Words and Things

George Will writes:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee — an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

What's fascinating about this is the literally superficial level of the analysis. It's true that Edwards and Huckabee have a somewhat similar political style -- they both fit firmly in the southern populist tradition. Barack Obama has a very different style, coming out of the progressive reformer tradition. That said, in any deeper sense, Edwards is clearly much much much more similar to Obama than he is to Huckabee. Huckabee says "We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes."

John Edwards and Barack Obama both have health care plans that involve lots of new spending and federal edicts. John Edwards would reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 through an auction of tradable emissions permits. Barack Obama would do the same. Mike Huckabee's energy plan doesn't mention global warming. John Edwards supports reproductive freedom and gay rights. So does Barack Obama. But Mike Huckabee doesn't. Barack Obama wants to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So does John Edwards. Mike Huckabee wants to implement a regressive and unworkable national retail sales tax.

I won't further belabor the point, because it's obvious. But this stuff matters! The difference between a world of uncontrollable global warming, a rag-tag health care system, a regressive tax code, forced pregnancy, and a Federal Marriage Amendment is very different from a world with a clean energy economy, a strong safety net for the sick, a progressive tax code, and a government that respects privacy. The stylistic differences between Edwards and Obama aren't unimportant, but the substantive similarities between the two (and, indeed, between both of them and Hillary Clinton) are much more important than the superficial similarities between Edwards and Huckabee.

Photo courtesy of John Edwards 2008 used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Will's analysis is superficial. But it underscores Obama's strengths. His style--and I mean his approach to argument, his apparent groundedness, not just his presentational style--appeals to a lot of conservatives who disagree with him on the issues. The whys and wherefores of this could be debated endlessly. But it's real.

Posted by Matt | January 7, 2008 2:28 PM

But maybe it is important. One thing we've learned is that what candidates say in the election, especially what they say in the primary, bears virtually no relevance to what they DO as president. People act as though what candidates say they will do is the best way to predict what they will do, but it's failed us pretty uniformly thusfar.

Posted by Wilson | January 7, 2008 2:31 PM

I think the point Will is making, for good or ill, is that both Edwards and Huckabee have been using a similar style of rhetoric in defining Corporate America as The Enemy.

They both approach Naderite-crazy territory on this at times, which is the "cartoonish" similarity that Will is attempting to illustrate.

Posted by Darren | January 7, 2008 2:34 PM

George F. Will gives pseudo-intellectuals a bad name.

I do not normally partake of Mr. Will's columns because they invariably suck rhinos and make me physically ill, but this is the third time I've seen him dismiss someone with the single-worded sentence, "Well.," as though he were the second coming of Jack Benny. Or something. Few people deserve a ride on my boot more than George F. Will.

Posted by ed | January 7, 2008 2:35 PM

Will's analysis is superficial. But it underscores Obama's strengths.

I don't know - when was the last time "cerebral" was an advantage in a presidential campaign?

Posted by Jason C. | January 7, 2008 2:37 PM

What's fascinating about this is the literally superficial level of the analysis.

It's no more superficial than Obama's level of "analysis" which boils down to kumbayasity trumps everything else.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 7, 2008 2:38 PM

What Darren said. For those readers who didn't click through to the actual column, Will only mentions Obama in passing, in the very last sentence of the column--a sentence which a skilled editor would've probably had the sense to remove.

Posted by James Gary | January 7, 2008 2:39 PM

What matters is that George Will can play upon a stereotype of radical Bolshevik John Edwards in order to begin the propaganda campaign to pressure Obama and establish the coming Village Meme.

By trying to harp on Edwards as some sort of Jacobin marauder, people like Will aim to bound in [a hypothetical or anticipated] President Obama's policy choices so that any actual liberal or progressive or even power-elite challenging policy he proposes will stimulate a robotic reacton:

"Oh, no, we thought you were special, Obama, going to bring us together, but You Are Now Giving In To Teh Populist Hordes."

THAT is what this is all about. It isn't about Will liking Obama or being deceived by his awesome smootheness or tricked by his lilting speeches.

It's always the same thing every day, every moment, every hour for right wing hacks: propagandize to undercut liberals or liberalism and do so endlessly.

This should be obvious.

