Mike Huckabee and the GOP freak-out -- Kumbaya is Coming!

[lwcon]

Unlike with the Iraq War, the Republicans undoubtedly have a Plan B re: Mike Huckabee. And he for them.

Right now, there's a full-on freakout in the national GOP about the Huckster's ascendancy.

Peggy Noonan, who once thought it was irresponsible not to transubstantiate, literally says "bleh" to Huck's appeals to heavenly authority.

But let's fast-forward to Lourdes, or wherever the Republicans are holding their convention.

If Mike's deity has delivered him the delegates, do you seriously imagine anything other than the biggest authoritarian circlejerk this side of Stalinville?

Do you expect party leaders to do something other than rally around their latest vehicle for flying rich men through the eye of a golden needle at NASCAR speed?

Do you expect Mike to be the fiscal liberal (i.e., humane and budget-balancing) he's being made out to be? Do you expect him to be a thorn in the side of the neo-cons?

If you do, I've got some ancient Middle Eastern myths I can sell you....

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Enrique]

1. I expect them to rally around Huckabee

and I expect the GOP to go down in flames because of him. :toast:

[rurallib]

2. Gotta LMAO at the republiKlans complaining that religion is overdone

in their campaigns. Let me see - who was it that made religion a criteria to run for office? Wasn't the Dems.
So now when one of your candidates doesn't toe the religious straight-jacket you wove you complain that religion shouldn't be such an important element.
Romney's mormonism doesn't fit
9u11ani's marriages don't fit
Huckee doesn't fit.
etc. Wear the straight-jacket well.

[lwcon]

9. If Huck were so truly "Christian"...

... he would never have maintained allegiance to the party that demonizes the poor and ruthlessly shifts power and wealth to the powerful and wealthy.

At the end of the day, he'll fit just fine.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[cali]

3. No thanks to the myths but you're wrong

If he gets the nom, a lot of big money repukes will be sitting on their hands. I grew up in New Canaan, CT and it's still a repuke town, but I can absolutely guarantee you that virtually no repukes there will support Huckabee- and they'll vote alright. They'll vote democratic. Do you know the zip codes of the largest repuke donors? They're in places like the Upper East side, Fairfield County in CT, Westchester County, NY, and other like localities. The fiscally conservative, socially moderate wing of the repuke party will not support him or vote for him.

[lwcon]

6. But don't forget that...

... one the major reasons for the freakout is the perception that Huck is too much of a social moderate.

The GOP has spent, literally, like madmen over the last 8 years and those fiscal conservative / social moderate types haven't made a peep. Why would they suddenly change stripes when a so-called social moderate gets on the ballot?

One of the fundamental rules of modern GOP politics is "never criticize another Republican." I know it's gauche to compare anyone to fascists, so I won't compare them to fascists. I'm calling them fascists, because that's what they are. A few "honest conservatives" may change allegiances here and there, but these guys are all about sticking together and growing their individual and collective power.

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[cali]

7. um, you seem to miss the point. Big money repukes will not

support Hucky. I know this with a fair degree of certainty just because I've been talking to my very politically active family in CT. They're all dems, but they're all saying the same thing about repukes they know in New Canaan, Darien, Greenwich, Fairfield, and Ridgefield. Huckabee repulses these people. bushie was arguably one their own, but they aren't happy with the repuke party after 7 years of him. The repuke party is having trouble raising money. Why do you think that is? It's because these folks and others like them, aren't giving.

You're wrong about there not being a lot of fiscal discontent among those folks. It's one of the reasons why there's only 1 lone repuke Rep in all of New England. And after next year, Shays too, will be ousted.

"One of the fundamental rules of modern GOP politics is "never criticize another Republican."

That was true. It isn't true any longer. The repuke party is bleeding registered voters and splintering. You think the rhetoric is harsh among dem presidential candidates? It doesn't hold a candle to what the repukes are doing. You're basing your analysis on an outdated model. There's lots of objective data out there that refutes the usefulness of that model, at this time.

[lwcon]

8. The GOP is a machine to keep...

... funneling power to a certain power elite, on the backs of lunchpail Joes who swoon at the sight of a cross, a flag, or a flight suit.

