Granted, many conservatives are disenchanted with Mike Huckabee. Some of that disenchantment is based on policy matters. Some of that disenchantment is with the role identity politics is playing in his campaign.
Nevertheless, let us savor moments in which people like Josh Marshall and his fellow travelers at TPM feverishly work to crack Huckabee’s “crypto-evangelical code” about the “vertical politics” of taking America up, rather than down.
It apparently does not occur to Marshall that Huckabee does not invoke such language as a “clever dog whistle call out to Christian fundamentalists” as much as it is part of his vocabulary as an ordained Baptist minister.
Huckabee is a candidate who put the phrase “CHRISTIAN LEADER” in capital letters in his campaign ad as he talks about how his faith “defines me.” It does not seem as though Huckabee is trying to reach fundamentalist Christians under the radar with dog whistles or subliminal crosses.  His appeals are quite blatant, yet a segment of the Left has some need to look for some secret plan.
Moreover, the TPM crowd seems to be missing that Barack Obama talks about ending “the political strategy that’s been all about division, and instead make it about addition” and says his Iowa win was “the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.”ÂÂ
The person who has not missed it is Mike Huckabee, who noted the similarity of their rhetoric on The Tonight Show before the Iowa caucuses.
Huckabee’s Vertical Politics
Josh Marshall was perusing Mike Huckabee’s campaign site to help understand his appeal and came upon something that stumped him:
Can anyone explain what the hell that means? Vertical? I guess if you’re main opponent was Fred Thompson you mi…
Bill Quick, quoted at Instapundit: “…the real threat of a Huckabee candidacy is not that he’ll defeat Obama, but that he’ll destroy the GOP coalition in trying.”
Quick is a smart guy, but he’s missed the emphasis here. Huckabee does not threaten to destroy the GOP coalition. Huckabee is a symptom. Think of him as a fluorescent orange Post-It® stuck on the fridge at GOP headquarters: “If somebody besides us doesn’t start buying pop, we’re getting our own refrigerator.”
And suddenly that isn’t as impossible-looking as it was. Evangelicals and Pentecostals together make up something like a third of the U.S. population. Those who are too contemptuous of religion to learn anything about it probably haven’t noticed, but Huckabee’s rhetoric isn’t Baptist- or even Protestant-specific; if he manages — as seems to be happening — to get conservative Catholics into the lineup, it would put him well over half. Hello, Brother President…
Regards,
Ric
If it weren’t for Huck’s abysmal nearly-liberal voting records, and his catch-and-release tactics for felons (but there’s no real Willie Horton moment that’s surfaced, yet…) I might get on board with his campaign as well (if Fred!’s fumbling and faltering continues).
Religious-based morality didn’t damage this country, after all. And the leftists will hate whoever we nominate, anyways…
Ric:
I’ve been reading your analysis of Huckabee’s Evangelical/Pentecostal support with interest and due consideration. As an individual who considers himself both evangelical and conservative I’m troubled by this trend of voting Theology and damn the political principles.
I remember during the 2000 campaign listening to an interview on a Christian radio station with a political operative for the anti-abortion movement. I was fully on board with his views until he was asked how important the abortion issue was in the upcoming campaign. His response; “Not only is abortion the most important issue in the upcoming election, it’s the only important issue.”
There we parted company.
Strangely evangelicals miss Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition. He and they were a savvy grassroots organization that “preached” values issues first rather than candidates. They established those political and economic issues that were (and are) important to both conservatives and evangelicals and sought to support those candidates who supported those issues.
With their and his passing we’re left with James Dobson and Pat Robertson; the former seeks a purely Christian personal witness first (note his rejection of Thompson, not due to issues but due to personal faith habits) and the latter is so mercurial in his support that one never knows where he’s going to fall or stand.
I’m concerned about many of my fellow evangelicals weighing in on Huckabee’s faith (which I applaud) while ignoring his less than conservative record on GWOT, immigration, taxes and pardons. I’m hopeful that more Christians will be concerned with issues and positions at least as much or, preferably, more than personal theology. While it was nice having a Born Again in the White House, domestic conservative principles and leadership skills took a hit over the last eight years.
When we render unto Caesar our votes we should know where he stands politically as well as theologically.
Giuliani/Thompson is Cloverfield.
