Oh, good Lord, give me a break. A "place of hate within Mike Huckabee's heart"? Seriously, it was just a stupid joke. Just because right-wingers froth at the mouth over every poor joke told by a Democrat ("you..ah..get stuck in Irag...uh") let's not do the same. Lighten up.

Okay, Trelock, we can take a joke. But, writers' strike or no, should a politician be able run a campaign on one-liners. Huckabee got a free pass on a very serious issue and, as Paul points out, one that cuts the heart of his public persona. If he followed up his joke with a substantive comment on the same issue, I would be yucking it up. What's President Huckabee going to say when he is confronted with the same sort of question during his Rose Garden press conference, huh?

I think the Huckabee line about Jesus was a funny way to make the point that WWJD doesn't really apply to a lot of political questions, since Jesus fundamentally avoided being a political figure-he explicitly turned down an option to weigh in on Roman politics, saying 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's'. To me, this perspective is more appealing than that of many on the religious right.

I disagree with Trelock. We are about to see enacted and re-enacted the common blog phrase "its ok if you are a republican" and also a replay of "but those dirty hippies are so uncivil because they use the word f*ck when we say they should be rounded up and shot." Childishly and viciously interjecting "pow, bam, to the moon" about your opponent *in preference to answering a direct question about policy* isn't a joke its the whole point of the republican drive to power at this point. There simply are no policy issues since they aren't running a political campaign so much as an attack and kill campaign aimed at democrats. This kind of scorched earth campaigning where you will do and say anything to smear and attack your opponent *without regard to the issue at hand* is pretty sick-whether we think huckabee is a "nice guy" or not. I tend to think "not" because I judge huckabee et al by the policies they advocate and the way they obfuscate them to play to the rubes and the haters. Just because someone says something with a smile, and the rubes in the audience laugh at the bear baiting, doesn't make it a joke. In fact what makes it funny to that crowd is *precisely* how nasty it is. They wouldn't laugh at anythign else.

aimai

Sorry for double posting but I cross posted with jamie and I think his perspective deserves a response. Sure, *Jesus* famously refused political activism and the politics of this world in the "render unto ceasar" quote but Huckabee is running an *explicitly christian theocratic* campaign arguing that we should pick the christian jesus would pick in order to run our (formerly) secular state. In his most recent famous quote Huckabee says he responds to god rather than the voters and that he "can't be voted out of heaven." That is arguing pretty strongly that even if *jesus* isn't involved in politics g-d sure is and he's picked his teammate in Huckabee. Its a dodge, and an insulting one at that. Jesus is on Huckabee's side, he is saying out of one side of his mouth, but don't judge Huckabee's policies by what *you* think Jesus would really say about them (that was the context of the question, after all, who would jesus execute?)because jesus was too shy to have an opinion on public policy.

but of course jesus had plenty of opinions on matters of life and death of his day, and social organization too. For huckabee to offer himself as the jesus candidate and then refuse to tell us what the content of jesus's policy program is is transparently a dodge.

aimai

Sure, sure, it was "just a joke." But Huckabee is trying (successfully) to present himself as a principled, saintly sort of guy, and here he is letting loose with the cheap shots (remember his haircut joke at Edwards's expense in an earlier debate?) and dodging questions about his own principles. It's the same old Republican two-step, plain and simple.

What really grinds my gears about Huckabee's answer, and the media's rapturous response, is that capital punishment is one of the "WWJD" questions where we actually know the answer. Jesus was, basically, asked by the Pharisees whether he supported executing an adultress, and his response was the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line. So, Jesus? Basically a "no" on the whole capital punishment thing.

Yet here was have Huckabee, who practically preens over his theology degree and the centrality of his Christian faith, punting on an easy WWJD question. All because the more bloodthirsty part of his base doesn't want to hear the real answer.

Huckabee is a Republican first and a Christian second. That's his prerogative. But man, am I tired of the media letting people like Huckabee get away with stuff like this.

Constantly rising to defend Clinton from these 'vicious attacks' is sure to help her - NOT!

All's fair in love, war ... and politics. This seemingly reflex action to defend Hill from "bitchy, ugly, cheap shots that come from a place of hate" (r u serious?) merely reinforces the idea that she needs help (and help from men) to defend herself.

Let Hillary defend herself and stop pretending that Repubs are any more mean than Dems in the political arena.

The idea that Repubs are getting some sort of free pass from the media - and specifically from CNN no less! - is silly. Refer to the joint Harvard/Project for Excellence in Journalism study.

Huck is big, big trouble should he get the GOP nod. I didn't think it was possible, but the press's treatment of this guy will put their ass-kissing of Bush to shame. And if Hillary is running against him? Oh, the humanity.

Huckabee had to take the dodge by claiming Jesus wouldn't have run for office because he knows damn well he put people to death for the state, while doing his job as governor. (It was the hardest thing he had to do).

