Stupid evangelicals at it again. Huckabee wins

Right on! Nothing will alienate the least crazy Republicans like a religious zealot.

Ummmmm never?

The flat-worlders are all about being pandered to and always will be. You have to be when abortion and gay marraige are the single-greatest issues facing the planet today, at least until the rapture anyway.

I don't think Iowa (no offense Iowans!) can be looked at as the standard bearers for America. Just watch. Huckabee will drop like a rock when we get to states with populations bigger than the average daily attendance at Walt Disney World.

Looks like it's gonna be Obama vs. Huckabee this November.

I wonder who Barack will choose for vice.

Will Edwards settle for second fiddle again?

Can't wait for the "a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Jesus" bumper stickers

Andrew, why do you hate Obama?

A man named "Huckabee" will never be President.

Say what you will, but this is certainly a bitch slap to Romney.

God, I hope this will finally kill all the goddamn Ron Paul bullshit. Neg rep me all you want, but that shit is just not happening.

Sorry, Beanbag.

Both my guys won. How can you guys hate Huckabee so much when the hierarchy of the GOP hates him because he actually has some sympathy for people who don't make $500,000 a year, and doesn't think that Mexicans should be perfect happy making 8 cents an hour back home? If it comes between Huckabee vs Obama, I will be happy whichever way it goes.

Having said that, I still foresee it being Rudy vs Hillary, which means this is the first election I sit out.

I want to blow Mike Huckabee's brains out and skull fuck his corpse.

Neither will a man named Obama.

Which means, I guess, that if it turns out to be Obama vs Huckabee in November '08, it'll be the precursor to the hatching of Yog-Sothoth or something.

Oh, and this race is far from over. There's 49 more states to go, people.

I don't think Huckabee is pandering to the evangelicals. I think he actually is that batshit crazy and singularly focused. Scary stuff indeed. However, my hopeful side says he is unelectable in a general election.

Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?

The best ticket would be Obama/Clinton.
That way she could double as his secretary.



What?

Obama/Kucinich, anything with Kucinich on it spells u-n-e-l-e-c-t-a-b-l-e.

This is great news for McCain. Looks like I stay a Republican for a little while longer.

Hey guys, this dude thinks all 50 states matter! OLOL, that's so cute!

Damn, I thought the other side just about had you, Frank. Dems need more socially aware, fiscally conservative voters on their side.

OTOH, if I was American I'd be hoping for an Obama versus McCain race to the White House. McCain can be accused of being flip floppy and pandering but I'd like to believe once he's the candidate we'd see the old McCain back.

Never mind.

Just for the primaries, right?

Right?

If McCain wins the nomination, he's my guy. If he does not, Obama's my guy. I don't agree with Obama's Iraq policy, but I think that, overall, he's the best package among the Democratic contenders.

I would love to see this race (McCain vs Obama) ... I can honestly say that in that case I'm not sure for who I would vote. I really hope the best candidates from both parties win their primaries, I really long for an election that really has great debates and makes people think ... instead of us voting for the lesser of two evils or just straight down party lines.

It's a sad day, we're witnessing DarthSidious mentally breaking down before our eyes.

Who can you see as McCain's running mate if he pulls out the Hail Mary play? (Or for you West Wing watchers the "Governor Baker" play). I can't see him going with any of his current competitors.

Also, in your eyes, what the issue with Obama's Iraq policy? Too simple for such a complex situation? Or something else?

But he's a neo-con! Or was before 2000, and has basically stuck to the party line since Bush took office. He's like a WASPy version of Lieberman. Outside of Iraq, he doesn't bring anything else new to the table. Does anybody expect a beaten down, compliant Republican to fix the major problems facing us in the 21st century? They're too busy trying to turn back the clock to the 19th century.

I like McCain, but I find the other Republican candidates to be so odious that I'm unwilling to vote for any of them.

That leaves me with the Democrats.

I think Clinton is most capable of sitting in the big chair on Day One, but I also think she's a deeply divisive figure in a nation that has had far too much divisiveness. I don't agree with many of Obama's policies, but I think his may be a conciliatory Presidency that could bring the country back together.

By the way, I've noticed that you've taken a few jabs at the Council on Foreign Relations. That's been the John Birch Society's straw man for years, and it's fun to see the activist Left go after it, too.

Lieberman.

I think it's a little more than too simple. To say, "We'll only leave in enough troops to keep the trainers safe and fight terrorists" is the same as saying, "We'll leave everyone in."

I think he's trying to have it both ways, realizing that his base wants us out but that that's not really a viable option yet. I'd feel more comfortable with his Iraq policy if it struck me as more realistic.

Having said that, I think he has the most sophisticated worldview after Biden. He's anything but parochial, and we need to leave parochialism behind if we're to stay fully and constructively engaged in the world.

McCain is the only Republican candidate who tells the simple truth that torture is both wrong and fundamentally unamerican.

McCain understands is willing to face the reality that precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a foreign policy disaster that could take America decades to undo.

McCain is a Southwestern Republican with the right attitude regarding public spending and the role of government in public life.

McCain is willing to go against his party on critical issues such as immigration reform, even when he knows it'll cost him easy votes.

McCain has one of the most loyal and long-serving staffs on the Hill. He knows how to lead a team and lead it well.

McCain is ready, on Day One, to sit in the Big Chair and run US foreign policy.

Unfortunately, one of my jobs makes it illegal for me to give money to or volunteer for McCain. I think I can get away with a lawn sign, however. McCain is my guy.

What's Ron Paul's stance on banks printing their own money and phasing out the dollar completely?

Cause that's a pretty awesome stance.

Oh please, take the bait.

I think Huckabee (at least according to Wikipedia) has also said it is torture. However, McCain is the only candidate who HAS ACTUALLY BEEN TORTURED so that really sets him apart.

