Huckabee unleashes on GOP Establishment - Could he go rogue at RNC?

[Keystone Phil]

I disagree with him on this but I like Huckabee and would love for him to "go rogue." That being said, this is one of those classic forced stories in the lead up to one of the most scripted events on the planet. We're all searching for even a chance of drama and it just won't happen (especially over this issue. I know Huckabee is a friend of Akin and dislikes the establishment/Romney but he had a chance to do something about the latter during the primaries and didn't).

[Keystone Phil]

Great comment by Huck. This party better learn to keep all three major ideological factions of the party together under one roof or we are in for some very dark days.

But, like usual, we will have to hear from those in the middle or even left leaning about how we have to be a "big tent party"...unless we're talking about social conservatives. They have to go and there shall be no discussion about it.

[Keystone Phil]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

[Keystone Phil]

Huck may have a point but Akin is clearly the wrong battle to try and make it over. There are certain things you just can't say while running for elected office and Akin said one of them. Basically that's it.

Agreed

I don't understand why saying something is what seems to bother you two so much, but not the actual policy in question that the stupid splitting-hairs-about-rape thing comes from. Absolutely granted that Akin has terrible opinions on literally everything, but sometimes I feel like Republicans get more upset about bad press than anything else, as if you're afraid to look in the policy-mirror and see Akin, or you've compartmentalized campaigning and policymaking from each other to such a degree that you can't understand how there is such a small leap from holding that policy position to making that statement.

Uhhh... because he just suggested you can't get pregnant by being raped. That's not called "social conservatism" that called stupid. And it's hugely detrimental to the pro-life cause because it helps to foster the attitude the being pro-life has nothing to do with life and is all about wanting to control women. He completely shifted the debate in the wrong direction. From a policy standpoint they might be the same, but campaigns do matter. Words do matter. How you conduct yourself matters. Real life isn't Atlasia; people expect competent governance. And really Marokai, the policy end is completely moot anyway at the moment because Roe is in place and the Human Life Amendment is politically feasible. The entire rape distinction is politically irrelevant because there aren't the votes to outlaw it anyway. And this entire argument is beside the point when it comes to abortion anyway because only 1% of US abortions occur because of rape anyway. Before worrying about that 1%, I want to see the other 99% outlawed first.

Conduct matters, but policy is more important than conduct, because at the end of the day, the policy is what we get stuck with, not the silly statements of someone's campaign. What Akin said is ignorant, but it's the justification to the "forcible rape" nonsense that Republicans have proposed and argued in defense of for a long time now, and I get the sense that the Conservative movement has grown a bit oblivious to the words coming out of your mouths.

The Akin position on abortion is your party's official national platform's position. The splitting hairs about rape proposal was co-sponsored by your Presidential candidate's running mate in congress. Conveniently, all of that stuff is ignored in national news, because platform and policymaking are boring civic things that people tend not to pay as much attention to. But they are still real, and it only seems to get offensive when someone is arguing loudly in defense of them, but you don't get upset when they're proposing them. You're like a criminal only apologizing for being caught.

You act offended because of Akin's supposed utter ignorance and misogyny, but all you're really offended about is that he chose the wrong word. You're only arguing semantics with Akin at the end of the day. It is a very short jump from that policy to that argument, and you're only going to stop making completely ignorant statements when you stop trying to defend completely ignorant policies. I at least expect intellectual honesty from the Republican side, which is why the only person being respectable here is Huckabee.

Did this ignoramus really say that the GOP's platform position has been ignored by the media? Because anyone that actually follows the news knows that this specific platform plank has been a top story when discussing Akin.

This kid will really say anything to appear on an intellectual high horse despite being so hilariously wrong.

[Keystone Phil]

Of course, I would never expect you to seriously enter into a discussion on a specific policy, Phil. Politics, politics, politics.

And the most predictable response goes to...!

I've been over this countless times but let me restate it for you since you have a hard time grasping this: I am here to discuss politics and process stories. I don't look at the Atlas Forum as the great sanctuary of policy debate. I can do that in the real world (we know why you can't). It's really cute that you view this place as the location to solve the policy problems of the world. More power to you. I and many others don't. Again, you perch yourself on that intellectual high horse when, quite frankly, you're the worst kind of faux intellectual. When your "points" fall flat (as is the case above: hilariously suggesting that the GOP platform hasn't been in the news after this controversy), you insist on restoring to your usual tactic: "Debate policy or else you're an idiot!"

The fact that you are dead wrong has nothing to do with my refusal to discuss policy with you here. Further proof that you're a joke.

[Keystone Phil]

Everyone wants you to shut up, Phil.

You're as boring as the other nimrod.

[Keystone Phil]

Again, that's lovely that you want to discuss policy. More power to you. But don't get on your high horse with me or anyone else when we are here to discuss other political matters. I challenge you to find one - just one! One, Marokaki! - time when I've trashed policy discussion outside of a conversation with you. I don't even believe I trash policy discussion with you; I have simply defended my desire to be here to discuss the political process but for arguments sake, I'll say that I have mocked policy debates. The fact is that I've never said that policy doesn't have a place here so quit your whining. You threw the first jab (and many, many more) when you wanted to troll me way back when. You didn't have anything to use against me so you picked out an "intellectually inferior" characteristic. I think you once even said that I report news here "second or third hand" which was even more eyeroll worthy. Anything to trash me. It's a very sad and strange obsession.

For the second time now: I didn't interject myself into a policy debate. I took an inaccurate, non-policy statement that you made and noted that it was ludicrous. You got angry and resorted to your usual routine about me not having "serious policy discussions" even though the point had nothing to do with policy (it was simply in the middle of your policy points). It was a pretty serious error on your part that should have been addressed so I pointed it out for everyone.

Amusing that you want to turn this discussion into who has a worse history with moderators. Irrelevant but further proof that people like myself are outnumbered and the moderators (who tend to have similar world views as those that are reporting my posts) err on their side.