December 2, 2007

"Mike Huckabee has leaped ahead..."

The Iowans are falling in love with the mild-mannered Arkansan.


rhhardin said...

I don't know why we can't get Cheney.

michael farris said...

"I don't know why we can't get Cheney"

Who's this 'we'?

Republicans can't get him because I'm not sure if the leadership is that dumb/out-of-touch.

Democrats can't get him (As republican nominee) because the republican leadership isn't that stupid.

EnigmatiCore said...

The Republican leadership has proven themselves to be stupider than even the Democratic leadership, and the Democrats have been stupid enough to nominate folks like John Kerry and Mike Dukakis.

Therefore, I conclude it is not the smarts of the Republican leadership, but the fact that Cheney isn't, you know, running.

IIRC, Ann just adores Huck. I recall her fawning over him some years ago when he did some extra-special marriage+ thingy. The love was obvious.

Paddy O said...

Pandering works.

Huckabee is a Baptist minister who knows how to sounds challenging while tickling the ears of his listeners.

Huckabee can play the Edwards game better than Edwards.

For supposedly being sophisticated voters, Iowans are sure easily taken in by smiles and slick words.

rhhardin said...

Old Punch cartoon, two pigs looking at a sack

Alfonse: Maurice, don't go in there, it's a poke!

Maurice: But Alfonse, there's garbage in there!

Unknown said...

They love him because he hates teh gays more than anyone else. He hates them so much, he doesn't even call them gay, he calls them homosexuals.

What might be interesting is if a Huckabee win in Iowa makes Romney looks weak, and McCain wins New Hampshire.

A McCain/Huckabee matchup would surely result in a Huckabee win. Because the Republicans hate McCain more than anyone, even though he agrees with them all the core issues except immigration. And even on immigration, McCain has the same position as Bush. I can't figure that one out.

George M. Spencer said...

Why is the Huck surging?

It's the way he answered The BIble Question in last week's debate.

"Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself. (Applause) And the fact is that when people ask, "Do we believe all of it?" You either believe it, or you don't believe it. But, in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says "Go and pluck out your eye," well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.

But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really [are] not left up to interpretation [such as] "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "As much as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me."

Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.

And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small."

(Interestingly, the CNN transcript does not capitalize the word "God.")

Romney blew the answer as badly as Dukakis did the Kitty-rape-death sentence question, and Guiliani answered it the way a lawyer would.

Thompson said he had some Bibles at home, but he wouldn't say which versions they were or where he was keeping them. Not the best answer.

rcocean said...

Huckster is now the Liberals favorite Republican. Always a bad sign.

He's almost a Maverick.

EnigmatiCore said...

"He hates them so much, he doesn't even call them gay, he calls them homosexuals."

Is there a new bit of PC I need to learn here? It is insensitive to say someone is a homosexual?

Is there any place I can go to keep up on which terms are ok and which are not, because I am finding the shifting sands difficult to stand upon.

Unknown said...

Enigmaticore - It's been a slander to call gay people homosexuals since 1972.

It's more polite to call black people niggers.

Freeman Hunt said...

IIRC, Ann just adores Huck. I recall her fawning over him some years ago when he did some extra-special marriage+ thingy.

She didn't fawn over him. She criticized him.

rcocean said...


Are you gay? You seem very interested in Homosexuals.

rcocean said...

Listened to the Huckster on This week.

He's smooth. If you want someone to beat Hillary, purely from a political point of view, he's your man.

Cool vs. Warm
Calculating vs. Honest
Secular vs. Religious
NY vs. Arkansas
Uptight vs. Humorous
Strident vs. Low-key
Elite vs. Populist
Fake Compassion vs. Real compassion

Too bad he's not really a conservative. George nailed him on illegal immigration. Huckster not only supports Drivers License's for Illegals, he thinks anyone who opposed it was racist.
He also strikes me as someone who would "grow" in office.

Richard Fagin said...

Ahem, are we prepared to elect ANOTHER Arkansas governor as President? Wasn't the last one quite enough?

The last governor of Massachusetts to become President was a great guy, though, if Romney has any change at all. It's so cool seing that face on a statue glaring at the wacked-out Smithies in beautiful downtown Northampton. The wacked-out Smithies probably have no idea who he was.

EnigmatiCore said...

Hm. Well, you learn something new every day.

Is it an equally bad slur to call straight people heterosexuals?

Harsh Pencil said...

I think downtownlad is one of those mentally healthy Republicans.

Unknown said...

Exactly enigmaticore. When is the last time you heard a straight person refer to someone as a heterosexual. They would almost always use the word "straight". Yet you will never hear Huckabee say the word gay, he will always use the word "homosexual", because he knows its offensive, and it's a code for the evangelicals who know exactly what he means. And it's obviously working.

Palladian said...

I like "faggot".

Gedaliya said...

DTL is hilarious in his role as most angry homosexual. Now it is unacceptable to call homosexuals homosexuals?

