Monday, March 07, 2011

Smiling Fanatics

It consistently amazes me who Republicans end up deciding is fit to be president and to run in their primaries. In 2008, I wouldn't say Republicans, as such, preferred Mike Huckabee although he did win some southern states in the primaries. When he lost, he quickly got himself onto Fox TV with a program of his own to discuss issues that matter... at least to Fox viewers.

How seriously should we on the left take his candidacy for 2012? In a recent poll 25% of Republicans preferred him as their candidate which put him at the top of the pack. In the South, he would be pretty much a lock to not only win the nomination but probably take all of those states in an election against Barack Obama. He speaks the language real well and I don't mean with an accent.
"I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the back the … bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather." Mike Huckabee
That was wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. I don't think it's accidental that he claimed Obama was raised in Kenya. Mau Maus didn't have revolutions in Indonesia. Evidently Mau Mau to some people is code for scary black person. So unless he thinks Hawaii is not part of the United States, he deliberately chose what he said and he knew his audience.

His conclusions based on a lie (or stupidity) are just as questionable ethically. Although I and most Americans would consider England one of our strongest allies in the world, we have a checkered past with them. Does Huckabee figure the Revolutionary War was no big deal but a Mau Mau uprising was? How did he mix Obama's history with Africa's?

Churchill's bust was a loan to the Bush administration after 9/11. The loan was extended but it was never a gift. Not only that, but Obama replaced it with a statue of Lincoln. He was supposed to admire Churchill more than Lincoln? This was not an insult to the British people and I doubt that Huckabee really thought it was. He just knew who was listening and how they wanted to see Obama.

Since Obama also had a white grandfather, which one did he have in mind? The one who really raised him or a man he never knew?

This all leads me to a couple of thoughts but they go in different directions. The first would be that Huckabee isn't seriously running for president and prefers the half a million a year he currently makes. Except he has that job; so what is he running for? Maybe he is thinking there is soon to be an opening for a nutcase commentator at Fox News.

The second thought is more upsetting to me. He has decided who Americans are and he thinks the majority of them are Tea Partiers-- enough to get him elected if he plays up to their fears and prejudices. And that one bothers me the most because it's not about him.

Would Americans really (other than the South where it is already shown he would lead the polls) vote for a man who has no respect for science? Can they seriously consider a man who does not believe in evolution? How about one who takes every word in the Bible literally as instructions direct from God. Boy I wish I hadn't asked that question because I suspect more and more as they turn to entertainment that doesn't educate and the schools systems are torn down, the curriculums turned away from facts to religiosity. Too many simply do not know what evolution is about other than it's a lack of faith to believe in it.

I wouldn't have at one time, but I think the folksy, witty ex-governor of Arkansas is one of the scariest of the Republican slate of possible candidates and given the trolls on that slate, that's saying a lot. Huckabee didn't make a mistake with what he said. He knew exactly what he was saying unless he is in the beginning stage of Alzheimer's. He knew and he knew who would love hearing it. Once words like that are out there, they stick. The denials disappear and the only thing left in people's minds are the lies.

There is nothing in Christianity that requires purposeful ignorance. There is nothing in it that allows someone to lie to gain favor with others. Christianity is about concern for the weakest among us. It is about sacrifice of self for one's brother.

Huckabee is choosing his parts of Christianity, ignoring the ones that don't suit this country's brand of christianism. He calls himself a follower of Christ, but to me he's a religious fanatic with a smiling face and that's scary. Little by little what is behind that smile is coming forth.

I read this article by Mark McKinnon saying that Huckabee should run on the issues not on scare talk. Except does McKinnon realize what issues those would be? Huckabee just put down a movie star who is pregnant and castigated her for being a single mother (even though the woman is engaged). He's against all abortions. He is also against being pregnant and not married (Are you listening Sarah Palin?). The only solution I see to that-- guaranteed anyway-- is celibacy. I also remember when, as Arkansas's governor, passed a law enabling couples, such as his wife and him, to enter into a marriage where there was no divorce possible. Basically it says he didn't trust them to stay married if the government wasn't enforcing the deal. Listen to him on pretty much issue and it leads to one question, and it's one I have asked myself often since 2000.

We don't have to ask who Republicans are or for what they stand. They have shown that time and again anytime they have power, but who are Americans? That's the one where I worry about the answer.


Anonymous said...

Hi Rain, This piece is well put together including occasional injections of humor when needed. "Perception is reality" is a way to manipulate. I hope most of us will see through it. --- Julie

Ingineer66 said...

Why can't we come up with somebody good to run for President? So far most of the people that I see as prospects will guarantee Obama's second term. It really bums me out as I see a second term with Obama as being very bad for the country in general.

Rain said...

Frankly I'd like to see someone run against Obama in the primaries. I know how Republicans see him as so far left but he's not and I'd like to see John Dean run against him or somewhere else I read how about Russ Feingold. He's a good man. I just don't feel Obama has followed the progressive platform as he doesn't think he has to. He feels he only has to please the right. He's letting down a lot of the rest of us who wanted him to do more of what he said he would do. Don't get me wrong. I'll be voting for him in an election as the options from the right seem pretty far out there; but it's not what is making me happy either. But then I don't know what would *s*

Infidel753 said...

Huckabee's a regional candidate. He may play well in the South but not elsewhere. And don't forget the cop-killer issue. That will be raised again if he runs.

They have shown that time and again anytime they have power, but who are Americans? That's the one where I worry about the answer.

In 2008, Americans showed who they are.

In 2010, Americans showed that sometimes, due to a combination of politicians' excessive bi-partisanship and voter short-sightedness, many people choose not to vote.

(A variant of the latter problem put Bush in the White House in 2000, when the votes wasted on Nader, if they had gone to Gore, would have given him a comfortable Electoral-College victory.)

I expect Obama to win easily next year, especially if the Republicans nominate Huckabee or (Satan forbid) Palin -- but I want more than that. I hope to see the House regained and a few of the nastier Governors and Senators un-seated. For that to happen, Democratic politicians need to show more spine -- and voters need to remember that, however disappointing they are, the alternative is worse.

Rain said...

I agree about Nader costing Gore the election, that and fraud with marking a ballot a second time to make it not count; and agree what Bush did to our country is despicable, but there is another side to this about whether we really are getting what we want with Obama. Are the Democrats enough better? If they are not, then what we need is a viable third party. Unfortunately with the tea party taking up part of that space, and their values anathema to people like me, I doubt a third party could win right now; so we are stuck with the lesser of evils.

The following link is from one of the angry liberals and what he is talking about there is not to be denied either. Obama would be better than any alternative right now that the Republicans would put out and we saw how they lie to get in with these governors who didn't say their real goals which would be likely to be the case with any Republican who might get the nomination in 2012. It is very disillusioning.

From from Adgita Diaries-- The wonders of American exceptionalism