Alarming News

August 26, 2008

No to Huck

Huck-obsessed commenter Larry sends along this post on NR’s Corner by Rich Lowry on how maybe Huckabee should be McCain’s VP.

I say no.

Here’s the thing, Rich’s argument is sound, Huck would, in theory, bring a lot of things to the ticket which it lacks. Huck is a solid social conservative, he is a good speaker and he is liked by the press.

In practice, a McCain/Huck ticket is a losing one, and not just because the press will sour on Huck so fast if he tries to take on The One. McCain has to convince conservatives, both social and fiscal, that he’s one of them. Huck may have a lock on the social-cons but the fiscal-cons have heard his “Club for Greed” comments as well as his support for big government programs like paying college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.

Huck’s social-con credentials include his comment that the Constitution should be amendeded to better reflect the bible. Larry the Huck nut will argue that Huck was just pandering and doesn’t really mean it. That won’t make people like me feel better about it.

Lastly, Huck puts no additional states in play. McCain will already romp in Arkansas and Huck does nothing for the swing states. He may redden already red states but who needs that? McCain needs a solid conservative, preferably from a swing state or with ties to a swing state, who won’t anger either wing of the Republican party. We’re going to need the fiscal and social cons together to win this one. Huckabee won’t cut it.

Posted by Karol at 01:00 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

DON’T pick a friggin’ white guy!
This is McCain’s chance to hit one out of the park. VPs are generally of no significance but this cycle offers a real opportunity to disarm democrat rhetoric.
Pick a female; there are plenty of solid choices that would appeal to disenchanted Hillary voters. And announcing it right after Hillary concedes Wednesday would be a bombshell at the DNC convention.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at August 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm

First of all, I don’t buy this Huck support all of a sudden…especially from the National Review…they’re just trying to throw a bone to the hucksters, so we don’t stay home.
I’ve given plenty of reason why mccain should pick huck..not going to list them again.
as usual, Karol is completely lost on the issue of Huck….this is what happens when you become a Cowboys fan…you lose all sense of reality.
All the issues that Huck is bashed about are diversionary tactics by people who have their own agenda.
Huck would help in many states…this electoral map will be different then most…I think Obama will win some that have gone Republican and vice versa….
Huck will help in Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina….he’ll also help in the blue collar areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
I will concede that he will probably hurt mccain in Nevada and maybe Colorado….but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
one more thing….Huck is not a “good” speaker….he’s the greatest, most articulate and one of the most talented politicians in the last 20 years.
P.S. I’m not obsessed…I just tell it like it is….you think I would watch Huck over a Redskins game?…heck no.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Huck will help in Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina….he’ll also help in the blue collar areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
Virginia and NC (and MO) are already red states. If Obama wins either of those it will be (to paraphrase Dick Morris) the “48th state he wins”. If McCain holds everything Bush won in ‘04, he can lose Iowa and not think twice about it as he hauls his stuff into the oval office.
I will concede that he will probably hurt mccain in Nevada and maybe Colorado….but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Well, that’s a problem. McCain needs to win Colorado and Nevada. Your idea that he takes a chance with must-win states for the maybe-states above is wacky. Like you.

Posted by: Karol at August 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm

SD3: Would you care to jump on my Sarah Palin bandwagon? Honestly, who wouldn’t jump on that bandwagon?
Huck is not a “good” speaker….he’s the greatest, most articulate and one of the most talented politicians in the last 20 years.
I will not invoke Godwin’s Law. . . I will not invoke Godwin’s Law. . . I will not invoke Godwin’s Law. . .

Posted by: Nikhil at August 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Karol,
you failed to mention that huck will help in blue collar areas….plus mccain can win new hampshire…and he can still win out west w/out huck.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm

According to electoral-vote.com, Virginia is a dead heat. Early? Yes, but worth noting at this juncture.
Also, count me among those who think that a Pres. Huck wouldn’t get his Constitutional amendments passed. Maybe if he was playing ball with a Republican-controlled Congress, but even then, I’d expect them to keep those in their back pocket as a wedge issue or try other ways to accomplish the same goals.

