McCain, and Huckabee
If you had walked into last night’s GOP YouTube Debate without any preconceived notions or exposure to the campaign so far, you might well have thought that Mike Huckabee was the clear GOP frontrunner. He tuned down some of his harder Christianist positions and played the inclusive card while confidentially displaying the executive style he developed as Arkansas governor. The numbers that came out earlier appear to support the Huckabee surge so with last night’s debate he is beginning to look very solid, although he feels more like a Veep than a frontman who can deliver the goods in the end.
That can not be said for Romney whose irritating glibness, never ending smile combined with his incessant ducking of questions – notably the one on torture – made it clear that he simply is not presidential material. He is Kerryesque: too focused on making the right impression, building an image out of material none of which appears to be his own.
Every time I see McCain on TV he looks a bit older, but he is able to compensate for that with strong arguments, moral composure and above all a serene and distinct seriousness fitting of a White House occupant. And as opposed to Romney, everything thing you see and get is solidly McCain himself. It may not look all that nice and polished, but it is real. His exchange with Romney on torture not only clarified the vast distance between the two men on moral issues, it also highlighted that if America prefers experience and calm over a flawless show in the White House, McCain is the clear choice for GOP nominee.
Now Thompson and Giuliani are real men too and both have arguably the right conservative credentials to build that fiscally responsible, hawkish GOP tent. But somehow Thompson seems to lack the gravity and momentum and is increasingly looking like a GOP-version of the late Lloyd Bentsen, a useful and amicable man who can serve adequately in the supporting cast.
The question mark was Giuliani. While I have been a longtime supporter of the mayor and believe that as an executive he is by far the most qualified of both the GOP and Democratic fields, the campaign is beginning to wear on his candidacy. The first subliminal reaction he provokes in me is ‘Kerik!’ and that surely is an alarming sign. In a direct confrontation with Hillary and Obama the mayor is all of a sudden looking a little too toxic.
After last night it has become increasingly clear that McCain with Mike Huckabee as a southern booster might be a very viable ticket to reunite America behind calm and measured expertise. It might also be the only GOP combination that will have a reasonable chance of playing in the centerfield and win 2008.
Excuse me??
Christianism is the result of christianity jumping into politics in a way that causes it to forego its ideals, be they the old ones or the contemporary ones. In short, what I’ve seen these last seven years.
Anyway, Huck and McCain played very well, Romney still has all the substance, depth and sincerety of China’s work safety charter and Giuliani is still Bush in drag.
Paul is still Paul - him gaining ground can only be a good thing, even though I worry he takes more votes from the left-of-center than his own party.
Thompson ain’t bad but if one was his supporter one simply would not have any hope, no momentum to add to in the first place.
McCain has the personal depth and experience to be president of the United States. I agree that Romney is looking more and more like a programmed John Kerry. Giuliani, as I have written extensively on my website, is a divisive, mean spirited, thin skinned man who used his office to punish others while surrounding himself with ring kissing cronies. He would be a disaster.
I love the characterization of Thompson as Lloyd Bentsen; it perfectly captures his amiable but lazy nature. And though I’m not following the presidential campaign that closely, even I can tell that Romney is a blow-dried phony, who is starting to make even Clinton look genuine. And I think Giuliani has been well described here…”toxic”"divisive”"mean spirited”.
It will be interesting to see if McCain, whose campaign was declared dead months ago, can revive and rise to the challenge. It will also be interesting to see if Huckabee, whose campaign has struggled, can improve and have a shot at the nomination.
“Christianist” is a slur invented by Andrew Sullivan, who beleives that Christians in the United States are only one step removed from the Taliban.
““Christianist” is a slur invented by Andrew Sullivan, who beleives that Christians in the United States are only one step removed from the Taliban.”
No, he knows they are at best a very troubling and poorly sewn-together monster of a political movement and at worst a regressive, festering stain on his faith, country and culture.
He has never even tried to call these people representative of christians, nor has he implied most of christians are in the danger zone. Your misrepresenation of him is unwarranted and suggestive of the “christian-at-the-roman-circus”-style complaining I usually see at Malkin’s or other god-forsaken venues.
