Arkansas Blog

You don't have to be 18 years old to volunteer.

Math has never been Mr. Huck's strong suite. He is, after all, a product of Arkansas's educational systems.

Or, you don't have to be a Floridian to volunteer.

I thought you were a Washington & Lee man.

Max, can't you see this is a parable, much like how Jesus fed the masses with a loaf of bread? Except, Rev. Huckabee probably things you really can feed thousands with a loaf of bread, especially if he isn't paying them anymore.

If you're going to keep giving us Huckabee news each day I wish you'd include news on Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback. I know he's from our home state, but focusing on Huckabee and ignoring the other losers who will not be President is pretty snobby. And if you don't watch out the MSN will be saying AT is racist for not including equal coverage of Alan Keyes. Barack isn't the only black man running for President!

To further liven up these Huckabee threads you could include news of happenings in or around Grant's Tomb. That might help me retain an interest in future Huckabee threads. I hope these suggestions help.

Huck is not in it for the pres. There has been a lot of discussion on that issue, particularly on this Blog. I take it as a given he is shooting for vp and if not that then to make/scam as much money as he possibly can. A nightmare thought is that mccain has one of those "moments" that comes from getting whomped in the head to much back in the Hanoi Hilton and decides he needs an evangelical vp type to help pull in the right wing nutjob vote. That dear friends sets up the pres by default scenario. I don't count him out until he comfortably esconced in a $1 million mansion in an exclusive burb near the kraft cheese plant up in Wisconsin. Even then this guy will be a nusance for the remainder of his life. He is too good of a liar, would fit in with all the idiots on faux cause he can come down nicely on either side of the subject, being in touch with el supremo and all.

Agree with ArkansawTraveler, the Huckster is only in it for the cash or has anyone any recollection of any campaign that didn't see campaign funds mysteriously migrating over to the Huckster.

Tough call, about Huckabee in Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia next week. I would have predicted a Huckabee win or second place in South Carolina.

I hope I am wrong again, but I think Huckabee will win or do well next week in those states. Why?

Let's take a look.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) just nailed it. Greesley could "enthusiastically support" McCain if he were chosen the party nominee." I think he can satisfy social conservatives by what he says about who he's going to put on the Supreme Court," Grassley said Wednesday.

And THAT, Razorback fans, is what the election is all about. Forget wars, the economy, health insurance, immigrants. It's about social conservatives cementing their takeover of America by further stacking the already five-man Catholic (social conservative) majority Supreme Court to expand and enforce their rule across coming decades.

You think women's rights are going to advance under this current Supreme Court (much less even MORE appointed "social conservatives?" Or equal civil rights for ALL Americans, including gays and lesbians?

Not if Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris can help it.

If you don't think this election is all about "Vote For Butch," take another look at the video of President Bush ostensibly making a "tailhook" landing (the Freudian underpinnings of American elections are sometimes a bit too obvious) swaggering across the USS Lincoln's flight deck in his fierce pilot's outfit and codpiece to proclaim, "Mission accomplished." America bought it for awhile, till the deaths and debts started piling up over the last five years of "The War."

Who are the "social conservatives?" Religious fundamentalists.

Wait. That's redundant. ANYBODY who's religious is a fundamentalist. They're quoting long-dead dubious authority figures who SAID God said things to them in a dream in a desert "once upon a time." Of course religionists are fundamentalists. What? They're gonna say: "Well, stoning adulterers and not eating shrimp cocktails and wearing two fabrics at once - God was just kidding." They're gonna admit any part of their Holy Book is wrong?

No.

Religions are about patriarchy and submission. You cannot have a relationship with God on your own. You have to get it second-hand from this guy over here in a dress. He knows all about God and he's right and you're wrong, unless you agree with him and tithe him ten percent.
Which is why Hillary Clinton, women's rights and same-sex equality are such threats to the political establishment and power foundations in this country (including massive tax-free religious power).

In one way or another, they all threaten the "inerrancy" of fundamentalists' "holy books." They are direct, if subliminal, "threats" to the authority of religion - which, if it admits one "error," on women say . . . it may leave itself open to other doubts and questioning that could ultimately stop the tithes.

