Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 16, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

QUOTE OF THE DAY....From Mike Huckabee, explaining his call to amend the constitution to bring it in line with "God's standards":

I'm not suggesting that we re-write the constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.

Imagine my relief.

Kevin Drum 11:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (89)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I was thinking about off-season moves for my football team, when it struck me that it might be smart for the Democrats to consider trading John Edwards to the GOP. The fact is that he's a great politician with some major positives - young, charismatic, passionate, eloquent, Southern drawl - who has outperformed expectations. But there's obviously no room for him on the Democratic roster, where he's currently buried behind Clinton and Obama, our no. 1 and no. 2 candidates. It would be a shame not to get some value for him; so why not trade him to the GOP?

The traits I just listed are all qualities in desperately short supply over on their team. As a man of the people and a Southerner and an unambiguous Christian, he would be far better than Mitt. As a young feller with enough energy to campaign on a 36-hr shift, he would run circles around McCain and Thompson. As a rational man who seems to believe that the progress of man and knowledge did not end 2000 years ago, he has a big leg up on Huckabee. And since he's only had one wife, he gets a big advantage there as well, especially over Giuliani. (True, Mitt has been monogamous, but since he's a Mormon, I think Americans are just waiting for him to walk out on stage one day with harem in tow.)

Now it's true Edwards comes off as somewhat of a liberal; but (a) he began his career as a Blue Dog, so he would merely be returning to his roots and (b) as David Brooks has noted, the only winning formula for the GOP in the next election is to tack hard to the left. So I think worries on that score are exaggerated.

Finally, there's the question what we should ask for in return. Here I can't make up my mind. The obvious answer is: Ohio. But if this election turns into the blowout that it has the potential to be, it might be smarter to look to the future instead. So I would look for a package deal: Bobby Jindal, South Dakota, and a constitutional amendment barring anyone with the last name of Bush from ever being elected to the presidency.

Posted by: lampwick on January 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

"...and a constitutional amendment barring anyone with the last name of Bush from ever being elected to the presidency."

Not good enough. Names can easily be changed legally. DNA tests.

Posted by: bobbyp on January 16, 2008 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

Oh I don't know - one big reason I stopped believing in Dog is that the stuff they told me at Sunday School just seemed insane.

Posted by: craigie on January 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

and a constitutional amendment barring anyone with the last name of Bush from ever being elected to the presidency.

I think I might just settle for an apology.

Mmm, and a few trillion dollars returned to the government.

Posted by: craigie on January 16, 2008 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

At last, the lunatic wing of the GOP bares its soul. Had enough yet?

Posted by: bobbyp on January 16, 2008 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

When Huckabee was asked about religion a few weeks ago, he pointed out that as governor he didn't built a church atop the Arkansas capital, as if that's somehow a serious response to concerns people have about him. He reminds me of Roger Clemons saying it's crazy to suggest he took steroids since he doesn't have a third ear growing out of his forehead. Huckabee talks a lot about being informed by his religious views, but he's quite touchy and non-responsive when asked specific questions.

Posted by: Jim E. on January 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

The irony in Hucabee's comment is that tithing has much more support in the Bible than the conservative hot issues. Abortion is not mentioned at all and homosexuality as modern people imagine it is also absent. The problem with these Bible believers is that they have never read it.

Posted by: Stuart on January 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ri-i-ight... Huckabee just wants to amend the Constitution so those dirty atheists, polytheists, spiritualists and pagans can never hold public office, benefit from tax-free organization status, be parents to adopt or foster impressionable children, or have the 'freedom of religion' apply to them. Hindus, Deists, Quakers, Universalists, Agnostics, and Native Americans? Pfft! We all KNOW people can't be moral and ethical unless Jesus is their personal savior, right? (This is extreme sarcasm, in case it isn't obvious.)

Sure smells like 'liberty' to me. Oh, sorry, that's the wind, just shifted to blow from the gray-water processing plant...

Posted by: Becca Morn on January 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

Stuart: Abortion is not mentioned at all and homosexuality as modern people imagine it is also absent.

Exactly. People like Huckaby think the bible justifies anything they happen to believe in.

The liberal parallel is people who think the Constitution justifies anything they happen to believe in. Unfortunately, some of these people are judges.

