propping him up and pushing him forward at the expense of more qualified and conservative candidates. They (the Dems and MSM) really hoped that Huckabee would be the nominee because the know that he would definitely lose. Adding him now would only fulfill their dreams.

They also pushed McCain forward too, expecting that he would be a weak link as well. The irony is that their most electable candidate (Hillary) was likewise shoved aside by the media in favor of their own weak link. Obama. This is what we get when we ignore the will of the people (Hillary got more votes and actually won more states that Obama) and let uneducated partisan boobs in the so called journalism field to chose the candidates.

As much as I like Sara Palin, she is now in the midst of a small scandal and it does seem the Pawlenty would be the best choice.

Triangle Man said...

"...they treat losers as winners."

That's a real Ricky Bobby perspective you've got on competition there Peter. "You're either first or you're last."

Myself, I take a more Simpsons view of competition, there's "glorious gold, so-so silver and shameful bronze". It would be foolish to treat Hillary and her many supporters as losers because she had a so-so finish. This is obviously not unique to Democrats, because I don't hear a lot of "winner-loser" talk about the Republican primary candidates either.

former law student said...

McCain believes that Obama should have picked the runner-up candidate for VP, and that his failure to do so snubs the runner-up's voters, who should cross the aisle and vote for McCain.

Similarly, a McCain failure to pick HIS runner-up candidate, Huckabee will be an intentional, blatant snub to evangelical voters. Huckabee voters should vote for Obama/Biden, both of whom embrace traditional family values, such as keeping true to their marriage vows till death.

Salamandyr said...

Is it just me, or does it seem that, from a Republican perspective, Biden was the best of all possible worlds?

As Obama's first real act as a President, he picks an old, white, establishment dude. It's a pick that undercuts his claims that he is a "new beginning", and it undercuts the attacks on McCain that he is "too old". To top it off, Biden's resume really overshadows the guy at the top of the ticket.

And it frees McCain to make just about any choice he wants, either another "old, white dude" which everybody expects anyway, or a young, maverick pick like Palin, who now won't seem as much like pandering.

All in all, I've got a feeling they popped champagne corks over at GOP headquarters when Biden's name got announced.

The Drill SGT said...

FLS said...Similarly, a McCain failure to pick HIS runner-up candidate, Huckabee will be an intentional, blatant snub to evangelical voters. Huckabee voters should vote for Obama/Biden,

Hillary's voters, the ones clinging to their guns and religion may vote for McCain. Unless McCain does something stupid, the Evangelicals are not going to vote for Obama or even stay home. They understand what an Obama could mean to the SCOTUS. They are very aware of the SCOTUS.

Simon said...

Me, I'm for Palin.

Trevor - no, a Larsonite. The reference is to Barry Goldwater's book; Goldwater castigated Arthur Larson for writing that “if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is a proper function of the federal government.” Goldwater (entirely properly, in my view) categorically rejected this position. He accused Larson and like-minded Republicans of accepting “an unqualified repudiation of the principle of limited government," of completely ignoring the need for "reference ... to the Constitution" or any theory of "the legitimate functions of government." In their "assumption that it is the government itself that determines what needs to be done," Goldwater argued, the Larsonites had embraced "the first principle of totalitarianism: that the state is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the state.” Huckabee seems to be a Larsonite in his views of the scope not only of government generally, but of the federal government peculiarly, and that's something that I think ought to be fatal to any politician's chances.

MarkW said...

Like Althouse, I still don't know who I'm going to vote for, but selecting Huckabee would make the the choice easy -- there is just no conceivable way I would vote for Huckabee. And keep in mind that McCain's VP pick matters more since the chances of a 71-year-old not making it through a 4-year term are a lot higher than for a 50-year-old.

Paddy O. said...

Of course, Huckabee would be the worst choice. McCain did an absolutely amazing job at the recent forum with Warren, getting himself as solid with Evangelicals as he possibly can.

Huckabee brings nothing to the table now. Back when it was thought Dobson had a voice, and that voice was saying "No McCain!" it would have sort of made sense. But Dobson has been marginalized, Obama's abortion issues have come strong to light, and in other ways there has been a solidifying of reasons not to sit this one out.

Huckabee alienated absolutely everyone who doesn't utterly adore him, and all those latter folks aren't going anywhere near a Democratic vote.

