RK ARCHIVE - Is Huckabee Clueless or Crazy?

Is Huckabee Clueless or Crazy?

By: Lowell
Published On: 12/30/2007 4:00:32 PM

Is Mike Huckabee merely clueless, or is he crazy? Read the transcript of his Meet the Press appearance this morning and decide for yourself. For instance, here's a Russert-Huckabee exchange on Pakistan (bolding added for emphasis):

MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, you know how the man and woman on the street in Pakistan would react to a U.S. intervention into their country. Is it worth destabilizing General Musharraf in order to capture Osama bin Laden?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think the question is, would it destabilize him if we simply went in...
MR. RUSSERT: Is it worth the risk?
GOV. HUCKABEE: If it saves American lives, if it potentially takes out al-Qaeda's number one operative, that's a decision that a president would have to make. And if I were sitting there as president, I would weigh all that information. But let me make sure that everybody understands the number one job for the American president is to protect this country, to do every and anything that it can do to make sure that we don't see skyscrapers tumble to the ground in major cities like we did on September 11th. Whatever we must do to protect our sovereignty against those whose ideologies are so extreme that they would do something so cowardly and so dastardly as to take thousands of innocent lives in that kind of terrorist action, yes sir, you better believe that I'll do anything necessary.

In other words, the answer is that Huckabee would unilaterally go after Al Qaeda in western Pakistan, even if it meant that the nuclear-armed nation of Pakistan was destabilized. And this -- a possibly Taliban-controlled, nuclear-armed Paksiatn -- according to Huckabee, makes us more secure? Clueless or crazy, you decide.

For more Huckabee "clueless or crazy" moments, join me over the "flip."
Next, Russert questions Huckabee on his attempt to tie the situation in Pakistan to...not kidding here...illegal immigration into the United States from Latin America! Seriously. Here's the Meet the Press exchange:

RUSSERT: After the assassination, you made several comments about Pakistan, used some inartful words, you got your geography wrong. The Washington Post wrote this editorial. "The assassination of Benzair Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally.
"His first statement seemed really uninformed: He appeared not to know that Mr.Musharraf had ended `martial law' two weeks ago. That was better than his next effort, when he said an appropriate U.S. response would include `very clear monitoring of our borders to make sure if there's any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into our country.' The cynicism of this attempt to connect Pakistan's crisis with anti-immigrant sentiment was compounded by its astonishing senselessness."
[...]
GOV. HUCKABEE: But my point wasn't lost. My point is that if you don't control your borders, then it's not about people coming across from Mexico to pluck chickens and pick lettuce. We're talking about the potential of a person who can come across this border with a dirty bomb in his suitcase, somebody who can come across our borders who might be bringing a shoulder-fired missile. And if we don't have better control of our borders, it does affect the people in Iowa and the rest of America.

Well, alrighty then Governor! (nervous laughter) Look, we obviously need to control our borders, but what the heck is Huckabee doing, attempting to link the issue of illegal immigration to the situation in Pakistan? Does he have any clue what he's talking about, is he simply trying to play to Republican voters for whom illegal immigration is a top issue, or what? Pathetic either way.

Believe it or not, Huckabee gets worse, with the following exchange on immigration simply bizarre:

GOV. HUCKABEE: In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that.
[...]
MR. RUSSERT: But a week later, after that comment, you came out with this: "The Secure America Plan."
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: "Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship" "Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register" "return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply," "those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future re-entry for a period of 10 years." Children born here are American citizens.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: And you were saying that.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: "Don't punish those kids." A week later, you said, "No, no, no, send the parents home," and what happens to the kids?
GOV. HUCKABEE: They go with their parents. I mean, I can't imagine a parent not taking their children...
MR. RUSSERT: But they're American citizens. Why do they have to leave the country?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Because they're--first, before they're American citizens, they're the children of their parents.
MR. RUSSERT: But aren't we a "better country," to quote someone, than that?

Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Obviously, no answers here. But it continues to spiral downwards, with Russert quoting Huckabee as saying "our economy would collapse [without illegal immigrants]." Russert draws the obvious connection between Huckabee's plan to send home all 15 million undocumented workers in this country with Huckabee's own statement that it would cause the economy to "collapse."

