Huckabee Part II

I haven’t done much today, other than some light yoga and an easy 2 mile walk with the wife.

My last post about the candidates (and about Huckabee in particular; I said that his belief in the supernatural intervention by deities disqualifies him from being President) generated a post from someone who at least appeared to be posing as a woo.

These days, it is hard to tell the morons from the those who are making fun of morons. (think: Restateupdate, LiberalsMustDie, ColbertNation.)

It turns out that this guy is “serious”, I think. On his blog he says he is from the Ozarks and says that he is proud to stand with people that liberals consider stupid.

Well, maybe I can do even better this time and get even more negative comments!

Today, Huckabee went on national TV and tried to outwingnut the other wingnuts; as Crooks and Liars reports:

Huckabee, behind in the polls and not wanting to be outdone by the “we must go to war with Iran” Giuliani campaign, went on Late Edition this Sunday morning and tried his best to prove he’s just as capable of starting an unnecessary war based on bad intelligence as any other Republican candidate. Repeating the lie that Ahmadinejad said he wants to destroy Israel, Huckabee swears he will do “whatever it takes,” and will not even rule out using tactical nukes in doing so.

Huckabee: “I think the President’s right with trying to bankrupt them before we bomb them. That’s a good way to start.”

He also thinks that Saddam really did have WMDs. Just because we never found them yet doesn’t mean he didn’t have them; and if he’s elected President, the first thing he’s going to do is dig up the end-zone in Giants Stadium to look for them. (OK, I made that last part up, but not by much).

Hmmm, I wonder if Huckabee’s god told them that Saddam had them? Hmmm, he is not only a woo, but a warmonger. Nevertheless, I am sure that he is knocking them dead up in the Ozarks!

By the way, don’t expect to get any credit from the wingnuts; to them being wrong about Saddam having WMDs is a sign of intelligence; in their eyes “being wrong is being smart.” You see, one side being almost united about a failed and illegal war is a sign of a lack of serious debate.

This is sort of what is known as the “unsinkable rubber duck” defense, this time applied to foreign policy.

hese days, of course… conservatives are beset by panic and gloom. You’d think this would, at minimum, give us a small respite from boasts about the right’s victory in the War of Ideas. But no…. The new line… is that conservatives are more intellectually serious because they’re having deep debates over first principles, while liberals enforce stultifying conformity…. Presumably Iraq, where the right’s ideology has collapsed most disastrously, should be a delicate point for conservative intellectual triumphalists. Instead, it’s their favorite example. “Democrats today,” complains Berkowitz, “are nearly united in the belief that the invasion has been a fiasco and that we must withdraw promptly.” Meanwhile, conservatives are fiercely divided. Ergo, the right is “wrestl[ing] with the consequences of change more fully than progressives.”…

[I]t’s certainly true that conservatives today are more divided than liberals about whether the Iraq war has been a fiasco…. Conservatives see their split on this proposition as evidence of intellectual acuity. I see it as evidence that roughly half of all conservatives are barking mad. On last year’s National Review cruise, as Johann Hari reported in these pages, Norman Podhoretz called the war “an amazing success” and insisted that “it couldn’t have gone better.”… Maybe it’s the blind Bush hatred talking, but I’m not terribly embarrassed that liberals are united in rejecting this notion.

About these ads