More Active Posts
Front Page
At the circus
 |
 79 Comments |
Since Mike Huckabee is funny, he must be dumb. The secular liberal consensus is that a few evangelicals are like Jonathan Edwards, smart but dour, but most are Gomer Pyle clones, funny in their way but certainly not bright. Evangelical political scientist Charles Dunn contends that Huckabee has both “a razor sharp mind” and “quick wit.” Nah, couldn’t be.
The GOP establishment is semi-panicked about Huckabee, although not as much as it will be if he wins South Carolina and Florida. But just when you least expect it, here’s some sense from New York Times Republican columnist David Brooks: “Middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.”
Brooks continues, “In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition. A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year…”
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Editor's Choice, Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: election-2008, Mike-Huckabee, mitt-romney, primaries |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
The race for No. 2
I stayed up all night playing poker on the internet, and set my clock radio for late. I have it set on NPR for the news and the music. Today, since I set it for so late, I woke up to the Michael Feldman quiz show, whad’Ya Know?. One of the questions was which presidential candidate, according to a recent poll, would people least like to have for a next door neighbor. The lady said she didn’t know, but her first guess was Mitt Romney, and that was the correct answer.
must be dumb
You guys keep saying that dumb and determined ignorance is the same thing. It’s not. Huckabee isn’t dumb just because he’s against science and prefers the realm of the supernatural.
Obviously, there is no rational substance to the alleged objection regarding Romney that, “People just don’t like him.”
If Romney’s critics cannot do better than that, then Romney will ride very high in the coming months, at least with reasonable people who actually listen and care about issues.
Olasky asked, “What’s so hard to understand?”
How are we supposed to understand a generalization that is completely unexplained, ungrounded and void of substance?
Another one of the questions on Whad’Ya Know? was “who do scientists say is most evolved: chimps, humans, or Mike Huckabee?”
The correct answer is chimps, according to the show. And Feldman just threw Huckabee in there as a joke because of his views on evolution.
I thought RDean would get a kick out of this.
I like Huckabee personally but he lacks substance and experience in foreign policy. In a recent article for Foreign Affairs magazine, he wrote: “American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out,”
Sounds like a Democrat talking point. That is wrong-headed when it comes to terrorist Islamo-fascists.
Regarding Iran, Gov. Huckabee also wrote, “Much like a top high school student, if it [the U.S.] is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.”
Huh? He apparently presumes that international relations are best managed by likeability instead of power, self-interest, security, and ideology.
Huckabee has also echoed leftists who claim that the Iraq War has been a “distraction” from the war on terror. That’s nonsense and Republicans know it.
Regarding diplomatic relations with the terrorist state of Iran, Huckabee also wrote; “all of us know that when we stop talking to a parent or a sibling, or even a friend, it’s impossible to resolve the differences and move that relationship forward. Well, the same is true for countries.”
No, it isn’t. Not by a long shot! The mullahs who oppress Iran, the commissars who oppress China, the dictators who control most of the Arab and African nations, and the terrorist jihadists are not analogous to our parents or friends waiting for us to call or talk to work things out.
Huckabee needs to wake up. He needs to get specific and allay the fears he has placed in genuine conservatives. He is seeking a serious job.
Romney’s strong point is his proven competence. He is a financial genius. His speech on Faith and Freedom in America impressed me more than I expected. I have traveled from Romney to Huckabee and now back to Romney, who can best bring together the three main constituents of the Republican party:
The national security Republicans.
The fiscal conservatives.
The social conservatives.
Some candidates are better than Romney in particular arenas above, but he is the best in all three.
Obviously, there is no rational substance to the alleged objection regarding Romney that, “People just don’t like him.”
Really? You’re saying that it’s obvious that most people DO like Romney? How is this obvious?
If Romney’s critics cannot do better than that, then Romney will ride very high in the coming months, at least with reasonable people who actually listen and care about issues.
If lots of voters don’t like Mitt Romney, then they’re not going to vote for him. It doesn’t matter if that’s “all” his “critics” have. Recognizing that someone is unpopular or offputting doesn’t make one a critic of that person, simple an observer. I’m not saying that these observers are correct, and that by and large people don’t like Romney. I’m just saying that if they are correct, then it’s silly to say that he’ll do fine in the primaries because “that’s all his critics have.” Sound logic. You should be a preacher, Joel Mark. Write one of those “Case for Christ” books
Olasky asked, “What’s so hard to understand?”
How are we supposed to understand a generalization that is completely unexplained, ungrounded and void of substance?
I have to say that this is a very muddled post. It has the feel of being written because “I need to post something.” But it’s not “hard to understand” the idea that a lot of people don’t like Mitt Romney. It could have been backed up with some polls or quotes, but the fact that it wasn’t doesn’t mean it has no substance.
Joel Mark #5
I like Huckabee personally but he lacks substance and experience in foreign policy.
Then he continues to rip Huckabee apart.
But I don’t see where the Mitt-ster has anything more to offer in the area of foreign policy. And ripping Huckabee does not make me like Romney just because “he’s not Huckabee.”
I am still making up my mind on whether I support Huckabee or not, but the two Republicans I most distrust to be president are Romney and Giuliani–Romney because his record in Massachusetts does not indicate that he is a social conservative (regardless of what he is saying he is now) and Giuliani because he makes no bones about being anything but a social conservative.
Joel Mark,
Thanks for the comparative info on Huckabee and Romney.
Even though Huckabee is a brother Christian, I’m doubtful about his approach to the presidency. I’m beginning to think that he might perform like that Christian disaster Jimmy Carter—one of the most pathetic presidents we have ever had.
Carter couldn’t seem to differentiate between God’s admonitions to individuals and the God ordained purposes of human government. They are not the same and confusing the two brings ineptitude to government and oppression to the individual.
If I remember right, a month or so ago Romney won a national poll on which presidential candidate would you most trust to take your kids to soccer practice.
