• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Stop using mental illness to avoid talking about armed white supremacy.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

Come on, man.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

When you’re a Republican, they let you do it.

Republicans in disarray!

They want us to be overwhelmed and exhausted. Focus. Resist. Oppose.

Let me file that under fuck it.

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

“woke” is the new caravan.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Every decision we make has lots of baggage with it, known or unknown.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / The Huckabee Pushback Starts

The Huckabee Pushback Starts

by John Cole|  December 4, 200712:07 pm| 95 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity, I Read These Morons So You Don't Have To

FacebookTweetEmail

I was wondering when the internal attacks would start, now that the establishment candidates are lagging behind Huckabee. The blog of the year:

My main objection to Huckabee — the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five — is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It’s not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that’s certainly the case. The real problem is that he’s too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee’s exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss.

Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.

I suspect that Huckabee required little lobbying. Waterboarding and long-term detention aren’t very “Christian”; they merely keep terrorists out of action and, in special circumstances enable us to find out where we’re going to be attacked next and/or where we can find those who are planning the next attacks. But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists, then he’s even less qualified to be president than I suspect.

Huckabee, McCain, and Paul all outright oppose waterboarding. That leaves Tancredo, who is unelectable but enthusiastic about torture, Giuliani, who is proving to be quite the liability for the GOP, and Multiple Choice Mitt, who may or may not support waterboarding, but he will have to consult with the polls, his advisors, and, according to the last debate, John McCain. Unfortunately, Mitt is not the right kind of Christian or Christian enough (whereas Huckabee is too Christian) for the current GOP, so he isn’t so great a choice.

What is a wingnut to do? I have an idea- FOUR MORE YEARS!

As a side note, what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Eight Crazy Nights
Next Post: The Cheney Administration »

Reader Interactions

95Comments

  1. 1.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Dude, isn’t that Reynolds’ blog? Isn’t he a professor or something? If so can a bunch of professors get together and repeatedly kick him in the junk for giving their profession a bad name?

    I mean seriously where’d this guy get his degree? Wal-Mart?

  2. 2.

    Vladi G

    December 4, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Well, Huckabee probably has the rapist-murderer vote. He’s pretty soft on them.

    The short version: Wayne Dumond raped a cousin of Bill Clinton’s in Arkansas and was jailed for it, but Clinton’s oh-so-moral Republican political opponents, among them Mike Huckabee, worked to free him, alleging that he’d been “framed” — and then Dumond went out and killed another woman.

  3. 3.

    Ugh

    December 4, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Shorter Paul Mirengoff:

    Daddy daddy daddy protect me from the monsters under my bed!

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    December 4, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    My main objection to Huckabee—the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five—is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It’s not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that’s certainly the case.

    The only Republican Candidate with even a shred of credibility on “fighting terror” is John McCain, and he got blackballed months ago.

    This nomination will go to Mitt Romney because he a) has the lion’s share of the money to spread around b) flip-flops so much you can’t actually pin him on anything other than being a flip-flopper and c) knows how to grab the party by the nuts and make them vote for him. He’s just Christian enough, just fiscally conservative enough, just panderishous enough, and just old money enough to pass all the litmus tests of a good Republican Nominee.

    And like John Kerry before him, he’s going to go down in a flaming wreck because if “effet flip flopping Massechuetts politician” didn’t win in ’04, it sure as hell isn’t going to win in ’08. He’ll get the Hitlery vote (regardless of whether she wins the nomination – I’m sure the party loyalists will see through Puppet President Obama/Edwards when it will be the Devil In The Blue Dress pulling all the strings). But that’s about it.

  5. 5.

    r€nato

    December 4, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    As a side note, what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture?

    you are a Democrat so obviously your question is biased and you are just trying to make Republicans look bad.

    A ‘fair and balanced’ question would be, ‘how many jihadis are you willing to torture to make America safe?’

  6. 6.

    Incertus (Brian)

    December 4, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    ‘how many jihadis are you willing to torture to make America safe?’

    And what’s an acceptable level of error in case the jihadis you’re torturing turn out to be innocent?

  7. 7.

    cleek

    December 4, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    Powerline: objectively pro-everything-they-said-they-hated-about-Saddam

  8. 8.

    DougJ

    December 4, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Huckabee reached this conclusion after meeting with a group of retired generals (the usual suspects, I assume) who are lobbying candidates to oppose Bush administration interrogation and detention policies.