Personally, I'd love to see Fred Thompson debate Joe Biden a few times. That would be a show.

The Drill SGT said...

Salamandyr said...
Is it just me, or does it seem that, from a Republican perspective, Biden was the best of all possible worlds?


How high can you count
- not change
- takes the age thing off the table
- has some great Obama quotes
- voted for the war
- connected 5 fold to lobbyists
- doesn't bring a state
- doesnt bring a group 66 y/o white males are not fertile Obama country
- is gaff prone
- likes to talk, talk, talk
- picking him demonstrates Obama is weak in defense and foreign policy

Sloanasaurus said...

Huckabee voters should vote for Obama/Biden, both of whom embrace traditional family values, such as keeping true to their marriage vows till death.

BA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHH H AH HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Gee, I wonder what "value voters" will go for....killing pre mature babies after a botched abortion or sticking out your marriage. Lets all get out our moral yardsticks and measure that one.

One is a personal failure, the other is just down right evil.

Original Mike said...

Huckabee would make me seriously consider staying home in November.

former law student said...

Gee, I wonder what "value voters" will go for....letting a non viable fetus die in her mother's womb and be delivered stillborn, or removing it as soon as possible. Let's all get out our moral yardsticks and measure that one. I admit, certain Republicans justly feel kinship with acephalic fetuses.

Quayle said...

Huckabee is the head of the Sadducee and Pharisee wing of the Republican Party.

If McCain wants to seal their votes, he should pick Huckabee.

jdeeripper said...

McCain agreed to select Romney months ago. Done deal.

McCain/Romney is going to win EASILY.

Obama is a dud without his precious teleprompter and Biden is going to make a typical ass of himself with his hyperverbolicious arrogance.

McCain/Romney will come across as pleasant, modest, capable men compared to those two pompous, smug windbags from the Senate.

reader_iam said...

The prospect of Huckabee as presidential nominee, or president, is what got me to register in a major party for the first time in my life, so that I could participate in a caucus. (Previously, I had always voted, but had been registered as Independent and then, once the option became available upon moving to Iowa, "no party.") So, from my perspective, this would be a dreadful choice. It would indeed change things. Rather than--as I said in one of these threads, on Saturday I think--being more likely than not to go the write-in route at the top of the ballot, I would instantly be likely to "check" the Obama/Biden line. Luckily for everyone, I'm just one vote--so who cares? But there it is.

reader_iam said...

Obviously, from an Obaman POV, with regard to people such as I (though I'm not sure how many there are), the pick would be a GREAT thing.

Theo Boehm said...

McCain/Romney will come across as pleasant, modest, capable men compared to those two pompous, smug windbags from the Senate.

Yeah, but living in Massachusetts, I can tell you that Romney was an irritating grasper, who saw the governorship as his launching pad from day one.

Unfortunately, a lot of Massachusetts governors view the job that way. But I sure as hell (to quote BHO) am not going to vote for a ticket with one of them on it.

I guess both Reader and I have our deal-killer candidates ;-)

Peter V. Bella said...

…because I don't hear a lot of "winner-loser" talk about the Republican primary candidates either.

Of course not. They walked away and went on with their lives. They did not make idiotic demands on McCain for spotlight time at the convention. The number two, the last man standing, did not demand a nomination bid. And none of them asked for help with their campaign debts from McCain. Hillary will not give up until she gets whatever it is she and Bill want. As to Hillary’s supporters, they lost nothing except for maybe an emotional investment. The Democrats, especially the Clinton wing of the party, are living in a fairytale land where everyone gets a happy ending, no matter who else has to get hurt. The guy who is getting hurt is Obama. This is the first fairy tale I have ever seen where the ogres are the good guys.

And keep in mind that McCain's VP pick matters more since the chances of a 71-year-old not making it through a 4-year term are a lot higher than for a 50-year-old.

Ronald Reagan was seventy years old when elected and lived through two terms.

AJ Lynch said...

Something ain't right with Huckabee - that is just the way I see it.

I would definitely sit out the election rather than chance a Huckabee as president.

El Presidente said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon said...

FLS said: "Similarly, a McCain failure to pick HIS runner-up candidate, Huckabee will be an intentional, blatant snub to evangelical voters."

