Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Mike Huckabee's Flawed Logic on the GOP's Future

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-10T07:03:46.414-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花...

2009-05-18T11:16:00.000-04:00

The Huckabee ven diagram is WAY off. I live in an ...

2009-05-13T01:48:00.000-04:00

The Huckabee ven diagram is WAY off. I live in an ethnically mixed neighborhood that is probably 40% African American. These folks are virtually 100% Democratic. They also tend to be church goers, are socially rather conservative, with very little enthusiasm for Gay Marriage (for example).

Brian, I don't believe Obama is a homophobe anym...

2009-05-12T08:12:00.000-04:00

Brian,

I don't believe Obama is a homophobe anymore than I believe that Buchannan was a racist.

I do believe that the Presidency deserves a man with a spinal column, however.

The exemplary Presidents are not the weak-kneed, 'please everybody' Presidents. Jellyfish like Buchannan, Harding, and Fillmore are consistently ranked at the bottom of lists of best and worst Presidents. This is not a jobe for people that cower in front of the polls.

Now, Obama is new in his position. Legacy is probably not at the front of his agenda right now, anymore than a 20 is interested in talking to you about an IRA plan. The Presidnecy ages you quick, though. In time, he will have to contemplate how he will be remembered. While his getting elected was indeed a huge challenge and he met it with great skill, and no doubt people will be impressed that he finally smashed the color barrier. However, if he falters or is a weak President, this will nonetheless negatively impact his legacy. Merely winning the election and surviving for 100 days is not enough.

Moral courage is what gets you to the top of that list. Washington is usually the fist because of the Revolutionary War, but he is usually followed by Lincoln and FDR. Both men did extremely provocative things-and no matter how adamantly secessionists will insist that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was-and it definitely is in the minds of historians. Lincoln didn't get to the top because of the Homestead Act. He got there because of the Emancipation Proclamation. He is remembered not as 'Lincoln the Land Granter', but as 'Lincoln the Liberator'.

FDR is ttops because of the New Deal- heavily controversial both then and now, and yet so stunningly effective. Though typed as a traitor to his class and someone who dined nightly on grilled millionaire, he saved alot of people's lives and risked the howling condemnation from the Right, stating that he welcomed their hatred and that he was not afraid. That's why he won 4 elections when everybody else won only 2 at best.

Obama may have a golden heart, much as Carter did. I believe that he does, and that he really wants to do the right thing here. Without any follow through, that won't get him very far.

Equal Marriage will be Obama's Emancipation Proclamation, it will be his version of Truman's desegregation of the military, of JFK's sending the Federal Marshalls down to help little schoolchildren fight the Governor of Alabama. No, it won't be warmly greeted by a large portion of the electorate. The courage it takes to do that will, however. This is his version of JBJ's Civil Rights Act and Wilson's Women's Suffrage-neither man wanted to do either one, because they were afraid of how vulnerable ti would make them politically-and yet when they did it, their power increased immeasurably. The ghost of Susan B Anthony just wouldn't die, and MLK just wouldn't leave poor LBJ alone- yo9u shouldn't expect us to leave poor Obama alone, either.

Nor should we. I am determined to make Obama the single greatest President of all time, whether he wants to be or not. I believe that my pushing him to do things of great moral character and courage such as combating Global Warming, supporting GLBT Civil Rights, reinvigorating Unions, destroying the last bits of gender and racial inequality in this country, and by saving the economy, President Obama can be raised to a level that would make Washington dizzy.

I want Obama to succeed phenomenally, in ways no other President ever has. Whether he likes it, or not. And I want him to officiate at my wedding

"'Obama...is actually against gay marriage and in ...

2009-05-12T07:12:00.000-04:00

"'Obama...is actually against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions'

Does anybody here believe it?"

I don't believe Obama is a homophobe, but policy-wise he's trying to be all things to all people on gay-related issues to avoid offending anyone. He knows that when he does have to commit it will offend either the gay community or the social conservatives, and is hoping that no one will force him to pick sides before he's ready to come out (pun intended) on whichever side he's really on.

"Obama...is actually against gay marriage and in f...

