Huckabee [update]

I have yet to see someone[*] make a point about the American Exceptionalism issue in regards to the Mau Mau history of Mike Huckabee, Birther Debate aside.

Well actually I found at least one...embedded in bold above, the rest I have yet to read.

[* 3-4-11 Not originally intended as a variant of "some people" which some media(FOX) are want to use as sources. It was more conversational in indicating that I had not heard anyone make the point that Mike Huckabee is implying that there was no British Empire, by defininition imperial. I may or may not get back to reading any of the rest.][Wonkette under Mike notes the "imperial" problem, as well as the Washington Post under Huckabee in 2nd update. Here is a Salon piece on Hucakbee and his Story-telling-in-Chief beliefs.]

"the lesser of two evils" In Perspective.

It is disturbing, the exchange that is going on within the Democratic race. It is good that there is still a choice. And it is good that they are being testy in preparation for the general. But it must be remembered that the choice that is important will be in November. Of course the choice now is still important and it's a shame that there is still not more choice. But no matter the choice now, the November choice is the one that is really "the lesser of two evils".

I say this from an independent perspective in NOT that I call them both evil, but from a Democratic and American perspective, they are less good and more evil.[*] The Democrats get diluted by the independent vote, and the Republicans get deluded by their departure. While the Democrats have lost some of their good by the wayside, and it is now the lesser of two goods, the Republicans have lost the lesser of their evils if it remains McCain.

Now Huckabee may be the compassionate conservative that has no chance, but his rhetoric and revelations may be relevant. Unless a viable alternative is in the race, it is a choice between the major parties. Even an un-viable candidate, Nader, will be a vote that is not against the greater evil and for a lesser good. But a more balanced un-viable ticket, Nader / Paul might be the too good and the least evil, but at least represent the "hard work" of dialogue needed, and if these efforts are not attempts to broker the issues, would still be likely spoilers for the balance of good and evil.

It would be an interesting independent ticket if Bloomberg/Nader or Bloomberg/Paul or even Bloomberg/Huckabee could work on their issues. But that is a dream and what needs to be worked on is preventing the nightmare, and in that case a dangerous Republican ticket might be McCain/Huckabee.

[*] 6-3-08 UPDATE inserted NOT and it must be further clarified I am talking about the November choice.

Back to "The One Thing?"

It was not my intent to play on the "one thing" that Hucakbee got wrong in regards to British Imperialism, and the history as we know it.
Huckabee: "And one thing I do know is having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the Average American."
Also: "When we elect a president, we entrust to him not just our security but also our story. The two are inseparable because our security depends on the story that we believe in, that inspires us, that we teach our children, and that we, as a nation, are willing to fight for."

The one thing was the chart and spinning off from that *, all things.


[While the link might be tenuous** in these two items, Huckabee and Economic Recovery, it can be seen in the flip-side of the two-birds equation: the economy loses, Obama loses.]

*Page 17: Q27 - a combined 59% of the people support raising taxes or postponing elimination of the deficit.

[Ribble =ribbing and riddle (Embedded in Q27, is reference to "missing link" in earlier post: where thanks to someone not getting me, I got more out of it. Not to be mis-understood as a reference to "the one",but maybe win-win...for Democrats and the Economy.)]

** New RNC chair is old Wisconsin Republican State Chairman

[Speaking of original intent or missing links: it is about the story and...Stephanie Miller***. (She or a caller maybe broke the story on January 25th: a timeline of sorts)]
[On another level.]

*** earliest reference

[American Exceptionalism and three views. In my view the Obama exceptionalism is what makes America great, not what makes it the next empire.]

[3-6-11: Media Matters for Huckabee whether on book tour or campaign , but is "brain slip" really valid? Yes, his true thinking may have been outed from his hours of shilling his book. Tells US: "These people should read my book and they would know what I mean..." Well thanks for the excuse, for all artful dodgers.]

Two No Huckabee

Mike Huckabee is another no trump.

NOTE: update of sorts (meaning I had not considered Huckabee for a long while)
Meanwhile: back to bridge.(Bold "bridge" is recommended link to watch.)
[Still to updated some links here or there.]
Note: unbolds may be only to read later or of slight reference use or scroll over

Update: GOP @)!@(2012) Missed Raising Cain.

Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.

[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*

*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]

*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?

