Huckabee calls out Thompson for a debate

Wonder why Fred Thompson's wife, Jeri, has kept a low profile? She grant's no interviews, has not been seen with him while he campaigns, even though she is his campaign manager.

But then, she is his 2nd "trophy" wife he married just when he went Hollywood, who is 24 years younger then him & is known to let her cleavage be a bit more then prominent.

Conservatives are really working their personal family values examples lately, aren't they?

Ron Paul should be considered with all the candidates,

Mike Huckabee is the only candidate who has the courage to call folks out to debate. Huckabee is the only candidate with courage enough to speak to Unions. Huckabee is bold, honest and wants to share his ideas with America..
Guts is what Huckabee has, that is why we need him as our next President..

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee ia making a lot of sense and is looking more and more presidential. I think he will be able to hold his own in any debate with any of the presidential hopefuls on either side of the isle.

One is reminded of this scene from the "Wizard of Oz,"

Lion (played by Huckabee): Put 'em up, put 'em uuuuuup! Which one of you first? I'll fight ya both together if you want. I'll fight ya with one paw tied behind my back. I'll fight ya standin' on one foot. I'll fight ya with my eyes closed. (To the Tin Woodsman, played by Guiliani) Oh, pulling an axe on me, hey? (To the Scarecrow) Sneakin' up on me, hey? Why, gnong-gnong!

Tin Man (played by Guiliani): Here, here. Go away and let us alone!

Lion: Oh, scared, huh? Afraid, huh? How long can you stay fresh in that can? Ha-ha-ha-ha. Come on, get up and fight, ya shivering junkyard. (To the Scarecrow, played by Thompson) Put your hands up, ya lopsided bag of hay.

Scarecrow: Now that's getting personal, Lion!

Tin Man: Yes, get up and teach him a lesson.

Scarecrow: What's wrong with you teachin' him?

Tin Man: W-w-w-ell, I hardly know 'im.

When Toto (played by McCain) barks and yips at the Lion, he shouts: "I'll get you anyway, peewee," and he takes off after the dog. Dorothy (played by Romney) protectively steps in to defend her precious animal and slaps Huckabee on the nose, causing him to sob fearfully and admit his cowardice:

Dorothy: Shame on you!

Lion (earnestly sobbing): What did you do that for? I didn't bite him.

I've got to hand it to Huckabee this is smart politics on his part.

Note that the "Swamp" cares so little about the Republican campaign that Fred Thompson STILL (9:03 Saturday) is not listed on the Swamp's list of GOP candidates which is on the right hand side of the Swamp screen.

Considering the run of stories we posted about Fred Thompson's rollout this week, you've got to be kidding, Bruce. Have patience, the producers with the keys to the side rail will be adding Thompson to the lineup soon. Meanwhile, substantive commentary is invited and welcome.

RNC Bruce,

Do you ever get tired of whining?

"Nine Nineties in Nine" - A nice little piece of rhetoric to cull in the people who wouldn't understand if it didn't have some stupid name. Kind of like The Worst President in American History dumbing down pay-as-you-go to "pay-go, you pay, he goes and spends it, hehehehe" so your average Republican voter could understand him. Yep...if it's got a stupid buzzword name, it's a Republican idea.

Personally, I would love to see Lincoln/Douglas style debates. These current debates with so many candidates, so many topics and so little time annoy me. I need more than sound bites to decide who will make a good presidential candidate. They are fine for a brief glimpse of who is out there but do nothing to show anyone's depth.

Since wingnuts now consider a Hollywood insider a legitimate presidential contender, and thus able to comment on the state of this country, I hereby present another commentary from another Hollywood insider - Richard Belzer. Suck it connies. The death of conservatism.

