Life of Brian made you think, but who wants to think?

By Richard Barry

As you might know, for two decades GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was a Baptist preacher. It's perhaps not surprising that a preacher might say some things up there at the alter that could unhelpful in a political career. Mother Jones notes that Huckabee kept those tapes "under wraps" during the 2008 presidential campaign, probably as a precaution.

There are a few sermons in existence available to the public in which Huckabee talks about our "pleasure-mad society," the evils of alcohol, prostitution, and pornography - the usual stuff.

But that was not the extent of it:

Above all, Huckabee was upset with Monty Python's 1979 movie, Life of Brian. Huckabee was hardly alone in condemning Life of Brian, which follows the story of a Jewish man, Brian, who is mistaken for the Messiah because he was born on the same day as Jesus. The film was banned in Ireland; picketed in New Jersey; denounced by a coalition of Christian and Jewish leaders; and canceled in Columbia, South Carolina after a last-minute intervention from Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Per Huckabee:

There was a time in this country when a movie like Life of Brian which, I just read—thank God the theatres in Little Rock decided not to show, but it's showing all over the Fort Worth–Dallas area, which is a mockery, which is a blasphemy against the very name of Jesus Christ, and I can remember a day even as young as I am when that would not have happened in this country or in the city in the South.

I'm not even going to bother thinking about the horrific acts some have committed in the name of blasphemy in the context of the potential logical conclusions of Huckabee's comments. Too easy.

I do, however, thank Huck for reminding me how much I loved Life of Brian as a hilarious and powerful example socio-political analysis.

Happy Sunday (and Mother's Day too).

Republican hopefuls suck up for 2016 votes at Anti-Freedom Summit in New Hampshire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Your 2016 GOP: Over the cliff, in the name of freedom.

Yes, the 2016 campaign has already begun, and some big-name Republicans were in New Hampshire yesterday for a right-wing pissing contest:

The Republican presidential primary is up and running in New Hampshire, where conservative prospects lined up in Manchester Saturday for the first cattle call of the 2016 cycle. 

Speakers at the New Hampshire Freedom Summit, which was sponsored by Citizens United and Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity, included Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, all of whom would be top tier presidential contenders should they run.

Donald Trump also spoke.

Huckabee seemed especially determined to show he could compete for conservative votes against politicians like Paul and Cruz, who have each earned a devoted following among tea party activists. While the two senators mostly stuck to their usual talking points, Huckabee offered an extra large serving of red meat.

"My gosh, I'm beginning to think that there's more freedom in North Korea sometimes than there is in the United States," he said in his remarks. "When I go to the airport, I have to get in the surrender position, people put hands all over me, and I have to provide photo ID and a couple of different forms and prove that I really am not going to terrorize the airplane – but if I want to go vote I don't need a thing."

Huckabee is apparently trying to position himself as the stupidest Republican in the field, and on the merits of his comments yesterday he's succeeding. Though of course the competition is fierce.

It's hardly worth commenting on someone who thinks North Korea is a freer place than the United States (and presumably the entire Western world), but it's awfully rich of any Republican to criticize the national security state that has arisen in the wake of 9/11 given that it was the warmongering and torture-loving Republican administration of Bush and Cheney that put those restrictions in place. And it's simply ridiculous to suggest that for some reason airport security is akin to election security given that voter fraud (according to the evidence as opposed to Republican scaremongering) amounts to a microscopic problem that hasn't even come close to impacting the outcome of any election, whereas lapses in airport security (and, more broadly, all security involving air travel) can lead to event such as, you know, 9/11. Seriously, anyone who cares at all about what happened on 9/11, including the families of the victims, should take Huckabee's comment as a gross and insensitive insult. Because that's what it was, along with being insanely stupid. Perhaps he should go to North Korea for some re-education.

Otherwise, though, it's awfully rich of any Republican to talk about freedom when pretty much that entire party is doing its utmost to deny freedom to so many Americans, like the freedom to vote, the freedom to have access to affordable health care (including birth control), the freedom to have one's reproductive rights respected, the freedom to receive equal pay for equal work, the freedom to have the same opportunities to succeed as the rich and privileged, and so on.