Posted by: Shawn at August 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I know it’s a futile dream, but I would love to see Condi Rice on the ticket. No one else knows more about the state of the world right now than she does, she’s smart, charismatic, and tough.
Put her against Obama, and he looks like the American Idol that he is.
However, note to future (Republican) politicians: do NOT accept the position of Secretary of State; that nest of vipers will poison the best, co-opt the worst.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 26, 2008 at 2:39 pm

And for what it’s worth, Larry, having Huck on the GOP ticket would be about the only thing that would put my vote back into play for Obama.
No more clowns from Arkansas, thank you.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm

My point exactly…Huck’s desire for a marriage amendment and human life amendment will probably never pass….so it’s a moot point…that’s why I call it a diversioanry tactic…..by the way, his reasoning for wanting those amendments is very rational.
I look at his positions that would actually affect the lives of people….he’s a common sense republican….and has a proven record of governing.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Mark,
That’s too bad…..would you like to clarify your huck hatred?…it’s one thing to not support him, it’s another to say you’ll vote for obama.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 2:50 pm

“Would you care to jump on my Sarah Palin bandwagon?”
Sure, Nikhil. Almost any female veep choice would totally deflate attention on the DNC.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at August 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm

VA is not a red state right now; Huck would help McCain secure that. If anything, CO is more of a sure-thing than VA, though NV less so. Folks whining about Huck’s comments on constitutional amendments act like conservative haven’t discussed overturning Roe and amending the constitution to avoid gay marriage for the past two decades like they were real possibilities. It’s a BS argument. Huck as VP doesn’t make sense, in the end, because of his lack of fopo and other experience. Plus, I’d rather have the guy brush up on these items and run again in the near future than doom himself as McCain’s potential no. 2.

Posted by: Claudio at August 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I’ve said it many times, I’m not sure I want huck to be the VP even though I think he’d be the best choice.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Huck might help in one or two states, but let’s be serious here. The entire fiscal-con half of the Republican party think’s the guy is a nut. I don’t see how that can be helpful in the aggregate.

Posted by: Eric at August 26, 2008 at 4:25 pm

McCain should pick a nationally unrecognized guy (or gal) from a state in which he needs help. He’s got a compelling story and doesn’t need distractions.

Posted by: Eric at August 26, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I just can’t see how having Huck on the tickets helps anything. A social conservative/fiscal liberal does nothing to get the votes of disenfranchised republicans who now consider themselves independents.
Being one of those people myself, I have to agree with Mark, I would vote for Obama if it was McCain/Huck.
I was a big supporter of McCain in the past only to see the error of my ways now. Out of 10 stars, McCain barley gets 5 out of me, and Obama gets 4. They both suck. Add Huck to the mix, and the McCain ticket drops to a 2 in my book.
The ticket doesn’t need to pander to the evangelicals – I say fuck em’, what are they going to do, vote for Obama? I don’t think so.
McCain needs a SOLID fiscal conservative with an ACU rating over 90%. He needs that to show that he is serious about reigning in gov’t spending and taxation.
My top choices are -
Tim Pawlenty – young, charismatic, conservative, and can deliver Minnesota
Kay Bailey Hutchison – woman, a bit soft on social issues, but very fiscally conservative.
Marsha Blackburn – super conservative and a woman.
Sleeper pick – Newt Gingrich

Posted by: VinNay at August 26, 2008 at 4:32 pm

“Huck’s desire for a marriage amendment and human life amendment will probably never pass….so it’s a moot point…” and then…
“That’s too bad…..would you like to clarify your huck hatred?.”
So, if Obama really was for repeal of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment, it would be okay to support him even though there would be no way that he could push the “reforms” through?
I don’t understand some people…

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 26, 2008 at 4:36 pm

You guys have to be freakin kidding me….
1) Just because Romney funded the club for growth to do a hit job on Huck, doesn’t mean huck is a fiscal liberal….that’s an outrageous, distorted and bogus attack
2) I keep asking this question and nobody has an answer….the hero of the Republican party is Reagan….he raised taxes by a billion dollars as governor.
3) Huck is a populist with conservative principles…his message will appeal to middle class workers
4) by the way…huck signed the “no tax hike” pledge a while ago.
is huck the perfect candidate?…no….there’s no such thing…..but the attacks on him are distorted, bogus bullshit….mostly started by that flip floppin fraud from massachusetts…A.K.A. Romney

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm

For the record – I hate Mitt too, I just didn’t bring it up because there is no chance that Mitt will be tagged as VP.