The heartless, spiritually bankrupt intellectual frauds who openly court -- and are disturbingly non-judgmental of -- the most intolerant loathsome elements of the political landscape (who for some unconscionable reason have been consulted about virtually everything our government has been doing or undoing for the past six plus agonizing years) -- these are the fruits of a particular strain of conservative ideologues with a shared affinity for the Hobbesian view of humanity, which postulates that people are essentially evil and the role of the ruling class, the government, was to have a standing army and police presence and little else. Essentially that the "people" were totally on their own, frontier-style with no public services, healthcare, college grants, headstart, maintenance of roads and bridges, public defenders, job training programs, Medicare, Medicaid; you get the picture.

Also violently opposed to the Jeffersonian assertion that people were basically good and part of a government's function is to engender the conditions where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are possible through education, hard work and a sense of community, whereas conservatives have only contempt for the notion of a fair playing field.

Conservatism is in its last throes if you will, twisting in the wind, dying like communism did because neither philosophy works by definition -- they both operate from the fraudulent premise built around contempt for and control of the people.

In the coming months and years history will not absolve them. These multimillionaire radio and television personalities who stoke and taunt "Joe Sixpack" with cleverly and sometimes not-so hate speech, railing about the danger of gays taking over and turning everything and everyone gay; Hollywood liberals seem to be among the most evil people since Sodom and Gomorrah, African-Americans are attacked in veiled terms that are usually not as veiled as they think, playing on people's fear of losing their job, demonizing foreigners seemingly from everywhere, scoffing at the notion that there is no class system in this country. All the while looking down on rubes and suckers who vote against things that are in their self interest and very survival to help further a cynical, mean-spirited political movement that has become a dangerous parody of the most astoundingly inept, impotent bully wannabes who can count among them physical and intellectual cowards who knowingly and smugly perpetrate lies that have literally cost untold lives.
How did this legendarily generous and open nation become fearful, distrustful, anxious and worried about our families, our country, our future?

We must resist being manipulated into thinking that a so-called "war on terror" is "winnable"; this is as patently impossible as trying to empty a river with your hat. Terrorism is a tactic, not a country -- there always were terrorists and will always be. This is not a war that can be "won" in the conventional sense -- that is clearly an impossibility. Recent events have shown that good police work can do more than an ill-conceived war that has become a recruiting tool. The sooner it ends, the recruits diminish and the police, with the federal government's support, can do what they are trained to do.

The Department of Homeland Security was a totally unnecessary boondoggle that is redundant and sadly ludicrous because it is now known that prior to 9/11, all the information we needed to anticipate and probably prevent the attack was in existence but not shared by different agencies because of turf battles and rivalries for funding and boys with secrets out of control and not sharing because it's their secrets.

As we continue to watch conservatism devour itself we can all hope that in the end, Jefferson's dream of fair governance can be realized before it is too late.

It's a great proposal by Huckabee. These 90 minute beauty pageants pretending to be debates is boring and ridiculous. The question is are there enough Americans with the ability to sit through even a 60 minute true debate among candidates?

We need to have serious discussions by all candidates on both sides, rather than just the same old platitudes and promises.

At least the GOP debate the other night had some fireworks and some discussions and some disagreements, unlike the Dems "debate" where they all sound the same.

Fred's problem is he hasn't figured-out its not tactics, its logistics. Neither Leno or Oprah will rouse a couch potato.
The internet crowd have a different demographic from the average which is why Ron Paul and Obama get any attention at all.

I hope Mike gets a lot more air time. He made a smart challenge. Call Thompson out of the shadows. If Thompson is all that he claims in speeches then he shouldn't be worried. I like how Obama said Huckabee is a good guy too. I want to find out more about him, I think he made a good bold move and should be rewarded. Let's see the debate. I'm tired of 20 people shouting for 20 seconds. i noticed Rommney trying to play catchup and do the same thing later.

I'm an old diehard lefty from the 1960s. I hate everything Republican. Always have, always will.

I won't tell any of my friends what I'm about to say here, but I like Mike Huckabee a whole lot. I don't agree with him on much, but I trust him implicitly.

I could see myself voting for him.

