Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Huckabee on Heteros


Huckabee will be a great pick. People will like him because he's so gosh-darn genial, but Obama or (especially) Clinton will tear him to pieces in the debates.

Posted by Fnarf | December 10, 2007 4:22 PM

Sounds like Huck can count on the Mars Hill vote.

Posted by Jim Demetre | December 10, 2007 4:25 PM

Is anybody suprised by this?????????

Posted by Hal | December 10, 2007 4:27 PM

Here's my bet...

Huckabee vs. Clinton = Huckabee
Huckabee vs. Obama = Obama

(While Romney loses to either.)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | December 10, 2007 4:31 PM

...and Rudy beats either.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | December 10, 2007 4:33 PM

There is a good scene from The West Wing where Martin Sheen gets pissed at this conservative reading of that scripture passage, claiming that when read in the proper context, husbands and wives must be subject to each other

but yeah, the economic repubs are really pissed at the evangelicals, i find it hard to imagine Huckabee winning in NH, but SC seems relatively easy.

Posted by vooodooo84 | December 10, 2007 4:35 PM

@4 Huckabee seems to channel some of Bill's backwoods charisma, but none of his politics

Hilary channels his politics but none of his charisma

in a rational system this would be a no-brainer. this election just gets scarier and scarier, because i think i can guess how America would vote in this match-up

Posted by vooodooo84 | December 10, 2007 4:38 PM

On behalf of my mother, my grandmother, my fiance, and myself, I'd like to give a big "fuck you" to the 1998 SBC, Mike Huckabee, and our local pastor Mark Driscoll. Thanks for fuck-all, guys. Way to do Jesus proud.

Posted by Greg | December 10, 2007 4:48 PM

but he's sooooo nice.

Posted by superyeadon | December 10, 2007 4:54 PM

This shit only helps him out in the primaries....just hoping it won't be forgotten for the general.

Where's the Karl Rove for the Dems?

Posted by Dianna | December 10, 2007 4:55 PM

Where did Jesus say the thing about wives submitting graciously to their husbands? Probably in the same book where he said anything at all about homosexuality... you know, the book made up by evangelicals...

Posted by Big Sven | December 10, 2007 5:06 PM

Since Jesus is dead and all and isn't directly, or indirectly, communicating with his followers, how exactly do they submit to him?

Posted by keshmeshi | December 10, 2007 5:18 PM

Psh. He's got my vote.

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 10, 2007 5:21 PM

Why won't people shut up about this crap? Let the man at least get nominated first.

Posted by jay | December 10, 2007 5:27 PM

Sounds like a real man who knows how to treat his bitch!

Posted by Just Me | December 10, 2007 5:56 PM

I feel bad though since I still find myself having sexual fantasies about him. It's so wrong but yet it feels so right!

Posted by seanford | December 10, 2007 8:12 PM

Romney's a Mormon, Giuliani's pro-choice, McCain is only pretending to like Bush, Fred Thompson's campaign is so half-assed one wonders if it's a joke like Colbert--finally, the fundies have found someone they can like. But will anyone else vote for him?

Posted by RainMan | December 10, 2007 8:32 PM

he's so scary and my independent liberal-leaning minister brother supports him because he's a minister. creepy shit! i need to send this link, thanks for posting it!

and @4, as much as i'm a hillary-loving feminist, you hit the nail on the head. i'm terrified of a hillary v. huckabee campaign. the only way she could win that is with gore as her vp. but that would just be silly.

Posted by kim | December 10, 2007 9:02 PM

sounds charming! perfect for the dumbasses that put our current mouth breather in office.

Posted by gforce | December 10, 2007 9:09 PM

Huckabee?? he's baptist right? you may as well elect a woman or a black...same dif.

that gentleman on law and order is still in it. right? he seems nicer than that pow guy from the last election.

Posted by Protestant Voting Block | December 11, 2007 6:21 AM

There is no fucking way this asshole is going to be elected. Its too much. This guy thinks he's living in Palestine circa 30 B.C. The religious love him, but they're mentally ill.

I'm scared. Hold me.

Posted by Rotten666 | December 11, 2007 7:13 AM

Separation of church and state should mean a minister can't be president.

Should. Apparently doesn't.

Posted by Toby | December 11, 2007 7:22 AM

@21: "I'm scared. Hold me."

if by "scared" you mean frightfully indignant...then maybe you need to seek professional help;

but if by "hold me" you mean, put on lube laden nuclear/chemical/or biological protective gear and sit down to a game of parcheesi as we listen to moog synth salsa punctuated by horror film soundtracks shreiks and chainsaws and eat opium filled Gefilte fish, followed by Tang and nyquil shooters, then sure I'm in, you really need to be held, my pequino munchkin.


Posted by are you threatening me? | December 11, 2007 7:32 AM

Huckabee's going to be the GOP nominee, and that's bad for the rest of us. The good news is that he doesn't have much money compared to the previous frontrunners.

As for match-ups, it's hard to say. Huckabee has a populist appeal that's probably best countered by Edwards. Obama's appeal is less populist and more directed at non-voting populations (particularly young voters), so hoping that he could get enough of them to make up for Huckabee's appeal to Reagan Democrats is a bit of a long-shot. Clinton's chances against him are harder to figure. She knows Arkansas politics and so knows him, which is an advantage. But she'll come off looking like the status quo while he'll look like the anti-Washington outsider. That's bad. In terms of electability, Hillary Clinton is the best choice against Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson. She'd kick any of their asses. But against Huckabee? I'll take Edwards.

That's the unique thing about the election this time around. Each party's decision depends upon the decision of the other party, as there's not a clear front-runner to strategize a general election choice around. The last wide-open election primary in both parties was, what, 1952? And it wasn't nearly this wide open.

Posted by Cascadian | December 11, 2007 11:14 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).