MR. RUSSERT: But that's 15 million people. You're saying to do that would collapse the American economy, and now that's exactly what you're proposing.
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, I don't think it would collapse the American economy if people went back and did their process of becoming legal. And all of them aren't going to go back on the same day. There's going to be a window of time. How long it's going to take for them to come back, I don't know...

"I don't know" is right. What on earth? The fact that Huckabee gives 15 million people 120 days to leave the country is sufficient to avert the economic "collapse" that he predicts will happen if you send back all the undocumented workers in this country? Right...

To summarize: in Mike Huckabee's world, we need to get tough on immigration from Mexico because:

1) The unrest in Pakistan could lead to some Pakistani flying to Mexico with their "shoulder-fired missile" or "dirty bomb" (his words), then driving or walking across the border with said "shoulder-fired missile" or "dirty bomb" (amazing how they'd get this thing from Pakistan, onto an airplane, into Mexico, past customs, into a rental car, across the border...) then...well, god knows what!

2) It wouldn't collapse our economy, even though he said it WOULD collapse our economy, because of...something or other, not sure exactly. But he stands by all his previous statements (he actually says, "I stand by many of the state--all of the statements I've made").

Next, Huckabee tries to explain his comments that "It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations--from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia."

MR. RUSSERT: But do you think homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Oh, of course not.
MR. RUSSERT: ...or sadomasochism?
GOV. HUCKABEE: No, of course not. I didn't say...
MR. RUSSERT: But this is what concerns people. This, this is what you did say about homosexuality: "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle." That's millions of Americans.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Tim, understand, when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners. I'm a sinner, everybody's a sinner. What one's sin is, means it's missing the mark. It's missing the bull's eye, the perfect point. I miss it every day; we all do. The perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners. Now, even married couples don't do that perfectly, so sin is not some act of equating people with being murderers or rapists...

Got that? Good, glad it's all clear. :)

Next, Huckabee attempts to explain how his opposition to ALL abortion is not a "faith belief."

MR. RUSSERT: But you said you would ban all abortions.
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, that's not just because I'm a Christian, that's because I'm an American. Our founding fathers said that we're all created equal. I think every person has intrinsic worth and value...
MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans believe that that would be, that would be you imposing your faith belief...
GOV. HUCKABEE: But, no. It's not a faith belief. It's deeper than that. It's a human belief. It goes to the heart of who we are as a civilization...
MR. RUSSERT: Some Americans believe that life does not begin at conception, and that it's...
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, scientifically I think that's almost...
MR. RUSSERT: But...
GOV. HUCKABEE: ...a point that you couldn't argue. How, how could you say that life doesn't begin at conception...
MR. RUSSERT: Right. Do you respect that view?
GOV. HUCKABEE: ...biologically?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you respect that view?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I respect it as a view, but I don't think it has biological credibility.

So, there you have it, if you believe that life begins at any point other than conception (e.g., the first or second trimester, viability, development of a brain and spinal cord, whatever), you are a clueless idiot. So says Mike Huckabee, and so says God (according to Mike Huckabee, that is).

Finally, Huckabee attempts to reconcile his view that life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion is murder, with the issue of punishing the "murderer" of the embryo or fetus:

MR. RUSSERT: And what would happen to doctors or women who participated in abortion?
GOV. HUCKABEE: It's always the, the point of trying to say, "Are you going to criminalize it?" That's not the issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if it, if it's illegal, it would be.
GOV. HUCKABEE: It would be. And I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about--I consider her a victim, not a, not a criminal. You would...
MR. RUSSERT: But you would punish the doctor.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor. I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead...

So, there you have it -- Mike Huckabee, in a nutshell. Not just some friendly guy who plays in a band and lost a ton of weight (as if any of us should care). Not just some underfunded, underdog challenger to Mitt Romney, John McCain et al. No, Mike Huckabee is a serious candidate. Seriously clueless or seriously crazy, that is, take your pick.

