What’'s up with the Republicans? Have they no sense that their policies have sent the country hurtling down the road to ruin? Are they so divorced from reality that in their delusionary state they honestly believe we need more of their tax cuts for the rich and their other forms of plutocratic irresponsibility, the very things that got us to this deplorable state?
Bob Herbert
Share your thoughts.
The G.O.P.’s latest campaign is aimed at undermining President Obama’'s effort to cope with the national economic emergency by attacking the spending in his stimulus package and repeating ad nauseam the Republican mantra for ever more tax cuts.
“Right now, given the concerns that we have over the size of this package and all the spending in this package, we don’t think it’s going to work,” said Representative John Boehner, an Ohio Republican who is House minority leader. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Boehner said of the plan: “Put me down in the ‘no’ column.”
If anything, the stimulus package is not large enough. Less than 24 hours after Mr. Boehner’s televised exercise in obstructionism, the heavy-equipment company Caterpillar announced that it was cutting 20,000 jobs, Sprint Nextel said it was eliminating 8,000, and Home Depot 7,000.
Maybe the Republicans don’t think there is an emergency. After all, it was Phil Gramm, John McCain’s economic guru, who told us last summer that the pain was all in our heads, that this was a “mental recession.”
The truth, of course, is that the country is hemorrhaging jobs and Americans are heading to the poorhouse by the millions. The stock markets and the value of the family home have collapsed, and there is virtual across-the-board agreement that the country is caught up in the worst economic disaster since at least World War II.
The Republican answer to this turmoil?
Tax cuts.
They need to go into rehab.
The question that I would like answered is why anyone listens to this crowd anymore. G.O.P. policies have been an absolute backbreaker for the middle class. (Forget the poor. Nobody talks about them anymore, not even the Democrats.) The G.O.P. has successfully engineered a wholesale redistribution of wealth to those already at the top of the income ladder and then, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, dared anyone to talk about class warfare.
A stark example of this unholy collaboration between the G.O.P. and the very wealthy was on display in the pages of this newspaper on Jan. 18. The Times’s Mike McIntire wrote an article about the first wave of federal bailout money for the financial industry, which was handed over by the Bush administration with hardly any strings attached. (Congress, under the control of the Democrats, should never have allowed this to happen, but the Democrats are as committed to fecklessness as the Republicans are to tax cuts.)
The public was told that the money would be used to loosen the frozen credit markets and thus help revive the economy. But as the article pointed out, there were bankers with other ideas. John C. Hope III, the chairman of the Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, in an address to Wall Street fat cats gathered at the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton, said:
“Make more loans? We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”
How’s that for arrogance and contempt for the public interest? Mr. Hope’s bank received $300 million in taxpayer bailout money.
The same article quoted Walter M. Pressey, president of Boston Private Wealth Management, which Mr. McIntire described as a healthy bank with a mostly affluent clientele. It received $154 million in taxpayer money.
“With that capital in hand,” said Mr. Pressey, “not only do we feel comfortable that we can ride out the recession, but we also feel that we’ll be in a position to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves once this recession is sorted out.”
Take advantage, indeed. That, in a nutshell, is what the plutocracy is all about: taking unfair advantage.
When the G.O.P. talks, nobody should listen. Republicans have argued, with the collaboration of much of the media, that they could radically cut taxes while simultaneously balancing the federal budget, when, in fact, big income-tax cuts inevitably lead to big budget deficits. We listened to the G.O.P. and what do we have now? A trillion-dollar-plus deficit and an economy in shambles.
This is the party that preached fiscal discipline and then cut taxes in time of war. This is the party that still wants to put the torch to Social Security and Medicare. This is a party that, given a choice between Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, would choose Ronald Reagan in a heartbeat.
Why is anyone still listening?
| Pointers from John Wheeler, www.thenaturalstate.org All other knowledge depends on your own presence. The essence of this is just to look directly into that presence, your own self-evident being, and see it for what it is. With this, the belief in any contradictory self-definitions is abandoned and what you are and always have been stands self-revealed and unadorned — the natural state. Whether or not such a looking happens or not makes no difference to what you ultimately are. There is no need of becoming oneself, or what one already is.
Who or what is aware of a feeling or any other object? Thoughts come and go. Where are you in the equation? If you are looking for yourself objectively, you are overlooking the point that the answer is not in the mind. Go back to the basic point: What are you? Yes, thoughts arise. But what are you? Obviously, you are not an object. But that does not deny your presence. You are still there to know or not know the objects.