But, no, this is the party that only wants freedom for the rich and privileged, and for people to own whatever firearms they want without restriction, for companies to be able to do whatever they want without regulation, for people to be able to use their theocratic Christianity to discriminate against anyone they want, and so on.

In other words, they want freedom for themselves, everyone else be damned to the dystopia of their right-wing desires.

Yes, they talk up FREEDOM, but Republicans are anything but the liberty-loving freedom fighters they claim to be.

New Jersey's top newspaper backs away from Chris Christie

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Star-Ledger is now regretting its endorsement of the scandal-ridden bullying blowhard of a governor:

During the fall campaign, the liberal TV hero Rachel Maddow ran a stinging segment ridiculing The Star-Ledger’s endorsement of Gov. Chris Christie. How could we endorse him, she asked, when we criticized him so harshly in the same piece? Had we lost our minds?

Not quite. An endorsement is not a love embrace. It is a choice between two flawed human beings. And the winner is often the less bad option.

But yes, we blew this one...

Yes, we knew Christie was a bully. But we didn’t know his crew was crazy enough to put people’s lives at risk in Fort Lee as a means to pressure the mayor. We didn’t know he would use Hurricane Sandy aid as a political slush fund. And we certainly didn’t know that Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer was sitting on a credible charge of extortion by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno.

Even before this scandal train got rolling, this endorsement was a close call and a split vote among the editorial board. We regard Christie as the most overrated politician in the country, at least until now, a man who is better at talking than governing. We criticized him for trashing the working poor, for his tea party approach to the environment, for his opposition to gay marriage and a livable minimum wage. And so on.

Yes, and so on. Basically, despite "hesitations" and "deep reservations," the Star-Ledger endorsed Christie because he'd done some good things (and obviously wasn't/isn't a right-wing Republican fanatic) and because his opponent, Democrat Barbara Buono, was a weak alternative. So much for all that.

But, as editor Tom Moran writes, despite everything that's happened, all the new revelations and all that we now know about the governor, Christie is still preferable to the rest of his party, and in 2016 would be better than, say, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz.

Yes, as terrible as Christie is, he's just not as terrible as the rest of the Republican Party.

That tells you a lot about the current state of the GOP.

Benghazi again

By Mustang Bobby

Republicans never run out of dead horses to whip: 

Republican lawmakers, who have spent months seeking to tie President Obama to last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, are increasingly focusing their probe on a new target: former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The GOP-led investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others now centers heavily on the State Department and whether officials there deliberately misled the public about the nature of the assault.

Three State Department officials are scheduled to testify before a House committee on Wednesday about the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

"I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “...We're going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton."

On Monday, a Fox News anchor asked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) how damaging the issue is for Clinton. "I think it's damaging because it happened under her watch," replied Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding Wednesday's hearing.

It's pretty obvious that this is a preemptive attack on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and the Republicans are going all in on it; Mike Huckabee said this will be worse than Watergate. (Note: Watergate is the Godwin's Law of scandals: the longer the discussion goes on, the chances that someone will compare a scandal to Watergate increase to a factor of dead certainty.)

It was terrible that people were killed in the attack in Libya last September. But it's worse that the Republicans are exploiting it for no other reason than politics, and their crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Stevens wouldn't seem so craven if they had bothered to look into the lies and deceptions that killed and wounded several thousand American soldiers in Iraq.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The Gregory Brothers take on the war on drugs

By Richard K. Barry

I went into my digital New York Times account this morning and found this interesting video on page one. It was produced by a group called The Gregory Brothers. The Wiki on this says that "The Gregory Brothers digitally manipulate recorded voices of politicians, news anchors and political pundits to conform to a melody, making the figures appear to sing."

 Yes, that would seem to be what they do. I thought it was fun for a Saturday.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Mike Huckabee is an idiot extraordinaire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee slammed the president and Democrats for their "war on women" campaign rhetoric — observing that Obama's second term Cabinet is likely to include few women.

"Now a lot of those females who supported Barack Obama are scratching their heads, and they're saying, 'Whoa! How come there is so much testosterone in the Obama Cabinet and so little estrogen?'" the Arkansas Republican said on his radio program Wednesday. "Because if you look around, all of these high-powered appointments that he is making are all white guys."

Since when is a right-wing theocrat like Huckabee, or really any Republican concerned about diversity, whether it's race or sex or anything else? And really, what women bring to the table is... estrogen?

