Yes . . . and he's also claimed that he will deport all of our illegal aliens within 120 days of his election. (!?!?) McCain also said something about the Confederate flag yesterday (I think)--though I think he came out against it. Perhaps Huck was responding to that? I McCain's remarks were equally dumb, frankly. Why talk about this at all in the year 2008 when we have so many other important and real issues to discuss? It makes Republicans look really stupid, in my opinion.

The Confederate Flag isn't an issue, but the media keeps pushing that story line.

Did Huck broach that subject, or were his remarks offered in response to a question. If he dodged the question, that would have been a headline. Republicans ought to simply declare they won't take any questions on that topic. Reminding members of the media that they're running for the nomination of the party of Lincoln, "the Grand Old Party," and that our civil rights bona fides are etched in stone and sealed in blood, American blood. And they should tell the media that if they have racial problems, take their questions to the Democrats, who were the party of the Confederacy, and the party of the Jim Crow South. They should be reminded that Bull Connor was a Democrat.

It was our party that torched Georgia and South Carolina, it was our party that burned Atlanta and Columbia to the ground, it was our party that set loose Sherman. A little historical clarity is in order.

Geez, Dan. Settle down. I get your indignation but you're starting to sound like Red in the midst of it! I don't see how reminding South Carolinians that "Republicans" (but, excuse me, weren't there any Democrats in the Union army?) torched Columbia in the Civil War is a particularly good strategic move. I'd just refuse to answer the question--and maybe say something about how stupid the question is--then leave it at that. How many people in the voting public are dying to know the answer to this dumb question? And what the heck has it got to do with the job of the President of the United States?

It was also Huckabee who integrated a church where he was pastor; I bet the media never asks him about that experience. He has a sterling civil rights record, but politically knows that when asked he can't dodge the flag question like Dan said.

Julie, you're dead right that my indignation is certainly ill-timed to be sure.

But our party should display a bit more ire, REAL ire about that issue. It wasn't our party that hoisted the Stars and Bars, it wasn't our party that fought under the Stars and Bars, and it's historically bizarre how a liberal media tries to finger us with the Stars and Bars.

And this is another thing that irritates me.

How the hell did we, the party of Lincoln, the party that fought in Union Blue, who used to be known as "Blue-bellies," the party opposed to the red in the Stars and Bars, opposed to the red in the banners and standards of the Communists, {which with the Democrats had a long dalliance} how did we ever get stuck with "Red" America, whereas the Democrats, with a long historical attachment to the colour red, get branded "Blue" America.

What was that all about.

At the risk of sounding like Dan and Red, I don't think the issue needs to be an untouchable. If you have spent any time in the Carolinas (I'm in the North) then you know that it is used as a stick in which to beat traditional conservatives with.

My guess is that Peter Lawler does not know that. I would hate to think him as a stern member of the "confederate flag = nazi flag" crowd. Perhaps he should check the lay of the land before he accuses Huck or anyone else of being "demagogic"...

Good for Huck, standing up for the Flag and standing up to the PC thought enforcers/Lincoln Cultists.

Julie, the Flag is an important issue because it is a litmus test of willingness to stand up to the PC Gestapo instead of kissing their ring. I can think of very few issues more important than facing down the PC thought police.

Dan, first of all the Confederate Battle Flag is not the Stars and Bars. The First National is the Stars and Bars. Second, celebrating the shedding of blood and the torching of Georgia proves you are a nationalist state worshiping fool. It is sick, really quite sick.

ok, i'm also disappointed about the immigration pandering and the loose comment about same-sex marriage leading to bestiality. (it invites the response--well, maybe in arkansas).
this stuff isn't classic huck, it smacks of desperation. i'm disillusioned once again! my wife, more of a huck fan than me, saw the flag comment on CNN and said i'm done with him. the comment wasn't a response to a question, as far as i could tell.

my wife, more of a huck fan than me, saw the flag comment on CNN and said i'm done with him.

So there you go, both you and your wife (apparently) adhere to a very simple moral and political calculus: confederate flag = racism, sexism, and the burning of cute little puppies. What it actually means to real conservatives in the Carolinas is of not material interest for you. Not only that, even if it does amount to something it must be sacrificed on the altar of Republican "coalition building" and appeasing the national press who have already defined the confederate flag as something only a racist would ever dare mention in polite company.

