superdude17*

Source:

Lowry opted for a Howard Dean analogy but the basic point abides. “I’m getting tired of this being blamed on the evangelicals,” says AC of Huckabee’s rise, laying fault instead at the feet of ye olde reliable mainstream media. That’s convenient nonsense: There’s been plenty of coverage of Dumond, and the NYT piece from a few days ago had some choice details about Huck’s ignorance in key policy areas. The simple fact is that he wouldn’t be on the cover of Newsweek if evangelicals hadn’t handed him 35% of the vote in Iowa. Krauthammer’s piece today focuses on Romney’s speech last week but his point, that piety is not itself a qualification for the presidency, applies even more forcefully to Huck. The question now is whether Iowa is an outlier, as it was for Pat Robertson in 1988, or whether Huckabee’s going to leverage his “one of us” appeal in South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida, too. Fred’s worried enough to be organizing photo ops like this in Mississippi.

As for the Dems, she shares my opinion that the sooner the Glacier melts, the better.

Update: Forgot to flag Nauert picking on Huckabee’s old quote about wifely service to her husband. As loathsome as her burqa comparison is, you’re getting a whiff here of the sort of contempt that’s going to greet that concept as it circulates through the public square. Meanwhile, See-Dub appeals to James Dobson’s critics to consider their hypocrisy if they threaten to walk away from the party over Huck after having howled at Dobson for threatening to walk away over Rudy. It’s not the same, though. For one thing, Dobson and the social cons made that move first and are forever holding it over the heads of the rest of the conservative coalition. There’s some savory payback here in giving them a taste of their own medicine. Also, the objection to Giuliani is essentially on a single issue. The objections to Huck are omnibus — so much so that religious conservatives should themselves be considering walking away, on conservative grounds, if he’s the nominee. The question isn’t why Ace or I might boycott Huck; it’s why James Dobson might not.



We need to remember, we are voting for Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, not the candidate that gives us the most warm fuzzy feelings.

MOD_DEM78

...perhaps you should have thought about the significance of "Commander In Chief", when you voted for George W. What military background did he have that qualified him for that lofty position? Let me officially open the wound, Republicans can't win a war to save their lives. Sure they talk a great game, even invent WMD's, but when it comes down to it they are self serving warhawks that still think defense spending drives the economy. Body bags do not pay down the deficit, they only inflate our ignorance and benefit only the manufacturers of arms.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I would listen to Ann Coulter's advice, right after I got finished listening to Al-Zwahiri's.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

francois60

Coulter is an idiot, but she's spot on here. Huckabee is very much a Republican Carter.

__________________
chicken butt

Albinonewt

Yeah he is.

ANd we'll see how close to the truth she is about Huckabee and his rise. Yes, his protrayal in the press up until now has probably been a big boon to him. I don't really blame the press, Huckabee was such a non-candidate there was no reason to invest the time into a thorough investigation of him. He's folksy and charming and he was accurately protrayed as such.

Now that they're all digging we'll see how long Huckabee lasts.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Well the problem for Huck, to my knowledge is that he relied upon those debates in order to do a lot of his campaigning. He doesn't have the funds or organization to do much without the debates. So I'm sure Romney is running ad after ad in Iowa, NH and SC and Huck isn't firing back as much.

I think that given the chance, Huck can resist attacks. All he has to do is keep on sticking to the Fair Tax and talk up being tough on immigration. If the liberal governor from Massachussets can pass himself off as the successor to Pat Robertson, than anyone can get away with anything. I can argue that I'm a good conservative candidate for President if I keep arguing for conservative positions.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

kjhworld

He looks to have the other good points in differently, I don't know well.
Many the presidents of America, when they takes the elections, in frist time, they are not so strong showing like Lincon or Rousevelt..., but they won.
How can you know to sureing as he is nive because his ex-job?
We don't know that, and he has fresh image for being president and speak well in his opinions.
I think we will be better knowing him after choosing.

iTaliAN_ICe

Yeah, just look at what happened with Lincoln, Mckinley, Roosevelt, and Bush Sr.


Gee, aren't inaccurate generalizations of entire political parties fun?

In case you haven't yet been told, the Democrats are not any better.

__________________


"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.

liberalman

Lincoln was NOT at all like the current crop of GOPer's...given he rise of the Dixie-pubs Lincoln would not support the Republican party post civil rights movement either.

Roosevelt fought in the Spanish American war but was not president then....in fact, when he ran the 2nd time it was as a progressive an ideology he followed while president as well.

Bush Sr. did not win a war but rather a police action....and left the job unfinished along with deserting those we asked to rise up.


the fact is that the most successful of our presidents in war time have been democrats. FDR, Truman, etc


Repubs talk alot about war but in the modern age they are HUGE failures at securing the peace. Not to say that Dems have not made mistakes as well but looking at the numbers the dge has to go to them on issues of being effective commander in cheifs.

Caltex

Lincoln wasn't for equal civil rights, he wanted to ship all the slaves to Liberia. Lincoln also abolished habeus corpus while President.

Anyways to the topic at hand. The Democrats are not any better with security. We'll only focus on the semi-modern parties, 1914 onward. Before then, they are only the same party in name.

Democratic Presidents since 1914: Failures in command
Woodrow Wilson: Signed the Federal reserve Act, WWI manipulation to get us involved
Franklin D. Roosevelt: too dictatorial
Harry S. Truman: Korean War failures
John F. Kennedy: Bay of Pigs disaster
Lyndon B. Johnson: Got us into Vietnam, lied to do it with the Tonkin Gulf incident
Jimmy Carter: Iran embassy issue, walked all over
Bill Clinton: Downsized military far too much

Republican Presidents since 1914: Failures in command
Warren G. Harding: see Hoover
Calvin Coolidge: see Hoover
Herbert Hoover: Allowed FED to crash the markets
Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Richard Nixon: too secretive
Gerald Ford:
Ronald Reagan: Iran-Contra
George H. W. Bush: Broke no tax campaign pledge
George W. Bush: Iraq War

Obviously, the major failures fall with these men: Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush. The other failures are minuscule compared to those of these men.

The Federal Reserve Act, the Lucitania being sunk, was a direct result of sending it deliberately into hostile waters.

The FED's currency regulation directly led to the crash of 1929. Hoover had the power to remove the FED. Note: mostly Coolidge, Hardings failures, but we're just going to blame Hoover as the representative.

The Vietnam war need not be fought, especially under false pretenses

Iran hostage crises could have been handled much better

The Iraq War should have never been started.

I count 3 Democrat mega-failures, and 2 Republicans. Further Johnson, Wilson, and Bush have blood on their hands.

__________________