    I literally cannot think of a more positive thing to say about Huckabee. He made a decision about interrogation by meeting with actual generals rather than by watching “24”. Only in the outer reaches of wingnuttia is that a bad thing.

  9. 9.

    radish

    December 4, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    But if Huckabee actually did reach his position based on the views of a handful of generals, and without consulting who are the people actually charged with protecting this country from terrorists, then he’s even less a lot more qualified to be president than I suspect junior.

    Fixed.

    Note: this should not be construed as an endorsement of Huckabee, who will indeed be the GOP nominee.

  10. 10.

    Jake

    December 4, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    As a side note, what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture?

    It says your party has the world’s biggest collection of SM/BD gear. I really think these guys aren’t happy unless they know someone, somewhere is suffering. Over the past two Prezidential terms they’ve been able to get their rocks off every time they open the paper. Terra! War! Neglected Vets! No Health Care! Katrina! Foreclosures! Unemployment! Global Warming! Wheeee!

    Now, they fear the Festival of Pain is about to come to a screeching halt and while they could at least beat up on a Democratic President for spoiling their fun, the thought of a Republican doing the same is intolerable.

  11. 11.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    Incertus (Brian) Says:

    ‘how many jihadis are you willing to torture to make America safe?’

    And what’s an acceptable level of error in case the jihadis you’re torturing turn out to be innocent?

    There is no error leftard, all jihadi’s are guilty period.

  12. 12.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Jake Says:

    As a side note, what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture?

    It says your party has the world’s biggest collection of SM/BD gear.

    Actually not true. What we do with our SM/BD gear we do to people because they LIKE it. Waterboarding would not be among the things done.

  13. 13.

    libarbarian

    December 4, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state.

    Yes, we already knew that the dominant faction of the Republican party is so allergic to even the most basic notions of Honor that they can’t understand why anyone might feel obligated to fix a problem we created unless we have something to gain by fixing it as well.

    Whoever wrote that is sub-human.

    If I am ever in the house of that soulless animal, I think I will break his furniture, shit on his carpet, and then walk away saying “No thanks are necessary and I hope that doesn’t cost you too much to clean up”.

  14. 14.

    demimondian

    December 4, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    It’s obvious, Brian. If they’re jihadi’s then they’re future terrorists. How could it be otherwise? Or they’re women. Women Jihadi’s are burkha models, teaching our women how to make it hard for us red-blooded “murken guys to look down their cleavage.

  15. 15.

    bob

    December 4, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    These morons rail on about Hollywood, but their whole view of the world comes from John Wayne, Arnold Schwarznegger and Sylvester Stallone movies. WE don’t put frat boys and actors in office, THEY do. Wave the flag bullshit. While my dad and his brother were in Europe and the Pacific, Wayne and Reagan were PRETENDING to be in Europe and the Pacific. While I was making water on aircraft carriers, Schwarznegger was loving Nixon because he believed in freedom???????? (just like his Nazi father, I guess)and Stallone was teaching PE to girls in Switzerland. Oh, yeah, and John Wayne and his son Patrick were STILL pretending to be heroes. To quote Mike Malloy: “have I told you today how MUCH I hate these people?”

  16. 16.

    bob

    December 4, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Sorry if that seems off topic, but this whole torture is cool thing seems to me to be an outgrowth of the make believe world the righties have constructed.

  17. 17.

    Zifnab

    December 4, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state.

    Yes, we already knew that the dominant faction of the Republican party is so allergic to even the most basic notions of Honor that they can’t understand why anyone might feel obligated to fix a problem we created unless we have something to gain by fixing it as well.

    Huckabee needed an excuse for US forces to stay in Iraq, but he didn’t want to look like a brain dead, cock sure, fanatical, kool-aid drinking wacktard. His mistake is clear as day.

    That said, its worth noting that Huckabee’s “We need to clean up the mess in Iraq” isn’t all that far off from Shrub’s “We need to stay in Iraq until the job is done.” The only real difference is that Huckabee concedes that we made the mess (see: job), and considers it our duty to stay rather than claiming we if leave the Evil Fanatical Jihadists will all hop the next suicide bus to your mother’s house and kill her.

  18. 18.

    norbizness

    December 4, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    I’m constantly worried that some constantly incorrect, hack GOP lawyer in American Canada will be unsatisfied by a hypothetical Presidency’s ability to fight terrorism.