[See Asterisks here **]

The One Thing

Maybe I am on to something.
Ed Schutz and fine tuning the message.

Tax cuts increase the deficit, redistribute wealth and only make the country look broke. Well...this is a bit better than my potential rant on nuance.(See Artful Dodgers)

[Looking back at the Billy Club thing: George F. Will weighs in on the Huckabee deal. Three things: George F. Will writes for a living, he hopes to influence the presidential race, and the Republican race in particular, not that I link him with the Koch brothers or question his patriotism*. Apparently George F. Will has a concern about the Imperial or Pro-Colonial (Huckabee/Gingrich/Palin) wing of the Republican party.]

*just a short hand for intent in general

GOP @)!@ ...(2012)

2012 that is.
Mitch Daniels, was my earliest hunch, Huntsman was a close second. Ron Paul was an early hope, but Gary Johnson beat him to the announcement. Now when I say hope, this is from the perspective that there be a good candidate for Republicans and the 2012 race, not that they should have any shot at being good for the country. This does not take into considerations any impact of a third party or independent candidate, or any political calculus. I don't find any references in a search of my blog but could have embedded some comment or link that may mention them. I associate Daniels with a Chris Matthews* comment, and Huntsman with some China controversy, while Paul and Johnson are libertarian. Which may be why I have been focused on economics and Ayn Rand. I would like to have a good de bait on neo-classical economics. It is hard to imagine Mitt Romney making it but then the longer the so-called libertarian or tea party candidate split the vote he or these guys could run the fish ladder, and it is hard to imagine a third party candidate that would not be just another spoiler. I don't want to do the political calculus to rock that boat.

* one reason I might scratch Daniels, but then again

5-17-11 Related links: Needless to say** Label
(Republicans 2012)
One No Trump
Two No Huckabee***

**Calm Pend E Um has a reference to an anomoly
*** Raising Cain

New Hampshire Defeat?

Or Win for progressives?[or change *]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting

John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting

My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.

And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.

[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]

[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]

The one thing?

[Right Columns Being Updated]

Well...
it was a chart that demonstrates the effects on GNP for various stimulative choices.

Translation:
Tax Cuts Bad
Federal Spending Good.
This of course is overly simplified, and relative to the position on the (Laffer) bell curve for tax rates.
Permanent tax cuts do not get even get half their money's worth of stimulative effect, while all categories under federal spending get well more than their buck's bang.

Speaking of "Killing two birds with one stone"...
Rachel Maddow [*] addresses the issue of Wisconsin and why Democrats exist(economic populism).
(Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll)

[Navigation aid: see bold link(s)]
[UPDATE 1-22-11 Keith and Rachel, D-part meant of Corrections and Stephanie Miller]
[Bottom Line? Democrats can stand strong and the American people will support them, and standing with the unions of Wisconsin and collective bargaining will be what the average American supports, the lopsided money and media to the contrary.]
[Potential follow-up: No to Violence, No to Prank News: But seriously.]
[*] my apologies the bold Rachel Maddow link has been corrected
[further Huckabee, Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman**, and Reverse Re-Verses.]
** must add show link for Norman

GOP-GAP

NOT!
Whether it the Grand Old Party or the Grand Oil Party there is no GAP filled by Governor Palin. OK, some executive experience. And she's human, they had to say.

OK, maybe we are both stretching things a bit. But this is serious. She did a fine job presenting a fine speech and a fine life story, after Reverend Rhetoric ** presented his fine rendering.

All in all it was a fine show that was very inspiring to the base who have faith in something beyond facts.

Governor Palin[*] has an inspiring way about her. It is the energy and her certainty that is her strength. Unfortunately, her selection seems to be aimed at the Plexiglas ceiling. There may be cracks in it, but when you are on top, you can say anything and still be standing on it. My original panic was that Biden's fire and humor would be tempered against a woman. But given her own fire and humor, and my original panic being sexist, he should give her all he's got. They are already complaining about the media, and unless she expects some affirmative action or pity, she should be able to stand on her own.

[*][9-4-08: Heck, even the above link has fallen for the flip-flop on the press ***. Granted the press was in McCain's corner or they were off the plane and missing the barbecues. (I have no confirmed reports of either.) But the flip-flop that the "mother lacked the soaring oratory skills of Obama", to the "calm, TV-friendly tones reminiscent of Ronald Reagan", belies her joke about "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull" and her "beat and a smirk" lipstick.(I took liberties to finely edit this.)]

