Nutty or Nice?

December 11th, 2007 | 19 Comments | Politics |

As in, “gonna find out who’s nutty or nice.” I can’t make up my mind about Mike Huck­abee. Not like I’m reg­is­tered Repub­li­can or would ever imag­ine vot­ing for him in the gen­eral elec­tion, but he’s got my atten­tion like he has that of many oth­ers. Sure, he wants to keep Dar­win­ism out of schools. But on the other hand, he’s against mak­ing it the offi­cial U.S. social pol­icy — putting him out front of most of his pri­mary com­peti­tors. Maybe he’s nutty and nice, which I guess beats just plain nutty.

Dis­cuss.

Tags: ,

19 Responses to ' Nutty or Nice? '

  • on December 12th, 2007 at 4:48 am
    Shari wrote,

    I detect a bit of sar­casm there. I doubt very much there’s any cause for con­cern that Huck­abee will get the GOP nom­i­na­tion. Unless you’re a Demo­c­rat, in which case you’d bet­ter hope so. He’s got more skele­tons in his closet than they found in those mass graves in Ger­many. (Excuse the crass­ness of that one). I don’t know what they’re doing to Fred Thomp­son, but the media just don’t like him and are deter­mined to bring him down by hook or by crook. Maybe they’ll pull a Dan Rather on him and just make some­thing up. Or maybe they’ll find some dirt on his tro­phy wife. Not that a 40 year old is any tro­phy, but when you’re in your late 60’s it can’t be all that bad. How­ever, the wife just doesn’t have that Laura Bush first lady qual­ity about her. Just like Hillary never had it either. I think the Democ­rats have to lean of a bench. And their starters are no good either. All the Repub­li­cans have to do to win this one is come up with some­body who looks Pres­i­den­tial and doesn’t have too much bag­gage. For sure, Obama won’t get elected. When you have very lit­tle expe­ri­ence in pol­i­tics and your mid­dle name is Hus­sein, even Democ­rats will sit this one out. Your other option is Hillary. And a lot of Democ­rats don’t like her. So i’m bet­ting the GOP takes this one again. And please dont’ say “it’s the econ­omy, stu­pid” because Hillary’s idea of an econ­omy is to take away from you and me and spread it all around. Don’t know about you but I don’t have it to spread around. And i don’t need any more taxes thank you very much Hillary! Nor do i need the govt to pay my med­ical insur­ance. She’s a social­ist plain and sim­ple and if peo­ple can’t see that then they’re just plain ignorant.

  • on December 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
    tom wrote,

    Hill is slip­ping. Peo­ple are get­ting hip to the fact that she’s being foisted on us Democ­rats as the “inevitable,” when she isn’t, just because it would be fun to run against her.

    And I wouldn’t count Edwards out. He came on strong in 2004 and will do it again.

    Thomp­son is an empty suit. He was yanked in because he’s got a gruff voice and looks impres­sive as a DA on the teevee. But he’s dull as dish­wa­ter and he’s prov­ing to be, in Richard Nixon’s immor­tal words, “dumb as hell.”

    It’s may be true that all the Repub­li­cans have to do to win this one is come up with some­body who looks Pres­i­den­tial and doesn’t have too much bag­gage; but it’s also true that there is no such person.

  • on December 12th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
    Shari wrote,

    too much bag­gage” is rel­a­tive. Com­pared to Hillary who car­ries more bag­gage than the Rolling Stones on a World Tour.

  • on December 13th, 2007 at 1:03 am
    tom wrote,

    True; but her bag­gage has gone through the x-ray machine more times than you can count, then been ripped open and sifted through with a geiger counter. It’s been pulled apart far­ther than this metaphor has been stretched and that’s really say­ing some­thing. Nobody’s going to find any­thing that’s going to change the mind of any sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of voters.

    Nev­er­the­less, my money is still not on her to be the nominee.

    Now, for the first time ever, I’m going to go out on a limb and make a pre­dic­tion: Rom­ney vs. Edwards.

  • on December 13th, 2007 at 6:44 am
    Shari wrote,

    Touche. OK, Rom­ney vs. Edwards. You may have it. I just can’t take Edwards seri­ously. Not because he’s a demo­c­rat, but because he just looks and sounds very weak. Like a girly man.

    I would have to take that into con­sid­er­a­tion when vot­ing although i have much more impor­tant issues that con­cern me which i won’t go into here. But there are peo­ple, espe­cially women i think, who vote based on how the can­di­date looks or his charm. Take Bill for exam­ple. His charisma took HIM all the way (pun intended).

