Huckabee WILL be the #2. Bet on it.

1. Current vice president won't give up office without a gunfight
I chuckled.

... and that really was #10 rather than just a joke by subby. Wow.

Whamdangler: Huckabee WILL be the #2. Bet on it.

We can only Hope.

/gobama

It won't happen because McCain has better options. McCain can choose a conservative from a swing state. Why choose a conservative from a state that you won't win anyway and one who has raised taxes?

McCain is going to choose a young conservative from a swing state.

Huckabee is a risky call. The only reason to put him on the ticket is to appeal to evangelicals. But he doesn't at all appeal to the no taxes crowd and the anti-immigrant crowd, both groups that also distrust McCain. Why not go with someone who is liked by evangelicals and the economic/immigration conservatives? I think Haley Barbour makes a lot of sense but there are several others who fit the bill. Huckabee brings you little.

yequalsy: Huckabee is a risky call. The only reason to put him on the ticket is to appeal to evangelicals. But he doesn't at all appeal to the no taxes crowd and the anti-immigrant crowd, both groups that also distrust McCain.

Don't know his stance on immigration (Jesus will keep them out?) but in his concession speech, he advocated for abolishing the IRS and instituting the Fairtax.

I'm thinking it'll be Huckabee.

The "fair tax" is dead in the water as soon as it's explained to people that it's a 23% TAX ON EVERYTHING THEY BUY.

Donald_McRonald: Don't know his stance on immigration (Jesus will keep them out?) but in his concession speech, he advocated for abolishing the IRS and instituting the Fairtax.

Ah, the "Fairtax". It's up there with the "Clean Air Act".

Whamdangler

Too much baggage on Huckabee. All those crazy fundie quotes of his will hurt him in the general.

It will be someone safe and conservative. Sanford is getting mentioned a lot. It will be someone like him.

Wendy's Chili:

You're thinking of the "Clear Skies Act," which was a handout to pollution-producing industry. The Clean Air Act is much older, and put into place safeguards and regulations which the Bush Administration attempted to undo (and mostly succeeded in doing so) with the Clear Skies Act.

Here's a wacky idea -- how about Huckabee for Whitehouse Spokesperson?

1. He's a Mormon
2. He's a Mormon
3. He's a Mormon
4. He's a Mormon
5. He's a Mormon
6. He's a Mormon
7. He's a Mormon
8. He's a Mormon
9. He's a Mormon
10.He's a Mormon

/drtfa
//more of a barrier than most people are willing to admit

McCain/Paul 2008

The revolution begins.

Diogenes
Here's a wacky idea -- how about Huckabee for Whitehouse Spokesperson?

I'd just have him play Bass in the official whitehouse band. Maybe he could get Tony Snow to join.

yequalsy: Huckabee is a risky call. The only reason to put him on the ticket is to appeal to evangelicals. But he doesn't at all appeal to the no taxes crowd and the anti-immigrant crowd, both groups that also distrust McCain. Why not go with someone who is liked by evangelicals and the economic/immigration conservatives? I think Haley Barbour makes a lot of sense but there are several others who fit the bill. Huckabee brings you little.

Haley Barbour is a really good governor but he was much too inside in Washington.

MFL: I'd just have him play Bass in the official whitehouse band. Maybe he could get Tony Snow to join.

LOL! Hey, do you think if Obama started throwing down some rhymes at his rallies, people would still find that type of schtick endearing?

Oh, and I have a #11 for Hillary/Obama:

We are sick to death of seeing them together now. And it's still just the primaries.

Donald_McRonald the anti-taxers complain that he raised spending and taxes loads as governor of Arkansas and the anti-immigrants crowd says he supported tuition credits for the children of illegal immigrants, opposed requiring proof of status to get state services, etc.

Being a Dem I don't really have a dog in this fight, but if McCain wants to use the VP to shore up the base then Huckabee is a poor choice. If he wants a VP to appeal to the mainstream or bring economic expertise, then Huckabee is a risky choice at best. If McCain wants a VP to bring a state, then you go for Florida, not Arkansas.

Stopheles: No get it right, its a 30% tax on everything you buy..

