Why does anyone take CNN seriously these days?

Why does anyone take CNN seriously these days?

Huckelberry doesn't matter.Immigration is the main issue.

Ralph has lived with his mother his entire adult life, works 20 hours a day, and has no apparent hobbies or interests outside of work. I'm not sold he's sane.

blarg,

Well Nader is sane, if a bit obsessive, I wouldn't say that about McKinney.

McKinney leaving the Democratic party is good news for the Democratic party. And if she wins the Green nomination, that's great as well since it will ensure the Greens won't have an impact on the general election. What a nut ball.

bsimon

I expect the hard core conservatives will coalesce behind whoever emerges as Huckabee's strongest opponent. It might even be Giuliani since these conservatives are not that hung up on the social issues

McKinney at least has political experience, so she's automatically 1000 times better than Nader. At this rate, the Greens might be able to come up with a credible candidate in a few more decades.

Perhaps McKinney could get Shirley Jackson Lee to run with her - you may remember her as the one who asked the kid lawyer from Regent Law School vetting hiring at Justice to keep her remarks "...short and CRYPTIC".

JimD, nice catch. I see its all over the wires:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1125162958

The question: will anyone run against her for the G nomination?

question2: will Rep Paul try for the Libertarian nomination when he fails to get the nod from the GOP?

FLASH

Cynthia McKinney, former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia and notorious firebrand, has announced her candidacy for the Green Party nomination for president. She is the one who tangled with a House security guard, accused Bush of foreknowledge of 9/11, accused the government of selling drugs in the inner city, and made some incendiary anti-Semitic statements.

JimD writes
"The movement conservatives are terrified of Huckabee. Novak runs about a column a week attacking him. George Will and Charles Krauthammer have also been very critical."

The question, in my mind, is what they do about it. Do they coalesce behind Romney? Or do they swallow their pride on his campaign finance & immigration stances & work to get McCain the nomination?

Or do they write this one off & look for a recovery in time for 2012?

"But with so little time left before the Iowa caucus, it probably won't happen. If he does well in Iowa, that will boost his numbers elsewhere, offsetting the drop in support that I expect."

Blarg, what are the chances of Obama v. Huckabee? They are awfully alike in many ways. It would be night and day compared to what we would have seen with HRC v. Guiliani.

"The movement conservatives are terrified of Huckabee. Novak runs about a column a week attacking him. George Will and Charles Krauthammer have also been very critical."

Good point, Jimd. They are terrified because he's the opposite of GWB, for whom religion was/is merely a means to an end, a display of bread and circuses for the religious masses. They worry that Huckabee sees religion as the end itself and that would inform his style of governance. Corporate interests would not do as well with Huckabee as POTUS.

blarg,

I think Thompson really blew a tremendous opportunity by dithering so long over entering the race. For a variety of reasons, Giuliani, McCain and Romney are all flawed candidates from the Republican perspective: Giuliani for his social liberalism, McCain for his apostasy from the true believers on campaign finance and immigration, and Romney due to suspicion of his all too convenient conversion to social conservatism. Huckabee was barely a blip on the radar screen. Fred could have attracted a lot of the support that Huckabee has since picked up. A lot of conservatives fervently wished for a "true believer" candidate and they were ready to cast Thompson in that role. However, by waiting so long and then, once he announced, his sluggish performance have caused a lot of conservatives to look elsewhere.

I think the Republican coalition is fraying. The "values voters" are not as conservative on economic issues as most other Republicans and are responsive to populist appeals. Huckabee has strong evangelical credibility and his populism strongly appeals to social conservatives who are not so conservative on other issues. The movement conservatives are terrified of Huckabee. Novak runs about a column a week attacking him. George Will and Charles Krauthammer have also been very critical.

Giuliani, who does seem to be fading, terrifies some of the religious right leaders who have vowed a third party if Rudy wins the nomination. Ron Paul's support is, in part, fueled by a resurgence of isolationism - a strong element in the pre-WWII Republican party. That is definitely at odds with the agressive foreign policy of the Bush administration which is supported by most of the other Republican candidates. McCain does not pass the doctrinal purity test and is extremely unpopular with many segments of the Republican base.

The runaway spending and growth of government under Bush has exposed strains between traditional fiscal/small government conservatives and activist conservatives who want to harness the power of government in support of conservative goals. These activist conservatives pay lip service to fiscal responsibility and small government but the practice is very different. Consequently, Ron Paul is also attracting support from the small government/fiscal restraint crowd.