One of their main power centers is the so-called liberal media. What does almost every column and editorial written in the Washington Post say (Froomkin and a couple of other good guys notwithstanding)? That the Democrats need to be serious (i.e., the same as Bush) about national security, faith, etc., or else they'll relegated to the hippie fringe.

Why can't Edwards get any proper coverage in this race? Because the powers that be will do whatever it takes to prevent a change in the military-industrial complex, a change in media ownership, a change in economic distribution, and a return to the rule of law.

The criminal corporatist element behind the change in America that first flourished under Nixon and has grown ever since ain't going anywhere.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[cali]

13. huh, how was that responsive to what i was pointing out?

And frankly, whether by design or accident, it's to Edwards' benefit that he hasn't gotten the type of MSM coverage that Clinton or Obama have. Flying under the national radar has been good for him. Lately, he's been getting lots of MSM attention and it's all been good. That's great for him in the last couple of weeks before Iowa. If he wins there, he'll get MSM coverage like crazy- and not all of it will be as good as what he's been getting lately.

[lwcon]

15. The point is that the Conservative seismic shift you describe ain't happening n/t

[cali]

17. actually, the facts support every argument that I made in your

thread, though I never said anything about a seismic shift.

Fact: Dems are outraising repukes in this cycle by huge amounts

Fact: The repuke party has been shrinking, not growing (see Nov 2007 Pew report)

Fact: Demographics are working against them in several key states: NM and CO being two of them.

Fact: Huckabee is not supported by the power elite in the repuke party.

Fact based opinion trumps pulled out of thin air opinion every time.

[lwcon]

20. The fact is that the Repubs have shown an almost superhuman...

... ability to circle the wagons ever since Nixon's rise.

As soon as a Nixon is forced to resign, a Gerald Ford pardons him, and a new meme is writ that says "it was good for America."

They did absolutely nothing to stop Bush's four-alarm, two-term clusterfuck, and if Huck is their hail-Mary try at four more years of power, you don't think they'll kiss and make up?

[cali]

22. I don't think you grasp the fact that a faction of the party is freaked

out about Huck, and will not support him. Repukes have been losing support over the past 3 or 4 years as evidenced by their LACK OF MONEY RAISED. Big money pukes are not ponying up. That's just a fact. Will they kiss and make up if he's the nominee? Not just no, but hell no. I can tell you right now that we're talking about sophisticated, secular people- corporatists, for sure- but they are horrified by the Frankenstein they've created. Just as as the religious wingnut party will not vote for Rudy if he's the nominee, the fiscal conservative/social moderates will not vote for Huck. He's not one of them in a way that's beyond glaring. Nixon, Reagan, GHW bush, and bushie, all were- in varying degrees.

[lwcon]

24. Assuming that Huck gets the nod...

Don't discount the value of his gift-o-gab and general charisma. Obviously, he'll start to moderate his Christianist spiel, because he already has those voters at "hallelujah."

The media has already laid the groundwork for him as the electable, nice-guy buddy this time around.

If he does make it a horserace, it seems awfully unlikely that Repubs valueless enough to support Bush won't rally behind him.

[trixie]

4. it should be a rule

not to trust anyone with a toddlers haircut. Excepting for an actual toddler, of course.

[sandyd921]

5. Maybe they get what they sow?

n/t

[TwilightGardener]

10. They might nominate him, but the non-fetus-obsessed will go with

Bloomberg (who will almost certainly run if it's Huck and Hillary). Especially if he takes a conservative Repub as his running mate (that would be Hagel). Lots and lots of Freepers and RedStaters do not like Hucky, not just because of his fiscal liberalism and his open-border immigration history, but because he comes off as a thin-skinned liar and has corruption in his past. They know that if he's nominated, they will lose the high ground on ethics, law and order (1000 pardons), fiscal responsibility, immigration, and foreign policy/national security. He's really a poor choice for GOPers, and if Bloomberg/Hagel offers an alternative, some GOP moderates might defect.

[lwcon]

11. I'm confused. Is this snark?

Repubs won't vote for a guy because "he has corruption in his past"? The GOP has high ground to lose on ethics, law and order, fiscal responsibility, immigration, and foreign policy/national security?