Abortion and homosexuality are not mentioned in the federal Constitution nor in any state Constitution. Yet judges have made decisions in these areas supposedly based on the Constitution. That's why those who opppose abortion or gay marriage would need a Constitutional amendment to be sure of banning them.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 16, 2008 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't tithing already in the constitution?

Posted by: Crissa on January 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

What then, Huckabee? Stoning for divorce or adultery, or for talking back to your parents, or being gay? Slavery? Which Biblical values do you want enshrined in the Constitution? And why don't you release your sermons so we can see what you've said about these values of yours? Is there something there you want to hide from the American voters?

Posted by: QrazyQat on January 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

Oh ex-liberal. Will you answer my question yet?

How many deferments did you ask for and receive when it was your turn to fight in a war advocated by rightwing lunatics (and Johnson)?

I'm not the only person who posts here who buried relatives who fell in that war. You were a coward then and are a coward now, so much so you won't even admit the obvious that everyone now knows, confirmed by your deafening silence.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

I asked this question in another thread, but I will ask here where it is more appropriate. I just have a quick question for people who are from Arkansas or people from surrounding states that are familiar Arkansas politics. Is it true that most people from Arkansas HATE Huckabee? I was reading a few articles that said that he was a pretty corrupt governor and had a bit of a vindictive streak. It also seems that most people from Arkansas are not donating money to his campaign (in fact, I read that Hillary is getting more political donations in Arkansas than Huckabee). Anyway, I know what David Brooks thinks, I just want to confirm what people from Arkansas think.

Posted by: adlsad on January 17, 2008 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

"Huckabee talks a lot about being informed by his religious views, but he's quite touchy and non-responsive when asked specific questions."

-That last part, touchy and non-responsive describes alot of his behavior as governor. That's the stuff to watch out for with this guy, although it doesn't make as good copy as his religious nuttiness.

and, Ex-liberal, you don't really think that makes any sense do you?

Posted by: URK on January 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

Lampwick wins. The internet. Everyone can go home now.

Posted by: anonymous on January 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

That's why those who opppose abortion or gay marriage would need a Constitutional amendment to be sure of banning them.

Right, because that would work really, really well. Honestly, is there anything in the conservative canon that makes any sense at all?

Posted by: craigie on January 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

School on Sundays may not be such a bad idea.

Posted by: Fred F. on January 17, 2008 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

I want to get back to lampwick's hot stove discussion. That is one of the best comments I have read in years. Way to go.

John Edwards is sort of like Chuck Conners who was an outstanding athlete (only one of 12 men to play in both the NBA and the Major Leagues) but spent most of his career playing first base for the minor league Los Angeles Dodgers running up big offensive numbers year in and year out. He could never really break into the bigs because Gil Hodges was playing first base for the New York Dodgers at the same time.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 17, 2008 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

He should have used his rifle then.

Posted by: craigie on January 17, 2008 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

outstanding, lampwick!

Posted by: shortstop on January 17, 2008 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

"...Gil Hodges was playing first base for the New York Dodgers at the same time."
Posted by: corpus juris on January 17, 2008

January 17th, 2008, a date which will live in infamy...

BROOKLYN you idiot!

Posted by: majarosh on January 17, 2008 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

John Edwards is sort of like Chuck Conners

Kansas City has a local example - Jamie Quirk was an outstanding third baseman for the KC Royals in the late 70's and early 80's. But So was George Brett, and to keep playing - make that in order to get to play Quirk became a catcher. Fates lined up one degree different, Quirk would be in the hall of fame.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

How, how, HOW does either a.) same-sex marriage, or b.) abortion affect the greater population so much so that the need to make them both illegal even comes into play?
If you're against both, then don't get one. How does a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman at all affect YOUR marriage?
And you can still be anit-abortion and still pro-choice. No one will be forcing you to abort your child. I've always hated the label "pro-life." That suggests that I then am pro-death.
These radical right-wing Christian fundamentalists desire a world where everyone is the same, where there is so dissent, and where everyone believes in THE Christian god (above all).
Once a upon a time, they were persecuted. I would expect a little more sympathy to those who go against the grain...

Posted by: Amanda on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

majarosh

What can I say, I am a rube from the midwest. I apologize.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 17, 2008 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

BROOKLYN you idiot!

Posted by: Bob Dole on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

I could say something about A-Rod here, but I won't, because mattski will nail me for it later. And I don't want that.

