9 posts tagged “huckabee”

If there's one question I get asked way more than any other, it's this: "Ted, we absolutely love your relentless conservative bashing, but we'd occasionally like an article that showcases liberal stupidity in all it's glory, so when will you stop lambasting the good guys long enough to post something about Democrats that I, a conservative in my own mind, can enjoy?"

Well, I'm happy to report that your wait is nearly over... 3... 2... 1...

By Frank Cerabino

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Being a Democrat in Florida is like being the coyote in a Road Runner cartoon.

Things start out so promising, but in the end you just screw up everything in a comical way.

Beep, beep.

I've already got that Wile E. Coyote feeling, and it's only February, nine months before Election Day.

If we weren't so hell-bent on self-destruction, Florida Democrats would be looking forward to being a key primary state in the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle for the nomination.

The Florida primary, originally scheduled for early March, would be a real prize on the political calendar. But instead, state Democrats were led off the cliff by state Republicans, who came up with the idea for a unilateral assault on the primary calendar.

It was one of those arrogant, "we can make our own rules" moves, and just like the Iraq invasion, Democrats were swept along so as not to appear soft on state pride.

All Republican, all the time

The national Republicans were smart enough to allow their candidates to campaign in Florida and to have the rogue primary count.

The national Democrats were not. Democratic candidates were forbidden from campaigning in Florida, and state party leaders were warned that if they insisted on holding an unsanctioned early primary, the votes would be meaningless, and none of Florida's 210 delegates would be seated at the national convention this summer.

Naturally, Florida Democrats chose the path of self-destruction.

So the result was that Florida appeared to have only a single political party last month.

The national media descended on Florida, and the campaign signs were all Republican ones, the TV commercials were for Republicans and the only debate was for Republican candidates - this in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans.

Beep, beep.

How could we make this even more pathetic? Don't worry, we had that covered, too.

Florida Democrats, even though they were told that their votes wouldn't count, turned out in droves, about 1.7 million people, to cast ballots in the allegedly meaningless primary.

Hillary Clinton showed up in Florida on the night of the meaningless primary to claim meaningless victory, and the rest of the country looked ahead to actual primaries that would actually count.

Like the coyote, we haven't given up, though we're still smoldering from the blast of our latest miscalculation.

ACME White House giveaway

Our latest scheme is to consider a revote, with party caucuses throughout the state serving as a retake on the January primary.

But this probably isn't going to happen, because America has already grown weary of Floridians looking for do-overs and because the national party isn't willing to foot the entire bill for this.

So what's going to happen? Here's my sour prediction:

If we keep our coyote karma going, the Clinton-Obama primary battle will remain close enough so that the missing Florida delegates will be meaningful.

At the last minute, the Democratic Party will seat Florida's delegates at the convention, which will give Clinton the votes she needs to beat Obama, who will object, to no avail, that he would have done better in Florida had he been allowed to campaign here.

Hillary Clinton will have Florida to thank as the state that gave her the nomination.

And this would be fitting, because the national polls say that Obama is the more likely to beat the Republican's presumptive candidate, John McCain, in November.

And so, when America wakes up on Nov. 5 with another Republican president on his way to the White House, Florida Democrats will get the blame again.

Beep, beep.

By the way, that's pronounced -Lim-bo-. I think it's Olde English.

But coincidentally, Rush Limbaugh droned on today about how "pseudo-conservatives" are calling him a cry-baby when it is they who are trying to change the Republican party, while only yesterday, George Bush labeled John McCain a "true conservative."

It's enough to make a "real conservative" want to scream.

Let me put it in a nutshell - in fact, let me recycle an old nutshell: when Limbaugh brought up McCain-Feingold today without mentioning George Bush, he demonstrated (again) that he is not the all-seeing, all-knowing pundit he claims to be. Once again... John McCain is enormously less responsible for McCain-Feingold than George Bush is. I don't even need to say anything more since those who understand how a bill becomes a law can put the rest together themselves...

But apparently Limbaugh can't.

Just like he doesn't seem to grasp how he and Ann and Han are largely responsible for John McCain.

Every time Bush signed a bill or acted in a way that was not only contrary to conservative principles but anathema to conservatives themselves and this Big Three of commentators failed to excoriate the President and demand redress, they helped pave the road to a John McCain Presidency.

Did they lash out against Bush for signing M-F? How about the prescription drug program? Spending? The border? Did they scream bloody murder when Bush did nothing as a hundred soldiers died every month in Iraq? In fact, to my recollection, it was Ann alone who said enough is enough with the Harriett Myers nomination. What a time to take a stand, eh?