/its inclusive instead of exclusive meaning the tax is hidden and taken off the final price. For example you sell a candy bar for $1.30 1.30*.23 = 30 cents. The buisness pays 30 cents to the government, and gets to keep the dollar. Which is exactly the same as if the buisness sold it as a 1.00 candy bar with 30 cents of tax.

McCain is going to pick someone fairly low profile, he doesn't need a freakin lighting rod like Huckabee or Romney(more so Huckabee).

MFL: I'd just have him play Bass in the official whitehouse band. Maybe he could get Tony Snow to join.

Diogenes LOL! Hey, do you think if Obama started throwing down some rhymes at his rallies, people would still find that type of schtick endearing?

If Obama took a dump on the stage and threw it in the crowd, his fans would go after it like a 40 year old fat women going after the tossed bouquet at a wedding.

Oh, and I have a #11 for Hillary/Obama:

We are sick to death of seeing them together now. And it's still just the primaries.

Ha!

Dude I am so sick of seeing them...I can't even watch Obama give a speech anymore. He's cranked up the MLK immitation so much as of late, its downright funny.

/But then again I'm a non-believer...

Hang On Voltaire: Haley Barbour is a really good governor but he was much too inside in Washington.

Hang On Voltaire this is a reasonable criticism. Barbour was RNC chair and also a lobbyist, so he's definitely a inside-the-beltway kind of guy. He also doesn't bring a state; McCain will win Mississippi. But Barbour has the conservative credentials and that non-threatening charm thing going. I think he's a far smarter choice than Huckabee, but there are other choices, too.

MFL: /But then again I'm a non-believer...

True. You're a reactionary.

yequalsy Being a Dem I don't really have a dog in this fight, but if McCain wants to use the VP to shore up the base then Huckabee is a poor choice. If he wants a VP to appeal to the mainstream or bring economic expertise, then Huckabee is a risky choice at best. If McCain wants a VP to bring a state, then you go for Florida, not Arkansas.

McCain will pick somebody who could be seen as a future leader of the republican party. If he loses this person needs to be somebody who could potentially run in in 2012. It will be a young up and coming conservative republican like governor Crist but probably a little more conservative.

DarnoKonrad
MFL: /But then again I'm a non-believer...

True. You're a reactionary

Obama did make me react the other night in San Antonio. I laughed my ass off.

ZachF81: McCain/Paul 2008

The revolution begins.


Can't...stop...laughing!!

Stopheles: Wendy's Chili:

You're thinking of the "Clear Skies Act," which was a handout to pollution-producing industry. The Clean Air Act is much older, and put into place safeguards and regulations which the Bush Administration attempted to undo (and mostly succeeded in doing so) with the Clear Skies Act.

Same thing.

Whamdangler: Huckabee WILL be the #2. Bet on it.

I wish, but they're not that stupid.

Is anybody mentioning Allen? Has he been punished enough for the macaca line? Barring that fark up he could very well be the nominee right now. Or how about Santorum? It would be fun to have him to kick around some more.

MFL: DarnoKonrad
MFL: /But then again I'm a non-believer...

True. You're a reactionary

Obama did make me react the other night in San Antonio. I laughed my ass off.

You and the rest of the 'conservatives' come to fark to thread-shiat -- not to promote your own side, and you know that. There is nothing to promote on your side. The GOP is headed for the wilderness. A party with no leadership and no ideas.

The only way the Democrats can fark this up is by nominating Hillary, which might give the GOP a chance at redefining their crumbling coalition.

I know your response will more than likely be something crude and offensive as usual, but if you look critically at the GOP platform and its supporters, you are left with "We're not Democrats" or "Democrats sux and are stupid."

This bodes poorly for your future prospects in defining the agenda the way the GOP did from 1980 until 2006, and the way the Democrats did from 1933 until 1968.

One of the parties will define the agenda the next 30 years. One of the parties will become reactionary cry babies for the next 30 years.

Who knows who it will be? But the Democrats have a leader in Obama that has a chance. Clinton and the current GOP field do not.

ZachF81: McCain/Paul 2008

The revolution begins.

