RSS Feed

Category Archives: mike huckabee

Thou shalt not be fooled by Huckabee

To Jon Stewart: Thank you!

Many left wing crazy liberals have had Huckabee on their programs. He’s so damn likeable that we almost forget how quickly he would devastate the equal rights of so many of us without even blinking an eye. So the interviews are very pleasant and friendly and cordial because it’s hard not to be with such an apparently amicable guy. So nothing controversial comes up. But you went there. And I thank you.

He started the interview with some niceties about how everyone should treat each other the way we would want to be treated ourselves. Sounds great, Mike! And then he added that government needs to stay out of the way and not get so involved in our lives. Well, I agree, Mike! If you’re not careful, you’ll hear this guy and start thinking, “Hey, we’ve got more common ground than I thought! Maybe there’s hope for “conservatives” and liberals after all!” But lest you forget the reality of what Mike really wants.

Let me toss a few of his quotes (in other interviews and situations, of course) your way. This is not my interpretation of what he has said. These are verbatum quotes followed by my interpretation. So here goes. Sit down.

1. On a questionnaire while running for U.S Senate in 1992:

“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.”

The queers are a threat to our public health. Nice.

2. On the same questionnaire regarding money for AIDS research

“In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified. An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.”

So, let Hollywood, not the federal government provide the money to cure AIDS, because we all know they are a bunch of queers and queer-lovers? Hm. I’m sure he thinks it’s a plague sent by God anyway, so it is killing those it’s supposed to. Why cure it? No, he didn’t say that. But he didn’t have to.

3. Same questionnaire. It gets better.

“If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague…. It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”

OK. So we should quarantine those with HIV. First of all.. where? Maybe California! But they just voted to ban gay marriage.. oh excuse me, uphold the sanctity of marriage… so maybe they aren’t so bad after all.

4. Not sure when and where but… scary!

“I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives…I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

Um… separation of church and state? Familiar? Anyone? Anyone?

5. January 2008 on a need for a federal ban of abortion

“That’s again the logic of the Civil War — that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, ‘Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period. It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else.’ Same with abortion,” Huckabee said.

This is part of your conservative “less government” policy, I assume?

6. A full-page ad in USA Today in 1998 signed by Huckabee

“A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ”

I’m not shitting you. That really happened.

7. In 1992 explaining why he does not agree with sending women into combat in the military
“because of my strong traditional view that women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat.”

Yeah, that really pissed of the feminists too. You try telling feminists they shouldn’t do something because it might insult their delicate sensibilities and see how well it goes over. (A hint… not well.)

8. “I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.”

Because his personal belief should become a constitutional amendment. Sure Mike. That seems logical and fair to anyone who might not agree. Oh, and, the “for life” must mean no divorces or remarriages after death of a spouse, right?

9. January 2008 at a Michigan campaign event

“But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God,” Huckabee said. “And that’s what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.”

Um… SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!! Am I the only one here who’s heard of that?

10. January 2008 in interview with

“Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.”

OK. A few things here. First, yes, Mike, I’m sure that including the gays in marriage would immediately open up the floodgates of people wanting to marry children or their family pet. And I can see how it would be hard to make a distinction between two consenting adults who want civil rights and protections and child molestion or bestiality. Good point. I mean, where would we draw the line. I mean if I can marry the woman I love then what keeps me from marrying my pomeranian Lenny or my kitten Alice. Slippery slope. Also, what our voters would have decided on the issue of civil rights is a GREAT example. Like interracial marriage, which was illegal because it was not approved by the majority until the pesky Supreme Court intervened in 1967. Or the women’s right to vote, which was only a 70 year battle against the status quo (of men in charge…)

11. On his fondness for South Carolina

“South Carolina’s a great place for me. I know how to eat grits. I speak the language. We even know how to talk about eating fried squirrel. We’re on the same wavelength. I bet you never did this: When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper, because that was the only thing they’d let us use in the dorms, and we would fry squirrel in a popcorn popper in our dorm rooms.”

Just wanted you to have the same mental image as I did when I read that. I didn’t want to be alone with that. Sorry.

12. December 2007 on interpretation of the bible

‘‘The Holy Bible . . . has truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.’’