Perhaps someone ought to remind him of the vicious Republican assault on Susan Rice.

Fox only likes certain amendments

By Richard K. Barry

Isn't free speech a wonderful thing? Not if you work at Fox, apparently. New York magazine is reporting that the network doesn't want its on-air personalities talking about gun control, at least not over this past weekend:

According to sources, David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox's weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. "This network is not going there," Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange. The directive created a rift inside the network. According to a source, one political panelist e-mailed Clark that Bloomberg was booked on Meet the Press to talk about gun control. Clark responded, "We haven't buried the children yet, we're not discussing it." During the weekend, one frustrated producer went around Clark to lobby Michael Clemente, Fox's executive vice-president for news editorial, but Clemente upheld the mandate. "We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control," the source said.

Clearly Fox is taking the issue of future gun violence seriously as indicated by the geniuses at Fox & Friends who invited Gov. Mike Huckabee to come on the show and discuss the topic, "do we need to get prayer back into our schools?" Gee, I missed the program, but my guess is that he thought that would be a grand idea. Okay, problem solved!

Horror in Connecticut; a violent, gun-obsessed America gone mad

By Michael J.W. Stickings

After what happened in Connecticut on Friday, I have little desire to write. About anything. It's not because I don't have anything to say, it's because I'm so saddened and so sickened that part of me doesn't want to care anymore about the United States. And I wonder why the hell I bother.

There isn't much I can say about the horrific mass shooting that left so many people, including so many children, dead. No words seems adequate to capture it. It's not that horrific things don't happen all the time, it's that a horrific thing like this touches us deeply because it was so close to us, to all of us with children, to all of us who know people who have children, to all of us who are capable of human feeling.

But I will say this...

This was not an isolated incident. This was not some one-off committed by a lone psychopath with no connection to anything else going on in society. No, this was yet another horrifically violent act, mass murder committed with guns, in a violent and gun-obsessed culture that refuses that deal with its own violent obsessions and tendencies.

This was worse than anything I can remember, including Columbine, yet it was also more of the same.

You won't hear this from conservatives, of course. Theocratic assholes like Mike Huckabee say that this happened because God was removed from schools. Others will say -- and you'll hear this all over Fox News especially, if you haven't already -- that now is not the time to talk politics, and so let's not talk about guns and gun control, shame on you liberals for politicizing a tragedy. Still others will say it wasn't the guns it was the madman with the guns. And, yes, there have already been calls for guns in schools, as if having more guns in society will somehow make society safer.

These people can all go fuck themselves.

Read more »

Craziest Republican of the day: Mike Huckabee and Rep. Steve King -- it's a tie!

By Richard K. Barry

(Ed. note: I would just like to note that this is Rep. King's ninth appearance as CRD. Congratulations, King Krazy! No one else is even close. And when your craziness stands out in today's Republican Party, you know you've accomplished something truly special. For the last two, with links to the others, see here and here. -- MJWS)

You know you're in trouble as a Republican when the only conservative media personality who will give you a friendly interview is Mike Huckabee. Yes, disgraced Rep. Todd Akin went to Mike to explain himself over his "legitimate rape" comments and Mike responded with some massive stupidity of his own, suggesting that rapes, though "horrible tragedies," had produced admirable human beings.

And then Rep. Steve King, one of the more conservative members of Congress, told an Iowa reporter  that he had "never heard of a girl getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest." Now, King may think that he's a bit more clever than Akin because he added this little bit of a disclaimer:

Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter.

Glad he cleared that up.

I just can't decide who is crazier or dumber, so I'll have to call it a draw. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Akin's in it to win it

By Mustang Bobby

(Ed. note: Of course, this Republican opposition to Akin is just posturing. They're doing it because he's made himself toxic and is polluting the Republican brand. (Akin is, or at least was, well up in the polls and might still win this thing, though it will be more difficult without overt party support.) And of course all these Republicans want him to win. And if he does, he'll just move his extremism from one house to the other, settling in comfortably with his new senatorial colleagues. And this will all be a thing of the past, one more example of Republican craziness blending in with all the rest. -- MJWS)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) is staying in the Missouri Senate race despite calls from every Republican in and out of office to get the hell out for speaking plainly about the party's stand on life and women:

Mitt Romney, the GOP's presidential standard-bearer, joined a broad chorus of Republicans urging Akin to step aside for the good of his party. "Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong, and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Romney said.