Posted by: VinNay at August 26, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Let me explain it to you, Mark.
Democrats wouldn’t vote for huck if he was for or against the constitutional amendments….what’s amazing to me are the republicans that have a problem with it.
I’m not a hardcore social conservative, but I find it amazing when I hear pro life/pro marriage people say it should be a state issue….moral issues should not be geographical….if you’re truly pro life/pro marriage you should support the amendment…..and if you’re for not strong against gay marriage, then where does it end?…are we going to make polygamy a state issue?….let’s allow people to marry animals if they want.
and comparing repealing the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment to the pro life/pro marriage ammendment is unfair.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 5:06 pm

I don’t think the comparison is unfair at all; For the most part, the Constitution is about limiting the rights of Government, not limiting the rights of individuals. And god knows I know enough people who vote straight D primarily because they think the Second Amendment was a Bad Idea. (And of course Obama just today gave a big old “Screw You” to the First Amendment by threatening outlets that carry the commercial linking Obama to Ayers.)
All “Pro-marriage” amendments proposed are fundamentally about limiting the rights of individuals to forms civil/religious commitments. This strikes me as profoundly against the fundamental thinking of the founding fathers, even if they themselves may never have imagined the issue coming up. (I guess that’s what the whole Ninth Amendment thing was all about….) Even worse, it goes against modern populist thinking about what the Constitution should do, or the Eighteenth Amendment would still be in force….
Pro-life amendments as a class represent a thornier issue, because the question of when a fetus becomes a person by law is (IMHO) perfectly valid. But again, using a Constitutional Amendment to resolve the issue smacks more of Prohibitionist thinking, and is more likely to backfire on proponents than solve any real societal problems.
In short, by not merely pandering to the fringe, but in actually convincing me he he’s part of it, Huck has become a dealbreaker, at least for this voter. And particularly with McCain being so long-of-tooth, I’m going to be very aware this time around that the VP choice stands a very good chance of actually becoming President sooner rather than later.
But thanks for explaining things for me. Good to see you believe “conservative” means ramming whatever social engineering might appeal to the god-and-guns crowd down the national throat. I guess that’s why Huck really does have appeal for the modern liberal.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 26, 2008 at 8:50 pm

You guys should pick Lieberman.

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at August 26, 2008 at 9:07 pm

No. No, no, no, nonononono!
I’m an evangelical, and I would never never never want Huckabee around; not as VP, nor as POTUS.
McCain/Thompson, I can live with. McCain/Palin, even better. McCain/Huckabee? Shoot, I might have to vote for it but you can bet every other swing voter won’t.
It’s a bad, bad, bad idea. Whether or not the attacks were justified is immaterial. I’m a pragmatist and the numbers just won’t work.

Posted by: Gregory at August 26, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Gregory,
I’d love to know why you dislike Huck.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 9:45 pm