“Granted, many conservatives are disenchanted with Mike Huckabee.”
It was not necessary to extend your remarks beyond that 1st sentence of the 1st graf.
Huckaphobia is clearly derived from secular conservatives. Any attempts to look beyond the surface of the man for a ‘code’ is simply
the Left’s attempt to conflate his conservative cosmology with the
generic conservatism of the GOP.
Like it or not, your Party has been aligned with Christian Zionists in the Public Mind. Marshall is enjoying the disarray
and angst of the Grand Old Party. But you’re are right to suggest it’s just not fair; it’s Politics.
Ric, a symptom of what? I think I know, but would like it spelled out.
As someone posted, I think on HotAir, while most of Huckabee’s support may be evangelicals, most evangelicals do not support Huckabee (OK, yet). I’m going to run a highly scientific survey later today with an evangelical and a conservative Catholic and find out. Both are or have been politically involved and if either supports Huckabee, I will be surprised.
And as an aside, great line, Karl: “a segment of the Left has some need to look for some secret plan”. A guy has to wonder just how many secret plans are part of the SOP of Left-wing governments as they are such experts in uncovering them.
Democracy. Alliance.
Everybody else is amateurs.
jdm – think of all of the conspiracy theories of the past seven years, all of the BDS. The ‘secret plans’ aspect is just part of the paranoid style in American politics that was noted on the right by Hofstadter back in the late fifties-early sixties ans is now prevalent on the left, as Dr. Sanity has pointed out.
When you know you are right, but continue to lose ground, and can’t figure out why the population doesn’t cotton to your message, it is easy to start forming conspiracy theories and placing the blame there rather than on your self or your message. It is always present at the extremes of both left and right (because they are always rejected) but it has become prevalent with the left since 1980 when Reagan was elected and the population began to reject the New Deal/Great Society political and cultural answer. The left had become accustomed to the ND/GS as the Only Way Things May Be Done as it had been the prevailing format for almost fifty years, and everything else was unnatural. And so, the left began to slowly develop the paranoid style. When Bill Clinton, the second coming of holy JFK turned out to be not that, the left – especially the Boomers – went insane. And they have been insane since.
My only concern is that the right is doing the same thing, creating a holy RWR whose second coming must be brought about. It is time, I think, to get ahead of the cycle, and start seeking new answers, for the answers of Reagan’s day are not necessarily the answers of today. Things have changed somewhat and the right must to lest it go bat-guano crazy again.
Uh-huh. And if Huck were to become president, what would your reaction be?
I’d say you and yours have far more to fear from him than we do — sure, you’d get the big, expensive social programs, but an icky socialcon Republican would get all the credit for them.
Tell me that doesn’t make you wake up screaming.
Okay, never mind — you wake up screaming just realizing you’re still you.
That’s a fair point, Mikey, as long as we understand that the Left will fail to define the madness properly. Way back when it was Commies and Nig@%rs and feminists and beatniks/hippies. Many in the left (hello, semi-conscious!) would like the the same memes to hold true so that the clarion calls of ‘ists and phobes can overwhelm the sound machine.
Hyping Reagon’s conservative principles and simple faith statement won’t create any new loonies because so much of his philosophy was rooted in common sense. We should be so lucky to actually concentrate on those core values seperate from the cold war rhetoric (or, if you choose, take the cold war rhetoric, adapt as necessary, and apply to the GWOT, stir and serve.) What ric is saying is a symptom (I think) is that many conservatives Christians, vaguely dissatisfied with the status quo, are tunnel visioning their electoral mindsets towards faith at the expense of political and economic principles. There seems to be more of a herd mentality this year than in previous years. That being said, the God herd still runs well behind blacks and Jews in in stepford voting. The left gets to scream “God bothering Christofacist homophobes!” giving them a whole new labeling meme designed narrow discussion.
Semantics-clueless attempts to drop all of this Huckaphobia on conservative secular rethugs without realizing that they are a very small if somewhat overly powerful bloc and the real questions are also being asked by other Christian/Evangelicals/Conservatives (like moi) who wonder why my brethern and sisters are abandoning bedrock, Reagonesque, conservative principles just for the opportunity to elect another bible thumpin’ Born Again.
