a few thoughts

because i have a final tomorrow morning (my second of four! haaaaaaaaaay, great end of the semester), i want to a share a few thoughts - random, in no particular order, irrespectively, etc - before i go even more insane with academic saturation. (side note: today, in my usual display of pop culture allusions, i confused julia roberts with richard dreyfuss.) to retain some semblance of interest in things i won't be tested on, i've been reading TEH NEWZ constantly. so here's what i'm thinking about, politically and otherwise, seriously and not-so-seriously, before i creep into dementia and sing radiohead until i die:

• KARL ROVE is a jerk. a foul-mouthed, sick, disgusting, perverted jerk. i don't base this assessment on a newly-revealed sexual scandal - who'd have sex with death, anyway? - or a personal encounter. but you know what? giving barack obama "advice" on combating charges of elitism and then promptly criticizing him for those "bitter, cling, guns, antipathy towards other people, blah blah blah" comments of last century suggests a serious lack of human emotion. i bet karl rove is the one that killed that dude hillary clinton supposedly murdered. and then spread the rumors about clinton. and then clubbed kitties and puppies for fun. what an asshole.
• speaking of, MIKE HUCKABEE's a pretty funny dude. he thought he could win the presidency and everything, even though he taxed and spent, made love to "illegals," and didn't have any money other than the currency of The Jesus. so he makes a joke chronicled by our own brian kaufman, and only racists and rednecks laugh. because the joke's about shooting barack obama. i thought it was weird that huckabee's son would lynch a stray dog, but i guess not. the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, i suppose. (my guess is that mike huckabee probably ate the apple, but only after dipping it in sugar and coke and frying it in bacon grease).
• on an unrelated-ish note, BARACK OBAMA is shaping up to be a great general election candidate. hell, he's running like one, and the media loves it. (how do i know? i haven't read anything - except for this, maybe - about HILLARY CLINTON since wednesday, and that was a very bad day for her. more on that later.) at the same time, i think that for all the great things obama will do for our party - bringing heretofore excluded demographics (read: the youth) into the process, establishing a liberal majority for the rest of time - we might have a slight problem winning. time's swampland has a good post (and link!) on obama's electoral road map to winning the white house. i'm confident we'll win. but the trends in florida and ohio worry me, especially when hillary's strongly positioned to PWN john mccain in the rust belt and my VERY OWN sunshine state. i still think he should pick her as his VP. it'd solve so many problems at once, and it might make him much more appealing to all those racists the media loves to talk about.
• the SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING is an incredible thing, and i must say that i've never been more proud of a state i've come to pettily revile. (for clarification: i hate california because everybody from california just LOVES california, and i find it very irritating. fucking go to stanford and stop complaining about the weather, okay?) i hope it initiates a culture war, because i think we'll win. with "queer eye for the straight guy," andy dick, and ellen degeneres on our side - not to mention TGI friday's best patron ever - we're sure to beat back the religious right that doesn't have a candidate. at the same time, it'll be interesting to see how the dems and mccain run on the issue, because their positions are pretty similar. mccain will use harsh language to appeal to the crazies, but whatever. he won't be able to raise his arm in fury.
• JOHN EDWARDS endorsed obama. surprise! come on, everyone should have seen that coming. he called hillary a corporate democrat and regularly admonished her for her "support" of lobbyists (even though he took contributions from state lobbyists, those who represent and defend lobbyists, and former lobbyists). so he endorsed the similarly "anti-lobbyist" candidate, heralded themes of HOPE and CHANGE, etc. not sure if it'll do anything, but the media loves to talk about racist white people and how john edwards might help barack obama win them over.
• like many feminists, i, too, feel betrayed by NARAL. and it isn't because they chose to support a man instead of a woman; it's because they chose to support a one pro-choice candidate over another. obama and clinton have similar records on choice - though i think hers is stronger than his, if only because of his tactical "present" votes and his relatively short time in public life. so why endorse? why not wait until the end of the primary season? three weeks does not a winning pro-life candidate make, and a negative campaign against mccain doesn't necessitate a positive campaign for the obviously pro-choice democratic nominee. to me, the endorsement smacks of disrespect to senator clinton, effectively adding to the chorus of those irresponsible pundits that want to end her candidacy before she does. and it's made even worse by senator clinton's more than admirable record on agitation for women's rights.

and thus, in my mind, i've come full circle. because i need to study for my final on the history of women, gender, and sexuality in europe. onward!