Actually, the medieval version of separation of powers was that the temporal ruler had the power of the sword, and spiritual leaders were supposed to stay clean to uphold moral ideas. Early protestants objected to the merging of temporal and spiritual powers in the imperial Catholic church as a collapse in moral authority.

It's too bad that we as a nation are so dumb. Protestant dissent certainly had its moments.

So how amusing would Republicans find it if a Democratic candidate when questioned about waterboarding replied "I'm not sure, but we should try it out on Fred Thompson." Not so much and the media would be tut-tutting itself into a lather.

"One of these days, Alice -- to the moon!"
-- Ralph Kramden

"The idea that Repubs are getting some sort of free pass from the media - and specifically from CNN no less! - is silly."

Yeah, I don't think they necessarily got much of a free pass from CNN yesterday. Nor did they lecture each other about how they have to all get along, and how any criticism of them comes "straight from the left wing playbook."

The dumb dips with a computer cam didn't necessarily ask them what I would ask them, but I don't think CNN helped them look good, either. Even when I consider that a Republican audience is looking for different things.

Re: sending Hillary to Mars, see the Vaughan Meader JFK comedy album from the early 60s.

Reporter: Sir, when we'll we send a man to the moon?

JFK: "Whenever Sen. Goldwater would like to go."

Laughter and applause.

Huckabee may or may not be a "nice guy," but he should have followed up his great crack with a substantive answer. We should hope he doesn't actually get the nomination because the MSM, progressive bigots, and the Clinton meat grinder would absolutely destroy him. It would be a further debasing of democracy and American civilization.

Ooh, ooh, JFK speaks "from a place of deep hate." But of course, he was ridiculing that jackbooted Hitlerite thug Goldwater and not sweet little HRC, for whom JFK would no doubt have had better plans.

It actually wasn't JFK -- it was a comedian impersonating him. It did come off as charming, though, to us JFK fans.

Huck bungled the line, making it sound forced and out of nowhere, which is what gave it a bizarre edge.

"Huckabee may or may not be a "nice guy," but he should have followed up his great crack with a substantive answer."

He *did* answer it substantively. He answered the question by conceding that he put people to death for the state. He read everything available on each case, decided some crimes were irresolvable, etc, and satisfied himself that he should to go with the law.

The dodge revealed that doing so was not "Christ-like," in his estimation.

I think his answer has everything you could possibly want if you want to nail him on how does the death penalty square with his Christian values-- it doesn't.

OTOH, it shows that as governor he put the state over his reading of the new testament. Which you won't like if you want to nail him as a died in the wool theocrat.

I stand in awe of the double top secret reverse judo throw that claims that *objecting to the republicans personal and sleazy attacks on all the democratic candidates* is somehow disallowed if it looks like it also includes hillary because--why, again? Because female candidates are disqualified from office if their attackers are so outrageous that their supporters react? What logic *is* this? Its insane troll logic, I guess, where republican tools take time out from cheering on the wrecking of the country to lecture the rest of us about what a candidate has to do to be taken seriously. And waste even more of all our time lecturing activists on how they should think about their candidates. I don't give a flying f*ck what some republican troll (in every sense of the word) thinks of Hillary or any other democratic candidate or the actions of their supporters. Oddly, I gave up taking process advice from republicans about the same time I realized that they have absolutely no grasp of reality, politeness, politics, honor, or decency. So don't waste our time trying to convince us that rallying around our democratic candidates and trying to steer the public debate back to actual policy issues is, somehow, impermissibly feminizing the whole process. F*ck you and the horse you rode in on--is that masculine enough for you guys?

aimai

"What logic *is* this? Its insane troll logic, I guess, where republican tools take time out from cheering on the wrecking of the country to lecture the rest of us about what a candidate has to do to be taken seriously.

aimai"

Aimai, your the biggest insane troll I've seen in these pages. There's really no compelling reason to support HRC as a Democratic candidate. It's still primary season, fuck everyone who thinks we need to coronate Marie Antoinette just because she slept with Louis XIV and birthed another sleazy hedge fund manager.

aimai:

Feel better now, dear?

When it comes to "bitchy, ugly, cheap shots that come from a place of hate" Huckabee can't hold a candle to you!

"feel better now dear?" why yes, I do. Like dick cheney I've expressed myself and feel better for it.

You know, I really don't mind the bitch label. I've got a "jezebel mind" and I'm proud of it.

But I am tired of the huge anti-hillary thing going on right now. I'm actually an edwards supporter, not an HRC supporter but she's not the evillest thing ever to happen to the country and she's not even the evillest thing ever to happen to the democratic party. She's not a progressive and she's not a liberal but she's not bad. And she is certainly not as conservative as plenty of guys who have run for the democratic nomination.

