Huckabee's Newest Staffer

Thanks Joe. May the Lord bless you in your endeavors.

Hahahahahahahaha...Say Hi to Chuck, will ya?

Congratulations, Joe. However, I take issue with your assertion that Huckabee is a true conservative. While he absolutely is correct on some issues such as abortion and gay marriage, his record in Arkansas is that of someone who is in favor of higher taxes and an activist government. Regardless of his motives, anyone in favor of granting the government even more power and control over our lives cannot be considered a true conservative. At least, not in my opinion. Robert Novak has a column detailing such issues. Having said that, I think that you will be an excellent advocate for the governor. He's lucky to have you. Good luck.

In forty years of voting, my vote for president, although it's often been clear, has always been decieded in the negative. I've never voted for someone because I was thrilled with them but instead because their opponent was clearly not acceptable to me.
Since the Republicans won't be running Satan or the anti-christ this year their candidate will be getting my vote as they would have to run one of those two to cause me to vote for Hillary.
Most times I've approched the polls holding my nose a little and sometimes squeezing it tightly. At least with your guy, Joe, I could approach the poll in hope with no hand on the nose. Good luck and have a great experience.

Mike,

You really are the worst human being who comments here. What's your deal?

Olarcki, I guess I don't fit into the "conservative" "Christian" viewpoint. I try to make judgments based on objective standards of truth and morality. You, on the other hand, make judgments based on group identification. If someone is "like you" everything they do is OK, if someone is "not like you" everything they do is wrong. That's why Mike Huckabee can work to free a rapist, and be A-OK with you.

You call me the "worst person" to comment here, I would be offended that you consider me worse than yourself, if I didn't understand what you mean by "worst". To you, "worst" just means "not like you" and I'm proud and happy to be considered "worst" by someone who embodies hypocrisy and depravity to the extent you do. I do not consider it wrong that I value women more highly than I do 100-cell blastocysts. I don't consider it wrong that I see women as human beings, rather than as passive incubators. I don't consider it wrong to see as immoral a man who took on freeing a rapist as a moral crusade.

Mike Toreno,

Oclarki is just exhibiting right-wing authoritarian behavior, rigidly defending the "moral values" status quo and demonizing people who are outside of his group.

I consider myself an evangelical christian, but I have to be honest with you, there seems to be a lot of right-wing authoritarianism amoung evangelicals. It's really troubling and I struggle to know how to deal with it in terms of my own faith. It seems like the authoritarians are currently defining what it means to be "christians" in America and their definitions seem decidedly unlike Christ's attitudes revealed in the New Testament.

It's very difficult to discuss issues with authoritarian followers as everything is seen in terms of rigid black and white and their leaders (James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al) are always willing to let them know how to think.

Mike,

No, worst simply means the rudest, most classless person whom I've encountered on this site. I'm just trying to understand who you are and where you re coming from, what makes your opinion worth anything? At least people like JohnW tell you where they are coming from.
I can't stand Huckabee, BTW.

Oclarki,

Thanks for the off-handed compliment.

I am truly concerned and seeking to communicate better with Christians with different views and atleast to me seem to be exhibiting right-wing authoritarian follower tendencies (I am referring to authoritarianism as discussed in Bob Altemeyer's book, The Authoritarians).

There needs to be a civil way for both so-called sides to discuss issues.

Though I am not a Huckabee fan, I do admire you for putting your money where your mouth is.

You might want to train your rapid-response fire on the following article by David Sanders, a conservative columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau and a former Huckabee staff member (I believe he was a speech writer).

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/11/25/DavidJSanders/344145.html

Boy, does this all sound familiar. I'm a "conservative" and a "Christian" and I'm right with the Jewish Goldberg on this one. Huckabee is dangerous. The split between limited government conservatives and the so called compassionate or big government ones is far more more problematic for the conservative movement than the split between social and libertarian conservatives on social issues. I, being of the small government variety, would never vote for the Huckster. Unless of course he somehow miraculously wins the nomination, then, well, I guess I have no choice.

Joe,
If you need any help in researching and responding, visit HucksArmy.com and become a member. We have a treasure trove of material you could use. :)

We are behind you my friend!

Thanks Oclarki. I wasn't offended.

It's very easy to vent frustrations by writing stuff on a blog-maybe that's what Mike T. was doing? I know I've done the same.

Anyhow, maybe we could all communicate better and try to see things from other's perspectives (as much as possible withing reasonable limits)?