And even as Coulter recolied in horror at Myers, she specifically said that Bush was performing "magnificently' on Iraq. Others were simply not willing to draw any line - ever, as I recall.

Here's another nutshell - John McCain is as conservative as any major candidate the Republicans had to choose from, and again, I don't need to say more since if one is in control of his senses, he knows that's true.

Now that may not be saying much of John McCain, but that's another part of the problem which is best noted this way: Where have all the conservatives gone, long time passing...

Sure they're there... somewhere... but they aren't asserting themselves any better than the pundits did when Bush "acted up," or the conservative electorate is now. In short, conservatism is floundering, and there is no one to take up the mantle. Ann and I agree that Duncan Hunter was the best choice in the bunch, but that's only if one is choosing by the numbers and not a flesh and blood human being.

So I suggest that conservatives get behind McCain the way they did for Bush. But unlike the way they've been toward Bush, I suggest they respond to President McCain the way they should have toward Bush. Of course, I really didn't need to add that last part about criticizing President McCain because it's a given... unless... hey, you don't think conservatives will clam up again once he's President, do you?

No, I was just kidding. Their eyes are wide shut now. So the question for conservatives is: Why didn't you open them seven or so years ago? At this point, George Bush couldn't care less what you think, and John McCain may not need you. But it could be worse... I could be the nominee, and I'm brimming over with contempt for the Limbaugh Wing for screaming too loud, too late.

Mitt Romney was in fine form again tonight (the other time was after Michigan), and I felt nothing but sad because he seems to be the best of the bunch - personable, articulate, confident, experienced...

A short time later, he was followed by the utterly detestable beast who claimed she wanted to win and take back "your White House." No, not from us, from the "special interests."

What a contrast. And yet this hideous woman, it seems, has the inside track to the Filthy Party's nomination, and Romney is about to be on the outside looking in. Why has he failed? My guess is that people don't see his experience as the right kind... in the right place. The same goes for his religious beliefs. And he, hasn't helped himself a bit. I can't tell you what he stands for. I mean I'm sure it's all the right things, but I can't say for sure because I still don't know Romney.

I know McCain. And I know Huckabee, and I know them well enough to say unequivocally that they aren't as good a choice as Romney.

Kidding!

I don't know that at all. Because what I want Romney to be is how I imagine him to be if he's all I hoped he'd be. How can you vote for someone on that basis? The businessman hasn't sold the sizzle or the steak, and we're worse off because of that. I really want someone Romney-like to be the Republican nominee, maybe just not Romney himself... then again, maybe not....

I think someone said here or somewhere on Vox that Ann Coulter didn't say she'd vote for Hillary if McCain was the Republican nominee.

Yes, she did.

Bill O'Reilly ran the clip from Hannity and The Other Guy at the start of the show in which Hannity says to Ann that he can't believe she'd vote for Hillary if McCain was the other option:

"Yes... I'd CAMPAIGN for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination," Coulter said with emphasis as noted. That's irresponsible.

But then Coulter added, "Hillary would be stronger in the war on terror than McCain." That's insane. She's clearly the poster girl for McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Now I want McCain to be the nominee just to see what happens.

This is a LULU!

You had asked to see something that might convince you John McCain is a candidate worthy of your vote. Well, it's as if Jeff Jacoby has heard your prayer. All that's missing from his quintessential defense of McCain is a dedication to your fine self...

I was going to post excerpts, but the column demands to be read in its entirety. I found it to be more than reassuring; I found it to be positively uplifting. Even if you don't experience the same reaction, I sincerely hope and believe Mr. Jacoby will have been able to assuage much of your anxiety.

Here's hoping you have a great Monday, and a Super Tuesday!

Have you seen Ann Coulter lately. she looks like I've never seen her - frazzled and frantic, and her voice seems to have risen several octaves.

As John McCain closes in on the Republican nomination and polls say he's the only one who's competitive with Clinton and Obama, the most prominent conservative to actively oppose the Senator is becoming more and more strident.

Today, Ann said she'd vote for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain. That's not the sort of comment one can backtrack on very easily, and it's as outrageous as it is impractical.

We understand, Ann, that you really hate McCain, but there are far more important issues than the ones you and other conservatives cite in denouncing him, and even if they were equally as important as security and spending, why haven't you been demanding that the President get tough on immigration and spending?