Was Huckabee the runner-up? My recollection is that Romney wound up with the 2nd largest number of delegates, despite having dropped out before Huckabee.

Even if I'm wrong and Huckabee did technically come in 2nd, it's not analagous to Hillary's 2nd place finish: Huckabee was running 3rd when Romney dropped out, and he undoubtedly would have continued to
do so if Romney hadn't.

El Presidente said...

Oddly enough, in a recent poll of McCain supporters, Biden came in as the best veep pick for Obama.

john said...

Any of these VP choices would toss me straight into the Obama camp:

Ridge
Lieberman (instantly)
Clinton (of course)
Huckabee
Giuliani
Graham
Anyone who has been employed more than 60 days by the current administration (I guess that's Ridge again).

Palin would toss me back to McCain (what a nice thought).

Is it just me, or are there really so many fence sitters this election who will essentially cast their vote based on the VP pick? Isn't this strange?

TmjUtah said...

Democrats crossing the line and voting in early Republican primaries got them McCain.

They just WISH they could get Huckabee on the ticket...

Palin or Romney would be okay by me.

The only person in the mix right now with zero executive experience is Obama, so even a one term governor (with solid accomplishments on the legislative front) trumps any talk of "inexperience".

Romney's LDS baggage is going to pale in comparison to his economic record. The economic challenges facing the country are frankly terrifying. I see the Congress closing ranks with the MSM to try to downplay just how precarious things really are, at least until after the election.

Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae and their incestuous relationship with Congress are going to make anybody who has held the title "senator" or "representative" over the last forty years open to possible indictment.

Or their own lamp post. It all depends on how bad the crash is.

This election is McCain's to lose. 2010 will be about cleaning out the legislature, as in a true "Throw The Bums Out" transformative election.

I can't seem to find much MSM video of the convention; whenever I hit a blog all I see are seas of puppet heads, communist banners, and Che tshirts.

Funny, that.

vbspurs said...

Yes, and we Republicans thought the smartest pick for Obama for VP was Mike Gravel.

Sorry, Obamans. We know you messed up the VP pick by not going with your ace-in-the-hole. Don't expect a return courtesy.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

Simon, though I saw your Take 2 comment, I still 5-starred it!

I too am for Palin. Won't happen, though...

Trevor Jackson said...

"Democrats crossing the line and voting in early Republican primaries got them McCain."

That may be, but the left's version of Rush's Operation Chaos was trying to get Romney. I wonder if they didn't just make it harder for Huckabee.

McCain's choice is a tough one: Romney for traditional Republican approach to economic problems or Huckabee for a fresh tack to the middle on economics. Huck owns way fewer houses than Romney. What was his line? He looks more like the guy you work with than the guy who laid you off.

I think we're all agreed that no one but the press wants to see him pick Lieberman.

harold said...

I don't think Romney's religion would bother evangelicals. Fred Thompson would sleep through an election campaign. He was the biggest disappointment of the primaries.

Why is everyone so negative toward poor old Huckabee? Is it his Arkansas tax increases, him being a Baptist preacher, or is there something else? He was the best speaker and campaigner of all the Republican candidates. McCain could certainly use that kind of help.

TmjUtah said...

Huck is a nanny state compassionate conservative with more proposed social spending than any other two Republican candidates combined.

He's a dead letter among national Republicans, despite MSM's and the Democrats most earnest wishes.

Libertarian, economic conservative, strong national defense types dwarf evangelicals as a demographic within the Republican party. Saying otherwise is just following the "watch out for the fundie theocracy!" narrative used in Dem fundraising letters.

The evangelicals are a respected minority of the party, though, and I acknowledge that they are more organized and more active than just about any other fraction of the party. But it's VOTES that make the decisions.

I know many evangelicals; I grew up one and then drifted a bit away. I know they'll vote their honest judgement a lot more readily than any party line.

Hazy Dave said...

Reagan turned 70 in February 1981, just after his inauguration. McCain turns 72 this week.

I won't be voting based on the VP nominated, but I think the GOP would be smart to pick presidential material for the VP slot.

reader_iam said...

I accidentally two comments on the wrong thread, when I meant to be put them here. So I'm going to cut-and-paste them both in this one

1) Huckabee: The worst of both worlds. Socially controlling, fiscally liberal. In bed with the likes of Kenneth Copeland and prosperity gospelists. (Generally, I don't have a problem with evangelicals, religious conservatism lived out personally, or even, on a personal level, fundamentalists, but there are flavors and then there are flavors) And then there's this:


"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said,

I've never voted based on a veep choice in my life. And, in general, that's likely to remain true in this election.