In the same poll, he did less well on which candidate would you invite over to your house for dinner. I think Obama won that one.
I have always considered voting and obligation as well as a privilege. There just isn’t anyone who impresses me positively on either side.
NIGHT TRAIN (#7) wrote; “You’re saying that it’s obvious that most people DO like Romney? How is this obvious?”
It’s not obvious and it’s not what I said. Re-read what I actually said.
NT wrote; “If lots of voters don’t like Mitt Romney, then they’re not going to vote for him.”
Sure, but how do you or Olasky presume to know who “likes” whom? There is no substance to the claim that people just don’t like him. It’s just a claim. Like ALL candidates, some do and some don’t. So what?
PETER V (#8) wrote, of me; “Then he continues to rip Huckabee apart.
Inaccurate. I commented on Huckabee’s public comments. I stuck to issues and statements.
If you think I “ripped” Huckabee, then respond with substance to my comments and justify what Huckabee said, or correct me in some way. My mind is open. I do like Gov. Huckabee, but I merely explained why my support has shifted back to Romney.
I agree with Kim. No one stands out.
The problem with Romney is that his hair is perfect, his clothes are totally Brooks Brothers, he can’t loosen up. He’s probably a very nice man who is polite, etc., but because of that, the average person thinks he stuck up. He may not be, but when I watch him trying to relate to people, I feel sorry for him.
Hillary has a similar problem. You don’t look at her and say “gee, she ran a household, raised a kid and still went to work, it must have been hard.” Why? Because she had a lot of help as a governor’s wife. And she thinks like a lawyer. She gets along well with people who have big status jobs, but that’s not the vast majority of people in this country. Whether its true or not, she gives the impression that she’s looking down her nose at people and feels we can’t get by without her. She’s never lived paycheck to paycheck. I think she’s very surprised that more women aren’t voting for her simply because she’s a woman. Surprise, surprise, Americans aren’t that shallow.
JM [5]: What foreign policy experience did George Bush have when he first ran for president? Any more than Huckabee?
MM [9]: Jimmy Carter has much more liberal views than Huckabee - what do you see in Huckabee that makes you think he might perform in the same way as Carter?
It’s not obvious and it’s not what I said. Re-read what I actually said.
Yes, that’s exactly what you said. IIRC, here’s what you said:
Obviously, there is no rational substance to the alleged objection regarding Romney that, “People just don’t like him.”
It necessarily follows that you believe that is’”obvious” that it’s irrational to think that people don’t like Romney. Which means you think it’s “obvious” that people do like Romney.
That’s exactly what you said.
Sure, but how do you or Olasky presume to know who “likes” whom?
I don’t presume to know any such thing What in the world are you talking about? Where did I ever claim that people don’t like Romney?
There is no substance to the claim that people just don’t like him. It’s just a claim.
I agree that Olasky provided no substance for his claim. It hardly follows from that that no substance for the claim exists.
Seriously, Joel, with your skills at logic and rhetoric, you need to enroll in a seminary pronto.
Marvin Olasky
This is good, and I agree, regarding Romney…… “People just don’t like him.”-
Your points are well taken, and then there’s the cult- People may know more about the LDS Church than the Mormons would like-
NJL
I can’t add much to what you posted, as I agree with you.
Mitt Romney isn’t who he says he is, and proves it, by all the entertainment he provides, twirling the issues. His membership in a cult, seals the deal for losing. I know what the Mormons believe, I have studied their cult. Knowing their beliefs and dedication to those beliefs makes it impossible to support such a person.
The country wants a change, they don’t want another Clinton, eight years was enough. Most women don’t TRUST Hillary. Many believe she always knew about her husbands little adventures. I believe their relationship is strictly business. One of them was Pres, for 8 years, and now they believe its Hills turn. I don’t know if you remember the Inaugural Celebration which began Bill’s second term…. Bill Clinton’s brother made a statement which I remember, maybe not word for word but……. “and next time its Hillary, she will be the next President after Bill’s term is over” - The comment was said in such a way, as being something that had been discussed over and over again, and was a GIVEN, all PLANNED!
Tychicus, George Bush is not running for this election. Also, Abraham Linclon also came to office without much military or foreign policy experience. So? I listen to GW Bush and made my decision, all things considered.
I do not rule Huckabee out for having little FP expereince, but I do think he was specifically wrong in the things he said about Iran and our foreign policy with regard to terrorism.
FYI, I was not the one who made a comparison with Carter. I agree with you that Carter has much more liberal views than Huckabee, and if Huckabee is our nominee, I will support him. I love my country too much to boycot if I don’t get my favorite guy.
NIGHT TRAIN, you misunderstood and misread me. Whether people “like” Romney or not is not what I averred. I simply made the obvious point that the claim that people “don’t like him” is not a substantive argument. Raise an issue and let’s deal with that.
It does not necessarily follow that I was caliming who likes him or not. I was just trying to get past the nonsense and to substantive reasons to support him or not.
Forget enrolling in a seminary, Joel. With your skills of logic and reasoning combined with the ability to keep denying the plain facts and hope people fall for your obfuscations and distortions, you should be teaching at a seminary. Heck, maybe you should even start your own and run it!
NIGHT TRAIN, you misunderstood and misread me.
No, I didn’t. You’re simply making stuff up now, rather than admit that you’re wrong.
Whether people “like” Romney or not is not what I averred. I simply made the obvious point that the claim that people “don’t like him” is not a substantive argument.
No, you didn’t. You said the claim that people don’t like him was not a “rational” belief. You can only think it irrational to believe that people don’t Romney if you believe that people DO like Romney.
Raise an issue and let’s deal with that.
I took a gift certificate to the local San Antonio Barnes and Noble. Bought a few books for the kids, a copy of the Weekly Standard and a tradeback book by Huckabee.
Has anyone read any of the books these candidates have out there? I was impressed by the speech text Huckabee gave to the Katrina evacuees who were welcomed to Arkansas. At the time of Katrina Huck was Chairman of the Nat’l governors conference.