Huckabee has earned psoitive reaction here in the Swamp from all sorts of people, it shows that if you are genuine and thoughful, you can connect with people's good sense, and even though you may not agree on everything, you can find respect and, amazingly, trust. He would be great perhaps leading HHS or in an official role focusing on promoting healthy lifestyles to American youth. Keep it up Mike.

Vote for' I ♎ Huckabee' ?

Well, forget science classes for your kids.
Evolution just didn't happen.
Genesis = science

Bruce is a crybaby RNC sissy boy!!! Get a real job Bruce.

Ron Paul is a guy I'd like to hear more from. Mike Huckabee vs Fred Thompson is like two one legged men in an a%s kicking contest!

Conservatives are really working their personal family values examples lately, aren't they?

Posted by: RomanB | September 8, 2007 8:34 AM

Yeah Roman,

Just like the Democ-rats are. Dennis Kucinich can have a trophy wife who is even younger than Thompson's wife, and even younger than he is than Thompson's wife is from Fred D. himself. But we never hear about anyone crowing about them, do we?

Of course not. But that's not because Democ-rats don't claim to have family values. It's because the Democ-rats are the party of double standards.

Guts is what Huckabee has, that is why we need him as our next President..

Posted by: Ted | September 8, 2007 9:01 AM

Then why didn't Huckabee call Ron Paul out for another debate? Maybe he didn't want to Ron Paul to mop the floor with him - again.

snitramc:

You are about as out to lunch as wienerdog43 on you view of conservatism. Neither of you understand the basic ideas, nor the manner in which the recent crop of idiot politicians have strayed from the path of mainstream conservatism.

For that matter neither of you understand Hobbs' versus Locke's position, if you think that conservatism is more Hobbsian than Lockian. Then again, I think that has more to do with the taste that both of you have developed for socialism - as demonstrated by the way you equate Hobbsian philosophy with the lack of government gimmes.

Go educate yourselves. Neither of you can see your hands in front of your faces, much less the forrest for the trees.

Darwinian theory be damned. Get real. Why would anyone vote for Mike Huckabee. Fred Thompson flip flopping lobbyist. Losers both of them.

"At least the GOP debate the other night had some fireworks and some discussions and some disagreements, unlike the Dems "debate" where they all sound the same."

Posted by: John D | September 8, 2007 12:04 PM

Are you for real? Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't sound like a robot. John McCain was calculating. I might add that though I like McCain as a person he is dead wrong on the issues of the day. Leaving only...Ron Paul. Vote Democrat. The republican party has SOLD OUT BIG TIME! Family values my a%s.

I'll say it again Ron Paul.

jonnnniiieeeew

"Go educate yourselves. Neither of you can see your hands in front of your faces, much less the forrest for the trees."

Go educate yourself first, learn how to either spell forest, or how to proofread.

Second, learn to read. I stated clearly it was a cut and paste from Richard Belzer. If you have a disagreement with the concepts in the article, it should be with him.

Third, on one thing we do agree. "The manner in which the recent crop of idiot politicians have strayed from the path of mainstream conservatism."

Barry Goldwater must be turning in his grave every time president chainsaw and his chief mis-annunciator earboy begin to plan a new excellent adventure. From expansion of the federal government, to unlimited trampling on Constitutional rights, to illegal occupations of foreign countries, to lack of any ability to provide even the most basic fundamental functions of the federal government, to a massive squandering of taxpayer capital on useless, baseless, and benefit-less programs and excursions, these idiots have made it very clear that they are not Conservatives. And now that they are ruining the country, it will give Conservatives a very bad name. On that count, you are dead on.

I saw Fred Thompson speak in person the other day. Jeri was right next to him the whole time.

snitramc:

If it was Belzer's work, then use quotation marks. I can't tell where he leaves off and where you start. If you did that, I would have been able to direct my criticism toward him. As it stood, it looked as though You wrote the content of the piece. Furthermore, without any further comment from you, it was impossible for me to tell if you agreed or disagreed with this piece in whole or in part. It looked as though you endorsed the whole thing.

