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

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

I don't have to take this from you. I have been just as critical of the very moderates who do in fact find it inconvenient to be in a party with social conservatives, as I have been of the social conservatives. Both are at fault for the party's problems and thus I am not to going to carry water for either.

Huckabee's campaign did in fact openly state a desire to purge fiscal conservatives, back in 2008. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life statist and a big gov't populist.

[Mechaman]

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.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't being "at the wheel" imply somebody is in control?

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't being "at the wheel" imply somebody is in control?

In a bus, someone is in the drivers seat, and the others are in seated in the back. In politics, some folks set the agenda by such means as formulating the legislation that is actually debated on the floor, and other folks are more of the rank-and-file. What I object to is the sinisterization of social conservatives taking a leadership role in politics. I don't read a similar sinisterization of economic conservatives driving the agenda. Like on the Animal Farm, it seems to be the case while all "conservatives" are equal, some consider themselves more equal than others.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

I don't have to take this from you. I have been just as critical of the very moderates who do in fact find it inconvenient to be in a party with social conservatives, as I have been of the social conservatives. Both are at fault for the party's problems and thus I am not to going to carry water for either.

Huckabee's campaign did in fact openly state a desire to purge fiscal conservatives, back in 2008. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life statist and a big gov't populist.

We seem to be existing in different realities. In my reality, there are folks whom fancy themselves so-called "libertarians" whom are being welcomed into the Republican party with open arms. They openly advocated chopping off one of the three legs to which you refer. Time after time, I have read formulations like, "conservatives and libertarians...," while rarely, if ever, reading formulations like "conservatives, libertarians, and populists...," or "conservatives and populists...." It is as if the acid test is whether, or not, you embrace a certain economic agenda regardless of your stand on social issues. So-called "libertarians" and "populists" are equal in the regard that they both want to chop one of the legs off, while adhering to another leg consistently. The difference is that so-called "libertarians" are more dogmatic about it, and use more insulting rhetoric. When you state, "Ron Paul's campaign did in fact state a desire to purge social conservatives. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life anti-government libertarian," then I will have to admit you have been more consistent than I thought.

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

[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

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Surely, there are some things that a candidate running for office just can't say. What I doubt is that Todd Akins' remarks reach that standard.

Roman Polanski drugged a thirteen year-old girl, stripped her, and had sex with her after she repeatedly told him to stop. While raping her he had the presence to inquire about her birth control method. She replied that she wasn't contracepting. When his attempts at calculating the calender rhythm returned the wrong answers he anally sodomized her. Whoopi Goldberg denied that this was "rape rape." I don't remember the Democrats blacklisting her, or any Democrat whom voluntarily associated with her.

A sleeping woman whom had consensual sex with a condom with Julian Assange woke up to discover Assange penetrating her without a condom. A British member of Parliament characterized his actions as not those of "a gentleman," but not rape. I don't remember reading about the firestorm of criticism that ended with every political party in England blacklisting him.

As to picking the wrong battle, I would only note that when you are on the attack you can choose your own battles, but, when you are attacked your battles are chosen for you. Mike Huckabee didn't threaten to blacklist campaign consultants if they didn't abandon Akins,  Republicans in Washington did. Mike Huckabee was given the choice to quietly assent that that was acceptable, or stand up and note that it was not. Since Huckabee did not find it to be acceptable, his hand was forced.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but not when the idiot in question openly discussed expelling one of the three in his Presidential campaign. He is not for keeping the three together, he is for social con supremacy at the expense of the other three (and even at the expense of their destruction if necessary).

Social conservatives at the back of the bus = "big tent."
Social conservatives at the wheel of the bus = "supremacy."

Got it!

I don't have to take this from you. I have been just as critical of the very moderates who do in fact find it inconvenient to be in a party with social conservatives, as I have been of the social conservatives. Both are at fault for the party's problems and thus I am not to going to carry water for either.

Huckabee's campaign did in fact openly state a desire to purge fiscal conservatives, back in 2008. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life statist and a big gov't populist.

We seem to be existing in different realities. In my reality, there are folks whom fancy themselves so-called "libertarians" whom are being welcomed into the Republican party with open arms. They openly advocated chopping off one of the three legs to which you refer. Time after time, I have read formulations like, "conservatives and libertarians...," while rarely, if ever, reading formulations like "conservatives, libertarians, and populists...," or "conservatives and populists...." It is as if the acid test is whether, or not, you embrace a certain economic agenda regardless of your stand on social issues. So-called "libertarians" and "populists" are equal in the regard that they both want to chop one of the legs off, while adhering to another leg consistently. The difference is that so-called "libertarians" are more dogmatic about it, and use more insulting rhetoric. When you state, "Ron Paul's campaign did in fact state a desire to purge social conservatives. He is not a conservative, he is a pro-life anti-government libertarian," then I will have to admit you have been more consistent than I thought.