I hope as this interminable campaign goes on WORLD will have reviews of the books by Huckabee, Obama and Richardson.
I couldnt help but notice that the lifetime Senators have already bailed out and will resume their legislator careers in DC. Too bad we dont have the record of a Governor Biden or Governor Dodd. But those guys couldnt be elected dogcatcher.
JM [19]: In the first Huckabee quotation re. Iran that you brought up, it seems that he was saying that the US needs to emphasize humility in foreign policy. Is it not possible to be strong on security yet remain humble? Huckabee will certainly be strongly tested in the foreign policy area as the campaign wears on, so hopefully it will reveal much more of what he actually believes.
My last question re. Carter was not intended for you but rather MM, that is, Michael Martin.
Get a life, NT. Joel Mark has done an excellent job on this thread of using logic and backing up his statements with facts. Go troll somewhere else.
JM #13
My main point was that telling us all the things to dislike about Huckabee does not shed any light on the discussion as to whether the Romney is likable or not. And when you argue about foreign policy, Romney has no more experience than Huckabee does. I could just as easily say that Romney lacks experience and substance in foreign policy. State governors are usually somewhat lacking in this area. But that still does not seem to add anything to the discussion of whether people like Romney or not
Granted Huckabee was mentioned in the original article, so there is justification to discuss him.
But my first reaction to your post number 5 was that it is a rabbit trail given what was in the article.
By the way, what substance or experience does Romney offer in terms of foreign policy?
JOEL MARK If Romney’s critics cannot do better than that, then Romney will ride very high in the coming months, at least with reasonable people who actually listen and care about issues.
Non-sequitur. The competence of a politician’s critics has nothing to do with the competence of the politician.
People running for president that I like, based on my gut reaction to them:
Huckabee - compassionate, populist
McCain - a real hero
Obama - decent guy, seeks consensus
People running for President that I don’t like, based on my gut reaction to them:
Clinton - cold and calculating
Romney - smarmy, hypocritical
Thompson - dour
The rest I’m neutral on.
Anlir: You have consistently stated that whoever the Democratic candidate is will easily win the national election. Are you now saying that Obama is your man, and that he will become the next President?
Rdean - I am very good with science. I just don’t (anti-scientifically) limit myself to the purely physical realm by ignoring the very real supernatural.
I also don’t assume the correctness of anything pronounced by a self-proclaimed “scientist” (who has anti-scientifically) taken the totally arbitrary (and unsupported by science) position that reality is limited soley to a marerial/physical realm.
If you were to assume, for the sake of argument, the possibility that a supernatural realm does indeed exist, wouldn’t a “scientist” be behaving unscientifically by presuming that it does not?
Victoria, I didn’t remember that about Bill’s second inauguration, but I always felt that way. I, too, think it has always been the plan and that what Hillary was really ticked off about with Monica was that he was so stupid and got caught! What to do? Stick with the plan or dump the guy? Honestly and truthfully, he’d been such a lousy husband (please don’t anyone try to tell me he was a good one; good men don’t behave the way he did), I would have had more respect for her if she’d divorced him. Either you can stand on your own or you can’t. And she didn’t — and I think that was calculated, too. I was on the phone before with a friend and the first thing she brought up was “thank God, we’ve gotten rid of Hillary.” Bill’s face alone was worth watching the news. And all the “old” people, Madeleine Albright, etc. — didn’t look good. I don’t think people want to go backwards.
I agree with you that Mormonism is a cult, and it is a factor (but not a test, we have no religious test). I don’t think Romney’s a bad person, just not “consistent.” He really wants this, he can taste it.
And I disagree with Night Train. Not liking someone is a substantive argument. It’s a real reason. It may not be large or deep, but it matters. Let’s use lawyers as an example: usually bright people, some smarter than others, but hey, you’ve got to pass the big quiz, so someththing is up there. But having that education doesn’t mean you’d make a good president, not by a long shot. You can be really, really smart (and I think Hillary is that), but that doesn’t mean you can relate to real life. It can mean, and in her case I think it does, that you can come up with all sorts of plans that sound good on the surface, but underneath take freedom away.
What do Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton know about real life? Both come from privileged backgrounds. I’m not saying either one hasn’t worked hard. I’ll bet Romney works very hard (not so sure about Hillary, but she’s smart). But they’ve never known want of any kind. They’ve never wondered where their next meal is coming from, so to speak. Unlike GWB who hit the bottom of the bottle and really picked himself up. That takes strength. Considering the way so many of you treat him, I see him as a very strong person. He hasn’t hit the bottle yet after 7+ years of truly nasty horsepucky.
Tychicus,
Well now, I don’t think I’ve said the Democrats will “easily win” the election. I’m usually known for hedging my bets when it comes to making predictions. I do believe that based on numerous factors that the stars are aligned for the Dems to win, but as I’ve said before, the Dems are known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Obama is not my man - yet. It’s far too soon to make up my mind. Kucinich is more my style if one is talking about policy positions. Usually I vote my conscience in the primary, and go for practicality in the general election. No matter who the nominee is for the Democrats, I will give them my vote. All of the potential nominees are acceptable to me as the party standardbearer.
My “gut feelings” about candidates may not be shared by others. That’s cool. That’s a totally personal thing.
As for Marvin’s assertion about Romney that people “just don’t like him”, that’s an opinion, not fact. Marvin didn’t give anything to back his statement up.
Of course, Marvin’s assertion about secular liberals and their views about evangelicals is off base too. To be certain, there is an anti-evangelical contingent among secular liberals, but most of us recognize that there are some fine evangelicals (for example, Tony Campolo).
I usually find that Marvin tends to take wide swipes at people/groups he doesn’t like. Yet he complains when it’s done to evangelicals. He’d be someone worth paying attention to if he was more consistent.
