JONAH GOLDBERG ON OBAMA AND DISAPPOINTMENT: “Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he’s the nominee — and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged.
Further imagine that he loses to Mike Huckabee. Any other GOP candidate can at least lay claim to some part of the main political stream: Romney, political aristocrat and northeaster Republican (what used to be called a “country club Republican”), McCain already a media fave, Giuliani, “America’s Mayor,” another northeaster Republican, and even Fred Thompson, “Reagan’s heir.” All of these are narratives the mainstream can comprehend and even, to an extent, make peace with.
But a born-again Arkansas moderate with whacky ideas about personal transformation? Yeah, he does tap into a known political tradition - that of Jimmy Carter. And let me tell you, even on the left, they may claim to idolize the Old Peanut, but nobody wants him - or anybody like him - within a country mile of the levers of power. And judging by recent history, Huckabee would lean even harder on the Christian evangelical trope, which, while barely tolerable in a lefty Democrat like Carter (the media tried to ignore it as much as possible) will be seen in a Republican President as anathema.
If Huckabee beats Obama, everything you’ve seen during the past eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome will become nothing more than a mild neurosis.
Bottom line, though, is that the real threat of a Huckabee candidacy is not that he’ll defeat Obama, but that he’ll destroy the GOP coalition in trying.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
You’ve got that exactly right, though I can’t imagine Huck winning.
For me, Obama vs Huckabee would be the difference between inexperience and incompetence. There’s damn little difference between the two on any substantive domestic policy matters not directly tied to the Christian pulpit, and Huckabee has shown his clear disinterest for and lack of even modest preparation in the critical arena of foreign affairs. I’ve been a Reagan Republican all my voting life, I cast my first presidential vote to throw the peanut farmer as far from DC as we could get him (alas, not nearly far enough) but one of Reagan’s crucial skills was the ability to give the evangelical statists lip-service while mostly stiff-arming them on actual policy. Based on what I know about the man and his record and his life at this point there’s absolutely no way I could vote for Huckabee.
“Bottom line, though, is that the real threat of a Huckabee candidacy is not that he’ll defeat Obama, but that he’ll destroy the GOP coalition in trying.”
If the Democratic candidate (whoever it may be) loses, I fully expect we’ll see home-grown domestic terrorism from the BDS types. These people already have a tenuous grasp on reality; it won’t take much to push them over the edge into commiting real violence (not just vandalism)..
Hmmm. I had previously decided I couldn’t vote for The Huck any way, under any circumstances. But what he would do to the Democrats? Yeah, that might be worth it. :D
Dismantling the current GOP might also be worth it. Save for Reagan, its only claim to our votes has been “not Democrat” since Goldwater.
Maybe it’s time for 1852 again.
Bottom line, though, is that the real threat of a Huckabee candidacy is not that he’ll defeat Obama, but that he’ll destroy the GOP coalition in trying.
Every Republican in the running [see http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004152.html ] has their differences with the “coalition.” Large parts of the “coalition” don’t trust McCain because of his maverick positions (including campaign finance); don’t trust Giuliani on social issues; don’t trust that Romney has really so suddenly converted from his left-wing views on many issues; etc. As for foreign policy: what’s the theory here, that aggressiveness has been such a raging success in Iraq that it now represents “true” Republicanism?
If the “coalition” doesn’t get behind Huckabee (in the event he’s the nominee), it’s not Huckabee’s fault. The real problem would be that certain elements of that coalition are petulant and self-centered. Why is it OK for some people to be expected to suck it up and vote for Giuliani/Romney/McCain (if it comes to that), but other people are threatening to take their marbles and go home if Huckabee is the nominee?
I am not a Huckabee supporter, but it does not seem to me that he is the one who is destroying the coalition. It is the self absorbed, self anointed pundits and bloggers who seem to think that voters are supposed to follow their lead and vote for whoever they tell them too. Since Bush’s second term began I have heard many of the same people rant that he was going to put a crony on the Supreme Court and had to be stopped. Bush was going to sell our ports to terrorists and had to be stopped. Bush was going to sell out to Mexico and had to be stopped. A great deal of the Bush bashing I have seen and heard has come from his own side of the aisle. And now we are hearing that the Republican party will be destroyed by the Republican Governor of Arkansas because he had the temerity to win in Iowa.
Like I said Huckabee is not my choice, but he is not the enemy either. The enemy are the people who just can not lose without acting like idiots.
