Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

David, Evidently you didn't hear the debate last night or your characterization of Huckabee as classy would be more like "crassy". In discussion of the Straits of Hormuz "incident" he indicated that we should blow them (the Iranian speed-boaters) into "the gates of hell" if they should dare "provoke" us again. Such statements are anything but "classy". Better rethink your putting him forth as any kind of an example for a leader in my America.

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Sirota, your fawning over Mike Huckabee is already wearing thin. Have you done any research into Huckabee's record as governor of Arkanasas? You populist preacher Republican balanced the state budget through sales taxes and fee increases. The most egregious tax is the $5.25 a day nursing home bed tax he pushed though the legislature to fund Medicaid. And why don't you look into Huckabee's $500 belt from a well-heeled contributor? The Huckster never turned down a finely tailored suit or a $1,000 pair of cufflinks during his stay in Little Rock. And why would a "populist" deplete "...the governor's office emergency fund in the final weeks of his administration in part to pay for the destruction of computer hard drives in his office[?] http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=News&storyid=179261 The guy's a phony, Dave. Wake up before you look like a schmuck.

Reply
Report this post

Main Stream Media is going out of its way to ignore economic issues and defeat populist candidates. Why? Could it be they see their own economic interests threatened?

Reply
Report this post

How refreshing to have a positive liberal view of a Republican and a negative view of "the Democrats Great White Hope", Obama. Very interesting, although both carry baggage: Corporate servant Obama or pro life, pro escalation Huckabee? Have to with Obama on this one.

Reply
Report this post

Wow. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room! Huck, being a True Believer rather than a cynical political manipulator of the fundies, is the greatest threat to turn this country into a theocracy. David's analysis is correct, but incredibly incomplete. And, anyone who thinks for a moment that the grand sachems of the GOP won't snuff out true populism in the the party is delusional. The populist tendencies of the GOP base will, once again, be misled by the media propaganda machine funded by reactionary billionares.

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Sirota, I loved your book and most of your columns. That said, I have to OBJECT to this misinformed and incomplete analysis of Huckabee. Yes, it is nice that he has true Christianaltruistic attributres. But he also has that social conservative pandering side that equates homosexuality as a choice and idolizes Justice Scalia. Ugh! These "values" seem to be in stark contrast to some fo your progressive stances. Huckabee did state, and i am quoting here, "My own personal hero on the court is Scalia." I agree with seevral others here that we need to strongly avoid steering the USA toward a theocracy. Why aren't you more strongly supprting John Edwards' campaign. He's the one to support in my opinion.

Reply
Report this post

David, nice piece. I get a chuckle from commenters here who either entirely missed the point, or intentionally ignore it and simply want to leverage a comment forum to make their own unrelated points. For instance, the one who wants to raise the issue of how much some belt cost that was given to Huck ... to that person I would suggest taking a look in a mirror. It has been WE-THE-PEOPLE who have authorized and made possible on an ongoing basis such perceived abuses. Ask Bush how much his suits cost or his cowboy boots and who gifted $3K cowboy boots to him ... who knows, maybe even boots made from some protected critter ... it would not surprise me. Edwards used his own monies to pay for a $400 haircut ... but it was his own self-made-man money, so what? Congress is chocked full of stories of free vacations paid for by lobbyist, etc, etc, etc. It's our own fault. It is "We-The-People". If WE-THE-PEOPLE really-really want to end such nonsense we would vote into office a Dennis Kucinich-type candidate who is perhaps the most honest and REAL candidate running. I have every confidence that Dennis would institute ALL the reforms we all TALK-the-talk, but don't WALK-the-walk about. Economics and otherwise. Few walk-that-walk; I don't. I support John Edwards because he's as close to Dennis on policies of the top 3, and is still, albeit remotely, electable. Edwards is my mainstream media concession candidate. It's a shame it has to be this way. My current fantasy tickets would be John Edwards versus Mike Huckabee with Edwards coming out on top ... and precisely for the reason David's piece addresses ... to focus the debate on what really matters and those things which have the most direct and immediate impact upon WE-THE-PEOPLE. I did NOT read David's piece as an endorsement of Mike Huckabee beyond, perhaps, over the silver-spoon-in-their-mouths-crowd.