Posted by El Cid | January 7, 2008 2:40 PM

I lost all respect for George Will when he stated that he was against the secret ballot over ten years ago. He hasn't gotten any smarter since then.

Posted by freddiemac | January 7, 2008 2:43 PM

Will's commentary is interesting, if only because it demonstrates what happens to any right-wing candidate who varies the least bit from orthodoxy. Even Huckabee-- where the variation amounts to vaporous atmospherics and a sense of humor-- is classed as unacceptable and left-wing (!) to the right-wing pundit class.

Posted by MattF | January 7, 2008 2:46 PM

Matt, I think Will is tired of the paranoid middle-class types that Edwards and Huckabee are both trying to woo. He dislikes both the group, the politics and the politicians that they create.

Posted by Klug | January 7, 2008 2:47 PM

Tough act to follow El Cid. The distinction Will is making i think anticipates the degree of Dem vindictiveness in the (likely event) of a Democrat president. For better or worse Edwards, or Hillary for that matter, would be inclined to punish - legislate against Repubs or Repub institututions out of spite. Will's "maturity" translates to forgiveness or at least a clean slate.

Posted by Scott | January 7, 2008 2:48 PM

I'm going to sort-of defend George Will here: the willingness of both Edwards and Huckabee to cater to the "they took our jarbs!" demographic means both men are either dumber than the average presidential candidate, or more craven. Or, one of each.

Posted by too many steves | January 7, 2008 2:48 PM

Tough act to follow El Cid. The distinction Will is making i think anticipates the degree of Dem vindictiveness in the (likely event) of a Democrat president. For better or worse Edwards, or Hillary for that matter, would be inclined to punish - legislate against Repubs or Repub institututions out of spite. Will's "maturity" translates to forgiveness or at least a clean slate.

Posted by Scott | January 7, 2008 2:49 PM

Matthew: "What's fascinating about this is the literally superficial level of the analysis."

No, it's not. It's both not fascinating, and not superficial. What's happening is that George Will either spoke or wrote, and is therefore lying.

Posted by Barry | January 7, 2008 2:51 PM

Nahh, its a class thing. Even though Edwards and Obama have similar positions and despite the fact Huckabee's platform is in 90% alignment with Will's own ideology, he thinks they're rubes not worthy of a serious person's attention.

George Will has his Masters from Oxford and his PhD from Princeton, so of course he's going to take the "refreshingly cerebral" Columbia/Yale man over the "recrudescence of the paranoid style" NC State and Ouachita Baptist University grads any day.

I had to look up recrudescence, "Reappearance of a disease after it has been quiescent". After the 7 years of the "war on terror" (following 8 years of conservative claims that the Clintons ran Murder, Inc. in Arkansas), Will thinks its two candidates asserting Wall Street doesn't own America that marks the return of the paranoid style of politics? Right.

If whoever's the next president doesn't dramatically piss off George Will within the first 100 days, they're a sellout, period.

Posted by beowulf | January 7, 2008 2:52 PM

beowolf, are you sucking up to Matt? That would Columbia/Harvard, I think.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 7, 2008 2:59 PM

It's always the same thing every day, every moment, every hour for right wing hacks: propagandize to undercut liberals or liberalism and do so endlessly.

El Cid pretty much nails it here. I'd only cut out the words 'liberals or'. Will cares narry a whit, a smidgen or a tosh about liberals. He personifies 'recrudescence'. His never-ending job is to undercut liberalism.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 7, 2008 3:05 PM

The "they took our jarbs" demographic? Hmmm.

I bet they have collectively more votes than the "Thurston Howell III" demographic.

Posted by El Cid | January 7, 2008 3:10 PM

It's true that Edwards and Huckabee have a somewhat similar political style -- they both fit firmly in the southern populist tradition. Barack Obama has a very different style, coming out of the progressive reformer tradition.

I would say that in some ways Edwards and Huckabee do indeed have a similar style, that of the Southern populist tradition (I'm not convinced that Obama is stylistically anything like a good, ol' fashioned progressive, although his pedigree is blue-blooded enough that the shoe might fit). But rhetorically, it seems to me that Huckabee and Obama are actually playing the same game -- they are both using Villager-friendly, "I transcend ideology" rhetoric.