I’m more than content to have such a person run our country but not at the expense of limited government, lower taxes, tough on crime and support for the GWOT. Huckabee fails the test for each of those.
jdm —
Reagan put together the Conservative Alliance, the Big Tent, with the religious right as a major component. (BJ and Mikey have filled in some details, and there’s much more to it than that, but as a broad overview it’ll do.) The promise was that although many of the Religious Right’s objectives were impossible politically, they would get more of what they wanted allied with conservatives than they would with the Left.
The problem is that from their point of view they’ve gotten nothing, and if anything have lost ground — and they don’t see that Republicans have genuinely worked for any of their objectives. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land; the schools have become even less willing to teach morality and ethics; and religious symbology is still attacked, with lukewarm defenses if any. The capper came with the FMA. Excitable Andy aside, Bush defused the push for the Amendment by what was, in retrospect, a betrayal. He proposed it with great publicity, then did nothing to push it through politically, and he and the Party stood aside while it died with little fanfare. Note that the result, for Bush, was the worst of both worlds. The RR is smarting from the betrayal; the Sullivans of the world, who don’t know the first thing about what’s going on, blame him for the proposal that was part of the tactic.
It doesn’t really have much to do with religious issues per se. It has to do with the content of a political alliance, which is the “vertical” bit that has Marshall so puzzled. If two parties agree to an alliance they are agreeing to support one another. If one is not supported — if, in fact, one party of the alliance is not even defended — the alliance is broken. The Religious Right, by supporting Huckabee, is telling us that they feel they’ve been shouldering the load and not getting rewarded for it.
What’s something of a Portent for me is seeing conservative Catholics going along, partly based on the abortion issue but even more so in the push to make religious schools toe the same politically correct line as the public ones do. There hasn’t been much public furore about it, but there have been several recent cases asserting that, e.g., Catholic schools have to have the same quota of queers as secular tax-supported ones do, and from their point of view Republicans have done nothing to defend them. I’m old enough to see the alliance as remarkable. Evangelicals and Pentecostals get along much less well than some might think, but Baptists and Catholics on the same page is dire wolves and sabertooths agreeing on den space for mutual warmth.
Prediction is hard, especially about the future, but don’t be surprised if Huckabee does much better than expected in some States where Catholics are strong and the outside tendency is to write off his prospects.
Regards,
Ric
SemenKleo – How are you so consistently so incredibly wrong. I would never attempt a parody of you, as the truth of you is plenty amusing all on it own.
That Bush’s stem cell stance and its vindication is not perceived a major major get by religious voters after the ad nauseum MichealJFoxChristoperReeveNancyReagan war on science nonsense makes them seem really insincere to me. I’d be happy to bake them cookies but I know better than to expect a thank you note.
Ric – I grew up in a small rural town in southern Illinois. We grew up Catholic in a very small church. There were 14 Baptist churches, in addition to the Methodist, Church of God, etc … The dislike was not bilateral. We just didn’t understand why we were such bad people.
I wonder what Marshall thinks of the phenomenon of Democrat presidential candidates campaigning in churches. Are they blowing dog whistles and sending out crypto-evangelico code to the bug fuck crazies on the left? That would be, I don’t know, soooooooooo, horizontal.
bug fuck crazies … I like, but happy’s term of “freaky heehawing little Malachai’s” is still the best.
daley – A white Catholic Dem can preach politics from the pulpit of an inner city black evangelical church and they undergo no cognitive dissonance.
JD – inner city black evangelical church
I must have missed those in the most recent Iowa primary or the black people were hiding in the churches where they were campaigning.
daley – Funny. I should have been more clear that I was talking about Lurch preaching at an AME church.
Again, I love the irony when identity groups collide. The Dems count on the black vote, one of the most religious groups in the country, yet they, as a party, disparage religion and religious people. At least until election time. Then, back to the pulpits.
“Like it or not, your Party has been aligned with Christian Zionists in the Public Mind. Marshall is enjoying the disarray and angst of the Grand Old Party. But you’re are right to suggest it’s just not fair; it’s Politics.”
It is also dishonest, and I think it is a big step for you to be up front about it. Now if you can actually rise above it you might be able to enter into a real discussion here.
“Now if you can actually rise above it you might be able to enter into a real discussion here.”
Campaign engineers like Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove made their nut with such tactics and worse. Are you calling them on that?