I am hardly unbiased as I have already decided on Huckabee. I do have my doubts as to whether he will be able to compete in the long term, due to cash restraints. I thought the only really big loser in the debate was Thompson. He fumbled to much with his answers. But his biggest faux paux was the negative campaign commercial that backfired as Cooper gave retort time to the candidates. My guess is that even though Cooper tried to make it look like a spontaneous gesture on his behalf, that like the Clinton plant it was a planned move to stir life into the debate. I like McCain be he isn’t going anywhere, except maybe as VP on the eventual ticket. I also think McCain is working out his next career in the debates. He is starting to inject straight faced comedian sound bytes into his debate pattern. Maybe he will replace Bob Dole as the next old man leering at a scantily clad girl hawking Pepsi.
McCain always seems too angry. Granted, I didn’t see all of the debate, but I did see McCain’s exchange with Romney over ‘waterboarding’.
Of course McCain would seem angry when discussing waterboarding. Having been on the receiving end of torture personally, he is understandably passionate on the subject. It would be unbelievable if he was not.
I liked a lot of Huckabee and McCain’s answers last night. Romney and Guilaini are both becoming more and more unappealing to me each week. Ron Paul, well Ron Paul is Ron Paul. I don’t agree with him but I do admire his passion and convection.
Still I think McCain/Huckabee would be a very good GOP ticket. For many of the reasons Pieter suggests.
admin: name-calling and bigotry are no more welcome here from the right than from the left. do it again, and you’re banned
ZAJ, freerepublic is thataway. That is your corner, and this is the grown-up table. Come on now.
1. Huckabee has never used his faith in the way you imply when you accuse him of having behaved as a “Christianist.”
2. You’re darned right McCain was angry, if you’d been tortured for five years and then had to deal with a smiling pretty boy who refuses to condemn torture, you’d be pretty pissed off, too.
3. I thought Huckabee and McCain galloped away ahead of the rest of the field, and I would give the tiebreak to McCain only because he was given more substantial questions to answer. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Huckabee supporter.)
Read my review of the debate at http://fisticmystic.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/republican-debate-afterglow/
“Huckabee has never used his faith in the way you imply when you accuse him of having behaved as a “Christianist.””
My contention was against your whining over mean old Sullivan bashing christians “in general” with “his” invented “slur”, not your protest over the calling of Huck as a “christianist”, and I did not imply anything.
Christianist exists in far too high quantities in the US, I do not know whether Hucks constitutes one in any sense or on any issue and since I am not sure that he will stop the war on drugs, safeguard abortion rights or carry through civil marriage for gays in all 50 states I can’t care about him anyway.
I will say he is a very human and admirable candidate, but I would no doubt find some of his positions as laughably obsolete and regressive in comparison to mine.
My whining? I think you’ve confused me with someone else. But don’t strain your brain, dude.
How would you know, Xel? Frankly, and I say this with all due respect, most of your observations about American political and social cultures seem based in nothing more than cheap ideological stereotypes completely unmodified by ANY contact with the real world.
I know a lot of Christians. I know few if any of what you describe as “Christianists”. In fact, the only place I ever seem to encounter them is in the partisan fairy tales that are made up about them and how they supposedly control everything (yet seemingly manage to get few of their actual preferences enacted into law).
It is simply amazing to me how many liberals I encounter (mostly online — in-person liberals seem more willing to actually try to live their values) who claim to value tolerance and respect for all human persons but who display visceral contempt based on nothing but stereotypes whenever the subject is religious people and/or political conservatives.
fistic.
like the way you worded #2.
kudos.
Go Huckabee!! Go Ron Paul!!! The only 2 honest Grass Roots Candidates.
Well Jason, I have encountered “Christianists” in person once or twice, and multiple times in newspapers, on television, on radio, and on the Internet. Given that you’re in Nebraska, I have a hard time believing you haven’t met more of these kinds of people.
“How would you know, Xel? Frankly, and I say this with all due respect, most of your observations about American political and social cultures seem based in nothing more than cheap ideological stereotypes completely unmodified by ANY contact with the real world.”
