Oct 22 2007
Dumb All Over: Mike Huckabee
…or yet another Right-wing Idiot Who Will Never Be President. Mike Huckabee, Baptist minister, wingnut extraordinaire. Jump below for the goods…
I try not to pay too much attention to the GOP roster.. it’s continuously a panderfest to the lowest common denominator and all of the ugly things about our nation. But last week, Charity at “She’s Right” posted (and not surprisingly, admired) this YouTube clip of Huckabee from a recent debate:
Now, Charity was lamenting the idea that this is some sort of ‘religious test’, in that Huckabee was asked if he believed in the literal interpretation of Biblical creation. Sorry gal, that is an important question. Now, Huckabee kinda tiptoed around the answer, but anyone who would answer an unequivocal “yes” is most certainly not up to the job of being President. It’s bad enough we have a president that embarrasses us the world over for his many thoughts and actions. To have another president whose beliefs are so detached from reality (such as the creation myth) with a viewpoint that would yet again make us the laughing stock of much of the civilized world, is something we should be moving away from, not towards. We have already seen the perils of a leader who ignores science, whether it be stem cell research, global warming, or a host of other issues. Do we want yet another one?
Nothing screams “anti-science” more than the belief that the Sky Fairy created the world in 6 days, about 6.000 years ago. So it certainly does matter. I want to know how far my president’s head is up his ass. Being a Biblical literalist is usually a solid indicator. And as far as religious tests go, how many righties would vote for an atheist? Huckabee is full of shit when he says ‘we have plenty of choices to vote for if we want someone who doesn’t believe in God’. Really? Who? Did I wake up in some alternate reality where things actually make sense? But it gets worse. Huck’s been the subject lately over at my New Favorite Blog, The Right’s Field. He’s taken the lying to a new level…
During the Republican debate, Mike Huckabee said he believes one of the defining issues facing the country is the sanctity of human life. Arguing that the issue is of historical importance, he invoked the Declaration of Independence’s rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and said that most of the signers of the declaration were clergymen.
Not even close.
Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).
This is part of that whole “America is a Christian nation” zombie lie, and any argument they can use to further that is fair game. In fact, a good portion of the Founders were deists, believing vaguely in a spiritual being on a philosophical level but not identifying with a specific sect, and CERTAINLY not as clergy.
Of course, as we all know, the kinds of people who would be receptive to that kind of statement aren’t exactly up with checking facts and other pleasantries that involve Things That Actually Happened. And speaking of logically challenged, well, Huck somehow manages to tie abortion, illegal immigration and the Holocaust into one tidy package. From Krugman:
“I gather that the press corps really likes Mike Huckabee. This in itself should scare you: in 2000 they really liked George W. Bush, too (and hated Al Gore.) But if that doesn’t scare you, this should:
Speaking before a gathering of Christian conservative voters, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said legalized abortion in the United States was a holocaust.
Sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our workforce,” the former Arkansas governor said. “It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973.”Aside from the equivalence between abortion and Nazi death camps, the idea that Roe v. Wade is responsible for immigration - the mind boggles.
Boggling, indeed.
Now I will say that Huckabee deserves some credit for actually talking about poverty. Unlike most in the GOP, he probably doesn’t step on the homeless, he steps over them. But that’s not enough to undo the holy B.S. that comes spewing forth every time he opens his mouth. Hey, at least washed-up action star and wingnut WorldNut Daily columnist Chuck Norris thinks Huck is the real deal. Huck very might well draw the diehard fundie votes away from Giuliani, but it’s not really going to matter. Most of them wil be crapping their pants at the idea of Hillary in the White House, so you know they’ll fall in line with the GOP when it comes down to it. Problem is (for them), when that happens, it’s going to show how they matter less and less as time goes on and society continues to be more liberal, and they take on the ‘crazy uncle’ role of the GOP.
Posts
Gee, doesn’t Jimmy Carter believe in creation? I think he was underrated as a President but as an ex-President he has been a force for good in the world, pounding nails for Habitat and observing elections.
Point taken… but if you remember, Jimmy Carter never once tried to exert any sort of fundamentalist/anti-science/intolerant policies as I am certain Huckabee would. Carter would get zero support from the religious right were he a candidate today exactly for that reason.
