Huckamongering
| Sat Feb. 28, 2009 12:12 PM PST
Mike Huckabee says that Barack Obama is midwifing the birth of a "Union of American Socialist Republics" in his new budget. "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.""If a prominent Democratic office holder, in 2005, delivered a speech referring to George W. Bush's agenda as 'fascism,' comparing his administration to totalitarian regimes, and casually throwing in a reference to Hitler," says Steve Benen, "that Democrat would have a very difficult time being taken seriously by the political establishment moving forward. Presidential ambitions would be largely out of the question."
"Why Huckabee thinks that federally funded research into determining which medical treatments are effective is similar to being a totalitarian mass-murderer is a bit beyond me" says Matt Yglesias. "But it’s par for the course in the uglier corners of conservatism, they’re just not corners Huckabee’s been known for dwelling in."
"Either Huckabee is losing his ear or this is what you really have to say to get the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012," says Mark Kleiman.
I'd say (a) yes, Huckabee really believes this stuff, (b) no, a Democrat couldn't get away with something like this, (c) yes, it's what you have to do to win the GOP nomination these days, and (d) no, nobody really cares because talk radio has inured us to this kind of stuff. Boys will be boys. He's just warming up the crowd. Etc.
And the good news? It demonstrates that things are going to get worse for Republicans before they get better. "The party of Lincoln is now the Party of Limbaugh," says Paul Begala, and he's right. Like most parties that have lost their way in the past, it's now clear that they'll spend at least four years insisting that what America really wants is an even more extreme version of what they voted against in 2008. Cooler heads will eventually prevail, but not until 2016 at the earliest. Maybe not until 2020. Obama's really got some running room in front of him.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
What cooler heads?
Submitted by jimBOB on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 12:29 PM PST.
Cooler heads will eventually prevail, but not until 2016 at the earliest.
Really? Who? Any cooler heads have been run out of the party, or are retiring. This is the party of Sarah Palin and Joe the (not)Plumber now.
The GOP is too far gone to bring back. I have cautious hopes we never see them in power again.
I am a moderate to left
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 9:49 AM PST.
I am a moderate to left leaning Democrat, but I can identify with some of the more moderate conservative voices like David Brooks. Perhaps a more intellectual, moderate conservative will arise in the near future for the Republicans. Imagine someone who combined the ideas of Ron Paul and David Brooks. Someone who beleives in the fair tax, but also someone who is slightly more liberal on social issues. I think a lot of young people can't see themselves voting for a Republican because they are a party very backwards on gay rights and abortion, but they can identify with a more liberatarian point of view on taxes, schools, etc. I agree that it will at least be 2016 before we see this person, so I don't have a name for you. They just aren't on the scene yet.
Republicans
Submitted by JBob (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 4:30 PM PST.
Ron Paul a moderate??!! Jove, spare me. Ron Paul is a thinly veiled racist, right wing extremist.
ad hominem on Ron Paul
Submitted by Will (not verified) on Wed Mar. 4, 2009 2:05 PM PST.
I am sure I know the "basis" for your accusation that Paul is a racist. Some racially intolerant remarks were published over his signature. As I am sure you well know, the person that wrote them was ultimately sent away. As anyone that has followed Ron Paul's careers knows, there is nothing in his substantial track record (including 20 years in Congress) that supports the view that he is himself a racist. He can be justly criticized for taking so long to take note of what was being said in his name, but there is no real evidence that he is a racist, and taken as a whole the evidence is that he is not.
Extreme right wing? Consider the following:
--Opposed and opposes the war in Iraq. This would generally be considered a left-of-center position and many so-called liberals supported the war (though now that it is politically expedient, they are retreating from that position willy-nilly). --Considers draconian drug laws at best misguided.
--Opposed and opposes the so-called Patriot Act and any other efforts to trade liberty for (perceived) security. That Act was supported by a majority in Congress, including many Dems.
He does hold some views associated with the right -- for example, he is pro-life. However, his views simply don't fit on the left-right spectrum, which is at best an archaic way to try to pigeonhole politicians. (Where would Adolph Hitler be? Most from the left would say he was the far right, but he was a socialist, generally considered a leftist philosophy.)
The Nolan Chart is a far better, if imperfect, way to graphically try to represent variations in political philosophies. On that chart, Paul would be in the same area as folks like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Locke.
I'm Rooting for the Republicans
Submitted by Darwinian (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 1:53 PM PST.
I'm rooting for the Republicans to win a collective Darwin Award. May they go extinct as the world watches their death throes. Other, bigger dinosaurs have bitten the dust--why not the entire Republican subspecies?