Olasky shows again that being smart doesn’t save you from confusion. Huckabee may not be angry about being a rupublican, but Olasky is so angry about being compassionate that he can’t think straight.
What the “secular liberal consensus” thinks about the intelligence of evangelicals has very little to do with the Republican primary (unless it incites Republicans to vote for Huckabee out of spite, which would certainly raise the stakes for the question). The “secular liberal consensus” at any rate doesn’t explain why the Republican establishment is losing its lunch. I submit the panic results from the realization that evangelicals have a great deal of brain, but are not thinking straight.
Oh man, I’m watching the Republican debate right now, and Ron Paul just gave a rambling, nonsensical answer on Bush’s foreign policy. He blew a chance to take on the “pre-emptive war” policy.
Thompson just said “We should go in where we should”. What???
Romney just said “Madam Bhutto”. Madam??
Ok, the Republican Debate is over. Here’s how I think they did (in alpha order):
Rudy! Guiliani - pretty well. He met expectations. Weak answer on healthcare. Looked bad when he said “my city” (referring to New York City).
Mike Hucakabee - did ok. He stumbled on a few things. A few attempts at humor or attack were awful. Not ready for prime time.
John McCain - did ok, but his attempts at humor fell flat. Also, put on the defensive about the Senate’s immigration bill.
Ron Paul - not so good. Some of his points were fundamentally good, but he did a poor job of explaining them. He gave a few looney replies.
Mitt Romney - on the defensive all night. He got in a few good zingers, but over-all came across as as petulant that he was being attacked.
Fred Thompson - Lackluster. Gave pat answers. No fire.
As for who won, I think Rudy! probably did the best, though no one was really outstanding.
Those are just my impressions.
On to the Democrats…
#26, “Romney has no more [foreign policy] experience than Huckabee does.”
Nor did I say he did. But Romney did not write and artcle mainly about Iran that sounded from start to finish like Democrat talking points either.
Bill Richardson just had the best line of the night:
“I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are more civil than this.”
that’s hilarious!
Ok, the Democratic debate is over. Here is how I think they did (in alpha order):
Hillary Clinton - she did ok. I think she was put on the defensive by Edwards and Obama ganging up on her.
John Edward - he did very well. He was weak on a few points.
Barack Obama - he didn’t do so well. He looked tired and he was halting.
Bill Richardson - he did ok. He had the best line of the night.
All in all, the Democrats were much more civil toward each other than the Republicans were. It was definitely Edwards and Obama as the agents of “change” versus Clinton as the voice of “experience”.
As for who won, I think John Edward did - hands down.
Boooorrrriinnnngggg . . .
The McCain and Huck attack on Romney is getting bare-fanged vicious. Can there be no doubt who Huck was referring to:
“I think folks would rather vote for a man who reminds them of who they work with instead of a man who reminds them of who laid them off”
McCain: “Gov Romney you can spend your entire fortune distorting my record but it won’t make any of it true”
Huckabee made a comment similar to the one below:
“We shouldn’t have sent the Army we had to Iraq, we should have sent the Army we needed “
What a powerful statement. What this means is; we the USA must be ready, to respond to whatever happens, which attacks our shores, …. not only that, we must have the Army, and military which is READY, to defend our country, whatever we face, whatever situation we face.
Let’s stop this nutty idea that “we were ready” we WERE NOT, and that’s why we we were not able to respond to the situation which we faced on 9-11- I’m not blaming Bush, perhaps Clinton should stand before the American people and tell us why our military was not ‘ready’ - After all 9-11 happened 8 (eight months) after Bush took office.
Remember Pearl Harbor? Let’s not let that happen again - Huckabee understands this,…. He seems to be the only presidential candidate who sees through this maze/haze-
Huckabee wants to be READY to defend the USA, …. Oh do I agree.
What this means is; we the USA must be ready, to respond to whatever happens, which attacks our shores, …. not only that, we must have the Army, and military which is READY, to defend our country, whatever we face, whatever situation we face.
Sounds good, Vic, but it’s impossible right now. Because our military is over in Iraq destroying a country that had never attacked us.
Rebuilding a country that would have attacked us, guaranteed.
Night Train,
Is poking player your full time job? Making the kind of money you do playing makes working seem kind of pointless.
Would you say that you’re addicted to poker?
Or that you’re just working at a job?
Not asking with any kind of ulterior motives…just curious. With my brother, it was just a side thing as he had a high paying job. But I could tell that he was pretty addicted there for awhile. I know it’s not just about the money.
I’m sorry about posting off topic.
I was responding to Night Train’s first sentence.
Poker seems to quite the attraction these days.
Theselittleones - 45
Read topic “Living love” post number 8 down-
TLO,
Pay no attention to Vic. Her full time job is busybody.
Is poking player your full time job? Making the kind of money you do playing makes working seem kind of pointless.
Yeah, well, a couple things about that. I’ve only been doing it successfully for about 6 months now, and not really consistently and until the last 3 months. About three months ago I got to where I was averaging about $75 a day. I’ve gradually started playing more tables at once and for higher limits, and now I’m making some good money. Pretty good from my perspective, anyway. But there are lots of guys making a whole lot more than I do. I’m only playing for stakes of 50 cents and a dollar. I know guys who play stakes of $10, $25, and $50. Needless to say, the pots at those stakes are astronomical compared to the ones I’m playing. It’ll take a while before I’m good enough to play at those stakes, if ever. But every time I move successfully up a level I greatly increase my income.
Would you say that you’re addicted to poker?
Pretty much, yes.
That’s why I finally started buying books to improve my game, and disciplining myself to play within my limits and levels, and to not go on tilt, and, most important of all, to quit playing too many hands. But I played for a year or so before I stopped losing money. I lost a lot of money over that year. Probably five or six grand, total. I consider it my tuition at Poker University.
Or that you’re just working at a job?
