Back in the saddle and baiting Hucksters again.

Wait a second- "baiting Hucksters"

"Huckster-baiting"

Hmm... better go back to Paulestinian-baiting, Frank. Don't want to go blind, now.

Talk about junk mail!

I'll go back to what I said before. It strikes me that the hostility towards Huckabee is based on the fact that he doesn't think the purpose of the GOP is to allow Corporate America to run roughshod over middle class America.

Unfortunately, it seems the GOP establishment will do just about anything to stop him, even if it means insuring a Hillary win in 2008.

JOEB131, the hostility to Huckabee is based on the following:

-He was weak on illegal immigration. Friendly with LULAC, using taxpayer support to get a Mexican consulate to Arkansas, strongly for giving the children of illegals in-state tuition rates, in general sounding like an Amnesty advocate. Now all of a sudden coming up with a reasonable immigration plan, but still periodically making statements that point out where his real interests lie.

-Very pro-tax increases.

-Very undeducated on foreign policy. Making things up as he goes along. Blaming America for it's problems.

-Strangely interested in pardoning really bad criminal offenders.

-Deflecting any policy attacks with humor and "when they attack you that means you're ahead" type comments, instead of substance.

-Very pro-regulation of private habits, like smoking.

-Pandering to Christians in the worst possible way, will all the right symbols and everything. And it's often not him, but his devoutely Christian supporters who get fooled or only show interest in that part of his agenda, while ignoring or at least not discussing his liberal record, that are irritating.

Is that enough for you? Maybe it's NOT just the "corporate" stuff?

#3 - Posted by: JOEB131 on December 26, 2007 11:45 AM

I think its more the fact that we think the Republican Party should nominate a, you know, Republican. Because, its the Republican Party, so its just good logic here.

To Igor-

1) Uh, I hate to say this, but Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and Bush would have given it to 12 million. You know, the more anti-Hispanic the GOP comes across, the greater our chances of being consigned to political oblivion. These people are potential conservatives, but we are driving them right into the hands of the Democrats.

2) Huck increased state taxes 43% in 10 years. Most states increased their tax burden by 65% in the same period.

3) Did you miss the part where Candidate Bush didn't know who the president of Pakistan was?

4) As for pardons, a lot of those clemancies were necessary because the Arkansas legal system ended up giving excessive sentences. In Arkansas, juries impose sentences, and you had a situation where people were getting life sentences for drug possession. Pardons were needed because even minor offenses were putting uneeded black marks on people's records. It wasn't like he was Clinton giving out pardons for campaign contributions.

5) Wow, you mean he doesn't think it's a good idea for people to pump poison into their bodies? Exactly when did we become Big Tobacco's defenders?

6) As for the Christian stuff, maybe it's just that Christians are tired of voting for the GOP, and getting none of our issues addressed after elections. Corporate America gets what it wants, Christian America gets the shaft. Now why is that?

"5) Wow, you mean he doesn't think it's a good idea for people to pump poison into their bodies? Exactly when did we become Big Tobacco's defenders?"

Obviously people aren't free to choose for themselves if they want to smoke, nope, Big Tobacco forces them! Demonization of a corporate entity. You. Disgust. Me.

"6) As for the Christian stuff, maybe it's just that Christians are tired of voting for the GOP, and getting none of our issues addressed after elections. Corporate America gets what it wants, Christian America gets the shaft. Now why is that?"

What is it that "Christian America" wants? It seems to me that what you want to is to complain that you never get your way. Its the REPUBLICAN party, not the CHRISTIAN party, we stand for REPUBLICAN values, which capitalism is one of by the way.

Dude, some corporate entities DESERVE to be demonized. The Tobacco Industry intentionally and illegally marketed their product to children, intentionally hid the addictive and dangerous effects of the product for decades, and ran to the government to cut a deal when the victims started using the courts to exact restitution. My problem with Huck on tobacco is he doesn't go far enough. The government is just as bad, as they weep for the victims but happily collect their revenues.

Please point out to me in the bible where Jesus endorsed the kind of cutthroat capitalism we have today. Because I've read the thing cover to cover, and I'll be darned if I can find it.

The fact is that the GOP for decades has gotten Christians to vote against their own economic interest by dangling the "Family values" card in front of us, and then doing nothing to promote them when in office. (Mark Foley, anyone?)

