Huckabee is: Dumbest Person in the World!

[Knife]

Honestly, I remember talking about the possiblitly of the fracturing of the Dems a few years ago. It would seem the Repubs are actually showing the signs of fracturing. Whether it is the fundies breaking from the rest or the fiscal's breaking from the fundies, IDK.

[Androsphinx]

Honestly, I remember talking about the possiblitly of the fracturing of the Dems a few years ago. It would seem the Repubs are actually showing the signs of fracturing. Whether it is the fundies breaking from the rest or the fiscal's breaking from the fundies, IDK.

It's quite unlikely that they'll reak, because each of the 3 main elements of the Republican party has a clearly outlined sphere of influence - the neocons get to run their wars, the theocrats get to push their social agenda and the anti-taxers get their money. While each group may be unhappy with the impact of some of the others' policies, no faction is attempting to push an alternative ideology on the others in their sphere.

The moderates, such as they are (many, like Hagel, are just giving up), just don't have the muscle to regain policy on any of these issues. And so you have the remarkable phenomena of the four front-runners (Rommey, Huck, Guliani and McCain), although they come from such disparate sections of the party and country, all agreeing with:

The neocons on "staying the course" in Iraq, sanctions on Iran, cultural view of a "War on Terror"

The theocrats on appointing "strict constructionist" judges (even Guliani, who would be the first pro-choice Republican candidate for over thirty years, would almost certainly appoint as JP Stevens' replacement someone who'd be entirely happy to overturn Roe v. Wade). Even though they're the least happy with their options, they'll settle for anyone who can offer the promise of doing that.

The fiscals on lower taxes, less government and less regulation.

All three groups know that they will find no home elsewhere, and will ultimately settle on any of the four candidates. If there was a genuine moderate conservative running, who rejected any of the basic assumptions then the party might split. As it is, they're leaching moderate support, especially from the fiscals, but people like the "Club for Growth" and "Americans for Tax Reform" have everything they asked for.

[white_rabbit]

If this guy wins, you yanks might as well rename your country the "Republic of Gilead " and save yourselves the time.

[Androsphinx]

The funny thilng is that the Republic of Gilead needed to blow up POTUS and machine-gun Congress to get its way. Even in fiction, candidates usually pretend to be more moderate and show their "true colours" once they are in power. This mob aren't even bothering with that.

[Molyneux]

If this guy wins, you yanks might as well rename your country the "Republic of Gilead " and save yourselves the time.

The republic of whatnow?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Honestly, I remember talking about the possiblitly of the fracturing of the Dems a few years ago. It would seem the Repubs are actually showing the signs of fracturing. Whether it is the fundies breaking from the rest or the fiscal's breaking from the fundies, IDK.

It's quite unlikely that they'll reak, because each of the 3 main elements of the Republican party has a clearly outlined sphere of influence - the neocons get to run their wars, the theocrats get to push their social agenda and the anti-taxers get their money. While each group may be unhappy with the impact of some of the others' policies, no faction is attempting to push an alternative ideology on the others in their sphere.

The moderates, such as they are (many, like Hagel, are just giving up), just don't have the muscle to regain policy on any of these issues. And so you have the remarkable phenomena of the four front-runners (Rommey, Huck, Guliani and McCain), although they come from such disparate sections of the party and country, all agreeing with:

The neocons on "staying the course" in Iraq, sanctions on Iran, cultural view of a "War on Terror"

The theocrats on appointing "strict constructionist" judges (even Guliani, who would be the first pro-choice Republican candidate for over thirty years, would almost certainly appoint as JP Stevens' replacement someone who'd be entirely happy to overturn Roe v. Wade). Even though they're the least happy with their options, they'll settle for anyone who can offer the promise of doing that.

The fiscals on lower taxes, less government and less regulation.

All three groups know that they will find no home elsewhere, and will ultimately settle on any of the four candidates. If there was a genuine moderate conservative running, who rejected any of the basic assumptions then the party might split. As it is, they're leaching moderate support, especially from the fiscals, but people like the "Club for Growth" and "Americans for Tax Reform" have everything they asked for.

That might be true if the theocrats weren't ruining education and law and if the neocons weren't bankrupting the country. The pro-business wing is going to muscle-out the other sides, definitely. Or just trust the Democrats to be less incompetent.

[Androsphinx]

The location of much of Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale

[Androsphinx]

That might be true if the theocrats weren't ruining education and law and if the neocons weren't bankrupting the country. The pro-business wing is going to muscle-out the other sides, definitely. Or just trust the Democrats to be less incompetent.

So you think they'd prefer ideological foes of unestablished comptence over their buddies? I think you give them too much credit.

[Molyneux]

The location of much of Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale

Oh, that piece of junk. Sorry, never read most of it, and from what I've heard of it I probably never will.

[Knife]

That might be true if the theocrats weren't ruining education and law and if the neocons weren't bankrupting the country. The pro-business wing is going to muscle-out the other sides, definitely. Or just trust the Democrats to be less incompetent.

So you think they'd prefer ideological foes of unestablished comptence over their buddies? I think you give them too much credit.

I think, like most politics, they'd go with the lesser of two evils. If the fundies or neo-cons make their fiscal idealogy impossible, then those who only make it hard will probably win their votes.

And to your reply to my op; I don't forsee the gop shattering, but you can sure as hell see the cracks this election cycle. If Huckabee is elected and we get four more years of Bush jr X2, it's all the fiscals can do to hold their nose now, but with another four years of fundie bullshit, vomiting all over their profit margins and dept reduction schemes, I think a lot will bail on them.

[The Vortex Empire]

If this moron wins the election, we're in for some trouble.

[AK_Jedi]

I was reading about this, and ironically, it is far easier to change the bible than it is to change the constitution. A constitutional amendment takes 2/3 of congress followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures. All you need to do to change the bible is get a few people together and re-interpret it. How do you think we get stuff like the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and a few dozen other variants.

On a more serious note, this scares the shit out of me, just like everybody else here. The scariest part for me is that it isn't getting more press. Its getting plenty of circulation on the blog circuit, and a few commentators pick it up who aren't afraid to speak their mind, but most people are just blowing it off because he's so popular right now. It seems like he can spout all the bullshit he wants, and he'll come through smelling like roses because he's friendly and plays bass in a band.

[The Original Nex]

He's already tried to spin his way around the statement on Hannitty and Colmes:

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars

Not that this spin of his words makes them any less creepy...