Not a chance, but it would be an interesting option. The Paul supporters are NOT going to vote for McCain in the general, and they represent about 5% of the vote. Many of them would vote third party or not at all in the general if it was Mccain versus Hillary.

The Paul supporters would grin and vote for McCain/Paul on the hopes that McCain kills over. Personally I'd vote for the ticket because Cheeny has shown just how much power a VP potentially has.

Paedophile_Deluxe: I wish, but they're not that stupid.

You don't think they pander to the religious right, and the southerners to boot? Huckabee is their dream candidate to balance out a non-southerner, not-so-religious candidate.

MindStalker: Personally I'd vote for the ticket because Cheeny has shown just how much power a VP potentially has.

Actually I think Cheney tells us little about the future role of VPs. Whatever power a VP has is derived from the president. On any day over the last seven years Bush could have said to Cheney: "Dick, I want you to stop showing up at the WH each morning. If I need you, I'll call you. Right now I need you to got to a funeral in Bangladesh. Have a nice trip."

My prediction: McCain will pick Mr. 9/11 as a running mate.

/well, he *would* want someone to counter Obama, but Condi doesn't want it, Powell wouldn't touch it, and all the other predictions are taken.

Romney back on the ticket?



Don't be teasin' if you can't be pleasin'

DarnoKonrad
MFL: DarnoKonrad
MFL: /But then again I'm a non-believer...

True. You're a reactionary

Obama did make me react the other night in San Antonio. I laughed my ass off.

You and the rest of the 'conservatives' come to fark to thread-shiat -- not to promote your own side, and you know that. There is nothing to promote on your side. The GOP is headed for the wilderness. A party with no leadership and no ideas.

The only way the Democrats can fark this up is by nominating Hillary, which might give the GOP a chance at redefining their crumbling coalition.

I know your response will more than likely be something crude and offensive as usual, but if you look critically at the GOP platform and its supporters, you are left with "We're not Democrats" or "Democrats sux and are stupid."

This bodes poorly for your future prospects in defining the agenda the way the GOP did from 1980 until 2006, and the way the Democrats did from 1933 until 1968.

One of the parties will define the agenda the next 30 years. One of the parties will become reactionary cry babies for the next 30 years.

Who knows who it will be? But the Democrats have a leader in Obama that has a chance. Clinton and the current GOP field do not.


Hey, I'm always up for a debate. You should know this. I know you love Obama and all but this guy isn't as great as many of his supporters think. You are assuming too much if you think an Obama nomination will mean an automatic election win. He is very beatable. I'm not saying McCain will beat him, but the more I watch Obama, the more I like McCain's chances.

Conservatives are craving for something to rally around. If McCain can somehow tap into this he has a decent shot at winning.

This election reminds me of 1968.

McCain is going to choose a young conservative from a swing state.

You mean someone like Bobby Jindal?

Bet on it.

RQB1018 You mean someone like Bobby Jindal?

Bet on it.

You might be on to something.

MFL: I know you love Obama and all but this guy isn't as great as many of his supporters think. You are assuming too much if you think an Obama nomination will mean an automatic election win. He is very beatable. I'm not saying McCain will beat him, but the more I watch Obama, the more I like McCain's chances.

Conservatives are craving for something to rally around. If McCain can somehow tap into this he has a decent shot at winning.

This election reminds me of 1968.

I already qualified my support of Obama. He has a chance (a chance at building a working coalition) -- more than anyone else this election year. Let's leave my salvation by the grace of his farting rainbows out of this debate.

This election is similar to 1968. As after 1968 a vacuum in agenda setting was left until the Reagan Revolution. 'Conservatives' set the agenda for the next 30 years.

The flaw in your argument about rallying 'conservatives' is this: Conservatives were a coalition of economic, social, and religious conservatives. In the heady days of the GOP, it was made to look like these people were all the same.

Firstly, they're not. They have different goals and different motivations.

Secondly, None of them got what they wanted. Respectively: 9 trillion debt, Abortion is still legal, and Gays are gonna get to marry. (we all know it, why deny otherwise)

Thirdly, young people (as in under 35) don't care about any of these issues (so that old GOP coalition is dead). . with the exception of a kind of reformed economic conservatism that doesn't fully reflect that Reagan brand.

