Carolina in My Mind
In the political world, everyone's mind seems to be on Carolina today.
An interesting side note since yours truly is an old Pat Buchanan man: Mike Huckabee is now targeting our vote directly. If he continues with this line of thought in his campaign rhetoric and wins the nomination, would this give vindication to those of us who supported the Irish Catholic firebrand in 1996 to see the Baptist minister take up the causes Old Buck did and win in the South with them?
If he does get nominated and continues with his current rhetorical line, will the media give Pat the credit for breaking the ground he did in 1992 and 1996 (short answer: no)?
Look out for Fred Thompson today. This may be Fred's last stand...or it may not. Fred has run a first-class insurgent campaign in the Palmetto State and has focused more time there than any of the other candidates. A surprise win in still possible, and if that does happen, this business is far from over.
Labels: Music, Presidential Election
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 12:01 PM
26 Comments:
Heh.
You know what, David? Go ahead and support Huckabee -- a man who parrots the Al Gore line that the Constitution is a living, breathing document.
Oh, wait, I forgot. As long as someone is thumping their Bible and uses the "living, breathing" line in a way that you happen to like...well, then it's okay. Al Gore can't say it, and I'd imagine that you'd have a conniption fit if Romney, Thompson, McCain, or Giuliani said such a thing.
But hey, Pastor Mike is cool, so that makes it all okay!
He plays the pious, holier-than-thou part very well, unless he gets snarky and starts taking pointed shots at people (such as saying that Fred needs his Metamucil or that Fred doesn't get up early enough to know the whole story)...but why should I expect you to say one damn negative word about any of it?
After all, Huck will shove God down everyone's throats, so it must be time to celebrate!
Actually, I know why you won't say one single, solitary word to criticize Huck -- you don't want to upset any potential voters if you happen to run for office. God forbid you actually stand up for traditional conservative values that people thought you held rather than sell yourself out for some votes.
I imagine that the only reason you've ever given lip service (and I emphasize lip service) to support of Fred is because he's from Tennessee -- again, a move that would be politically motivated. God forbid you actually support a candidate for the RIGHT reasons.
As far as I'm concerned, you and Huck deserve each other, so you might as well quit the charades and admit your support for him. And regardless of the office that either of you are (or might be) running for, neither of you deserve to have the "R" next to your name. The mere thought of it just cheapens what it means to be conservative and Republican.
Rush Limbaugh sees right through Mike Huckabee and doesn't think he's conservative. Other real conservative experts think that a Huckabee nomination would tear apart the party.
But David Oatney doesn't believe any of that.
Gee, I wonder who is right on the issue?
Matt,
CHILL!! Relax, deep-breaths, count to 10 and then do it over as needed! I fear you're suffering from the Republican/Conservative version of "Dean-itis." Which is a manifistation of the uncontrollable rage one feels when the candidate they are supporting goes down in flames and there's nothing they can do about it. Believe me, life does go on, the world won't end, Iraq won't end (but we can live with two out of three, can't we?). David (and I don't intentionally mean to defend him - he can do that himself well enough) is simply being pragmatic. Something I learned after Iowa '04.
SteveMule
David,
You said:
"An interesting side note since yours truly is an old Pat Buchanan man: Mike Huckabee is now targeting our vote directly. If he continues with this line of thought in his campaign rhetoric and wins the nomination, would this give vindication to those of us who supported the Irish Catholic firebrand in 1996 to see the Baptist minister take up the causes Old Buck did and win in the South with them?"
No, it is not vindication! Pat was and is, a loon! Why that old windbag is still taken seriously by anyone, liberal or conservative, is beyond me. He was never more than a '96 third tier candidate and an idiot.
So, no, Pat won't get any credit for any "broken ground"
SteveMule
Steve,
If you really knew me, you would know that is not true. Where Thompson is concerned, I am pragmatic. To be honest, there's no real evidence to believe that he'll win today. And what evidence is there to support a possible 2nd place finish is flimsy at best. Really, I've resigned myself to the idea that Thompson will finish behind Huckabee today and that he'll drop out within the next 48 hours.
