[RD] The Republican nomination

[MagisterCultuum]

Huckabee is a former Southern Baptist preacher who went on to become the Governor of Arkansas after Bill Clinton was elected president. He is quite socially conservative, but has a more affable personality than many of those on the right. He was not especially fiscally conservative. He is better than most Republicans at appealing to minorities, enough to have won a majority of the black vote as governor. He ran for president in 2012 and did remarkably well considering how much better funded his opponents were. Chuck Norris endorsed him, and they had a viral commercial were each of them told jokes about the other. Huckabee's campaign was largely based around his support of the "Fair Tax," which would replace the current tax scheme with a national sales tax and provide every citizen a "prebate" which is basically a basic income guarantee just sufficient to cover all the taxes paid by those below the poverty line.


My family members were big fans of Huckabee. I actually voted for Huckabee in the 2008 primary, not because I particularly liked him but because he seemed like a better choice than Mitt Romney. Those were the only two candidates with a serious chance of winning here in Georgia. I would have gone for Ron Paul instead if there were a chance it would have counted for anything.

(In 2012 my dad voted for Santorum, and my sister copied him. I went with Paul knowing it would make no difference. My mom kept her vote secret, but I'd guess Gingrich.)

This election cycle he seems to have gotten worse, to the point I might even support a Romney just to stop him from getting into office. I might not even bother voting this time though. A few months ago I would have gone for Rand Paul, but in his attempts to appeal to more mainstream republicans he had turned his back on almost everything that made him attractive.

Like so many on the religious right, he has begun to really emphasize elements on that culture which I find most at odds with what Jesus actually taught.


My dad is still a huge supporter of Huckabee, and doesn't see much point in considering other candidates until he bows out.

 

[Thedrin]

Huckabee also ran in 2012 with disastrous results.

Mike Huckabee Won't Rule Out Using Federal Troops To Stop Abortions

No he didn't. 2008. Also got the second most delegates though he was a long way behind McCain. I think if he'd run in 2012 he probably would have been a front runner in the Republican primary, netting the portion of Republicans who couldn't find a candidate they liked and jumped between Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, and Santorum.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You are right. It was 2008. In 2012, Huckabee almost ran. But he said on his Fox News TV Show:

All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” Mr. Huckabee said on his nighttime program on Fox News Channel. “And that’s the decision that I have made.”

As of Saturday afternoon, even some of Mr. Huckabee’s closest aides did not know what he would say. He kept them waiting as long as possible, making the announcement at the very end of his hourlong 8 p.m. program after interviewing guests including the “Extra” host Mario Lopez and the rock musician Ted Nugent — with whom he jammed on Mr. Nugent’s old hit song “Cat Scratch Fever.” (Mr. Huckabee plays the bass guitar).

Even during his statement, Mr. Huckabee hinted that perhaps he would run. “The past few weeks, the external signs and signals and answers to many of the obstacles point strongly toward running,” he said after citing his strength in recent polls and what he said were hints of strong financial support for any run he might make.

But, he said, upon reflection he realized that “under the best of circumstances, being president is a job that takes one to the limit of his or her human capacity. For me to do it apart from an inner confidence that I was undertaking it with God’s full blessing is simply unthinkable.”

So he apparently chatted with his god prior to making the final decision.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

In his 2008 campaign he made a big deal that he was the only Republican in the race with experience defeating the Clinton political machine. That case for why he would be the party nominee became much weaker when Obama got the Democratic nomination, but could be used again now that Clinton is again the presumptive nominee for the democrats. Huckabee's relative popularity among blacks would also be useless against the first black president. Huckabee has been setting himself up against Hillary for long time.

 

[onejayhawk]

What? You would obviously support any Republican candidate against Hillary.

Speaking of which, nobody should take this particular reactionary clown "seriously". He doesn't have a snowball's chance of even winning the Republican nomination, much less the general election. Three people speaking up just shows how poor of a candidate he actually is.

And one of those people, Sommerswerd, recently listed over a half dozen Republican candidates in regard to how they stack up to Clinton in the Clown thread (including Carson). Conspicuously missing from the list was Cruz. He also stated that Cruz could "outcrazy" Trump:

I would support my dog Jack against Hillary. That does not mean I support Cruz.

However, I do believe Cruz has one of the better chances to win the Oval Office. The right wing of the Republican party will support him with enthusiasm. Other than Walker, no one else has a more solid base. Obama showed in 2012 how much an enthusiastic base matters for GotV.

J

 

[Formaldehyde]

Of course it means you support any Republican over Hillary, no matter how silly or even reprehensible their views.

Or have I completely missed your criticism of any of them for any reason? Even with Trump you have apparently only stated that you don't think he will be the selected candidate, much less claimed that you would even vote for a Democrat instead.

And, no. Cruz obviously doesn't have any chance at all even being nominated, much less winning the presidency.

 

[Flying Pig]

You are right. It was 2008. In 2012, Huckabee almost ran. But he said on his Fox News TV Show:

So he apparently chatted with his god prior to making the final decision.

I think you probably need a certain level of hubris and conviction that - despite what the facts may say - your course is the right one if you're going to run a country. Leadership of any sort requires the leader to understand that he must act decisively even though it may lead to disaster, and to carry on acting decisively even when doing so has in the past led to disaster. I doubt somebody of ordinary, reasonable mind can do that for four years at a stretch when mistakes are measured in hundreds or thousands of lives.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That sounds exactly the sort of thing politicians and generals would say after finding out they have needlessly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Take Iraq, for instance.