2009-05-11T17:15:00.000-04:00

"Obama...is actually against gay marriage and in favor of civil unions"

My conservative friends don't believe it, my liberal friends don't believe it, and I don't believe it.

He said that, sure, but I don't think he believes it.

Does anybody here believe it?

@Duke "It's amazing how many conservatives forget ...

2009-05-11T17:22:00.000-04:00

@Duke
"It's amazing how many conservatives forget about it when they get their first Social Security check."

Nonsense. It's perfectly consistent to oppose a program of societal costs and benefits, and then accept the benefits after being compelled to pay the cost. Same with illegal immigration and hiring, etc.

I tend to believe if you dropped social conservati...

2009-05-11T17:34:00.000-04:00

I tend to believe if you dropped social conservatism from the Republican parties play book you'd see one third of the social conservatives stop voting and the other two thirds split relatively evenly between the Republicans and Democrats. Basically, not a winning strategy for the Rs'.
The problem they have is they do well as the crowd making fart noises from the Senate cheap seats but once you put them in charge of the government, they just keep making fart noises. You can be a fan of fiscal conservatism, you can be a fan of fiscal liberalism, but almost nobody is a fan of fiscal incompetence and that more than their view on abortion (which was well know prior to the administration of "W") is what has driven the middle away from them.

It seems like this post contains a lot of guessing...

2009-05-11T14:36:00.000-04:00

It seems like this post contains a lot of guessing. Surely there's someone, somewhere, who's done actual polling to determine what proportion of Republican voters are (or consider themselves) economic, social, or neo conservatives, and what the overlap between the three groups are?

Look, the GOP's problem is not its appeal to socia...

2009-05-11T12:32:00.000-04:00

Look, the GOP's problem is not its appeal to social conservatives, economic conservatives, or even security conservatives. The problem is that those groups have lost large numbers of people. Look at the polls, in the 2008 election the main issue was the economy. Everything else was secondary. The people who were social conservatives and security conservatives decided to vote with their wallet, which Americans have always tended to do (see the 1932, 1980, and 1992 elections).

What the Republican party needs to do is just stand pat. If they move more conservative, they will alienate moderates forever. If they move towards the center, they will lose their core coalition of economic and social conservatives.

I'm a Christian. Baptized and confirmed, a believe...

2009-05-11T01:02:00.000-04:00

I'm a Christian. Baptized and confirmed, a believer to this day. I'm also a liberal, and I don't see much in the Gospels that supports a conservative (Ayn Rand-Goldwater-Laffer-ish) approach to economics.

Illogic from a Republican? Who'd a thunk it?

2009-05-11T02:16:00.000-04:00

Illogic from a Republican? Who'd a thunk it?

Huckabee's a wannabee who lives in yesteryear. Re...

2009-05-11T02:46:00.000-04:00

Huckabee's a wannabee who lives in yesteryear.

Recent stats show that young people in America, a group within which 5% used to say they "didn't believe in god," now say - by a margin closer to 30% - that they "don't believe in god."

Mr. Huckabee's Delusion is that his Delusion is no longer deluding as well as it did.

Ironically, the Religious Right's (RR) beliefs that "Stupid" is the way, that "ignorance" is the goal and that 65 million men women and children without heath care - or inadequate heath care - is a "gift" from god to save our children from "godless communism" - while denying a woman the right to control her own body and "saving" the world world from the damnation of "gay marriage" are noble examples of fostering gods work - have so pissed off anyone with the intelligence to chew bubble gum and tie their own shoe laces that the RR has SUCCEEDED in destroying America, it's economy and reputation AND destroying the mindless support it had from it's young. It has eaten it's children and will die out - old, white, gray and alone. What a deserved fate.

Nate writes: "Obama also, however, won a majority ...

2009-05-11T10:35:00.000-04:00

Nate writes: "Obama also, however, won a majority of voters making $200,000 or more, who as a group can be presumed to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal."

Why this presumption? I don't see any reason, or evidence, to assume it. Indeed, considering that Obama's only proposed tax hike during the campaign was on people who make more that the stated amount, one might assume that a majority of those people are fiscally liberal since a majority of them for him anyway.

Nor do I see any inherent reason to think social views vary tremendously with income.