Well, I look at poker as a job. I’ve got a part time job, which doesn’t pay jack squat compared to my poker, but it gets me away from the poker tables for a few days a week, and it’s got great insurance. But I’m researching buying my own insurance, and once I find a good deal, I’ll probably quit the job and play poker full time.
Not asking with any kind of ulterior motives…just curious.
That’s fine. I don’t mind questions from nice people. But I generally ignore questions from rude people and the functionally illiterate.
With my brother, it was just a side thing as he had a high paying job.
Good for him! I’ve never really had any high paying jobs, which is one of the reasons I began playing online poker. I never played cards in real life. But I kept reading stories about 18 and 22 year old kids making 30 grand a month playing online poker, and I thought how hard can it be? 18 and 22 year olds can’t have been playing that long. I figured if they can do it, I can do it. I knew it would take a while, but I’m pretty happy with my progress so far.
But I could tell that he was pretty addicted there for awhile. I know it’s not just about the money.
No, it’s not. A lot of it is about the money, but it’s also a challenge. It’s about taking on other men, and beating them. About being smarter, braver, and cleverer than other men. Men have always engaged in non-lethal forms of combat, and poker is the trendiest in a long line of ways men find to challenge each other. And, yes, it’s almost all men. There are a few successful female poker players, but there will never be very many.
Victoria,
I respect your support for Gov. Huckabee. I will support him too if he is the nominee. Now that I see Thonpson on Anlir’s list of people he does not like, that raises my respect for Thompson as well.
But I think Romney is the best candidate in the Republican primaries, all things considered. He has the strongest record of competency in both the private sector and the public sector. He will be more able to draw together the diverse constituents of the Republican party and thus, he is more electable, in my view.
I loved his speech on Faith and Freedom in America. That said, I agree with you that Mormonism is not just a branch of Christianity, but a cult. I like what NJ Lawyer said about that being a factor but not a “test.” I don’t mean to offend Mormons (for whom I have good will) but they do have a whole different holy book they added to the Bible and Mormonism began with a sweeping total rejection of all Christian churches in Joseph Smith’s day. In the first alleged appearance of a heavenly “personage” to young Smith, ALL other Christian churches and denominations were rejected outright by the angel or personage (’Jesus’ Himself?), so Mormons cannot honestly claim a legacy that began with any acceptance of other Christians.
But that’s a bit off topic for the role of President. Romney does share many values that we share in terms of the freedom for people of faith to express themselves, and the importance of traditional family values.
But I am still working my impressions over. Our primary is over a month away still. I trust in the providence of God.
JOEL MARK #12: . . . it’s not what I said. Re-read what I actually said.
JOEL MARK #13: Inaccurate. I commented on . . . I stuck to . . . respond with substance to my comments. . . I merely explained . . .
JOEL MARK #19: FYI, I was not the one who made a comparison . . .
JOEL MARK #20: you misunderstood and misread me. . . . not what I averred. I simply made the obvious point . . .
It does not necessarily follow that I was claiming . . . I was just trying to . . .
JOEL MARK #36: Nor did I say he did.
JOEL MARK #48: I am still working my impressions over.
The subject of nearly every sentence Joel Marks writes is “I.” The object of every sentence is his previous writing. The purpose of every sentence is to draw readers into the mind of Joel Mark.
ok I just have a small question or too about romney, so far he is the only one I have heard that I did like though, I have not heard huckabee yet. Is he a mormon, someone told me this and I have not found an answer yet, and does it matter perhaps. when I pick a candidate, I wish to know all I can about who he is under his political mask, that will give the greatest insight as to how he will actually be in office. Next is does his state support gay marriage and was he a part of that? I have been very busy and other than a bit of television interviews I haven’t had a good chance to research them yet.
NRO the corner reports:
Helping Huck [Mark R. Levin]
I am informed that Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich are helping Huckabee behind the scenes. Morris has been everywhere today promoting Huckabee.
#4: The correct answer is chimps, according to the show.
That is funny. The real correct answer is we are all evolved equally. Every creature that is alive today is “alive” today. That means we have evolved enough tools or talents or whatever, to BE alive today. Chimps may be stronger, but many live in cages. Ok, so do many humans, but chimps can legally be used for scientific experiments.
#51: Newt Gingrich are helping Huckabee behind the scenes
Hopefully he’s not setting him up with chicks.
Well, Scroop, Joel Mark’s posts ARE his opinion, and he has a right to it and a right to post it. I don’t understand your objection. Here are my “I”s.
I watched the debates last night and have a somewhat different impression than some of you. I agree that McCain and Huckabee’s attempts at humor when attacking Romney did not go over too well and that Romney didn’t cave in. Good for him. I watched him look at Ron Paul, and he was able to keep a positive, kind expression when Ron Paul said some strange things, so I would conclude that Romney is kind and a decent person. Thompson was silent, but I thought I detected a smirk towards Dr. Paul. For an actor, this surprised me. I’m sorry to say this to Frank in Phoenix, but Dr. Paul’s chances “died” last night. Overall, I think Huckabee did reasonably well. He certainly didn’t tank himself, but he was “light.” Rudy sounded reasonable, but a tad full of himself. Thompson is lackluster, but it just may be a part of his personality that he doesn’t get worked up. That doesn’t bother me. The makeup helped him (all of them). Still can’t decide among them.
With respect to the Democrats, I would agree that it was John Edwards’ night (but he needs to go back to the expensive barber). Obama was tired — and you know what? Hillary’s right. Talking change is one thing, but you have to show you can get it done. I heard on the news this morning that prior to the debate last night, Hillary held a two hour town meeting, so she’s a worker and has stamina. She looked good last night (but somebody better help her with those hips, she’s not wearing the right jacket for her shape). Can’t say I agreed with Richardson on Pakistan, but the man has the experience, and it is sad in this country that the fact that he’s not “exciting” will do him in ultimately. Please someone explain to me Hillary’s claim to have effected change in the past 35 years. I never knew she was elected to an office until she was elected the Senator from NY. If I had to choose from among them, I would go with Edwards, but thankfully, I won’t have to do that.