Take my marbles and go home? No, John. I will get in that booth and vote against Huckabee. I’ve had it with fundamentalist ignorance in the White House. I’m tired of yahoos like Huckabee wielding his religion like a pornstar wields his hardon. He is so far from being conservative, it’s not funny, and it’s a testament to the blindness of his fellow evangelicals that all they seemed to be concerned with is the fact that he can perform in a pulpit backed with the requisite halleluia chorus. Huckabee and his chorus will not rest until they are able to define America as a christian nation with a christian government and I don’t really think they care how far they have to shove that cross up my ass to achieve their aim of re-imagining the culture of this nation as being led by sweet, muscular Jesus.
If you have even the slightest clue about this blog, John, you would understand that we tend to be rather conservative/libertarian (and not necessarily in that order…) and that we are not in the slightest bit religious (speaking for myself. I’ll let the other contributers and the Editor define themselves…). We’re also not real big fans of McCain, either. In fact, I really don’t give a toss about Giuliani or Romney. This would probably explain why there is a Thompson contribution link in the sidebar of this blog and my own.
Chief:
I tell you what, you compare religion to pornography in this country and you are bound to lose no matter who you vote for or against. Even Obama makes a point of telling us all what a Christian he is.
I will vote against Huckabee, but I do not want to run off all the Christians in the process.
And btw, Thompson does not mind spreading a little God around himself when it suits him.
Yeah? Show me where Thompson has made a big deal of his Christianity, or offered it as a primary reason for electing him.
You can’t?
How…surprising.
I have heard Thompson speak of his faith, he has never compared Christianity to porn, that is for damn sure. And when , he felt the need to deny it.
As I said I am not a Huckabee fan, but I am not a fan of people who say that anyone who disagrees with them is destroying the Republican coalition either. Like it or not, Evangelicals are part of that coalition and it seems to me that libertarians who could not win an election without the rest of us need to remember that.
What you are supposed to do is convince people to vote for your guy, and thus far Thompson is not exactly sitting the house on fire.
BTW, if Thompson gets the nomination, I will most certainly vote for him. I am not one of those brats who says they will take their marbles and go home if they don’t get their way.
let me try that link again
First of all Terrye, nice contortion of my views. You may now untie yourself from your awesome pretzel shape.
I am not comparing religion with pornography (although, it would not be difficult to make and support that comparison as an intellectual exercise. For example; the use of illusion and mythos to achieve an artificial gratification is but one dark alley to choose from…). I am saying that Huckabee uses religion as a club to beat down those who do not believe what he believes. I see his use of religion as invasive and gratuitous hence the use of the pornstar’s hardon in my comments. You want to twist that around, fine. Your business is blindness, so go figure.
My problem is not Christians. I was raised one. My mom is one. My problem is with Christians, or groups of them, who proselytize; whose sole purpose in life seems to be to save me. By mixing proselytizing with politics, they are informing me that I’m excluded from their little club. This is one reason why I’m more and more uncomfortable being a member of the Republican Party. I don’t believe political parties should be involving themselves in defining the culture of the nation. Period.
Oh, really?
Yeah, ole Fred is really wearing his religion on his sleeve, isn’t he? That must be why James Dobson has so embraced him with brotherly love.
I am saying that Huckabee uses religion as a club to beat down those who do not believe what he believes.
Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for 10 years. And in 10 years, how and when did he use religion as a “club” in formulating public policy? I’m looking for actual evidence of something he did, not facile and emotional rhetoric.
That’s it? No wonder this Dobson character is unhappy.
Ok. Since you asked…
From Wikipedia:
And this:
Now, maybe Mike Huckabee, Governor and Baptist Minister, wasn’t informed by his religious beliefs in formulating policy, but I really doubt it.
Terye: In other words, you can’t answer my question, as I expected.
As for Thompson, more than any other candidate he has campaigned as what he is, and more than any other candidate has put forth solid, detailed plans to deal with the future of our country and its problems, challenges, and possibilities.
What he hasn’t particularly done is kiss ass and pander to voters who seem to think the only reason to elect anybody is by figuring out who is offering them the biggest bribes. Not setting the world on fire? Only because morons and hypocrites aren’t getting fired up by a candidate who is offering them what they claim they want - small government federalist conservatism with detailed policies that follow the traditional GOP bedrock principles - when what they really want is somebody who will pander to all their non-conservative, non-GOP wishlists.
Those of us who do back Thompson are pretty much for those bedrock GOP principles, and he fires us up just fine. Why aren’t you fired up? Why aren’t you supporting him for the nomination? Is he too genuinely conservative and principled for you?
