Huckabee Wants The State To Become Church
This seems like a prank posting, but it's not. From The Raw Story, while speaking about human life and the definition of marriage, the retrograde religious freak Huckabee said he wants to amend the Constitution to conform with "God's standards":
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." (..."of how we treat each other and how we treat the family," Huckabee continues in the video at the link.)When Willie Geist reported Huckabee's opinion on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting,"
Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."
Geist further noted of Huckabee that if "someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's bascially the front-runner."
What's scary is that, in 2007, in the most powerful nation in the world, Huckabee isn't dismissed as a crackpot, and is, instead, a leading candidate to lead our country. Are we having a government or an after-school prayer session?
Thanks, Norm
> What's scary is that,
> in 2007...
Scary! Scary scary!
FEAR!
AAAaaiiiiieeeeeee!
crid at January 16, 2008 12:17 AM
"Deeply depressing" work better for you?
Amy Alkon at January 16, 2008 12:20 AM
You could change one word in here and the meaning is exactly the same.
"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of Allah. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in Allah's standards rather than try to change Allah's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
I heard about this comment, (with god instead of allah of course) and it disturbs me about the guy. I don't care how damned religious you are, you have to be smart enough to know how much god you can bring into the secular govt arena before you cross the line. Bush has stepped on his crank a hundred times over this and he isn't near as bad as Huck. Huck apparently doesn’t know where that line is. This one issue alone would kill him in the general election and rightfully so. On the bright side, I think Huck is about to take a dive in the polls anyhow.
Bikerken at January 16, 2008 1:58 AM
You aren't deeply depressed, either. You're just annoyed. America isn't just the most powerful nation in the world, it's also the most religious. And he's not a candidate to lead our country, he's a candidate to serve as president. Terms are important with this stuff... As Hitch once said, power is only what you let it be.
crid at January 16, 2008 2:21 AM
Oh Shit! I just heard on the news that they got a shark in an aquarium that has had a baby shark but has never been exposed to any male sharks to get pregnant. Don't anyone tell Huck or we'll start seeing little magnetic sharks that say Jesus on the trunk lids of Buicks everywhere!
Bikerken at January 16, 2008 2:23 AM
This makes HillaryCare sound like a picnic.
Shit!
Gretchen at January 16, 2008 5:13 AM
Ken - other fish can do that, why not sharks?
And as far as the Huck? I addressed it thus: Anyone who does not understand that the Constitution's purpose is to limit the government, and not the people, has no right seeking the highest office in the land.
I may not support homosexual marriage, but codifying such in the Constitution would carve the soul out of the document and leave it in shreds on the floor.
brian at January 16, 2008 5:25 AM
Change the Constitution?!? Sacrilege! I won't have it! Shoot the bastard! o_O
Flynne at January 16, 2008 6:07 AM
This didn't go over well at NRO's The Corner, either. Click on my name for more, but here are some sample quotes:
What do you think God's standard is on anchor babies and birthright citizenship? (Manger!) Does Huckabee's God believe in borders? What is God's monetary policy? Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn't God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes? What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's?
And...
Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies — the people who want to end our way of life — believe they are simply imposing God's standards?
Hey, if God has a position on all of His children deserving nice shoes, I want my share! I go to church sometimes. That should be good for at least a pair of Aerosoles.
marion at January 16, 2008 8:55 AM
These candidates are whores first, public servants very last, if at all.
(Just posted Romney's proposed payoff to the auto industry - the way he bought the vote in Michigan.)
Amy Alkon at January 16, 2008 9:11 AM
"Ken - other fish can do that, why not sharks?" I know of fish that can gender bend, some almost at will but no higher order fish that can self fertilize.
Wasn't Huck at the tail end of the republican primary. He's losing so why is everybody so worried. I mean shot the ANP has a presidential candidate, why is Huck scarier.
vlad at January 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Vlad, two weeks ago, he was the frontrunner and almost being ordained the nominee by the media.
Bikerken at January 16, 2008 12:20 PM
Parthenogenesis-birth without fertilization occurs in reptiles, but not in mammals or birds. A female Komodo dragon in a zoo gave birth last year, but the zoo had no male of the species. Whole species of whiptail lizards exist with no males. As Haldane said, "
Nature is not just stranger than we think. Nature may be stranger than we can think".
Ruth at January 16, 2008 1:40 PM
I wouldn't write Huck off just yet, though I think if he loses SC he's probably done except as a running mate to McCain or someone else the Christian conservatives don't trust. He's nutty on the religious issues, but he also comes across as a nice person with a sense of humor. Americans like nice people with good senses of humor. In the presidential elections that I can remember, the person who seemed nicer/funnier has never lost.
justin case at January 16, 2008 2:12 PM
In the presidential elections that I can remember, the person who seemed nicer/funnier has never lost.
You must not remember Nixon then.
Rebecca at January 16, 2008 3:04 PM
Nope. I was a little over a year old when he resigned.
justin case at January 16, 2008 5:34 PM
After 400+ days of having hostages held, voters didn't think candidate Reagan was a nicer guy than Carter, but rather the reverse... As did the Iranians, who freed them seconds after his inauguration.
And GHW Bush was certainly a more convincing hardass than was Dukakis.
(Move that Youtube clip to 1:03-- It's genuine footage. Somewhere on the internet there's a longer clip in which Bush moves closer to the camera. Even in what must have been the most stressful moment of a stressful life, he was an incredibly good-looking young man.)
Was the Governor of Texas really thought to be nicer than the former Senator from Tennessee?
Crid at January 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Don't get hung up on one part of the equation Crid - you forget the funny aspect. I think Dukakis/GHWB was a wash. Neither seemed nice or funny or engaging, so voters went with experience and perceived competence (and they were right). Reagan was immensely funnier and more likeable than Carter. Gore seemed neither nice nor funny, just kinda wooden and robotic. And yes, Bush was thought of as a nice guy. Maybe not by people who follow this stuff closely enough to go back and forth on blog comment sections, but we're in the minority here. I don't think I'm going out on a limb at all when I say that damn near every voter makes their choice at a very visceral level, not at a rational, weigh-the-options kind of level.
justin case at January 16, 2008 10:26 PM
Calling Huck a "leading candidate to lead our country" is a bit of a stretch, considering that he's not even the leading Republican, and no Republican has a chance in this election anyway.
Rex Little at January 16, 2008 11:15 PM
i don't think huckabee will win. if he does, i'm moving out of the country. where, i don't know, but away from here. but the part that scares me, other than huckabee himself who is very scary, is that you never know for sure what the religious right is going to do at the polls until it happens.
kt at January 17, 2008 1:15 AM
So sharks can reproduce without mating huh? I'm a bit skeptical of that, knowing how many single lawyers there are with no kids.
I've heard of reptiles and amphibians doing that. (I've seen Jurassic Park.) The only other group that I have heard that can reproduce asexually are worms. Of course, earthworms are not mammals, (no place for tits).
Bikerken at January 17, 2008 1:39 AM
Ken - Sharks aren't mammals. They're fish. Damned big fish, but fish.
Rex - I suspect that you're wrong. As afraid of Hillary as I am, I think that any Republican other than Huckabee can beat her soundly. Her negatives are higher than any other politician in history.
kt - I hope you're right. If Huck wins, the only thing we can hope for is 4 years of Democratic obstructionism. Of course, Huck's a big lib, so that probably won't happen except on the overtly religious shit. I hear Costa Rica's nice. How's your Spanish?
brian at January 17, 2008 5:35 AM
I thought sharks were not fish because fish have bones. Except the ones you get ready filleted, of course.
I saw Huck give a speech where he pretended to get a call from God on his mobile. That was pretty clever, I thought. He seems to me like a really presentable and smart fellow, and oddly like Kevin Spacey (another favourite of mine).
Norman at January 17, 2008 6:11 AM
Just when I think they can't get any crazier or stupider than Bush...
Donna at January 17, 2008 8:14 AM
Donna -
Gore is both crazier AND stupider than Bush.
Kerry is FAR stupider than Bush.
What bothers me is how we could have 20 people all throw their hat in the ring for president, and someone as decidedly average as Bush is the best one on offer.
brian at January 17, 2008 8:25 AM
As afraid of Hillary as I am, I think that any Republican other than Huckabee can beat her soundly. Her negatives are higher than any other politician in history.
Higher than Dubya? Barring a miracle that makes the Loaves and Fishes look like a parlor trick, he's going to leave office with a historically low approval rating. That will poison the prospects for the Republican candidate this year, no matter who it is. It's like 1968, when LBJ was so loathed that no Democrat had a chance. And Bush is hated more than Johnson was.
Rex Little at January 17, 2008 6:08 PM
Hey Rex - reading comprehension implies the ability to infer context.
In case you weren't aware of it, Bush isn't running for election.
And given that Hillary's negatives are over 50%, there's going to need to be a strong third-party candidate running to the right of the Republicans to allow her to win with less than a majority of the popular vote.
brian at January 17, 2008 7:52 PM
i'd hardly call huckabee a liberal. in any arena.
my spanish is ok, but i was leaning a little more towards england. maybe new zealand. the rainforest is beautiful, but HOT.
i'd be happy enough with mccain. but i think it's going to be romney vs. hilary. and i don't like romney either. personally, i have to be hard pressed to vote for a republican in any case.
kt at January 17, 2008 8:49 PM
England's being overrun by muslims, NZ is run by a bunch of PC nuts that make the Canadian Human Rights Commissions look like pikers. Nah - Costa Rica, Taiwan, maybe Poland. Learning Chinese would be a major pain for my 38 year old western brain, but I'd give it a shot.
And how can you call a guy who believes in federal smoking bans, tax hikes and massive entitlement spending anything BUT a liberal? And don't get me started on his fair tax proposal - he doesn't even mention repealing the 16th amendment, which means that after the sales tax is well entrenched, the income tax comes right back, if it ever goes away at all.
Romney's a lib too. All he needs is a strong nationalist streak, and he'd be a textbook fascist.
brian at January 17, 2008 9:07 PM
Yes, Brian, I know that Bush isn't running. Neither was Johnson in '68. My point is that the Bush disaster will so poison the Republican party in the minds of most voters that Hillary's negatives will pale in comparison, even if she sheds her skin and eats live mice.
A third-party alternative would be the obvious choice in a sensible world, but there just aren't enough people willing to consider it.
Rex Little at January 17, 2008 11:38 PM
i guess we just look at different issues to determine liberalism. i'm looking more at the religion-and-all-that-goes-with-it thing, than the tax thing. personally, i don't really object to my income tax. i do object ot my property tax, which is actually the highest rate in the country. not making that up. that's just my random thought in there, completely unrelated.
i like england. i'm not nearly as afraid of the muslims as everyone else on this site, don't really think sharia law will be enacted there. don't want to argue about it any more. not bothered by the n.z./canada so-called "PC" stuff that bothers you, gay marriage would be a good thing for me, i'd kind of like to be able to visit my partner in the icu without waiting for her parents' permission, also kind of like to not have to re-purchase the other half of my house from her brother if she dies. that'd be a good thing. particularly since i'm making all the house payments in the first place.
they say learning to speak chinese isn't so hard, but learning to write it is a bitch. japanese, i've heard, is the other way around. not that i know how to say anything but sayonnara.
kt at January 17, 2008 11:45 PM
I'd love to know how being overtly religious got grouped together with conservatism. Huck uses religion as a justification for his nanny-statism. It's no different than a lefty using environmentalism to the same ends. Both want to dictate terms on how individuals should carry out their private affairs, and that, to me, is the very definition of liberalism.
brian at January 18, 2008 4:37 AM
The religious nutter "conservatives" are not true conservatives, but that doesn't stop them from calling themselves that.
Amy Alkon at January 18, 2008 5:52 AM
Reality doesn't stop people from calling fascism a right-wing doctrine either.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't beat them soundly with a cluebat when they broadcast their tripe to the masses.
They are wrong, they are deliberately misleading the public for whatever nefarious ends, and they must be stopped.
brian at January 18, 2008 6:49 AM
I present to you all:
Flynne's History Primer
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter. The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer.
These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals and
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbeque at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbeques and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as "girliemen". Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the
meat and beer that the conservatives provided. Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.
Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Disclaimer: YMMV o_O
Flynne at January 18, 2008 9:05 AM
So what do you think about the party?
wahAbonna at February 16, 2008 4:27 PM
Leave a comment