  19. 19.

    rawshark

    December 4, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism

    Terrorism, communism, jihadism, hippyism, alcoholism, liberalism, drug-dealerism. There is always a boogeyman that the republicans need to elect a tough man to fight. Its like republican voters are grown up children, There entire world is bounded by Santa (God) on one side and the boogeyman (all the isms that want to abort your flags) on the other.

  20. 20.

    Jake

    December 4, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Actually not true. What we do with our SM/BD gear we do to people because they LIKE it. Waterboarding would not be among the things done.

    Sorry, I should have caveated and contexted my comment. I of course meant no disrespect to people who engage in consentual activities.

    I was referring to the sociopaths who’re only happy if there is no consent.

  21. 21.

    LITBMueller

    December 4, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Heh. It appears then that “morals” end at the water’s edge.

  22. 22.

    Svensker

    December 4, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    Gosh, Huckabee always seemed like a horrendous choice, not too far behind Giuliani in the “eeheeeyewwww” factor, but now he doesn’t sound like such a bad egg. Hmmmm.

  23. 23.

    r€nato

    December 4, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    And what’s an acceptable level of error in case the jihadis you’re torturing turn out to be innocent?

    trick question, you tricksy Dhimmicrat!

    If you’re picked up by our noble, infallible American warriors, you must be guilty of something!

  24. 24.

    r€nato

    December 4, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    Actually not true. What we do with our SM/BD gear we do to people because they LIKE it. Waterboarding would not be among the things done.

    now I understand why the conservative Baptist minister had two wetsuits on…

  25. 25.

    4tehlulz

    December 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    Shorter Right:

    My main objection to Huckabee—the reason why he’s my fifth choice out of five—is that I lack confidence in his ability to enjoy torturing and killing Muzzies.

  26. 26.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    I can understand not being enthusiastic about tax-hike Huck, but as a Christian, I find Powerline’s arguments disturbing and not at all convincing.

    It’s as if the guy is arguing that Huck takes the whole Jesus thing too seriously, as if that keeps him from being sufficiently bloodthirsty.

    That’s ridiculous. I’m sure that when push comes to shove, Huck will be unafraid to do the right thing to protect America. And unlike Mitt, he answers to G-d, not a bunch of lawyers and polytheists from Salt Lake City.

    This argument against Huckabee is the weakest I have ever seen. And that’s saying a lot.

  27. 27.

    Wonders for Oyarsa

    December 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    My biggest doubts on Huckabee were on this very issue – foreign policy. He put my fears to rest here:

    http://media.csis.org/csistv/?070928_huckabee

  28. 28.

    Ed Drone

    December 4, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    The Rethugs are ‘ismists,’ always afraid and ready to fight against some ‘ism’ — communism, liberalism, European fascism, etc. They even have to convert Islam into an ism (Islamofascism) in order to fight against it.

    But there are isms they like, it seems — corporatism, authoritarianism, and Americanism (aka “red, white & blue fascism).”

    Ed

  29. 29.

    JR

    December 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    You forgot Poland Hunter!

  30. 30.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    He’s just Christian enough

    Are you an idiot? He’s Mormon, not Christian. I take it you’re an atheist, otherwise you’d know the difference and not say something so moronic.

  31. 31.

    random

    December 4, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Four More Years?

    Why don’t they have the courage of their convictions and run the natural successor – CHENEY.
    Younger than McCain,
    Not Mormon,
    Pro-torture,
    More anti-abortion than Giuliani.

    Go ahead, he’s a natural, pick Cheney. Cheney would.
    See if you can hit the 28% Crazification factor.

  32. 32.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    And what’s an acceptable level of error in case the jihadis you’re torturing turn out to be innocent?

    Dumb question. A “jihadi” by definition is not innocent. Your pro-surrender snark fails.

  33. 33.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    Jake Says:

    Sorry, I should have caveated and contexted my comment. I of course meant no disrespect to people who engage in consentual activities.

    I was referring to the sociopaths who’re only happy if there is no consent.

    Oh I know you were, just clearing things up a bit LOL. Then again I have known several people who operate within the confines of our lifestyle because they are that type of sociopath, it’s a constant fight to keep them out.

  34. 34.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    random Says:

    Go ahead, he’s a natural, pick Cheney. Cheney would.
    See if you can hit the 28% Crazification factor.

    My father recently said we should impeach bush just so cheney can take over…

  35. 35.

    Zifnab

    December 4, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Are you an idiot? He’s Mormon, not Christian. I take it you’re an atheist, otherwise you’d know the difference and not say something so mormonic.

    Fixed.

  36. 36.

