He doesn’t look a thing like Nixon, but he talks like a real gentleman
By Thoreau
Obama has done something unprecedented that gets my genuine respect:Â He sent a Nowruz (Persian New Year) greeting to the people of Iran.
I fully expect some wingnuts to freak out that this is proof that Obama is a Muslim, never mind that Nowruz was celebrated by Zoroastrians long before Islam came to Iran.
Of course, since this is a post about Obama, I am obligated to take a swipe, so I’ll just say this:Â I’ll bet that Michelle Obama’s baklava isn’t as good as my wife’s!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
This is exactly like Munich 1938, when Chamberlain filmed an Oktoberfest greeting to the German people.
Comment by Zack —
March 20, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
What about faloodeh?
Comment by Barry —
March 20, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
“I’ll bet that Michelle Obama’s baklava isn’t as good as my wife’s! ”
Are you trying to say that this ‘wife’ is a known Evul Muzlim? ‘Cause only they have the secret of Baklaislamofascismva.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
It’s real cute how BO thinks if he talks nicely to the Iranians, they’re going to give up their intention to obliterate Israel.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
the real question is whether they’ll rub their hands together while issuing a sinister “mwa ha ha HAAAA!” or if it’ll be one of those ululating with ak-47s in the air type affairs.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
It’s cut the way Adam Mentzer thinks that his stale 2002-era bullshit does anything but mark him a someone to be ignored.
Maybe we should make up a new term for “Persian cats” and “Persian rugs,” too.
Freedom felines. Liberty flooring.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
I believe that they’ll do it Mel Gibson style, yelling “FREEDOM!!!!!”
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Ahmadenijad didn’t say he was going to “wipe Israel off the map” in 2002, he said so quite recently.
I think I’ll take him at his word rather than engaging in feel-good liberal wishful thinking.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Actually, he said it would eventually be erased from the book of history.
I know: Bushcats!
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Democracy! Whiskey! Kitty!
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
he can say whatever he wants; doing it is something else entirely.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Oh well, that’s different then! Surely we don’t have to worry about them having nukes and obliterating one of our allies because of a semantic difference in which translation is chosen.
We should be taking strong, determined actions against Iran. Not inviting their holocaust denying President over for tea and crumpets.
Comment by Keith —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
It’s real cute how Adam thinks if the Iranians wish hard enough, they’ll actually be able to obliterate Israel.
This is the problem with neocon arguments: once you introduce ponies into the a geopolitical discussion, the sky’s the limit.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
doesn’t israel have nukes? and they invented krav maga. i think they’ll be fine.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
So what if Israel has nukes?
The Iranian leadership would be happy to go see Allah by martyring themselves as long as they destroy the “Zionist entity” and help bring about the “12th Imam”.
They’re not rational like the USSR was.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
By that standard, we should send an army to your house right now.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
Oh well, that’s different then!
As a matter of fact it is, because “They will be erased from the book of history” is almost exactly what Ronald Reagan said about the USSR in numerous speeches.
The difference being, the United States had launched a number of wars beyond its borders in the two centuries before Reagan said that, while Iran has launched zero (0).
We should be taking strong, determined actions against Iran. Not inviting their holocaust denying President over for tea and crumpets. Same shit I heard 6 years ago. Whattsamatter, tough guy, can’t find enough war porn these days?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
That we have a president who does things that irritates the Adam Mentzers of the world this much – and not just petty, snarky stuff, but in the substantive execution of the powers and operations of his office – is all the confirmation I need that I made the right choice last November.
The kind of people who use the word “appeasement” to describe any action short of threatening or launching war HATE Barack Obama’s foreign policy. HATE it.
Gonna be a great eight years.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Let me lay out a little scenario that is probably in our near future.
The year is 2012. Iran has developed 300 nuclear warheads equipped to medium range missiles capable of hitting our allies in the Europe and Middle East.
The Iranian Mullahs decide to invade Baharain, an oil rich country with a Shia majority that many in Iran feel is rightfully theirs. They overrun it in a matter of days.
What does BO do? Go cry to the UN? Give a speech?
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
dude, that’s easy. we wait until they’re busy nuking israel (and vice versa).