I don’t think the comparison is unfair at all; For the most part, the Constitution is about limiting the rights of Government, not limiting the rights of individuals. And god knows I know enough people who vote straight D primarily because they think the Second Amendment was a Bad Idea. (And of course Obama just today gave a big old “Screw You” to the First Amendment by threatening outlets that carry the commercial linking Obama to Ayers.)
All “Pro-marriage” amendments proposed are fundamentally about limiting the rights of individuals to forms civil/religious commitments. This strikes me as profoundly against the fundamental thinking of the founding fathers, even if they themselves may never have imagined the issue coming up. (I guess that’s what the whole Ninth Amendment thing was all about….) Even worse, it goes against modern populist thinking about what the Constitution should do, or the Eighteenth Amendment would still be in force….
Pro-life amendments as a class represent a thornier issue, because the question of when a fetus becomes a person by law is (IMHO) perfectly valid. But again, using a Constitutional Amendment to resolve the issue smacks more of Prohibitionist thinking, and is more likely to backfire on proponents than solve any real societal problems.
In short, by not merely pandering to the fringe, but in actually convincing me he he’s part of it, Huck has become a dealbreaker, at least for this voter. And particularly with McCain being so long-of-tooth, I’m going to be very aware this time around that the VP choice stands a very good chance of actually becoming President sooner rather than later.
But thanks for explaining things for me. Good to see you believe “conservative” means ramming whatever social engineering might appeal to the god-and-guns crowd down the national throat. I guess that’s why Huck really does have appeal for the modern liberal.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 26, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Pick. A. FEMALE. veep. (unless, of course, McCain wants to get destroyed)

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at August 26, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Mark,
I’m not a social conservative.
my question is….how can a pro life person who believes human life begins at conception not be for the human life amendment….same goes for the marriage amendment?
this whole debate is symbolic…it will most likely never be passed, but what it shows is that huck is a man of principle…he stands for what he believes…..this issue has no bearing on what kind of president he would be….it is completely overblown by liberals, independents and some republicans.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Larry, it’s easy; not everyone who believes there should be some regulation of abortion is of the absolutist “every fertilized egg is sacred” mindset. (Conversely, we also don’t believe aborting full-term fetuses because, oops, it’s a girl and we really wanted a boy is a valid expression of a woman’s right to choose.)
I know this is hard for the bloviators to grasp, but many people (I think most, but hey) believe that an egg is not an embryo is not a fetus is not a baby. And absolutists on both sides of the argument make that nuanced majority queasy the same way the subway preachers make us queasy.
And Huck’s got that subway preacher vibe going bigtime.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Mark,
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you…like I said, I’m not a social conservative…I don’t have the answers to when life begins.
But what I don’t understand is the concept of geographical morality…whether it’s abortion or marriage.
if huck wanted everyone to study religon or if he wanted everyone to go to church on Sunday, then I wouldn’t be supporting him.
The abortion issue is tough…I respect all views.
to me, it’s very shallow to bash huck on the basis of his stance towards these 2 issues.

Posted by: Larry at August 26, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Larry,
1.) Um, just what would the wording of this pro-life amendment be? Yes, choose carefully, as the clicking sound you hear is my bouncing betty arming. (Why, no, most of my friends aren’t die hard Republicans and I haven’t had this argument many, many times…)
2.) How is a candidate who engages in a “symbolic debate” attractive to the general electorate? Isn’t that another way of saying “chases windmills for no apparent purpose”? Thanks, I like my politicians to strive for achievable goals, not basically waste oxygen throwing red meat to 20-30% of the electorate while the other 80-70% send them back to the Republic of Ignoramusia where they belong.
3.) What if my rebuttal to “life begins at conception” is “Yes, and?”, i.e. just because it’s alive doesn’t mean there aren’t compelling reasons to kill it? Sorry, but I’m afraid that my bright red lines are when you’re making a woman carry her rapist’s child. Even if it only happens in 1% of the cases, that’s still 1% too many. Sure, sucks for the little squirt but I’m afraid the rights of his taxpaying, voting mom come before his/hers.
Maybe my dividing line on where we kill people is a little to the left of what you think is “just” but you know what? If someone rapes your mother/wife/sister/female you care about, I’m not going to be standing in the room shrilly demanding that she carry the baby to term–so how about you just extend the same courtesy and let’s get back to talking about things that belong in the collective realm, ‘kay?
4.) That being said, Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided. Period. Ninth F-ing Amendment–look it up using the handy link above. Yes, in the plain simple English that text was written in, if the idiots of State X want to have a bunch of mutant, three-eyed freak babies because they just can’t stand to kill poor precious, States A-D can build a 20-foot high fence around it and go on whacking fetuses if they want.
However, in order to get to that point, you have to let go of your “moral arguments are not geographical” BS. That was sort of the whole point of dividing up things by states and codifying these protections into laws because if, God forbid, the Puritans got in charge then we wouldn’t have crazy talk about what the rest of society could and could not do. On the flip side, I don’t want to be living by New York City rules when the guy’s breaking in my house at 2 A.M. in the morning to torture me to death after making me watch him brutally violate my wife. No, thanks, I want the biggest handgun I can find and the protections of a Midwest state at that point. So, ergo, no–morality does have geography, and the fact you can’t stand to see poor little junior turned from a collection of cells to biowaste is part of doing business in this Republic of ours.
So, how can a pro-life person not be for a pro-life amendment? EASY–they cannot trust their fellow citizens any further than they can throw them and/or be a firm believer in the slippery slope theory. Thanks, we had a “morality” amendment (as opposed to a “rights” amendment) once. Went so well there’s _another_ amendnment that repealed it. So why are we advocating trying this again?