McCain may very well eek out a victory. I don't know, but that's not the bigger picture I'm arguing here. I'm arguing a shift in the electorate. The Democratic Party is farking around with Hillary. The GOP is off in la la land -- they still think they matter at this point.

*One* of these two parties will build a working coalition that will suck all the political air out of the room and define the debates for a long time. I don't know who will do it. Or when it will happen. But the moment is ripe for it.

RQB1018: McCain is going to choose a young conservative from a swing state.

You mean someone like Bobby Jindal?

Bet on it.


Charlie Crist > Jindal

Florida > Louisiana.

Whamdangler: You don't think they pander to the religious right, and the southerners to boot? Huckabee is their dream candidate to balance out a non-southerner, not-so-religious candidate.

I think they're much more concerned with sticking to a traditional fiscal conservative type. Huckabee isn't very Republican other than his religious views. There's no way that the GOP elites would pick someone like Huckabee as VP when McCain is so old. They want a good old supply-sider to take over when he's gone.

Tiger Woods would be the perfect running mate for McCain -- he's Cablanasian, rich, and has excellent name recognition.

Unfortunately, he's not quite old enough, and I'm not sure what his politics are.

MFL: Hey, I'm always up for a debate. You should know this.

Is there a cover charge for your comedy routine?

MFL: I know you love Obama and all but this guy isn't as great as many of his supporters think. You are assuming too much if you think an Obama nomination will mean an automatic election win. He is very beatable. I'm not saying McCain will beat him, but the more I watch Obama, the more I like McCain's chances.

Conservatives are craving for something to rally around. If McCain can somehow tap into this he has a decent shot at winning.

This election reminds me of 1968.

DarnoKonrad I already qualified my support of Obama. He has a chance (a chance at building a working coalition) -- more than anyone else this election year. Let's leave my salvation by the grace of his farting rainbows out of this debate.

This election is similar to 1968. As after 1968 a vacuum in agenda setting was left until the Reagan Revolution. 'Conservatives' set the agenda for the next 30 years. In a way I see that vacuum happening this time around. Obama is a strong candidate, but the amatures running the congress will become the target if he is in fact elected. Nancy Pelosi will ensure the loss of at least one house of congress not so much because of what she does, but because there is no possible way she will be able to meet the left will think it has.

The flaw in your argument about rallying 'conservatives' is this: Conservatives were a coalition of economic, social, and religious conservatives. In the heady days of the GOP, it was made to look like these people were all the same.

By social did you mean "neoconservatives or defense hawks"? Many people define religious and social conservatives as the same thing even though they are not.

Firstly, they're not. They have different goals and different motivations.

Their goals may be somewhat different but all three pillars of conservatism need to be strong in order for it work at it's core. Most "conservatives" have a combination of all three. Some just have more of one than the other. Extremists on any pillar (for conservatives or liberals) can be dangerous.

Secondly, None of them got what they wanted. Respectively: 9 trillion debt, Abortion is still legal, and Gays are gonna get to marry. (we all know it, why deny otherwise)

Liberals have been more sucessful socially and economically than you give them credit for. The largest expense of our government was given to us by LBJ and FDR. Conservatives have set the agenda with foreign policy (with Reagan) for the most part but the Liberals have won the battle and set the agenda for government growth. They have been so successful at it even a Republican congress went along with it because they thought it would be good politics.


Thirdly, young people (as in under 35) don't care about any of these issues (so that old GOP coalition is dead). . with the exception of a kind of reformed economic conservatism that doesn't fully reflect that Reagan brand. Yes they do. Most of them are paying more than they ever dreamed in taxes. I'm over 30 (barely) and most of my old liberal friends that now have families are much more conservative. They are paying bills, raising kids, and seeing more of their income go to taxes. That doesn't mean they are quite ready to vote that way, but definatly would if the right candidate came along.

McCain may very well eek out a victory. I don't know, but that's not the bigger picture I'm arguing here. I'm arguing a shift in the electorate. The Democratic Party is farking around with Hillary. The GOP is off in la la land -- they still think they matter at this point.