Chief Mojo:
I would be careful about taking at face value the article that you cited. A journalism professor (always a dangerous combination) claims that Fred is doing poorly because “he lacks a religious niche”. Oh, really? How does he explain Rudy Giuliani (my candidate) and his early polling success? What “religious niche” does Rudy occupy? Remember that Pat Robertson endorsed him early on, so the conservative-evangelicals-did-not-know-about-Giuliani argument rings hollow.
Among the Bible-thumpin’ circles I lurk in, Rudy’s positions on social issues are well known - not to mention his checkered personal life. Evangelicals who support Rudy do so because of his national security positions.
I would like to ask Domke the following question: Is it possible that Thompson (and Giuliani, for that matter) are doing poorly because they are running lackluster campaigns - and not because of some “religious niche”? Rudy in particular has gotten away from what brought him success early on, and has decided to join the forming Republican circular firing squad. I also think that Thompson’s decision to wait so long before joining the race was a huge error.
That’s the best you could come up with? A proclamation (of no legal consequence or penalty to anyone), and charitable choice (i.e., ensuring compliance with Bush’s program to treat faith-based organizations on an equal footing with secular organizations that receive tax money)?
That’s not much at all. If you were anywhere in the realm of accuracy here, you should be able to find lots more examples out of a 10-year record as governor.
I’ve crossed swords with Terrye on other blogs. Major open borders shill, and if you think I mindlessly defend Bush, you ain’t seen nothing.
Oh, and Terrye, this is particularly rich:
What exactly do you think actions like this are. We all noticed when Jorge was willing to kill the military spending bill over keeping Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) from getting sued; why no action here? Hmmmmm.
I know all you Hucksters would like to pretend this article doesn’t exist, but sorry, we’re not going to let you do it. On its face it reveals a candidate who is unAmerican, irreligious, and a man who in no way should be elected President of the United States:
Huckabee: U.S. gave up on religion
Take this nation back for Christ?
Go run your crusade somewhere else, Huck. You may fool (or, actually, not fool at all) your hard core backers, who want to take this nation back for Christ, too, but you will never, ever, get my help - let alone my vote - to advance your profoundly unAmerican goals.
Blink. Blink.
Bill, your reaction to ordinary, and reasonable, and well-founded statements is very revelatory. I sincerely hope you’re not serious because you’ve gone and walked into Kossack territory….”Only my non-historical and totally destructive vision of America is the Real America. All the majority of people who disagree with me are hateful morons.”
That article you excerpted had nothing that should get any true American upset.
Now, the Socons have tried to be reasonable in response to Tarian provocation. We’ve carried the load for Tarians. We actually agree with the Tarians more than any other group (far more than the Liberals agree with Tarians.)
But frankly, we’re getting tired of being used, and then insulted on top of the injury.
Imagine a cute Labrador puppy, and a typical Chihuahua. At first the Chihuahua bosses the growing pup around, and the Labrador goes along with it because he’s young, and growing, and besides he’s amiable. But eventually, the Labrador towers over the yappy wiener dog, and the wiener dog decides to bite the lab in the nose. And the lab casually reaches out, and knocks the wiener dog down.
So it is. Socons came late to politics. We made it possible for the R’s to win. We took attitude from everyone partially because we were new, and partially because ….we are amiable. Unlike Tarians, a Socon doesn’t by nature pick fights. However, unlike the Tarians, Socons tends to finish the fights they do get into.
I don’t blame the Tarians for being yappy little wiener dogs. They have little actual power, and being mouthy, and making absurd threats is the way to magnify this power. And maybe if they do this enough, they can obscure the basic fact that the Socons have way more power than they do.
But the time has come for a new dog to sit at the head of the table.
If this doesn’t happen, well, then we can Whiggize the R party. After all, the Whigs failed to make a choice on the moral issue of the day–Slavery. They tried to be reasonable, and elite. Exit stage left to the Whigs. Enter the Republicans.
I’m still holding out an olive branch. A R party with Huckabee-Guiliani could work. Even better from my perspective is a Huckabee–Ron Paul ticket. Granted that would kick the Rinos to the curb but that would be good.
I’ll vote for Thompson quite happily if he’s the nominee. I’ll vote for Romney. But I think its only fair to require a pledge–I, state your name, will vote for the Republican nominee– from all Tarians. If you’re not willing to do this, then I can’t really call you a Republican.
Uh, Eric?
Bill isn’t a Republican.
And I, for one, spit on your pledge. If the price for Republicans being in power is a descent into theocracy, then screw that.
Mojo,
We can insert “Conservative” in place of “Republican” for Bill.