Anyway, Belzer is wrong. He misrepresents the views of conservatives in suggesting they hold a “Hobbesian” view of man. To the contrary, conservatism posits the view that Locke was entirely correct and that man can live free of government control; and the less control the better. That is why conservatives aren’t in favor of all the gimmes that Belzer suggests is characteristic of “evil” conservatism. Conservatives believe freedom, including freedom from government control, is a higher ideal than feeding at the government trough from cradle to grave. It is that kind of freedom in which man is at his best at using his mental and physical talents to adapt to his world, improve his society and community, and is more self-actualizing.

The socialist state, to the conservatives, is evil because it tends to make men lazy, unmotivated and dependent; in a word: sheep. This is not to say, however, that conservatives are uninterested in the plight of the less fortunate. We just don’t believe that a welfare state is the only answer or even the best answer to societies problems.

In my view, Belzer, mistakes freedom for evil, because it appears as thought he believes freedom is bad, and socialism (including all the government gimmes) is good. Socialism, contrary to popular belief, is statism – which opposes individual freedom and initiative. As such, it can only lead to an increase in state power at the expense of the individual. That, to me, is the real evil.

The same can be said of Belzer’s criticism of conservatives so-called contempt for the “level playing field.” Conservatives believe in a level playing field. But we insist that leveling happen to the field, and not to the players. Belzer doesn’t exactly explain his distaste for conservative views regarding the “playing field.” It only appears that he doesn’t like the idea that conservatives don’t make the field uneven for certain segments of society. His sleight of hand here is disgraceful, especially the way in which he appeals to Jefferson. Jefferson might have little stomach for today’s batch of neo-conservatives, but he was a conservative himself. He spoke out long and hard about individual initiative and freedom. Conversely, he had nothing but bad things to say about a strong central government running a welfare state, such as:

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we
should soon want bread."

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become
happy."

"We must make our election between economy and liberty, or
profusion and servitude."

As such, if this aspect of conservatism is a vice now, as Belzer claims, then it was a vice in Jefferson’s ideology too, and in Washington’s, and in Madison’s, and in Franklin’s, etc.

With regard to any of the bad stuff Belzer points out that is true, it is more true about neo-conservatism than it is about mainstream, traditional conservatism. If he’s talking about the death of neo-conservatism (read pseudo-conservatism), then I agree and good riddance. Neo-cons are, and always have been, bad news. The sooner neo-cons are gone, the better for all of us.

In any event, Belzer should have stuck to acting. I liked him as one of the wayward pot smugglers in “the Groove Tube.” His political writing, on the other hand, kind of reeks from his ignorance.

As for your further points, I apologize for not running the post through my word processor. I usually do. My bad this time.

As for your assertions regarding Duh’bya and Chainsaw, I couldn’t agree with you more. They are posers, and not real conservatives. You have accurately catalogued their sins and crimes. Anyone who can blindly follow them has no understanding of what conservatism means.

JohnnyW Wannabe lawyer, it's "Hobbes" not 'Hobbs'.

You guys are simply pathetic. Just so that you know, it's also 'Locke' not 'Lock'.

"...although it may not be true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill.

Please crawl back into your hole and quit embarrassing yourself.

weinerdog43:

So I didn't check my spelling before I posted. Wow, that really makes me a nitwit doesn't it?

And yes, I wrote Locke as Locke.

Is that the best you can do? You pick on my spelling, and only do a half-assed job of that?

You don't have anything to say in response to the substance of what I write – and you think I'M pathetic?

BTW John Stewart Mill was a fool. His imbalanced thinking led him to embrace socialism. It's a cute quote from Mill but, considering the source, it doesn't mean anything. In fact, it sounds like the same kind of sour grapes we hear from you.

And, no, I’m not going anywhere. And I don't live or dwell in a hole.