Doubts and questions are anathema to global religious power (big, big bucks, Razorback fans). Religions can ill-afford facts getting in their way. Which is why they're anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge and ever-terrified that too many people will discover they're all based on imaginary myths and superstition and fear ("You will rot for all eternity in Hell if you don't agree with me!").

Sorta like the 953 documented fear-mongering lies the Bush administration and mainstream media (mostly owned by five socially conservative conglomerates, by the way - Google it) whipped up to lead us into the tragic war in Iraq.

Without separation of Church and State, religious fundamentalism and politics become glued together, as has happened in the Republican Party. Tactics are identical. Arrogant Patriarchy. Fear. Ignorance. Magical Thinking. ("If I walk across this flight deck in this John Wayne action-movie outfit and say we've accomplished our mission - we WILL have!")

So Senator Grassley nailed it. This election is about cementing the religious takeover of America by stacking its already religious conservative Supreme Court majority with even MORE of them.

So how's it working out in the primaries for Republicans? First, they're ALL against women's reproductive rights and same-sex equality, so that's a given.

Why are they against those equalities? Religion. That's all. There has never been a single scientific, factual, rational reason given to politically dictate the variety of women's reproductive medical rights or same-sex civil equality. The "anti-" platform cites ONLY religiously-backed and funded "studies." (See the utterly failed "Abstinence Only" programs funded by our tax dollars in the name of our government acting in the name of religious right programs now being turned down in state after state because they're ineffectual or counter-productive.)

Make no mistake: this election is the last chance for religious fundamentalists to take over America and they know it. This is their WWF Death Match. Now or never.

Same-sex equality, including marriage, advances around the world. Five nations so far. Even in ostensibly "Catholic" countries like Spain. America has the most restrictive abortion laws of any developed country. Church attendance in Western Europe has fallen to some 20% of the population - all OLDER. Not long for this world.

Religion is losing its grip in developed countries and increasing its grip in undeveloped ones (witness the split over gays in the Anglican / Episcopalian Church).

For the Republican Party in the upcoming election, then, it's not about real issues like war and the economy. In the privacy of the voting booth, it's about "winning America for Christ." Social [religious] conservatives on the Supreme Court, as Senator Grassley put it.

The most certifiably religious conservative candidate? MIKE HUCKABEE. Doesn't believe in evolution or science, wants to amend the Constitution to align with (his) God's dictates. Except, you know, maybe not the stoning parts. Though they're open for discussion.

JOHN MC CAIN? The most certifiably butch candidate. Actually SERVED in uniform. Props for surviving the hell of a Hanoi POW camp. No props for treating his first wife like crap. (The Giuliani Factor, only that involved Giuliani's second wife too. Hope third time's a charm.) No props for short temper (the Giuliani Factor redux). No props for being old.

MITT ROMNEY? Too rich. Too Yankee. Too groomed. Pisses off your average voter who's just trying to get a haircut or a wash-and-set at Family Cuts, or maybe a medically necessary operation or something. Too flip-floppy on the all-important "social" issues. Like same-sex civil rights or women's equality were the prom. "Who should I date?"

And Mormon? Are you kidding? Jesus and Satan were brothers? Kolub? Not in Bible Belt voting booths, Mitt.

Plus, Mitt, being your own biggest campoaign financial donor, as much as you're worth, why exactly would you spend your time and millions to secure a job that pays $400,000 a year when you could be an Amway distributor? Just asking.

RON PAUL? Maybe if you need a fourth for bridge.

That's it, Red State fans! That's the Republican lineup! An actually OLD war prisoner with an unpretty adulterous past and massive current anger-management issues (read "brat") . . . a rich privileged Yankee male model with hinky Christian bona fides . . . and an out-and-out Baptist throwback who's a master of rural charm whilst knowing nothing about foreign policy or much of anything else except living the good life Jesus promised him if he lost all that weight.

PREDICTION? McCain and Huckabee, of course. For President of these United States.

God, help us.