I guess I must have missed the memo.

Cedarford said...

Huckabee can play the Edwards game better than Edwards.
For supposedly being sophisticated voters, Iowans are sure easily taken in by smiles and slick words.

He also benefits from Romney unable to shake coming across as plastic. Thompson being a lackadaisical campaigner. And the voters gradually sickening of 9/11! 9/11!! as a reason Paddy O is right about Iowans loving slick talkers with bad records like Edwards and Huckabee.

It isn't surprising that with the media abandoning their last darling, McCain, they would seek another maverick who excels in the "values format" the Base and the media locked into - over god, guns, abortion. A venue where Huckabee is as comfortable as pastor Pat Robertson was when he was running.

I would hope that Huckabee is just the media-driven Flavor of the Month.

Not even the Republicans, IMO, are ready to run a Creationist as President. And the Huckster is a big taxer, favors Open Borders, has Rudy-scale corruption problems - all issues the nation and the Republicans are against.

The way things are going on the Democrat side, I wouldn't be surprised if Party bigwigs aren't telling Noble Algore to lose weight and be on standby at the Convention.

The way things are going on the Republican side, I would think some people wouldn't mind losing the 2008 contest as long as they can pin Dems with losing the 1st War against radical Islam as Dems flee Iraq and Afghanistan with light casualties. They could pick Newt, a surefire loser, but an intelligent, articulate man who could refocus the Republicans on a new successful path after the failure of corporate crony Bushism.

Or we could hope that Obama somehow shows he has executive potential.
Or hope that someone slips Red Bull into Toadface Thompson by IV.
Or hope that Mitt Romney stops trying to out-Jesus and out-compete on values against people whose minds were locked in place by age 12 in Bible School and haven't changed their minds on anything since. And focus on his strength - turning around grave organizational problems with vision and intelligent leadership.Which would require old Mitt to shift gears from "Values Mitt" to "Leader Mitt" and hope he comes across more human.

McCain is too old, too pro-immigration and treacherous to be acceptable to me. Even over Hillary. "Vote for me because I was captured by the enemy and abused which makes me the greatest Victim-Hero of all, with quirky ideas on improving the satisfaction level of terrorists with their stay with us?"

And Rudy is a minefield of unresolved issues. Kerik. Fatigue over his "America's Hero-Mayor" facade. His tens of millions heading Giuliani & Associates looking for 9/11 pork. Personal life. His hooking up with the old neocon crowd favoring expanded war - adding Syria, Iran, maybe the NORKs and Venezuela. And that NYC pushiness and arrogance that NYC-based media loves, but the rest of the country only likes from time to time - not living with for 4 years or more - hurts him hard...
Like "my dear fellow Senate friends" McCain, Rudy and his "America's Mayor" routine are best kept in the past.

rcocean said...

Wow, now "homosexual" is a "Code Word".

I love "code words". They're handy and very convenient. Whenever you want to call someone a name with no evidence, just say they're using a "Code word". Examples;

Law and Order = Racist;
Illegal immigration = Racist;
New York banker = anti-semite;
and now Homosexual = homophobe.

jeff said...

"Enigmaticore - It's been a slander to call gay people homosexuals since 1972.
It's more polite to call black people niggers."

What a load of crap.
Run that by one of your gay black friends sometime.

You throw around the "breeders" slur?

Something that sometimes can be considered insulting, but has never been anything other than amusing to me.

EnigmatiCore said...

"When is the last time you heard a straight person refer to someone as a heterosexual."

Quite often, actually. Straight, hetero, heterosexual. All used interchangeably.

I think your assertion that calling someone by the technically correct term "homosexual" is worse than calling a black a n* is beyond silly, especially if many people are completely unaware that it is supposedly some sort of slur.

In fact, if I use the term, you would be mistaken to assume that I meant it as a slur, despite the fact that you have told me that you would take it as such. I simply don't agree with your take and refuse to play my part in taking proper English and turning it into taboo in leiu of some euphemism like 'gay'. I'll use both terms interchangeably, and I mean nothing different when I use them.

Walter said...

I hear heterosexual on a semi-regular basis, but then again I have a wide circle of friends.

Google "Heterosexual" and you will find that it is used more than you might think.

I also agree with enigmaticore.

If you upset by the use of the homosexual, then you are either:

1. Looking to be offended (for any reason)
2. People have been insulting you/other gays by saying homosexual as if it was an insult (see Liberal).

If what you believe is the 2nd case, then you should embrace the word and own it. Take it back from the homo/gay haters before they move on to do the same thing to the word gay.

EnigmatiCore said...

I agree with Walter.

DTL, I know you have had some real a-holes in your life (you've said as much). But looking to be offended is not the answer.

Paco Wové said...

DTL, I know you have had some real a-holes in your life (you've said as much). But looking to be offended is not the answer.