Comments

Abortion is Murder, except when it isn't (JSG - 12/30/2007 4:47:32 PM)

It seems strange to me that abortion opponents tell me that "abortion is murder", and then don't support punishing the doctor and the woman for murder. And, if it's murder, it's obviously premediated, so it's first degree. If two fetuses are aborted, that's a mutliple murder, making it capital murder (in Virginia). The punishment for capital murder (in Virginia) is either death or life in prison without parole. And Gov. Huckabee doesn't support this? He's soft on abortion.

But not funding the Children's Health Care Program is ok (Rebecca - 12/30/2007 9:31:54 PM)

As long as the death is slow and out of site, due to lack of health care, well that's ok. That seems to be the Republican view. that's their culture of life.

Shhhh! Ixnay on the uthtray until he has the ominationay! (True Blue - 12/30/2007 4:51:39 PM)

Everything you say is true, however you are under no obligation to rescue the Republicans from themselves.

Let him have the nomination--he'll be eaten alive by any of the Democratic big three.

I'm trying to decide if Huckabee or (Lowell - 12/30/2007 4:56:54 PM)

Romney would be weaker in the general. Or Giuliani, the weakest of all?

I mean... (Lowell - 12/30/2007 4:57:53 PM)

omney-ray ould-way e-bay eaker-way in-ay uh-thay eneral-gay? Ha. :)

General election (Sui Juris - 12/30/2007 7:00:22 PM)

Huckabee brings the entertainment value, but no chance of winning. 9iu11ani (I really like that), I fear, would really bring out the worst in everyone (there's a thirst for authoritarianism that that man can feed forever). Romney, on the other hand, stands for nothing and could conceivably lie his way into office (where I think he'd be the least bad result amongst the GOP - precisely because he stands for nothing beyond himself, and will go whichever way the wind blows).

Rudy Is A Creepy Soon To Be Loser (Lee Diamond - 12/30/2007 7:08:40 PM)

This guy is such a jerk. The noun a verb and 9/11 line is really true. He's going to get his butt kicked. He touts his treatment of Arafat....throwing him out of Lincoln Center...... as foreign policy experience. He is so cynical and/or ignorant......like Bush, he refuses to differentiate among the different players in the Arab world.

The obvious answer to the question asked is: (Timothy Watson - 12/30/2007 4:55:15 PM)

The obvious answer to the question asked is:

Both!

Isn't This Mess Amusing? (Lee Diamond - 12/30/2007 5:15:02 PM)

It's kind a fun to watch so long as one of these characters doesn't win the nomination. At that point, we will have to get serious.

Huckabee and Romney actually do have some views that redeem them in the minds of rational people.

RUDY, OTOH, has nothing. He is a despicable runt.

Clueless+Crazy=Extremely Dangerous (vadem - 12/30/2007 6:55:13 PM)

I didn't use to think he'd be easy to beat if he were the nominee. But as more emphasis is placed on foreign policy and he's forced to answer, maybe, just maybe we should be pulling for him to win. Then again, are any of the Republicans less dangerous than the others?

We should have gone unilaterally into TRIBAL Pakistan in 2002. (relawson - 12/30/2007 7:45:44 PM)

"In other words, the answer is that Huckabee would unilaterally go after Al Qaeda in western Pakistan, even if it meant that the nuclear-armed nation of Pakistan was destabilized. "

The premise that it would destabilize Pakistan is wrong if it were done under the right timing. There would be posturing of course, but had we done this right after 9/11/2001 I think it would have been a rather quiet operation.

Today, because of our stupid invasion of Iraq, and at this particular time because of the political turmoil in Pakistan, the window is closed for now.

But, when that window opens back up we need to go after OBL and Al Qaeda leaderhip. We can't outsource our fight with him to the Pakistani military. We need to take the fight wherever OBL is.

Just because Iraq was a huge mistake, that doesn't mean we should not be doing everything we can do to destroy the people and organization responsible for 9/11. If going into the tribal region of Pakistan is required, we must do that.

The fact that we waited is the biggest problem.