Or maybe not--but aren't such assertions a little reckless without any data at all?

Cute line, but Jesus wasn't an economic liberal.Je...

2009-05-11T11:15:00.000-04:00

Cute line, but Jesus wasn't an economic liberal.Jesus taught to get rich and screw the poor? Which is pretty much the definition of economic conservatives.

I am pretty sure that Jesus would not approve of trickle down economics(ie knocking people down and slamming your boot on their back).

it amazes me that any body who cares about nationa...

2009-05-11T11:18:00.000-04:00

it amazes me that any body who cares about national security and defeating the terrorists would support and republican. "Security Republicans" really isn't a good name for that group. "Xenophobes" would be more accurate. From their point-of-view, the War on Terror is a success, because we've killed more of The Other than The Other has killed of us. Questions like, "Do Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan have stable governments that don't pose a long-term threat?" are incomprehensible to them. The Other is always a long-term threat.

This is the real crisis that the Republican Party faces. The Republicans picked up the Xenophobes in the 1960's (Nixon's "Southern Strategy"), but now they've become a liability. Like Nate said, the Republicans need to reach out to the Hispanic and African-American communities. But they can't do any of that until they can figure out a way to silence the Xenophobes.

W. made a valiant attempt at reaching out to the Hispanic community with immigration reform a couple of years ago, but he didn't have the political capital to go against the talk radio crowd.

It's amazing how many conservatives forget about i...

2009-05-11T11:59:00.000-04:00

It's amazing how many conservatives forget about it when they get their first Social Security check.

@Statler To be fair, there are numerous churches ...

2009-05-11T07:51:00.000-04:00

@Statler

To be fair, there are numerous churches in America that do not demonize gays, women, or blacks, are racially integrated, and are not the least bit into right-wing nuttery.

I recently argued why I believe the Republican Par...

2009-05-11T08:10:00.000-04:00

I recently argued why I believe the Republican Party will survive (with or without screw-ups by the Dems in power):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/4/727311/-Why-the-Republican-Party-will-surviveStill, I have to admit it's a little astonishing to see Mike Huckabee reference the Whigs directly. He's the first major Republican I've heard to so much as hint at the idea that the party might be on its last legs.

But I have a hard time believing it. There's no single issue threatening to blow them apart the way slavery did to the Whigs. The problems people are discussing seem to revolve around basic ideology and demographics.

Besides, they only lost one big election recently, it wasn't by a landslide, and it involved an exceptionally talented and popular Democratic politician pitted against an old guy. If the Republicans fail to pick up seats in 2010, then I will admit they're in trouble. It seems a bit premature to suggest such a thing now.

Thought-provoking post by Nate. I consider myself...

2009-05-11T09:01:00.000-04:00

Thought-provoking post by Nate. I consider myself an "economic conservative" (Concord Coalition member) and have assumed that the GOP had actually recently separated that and the "social conservative" bubbles. That, at least, is part of the drain on the R party: post-Bush II, no data-driven economic conservative believes that the GOP is economically conservative. While ~20% of America is quick to state otherwise this requires the usual wildly partisan suspension of disbelief. For the rest of us, that dog won't hunt.

It's great to hear someone bring up the distinctio...

2009-05-11T09:24:00.000-04:00

It's great to hear someone bring up the distinction between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. I didn't expect it to be a Republican, though. My impression, and I am not young anymore, is that social liberals are, very often if not mainly, fiscal conservatives. Just for starters, it is much cheaper (read "fiscally conservative") to not monitor and punish behaviors that only a minority find offensive, such as marijuana use and diverse sorts of sexuality. So just on that point alone, social conservatives are definitively not fiscal conservatives, since they will spend any amount of money to inflict their mores on others. Spendthrifts.

The social conservatives weren't happy with Bush, ...

2009-05-11T09:25:00.000-04:00

The social conservatives weren't happy with Bush, but that's in part because they're mostly fighting a hopeless war in terms of actual real-life outcomes. Barring a huge cultural shift that's not going to be brought about by winning an election or two, they're not going to get trashy TV off the air, they're not going to be able to force gays back into the closet, etc. And in some cases where elections might have the consequences the religious conservatives seek, well....the people they elected to outlaw abortion knew that it'd be their death knell if they ever actually suceeded, to say nothing of birth control.