JohnW, notice what Olarcki is doing. He doesn't discuss the substance of anything I said, he just characterizes it in ways uncomplimentary to me. You do not know what he is referring to when he characterizes remarks of mine as "ignorant" or "uninformed,". He doesn't report what I said and present it to you to make your own judgment, he seeks to disguise his personal attack behind a pretense of reporting something I've done, but if you notice, he carefully avoids telling you anything I've done or engaging it in any substantive way.

If you notice his post #16, he asks me what makes my opinion worth anything, adding support to your characterization of evangelicals as driven substantially by authoritarianism. His question goes essentially to credentials, what credentials do I have that entitle my opinion to respect. The answer to that, of course, is that nothing makes my opinion worth anything except its substance. The opinion stands or falls as it provides insight into reality, whether it comes from me or anyone. An authoritarian faux-Christian like Olarcki is incapable of separating an opinion from the person who holds it, but of course the identity of the person holding an opinion is the most irrelevant thing in the world.

My opinion is simply that Huckabee is not a decent man, and this opinion stands or falls on whether:

Wayne Dumond was a rapist (and there is ample evidence of this)

Huckabee worked to free Wayne Dumond because of Huckabee's personal animosity toward Bill Clinton, and a desire to curry favor with Clinton hater (and there is ample evidence of this)

A man who works to free a rapist because of personal animosity toward a politician is not a decent man.

I also believe, based on my observation of those involved in the anti-abortion industry, some of the same attitudes that drive the anti-abortion industry (namely, a contempt for women and a view of women as worthless except as containers for pregnancies) motivates those ho wink at and make excuses Huckabee's conduct in the Dumond case.

Joe, I am so happy that you will be helping Mike! All of us over at HucksArmy will be praying for you and your family. It's a sacrifice for you to do this, and yet, what a noble thing it is!

Blessings!
Jane Hall
http://www.HucksArmy.com

Joe, I am so happy that you will be helping Mike! All of us over at HucksArmy will be praying for you and your family. It's a sacrifice for you to do this, and yet, what a noble thing it is!

Blessings!
Jane Hall
http://www.HucksArmy.com

Joe,

I'll be keeping you and the Huck team in my prayers; he is the true fiscal conservative (esp. considering the alternatives!), but has gotten a lot of bad unfair press from conservative media due to his lack of any real establishment ties and the strong CFG attack early on and they need someone like you aggressively getting some truth out there.

As an attorney since '91 (and now an active duty Army chaplain) who's followed politics a long time, I've believed since I first heard Huck about a year ago that he would rise to the top and have consistently told people that since altho didn't expect how strong conservative opposition would be. Your role is important, to the extent you have influence with the campaign, PLEASE get them to understand that they cannot keep the momentum going unless he starts selling himself as the STRONGEST FISCAL conservative now (its already obvious by his bio and other factors that he's the only real relaiable consistent SoCon of viable candidates). A 30-second ad with a conservative economist with street cred (e.g. Ivy League economists endorsing Fair Tax as most conservative and most efficient for free market) and highlighting how other candidates fail to support no-new-tax-pledge (and how Huck has LOADS more credibility in not shifting position on a position like that) along witht he billion dollar surplus that paved the way for this year's tax cut would do wonders EVERYWHERE now, and time's short... need to stop reinforcing the tagline of other candidates that Huck is merely a social/evangelical conservative phenomenon about to hit his ceiling poll-wise by lost opportunity commercials saying he is the "Christian Leader" whose faith defines him... the voters paying attention GOT that now.

Mix that fiscal conservatism with an ad on electability, (winning large percentages of African Americans and DEMS in Arkansas...) and you just might convince some of those GOP voters who are believing the Novak/Goldberg/Romney slanders right now who REALLY want to win in November.

Joe, Could you get Huckabee to write some stuff on your website and interact with people who visit the site?

JohnW, when I say that Olarcki is interest in credentials, I don't mean he's trying to say that I am or am not entitled to post, it's that his views as to whether an opinion is worth listening to are based on the credentials of the speaker, not the content of and support for the opinion. He wants to know my views on faith and politics so he can establish my credentials or lack of credentials, that is, whether I am "like him" or "not like him". If you notice, both he and Grace at #29 want to make the issue about my "hateful comments" rather than whether Joe thinks it's OK to support a guy who made it a personal crusade to free a rapist (who then went on to rape and murder another woman). It's a common tactic among wingnuts, don't defend your indefensibile viewpoints, make the conversation about whether your political opponents are expressing themselves in an acceptable way.

Mike D'Virgilio asked: How can a "true fiscal conservative" ever say anything like this: ...