As to your spit and your charge of theocracy, that clarifies things. Due to a misunderstanding of reality, you are an opponent, and a rather rude one at that.
I hope you don’t get your wish because as RAH said, an armed society is a polite society. In a Libertarian utopia, you’d undoubtedly be blasted before the first week was out.
Now me, I’m a Christian, so feel free to spit on the other cheek.
Cheers.
Good grief this discussion is idiotic.
Eric you use labels as if they mean something. ‘Tarians’ vs. ‘Socons,’ vs. ‘Liberal.’ If you get away from the labels and talk issues, than meaning can be found. (If you as a Socon wish to subscribe to a position that religious ‘laws’ ought to be reflected in government statutes than you begin to slide down the same slope as Sharia Law advocates; and I will fight it with all weapons at my disposal.) The problem with Huck is his position on issues not his religion. It is use of religion as a ‘reason’ to vote for him that irritates me. I am deeply religious. It has been a major force for my entire life. But I will not speak of it, or for it, in my political office. I find Huck a charming persona, but then I found Clinton charming as well and I was disgusted almost every day he was in office. On the issues I find more in common with Thompson than with any other major candidate. In examining Huck’s record he reveals himself to be pro big government, a ‘nanny state’ advocate, and ignorant of international issues.
Also, your condescension and arrogance in your comparison of dog types and in such comments as:
is pompous and repulsive. Get a grip, if you are comfortable in your Christian-ness than you wouldn’t need to use that crap.
“Due to a misunderstanding of reality, you are an opponent, and a rather rude one at that.”
What misunderstanding of reality would you be referring to, Eric? Reality is that which is perceived by our senses. Knowledge comes from integrating our perceptions through reason. Understanding reality requires accepting the supremacy of reason.
As a Christian, you confess that divine revelation is your source of knowledge and have thus rejected reason. Yet, you’re are asserting here that by reason (not divine revelation), Chef is misunderstanding reality. You can’t have it both ways, Eric. You are a contradiction. Once you accept faith over reason, using reason contradicts your acceptance of faith as supreme.
Eric, I guess you don’t understand plain English. I said I regard Huckabee’s statements an unAmerican. I further stated that I will under no circumstances vote for him. Nor do I give a rat’s ass what your decidedly ahistorical understanding of American history is. What is your Christian opinon of Mathew 22:21, by the way? Does it mean for Christians to band together to “take back America for Christ?” via the political system and occupancy of the White House?
I’ll even go further. While I would never vote for John McCain, either, in Huckabee’s case I would vote for his opponent, just to make damned sure he - and his Christian coalition - were smashed as completely as possible. And that goes for any ticket he is a part of. (Yes, I’d vote against Fred Thompson to keep Huckabee from being one heartbeat from the Presidency).
I’m a libertarian, not a conservative. I look forward to helping destroy the Huckabee candidacy. And if the GOP nominates him, I will certainly not be a Republican, at least for that election. I’ll be a Democrat. At least that’s the way I’ll vote.
Oh, and good luck with that Christian Democratic party. I can’t imagine a better recipe for a permanent minority. America has never had a successful religioius party, and it’s not going to develop one at this point.
No, the Republicans who replaced the Whigs were not a religious party. They were a liberty party - something those who think America should have only one god:
Have no understanding of whatsoever.
By the way, vis your smarmy little hint of violence, I learned long ago how religious whackjobs feel about it, when an otherwise intelligent MD named Bill Oliver told me to my face he was glad the Second Amendment existed in this country, because if God told him to shoot me dead, he would do his best to get the job done, but he’d like it to be a fair gunfight, if possible.
I’m well aware of the darkness at the heart of what you wackos really think. And I’d do everything I can to make sure you never get your hands on any real power.
Luckily, history says you never will. Not in America, at least.
Clarification: I don’t regard all Christians - or even all believers - as malignant crazies. By definition they aren’t rational in certain areas in that they reject reason in favor of faith, but most of them aren’t dangerous to the liberty of others and I am perfectly happy to coexist with them. But the ones who wish to take power in order to carry out the tenets of their religions against the wishes of those not of their religion are dangerous wackjobs, and should be opposed by everybody who loves liberty, not because of their religion, but because of what they would do to liberty in service to their religion.
Would it make it any clearer if Huckabee was demanding to “take over America for Allah?” Because that is no more and no less offensive and threatening to liberty than calling for “taking back America for Christ.”
The heart of the matter is taking the reigns of power to shape America in your image and force other American citizens to do what you envision as “right” or “correct”.