Just as the New Deal coalition began to fall apart in the 1960's, the Reagan coalition appears to be seriously fraying.

Judge, the closest precedent I can think of is Fred Thompson. Before he even entered the race, he was a frontrunner in the polls. His support was based on a vague idea of who he was, dissatisfaction with the other candidates, and a lack of real policies to disagree with. And that support evaporated as the real Fred Thompson became apparent.

I admit that it's not a very good precedent. Huckabee is a much better candidate than Thompson, and there's a lot more information available about his policies. But I don't think that his new supporters necessarily like him on his merits. They like him because he's an alternative, and because they don't know anything bad about him. Now that the media is focusing on him, people will learn reasons to dislike him, and his support will diminish. That's not a knock on Huckabee; I think the same would happen to anyone who goes from also-ran to frontrunner in the span of a month.

You say that such a meltdown couldn't happen this late in the game, barring some major mistake by Huckabee. And you're probably right. If Huckabee's boom in support happened a month ago, I think there'd definitely be some backlash. But with so little time left before the Iowa caucus, it probably won't happen. If he does well in Iowa, that will boost his numbers elsewhere, offsetting the drop in support that I expect.

Colin: thanks for your incisive (as usual) commentary. I don't have your patience. FWIW, I usually search for your name whenever CC has a column with 100+ posts I don't feel like scanning through.

The highlight of the news conference was GW saying "35 miles an hour was the CAFE Standard". I suspect he may be one of those that got their drivers license from Sears & Roebuck. Makes me wonder sometimes just how dumb this guy is, or is he pretending to be that dumb and ignorant?

JD -- sounds to me like Judge simply rejected your premise. You would prefer to discuss conservatism, and fiscal responsibility, purely in terms of taxes. For those of us who value balanced budgets over dogmatic tax policy, that doesn't make sense. Tax cuts w/out spending cuts, and NEITHER party has actually passed the latter, are irresponsible.

Similarly, you generalize about free trade but there are plenty of "conservative" republicans, especially in the South, who are ardent fair traders based upon their districts interests. Just as there are scores of Democrats who remain generally supportive of free trade, with the caveat that we should do a better job of negotiating and enforcing labor and environmental floors into trade deals.

Finally, the market economy vs. government itervention argument is likewise silly. All of the midwest and southern republicans love them some tasty market intervention in the form of our ridiculous farm policy. "Conservatives" in energy producing states find government intervention in the form of energy subsidies perfectly acceptable. Heck, the WH said it would veto the energy bill if those horrid interventionist policies were changed by the Democratic congress. And, as you and I both agree (a conservative and a liberal), the "conservative" WH's poorly reasoned plan to bail out wall street with its subprime package is a bipartisan effort.

In summary, the generalities your talking about serve as little more than talking points in most instances. Conservative republicans, in control of the entire government, created new entitlement programs and grew government more than anyone since LBJ. Democrats may not be the paragon of fiscal responsibility, but if that's true it's simply an endictment of ALL of washington rather than one political party.

"What is his excuse for not doing well in NH? "

I think you could ask the same question re Huckabee.

Do we have any GOP Granite Staters out there who could help us understand your mindset regarding these two candidates? I understand McCain's persistent appeal.

judgecrater writes
"I think Huckabee will continue to do well even though his evangelical support is mixed. Drindl, his appeal is high relative to the other GOP candidates. His past is nowhere near as bad as Rudy's, for example, and he is much more acceptable to the American Taliban than Mitt."

I suspect you're correct. My gut feel is that Huck is pulling ahead at the expense of Rudy. Rudy is still counting on the unconventional Feb 5 strategy, which I think is a poor decision. What is his excuse for not doing well in NH? Shouldn't he have high appeal there for going somewhat independant on the GOP social platform?

Depending on how McCain does in NH, it could be a 3 person race for the GOP by the time FL rolls around - with RG on the outside. The question is whether FL & the Feb 5 will support RG after he fails to win any early states. I'm thinking voters there will go with someone who's already demonstrated an ability to win, which will probably be Huckabee, Romney & maybe McCain.

"Does anyone know what happened to babbling brooks? I'm still waiting for his reaction to the Edwards rumor."