It's easy. I agree w/ Huckabee on this 100%. But just because I think something is wrong doesn't mean that I think the government ought to legislate against it. Government isn't the only solution to the evils of the world, and it's often not even close to the best solution.

Mike -
Just because he empathizes with those with little means, doesn't make him a big government, fiscal liberal. Yes I agree that you only hear democrats using that line and many of those who don't want to learn about Huckabee's proposals just want to assume that he's a big government liberal.

He has always advocated individual responsibility. Look at his health care plan. I suggest you watch the AARP debate with him and John McCain.
http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/resources/ia_forum_webcast.html

His fair tax plan is as conservative as it can get. Check out www.fairtax.org. He signed the no new taxes pledge by Norquist, unlike many other candidates.

Mike, we as conservatives advocate individual responsibility and freedom to achieve the American dream by hard work and determination. There is also another side to individual responsibility. The corporations and its CEO's also must be responsible with the shareholders money. When Enron and Worldcom came tumbling down, all of the fiscal conservatives went into hiding. No one spoke up and condemned what these folks did, instead complained how the media was making a big deal. This is why fiscal conservatism is losing in the battle of ideas, nobody is courageous enough to be balanced. Many condemn poor people of not trying enough, but not call out those people in corporate america when they step out of the line.

Do you know that the money in the 401K accounts of many of those enron employees who were about to retire were completely gone? If the fiscal cons had spoken up about it much more strongly and said that these people must be responsible and ethical, it would've been much better.

To whom much is given, much is expected. I hope you would understand where Huckabee comes from when he speaks about this issue.

Congrats, Joe. That's awesome.

Are you going to start a Blogs for Huck site?

I see I was right about Mike Toreno. Instead of attempting to help me understand where he is coming from, and helping me see him as a human being with a different viewpoint, he is content to be an ideologe and hurl invectives like wingnut. I guess it's beneath him to attempt to dialog with anyone he disagrees with, especially if they are one of those, gasp, authoritarian wingnut christians!

Maybe Huckabee wouldn't advance government programs to control CEO pay, but when he uses his bully pulpit to sound like a populist Democrat I get nervous. When he uses his bully pulpit to play main street off Wall Street I get nervous. And these are not the only dubious statements he's made. Anyone that calls the Club For Growth the Club For Greed has problems. Frankly I don't trust the man. If he can convince me in the next couple months that he's not another big government compassionate conservative then I'd consider him, but I don't think he can.

And I think Joe is NOT going to be all over this, because there's no response - "rapid" or otherwise - that can be made. What is he going to say?

Actually, Mike, we've already responded to that one. That is an old, dead story.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=TruthSquad.Dumond

Mike DV,

What exactly is your problem with Democratic Populism? Growing income inequality is a serious "moral values" issue.

Do you have a problem with government actually being responsive to "we, the people" and not just the top 1% of income earners and big corporations? Maybe you think they are wealthy because God think they are better than the rest of the great unwashed and therefore are destined to rule over us.

Are you a rich man?

It's my understanding that populism is a good thing: Government representing the average man on the street. Don't think populists are proposing socialistic redistribution of wealth and land, just a government representing "we, the people" with a level playing field for all.

Income inequality is a real and growing problem-even the Wall Street Journal has reported on this recently. I think populists are saying let's have fair rules and not special rules catering to the rich and corporate elites. Senator Webb of Virginia is a good example of a populist.

Why would a christian prefer a system that is rigged in favor of the rich and corporate interests? It seems strange to me that people would have a low opinion of populism.

Oclarki, I agree with you, equality of opportunity is what's needed. Equality of outcome can not and should not be guaranteed. We live in a capitalist country. Business should not be overly regulated. We should have a fair system though.

Also, I agree with you for the most part about it's a good thing we are not an absolute democracy. Afterall mob rule is not a good thing. Ideally in a republic, people who are minorities or hold unpopular views are given the same rights as everyone else. However, I don't think our government is responsive enough or concerned enough about the needs/concerns of "we, the people" (low and middle class people).

Here is the Wall Street Journal article from October 2007 I mentioned: online.wsj.com/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html

Keep in mind this article is from the news dept. and not the opinion dept. There are some articles in the opinion section of the WSJ that contradict this article. I think the news division of the WSJ is fair and balanced, while the opinion section leans too much towards the right.

[I've enjoyed this pleasant exchange of views]

Mike D.,

Happy to provide you with an opportunity to vent. I was venting too-as I was getting tired of reading about your hatred of populism which I understand to mean politics responsive to "we, the people".