I like your list, I wonder why your job restricts you in such a way ...

Ron Paul's an isolationist. Game over.

It's illegal for government contractors to give money to or volunteer for presidential candidates.

A move towards a centrist ticket? Could work. I'm not a huge Lieberman fan but I could see that one working for the disenfranchised Republicans and the right leaning Dems.



I think that's the issue with any Democrat right now. Bush and Co. have created a mess and plan on leaving someone else holding the bag. The Democrats are being silly enough to pick it up without really looking at it seriously.

Agreed. If you listen to the current administration you'd believe that the only bad thing in the world is terrorism. Meanwhile the rest of the world struggles with many other issues ie) Russian instability (or should that be insanity), China's awakening as a monetary power, African debt, etc.

I've just read where McCain says it's okay to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq so long as it doesn't cost American lives. Anyone who says it's okay to invade other countries under false pretenses and permanently occupy them as long as invading casualties are low is an awful human being and should not be entrusted with powers such as those that come with the US presidency.

I have no reason to believe that a McCain presidency would do anything to bring about the end of the occupation of Iraq. Whether or not doing so would precipitate more violence or not is irrelevant because he doesn't want to leave.

Lieberman is two-faced lying ineffective Bush Apologist scum. As VP, his sole saving grace would be that he's probably not as smart or as pushy as Cheney. He doesn't even try to sound sincere when parroting the Bush Administration's excuse du jour. He sounds like he's lying and he knows it.

I gather he's pretty lackluster in his role as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, too. So he's not only a bad human being and lousy liar, he's a crummy administrator. I don't see the appeal.

And the damn of it is, McCain and Lieberman are probably the least offensive Republicans in (or near) the running today. McCain certainly qualifies as 'least worst', and I actually thought the McCain-Feingold Act showed a little sensibility on the part of an American conservative for a change. But the fact remains he's okay with a permanent military presence in Iraq so long as it doesn't cost too much Yankee blood. It's okay if the local fuzzytops are at each others' throats.

I do not understand the contempt the American right can have for the rights and lives of non-Americans.

Thanks for the list, Frank. I won't go through it point by point, but suffice it to say I agree with the Democrats that a political resolution in Iraq is stalled because of our policy. Things won't change until we begin to withdraw .All of this talk about the success of the surge is besides the point. His support of permanent military bases in Iraq is a sure recipe for prolonged casualties and animosity between Muslims and the West.

Also, I thought McCain talked good game on torture but basically caved to Bush when it came to meaningful legislation. I mean, waterboarding is still legal right?

Ron Paul is crazy. His policies would be disasterous for our country.

They were slave owners though.

Paul wants to get rid of the Deparment of Education. I can't see many Dems or Repubs thinking that's a good idea.

And correct me if I'm wrong but he wants all troops out of foreign locations such as Korea and Germany. That seems like a very bad idea.

How about eliminating the income tax for starters? He wants to eliminate the Dept of Education? He wants to deport all illegal immigrants? He's an isolationist, which is another deeply flawed position to take. I think the quality of life under a President Ron Paul would sink to the bottom. Right quick.

My ultimate problem is that I think the libertarian position is a flawed philosophy at its core since it cannot be applied to the real world in a self-sustaining way. I just checked Ron Paul's website. He has no infrastructure policy, no real energy policy, no initiatives of transforming our economy or creating new jobs. Then again, none of the Republicans are addressing this in a meaningful way. They talk about tax cuts as if they will magically solve problems.

Libertarians and Republicans share a real disdain for government (not to mention an irrational worship of capitalism,) but I think it's a straw man argument. The fact is the private sector simply cannot solve all of society's ills and that there is a role for a strong, just government in our lives. Arguing the Libertarian position is as foolish as arguing that government is the solution to everything.

This notion of turning back the clock to the founding fathers is untenable and nonsensical. The founding fathers knew at the time that the Constitution and their democratic experiment was a work in progress. They couldn't predict the industrial revolution, the internet, global warming, the military-industrial complex, globalization and multi-national corporations. Libertarians choose to ignore all of these things in favor of romanticizing the past, to the detriment of the American people.

No it isn't. He's on the record stating such.

So? He says it's okay to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq so long as it only costs Iraqi lives. McCain's solution to dealing with the situation as it is is to remain in Iraq for decades so long as it's only fuzzytop blood being spilled. That's appalling.

When they say what McCain has said, then talking about Democrats will make sense.

Yes, and that's a bad thing. Americans have no business occupying Iraq whether it is practical or not.

Depends on your goals.

Unlike current Republican schools of thought, which have proven their worth over at least two wars.

I don't necessarily agree with your philosopy of letting bygones be bygones and letting Republicans get on with building their empire, but that's neither here nor there. Bush policy is not a thing of the past, McCain's continuing to follow Bush Doctrine is exactly what we're talking about now. The occupation of Iraq as it stands now is exactly as wrong as it has been for the past five years; I see no reason not to think it's still all about military occupation and commandeering Iraq's resources. You have no business in Iraq. Your presence will only exacerbate Iraq's problems and yours. Go home. If you feel all guilty about the mess you've made, take the trillions to be spent on the occupation and turn it into reparation payments.

I simply have no faith that the US government is acting in the best interests of the Iraqi people when it makes its claims for staying in Iraq. It has no credibility, and I can see with my own eyes that the situation was never as they described. I'm not about to start giving it credit now. Especially when the man arguing for continued occupation has made his callous disregard for non-American lifeforms so clear.

I think the comparison is ludicrous. Looking at the world of 150 years ago through the lens of modern morality or politics is nothing at all like what we're talking about, which is an ongoing situation. I can't imagine why opposing a modern Republican's disregard for human rights would remind you of some other guy's take on the American Civil War.