In any case, consider the possibility of a Ron Paul third-party campaign siphoning off youth protest votes, which could have at least as big an impact as a Bloomberg candidacy, and not a good one for Democrats.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[TwilightGardener]

12. I am going by what I've read--half of the reason they hate the Clintons

is because they feel the Clintons are corrupt and engage in ruthless swamp politics. They want someone relatively clean and ethical to run against her. Rudy is tanking because he's just got too much sleaziness in his past--those revelations last week about the Shag-fund caused his poll numbers to drop, but people may not know yet that Hucky is not squeaky-clean either, despite his minister past and nice-guy persona. You can bet your ass the Dem party will portray him as ethics-challenged, same as they would have done for Rudy. You don't seem to realize that the GOPers see themselves as highly ethical and righteous--it seems crazy to us, but it's true--they think WE'RE as crooked as we think they are. You may think the GOP doesn't have the high ground on ethics, L&O, foreign policy--but you're thinking like a Dem. THEY think they're superior on all counts. They don't want to put up someone who's either a lot like a Dem, or has weaknesses in these areas that the Dems can exploit. Ron Paul has said he won't run as an Indie--it wouldn't make sense, anyway. If he can't get his poll numbers to budge out of the single digits, despite all the hoopla about him and despite his fundraising, he's not going to get anywhere as an Indie. People like him because he's the Anti-War Republican, an oddity. As an Indie, he'd be just another guy running for Prez, with no party behind him. Bloomberg will make a dent, though--a billion dollars and owning a media and financial empire can do that.

[lwcon]

16. For seven years, the GOP base has avidly supported someone..

... who spends like a drunken sailor, ushers in lawlessness (and has a history of same), and savages our national security. They're suddenly going to get logical and ethical?

Yes, the base thinks they're the good guys. But they think the GOP candidates are the good guys, too.

[cali]

18. the base of the repuke party is a minority.

And even they've been peeling away. 2006 is a case in point. And opinion isn't monolithic among repukes about their candidates. For the love of reason, everyone's aware of the dissastisfaction the repuke base feels about their candidates. They don't think all their candidates are good guys by any means. They have major problems with Romney and Guiliani and once the news cycle catches up with the polls, they'll have major problems with Huckabee.

[TwilightGardener]

19. They're actually pretty mad at Chimpy for his fiscal irresponsibility

and his immigration policy--they don't see him as unethical, because they think he's just doing what it takes to keep us safe, and they applaud the fact that he won't end the war. You seem to think that they are oblivious to all shortcomings and flaws, but it's not true--they are SELECTIVE in what they will accept and what they reject in terms of a candidate. They aren't that crazy about Willard Romney because they see the same thing we do--a plastic flip-flopper who sheds positions like snakeskin for opportunity. They dislike McCain, because they think he's a backstabber to the party, and with justification--McCain-Feingold is seen to them as a deliberate roadblock to Republican fundraising (of course, GOPers like to say it hinders "free speech", money being the form of speech). Fred Thompson looks to them like he is sleepwalking through his campaign and doesn't really want to be Preznit, same as it looks to us--the Second Coming of Reagan didn't last long. They saw through the hype. They can see many of the same flaws as we do, and the more informed non-evangelicals can see through Huckabee. Rush Limbaugh tore Hucky a new one yesterday, and he normally does not act that way with candidates--the GOPers are trying to smother this baby in the cradle, and it's not just because they think he's populist and anti-corporate (which I don't believe anyway)--it's because they know a mutant, flawed GOP life-form when they see it. They don't want a corrupt preacher-in-chief any more than we do, but the evangelicals aren't listening.

[lwcon]

21. I'll say it again

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-you-cant-reason-with-republican.html

[cali]

23. sweeping generalizations don't refute the facts. n/t

[lwcon]

25. Sorry, I didn't pick this up at a Connecticut cocktail party

I've just observed the lockstep voting in support of corrupt incompetents in the GOP for a couple of generations.

[cali]

14. they won't vote for him because they think he's easy on crime

and despite their corruption they believe that they're the pure party and that dems are the party of corruption. they also HATE his immigration history and stance, and his raising taxes and spending on social programs.

[PassingFair]

26. They'll vote for him as long as he says he ...

will continue the slaughter of brown and tan
people around the globe to "spread democracy"
and deliver "hegemony" to Christian white people
everywhere.*

*Profits as well.

[lwcon]

27. Yes, indeed n/t