I have two theories. 1) he's on vacation. 2) his rants about stalking via IP traces earned him banishment.

"His numbers are going to drop again..."

Maybe Blarg. Do you have a historical precedent that corresponds to this late in the stage of the game? Dean's meltdown springs to mind but (a) I don't think he was ahead by as much as Huckabee is and (b) I don't see Huckabee making that kind of unforced error. Not that the press isn't looking (in Faux News' case, desperately) for one.

I think Huckabee will continue to do well even though his evangelical support is mixed. Drindl, his appeal is high relative to the other GOP candidates. His past is nowhere near as bad as Rudy's, for example, and he is much more acceptable to the American Taliban than Mitt. There's certainly dirt there to dig up but it won't stick because the other candidates have higher negatives.

Novak has an interesting take on his mixed appeal to Baptists in general
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121901856.html
although those that Novak calls a "liberal Baptist" probably don't look at all 'liberal' to anyone on this blog. I suspect a "liberal Baptist" is someone who doesn't think that dancing always leads to out of wedlock pregnancies.

Does anyone know what happened to babbling brooks? I'm still waiting for his reaction to the Edwards rumor.

"...because you had no logical response to my post..."

Actually, JD, it was because your post itself wasn't logical. You asked me to respond to pure, unadulterated spin. I'm not going to stoop to that level because it would be a distinct lowering of the level of discourse.

Heck, even George Will would have more sense than that.

The straw poll probably did it... before that, it didn't look like he had a chance. And nobody knew who he was.

He has some real baggage that hasn't come to light yet -- his violent, mentally disturbed son, whose crimes he covered up while governor, among other things. Whether the press will choose to report on them -- and therby change their squeaky clean narrative of him--is doubtful, however.

My theory is that Huckabee's support is a bubble. Look at how fast he's shot up in both early-state and national polls. When a candidate's support goes from single digits to frontrunner status in a month, it's mostly because of people hopping on the bandwagon. When Huckabee's boom started, there was no dirt on him. Now that he's a threat, his opponents are starting to attack him, and his failures are being brought to light. His numbers are going to drop again; the only question is whether he can win Iowa before they do.

Regarding the 'Women [heart] Huckabee' thing, what are their alternatives?

Rudy "I met my wife by cheating on my mistress" Giuliani
Mitt "bring back the sister wives" Romney
Fred "my wife is younger than my firstborn" Thompson

Ok, McCain might be an alternative, but the rest of the front-runners sure aren't.

JimD writes
"The more Romney attacks Huckabee, the more it hurts Romney IMHO. Huckabee's response is brilliant. The religious right has enormous influence in the Iowa Republican caucus and Huckabee speaks to those people. I doubt the message would be anywhere near as successful in New Hampshire, but it should resonate in Iowa and South Carolina."

It looks like Huckabee is finally achieving what a bunch of us were questioning several months ago; that being: why isn't he getting the evangelical vote? At some point, he moved from also-ran to being a credible candidate with potential to win the nomination. Was it the Straw Poll? The ONE endorsement he got from an evangelical leader (who was that? I don't recall)? Or just the calendar - with the caucuses rapidly approaching are evangelicals returning to their roots, so to speak? Any theories out there?

Judge, I'm not sure if you're still reading this blog, but:

I think you need to look at yourself when you denounce 'furious spin'. I'm not the one who brought up about unbalanced budgets, free-spending Republicans, and demogoguing the illegal immigrant issue - you are.

I'll assume you did this because you had no logical response to my post, and had to quickly change the subject. No matter.

Forget the spin. Do you agree or not that the Democrats, *in general*, are the ones who are in favor of a) higher taxes (like Huckabee), b) less free trade (like Huckabee), and c) more of a government-managed economy than a market economy (like Huckabee).

I'm going to assume you agree with these unarguable positions, and I accept your apology in advance.

"I guess we won't know until the babies first haircut."

That is the funniest thing zouk has ever posted here. Well played.

WASHINGTON - Halfway into the 110th Congress, the Senate is on pace to shatter the record of bills blocked by the threat of filibuster, illustrating the extent to which the narrow Democratic majority has been stymied by a tradition that arose decades after the Constitution was written.

Three major initiatives of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "100 Hours" agenda have been blocked or undermined in the Senate by the Democrats' inability to get the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate and hold an up-or-down vote. Some are becoming frustrated with the growing use of what they see as an anti-democratic tactic.

