Huckabee and Paul: Not That Funny and Not That Righteous

It brings us much joy to see the Republican primary get ever-murkier, as GOP greats (well, the greatest they have to offer) Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are threatened by Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul's growing popularity.

More disturbingly, though, some Democrats and independents are showing odd signs of falling in love with the two GOP freaks or at least, as Jimmy Carter fittingly confessed, of having "lust in their heart." This is not fine.

It's getting so bad that the Kucinichs are smitten: the previous apple of Dennis's eye, his wife Elizabeth, proudly proclaimed that her husband would consider a Kucinich/Paul ticket (or was it Paul/Kucinich?), because Paul is "also a truth teller." Of course, she's British, and her accented, dry humor may have eluded us and the campaign press corps (who find John "Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran" McCain the funniest person in the world.)

Yes, we like Paul's early and dogged opposition to the war in Iraq. And yes, we can only dream that Hillary Clinton, with all that First Lady experience, or John Edwards, the uber-progressive, would have been as decisive as Paul on this issue. And yes, many of us appreciate his unwavering defense of civil liberties, his misgivings about NAFTA and his willingness to cast principled votes.

But if that's it, then why not just draft the real thing, perhaps Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee (the ONLY vote in Congress against the use of military force after 9/11) or Democratic Congressman Mel Watt (the ONLY vote in Congress against Megan's law). At least with them you won't get someone who introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 recognizing the personhood of fetuses; someone who cast the only vote against a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act; who raises the specter of a worldwide gun control movement (if only); and whose supporters include a sickening number of white supremacists (on stormfront.org, a discussion board for those "interested in white survival," Paul is endorsed in bold type on the home page, which also features headlines such as "Wealthy Jewess Killed by Black Secretary." Seriously.

The infatuation with Huckabee at first seems easier to understand: he appears easy-going and witty, unlike, for instance, Romney and his glacial grin; he seems laid back, but not lethargic like Fred Thompson; he doesn't openly hate poor people and immigrant children like, well, everyone else in the Republican party; and, so temptingly, the Wall Street Journal despises him. This is all good, but surely it's not good enough to give him the old McCain 2000 treatment, as the slothful mainstream media is already doing (they're bored, he's refreshing, they love him).

Huckabee boasts that Christian conservatives consider him one of them (that should be your first clue), but that he's "not mad at anybody." Unless you're planning a same-sex union, which he equates to slavery. Or unless you're pro-choice, since abortion too is like slavery (maybe that's how Southern conservatives make sure their supporters know slavery was bad: by saying it was kind of like gay people, or kind of like terminating a pregnancy, it was THAT bad). He also blames "the holocaust of liberalized abortion" for America's need to "import" workers. That's nice.

The first governor with a concealed-carry permit ("Don't mess with me"), Huckabee is a strong supporter of a national "right to carry" bill, and blamed the high death toll in the Virginia Tech shooting rampage on the fact that no one had a concealed gun. I can't imagine he was saying this in jest, but as so many political observers point out, he's really funny.

Huckabee, with more than a tinge of admiration for George W. Bush, recently called the Iraq war "the defining battle [...] for Western civilization itself." This would not include the theory of evolution, which he doesn't believe in, as he made clear at a recent debate and in at least one interview ("science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't"). At least he hasn't equated evolution to slavery or the holocaust. Yet.

I can see why Republicans are warming up to these guys, when their other choices include a candidate who I promise you will one day be deemed certifiable (Giuliani), a non-human (Romney), the oldest man alive (McCain), the second oldest man alive (Thompson), and Jason from Friday the 13th (Tom Tancredo).

The Democratic primary may not be delivering the deep belly laughs so cherished by Chris Matthews, or the kind of straight talk popular with those deeply invested in white survival. But on balance, I'll take even Clinton's shaky public humor and shakier trustworthiness over Paul's righteousness, Huckabee's wit, and the devious and unfunny realities they obscure.