Posted by: another onetime shortstop on January 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

Bob

You mean Elizabeth lets you stay up this late. Who would have guessed.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 17, 2008 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Elizabeth who? I haven't been in the same room with her for years.

Posted by: Bob Dole on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

Bob? Is that you? Get your ass back in the bed right now, you flaccid little punk!

Posted by: Al on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

"What can I say, I am a rube from the midwest. I apologize." Posted by: corpus juris

No prob CJ. Me too, midwest rube and I apologize. Born in Kansas but a hard core Brooklyn Dodger fan from the early 50's.

I've always believed that this country began to go to hell in a hand basket when the Dodgers left Brooklyn.

Posted by: majarosh on January 17, 2008 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Me, too, maj, me, too.

Hold on, Al. I need to eeksay edicalmay ssistanceay, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Bob Dole on January 17, 2008 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Nobody can kill a thread like majarosh and Bob.

Posted by: Liddy on January 17, 2008 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe he wants our the constitution to reflect the liberal immigration policy espoused in exodus.

Posted by: B on January 17, 2008 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

Lampwick, that is pretty damn funny.

Posted by: es on January 17, 2008 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

You mean Elizabeth lets you stay up this late. Who would have guessed.

Jeez and I thought everybody knew about Bob and staying up...

Posted by: snicker-snack (contributing to the downfall of a thread) on January 17, 2008 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah and kudos too to Lampwick.

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 17, 2008 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

I'm guessing Sunday school isn't mentioned in the Bible. Is tithing?

Posted by: Boronx on January 17, 2008 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

Huckabee is a typical conservative - trumpeting his piety, but not willing to give away a nickel to do God's work.

Sitting in church every Sunday no more makes you a Christian than sleeping in your garage every night makes you a car.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 17, 2008 at 5:56 AM | PERMALINK

Lampwick, that was hilarious. Thank you.

Posted by: Kenji on January 17, 2008 at 6:54 AM | PERMALINK

"Huckabee is a typical conservative - trumpeting his piety, but not willing to give away a nickel to do God's work."

I thought the idea was that as long as you are "saved," good works are good for nothing--that is, once you declare Jesus as your savior you are free to go around doing god-only-knows-what with abandon.

Good works count for nothing; simply accepting Jesus as your lord and savior takes care of everything.

It underscores a major difference between Dems and Repukes: we Dems want to go around fixing things and making everything better but Repukes like to smash up things then flee.

u

Posted by: u on January 17, 2008 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

I thought that the US Constitution was "just a goddam piece of paper."

Why are we worried about Huckabeen?

God does not talk to us. We only think "he" does.

Oops, I forgot, we went to war with Iraq because GWB had explicit instructions from the almighty to do so. My bad.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Lampwick, that's brilliant, but I think you're overreaching.

Jindal is the GOP's Obama, so I think you'll need to sweeten the deal.

So in return for Bobby and South Dakota for a period of not more than 4 presidential elections (I'll throw in the Bush clan for free - keep 'em), we'd like:


1: Reagan on Mt. Rushmore (you can do this while you own the state)
2: Bob Shrum must run all Democratic presidential campaigns for as long as Jindl remains a Democrat
3: Keep Edwards

Posted by: heedless on January 17, 2008 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

The Rifleman. That's a great memory. And a great show.

Posted by: Pat on January 17, 2008 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

Was Huckabee possibly thinking "turn the other cheek" when he pardoned that serial rapist Wayne Dumond -- who quickly became a multiple murderer after his release from prison?

I wonder just how well Huckabee understands the relationship between Christian teachings and public policy. I may be liberal, but the public's safety trumps releasing un-rehabilitated criminals in my book.

The Huckster brings a new meaning to the term, "Judgment Day." Now we know there's Good Judgment Day and Poor Judgment Day, he of the latter.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on January 17, 2008 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Lampwick wins. The internet. Everyone can go home now.

Absolutely a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame.

Posted by: Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

How about an amendment related to the original sin of Onad, so as to prevent politicians from jerking us around?

Posted by: RollaMO on January 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Well -- is there an award for best off-topic comment of the year? lampwick wins hands down.

(But why "lampwick," who, if I remember from books read to my children, was the ne'er-do-well companion of Pinocchio who ended up getting them both turned into donkeys?)