    Jen

    December 4, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Wow, did anyone notice that Psycho responded *exactly* like the spoof, *after* the spoof? We’re not dealing with the spiciest taco in the combo, are we?

    ‘Course, if Powerline doesn’t know that Bush himself said we should shut down Gitmo, and that generals might actually be among the people charged with protecting our country, maybe there’s a trend amongst our wingnut brethren?

  37. 37.

    Seanly

    December 4, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Psycheout wins with lack of reading comprehension. Mormons share the holier-than-thou & busybody market with conservative Christians. The big difference is just the age of the mythology. If you throw out Joseph Smith’s tall tale on the goofiness (only I can see the plates, then they took them back), how much reliance can you put in that older tall tale?

    I love the line “your pro-surrender snark fails”.

    PS I truly do know better than to feed the trolls…

  38. 38.

    AkaDad

    December 4, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Alternate headline: Powerline Clubs Huckabee

  39. 39.

    sidereal

    December 4, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Waterboarding and long-term detention aren’t very “Christian”

    Hey look, the truth is starting to sink in.

    The immigration debate fracture between the pro-business (and therefore cheap labor) Republican crew and the nativist Republican crew did wonders for the GOP. And I’ve been getting the vibe the last few weeks that they’re prepping for another fracture between the Heimat Über Alles Security-State crew and the Christianists with a Shred of Dignity crew. Christianists may well bail on a Giuliani candidacy. The brownshirts may well bail on a Huckabee candidacy. Of the frontrunners, that leaves Romney who might be able to hold the two, though I suspect he’d begin flip-flopping so fast he might burn up in the atmosphere and would end up keeping half of each. Sad times.

  40. 40.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Not even Psycheout could pull this off

  41. 41.

    4tehlulz

    December 4, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Psycheout wins with lack of reading comprehension.

    Actually, I thought the best part was his channeling anti-Kennedy sentiments from 1960.

  42. 42.

    Dennis - SGMM

    December 4, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Your pro-surrender snark fails.

    So to oppose torture is to favor surrender? That’s quite a jump. Keep it up: one day you’ll clear that shark.

  43. 43.

    r€nato

    December 4, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    This argument against Huckabee is the weakest I have ever seen. And that’s saying a lot.

    you don’t read your own comments much, do you?

  44. 44.

    r€nato

    December 4, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Mormons share the holier-than-thou & busybody market with conservative Christians.

    I just roll my eyes when one set of Christians accuse another set of Christians of being a cult. Kettle, meet pot.

  45. 45.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    Cant’t…Stop…Laughing

  46. 46.

    Jen

    December 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Thanks, Dreggas, that is something else. Someone should really tell the Supreme Court about the Eighth Commandment clearly prohibiting stealing from U.S. Citizens.

    If English was good enough for Jesus…

  47. 47.

    libarbarian

    December 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Are you an idiot? He’s Mormon, not Christian.

    Heres another article from blogs4brownback:

    Demonwatch: Platypusses

    Platypusses demonstrate their evil in a number of ways. It is very clear that their unnatural rodent ancestors had carnal relations with duck. It is equally clear that their duck ancestors had unnatural relations with rodents. Where Satan gave this unholy hybrid a special gift from his horde is in the back heel. Platypuses have poison spikes with which they can inflict an intense stinging pain on decent Christians who should happen to come near them. Like the serpent in the garden, platypusses tempt human women with their playful and comical appearance, then sting them into madness and damnation when they approach.

  48. 48.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    It’s obvious, Brian. If they’re jihadi’s then they’re future terrorists. How could it be otherwise? Or they’re women. Women Jihadi’s are burkha models, teaching our women how to make it hard for us red-blooded “murken guys to look down their cleavage.

    I like to call them “pre-terrorists”, and all those burka-clad women? “pre-feminazis”. You have to stop them before they have the knowledge on how to build IEDs/oppose sexism or they’ll start WWMXVCII (or whatever number we’re up to now).

  49. 49.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    December 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Anybody catch Tucker Carlson and Hugh Hewitt yesterday at the end of the show?

  50. 50.

    sidereal

    December 4, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Cant’t…Stop…Laughing

    What’s with the hyphenization of ‘cheer-leader’ like they’re some newfangled invention.

    Reminds me of this guy

  51. 51.

    James F. Elliott

    December 4, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Are you an idiot? He’s Mormon, not Christian. I take it you’re an atheist, otherwise you’d know the difference and not say something so moronic.