That reminds me, JD. Here’s a fun fact but not really. New Hampshire by median age is the seventh most codgerly state what means the Geritol popping Polident slathering early-onset bed and breakfast set gets the conch next. Whatever. Grandma Freaking Moses is firedupreadytogo so just hold up and let her get her teeth in and we’ll see how this turns out and the link doesn’t work but you can google “median age by state” and go to the census page that pops up. Anyway, not being super-inspired I’m offering toothless hemhawing little Methusalahs’s but really it’s just not funny, this process.
Ric, I was afraid you’d fill in the blanks as you did (thanks tho’).
I am not religious at all, but I am happy to live in a country dominated by a Judeo-Christian culture. Especially when compared to the other -cultures and especially the atheist ones. I appreciate their assistance when beating back and even in those few cases reversing the marxist/statist policies of the Democrats.
That said, they are really a high maintenance group: thin-skinned and both politically naive and unaware – and proud of it.
As I stated elsewheres, Vodka Pundit’s diatribe was directed at “Iowa Republicans” and no one else. Sure, he may have weakly implied that evangelicals were to blame, but he was just as much blaming the non-evangelicals for not preventing Huckabee’s success. What has been both interesting and dismaying is how evangelicals reacted. Poorly, in my opinion.
Their plaintive protests that “you don’t respect us; we’re doing all the work; we get nothing – less than nothing” is childish. For example, to reverse the policies of the marxists requires not only an amenable president, but now also a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Filibuster-proof (60 seats) is not common (the last was in 1975). This second condition has come about in the last 20 years (ie, after the Reagan coalition) because the Democrats, not surprisingly, intend on defending their policies.
Yes, Virginia, this is a relatively new condition requiring the support for the Religious Right. So their reaction (thin-skinned, naive, and politically unaware) is to get behind an awful candidate because he plays to their vanities and tells them what they want to hear.
In the words of Slim Pickens, “well, I am depressed.”.
Vanity is a sin. Big one. Hypocrites.
“Campaign engineers like Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove made their nut with such tactics and worse. Are you calling them on that?”
If they start commenting here I will. You just don’t get it at all, do you?
Geez, too many rewrites… the first paragraph refers to the Religious Right (which is probably obvious) and the “other -cultures” was an HTML screw-up for “other [religious]-cultures”. There’s probably others, sigh.
Pat Buchanan was nurtured and coddled by CNN for a reason.
So, Grandma Moses and the heehawing Malachai’s get to determine who the favorites are for the next President.. Color me uninspired.
Kleo – Quit arguing with the bogeymen in your head.
“You just don’t get it at all, do you?”
First you indicate approval for my honesty in acknowledging someone’s
(Josh Marshall-Did he comment here?) dishonesty, then you invite discourse followed by “when they comment here”. I get it.
You just wait til Jeff gets back and then you’ll really get it.
“just wait til Jeff gets back’
Guess you’ve conveniently submerged the memory of past interchanges.
Oh huh. You’re a stupidhead.
“You’re a stupidhead.’
Demonstrating why you have to wait for Jeff.
Yeah so sometimes I think more better when I get helped. There’s nothing wrong with that my mom says I do good and I’ve been thinking all on my own for a long time and I’m tired.
“Yeah so sometimes……..”
Self-deprecation only works as humility. You’ve obviously taken it further to self-humiliation.
The troll gets trolled… nice work, hf.
Thanks, jdm. And also anonymous people can’t be humiliated. How an anonymous troll person would not know that I don’t get at all.
A couple of threads back, Smantypants claimed its purpose in being here is to try to change minds.
And yet its attitude has always been that there are no minds here to be changed.
Would I be out of line if I called it a liar?
“there are no minds here to be changed.”
Wrong. Lots of lurkers out there. They can see y’all more clearly with yer pants down.
Well, discourse is rather hard if only one side is present, wouldn’t you agree? My point is the separation of political snake oil from honest policy discussions, and which is more appropriate on a blog like, say, Protein Wisdom.
And yet somehow it’s always you getting laughed at.
“discourse is rather hard if only one side is present,”
You and I are here.
…past interchanges?
Did we miss an exit?
“And yet somehow it’s always you getting laughed at”
Ecclesiates 7:6
“Did we miss an exit?”
What do you mean ‘we’ ?