[I watched most of what I watched on C-Span, and bounced in and out of MSNBC, but did catch a bit of grousing about the timing of the speeches, not allowing for the media filtering. While I did not watch equal amounts of the two conventions or networks, they were probably right that the speeches were more tightly timed, but it seemed that MSNBC had filtered and missed several of the Dem ones anyway. So I could not tell if MSNBC gave equal time or equal filtering for both convention's speeches. Imagine, the convention speeches were getting in the way of the pundits "filtering". I noticed with the first convention the flip-flop, but they actually brought it up. Deleted reference to "moose gun" here. Audience: Aahhhh. Sarcasm there, but to the point, I don't know if the media is falling for or intentionally validating, the whining that comes from the Good Old Patronizing Party, but I think the brilliant selection of Palin was to preempt and to stay the course.]

** [these are chronologically added and I use the word Rhetoric as a compliment. Huckabee had a zinger of his own and Biden "Whoa"good show, fine "lines" and "heckuva" job.]--[I must add between the lines or just plain more lines: it is about leadership, not just being an executive, and intelligence, but more about who and how it is filtered.]

*** bold added and where I may have gotten fine but was filtered through MSNBC.

Running List '08

YOU TOO CAN DO POLITICAL CALCULUS
A friend sent me the following Quiz which which upon my taking it seemed to rank the candidates based upon my own political calculus which is based on my very "course" filtering of the debates. Meaning I have watched extremely little of the actual debates but had used other avenues which filtered them and my equation.

Here is how they ranked in my opinion on the quiz:

Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd: 43
Clinton, Richardson, Obama: 38
Gravel: 35
Biden: 31
Giuliani: 21
Romney: 16
Paul, Huckabee: 13
Brownback: 11
Gilmore: 8
McCain, Hunter: 6
Tancredo, Thompson: 3

Here is how I last posted them.

Kucinich
Edwards
Obama
Clark
Richardson
Clinton, Dodd, Biden
Gravel

For another source of information GO HERE

Here is the orginal Running List '08 with dated updates where it should be noted that some candidate were on that were not running(Clark), and some were off that eventually jumped in (Clinton) between 12-4-06 and 2-1-07. From which I take this list:

For history sake I note MY original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd

Hmm. I guess I was spot on. At least in my calculations and opinion.

[On a double take, my spot on is rather flat * as I still need to sort out Kucinich, Edwards and Dodd. More filtering will occur but another note of caution: Sometimes a candidate can agree with you on an issue (Ron Paul- Social Security) and be wrong on his take from it, and disagree with you on another (Ron Paul- Iraq) and take an even stronger stand in a potentially right direction. That is why more investigation is needed especially when they are tied. * Take it very carefully and it will not save your answers or your results (that I can tell), so my these numbers are based on my best recollection and retaking of the quiz. The numbers could very but the rank is as I recall.]

* In the long run this quiz did not sort out the original candidates for me, but they just happen to have been the earliest in the race, however the quiz ranked it close to my current feelings and will aid in the fine tuning.

Three Reads

Krugman
Friedman
Rich

[Huckabee Serious? ]

Unity March

Retreading* Charlie Hebdo
Aborting the euphemism. 
Still ... an excuse to file.

It is with trepidation that I have used the CH tragedy as a euphemism for a car wreck/churned media of lede or ship~made ya' look childishness.  Thanks to the Jon Stewart apology in conjunkshun^ with the vehicle/road metaphor(a4 menshunned), not to mention trip~tiring references, I hereby vow to never use CH in vain.  And darned if I didn't spell it correctly, weather it flows or not[!]

A sub-plot to this 4M might be; "are we there yet?" ^^


*retiring

[last down]
(3) we are Charlie
(2) share n' angle Mitt's BO*Son
(~) lost order
(6) SELF DEFEATING TRIBALISM
(8) Obama with Drama
(1) Cruz Hillary Dream
(4) Perlstein Huckabee Apocalypse
(5) Crack Hawks Fund
(7) Hillary media jokes
(11)Stewart apology
(9) of the forth kind
(10) of the fourth kind

^ coin-age
^^ spoiler alert  (re:trip tiring ref) UM? (nor StewArt [!])
(8)~(*)