    As an atheist, I’d have to say you’re drawing a distinction without a difference, Psycheout. Let me break it down for you, Paulian-style: Do Mormons believe Jesus was the Messiah? Yes. Do they therefore accept the Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Yes. They are therefore followers of Christ. Ergo, they are Christians. They might, to you, be the wrong type of Christians, or even heretics, but they are most undoubtedly Christians. Fuck, dude, read your St. Paul before calling other people “moronic.”

  52. 52.

    ThymeZone

    December 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture

    It says that your party is dead as a viable force going forward in this country.

    I predict that the GOP will cease to exist on election day 2008. The congressional landslide that is headed their way will bury them in obscurity for a long time. The Rove coalition and decades of GOP hegemony are soon to be forgotten.

    Starting in a little over a year, our greatest danger will be that the Dems in congress will begin forming a new bastion of corruption, graft and cronyism that further fucks us over, to replace the one that is on its way out now.

  53. 53.

    Incertus (Brian)

    December 4, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Dumb question. A “jihadi” by definition is not innocent. Your pro-surrender snark fails.

    The word jihad can be translated “struggle,” (as is often the case, there isn’t a one-to-one analog in English), so a jihadi is basically one who struggles. In this case, it could apply to a radical bomb thrower, or someone on the opposite side of a political issue. A labor leader could be considered a jihadi. So might a political candidate for office. I know that fucks with your sensibilities, but I can’t help that.

    I like to call them “pre-terrorists”, and all those burka-clad women? “pre-feminazis”. You have to stop them before they have the knowledge on how to build IEDs/oppose sexism or they’ll start WWMXVCII (or whatever number we’re up to now).

    I prefer the term from the first season of The Boondocks–a person of terrorist descent.

  54. 54.

    The Other Steve

    December 4, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Self-destruct! come on baby, self-destruct!

  55. 55.

    les

    December 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    The anti-Huckabees:
    Iowans for Some Semblance of Christian Decency

    At least they know enough about repubs to not set their goals too high.

  56. 56.

    Cyrus

    December 4, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    DougJ Says:
    I literally cannot think of a more positive thing to say about Huckabee. He made a decision about interrogation by meeting with actual generals rather than by watching “24”. Only in the outer reaches of wingnuttia is that a bad thing.

    Your statement is entirely true, but unfortunately, the “outer reaches of wingnuttia” includes one of the most popular right-wing blogs, Time’s blog of the year, written by three lawyers (law professors? I forget). God help us all.

  57. 57.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Incertus (Brian) Says:

    The word jihad can be translated “struggle,” (as is often the case, there isn’t a one-to-one analog in English), so a jihadi is basically one who struggles. In this case, it could apply to a radical bomb thrower, or someone on the opposite side of a political issue. A labor leader could be considered a jihadi. So might a political candidate for office. I know that fucks with your sensibilities, but I can’t help that.

    Wanna really fuck with the fundies? Prove that there is such a thing as the multiverse and as such every sin they have have thought of committing they have committed in one of the other universes.

    I know this pre-supposes that you can convince them that there are multiple universes but think about this, they deny it here, but in another universe they don’t.

    I know, I’m operating on a much higher thoughtwave for it but hey….the theory is really close to being proven.

  58. 58.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    I prefer the term from the first season of The Boondocks—a person of terrorist descent.

    Snowflake terrorists?

    Maybe that’s why the GOP doesn’t oppose IVF. Perhaps it’s not an 400,000+ annual embryo holocaust if the eggs are brown eggs.

  59. 59.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    I know, I’m operating on a much higher thoughtwave for it but hey….the theory is really close to being proven.

    C’mon. You expect people who, in the 21st century: Aren’t sure if the earth is round (the woman on the view); whether the earth is 6,000 or 7,000 years old; whether dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time; whether evolution occurred, etc. to be swayed by a little science about multiple universes?

    I forget which comedian had this bit, but it was hilarious (I’m paraphrasing):

    “I heard this female televangelist railing on about how science is bad, and athiestic. I have no problem with this message. I have a problem with it being delivered by satellite. You seem a little choosy about which science you will and won’t believe in sister…

  60. 60.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    jcricket Says:

    C’mon. You expect people who, in the 21st century: Aren’t sure if the earth is round (the woman on the view); whether the earth is 6,000 or 7,000 years old; whether dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time; whether evolution occurred, etc. to be swayed by a little science about multiple universes?

    Like I said, if the theory is correct then I can take solace in the fact that in one universe they do believe it.