Reply
Report this post

Bigotry is never classy. I have lived next door to neighbors who are evangical "Christians" who do not allow their children to play with mine because we are of another religion than their own. We discovered that the ordained ministers of our neighbor's church was condeming certain other faiths which was not part of their "approved list" from the pulpit . I would like to ask Mike Huckabee. "Have you ever preached a sermon, taught a class or presented views to your own congregation in which you have condemned another persons beliefs?" Our constitution protects each citizens right to worship as he or she choose. As a person of faith, I am hoping we elect a president who not only professes deeply held religious views, but allows and defends the rights of others to hold religious view which may be different than his own.

Reply
Report this post

I'm with DA, except the concession bit. E has already done that in the past, and I don't think anyone should fall for that again. Please, don't self-concede to a proven conceder. I've never gotten a second-guess answer on a test correct. The first one was always right. Did I miss something? I usually don't--not even whispered side-comments in debates (though I might have to re-wind five times to get it word-for-word). I didn't think this a pro-Huckabee story at all. Seemed much more to me a "how media and even your own party spins thingies" thingie to me. I really enjoyed this piece, David. It was forwarded to me by another candidate, no less. LOL!

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Sirota: As Governor, inteferring in the prosection of a son who slit the throat of and tortured a helpless dog is not classy. Further, firing the DA for not helping Huckabee when he "needed him" is disgusting.

Reply
Report this post

Mike Huckabee, if his stated religiosity is to be believed and I think it may be, has an altogether different agenda than that of a simple Neocon. He, as a fundamentalist, does not believe in "freedom" as it is defined in any dictionaries. His idea of freedom, like that of any truly, deeply religious person, is freedom for the tenets of his faith and not anyone else's, including freedom from religion for those of no faith. The Southern Baptist Conventions beliefs, although not as severe as the more pentecostal elements, would quickly legislate their brand of morality upon rising up the power ladder. POTUS is pretty far up that ladder. As Sam Harris points out and I agree, those religious folks that would not impose their religious convictions on the rest of us are "weak in their faiths". The Bible doesn't countenance any parsing of its instructions. Non-believers must be killed, yeah, just like the Koran! Read the bloody thing, including the New Testament. Those who practice their faiths on a live and let live basis are ignoring the commands of their good book. This theocratic takeover of the country is becoming a very serious matter. Faith based initiatives are profoundly illegal under the U. S. Constitution (or what used to be the U. S. Constitution). Portraying this country as a Christian nation and the founders as devout is a total rewrite of history.

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Sirota, I read this piece in the Seattle Times, on an editorial that on this particular day had two other pieces about Obama. The first was Charles Krauthammer's "The Second Coming derails," in which Krauthhammer pooh-poohs Obama's image as a 'uniter' based on his across-the-board liberal positions. The other was University of Puget Sound president Ronald R. Thomas' "The new Children's Crusade," in which Thomas describes admiringly the excitement that Obama is generating on college campuses. When these pieces are put together, it goes to show how much depends on the eye of the beholder. Here's an interesting quote (selectively edited): "It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer- the finest homes, the finest college education...the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been the worst." The speaker was Senator Joseph McCarthy. The point is that whether or not a candidate invokes the messages of class struggle does not serve much better as a litmus test than any of the many others we frequently apply. In the sentence "most positive change in America has been about class and conflict," I would say that the posibility of alternatives implied by the word "most" is were the hope in Obama lies.

Reply
Report this post

Huck may be "right" on class but still a fundementalist on personal freedom (ye olde abortion, gay nonsense)