That assumes that DTL is actually attempting to argue in good faith, which I think is highly unlikely. As far as I can tell, he's here to insult people, and he'll sieze upon any issue -- or just make one up -- to do that.

George M. Spencer said...

Check out Huck on ABC.

How telegenic...the teddy bear eyes.

Then, at about 12 minutes, watch what he says—or doesn't say—when asked if Romney is a Christian.

He won't acknowledge that fact.

Like asking someone in 1960 if JFK was a Christian.

"Uh, well, that's for others to say, not me."

A cute and nasty piece of work, this Huckster.

Palladian said...

Yes, it's wrong to assume that dtl actually believes anything it says here. It's just here to stir up shit, and getting (more) bitter because commenters have largely wised up.

"technically correct term"

Sorry, but I don't believe that there is a "technically correct term" for human sexuality if you're attempting to describe a strictly binary system. "Homosexual", like "heterosexual" is an ugly 19th century Greek-Latin hybrid word that, although sadly accepted as adequate, is technically and etymologically meaningless. Better to use a more interesting, more euphonious and equally meaningless designation such as "gay" or "faggot" or "queer". "Heterosexual" and "homosexual" are ugly faux-clinical words that should be left in the ugly, faux-clinical 19th century where they were spawned.

EnigmatiCore said...

"is an ugly 19th century Greek-Latin hybrid word"

Like automobile?

EnigmatiCore said...

Or was that early 20th Century?

EnigmatiCore said...

rcocean-- don't get too carried away. Often "New York bankers" or "New York moneymen" are code words for teh Jews.

Paddy O said...

Homer Simpson: They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce and Lance and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just...

John: Queer?

Homer Simpson: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!

Fred said...

That is good news for Republicans, in my opinion. I really love Mike Huckabee even though I don't agree with all of his policies. He symbolizes everything that President Bush promised He would be, and more. If ever the party needed to fall on the side of compassionate or social conservatism, it's now. Anything less would result in a nice landslide for the Dems.

Darkbloom said...

Calling a gay person homosexual is not offensive. But when someone refuses to use the word gay and exclusively uses the word homosexual, that is obviously calculated to offend.

Fred said...

George: It isn't just what people have heard in the debates, it's a whole lot more.

There are two candidates I love to hear speak, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. They are brilliant speakers, they shake rooms with their words and people who aren't stuck in the polarized world can fall in love with these candidates, quite easily.

They've got heart, they can connect with supporters and they have very active minds. Many of the candidates on both sides are very easy to read. You can tell what kind of people they are, you can tell how they'd lead and more or less what kind of decisions they'd make while in office. You can tell who is a thinker, an intellectual, or who'll defers to their leadership skills, staff, and experts to help them make important decisions.

This is one of the reasons I love the primary season, you can spend some time and psychoanalyze the candidates. We know their politics more or less, but pick apart their words and actions and consider how they respond to certain kinds of stimuli.

George M. Spencer said...


This guy connected, too.

rcocean said...


If "New York Bankers" is a code word for Jews, the what is the code word for "New York bankers".

I don't like Big Banks, especially the ones in Hew York, but I don't want any gentile NY bankers to feel left out.

Another problem with "Code words" is that we don't have a "code book".

hdhouse said...

rhhardin said...
I don't know why we can't get Cheney."

Didn't Cheney die some time ago and come back as some guy named Fred?

In any event, at least perhaps (oh gosh..please God!) the GOP might nominate Huckabee...make(s) my day!

Trooper York said...

Then the old man got to cussing and cussed everything and everybody he could think of, and then cussed them all over again to make sure he hadn't skipped any, and after that he polished off with a kind of a general cuss all round, including a considerable parcel of people which he didn't know the names of, and so called them what's-his-name when he got to them, and went right along with his cussing.
Then Senator McCain finished and it was my turn in the debate.
(The Adventures of Huckabee Finn)

EnigmatiCore said...


I just am not in the mood to give a serious answer. But I can't think of a good joking one, so here goes.

I don't have a good answer on what to do about the lack of Code Book. But I can tell you that if a topic is not specifically about something that would normally involve New York Bankers, and someone suddenly starts complaining about the involvement of New York Bankers, you might want to consider that they might be using code.

Especially if they are Ron Paul fans.

Hayes said...

Huckabee is George W. Bush 2.0 -- plain and simple. From what i have read in Iowa, people aren't flocking to Huck because of his wonderful policy positions. Huckabee has been explicitly trumpeting his Christian credentials and good works, which implicitly highlights Romney's Mormon faith. This is not an unintended consequence, in my book. I don’t think that it is dirty politics or bad faith on Huckabee’s part, he just knows what will play well in Iowa, and Romney’s group must know what Huckabee does now: there is an unspoken unease about his faith in some influential circles.

And, now Romney is giving the speech...

George M. Spencer said...

Jesus Juice and Love Offerings

Is this a great country, or what?

Randy said...

One Great Leap Forward every hundred years is enough for our small world. It is not yet time for another.