I am beginning to wonder what it is they feed Establishment Republicans to make them so stubborn. Like I said a few days ago, I am beginning to become a Huck fan simply on the basis of revulsion for the arrogance of the Romney supporters…

Here are two articles on Huckabee's statement, which says that the flag is a state, not a presidential, issue. This particular flag flap seems to have been started by people with long memories. The South's funny that way.

So far as I can tell, Huckabee didn't start anything, and he seems to be trying to stay out of it, though, clearly, people are trying to drag him in.

Wow. "[A] nationalist state worshiping fool...." Wow. That's heavy duty.

Couldn't possibly be that the South was proud, over-proud, and that they broke apart a country they had no right to sever in two. Firebrands in South Carolina started the carnage, it was karmic that they reaped what they had sown. What does Scripture state about they "who take up the sword...?" The plantation class in the South might have given that a bit more thought, instead of blithely assuming the Almighty smiled upon their unrighteous and uncharitable ways.

And I don't "worship" the state!

HOWEVER, I do agree with RED, {despite him branding me "a nationalist state worshiping fool"} that the flag represents a line drawn against the PC and the race grievance crowd. There are too damn many people wandering the earth looking for something to exaggerate, to hype and to make out to be more than it ever was.

There are prime time television shows that feature white gals hooking up with black men, but some maintain that "race" and "racism" are still thematic throughout the fruited plain. It's ridiculous! Whereas in generations past, black Americans couldn't show themselves in certain towns, today there is no place where they are banned, there is no profession they are prohibited entry, there is no school that blacklists them. Where then is this racism we hear decried, where then is the evidence of this THEMATIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND SYSTEMIC racism we endlessly hear of.

When was the last time you heard a marching band playing DIXIE? Now I like Dixie, always have, always will. I often hum Dixie to myself, and hum as well Bonnie Blue Flag, {along with Land of Hope and Glory and Rule Britannia}.

Republicans ought not cower and cringe when asked about such things. It betrays a want of cultural and moral confidence. Not to mention intellectual sloppiness.

I actually know Robert Hayes, the guy who yelled out the question in the third linked article.

This is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with conservatives today. The flag used to be on top of the capitol building. The people did not chose to take it down. The majority at the time did not want it taken down. The weak-kneed legislators voted to take it down, motivated partially by the fear of boycotts. (That's real great, putting mammon before honor and dignity.) It was taken off the capitol and placed on the capitol grounds. At the time this was considered a victory for the PC jack boots. But the demands for conformity of the PC right think Gestapo are never satisfied. Now they want the flag off the capitol grounds entirely. Now a majority of the state wants the flag to stay on the grounds. That is what they are booing or cheering depending. They are tired of hearing about the issue. They want the issue to go away and the flag to stay where it is.

And therein lies the problem. What was just a few years back considered a setback and a victory for the other side is now considered the status quo worth defending. But why isn't the position worth defending putting the flag back up on the capitol where it belongs? Where it was before the forces of Political Correctness worked their evil. As Dabney said "yesterday's resisted novelty" has become today's defended status quo. And they wonder why they are losing ground.

I forgot to make the point I was going to about Dixie. There are some who suggest that merely playing Dixie is evidence of racism. There are some who suggest that any who actually enjoy that tune harbour racism in their breast.

It's a sick accusation, absolutely sick. And it's usually made by those who deny black Americans tuition vouchers, on the ground that they can't be relied upon to use the vouchers responsibly. Most of the racism that exists in this land is attributable to those endlessly chirping and prattling on about "racism." Arguing against affirmative action for some is "racism," refusing "set-asides" and quotas is racism; rejecting compensatory and punitive damages to the descendants of slaves is to some, "racism." Racism has been so blurred as to mean anything that Democrats are for, but conservatives against. A price hike in public transportation is racism, public utility price increases, racism, knocking down ghettos for new business, well that's clear racism. Cleaning the streets by hiking fines on those littering, racism, mentioning that Pit Bulls should be banned, because too many kids are getting mauled, again, CLEAR RACISM, urging that violent criminals be put away for good, again, racism, upholding capital punishment, how can that be anything other than racism, the list goes on and on and on. There are some calling Obama an "oreo," and say that Bill Clinton is "more black" because he's railed more black women. But they're not racists, even though they're making clearly race based statements and judgements. But if you dare notice that, YOU'RE THE RACIST. This is insanity. Utter insanity. You can't make this kind of stuff up, even Jonathan Swift lacked the imagination necessary to foresee such insanity.