Unless.

11:11 AM

2) You know, I know a goodly number of "Huckabees" IRL, in beliefs and personality. I like 'em. (Heck, in a few cases, I'm related to 'em, and they're among the relatives of whom I'm most fond.) But having them anywhere near the Oval Office?

No. Way.

(I suspect the sentiment might be returned, but that's OK by me. It's public policy and vision for the Republic, not Sunday afternoon BBQ.)

11:17 AM

vbspurs said...

I won't be voting based on the VP nominated, but I think the GOP would be smart to pick presidential material for the VP slot.

That's why when I heard Kay Bailey Hutchinson's name being touted some months ago, I said, interesting, but too old.

(She's only 65, the same age as Biden, but women are perceived as older when they reach a more mature age. Besides, Biden was chosen BECAUSE Obama is young. McCain doesn't have that problem)

The Republican ticket needs youth.

Romney is a young-looking 61. Palin, a comely 44. Jindal is just too young, at 37, and looks even younger than that.

Pawlenty, the punter's choice, is 47.

The more I hear about him, the more I keep saying like Goldilocks, "just right".

(I don't want Pawlenty though...)

Quayle said...

"Huckabee is the head of the Sadducee and Pharisee wing of the Republican Party."

I'm not talking about all evangelicals. I'm talking only about the religious bigot, self-righteous evangelicals.

Huckabee is their leader. He is a smooth talker because in his line of business (preaching for money) it directly pays, dollar upon dollar, to develop a silver tongue, and to flatter and impress people.

So, yes, Huck’s a natural. Being a paid preacher is identical to being a modern politician. You get rich by talking, not producing.

Blue Moon said...

Victoria: First, my condolences for your team's dreadful opening to the campaign -- getting booed off the pitch at home should hopefully motivate your team.

Second, IIRC, Kay Bailey wants to run for governor here in the Lone Star State as her final ride into the sunset. Aren't their some moderate sounding pro-life women other than KBH McCain could pick as a way to, at the very least, keep this overblown (IMO) story of Hillary supporters voting McCain?

vbspurs said...

Thanks, Blue Moon! Different year, same results... ;(

Well, that moderate pro-life woman politician you mention is precisely Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. As Ruth Anne has mentioned, she has a child with Down Syndrome, who she could've aborted, and didn't.

How is she a moderate, then? From Wiki entry:

"Palin is strongly pro-life and belongs to Feminists for Life. She opposes same-sex marriage; but, she has stated that she has gay friends, and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination. While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.

She supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[25] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.

Palin's first veto was used on legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation."


So we learn that Palin is a feminist who is pro-Life, but has admitted to having gay friends, and has backed up her personal stance, to remedy a constitutional situation through legal means.

Palin would be a maverick-y choice.

vbspurs said...

Only 3 posts today? I'm guessing the U of W-Mad's semester started?

Either that, or Ann is conserving her blogging energies for tonight's big DNC roll-out.

Teddy Kennedy has been flown to Denver and might make a surprise appearance tonight (good for him), probably introducing Michelle Obama.

On Thursday, it was revealed that Obama will stand on a podium, on the 50 yard line, in Invesco Field.

I may be British, but even I know that's 50 yards short of a touchdown.

Catch you all later! ;)

reader_iam said...

LEO Orientation
Monday, August 25
Fall On-Campus Interviewing Begins
Monday, August 25
First-Year Orientation Tuesday, August 26
Labor Day Monday, September 1
Classes Begin Tuesday, September 2

chuckR said...

After Biden was selected, AoSHQ caught the beauty of it in one picture - of Senator Blutarsky. You could totally see Biden giving the 'Germans bombed Pearl Harbor' pep talk.

Now, the Dems want the Repubs to make an equally stupid selection - in the interests of fairness. I hope they won't comply.

TMink said...

McCain should pick a moderate to lightly conservative woman to win. It would be in the bag.

Trey

LonewackoDotCom said...