Comments

[nuthinbutnet]

The last statement,"I'll take even Clinton's shaky public humor and shakier trustworthiness over Paul's righteousness, Huckabee's wit, and the devious and unfunny realities they obscure". How does Paul obscure unfunny realities? Shakier Trustworthiness? give me a break. This guys a nut (that is Paul Jenkins). There is absolutely nothing funny about what's going on in this country. Here we are, we just added a 52nd state. An arranged marriage that will not fly. You got crazies trying to be crazier than the one we had for 8 years now. You got a guy that hasn't said much, now he's God's prayer for this country (Huckabee). Hey kids, the people of this country are sick of it. The Clintons are Bush wannabes (not good at all). And all the others have sold their soul. A rerun of 2008 election. A very poor case of cognitive dissonance. Only goes to show how low we have sunk. 51% trusted GWB in this country. Let's clean house in this country and let Paul fix this very 'listing' ship. We are in trouble. Ron Paul really needs to be elected right now.

[sparkandy]

Are the Democrats afraid of Ron Paul? This post sure makes it look that way. The Republicans are afraid of him, too. The Democrats attack by taking his words out of context, the Republicans by trying to ignore him. Makes me think that anyone who can get the status quo bunch in both parties all riled up, might be the candidate for me.

[cognate]

You have taken Ron Paul's voting record out of context. He has not opposed the government-funded celebration of the Civil Rights Act because he opposes civil rights but because he opposes federal expenditure on celebrations of any kind.

Similar considerations apply to his bill on abortion, and his attitude on federal laws about gays. He says individuals as individuals have inalienable rights on their own, not because they belong to a particular group, be it hetero- or homosexual.

Ron Paul is a rare man of integrity and courage who is not owned by moneyed special interests like Hillary, Obama, Giuliani and so on.

Ron Paul will get us out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. He will work for the elimination of the IRS, the restoration of a stable currency and smaller federal government. He will not work for putting people out in the street if they have come to rely on Social Security or Medicare.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/

WE LOVE RON PAUL

[swift goat pet for truth]

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only honest candiates running for POTUS. I would not vote for RP, but he is a principled, honest politician.

[targetdemographic]

It's quite easy to dismiss Dr. Paul's chance of winning the Republican nomination due to the fact that he is so outside of the "norm" when it comes to nominees from either party.
Look back to candidates from your preferred party; Kerry, and Clinton for example. Both men polled well below the rest of the pack at this point in the election cycle and managed to win the nomination.

Reading many of the comments and articles on the site I see that the consensus seems to be that government is the only entity capable of taking care of our poor, our weak, and our elderly. I vehemently disagree with that point. Government should make it easier for people to take care of themselves. Those who cannot should be able to turn to their families (I wonder how many of you sent your parents away to a nursing home for convenience), or to charities. This is how this country used to operate, and it worked. People should be able to depend on each other. Most of the money that is spent on these programs is mismanaged, and please remember that it was the Democratic party that led the way in screwing up the Social Security Trust Fund. The modern Republican party acts like a more violent version of the Democratic party. People seem to be more concerned about looking as if they are tolerant or caring than about the importance of our foundation; Liberty and Capitalism.

Don't blame Capitalism for all ills in society, blame Collectivism, in all forms, Governmental, Corporate, and Non-Profit. The success of America's economy was always driven by individuals and small businesses. We should allow them to succeed again.

As for the flamers. I grew up poor, the child of immigrants, in the projects surrounded by every nationality imaginable. I have worked hard and now am becoming better off year by year. Most of you who say you want to help the poor and ignored are rich white people living in the suburbs scared to set foot in the inner city and you know it.

[BlueCalico]

I'm a Democrat in Missouri - thank God it's an open primary here.