"Me" is obviously a word. But where/what is this "thing" that the word supposedly points to? If we take that to refer to the unconditioned, absolute, presence/awareness, then where is the problem? There isn't one. If this "me" is taken to be something separate from that (a separate isolated self standing apart from that reality) — just where is this seeming person, in fact? If there is no such thing, then who or what has any problem? The trouble comes from granting the existence of such a limited self and tacitly assuming that is what I am. All seeking, suffering and doubt hangs on the presumed presence of that separate self and one's identity as that. Questioning it, the house of cards falls straight away, and along with it all the problems.
In seeking, we are trying find who we are, what is real, or where happiness might be by following concepts in the mind. In doing so, we are looking away from what we truly are.
If you are going to do anything, have a straight look into the doubtless fact of your being and see it for what it is. It is a marvelous and extraordinary revelation. All the scriptures and sages have been saying wonderful things about the reality. By a wonderful stroke of fate, you are that.
Being is not a doing. It is a present fact. You already are what you are. You do not need to go looking anywhere for anything other than being what you are. We overlook the extraordinary miracle of our own presence and feel in poverty. Because of this, we go looking for things, states and information from "experts", instead of discovering for ourselves this amazing thing we already are. How can you find yourself in a book, on the web, or in a YouTube video? Such may point to your real nature, but still it is your real nature we are interested in, not even the pointing! Seeing all this, you can settle down with what you really are. You do not need to go looking elsewhere for something that you already are.
Without chasing concepts, who can deny their own being and aware nature? Without needless conceptual activity, what is wrong with your own natural state here and now? This is the peace or fullness. This means there is nothing wrong with you anymore, nothing to get, nothing to fix, nothing to improve. This is your natural state. It is "obtained" simply by being what you are.
Do not over-complicate things with needless concepts. Before the mind appears or moves, what you are is already present. Get familiar with this already-present nature that you are.
Thinking about your own presence and trying to grasp it via conceptual thought or logical proof is not necessary. Is your very being in need of proof? Is it a result of logical analysis? See the point that before any other experience, even the thought "I am", you must be there, both present and aware.
Before any question or concept appears, you ARE. That is all this is pointing to. It is self-evident and beyond doubt at all times. All the words are only attempts to point to this in different ways. A lot of the language is based on the perspective the questioner starts with. In fact, what you are is not any "thing" or label at all, not even "being", "consciousness" or any thing else. If you are cogitating about this stuff and trying to analyze too much, you would be overlooking the utter simplicity of it. It is only your own natural presence itself, just this and nothing else. So it is best just to drop all concepts and be what you are. What you are has no problems, worries or doubts at all. That is why they call it perfect fullness and peace. Problems only arise in the concepts. Spirituality as some special undertaking also only arises in the concepts. What you are is not a concept.
All the problems come in with the notion of "I". "I" am stuck. "I" don't see. "I" am separate from awareness. Or whatever the case may be. But that "I" is a mere concept that only comes and goes in the doubtless space of being-knowing. Even the concepts or notions of waking, dreaming and sleep are still appearing and subsiding in aware-presence. Even the experience of consciousness as a state or experience is coming and going in your ultimate presence. There is some presence in you, your very being itself, which even recognizes the coming and going of consciousness and all other states and experiences. This is nothing mystical, but simply what you are, your natural state right now.
You don't need to think or guess in order to BE. Just have a look straight at this being that you are. The only problem was that we overlaid it with concepts. Now it is time to toss aside the concepts and see this (your real being) directly and nakedly — as it is.
There is no separate self with any substance or independent nature. So that construct is empty. The seeming separate self is nothing, an absence, a mere fiction. But look into that seeming "nothing" that remains when the notion of the "I" is seen through. It is not a vacuum or a void. Yes, it is "no thing" to the mind, but it is certainly not nothing. It is you! That seeming emptiness is full to the brim. It is utterly full and complete, rich and sublime beyond words. It is the space in which the content appears. It is the consciousness in which the space appears. Ultimately, it is the unnameable source from which all these emerge. Do not sell yourself short and miss the utter richness and beauty of your real being beyond concepts.
Immediate and present awareness is all this gets down to, nothing more. You are that. It does not need to be focused on or cultivated, any more than you need to go around all day thinking, "I am breathing". The true nature and its so-called realization has in fact already happened. In truth, it never needed to "happen" because it is an ever-present fact. That leaves the suffering and doubts to consider. These are conceptual in nature. They come from looking for who and what we are (our reality, identity and happiness) in the unexamined concepts of the mind. These self-centered concepts are all rooted in the primary notion that I am a separate "I" apart from reality. We always assumed this concept as true, and this became the basis of all other self-centered thoughts. Believing in those thoughts was itself the suffering. That is why a clear and direct clarification of our natural state undermines the basis of the concepts (the wrong notions of what I am) and conclusively ends the seeking, suffering and doubts. When this is understood, any lingering problems are resolved. There is no "moral imperative" to resolve needless psychological suffering. But given that it is quite available to do so, why not? And where does that leave you? Present and aware as the doubtless natural self you have always been. Nothing is attained and there is no maintenance or post-processing involved. All such things would only be due to continued belief in the self-centered notion. |
Having one popularity-challenged president exit last week, seeing Ron Howard’s Academy Award nominated film, Frost/Nixon, seemed apropos. As I watched an outstanding perfomance by Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. I remembered just how much I hated Nixon; how important it was to me when the press stood up to him (thank you, Dan). He had stretched the Vietnam war over far more American bodies than needed to die. It hit me that as much as I despised Bush 43, I did not despise him anywhere near as I did Nixon. But the film brought up another perspective for me.
Langellla’s dower and thoughtful dramatics actually made me feel sad for Nixon, something I thought I was incapable of.
| |
Langella’s depiction of that moment of self-realization was stunning. As another deep line etched in his already hanging face, it all became clear. The jig was up. Nixon sat here digesting what he had held tight to the chest for years. In Watergate he was the guilty party. He had not properly represented the office of president and he had let down the American people. His admission was an indication of a trace of humanity in the man.
On the other hand, Bush is incapable of admitting guilt or responsibility. To do so he would need to harbor a sense of real emotion. There is no self-awareness - Bush has affability but no humanity, no matter how deep you scratch through the layers of grime.
In his Jan. 15 “Farewell,” Bush said: “As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation.”
How revealing, particularly because it came in a prepared speech where he had many chances to edit it out. The insensitivity is staggering - no regard for the 9/11 families or war casualty families or ANYONE else. It’s the plaintive whine of a privileged man-child who has skated through a self-centered life.
Put another way: “It’s not fair that I got hurt,” cries the drunk who crashed his car after his driving forced a school bus off a cliff. Given his unfathomable attempt at empathy, rationalizing that giving up golf is commiserate with losing a loved one to war (a month later he was photographed playing again), my guess is that he doesn’t even understand what taking responsibility means. Nixon could take a question and, after a momentary frank answer, veer off deftly into anecdotes that left the original question difficult to recall. But he knew what he was doing.
Bush did nothing deftly. He just didn’t answer the questions.
A late-awakening 70’s press corp pushed the Nixonian truth to the surface. Talk radio was loud, but in its infancy. The right wing likes of NY’s Bob Grant, LA’s Wally George and George Putnam were still considered jokes so Nixon didn’t have the 24/7 distortion defense of today’s Lords of Loud to obliterate the truth. Without the capacity to truly contemplate right and wrong, Bush made it through the last eight years- certainly a lot better than the rest of us - helped mightily by Limbaugh and da gang.
My guess is that if talk radio were running the air waves back then like they do today, Nixon would have made it though to the end of his second term, a few bumps and bruises, but still considered an honored statesman with no need to spill his guts on international TV. Bush got away with murder, but while Nixon did too, David Frost provided us our day in court and Nixon cornered, took responsibility.
Bush would never admit guilt. And why should he? Not when he has the insanity plea.
For example, in 2005 congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture which Bush signed into law. However, Bush also included a signing statement which basically allowed him to ignore the new law.
To date, Bush has issued 1,100 signing statements which is nearly double that of all 42 presidents that preceded him combined.
Question: What happens to Bush's signing statements when he leaves office? Do they cease to apply? Can a better President write additional ones that override or discontinue the existing ones?
Answer: Executive Orders become law unless challenged or changed by Congress. They CAN be nullified or over-ridden by a new President's Executive Orders. Even after the issuing Exec leaves office the law stands unless Congress or a "better" Exec takes action.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of NASA scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.
Hansen - head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and winner of the WWF's top conservation award - first warned Earth was in danger from climate change in 1988 and has been the victim of several unsuccessful attempts by the White House administration of George Bush to silence his views.
Hansen's institute monitors temperature fluctuations at thousands of sites round the world, data that has led him to conclude that most estimates of sea level rises triggered by rising atmospheric temperatures are too low and too conservative. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a rise of between 20cm and 60cm can be expected by the end of the century.
However, Hansen said feedbacks in the climate system are already accelerating ice melt and are threatening to lead to the collapse of ice sheets. Sea-level rises will therefore be far greater - a claim backed last week by a group of British, Danish and Finnish scientists who said studies of past variations in climate indicate that a far more likely figure for sea-level rise will be about 1.4 metres, enough to cause devastating flooding of many of the world's major cities and of low-lying areas of Holland, Bangladesh and other nations.
As a result of his fears about sea-level rise, Hansen said he had pressed both Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences to carry out an urgent investigation of the state of the planet's ice-caps. However, nothing had come of his proposals. The first task of Obama's new climate office should therefore be to order such a probe "as a matter of urgency", Hansen added.
During his numerous recent legacy-building interviews culminating in his farewell address to the nation tonight, President Bush has repeatedly touted that his actions have kept the country safe since 9-11. This might well be one of the few accomplishments of which Bush could be rightly proud.
It is thus especially regrettable that his administration has failed to take better care of those who have sacrificed so much to make such an accomplishment possible: our troops who are serving and have served so bravely and honorably in Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly elsewhere in the war on terrorism.
Several news sources have, in the last few days, reported that suicides among Marines climbed to a new yearly high in 2008, since the Iraq invasion. Not only does the suicide rate among Marines remain alarmingly high, but it is expected that both the rate and number of suicides in the Army will have risen in 2008.
This is but one more example of a trend of disturbing statistics and phenomena affecting our active duty troops and especially our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
A trend that already started at the beginning of the Iraq war with revelations of lacking or deficient body armor for our troops in harm’s way and inadequate and slow-to-be-provided protective armor for their vehicles.
A trend of neglect and indifference towards both the physical and the mental health care of our troops, and one that peaked with the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal, and which has not significantly abated since.
A trend that continued to rear its shameful head in periodic headlines decrying increases in the rates and number of cases of PTSD, alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, homelessness, divorces and, yes, suicides among our veterans. Headlines that also cried out for a more adequate response by our government.
The treatment our troops have received in the areas of benefits and care for their families has not been much better. The denial of just disability ratings and consequent painfully and rightfully earned disability pay became shamefully well-known. But perhaps the highlight of such disregard for our troops was the fierce fight the Bush administration put up against the “Improved GI Bill of Rights” as proposed by Senator Webb. A bill that finally passed after the Bush administration and others, such as John McCain, had to be cajoled into supporting it.
Even when it came to recognizing the heroism of and the sacrifices made by our brave troops, the Bush administration has been less than generous. After nearly seven years of combat, this president has seen fit to award only five Medals of Honor, our nation’s highest military award for valor, to our Iraq and Afghanistan heroes. In contrast, there were 245 Medals of Honor recipients during the Vietnam War, and 27 Medals of Honor were awarded for the single World War II battle of Iwo Jima.
But Change is about to happen and help is on the way.
President-elect Obama recently selected retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki to head the Veterans Affairs Department, a department that—while the war on terrorism was raging—often failed to adequately protect and support those entrusted to it.
In accepting the nomination, General Shinseki said, in part:
Veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular are confronting serious severe wounds — some seen, some unseen — making it difficult for them to get on with their lives in this struggling economy. They deserve a smooth, error-free, no-fail, benefits-assured transition into our ranks as veterans. And that is our responsibility, not theirs.
A word to my fellow veterans: If confirmed, I will work each and every day to ensure that we are serving you as well as you have served us. We will pursue a 21st-century V.A. that serves your needs.
I have no doubt that better days are ahead for our military and our veterans.
Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.
[...] Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?
In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.
Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.
Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make. (ABSOLUTELY TRUE!)
From crooksandliars.com
The White House has been in full "re-write history" mode the past few months, but even the brilliant Bush spinmeisters couldn't spin the fact that no one really cares about what Bush has to say anymore.
With seven days left until he surrenders power, Bush will have to do a heck of a sales job to convince the nation of this. Further complicating his last-minute legacy rehabilitation: Nobody seems to be paying attention. The White House had high expectations for yesterday's final, historic news conference. "ONE CORRESPONDENT PER ORGANIZATION," proclaimed the bulletin sent to reporters. "STANDING ROOM ONLY FOR NON-SEAT HOLDERS." But when the appointed hour of 9:15 a.m. arrived, the last two rows in the seven-row briefing room were empty, and a press aide told White House interns to fill those seats.
In a classless move, President Bush snubbed Helen Thomas, the longtime Press Pool reporter covering the White House, and refused to take a question from her as she sat in the front row, waving her hand to him as he asked his final question from his last presser.
She's covered more presidents than Bush has verbs in his vocabulary. The snub ran directly counter to the sentiments expressed in his opening remarks regarding the press:
Through it all, it's been -- I have respected you. Sometimes didn't like the stories that you wrote or reported on. Sometimes you misunderestimated me. But always the relationship I have felt has been professional. And I appreciate it.