I'm sure Althouse has absolutely no knowledge of this, but McCain and Huck aren't really that far apart on a certain issue. In fact, one of McCain's outreach directors is a former cabinet-level official with a foreign government, and he presumably swore an oath to that government and he obviously has divided loyalties. Meanwhile, Huck made a deal with that government that helped not just that government but crooked employers in his state.

This is way outside the knowledge base of the Althouse-Insty axis, but others might find it interesting especially in light of the lightweight MSM coverage of Huck.

harold said...

"Huckabee: The worst of both worlds. Socially controlling, fiscally liberal. In bed with the likes of Kenneth Copeland and prosperity gospelists."

That business about Copeland is a terrible rap..I've never met an evangelical who subscribes to the 'prosperity' nonsense. We're all dirt poor, barefooted and living testimonials to the fact that it doesn't work.

You may have noticed that Huckabee has recently had his front teeth straightened. That's a sure sign that there will soon be a baptistry in the White House.:)

It'll be Romney and he'll do well.

cardeblu said...

Make it real
McCain/Steele

Peter V. Bella said...

FLS said: "Similarly, a McCain failure to pick HIS runner-up candidate, Huckabee will be an intentional, blatant snub to evangelical voters."


I do not know if you meant that humorously or seriously, but, as has been reported, many Evangelicals are now Democrats and many are switching over.

vbspurs said...

Did you know that Chet Edwards, that Waco, Tx congressman who made the final VP cut list of 4, is not-so-coyly hinting his last name was the clincher for getting axed?

The Other Edwards

Plus, he reveals just how thorough the Obama VP vetters were.

SteveR said...

Smart in a "picking two senators for your ticket and using words like change" sort of way.

Simon said...

Thanks, Victoria - I've actually got the revised version finished, I'm trying to work out how to substitute it at YouTube.

save_the_rustbelt said...

The GOP bench is really thin.

reader_iam said...

Harold: You may see/characterize the connections differently than I, but don't give me that "rap" stuff. I've followed certain religious trends for many years; I've been familiar with Copeland for decades. And something like eight or so months ago, I spent quite literally hours watching every minute of the series of broadcasts of the interview/discussion between Copeland and Huckabee. That was just one piece of the due diligence I did with regard to Huckabee. Your reaction may be different than mine, but what you can't say is that there's no basis for the reaction of those such as I.

TMink said...

Peter wrote: "many Evangelicals are now Democrats and many are switching over."

Pulease! Evangelicals joining the party of murder? The boundforhell party of legal infantacide?

Either you are smoking some kill or just a liberal hack. Cause we would vote for Alan Keyes before we would vote for Democratic baby killers.

Trey

reader_iam said...

Speaking in much more general/broader terms, part of my problem with certain types of threads is precisely because I think it's exploitive of the less well off, financially and otherwise. Don't want to hijack, so I'll leave it there, except to say that at least a handful of commenters/readers here will know I've addressed the issue before, in other arenas, and quite apart from politics, presidential or otherwise. No need to rehash; just giving reasons why am anti-Huckabee as a national candidate, and that's all.

reader_iam said...

threads=threads in religion

reader_iam said...

OK, now I see I've misread and you're all joking. Because of course there are both Republican and Democratic (not to mention conservative and liberal) evangelicals. Fundamentalist is more of a defining term, and even then it has more than one flavor.

Simon said...

Victoria - I gave up and just posted the revision separately. It adds several keyframes; it's still not perfect, but it's good enough. I think you'll like this, too!

Revenant said...

If McCain picked Huckabee, I'd be strongly tempted to vote for Obama.

Revenant said...

a McCain failure to pick HIS runner-up candidate, Huckabee will be an intentional, blatant snub to evangelical voters.

Not if he picks a candidate the evangelicals like. There are plenty of Republican politicians that evangelicals like more than Huckabee.

Susan said...

Right now there's only one thing McCain could do to make me vote for him and that's pick Palin as his VP. Otherwise, for the first time in the forty years I've been eligible to vote, I'll be sitting this one out.

SteveR said...

reader: I understand completely...

Donna B. said...

Even Huckabee wouldn't make me vote for Obama, but it might make it very very difficult for me to leave the house on election day.

garage mahal said...

Either you are smoking some kill or just a liberal hack. Cause we would vote for Alan Keyes before we would vote for Democratic baby killers.

Civil !

MarkW said...