Look at my post 56 and ask yourself are you responding to what I said there or are you responding to an exaggerated version of what you think my worldview is? Do my comments strike you as coming from a communist or socialist?

I think you are unaware of the economic reality in our country today. I am for government representing and being responsive to the majority of american citizens (the poor, the middle class, a/k/a "we the people"). Capitalism is the best system for spreading wealth, but the rules must be fair and equal (in other words-no more corporate welfare).

Conservatives like Grover Norquist would like to return our country to the days of the robber barons back in the 1890's and early 20th century. Is this what you want?

JohnW, and MikeD

Why do the some people who place no trust in the government seem to place an inordinate amount of trust in big multinational corporations. I'm a conservative who believes in markets, but there is nothing inherently conservative in allowing corporations to operate in the amoral way they do these days.

Every year we hear how corporate products are higher than ever, and the productivity of the American worker is the highest in the world. Yet, the growth of wages has not kept pace with the growth of corporate profits. These companies are trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. Eventually they are going to break the American middle class. They won't care, however, because they will have plenty of customers in China, India and South America.
It used to be the people who founded and ran American companies were patriotic Americans who saw how their business and products enabled ordinary Americans to live better lives. Now these companies are run by amoral citizen of the world elites, who are insulated from the American people by vitue of their exhorbidant salaries.

JohnW, unfortunately, the response that Joe links to is a lie. Check this out:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419

And if that doesn't work, here's a tinyurl for it:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/85a9r

And here are the opening paragraphs of the story:

"New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed a woman there shortly after his parole.

Huckabee has denied a role in Dumond’s release, which has become an issue in his race for re-election against Democrat Jimmie Lou Fisher. Fisher says Huckabee’s advocacy of Dumond’s freedom, plus other acts of executive clemency, exhibit poor judgment. In response, Huckabee has shifted responsibility for Dumond’s release to others, claiming former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker made Dumond eligible for parole and saying the Post Prison Transfer Board made the decision on its own to free Dumond."

Huckabee is not enough of a man to face up to what he did, so he tries to push it off on the Parole Board, but the fact is that the Parole Board only did what it did because of Huckabee's unrelenting crusade.

Here's what Board member Ermer Poindexter said, again from the story:

"Speaking publicly for the first time, Pondexter told the Times that she voted for Dumond’s release from prison because board chairman Brownlee, asked her to vote that way.

“The reason that I voted as I did was because Mr. Brownlee specifically asked me to vote for the parole,” Pondexter said. “I thought that Mr. Brownlee was acting on behalf of the governor, and I was trying to support the chairman of the board, and I was trying to support the governor ...
“I signed the [parole] papers because the governor wanted Dumond paroled. I was thinking the governor was working for the best interests of the state. So I signed it.”
**********************************************

OK, that's pretty clear, right?

And get a load of this, from the Joe's link:

"Governor Huckabee never took action in the DuMond case that made him parole eligible."

Now, take a look at this, from the article:

"On Sept. 10, 1996, the board took another vote, going 5-0 against recommending executive clemency and 5-0 against recommending an executive pardon. The no votes were cast by Steele, Brownlee, Pieroni, Suttlar and Fred Allen.

On Sept. 20, Gov. Huckabee announced his intention to commute Wayne Dumond’s sentence to time served."

*************

OK, now there's some discussion about the background of the case, the events that happened after Huckabee's announcement of his intention to commute the sentence, and the public uproar, coming to. . .

"Huckabee’s deadline to act on Dumond’s commutation was Jan. 20, 1997. Four days earlier, the parole board freed Dumond instead."

So, that's what Joe means when he links to the statement that "Huckabee never took any action that made Dumond parole eligible." He means that he announced his intention to take such an act, was alarmed at the public pushback, and worked to get somebody else to do his dirty work. Now he denies it.

So, what do we learn about Joe from this? We learn that carrying water for Huckabee is more important to him than the truth. Joe had a chance to tell (a) the truth or (b) the story Huckabee wanted told.

He chose (b).

Joe thought it was A-OK for Huckabee to free a rapist and then lie about it, and he thinks it's OK for him to lie about it.

We now know everything we need to know about Mike Huckabee and about Joe Carter.

And JohnW, this isn't like the Willie Horton case. Michael Dukakis didn't mount a personal crusade to free Willie Horton, but Mike Huckabee thought that freeing a rapist was a vital use of his office.