What we're now seeing is a prime example of why I say I don't like conservatives much better than Democrats. McCain is not an ideal candidate. He's just the best of those who've run. I know you think Romney is far better, Ann, but he's had plenty of time to demonstrate that... and he hasn't.

So I hope you read that column in the Wall Street Journal today. If you had already, you wouldn't have said what you did about voting for Hillary. Either that or you're blinded by hate and thus merely typical of many conservatives.

McCain is The Man. He's the only choice for Republicans and the country, and if you were not to support him, you would do your country a disservice for which I would never forgive you if it came to pas that McCain lost and Hillary won.

By the way, would you vote for Obama over McCain?

John McCain is a known entity. You can predict where he'll be unpredictable. Romney is an unknown entity, one in which it's impossible to predict where he will fail you. Or do you think he won't?

If so, did you think Bush wouldn't either? Because I don't know about you, but I expected George Bush to become more conservative, not less, once he took office if for no other reason than simply because he'd be grateful for the support conservatives had shown him.

So I'd advise you to be very careful, Ann. You've already turned me off, and it's time to prove you're not a blind ideologue - something I'd never thought you were. if you can't find a reason to endorse McCain, then at least take a cue from Al Sharpton's suggestion for Bill Clinton and shut up.

Because if you continue, you're not going to bury John McCain, you'll only be marginalizing yourself, and I'd hate to see that happen. You've taken your best shot, you lost, move on... before you start to sound like that group of the same name.

What's the biggest problem Republicans face?

You want it in a nutshell? The problem Republicans face is; they have no face.

We're all familiar with the "Reagan Republican:" Does anyone reading this regard him or her self as a Romney Republican? If so, would you kindly describe than animal?

I've been characterizing Romney with words like: mechanical, rehearsed, robotic, stiff, mannequin-like, and probably a few others that aren't as flattering, but there's a fellow named Green (sorry I didn't get the first name) who was talking about the "heated" exchange between McCain and Romney in last night's debate when McCain accused Romney of backing a timetable for Iraq - the irritated Romney, Green says, "spoke in the same tone he'd use when ordering fine wine in a restaurant."

So there it is, would Reagan even order fine wine? A Martini with a jelly bean, maybe.

Republicans haven't embraced McCain, but they haven't embraced Romney either. And he hasn't embraced them. In fact, I dare say John McCain has made more overtures to the base than Romney has, and with time growing short for Mitt to turn things around, he still doesn't seem to understand what he needs to project. He's actually more like Fred Thompson than Ronald Reagan.

I keep hoping Romney will take that spark he showed after his Michigan win and turn it into a wildfire, but as Charles Krauthammer put it, he hasn't up to now, so there's no reason to think things will change.

What's even more interesting is how right-side commentators have responded to the McCain surge. I didn't hear anyone savage the Senator the way they did in 2000 except, well, Savage himself, which could only mean that for whatever reason, pundits felt they needed to keep their options open.

And now that John McCain is the clear frontrunner, those options have narrowed considerably. Rush Limbaugh has been more tempered than I've ever heard him. Sean Hannity still doesn't accept McCain, but he's sure not mounting a counter-offensive. Only Ann Coulter got tougher, and her column yesterday was one of the worst she's ever written, utterly devoid of humor and as shrill as a Hillary stump speech.

So Republicans had better not just resign themselves to McCain if he's still on top after Super Tuesday, they'd do well to swallow hard and embrace him in the hope that he'll embrace them.

Why? because they'll need him more than he needs them. Some people have said they won't vote for McCain, that they'll just stay home. What a great way to render yourselves irrelevant. McCain hasn't needed you much to win what he already has, why would he need you at all if he wins the election?

I like to talk about the conservatives who are being driven mad by McCain's success, but when I do, I'm really referring to one in particular. She's an otherwise lovely young woman who quite literally becomes insane when talking about John McCain.

We parted company two years ago when Missy labeled McCain a traitor, not to conservatives, but to the country. I felt badly because one has to be crazy to say what she said, but I didn't want to entertain that kind of talk, much less indulge her on it.

So here we sit with no perfect candidate. The Dems think they have two - but that's another liberal illusion. The fact is that John McCain simply cannot be worse than George Bush, and 70 percent of Republicans still think the President is just fine which makes the case that Missy may have been merely the most visible crazy conservative.

Let's get some things straight once and for all, since I'm just as tired of right-wing nonsense as I am left-wing nonsense. John McCain's name is on the title of McCain-Feingold, but the name that appears where it really counts is that of George Bush. McCain introduced a bill. That bill had input and agreement from a majority of the Congress, and they are every bit as responsible as McCain is. But again, in the end, the sole responsibility lies with Jorge Whatsaveto Bush who signed it - and every other bill that came across his desk save one rather insignificant bone he tossed to conservatives.