McCain should pick a moderate to lightly conservative woman to win. It would be in the bag.

I agree. If McCain selects Sarah Palin, he'll pick up Hillary voters by the busload. The contrast between Palin and the old Washington retread that Obama selected would be beyond stark.

With the polls where they are now, I think that if McCain picks Palin, it's probably game over.

mark said...

McCain/Romney will come across as pleasant, modest, capable men compared to those two pompous, smug windbags from the Senate.

Might've been true until the "too many houses" meme. If it survives this week (and Biden will work every day to make sure it does), then adding Romney's kitchen tables will push the ticket into double-digit math, and that's not a formula for victory.

Original Mike said...

Rev said: "If McCain picked Huckabee, I'd be strongly tempted to vote for Obama."

You already were (voting for Obama), with your plan to stay home. ;-)

Nichevo said...

Blogger former law student said...

" Gee, I wonder what "value voters" will go for....letting a non viable fetus die in her mother's womb and be delivered stillborn, or removing it as soon as possible. Let's all get out our moral yardsticks and measure
that one. I admit, certain Republicans justly feel kinship with acephalic fetuses."

Wow. I am a registered independent but I do feel kinship with these and other such poor creatures, for the simple reason that they are human, and dare I say there is pity too, that they are, or will be, futilely suffering.

You seem to view them as useful political objects, like Russians view Ossetians or Islamofascists their children. This is very sad both for your personal - call it soul; and for the coloration of your political views.

Let be the medical judgment and the personal decision-making of the anguished families be what it may, it would be more seemly if only you could stop drooling over their little bodies. (If only they could be stuffed with Semtex and served at a World Neocon Conspiracy dinner. But believe it or not, neocons do not eat babies.)

Never mind being right, FLS, is it really worth losing your soul over? You have become as a loathsome creature, to say let alone mean such things. I really urge some introspection on your part.

You will never believe me when I say this is meant as kindly as possible. It is more important to be a good person than to win in this bloggish moot court.

Or if I were to vent the anger I felt at reading your words: because they're human beinbgs, and it is no more right to be gleeful at the prospect of smashing their skulls than of smashing yours!

But no, as I wrote this, it was "more in sorrow than in anger" as I realize that you're just a husk of a person.

TmjUtah said...

Persons who publicly embrace their personal relationship with an almighty God via the grace of his Son's sacrifice and resurrection, and the promise of eternal salvation, and acknowledge and strive to adhere to the spiritual guidelines as laid out in the scriptures of the Christian faith

=

"religious bigot, self-righteous evangelicals."

There. Didn't want anybody to be confused.

No thanks necessary. I consider it a public service.

Revenant said...

You already were (voting for Obama), with your plan to stay home. ;-)

While that is a common belief among people who can't do simple arithmetic, staying home is not the equivalent of voting for the opposition. Voting for McCain adds 1 to his margin of victory, voting for Obama adds -1, and staying home adds zero. Zero is not equal to negative one. Any questions?

Original Mike said...

Margin of victory is irrelevant, Rev. Were doing Boolean algebra here.

Triangle Man said...

TjmUtah, I don't think that equation is balanced correctly.

If you divide through by "publicly" then you describe all (or nearly all) Christians. The "public" part just serves to limit it to those Christians who do not adhere to certain admonitions against hypocrisy. I think you'll need another factor on the left side to make that math work.

Revenant said...

Margin of victory is irrelevant, Rev. Were doing Boolean algebra here.

The margin of victory determines the boolean value. If it is greater than 0, elected=true.

MadisonMan said...

Ronald Reagan was seventy years old when elected and lived through two terms.

It's not the years. It's the mileage. Reagan at 80 looked younger than McCain at 70.

It was interesting coming out of the woods (camping) to this news. Nearly all the people I was camping with thought it a not horrible choice. If McCain also picks a Senator, so that 4 senators are on the ballot...(shudder)

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

Rev, I was taught that 1 > 0.

Where'd you go camping, MM?

MadisonMan said...

Only 3 posts today? I'm guessing the U of W-Mad's semester started?

Hmm...maybe the addition of a 4th judge on American Idol has thrown her for a complete loop and she just can't function.

Revenant said...

Rev, I was taught that 1 > 0.