Where to start with that one? All scripture is totally true? Whoa. Then slavery should be reinstituted. And we don’t have nearly enough stonings happening these days. And what’s this one man/one woman definition of marriage? Wasn’t it one man/tons of women. And one man and his wife’s servant if she was infertile? Do you really want to go there, Mike?

13.0n 1968

dawning of ‘‘the age of the birth-control pill, free love, gay sex, the drug culture and reckless disregard for standards.’’

Apparently there was no gay sex before 1968. Odd. I personally like how gay sex is labeled as reckless disregard for standards. Awesome. Plus, yes, the advent of the birth-control pill was definitely just an excuse for women to have reckless sex. It wasn’t at all a way for them to start protecting themselves and their bodies from having to bear 9 month, no an 18 year plus, burden that men wouldn’t take responsibility for even when they had a way to (ever heard of a condom or a vasectomy, guys?)

14. on his faith

‘‘It’s not that we want to impose our religion on somebody,’’ he wrote in ‘‘Character Makes a Difference, it’s that we want to shape the culture and laws by using a worldview we believe has value.’’

No Mike, you do want to impose your religion on somebody. And not just somebody, but everybody. Because there is no difference in imposing your religious beliefs as law and imposing your religion. It’s the same damn thing.

15. on his father

‘‘I feared him, Even though I know today that what he did, he did out of intense love.’’

Why do you make me beat you? Nice. So child abuse is OK as long as it’s done in the name of love.

16. The Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa, October, 2007

‘‘Get out there and dance. Let’s show the world that conservative Republicans can have as much fun as anybody.’’

Yeah, and nine months later after your little testosterone fits are over, let the poor girl you were dancing with deal with the consequences. In fact, make it a federal law that she has to.

17. last week on “The View” on why he doesn’t support a “hate crimes” bill

“And the point is that you should punish and consequence the violence against another person. Why they did it is of less consequence than the fact they did it. So I don’t care if a person is homosexual, or they’re elderly, or they’re a child — if someone is violent toward them, they should be fully consequenced to the fullest extent of the law. But for their violence, not for their thought. When we start having the government determine what we can think, I think we’re moving in kind of a frightening area.
That’s the only problem I have with a lot of the hate crime legislation. You essentially are asking the government to start regulating what people can think. We have a right to regulate what they do. In fact, we have a responsibility to regulate what they do. But to regulate what they think? I don’t think any of us really want that.”

I’m not an attorney, but aren’t first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter decided at least partially on intent. Isn’t that already something we take into account?

18. an August 10, 1996 story in the New York Times

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas today refused to authorize a Medicaid payment for an abortion for a 15-year-old girl whose stepfather has been charged with incest, despite a Federal judge’s order that such payments were required by Federal law.
Through a spokesman, Mr. Huckabee said his first obligation was to obey the Arkansas State Constitution, rather than Federal law. The State Constitution includes an amendment banning the use of public money for abortion except when a mother’s life is endangered; the Federal statute requires that Medicaid pay for abortions that are performed on poor women in cases of rape or incest or a threat to the mother’s life.

It gets better. I haven’t verified this part of it, but I also read that the 15 year old girl was mentally disabled. So, I can totally see how, according to what would be your argument, that God would want a 15 year old mentally disabled girl who was raped by her stepfather to be forced to deliver that baby. Of course. All part of God’s plan, right? Plus, no one was even asking you to make that call. It was THE LAW and the right thing to do, and you disregarded it for some delusional higher moral purpose. I’m sure God was proud of that one.

19. May 2007, to CBN News

“I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools.”

Right. Our kids have absolutely no business knowing anything about sex or contraception. That’s how informed decisions are made. How are we going to instill fear as the driving call for chastity if they are educated?

20. on gun control in ‘From Hope to Higher Ground’

“There are 700,000 physicians in the US and the number of accidental deaths caused by them per year is 120,000, making the accidental death rate per physician 17%. Using the same logic, there are about 80 million gun owners, and the number of accidental gun deaths per year among all age groups is 1,500. The same calculation reveals the number of accidental deaths per gun owner to be 0.00188%. In other words, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 more times more dangerous than gun owners. Yet, I hear no one suggesting we ban doctors.