This was where happyfeet came from originally, Ecclesiastes. Bet you didn’t know that.
“Bet you didn’t know that.”
And….that means what to me?
I guess it’s kind of a your mileage will vary thing, but it would be polite if you pretended to take an interest.
I’m still cleaning up the laughsnort from the vision of Pat Buchanan making his nut with the Christian Zionists.
As for cleo’s original point:
First, Marshall specifically called this a “clever dog whistle call out to Christian fundamentalists,†which is not conflating.
Second, cleo may well be correct that others on the Left are attempting to conflate social conservatism-only with conservatism in general. It’s an admission that others (not Marshall) have a different type of limited intellect.
Third, another round of laughter is due when folks like cleo do their little rant with complete blindness as to the role identity politics and religion play in the Democratic party. The difference is that there are people in the GOP — or aligned with the GOP — who will express a disdain for it. The Left never does. Because of the, y’know, hypocrisy.
happy – Miss Cleo is suffering from a bout of PRE traumatic stress disorder. Take pity.
Karl – You note what I have pointed out. The Dem identity groups collide around religion. Just look at the black community and the Dems campaigning from the pulpits to see their hypocrisy in all its glory.
Smantypants clearly doesn’t get the difference between “at” and “with.”
Like, for example, using a Bible verse to attempt an argument. Are we sure Smantypants isn’t really Mike Huckabee?
Guys, guys. Let’s put it in boldface: THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. IT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. If you keep discussing it as a religious issue you will never figure out what’s going on — which, of course, leaves Marshall completely out of the loop.
The people for whom it’s an important issue discuss it in religious terms because that is their vernacular. Politics in France is discussed in the French language for the same reason.
Please note: a majority of Huckabee’s support comes from Evangelicals, but not all Evangelicals — not even a majority of Evangelicals — support Huckabee. The question is simple and stark. Christians joined the conservative movement based on promises that their issues would be supported, even though they (most of them) were aware that they would not always prevail. They have not received that support, and reactions like Vodkapundit’s (and happyfeet’s) simply underline and highlight that.
So long as those conservative Republicans who consider themselves “mainline” continue to ridicule Huckabee on “Children of the Corn” grounds, he will gain support from other Christians, mostly conservative. Keep in mind that Christians are not particularly conservative in the minimal-intervention, social-programs-are-destructive sense. Huckabee’s support of Government social programs will not translate into opposition from his natural constituency. There remains the question of dishonesty. You can call Huckabee a scumbag, and you might even be right. The response from Christians will be something like “…and your point is?” On the Kennedy-Stevens scale, Huckabee barely bumps the needle.
Until and unless another Republican candidate picks up on the issue(s) Huckabee will continue to gain, and I don’t see any of them who can credibly do that. McCain joined the “Gang of 14” which allowed Democrats to block conservative judicial appointments, and hasn’t even tried to disavow it. Romney can’t even try; the Mormon business is a real drag, though a much more minor one than you might think, but his real problem is toleration and even support of attacks on Christian principles and issues while Governor of the bluest, and second most Christian-hostile (after California), State. Giuliani is a near-personification of behavior that Christians should avoid precisely because it is enjoyable. Paul’s libertarianism inclines him to atheism, so he cannot be trusted to support Christian causes. Thompson might be able to manage it, but has shown no sign of trying or even of understanding the problem — his positions are clear and admirable, but don’t address Christian concerns.
This could get nasty. In fact it’s already getting nasty. Unusually, Semanticleo has a valid point, only partially invalidated by the unstated tag on “…the Public Mind [of the Good People]. In a way, it’s amusing. Semanticleo herself is only a few (semantically [heh] loaded] verbalisms and a can of White Rain away from being an exemplary wife to the head deacon of the Cavalry Baptist Church of East Nowhere, Oklahoma. Pay attention and learn.
Regards,
Ric
Gentlemen, ladies – Cleo can’t offer anything more than a sneer. There is no there there, so to speak, with Cleo. When it can offer something more, an actual postion supported by facts and a conclusion based on reasoning from those facts, then engage.
Otherwise ignore the heckler from the cheap seats. It won’t try to do and I believe that is because it fears to try. Ignorage is the sole coin it deserves until it decides to take a risk greater than any fop can achieve.
happyfeet – You gotsta watch out for those bran muffin gumming grannies in the granite state. They’ll mow you down on the way to Price Choppah or Stop & Shop, especially if they think you’re a Masshole.