Mike Huckabee: The Next Class Day Speaker?

I'm actually not kidding about that. He's a very funny man, though this may not be a very good example:

You have to love Mike Huckabee because, if nothing else--

--the man is honest.

Asked if he saw any cost to staying in the race, Mr. Huckabee thought for a moment before answering: no.

“I have nothing else to do,” he said with a smile.

...Dave Barry once wrote that if there were ever a politician with an honest slogan, such as "Harlan Frubert: Basically, He Wants Attention," he'd quit his job to work for that campaign. We are not so far off the mark here...

The triumphant return of the Sunday Screening

Ha ha! You thought I'd given up, didn't you? Just because the last Sunday Screening was all the way back in November -- well, seven thousand pages of academic writing later, I'm back and ready again to subject you all to mind-numbingly obscure bits of YouTube irrelevancy. Like the above -- do you realize what an enormous selection of TV signon/signoff clips YouTube has? Unbelievable. Every era, every location. I considered devoting an entire post to them, but then I decided I should at least make an effort to retain my tiny, precious audience... if you're interested, though, start at these nuggets of pure gold and work your way out from there. Nothing captures the aesthetic of a given time and place quite so perfectly, I contend, as its incidental TV graphics.

But what I've been fixated on lately is this fascinating footage of Mitt Romney arguing with a reporter. Look:

Now, leaving aside the factual content here (and the press secretary's incredibly douchey reprimand at the end), my question is: WHY would Romney's people put him in front of a rack of office supplies? My God are they trying to make him look like a bland corporate automaton? BALLPOINT PENS, for crying out loud. Not even an aisle of cool office supplies, like printers. No. PENS. You could not ask for anything more banal. The obvious allegory here is The Office--

--which perfectly captures just those mindless, soulless Ward-Cleaver-with-a-low-IQ tendencies that Romney's working so hard to hide. (I wish there was video somewhere of the scene from Season 3 where Michael confronts Dwight in an actual Staples; the aesthetic is just perfect.)

Speaking of The Office, I want to promote this video made last year by the Harvard undergrad Government Department. I'm late to this party (h/t: Dani Rodrik back in December), but it's well worth your time; who knew that Gov had so much deeply rooted anxiety?

...Really that's what The Office, and its derivatives, are about: anxiety. These are programs about people who are unsure of their places in the world, lacking confidence in the structures that are supposed to support them. In the Scranton, Pa., that The Office shows us, life is basically meaningless; Jim Halpert, the "beta male" hero, always gives that Kafkaesque look to the camera that asks -- both hilariously and heartbreakingly -- "What am I doing here?" We haven't seen this kind of ennui creeping into the popular culture since the paranoia films of the 1970s. It's an indicator of a nation, and particularly an economy, in serious trouble.

Mitt Romney's campaign, it seems, does not recognize this. They certainly are not playing the symbological game very well (as vs., for instance, Obama); he's running a nice conventional GOP campaign that will win him a nice conventional 40%. And meanwhile they've got Mike Huckabee, who I'll leave you with, nipping at their heels making just this argument -- don't let anybody tell you America's not a class-conscious society...

Huckabee: Amend the Constitution to "God's standards"

EWW EWW EWW THEOCRACY GET IT OFF ME GET IT OFF ME

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

BLEARRRRRRRRRRRGH

Obama, Huckabee Win in Iowa!

Well, it appears Obama has edged out Clinton and Edwards (who are in a dead heat for 2nd) roughly 37% to 30% to 30%.

A huge influx of first-time caucus participants, of independents, and even a few Republicans handed Obama the victory, along with the fact that he was the #2 choice for many Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich supporters.

For those who aren't familiar, the way the Iowa Caucus works on the Democratic side, if your candidate does not get 15% of the votes in the precinct, he/she fails to meet the threshhold and then you can switch to vote for someone else.  That Bill Richardson and Joe Biden faired so poorly in the caucus is not reflective of their actual support.  In most precincts they failed to meet the threshhold and so their supporters switched to support another candidate, probably Obama in large numbers.

But the real story of the night is why Howard Dean, who I just saw on MSNBC, looks exactly like Howard the Duck now.  Did anyone else see that?  I'll post a video when I can find it.