Maybe Republicans don't believe in Darwin's (or the neo-Darwinian) facts of evolution, but nature does. That spells the end of the line for an especially putrid political party and its egregious principles and practices.
Republicans
Submitted by Will (not verified) on Wed Mar. 4, 2009 2:08 PM PST.
Way to condemn millions of Americans.
jimbob; You haven't gotten
Submitted by settingthingsstraight (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 3:24 PM PST.
jimbob; You haven't gotten to the first 100 days and you think everything is ok. Evidently you have been reading only one side of the political wrangling. When you are well enough read to make a decision then and only then should you make any appraisal of the current situation. Any person that thinks that taxing a corporation is any help to this country is a fool economically. Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do with higher prices. This in turn prices us out of the world market for our products and a reduction in jobs. Put a pencil to this problem and you will see what i mean.
good luck in i-banking
Submitted by orly (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 4:51 PM PST.
I'm sorry, are you really arguing for the validity of free market global capitalism?
Maybe you need to turn in some of those defunct ECO 101 textbooks and start living out here with the rest of humanity.
When he's well-enough read?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Mar. 3, 2009 6:35 AM PST.
When he's well-enough read? Ad hominem!
Of course higher taxes might trickle down a bit to the consumer, but a corporation can only hike prices so much before the consumer won't pay for it anymore.
Higher prices?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Mar. 3, 2009 8:54 AM PST.
We pay higher prices for any little reason corporations can conjure up, let them pay taxes like the rest of us!
Site load time
Submitted by Terri (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 12:34 PM PST.
I'm sorry this is off-topic, but I couldn't find the post where you listed an email address for site problems. The load time for this site is HORRENDOUS. I've been reading you since your CalPundit days and I'm about to give up. It takes almost a minute for this site to fully load on a one year old WinXP laptop.
You were looking for this:
web-feedback@motherjones.com
You may also wish to contact Monika Bauerlein which you can do by entering her name in the search window then clicking her pic etc. Hang in there.
Phishing
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 1:06 PM PST.
My Vista with McAfee claims your page is carrying a Phishing threat, so it takes me longer to get in also.
Load time is just fine here.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Mar. 3, 2009 6:37 AM PST.
Load time is just fine here. I'm using Firefox 3 on Archlinux. Opera loads it fine as well, as does elinks. Are you sure it's not Windows? :)
"The party of Lincoln is now
Submitted by Punditbot on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 12:50 PM PST.
"The party of Lincoln is now the Party of Limbaugh." Hadn't heard that one before. I like it.
"...you won't catch her saying anything close to the crap...."
Submitted by jcricket on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 1:41 PM PST.
Apparently you slept through the 2008 presidential campaign where all she talked about was Obama palling around with terrorists and that Obama's economic policies are socialist.
If Obama wasn't paling
Submitted by SETTHINGSSTRAIGHT (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 3:09 PM PST.
If Obama wasn't paling around with the Arabs then why are they getting 1.1 billion dollars in "aid'. You know well enough where that money will go for, more weapons.
Funny, I thought Huckabee WAS one of the cooler heads
Submitted by Lev (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 1:52 PM PST.
After all, he defended Obama during the Jeremiah Wright dustup, said sensible things about Giuliani and infidelity and the religious right, and generally avoided the sorts of McCainian rhetoric during the campaign.
I actually was kinda bummed to read some of Huckabee's recent screeds. I had this half-cocked notion of Huckabee leading a populist revolt against the neocons and moneycons and making the party into a Christian Democratic party. Alas, it seems like he's either given into the rhetorical nastiness of today's GOP or he's unwilling to take a leadership role in opposing it. Oh well, there's always Jon Huntsman.
huck sold out 2 fox GOD
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 12:50 PM PST.
huck sold out 2 fox GOD WILL SAVE U BUT FOX PAYS THE BILLS
Someone is going to fill this power vacuum in the GOP, but who? And it sure looks to me like the whole thing could split apart. How many of the good-old-boy southerners are going to follow a black RNC chairman? And into how many pieces will it split?
A GOP candidate's got to do what a GOP candidate's got to do
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 2:49 PM PST.
Huckabee is one of the cooler heads on the Republican party. The fact that he finds it necessary to take refuge to foaming rhetoric is based on something that biologists call desensitization, i.e. a drug loosing its effect due to overuse, so that in a vicious cycle higher and higer doses are needed to elicit less and less of an effect.