The genius of the GOP is that they were able to tap into a fairly natural longing on the part of many working-class religious people for a time when there were fewer awkward things to explain to their children about the ways of the world. But they did so in the service of a different agenda; namely, one of deregulation and a shifting of tax burdens and social risk away from their wealthy patrons. They were very successful at advancing the ball in that arena.

But while low taxes are popular in general, the "country club" agenda isn't going to win many elections without some extra support from someone. Which is where the religious folks come in.

I am consistently amazed at the regularity with wh...

2009-05-10T23:02:00.000-04:00

I am consistently amazed at the regularity with which posters to this site will feed the trolls.

Well, I'm not a christian. I have used biblical pa...

2009-05-10T22:59:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm not a christian. I have used biblical passages in the past to show the inconsistencies of those who insist on treating the bible as a political party platform. I now wonder if its smart to do so, since it just adds legitimacy to the bible which I don't think it actually has or deserves.

I see this reflected in people that send their kids to church even when they don't believe in chirstianity, saying that the church will at least teach them basic morality. However, the churches in America have so little to do with real morality. It's a sham morality, an ethical code based not on watching your own behavior and controlling yourself, based instead on trying to drag everyone else down to a notch below you so you can claim superiority. "I may be fucked up, and that's okay because I'm a sinner... but that guy, whoo, he's even more fucked up than I am, and I need to point this out to him so I can show everyone how much better of a christian I am."

And what morals do they teach you at church anyway? That you should hate gays, independently minded women, people of other races 9ever notice how racially homogeneous churches are? All the Blacks go to one, the whites to another, the Asians to another-spiritual segregation!), how rich people are blessed and poor people are sinners, how America is so perfect that it can never be improved upon, and to suggest otherwise implies that you are in league with Satan? What else does it teach... that there's this guy in Rome who can never say or do anything wrong, or maybe that everything that he says and does is wrong? That your particular church has the lock on the Truth, and that any other philosophy is at best inferior, and worst demonic? That children should be beaten, and no matter how horrible you are to other people, as long as you confess to either priest, pastor, or whatever, you'll never be held accountable for that? That saying a magic sentence like "I accept Jesus as my personal savior", even if you do terrible things to everyone around you all the time all day every day makes you instantly better to the person that self-sacrifices for everyone else and refuses to discuss his motivations for doing so publicly?

The meek shall inherit the earth. What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having? You've trashed it with cheap plastic saints and polluted the air and water, driven the global temperatures so hot some days it feels like Hell, you've killed your fellow species off with a total disregard for life and glutted yourselves to the point where you die not from unseen diseases but from unhealthy lifestyles. What kind of world are you offering me to inherit, and why the hell would I want that?

Why don't you try to make this place more like heaven? God doesn't need a church with gilded statues to live in. Build hospitals instead, and schools and soup kitchens. Stop talking about how you are so much closer to God and start acting like an example of that God, by feeding the hungry and curing the sick.

Your stupid rituals won't save your soul. If you treat people with respect and compassion, you might save somebody's life. And since the soul of God lies inside every human breast, and can be seen in the eyes of the poorest and most neglected, you are in communion when you share bread and wine with the hungry and thirsty, not when you are talking some nonsense about eating Jesus's dead body.

God is something you act out, it's a dramatic role in a very grand play. All this world is a stage in a very literal sense, and when you take on the role of protector, of provider, of healer and comforter, then you have brought God into the world with the same skill a good actor brings their role to life. Treat other living things with respect and kindness. Make love to one another. And above all else, stop hurting yourselves and everybody else in the name of your wooden and marble God statues and crosses, claiming that somehow this is moral behavior.

The word of God is written in your heart. Go read that instead of the Bible.

it amazes me that any body who cares about nationa...

2009-05-10T22:55:00.000-04:00

it amazes me that any body who cares about national security and defeating the terrorists would support and republican.

they screwed it up big time.

have you heard how ms rice discripes the white house in the early days of the war on terror. confused, scared and without a clues. she did that in support of them.