Posted by: James at August 26, 2008 at 11:55 pm

P.S. Meant to add “and Tenth” Amendments–oops.

Posted by: James at August 27, 2008 at 12:03 am

Smaller words this time: casually proposing that the Constitution be amended to solve currently contentious societal issues is fundamentally anti-conservative and (more importantly to me) anti-libertarian.
Huck is poison. Then again, so is sniffing glue, and some people like doing that, so go figure.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 27, 2008 at 8:10 am

I know it’s a futile dream, but I would love to see Cindi Rice on the ticket.Larry, it’s easy; not everyone who believes there should be some regulation of abortion is of the absolutist “every fertilized egg is sacred” mindset.But one could try to do.Anyway thanks for sharing such a nice post……

Posted by: pmp exam at August 27, 2008 at 9:04 am

James,
I’m not a social conservative…..maybe everything you said is correct….even if huck only speaks for 20-30% of the party, at least he’s consistent in his beliefs, values, etc..
I may not agree with huck on this issue, but I respect him….he’s not a fraud like Romney.
I support him because of his record..you may call it fiscal liberalism…I call it getting the job done….I also feel it’s important to have a president who’s a great communicator.

Posted by: Larry at August 27, 2008 at 9:44 am

Huck will help in Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina
He’d lose McCain one vote for sure in Missouri. There aren’t enough clothespins in the world to hold my nose that tightly.

Posted by: Tanya at August 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

People saying they wouldn’t vote for mccain because of Huck will listen to him speak at the convention, hear him on the campaign trail, see him destroy biden in the debate and will change their mind.
I think Pawlenty will get the VP anyway.

Posted by: Larry at August 27, 2008 at 10:58 am

I’m not an expert on the abortion and marriage issue, but I have 2 questions…
1) mccain believes that life starts at conception…how can people like that not believe in the human life amendment?
2) if you’re going to make marriage a state issue, should other alternative lifestyles be allowed to be state issues?….should utah be allowed to make polygamy legal if they wanted?

Posted by: Larry at August 27, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Huckabee would be an absolutely insane pick, and not only would I say that if I believed there were a God, I think I would say that even if I _were_ God.
If McCain doesn’t have conservatives on his side, he has already lost. What he needs to do in toss-up states is win independents and moderates, and the last person you want as your v.p. is someone who everyone on the other side (including the media) can agree is a perfect caricature of their worst fears.
Econ is hard to understand and hard for most people to get passionate about (though Huckabee is indeed wrong on econ and the size and role of government — and is not that ethical about using funds in general, we might want to recall), but the danger of theocracy, by contrast (especially when its prophet has a convenient Southern accent as a marker), is so simple to understand that even the media can spot it and make not only news pieces but TV sitcoms about it.
Huckabee as a v.p. pick would be as imbecilic — and as great a source of joy to the strategic thinkers on the left — as the Dems picking Al Sharpton for their v.p. _Madness_. If NR were the Enterprise, it would be time for the crew to confine the captain to quarters until a psych exam could be run (and it would turn out Klingons were using mind control drugs on him or something but would eventually come to his senses and save the day).