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Amanda: How, how, HOW does either a.) same-sex marriage, or b.) abortion affect the greater population so much so that the need to make them both illegal even comes into play?

Amanda, I pretty much agree with you on these issues, but those on the other side do have some valid arguments.

a) If marriage is to mean anything, there must be some limit to who can get married. Presumably that's why the Supreme Court upheld laws against bigamy many years ago. You might agree with laws prohibiting marrying a 5-year-old chld or group marriage (consisting of any number of men and women). Those who oppose same-sex marriage would set the limit at a different point than you would.

b) If a state legalized the killing of children under 3 years old, I would oppose that law. I consider infants to be human beings. People who are anti-abortion consider fetuses to be human beings. Modern medical developments like ultra-sound pictures make late-term fetuses seem more and more human. My wife and I gave the name Cletus to one of ours.

As I say, I don't agree with those positions, but I don't consider them utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

How about an amendment related to the original sin of Onad, so as to prevent politicians from jerking us around?
Posted by: RollaMO on January 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

That was Onan, not Onad who played with his gonads.

Posted by: Bile Scholar I on January 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

David - And what's the mascot animal of the Democrats?

Posted by: lampwick on January 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

"Was Huckabee possibly thinking "turn the other cheek" when he pardoned that serial rapist Wayne Dumond -- who quickly became a multiple murderer after his release from prison?"

-what Huckabee was thinking was more like "Jay Cole thinks I ought to get this guy out of prison, he says that it's all a big conspiracy and the Clintons are behind it!" Now go google "Jay Cole preacher Northwest Arkansas" or something like that to see who Huck is really lsitening to. scary!

Posted by: URK on January 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

How many deferments did you ask for and receive when it was your turn to fight in a war advocated by rightwing lunatics (and Johnson)?

Why won't you answer the question? It seems perfectly reasonable, and if the answer's nothing to be ashamed of, what's with the intransigence?

Posted by: phleabo on January 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

phleabo,

I don't know your military service. I don't know how many of your relatives died in WW2 - a war that could have been far less costly had there been more prompt aggressive action by the Allies. I don't know how many of your friends and relatives died on 9/11 - an atttack that could have been avoided by earlier aggressive action against al Qaeda. I don't know how many of your loved ones were among the tens of millions murdered by the Communists. I don't know how many of your relatives were tortured or murdered by Saddam.

I don't need to know these things.

Kevin has a forum for sharing opinions on his posts. Our opinions stand on their own. They may be sensible. They may be totally wrong-headed. Either way, their validity doesn't depend on personal or family histories.

P.S. Lyndon Johnson wasn't a "right-wing lunatic". He was a liberal Democrat by the time he was President. Our initial entry and escalation of the war in Vietnam was supported by a coterie of Democrats. Of course, it was liberal Democrats who later helped end that war.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

For his standards, does God use the "Chicago Manual of Style" or "Robert's Rules of Order"? Does Moses still take transcription?

Will we have to hold seances and wait for Huckabee to go into trances during which God's Law will spill forth from his lips?

Posted by: Anon on January 17, 2008 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Ex-lib:

With respect to both of these issues, I think it's not just a matter of degree, but a matter of drawing lines on the basis of different principles. For example, with respect to marriage, I would say the rules should be based mainly on the principle of respecting the intimate attachments and domestic-economy choices of consenting adults. Rules against polygamy, for instance, are justified in my mind not by the religious prejudices of the majority, but by the fact that polygamous relationships very often are exploitative of girls. (I mean girls, not women.) With respect to abortion, I think the humanity of a fetus is a matter of degree, and that it's a tough call at what point to say the fetus has become a human being. (Is a blastocyst a human being? Isn't cell differentiation a requirement?) At any rate, for me the question whether a woman's right to choose should be legally protected isn't a question about how human a fetus is: it's a question about whose opinion about how human the fetus is should be the controlling opinion in a particular case. Given that no opinion is obviously correct, I think the opinions of the woman concerned (about that, and about the other factors that go into her decision) are the ones that should govern.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on January 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

That was Onan, not Onad who played with his gonads.

They all did it.

Posted by: AJ on January 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

We should turn the Bible against theocrats (politico/philosophical jujitsu) by proposing Amendments based on all those liberal-type Bible versus, like workers being paid the same day as work done, letting the poor glean from fields of grapes etc, forgiving debts every X years, etc. That's the funnest way to respond at least, and maybe we'll even get some levo-theists on board.