Breakfast at Huckabee's

They may not believe in evolution but in the world of political minstrels they are definitely less crazy than Ron Paul's singing friends.

I really have to hand it to these guys. They have pretty good voices and the lyrics are pretty creative.

----
You see he's the only one who's for them
Faith, Family and Freedom
In the right order
So what now? It seems he's the best for us
He's even got Chuck Norris
Telling us how it's gonna be

(When the eyes of the ranger fall upon you
You better like Mike)

So I said, "What about voting for Huckabee?"
She said, "I think I remember that man,
And as I recall, I think, we both kinda liked him."
And I said, "Well, he's the best hope we've got

But to truly get in the Christmas I need to know what Ron Paul will give me on all 12 days of Christmas!

Day 1: A return to sweet liberty!
Day 2: No more new world order!
Day 3: Dollars backed by gold!

how much better can it get?

It is a true statement to how pathetic the Republican party has become during the Bush presidency that Preacher who doesn't believe in evolution and a physician who doesn't believe in the federal reserve are the only Republicans generating any momentum or excitement only two weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

I can't wait for the general.

Huckabee's on a roll

...on DemApples, that is.

So in keeping with the last four blog posts, I think I'm going to have to talk about... Mike Huckabee! Actually, I'm not going to, because I think Markus, Sam, Rob, and Will have already said everything there is to say. Instead, some funny pictures, courtesy of Wonkette.

Here's Huckabee sitting in a corner (this will be in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday):

And here's Huckabee's gubernatorial Christmas card (with thanks to Cora for pointing this one out):

Suffice it to say, I am really looking forward to this general election.

Huckabee vs. Obama = Good for America?

Somehow in this insane year+ lead up to the Presidential primary season, the political class seemed to forget that actual voters are the ones who are going to make these decisions. Because voters had no reason to truly engage in the campaign and get informed 5 and 6 months before election day, however, the political class got to write their own narrative. And that narrative was that Hillary Clinton was inevitable on the Democratic side with a bloody duel shaping up between well funded northeastern city slickers Giuliani and Romney.

But now that we are less than a month out from voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, voters have begun to engage, and the political class is suddenly realizing that its 3 annointed candidates who have all the name recognition, money, and connections in the world are seriously flawed.

Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney are flawed because they are full of shit. They obviously politically calculating hardened politicians. Aside from the clearly politically calculated positions, Romney on abortion, Giuliani on immigration, Clinton's vote for the war in 2003, they come off as slicksters. And in an age of total marketing saturation, where people are bombarded by marketing constantly, voters have really sensitive bullshit meters and nothing turns off voters more than being bullshitted to.

Sure these three are very skillful, but no one, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, can fake authenticity. And that is why with less than a month to go, Obama and Huckabee are suddenly experiencing such success. Because for all the talk of their lack of experience, they come across as genuine and I suspect that is because they are. Sure Huckabee and Obama are ambitious, but it isn't the kind of bald faced sell your soul to the devil ambition that makes one cringe when Hillary talks about health care or iraq, Mitt talks about anything, or Giuliani says 9/11 for the upteenth time that day. And I think in the end, this genuineness will put them both over the top.

This matchup is good for America. These are two candidates who inspire people, who make people want to believe in them and America. A Giuliani or Romney v. Clinton race would make cycnics out of even the most optimistic Americans which is exactly what we don't need after 7 years of the Bush-Cheney cynicism machine. But the sunny demeanors and messages of Huckabee and Obama might just be able to help America rise from the ashes of the worse presidency in history and turn the 2008 general election into the kind of reasoned though hard fought debate that will move us forward in a constructive way.

Re: Huckabee (and Huckaphobia)

Will and Rob have a zeitgeist going this morning about Mike Huckabee (seven minutes apart! damn dudes!) and how "scary" he is. It's true that Huckabee is quite radical on social/religious issues, but that's not the whole story; I want to present an alternate perspective in which Huckabee's rise is a very good thing for both the Republican Party and the nation.

