In A Panel of Bald-Faced Liars, Mike Huckabee Stands Out

[Methinks spending time around Chuck Norris and his drug-induced haze has affected the Huck's mental capacity (which was never exactly firing on all cylinders to start with).]

Mike Huckabee, the same man who last week insisted that it was his solemn duty to change the U.S. Constitution to reflect HIS interpretation of the word of God - namely, to outlaw homosexuality and a woman's right to choose and make any semblance of marriage restricted exclusively to a man and a woman - with a straight face during the Thursday night Florida GOP presidential debate, insisted that he would never, ever try to impose his religious views on the nation.

Say what?

Yet Another Fat, White Fascist GOP Lawmaker Wants Rights To A Woman's Womb

Dolt.

Gee, what a surprise; a Republican who wants to force his beliefs upon others. Who'd a thought? Mind you, there are many women doctors who will NOT undergo an ultrasound with their own pregnancies (except in extraordinary circumstances) because they question the "health" of doing so.

Women seeking an abortion would first have to undergo an ultrasound under a new bill proposed in Kentucky, reported Louisville, Ky., TV station WLKY.

Members of the Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Louisville had a lot to say about the bill. They drove to Frankfort hoping to get more information about it, and hoping to convince the senator who sponsored the bill that it should not get passed at all.

"I think defeating it would be the best thing for the people of Kentucky, regardless of your feeling about abortion," said coalition member Anne Maron.

The new bill would make it mandatory for doctors to perform an ultrasound on a woman seeking an abortion, provide an explanation of the results and provide the ultrasound images to the pregnant woman and review them with her.

"I want to make sure women understand fully what is happening if they get an opportunity to see the little fingers and toes of the baby that they're thinking about aborting," said state Sen. Jack Westwood.

Come to think of it, "dolt" is too kind for a man like Westwood who would probably kill before he'd let a law directly act on his penis.

Fred Thompson And Women's Rights: Demand Abortions End While Pocketing Money To Ease Restrictions

Well, former Senator (I doubt he was ever a human being, so I won't refer to him as a former one) Fred Thompson keeps proving that he has the baldfaced lying ability quite apparently required to be a "popular" Republican presidential candidate AND president. After all, only conservative compassionate Christians - as practiced by the likes of the Bushies, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson - can break all the commandments while insisting they're anointed by God himself.

While Fred has joined the extreme nutcase fringe of fat old white men who demand the right to tell women what to do with their own bodies, The Times reports Fascist Fred pocketed money as a lobbyist on behalf of those who want to lessen draconian restrictions on abortion counseling for those centers that accept federal funding for family planning. Only, of course, Felonious Fred "can't remember" doing so.

Apparently this Republican is going to start the classic Ronald Reagan defense strategy a little early. Perhaps Fred can hire some of those philandering GOP cocaine drug dealers to help out, just like Rudy Giuliani.

Dr. Dobson, Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On Your Way Out The Door

It's moments like this when I'm sorry Jerry Falwell didn't take the "Focus on the Family" folks, Pat Robertson, and others when he went (and trust me, their destination will NEVER be heaven).

Religious conservative leader James Dobson will sit out the 2008 presidential election if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, he wrote Thursday in an online column.

In a piece published on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily, Dobson wrote that Giuliani's support for abortion rights and civil unions for homosexuals, as well as the former mayor's two divorces, were a deal-breaker for him.

"I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision," he wrote.

"If given a Hobson's -- Dobson's? -- choice between him and Senators Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran -- or if worse comes to worst, not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

Zell Miller: Another Fat, Stupid White Man Who Knows Best For Women

I was sort of hoping former Democratic senator - and perennial asswipe - Zell Miller had been committed to some not-too-cushy nuthouse somewhere. But alas, he's still walking free, based on this from Stranger at Blah3:

There really should be some kind of rule against letting insane people serve in Congress. I know that Zell is no longer working in the Senate, but still - the man's barking mad. Check this logic.

Zell Miller, the former Democratic Senator from Georgia who backed President George W. Bush in 2004 and spoke at the Republican National Convention, recently told an anti-abortion gathering that the "killing" of unborn babies was the cause of many of America's woes, including its military, social security, and immigration problems.

"How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?" Miller asked.

"Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed."

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been 'killed' since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

"If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," he asserted.

Right, Zell, those 45 million babies (and you're making this up, you truly are) would be available to die for Bush's lies, to be reared in poverty because Bush has turned the Middle Class into the bankrupt class, and would be available to work for minimum wage in Wal-Mart because Bush cost us so many decent jobs.

Oh yeah, and you're probably mourning the fact that there are 45 million LESS children for you to vote against funding and other support for their prenatal care, their public education, food and medical care to keep them healthy AND... oh yes, 45 million less "snowflake babies" you can challenge to a duel (you old fool)!

BTW, there is every bit more evidence than not that America is operating near peak capacity. So there aren't "too few" babies.

On Reconsidering The "Myth of the Middle"

Steve at The Carpetbagger Report brings up an excellent discussion today:

It’s one of those political truths that “everybody knows” — the party that wins the elusive middle wins the election. It’s all about the “center,” where most Americans are and where campaigns are decided. This seemed particularly true in 2006, when, the conventional wisdom tells us, the middle expressed its disgust with the status quo and backed a divided government so that both sides would govern from the center.

But is any of this true? Political scientist Alan Abramowitz and journalist Bill Bishop suggested this week that we may want to reconsider the “myth of the middle.”

The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) surveyed more than 24,000 Americans who voted in 2006. The Internet-based survey compiled by researchers at 30 universities produced a sample that almost perfectly matched the national House election results: 54 percent of the respondents reported voting for a Democrat, while 46 percent said they voted for a Republican. The demographic characteristics of the voters surveyed also closely matched those in the 2006 national exit poll. If anything, the CCES respondents claimed they were more “independent” than those in the exit poll.

The CCES survey asked about 14 national issues: the war in Iraq (the invasion and the troops), abortion (and partial birth abortion), stem cell research, global warming, health insurance, immigration, the minimum wage, liberalism and conservatism, same-sex marriage, privatizing Social Security, affirmative action, and capital gains taxes. Not surprisingly, some of the largest differences between Democrats and Republicans were over the Iraq war. Fully 85 percent of those who voted for Democratic House candidates felt that it had been a mistake to invade Iraq, compared with only 18 percent of voters who cast ballots for Republicans.

But the divisions between the parties weren’t limited to Iraq. They extended to every issue in the survey. For example, 69 percent of Democratic voters chose the most strongly pro-choice position on the issue of abortion, compared with 20 percent of Republican voters; only 16 percent of Democratic voters supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while 80 percent of Republican voters did; and 91 percent of Democratic voters favored governmental action to reduce global warming, compared with 27 percent of Republican voters.

When we combined voters’ answers to the 14 issue questions to form a liberal-conservative scale (answers were divided into five equivalent categories based on overall liberalism vs. conservatism), 86 percent of Democratic voters were on the liberal side of the scale while 80 percent of Republican voters were on the conservative side. Only 10 percent of all voters were in the center. The visual representation of the nation’s voters isn’t a nicely shaped bell, with most voters in the moderate middle. It’s a sharp V.

OK, if this is true, and Abramowitz and Bishop certainly make a compelling case, what does this tell us about how the political process should work?

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure I "buy" that there is so little "middle". But I also wonder if those most willing to participate in surveys are those with strong ideological viewpoints compared with others who may not be willing to discuss national issues.