Posted by: Todd Seavey at August 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm

With regards to your questions, Larry:
1.) I answered this one above. Look for the EASY part in my last post. You tell me the text of your proposed “human life” amendment (i.e., walk into my well-prepared kill sack), and I’ll make it even more clear to you.
2.) Define alternative lifestyles. Because, yes, I’d argue that Utah does have a right to polygamy provided they don’t expect the rest of the states to recognize it via Fair Faith and Credit. Or, for that matter, expect Federal tax codes to be amended to recognize multiple filings for “married” status. But as far as what goes on within Utah–I give less than a da*n, it’s their business provided everyone is adult.
Now, the problem is our society is utterly incapable of making people responsible for their actions as of late. However, that’s not something that needs an amendment, it’s an issue that needs a reckoning.
Finally, as far as Missouri goes, I have no idea why you think Huck puts it in play. I may know a bit about Missouri politics (you know, being from there and all), and I can tell you Huck will _cost_ you that state as a Veep pick. Especially given the record first time voter registration numbers in KC and St. Louis and the number of folks in those areas who are just sick of anyone who appears to be willing to shove their religion down others’ throats. (Yes, there’s a lot of friction in the state between the cities and the more religious minded folks in between.) I won’t even get into the general opinion about folks from Arkansas.
Sorry, but the GOP’s antics over the last few years plus the utter incompetence (on many issues) exhibited by the current Administration has pretty much gutted the influence of the so-called religious right this election cycle. I’m not saying McCain should go out of his way to stick his thumb in their eye (again), but on the other hand there’s no reason to abase himself before the party’s social conservative wing. If those folks want to stay home / not vote for him, that’s fine–it’s a choice they make, but there better not be any ripping of garments and gnashing of teeth when President Obama puts two 40-year-old liberal judges on SCOTUS.
Note: I’m not saying I’m necessarily voting for McCain myself, but I became comfortable with cutting off my nose to spite my face many years ago.

Posted by: James at August 27, 2008 at 1:09 pm

People saying they wouldn’t vote for mccain because of Huck will listen to him speak at the convention, hear him on the campaign trail, see him destroy biden in the debate and will change their mind.
You think we’re going to ignore his record and accept him, just because he has pretty words and a charming personality?
If I’m going that superficial route, Obama has much better packaging than Huckabee.

Posted by: Tanya at August 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Tanya,
his record looks damn good to me…his accomplishments as governor look damn good to me….his ideas look damn good to me…..oh, and he’s alot more articulate then obama…he actually has substance.
James,
outside of the marriage and abortion issue, how does huck shove religon down your throat?…and I don’t consider him shoving those things down my throat….he’s a man of beliefs and convictions…I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I respect him.

Posted by: Larry at August 27, 2008 at 6:56 pm

why do I think Huck can help in Missouri?…gee, I dunno…maybe because he almost won the primary….it’ll be up to mccain to get the votes in KC and St. Louis.

Posted by: Larry at August 27, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Larry,
Come now, surely you’re not applying “second place in the primary” logic to the general election, are you? Because, let me tell you, just because you carry the Missouri GOP primary does _not_ mean you’re going to win the state. Indeed, Springfield alone skews the GOP primary as it adds about 100,000 or so religious rightists that will get drowned out by KC and St. Louis in the general.
Not to mention I have it on very good authority that a lot of the Huckster votes were “anyone but” rather than “we love the Huck.” (How good of authority? Let’s just say my source is a Missouri delegate to the convention. As in, the national GOP convention. For the second time in a row. Suffice to say, might know a bit about Clan Elephant politics in the Show-Me state.) That doesn’t translate to, “Helps us in the general…” very well.
Finally, your “other than” comment is a “Well Mrs. Lincoln, how was the rest of the play?”-quality. Just sayin’. Of all the things to mess with the Constitution on, a “right to life” and “gay marriage” amendments are the two most burning issues the man can think of? Oh, wait, and he doesn’t actually think that those will carry (nor is he willing to expend the capital trying)…so once again, why would I want this man on the ticket? Because that’s not principles, that’s just pandering–which is how the current occupant got elected. Fool me once…

Posted by: James at August 28, 2008 at 4:09 pm

James,
I don’t think huck thinks the amendments have no chance to pass.
can you explain how this issue affects your life?
you think wants everyone to attend church on sunday?..does he want to make religon classes mandatory in school?
this whole “huck wants a theocratic state” is bogus.