Absolutely correct and on target! (AnonymousIsAWoman - 12/30/2007 8:39:52 PM)

The biggest tragedy of our invasion of Iraq is that it diverted us from the real challenge of going after OBL and al Qaeda. It was never a secret that they and their Taliban allies slipped through America's grasp and disappeared into the wild, lawless tribal areas of Waziristan.

We should have pursued them into that border region back when we first fought in Afghanistan rather than dropping the ball and going after Saddam Hussein for no good reason.

We have destabiilized Iraq and opened a Pandora's box there of militant Islamists. And we've allowed the original perpetrators of 9/11 to regroup and gain strength in the Pakistani-Afghani borderlands where they are now a threat to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, we don't have a means to deal with the threat of militant Islam in Saudi Arabia, the country that has funded most of the madrassas - the Islamic schools that produce the fundamentalists.

I'm not sure if it's possible to do anything now in Pakistan without seriously destabilizing that nation and thus allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of militants. Ironically, invading Iraq made us less safe on levels that are still unimaginable to most people.

Agreed, we could have taken care of this (Lowell - 12/30/2007 8:51:15 PM)

right after 9/11, but almost certainly not now. Can you imagine invading western Pakistan, fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda for months on their home turf, and also watching nuclear-armed Pakistan disintegrate? That's what Huckabee's talking about, apparently.

Yes, cannot go into tribal areas tomorrow (relawson - 12/30/2007 9:11:34 PM)

We do need to wait until the current crises is behind us.

I think there is a very real chance that the current crises will explode and Pakistan comes under the control of people hostile towards American interests. We may not have a window of opportunity any time soon.

This is a big problem because OBL has his own window of opportunity to grow his organization and cause further turmoil in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan - not to mention the United States. The assassination of Bhutto was a huge blow to our war on terror and our ability to wage it in Pakistan.

We outsourced the job of catching OBL to the wrong people. If you want a job done, sometimes you've got to do it yourself.

Funny (Sui Juris - 12/30/2007 10:54:01 PM)

If you want a job done, sometimes you've got to do it yourself.

Something sounds distantly familiar about this . . . oh yeah, that's right - that's how W got us into Iraq without the world's support.

This is ridiculous after-the-fact cowboying. Was there a chance that US forces could have made some headway in Waziristan in 2001/02? Yes. Now? Not a chance. No one is going in there unilaterally. Don't be daft.

Because of our standing in the world (relawson - 12/30/2007 11:38:50 PM)

We are not going to be able to build a coalition at this point.

This isn't "after the fact cowboying". We are still at war with terrorists. At least they are still at war with us.

It is absurd to sit by and outsource the task of killing OBL and his lietenants. What would you do? Wait for the Kucinich "Department of Peace" to convince OBL to give himself up voluntarily?

I've got to tell you, I'm just as concerned with the ultra left wack jobs as I am about Bush and the neocons.

Of course we can't send in troops now until things cool down, but we all know that the Pakistani military will not bring OBL to justice. At best, they'll tip them off as we come for him.

Finally, just whom do you think killed Bhutto? Terrorists. Those animals have created the chaos in Pakistan, and they must be stopped. Unless we wage war against terrorism, this situation will keep repeating itself.

Lord (Sui Juris - 12/31/2007 9:51:11 AM)

We are not going to be able to build a coalition at this point.

You think? So, without any world support, and against the rather strong wishes of Pakistan itself, China, and Afghanistan (for starters), you're just going to send in a US land invasion force? What, you think you're just going to drive down the Karakoram Highway? Maybe China will let you stage? And oh yeah, were are you getting this army from? Good god.

This isn't "after the fact cowboying". We are still at war with terrorists. At least they are still at war with us.

Ah, the GWOT. One size fits all.

It is absurd to sit by and outsource the task of killing OBL and his lietenants.

Of course, it would be more than desirable to bring OBL & Co. to justice. There are, however, perhaps a few externalities to consider. Like, you know, the cost in lives. The actual benefit that would come from it (really, do you think terrorism stops the minute this guy's dead?). The actual capacity of the US to even achieve that goal. I know, it's easy to just say "Git 'em, dead or alive!". But you know this isn't television, right?