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Damn, a country that can’t make weapons-grade uranium in 2009 is going to have 3000 nuclear warheads in three years.
Uh huh.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
It’s only a matter of time, Joe, unless we do something to stop them in their tracks.
Inaction means its a matter of WHEN, not IF, the Mullahs go nuclear.
A scenario such as the one above becomes very likely at that point.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
also, i think you underestimate the self-preservation instincts of the ruling classes of the world. they don’t get to the top by being suicidal. bush’s daughters weren’t going house to house in iraq. the plo leadership sent their kids off to become meat pinatas. hirohito never ventilated himself.
they’re smart like that. let the loonies and rubes kill themselves for some grand fucking cause.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
pardon me, “didn’t send” should be up there in the meat pinata line.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Uh, yeah, it’s the IRANIANS who are always invading people. That’s what we have to be afraid of – the Iranians launching an invasion of Bahrain.
Don’t you people realize that Adam is the only one thinking rationally about threats?
It’s funny – President Hussein just ordered the equivalent of another entire division to prosecute the Afghan War, but because he’s not threatening war with Iran, it means he would respond to the invasion of one of our allies with tea, crumpets, and back rubs.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
A scenario such as the one above becomes very likely at that point.
Sure it does. After all, look at all of the aggressive wars Iran has launched.
Seriously, oh clear eyes realist, name me the last time Iran invaded someone.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Obviously you are illiterate of the history of the area.
Baharain was once part of the Persian Sassanid Empire, before the Arab conquest. Josh Bolten (among other foreign policy experts) have pointed out that many in the Iranian ruling class want to reclaim it.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Japan never invaded anybody in their entire history, until they did in the late 1800s.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I meant JOHN, not Josh Bolton.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
korea might disagree there, sport.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Adam is right about one thing: There is indeed a strong nationalist sense among many Iranians, and many of them do have a strong sense of pride in their history and would like to regain their former glory.
What he doesn’t understand is that this is in direct contradiction to a suicidal impulse leading to a nuclear war with Israel. I know an Iranian kid who wears medallions with symbols of Darius and the Zoroastrian faith with his heavy metal t-shirts. He’s from a Muslim family, but he has considerable respect for the original religion of his land.
I suppose I could see a scenario where he supported his country reclaiming its former glory, but I cannot see a scenario where he becomes a fanatical Muslim suicide bomber.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
“Baharain was once part of the Persian Sassanid Empire, before the Arab conquest. Josh Bolten (among other foreign policy experts) have pointed out that many in the Iranian ruling class want to reclaim it.”
So, by extension:
Did you know that at one time Iran (Persia), used to be part of the Alexandrian Empire, and the Macedonians want to reclaim it?
Did you know that at one time Iran used to be part of the Mongol Khanate, and that Genghis Khan’s heirs want to reclaim it?
Did you know that at one time Iraq used to be part of the Roman Empire, and that the Italian ruling class wants to reclaim it.
“I meant JOHN, not Josh Bolton.”
I don’t know, I think they have a similar amount of rational ability to accurately comment on international relations.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Heh, if the Mongols or Macedonians were developing nukes and their leadership was yammering on about the coming apocalypse I’d be worried about them too.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Obviously you are illiterate of the history of the area.
I repeat: please name for the last time Iran invaded someone.
Tick, tock.
korea might disagree there, sport. Taiko? What on earth is a Taiko?
Please, Adam, talk down to us some more.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Heh, Joe thinks Iran is Belgium or Switzerland. Some meek little neutral country that just wants peace.
The symbol of the Democrat Party should be changed from the donkey to an ostrich with it’s head in the sand.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
I can name plenty of times they’ve indirectly attacked Israel through Hizbollah.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Cue Jeopardy theme while Adam searched Wikipedia.
In the meantime, Iran didn’t invade Afghanistan, even when the Taliban took over, slaughtered the Iranian embassy staff, and began the horrible persecution of a Shiite, Farsi-speaking minority that had close ties to Iran.
Iran didn’t invade Iraq, for as long as it has been Iran.
In fact, the mullahs have never, even once, launched or even threatened an aggressive war.
Along other lines, on the one hand, we’re supposed to believe in Iran’s aggressive impulses because their leadership consists of apocalyptic religious fanatics, so utterly unconcerned with the things of this world that why wouldn’t bat an eye at the possibility of their own nuclear annihilation, as long as it brings about “the Twelfth Iman.”
On the other hand, we’re supposed to believe in Iran’s aggressive impulses, because they’re an imperialist power longing to regain their former – that is, pre-Islamic – glory through the conquest of other lands.
Uh huh.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Apparently, I’ve overestimated him.
Rather than trying to find out facts related to the topic he’s holding forth about, he decided it be more fun to blather about political parties.
Funny how this always happens.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Heh, Joe thinks Iran is Belgium or Switzerland. Some meek little neutral country that just wants peace.
Of course. That is, after all, the only other possible way a country could be characterized, once you reject the notion that they are an expansionist imperial power determined to usher in the apocalypse by launching a nuclear first strike.
Great news, everybody: we now have a president who doesn’t think like that!
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
So I guess this summarizes your position on Iran, Joe:
1)BO will send a tingle up their leg with his charisma and make them forget all about nuclear weapons and terror sponsorship.
2) They’re really just a meek little neutral country that wants peace.
3) Their sponsorship of terror, their holding our diplomats hostage in 1979, their stated intention to destroy Israel, and so on, is just one big misunderstanding and nothing more.
Thanks, Jimmy Carter.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
So I guess it isn’t a big deal if the Mullahs go nuclear.
Gee, why don’t we just GIVE them the weapons!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Yawn.
I’ve argued – pretty compellingly, I’d say – against the actual positions you’ve staked out.
You? Well…tingles up the leg, Switzerland and Belgium, Democratic Party, Jimmy Carter, liberals…even when asked directly for facts to back up your assertions, you just ignore the request and say it doesn’t matter. When the inaccuracy of your translation is pointed out, you brush it off.
BTW, Mr. Literate In the History of the Area, how’s it coming with the last time Iran acted in the manner your argument assumes they will inevitably act?
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Shut your mouth right now! We don’t need to give Ollie North any ideas!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
So I guess it isn’t a big deal if the Mullahs go nuclear.
Much less of a big deal than the Pakistanis going nuclear, but since they aren’t in a pissing match with Israel, you don’t care.
Gee, why don’t we just GIVE them the weapons!
Gee, why don’t we re-enact the oh-so-successful Bush/Bolton strategy of diplomatic silence punctuated with empty threats, which did so much to prevent the nuclearization of North Korea?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
People who write “the diplomatic expert John Bolton” HATE Barack Obama’s foreign policy.
HATE it!
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
“BTW, Mr. Literate In the History of the Area, how’s it coming with the last time Iran acted in the manner your argument assumes they will inevitably act? ”
The 1600s. Not that it even really matters. The current regime has only been in power 30 years, just you wait.
“Gee, why don’t we re-enact the oh-so-successful Bush/Bolton strategy of diplomatic silence punctuated with empty threats, which did so much to prevent the nuclearization of North Korea? ”
This is an argument for military strikes against Iran, not AGAINST one.
I’d argue for Israeli airstrikes on their nuclear facilities, combined with our marines seizing their oil and natural gas producing islands off their coast.
We can beat their navy to pulp in a matter of days and then they can’t do anything about it except moan to the U.N. Meanwhile, we’ve set their nuclear program back 20 years and cut off a lot of their income.
Problem solved, and every anti-American leader the world over from Putin to Chavez will be pissing his pants.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Go joe from Lowell!
o, and nice post, T.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
The stupidity quotient in this thread just got raised to 11.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
The thing I don’t like that Obama recently did is coming out for North Carolina. Hate that team ever since the stall offense thingee!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
The 1600s. Not that it even really matters. 3:19 PM
Obviously you are illiterate of the history of the area.
Baharain was once part of the Persian Sassanid Empire, before the Arab conquest. Josh Bolten (among other foreign policy experts) have pointed out that many in the Iranian ruling class want to reclaim it. 2:27 PM
The history of Iranian/Persian aggression is relevant, except when it isn’t.
The current regime has only been in power 30 years, just you wait. The current regime didn’t even invade, or even bomb, Afghanistan even when the Taliban took over, slaughtered the Iranian embassy staff, and began the horrible persecution of a Shiite, Farsi-speaking minority that had close ties to Iran. This was when the Taliban were a sorry-assed militia with only covert backing by Pakistan. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe that they’d launch an attack on an American ally. Ridiculous.
This is an argument for military strikes against Iran, not AGAINST one. That’s funny, I thought it was an argument for diplomatic engagement. Always with the false choices, you are.
I’d argue for Israeli airstrikes on their nuclear facilities, combined with our marines seizing their oil and natural gas producing islands off their coast.
We can beat their navy to pulp in a matter of days and then they can’t do anything about it except moan to the U.N. Meanwhile, we’ve set their nuclear program back 20 years and cut off a lot of their income.
Problem solved, and every anti-American leader the world over from Putin to Chavez will be pissing his pants.
Not only that, but the Iranian people would greet us as liberators, the war would pay for itself, the Palestinians would realize they have to accede to Israel’s position, and democracy would flower throughout the region.
You people never, ever learn.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
“The stupidity quotient in this thread just got raised to 11.”
if we could work abortion AND affirmative action into this shit we could have A PERFECT STORM.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
So, Katherine Mangu-Ward writes an article about a corporate abortion clinic and how it’s better than non-profit clinics like Planned Parenthood. However, we find out that the doctor is underqualified because he got into med school via affirmative action, and so when a patient suffers complications after consuming too much high fructose corn syrup before the abortion the doctor is unable to do anything. And the local mosque has sent protestors to the clinic as part of Iran’s plan to conquer the East Coast, so the ambulance can’t get through the throng of protestors.
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
/sticks finger in pot
dr. thoreau, this soup is done. a few dashes of the israeli lobby and we’re ready to plate.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Well, obviously the Israeli lobby is financing the jihad to provoke the US into attacking Iran.
Duh!
Comment by dhex —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
mmm, you can really taste the dhimmitude.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Something’s struck me about the whole nuclear Iran issue.
The lack of Israeli airstrikes on their nuclear facilities.
For the sake of argument, let’s say Obama wouldn’t let Israel fly over Iraq to do it…but what about all that time before January 20, 2009, when Reds were foaming about the impending Iranian nuclear threat?
If the question is the Iranian threat to Israel, I don’t think any sensible person here would assume that US intelligence on Iran was in any way superior to Israeli intelligence. Nor, considering the belligerence of the current Israeli administration towards much smaller threats, should anyone assume that Israel would somehow be reluctant to take out Iranian facilities if that seemed wise.
Comment by abb1 —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Yeah, I suppose it wouldn’t be all that bad if the Mullahs went nuclear. Sounds like they most certainly could use some deterrent against nuclear armed Rabbis. Not to mention all those neocons and “liberal hawks” in the US government.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Hey Joe guess what? The Surge worked, Iraq is a flowering democracy, the theocrats are on the retreat, and we a dealt Al Qaeda a decisive battlefield defeat in the heart of the Arab world.
Welcome to victory, courtesy of General Petraeus and George W. Bush.
The only mistake we made in Iraq was not having enough ground forces in the beginning. Other than that, the war was worth it.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 20, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
I remember when people like you were whining that the Surge wouldn’t work (”General Betray-us”) and how we should just tuck tail and run away, letting thugs and theocrats take power in Iraq.
It didn’t happen.
Comment by abb1 —
March 20, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Good trolling requires some subtlety. Admirable spirit, but you often achieve more with less, kid.
Comment by shera —
March 20, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
I was totally wondering how this post ended up with 60 comments. That said, I would be happy to be the ultimate arbiter of who makes the better baklava.
Comment by Kolohe —
March 20, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
What exactly are crumpets anyway? Are like like mini-scones?
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
March 20, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Crumpets are a kind of quickbread or hard pancake, with each loaf of a size and shape somewhere between a muffin and a pancake. Their taste is reminiscent of sourdough, and they are very, very good toasted and with butter.
Comment by Kolohe —
March 20, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
Ah, sourdough. Like those america haters in San Francisco eat. It all makes sense now, thanks.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 21, 2009 @ 12:33 am
I’m having this comment gilded, mounted on a plaque, and hung in my den above the fireplace, along with today’s date.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 21, 2009 @ 10:36 am
Still trying to deny the obvious Joe?