To JOEB131

1- While you are right about Reagan and Bush, it still doesn't change the fact that you are rewarding illegal behavior. If we want to be an open borders country, then change the laws to reflect it. Don't have laws on the books and enforce them on someone coming from India, and look the other way when someone illegally crosses the border from Mexico. I also don't buy into the myth that by taking a strong immigration stance, the GOP is being "anti-Hispanic". Most legal Hispanic immigrants agree that we need to enforce our laws. Besides, by your argument, we should not punish car hijackers because they are potential conservatives that might be driven into the arms of democrats.

2. Of the states that raised taxes 65%, how many of those had Republican Governors. I agree its a far cry to say Huck is pro-tax, but his record is mixed. It's hard to say what he would do with a Dem controlled congress. That does not make him attractive as a canidate.

3. While I don't think a president needs to be able to recite the head of state of each country on command, he needs to have a general grasp of our foreign policy. It's one thing to be ignorant of the president of Pakistan, quite another to be ignorant of our foreign policy with CUBA for the past 40 years.

4. What troubles me about Huck's pardons is not "excessive sentencing" of the Arkansas courts. Its the idea that a criminal could have a "Paris Hilton" conversion in jail and walk free. On several of Huck pardons, the former governor defended them saying that the person had found christ and repented. While that sounds nice, anyone can find christ especially on death row, for one, and another, I believe that pardons should be reserved when the courts err, and not be handed out on the whim of the executive branch.

5. He can be as anti-smoking as he likes. Use the bully pulpit and preach it far and wide. Make tons of PSA's if you will. But when it comes to a National BAN on smoking, most people cringe. The government is not our nanny not our mother hen. And if there is a national ban on smoking, what other "bad habits" come under fire. Its not about protecting BIG Tobacco, as you claim, but about protecting the individuals right to make a choice.

6 And the evangelical hissy fit continues. To say Christians have had none of their issues addressed is just plain wrong. No Federal Funding for Abortion.. Making Euthanasia Illegal.. Support for the intelligent design curriculum. I could go on. Honestly, do you think any of these would have come along if the democrats were in solid control over the past 30 years. Stop playing identity politics, its really beneath you. Such behavior is typical of lower life forms, like cockroaches and hippies. The Republican Coalition is just that, give and take, and just because you don't have everything you want, does not make you persecuted. That really is the fear with Huck I guess, that he will cause evangelicals to go crazy because, as I read one supporter put it " HE IS NOT AFRAID TO SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS " and put him or hillary in the white house

either way we are screwed.

JOEB131

#1 I like Ronald Reagan, but I don't treat him as a Republican Deity above reproach. He made a mistake. Period. We are still paying for it.

I fought Bush on his Amnesty proposal as much as I could. I consider it a miracle (and I don't believe in miracles) that even with the mobilization of Conservatives the Amnesty was defeated with Bush and McCain, among others, pushing it and with a Democratic majority in both houses. I only like Bush on Iraq and taxes. He is dead wrong on Amnesty.

To cite the mistakes of two Republicans as a justification to like the same mistakes being made by a third Republican is not a debate tactic I would use. I prefer Sessions and DeMint on this issue. Not strident, not vicious, just solid and deliberate, against the damn thing.

To use the argument that we need to legalize law-breakers because those of the same ethnicity as the law-beakers will be sympathetic is a morally flawed argument. I prefer sticking with principles. As a practical matter, though, even with the increased Hispanic support for the Republican Party the overwhelming amount of votes of the new arrivals, especially as a result of the chain migration would go to the Party of Benefits: the Democrats.

#2 I respectfully refer you to http://www.taxhikemike.org . Don't have more to say.

#3 We are still paying for Bush's ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. No reason to elect a Bush on steroids with a sense of humor who seems likely to lack Bush's resolve on things like the Iraq war.

#4 I don't know, that one Wayne DuMond case is troublesome. Tell this is flawed: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2006/11/mike_huckabee_on_wayne_dumond.aspx.

#5 You're missing the point. I personally hate smokers and smoking, and will let people know if I can't move away and they are smoking. It is not the role of Federal government to get into things like smoking. Mike gives every indication that he doesn't believe in Federalism, and the bigger the Federal Governments involvement in health and welfare, the better.