Here are some links for consideration:

OBAMA & CLINTON voted for war funding (along with Feinstein, DODD & BIDEN) - includes $78 Billion for missiles and war craft and $50 Billion for ongoing operations in Iraq: http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3717&can_id=9490

EDWARDS voted for war funding even before 9/11: http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2602&can_id=21107

EDWARDS voted AGAINST child tax credits: http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3006&can_id=21107

and here's a doozy for ya:

EDWARDS voted AGAINST Women's Health & Cancer Rights (he must be feeling pretty bad right now considering his wife's health issues): http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2375&can_id=21107

I AM SICK OF THE LIES & DECEPTION!!!

I'm a Democrat and I am proud to say I am voting for RON PAUL.

[ElkoJohn]

Ron Paul is advocating we dismantle a US government corrupted by special interest lobbies (left & right), and let the states handle all duties not assigned the Feds under the Constitution. Very radical idea, but I remember how the states handled integration until the Feds stepped in. Rather than dismantle the gov. I would have a constitutionalist like Kucinich fix it (if it can be fixed) -- and dismantle it only as a last resort. Rather than have the big-money oligarchy control the US government, and the American Empire exploiting the world, I would let Ron Paul dismantle it. As usual, it's always about the lesser of the evils.
`

[desertdweller]

Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee....period.

[Qbear]

on Abortion

"Abortion: Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." He voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell bill"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

[Qbear]

on Gay Rights

"Still, libertarian orthodoxy can't fully explain Paul's hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious "Marriage Protection Act," which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. "The definition of marriage--a union between a man and a woman--can be found in any dictionary," he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul's disingenuous claims that he is a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional.

You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he's worried that they'll take their "gay agenda" to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn't want gay people adopting children while they're not serving in the military, either.

On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates homosexuality with "sexual deviance."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

[AMolinaro]

Ron Paul, like most libertarians, proposes 19th Century solutions for 21st Century problems. Given the magnitude of the tasks facing the nation, Mr. Paul's dreams of dismantling the federal government and sealing the US off from the rest of the world would be disastrous. Huckabee is simply a lunatic, actually believing the world is only 6,000 years old, denying evolution, and of course gleefully looking forward to the Apocalypse.

Liberals/progressives should be terrified by both of these candidates.

[AmericanPacifist]

If you do not want a President that is anti-science, then do not vote for any candidate who denies that life begins at conception. People who deny this are as foolish as people who deny evolution.

[PainfullyAware]

Government Does Nothing Well !!!

Anyone who believes different assumes benevolence. To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.

Centralization of power allows for corruption. It does not mater what the intent was originally.

People by nature act in their own self interest.

Socialism Sucks !!! Stop helping the corruption.

Vote For Change; Vote Ron Paul.

Choose your own destiny after he is elected.

[sharpsteve]

If Democrats want to end senseless wars then vote Ron Paul in the primaries so that whoever is the Democratic Candidate will maybe be forced to back off the war mongering they seem to be embracing in an attempt to simply look tough. I'd rather see a Ron Paul vs whichever Democrat, than a Rudy or Romney vs whoever. Otherwise it will be once again a choice of the same ideas just different sides. I have always considered myself a liberal and a democrat but this election is far too important to continue with candidates who will just continue on the destructive path we are now on. If you really want change Ron Paul is the only real choice. Paul is right on the War,
Paul is right on the economy,
Paul is right to follow the Constitution (what a radical concept to follow the Constitution).

[UnitLock]

Dr. Paul may seem "radical", but that is just what this country needs to return it to the sane path- triage. A Paul Administration likely wouldn't be able to implement many of the good Doctor's policies, but rest assured, he would work within the constitutional framework that the country was founded upon. No "Signing Statements" from President Paul...

Another point, if I may; the blogger complains of a "white supremacist" who supports the Doctor- well, Ron Paul doesn't court or choose his supporters- unlike Clinton... and I must say that the rabid Zionists of AIPAC frighten me a whole lot more than some gun-toting supremacist.