The Villagers, however, are nervous about how Huckabee is doing his "transcending" ... namely he's deviating from the GOP party line precisely where the upper-classes to which the Villagers aspire (and for whom they carry water in the meantime) like the GOP party line (and he's hewing in a bona fide manner to the party line precisely where the upper-classes only hew to it as a means of getting the non-richers on board with them).

OTOH, they love Obama's shtick, 'cause Obama is a liberal Democrat who nonetheless is willing to "transcend ideology" and adopt even GOP talking points. Which is how the media-types often view themselves (of course, Obama is doing this in a quite literally subversive way whereas the media types are just being high Broderists) ...

Of course, that the Villagers like Huckabee less than Obama (for rather illiberal reasons) will be used as evidence that the Media Village is hopelessly liberal and hence that (1) everything the media says against the GOP is simply the result of liberal bias, (2) everything the media says against the Dems. is something that must really be a major problem if "even the liberal media finds it to be a problem" and (3) the out of touch media is representative of liberals and if the media looks down upon 'murkins, that means all liberals hate real 'murkins.

So who says Huckabee's not good for the GOP?: he'll help give a boost to a major GOP talking point ("the liberal media") when people were just starting to reject it.

Posted by DAS | January 7, 2008 3:13 PM

Hey Matt, you forgot to point out that Huckabee is a Republican while Edwards is a Democrat!

Posted by tinisoli | January 7, 2008 3:16 PM

John Edwards is the most viable candidate in the democratic party to beat a republican in Nov. Sure, Obama and Clinton have star power (shhhh! because they are a black man and a woman) and don't forget Oprah. I say Edwards/Obama is the winning ticket. Combined, they've got enough experience. But not too much to be corrupt (Clinton). Also, Edwards can capture the southern /rural/heartland vote (important) and Obama would capture, the right/left coast liberals, young people, women, and the black vote. Together, they could do alot of good and turn this country around.

Posted by Jamie | January 7, 2008 3:22 PM

So, Edwards and Obama are the same?

I guess that would explain why Kristol endorsed Obama, eh?

Or not.

Posted by lambert strether | January 7, 2008 3:25 PM

George Will has his Masters from Oxford

Actually, he doesn't, at least, not in the sense you imply. He got a second B.A. from Oxford (skipping the first year of the three-year PPE course) and that was converted into an M.A. a few years after graduation, with the payment of a small administrative charge. It's not a postgraduate degree.

But point taken.

Anyway, both George Will and James Bond like bow ties, which doesn't make George Will a ladies' man or a good shot with a Walther PPK.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 7, 2008 3:29 PM

Edwards would hurt Obama on a ticket. Edwards is anti-corporate exploitation. Republicans despise him for this, as does this press.

Posted by kay | January 7, 2008 3:31 PM

George Will is what happens when you give a little kid a thesaurus for Christmas.

Posted by drfranklives | January 7, 2008 4:03 PM

"Refreshingly cerebral" -- hmmm, doesn't bode well:
The last time Democrats actually nominated somebody cerebral was the twice-defeated Adlai Stevenson ("Eggheads unite! You have nothing to lose but your yolks!")

Posted by In Virginia | January 7, 2008 4:04 PM

One more "what El Cid said."

And can't forget Will's comment about "mock-heroic 'fights' against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country."

Maybe he's living in a different country than I am. Because the quantity and reach of legislation that's passed only because one moneyed interest or another wants it passed, in the total absence of any public clamor for it, is really pretty astounding when you think of it.

Does Will think the Bankruptcy 'Reform' Act was passed because the public demanded it? Ditto the Bush-Cheney energy bill? Think the farm bills are so full of agribusiness subsidies on account of public demand? Think middle-class people really desired the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax, which only affects people who die with millions of dollars in assets? Think the Telecom Act of 1996 was what it was because we, the people, wanted it that way?

Think copyrights now last for life plus 70 years, rather than 28 years, renewable once, because we rose up and said, "No, it's unfair for the Beatles' music to enter the public domain starting in 2020 - it shouldn't happen until after Paul McCartney's been dead for threescore and ten"? Think millionaires pay tax on dividends and capital gains at 15%, while working Joes and Janes pay 25% on their earned income, because the working Joes and Janes insisted that the millionaires be given a break at their expense?