"It's a barrier to everything we do in the House of Representatives," Pelosi told reporters during a year-end interview Wednesday. "I think the 60 votes is ... not really representing the will of the people."

Filibusters are not part of the Constitution, and they were not allowed under the original rules of the Senate. Filibustering didn't emerge until the late 1830s, according to research by attorney Martin Gold, a former Senate procedural adviser. For most of the 20th century, the filibuster was used sparingly, most often by a coalition of conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. Now, the threat of it is employed frequently by the Republican minority, at a rate never before seen.

The Senate this year has held 62 votes -- known as cloture votes -- to cut off debate, the highest number ever recorded in a two-year congressional session, according to the Senate clerk's office. Thirty-one times, the majority has been blocked in its attempt to gain 60 votes necessary to proceed with the bill.

Just in: GW news conferance at 10:00AM.

"Do you disagree that these are part and parcel of the Democratic party agenda?"

Where I disagree, JD, is with the furious spin associated with some of the terms you use. If fiscal conservancy and balancing the budget means "being in favor of higher taxes" then I think you've lost sight of the trees thanks to the forest. Endless debt is clearly unimportant to millions of plainly liberal (fiscally) Republicans but eventually reality is going to bite us in the a$$. The falling dollar is a direct result having both positive and negative repercussions.

Likewise, if "reduced free trade with other countries" means greater protection for American workers then I think you're over simplifying for political effect. I have a similar issue with illegal immigration although I think the draconian solutions favored by many R's are both ridiculous and delusional.

And if by "using the market system to allocate wealth and opportunity" you mean returning to a feudal system in which the rich hold sway over everyone else, then my Christian upbringing objects to that.

In other word, more specifics, fewer coded phrases.

vbhoomes: You are missing something called "Sense" from your last couple of posts. The "Muslin extremist" you refer to is only a small part of the Muslim population worldwide. Any way you choose to extrapolate this is beyond any reason. Granted a few determined, with a little money, can cause great harm, but GW choose this war in Iraq, when they were no threat to our National Security, or threat of anything else for that matter.

'Eric Lotke, Campaign for America's Future research director and lead author of the new report, calls the obstruction a "deliberate strategy." He observes that the congressional Republicans block legislation, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done. "It's like mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn't delivered on time."

What's stunning to me, speaking as a historian, is how something epochally different has begun happening in American politics, not in secret but in plain sight--they've been bragging about it for months!--and the media deigns not to notice.'

' Specifically, him being in favor of higher taxes, reduced free trade with other countries, and as Will eloquently puts it, using the market system to allocate wealth and opportunity.'

More spin, blather, and idiocy. Democrats are in favor of paying our bills, rather than maxing out our credit cards on immediate gratification and then handing the bill to our kids. We are in favor of trade with other countries that aren't criminally inclined and will work with us on terms favorable to us. We are tired of the republcation habit of using the market system to transfer wealth upward with bloated no-bid contracts to cronies--we are really tired of our taxes being used for corporated welfare.

God know how much welfare we have given the oil companies -- billions every year. So they gouge us at the gas pump and give our taxpayer dollars to their shareholders. Steal from the poor and give to the rich -- that's the R motto.

Bhoomes,
"We didn;t ask for this War, it was given to us by our foes."
Are you serious? If this is the position that the GOP takes in the next election then the Democrats will not only win the White house but we will have a 40 seat edge in the house and 60 seats in the senate.

And just for clarification have we caught the person who actually attacked our country, Osama Bin Laden, yet?

Headline March 7th 2009 "Obama cathes Osama"

why bother to talk to bhoomes? He's a proud Know-Nothing. He can only repeat, verbatim, the spin and blather he hears on Fox, he has no original thoughts. You might as well talk to a rock.

judge, why do you mock my use of the term 'Democratic-like' in referring to some of Huckabee's positions? Specifically, him being in favor of higher taxes, reduced free trade with other countries, and as Will eloquently puts it, using the market system to allocate wealth and opportunity.

Do you disagree that these are part and parcel of the Democratic party agenda? If so, fine, but let's see some backup then.

Yes, lylepink, I do sometimes lose lucidity when I occasionaly believe a lot of dems understand the threat posed to us. The dems would do well to reach back into their history (FDR,HST,JFK) and remember their party at one time supported an aggressive Foriegn Policy. Where have all those dems gone? Seems like Joe Lieberman may be the last of the dems who appreciates the dangers of muslim extremist and nations that support them.