Ric – on the subject of Cleo I disagree. I don’t see anything more than the sneer. I’ll look closer, because I respect your opinion – you actually give an opinion that is not just a jeer – but I don’t see it.
However, I will look again, because I learned long ago not to be cocky because I hate eating crow.
What’s interesting is that they give Huckabee their support but their money not so much. George Bush’s fundraising lead was a big deal eight years ago, and for a candidate to really break out moneywise would go a long way towards recasting this race a bit more conventionally I think. And also I think my disdainfulness is not as broadbrush as all that, but I really do think that Huckabee’s bigotry on Romney is a big deal and evil and I don’t even like Romney that much.
Forsooth, daley – the demographics of Iowa and the youth vote blah blah blah analysis has really ignored how much more codgerly the electorate is now than 8 years ago and I would hope this could get nasty with respect to that as well but then I’m not really a very good tactician.
Ric wrote:
Which was part my initial post as well. In fact, I am in general agreement with Ric’s thesis, though I have some thoughts on it that may become another post. But I really need to get some meatspace stuff done before football.
Interesting discussion guys.
Ric: “Reagan put together the Conservative Alliance, the Big Tent, with the religious right as a major component…. The promise was that although many of the Religious Right’s objectives were impossible politically, they would get more of what they wanted allied with conservatives than they would with the Left”
Abortion issues have changed the political landscape almost beyond recognition. Ideologically speaking, liberals should be pro-life (government must step in to protect the unborn) and conservatives should be pro-choice (government should butt out of people’s private lives). The mental pretzeling it takes to ignore that fundamental dissonance and the tension such disparity creates have stood the political process on its head. If there’s one thing Huckabee’s candidacy makes absolutely clear, it’s that there is, in fact, no inherent link between social conservatism and political conservatism.
If the religious right feel like “they’ve gotten nothing, and if anything have lost ground,” its because Republicans have really been working at cross purposes for a couple of decades. Taking the party platforms as emblematic, you certainly can’t argue that socially liberal, politically conservative Republicans have been gaining ground. The pro-life issue may be the easiest to track in that regard. From today’s perspective, it got a mere hat tip in the Reagan platform. In the last Bush platform, the document itself has mushroomed along with the pro-life component which now pervades it and has shaped derectives on everything from scientific oversight to humanitarian assistance. Outside of security related planks, you could argue that the party platform has expanded exponentially in order to accomodate a pro-life, socially conservative agenda that is, in reality, an awkward ideological add-on which takes a lot of explaining.
Indeed, if it weren’t for national security/Iraq/WOT, the Republican coaltion would already have split apart. Moderate Republicans would have been the first to decamp, because they’ve actually got some place to go. The compromises required to join the Democrats and pull toward the center aren’t much more painful than the compromises required to do the same thing as a Republican. Social and political conservatives would already be duking it out in a much smaller tent, both claiming they’re fed up with having to compromise their principles. Alas, that’s the very nature of the ideological beast they have created, and that’s what is driving the underlying dynamic here. Foreign policy imperatives have slowed down the inevitable, but they may not forestall it much longer.
Also, Ric… the media’s elevation of Huckabee is nauseating and the bandwagon churchy folk are being played and that does make them tools cause they’re making a butt-stupid and unholy alliance with those they would otherwise excoriate and those that have mercilessly excoriated them. The cart and the horse may be interchangeable, but it was the media that manufactured the Huckaboom, not Jesus.
Well, y’see, as a conservative I also kind of like the idea of the government not giving people carte blanche to have people offed because they’re inconvenient. I say that with a pretty fair awareness that the world is full of people who think I’m inconvenient.
They have not received that support, and reactions like Vodkapundit’s (and happyfeet’s) simply underline and highlight that.
I’ll probably regret gainsaying one of the more erudite commenters here, I simply do not accept either contention.
They have driven the abortion issue and it’s fraternal twin, the right-to-die issue (a la Schiavo) to be important and contentious issues inside the Republican party. If the Religious Right “joined” the Republicans (as if they were somewhere else before) to control or own these issues, perhaps they need to understand how party politics – any party’s politics run.