Obviously. But your claim was that not voting for McCain is the same as voting for Obama, not that 1 > 0. So try to stick to the subject, hm? If you want to say "not voting for McCain makes it more likely that Obama will win", fine. That's obviously true. But it isn't the same thing as voting for Obama, because voting for Obama makes it even more likely that Obama will win.

A simple illustration: Say there are 1000 committed McCain voters, 9999 committed Obama voters, and two others. If the two vote McCain, he wins. If they stay home, McCain also wins. Obama only wins if they vote for him. The fact that it is possible for "not voting" to produce a different outcome than "voting for the opposing candidate" proves that the two are not equivalent.

In closing, I would add that the arrogance of partisans is really off-putting. The "not voting is the same as voting for the opponent" canard has its basis in the belief that your preferred candidate has a God-given right to ALL the votes, and anyone who does not cast their vote in this manner is depriving him of what is rightfully his. It is extremely silly, and I'll have none of it. :)

reader_iam said...

Rev:

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good job of making the distinction (though I'm not sure I'm on board as to the origin of the blurriing.

Original Mike said...

Not voting for McCain = voting for Obama

Voting for Obama = Voting for Obama twice

:-)

The "not voting is the same as voting for the opponent" canard has its basis in the belief that your preferred candidate has a God-given right to ALL the votes, and anyone who does not cast their vote in this manner is depriving him of what is rightfully his.

Not a very accurate description of me. I don't even like McCain. But I liked nationalized health care and punitive tax rates even less.

Peter V. Bella said...

TMink said...
Peter wrote: "many Evangelicals are now Democrats and many are switching over."

Pulease! Evangelicals joining the party of murder? The boundforhell party of legal infantacide?

Either you are smoking some kill or just a liberal hack. Cause we would vote for Alan Keyes before we would vote for Democratic baby killers.


First, during the early part of the campaign there were groups of Evangelicals switching over to vote for Hillary. Secondly, if you did a smidgen of research, you would find out that many evangelicals are switching over to the Democratic Party.

Oh, I ain’t no Liberal either. I do not care for their Mr. Rogers and Barney style politics nor do I care for their economic policies; financing failure. All they want to do is raise taxes, end tax cuts, and make working people pay for their financing of failure policies. Just ask that icon of the left, Bill Clinton, who raised taxes on the Middle Class, while he told everyone he was raising taxes on the rich.

Blue Moon said...

Presidential election years can be a bit of a whipping -- it is bizarre watching the folks at NRO cheering on McCain. Not saying they should be cheering for Obama, but they hated this guy this time last year. Too bad we don't have more than two big parties...

TmjUtah said...

Triangle man, in honesty and after thoughtful review, it would have been better if I had left "publicly" out of the equation entirely.

"Public/private" are moot where God is concerned.

Sometimes I let my cynicism take the wheel and drive...

former law student said...

I am a registered independent but I do feel kinship with these and other such poor creatures, for the simple reason that they are human, and dare I say there is pity too, that they are, or will be, futilely suffering.

Fortunately for the acephalic trisomy 18 fetuses, whose gross imperfections are not detected till the second trimester, they can never develop the parts of the brain that enable them to feel pain.

"more in sorrow than in anger" as I realize that you're just a husk of a person.

More than 95% of trisomy 18 fetuses will die in their mothers' wombs. How would you describe people who would force their mothers to carry their dead fetuses to term, saying that to do otherwise is to "kill pre mature babies after a botched abortion" -- a hideously flip misrepresentation of a tragic situation.

What circle of hell would you put those people in? Because the heart of a trisomy 18 fetus might still beat when it is removed in the second trimester.

Kirk Parker said...

I'm with Original Mike--Huck is absolutely no go for me, but though I could have possibly voted for Hillary over the Huckster, there's no way in h*** (oops, wrong post for that word!) that I'd be able to for Obama.

Revenant said...

Voting for Obama = Voting for Obama twice

1x = 2x if and only if x=0. So the above statement can be true only if votes for Obama don't count towards the vote total.

Revenant said...

First, during the early part of the campaign there were groups of Evangelicals switching over to vote for Hillary.

All that means is that they wanted her to be the Democratic candidate, not that they wanted her to be President. I would also point out that she not only lost, but was left entirely off the ticket. If you want to claim that that evangelicals who crossed over to vote for Hillary out of a genuine desire that she should become President have since transferred their loyalties to Barack Obama, you'll need to provide some evidence.