"Another thing about this Congress, the reporting of actual FACTS about the reason nothing is getting done is, to all extent and purposes, is virtually non existent."

I dunno, Lylepink, I think everybody knows that Bush screwed the kids over. Twice. As far as what Congress has or has not achieved I suspect that's in the noise for most people. Including the record number of Republican fillibusters, the very tactic the Republicans themselves threatened to eliminate a few years ago when the tables were turned.

claudia & judge: I think I'm a few days older than vbhoomes, and I haven't lost all my faculties like he seems to be doing, as yet. Another thing about this Congress, the reporting of actual FACTS about the reason nothing is getting done is, to all extent and purposes, is virtually non existent.

Mark: bhoomes makes his living by appealing to far right R's (no insult intended). The whole "We didn;t ask for this War" stuff is proof of the resulting disconnect from reality. Representing differing views is not a part of his business plan.

bhoomes, your post to lyle sounds more neocon than military R - there were considerations about Iraq that made invasion a possible option, that I supported at the time. But none of them were that Iraq came here and asked for it. That was why we went into Afghanistan.

bhoomes, It is easier to understand Ds and Rs if you remember that in order to appeal to enough folks to get elected they represent many differing views.

For example, you seem basically a military R - you actually do not have much in common with a theocon. You may have more in common with a blue dog D.

The Ds cannot set an Iraq agenda because most elected Ds cannot agree. The Kucinich/Richardson approach is not widely shared by elected Ds, although some of their "populist" and "old left" base is deeply politicized about it.

For me, the big disappointment of the Senate season was losing on Webb-Hagel. I thought more of the military Rs would see the fairness of 12/12.

Lylepink: We didn;t ask for this War, it was given to us by our foes. The question is, do we fight or surrender or stick our head in the Sand and hope the Threat is over when we wake up the next day.

vbhoomes: I should think you, of all people, being a National Security Hawk and Physical Conservative, would be a little more concerned about how GW has turned our debt into something that we will be paying for generations to come. Add to the debt problem, the senseless war in Iraq with no end in sight, how so many people around the world are against us, and the cost of thousands of innocent lives, our own and others. Yes, I think Repubs, as well as Dems, are sick of this unjustified war in Iraq.

Also, I thought the whole "window pane = a cross" (gasp!) thing was waaaay overblown. Faux News (the "We Hate Huckabee Network" for at least the next few days) hyperventilated over it for 8 hours on Tuesday.

So what? I think the constant display of the American flag in everyone's ads is disgusting and only serves to reflect our national insecurity. Yes, I know you love America and apple pie; please don't bludgeon me with that context. No, I don't need a political candidate to make me feel better about myself. What are your stands on the issues?

Well then Claudia, why doesn't your buddies in Congress do something about it? They have the power of the purse. Its because they are total wimps, thats why we choose Republicans to run the country during dangerous times. Dems just do not the DNA and back bone to stand up against anyone, Friend or Foe

"I love this-- th theocrat Huckabee gets called 'democratic-like'. Why, bcause he beleives in reality at times?"

I noticed this as well, Drindl. Democrats are inherently more Christian than Republicans. Huckabee's positions reflect that. As opposed to the "kick the kids" and "deport all immigrants" stupidity of the rest of the Republican party, Huckabee appears relatively sane.

'Eric Lotke, Campaign for America's Future research director and lead author of the new report, calls the obstruction a "deliberate strategy." He observes that the congressional Republicans block legislation, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done. "It's like mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn't delivered on time."

What's stunning to me, speaking as a historian, is how something epochally different has begun happening in American politics, not in secret but in plain sight--they've been bragging about it for months!--and the media deigns not to notice.'

Why doesn't the media talk about this? Funny, isn't it?

'The Campaign for America's Future released an in-depth study today about the unprecedented obstructionism of the current congress that would, in a sane world, make the media start writing a different storyline:

WASHINGTON--The Republican Senate minority today filibustered an omnibus budget bill, setting a modern-day record for blocking the most legislation during a congressional session. A new report released today by the Campaign for America's Future details the 62 times conservatives have used the filibuster to block legislation (or force modification of bills) in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year of this two-year Congress, their use of the filibuster in the Senate topped the previous record, reached during the entire 107th Congress.