Actually, I've been prepared for this for quite some time. Its been clear for a few months now that both the media and the Party was not going to allow Thompson to win. Anyway, the country gets who they vote for. If they elect Huckabee, that's exactly who they deserve.
As far as Huckabee is concerned, he's said at least a dozen things over the last 6 weeks that should have absolutely killed his campaign within the Republican Party...but because he smiles, tells his folksy stories, and talks about God all the time, people follow him like he's the Pied Piper.
And that last part is what is most infuriating. Huckabee bastardizes his religion by using (and allowing it to be used) as a weapon to defeat his enemies. He gives credence to those on the Left who say that we religious folk are no better than the Islam-o-fascists...that we just want to impose a theocracy on the rest of America. He gives people such as myself, who are not the least bit interested in a theocracy, a bad name.
Anyway, I could go on, but what's the point? I'm not going to get a response from whom this was originally directed at anyway. One would think that if what I'm saying is untrue (or if support of Huckabee were defensible), one could actually speak to that...but I guess not.
I feel I must defend David here. David has been more of a supporter to Fred than the "lip service" as you claim Matt. David has assisted me during my phone banking, strategy sessions, and moral support. Your comments are unfounded and rude at best.
Stevemule I happen to agree with you in the fact that Huckabee is unacceptable as a candidate of conservatism.
Fabian,
Two things...
1) You'll have to forgive my skepticism. Unfortunately, this here is all I really have to go by -- and I freely admit that. However, David has been far more kind to Huckabee than to Thompson here. He's failed to criticize Huckabee for things that most certainly ought to be criticized -- including things that he's criticized Fred for. He's also not ever mentioned anything regarding those actions which you claim he's undertaken.
And even if he did those things you claim, those positives are negated when you consider his often negative (or complete lack of) blogging about Fred.
No one is saying that David should have been a "political shill blog" (as he put it), but would it really have killed him to discuss even major events in Fred's campaign or times when Fred did extremely well (such as the most recent debate)?
It's hard to believe that David is a supporter when he criticizes without balancing it out with some level of positive commentary.
2) My criticism of David with regard to Huckabee is based on many years of words, claims, and actions. Putting it succinctly, support of Huckabee goes against virtually everything David supposedly believed in with regard to politics and conservatism.
Of course, if eschewing those beliefs is what he wants to do (whatever the reason is), then that's his right. But if he votes for Huckabee, he (and everyone else who does the same) will deserve exactly what they'll end up with. And everyone else in the country will have to suffer.
Praise be to God.
Matt,
What's so bad about Huckabee? Knowing what I do about Conservative thought/thinking Huckabee should be perfectly acceptabe - others might be (are?) more acceptable but take it from a liberal, Huckabee is a conservative! So why the issue?
Finally, I hate to be a bum kick and all, but the media and the 'establishment' are not out to get Fred. Fred was the total darling hero last summer. Fred moseyed while everyone else was running thus turning himself into a candidate of insignifigance and therefore either a non-story or a joke. Fred did himself in by simply never taking off anywhere or with anyone but a small band of true beleivers. Fred was handed the mantle he just never took it.
SteveMule
Steve,
You're right -- Fred didn't play the game in the way that the media wanted him to. He didn't play by their rules, so they decided to punish him.
Why in blazes should it matter when a candidate enters the race? For crying out loud, he entered in early September, 3 months before Iowa and 14 months before the national election. It's not HIS fault if everyone else decided to start campaigning as soon as Bush took his 2nd oath of office.
And why in blazes should a person's campaign style matter?
Cripes...we're talking about the most important elected position in the world here. We're talking about an election that may be one of the most important we've had in a generation. Aren't we, as a nation, doing ourselves an incredible disservice by pushing aside candidates for these reasons rather than because of issues?
The office of the Presidency should be above all that idiotic rabble, and I absolutely 100% refuse to hold Fred Thompson accountable if he loses because of non-issues related bullsh*t.
As for Huckabee, let's see...he raised taxes incessantly as Governor of Arkansas. He handed out money for education to illegals. He believes that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" and obviously doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights. He commuted the sentences of or outright pardoned over 1,000 Arkansas criminals.
Shall I go on?
