Can You Smell What The Huckster is Shoveling?
And now here comes more of that Huckabee passive-aggressive schucking and jiving. There are murmurs coming out of his campaign that a big smeary dirty attack is coming against one of the candidates that will be so vile and disgusting and smelling of gooseplop that it’ll drive the candidate right out of the campaign.
Maybe even out of the country.
Indeed, the story is so salaciously wicked that the not-mentioned-but-coyly-hinted-at candidate will have to construct a rocket ship and launch himself into the burning sun which will be the only thing hot enough to incinerate his shame.
But hark! What is this? Michael van der Galien has found that it’s not just one story coming out of Sanctimony Central, it’s two! They may be about the same candidate. They may not. For sure, one of the candidates involved is Mitt Romney.
I dearly hope that Iowa Republicans decide we don’t need another silver-tongued emotion-stoker from Arkansas who specialized in passive-aggressive behavior and slimy tricks to get what he wants in the White House. I dearly hope they use their common sense and deny the Huckster the win he so desperately needs.
No related posts.
Category: The 2008 Horse Race
Well I wouldn't hold my breath there Jimmie! God, I truly depise that man. What in the hell is wrong with people that they can't see thru his BS???
I know what's wrong with'em- they're religious right wing conservatives!!! Is this not completely obvious? This is called domestic blowback, people! Praise the Lord!
It's amazing what you can get away with when you cloak yourself in the ministerial robes …
He's not molesting any children, thank goodness, but gosh, he is one dirty politician . . .
above post not meant to demean any religion, jsut pointing out that when you're in the ministerial cloth, people just believe the best of you, which often lets you get away with crap longer than if you hadn't wrapped yourself in the preacher's garb . . .
Huckabee is a bare knuckled retail politician who has the dirtiest political operatives of the modern era working for him.
it's a bunch of Bullhuck.
Henny Penny – Obviously, you don't remember the 1990s very well.
Drex – I take your point. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is dribbling out in the fashion it is and that Ed Rollins is working for Huckabee. This has the stink of his tactics all over it.
Drex you are correct. I have spoken to people who will vote for him simply because he's a "man of the cloth". They don't care about the issues. This is when evangelical christians can be dangerous. Blindly following someone simply because he's a man of God. Supposedly.
Christian evangelicals are one of the bases of the modern Republican party. They will be heard !!
They are NOT going to support either Mitt or Rudy
John – I know they're one of the bases. I am one. But when I choose to be heard, it won't be by throwing a temper tantrum, which is what this whole Huckabee rush is starting to sound like.
[...] don’t, but perhaps that’s just my cynical nature. However, it’s a bit early to criticize any one candidate or campaign at this point in time for attacking the other. We don’t know yet what [...]
The GOP hoisted on their own petard.*
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people.
*That's "petard" with a "p". I'm not writing about W here.
Robert, don't get too happy. Remember, it was your party that elected Jimmy Carter and brought about the rebirth of conservativism and 12 years of Republican control of the White House in doing so.
A Republican Jimmy Carter isn't more likely to bring about *more* liberal policies.
And you apaprently haven't learned much over there on the left, since Carter is still very much in demand. So, yeah. Do that victory dance early.
"Blindly following someone simply because he’s a man of God. Supposedly.
You're talking about George W. Bush, right?
Well, if the shoe fits.
Big smeary dirty attack? That does bring to mind a recent president, but not Clinton.
[...] points out the unhealthy fusion of right-wing politics and religion, but who has been less a fan of said fusion since the [...]
[...] cites this post and this one in his dime-store Poirot imitation but, tell me, where in either of them did I criticize the [...]
Slow down jimmie. Just because I find Republicans abominable, doesn't mean the Democrats are "my party".
I'm not dancing about a Democratic victory. I'm just limbering up so I can dance on Conservatism's grave.
Don't hurt yourself doing all that stretching, Robert. Conservativism has been declared dead before. I believe the last time it happened was somewhere around 1979.
Looks like all the right-wingers are having a bad case of the vapors about Huckabee. Imagine that, one of the great unwashed turning uppity and running for President! Instead of just lining up the Evangelical vote for the Republicans as usual! The nerve!