Check out this link:
http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=ReadersRespondPP

Posted by: Neil B. on January 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Phleabo,

Not to jump the lefty ship or anything, but I do think ex-liberal's response to your question was pretty reasonable. I don't really give a shit whether ex-liberal is a chickenhawk or was in Special Forces in Nam. The invasion of Iraq was wrong, and based on lies, and the occupation is a damned mess now. But there have been wars I've supported -- Afghanistan was one, and the first Gulf War was another -- and I don't think the reasons I had for supporting those wars were any less (or more) valid because I didn't sign up to go fight in them. Ad hominem arguments might be relevant if ex-liberal were running for office, because then we'd have to decide whether to trust him or her to make decisions (see Bush, Cheney, et al.). But we're just talking here. Better to hear the opposing point of view than to shut it down with ad hominems.

I can also think of a bunch of reasons for getting a draft deferment, for example believing that the draft was wrong, or believing that the war was wrong, or believing (at the time) that killing people is wrong, or just not wanting to die. That last one doesn't exactly fill me with respect and admiration, but hey, so what.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on January 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

The liberal parallel is blah, blah, blah.

Ex-lib, you wouldn't recognize a "parallel" if you were lying across railroad tracks.

Posted by: ckelly on January 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal,

a) If marriage is to mean anything, there must be some limit to who can get married.

Poppycock. Substitute any other self-declared identity and see how that works.

If "Christian" is to mean anything . . .
If being a "Packer fan" is to mean anything . . .
If being a "Republican" is to mean anything . . .
If "Love" is to mean anything . . .

God you are dense. Can you do *any* thinking for
yourself?

Posted by: Tripp on January 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Regarding the military service record sub-thread and the comment that WW2 could have been shorter, let me add that cutting off Prescott Bush's funding of the German war effort would have helped also. I did not learn of Bush family involvement until the run-up to the 2000 election when it was posted on the Bartcop web site among others. I don't recall hearing it on TV - although Russert may have pitched a couple of high slow ones to W & company so it could be neutralized as a campaign issue.

The blood money from those investments accrued some terrible interest. This is getting closer to an invocation of Godwin's law than I like, so that's it for now.

Posted by: trbtx on January 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Can ex-liberal think?

Apparently not, because he thinks the logical construct (this group of people AND that person) means "that person" must be a member of "this group."

Geeze, think before typing.

And personally I discount the attitude of anyone who has a woody for sending my kids to die while he didn't do the same thing when he had the chance. I believe the term is chickenhawk and I despise them.

Posted by: Tripp on January 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK
….Our initial entry and escalation of the war in Vietnam was supported by a coterie of Democrats…. ex-lax at 10:59 AM
C'mon Dave, you're all gung-ho for killing Iraqis. Where you so hot for dead Vietnamese back in the day? You graduated in '71, right? Posted by: Mike on January 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, maybe we can reform the tax code and just have indulgences instead.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

I was thinking about off-season moves for my football team

Excellent Lampwick, just please, oh please don't let the Miami Dolphins front office conduct the trade. We'll end up with Jeff George and a handful of magic beans.

Posted by: ckelly (DolphinFan Since '71) on January 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, I graduated in 1963. I know we don't don't agree, but IMHO the US is saving the lives of Iraqis.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

personally, I think marriage should be infinitely variable. If I can marry Dubya and a box turtle at the same time, maybe the whole planet can be married.

what God has joined let no man put to sunder.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I know ex is leaving his mark on the world like a dog with diarrhea dragging his ass across a white carpet, but sheese, maybe he can save his own life by firing squad.

That's like Huck saying he believes in capital punishment because Jesus didn't ask for clemency on the cross. Only worse.

I knew the rethuglicons would get here. Death=Life. Woohoo! Now if that ain't G_d's law, I don't know whut ees.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

1. Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. People (of any sexuality or creed) should get the current benefits of marriage by registering their civil union. Leave marriage to the churches.

2. If a person honestly believe that a soul floats down from heaven and nestles itself in each zygote, it is a perfectly valid reason for a personal opposition to abortion. It is still a completely invalid basis for public policy.