Being a Christian fundamentalist doesn't make a person "conservative". There are many, many other things (things I would consider far more important) that define conservatism than being a Christian fundie.
Huckabee is a socially-conservative liberal. You know, it's not like he's the only one.
Just a note to any passing reader:
This blog post as it stands now is NOT how it was originally written. The last paragraph, about Fred Thompson, was added much later, after several of these comments were written about the post.
I believe this information is necessary for full, truthful disclosure.
Question: Why was it necessary to add the last paragraph? Did my comments happen to hit home?
Hmmm....
Matt,
"And why in blazes should a person's campaign style matter? It wasn't his style; it was his EFFORT (or, rather, lack of it) that got him in trouble. Lack of effort in basic campaigning and knowledge of the particular issues.
Fred's campaign was a joke among liberals long before the MSM started to ignore him. We simply couldn't believe he was pssing it away like he was.
Sorry, Matt but Fred was the captain of his ship and the captain is ALWAYS responsible for his ship whether he or anyone else likes it or not.
SteveMule
"Fre was Lazy" Reall? Did you travel with him? Did you recieve his campaign schedule? If you merely relied on the MSM and Fox, you couldn't possibly have an educated opinion. Some of us who traveled many miles to help in Fred's campaign saw first hand a sincere consistant conservative Who's record matches his rhetoric. He worked tirelessly. I would encourage you to look in to the fact that Carl Cameron's (Fox News Pundit) best friend was let go by the Thompson Campaign early on. About that same time Fox News cooled to Fred's campaign. Like Mr. Huckabee I am a born again Christian and realize that is the only path to salvation. However I chose to support a Presidential candidate who's record matches his rhetoric. Gov. Huckabee is not that man.
Anonymous,
I don't watch FOX News as a matter of principle, so I have no idea how (nor do I care) Fox News treated him. I do know that early on Fred was of great concern to us liberals, since the field of GOP candidates (many of whom had been campaigning in one form or another, since '05) had failed to light any real fire in the GOP as a whole. Fred was being hearlded as the new Ronald Reagan doppleganger. As things progressed after Sep '07 it became clear that Fred was moseying - it was a common observation from liberal bloggers, conservative bloggers, the non-Fox MSM and no one started it going except Fred by not getting started and being serious about it. His followers were and are serious but Fred ... well there just wasn't any sizzle in his whistle, only fizzle. Sorry 'bout that.
SteveMule
Everybody,
Over at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/19/nevada-caucus-and-south-carolina-gop-primary-today/ you can see the returns from Nevada and South Carolina.
At 10:44PM (or 2244hrs, if you prefer) In Nevada, with 100% reporting Fred has 8% of the vote compared to Ron Paul's 14%. Mittens took it with 51%.
In South Carolina with 93% reporting, Fred has 16% of the vote against Huckabee's 30%. John McCain took it with 33%.
SteveMule
Steve>
1) What gives you, or anyone else, the right to determine when a candidate must get into the race and how he must campaign once he gets there?
I don't happen to remember anyone saying that there was some deadline by which one had to enter the race, and I also don't remember Fred being required to take a "campaign style test" to determine his viability.
I'll tell you what it is -- it's idiotic tripe from people who don't have the brains or the guts to challenge Fred on the issues.
Further, it's immature schoolyard behavior. Fred doesn't play the game by your rules or by your standards, so you and everyone else with some vested stake in those rules/standards feels it necessary to beat him up over it.
2) I'll ask you again -- why should either of those non-issues matter when we're talking about the Presidency and the importance of this election.
Are you REALLY trying to argue that people should vote based on a person's campaign style rather than their stances on important issues?
If so...well, then you're going to end up with the President you deserve. Maybe Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan could run...I'm sure they'd campaign to your desires.
Steve> What's your point, regarding the results? If you're trying to say "I told you so", you're not going to get much traction. Color me unsurprised by the results.
Really, all the results do is go further to confirm and validate my beliefs about our political system, the general electorate in this country (especially the Evangelical part of it), and the Republican Party.
Our political system is very much broken and easily manipulated, the electorate is quite often uninformed and easily led by the nose, and the Republican Party is led by people who wouldn't know conservatism if it bit them in the rear.