  61. 61.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Like I said, if the theory is correct then I can take solace in the fact that in one universe they do believe it.

    But in that universe the fundies have never been born because they’re parents were smart enough to abort them before they dumbed up the planet.

  62. 62.

    conumbdrum

    December 4, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    So why hasn’t the GOP establishment lined up behind Huckabee, despite the rising support from the base? He’s got the Christian bonafides, a lack of cupboard skeletons (other than the whole Wayne Dumond mess, anyhow), and he’s a surprisingly likable guy to boot.

    I’ll tell you why. Because he actively wants to help the poor.

    It’s the same reason that the Repubs dread and fear John Edwards far more than Hillary. The idea of another LBJ or FDR in the White House is what has GOP power brokers waking up screaming in the small hours. And if said LBJ/FDR turns out to be one of their own… well, that’s too much to wrap their minds around without needing to lie down. Poor folks need a Giuliani-style backhand to the face; that’s what makes them strong and self-reliant, y’know.

    The two defining characteristics of today’s Republican party are:

    1) Fear of brown people.
    2) Loathing of poor people.

    Once you realize this, everything they do makes sense. The morality crap is just for show. Hell, Giuliani’s front-runner status (and Pat Robertson’s support!) are ample proof that the so-called “culture war” is the GOP’s equivalent of the magician’s “plausible diversion.”

    Keeping down the darkies. Keeping down the poor. That’s what it’s all about. And Huckabee won’t follow the script.

  63. 63.

    Curious

    December 4, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    What about Fred Thompson?

  64. 64.

    conumbdrum

    December 4, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    I should add to the above rant that I am not a Huckabee supporter… I’m sure glad he’s around, though, if only because he’s leading the loathsome Mitt in the polls in Iowa, despite Romney spending a hundred dollars to every Huckabee one.

    Schadenfreudelicious.

  65. 65.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    jcricket Says:

    But in that universe the fundies have never been born because they’re parents were smart enough to abort them before they dumbed up the planet.

    Yeah but that is in only one of several universes in one he/she was born, raised religious, and believes in multiple universes.

  66. 66.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    The word jihad can be translated “struggle,” (as is often the case, there isn’t a one-to-one analog in English), so a jihadi is basically one who struggles.

    Shorter Brian: Jihadis are brave and noble freedom fighters!

  67. 67.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Yeah but that is in only one of several universes in one he/she was born, raised religious, and believes in multiple universes.

    I think my head just exploded. Must have been all those connipions I ate.

  68. 68.

    Chad N. Freude

    December 4, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    Psycheout Says (sarcastically, implicitly equating jihad with murder):
    Jihadis are brave and noble freedom fighters!

    Given this definition on the Merriam-Webster website, perhaps some are. Psycheout, do you think that George Bush’s campaign to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq does not fit the definition of jihad as “a crusade for a principle or belief”?

  69. 69.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    jcricket Says:

    I think my head just exploded. Must have been all those connipions I ate.

    Yeah, That’s the usual reaction to it since it is pretty mind-bending which makes it all the more fun to do to fundies.

    Tell them There are multiple universes and they say no, then you say, yeah I know you just agreed with me, again no, again yes.

    It’s like duck season/wabbit season and just as amusing.

  70. 70.

    Incertus (Brian)

    December 4, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Shorter Brian: Jihadis are brave and noble freedom fighters!

    Some are brave and noble freedom fighters. Some are assholes. Some posters on this thread are intelligent. Some are not, but we’re all posters nonetheless.

    And to make it clear for you, Psycheout, you’re not one of the intelligent ones. Sorry.

  71. 71.

    Chad N. Freude

    December 4, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    Speaking of Huckabee, “Huckabee seems to love loot and has a dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules and propriety in general. Since that first, failed campaign, the ethical questions have multiplied.” According to this article, Huckabee is not nice, honest, ethical.

  72. 72.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    And to make it clear for you, Psycheout, you’re not one of the intelligent ones. Sorry.

    It does hurt, naturally. If only I could so bravely speak truth to power like you do every day, maybe my comments could be respected by filth like you. Oh, how I yearn for that day.

  73. 73.

    Chad N. Freude

    December 4, 2007 at 7:08 pm

    At the risk of repeating myself, I repeat myself:

    Psycheout, do you think that George Bush’s campaign to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq does not fit the definition of jihad as “a crusade for a principle or belief”?

  74. 74.

    maxbaer (not the original)

    December 4, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    I know this pre-supposes that you can convince them that there are multiple universes but think about this, they deny it here, but in another universe they don’t.