I could go on, but my fingers are getting sore. At any rate, you get the idea. Corporations and wealthy interests really do run this country for the most part. People like George Will (who undoubtedly is among the ranks of multimillionaires) don't notice it because it's in their interest not to notice it.

It's weird that it's such bad form to comment on something so commonplace.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 7, 2008 4:07 PM

The weirdest part of this whole Will quote was "closing the Clinton parenthesis." It's obvious George Will regards the Clintons as an open sore, if not a cancer, on the Presidency. So do lots of people. But calling them a "parenthesis" implies that Bill Clinton's Presidency was some kind of temporary deviation from the path of history that we can now pretend didn't happen, as if he were, I dunno, Coolidge or Rutherford B. Hayes or a pair of Earth Shoes you'd like to forget about. Even for Republicans, this is not an option.

Will doesn't like Clinton, Huckabee or Edwards because he is a Tory. Note that they are all Southern and charismatic or populist. Even if you go to the right schools, it doesn't get you into the ruling class unless you fully adopt their manner.

Posted by Ben | January 7, 2008 4:17 PM

It's a distinction of rhetoric.

Edwards and Huckabee tell us who we should blame for our troubles, and promise to stick it to them.
(The "Ba-a-a-ad CEOs" school of politics)

Obama tells us that he has a vision of America so powerful that he can transform even liberalism's traditional opponents into supporters.
(The "Kumbaya" school of politics)
I'd offer a Republican counterpart, but there really isn't one.

George will prefers Obama's approach.
Paul Krugman prefers Edward's.

This doesn't make either one dishonest, though I'll agree that "recrudescence" is unacceptably pretentious.

As a final, Obama shilling note: George Will is the most widely published columnist in the US, and he is a solid and well-respected conservative. To have him offer praise for a Democratic Presidential candidate is no small thing.

Posted by heedless | January 7, 2008 5:00 PM

Edwards is clearly much much much more similar to Obama than he is to Huckabee.

I dispute this. Aside from the Fair Tax, abortion and Huckabee's greater (though not exclusive) emphasis on God, I see Huck and Ed as carbon-copy Brain-eater Populists. In a Huck/Edwards matchup, Lou Dobbs would clone himself and vote for both.

Obama's not a populist. He seems more of a progressive realist (conservative progressive if that's not too much of an oxymoron). Since both Realists and Progressives have a better track record of governing than populists, that's probably why Will and Sullivan find him less threatening.

Posted by Shinyk | January 7, 2008 5:07 PM

Further proof that Will is a breathtakingly fake pseudo-intellectual -- not that we needed any more proof of it. (For further proof of that fact just within the same column, note his Disraeli-esque attempt to confuse the issue on relative tax rates for the rich and non-rich.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 7, 2008 5:23 PM

Edwards would hurt Obama on a ticket. Edwards is anti-corporate exploitation. Republicans despise him for this, as does this press.

Posted by kay | January 7, 2008 3:31 PM

Oh by all means let's make sure that we nominate a candidate that has the approval of the corporate media and the Republicans. Do you think we should also check with George Bush to see if he approves?

Wow, the more posts I see these days the more depressed I become. Prior to the election I saw all kinds of talk about how the Democrats needed to stand up to George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Now I see all these people who get all dewey eyed and weak in the knees when a candidate talks about bringing people together. Something I might add that countless politicians have promised through the years. What is wrong with you people? Snap out of it! This election is too important for you to lose your senses.

Posted by pmorlan | January 7, 2008 5:32 PM

(conservative progressive if that's not too much of an oxymoron) - Shinyk

Not at all. Many of the original progressives were fundamentally conservatives (as was, in many ways, FDR): they wanted to conserve the American, capitalist system and save it from its own excesses.

As anybody who actually remembers the 1930's would tell ya, FDR saved the richers from being killed as traitors in a second American revolution. And those ungrateful bastards anathematized him as a class traitor?

But what could be more conservative than preventing a system from imploding? Which is what essentially the Progressives did. The Progressives knew it was either enact reforms or face the armies of Philip Dru and they, along with Col. House who wrote that book, chose the former.

Posted by DAS | January 7, 2008 5:51 PM

"John Edwards would reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 through an auction of tradable emissions permits."