NJLAWYER: . . . it was John Edwards’ night (but he needs to go back to the expensive barber).
Go Edwards! He’s the candidate Republicans themselves should want to face in order to force an electoral choice between New Deal liberalism and Bush Republicanism.
Instead of a barber, Edwards needs to find someone in the hood to put in about five rows of braids. He might also pass out his picture and brown crayons so that everyone who wants can pretend they have an African-American president.
Bush ain’t running, Scroopy! Whoever is going into the White House, it ain’t gonna be Bush. And here’s a news flash for you, it ain’t gonna be the Pelosi/Reid way either. The people are taking control on this one. They are “bent out of shape” (I had a sronger word than that phrase, but I fear the scepter and young people read here, and I want them to know that one can express oneself without using poor language).
I really can’t predict any person on either side yet. I’ve been groaning about how long this is taking, that they started too soon, but maybe we’re really getting a chance to see what they’re made of more than we ever have before. We need more primaries to get an idea where this is going.
NYLawyer — Bush’s name won’t be on the ballot, but Republican candidates have to reconcile Bush’s legacy with their view of the future. He’s the most unpopular president since Nixon, so his successor must redeem him or renounce him and all his works. The Republican candidates have not been able to do either (partly because of Ron Paul). Instead, they don’t talk about the elephant in the room or, if pressed, accuse Democrats of “always tearing down” and “being trapped in the past.”
NJLAWYER: The people are taking control on this one. They are “bent out of shape”
This is an astute insight. May you be rightI The people being right-wing Christians definitely can take control of the Republican party. The establishment is terrified. The question is, can the people keep the Republican coalition together? Huckabee got something like 25% of the total Iowa vote of both parties. Can Huckabee get more than 45% of the national vote? If he crashes and burns this November, Mary Landrieu will go back to Washington from Louisiana along with six new Democrats from former red states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfU59KSvbvs
The above has been floating around youtube in one form or other for about 5 years. Rick Mercer, a Canadian satirist, as for Huckabee’s assistance in saving the national igloo. He’s the same guy who asked George Bush if he was happy to receive the support of Prime Minister Poutine. His real name was Chretian and poutine is a Fr. Canadian specialty consisting of french fries with gravy and cheese curds melted overtop.
That is funny. The real correct answer is we are all evolved equally.
Well, you might want to let the scientists know. At least some of them disagree, and say that chimps are more evolved than humans.
http://snipurl.com/1wqgi
I have been asked why I would not vote for Mitt Romney, I have answered, because he is a member of a cult. Mormons don’t have a choice as to what they believe, they couldn’t join the Mormon Church if they rebelled against its teachings, or didn’t believe them when they joined.
Anyone who can believe the things Joseph Smith wrote, would believe ANYTHING- So, in taking this further, I wouldn’t want Romney as a President of the USA. Romney is not head of the LDS, so he doesn’t make the rules- Romney can say he would not let his religion get in the way of being President, I DON’T BELIEVE THIS- The Mormon Church is stronger than Romney-
Smith thought he could take God’s place.
Every Mormon believes they will be exalted to God.
The ’statement’ above means just what it says, and those who are Mormons believe it. So, unless you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God you have no Salvation according to the Mormon Church.
The next point I want to make is this.
1. ‘Official LDS/Mormon doctrine’
2. ‘The Book of Mormon’
3. The books which contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine
Number three contains the doctrine you will not find in the “Book of Mormon” for obvious reasons. The LDS Church doesn’t advertise these doctrines-
As yourself:
Why won’t Mitt Romney discuss his religion? The answer should be obvious to anyone-
Gordon,
Yes, Romney is a Mormon. And yes, he “supported” (as in backed up) his state’s slide into same-sex “marriage.” (The judicial branch made an illegal threat to the legislature that they had to write a new law, and the legislature caved and the governor wrote an executive order changing marriage licenses and firing anyone who wouldn’t perform the newly “legal” “marriages.”) On the first count, his involvement in a cult, he was on my list of potential candidates about whom I was hesitant, but hadn’t fully eliminated. Once I found out more details about the second point, his involvement in his state’s homosexual “marriages,” he moved onto my no list.
Now unfortunately, I don’t have a “yes” list. I have a “no” list and a “serious hesitations” list.
No:
Guiliani: not a conservative
McCain: the same; has betrayed his party repeatedly
Romney: can’t be trusted
Serious Hesitations:
Thompson: does he have the will to run? and his marriage–multiple marriages (three?) and a wife who dresses like a slut
Paul: not sure he isn’t too extreme an isolationist, and “nut” comes up a little too often when he is discussed; but people I respect support him
Huckabee: the things I’ve heard about him from people in his state aren’t good (soft on crime, tax and spend, etc.)
Basically, if there were any good candidates at all, every one of the candidates would be on my “no” list, but I can’t absolutely eliminate everybody, so I have a few that I hope somehow will rise to the top and show they’re worth my confidence, as well as a few who’ve lost it probably irrevocably. If I’m “leaning” toward anyone, it’s Paul, but I need to know more about him first.
Did I leave anybody off? It’s nearly midnight and I’m tired.
Cheryl, come over for coffee, we most likely agree.
My husband just went out for ice cream, bought three different kinds. You can have your choice…… peppermint, mint chocolate or vanilla-
The most meaningful and lasting way to oppose same-sex marriage at the political level is to pass a consitutional amendment that activist judges simply cannot circumvent. Unlike a few other Republican candidates, Romney supports such an amendment, at both or either the state and federal level.
Governor Romney was a strong proponent of a federal constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman. He knows from experience that we must act first and foremost to stop activist judges who would change (and have changed) the law to redefine marriage.
After the 2003 activist court decision in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney responded (in his defense for marraige to be for one man and one woman) with comments I believe are more wise and to the point than anything I’ve heard from any other Republican.