I think we should definitely think hard about this one. Banning doctors. I have never heard such a crazy idea… crazy like a fox! (That was a good show.) But it just might work! I mean, if we ban doctors, we could prevent all of those accidental deaths, but more importantly, we could also prevent all of those lives from being saved by them. Think about it. That’s the answer to our nation’s health care crisis. Just stop providing it. All the sick people will die off, there will be no accidental deaths, no high drug prices (because no one could prescribe them), no need to worry about health insurance or who has it. No more worrying about how to provide health care to the nation. Problem solved! It’s genius! Solve the question of providing health care by banning those who provide health care. Plus he didn’t even get a chance to tout all of the ways that gun ownership has benefited society. And I’m sure it has just as much as any doctors have. Plus, we are always looking at the negatives, the “accidental deaths”. He didn’t even mention the number of people killed purposefully with guns. I mean, criminal violence, pissed off people who didn’t have to wait out that pesky waiting period at gun shows, and stolen guns surely account for quite a death toll. Why weren’t they included?

Anyway, my point here is this. Mike Huckabee may be soft-spoken and come across as a nice guy who wants to be your BFF. But just don’t forget that the guy’s a wingnut. He’d like to rewrite the Constitution according to his interpretation of the Bible. He’d like to outlaw abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He equates homosexuality to child molestation and bestiality. He believes horny adolescents should only be taught abstinence and that will work because it is according to God’s plan. He thinks intent behind crimes is irrelevant. He thinks civil rights should be left to the popular vote. He thinks a wife should be subserviant to her husband. And he wants to “take this nation back for Christ.”

The more I hear from the religious right, the more I hope they are right about me not going to heaven if they’re going to be there. Because I sure as hell don’t want to spend an eternity with them! I can hardly stand to listen to them for a few minutes. That would be my hell.


Jon Stewart, you’re my hero!

Tonight on The Daily Show the guest was none other than Bill O’Reilly. Papa Bear himself somehow lowered himself down from the self-proclaimed clouds of self-righteousness to appear on one of the most liberally slanted “propaganda” shows in existence. Are the ratings that bad, Bill? Or should I ask Keith Olbermann. He seems to be the one keeping track of that.

Amidst a crowd of tree hugging liberals, he tried to use what he thinks is charm to keep the hounds from tearing him limb from limb (which I guarantee is what the audience would have preferred to see.) Keyword- “thinks.” Bill O’Reilly’s idea of charm is rather odd. It creates a rather sick feeling in the pit of my stomach and makes me throw up a little in my mouth to watch. I wondered how Jon Stewart would have him on as a guest and have it not turn either into a strange awkward interview lacking any real substance or an all out shouting match.

Mr. Stewart, I underestimated you and for that I apologize. Armed with a teddy bear, hot cocoa, and marshmallows, you offered your interview desk to Papa Bear as a “safe space.” You showed clips of him declaring his fear of the Obama Presidency, placed a handful of marshmallows in his cocoa, told him he was safe there, and asked him to share his fears. Freaking genius, man!

He would have looked like an ass to take his normal tone so he had to play along. He mislabeled the bear as a panda, which was funny. Then when you pointed out that it was not a panda bear, because it was obviously not, he just insisted that it was. A strange little analogy to how he pretty much mislabels everything. Using your best O’Reilly impression, picture this… “It’s a panda! If I say it’s a panda, it’s a panda! Anyone who says it isn’t is a communist. A communist, I tell you!” Ok, so he didn’t say the part about the communist, but you know he was thinking it.

Things did get a little heated when he and Jon began to argue about the ideology of the American majority. O’Reilly said Stewart was “propaganda“, of course, to which Stewart replied, no, he’s just “rational”. That was great. Truly. I clapped. Jon Stewart, admittedly you haven’t gotten a lot of love in my blogs. You’re kind of the good child that’s always overlooked and taken for granted in that respect. Reliable, smart, and always entertaining. A gold star for you, sir. Only you would have thought to tame Papa Bear with hot cocoa and marshmallows. I guess when a chair and whip are off the table, you have to be a little creative.