Well, black leadership in America has wandered very far afield form "the dream" spoken of by MLK, which they endlessly extol, but in practice deride. They don't want a race blind society as MLK championed; they want a society of privilege and favourtism for the "victims" of a racism long moldering in its grave.

the confederate flag does NOT necessarily equal racism and certainly not nazism, and the political correctness so often brought to the issue is grating. it is especially irritating when you hear someone going on about how terrible the flag is, when it is clear what they really mean is how terrible the South is. However, the flag is a symbol of a historical period and region that is most known for enslaving other humans. Sometimes (though not very often) politically correct is also correct, and that is true of the flag issue.

What does the Confederate flag represent?

Freedom? Liberty? State's Rights? Slavery?

What?

It boils down to what the heck was the South fighting for in the first place. What big issue caused the Civil War?

The problem you have, though, is from the words of the those that decided to put their reasons (or reason) down on paper.

Which is the reason why the flag is tainted.

The flag stands for a region and a people who were courageously fighting to defend their homeland from an aggressive and illegal invasion.

Dale the reasons on paper that I suspect you are referring to are the reasons for secession. They were fighting because they got invaded.

This from the same Huck who attacks Fred for dividing up the country "geographically" on abortion, as opposed to his own "Lincolnian" approach to end it everywhere? Spare me, Huck.

I don't know whether playing "Dixie" is evidence of racism or not, but I do know the Great Emancipator on April 10, 1865, said this:

"I propose now closing up by requesting you play a certain piece of music or a tune. I thought 'Dixie' one of the best tunes I ever heard . . . I had heard that our adversaries over the way had attempted to appropriate it. I insisted yesterday that we had fairly captured it . . . I presented the question to the Attorney-General, and he gave his opinion that it is our lawful prize . . . I ask the Band to give us a good turn upon it."

Lincoln in his ironic charm and magnanimity "captures" it because he sees Dixie as part of the profound tragedy of the Civil War, and thus part of the suffering soul of America. He would I think be the last man to suppress it, but for reasons rather different from both its proponents and opponents today.

Thing is, that is not what they stated they were fighting for ... well ... I mean, those states that decided to put their reasons down for posterity.

And the invasion part is laughable.

Come on.

Dale if you are referring to the State statements regarding secession, that is why they seceded. There would have been no fighting if Lincoln hadn't invaded. That is not a debatable point.

No firing upon the Northern troops, no war.

No secession, no war.

No attempts at keeping slavery alive or expanding it, no war.

So?

Fort Sumter - property of the Union.

Are you saying, Red, that because S.C. seceeded, Union property turns into Confederate?

Sure you are.

The Confederates fired upon the fort for almost over 2 days. The Confederates were the first to fire a shot in the Civil War, they were the aggressor. The Union was not firing upon the Confederates, but they were attempting to bring in reinforcements and provisions, but that was denied by the Confederate forces.

So, Red, who was the agressor?

It appears it wasn' the Union.

Now, what was South Carolina's reason for leaving the Union?

It was a Constitutional issue, that is for sure, and it did involve state's rights, but what right and issue were they so angry about?

South Carolina was clear, as are the other states that gave formal declarations, this was purely about slavery.

S.C. even stated that the Union would have never been born if the right to engage in slavery was restricted.

So, Red, you can say it was illegal, you can whine about Northern aggression, but it is clear that the Southern states left the Union over a policy difference and that is truly tragic.

The Confederacy was born because slavery was being restricted.

But, yet, people like Red defend her impugning the North with words like aggression and illegal.

The Articles of Confederation was clear that it was in effect in perpetuity unless acted upon by the Congress and the states.

The Constitution did not mention anything about the Union being perpetual, but not mention anything about secession either. Moreover, the Constituion restriced its member states from doing the things that the Southern states did to create the Confederacy.

But, yet, Lincoln, the Union, and the North is vilified when actions are taken to keep her intact.

However, make no mistake, Red, the first shot was fired by the South. Thusly, the aggressor was the south and was illegally trying to take Union property for herself.

You know, two can play at your words games.

Oh and you cannot disassociate secession and the fighting of the Civil War.

To do so is another example of how the Confederate apologists must twist and spin to make their views appear valid, just, and even righteous.