#6 Yes, that's how many of them seem to behave. It's sad to watch, this one issue voting stuff. I am all for Christian rights, but this "I care about the war on Christmas and wearing Christianity on your sleeve, and that's it" stuff makes me sick. There's a little more to being President than proclaiming your love for Jesus every 30 second. Read some Thomas Jefferson to understand what this country is all about.

Before stuffing the Huckster in the mail...Fred Thompson ripped his head off and shoved it up his ass...then he stuffed him in the mailbox...postage due...

"6 And the evangelical hissy fit continues. To say Christians have had none of their issues addressed is just plain wrong. No Federal Funding for Abortion.. Making Euthanasia Illegal.. Support for the intelligent design curriculum. I could go on. Honestly, do you think any of these would have come along if the democrats were in solid control over the past 30 years. Stop playing identity politics, its really beneath you. Such behavior is typical of lower life forms, like cockroaches and hippies. The Republican Coalition is just that, give and take, and just because you don't have everything you want, does not make you persecuted. That really is the fear with Huck I guess, that he will cause evangelicals to go crazy because, as I read one supporter put it " HE IS NOT AFRAID TO SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS " and put him or hillary in the white house" - sundanceloki

I think it's a lot more than that. The GOP has been a coalition of economic conservatives and christian conservatives. Now, by themselves, economic conservatives can't win elections. Ever. Look back to Barry Goldwater losing 49 states, and you'll see what I mean.

I don't think the few gains we have made, such as no Federal funding for abortion (A lot of pro-choice people don't think the government should pay for it), really justify the continued support of the GOP when economic conservatives fight for the right of Corporate America to economically rape the middle class, and get every stupid, ill-advised and mean-spirited thing they ask for.

When the GOP fights harder for the profits of Philip Morris than the rights of the unborn, then we have gotten on the wrong track, which is probably why Hillary is going to get elected.

Look back to Barry Goldwater losing 49 states

He lost 44 states, not 49. McGovern lost 49 in 1972. Nor did the issues have anything to do with economic vs. social conservatism. 1964 was a very different time. I was there, and I remember.

#1 I like Ronald Reagan, but I don't treat him as a Republican Deity above reproach. He made a mistake. Period. We are still paying for it.

I fought Bush on his Amnesty proposal as much as I could. I consider it a miracle (and I don't believe in miracles) that even with the mobilization of Conservatives the Amnesty was defeated with Bush and McCain, among others, pushing it and with a Democratic majority in both houses. I only like Bush on Iraq and taxes. He is dead wrong on Amnesty.

To cite the mistakes of two Republicans as a justification to like the same mistakes being made by a third Republican is not a debate tactic I would use. I prefer Sessions and DeMint on this issue. Not strident, not vicious, just solid and deliberate, against the damn thing.

To use the argument that we need to legalize law-breakers because those of the same ethnicity as the law-beakers will be sympathetic is a morally flawed argument. I prefer sticking with principles. As a practical matter, though, even with the increased Hispanic support for the Republican Party the overwhelming amount of votes of the new arrivals, especially as a result of the chain migration would go to the Party of Benefits: the Democrats-Igor

The mistake Reagan made was not doing what was promised, enforcing the border and the workplace. I think any plan has to address those issues first, before we deal with the issue of what to do with the 12 million who are already here. Huckabee's plan calls for doing both.

I think that the anti-immigration policies of the GOP HAS hurt it. Bush got an amazing 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. In 2006, 69% of them voted for the Democrats, and we saw the result. We are steadily alienating the largest growing segement of our population.

The GOP lost the african American vote by being on the wrong side of civil rights issues (Thanks again, Barry), long after everyone agreed they were on the wrong side. People have long memories. Let's not make that mistake again. I'm not saying give everyone amnesty. I am saying let's give people a fair shot at citizenship.

It might be a moot point, however, I don't see any of the top GOP guys embracing the Tancrazy line. - Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, even Thompson, have all been illegal friendly at some point or another.

Look back to Barry Goldwater losing 49 states

He lost 44 states, not 49. McGovern lost 49 in 1972. Nor did the issues have anything to do with economic vs. social conservatism. 1964 was a very different time. I was there, and I remember.

- You are correct he lost 44 and only got 38 % of the vote. There wasn't a social v. economic issue because in 1964, there wasn't a social split. Both parties were basically agreed on what the standard values were. 1972 was when the Democratic Party decided to embrace the counter-culture, and it lost 49 states.

