But all the Republicans would make horrible Supreme Court choices.

Exactly.

I take my atheism with religious fervor and I believe evolution theory is one of the crowning achievements of science. I would never vote for Huck. Having said that, his Christianism leaves me indifferent. If that makes him more sensitive to the wretched of the earth, all the better. He'll probably turn out to be as much of a loon as the others. But if his biggest crime is to love Jesus and free rapists who've spent 15 years in jail, then I say so what?

His foreign affairs incompetence is a plus. I'd like my president to be incapable of placing any country on a map. Since apparently the only purpose of placing a country on a map is to better bomb it!

His foreign affairs incompetence is a plus. I'd like my president to be incapable of placing any country on a map. Since apparently the only purpose of placing a country on a map is to better bomb it!

Well, now you've gone too far. I don't think Bush, even today, could locate either Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. As long as the guidance systems in our missiles can find Tehran, our President doesn't have to.

Huckabee may have freed a rapist, but I doubt that was because of anything other than politics. The man in question, Wayne Dumond, was widely seen by right-wingers as having been unjustly imprisoned by Clinton, and that more than anything seems to have influenced Huckabee's decision (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html).

It's also telling that when attacked by Romney over his use of pardons, Huckabee, in typical faux-macho Republican style, chose to brag about how many people he executed as governor -- in contrast to that limp-wristed Romney who was governor of a state that doesn't have a death penalty.

As for his ignorance on foreign policy -- don't we all remember how ignorant Bush was? How he couldn't name any foreign leaders and had barely seen the world? That ignorance didn't stop him from invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. And when Huckabee was asked by Chris Matthews in one of the debates about whether he would consult Congress before attacking Iran, he once again adopted the faux-macho tough guy b.s. and said he would attack Iran "in a heartbeat" -- without Congress' approval.

That said, of course Huckabee isn't "uniquely dangerous." I'm more worried about a Clinton administration myself, because I'm sure good liberals like "Tristero" will be the first ones defending the latest abuses of power committed by their "team" (with Republicans arguing the abuses don't go far enough).

I'd have to agree with charlie. Huck isn't some golly-gee-shucks feller jes' doin unto others the way he'd like done, and the fact that he freed a rapist because of the lunatic fringe who think Bill Clinton is the Arkansas ninja who kills all who cross him says he's too fucking dumb to be allowed near heavy machinery, let alone the presidency. The decent Christians are the ordinary people who just live simple, honest lives and never preen about it. Anyone who babbles about Jesus in front of a camera or microphone is 99.8% likely to be completely full of shit.

That said, I agree with Atrios' response to Tristero - bring this shit out into the light of day. It's not going to go away on its own. The Scopes trial helped keep them removed from politics for a long time; we need periodic reminders of just why it is we value science and reason more than Iron Age mythology, and if shining a spotlight on the "Save Terri!" crowd is one of them, so be it. Plus, I dearly hope there's lots of hard feelings from the snake-handlers once Huck gets the full treatment from the establishment Republicans and they're expected to support someone like Romney in the fall. I sense a huge wave of evangelical voter apathy brewin'...

Scopes didn't keep them out of politics any more than the reaction to Klan influence in Northern elections in the '20s made people in politics less racist. It just made both groups realize they had to be less obvious about it.

Colorado:

Five percent of the state's 1 million residents at the time [1921-1925] -- claimed membership in the secretive, racist group. ... Then, almost as suddenly as it had appeared, the Klan faded from view, its leaders discredited by an awakening populace.

Oregon:

The Klan also backed several candidates for local and statewide offices in the election of 1922, campaigns that were vigorously opposed by anti-Klan Oregonians. Despite this opposition, Olcott, the Republican incumbent, lost the gubernatorial race by a wide margin to Democrat Walter Pierce, who was endorsed by the Klan.

The Klan’s influence on state politics was fleeting, however. It faced strong opposition from many Oregonians as well as internal strife caused by leadership struggles, organizational fragmentation, and a number of state and national scandals involving prominent Klansmen. By the end of the 1920s, the KKK’s influence on both state and national politics had all but disappeared.