That is also what is happening to the Republicans. Their message is no longer resonating with the general public, which just turns out and ignores them. As a consequence, the hardcore types are more and more among themselves. CPAC is the prime example for this: An event attended primarily by the hardcore wackos with whom the coarstest stuff works best. To get a standing with this crowd Huckabee has to spout the rhetoric he had on display.
What is more fascinating is that Huckabee, who tended to be the economic populist among last years GOP contenders, if there was such a thing, would appear to be a bright enough fellow to understand that while this socialism talk may help him with the hardcore right, it will kill his appeal to anybody else. He presidential ambitions must make him a very driven man indeed.
Running, or grandstanding.
Submitted by BigTom (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 4:18 PM PST.
I don't know if Huck is running for pres, or just doing what he needs to do to tap into the rightwing talk radio/TV circuit. Guys like Rush, make a great deal of money.
The part about moving towards socialism has some merit. Although it is not Obama's fault, the massive failure of the capitalist BAU model, means the time is right to try something else. The old model required continuing exponential growth to be viable, and it is clear our planet is not going to accomodate that any (or much) longer. So we gotta find something that will work in the new challenging environment we are going to find ourselves in. Clearly old school capitalism won't cut it any better than old school socialism did. We should be looking around the world for clues as to what we should replace it with. I would suggest that we should start by taking a good look at the scandinavian model.
Re: Scandinavian model
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 1:08 AM PST.
Good point BigTom, Huckabee may well be more motivated by expanding his talk show audience than shoring up support among the hardcore Republican right for another run at the presidency.
As to your comment about looking for other models, I am afraid the Scandinavian model would be a stretch, for several reasons.
One, it is a high tax model. Which is fairly widely accepted because there is a general consensus on how society should operate.
Two, the position that government is the problem is anathema, not because government is the solution, but because government is the means of organizing society.
Three, it requires acceptance and adherence of all important political forces to the framework of rules. Not only the laws on the book, but also the rules of the political game. Starting from relatively trivial things like: I don't agree with you, but I'll listen to what you have to say; I'll accept that you state your position in good faith; I'll give you a response grounded in the substance of my position. If you get the majority in an election, I'll accept that it is your policy program that will be enacted, but you will enact the program you described in your political platform or the program that the coalition of which you became a member agreed upon (in other words, no bait and switch). You or I will conduct government business in a reasonably transparent manner. Corruption is an automatic disqualifier for holding a public office.
In order to make the Scandinavian model work, a strong enforcement reflex of what is fair is needed from the media as well as from the public. It is difficult to see how the excesses of the corrupt lobbying culture in Washington could be reconciled with this. Likewise, the amounts of money in the US political process are pretty much inconceivable, as is the way how candidacies for Congress are financed, not to speak of the presidency. I think the Supreme Court would have to come off the idea that money equals free speech, etc, etc.
I am not saying that it is not worthwhile to look at the Scandinavian model, but I do think that there are very powerful political forces and political structures in the US aligned against it.
Do you know how many
Submitted by Crystal K (not verified) on Wed Mar. 4, 2009 8:19 AM PST.
Do you know how many business people and average citizens I talk to who are convinced that the only way to economic stability is constant growth? It's like people have no conception of a sustainable economy. People have basically been brainwashed into thinking that the only way is what we have (or had) even though it's falling down around our ears.
Rumsfeld inspired Lenin and Stalin
Submitted by tpx on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 4:39 PM PST.
Actually, Lenin approved of renditions and Stalin approved of all invasions and occupations.
Let me get this straight. The same party who could not clap loudly enough as George Bush borrowed $1 trillion dollars from China to throw away in Iraq is now approaching some faux-apoplectic state because Barack Obama borrowed $800 billion from China to spend on middle-class tax cuts and job creation for Americans during the second worst recession in our history? Other than Al-Qaeda, with whom exactly does the GOP expect this strategy to resonate?
Cuss and discuss if you want
Submitted by SETTINGTHINGSSTRAIGHT (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 3:16 PM PST.
Cuss and discuss if you want about the last 7+ years, but you never worried about getting attacked again anywhere in the world like the previous 8 years. Your behind was on the cushions watching your favorite TV programs and you ate and went where you wanted. How did you get so fat if it wasn't from complacenty.
distorted view
Submitted by amazed (not verified) on Tue Mar. 3, 2009 7:20 AM PST.