Message- Economic Conservativism- Loser issue.

Social Issues- winner.

JoeB131, on Civil Rights: not treating people as sub-humans is a morally correct thing to do. Portraying law-breakers and needy victims is a morally wrong thing to do. Giving African-Americans, one of the oldest ethnic groups in the United States the same rights as everybody else helps this country. Ensuring the arrival of millions of poorly educated people belonging mainly to one ethnic group hurts this country greatly in the long run.

Let's get back to the goofiness.
I love Fred Facts, but I'm biased as a FredHead. Still, I though Huck's Chuck Norris ad was great as well.

But it's time for end of year silliness. You need to have a post like this one here and see what the comments have to offer:

http://buffoonery.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/headlines-you-wont-see-in-2008/

Huck Hunting (today)

"Out in the brittle, snowy fields, Huckabee shot the third of three pheasants killed by his hunting group. Reporters watched from a distance and circled around him when he came back with the dead birds.

One reporter said, “Governor, you like to speak in metaphors. What’s the metaphor here?”

“Don’t get in my way,” he said."

Who needs Chuck Norris? The Governator has nothin' on this dude, a real Rambo over here.

"Huckster-baiting"

Is that legal? I know that you can use decoys and calls, but I believe that baiting them is illegal. Maybe you can get a special tag for your license.

Why on earth do morons like joebee come into a """PARODY"""site and start flinging monkey poop all over the place anyway? Doesnt he have some liberals ass to kiss somewhere anyway??

It's known in the "business" as "Master Debating".

Hey, now... let's not be so hasty in lumping all evangelicals has Huck supporters. As an evangelical, I can say I'd like a Huck presidency about as much as I'd like another Clinton in the White House -- for the reasons very well stated above.

Evangelicals ought to believe in freedom -- and freedom by definition (I don't have time to explain exactly how... look it up) means lower taxes and LIBERTY. Smoking bans, not so much liberty.

r2streu, you're a good person and have a great web site. It's comments like the one below from recent Politico piece (yes, they've savaged Fred on the silly hat thing, but they are probably not misquoting this) about Huck's appeal that send shivers down my spine:

“Well, he is not afraid to say, ‘Merry Christmas,’” Gary Thies of Mapleton said when asked after the Sioux City event why he’s supporting Huckabee.

And why is that important?

“Because that’s the most important thing in my life,” Thies responds with an icy glare. “That’s what we’re doing here. Those are the principles that made this country great.”

joeB131 -

1) You are not as sharp a knife in the drawer as you think you are. Sharper than many, maybe even most. But ...

2) You are not funny.

If you can't have fun here, you need a vacation.

Corporations are not perfect, but someone has to have an appetite for risk if the economy is going to improve. As others cheat [CHINA], how should corporations adjust?

Name a corporation where the workers have the means of production, they've put their balls on the line, and won big.

Hillary is an old bag. I had no reason to say that, but it's funny because it's true.

Since Christmas is over can we go back to punching liberals? My knuckles are gettin soft.

Don't you just LOVE Ann Coulter? All great Americans do. Maybe Fred will make her the next Supreme Court Judge!

Joeb131.
"Please point out to me in the bible where Jesus endorsed the kind of cutthroat capitalism we have today. Because I've read the thing cover to cover, and I'll be darned if I can find it."
The problem is you are reading it from "cover to cover" to find out if Jesus endorsed capitalism. FYI, he is only in 4 of the 66 books of the Book. Start looking there.
"there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph," (Matt 27:57) - a poor man would have not been able to donate the tomb.
"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day." (Luke 16:19) is not about wealth, but about not caring for those in need.
"Jesus looked up and said to him, 'Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.'" (Luke 19:2) Jesus visited with a man who was rich and enjoyed his company because the man was not greedy.
even here...
"When Jesus heard this he said to him, "There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven." (Luke 18:22) It is common knowledge that Jesus wants the man to sell all that hes has because He knows that man cannot serve two masters - God and money and that the man cannot let go of his money for God. This is not against capitalism, but against greed.
"The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them" (Mark 14:7) Who can give help the poor more (and who has), Bill Gates or the person living out of a shopping cart.
The evil isn't in capitalism, the evil is in not using God's gifts and sharing them to others in need. "But the man who received one [talent] went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money... His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! ... And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'" (Matt 25:18,26,30)
[to everyone - please excuse the sermon]

"Corporations are not perfect, but someone has to have an appetite for risk if the economy is going to improve. As others cheat [CHINA], how should corporations adjust?