In the US overall:

In part, the decline of the Klan came from the continued success of the Republican Party in meeting the political needs of "Nordic" Americans and from the success of non-Nordics in making a permanent home for themselves in the Democratic Party. In part, it came from the Klan's perceived ineffectualness. It could not make good on its promises to enforce Prohibition or reform morals, except in localities where its members expressed deeply held community values. It could not "take back" political control of American cities. In some, such as Worcester, opponents made it all too clear who was in charge. Nor could it reduce the role of Catholics or immigrants in American public life.

So he released a rapist for political reasons. And maybe he pardoned or commuted the sentences or 1,200 felons because that's how you play hardball in Arkansas politics. Boo to them, Little Rock Machiavellis!

But would someone explain to me why Saving Patient Schiavo is worse than killing a bill
that would raise the tax rate of Henry Kravis to that of his cleaning lady? Yes, that would be Chuck Schumer: a Democrat. And I'll be happy to argue why the road from Schumer to Shock and Awe is much shorter than the one from the Schiavo brigade to the central morgue in Baghdad.

christ how deluded liberals are . and of their own doing .
any one with an open mind can get all the relevant info to see how fake obama is and is made up of same old cloth .
unfortunately no amount of arguing is going to penetrate . just see the major dem blogs and comments part .

christ how deluded liberals are . and of their own doing .
any one with an open mind can get all the relevant info to see how fake obama is and is made up of same old cloth .
unfortunately no amount of arguing is going to penetrate . just see the major dem blogs and comments part .

They're all made up of the "same old cloth." (badri)

The Empire has no new cloth.

And cloth makes the candidates.

After his victory, I believe Huckabee used the word "populist" to describe his campaign. I wouldn't doubt that that helped to drop the stock market 200 points today. Populists from the right, however, tend to end up in the laps of the rich, so I'm not terribly confident in his brand of populism.

And there are plenty of reasons for disliking what Huckabee stands for beyond his parole policy. I see his willful ignorance in things scientific as a self-limiting condition, but I hear that "Christian," which appeared in most of his Iowa literature, is missing from his pamphlets in New Hampshire. He may be real Christian but he ain't that crazy.

After his victory, I believe Huckabee used the word "populist" to describe his campaign. I wouldn't doubt that that helped to drop the stock market 200 points today. Populists from the right, however, tend to end up in the laps of the rich, so I'm not terribly confident in his brand of populism.

And there are plenty of reasons for disliking what Huckabee stands for beyond his parole policy. I see his willful ignorance in things scientific as a self-limiting condition, but I hear that "Christian," which appeared in most of his Iowa literature, is missing from his pamphlets in New Hampshire. He may be real Christian but he ain't that crazy.

Gore's problem with Dukakis was that he released a murderer who went on to commit rape.

What you just said is flatly untrue and (hopefully) shows that you did not read the link. Oh, and the rest of your response suggests that you think everyone working for the Republican Party back then was as stupid as a pundit. In other words, you assume that none of them knew anything about the nominee's record and none of them could read.

You are also ignoring the larger issue about media hatred of Gore and the Clintons (again, hopefully because you did not read the link).

Is there any of the candidates YOU would willingly follow. (Ex: MY Sargent in the army, saw him once after we got out and I still think I would follow him through the gates of hell. Every woman I've had a relationship I followed through the gates of hell. Possibly Temptation and the Devil himself--same-same) EVERYONE of this crowd I couldn't follow through the checkout line at Wally World without deep reservations and a pistol stuck in my back.

Mike: How about Nan? Would you follow her through the gates of HELL, or is it just a phone fling?

Is there anything to this post except Tristero’s lack of equivalence?

I greatly appreciate yours and Jon's work; I think it's important to keep perspective on the roots of strife and the seeds of chaos and all, but sometimes it seems you conflate the two party's machinations for no reason other than to reaffirm your own preconceived notions. Calling out Tristero because she didn’t include Clinton in a screed against Huckabee is one example. It's like you have “High Broderism” but inverted, or something; where bipartisanship is still the penultimate goal, but reflective of the disease instead of the cure.