But after two days of apologizing, Akin grew angry Tuesday, allowing a deadline to pass on an easier way to withdraw from the contest. The congressman made clear that he would not apologize for his belief that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape.

"I misspoke one word in one sentence in one day," he said on a radio talk show hosted by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. "I haven't done anything that's morally and ethically wrong."

[...]

Immediately after his appearance on Huckabee's show, party leaders who had been sending Akin signals to quit the race left no doubt about where they stood.

"When the future of our country is at stake, sorry is not sufficient. To continue serving his country in the honorable way he has served throughout his career, it is time for Congressman Akin to step aside," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

A few hours later, Romney issued his statement calling on Akin to drop out. He was followed by Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who reaffirmed plans to abandon a $5 million campaign for Akin. "If he continues with this misguided campaign, it will be without the support and resources of the NRSC," said Brian Walsh, an NRSC spokesman.

And he blamed the liberal media for all of his troubles, of course. That would include Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

The real liberal media would much rather Mr. Akin stay in the race; he's the poster child for the Republican Party's pro-life stand. After all, they've just adopted a plank in their platform that calls for a constitutional amendment to grant personhood status to a one-celled organism and no abortions at all ever.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Akin is the most honest spokesman the GOP has. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

New Republican reality show: Real World GOP Agenda 2012

By tmcbpatriot

I never thought I would see this day, but it's beautiful. Sadly, I am sure it will pass without so much as a memory of the amazing opportunity that has fallen into the laps of Democrats. Of course, I am referring to the monstrous comments by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) about "legitimate rape." If ever there was a reality show for the GOP, this is it.

Will Democrats f**k this up? Of course they will. Why? Because somehow Dems have become known as the party of civility. Why is this? And why do we embrace it? Why can't we just be the party of facts and intelligence and leave civility at the f**king door? This is politics, is it not? When has politics known civility?

Let's face facts: Republicans are falling over themselves to kick this Akin monster to the curb. FOX tried to deflect and deflate, and even doubled down:

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and onetime Republican presidential candidate, opined that although rapes are "horrible tragedies," they sometimes produce amazing people.

Seriously, that's a real quote. Problem is Mike, everyone is looking at Akin, and perhaps you too, as a monster. So much so that Republicans are running from this guy faster than Sean Hannity after receiving a draft notice in the mail. Even Rush Limbaugh, RUSH F**king LIMBAUGH!, is running away from his comments. Meanwhile, Democrats are begging Akin to stay in the race.

This is big! Really big! Akin exposed the real Republican agenda and it was broadcast across the airwaves for all to hear, and goddamn, it was horrific!

Make no mistake, what we all heard Todd Akin say about rape, and his definition of it therein, was just another day in the life of a Republican in today's GOP. These are extreme people who will do anything to get elected, people with views so extreme they may actually be fascist, as opposed to the lip service paid to President Obama about his being some kind of socialist. It is manipulation of the highest order, where up is down, welfare is for lazy people, guns are for our own good, and the government should get out of our lives – except in cases of rape, gays marrying, blacks voting, and making sure Mexicans don't shovel our shit, pick our fruit, or mow our lawns.

The bottom line is that Todd Akin went way off message with the real agenda of the GOP in 2012 and it has threatened their whole plan to re-take the Senate and, god forbid, the White House.

Jobs? LOL!

Abortion has been the GOP's agenda even since taking back the House in 2010. Is anyone still dumb enough to believe that Republicans want to help, that they want to give people a decent wage, that they want to keep our taxes low or put us back to work with affordable health care? Did eight years of W. even happen in these people's universe? Did the last four years, with its record obstructionism by this Congress?

Is ignorance bliss or is it just plain ignorance?

Republicans don't want a minimum wage, they don't want to pay for infrastructure projects or green initiatives, they don't want public schools, and they don’t want the EPA. Last I checked, these were places where jobs existed and people benefitted from them.

So what do they want? They want private schools, private prisons, war with Iran, fracking, and lower taxes for themselves while the rest of us pick up the slack. Republicans care nothing for "we the people." Todd Akin and the collective Republican freakout that is happening right now proves it.