I’ll just wait around until you make a fool of yourself again with your ideological sputum. See you then!

John W., you see you make many good points in a reasoned fashion and what happens? You get ridiculously attacked, mocked and ridiculed. This is not to say you shouldn't continue providing reasoned debate and comments, you should. But perhaps now you'll understand why I have so much disdain for many on the Left, those would be the Loony Left. Just because someone is liberal, doesn't make them "loony," but many who post here are the loons, not reasoned, intelligent people who can debate with honesty and thought.

Now, John W., I don't completely agree with all your assessments. Is George Bush a traditional conservative sense? No. Is he a conservative? To a large degree, yes.
And what is a neo-con? I've been called neo-con for a year or more now. I am not. I have been and always will be conservative. A neo-con is largely someone who is liberal, but now conservative. I have no problem with them. Our tent is big enough. I don't want them to leave, I don't want them to go away.
The whole "neo-con" thing seems to have cropped up largely because of the Iraq War. Sorry, but I believe Bush did what had to have been done. Was it done the best way? Perhaps not. Were mistakes made? Probably so. Was the goal and intent the right thing to do? Yes. This country, both LEFT and RIGHT made regime change in Iraq a goal and a desire for 10 to 20 years now. Clinton, Daschle, Kerry, Levin, et al wanted regime change in the 1990s. Bush carried it through.
The idea was to create stable, democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. You have dissension in Iran, with hopes that that dissension could eventually lead to a more stable, reasoned, and democratic government in Iran. Freedom and democracy takes root in the Middle East, terrorism and extremism eventually goes by the wayside. That can still happen. We're only at the beginning stages, and that kind of change takes time, patience and perserverance.
Up to now, no solution for the Middle East had worked. Presidents from both parties tried a host of solutions, most of which had some fleeting success, but ultimately failed. The Bush plan may eventually fail too. But we had to try something. And in regard to Iraq, sooner or later something would have happened. Bush just made it sooner.

Hey Mr. John W.

You asked:
"Then why didn't Huckabee call Ron Paul out for another debate? Maybe he didn't want to Ron Paul to mop the floor with him - again."

Here may be your answer...

"After the recent FoxTV-managed GOP debate fireworks in New Hampshire, CNN is actively seeking to set up an "immediate" further debate between Ron Paul (R-Tex) and former governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (AR). Huckabee has already accepted, certain presidential campaign observers say. And these sources add that the Ron Paul’s campaign is close to accepting as well, if the head-to-head discussion is not treated as a “sound bite” and lasts longer than a few minutes. It is not clear who would moderate such an exchange." Ref: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48507

Huck Accepted already but Ron Paul is "close" to it?

You silly Paulies... You act like a silly third grader who's doll got stolen by a 5th grader.

Jim

John D:

Traditional Conservatism is based on three interrelated ideas: social, fiscal and institutional restraint. President Bush tried to push an agendum of social conservatism, but he failed. He also failed at anything resembling fiscal conservatism, as demonstrated by runaway government spending. Ditto for institutional conservatism: He allowed the federal government to grow in size and power at a rate unchanged from any of his predecessors. Also, his explicit refusal to enforce our immigration laws on such a large scale has undercut one of the main pillars of conservatism: the rule of law. On can fairly say the conservative revolution in Washington was D.O.A. on his watch.

These considerations, alone, should make it clear that George W. Bush is not a good conservative. Yet, there are three specific policies by which GWB distinguishes himself as a “neo-con” that represent a sharp departure from traditional conservatism. They are:

1. Tolerance, and even support, for the continuation and enlargement of the current welfare state. As already mentioned, he had (and has) no sense of restraint when it comes to growing the government and its debt.

