OF A MIXED MIND
As all of you know by now (and if you don't know, you probably got here by following a Google link for "tits" or "boobs" or some other key words from those long-ago days when I wrote about movies on Friday), Mike "I Don't Heart" Huckabee won the Iowa caucus.
Whoa.
And, as you can guess from the title of this here blog post, I'm ambivalent. Let's break it down:
1. I like the fact that the non-front runner (i.e., someone other than the MSM's anointed "the guy to beat") won.
2. I'm scared shitless that there are so manypeople morons in my country who vote for a candidate purely because he shares their view regarding the virgin birth, later re-birth, and intermittent water-walking, dead-resurrecting, water-to-wining, and loaves-and-fishing of a semi-fictional world figure.
Hey, Stu Schmadlack and I both think Chuck Berry is the underrated link in the history of rock 'n roll. I'm gonna vote for him as President of the United States! But wait, isn't Dave Doohickey also a Met fan. Maybe he's my guy . . .
3. I like the fact that a Huckabee win would throw the national GOP into total disarray. Maybe northeastern social liberal/fiscal conservatives would come to realize that 99.96% of national Republicans have nothing in common with them.
4. I'm scared shitless of yet another evangelical running our nation (into the ground).
5. I like seeing Rudy Giuliani lose.
6. Have I made it clear that I'm scared shitless of 4 more years of Jesus Camp in the White House?
As to the Dems, I think Obama is nothing more than a handsome guy with a great speaking voice, but hey, it worked for Jack Kennedy, so why not do it again? Better than Huckabee, right?
And, to avoid snark for 2 seconds, the fact that we've reached a point in our history where a Black man with a name that sounds like a point guard for the University of Illinois (as opposed to Illinois' Senator) can win the support of the people of IOWA (!) is something I really like. We may still be a nation of idiots, but at least we're no longer racist idiots.
Progress baby. It comes in many forms.
Whoa.
And, as you can guess from the title of this here blog post, I'm ambivalent. Let's break it down:
1. I like the fact that the non-front runner (i.e., someone other than the MSM's anointed "the guy to beat") won.
2. I'm scared shitless that there are so many
Hey, Stu Schmadlack and I both think Chuck Berry is the underrated link in the history of rock 'n roll. I'm gonna vote for him as President of the United States! But wait, isn't Dave Doohickey also a Met fan. Maybe he's my guy . . .
3. I like the fact that a Huckabee win would throw the national GOP into total disarray. Maybe northeastern social liberal/fiscal conservatives would come to realize that 99.96% of national Republicans have nothing in common with them.
4. I'm scared shitless of yet another evangelical running our nation (into the ground).
5. I like seeing Rudy Giuliani lose.
6. Have I made it clear that I'm scared shitless of 4 more years of Jesus Camp in the White House?
As to the Dems, I think Obama is nothing more than a handsome guy with a great speaking voice, but hey, it worked for Jack Kennedy, so why not do it again? Better than Huckabee, right?
And, to avoid snark for 2 seconds, the fact that we've reached a point in our history where a Black man with a name that sounds like a point guard for the University of Illinois (as opposed to Illinois' Senator) can win the support of the people of IOWA (!) is something I really like. We may still be a nation of idiots, but at least we're no longer racist idiots.
Progress baby. It comes in many forms.
Labels: I Still Hope Edwards And Ron Paul Win In New Hampshire, Yeah Right
posted by Mike at 7:25 AM
14 Comments:
lol.
Yeah I was happy to see the frontrunners take a beating (though on the Republican side, Northeasterners like Romney and Giuliani could hardly be called "frontrunners" -- but it was still nice to se Giuliani kinda/sorta humiliated (Ron Paul beat him, too)).
However, by the time I'd finished watching 10 second soundbites of Obama's and Huckabee's victory speeches, I was sick of them.
sick of them
It's a pretty loathsome crew from top to bottom.
I can't say I loathe Obama. I have flip-flopped back and forth between Edwards and Obama, one having some fleshed-out policy that is a little divisive (Edwards) and the other having fine ideas that (by way of his ability to attract independents) unify but not much in the way of fleshed-out policy.
Ultimately, your leader doesn't have to be a policy wonk. He has to put the right people in the right place. Obama's victory last night (as much as I hate everything about the caucus system and the whole Iowa thing) was at the very least highly symbolic of a very good change.