Romney said, “They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights.”
Keep reading. Romney went on to correctly say that marriage is not solely for adults. He said, “Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.”
I agree.
Gov. Romney continued; “[C]hanging the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same-sex practice.”
I agree.
I might have decided to defy the Mass. Supree Court more than Romney did in specific legal terms, but Romney believed he had to respect the rule of law and work through stronger more permanent channels to correct the new law and defend marriage for the long term — namely a constitutional amendment.
Well, I seem to have gotten under Scroopy’s skin a bit. I can’t believe you brought up Nixon. I remember Nixon. In fact, I still have a campaign poster from back in the day when he came to my original, old home town. I remember as a little girl sitting in the senate gallery watching Dirkson and Humphrey debate with Nixon presiding. For all those who hate Bush, let’s remember that while Nixon never totally lived down his criminal activities which resulted in his resignation, history was fair when it came to many of his accomplishments. And Bush will get the benefit of that, too.
If it’s all about change, Scroopy, the Republicans and the Democrats are both talking about it. I’ve only heard one person say something WISE about change: Giuliani. What did he say? Words to the effect that change, yes, but change can go either way.
Obama just keeps saying change, but nobody really knows what he means by it. What do the people mean by it? They mean change the way Washington does business. Congress has to understand that, too, or nothing will happen.
Joel Mark: thank you for sharing Romney’s comment that marriage is for children. More people should believe that. But I have to say that when I listen to him sometimes, he’s parsing words and making distinctions, let’s say on “amnesty” that don’t sound all that truthful. He’s trying to say what people want to hear at a given moment, he tailors his remarks, then changes them. Note that I did not say that he refines them.
I have not decided who will get my vote in the NJ primary, but I will say I don’t expect the Republican party to represent me before God, that’s for sure. Jesus isn’t running any more than Bush is.
NJLAWYER: I can’t believe you brought up Nixon. . . let’s remember that while Nixon never totally lived down his criminal activities which resulted in his resignation, history was fair when it came to many of his accomplishments. And Bush will get the benefit of that, too.
Very good, NJLawyer! You reject the comparison as unbelievable, then go on to frame it beautifully. Thanks. Bush certainly will get the benefit of whatever survives of neo-con scholarship in the future. He also will share a special place with Nixon in the region of the public brain that governs antipathy.
“All about change” has a unique meaning for Republicans. It means. Bush flopped, but let’s try it again from the top, and this time, watch the conductor. If we pick up the tempo, the public might not hate the tune.
“All about change” — You don’t know that, Scroopy! And neither do I. Our Republican cast of characters don’t have it together yet. I am not thinking so much about Bush as I consider these chaps. Since I can’t even predict who will be nominated in either party, I certainly can’t predict who will win in November. But I submit to you that the people are so bent out of shape that, while there won’t be rioting in the street, the people have found email, telephone and faxes, and our “beloved” Congress is in for a rough ride if it doesn’t “comply.” (Consider how the people got rid of that immigration legislation. I think that shook up the boys and girls down there is Washington, and they decided to leave the issue to be decided in this presidential election, ’cause they’re scaredy cats.) I object to the lobbyists, too, but I have confidence in the people when they’re ticked off.
(I confess: I was the last student in my college class on the presidency that summer long ago to vote for impeachment.)
So, what are you saying, NJLawyer, that you expect the election to give control of Congress to Republicans? Democrats are mad that Congress hasn’t obstructed Bush. Populist Republicans are mad that, Congress hasn’t ignored the wishes of Wall Street and commenced mass expulsions. If this is what has people “bent out of shape”, I don’t see how that translates into marching orders unless the Republicans upset the expectations of their own leaders.
I see that most on this blog do not like Mitt Romney, but I would like to defend his record. I am from Massachusetts and saw his work as Governor of that state first hand. He was elected in 2002 because of his excellent work with the Olympics in Salt Lake City. The folks in Massachusetts were still reeling from September 11th. Two of the airplanes that crashed into the buildings that day took off from Logan Airport in Boston. People wanted to feel safe and Mitt Romney, by making the Olympics - an international event riddled with all kinds of security issues - safe, proved that he understood the fears of terrorism and could pull off a major event in spite of those fears. I will never forget watching Governor Romney stand on the ice at the opening ceremonies, President Bush standing next to him. That was the image that helped gain Romney’s election as Governor in the fall of 2002.
In addition to this, Romney ran a very spirited campaign back in 1995 against ultra-liberal Senator Ted Kennedy. He did not win, but he has been the only serious contender to try to dislodge Kennedy from the Senate. If you know anything about Massachusetts politics [and by this I mean, a first hand experience and not a knee-jerk slap at “the bluest state”] you know what courage Mitt Romney had to make this move.
Lastly, Mitt Romney has excellent experience in economics. He managed to lower taxes in Massachusetts, a state that most of you probably call “Taxachusetts.” Since he left office in 2006, the state is quickly falling back into the economic malaise that has characterized it for most of the last four decades.
I cannot fathom how statements such as “people don’t like him” can be bandied about here. Mitt is beloved by many in his home state and he is quite popular throughout the nation. He happens to be wealthy, but that should not be held against him. He has worked hard for his success and shows great loyalty and admiration for America and its heritage. I don’t think we could have a better candidate for President in 2008.
Fine post, Americaneee
No, Scroop, I’m saying no such thing. I really don’t know what the people will do, I just know they are bent out of shape. I might get an inkling in the next few months, but I think for now, BOTH parties have proven they don’t listen. The people are trying to do what Bloomberg is doing in Oklahoma(?I think that’s where he is) without creating a third party. The people want both sides to cut the horsepucky and do some work by giving up the partisanship and doing what is good for the country. In this, I am not partisan. It’s not about the party, Republican OR Democrat. It’s about the people.