Name a corporation where the workers have the means of production, they've put their balls on the line, and won big."

Never did I say corporations should be banned or regulated out of existence. I did say that a lot of them act unethically (especially the Tobacco Industry) and do need to be watched.

If the GOP loses this year, it will because most people will see it as shills for Corporate America.

"Don't you just LOVE Ann Coulter? All great Americans do. Maybe Fred will make her the next Supreme Court Judge!"

Oh, yeah, she's a riot, especially when savaging someone's dead child or calling 9/11 widows "witches". Just a barrel of laughs.

Does it ever occur to you that a lot of folks don't vote Republican because we are preceived as being mean, even if they agree with us? It occurs to me when I talk to my relatives who don't like high taxes or the Hollywood culture, but don't empathize with people like Coulter.

Ann is not a friend of Fred's. I stopped liking Ann after her article which unfairly attacked Fred and fairly attacked Huck a few months ago. That's like attacking eagles and pigs for liking to play in the mud in the same breath.

i do not understand this analogy, "That's like attacking eagles and pigs for liking to play in the mud in the same breath."
Either you are mixing your metaphors or you have no concept of where eagles play, or that pigs don't necessarily play in the mud with the same breath as eagles, or in the mud that eagles breath...
No, Ann is no friend of Fred, but Fred has done some pretty stupid things, i.e. failed to uphold the Clinton impeachment after he perjured himself and defecated on the Constitution. I didn't read anything untrue in her "attack", or is it unfair to point out the truth.
As for "being mean", liberals (and RINOs) perceive tough love as mean, so I would rather be mean and right than be wrong trying to get them to like me as do Huckabee/McCain/RINOs/etc.
Oh, and they can't tell sarcasm from insult. 'nuff said.

Hey, Zyppy,

Saying "We have to deal with terrorism, regardless of the cost" is tough.

Saying "These witches are enjoying their husband's deaths" or "Ask me about my dead son." is just plain mean-spirited, and Coulter says this kind of crap all the time hoping someone will pay attention to her. Her column only runs in about two dozen papers now, because her comments are so inflammetory.

zypldot, I'm truly sorry I chose a poor metaphoranalogy (yes, that's a new word). Instead of explaining it, let me use a more dramatic one: if you attack both Hitler and Churchill for being "warmongers" in the same sentence something is wrong with you, even though Hitler deserves it.

Fred had a split vote on the subject of impeachment, and he vote guilty on obstructing justice. You can read everything about this to your heart's content here:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml

Fred is an honest man and will not find another man guilty on vague charges even when the guy "deserves" it. If you want kangaroo courts, you won't get them if Fred has something to say about it. Ann said Fred wanted to "disregard the Constitution and make his Hollywood friends happy". Ann said nothing about the split verdict.

I think Ann is business to sell Ann's books by being provocative. She makes many good points, but I wouldn't call her treatment of Fred "tough love".

Let me cut to the chase: Fred is the only guy in the race besides Duncan Hunter who at least says all the right things, says them well, shows he can think, and has an overall conservative record. All the attacks on him that have some validity, like 3.5 hours of billable time related to a terrorist, or Spencer Abraham, or this impeachment thing to me appear petty in the grand scheme of things IF YOU CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES. I personally like him simply because he is sharp and he GETS it. He understand how to deal with terrorists, and he understand that the Federal Government should be contained by limiting it's sphere of operations, not by cutting the next budget. He understands the state of affair regarding Global Warming and he is the only one who can make a coherent statement that includes the economic impact on the US and the unfairness of the treatment that China and India would receive given the current direction.

Let me summarize: his heart is in the right place to my best ability to determine on social conservatism, economic conservatism, the war on terror, and illegal immigration. Huck and McCain: the heart is in the wrong place on immigration and taxes, plus Huck is just wrong on anything not having to do with Christianity. Rudy: immigration, 2nd amendment. Mitt: who knows, his heart is wherever you want it to be.

Fred towers above the rest. QED

after reading the posts on this entry...Fred Thompson ripped his own head off and stuffed it up his own ass and then shoved himself in the mailbox...