It didn't break my heart to see Hillary lose. Besides...seeing the Clintons as a unifying force? Not so much.
I assume you want Ron Paul to win in NH just to mess the Republicans up further?
That's not a tacit endorsement of him, I hope. He's against the war, but is wrong on every other issue.
I assume you want Ron Paul to win in NH just to mess the Republicans up further?
Sorry to destroy any image you have of me, George, but I'd like Ron Paul to win in NH because I like him.
That's not a tacit endorsement of him, I hope. He's against the war, but is wrong on every other issue.
The only issue I firmly disagree with him about is abortion. Otherwise, there are a lot of things on which he and I agree: central banking, fiscal policy, foreign interventionism, drug policy. Not to mention Iraq.
Plus, he -- and arguably Edwards, who I also like -- is the only honest guy in the bunch, and the only one with the guts to tell it like it is.
Here's a post I wrote about him in July, 2006.
Huckabee strikes me as the guy W should've been with all that "compassionate conservatism" talk. That's not to say that he's my choice for president, just that he would've been preferable over what we've had the last 7 years. And he's not the right choice now after what we've just had.
he would've been preferable over what we've had the last 7 years
I agree. Although I think we can file that under the "Non-controversial assertion of the week" category, no?
As someone who believes in the same 'semi mythical' figure that Huck does, it would be nice to have a president that shares that belief. I am sure that there are millions of other people that vote based on some quality that others think is not important (such as appearence, party affiliation, home state, etc.).
That being said, religion (or a lack of one) is not a major factor for me, since there is no way to tell if the person is being sincere. I also believe that it is possible to embarce a wide variety of political policies and still be a __________ (insert the religion of your choice).
Bush is a lousy president because he is lousy, not because of his religion. There is nothing Biblical or "Christian" about what he is doing or what he has done. The same holds true for Huckabee. The facts is that he has been doing a good job of getting his name in the news and the Chuck Norris ads are certainly more interesting than any other ad out there. Most of the polling dtat I have seen seems to indicate that Huckabee's religion isn't that big of a factor.
Indeed--Rickey agrees on that last point. The encouraging thing is that a) people want the old guard out and b) we're apparently no longer racist idiots.
Obama's polling pretty damned well in NH too. If he wins tonight, he's the defacto Democratic candidate. Rickey is overjoyed about this... Hilary as the Democratic contender scares the shit out of him.
Although I think we can file that under the "Non-controversial assertion of the week" category, no?
Well, I would think it would be "non-controversial" but others might disagree.
Mike,
The IU point guard is D’J’Barack and he’s leading the Big Ten in assists.
It is kind of encouraging to see a black take the caucus in Iowa.
I’ve lately undergone a change in my perception of racism—I used to think is was the disease from which hatred grew. Now I believe the hate was there first and the racism was merely its expression. Once intolerant southerners became Republicans, racism ceased to exist even though they were the same people who voted for George Wallace, Ross Barnet and Lester Maddox (surely I am not the only one to have noticed this.)
The hate vote is still with us and not just in the south. It is just more socially acceptable to hate Mexicans, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans, hence the illegal immigration furor and to hate gays, hence “defense of marriage.” And judging from G.W. Bush and Mitt Romney there may even be a market for hating uninsured children.
I am afraid what’s loosing it for Hillary is Maoist pant suits. Ol’ Thunder Thighs is giving polyester a bad name.
I am sure that there are millions of other people that vote based on some quality that others think is not important (such as appearence, party affiliation, home state, etc.)
Also stupid reasons to vote for someone.
Most of the polling dtat I have seen seems to indicate that Huckabee's religion isn't that big of a factor.
I haven't seen that. I've heard of -- and met on occasion -- people who will vote for another evangelical because he's "one of them."
It is just more socially acceptable to hate Mexicans, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans . . . what’s loosing it for Hillary is Maoist pant suits.
Again proving how illogical most Americans are. After all, who's gonna make those pant suits? They don't wanna buy stuff made in China, do they???
Where is this magical land where people vote for candidates based on 'important' factors?
I have no doubt that Huckabeen enjoys a fair amount of support from evangelicals, but if you peruse the Christian BB's, you'll also find a great deal of support for Ron Paul.
Where is this magical land where people vote for candidates based on 'important' factors?
Why right here in the 'Nabe, of course! Our primary is on April 1. Of course.
Post a Comment
<< Home