First of all, I should point out that Huckabee's not going to get the nomination. Rob's point about organizational strength is quite true (not to mention, Huckabee lags significantly in financial support), and historically, the late-rising Republican underdog never actually wins anyway (see McCain 2000): unlike Democratic races, where momentum is usually king, Republican races inevitably wind up nominating the choice of the party establishment. In this case, that's fairly obviously Romney, and I'm confident in predicting -- famous last words -- that his cash and overwhelming organizational strength will pull out a stronger-than-expected second or first in Iowa, a big win in NH, and roll from there to the nomination. (For the record, I think Giuliani's national-primary strategy is horseshit. It has been tried before and it never works. Besides, his numbers are sinking like we knew they would anyway, so I woudln't worry about it.) Even if Romney were to somehow weaken: considering his lack of cash, Huckabee can't campaign everywhere, so he has to hope for a McCain spoiler win in NH, Giuliani strength on Feb. 5, and consequently a delegate split that leads to a brokered convention (about which David Freddoso has written a must-read article for National Review). And a brokered convention, which means that party insiders will be the ones pulling the strings, certainly doesn't favor an outsider populist like Huckabee. So I just don't see how he wins.

(On the other hand, I put no stock in these general-election matchup polls that say Huck would lose badly to Dems; Huckabee's name recognition is way too low for those numbers to signify anything. Same with those polls that say Romney's an easy target -- it's just low-information voters picking the candidate they've heard of. Huckabee could easily put up a serious fight.)

But his meteoric rise in the GOP polls is important in and of itself. And that tells an encouraging story about the state of the GOP electorate: it's pissed with its leadership. Huckabee, remember, is the one candidate who emphatically is not part of the Republican elite; he's not a rich CEO, he's not a city slicker, he's not a Hollywood actor, and he's not a Washington swamp-thing. The Club for Growth despises him, Robert Novak has vetoed him, even the leadership of the religious right is uncomfortable with him; Huckabee's a total outsider. And I think that is what's powering his rise: Republican base voters are fed up with what they've got (understandably), and are looking for a conservative insurgent. It's a mirror image of the dynamic that gave us Howard Dean '04, who rose just as quickly, and who looked just as wacky to conservatives as Huckabee does to us.

There are two good things about this:

• First, it's the harbinger of an all-out Republican civil war (since, unlike the easily-cowed DLC types, I don't think the economic hard-right will go quietly) that would consequently guarantee Democratic control of everything for decades.
• Second, it's a sign that grassroots Republicans (who are still, after all, Americans) are not as tied to low-tax free-market lunacy as their leadership would suggest, and are perfectly willing to support a candidate who talks sense on the economy. Though he's weak on the particulars of issues -- FairTax? Come the fuck on -- he's at least demonstrated a commitment to fair trade, fighting poverty, supporting health care and the social safety net, etc. That's tied right up with his religious identity and sits at the core of his candidacy; they are unquestionably good things to believe.

So I have absolutely no problem with a continuing Huckabee surge; I encourage it, in fact. (And not to toot my own horn, but I should point out that I called this four months ago. Shoulda put money on it!) Christianist nutbar or not, general election threat or not, Huckabee's continuing presence can only be good for our politics.

Huckabee scares me

And no, not just because I'm afraid of Chuck Norris delivering a roundhouse kick to my Democratic ass.

UPDATE: Will and I were sharing a mind this morning.  He beat me to the punch by a few minutes, but check out what he has to say.

Our friends over at BlueMassGroup have a great accounting of how Huckabee is a Christian Dominionist, or someone who believes that wants "a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law." The Rolling Stone article has this to say about Dominionists:

Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government...They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.

"Most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know -- what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know -- is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."

Fun stuff, right? Well, we have Randy Rudy, Mormon Mitt, and now Holy Roller Huckabee. Thing is that Huckabee is only recently popular:

So my guess is that his organization might not be all that it needs to be for a big campaign beyond the early states.

Furthermore, a new CNN poll says that all of the major three Democratic candidates beat Huckabee, with Edwards doing the best against him. Go figure. Full poll results here, for those of you like me who enjoy such things.

So maybe he has god and Chuck Norris on his side, but I think we'll still be ok.

Should we be scared of the Huckster?

The recent surge by Mike Huckabee has put many Democrats on edge. With his keen sense of humor (Chuck Norris approved), his likeability and a “family values” approach that makes many Republicans swoon, there are any many who believe that he is the one man who can derail the inevitability of a Democratic White House. Despite his lack of foreign policy experience and the Dumond case, he has still continued to gain ground in GOP polls.

Yet should Democrats worry about the man famous for losing 110 pounds while in office? Judging by a recent CNN Poll, that may not be case. According to the poll, in an election against Hillary Clinton, Huckabee would lose 54% to 44%. To Barrack Obama, he’d lose 55% to 40%. Surprisingly, he would lose to John Edwards by a whopping 60% to 35%.