If Akin stays in the race, they have to support a crazy man. They have to take 100% claim of the Tea Party as nothing more than the GOP's insane cousin on steroids. They have to take responsibility for a man who blatantly spilled the beans about how the GOP feels about women's rights and their disdain for separation of church and state. And they claim the Constitution actually means something. Ha!

Republicans are not shocked by what Akin said. They support it! But it's less than three months before the election and this is supposed to be about the economy and imaginary jobs. That is what their talking points dictate. No diversions!

You think Republicans are surprised by Todd Akin, as if they didn't know his extreme views? Don't make me come over there and slap you. You can't be that dumb!

Media, Democrats, Tweeters, anyone out there who can help get the message out... please... Todd Akin is the Republican Party and they want him out because he pulled the curtain away and the rug out from under them and both have been blown away in his sh*t storm. He said rape when he should have said jobs, economy, and evil Obama. He let slip what Republicans are really all about and all they will focus on if re-elected.

So please, before their Death Star is operational again, before independents go back to not paying attention, get in there with your star fighters and let's blow this thing and go home. There is a very, very small window to do this and the response must be spot on or it will ricochet off the side. And don't be expecting the Millennium Falcon to swoop in at the last minute, because it ain't coming. It's all you.

Surely we must have a Luke Skywalker with the force to get this done. Is it Obama? Lando? He may be the best we have. To that I say, Mr. President, you may fire when ready. Just don't turn off your targeting computer just yet. Obi Wan may be one of them.

(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)

Looks like anti-gay bigotry runs in the Palin family

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So much so, in fact, that you have three-year-old Tripp calling his aunt Willow a "faggot." Followed by Willow and mom Bristol laughing.

Wonder where he picked that up...

Sarah must be very, very proud.

(Seriously, I'm sure she's over the moon.)

**********

Tell me why anyone would be interested in watching anything involving the Palins? Particularly their version of "reality." And particularly these twits.

**********

Hey Huckabee, you're a major-ass bigot. Shouldn't you book this kid for your show?

Jeb Bush takes a shot at today's GOP

By Richard K. Barry

They said they'd let us know
about our application.

If you think Mitt Romney's campaign will put Obama surrogate Cory Booker's critical comments about Obama's attacks on Bain Capital into numerous campaign ads, you're right. If you think they will do the same with Bill Clinton's statements praising Romney's stellar business career, you're right about that too. But, ultimately, the best self-inflicted wound from a campaign may come from recent comments by Jeb Bush that neither his father nor Ronald Reagan could get elected in todays radical right-wing Republican party:

Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don't — as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, adding that he views the hyper-partisan moment as "temporary."

Back to my dad's time and Ronald Reagan's time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support. Reagan would be criticized for doing the things that he did.

Jeb also took his shots at Obama for his own partisanship, which is what you would expect. But saying the Republican party as currently constituted is blindly partisan, and having the words come from one of the most respected members of the GOP could be very useful to the Democrats.

It's not particularly new. Even Mike Huckabee once said the same thing about Ronald Reagan having a hard time getting nominated for the presidency in this iteration of the party, but it's still a very intriguing perspective.

You'll recall Indiana GOP Senate nominee Richard Mourdock saying that bi-partisanship means Democrats agreeing to do what Republicans want done. Yeah, well, that's Jeb's point.

The ad almost writes itself: one part Mourdock, two parts Jeb, with the message, "Today's Republican Party doesn't care about governing America. They just want to impose their radical agenda. Even Jeb Bush says Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP."

Compared to this, Booker and Clinton would be small potatoes.

Forget your enemies. It's your friends who will bury you.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Citizens United gets nasty (and not in a good way)

By Richard K. Barry 

I put one finger here, and...

I don't quite know what to make of the controversy to do with incredibly nasty fundraising letter sent out by Citizens United. They are a conservative non-profit organization made famous by the Supreme Court decision that now makes it possible, almost mandatory, for obscene amounts of money to pollute the political process.

BuzzFeed got its hands on the letter sent out to donors over Gov. Mike Huckabee's signature. The language in it was quite disgusting, even for a conservative organization, which is saying something. For example, it contained this line: "President Obama has surrounded himself with morally repugnant political whores with misshapen values and gutter-level ethics." Whoa! Really? That's not nice.