Bernard: Let's get ONE thing straight. Nancy Pelosi IS a failure to HER oath of office and to the country as a whole and I have NOT thought any different since I started posting her number. She IS however the Speaker of The House THE ONLY DOOR through which IMPEACHMENT can occur at this time. I do NOT love Nancy as I hardly know the woman. I feel WE would be a better off with Nancy as President for the next year by virtue of the fact that IF she became President it would be through IMPEACHMENT. She would know that SHE ALSO COULD BE IMPEACHED. As it stands TODAY NO ONE IS IMPEACHABLE. I would suppose that someone as intellegent and educated as YOU, SIR, would NOT need me to explain such obvious facts of OUR situation. THAT'S WHY I post her number. (1-202-225-0100 call it and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT)

Bernard:
Please stop taunting Mike. He's on his second keyboard this week.

Bernard,

I don't get the "new" militant atheism. It only spurs a reaction from the devout - to make them more so.

From a logical point of view it's the wrong kind of evangelism. From a psychological point of view its the wrong method of persuasion.

It does however provide a good amount of re-enforcement for internal cohesion of the group by riling up those inside to hate the external other.

But then isn't overcoming this type of tribalism exactly the problem to which atheism is supposed to be the solution?

At least we know that Mike can interpret "Nan" as Nancy. That probably rules out the advanced-new-spambot theory. Most of his previous posts would only require a list of human-chosen responses to words or phrases.

Patience: good point. I flaunted my atheism because I thought the line was clever -- which is all atheism ever got me. Fascinating topic.

Mike: The worst thing about you is that I actually agree with you.

Everyone: I watched Kucinich's speech tonight and then Hill's. Yes I did! It was like watching Laurence Olivier followed by someone who kept wondering what the hell am I doing in some god-forsaken hall in NH when I should be playing chess in the Situation Room.

I'm less keen on Kucinich since he always throws support to the (D) candidate in the end. Makes it hard to believe in someone, you know?

"And I'll be happy to argue why the road from Schumer to Shock and Awe is much shorter than the one from the Schiavo brigade to the central morgue in Baghdad."

Bernard, I for one would be interested to hear this argument, and not just because of the pith with which you refer to it.

(as far as the numbering of scumbag types goes, I imagine there are at least as many types as the eskimos supposedly have names for types of snow.)

But would someone explain to me why Saving Patient Schiavo is worse than killing a bill
that would raise the tax rate of Henry Kravis to that of his cleaning lady?

I'd rather stick to the original point: I agree Tristero is being overwrought; there isn't anything "uniquely dangerous" about Huckabee. However, that doesn't mean he's a harmless goof only guilty of loving him a little too much Jesus, and I don't think pointing that out requires an obligatory "But Generic Democrat is bad too!!!1!" example. We all know that. None of us ended up here by searching for pictures of Britney's crotch, so we're all pretty much au courant with the abysmal state of the so-called liberal party.

1. Any of the democrats is better than Bush.
2. But all of the democrats are tools of the
establishment too, and only a few more crumbs
will fall off the table for our rising under-
class if one of them is elected.
3. The American people will continue to make
choices out of their "collective wisdom" we
progressives can only deplore or regret. (Nixon
2x, Reagan 2x, Bush II 2x etc).
4. They "like" certain personalities that appeal
to their sense of folksiness and delusion of
a classless America.
5. Science and reason don't add up to a hill of
beans put next to likeability, love for Jesus
and faith and hope and what Melville described
so well in "The Confidence Man."
Snake oil has been and remains our national
beverage of choice.
Only a major catastrophe could temporarily rattle THIS cage.

I don't get the "new" militant atheism. It only spurs a reaction...

Isn't this what every oppressed group hears, as they begin to rise against their oppression? Every movement needs its Malcolm X, as well as its Martin Luther King.

What you call the "new militant atheism" is really the stirrings of a new movement, saying exactly what the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and the women's rights movement have said: we are human beings, deserving equal respect.