The new report outlines every bill filibustered, vetoed or threatened to be vetoed by President Bush. Conservatives filibustered bills to end the occupation of Iraq, provide soldiers in Iraq rest time equal to their deployments, support renewable energy and grant residents of the District of Columbia representation in Congress. Today's record-breaker involved a $516 billion budget package passed by the House to fund the federal government in 2008. The conservative minority demanded $20 billion additional funding for the war and opposed House language to bring troops home, and threatened a filibuster to prevent the bill from getting an up or down vote.

"In just one session, a minority in Congress has prevented a mind-blowing 62 pieces of legislation from going to the floor for an up or down vote," said Campaign for America's Future co-director Roger Hickey. "Our report shows how over and over again, the uncompromising minority has thwarted the will of majorities in Congress and of the American people, holding the Senate floor hostage to a radical right-wing agenda."

Sixty votes are needed to invoke cloture and end a filibuster. The 62nd cloture vote of the session is more than any single session of Congress since at least 1973, the earliest year cloture votes are available online from the Senate. Republicans are on pace to force 134 cloture votes to cut off a filibuster, according to the Campaign for America's Future analysis, more than double the historical average of the last 35 years.'

PS: Dems, Are you tired of getting your rear ends kicked by GWB over Iraq?'

No -- I'm tired of seeing american kids killed and their faces and arms and legs blown off by Iraqis, who overwhelmingly say all of their problems are caused by the US and if we would just get out, everything would be fine. That''s the thanks we get. Over 70% of the population thinks it's not only acceptable, but good, to kill americans. Now, explain to me why we're there again? Choose among the 3000 explanantions we've been given so far.

I love this-- th theocrat Huckabee gets called 'democratic-like'. Why, bcause he beleives in reality at times? You say you don't read the NYTimes becuase you don't trust it -- buy you read the senile babbller George Will.

CC- I just read yesterday's thread -- which was hijacked all day by a troll who calls himself kingofzouk, who posted every two minutes for 7 hours. He does this every day, polluting your site with absolute garbage and cites from the National Engquirer and driving away anyone with a brain. He is quite purposefully destroying The Fix. If I were you, and wanted this to continue to be a forum, I would check his IP address. I think it will provide you with some interesting information.

Not having followed Huckabee's campaign closely, I didn't realize how 'Democratic-like' he was in some of his positions.

Read Will's article today, towards the end.

JD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121901854.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I do not mine if a candidate talks about his faith or religion if he is ASK about it by a newsman or citizen but to run your candidacy as the Christian Leader is extremely disturbing to this republican. And Huck can only do well with the evangilcal base not the economic and the national security (me) republicans. Mitt has done the best to secure the support of the 3 wings of our base and regardless of what any polls may suggest, he's our strongest candidate to win.

PS: Dems, Are you tired of getting your rear ends kicked by GWB over Iraq?

Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

Where have you been Cilliza and Cohen? Huckabee has attacked Hillary Clinton even using foul language -- in an interview with the Washington Times -- and at least one other time that I have noticed.
In addition, he has said terrible things about Mitt Romney's religion.
I don't think you have been watching Huckabee. Yes he smiles and says nice things but frequently puts a barb on the end -- like saying that he doesn't care if Mormons eat babies ( or something like that). This is an offensive attack and I am not a Mormon and don't care for Romney.
Try reading the newspapers and watching TV if you want to know what Huckabee is up to.

litzaus:

I have no great interest in peeping into the Huckabees' bedroom or even following them into their church. [If, heaven forbid, he were ever to be hounded into lying about his own Monica Lewinsky -- these things seem to happen with preachers with some regularity -- I would care deeply about the dastardly hounding part and pretend not to hear about the affair.]

There are things I do take note of: the gaming of God and Jesus for the purpose of sneaking into the White House, the rejection of reason and science in favor of 6-day creationism, the subtle message that unless you are a certain kind of Christian, you are a counterfeit American, treating "tax" as a 4-letter word ...

So the 300-pound Gorilla turned himself into Huggable Huckabee and the women of Iowa can't resist the guy, Bible and all. Talk of political makeover. Does this, however, mean that if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she might concede and urge the rest of us to support Huggable Huck? Just inquiring.

Obama for President!

Was not Ghandi a Jain?