People always get angry when they see a candidate do well who is not *their* candidate and they almost always seek some way to tear that candidate down. That's to be expected (though as I'll point out later its a really bad strategy for the party as a whole). But what isn't normal is the weird anti female stuff--and anti female voter stuff--that is sloshing around our ankles all the time now. Digby has run a good series of posts about the kind of thing that Matthews and other top pundits say both about clinton and about female voters but its not really that much worse than the anti hillary candidate diaries over at dailykos. The amount of sheer bitchery addressed to Clinton qua woman, and the stupidity of the attacks on her (imagined) supporters that include some admonition to her/them not to play the gender card take the cake for stupid and insulting.

I'm not a HRc supporter. I don't give her money, and I won't be working for her or voting for her in the primary. But she is quite likely to be the eventual democratic candidate and if I've learned one thing in a relatively long life its that if you care about your party (or don't want to see the other party get in) don't say anything stupid or awful or negative about the other candidates running in the primary because you'll have to eat those words in the general.

aimai

Well, aimai, see that's the thing. Lots of people aren't going to give a shit about a Democratice Party that looks increasingly plutocratic, and Hillary is the current symbol of that right-ward slide.

In all honesty, aside from the surface nastiness of the Republican Party (did you check out the dipshits with web-cameras who vote for them?) I'm having a hard time these days deciding which batch of thugs is actually less pernicious.

Anonymous,
I just don't see what it gets us to give up on the entire party and the process. I'm with Kos on this one--*more* and *better* democrats is my goal. Not just some democrats, not just more democrats, but better democrats. That means fighting to get better people into the primaries and to get *better educated voters* to vote for them. By the time someone--anyone--is actually high enough in the system to run for president its really pretty much too late to kick. If we'd elected progressives all the way up, from dog catcher to school district to congress and the senate so much wouldn't be riding on the presidency. I agree with you taht some people are turned off by the plutocratic wing of the democratic party. But I'd *still* rather have their vote than not. And if I can't get their vote because they *vote republican* I fail to see how getting a more progressive dem would have helped me. And if they don't vote for the democratic candidate because they can't get the one they want then--well, they've hurt us all without helping but I can't really affect that.

I'm far to the left of center, myself, but in politics that really doesn't matter. You are either out there swinging and trying to do stuff or you are just sulking in a corner.

aimai

aimai should be a regular tapped poster

That so-called best line of the night was the sleaziest in my opinion. Capital punishment, serious. Faith, serious. Crack a joke about it and diminish both. He didn't follow up with a substantive answer, he led with a substantive response, but avoided answering the question WWJD so got asked again, which is when he avoided it yet again with his "joke." And, this after going on about all the soul-searching he went thru when deciding whether to execute people. It reminded me of Bush on the subject of Karla Faye Tucker with Imus.

I want two things from the press over his performance last night, a story about how many executions he stayed (my guess is zero) and another story labeling him Slick Mike 'cause he was sure slick with that and the "IRS dodge" to a very well thought out question about deficits.

PS. The Hillary joke was a klunker, but no big deal.

"I agree with you taht some people are turned off by the plutocratic wing of the democratic party. But I'd *still* rather have their vote than not. And if I can't get their vote because they *vote republican* I fail to see how getting a more progressive dem would have helped me."

It's not left and right. It makes a circle. That's why plutocrats are so desperately afraid of populism.

Think about it.

What a smear piece. First of all, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the rules of rhetoric.

The reason reporters marveled at Huckabee's answer is because they work with words every day. It's their livelihood, their stock and trade.

They know that sometimes a non-answer IS an answer.

And he told the truth: Jesus never would have run for office (so it was a stupid question to start with).

But people like you see only bad in what is good, and good in what is bad.

What Huckabee has revealed over the last few months is that he is a MASTER of language. He knows how to make it plain. But you don't appreciate that, imbecile.

Open Slather -- Better sit down and take a breath. I think your eyes have crossed.

Vlad makes a good point. Given what Jesus said regarding the first stone, how can any of his followers support executions? And if, as Huckabee implies, Christ's values don't translate into the political realm, why is this particular presidential candidate always talking about what a fine Christian he is?

Personally, I expect that a political leader could be a good Christian. He or she would just have a lot of problems with the Republican platform.

The reason reporters marveled at Huckabee's answer is because they work with words every day. It's their livelihood, their stock and trade.

Have you read most reporters work recently? I think you might give them way more credit for intelligence than they deserve. Joe Klein's recent example of "reporting" on the FISA bill is just one example.

Vlad is right. Also that’s fine what ever Huckabee said in response. That’s his prerogative. At the same time, he will have to deal with the possibility that his response also reinforces how much more atheist ,agnostics, non church goers, who protest death penalty (killing) are perceived more like Jesus than most groups that are self proclaimed closest followers of Jesus. Maybe the masses will start seeing “the” church as a place to go for American flags and patriotism, and not the best place to teach people about Jesus’ values. That we cant have our cake and eat it too. and that “Christians are perfect just forgiven card” will be better understood meaning some agnostics are more like Jesus than some Christians.