Isn’t that the prime definition of UnAmerican.
Wow, one primary victory in some small state and your all puffed up on your POWER. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Exercising power. Finally having power. Realizing you can use that power. To force other people to behave as you wish.
Do you not see what you have become?
I reject those who seek power whether they want to socialize medicine or morals. It’s profoundly UnAmerican and it is what made rather well off colonists reject compromising and declare independence. 1776 and your words do not go together. Our country was founded on the belief that government’s power should be limited, so that no man, no group could ever force another man to relinquish his natural rights to life, liberty and property. Read a history book. Most “Christians” as you homogeneously label them that fled to America were escaping religious persecution in another country perpetrated by other “Christians”. This country was not founded as a Christian Nation. It was founded as a nation where people could worship as they please, sheltered from the persecution of those who defined being a Christian under their own terms and those that did not meet those terms were not True Christians. So you’re not enamored with Fred because he doesn’t proclaim his religion loud enough or attend Church on Sundays. He’s not a True Christian. Sounds like the same judgemental cr@p that true Americans should be fighting to destroy or at the very least keep from the levers of power in this country.
Like Bill and Chef have pledged to do.
Thank you for the further clarification: You guys are not Conservatives.
“Smarmy” hint of violence…this is why I included the offer to spit on the other cheek to make it clear I was not offering violence. I was merely pointing that if Chef Mojo got his way, it would destroy him.
Everyone uses faith hundreds of times a day. I have faith that ya’ll are being honest about your opinions. You have faith that I’m being honest. Without faith, a man can do nothing because he will be spending all his time trying to verify that the floor will support his weight when he gets out of bed.
You just object to what I have faith in, and call it unreasoned. When in fact, the reasoned choice is something much closer to my views than your views.
Condescending? Well, yes. Accurate? That too.
Bill, I’m well aware of the darkness in my own heart too. I’m a pretty horrible person in a lot of ways. The thing is, so is everyone.
And I take your story, and put in mine of a former employer, a small business owner libertarian, who advocated offering for the weekend free gov’t cocaine in the city park so that all the addicts would overdose and die.
Kenny, the idea is more along the lines of ‘offer as much freedom as you can before it becomes destructive of the general community.’ Its not as clear and precise as Tarian principles, but Conservatism is not a precise thing, its more of a collection of ideas that work.
As to the historical issues…You’re largely wrong.
Thank you again for clearing this up. Tarians that go with these views that have been espoused here need to be politically opposed and marginalized for the good of the Republic. I understand that you feel that the opposite is true. You and yours need to be in power, and me and mine need to be kicked to the curb.
At one time I was a Tarian. I was fifteen. Since then I’ve grown up a bit. Perhaps this colors my views, but I tend to see Tarianism as ‘an adolescent search for cheap certainties’ to quote myself.
I don’t see much need to continue this conversation because A) I don’t enjoy talking to rude people that much. B) There really is not that much to say at this point other than ‘See you at the voting booth.’ and ‘May the best man win.’
Cordially,
Eric R. Ashley
Eric, are you suggesting the huckster is a conservative?
Do you have any idea what conservative principles are?
Eric doesn’t even have any idea what principles are. He just wants his religious tyranny, and he wants it now.
The Christian God told him so.
Eric said:
Barry asked:
Barry, Eric is clearly a Conservative, not a conservative.
;-)
I suppose that’s why I feel more at home with classical liberalism, “a doctrine stressing individual freedom. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint.”
I suggest that we need to look at this from a Madisonian and not a Marxist perspective. Coalitions on American politics are voter coalitions, not coalitions of poliotical parties. The Marxist paradigm is of a united front, headed by a single “vanguard.” The front seizes control of the apparatus of state coercion and wields them to transform society.
That’s not how we do things. We form voter coalitions, election by election. The only way we can win, and keep winning, is for each of us to defer to one another with respect to are respective issues of greatest concern.
One voter, such as y.o.s., values the RKBA, another economic freedom,. another live babies, another final victory in the GWOT. One voter cares most about the safety of Israel; another for control of open borders.
We are not going to get a party line that gives us exactly what we want on every ssue. That just can’t happen. None of us, standing alone, has the political weight to make America do everything we want it to. Leave that delusion for the Left.
We have not come all this way by being petulant ideologues, whining about sitting out elections or voting for the other side if we don’t get everything we want.
Are you claiming that there is no rational (and thus moral) basis for sitting out an election or voting for the ‘other side’?
Which, of course, describes nothing having to do with, you know, actual politics.