While ex-liberal has a point in saying that "our opinions stand on their own," the fact that his ilk (and likely him, I'm not all that interested in slogging through his postings) continually question the patriotic credentials and civic pride of those who criticize current U.S. defense policy undermines his high-minded stand against ad hominem attacks.

I don't believe that one has to support war to love their country, but if they do, it is reasonable to expect that those who love their country would not shirk their civic obligation if called up by the draft.

Posted by: uri on January 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, I graduated in 1963. I know we don't don't agree, but IMHO the US is saving the lives of Iraqis.

The loathsome coward who dodged the draft from the spring of '63 onward is now a useful idiot for the prowar cause!

How about it, ex-lib? Will you ever locate your manhood and answer the question?

When it was your turn to fight in a war, and you were to much a chickenshit to do so, how many deferments did you ask for and receive?

Do the men who went in your place ever enter your mind? Do you wonder how your cowardice impacted their lives when you lay awake at night?

Or are you completely bereft of conscience, as you now hypocritically advocate for war?

I guess war is fine by your standards, just don't ask you to participate. You are a real dandy.

You are the worst kind of sickening, pathetic coward. I hope you never know a moments peace.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I know we shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'm going to harp on this a bit more:

"the US is saving the lives of Iraqis."

Conservative estimates put Iraqi deaths at over 1/4 million as a result of the occupation, you sick fuck. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of grievous injuries, refugees, IDPs, environmental, social, political and cultural damage.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

250,000 dead people. If you were at the bottom of the pile you'd be crushed by all the Iraqi's we've "saved." If you were near the top, maybe you could eat your way out.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Cowards spout banality with ease. Having never stepped up and never put his own ass on the line, it is easy for the New Jersey insurance man who dodged the draft for ten fucking years to tell us all what a noble endeavor it is!

He really is the very model of a modern Major (armchair) General.

He should be mocked, ridiculed and essentially driven away from this place in shame and disgrace.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yep. People like Ex are traitors to their G-d and country. Fortunately he is as ineffectual as he is dumb and morally bankrupt.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

As someone told him a while back, he perfectly embodies that "enemies...domestic" part of the service oath.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I certainly don't think the evidence bears out the claim that the U.S. is saving Iraqi lives. That's not a question for anybody's humble opinion; it's a question of fact. Even the White House's figures are mostly deaths of Kurds in 1987-88, and deaths from the Iraq-Iran war in the mid-80s (in which we supported and armed Saddam). Anybody who thinks the Iraq war is actually saving Iraqi lives has the burden of proof, to say the least. And surely nobody sane believes that was the purpose of the war.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

[Repeatedly debunked trolling deleted]

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Oh my God, draft dodger. You really are a soulless fuck!

Most of them were killed by al Qaeda in Iraq or by varous [sic] Iraqi terrorist groups.

Which did not exist before the moron prince decided to launch a spectacular misadventure in Mesopotamia. How selective is your fact filter?

The US isn't killing these civilians.

You are delusional. The US is certainly killing their fair share. There is no way to avoid doing so the way the war is being prosecuted. Air strikes have stepped up, to the point that by the end of May, the US had dropped more ordinance than in all of 2006.

Air strikes kill civilians. Period.

You are a liar, you are a shill, you are a coward and you are pathetic.

You can't even man up and answer a simple, relevant question.

How many deferments did you ask for and receive between 1963 and 1973, when the draft ended?

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Trypicon, conservative estimates do not put the Irqi civilian death toll at 250,000

Correct. The Lancet studies suggest that the number of deaths ultimately arising as a cause of the U.S. invasion is more along the lines of 700,000 to 1,000,000 people.

Causes of death include disease and starvation and cruise missile and bombs and mortars, et al.

Whatever the true numbers are, the US didn't kill these 80,000 or 151,000 or 250,000 Iraqis

In fact the U.S. invasion and destabilization of Iraqi society with no post-war plan was the cause of these deaths.

There's no way to know whether that number is more or less than would have occurred if Saddam and Uday and Qusay had remained in power.

That is irrelevant. It's like saying, "your Honor, I killed a lot more people than the serial killer I offed -- but maybe eventually he would have caught up with numbers. Who knows?"

Posted by: trex on January 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

IMHO the US is saving the lives of Iraqis.

Do you mean that by prolonging the occupation that fewer Iraqis will die than if the US withdraws, and if so how do you figure?