Secondly, if you did a smidgen of research, you would find out that many evangelicals are switching over to the Democratic Party.

Define "many". It is certainly true that evangelical support for Republicans has declined, but not as much as non-evangelical support for Republicans has declined. The popularity of the Republican Party is just generally in the pits right now; it would be strange if they *hadn't* lost some evangelical votes.

Peter V. Bella said...

Revenant said...
Define "many".

What are you a Bill Clinton wannabe? It depends on waht the definition of is is? Look it up yourself!

As to my assertion I stand by it. Do your own damn research. (Today is Monday, it is over twenty four hours since church. I can swear.)

Revenant said...

What are you a Bill Clinton wannabe? It depends on waht the definition of is is? Look it up yourself!

It means "a large number", which is a vague and useless term. There were a large number of people ahead of me in line at Starbucks this morning, but I doubt their votes will swing the election.

As to my assertion I stand by it. Do your own damn research.

Providing evidence is something you do because you want to be taken seriously. It isn't a favor to the rest of us. If you don't care about being taken seriously, fine -- although that raises the question of why you bothered wasting bandwidth with your opinion in the first place. :)

The Drill SGT said...

A simple illustration: Say there are 1000 committed McCain voters, 9999 committed Obama voters, and two others.

Logic good. math bad.

999 perhaps?

Revenant said...

Oops! It was supposed to be 10000, not 1000. Thanks Sgt. :)

blake said...

The math is more complex, of course.

1000 votes for Obama
100 votes for McCain

Either vote = 0

Dogwood said...

Voting for Obama = Voting for Obama twice

The above math is correct. It is the way it has been in Chicago for decades.

rishigajria said...

Governor Huckabee wont go over well with the National Review crowd but I think he would be a very shrewd pick.

rishigajria said...

And a woman would be a great pick too for Senator McCain. Even a pro-life politician would do. She would help in gaining the disgruntled Hillary supporters. How many there are, I don't know? The media makes it sound like a few million.

harold said...

"we would vote for Alan Keyes before we would vote for Democratic baby killers."

That's it! Keyes might be the only man on earth that's windier than Joe Biden.

When my dear and close friend John McCain makes his daily call for advice tomorrow, I'll have to tell him to forget about choosing Huckabee. It would simply cost him too many votes among Althouse contributors. He'll be very sad, but he always follows my advice. We'll shed some tears over poor Huck's fate and then will move on.

Fen said...

How would you describe people who would force their mothers to carry their dead fetuses to term

Oh, somewhere below those mothers who would murder their fetuses in the name of convenience and casual sex.

2/3rds of all abortions are "lifestyle" choices: mother doesn't want her body change and get fat, mother doesn't want to choose between new party dress and diapers, mother doesn't think she'll be able to land a husband with a kid in tow, etc.

Nichevo said...

Well, FLS, then really they are fortunate in a way - not to know pain? I'd say that puts 'em waaay ahead of Tay-Sachs babies. (Though you can test for that.)

I lose you when you talk about them dying before birth. If dead, perhaps even if brain-dead, there would be no medical question of clearing the uterus of its sad burden, so I'm not sure how to respond, except Primum nocere.

It apparently does the mother no harm to bring this child into the world (esp. if you dared to conceal the information from her, Heaven forbid!), and apparently none to the child.

In your hypothetical, with the best will in the world, mistakes will be made, and if you believe that ten guilty men should go free before one innocent is framed, then surely you realize that errors in diagnosis are made ALL THE DAMN TIME.

Imagine yourself as my doctor - imagine my rage as you removed from my wife's womb pieces of a perfectly viable future child with nothing more wrong with him than a little fixable spina bifida or a speck on the radiological film. I'd invent new deaths for you - and gladly go to the nth ring of hell, as long as you were there too, for me to kill and kill again.

Or, doctor, wait and see, let events take their course. It's so crazy, it just might work!

In any case I appreciate that you speak a bit more soberly now, but your prior glee was beyond unseemly. I'm glad that you realize how you appeared in that comment - like the ghostwriter of "101 Uses For A Dead Cat." I hope you feel better now.

It used to me far easier for me, too, to believe glibly in the moral impeccability of abortion on demand, when I was young.

Then life happened.