No one clique owns the Republicans. It’s a collection of minorities, some larger than others (how do you think pro-abortion/pro-right-to-die advocates feel?). I know my parents left the Republicans during the last 30 years because of the *dominance* of the Religious Right in deciding things.
The RR needs to grow up.
KKleo, you may be posting here, but you’re not mentally here. Or, if you are, you must need reminders on when to inhale and exhale.
Seriously — you spend most of your energy debating phantoms. If you actually attempted to understand what others are saying, people wouldn’t consider you a lame joke.
…a great many of whom hold elected office in my former home state of California, where my preference for not getting frostbite in my own house may become inconvenient very soon.
Thank God I got out of there while I could.
The RR needs to grow up. It sounds harsh but it’s true that they sound as mewling and victimy as any group on the left. I could care less about abortion personally, but the ones that do can pat themselves on the back for socially stigmatizing the hell out of it, Roe v Wade or no, and I have no problem with that. Also, reality. Just like high gas prices are not an economic death sentence anymore cause things have fundamentally changed, unaborted kids are not quite the lifewrecking little albatrosses they used to be, and a lot of that is in spite of the soft-socialist Huckabees of the world, not because of it.
“Semanticleo herself is only a few (semantically [heh] loaded] verbalisms and a can of White Rain away from being an exemplary wife to the head deacon of the Cavalry Baptist Church of East Nowhere, Oklahoma. Pay attention and learn.”
Regards,
Ric
Holy Moly.
I’ve been witness to verbose minutiae, but mine eyes have never seen
such grandiose speculation. I know you seem to be a reverent icon in these parts, but you are so full of horseshit I can smell it on your
self-immolating breath. Did you Gleen that from my scriptural reference mayhaps? Go fish.
sorry. with respectful regards.
semanticleo
Oh. I forgot to have an actual point. The actual point is that an unhealthy fixation on political expression of their values slights not only the very real social accomplishments they have had, but I think dissuades them from engaging socially, and THAT, I think, is a self-reinforcing little feedback loop, and Huckabee is validating that, which is un-American.
“The Left never does. Because of the, y’know, hypocrisy.”
Hypocrisy is SUPPOSED to be a big deal to Christians. For those who
follow the credo (WWJD?) with integrity (the Good People) there is no problem. They will do the right thing. Unfortuantely there are those who use identity politics for their own personal agenda on BOTH sides of the color spectrum. To suggest the Left dismisses those who DISDAIN
as part of the problem is rank temerity. Go fish.
Um. Larry Summers is a big hairy Democrat. Ask him about teh rank temerity.
“I’ve been witness to verbose minutiae, but mine eyes have never seen
such grandiose speculation. I know you seem to be a reverent icon in these parts, but you are so full of horseshit I can smell it on your
self-immolating breath. Did you Gleen that from my scriptural reference mayhaps? Go fish.”
Sneer and jeer. Why don’t you try advancing a position and supporting your conclusions? You came to a site that is not in agreement with you in order to engage and try to change opinions.
Why don’t you try giving it a shot for once? Are you actually a force to be reckoned with, or just an upper deck heckler? If you want a debate there are many who are willing to debate to the three hundreth comment. Unless you are a chickendebater.
Come on, Cleo. Formulate something and put it forth. Honesty is always honored here.
That’s Semanticleo, everyone, doing its best to win over the lurkers.
Mikey, Smantypants is here to change minds, but those big words make its pointy little head hurt.
The Huckabee Factor
They’re talking Huckabee over at Protein Wisdom today, and after responding to some surprisingly civil comments there, we decided to kick off the Quasiblog election season by refining those thoughts here. Per commenter Ric Locke: Reagan put together t…
Isn’t it kind of weird that there’s no actual Huckabilly here to be all defensive or whatever? Where the hell do they hang out online anyway? More self-segregation I guess. That’s so not a good path. Insert obvious historical referents here.
Ric Locke:
I took the liberty of quoting you when I reposted my comment here over at Quasiblog (see Trackback at #75). If you’d prefer not to be cited by name, you can let me know here, and I’ll cite your comment by its number instead.
I know McGehee. As I never bet, I am sure that my challenge will go unanswered. Chickendebater it is.