Nope, I"m not surprised. Not one bit.
ANON who said that Huckabee's rhetoric doesn't match his record>
You're right. And you're also right about how to reach salvation. As a person, Huckabee (and any other religious person) will always have my love and respect for being able to find God in their own way.
My problem lies with Huckabee's public use of his religion. I think it's grossly unethical to use one's faith as a tool to gain office or power or to threaten to use it as a billy club once one gains that office or power.
It's one thing to show one's faith in one's behavior, as well as to use that faith as basis for how one governs...but Huckabee has gone far beyond that.
I don't approve, and I don't believe that the God I worship would approve, either.
Matt,
"1) What gives you, or anyone else, the right to determine when a candidate must get into the race and how he must campaign once he gets there?"
Nothing. What I'm saying is that he didn't actually, seriously, do the "campaigning" part. Maybe, I'm wrong - maybe that was his style, his strategy - either way it didn't work.
"I'll tell you what it is -- it's idiotic tripe from people who don't have the brains or the guts to challenge Fred on the issues."
Uh, actually he was several, and until recently didn't have much in the way of substance.
" I'll ask you again -- why should either of those non-issues matter when we're talking about the Presidency and the importance of this election."
Because it's POLITICS not a Civil Service exam!!! Hate to be bum kick about it but if merit mattered how'd we get W!! Twice even!!
"Are you REALLY trying to argue that people should vote based on a person's campaign style rather than their stances on important issues?"
It's not that they should, they shouldn't but that's what they do.
Style is important in getting out the message, sometimes, unfortunately, the style is the message (W '00 and then again in '04), usaull because that's all there is. Sometimes, ... Well, that's boring, going thru all premutations but I hope you get my point folks picked X over Fred because Fred simply didn't do the WORK to get his message to them, WORK to convince them that he was better than the Pretty Boy, the Preacher, the Fly Boy, the Texas Terrotte sufferer and et al. That's what I'm saying. Look, I could be the smartest, hardest working man in Tennessee but if I don't get out of bed in the morning and go to WORK I'll be unemployed and it'll be my fault.
"Our political system is very much broken and easily manipulated, the electorate is quite often uninformed and easily led by the nose, and the Republican Party is led by people who wouldn't know conservatism if it bit them in the rear."
Well ... as a Liberal I'd have to say:
Our political system is very much broken and easily manipulated, the electorate is quite often uninformed and easily led by the nose, and the Democratic Party is led by people who wouldn't know Liberalism if it bit them in the rear.
Nope, I"m not surprised. Not one bit.
Me, neither.
SteveMule
Matt,
You are right on. They say his campaign has no sizzle. Says who? I was there, I saw the huge crowds and only a few cameras. The MSM treats us evangelicals as if we vote as a block. The do the same to blacks. It's like we can't think for our self and that we are only interested in certain issues. My # one issue is who will stand up against the ISLAMIC Extremists and the so called Islamic moderates who sit on their hands. FRed realizes this as our # one threat. We are at war on three fronts: one, in the middle East for a more stable middle east and to kill as many islamic radicals as possible (we may run out of virgins). We are war at our borders and on our streets with those that would come here illegally and continue to break laws and be set free. We are at war with our dependence on foriegn oil due to our lack of resolve to drill for our own on our own soil and tell our Friends in Suadia Arabia: Thanks but we'll be fine on our own. That's all for now. It's time to find the best horse to ride to war against the forces of liberalism that have finally figured out life isn't always fair and if we would just give them more money for more programs we will be just fine. Wake up! Anyone we have is better than Obama, Clinton or Edwards. It's war you must pick a side.
Steve,
Okay, let me get this straight. You're using Dubya as an example of what happens when we put style first over substance -- and you're arguing that we should continue to do that???
My friend, Dubya (and Clinton before him) is reason numero uno for why I am so vehemently opposed to such tripe and why I refuse to fault Thompson for what's happened.
If ANYTHING needs to be changed about Washington, it's the type of person we send there, and you simply cannot arrive at change without actually changing anything. How do you expect the system to change if the people who are trying to change it continue to play by the same rules?
Mr. Oatney tried to tell me the same thing, but life doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but it's true.