Posted by: Larry at August 28, 2008 at 5:26 pm

James,
one other thing…your analysis of Missouri made me laugh…yea, let’s diminish the huckster…why do I assume your source was not a huck supporter?
and if what you say is true, I’m sure there were twice as many people that would have voted for huck (not just in Missouri) but didn’t because Romney was saying that a vote for huck is a vote for mccain.

Posted by: Larry at August 28, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Larry,
I’m going to borrow a little Chris Rock–”Boo if you want, you know I’m right.” Romney had precisely _zero_ chance of winning Missouri. Why? Mormonism is like kryptonite to Southern Baptists and many evangelicals. Outside of a few small pockets of the Missouri Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints, there’s not a whole lot of religious Missourians who were disposed to pulling the lever for Romney.
Incidentally, my source isn’t opposed to the Huckster. Indeed, part of the reason I’m having so much fun poking at you is that I had this argument quite often with them. Much of the stuff I’m using against you is what they got tossed at them during the state GOP meeting. Suffice to say you’re not counterpunching nearly as well, nor do you really have much clue on MO politics. Once again, Huck doesn’t deliver MO for McCain–so he better look elsewhere.
I never said that Huck wanted to establish a theological state. However, a man who feels that it is acceptable to state the Bible should supersede the Constitution (yes, that quote is going to hang around his neck for life) should not complain if that is the impression some may take from his actions.
Finally, if the issues don’t affect my life then why are you trying to _alter the Constitution_ about them? That’s the first problem I have–you are trying to change the fundamental law of the land. Anytime people are trying to do something like that because they feel an issue is “evil” it starts to make my skin crawl. The Constitution is about enshrining rights, not taking them away.
Considering you steadfastly refuse to be engaged over what you would consider an ideal “right to life” amendment, I can only assume that what you really mean is you want to prevent a woman from making the decision whether or not she gets to terminate a life that’s in her belly _for the entire land_. “But it’s a BABY!” you say. Um, yes, and your point would be? The United States, when necessary, has killed babies at will. So what you’re basically saying is that it’s not so much the principle involved but who gets to pull the trigger. Well, sorry, but I think that if you want to live in a state where husbands have to watch their wives die because you have a little bit of trouble whacking someone, that’s your bailiwick–but I should be able to vote with my feet and live somewhere where that’s a decision that’s made by the two people who conceived that child.*
So, yes, your “issue” affects my life because what my spouse and I do is none of your g*ddamn business and I’m sort of a fan of government that doesn’t fit into my bedroom. Moreover, I don’t want to be waiting around guessing on the _next_ thing you “let’s amend the Constitution willy-nilly” guys are going to decide is evil. Thanks, you have a state constitution and, quite frankly, the GOP had the mechanisms in place to take care of the Roe v. Wade problem for about 6 years and didn’t get it done. So, please, step the *bleep* away from the parchment, stop talking crazy talk, and let’s focus on issues that really need fixing (like term limits).
*Yes ladies, I’m saying that the father gets a vote. You didn’t just poof that baby in there, so the party that contributed the other half of the instant human mix should be involved in the process. You wanted to have a solo “choice”, you should’ve chose the three or four methods of birth control that would be employed before Mr. “Potentially In My Life For 18 Years” even stepped up to the plate, nevermind hit a home run.

Posted by: James at August 29, 2008 at 1:54 am

James,
I’m not even going to attempt to sift through all your rhetoric….but I definitely agree with one thing you said…
“let’s focus on issues that really need fixing”
that’s why I support huck.

Posted by: Larry at August 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
Post a comment