A Village in Arkansas Is Missing Its Idiot

Good Lord, where to begin…
Yet another smarmy episode for the “Why Mike Huckabee Is Wildly Unfit to Be President” file: whining that Mitt Romney is mean to him, Huck prepares an attakc ad of his own, then decides to take the supposed high ground by not running it—just before airing it for reporters.
You might be surprised to hear that such defense hawks as Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Richard Allen are foreign policy advisors to Mike’s campaign. Y’know who else was surprised? Gaffney, Bolton & Allen.
The governor took some, uh, interesting lessons from Benezir Bhutto’s assassination.
A lot of people have things to say about the Huckster. And they ain’t pretty.

Despite what the
decreasingly-credible Michael Medved may say, it’s way past time to get this bozo off the national stage.
UPDATE: Here’s the video of Huck’s press conference to show the ad he doesn’t want you to see (think about that for a minute), as well as the revelation that—surprise!—he’s lying again. It seems Huckabee is claiming he decided not to run the ad ten minutes before making his speech, yet TV stations were told not to run the ad two hours before.

As for the ad itself, you notice that it doesn’t actually address any of Romney’s anti-Huck claims?

15 thoughts on “A Village in Arkansas Is Missing Its Idiot

  1. Huckabee will melt on his own. However by posting the press conference video link you did just what he was hoping would happen – that people would get the ad out there for him.


  2. Yes, I do. To what degree, and how long it will take, I don’t know. But considering the sorry condition society’s in, the stakes are to high not to give it our all, regardless of the odds.


  3. Good point and obviously the Iowan people agreed. Based on history I think is shortwave for Huck unless he can garner non-evangelical support.At the very least it will be wide open yet after NH. Who that ends up benefiting remains to be seen. However it could hurt Romney to go 0 for 2 since expectations were high.


  4. Generally, sure – for instance, the government has the right/duty to regulate abortion because it violates the right to life. It’s in society’s interest to recognize traditional marriage to promote the basic nuclear family structure.


  5. Well, you responded to my query about the government’s role in providing you with a victory in the culture war with those two issues. It’s obvious from your writing and this site that you base your opinions of how our culture should behave on the bible.Therefore, I can only assume your positions on those two issues are based at least in part on the bible.If that is the case, why do you refer to only those two issues? Does the government have a role in influencing other areas of the culture war?


  6. Sure, there are other issues the government may/may not have a legitimate role in, but I used those 2 examples because they are the most prominent in the national discourse, and because I consider them the most important.On abortion, it’s true that I’ve explored all aspects of the issue, including the theological dimension, but God influences me on fetal rights only in the same way, and to the same degree, that He influenced the Framers on overall rights, and it is complemented by secular knowledge and philosophy, such as embryology and individual rights.I accept religious insight on the question of “what is a person,” in the pursuit of a secular goal: the protection of human rights.I reject the notion that because we look to all sources of knowledge and wisdom on such a fundamental question, we are somehow promoting biblical values in a way that violates the Constitution (which I suspect is the direction you were heading with this).Regarding marriage, how does anything I’ve said constitute the government promoting biblical values?


  7. Your comment on abortion and the framers is dubious, bordering on dishonest, considering it was legal under inherited British common law until quickening until the 1820s.But this isn’t a question of the arguments of abortion, or even gay marriage. Nothing you’ve said in this thread suggests you base your opinion of marriage on the bible, however I can only assume your opinion on the matter is based at least in part on religious arguments.The question is, why are some issues of the culture war subject to governmental coercion while others are not, and on what criteria do you differentiate?


  8. On abortion & the Framers, it seems you misread what I said. I was referring to their belief that human rights come from God, and the purpose of government is to protect them. I made no claim about past abortion policies.Your question has everything to do with the arguments of abortion & gay marriage. You asked if the government has a role in the culture war, so I gave you two examples where I think it does, with basic secular rationales as to why.It was you who brought in the Bible. I’m still waiting for a rationale why.


  9. I find it difficult to accept that your position on culture war issues hinge solely on secular rationales, given your section of links listed under the heading “God & Christianity”.There are secular reasons to keep abortion legal and to allow same-sex marriage (or to get government out of marriage altogether). Does your religious faith help tip the scales in favor of your secular arguments?Are you seriously suggesting your positions on these two issues are not based a single bit on your religious faith?


  10. My opinion that the government should only recognize traditional marriages is based entirely on secular reasoning, thank you very much.My opposition to abortion is based substantially on secular reasoning, but it’s true that my belief in the sanctity of human life and that we are “endowed by our Creator” with our rights plays a role as well. It’s not a matter of tipping scales at all – it’s simply acknowledging that basic truth at the heart of America.Speaking of scale-tipping, though, I’ll say it again: it was you who introduced religion into the discussion. And frankly, I think the reason you did so is that labeling opinion “religious” is the Left’s way of deeming it out of bounds for public policy consideration.Sorry. It won’t work here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s