Nontroversy of the week.
 

Mike Huckabee's subliminal cross.

Have you all heard about this? A more ridiculous source of outrage I'd be hard pressed to imagine.

In case you hadn't heard, Huckabee is being slammed for supposedly placing a subliminal image of a cross in one of his ads.

This is a ridiculous nontroversy on two fronts.

1) The "subliminal cross" is a bookshelf. It's got a shelf and a vertical support. Freaking lame.

2) It was a freaking Christmas message in which he talked about how the holiday is about celebrating Christ. What exactly is the subliminal message here? He's explicitly talking about Christ!! OMG, if you squint, you MIGHT see a cross!! Oooooooh.

I'm outraged at the politics of outrage.

Yeah, I heard about that.

Nontroversy, all the way.

And I am outraged at your being outraged.





BTW: LOVE the new word. May it spread as well as the red long john story.

Whoops, to add to it.

Just sounds like made-up hogwash. He's out and open about his faith, so it's really not subliminal at that point. If I was on Huckabee's staff (though this sounds equally as stupid), I'd stir up this whole nontroversy to get my supporters stirred up about faith... which seems to me (as someone who's been almost too busy to really keep up with politics) what his campaign is kind of about.

Unfortunately a google search reveals that I am hardly the first. I need to start some outrage about that.

I'm not outraged by it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an intentional visual. Obviously it is a bookshelf, but that doesn't mean it is the only thing it is. And intentional or not it is a nice piece of imagery.

But I don't really care that it is there. But even if it wasn't intentional, then there's a certain phrase that beings "live by the sword..." that seems to apply.

For those who have not seen it, here is a screen grab:

OMG! And, what do we make of that giant penis of the Washington Monument?

Hmmm, but that looks more like a Greek cross - perhaps that's the subliminal message?

I see a Hidden Mickey!!!!!

Yes, that's it... he's secretly recruiting for the Church Of Walt!

Who is doing the outrage?

That I can't quite figure out. Ron Paul's jumped on the bandwagon denouncing the ad, but I don't think he started it. Everything I can find on it pretty much starts with the quote of Huckabee defending it, without identifying WHY he needs to be defending it.

Actually Ron Paul did not denounce the ad. He denounced subliminal messaging in ads, and specifically said he did not think this particular ad rose (or sunk) to anything of the sort.

Hmm, this is what I read:

link

Wow. I need to learn more about Ron Paul.

Sounds like he's trying to manufacture controversy himself. Perhaps to rile-up his base?

He (Ron Paul) said it on Fox News, and I'm not sure he had seen the ad yet when he was asked (he was remote so he very likely didn't even have a monitor). So my reading of it at the time (I saw it live when it first happened) was that he was just making a general comment on the mingling of religion and politics. It was worth seeing just for the shocked reaction of the Fox morning show cohost.

I think one of the Sunday morning wags said it best (paraphrasing): I have no idea if the imagery was intentional or not but I don't think that Huckabee is at all upset by the controversy as it just reinforces the message he was already putting out there.

Ron Paul, a Republican, is quoting Sinclair Lewis, whose most famous work is a piece of communist propaganda masquerading as muckraking?

This election is getting too damn weird for me.

It will get much weirder, just wait.

Do you mean Sinclair "Strangler" Lewis or Upton Sinclair?

Ah, bloody hell, you're right... I was mixing him up with Upton Sinclair.

*blush*

There's also a subliminal Jesus fish in the Jack in the Box logo. Or so it is rumored...
:D

I blame Mike Huckabee.

In name only. Ron Paul is a Libertarian who joined the Republicans to get a broader platform to be heard. I believe once he doesn't get the Republican nomination he will run as a Libertarian, and that has been his plan all along.

He is what a Republican is supposed to be. That they all left his brand of Republicanism long behind for a frenzy of anti-Republican tawdriness and unprincipled orgy does not make Paul the non-Republican.


And yes, he hadn't seen the ad when he make his Sinclair analogy. (Sorry, I misspoke, he was talking about mixing politics and religion, not about subliminal messages ... be he was specifically speaking in generalities in response to the allegations against Huckabee, and had not seen the ad in question. He made that clear on Meet the Press a day or so later.)

BTW, I've never admired a Republican so much. Not even McCain.

Not even Lincoln?

The Republican Party has never been a libertarian party. He is, fiscally, what a Republican is supposed to be but the party has never really been libertarian.

I'm actually surprised by the number of liberal/progressive people I see who say they like what Ron Paul has to say since he is pretty strongly in opposition to the idea of progressive government. I think many like his "out of Iraq now" position but would be aghast at his "let the Sudanese kill each other as they wish" position. Or his anti-affirmative action positions. Or that while he wouldn't get rid of it since it is already there, he would oppose Social Security if it were presented today.

His one big lapse from "pure" Libertarianism is in opposition to free trade and open borders.

I think perhaps its his support for abolition of the income tax that makes me love him most. I'd put up with a lot of non-progressiveness to be rid of that unlawful, unconsitutional, medieval theft by our overlords.

I'm rather partial to Teddy Roosevelt myself. Now there was a great Republican!

But the income tax is probably the most progressive element of our government. Now, his ideal government could probably get by on a taxstream not based on income since his ideal government would really have any programs to fund, but assuming one wants both an active involved government and no income tax, all of the alternatives are likely to be much more regressive.

I'm just glad to have a libertarian getting some air time. Even if he is a kook in the Illuminati/NWO direction of things.

With Libertarian candidates, he's par for the course.

Back to the original point, I'm really glad someone posted a screenshot. Do you suppose the lighting which makes the "bookshelf" appear like a floating, glowing cross happened by accident?


Pulease.


I also think it's a nontroversy, but it's not a "didn't happen." It most certainly was purposeful product placement of the crucifix.

True, but a step up from the guy who ran for California governor whose pet issue was the right to own ferrets as pets.

But I know plenty of libertarians who don't go into the Illuminati/NWO stuff so I'll keep hoping for one of them to somehow get some prominence.

In all the liberal fawning over Ron Paul I've not yet seen anybody notice that he is pro-life and would see Roe v. Wade overturned (he doesn't feel the pro-life agenda should be set at the federal level, though, and would leave it to individual states).

I noticed. He thinks lots of things should be left the states, as the Constitution mandates (albeit, with the giant loophole the federal truck drove thru).


I guess I'm fine with leaving things to the states, since I live in California.

I'm all for states rights, but in reality, our system is set up for the feds to deny the states their rights. The Supreme Court sees pretty much everything as interstate commerce, and anything that isn't the feds threaten to withhold funds and blackmail the states to do what they want.

Somewhat less so as the striking down of the guns-near-schools act would indicate. Also, in their concurrence in Gonzalez v. Carhart, Justices Scalia and Thomas questioned whether Congress actually had the power under the Commerce Clause to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

If states don't want to accept the money that Congress wants to spend under its power to spend for the general welfare, they are free to pay their own way.

I'm speaking in generalities, of course, and I thought that was relatively obvious.

However, the blackmail issue isn't simply an issue of "states paying their own way". The feds over tax citizens, take the money and use the money to blackmail the states. If the feds didn't collect those taxes and left them to the states to collect, rather than taking the money that should belong to the states and using it as leverage to force a certain course of action, then there would not be this issue.

On the Commerce Clause point, I think the overarching generality is that people only care about constitutional niceties like federalism when they want to complain about what the other guy wants to do.