The implication, of course, is that the letter was "written" by Huckabee, although everyone knows big names don't write these things, they just allow their name to be used. Having said that, these luminaries are pretty sensitive about what is said in their name and, at least in my experience, either they or "their people" sign off on the content. Within a big campaign, where the candidate is too busy, a campaign manager might do the authorization, but there is a necessary degree of trust between candidate and manager that you wouldn't find between an organization like Citizen's United and someone of Huckabee's profile.

In a statement to Politico, Huck said this:

This was a complete surprise to me. I most certainly did not approve such language and would never have used that kind of repulsive rhetoric. I repudiate that language, find it offensive to me, and have ordered that it be pulled immediately.

Initially, Jeff Marschner, a spokesman for Citizens United, "categorically denied" the letter was sent by his organization. Some time after, Marschner corrected himself to say that the letter was sent as a test. Here is his statement:

Neither Governor Huckabee nor Dave Bossie, President of Citizens United, approved the language presented and used in the fundraising letter that was sent out as a test to a small number of people. Both have taken corrective action to make sure that this does not happen again. It is language that is beneath Governor Huckabee and Dave Bossie, and language that they would not use.

I've done a ton of political fundraising letters in my life. You do not generally put a letter out, no matter what it says, no matter how small the mailing, without the approval of the person whose signature appears at the bottom. When I first read the full text, which BuzzFeed has at its site, it simply did not seem that the governor would allow his relatively good-natured public image to be used in that way. He's making his money in television now, looking goofy with an electric bass around his neck. It doesn't seem like the approach he would take.

It struck me as so improbable that I even thought it could have been a dirty trick to make the right look even more extreme than it is, though that hardly seems necessary.

No, it looks like Citizens United was trying to pull a fast one and got caught. I'm not sure I buy the "test" excuse. No, I'm sure. I don't.

This is the nuts and bolts of politics. Believe or not, there are some rules it's best not to break.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

If Republicans are looking for another Ronald Reagan, perhaps they should look no further than Barack Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Steve Benen, as many others have, makes the connection. Basically, Obama is very much in the mold of Reagan, policy-wise, particularly with respect to taxes and the economy (though also, I would add, with respect to foreign policy):

Mike Huckabee recently said, "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had a nearly identical take last year, arguing Reagan "would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today."

I agree, but what does that tell contemporary GOP officials? What should Republicans take away from the fact that, by 2011 standards, their party would dismiss their demigod as a tax-raising, amnesty-loving, pro-bailout, cut-and-run, big-government Democrat?

Or more to the point, doesn't it bother Republicans, just a little, that Barack Obama is more in line with the Reagan legacy than they are?

Given their utter lack of self-awareness, I doubt it does. Besides, their hagiography of Reagan is based largely on myth, on what they think Reagan was all about. Which is to say, they generally project themselves and their agenda onto Reagan and then revere him. It's not clear if they would revere the real Reagan, but probably not. After all, with their increasingly extremist ideology, they make him look like something of a moderate. 

So, yes, Obama is a lot like Reagan. But let's not overstate it. In terms of policy, Obama is very much a centrist who would have sought compromise with Reagan, just as he continues to seek compromise with Republicans (even if they clearly have no interest in compromise). And there would undoubtedly have been room for agreement between the two. (Who knows, Reagan may have supported Obama's health-care reform, not to mention the stimulus and bailouts, and may also have supported Obama's diplomatic-hawkish foreign/military policy. Surely Reagan would have agreed with Obama's conduct of the "war on terror," not to mention the Afghan War.)

But of course Obama is progressive in ways that Reagan never was. They may be somewhat similar in policy terms, but they are vastly different in style, image, and temperament, not to mention in broader historical terms. Both men can inspire, but Obama is more of a technocrat than Reagan ever was. And even if we grant that Obama is generally progressive, his policies are centrist and generally dismissive of progressivism, while Reagan was a movement conservative who played to the right and united the Republican Party as a party of ideological conservatism (even as his own policies often reflected a more conciliatory approach to politics, much like Obama's do).

Anyway, the point, I suppose, is that the Republican Party is really no longer the party of Reagan. As with so much else, Republicans can't grasp that basic reality.