I've got to tell you, I'm just as concerned with the ultra left wack jobs as I am about Bush and the neocons.

I've got to tell you that you've got pretty poor judgment, then.

Of course we can't send in troops now until things cool down, but we all know that the Pakistani military will not bring OBL to justice. At best, they'll tip them off as we come for him.

Again with the lumping everything into one. Not a fan of subtlety and distinction, are you?

Finally, just whom do you think killed Bhutto? Terrorists. Those animals have created the chaos in Pakistan, and they must be stopped.

One is like another is like the other is the same as the first. I guess it's easy, having such clarity. And as to who created chaos in Pakistan, well, that's a lesson for another time. Feel free to read up on your own, though.

Unless we wage war against terrorism, this situation will keep repeating itself.

Nothing like a war on adjectives.

Stop projecting (relawson - 12/31/2007 10:11:44 AM)

"you're just going to send in a US land invasion force?"

Now you're just projecting. I never said that. Doubtful that a large force would be much use in this situation. Special operations and air support is the most likely scenario.

I also said that ideally, this would have been solved in 2002. I also said that we shouldn't send in forces until the tension in the area cools.

I get the feeling you enjoy arguing with people than actually debating the issues.

So is it your position that if OBL is in Tribal Pakistan that we simply hope that Afghan forces capture him? Nothing you have said leads to the capture of our enemy.

ME:

I've got to tell you, I'm just as concerned with the ultra left wack jobs as I am about Bush and the neocons.

YOU:

I've got to tell you that you've got pretty poor judgment, then.

Seriously, are you here to flame or do you really believe what you have said? Based on your comments I believe you are on the far left, or you are flaming me. Which is it? Aiming for a position in the Department of Peace or are you just stirring the pot here?

one more and I'm done (Sui Juris - 12/31/2007 10:33:08 AM)

I also said that ideally, this would have been solved in 2002. I also said that we shouldn't send in forces until the tension in the area cools.

Then perhaps you ought to inform yourself a little bit more on the matter of these areas. When you're done, come back and tell us the last time that tension had cooled in these areas.

Nothing you have said leads to the capture of our enemy.

Well, that's certainly a narrowing standard. In fact, I do not think that OBL is the OogaBooga Dark Master Threat to All Mankind. A seriously bad guy that we'd prefer to have locked up or dead? To be sure. But I'm not going to sign on with some single (and simple) minded quest to capture him at all costs. I really don't think you have the first idea of what you're proposing, here. That said, do I think there's a way to do it with the cooperation of Pakistan and Afghanistan? Probably. But that's almost certainly a long and quiet approach, and doesn't involve this ridiculous unilateral invasion you're talking about.

Finally, if you really do think you've got to worry just as much about Kucinich lefties as you do Bush and the neocons, I really have wasted my time here.

Difference of oppinion (relawson - 12/31/2007 10:39:17 AM)

I strongly disagree with much of what you have said, but I'll give you the last word here.

December 2001: Osama, Tora Bora and Pakistan (j_wyatt - 12/30/2007 10:20:13 PM)

The long list of publicly known f'-ups inflicted on this country by the loser-in-chief and his chief puppeteer, Dick Cheney, as yet does not include what really transpired at Tora Bora. Political interference in military field operations in December of 2001 by the White House remains highly classified and, barring revelations by one of the senior participants, likely won't come to light until the guilty parties are long gone from the public arena.

There were military assets in place along the summits of the White Mountains that mark the Afghan-Pakistani border who did have Osama bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri in their gun sights -- but they were not American military assets. Super-national elite NATO commandos consisting of British SAS, SBS and Norwegian FSK troopers, possibly augmented by snipers from Canada's JTF2 and ex-Soviet Spetsnaz Tajik guides, had been infiltrated into Afghanistan's Nangarhar District from Pakistan's adjoining tribal areas, specifically the predominantly Shia Kurram Agency in Pakistan lying just to the south of Tora Bora. These NATO commandos were in place to be the anvil against which Gen. James Mattis' TF58 Marines were to be the hammer -- with Osama and the al-Qaeda leadership to be caught between them.