And regarding McCain's lack of support of the Bush tax cut, what part of McCain's "Hey, where's the spending cuts" question don't you self-described conservatives understand? Especially because seven years later, your President still hasn't seen an expenditure he didn't like? And why aren't you outraged that Bush now threatens to veto spending when he never did it even once before?

The bottom line is that if John McCain is the nominee, if you don't get behind him at least as much as you did and continue to do for George Bush, McCain isn't the traitor, you are... and you can add "hypocrite' to that.

I know that's tough, but it's about time you heard some straight talk.

I've said before he won't be elected if only because no one would want to see America led by a President with the name of Huckabee, but now there's a real reason.

But first, yesterday, Rep. Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. decided to vault right to the top of the list of the Filthiest Democrats in Congress. Sure it's a seemingly impossible feat for an unknown, but Stark, it turns out, is an extraordinary piece of scum that couldn't be kept hidden.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark said on the floor of the House*.

James Taranto picks up the story from there...

When Minority Leader John Bohener demanded an apology, Stark "responded only by calling those who voted to deny children health care 'chicken hawks'"

Stark, whose district covers much of Alameda County, Calif., south of Oakland, is--not to put too fine a point on it--a bit of a nut. When he has appeared in this column in the past, it has generally been for his outlying votes, such as these:

October 2004: In favor of Charlie Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft (a proposal so preposterous that Rangel himself voted against it.)

July 2006: Against a nonbinding resolution condemning terrorist attacks against Israel.

December 2006: Against a nonbinding resolution criticizing a French city for naming a street in honor of the man who murdered Philadelphia policeman Danny Faulkner.

The votes on these measures were 402-2, 410-8 and 368-31 respectively, so Stark is well outside the mainstream even of his own party.

So what does this have to do with one Mike Huckabee?

Here's the email I sent to Taranto:

Interestingly, in a segment which must have been taped before Stark said what he said, Mike Huckabee, appearing on the Glenn Beck show on CNN Headline News today, specifically and singularly cited Stark as a man he respected because, even though Stark was an atheist, he was a man who meant what he said.

Here's hoping you can catch the replay, which besides today, may even be repeated over the weekend.

And I must add that the fact that Huckabee respects Stark is not even the worst part. The absolute disqualifier is that he not only respects a liberal, he has the audacity to think he can say that with impunity.

I mean, I'm sure we'd all agree we'd much prefer to see Huckabee praising an Islamic terrorist.

* No Democrat has even demanded his resignation much less moved to oust him.

I saw two headlines today. The first, Senator Brownback Quietly Courts Conservatives. The other: Huckabee, Michael Moore In War Of Words.

Neither headline would have ever been written had Brownback and Huckabee not been running for the Republican nomination, and this reminds me of something that happened more than a year ago in a now forgotten forum when some liberal in an anti-Bush rant mentioned Senator Brownback as a possible candidate he could accept.

I found that interesting because at that point, no conservative I knew had even thought of Brownback in connection with "President."

And they still aren't.

That's not to say that Brownback or Huckabee wouldn't make fine Presidents, it's just that, if for no other reason, those two names are never going to follow "President" for purely aesthetic reasons.

There is one guy that the far right wackos seem to be enamored of, however, and that's Ron Paul, Nut-TX. In every WorldNetDaily poll in which he's mentioned as a presidential selection, he wins.

Which at least explains why these people are fervently religious, because when I think of Paul as President, even I say, "Holy God!"

But now comes the bigger news of the day. And it made me wonder if I had entered an alternate universe while I slept - or if President Bush did.

Bush Admits Administration Leaked CIA Name

The article went on to say that  Bush "acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration perhaps leaked her name to the news media."

Now you'll note that's not a quote from the President, which is a relief, but it still causes me to wonder if the President hasn't now completely taken leave of his senses? And here I've been accusing him of all sorts of wrongdoing and mismanagement, when the real problem is simply that he's insane!?!

Back to the article: "Mr. Bush would not directly answer a question about whether he is disappointed in the White House officials who leaked Plame's name."

Remember when you used to think this guy was a direct, tough talkin' leader?

Peggy Noonan writes another great column about Bush today (find it yourself) in which she touches on the biggest problem I have with him - I can't look directly at him. I can't stand to hear his voice, and I wish him only bad things.

Is that so wrong?