Posted by: Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

There's no way to know whether that number is more or less than would have occurred if Saddam and Uday and Qusay had remained in power.

There is a way to know. The Lancet studies estimated excess deaths as a result of our invasion, i.e. deaths that would not have occurred but for our attack on Iraq as compared to deaths in the pre-invasion period. It measures, therefore, the additional deaths to those caused when Saddam was in power.

Posted by: Stefan on January 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

OK, never mind. I get from new comments that ex-lib made a ludicrous argument.

Posted by: Lucy on January 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'll at least give Ex that he didn't lie about the WHO study concluding in June 2006. Though he might note that it is 1/2008, so the study leaves out the most bloody year of the occupation, and then some.

"A new World Health Organization study estimates the excess numbers of civilians killed in violence in Iraq from April 2003 through June 2006 at between 101,000 and 224,000. They settled on 151,000 or so as the most likely number... If the 3 to 1 discrepancy between reported and unreported deaths visible in the WHO study held steady, that would take us to a further 100,000 or so deaths in the past 18 months, and to roughly 250,000 excess deaths through violence since the war began."

US bombers, missiles, soldiers, and mercenaries are directly responsible for many civilian deaths in Iraq [we'll leave torture, rape, and murder out of it for the moment]. And, according to the conservative WHO report, from when Saddam was in power until June 2006 violent death went up in Iraq 17 fold. Colin Powell said we break it we own it. Only moral cowards and liars would contest that the 17 fold increase is a direct result of US policy and occupation.

Saying the Iraq Study Group is anti-war is both disingenuous and a lie, both central features of Ex's character.

Posted by: Trypticon on January 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"David - And what's the mascot animal of the Democrats? -- lampwick"

Um, say it ain't so. I almost added that as a hypothesis, but it seemed so, well, far-fetched ...

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Huck's a deceiving trickster on this one. Vague talk of bringing the US constitution into line with 'God's standards' will lead most of the devout but religiously ignorant (and that's most of the believers) to assume that he supports a big injection of the ten commandments. But when pressed, he claims to be a New Testament-only man; the 'Bible' he carries is, according to him, only the New Testament. After they have voted for him, the suckers can be told they should have read the fine print first.
This is very much the behaviour pattern of John Howard, Australia's ex Prime Minister and inseparable ally of GWB. Vague, comforting allusions, and then when he does a 180 degree turn tell the public they should have read his suburban lawyer's fine print. But he's gone, voted out by a pissed-off public (even lost his own seat). Hopefully this constituency will see through Huck before November.

Posted by: number6 on January 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Is Ron Paul perfect? No. Is he a racist? No. Is he a homophobe? Ron Paul is in favor of the same civil rights for everyone under the law, as I am. That means no discrimination of any kind in civil matters whether you are a homosexual, or an adulterer, or like to have sex with cantalopes and pieces of liver, as old Portnoy did. Ron Paul stands for personal responsiblity and strong natural rights for all men and women or whatever you think you are. Ron Paul stands for the rule of law, the written law, primarily the Constitution, instead the back room, big money deals, and social engineering by people who think they know better than all of us, the electorate, that is to say the people combined. I am for a true egalitarian republic where the little man and woman are given the respect that they deserve by the government, because they are greater and more important than the government, and the government owes them respect and equality.

But as for me personally, I have a free speech right to say whatever the hell I want about people, and their ideas and behaviors, as long as I do not liable them. If I want to make fun of anyone, about how they look, or what they do, I can, because I am just as important and sovereign as they are. In my personal and private relationships I can associate with who I want to, and exclude who I want to, and so can you. This is freedom. Long live freedom! Death to Tyranny! Ron Paul 08!

Posted by: Louis Rose on January 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

"... the US is saving the lives of Iraqis."


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, HA, ha.

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 17, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Louis Rose: You are on the wrong thread, I think. Otherwise, I applaud your beliefs, as far as you set them out. I fear, however, that they are not the same as Ron Paul's, certainly given the evidence of the views he has allowed to be put forth in his name for some decades. And he seems to support much that you don't mention such as a return to the gold standard, which, to be frank, is neither feasible nor wise. Sorry to disagree, then.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

So? What are the odds now that ex-tough guy will revel how many deferments he had? Huh? Still zero, how predictable...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly