...or just bad studies? Anyway, Survey USA has Huckabee making up 21% on McCain in two days in Virginia, which means he’s only down 11. And nationwide, two of three studies still have McCain well below 50% and Huck gaining.
And thanks to the good word of Dr. Pat Deneen, Mr. Crunchy Con (Rod) has a long, appreciative comment on my "The Warrior and the Preacher," which includes his own observations on Huck’s strengths and weaknesses. It turns out he’s weak on reading and reflecting, which makes it clear how he should spend the next couple of years if he’s to be a real force (and he has the raw talent) in 2012. I should link these sites, of course.
And despite the astute comments of dennis, John, and others in the thread below, I still say Hillary’s position is as untenable as Battista’s at the New Year’s Eve party in GODFATHER, part 2. I would gladly bet the plantation if the odds are right.
I think your rapture with Huckabee is warping your mind. In your Oglethorpe speech you said, "The weakness of warriors — and this is the theme of many a Clint Eastwood movie — is that they prefer war to peace."
It is silly enough that you choose Clint Eastwood's movie roles as the model of the warrior. But it is beyond simpleminded to imply, as you certainly do imply, that McCain prefers war to peace.
Peter Schramm commented, "Nothing in the talk should surprise readers of NLT." No, I'm sorry to say, it doesn't surprise me at all, but it disgusts me beyond words.
I too thought that the Eastwood choice was odd, especially considering his Iwo Jima, anti-America movies.
Huck is closing hard!