Do you think that our Founders accomplished a revolution by playing by British rules? Of course not. They didn't just pay lip service to change -- they actually changed, and people sacrificed their lives to enact that change.
Thompson may be the driver of his bus and responsible for where and how it goes -- but if others throw up road blocks in every conceivable direction, how can that be his fault?
Matt,
"Okay, let me get this straight. You're using Dubya as an example of what happens when we put style first over substance ..."
Yes.
" -- and you're arguing that we should continue to do that???
NO! That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that for too many people that's all they want and get. That's why style has become so overidingly important. Some style is needed, no one is going to vote for a mashed potatoe sandwich. Electing a president is important we all should start paying more attention to substance, to policy and all that, which is, by the way, why I handedly rejected Fred before he was even out of the gate.
"Mr. Oatney tried to tell me the same thing, ... "
Then you should start listening. I felt the same way when Dean left the campaign.
" ... but life doesn't work that way."
Actually, it does, Matt, it does.
" I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, ... "
No bubbles popping here.
" ... but it's true.
No, it isn't.
"Thompson may be the driver of his bus and responsible for where and how it goes -- but if others throw up road blocks in every conceivable direction, how can that be his fault?"
First, Matt, this is often called 'whine.' Just so you know.
Secondly, it is his fault! He drove so slow he allowed those roadblocks to go up, he was unable to drive around them, he couldn't drive over them, he didn't drive thru them, and so on ... and he's not going to make it to the finish line and at the finish line there can only be one ... and it ain't going to be him.
So, yes, he lost his campaign.
SteveMule
Steve>
You're right. Too many people do put style over substance.
And those people all deserved both Clinton and Bush, while the rest of the country has had to suffer for 16 years.
And those same people are all going to deserve whomever we end up with in November, while the rest of the country suffers.
Anyway, it's nice to know that you think that change can be enacted by NOT changing. Honestly, there's no intelligent way to respond to that, because the idea is completely devoid of logic. You're saying that people will just magically change for no reason.
Oh well. You and Oatney and many other people will surely be waiting for me and all of the other Fred Thompson supporters to start bad mouthing him and to start saying how much we regret supporting him.
The thing is, with me at least, you'll be waiting a damn long time for that\, because it's not going to happen. I don't have one single regret, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for the anti-Fred talking points.
I'm no damn puppet, so you can get your hand out of my ass.
Matt,
"Oh well. You and Oatney and many other people will surely be waiting for me and all of the other Fred Thompson supporters to start bad mouthing him and to start saying how much we regret supporting him.
Oh No! NO!!
I supported Dean in '04 and you can go on and on about the scream or whatever and I will still believe he would have been the best BUT he didn't win. He didn't win. As much as I hate that he didn't win. Talk about road blocks getting thrown at you ... well ... he didn't win.
My beef with Fred (other than his policies, ideology and so on) was that with some early and continuing effort he could have overcome those road blocks and won the GOP nomination - I can not remember a GOP candidate that entered the race with a greater aura of conservative wisdom. I can remember being really worried about Fred's campaign and then he just frittered it away. He didn't scream, he didn't flip-flop (I'll give him that, for sure) he just didn't show up for work, so to speak. Maybe he, mistakenly, it would seem in retrospect, thought he didn't have to? Who knows? The thing is, I'll always be, in my core a Deaniac, and you in your core will always be a Fredite (? - let me know, OK?) and they will be our standard by which we judge and evaluate all the others.
Fred is your hero and always will be and we'll differ in our opions as to why he lost and I'll stop kicking him if that's what you think I'm doing. 'K?
SteveMule
David,
I hope you and your readers will check out my blog: http://tnmajority.blogspot.com/.
Andrew
Matt I usually stay out of your attacks on David however I think it is time you took a step back from your populist wanna be leftism and give David a break. You and Mrs. Daley have been on a relentless tear of him for months and it is unwarranted, rude, classless, and only diminishes what credibility in politics you may have.
I would suggest that you move on to your Obama blog and try to get him elected while the rest of us who really care about federalism and conservatism go to work to rebuild the movement.
Oh, Fabian, Fabian...where to begin...