What we really need are for a few of them to be tried as war criminals. Then they wouldn't likely make so many silly mistakes.

 

[Flying Pig]

War crimes and mistakes are different propositions, but - to stay with the example - even a general who has been defeated needs to be able to fight and win the next battle, which he can't do if he's too nervous about acting because he remembers being defeated before. I'm assuming we're not talking about sacking every leader who ever gets anything wrong - after all, if we say that a country's fortunes are in some part a measure of its leaders' skills, some part a measure of its 'starting position', and some part a matter of good or bad luck, then we acknowledge that some things will go wrong (and a few things will go horribly wrong) even if the leaders in question play their roles perfectly, because they have no control over the element of luck. If that's the case, then we need leaders who are able, to an extent, to forget about the dollars, lives and livelihoods lost last week in order to save some of the above next week. I think that takes an abnormal mind.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I'm talking about sending those who lied about Iraq and advocated the torture and murder of innocent people to be sent to prison where they rightfully belong.

The same goes for Vietnam and countless other wars which should have simply not occurred, at least with the direct involvement of the US.

As long as those in power know they can get away with committing war atrocities, they will continue to occur. These aren't mistakes. They are essentially current US foreign policy, and they have been since the end of WWII when we became the world's so-called policemen.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Noam Chomsky on this very topic:


Link to video.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think you probably need a certain level of hubris and conviction that - despite what the facts may say - your course is the right one if you're going to run a country. Leadership of any sort requires the leader to understand that he must act decisively even though it may lead to disaster, and to carry on acting decisively even when doing so has in the past led to disaster. I doubt somebody of ordinary, reasonable mind can do that for four years at a stretch when mistakes are measured in hundreds or thousands of lives.

That's a very fair and reasonable way of looking at things if our "leaders" really did act in terms of what they thought was best for the world as a whole or at a minimum, the vast majority of the people in the country they are "running."

But the reality is that their decisions are often motivated more by feathering their own nests and setting up their wealthy friends, donors, companies, etc with the most lucrative positions as possible while they are in power, so that by the time they have to give up "official" power, they have so much wealth and unofficial power that they are basically perpetually in power (which is why Jeb is getting 100's of millions from Super PACs).

So no in that climate I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt... They are fleecing the country in the name of consolidating their own personal wealth and power... so when they get thousands of people killed as collateral to their quest for wealth and power they deserve to be fired, not excused on "learning curve" grounds.

What we really need are for a few of them to be tried as war criminals. Then they wouldn't likely make so many silly mistakes.

Puh-leese... Do you drive an automobile or take a train, or bus to work? Do you use electricity that is not powered by solar panels on your roof? Use anything made of plastic? Yes, Yes and Yes right? So you are complicit in their oil grabbing warmongering and you have no moral high ground to accuse our "leaders" of war crimes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Even more nonsensical insults in an RD thread?

 

[Sommerswerd]

insults

Please quote it.

TBH It just seems like you feel insulted anytime anyone dares to disagree with you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Calling me "complicit in their oil grabbing warmongering" because I use oil isn't an insult to you? That I have "no moral high ground" to discuss an illegal invasion of a sovereign country on a pretext of lies, as well as the torture and murder of hundreds of innocent people?

I think we are done here.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That's a very fair and reasonable way of looking at things if our "leaders" really did act in terms of what they thought was best for the world as a whole or at a minimum, the vast majority of the people in the country they are "running."

But the reality is that their decisions are often motivated more by feathering their own nests and setting up their wealthy friends, donors, companies, etc with the most lucrative positions as possible while they are in power, so that by the time they have to give up "official" power, they have so much wealth and unofficial power that they are basically perpetually in power (which is why Jeb is getting 100's of millions from Super PACs).

So no in that climate I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt... They are fleecing the country in the name of consolidating their own personal wealth and power... so when they get thousands of people killed as collateral to their quest for wealth and power they deserve to be fired, not excused on "learning curve" grounds.

I think you underestimate the human capacity to delude oneself into really believing that whatever benefits oneself personally is also best for everyone else. People in politics don't tend to be so consciously self-interested. The most convincing liars are those who fool themselves first.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Calling me "complicit in their oil grabbing warmongering" because I use oil isn't an insult to you? That I have "no moral high ground" to discuss an illegal invasion of a sovereign country on a pretext of lies, as well as the torture and murder of hundreds of innocent people?

I think we are done here.

Not familiar with the royal "you" I take it?

And I can't help it if "you/we" (people in general who use oil) are insulted by the truth...

 

[whyidie]

Now that the field has settled I'm going to narrow it down to three.

Best shot for GOP is to flip FL, OH, VA and one of the mountain west states (CO, NV, NM).

Only candidates they have that are capable of pulling it off are Bush, Kasich, and Christie. Everyone else is noise. They're playing for the 2nd prize of book/tv/campaign money.

With that in mind I'm saying one of those three will be last man standing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Now that the field has settled I'm going to narrow it down to three.

Best shot for GOP is to flip FL, OH, VA and one of the mountain west states (CO, NV, NM).

Only candidates they have that are capable of pulling it off are Bush, Kasich, and Christie. Everyone else is noise. They're playing for the 2nd prize of book/tv/campaign money.

With that in mind I'm saying one of those three will be last man standing.

This assumes that the nomination is destined to fall based on best chance to win the general election. The nomination process may not work that way.

 

[ParkCungHee]

War crimes and mistakes are different propositions,

I think this is one of the most pernicious mistakes in modern politics.