In regard to the couple of cynical comments regarding Huckabee's views on women I would say this: Huckabee has loved been faithful to and treated with respect the same woman he exchanged vows with over thirty years ago. I think that even his harshest critic would have to admit that it is very likely that he will do the same for yet another thirty should they both live that long. Save your criticism for any of the many men who abandon, cheat on or otherwise dishonor their wives(if they even ever bothered to make a commitment) and render a little respect to the rare man who through a lifetime of actions demonstrates REAL respect for women.

The fact that Huckabee is so popular shows how deeply in denial of reality Republicans are and how little they've learned from what's happened over the past six years.

Is it any wonder that people with more education and exposure to science and literature look down on them?

Republicans fear independent thought and view ignorance and blindly following a leader as a virtue.

They appear incapable of both critical thought and of learning from their mistakes.

The sooner they are removed from positions of power the better both America and the world overall will be.

The Glenn Beck Show anchor "Glenn" / The Situation Room Interview Debacle:
Glenn Beck was in The Situation room this Friday, December 14th 2007:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/15/beck-huckabee-will-implode/

Whenever I turn on the TV in the house for this election cycle I first by habit turn to CNN TV or CNN.com on my computer for the latest in election news because I am an avid election junkie.

The same CNN that can drop a PBS anchor from its staff and produce a show like: The Situation Room" that has grown from an hour to THREE successful hours in a day with great success! Why can the same CNN not drop GLENN BECK and the other lady anchor on CNN Headlines News instead of giving him more air time and that too as a COMMENTATOR!

Its time for CNN to seriously retire/replace the CNN Headline News Anchors this historic Election Season / cycle because of comments like these:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/15/beck-huckabee-will-implode/#comments

When I saw Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room bring on Glenn Beck as a commentator I was taken aback! Glenn Beck is SO BAD as a host, interviewer, and spokesman for CNN Headlines News that he has driven me AWAY from CNN Headlines News for good!!

And now you make him a COMMENTATOR on CNN the regular CNN not Headlines News which has gone to dogs since these Glenn Beck's and the other woman (don't even care to remember her name as she is so BAD who has turned CNN Headlines News to filthy Tabloid News Magazine) have taken over to specialize the Headline News part of CNN.

Headline News was GREAT with 15 minute cycles in the past. But now it takes 2 seconds to see Glenn Beck's face or the other lady on CNN Headline News for me to reach the Channel button on the remote to switch to CNN proper which are just one channel apart (Channel 39 for Headline News and Channel 40 for CNN).

My US TV News Background: I set foot on American soil in 1980 on Day 444 (NightLine) Iran Hostage crises and have been watching American TV daily (specially News) since then. I have seen the heydays of LIVE transcontinental "Nightline" programs to its current 15 minute Basheer cycle version of current ABC NightLine. If ABCNews can go from Ted Koppel to Basheer then surely CNN can put up Glenn Beck up first as an hour long daily Anchor then now as a Commentator! Now all you have is Glenn Beck for a Mormon commentator then CNN is in deep trouble!

Next to the likes of Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, Sanjay Gupta, Wolf Blitzer, Cafferty etc. and why? Just because Glenn Beck happens to be a Mormon and his Mormonism makes HIM relevant in the Mitt Romney Huckabee duel to the level of raising him to become a CNN Commentator!

Why not, if you can give Glenn Beck an hour of anchor time everyday on CNN Headline News you can surely dip Wolf Blitzer's head in the Glenn Beck sand (blabber) for fifteen minutes of the esteemed "The Situation Room". CNN is much too commercial and better than ABC News which can loose Ted Koppel. CNN should loose the Headline Anchors and hire people like Ted Koppel before its too LATE for a 24 hour NEWS CHANNEL to recover in this vast ever changing media and audience.

I am really sorry after watching American TV and CNN grow over the past 27 years from the Turner TV machine to a CNN News 24 hour juggernaut you have reached the limit of my patience of two decades by hiring people like Glenn Beck as anchors!

Do the CNN producers and CNN Headline News producers ever talk to each other and find the above fact about a success like The Situation Room and a disaster like Glenn Beck?

Of all the commentators on the CNN 2008 election staff Glenn Beck and his Headline News program should be the one who "implodes" first! I am an avid watcher of CNN TV since 1980 and read CNN.com but its a shame CNN Headline News has a person like Glenn Beck calling the shots for an hour everyday!! Over and above that he now comments on CNN Situation Room!!! Can somebody publish Glenn Beck's journalistic resume and accomplishments to reckon with before CNN Headline News as a Channel implodes?