I thank you, too, Americaneee, though I’m not as pro-Romney as Joel Mark. I have not decided. I do think he is a nice man, it should count that his life has been lived in such a way that were he a Christian in the evangelical sense (and here I get smacked), most people here would really, really like him. So, I would urge them to remember that there is no religious test and to take into consideration how he has lived his life. I think he’s as American as any of us here. I’d take him over Hillary and/or Barack Obama any day of the week.
Thank you for the kind feedback. I had been nervous about making my first post!
One thing I should have added in my support for Mitt Romney is that when he served as Governor of Massachusetts he accepted no salary, and if he is elected President, he has pledged to do the same. Of course, he is very wealthy and doesn’t need the money. But so are many of the other candidates, and I don’t hear them saying they will serve the nation for no salary.
In addition, many on this blog are concerned about Governor Romney’s Mormon faith. I’m not thrilled with that either [having spent time in Salt Lake City, I learned more than I cared to about Mormonism]. But there is such a thing as common grace. God can and does work through any individual He so chooses and Mitt would be no exception. Everyone worships something. Why should I give my support to nominal Christians who worship power, prestige or money instead of to Romney, who as NJLawyer points out, lives pretty much the way Christians aspire to and would govern the way I would hope a Christian would govern? If you’ve got the wrong god, it doesn’t really matter which one since they are all equally wrong. With the current group of candidates, we really need to look to the one who has the right values, regardless of his or her background or faith.
I can hear the Mike Huckabee supporters rising up in protest against me with that last statement. Save your breath, folks. I wanted to support Governor Huckabee more than anything since he presented himself as the Christian candidate. But his track record speaks otherwise. And he definitely lost me when one of his staff members said something about wanting to kick Mitt Romney’s teeth in and Huckabee did not fire him immediately. I’m not a pacifist and I may be from Boston, but even I thought that was more than a little rude.
George Washington NEVER accepted a salary. John Kennedy donated his salary to charity.
Americaneee
I could never vote for anyone who belonged to a cult. Romney as flip/flopped in to many areas.
I have studied the Mormon religion, as I have stated before. There is too much at stake to vote a cultist into the OVAL Office.
One does not have to spend time in Salt Lake to study and understand what this cult believes. As time goes on, if Romney continues to run, the flood gates will open as to EXACTLY what the LDS believes, which are three fold.
1. ‘Official LDS/Mormon doctrine’
2. ‘The Book of Mormon’
3. The books which contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine
The books which contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine are not widely known-
Joseph Smith believed he would take God’s place and become ‘exalted’-
Why don’t people ask Romney if he one day will arrive at the station of God, with the same glory and same exaltation? See if he will answer any of you.
People are not scared of Huckabee because he is dumb conservatives are scared of Huckabee because he is a liberal. I live in AR and can tell you first hand this man is liberal, heis mean spirited and he ran our state like many preachers run their church. If the elders question them they either leave the church or run the elders or deacons off. This is MIke Huckabee. If a Republican said Governor I can’t vote to raise taxes we don’t need to raise them ecspecially before we have even tried to cut spending Huckabee would go and campaign for the Democrat running against them. True story!
That’s interesting, Biojosh. I’m glad you shared. This is something that bothers me about Huckabee, and it is good to hear/read it from someone who no axe to grind the way the media might.
I have to confess that I’m going to continue to give Mr. Romney the benefit of the doubt. (For some reason, I remember my parents talking about his father being a good man even though he “isn’t one of us,” and it left me with a positive feeling about this family.) I was baptized a Roman Catholic when I was three, so I was a real heathen for some time, went to Baptist Sunday School because of religious differences between my parents and the Baptists won by default, finally joined a small church, grew up there for the most part, then left as an adult for a variety of reasons, including doctrinal ones, and ended up with the Baptists again. So, I’ve been exposed, in a Christian sense, to a variety of “lifestyles” for lack of a better word. Each is different, but at the core is the fundamental belief in Christ. I’ve seen good (and bad) people in all these denominations. I know Mormonism is very, very different and it has its strange elements, but Romney isn’t running for Pastor in Chief — he’s running as a Republican. The Republican party is not a religious party, not by a long shot. I don’t have the expectations that many of you seem to have of a president: I don’t expect him to lead me to heaven. Politics, law, the Constitution — it’s all a lower standard, on a lower level than my faith in Jesus Christ. I will say again that Romney has led a decent life. If not, show me where he has gone wrong. Giuliani is a Catholic, but he’s had three wives, if not four, but I know he’s competent. They say McCain has a temper, but he’s got an awful lot of experience, and I will never forget what he endured as a POW. I will be the last person to tell anyone how to cast his/her vote, but at the bottom of it all, I look for someone who is decent and treats his family well. I think that translates to the Nation. Romney does that, Clinton didn’t. Just making the case for the Constitution’s “no religious test.”
Victoria - Just because, as you pointed out, George Washington and John Kennedy did not take a salary does not diminish or change the fact that Mitt Romney will not take a salary either. I find that action admirable, and I would hope that Romney might be a good leader in his era as Washington and Kennedy were in their respective eras.
I, too, know quite a bit about the Mormon religion and not just from being in Salt Lake City. I think if you were to ask Mitt Romney about his beliefs he probably wouldn’t want to say much. It is not a secret that Mormonism is secretive. I don’t like that at all, but as I said before, as a Christian facing an election with a collection of candidates who are not Christians, I think it is best to support the candidate whose ideals are closest to mine. That would be Mitt Romney, hands down. I got to see his leadership first hand as Governor of Massachusetts, and I believe firmly that he would be a great President of our country.
Biojosh - Great commentary on Mike Huckabee. Since you are from Arkansas, you know your Governor best. As I said in a previous post, I had wanted to support Huckabee more than anything, but his track record and his method of campaigning have put me ill at ease. I can’t do that to America. Anyone who likes higher taxes is welcome to come to Massachusetts where they have a new non-Mitt Romney-like Governor!