I suppose that I should start by saying that you don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. So my suggestion to YOU would be to just stay out of the matter entirely.
David has taken it upon himself to not have the courage to answer me -- rather, others have to answer for him. I find THAT to be classless and rude. If I am so incredibly off and if his stances are so legitimate, then why doesn't he defend them?
Next, let me clue you in on something -- you haven't the first clue about me or my wife. You don't know us. I have not attacked you, nor do I plan to. I haven't judged you, nor do I plan to. So, be a man and don't attack or judge me.
I am NOT a populist, wanna-be leftist. My blogging and my comments here CLEARLY indicate that.
For crying out loud, Huckabee admits to being a freaking populist, and I am vehemently opposed to his potential nomination while David Oatney has been very vocal in his support of Huckabee. And you call ME the populist?
Where in the world is the logic in that?
If you're referring to my potential support of Barack Obama for President...well, that is more a statement as to my feelings about the other Republicans in this race than it is a statement about how I feel about Obama. I guess you could say it's my way of giving the finger to a Party that has clearly indicated that true conservatives such as myself are no longer welcome.
After 8 years of President Bush's so-called compassionate neo-conservatism, I absolutely refuse to vote for someone else that is going to be another Bush -- or even worse. If you or Oatney or other "Republicans" don't like that, then tough luck, brother.
And let me clue you in on something else. I've known David Oatney for a LOT longer than you have, and I think it's fair to say that I have a much more personal knowledge of him that you do. He and others may deny that publicly, but privately, he knows that it is true.
In fact, go ahead and ask David how he reacted and what he told me to do when he first learned that my wife was a die-hard liberal when I first met her. His answer might be enlightening to you. It certainly wasn't pretty at the time.
To close, two things...
If you are going to even consider voting for someone like Huckabee or Giuliani in either a primary or a general election, then don't you dare preach to me about believing in federalism or conservatism.
You might want to ask yourself why the movement has to be rebuilt in the first place. Here's a clue -- it's because people are willing to sell out their beliefs to a less-than-acceptable candidate just because he happens to have an "R" next to his name.
And why don't you ask me again if I really care one bit about having credibility in politics. I was too busy laughing the first time you asked.
Okay here we go. I simply stated your issues with him should be done privately and not in a public forum and as far as my support it stays with Fred until such time as he is no longer a candidate. As far as knowing you or Mrs. Daley never said I did personally but a person's writings reflect who they are. I did not attack you or your wife because actually we have areas we agree and I have talked up her ability to blog to some people who might look to her in the future.
I do however stand by my comments that the public personal attacks on David are rude and classless and you need to air your differences with him privately being that you and he call each other old friends.
As far as Mrs. Daley if she chooses to be lib so be it.
As far as the conservative movement I was not referring to any candidate but instead to an idea that needs to be spread throughout the country. There is a who new generation who knows nothing about conservatism and needs to be guided.
Fabian
Fabian,
Look, I may have said this before in other comment threads, but I completely agree with you re: any personal problems that I have with David.
The problem is that I really have no control over that. The private avenue has been closed to me against my wishes. If it were re-opened, I would greatly welcome that and would cease any such comments here.
However, seeing that this is my only avenue/outlet to say what I have to say...well, I'm going to take it, and I'm not going to apologize for it.
Remember, Fabian, there are always two sides to every story, and generally neither one of them is 100% right (something I've never claimed to be) or 100% wrong (something I've never claimed David to be).
When deep rifts occur, both parties usually play a significant role and both parties should work it out like grown ups. However, all other things being equal, I'm going to have my say until I have some form of satisfaction, however it must be done, and the chips are going to fall where they may.
As for my wife, please don't implicate her in this with me. While she's certainly had her say, she's been much quieter than I have and doesn't deserve these labels, whether I do or not. And no, she is no longer a liberal. She "saw the light" of true conservatism many years ago, and I am proud of her beliefs.
And finally, as for educating a new generation in conservatism, I completely agree. We must not allow true conservatism to die -- and that is one reason why I refuse to support candidates such as Huckabee or Giuliani, even in a general election against a Democrat. Electing more Bush-like Republicans will serve to only hurt conservatism even further.
Post a Comment
<< Home