    I know, I’m operating on a much higher thoughtwave for it but hey….the theory is really close to being proven.

    Have you been reading some Seth?

  75. 75.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    According to this article, Huckabee is not nice, honest, ethical.

    But that’s the media portrayal, so that sticks. Just like McCain is a likeable maverick, Hillary is a calculating lesbian whore (or regal presidential material, they can’t decide) and GW is the guy you wanna have beer with.

    Fucking media.

  76. 76.

    jcricket

    December 4, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    It’s like duck season/wabbit season and just as amusing.

    So who’s Elmer Fudd in that scenario?

  77. 77.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    Psycheout, do you think that George Bush’s campaign to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq does not fit the definition of jihad as “a crusade for a principle or belief”?

    Sorry, Chad. I thought you were just being a typical Kos Kook and asking a ridiculous rhetorical question with no merit.

    Ahem. The answer is “no,” the President is not a jihadist. Happy now?

  78. 78.

    Dreggas

    December 4, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    maxbaer (not the original) Says:

    I know this pre-supposes that you can convince them that there are multiple universes but think about this, they deny it here, but in another universe they don’t.

    I know, I’m operating on a much higher thoughtwave for it but hey….the theory is really close to being proven.

    Have you been reading some Seth?

    No, actually stuff about parallelt universes, quantum physics and the giant hole they found in the universe along with M, or string theory.

  79. 79.

    Chad N. Freude

    December 4, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Sorry, Chad. I thought you were just being a typical Kos Kook and asking a ridiculous rhetorical question with no merit.

    Ahem. The answer is “no,” the President is not a jihadist. Happy now?

    Not really, because I didn’t ask if you thought that the President was a jihadist. I did ask if you thought that his avowed purpose in waging war in Iraq makes the war a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm (Merriam Webster again) for a principle or belief. If you don’t think it is, I’d like to know which components of the definition don’t apply. I’m serious — I’d really like to know, and I’d appreciate a serious response. (Just so you know, I don’t think “Happy now?”is part of a serious discussion.)

  80. 80.

    Incertus (Brian)

    December 4, 2007 at 9:10 pm

    Chad, I think it’s pretty obvious by now that Psycheout doesn’t want a serious discussion. He wants to hate on brown people who dare to worship a different way than he does (assuming he worships), and categorize all of them as a single, monolithic group who all think the same way because they use funny words like “jihad.”

  81. 81.

    Psycheout

    December 4, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    He wants to hate on brown people

    Obviously. Frankly I don’t know why I even bother with you kids on the short bus. All rant no thought. But then you’re leftists, so you can’t help it, I guess.

  82. 82.

    Incertus (Brian)

    December 4, 2007 at 9:35 pm

    Frankly I don’t know why I even bother with you kids on the short bus.

    Where I live, the short busses belong to the private schools–the preparatory type–so if you’re using that as an insult, well, you’re missing the mark a bit.

    That said, I notice you still haven’t answered Chad’s question, probably because you know that you’re stuck. Your simplistic look at the Arab world and their language is busted, whether you want to admit it or not.

  83. 83.

    Chad N. Freude

    December 4, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Brian –

    My problem — well, I have a lot of problems, but the one that’s relevant here — is the misuse of language to obscure or eliminate any serious, rational, logical, meaningful discussion of matters of importance, like, oh, I don’t know, say life and death. Waving words like “jihad” about (insert bloody shirt metaphor here) cuts off any thought or discussion of reality, morality, nuance (with us [on everything] or against us [on everything]), or anything else that might enable us to live in a complicated and sometimes hostile world without renouncing/destroying/killing our enemies, allies, and everybody who isn’t us. I want to engage people who do this, to follow the logic (if any) that supports their positions. Psycheout appears to be able to do that kind of analysis. (At least his/her grammar and spelling checkers work.)

  84. 84.

    Chad N. Freude

    December 4, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    Wow! I just looked at Psycheout’s URL, and there is a cartoon that supports the point I just made about using loaded language to forestall discussion. In this case, it’s the word “Mormon” being used to cut off any rational conversation (about Romney’s honesty, consistency, use of religion as a political tool, …)

  85. 85.