Here’s an illustration of what those nuts think about Carter from today’s Times Magazine:
The Rev. Rick Scarborough — founder of the advocacy organization Vision America, author of a book called “Liberalism Kills Kids” and at 57 an aspiring successor to Falwell or Dobson — has been barnstorming the country on what he calls a “Seventy Weeks to Save America Tour.”
“We are somewhat in disarray right now,” he told me, beginning a familiar story. “As a 26-year-old man, I heard there was a born-again Christian from Georgia running for president.” Millions of evangelicals turned out for the first time in 1976 to vote for Jimmy Carter. But then, the story goes, his support for feminism and abortion rights sent them running the other way.
“The first time I voted was for Carter,” Scarborough recalled. “The second time was for ‘anybody but Carter,’ because he had betrayed everything I hold dear.
I don’t know what Carter’s views are of creationism, but since he is a trained nuclear engineer I think it’s unlikely that some imaginary being made all of this six thousand years ago. (I suspect he has a better understanding of carbon dating, the half lives of radioactive materials, and other facts to fall for young earth creationism.
I also think it’s pretty hard to judge Carter’s presidency too harshly. He instituted the death penalty for pot smokers (remember paraquat?), precipitated the takeover of our embassy in Iran by inviting Pahlavi here, and continued the rightward trend in Presidential politics initiated by Nixon and continued through Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. A way better ex-President than President.
I kind of figured the same thing about Carter…born-again or not, he always seemed too smart to me to be a literal creationist type.
okay guys, nice intellectual stuff, but he teaches Sunday school in a southern town and I doubt he is saying in class that the creation story is just a metaphor for the big bang and primordial soup and so forth, or the good people of Plains would ask him to please cut it out.
Sometime scientists have a lot of faith even when it doesn’t jive with what they have learned. Sometimes people of faith respect science even when it conflicts with their faith. I don’t think it is as black and white as you both do. Also speaking of southern Presidents how do you think Bill Clinton answers the creation question? Well from page 235 of his book My Life he says (when speaking about death) “The only solace, of course, is to believe that since we are created, there must be a Creator, one to whom we matter and will in some way return.” Does this one sentence translate into believing literally the passages of the bible? I have no idea but am merely pointing out that people’s positions on creation are pretty nuanced not binary. A physicist can see a vision of Mary and a Minister can explore the wonders of string theory. Perhaps it is not mutually exclusive.
No, he probably isn’t saying that, but he’s probably not going into his highly detailed personal views, either. And no, Clinton’s quote doesn’t translate into a literal belief in the Bible. He’s too smart for that. Most reasonable religious people tend not to be literalists, to begin with. There is metaphor, I’m well aware it’s not all black and white.
But we’re not talking about Clinton or Carter; we’re talking about Huckabee, and if you look at his many other views on things, it’s not a stretch to suppose he’s more than likely a literal creationist. He probably didn’t say so in the debate because it would have made him look blatantly foolish when saying he really thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
I’ve noticed you really like to get in the last word JD. You were talking about Huckabee. I was merely pointing out that although he is a good target, there are likely a few democrats today and in the past that would have answered the question exactly the same way that Huckabee did. And I suspect that there are a few democrats in high places today and in the past who have a finely tuned belief system that might include the creation story in some cases quite literally and in some metaphorically. There is a wide diversity of opinions out there on this matter. It’s not black and white. That’s all I am looking for you to concede.
In my last response….”There is metaphor, I’m well aware it’s not all black and white.”
Granted, I don’t feel comfortable with any Biblical literalist in the Oval Office (or in any position of power, for that matter). I would never knowingly vote for one.
Sounds like a concession to me
It’s kind of hard to ‘concede’ when I never stated there were no nuanced positions to begin with. You ‘d be hard pressed to find much in the way of dualistic thinking around here.
I knew you would try to get the last word in. It’s your M.O.
My MO? It’s my fucking blog. If you wanna be petty to try to prove some nonexistent point (like ‘conceding’ a claim that I had made from the start), don’t waste my time. Wanna debate? I’m here.