More thoughts on the Republican presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Now Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is saying that, had he chosen to pursue the Republican nomination for the presidency, he could have beaten Obama. Where have we heard this before?

Oh yeah, Mike Huckabee said the same thing, as did Donald Trump.

This is playground boasting bullshit. If any of these guys thought they could beat Obama, they would have jumped in with bells on. At least Haley Barbour had the integrity to admit that he didn't get in because Obama would just be too hard to beat.

This did, however, get me thinking about what I see as the categories of those who are either running, thought about running or are still thinking about it. It's goes a little something like this:

• Those who feel that this might be their one and only chance to win the thing.
• Those who have no chance of winning either the nomination or the general election but look(ed) on the process as a way to raise their profile or just to push a very specific agenda.
• Those who would have gotten no coverage if the field weren't so weak, so are finding the promise of attention too much fun to pass up (but are otherwise without hope).
• Those who have grown weary of listening to how weak the field is and can't help but at least talk about offering themselves because their egos demand it.
• Corollary to this one: those who can't stand not being talked about as a potential front-runner.
• Those who, when being honest, know that an incumbent president would be hard to beat, especially this one, and know also that they have time on their side, perhaps being young and new to things.
• Those who know that the ideological purity test required by the Republican Party these days is just too hard to navigate.
• And a subset of the previous, those who are being courted by the GOP leadership but who know that the moment they really give it serious consideration, every slight break with conservative orthodoxy that they even thought about would bite them in the ass in a hurry.
• And finally, those who are just delusional (are you listening Newt?)

Make up your own categories. Mix and match. I'll leave it to you to attach names to each grouping. It's a game the whole family can play.

But on that point of candidates who didn't get in but swear that, had they taken the leap, they could have beaten Obama, I have just one thing to say:

I know that if I had only auditioned, I could have been the next American Idol, but I chose not to compete for family reasons. You do believe me, don't you?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

No 2012 presidential run for Mike Huckabee

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Former Arkansas governor, current Fox News star, fundamentalist preacher, "Christian Zionist," anti-gay bigot, Obama-conspiracy-theory spinner, single-mother hater, and Chuck Norris Republican Mike Huckabee announced this evening that he will not -- repeat: NOT! -- be running for president in 2012.

His heart just isn't into it. Or so he says.

He could perhaps have been a formidable candidate in an embarrassingly weak Republican field, and he certainly could have challenged for right-wing social conservative support against Newt Gingrich and (relatively) more moderate figures like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, but at the same time he may not have enough anti-government, anti-tax cred to appeal to the Tea Party.

His heart may or may not be into it, but I suspect he took a look at his chances and found them wanting. 

Which means he can stay at Fox, rake in the money, prepare for the Rapture, and do shit like this.

Elephant Dung #26: Glenn Beck calls Huckabee the worst thing possible... a progressive

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By R.K. Barry 

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

In Glenn Beck's vocabulary, there is no dirtier word than "progressive." All the villains in his warped understanding of history can be shown to carry this particular banner: Wilson, FDR, TR, LBJ, WJC, and, of course, the current occupant of the White House. Their shared sin is some variant of the claim that they use government to devise schemes that ultimately oppress the people. Nazis, Communists, New Dealers, Great Society advocates -- progressives each and every one. It's not very clear how it all works, and it usually involves a chalk board and diagrams, but that's the charm that is Mr. Glenn Beck.

Fascinatingly enough, he has recently taken to calling Mike Huckabee a progressive.

Judging from the audio clip you can access here, it seems that Huck started his slide when he supported Michelle's Obama's anti-obesity campaign. Go figure.

Many of us have been saying for some time that the radical right will get tired of simply going after liberals. At some point, which seems to be happening now, they will go after those putatively within their own ranks who they deem not pure enough -- not conservative enough.

Huckabee has a show on the Fox network, as had Beck until recently, so maybe this is a sort of parting shot at his old company. The truth is that for ideological purists like Beck and Tea Partiers no one is truly safe and everyone must be scrutinized, even as their own circle becomes smaller and smaller.

As I have said before, this is what has been called the tyranny of virtue.