The respect and the criticism is noted.
“I know a lot of Christians. I know few if any of what you describe as “Christianists”. In fact, the only place I ever seem to encounter them is in the partisan fairy tales that are made up about them and how they supposedly control everything (yet seemingly manage to get few of their actual preferences enacted into law).”
That is not why I find these people so troubling - they could poison water supplies in these made-up stories and I would deplore the story-teller - especially because this would suggest christianists are a shibboleth.
“It is simply amazing to me how many liberals I encounter (mostly online — in-person liberals seem more willing to actually try to live their values) who claim to value tolerance and respect for all human persons but who display visceral contempt based on nothing but stereotypes whenever the subject is religious people and/or political conservatives.”
And it is simply amazing that you as a moderate are so prone to implicate a lumping of me together with people who use standards selectively.
On a side note - and I am *not* implicating you in my criticism because I do not know your history- I also wonder why it is that liberals are accused for *not* upholding their beliefs out of PC sensitivity when they do not spend their time deploring muslim extremists but are called intolerant when they take care to monitor those christian extremists that are closer to home and more capable of doing damage.
Actually, Xel, you’ve defined the problem right there. The issue is whether liberals consistently apply these criticisms by critically examining religious fundamentalists of all persuasions, or whether they selectively oppose Christian fundamentalists while ignoring or even enabling the Muslim ones.
And being in Europe, I’d think that it would be the latter group that are “closer to home and more capable of doing damage” in your backyard. I’d also think that you might consider this in light of Jason’s question regarding how numerous or influential “Christianists” really are in the US, and whether we who live here have a better understanding of that than you who don’t.
“The issue is whether liberals consistently apply these criticisms by critically examining religious fundamentalists of all persuasions, or whether they selectively oppose Christian fundamentalists while ignoring or even enabling the Muslim ones.”
Absolutely, and I do both when these two groups come up, criticizing any left-winger who applies resistance and anger towards select extremists out of bias or political posturing. But another issue is that criticizing christians is apparently intolerant even though the right-wing demands more of this “intolerance” - just aimed in another direction.
“And being in Europe, I’d think that it would be the latter group that are “closer to home and more capable of doing damage” in your backyard.”
Once again, I apply my standards unselectively so that doesn’t work on me. Christianists are a threat to even the most sensible left-wing aims and policies in the US, and I did not say anything about their presence in Europe.
“I’d also think that you might consider this in light of Jason’s question regarding how numerous or influential “Christianists” really are in the US, and whether we who live here have a better understanding of that than you who don’t.”
I haven’t said anything regarding the quantity or proportion of these people, but I have said that they can be defined and isolated, as well they should.
Actually you did say something abut quantity or proportion in that last statement I quoted:
“they take care to monitor those christian extremists that are closer to home and more capable of doing damage.”
Apparently we disagree on the magnitude of the problems, and that disagreement explains why you think conservatives are being inconsistent and why I think liberals are being inconsistent (though as you’ve noted, you may not be an example of one of those inconsistent liberals if you truly do apply the same standard in criticizing Christian and Muslim fundamentalists).
There’s also disagreement, I think, on magnitude of the problem because you define issues like abortion and pro-life stance as a Christian construct and I don’t. Pro-life is consistent with a Christian viewpoint of a soul, but that’s not the only reason for defining the existence of right to life before the fetus leaves the birth canal.
Ho-Ha ‘banned’ from a CRETINOUS WEBSITE EH - WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE??? HUCKLEBUCKLE fraudster from HOPE ARKANSAS sounds like DICKHEAD don’t he? promise everything - then do the opposite! and that ‘RAT’ masquerading as a ‘hero’ when he is a moron OLD JOHN McCAIN betrayer of everything finance, security, his fellow prisoners in VIETNAM a boob living off his 2nd wife’s money FACTS care to deny them??? Ah you can’t! TOO BAD SHITHEADS!!! HOW’S THAT FOR ‘NAME-CALLING ’MORONS!!!