    Bruce Moomaw

    December 5, 2007 at 1:40 am

    …and, worst of all, he reached this decision on the advice of some “retired generals” (“the usual suspects”) rather by talking to “the people actually charged with protecting this country against terrorists” (i.e., Cheney and Douglas Feith). I was wondering how long it would take the Bushites to start raising hell about Huckabee’s anti-torture and anti-Gitmo statement yesterday — and it’s entirely possible, given the downright hysterical enthusiasm for torture shown by Frank Luntz’s GOP focus group during the last debate, that Giuliani and Romney could beat him by wielding this club alone.

  86. 86.

    Mr Furious

    December 5, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Forget all that shit…Huckabee’s screwed now if this is true.

    My take here.

  87. 87.

    Brian

    December 5, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    To me, the most telling quote from the neocon diatribe against Huckabee’s alleged “softness” was this:

    “My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because “we broke it.” Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists….”

    Except that we didn’t attack Iraq to defeat al Qaeda–that was Afghanistan–Iraq had WMD, remember? As for limiting Iran’s influence, we actually increased it when we eliminated Iraq as a military counterweight to Iran–that was why Saint Ronald Reagan supported Iraq in its war against Iran, and why W’s lesser father Bush 1 didn’t destroy Iraq in the first Gulf War. Then, not content with merely removing Iraq as a counterweight, we actually assured Iraq would be an ally of Iran by allowing an election that produced a Shiite government staffed with people who strongly support Iran–Maliki, for instance, spent time in exile in Iran. And as for a devastating defeat at the hands of the terrorists, AQI has so little support that when the Sunnis made up their mind to do so, they ran AQI out without much trouble at all. This of course negates the whole Bush argument that we have to stay in Iraq to prevent it from being a haven for al Qaeda.

    So Huckabee is a bad candidate because he might not fully subscribe to all of these neocon fantasies. This makes one realize just how terrible the Republican candidates are.

  88. 88.

    jcricket

    December 5, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Forget all that shit…Huckabee’s screwed now if this is true.

    My take here.

    Maybe. Democrats don’t seem to have the cajones for attack politics to take advantage of this. Maybe Guliani will try and use it though, with the effect of sinking Huckabee.

    The “best” parts about the scandal are: direct appeal from Huckabee (not like he just approved some change in law that resulted in the parole); crazy Clinton haters were the ones who spurred this whole thing claiming the guy was “set up” (i.e. not a rapist).

    I know Clinton, Edwards and Obama are duking it out on the Democratic side, but I have to love the muck being slung on the Republican side. If Huckabee or Guliani emerges as the nominee, they’re both fucked nationally. I actually give Romney a slightly better shot, esp. if evangelicals hold their nose and vote for the Mormon.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Huckabee: Too Christian to be President says:
    December 4, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    […] Update: John Cole comments on the Powerline post as well, and wonders: what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture? […]

  2. PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Huckabee: Too Christian to be President says:
    December 4, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    […] Update: John Cole comments on the Powerline post as well, and wonders: what does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture? […]

  3. Comment on the GOP’s presidential slate « Later On says:
    December 4, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    […] Posted in Election, GOP at 11:46 am by LeisureGuy From John Cole at Balloon Juice, a pointed question: What does it say about your party when people are deemed unelectable because they oppose torture? […]

  4. Why Paul Mirengoff Is an Idiot « Blogs 4 Conservatives says:
    December 5, 2007 at 2:16 am

    […] Hat tips: Race 4 2008 and Balloon Juice. […]

  5. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Quote Of The Day says:
    December 6, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    […] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]

  6. Valtrex. says:
    July 13, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    Valtrex.

    Valtrex and achn e. Valtrex interactions. Valtrex. How does valtrex affect coumadin. B valtrex. What does valtrex do.

  7. Coupon valtrex. says:
    July 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Adhd and valtrex.

    How does valtrex affect warafin. Valtrex. 2 grams twice daily valtrex.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - arrieve - Antarctica Part 2 5
Image by arrieve (6/23/25)

Recent Comments

  • gene108 on Monday Afternoon Open Thread: Today’s Distraction (Jun 23, 2025 @ 3:11pm)
  • catclub on Odds & Ends (Open Thread) (Jun 23, 2025 @ 3:11pm)
  • Belafon on Monday Afternoon Open Thread: Today’s Distraction (Jun 23, 2025 @ 3:10pm)
  • opiejeanne on On The Road – Albatrossity – Moving through May (Jun 23, 2025 @ 3:10pm)
  • gene108 on Monday Afternoon Open Thread: Today’s Distraction (Jun 23, 2025 @ 3:09pm)

Personality Crisis Podcast (Cole, DougJ, mistermix)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!