Important Correction: Edwards promises to reduce GHG emissions "by 80 percent from 1990 levels", not "by 80 percent of 1990 levels".

Posted by Anon | January 7, 2008 7:04 PM

Correction to my correction...

"John Edwards would reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 through an auction of tradable emissions permits."

Important Correction: Edwards promises to reduce GHG emissions "BY 80 percent from 1990 levels", not "TO 80 percent of 1990 levels".

Posted by anon | January 7, 2008 7:07 PM

Bottom line:

I think Hillary Clinton must get back on that horse that brutally through her to the ground back in 1993. That horse is HR 676 (Medicare For all). Insurance mandates of any kind are totally unacceptable to the American people . Thank God. The vast majority of Americans know better than that now. They want single payer tax supported government managed universal health care free for all as a right. And they want it NOW! And they are right to demand it. The American people are suffering by the millions, and dieing by the ten's of thousands now. It's not just about everyone having coverage anymore. It's about the disgraceful quality of health care in America. Even for people with the best insurance coverage you can buy. And it has to end.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgot her heroic effort. If anyone has reason to be reluctant to get back on that bucking bronc again, it's her.

But I think the time is now. And more importantly. I think the American people are ready to do what they have got to do. To fix our disastrous, and deadly health care delivery system. At least I hope so. For all our sakes. Hillary Clinton is right. This is not a game. It's bigger than parties, and politics. It's about the life, or continued needless deaths of millions of Americans. And HR 676 (Medicare For All) is the way to save us.

Posted by jacksmith | January 7, 2008 7:13 PM

Huckabee is the PERFECT example of an ignorant Christian.As disturbing as Huckabee's remarks are, what is just as alarming is the mulititude of Huckabee supporters that feel the same way. Huckabee is using gays/gay marriage as a vehicle to garner votes from the Christian right. Why are Christians so obsessed with the personal lives of others, and the sex lives of others? Huckabee, and Romney, both, are dangerous non-thinkers. Mr. Huckabee's position on gay rights is not surprising to me. I don't suppose it's surprising to anyone. There aren't a lot of differences between his positions and any of the republican candidates. The issue for 2008 will be the war. Mr. Huckabee's only regret is that more americans weren't sent to Iraq to kill or be killed. Gay rights advancement is unstoppable. We'll have equal rights within a generation. The issue for 2008 is the war regardless of how the republicans try to change the subject.

Posted by Buddy Hinton Sturmgewehr | January 7, 2008 7:26 PM

Belatedly, what El Cid said.

* * *

I'm gonna get pony!

I'm going to name it Unity!!

Uncle Andy said he was coming over later, and he said he'd show me if my pony is bipartisan or just curious.

I'm so happy!!!!

Posted by lambert strether | January 7, 2008 7:44 PM

From the crowds in NH it appears that many people are responding to style over substance. Obama is an excellent speaker who inspires crowds with general comments about change and hope. John Edwards has detailed policies on a wide variety of important topics. Unfortunately, the media, and now a significant portion of the NH public would rather be inspired than consider the issues facing the country. Unless things change quickly, it appears that the country will miss an opportunity to have a president who combines style AND substance.

Posted by Mike Cogswell | January 7, 2008 7:53 PM

george Will said, "fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country"

I say if the cartoon fits, wear it. Fictitious villains? Oh no. I think not.

Republicans have revealed themselves in all their naked and villainous glory. There is no longer any question as to whether or not the Republican party is evil. It clearly is hideously evil. And that ain't no cartoon. That's reality.

Here is a really, really short version of the rap sheet:

1) Stolen election of 2000

2) WMD hoax

3) Iraq War based on WMD hoax that costs a million Iraqi lives, thousands of American lives, and trillions of American dollars, while jacking up the price of gas, increasing the threat of terrorism, helping create a new Shiite fundamentalist state in the Middle East, and strengthening Iran

4) Bankrupting America with tax cuts based on an economic hoax dubbed Supply-side economics.

5) Torture. Torture. Torture.

6) Habeas Corpus.

7) Warrantless wiretaps

etc. etc.

That's hardly a cartoon. That's a criminal indictment.