I am not a fan of Huckabee but NEITHER am I a fan of GLENN BECK. I have long started passing CNN Headline News in my Channel shuffle. Shall I start passing CNN Channel too? There is a lot of competition now like FOXNews, MSNBC etc.
The same CNN TV that hires Ed Rollins on Lou Dobbs puts Glenn Beck as COMMENTATOR. God save CNN.

May CNN have the courage to publish this comment in its entirety for all to see. Thanks. I still can not get equal air time you give Glenn daily but it may get you more feedback on Glen Beck as an anchor!! I reiterate with highest gravity that its time for CNN to seriously retire the CNN Headline News Anchors this historic Election season lest CNN may loose ground in the highly competitive hourly News Headline arena. Thanks a lot for your time.

Ajay Jain, Garland, Texas.

aepelbaum: Well said.

Get a grip! Elizabeth Edwards is dying. Life is, nevertheless, going on and has its realities. Is it necessary to pour on her head all this crap? Who cares, ah? Edwards doesn't seem to be the first, he would not win the nomination. Leave him alone, would you? Is it possible to let his wife have the end her life in peace?

Huckabee comes across as a nice, cuddly guy; certainly more so than any other Republican in the race. Of course the chicks will love him.

And Chris: Pleeeeeeease stop utilizing that horrifically overused "(someone) hearts Huckabee" phrase. It's painfully annoying.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

waterfrontproperty, you may well be right, but that doesn't impact on the point CC is makihng, which is that among those women who do see themselves as 'bible-thumping church goers', to use your term (I suspect you mean it derogatorally, but for them it is a badge of honour) Huckabee has struck a chord.

This election is about 'striking chords'. Obama (whom I don't support as the Democrat nominee for 2008: his time is 2012) is doing it among the Democrats: Huckabee is doing it among the Republicans (whom I do not support as an entire group). To change this will require a major change of strategy among the other candidates. It will be interesting to see if they can grasp the new nuance.

Huckabee had better be careful. There are plenty of Republican women who are not bible-thumping church goers.

for zouk.

"White House to 'Paper of
Record': You're WrongNew York Times article says White House lawyers took part in talks with the CIA over whether to destroy interrogation tapes
"

Not only is the torture illegal, but destroying the evidence is also illegal.

The Romney campaign appears desperate. His whole strategy depends on winning the early contests to establish his national viability. He is still not that well known nationally. Huckabee is surging in Iowa and would win handily if the caucus were held today. The more Romney attacks Huckabee, the more it hurts Romney IMHO. Huckabee's response is brilliant. The religious right has enormous influence in the Iowa Republican caucus and Huckabee speaks to those people. I doubt the message would be anywhere near as successful in New Hampshire, but it should resonate in Iowa and South Carolina.

Why doesn't it surprise me that GOP pundits use the National Enquirer as a source?

Edwards should sue them for libel. I bet he could show very real damages in terms of campaign contributions.

And it doesn't surprise me that Huckabee polls well with female voters. Huckabee is the only GOP candidate that could attempt to neutralize Obama or Clinton's female advantage in a general election.

I guess we won't know until the babies first haircut.

John Edwards and an affair and an alleged ex-pregnant girlfriend?! I want to say it isn't true. But knowing how slick Edwards is and how he likes to fool people with his people vs. the powerful message I won't be shocked.

Is Cillizza out of the news cycle? Nothing about John Edwards's alleged affair & pregnant alleged ex-girlfriend? Some of us would like the Wa. Post to legitimize or expose the National Enquirer. I think Howard K. and others at the Post know more than they are reporting about Edwards.

If Willard Mittens Romney gets the nomination the Dems can now run the usual ads showing him morphing into Bush, or vice versa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_po/romney_bush

QUESTION: What do a Radical, Islamic Muslin Jihadist and a Right-Wing American Evangelical Fanatic have in common?

ANSWER: They BOTH strongly support and religiously follow Mike Huckabee's statement that "a wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband".

I have no doubt that Huck will bring these two groups together.

Women everywhere: beware of this Neanderthal.

Wow, Rudy falling deeper into also-ran territory.

But of course, this is another absurd CC story. These women are obviously conservative women; of course they will end up going for the more conservative candidate.