Now, I hope that Joe will tell us why he is such an enthusiastic supporter of a man who made a personal crusade out of freeing a rapist. I hope he will tell us why Ashley Stevens doesn't matter to him. I hope he will tell us what part of the Bible justifies lying to cover up for a man who worked to free a rapist.

Mike Toreno,

Are you still coming up in here with that weak sauce? You still haven't answered my questions. Who's YOUR candidate?

Mike V. and Oclarki,

It's great we are commenting and not insulting each other.

Mike, I appreciate your thoughts-sorry I don't have time for a long response. I think we do agree on a lot. I don't want to misrepresent myself though-I am not very conservative. I used to always vote republican prior to 2004, but now I have to admit my views are more liberal (perhaps I was liberal all along, who knows...).

You are right, the people working at these large corporations are not all a bunch of evil devils, but people just like you and me. I work as a support staff clerk in a large Chicago law firm-some of the attorneys are evil devils, but not the ones in my department, ofcourse. Also, I live in Dupage County and will be helping the county turn blue in the upcoming elections.

I will read the WSJ opinion journal, but it just seems too biased to me. The journal's straight reporting seems ok.

Just to be clear: I don't believe in "class warfare" or the "nanny state", but I believe the government is not responsive to the lower and middle classes (the majority of citizens). I would encourage you to look into this issue of income inequality-you won't get much info about it on the corporate controlled media though.

Mike Toreno,

Why are you so angry, I want to have a dialog with you and understand you, and you have this "how dare you question me!" attitude.

What's your dog in this fight? If you are a partisan democrat, which I'm pretty sure you are, then it wouldn't matter which candidate Joe supported. In that case you would be just as apoplectic about some event in that other candidates record.

Frankly I don;t really care about the particulars of the Huckabee case, much like I'm sure you don't care about the particulars of Obama's drug use, Hillary's shady campaign contributions etc. You are a partisan and what ever the republicans do is worse than Hitler, and the democrats can do no worng. When it comes to group identification, you are the blackest kettle around.

Mike V.,

Yeah, you are right about the democrats being the party of the rich for the most part they are not showing much moral integrity.

How do I decide what is biased? Good question. We are bombarded with so much misinformation and ideological stuff in the media, it's hard to get real facts on issues without doing some independent research. Ultimately we have to just make our own decision on who is biased. I used to always buy into the conservative line on everything, however I changed my mind on this after the Iraq war when eventually I came to the conclusion it was based on lies. I now see it is wrong to simply buy into the stuff presented from "liberal" sources too. Generally speaking though, I think I am on very solid ground when I say the opinions presented by Fox News, Hannity/Colmes, Bill O'reily, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc are generally wrong. I am not able to be persuaded by anything they say.

Re: income inequality - check this out www.demos.org/pub1514.cfm. Either there facts are right or they are wrong. I think they are right about the facts. Perhaps their analysis of the fact may be debatable. It would be very hard for us to do this research, but I think if you research the issue enough-you'll generally get the sense that the middle class is shrinking and income inequality is growing. Ofcourse, perhaps its all just a conspiracy of the "liberal media" and everything is really ok and the "liberal media" merely wants to push their socialistic "nanny state" agenda on us.

JohnW,

Rush is right. I listen to him everyday and on almost everything he says we are in complete agreement. I'm not a big fan of the other folks you mention, but saying they are generally wrong just doesn't fit. You may disagree with certain positions they hold, or disagree with certain underlying assumptions, but what does wrong mean? That they are wrong generally on the facts of everything?

Let me take one example where Rush, and the folks you mention are demonstrably not wrong. Lower tax rates generally raise more revenue. This is known as supply side economics. In the 1980s liberals derided this as "trickle down economics" and made fun of supply siders. We can say liberals are wrong on this because the facts, increased revenue, happens every time it's tried. Liberalism simply doesn't get human nature. Why do stores lower prices? So they will take in less revenue? No, to sell more stuff, make lower margins but increase revenue by selling more units. This is not debatable. But Democrats assume human beings do not respond to incentives. Raise the price of something and much more often than not you get less of it.

I believe, JohnW, that you've become a liberal not because of the facts or for any intellectual reasons. Rather, you've moved in that direction for emotional and maybe philosophical reasons. We can point to things above like taxes that cannot be disputed. Other things simply come down to preferences. I think your using the word "wrong" is simply, well, wrong. You may prefer big government solutions to limited government, but that doesn't mean limited government is wrong. Factually I can show you that big government solutions generally don't work very well, are inefficient and often have deleterious unintended consequences (welfare anyone?).