It's all well and good to congratulate the former resident of the white house for keeping America "safe" for the past 7 years, Settings. But it's a distorted view of recent history. We were safe during the Clinton years, when we actually put on the weight. Then during the bush years we got fatter out of nervous eating while we watched our constitution - you know that g-d piece of paper - being shredded, our sons and daughters being killed in a war for Haliburton and oil, and our economy fail. Among other atrocities. Your viewpoint suggests to me you'd be perfectly happy to live with blinders on, safe in your room while chaos reigns around you.
Thank god that wasn't the attitude of our founding fathers.
Re:Attack in last 7+ years
Submitted by KeyMaster (not verified) on Tue Mar. 17, 2009 7:37 PM PDT.
In case you somehow forgot the only reason we were SUCCESSFULLY attacked (9/11) was because we had a COMPLETE IDIOT in the whitehouse (Bush) who was more interested in hanging out with his corrupt oil friends on the golf course and had no clue that being the president INVOLVED WORK. He also had a diz brain broad (Rice) in charge of national security who not only had "no idea that airplanes could be used as weapons" (SEE WW2 under Kamikazie!) but couldn't be bothered to read a report sitting on her desk FOR A MONTH, that was titled Al-Quaida and Osama Bin Laden expected to launch terrorist attacks in U.S.. No that couldn't be an important report to bother to read now, could it? Bush made this country less safe EVERY DAY that he miserably "served" in office!!!!!!!! THANK GOD the democrats are charge now, they may not be perfect, but at least they can think!
Media Star
Submitted by popeye (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 6:37 PM PST.
Huck is a right wing media star now - not a canidate for president. His pay will go up if he continues to say such things. Look to Gov. Crist or some other pragmatic Republican to lead the party of the wilderness. It won't be a frothing-at-the-mouth conservative.
Right wing radio
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 6:48 PM PST.
I think you have a simplistic view of the Huckster. He's been part of the insano wing for a long time. Remember how he was helping out that rapist dude all because it involved kicking sand in the face of one of Clinton's third cousins and because some junior Limbaugh was ranting about it?
Bad news for Huckabee - it didn't work
Submitted by DanJoaquinOz on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 12:25 AM PST.
Yes, Huckabee's comments were predictably wingnutty, clearly tailored to appeal to the CPAC audience and boost his chances as the Republican nominee in 2012. However, they don't appear to have had their desired effect. Results from the 2009 CPAC poll re Presidential candidates:
1. Mitt Romney 20%
2. Bobby Jindal 14%
3. Ron Paul 13%
3. Sara Palin 13%
5. Newt Gingrich 10%
6. Mike Huckabee 7%
With Sanford, Giuliani, Pawlenty & Crist bringing up the single-digit rear. Romney, Jindal and Ron Paul are arguably among the least wingnutty of the right's 2012 candidates (an admittedly low bar...) But even for the rabidly, spittle-flecked, Limbaugh-loving CPAC, the candidacy of Gingrich and Huckabee aren't gaining the traction their polemic seems tailored to attract. The good news for Democrats and progressives is that Sara Palin managed a 3rd place tie without even showing up...
Huckamongering
Submitted by foutsc (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 9:30 AM PST.
References to Hitler (left against Bush) and Lenin (Right against Obama, Harry and the Pelosicrats) are worn out and a gross abuse of history. These historic markers no longer mean anything to current generations; Santayana would have a few things to say, I'm sure.
Democrats and Republicans each offer their own brand of control over our lives while wiping their feet on the constitution.
This type of partisan politics (sports for nerds) is merely a distraction so the demicans and republicrats can get on with the fleecing of America.
Readers and writers of Mother Jones should know this already...
Excellent post. Demicans
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 7:19 PM PST.
Excellent post. Demicans and Republicrats are both to thank for the wreck of a once-great republic. But its just another evil empire now, so perhaps it is well that it fall.
This is fashionable
Submitted by jprichva (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 9:55 PM PST.
This is fashionable nonsense.
I, for one, love it!
Submitted by elmo on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 12:18 PM PST.
They can't help themselves! Just look at the freaks! You give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves every time...
PS - my favorite part of Rush's speech was when he said they needed to stop trying to compete with Liberals on Policy
Picking up the metaphor and running with it ...
Submitted by Drowned Rat (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 1:49 PM PST.
Yes, Obama, and all of us, have a lot of running room in front of us -- the perfect metaphor, I think. Really, the situation Dems are in right now is like you've made it to the Super Bowl and find that instead of, say, the Pittsburgh Steelers, your opponent is Pitts Junior High. These fools are as incompetent at the most basic political blocking & tackling as I've ever seen.
site load time
Submitted by rover27 (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 3:41 PM PST.