Doubt that atheists qualify as an oppressed group? Atheism is now the only legal behavior that is an effective bar to elected office. We've now learned that it's possible for an African-American man to be considered a "viable" candidate for President, and my own Representative, Tammy Baldwin, is the first out lesbian to be elected to Congress. Both owe their success to the off-putting "militants" who preceded them. Seems like a pretty good example to follow.

JV: Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to take it up. Time to create a bit of controversy around these parts.

But, Steve B, Obama is not "off-putting" any longer and won't be, running and when/if elected.
Hope without "putting off"(or out or down) is toothless. Who's out there, or in there--in the establishment--still biting and willing to have the dogcatchers of the corporations and Wall Street and the media marginalize or neuter you?

"Re. the bad media hatred of Clinton/Gore, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Those guys were prez and VP for 8 years and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them."

Well, yes and no. I don't agree with "The Daily Howler's" Gore-worship. Somerby was Gore's college roommate, btw. But in reading that blog from time to time I gradually realized he's talking about the same phenomenon that Chomsky writes about. Chomsky knows perfectly well that many of the foreign leaders the US government demonizes really aren't very nice people, but he also knows there's a double standard in press coverage of enemy atrocities versus our own. The same thing happens in domestic politics. You don't have to like Gore or Clinton to know it's true that during the 90's and after, the press was a lot harder on them than it was on the Republicans. During the 2000 election, Gore was crucified for things he never said and Bush was given a pass.

The irony is that Gore and Clinton really were awful people, but you never heard much about their arms sales to Turkey when they were slaughtering Kurds, or their cynical use of the sanctions to hurt Iraqi civilians, or the way Clinton dishonestly put all the blame on Arafat for the failure at Camp David, etc....
Instead, they were hated by the Washington press corps because of various trivial things they supposedly did or said, some of them invented.

Somerby's theory is that the people in the Washington press corps are rich and naturally identify with the Republicans (except on social issues, but they don't seriously think they will ever face a situation where they can't obtain an abortion for themselves or a family member). It's not that the Democrats are truly progressive--it's just that the press has swung so far to the right on most issues that even a timid centrist looks like a socialist to them.

hf: I'm not a spambot, I'm only a man---only one man.

Bernard, this may be irrelevant to your larger point, but I feel it necessary to clarify something.
Mike Huckabee stands accused of releasing one specific convicted Arkansas rapist simply because one of the rapist's victims was related to former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and because the Right Wing Noise Machine was grasping for anything that would make Clinton look bad. The RWNM canard accused Clinton of pulling strings to get an innocent Wayne DuMond railroaded; releasing DuMond, in this narrative, would put egg on President Clinton's face. The release was granted in spite of Huckabee having ample evidence at his disposal-- including pleading letters from other women who accused DuMond of sexual assault-- that the pardon was a bad idea.

So Huckabee isn't just accused of making a bad judgment in good faith. He is accused of consciously endangering his own constituents in exchange for scoring cheap political points against a political enemy. Now that alone qualifies him as an average president and a good Republican. However, it also makes his claim to holiness seem a bit more sinister. (Especially considering that if Huckabee is half the populist he postures to be, he could easily have raked Clinton over the coals for the latter's NAFTA-approving, TelCom-servicing, corporate-loving ways.)

CS: I read something like that in his wikipedia entry. Sounds like a lot of pettiness on both sides.

It's tragic that a released prisoner would go on and murder someone. But this will always happen on occasion no matter how good the paroling system is. That's a chance one has to take. And what I am saying is that people, like Gore, who are suggesting that it's not worth taking cannot possibly be called progressive.

We can push that logic. Virtually all violent crime is committed by people making less than the median income. So let's lock up everyone below that level of income. I guarantee you the crime level will go down.

And obviously we need alcohol prohibition, too, because of drunk driving, wife abuse, etc.

A progressive agenda has to be willing to sacrifice security for, shall we say, higher values, like human dignity.

*misdemeanor at most, i mean

I would like the fed govt. to just follow the guidelines defined in Leary v. U.S. Government (1969)

Wayne DuMond served 15 years in jail for a rape.

But according to his wiki entry:

A decorated Vietnam-era military veteran, DuMond told reporters that he "helped slaughter a village of Cambodians.

I guess he got the medal for that.

Yes.