I can go on and on, but we're talking more world view issues than anything, I think. Basic assumptions or presuppositions control how we think and what we believe, what appeals to us and what turns us off. If we were sitting over a cup of coffee having this debate I would more than likely be addressing these as much as any "facts" about certain issues. I would argue that liberal assumptions about life and culture and public policy are more often than not wrong and have harmful consequences. But that would take far more than a comment at The Evangelical Outpost.

BTW, I'm really enjoying the debate with you and Mr. Olarcki as well. We can haggle and debate in a respectful manner without denigrating views or motives. It's just great fun.

Mike T.

Joe's response about the Dumond issue as well as the response on the Huckabee website's truth squad is vague and dismissive.

I don't believe Hukabee would have gone out of his way to release a man knowing he would kill if he was released. I think he made a mistake that had tragic consequences. He should be honest about the whole thing though.

Check this out from the not so liberal Fox News:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313384,00.html

Huckabee has consistently understated his role in the parole of rapist Wayne DuMond, who had been convicted in the 1984 rape of a distant cousin of former President Clinton.
Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned DuMond's guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, who had been castrated by masked men while awaiting trial. Huckabee said then he had "serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt" and acknowledged later that he had met with DuMond's wife about the case while he was lieutenant governor. Two months after ascending to the governor's office, Huckabee met with the woman again.
The ex-governor now blames his predecessor for making DuMond parole eligible — Jim Guy Tucker commuted a life-plus-20 years sentence to 39 1/2 years — but distances himself from his role in DuMond's release. Huckabee met privately with the state parole board, and two members have said he pressured them for a vote.
"He made it obvious that he thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it," former board member Charles Chastain said in 2001. "Some board members who were usually very tough about letting people out ... (later) voted in favor of him, and seemed eager to."
On his campaign Web site, Huckabee says the parole board was made up entirely of Democrats appointed by Clinton and Tucker. It doesn't mention that Huckabee reappointed board member Railey Steele days before he voted with three other members to set DuMond free. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman in Missouri and died in 2005.

Better to admit one's mistakes and clear things up, I think.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313384,00.html

JohnW,

You are joking, right? Just because Rush is entertaining I shouldn't take, how do you say it, "anything he says seriously." Obviously you've never listened to him for more than two minutes. Then, my friend, you should not take anything I say seriously either.

Mike T.,

It would have been useful if you mentioned the issues you raised in Post 77 earlier.

Also, that's right, the right-wingers had a nasty hatred of Clinton. There were a bunch of crazy allegations and stories.

It will be interesting how the campaign deals with this Dumond issue. They may be successful in portraying Huckabee as a fine Christian man with impecable character-especially if they can get the Dobson and Perkins media machine behind him....

Mike V.,

Ok, how would you describe what Rush does? Would you consider him a serious journalist?

I took a look at Rush's website just now-he has a big article about how Congressman Murtha saying the surge is working and how he later issued a retraction. It has a picture with the caption - "Democrats – we own defeat". Also, notice how Rush keeps repeating the quote, "I think the surge is -- is working"

It was quite correct for Murtha to clarify his remarks as it is great there as been a downturn in violence, but Bush's reason for the surge was to improve the political situation in Iraq. This has not improved. Check this out from the Associated Press article re Chief Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte’s recent visit to Iraq and statement about progress of the surge:

"The security surge has delivered significant results, now progress on political reconciliation including key national legislation as well as economic advances is needed to consolidate the gains made thus far," U.S. "If progress is not made on these fronts we risk falling back to the more violent patterns of the past".

Does Rush talk about the political situation in Iraq not improving or discuss John Negropointe's comments?

No, I would not want a long term presence in Iraq like we have in Korea. However, I do realize an american colony in an oil rich country in the middle east though kind of makes sense as it will help secure oil for our future and keep prices down.

What!!! Joe, are you out of your mind!?!?! Write less about politics? Why?

Thank you and may the Lord continue to bless you.

I see you are a big Rush fan-didn't mean to offend you, but I have no respect for the man.

I agree the democrats have used the war as a political cudgel-it's my view that they should show some integrity and immediately assert their constitutional role and cut off funding for continueing the occupation of Iraq.
They say they don't have the votes-they don't need them, all they have to do is simply refuse to send a budget to the President.

Also, it's my view that the democrats should not have condemned Moveon.org's General Petraeus (General Betrayus) ad. The General is a "yes man" and just a mouthpiece for the administration.

huckabee should of asked us a few questions.

Did Huck really destroy the state's hard drives while
leaving office?