Any willingness to believe that one's opponents might just have something to offer, that they might have something reasonable to say, that they might be of value as human beings, is proof of one's own unworthiness to continue on in the ranks of the anointed. You will recall that former Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist was thrown overboard as a potential Senate nominee for having once hugged President Obama. Tough crowd.

We see this with the Tea Party v. the Republican leadership. And now Glenn Beck, the high priest of the conservative revolution, has just banished one who the rest of us thought was among the elect.

The only question now is, who's next?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Remember 2008?

By Carl 

After eight years of Bush, you may recall, there were Democrats chomping at the bit to get a Democrat in the White House. There were three main candidates -- John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama -- and all three had fervent, passionate partisans. We battled and threw muck and eventually the field winnowed down to one, and the passion the rest of us had went to supporting Barack Obama.

Anybody but Bush('s successor). We had seen the terrible toll he had taken on the nation, and realized that we had to step in and clean up after the children.

Obama, like Bill Clinton before him only writ larger, has tried his best and perhaps has done the best job that anyone could have done given the circumstances. History will have to determine that (and hopefully history will have a way to measure a Hillary presidency and an Edwards presidency, too).

Even the fiercest progressive have to acknowledge the man was dealt a shitty hand. We can argue about how well he played the hand, and even the degree of crapitude he had versus what assets he held as his hole card, but he certainly didn't walk into the same comparatively rosy scenario that Bush did in 2001 or Clinton did in 1993.

Obama will inspire some of the passion he did in 2008, and no doubt many of the progressives who find deep flaws in his administration (like me: I'm still pissed about Gitmo and the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) will rally around him. Indeed, he's already started to mend those fences. 

The Republicans, however... 

Only those possible contenders who regularly appear on television — or have made bids before — are well known enough to elicit significant views from their fellow Republicans. And of that group, only one, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, is viewed favorably by more than half of the Republican electorate.

The poll would seem to reflect the late start to the Republican primary season, with many of the major likely candidates seeking to hoard their money and avoid making any missteps that they might have to live with later, when voters go to polls or caucus rooms.

While it may not be unusual for voters' attention to be focused elsewhere at this stage of a campaign, the survey at the very least provides a reality check for a race that has received frenetic coverage at times on cable news and the Internet even though nearly 60 percent of Republicans cannot point to a single candidate about whom they are enthusiastic, according to the Times/CBS poll. 

In case anyone still has doubts about Obama's chances in 2012.

Indeed, John McCain may have picked precisely the wrong election to run in. He could easily have kept his "heir apparent" crown into this election cycle, and probably picked up the nomination with far less difficulty from the likes of Huckabee and Romney (who either would have been the defeated candidate in 2008 or exhausted their personal resources trying), and Sarah Palin (and, by extension, Michele Bachmann) would have been kept off the radar completely. In my opinion, McCain would have been the only viable contender to unseat Obama, à la Reagan in 1980.

This is frankly an astounding poll, when you think about it: Anger at Obama should be at an all-time high, what with the agenda he managed to pass (or shove down the throats of Teabaggers), and as we saw in 2008, that usually means at least one candidate gets the coalescence of that backlash.

Here, we see....nothing.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Cry havoc

By Capt. Fogg

If there's anything being shoved down our throats these days, it's the claim that health care reform is being shoved down our throats. It's all part of the game the minority party is playing by trying to make you think the Democrats won the White House by some sort of fluke and that the desire for health care reform wasn't what Obama's majority of voters were hoping for.

It's been a year now and the screaming hasn't let up for a moment, but a recent poll shows that half the country favors the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, whether or not you call it ObamaCare and only 43% think it's "too liberal."

It would be amusing of course if the bumper sticker bumpkins did get their "end of an error" by electing Mitt Romney who like the rest of them is giving us that old soft shoe about just how terrible the new law is because as the unimpaired remember, Mitt only a few years ago was hoping his new Massachusetts health care reform would go nationwide. It's easy to call a politician like that a whore, but it's unfair to whores and I don't want to distract from his fellow streetwalker who has been spending a fortune with TV ads warning us of the holocaust, the calamity, the apocalypse sure to wipe us from the earth if we have to have health insurance rather than hope the emergency room can cure our cancer or heart disease -- at public expense. I mean never mind the war, conquest, famine and death -- this is health care!

(Cross posted from Human Voices)