2. Disregard for constitutional limitations on his powers as laid out in Article II of the Constitution. Contrary to Duh’bya’s position, the President has no power to nullify or suspend any part of the laws or Constitution, even in wartime. The Constitution only gives Congress the power to suspend one law in wartime (habeas corpus), and then only under certain conditions (none of which currently exist). The express grant of Congress’ power to suspend one law, means that only Congress has that power, and not the President. Also, the mention in the Constitution of only one law subject to suspension means that Congress is forbidden from suspending any other law.

The consequences of this constitutional framework are plain: The President has no power to suspend the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” and “warrant” requirements. The President’s blanket order – relieving the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies of their duty to get warrants – effectively sanctioned violations of the Fourth Amendment, and was an act beyond his powers. This isn’t liberal pabulum either. The foregoing principles were reaffirmed by the “Burger” and “Rehnquist” courts (dominated by Republican appointees). This draws into question the legality of even the recent expansion of wiretap powers authorized by Congress and signed into law. The Constitution always trumps a contrary law.

The same is true of the rights of citizens to due process and a speedy and public trial, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Mr. Padilla, who finally got his trial, had to wait what – three or four years in custody? Even then, he had to fight his way to the Supreme Court twice before the administration decided to treat him like a citizen. This is all quite contrary to the spirit of the rules regarding the jurisdiction of civilian courts over U.S. citizens while neither insurrection nor invasion close courthouses.

The same also applies to GWB’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws. He is duty bound under the Constitution to “. . . take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (See U.S. Const., Art II. Sec. 3.) Go figure how anyone could believe he lived up to his duty regarding immigration. Ditto on this point for all the instances where GWB intentionally set policy to violate the Constitution. [I’m not even going to discuss the Patriot act, with its many questionable provisions.]

There is nothing conservative about running a police state in public view. Indeed one of the basic principles of conservatism is that “the end of government is freedom.” Freedom, and not repression, is the prize we win from good government. Besides, any President who puts his “policies” above the Constitution and laws isn’t acting like a President. He’s acting like a dictator. No one should be happy with that. - and,

3. His militant doctrine of exporting Democracy by Force. Prior to Reagan’s tenure, one had to go back to 1896 to find the last time a Republican President got us into a foreign shooting war. Republican foreign policy has always focused on protecting a defined set of American interests abroad, while trying to stay out of foreign military entanglements. In contrast, neo-cons have an express policy of exporting democracy, and to do so by force when other, non-forceful methods fail. Such was the case in Iraq.

We didn’t have to fight the war in Iraq; at least not when we chose to. It was foolish to get involved in that war because: 1) the current chaos and mayhem were perfectly predictable from the history of the region and the cultural proclivities of its inhabitants; 2) Saddam Hussein, monster that he was, made our influence in the region welcome, and he served as a check against Iranian aggression. Now we have a power vacuum, worried Saudis and emirs (who want nukes), a much less-worried Iran rattling its saber, and an entire region that resents our presence. - and 3) we knew from previous inspection regimes that Iraq had no method of directly delivering WMDs to attack the United States. Thus there was no strong basis to believe an imminent threat existed to justify force in self-defense.

The fact Bill Clinton implemented a policy of “regime change” in Iraq doesn’t change any of this. Clinton’s policy was limited to encouraging the Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam themselves. People have to choose their own governments – like we did. The fact that the Iraqis weren’t willing to take up arms against Saddam – but are willing to shoot at us and each other – should tell you volumes about their cultural inability to fight for or retain their own freedom.

I realize you may disagree with some of this, and so be it. There is too much of what I said, with which you cannot disagree, which still demonstrates that GWB has not been a good conservative, and that neo-conservatism is a bad departure from conservative traditions.

P.S. As far as I'm concerned, my loyalty to Republicans and conservatives lasts only as long as they are willing act like conservatives. When they violate their pledge to be conservative, I withdraw my support. And that's that.

Fred, Fred, where's your cred?
Will you let me keep my bread?
FairTax, Yes! 'er FairTax, No!
Just another politico?
Hope for tax reform, I see,
Will be voting HUCKABEE!