And just what the hell in this thread makes you thing I haven't said that about Ron Paul people. I have said they were too demanding. I have criticized those who don't fancy themselves being in party with people more conservative themselves on social issues.

Speaking for myself, I've always accepted but disagreed with socially moderate to even liberal Republicans as long as they're with us on other issues. I've also said the same for populist Republicans who aren't always with us on economic issues. Same with those that don't necessarily accept the modern conservative Republican views on foreign/military policy.

That being said, I've encountered plenty of "big tenters" that are socially liberal and want to be personally accepted but want to shut the door on populists.

Hypocrisy has always been a strong suit of supposed "big tent" Republicans who crow about being included, but then demand as a condition the removal of certain "undersirables" they find embarassing to be associated with in their social circles.

I have been consistent in this. There are also several posts where I criticized Sg0508 for finding it displeasing to be in a party with social conservatives, stretching back as far as 2010.

The thing is though, this is a thread about Mike Huckabee, not Ron Paul or moderate Republicans. Huckabee has a record of advocating exclusion of those he disagrees with and I have the right and legitimacy to in fact call him out on it. Just because I don't mention other people who do the same thing in this thread about a specific such person, doesn't mean I give the others a free pass. Stop assuming things about people that are so totally incorrect.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

The problem with your formulation is that it simply isn't what Akins said. Akins said some doctors told him that pregnancy after [forcible] rape was "really rare."

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

The problem with your formulation is that it simply isn't what Akins said. Akins said some doctors told him that pregnancy after [forcible] rape was "really rare."

He said that you can't get pregnant by being legitimately raped, which is the exact same thing.

[TJ in Oregon]

If Akin had actually said "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape" his problems would have been greatly reduced. "Legitimate" makes it sound as though every girl became pregnant after a rape was not legitimately raped. It's like saying, "she wasn't raped; she wanted it". You can't say that kind of stuff when running for office.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

The problem with your formulation is that it simply isn't what Akins said. Akins said some doctors told him that pregnancy after [forcible] rape was "really rare."

He said that you can't get pregnant by being legitimately raped, which is the exact same thing.

Again, that is the false narrative promoted by the media and his critics. His exact words were "really rare."

[Donerail]

The policy end is completely moot anyway at the moment because Roe is in place and the Human Life Amendment is politically feasible.

Wait, the GOP's solution to 'massive government overreach into states rights by legalizing abortion' is via massive government overreach in the other direction?

[TJ in Oregon]

The policy end is completely moot anyway at the moment because Roe is in place and the Human Life Amendment is politically feasible.

Wait, the GOP's solution to 'massive government overreach into states rights by legalizing abortion' is via massive government overreach in the other direction?

A constitutional amendment trumps all else. States' rights are what they are because of the Constitution itself. If you change that, the entire premise is different.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

It's ignored because while being policy it's still not actually going to be implemented. It's arguing about a hypothetical alternate reality.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's ignored because while being policy it's still not actually going to be implemented. It's arguing about a hypothetical alternate reality.

I just don't see what that changes. You don't get to make the proposal but not be expected to seriously defend it. And if you're going to defend it, the least you (speaking generally) could do is be intellectually honest about your position.

The obvious truth here is that there is no easy or sensitive way to argue about splitting up distinctions about rape; the only way to easily implement them is to do so with very little attention, and that's why every time someone proposes something, it's not news, the second anyone defends them, you act like it's outrageous. But it's not really that outrageous, you just pretend for it to be for the cameras. At most you're only offended about choice of words. It's all rather cowardly.

[TJ in Oregon]

Well in politics, we generally do try to win elections.

I know this may come as a shock to you

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well in politics, we generally do try to win elections.

I know this may come as a shock to you

Perhaps, but there's no need to act like politicians on the Atlas forum.

[RogueBeaver]

No he won't. I have no time, to put it very mildly, for the Huckster.

[BigSkyBob]

If Akin had actually said "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape" his problems would have been greatly reduced.

True, but in context that was his intended meaning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That interpretation is rather damning, and, he was very impolitic in his use of "legitimate." He has acknowledged that fact, and apologized for his choice of words. However, that simply wasn't his intended  meaning.  He made a distinction of "legitimate rape" for two reasons. The first is that he was noting pregnancy after forcible rape was, according to information he had read from doctors, "really rare" due to a number of factors including natural defenses, whereas, pregnancy after say, statutory rape, or drunken-consent rape would be not be as improbable. Even this formulation isn't quite correct. Rohypnol-rape would certainly be "legitimate rape," but, not apt to trigger any natural defenses. The second reason, I suspect, is a variation of Whoopi Goldberg's distinction between "rape" and "rape rape."

You talk about how Akins' remarks damaged the pro-life cause. What of the damage caused to the movement if the media is granted a right to put words into the mouths of pro-life persons with immunity?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, whether or not words are being put in Akin's mouth, what he in fact did say was still flat-out wrong to a flagrant and obvious degree.