I appreciate -- I do appreciate working with you. My friends say, what is it like to deal with the press corps? I said, these are just people trying to do the best they possibly can.
I guess he didn't appreciate working with her since she called him out for many of his policies. Maybe he just misunderestimated her too...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11dowd.html?ref...
Politics Buzz As the President prepares to move out of the White House, he reveals his most difficult moment as Commander-In-Chief. His most nerve-wracking moment? First learning about the attacks on 9/11? The realization there were no weapons of mass destruction? Realizing troops and Iraqis were dying and being maimed because of his decision based on lies? The colonoscopy? The shoes? Nope. Throwing out a pitch at the 2001 World Series: “I never felt that anxious any other time during my presidency, curiously enough.” (Curiously enough!!! You got THAT right!!!)
The televised “legacy interviews” that Bush has granted have been notable for the interviewee’s shruggings-off of responsibility for what he has wrought, abroad and at home. He’s sorry about the inartfulness of “dead or alive” and “bring ’em on” and “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” but not about the war or its conduct. And in a discussion of the economic catastrophe he is about to bequeath to his successor, there is this exchange, with ABC’s Charles Gibson:
GIBSOn: Do you feel in any way responsible for what’s happening?A nice epitaph for “compassionate conservatism”—feckless to the end. And the end, at long last, is nigh.
Huckabee puts Coulter on the spot, but still kisses her spiked heel
By David Neiwert Monday Jan 12, 2009www.crooksandliars.com
Download | Play
Download | Play [Clip fixed now. Sorry for the delay. -- Ed]
Have you seen Mike Huckabee's weekly show on Fox yet? If you haven't, you needn't bother; it's mostly a painful exercise in talk-show amateurism. It has the feel of a local-studio talk show minus the clown used-car salesman.
Last night we instead got the clown wingnut, Ann Coulter. It actually was a highly amusing exchange, in large part because Coulter had said so many cruel things about Huckabee during the campaign and he replayed several of them. It was worth it just to see Coulter squirm at having her phoniness on such brilliant display.
In particular it was worth it to see a conservative finally notice that Coulter has a problem with keeping her facts straight. In truth, this is something that other people have noticed before. Unfortunately, the extent of Huckabee's awareness of Coulter's afactuality reached only to her reportage on him; otherwise, he thoroughly commended her new book as a fine piece of research, even though it too is so error-riddled that it would be an embarrassment to anyone besides a peroxidized right-wing hustler.
But there was also a revealing exchange midway through it all that made clear that Huckabee was actually trying desperately to earn Coulter's approval:
Huckabee: But let me mention a couple of the -- You said that I am against school choice. I am not. You said I was bad on immigration, and yet it was Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen who endorsed me and traveled with me.
Coulter: You did say that you think illegal immigration is our chance to make up for slavery in America.
Huckabee: Not illegal immigration. I did not say that. What I said was that the manner in which we treat people is a way in which we can show our civility and a compassion in a way that we did not show --
Coulter: And I think you wanted in-state tuition for illegals.
Huckabee: No, here's what I wanted. I wanted for kids in my state who have met --
Coulter: [Giggles] Are you running again? Because you're clarifying a lot of points for me.
Huckabee: Well, I want to clarify, because -- here's the deal. If I ever do run again, I want, Ann --
Coulter: You'll run more as a conservative.
Huckabee: No, I'll run as I am, which is a conservative, because that's what I've always been. But I want to make sure that the next time you write about me, we get all this stuff straight.
Coulter: Ye-e-e-e-s, well, a little more conservative and you would've had my vote.
Of course. Because the essence of being a right-wing politician these days is to earn the Blessing of the Brownshirt Barbie. One can't expect to win as a Republican, evidently, unless you pass the Ann Coulter Wingnut Ideological Purity Examination (which indeed has a family resemblance to a colonoscopy).
But notice the issues she's making him scramble to curry her favor on -- especially immigration. Huckabee even touts his endorsement by Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen -- who has since then been largely exposed as a scam artist -- as evidence of his tough stance on illegal immigration.
Indeed, I think we can count on a hard nativist-style stance on immigration to be one of the signature positions of the brand of conservatism that will emerge from the ashes of 2008. We keep hearing conservatives tell themselves that the reason they lost last year was that they weren't "true to conservative values," and this will be one of the issues that they will use to define "true conservatives" (as Coulter does here).
We can only say: Please. Make our day. Far be it from us to stop you, O denizens of wingnuttia.
Posts
All Comments