The plan to use General Mattis' Marines to flush Osama et al from Tora Bora and into the cross hairs of waiting NATO commandos was called off by the White House working through the guise of CENTCOM, aka Laura Bush's Texas schoolmate, the overtly partisan GOP General Tommy Franks. More important to the macho poseurs in the White House than actually nailing those responsible for 9/11 were the domestic political repercussions if other than American commandos did the nailing -- never mind that the elite soldiers in question were from America's closest allies and that there were no equivalent American troops, not one, available. The secondary dynamic with a bearing on the decision to call off both the NATO commandos and Mattis' TF58 was interservice rivalry between Big Army and Big Air Force vs. the Marine Corps, which was further fueled by longstanding intraservice rivalry between a no-toy-too-expensive military establishment and special forces operators who were in position to implement the blowhard's promise to "bring 'em back dead or alive" the old-fashioned way, with boots on the high ground and a sniper rifle.

This country has been effectively bankrupted by the expenditures of trillions of dollars on a top heavy military and security establishment that was not only asleep at the wheel on 9/11, but has proven itself utterly incapable of nailing the author of the worst attack on America in our history.

The reason is not difficult to discern. America's military assets have been mismanaged for decades through the mechanism of retiring senior officers, after years of salary challenged service, seeking financial equilibrium by finding employment with the defense industry suppliers they once supervised, resulting in a musclebound force structure of expensive toys that are essentially useless in an era of asymmetrical threats.

That there was not a single squad of American mountain warfare specialists, let alone Pashto speakers, in December of 2001 was primarily a function of there having been little or no money to be made in training mountain warfare troops or teaching them Pashto -- relative to the trillions of taxpayer dollars slopped into the defense industry trough for 'smart' cruise missiles at a million dollars a pop whose efficacy appears to be limited to shock and awe fireworks displays, for more aircraft carrier groups when we already have twelve cruising the world's oceans at enormous expense with no discernible naval mission and for ever more expensive F25 and F35 fighters at a time when American airpower reigns unchallenged and will remain so into the foreseeable future with the planes we already have.

On entering Pakistan (Rebecca - 12/30/2007 9:43:31 PM)

I'm afriad we would be disappointed if we went into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden. Bhutto said in a recent interview with David Frost that Bin Laden was murdered by a rival in his organization. There is a video of the interview. Here's the link to the interview. She mentions this about half way through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

However, I have heard Bin Laden has 24 sons. The tradition seems to be that they will carry on on the work. Its too bad people like Bin Laden are allowed to have so many wives. Now we have to deal with multiples of Bin Ladens.

Look at the cross in this picture (Rebecca - 12/30/2007 11:19:40 PM)

Can anybody speculate on how they made the bookcase glow in this picture? Dayglow perhaps, or maybe some flourescent strips. I've never seen bookcases light up like that at Christmas time. Even Huck's furniture is religious.

Duh (Sui Juris - 12/30/2007 11:29:24 PM)

God made it glow. Don't be ridiculous.

Huckabee is a classic political "huckster"... (Dianne - 12/31/2007 9:10:31 AM)

definition: a person who employs showy methods to effect a sale, win votes, etc.

Huckabee reminds me of the character Elmer Gantry from the book by Sinclair Lewis and for which Burt Lancaster won an Oscar for the film character, I think.

Huckabee's good at slickly saying things that sound "matter of fact", to those who don't listen carefully or critically. I kept having to pull my jaw up off the floor listening to him yesterday. He's amazing at replying wildly to any question without missing a beat and sounding "reasonable"!!!

And the Babbits of the World Are Buying (dsvabeachdems - 12/31/2007 10:24:46 PM)

Lewis had our times captured to a "T." There are a whole lot of hucksters out there selling wolf cookies and the Babbitts are lapping them up. It isn't the sole province of Republicans. Don't forget that Babbitt decides to test unknown territory, though.

What I want to Know (Gordie - 12/31/2007 9:34:00 AM)

Where did he get the information that parachutes were strapped to our service mens back, but was called off at the last minute.

Is he a liar, a bull s----r or did someone actually tell him that. And were they testing him, to see how really stupid he is? OR is it the truth?