Posted by Junius Brutus | January 7, 2008 8:04 PM

Mike Huckabee is a hypocrite. He talks about being the true "Christian Leader" who is above the horizontal-finger pointing politics, above the left-right, right-left, democrat-republican, republican-democrat, blame game.

I beg to differ.

The fact is, Mike Huckabee is on the defense and wants to take the attention off of his liberal record as the governor of Arkansas. If you're reading this and you think that Mike Huckabee is the true conservative candidate of the republican party you need to take a look at the facts;

FACT: The ethics commission fined Huckabee $1,000 for failing to report that he paid himself $14,000 from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign and $43,000 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign. (Source: POLITICO, Huckabee rivals unearth ethics complaints Kenneth P. Vogel Nov 21, 2007)

FACT: Huckabee accepted more than 300 gifts worth at least $130,000, ranging from $3,700 cowboy boots to a $600 chainsaw. (Source: POLITICO, Huckabee rivals unearth ethics complaints Kenneth P. Vogel Nov 21, 2007)

FACT: Mike Huckabee joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in declaring his opposition to the interrogation procedure known as "waterboarding," and said he would support closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and moving the Guantanamo prisoners to the military's only maximum-security prison, Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. This move would grant habeas corpus rights to "enemy combatants." (Source: Washington Post, Huckabee Chafes at 'Front-Runner' Label, Perry Bacon Jr. 12/4/07)

FACT: Mike Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations, including 12 convicted murderers, one of which "Wayne DuMond" shortly after his release moved to Missouri where he raped and murdered Carol Sue Shields. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in Clay County, Mo., in 2003. He died in prison in 2005. (Source: The Leader, Arkansas clemencies outpace other states, Garrick Feldman, 2004)

FACT: Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years. (Source: The Leader, 08/30/2006)

FACT: Mike Huckabee's substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure. (Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10/09/07)

FACT: Mike Huckabee opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003. (Source: Arkansas News Bureau, 11/21/03)

FACT: Mike Huckabee in 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law. (Source: The Gurdon Times, 03/02/04)

FACT: Mike Huckabee stole over $70,000 worth of furniture from the Arkansas governors mansion. (Source: Arkansas Times Counting the Furniture, 12/14/06 Leslie Newell Peacock)

FACT: Mike Huckabee set up a nonprofit entity so he could give paid ``inspirational'' speeches without having to disclose the donors. (SOURCE: Bloomberg Dec 12, 2007 Margaret Carlson)

FACT: During the 2001 regular session of the Arkansas Legislature, Mike Huckabee supported giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. (Source Arkansas Journal, Mike Huckabee Supported Bill to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens, Henry Rearden, 11/22/2007)

FACT: Mike Huckabee supported in-state higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants. (Laura Kellams, "Senators research U.S. law on aliens," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/27/05)

FACT: Mike Huckabee opposed a federal raid of 119 illegal immigrants at an Arkansas Tyson poultry plant, 107 of whom left the country either voluntarily or through deportation. (Melissa Nelson, "Huckabee Risks Political Fortunes To Denounce Immigration Raid," Associated Press, 8/5/05)

FACT: Mike Huckabee opposed a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in his own state. (Source CNS NEWS, Some GOP Concerned about Huckabee's Immigration Views, Fred Lucas, 12/04/2007)

FACT: Mike Huckabee says he has degree in theology, further investigation discovers he does not. (Source: The Carpetbagger Report, Mike Huckabee has a theology degree -- or does he?, 12/14/2007)

Look through his "Awe Schucks" act and see him for what he really is. Mike Huckabee is a liberal in conservative clothing.

Posted by Steve W | January 7, 2008 9:42 PM

Personally, I totally agree with Will.

Why does Edwards blame everything on "greedy corporations"?

Everyone want's blame someone else for their problems, and "greedy corporations are a convenient scapegoat.

Are you too fat? Blame McDonalds.
Got lung cancer? Blame Phillip Morris.
Gas expensive? Blame Exxon.
Drugs expensive? Blame the pharmaceutical companies without which the drugs wouldn't even exist.
Your child has autism? Blame the pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines which save millions of lives and prevent billions of diseases.
Did you have a car accident? Blame GM.
Etc...