  • on December 13th, 2007 at 6:47 am
    Shari wrote,

    Puns, metaphors, humor and sar­casm. Four sta­ples of this blog. That’s why it’s so fun to be here.

  • on December 13th, 2007 at 10:16 am
    tom wrote,

    I wouldn’t place all the blame on women, there are a lot of vot­ers who look at things in a super­fi­cial way, and can be con­vinced to vote against their own inter­ests. That’s what image con­sul­tants are all about, and why Edwards and Rom­ney obvi­ously spend so much time on their hair!

    As for sar­casm etc. — here at tom​-mcgee​.com world head­quar­ters, fun is our business.

  • on December 13th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
    Shari wrote,

    Yeah, a can­di­dates hair, or lack thereof, can make all the dif­fer­ence. Charm and a folksy man­ner, such as George Bush has, go a long way too. These are two of the things that John Kerry sorely lacked, altho he did have the good hair.

    Most vot­ers really do put a lot of stock in those kinds of things. But some of us have cer­tain issues that we really, REALLY care about, hair or no hair. But i must admit I do fall for the folksy manner.

    That thing you said about tom-mcgee world headquarters…you should copy­right that and use it as your slo­gan “fun is our busi­ness”. I LOL’d. It’s great!

  • on December 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
    tom wrote,

    The charm and folky man­ner are what’s putting Huck­abee ahead. That plus his vir­tu­ally unheard-of habit (in politi­cians at least) of say­ing what he believes no mat­ter what the audi­ence wants to hear. Some of it’s nice, some of it’s nutty.

    It’s cer­tainly got the Club For Growth crowd in a panic-stricken torch-and-pitchfork kind of mood, which I find really amus­ing in and of itself.

    His hair is not note­wor­thy, but nei­ther is Obama’s and it hasn’t hurt him yet either. If you wanted to take hair out of the equa­tion that would be a good match. So would Biden vs. Giuliani.

  • on December 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
    Shari wrote,

    I’m tak­ing the Biden vs. Giu­liani thing as sar­casm. As it should be.

  • on December 14th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
    tom wrote,

    Shrewd move.

  • on December 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
    Shari wrote,

    Did ya hear? Rom­neys been Borked?

  • on December 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
    tom wrote,

    I missed that one. Do you have details and/or a link to something?

  • on December 15th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
    Shari wrote,

    I didn’t mean “Borked” in the usual sense of the word. I mean Bork has announced his sup­port for Romney.

    The link is Race42008​.com. That’s not where i found the story, but thru a link to it from another source which shall remain name­less because if i told you that one i’d be called “nutty”.

  • on December 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
    tom wrote,

    Inter­est­ing. I imag­ine that will help Rom­ney in the pri­maries. I’ve been intrigued with Bork ever since he sided against Microsoft in the antitrust case. It showed inde­pen­dent prin­ci­ples that weren’t totally aligned with a desired set of results. Either that, or it showed who was pay­ing him more.

  • on December 19th, 2007 at 8:58 am
    Shari wrote,

    Ruh Roh! Bad news for Edwards. Drudge is report­ing that the National Enquirer is report­ing that Edwards has a preg­nant mis­triss. An aide or aide-in-hiding as it is right now. Denials are fly­ing. Fas­ten your seat belt.

  • on December 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am
    tom wrote,

    Drudge is report­ing that the National Enquirer is report­ing? Sure, it’s true that even a bro­ken clock is right twice a day but I’m gonna need a lit­tle more than that.

    Didn’t the same kind of rumor come up about him in 2004?

  • on December 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
    Shari wrote,

    Hey, the National Enquirer has come a long way since it’s “Aliens Come in Peace” days. I believe they broke some hard sto­ries dur­ing the Clin­ton years. The Anita Brod­er­ick story or one of those. Check this one out, but appar­ently, the woman was deny­ing it and now she’s admit­ting it. So let’s give this one a wait and see.

  • on December 19th, 2007 at 11:35 am
    tom wrote,

    Drudge’s duty is to dish dirt on dems, daily.

    Read­ers of Amer­i­can Tabloid should enjoy that lit­tle hom­mage. I’ll explain, if any­one insists.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

September 2010
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

New on Flickr

Inquisitive
Small Ferns
Tillman Ravine
Tillman Ravine
Bunny Kiosk
Snow melt, Mahlon Dickerson Reservation
Late afternoon, Dickerson Reservation
Sandy Hook LIghthouse