*One* of these two parties will build a working coalition that will suck all the political air out of the room and define the debates for a long time. I don't know who will do it. Or when it will happen. But the moment is ripe for it

I see what you are saying and completely agree with you. (imagine that)

The left probably will win this election. They will overplay their hand like they always do and the country will reject it. The left just doesn't function very well when it's in charge. It's a party of the minority that needs a majority to rail against. They will fail to pass legislation that matches the lofty goals it's constituants put on it and it will self distruct. (just like in 92) Obama will then have to move to the right to actually get something done.

You are absolutly right the GOP right now is a mess. But it will clean itself up. The party is broken but the conservative ideals that gave it its leggs are not.

MFL:

Let's just say that 'social conservatives' are the 'authoritarian' branch of the conservative coalition - which includes neo-cons, hawks, and elements of the Republicans that just like to tell people what to do. - don't give me the opposites on the Left as justifications for their mirror counterparts please. I'm aware of who we're talking about.

You talk about the core of conservatism. And that's my point. Look up FDRs coalition. It's gone, and it doesn't (mostly) look anything like the current Democratic Party. The nation's electorate changes and realigns from time to time. I argue that the current conservative coalition is equally outdated.

Trust me, to anyone involved in an ideological viewpoint, their way seems 'immutable' or 'universal' but they do eventually go out of style. It's been a long time for 'conservatism'. Don't forget. It did have a beginning, in the not too distant past. 60 years ago, you couldn't even self identify as a conservative and have anyone know what the hell you're talking about. I argue it's run its course. You disagree. As a conservative professor once told me, "It's a free country; you have the right to be wrong."

I'd rather not get into specifics, because you're just going to disagree. But threads ago, I demonstrated effectively that we (as working people) pay far more taxes now than we did before Reagan. We essentially have a regressive tax system. If we simply went back to a progressive tax system, many problems would evaporate. But factually, the super rich and corporations pay less as a result of Reagan's policies, and since benefits have flat lined, the working class will pick up the tab.

You are right. FDRs coalition was responsible for social services, but an honest assessment will tell you that *most* people find these programs valuable, and that they do not want to rid themselves of them.

There are other, strictly pragmatic reasons for social programs tho. And that was their main basis. Liberals make the mistake in assuming that social programs are for helping poor people. Conservatives make the mistake in assuming that social programs are for wealth redistribution. It doesn't have shiat to do with fairness, morals, or personal responsibility.

The purpose of social programs is to moderate the up and downs of the economy. If you lose your job, welfare, and unemployment will keep your ass participating in the economy - hence insuring the future employment of the person that is taking those government dollars from you while you're unemployed -- avoiding the progressive collapse of the economy.

The sum that social programs have saved society far outweighs the costs. We don't have Great Depressions anymore. You can disagree with that, you can make some lame excuse about welfare queens, But *the economy* is the purpose of the social programs. And that is the only *real* reason for social programs. There is no point in obfuscating the issue with talk about poor people or abuse of the system - the safety net still functions.

In short, your version of Liberalism is waning. It's quickly becoming replaced by younger people that are firmly in the left, but are not apart of the 'new left' that defined the Left thru the 70s and 80s.

If anything, I'm warning you of a day soon, that your critiques on 'liberalism' won't make much sense anymore. Just like if I walked into this thread and starting attacking Republicans on the basis of some policy Dewy held.

We may end up on the same page some day. Honestly, you aren't much different ideologically than the young 'conservatives' I know personally - and some are voting for Obama because they see some good stuff about what he's doing. I ain't preaching to you, but you might read his second book if you *really* want to know what his policies are. Whatever. You and I still share this thread with idiots that don't give two shiats about policy or reality. You'll keep screaming socialist, and I'll keep screaming fascist, and it will all be one happy Farkdom.

But, you heard it here first. There will be books written on this topic when we're old men.

OK McCain Huckabee FTW 2008! Otherwise some lousy Dem who will rape my paycheck.

DarnoKonrad: You make good points, but I'd personally argue the thing keeping us from experiencing another depression in the last few years is the availability of easy credit. I worry that all going to collapse soon and we're all going to be in for a nasty shock. The federal government is too bankrupt to provide much of a security net for a large wave of job losses.

/You heard it here first -grin-