Even BO admits the Surge has worked and will probably claim that he got us victory in Iraq, but everyone knows better.
Face it. Bush was right, the left was wrong.
If people like you had their way Saddam Hussein would still be in his palaces with his rape rooms. Hell Kuwait would be a province of Iraq!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 21, 2009 @ 11:07 am
This who thinks it’s a bad idea to talk to the Iranians; people who still, in 2009, hold forth on how brilliant George Bush was.
I’m not even going to refute what you wrote, Adam. I’m content just to draw attention to it.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 21, 2009 @ 11:11 am
How badly did Adam’s efforts to argue about Iran turn out?
So badly that he wants to change the topic to…defending the Iraq War.
Ouch.
Then again, strategic thinking is obviously not his strong suit.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 21, 2009 @ 11:19 am
You changed the topic to the Iraq War with the “HAHA IRAQ FAILED!” not me.
Too bad your 2006 leftist Harry Reid talking points about how the war is lost are horribly out of date.
And yes, Bush was right on foreign policy. Rogue state rollback is the correct policy, not weak-kneed groveling to dictators and psychos.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 21, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Read the thread, chief. You were the first one to mention Iraq.
I would have been perfectly happy to keep talking about Iran. You? Not so much, apparently.
Now, North Korea – I did bring that up, since it’s such a compelling example of how the Rogue state rollback is the correct policy, not weak-kneed groveling to dictators and psychos. theology works.
Good job not talking to evil, Bushies. That showed ‘em.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 21, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Watching the Bush administration try to conduct diplomatic negotiations – once it became apparent to them that, golly, that really is part of what an administration is supposed to do – it became readily apparent that right-wingers really do believe diplomacy is an exercise in groveling and surrender.
Fortunately, we now have a president who’s capable of plucking the diplomatic arrow from our quiver without jamming it through his eye.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 21, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
Yeah, now we have such a brilliant President who insults the disabled on national TV and thinks the Model T got better gas mileage than a modern SUV.
I’m sure a person like that will be GREAT at diplomacy! He better bring his teleprompter.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 22, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Please, keep it up with the teleprompter, Obama as poor speaker shtick.
During the election, you chumps managed to stroke your egos with this line of patter so long that the expectations game ended up with Obama and McCain going into the debates with everyone expecting a tie.
As an added bonus, when people hear this line of patter, then see Barack Obama give a press conference or lead a town hall event, it craters your credibility even further.
Poor Republicans. They really have no strategy beyond saying things to make themselves feel better. I love it.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 22, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Please, keep it up with the teleprompter, Obama as poor speaker shtick.
During the election, you chumps managed to stroke your egos with this line of patter so long that the expectations game ended up with Obama and McCain going into the debates with everyone expecting a tie.
As an added bonus, when people hear this line of patter, then see Barack Obama give a press conference or lead a town hall event, it craters your credibility even further.
Poor Republicans. They really have no strategy beyond saying things to make themselves feel better. I love it.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 22, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
You’re delusional.
Didn’t you hear his “special olympics” gaffe? Or when he said the Model T gets better gas mileage than an SUV? Or when he insulted Nancy Reagan? The guy is a fool without his teleprompter.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Please don’t stop.
There will be another round of presidential debates in three and a half years. Kindly keep this patter up until then.
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
“There will be another round of presidential debates in three and a half years.”
Heh, indeed! I’m looking forward to the Gingrich-Obama debates.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please.
I have not lived a sufficiently virtuous life for God to reward me like that.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
At least you didn’t say “Palin.”
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
I think it’s pretty clear that Palin can’t handle the national stage. The contest will be between Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, and Jindal. I hate Huckabee but the rest are strong conservatives with wide appeal.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
As Bill Clinton said, Mike Huckabee is the only leading Republican who can give a speech or tell a joke.
He’s clearly the strongest candidate, but I don’t know if the money people who run the GOP would let somebody with his economic policies win the nomination.
Hey, we agreed on something. Big hug!
Comment by Adam Mentzer —
March 22, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Huckabee is just a Bloomgerg Republican who happens to be a Southern Baptist. He raised taxes in his state numerous times, supports smoking bans, and is weak on terror.