Not even remotely persuasive, I'm afraid. And isn't it time to retire the Chuck Norris quips?
But hey, there's 39 more delegates for his pile ...
« McCain-Forbes '08? | Main | Immigration and "Intellectual Cowardice" » Huckabee's Path To Victory09 Feb 2008 04:12 pm Comments (16)
Mike asks: "Why do people who use the term "movement conservative" always leave off "bowel"?" Good question. It's not because the bowel is silent, either, because when they open their mouths you mostly hear flatulence. 
PDF warning, please. It's one of my pet peeves.
What DivGuy said. Huck's won Kansas today, he's gonna win Lousiana, and it looks like he's going to edge McCain in Washington. The crowded GOP field disguised McCain's weakness with the base, and let him win with mere pluralities. I still think he'll get the nomination--the math is pretty daunting for Huck--but he might come in with a less than compelling mandate and wind up spending the general oscillating between shoring up support among social cons and independents and hopefully thoroughly alienating one group or both. It's a good year to be a Democrat.
Huck's won Kansas today, he's gonna win Lousiana, and it looks like he's going to edge McCain in Washington. He may need a Huckabroom!!
Justin K writes: "I still think he'll get the nomination--the math is pretty daunting for Huck--but he might come in with a less than compelling mandate and wind up spending the general oscillating between shoring up support among social cons and independents and hopefully thoroughly alienating one group or both." This may be wrong if Hickabee ends up as the VP candidate in the long run without savaging McCain, which he doesn't seem to be doing. Either way it's not a strong ticket. Hickabee may now be running because Jesus has promised him that McCain will drop dead in July, leaving him as the only viable GOP choice.
These victories underscore McCain's weakness as a candidate. Also, watching Obama and Hillary tonight, it's clear they are relishing the chance to go against McCain and paint him as a continuation of the Bush administration.
Mike, they'd both cum in their pants if they could run against a freak like Hickabee instead. The Hickster is a guaranteed win for the Dems. Bring it on! He agrees with Bush even more than McCain ever did.
I don't agree with that Moe. Not when it comes to the big issues like Iraq and the economy. McCain has been a clone of Bush on these issues lately. Huckabee has marked out some clear distinctions. Perhaps the Democrats would like to see Huckabee because he doesn't poll as well, but those polls can be deceiving. Most people still don't know Huckabee. What they know about McCain is mostly wrong. He's no longer a maverick straight-talker. He's getting his support right now from moderates and independents who oppose the war. You think that will last when he's in the general election? I don't.
Obama gave a hint about how he'd go against McCain in his vitory speech tonight, praising the Senator's "50 years of public service."
Mike replies: "Perhaps the Democrats would like to see Huckabee because he doesn't poll as well, but those polls can be deceiving. Most people still don't know Huckabee. What they know about McCain is mostly wrong. He's no longer a maverick straight-talker. He's getting his support right now from moderates and independents who oppose the war. You think that will last when he's in the general election? I don't." I don't, either. I think both of them are extremely vulnerable candidates who will get pounded in November. Hickabee even more so, because he's a ridiculous caveman who won't be able to raise big money.
Miracles, Ross, Miracles! Math? Did Jesus do math? What was the probability of Peter just finding all those fish in the Tribute Money story? Miracles! Miracles! Miracles! Get on board! Believe!
Rush, DeLay and all the others who would never vote for A or B even if it meant voting for the opposition could vote honestly and comfortably if the ballot included a NO column and the highest net yes wins. They could vote directly against their "evil one" or even help their party win by voting NO against the other party but send a clear message that their party's nominee didn't have their support that could bring pressure for that current mantra "Change". Nor would they have to hold their nose while voting for either. Is there anyone out there who would like to be able to vote NO without having to vote yes, which is what the yes only ballot demands...or not vote at all. I'll wager voter turnout would increase for obvious reasons. Obviously, the politicians would hate the idea of voters having the ability to reject them on the ballot rather than being limited to only indicating support. The result would be a far more honest reflection of voter sentiment. Would Rush and Tom like to be able to vote against their "destroyer of the GOP" candidates?
...he's a ridiculous caveman who won't be able to raise big money. I'd pay a $5 cover to see a bar band called Mike Huckabee and the Ridiculous Cavemen. Could be a fund-raising opportunity.
Good site. Thanks:-)
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Why do people who use the term "movement conservative" always leave off "bowel"?
Posted by Mike | February 9, 2008 7:23 PM