Posted by Tim | January 7, 2008 10:46 PM

All of the presidential candidates except for Huckabee (and maybe lazy Thompson) have detailed policy proposals they have put fortht that you can find using Google, so claiming that Edwards does while Obama doesn't is rather silly. Having an overly detailed proposal at this point anyway when the future Congress is undetermined is intellectual masturbation anyway a la Clinton in 1993 because anything that actually passes will be rather different than the initial proposal do to deal-making.

The big issue in the background here is probably international trade where Edwards has the most anti-intellectual position of the three top Democrats. Protecting markets at this point would just hurt workers downstream (there is evidence that Bush's steel tariffs cost us at least 5,000 American auto worker jobs) while also hurting those abroad, thus harming America's image. Domestic businessmen and CEO's love tariffs because that means less competition and a bigger market share for them and lining their own pockets.

Posted by Reality Man | January 7, 2008 10:54 PM

Tim,

Yes, I think I will blame the executives of pharmaceutical companies who (not always but for the most part) act out of nothing more elevated than pure greed. They don't 'save millions of lives', they keep those drugs out of the hands of the people who need them so that profits can be high. That research should be done by public institutions, then we wouldn't need greedy pigs to finance it. I'm for anyone who will make their lives a little harder.

Posted by Hector | January 7, 2008 11:18 PM

"Got lung cancer? Blame Phillip Morris.

Which is so unfair, given the tobacco industry's proud record over decades of being totally forthright and honest about the risks of using their product, consistently refusing to advertise an addictive substance to impressionable children, & etc.

Posted by Dan S. | January 7, 2008 11:22 PM

Hector,
I would be very happy for public institutions to do research. In fact, I believe that they already do. And the government gives grants to research universities as well. Are you suggesting that the private sector shouldn't be allowed to research on their own or in cooperation with universities? Who knows where the next major breakthrough might come from? Preventing innovation won't pay off in the long run, and patents don't last forever, eventually they enter the public domain.

Greedy pigs? Sure, they are human beings, like we all are. But even corporate tycoons often end up as philanthropists. Even if they don't, economic growth helps lots of people.

Posted by Tim | January 8, 2008 3:18 AM

FACT...FACT...FACT...FACT...Look through his "Awe Schucks" act and see him for what he really is. Mike Huckabee is a liberal in conservative clothing.

Paid Romney Staffer?

All of the presidential candidates except for Huckabee (and maybe lazy Thompson) have detailed policy proposals they have put fortht that you can find using Google

Thompson's policy proposals are detailed well-beyond those of any candidate on the right. Judging by his lack of support, I'm one of the only Republicans who noticed.

They don't 'save millions of lives', they keep those drugs out of the hands of the people who need them so that profits can be high. That research should be done by public institutions, then we wouldn't need greedy pigs to finance it.

First sentence isn't true. In some places Pharmaceutical companies are selling AIDS medication for pennies. As for the second sentence, we do have public institutions that research vaccines and medications. The reason no one notices is that they almost never produce anything useful.

Which is so unfair, given the tobacco industry's proud record over decades of being totally forthright and honest about the risks of using their product,

Please. It's not 1941 anymore.

Regardless of what the tobacco companies say (incidentally, the health risks are printed on the product), any American, in 2008, who claims to be an uninformed victim of tobacco's side effects is just looking to sue somebody. Anyone saying otherwise is naive.

Posted by Shinyk | January 8, 2008 3:28 AM

Maybe I should have left tobacco off that list, but it was and is legal to sell tobacco, there are warnings on it, and people are free not to buy it. If there is a demand for something, someone will supply it.

Posted by Tim | January 8, 2008 3:44 AM

If there is a demand for something, someone will supply it.

Tim: Who "demanded" the empty-headed strawman-isms that you supply here in ample measure?

Posted by Jamey | January 8, 2008 11:34 AM

What is a "realist"? Someone who employs George F Will's "favourite Dem economist" Austan Goolsbee, with Liebman and Cutler thrown in.

Obama has the bona fides of an establishment character who supports Social Security privatization and other Wall St boondoggles.

Edwards and Huckabee look like they might want to do something different, so naturally they are "unserious."

Posted by Meh | January 8, 2008 11:38 AM

Huckabee is using gays.Probably a closet racist.

Posted by Buddy Hinton Sturmgewehr | January 12, 2008 9:59 AM