Face it, guys. You have pandered to the religious crackpots for two decades. You created the monster. Now, it's on the loose. Ha! Ha! Now try to get the genie back in the bottle…
But now we can point to 2 Presidents who practiced Conservatism, and have shown anyone with eyes and common sense that it is not a sustainable in practice.
Once an aberration, twice a trend.
It took socialism only one (admittedly huge) failure to be tossed onto the scrapheap of history.
Let me just say that George Bush is not what you could call conservative. That's pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about conservativism.
So, socialsm is on the scrap heap of history? I guess you didn't see the Democratic debate last night.
Re: "Let me just say that George Bush is not what you could call conservative. That’s pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about conservativism."
George W. Bush is the man Conservatives nominated twice for President. He is the man they defend, virtually unconditionally. George W. Bush is also the man, were he to choose to ignore the Constitution (again) and run for President in 2008, who would get 100% of the Conservative votes (again).
Declaring that he is "not conservative" is only the Conservative's way of denying any personal accountability for the man they have unconditionally supported in the past.
It will happen again in 2008. Conservatives will follow their 100% Republican loyalty for whomever is nominated, and pretend that he "will cut government" (though no Republican since WW II has), and that he "will keep the government out of our personal lives" (unless James Dobson says to do it).
Then, should we have a Republican President through 2012/16, we will get to hear the "President X is no Conservative" as Conservatives have fooled themselves again, as always.
And the required Conservative answer is "But Democrats will be worse". Of course, since George W. Bush, with a Republican Congress, has outspent even Lyndon Johnson, that is not true, but Conservatives will be required to believe it anyway.
It is required if you are Conservative to believe whatever the Republican party says is true at the given momemnt. Always.
Apparently, Philly Steve, you have not been paying attention. Conservatives have been banging on George Bush for seven years now. Let me list a few things with which they have disagreed sharply with him.
1) Medicare Prescription Plan
2) No Child left Behind
3) Harriet Miers
4) Alberto Gonzalez
5) Immigration Reform
6) Campaign Finance Reform
7) How to fight the Islamists.
To say, as you did, that conservatives agree with him 100 percent and would vote for him in the impossible situation that he violated the Constitution is simply silly. You need to review your history. That or just read a few dozen posts here where I've taken the President to task for something.
Re: "Apparently, Philly Steve, you have not been paying attention. Conservatives have been banging on George Bush for seven years now. Let me list a few things with which they have disagreed sharply with him."
Granted that occasional complaints indicate that not all Conservatives are mindless automotons for the Bush white House.
However, when George W. Bush demands protection from real accountability: Meaning Congressional hearings, with supoenas that would compel his staff to actually tell the truth, Conservatives fall in lockstep, 100% protective mode.
When AG Alberto Gonzalez actually had to testify, under oath, about his management of the DOJ, his incompetence was so blatant that no one this side of Sean Hannity coUld deny the man was not up to the job.
Imagine how many American soldiers would be alive or uninjured today had Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld been subject to true scrutiny for his planning of the occupation of Iraq. (Before the 2006 elections forced George W. Bush to "accept" the rsignation of the "Greatest Secretary of Defense in US History" (Dick Cheney's words).
As long as the Bush White House can count on that protection, the true magnitude of George W. Bush's incompetence will remain hidden from the public.
Re: "To say, as you did, that conservatives agree with him 100 percent and would vote for him in the impossible situation that he violated the Constitution is simply silly."
Yes, it was silly to say that. Everyone knows that George W. Bush is too lazy to do the work necessary to run for an third term.
Again I'll point out, Steve that a great many conservatives were critical of Gonzales, before he testified.
What they opposed, correctly, was dragging him in front of Congress to testify about the fired US Attorneys. We opposed Congress' attempt to usurp the President's Constitutional authority to hire and fire executive branch employees at will.
But, it seems, that Congressional Democrats only embrace the parts of the Constitution with which they agree.
Nevertheless, the ground you can defend has shrunk even more.