I just want to second the other off-topic poster. The load time on this site is terribly slow and it affects my visits to your blog.
Page load times
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Mar. 3, 2009 9:52 PM PST.
This page is only glacial if you are using Internet Explorer.. try a different browser before you blame the page.
Democrats and Republicans suck!
Submitted by Virginia Womyn (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 5:36 PM PST.
The Democratic party was declared dead in 2000. We have cycles in our political system. Unfortunately no one wants REAL change. Real change would be to start electing third party candidates and throwing all of these D and R bums out on their asses. But the most likely the Republicans will start winning back seats in 2010 or 2012, then it will all start all over again.
Republicans
Submitted by Detroit Dan (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 6:57 PM PST.
I agree with jimBOB and BigTom above.
A lot of people seem to assume as Virginia Womyn and Kevin Drum do that the Republicans will eventually come back. After all, that's what always happens.
On the other hand, as Drowned Rat points out, Kevin's metaphor about the Dems having a lot of open field ahead is spot on, IMO. It's hard for me to imagine a Crist getting the nod, and standing up to Limbaugh and company. It seems more likely that there will be a serious third party of the Ron Paul / Libertarian variety.
As Kevin has pointed out in the past, Paul and his followers are advocating extreme positions, and there are a lot of details missing from their policy proposals. However, they have touched a chord with the populace, and they really are not all that crazy in advocating for fundamental change. I could see Ron Paul populism blossoming into a significant 3rd party. While it would take votes from both Republicans and Democrats, it would hit Republicans much harder and perhaps signal the end of the 2 party system that many think is a permanent characteristic of U.S. politics...
Republican Phonies
Submitted by Detroit Dan (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 7:16 PM PST.
Many Republicans and conservatives have a legitimate point in that the Republican leaders of recent years have not been good conservatives. They have been corrupt and incompetent phonies.
The problem for the Republicans is that CPAC spokesmen such as Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. don't have any credibility moving forward as they were totally in the tank for the phony Republican leadership of the Dubya years. So the leadership of the party is extremely weak. The Republicans' famous unity really diminishes their credibility as they try to distance themselves from the Bush Administration.
The best approach for the good conservatives is to work in a new political party (a "third" party). I'm not sure that they can get critical mass, but if the Republicans continue to flounder for years, perhaps the more authenticate conservatives will find a voice they can rally around...
What a bunch of left-wing
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Mar. 1, 2009 11:57 PM PST.
What a bunch of left-wing cheerleaders. All the slander of Bush and Cheney seems to be of no relevance. Rockefeller found nothing to support the "Bush Lied" mantra. I agree with one poster's comment that the Republican Congress was corrupt and it was certainly big government/socialist. But that should satisfy you losers given the obvious corruption in the process endemic in the first month of this administration.
Newt will come back with a new "contract" and will have learned to keep his pants on and not care where he sits in airforce 1. The damage that will be done in the meantime will be laughable if it would not be so tragic. At the end of Obama's presidency there will be just as many troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan [yes that will happen shortly] and Iraq as there are in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Obama was elected for the same reason that dogs eat grass.
I'm sorry, I didn't catch
Submitted by dvan (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 5:51 PM PST.
I'm sorry, I didn't catch what planet you are from.....
Huckamongering
Submitted by Samuel (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 12:53 PM PST.
Where's mines? I want my money from the government like everybody else. Sumbitch lied! All the money is going to the rich CEOs and the regular folk ain't getting a dime.
Where's mines?
The first test of intelligence ...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 12:54 PM PST.
is the ability to distinguish between dissimilars. It's not clear that Huckabee really believes what he said -- he is a politician after all -- but millions of honest, hard-working Americans fail this test. They are overwhelmingly conservative.
Frankly, Huckabee doesn't represent the majority of Republicans anyway and to quote him as their spokesperson is downright ludicrous. Obama has shown all of us that he can't stay focused on any one issue, jumping all over an array of political ideas and committing to none except wanting to spend us into bankruptcy and socialism.
The recent Republican convention of voters shows a definite increase in young voters turning towards the conservative views.
The GOP has gone crazy trying to spend on every possible pork program that they got turned down in the last 8 years.
Obama is a one-term president and his popularity is falling as www.rasmussens.com shows. They are an unbiased poll unlike the NYT.
Your referred to webpage is
Submitted by chautauquagirl (not verified) on Mon Mar. 2, 2009 2:25 PM PST.
Your referred to webpage is some family's home page. Don't think they did a poll.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