McGehee:
“Well, y’see, as a
conservativemoral issue I also kind of like the idea of the government not giving people carte blanche to have people offed because they’re inconvenient.”There, fixed it for you. The idea that government has carte blanche to give or withhold in the first place is not a conservative concept.
Uh, no JM. I wasn’t speaking as a “moral issue.” I’m not an issue of any kind. I’m a conservative.
But since you have such trouble with the meanings of multisyllabic words, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised you’re confused about what conservatism is.
Well, Semanticleo, I’m sixty years old (next month) and have spent a lot of that among the fine folk of East Nowhere, Oklahoma, and several similar places. In that time I have seen a lot of Church Ladies and become somewhat adept at spotting them. You, madam, are a Church Lady, complete with disdainful sniff for those with the temerity to disagree with the Revealed Wisdom you exemplify. Your specific faith is superficially different, but personality will out.
JM, feel free to quote anything you find useful, and I actually prefer attribution. I have few if any secrets.
jdm, the natural home of the Christian Right — if you can call it that — is the Democratic Party. They support, and have always supported, populism; have a look at the career of Huey P. Long. Pay attention to JM Haynes (#60) and happyfeet’s #69, except that in the case of the latter you have to look at the matter from the opposite point of view.
Regards,
Ric
McGehee:
I considered using “moralizer” but didn’t want to be gratuitously insulting. Next time, I’ll be more careful about adding commas instead. If you want to argue syntax and confusion, I don’t recommend starting sentences with conjunctions.
And you thought calling me an issue wasn’t gratuitously insulting? Why, I oughta…
The Christian Right doesn’t have to be, you know. They could one day just decide to be normal.
Well, at least I called.
BTW JM, I do say that the abortion issue boiled over because the government — in particular the Supreme Court — did in fact attempt to issue carte blanche in Roe v. Wade. In my view of conservatism, society, including its instrument the government, has a compelling interest in defending the innocent against unwarranted attack on life and limb.
At the time of Roe v. Wade, there was no science establishing a time of “personhood,” yet Harry Blackmun legislated — a power the courts do not hold — that all 50 states must set the end of a particular trimester as the time of “personhood” for the purpose of law. This not only violated the conservative value of separation of powers, but also that of federalism. In the 35 years since Roe, there is still no firm science on “personhood.” Why? Well, it might be because “personhood” is a metaphysical question, and not a medical one.
My understanding of conservatism holds that if you have competing values you balance those values fairly and honestly. You do not put what may in fact be an innocent person’s life at the mercy of another, with no meaningful recourse for the interests of that innocent person, or for others who may also have an interest.
My understanding of conservatism also holds that when people act unwisely and find themselves facing undesirable consequences, it is not the place of the government to absolve them of those consequences when doing so would have irreversible negative consequences for others. Especially innocent others.
Heh. You’re okay. I’m sorry for that “confused” crack.
Ric, I don’t think the Democrats will take them back. Too much has changed in the years since Huey. More likely is that they stay home.
By the way, if anyone haven’t seen it yet, Steyn (via Jack M @ Ace) has some interesting things to say.
PS, the Church Lady comments were priceless.
BTW, it seems more than the TPM crowd is having difficulty understanding Vertical Huck. From The Corner:
RE: Vertical Leadership [Mark Hemingway]
A while back, I watched a YouTube video of Mike Huckabee talking about “Vertical America” for 27 minutes. I still have no idea what it means.
01/05 08:41 PM
“and have spent a lot of that among the fine folk of East Nowhere, Oklahoma,”
>chuckle>
Uh huh. You need to spend sometime OUTSIDE the Bible
Belt. Am I supposed to wilt when you disclose 60 years of
sclerotic thinking apparently producing nothing but a southern penchant for politeness as the single fruit of your advanced years?
You descend on the discussion as though an Oracle of reason and comity and the assembled masses heave with relief, but your hidden mendacity soon emerges to swoon at their feeble applause.
If your ‘church lady’ pigeon-hole comforts your psyche; go for it.
We can just add that to your list of World View Errors. Tabula Rasa kinda gettin’ full though, eh?
bow tie gets it right today I think…
I think the difference is where Ric sees a time for caution I kind of more see a teachable moment.
Practice, practice, practice.
Anyone else noticed whose magazine Gleen’s writing appears in these days? Funny what bedfellows strange politics can make.