While one might argue that Huckabee still has limited exposure on the national stage, the current political atmosphere suggests that Democrats should welcome a run against Huckabee. Of course, considering his sudden leap forward to the head of the GOP pack, it’s hard to doubt his chances at this point with the election so far away. However,at the same time, the media is continuing to do a solid job of digging up dirt. A recent article on DailyKos noted that Huckabee was one of 131 people who added their signatures to a full page ad in USA Today (around a decade ago) saying that the woman’s role in a marriage is to “graciously submit”. A statement like that is very easy for both Democrats and Independents to rally against.

On another note, the same poll suggests that John McCain is in a statistical tie with Hillary Clinton (50% to 48%) and Barack Obama (48% to 48%). However, McCain would still lose by 8% to John Edwards. No other GOP candidate beats a Democratic front runner in a head to head contest.

It is interesting to think that McCain and Edwards are right now the most electable candidates. As the CNN article notes, it is possible that electability has lost a bit of its importance with primary voters, judging by how the two are currently polling against their rivals for their respective party nominations. However, it’s more likely that a decent bit of the “electability” (AKA anyone but Hillary) crowd in the Democratic Party has chosen to rally around Barack Obama as the man who is not only electable, but also capable of upsetting Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary.

Every time Robert Novak is frightened, an angel gets its wings

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem.

A Republican who supports universal health care, energy independence, and fair trade -- that is to say, a guaranteed-winner election platform? Run away, Novak! Run away!

(From Novak's column today. Via Drudge, not that he needs the traffic.)

Superman wears Mike Huckabee pajamas

Mike Huckabee's going to run an ad in Iowa featuring... Chuck Norris?!

What's Happening in Iowa?

The other day I wrote about the state of the Democratic race in New Hampshire; well, let's go through the looking-glass now, because I want to quickly analyze the condition of Republicans in Iowa. There are a number of breathless headlines today about Mike Huckabee's big surge in the CBS/NYT poll; how real is it? Well--

--no, that is not a lost Jackson Pollock, that is the story of IA-GOP 2008 thus far (from the invaluable Pollster.com). And it suggests that Huckabee's rise is quite real; he has been gaining consistently since the beginning of the year, and we can see him really start to take off shortly after midyear (which coincides with his breakthrough at the Ames Straw Poll in August). This CBS/NYT poll is not much of an outlier, either; we can see other numbers (Strategic Vision, ARG, even Rasmussen last month) putting Huckabee up in roughly that same neighborhood. The only reason there's so much press on this one is that it happens also to have Romney uncharacteristically low, giving the appearance of a competitive race.

The consistency of this rise is striking, in fact; Huckabee must be right in the pollsters' wheelhouse in order to get such smooth numbers (which makes sense; he targets religious and older conservatives, who are much more apt to answer their phones consistently and probably have an easier time getting through the complex IA caucus likely-voter screens). Romney, meanwhile, is all over the place; I think this is because his support is soft, which would certainly explain the fluctuating numbers between organizations (they push undecideds differently and use different screens, which would lead to different results for a candidate with shaky support). The CBS data bears this out -- from their uncharacteristically good analysis:

While Romney still has the lead in Iowa, his support base is softer than that of Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor whose campaign has gained momentum in recent weeks. Half of Huckabee supporters said they had made up their mind, compared to two-thirds of Romney supporters who said they could change their mind before caucus night.

We can see in this graph how Romney's rise came entirely at the expense of Giuliani and McCain, so I'm guessing a number of current Romney supporters are there solely because they jumped the Rudy/McCain ships and Mitt was the only recognizable alternative. If Huckabee continues to gain steam, watch for him to pull in a LOT of Romney's supporters, very quickly.

The other figure to remember is undecideds; CBS has 57%, which is even higher than the NH-Dem number that bowled me over on Sunday (48%). In this case, though, the trends are much more pronounced (as opposed to the Dem race which has been basically in stasis for months), so I'm a little more confident that they'll continue as more people in tune in.

Which means you should brace yourselves for a strong Huckabee showing, perhaps a victory, on January 3rd; which would make him a media juggernaut and a potentially serious threat very quickly. The consequences of which, I and
others have argued, could be dire...