Crazy Like Mike
Mike Huckabee rose to prominence seemingly out of nowhere, skyrocketing up the polls, capturing Iowa, and emerging as the presumptive frontrunner, all the while becoming a media darling — remember that Frank Rich called him the Obama of the GOP — but, as his star fades, as the phenomenon withers, as his candidacy collapses, the man is getting more and more extreme, more and more disgusting. Or, perhaps, the real Huckabee is coming out, the real Huckabee who worked to parole a convicted rapist while governor of Arkansas, the Christianist Huckabee, ignorant and stupid, the bigot, the fool.
It is desperation, perhaps, that is bringing out the real Huckabee. He may have won Iowa, but he is, in this race, a loser, and what he is doing, I think, is trying to attract the hardcore Christianist vote, more broadly the social conservative vote. Thompson and Romney have secured much of that vote, but Huckabee’s only chance of turning around his failing campaign — and it is slim, to say the least — is to out-crazy them. (And to out-good-ol’-boy them: He seems to have a certain George Allen-like fondness for the Confederate flag, even saying this: “[I]f somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole, that’s what we’d do.” Charming. And rather un-presidential, no?)
The other day, as many of you surely know by now, Huckabee declared that the Constitution should be amended “according to God’s standards,” that is, that America should be a Christianist country with Christianist laws governed by a Christianist man (and it must be a man), that is, a country governed by him and the laws of his god as he understands and enforces them. (Note: This is Christianist, not Christian. Christianism is the right-wing political ideology espoused by fanatics like Huckabee. See the excellent Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg.)
But what would it mean to bring the Constitution, and the country, into line with “God’s standards” (as Huckabee defines them)?
In an interview with a religious website, as reported by TPM’s Greg Sargent, Huckabee shed some light on this, as well as on some of his core beliefs (and political opinions):
QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
HUCKABEE: 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.
Yes, that’s right. Huckabee, channeling Rick Santorum, connected homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. His view, like Santorum’s, and a common one among not just among Christianists but on the right generally, is that allowing gay marriage would be the thin end of the wedge. After that, there’s just no stopping anything and everything from being admitted into the definition of marriage — and from being sanctioned generally. Broaden the definition of marriage to include gay couples and, before long, you’ll have marital (and sexual) anarchy.
Have I mentioned that Huckabee is ignorant and stupid, a bigot and a fool?
No wonder so many Christianists love him, failing campaign or not.
**********
I suggested yesterday that a possible, and potentially quite formidable, GOP ticket is Romney-Huckabee (or perhaps McCain-Huckabee). Now I’m not so sure. Huckabee, who may be too crazy for the veep spot anyway, seems to be crazying himself out of consideration.
**********
Some of the saner conservatives out there aren’t at all amused:
Andrew Sullivan: “I think of Huckabee as almost a comic vindication for those of us who have worried about the rise and rise of unopposed Christianism in the GOP. Except he’s not a joke. He could actually win this thing.” I don’t think he can, but Andrew’s point is well-taken. And, obviously, Andrew is liberal on this issue.
Stephen Bainbridge: “Mike Huckabee joins Mitt Romney on my personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain).” Huckabee is basically a Christian Reconstructionist (see Goldberg’s book), “which is pretty damn scary”.
Eugene Volokh: “Huckabee seems to be deliberately trying to make an appeal to supposedly universal (at least nearly universal) traditions that go beyond just rejection of same-sex marriage. And that appeal is just factually unfounded, as his own religious histories and his own profession (as minister) should teach him.” Eugene does not comment on Huckabee’s “moral claims,” which are simply appalling.
(Michelle Malkin, who isn’t nearly as sane, just hates him for his (relatively sane) positions on immigration.)
**********
For more on Huckabee’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage, see Steve Benen, RadicalRuss, John Aravosis, Will Bunch, and Kyle Moore.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
Share This
Related Posts
-
North Carolina Lays Groundwork To Establish State Religion
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
-
Sunday Sermon: Cornel West
Posted on Mar 31, 2013
-
A Senator’s Heart-Searching Discovery – and a Change of Heart
Posted on Mar 15, 2013
-
Woman Accused of NYC Subway Hate Crime Murder
Posted on Dec 30, 2012
If Huckabee is fond of the Confederate flag, ala George Allen, he should follow Allen— into oblivion.
McCain, to his everlasting credit ,regrets pandering in 2000 on this issue. He seems to be the only candidate on the GOP side with a sense of decency–someone who won't just say what the audience wants to hear.
Kritt: I used to like McCain, but if Huck is crazy for his homo beliefs, what the hell can you call Big Mac save pSYCHOTIC for his beliefs on the disastrous Iraq War?
One of the saner posts re: the success of The Surge:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174882
Sorry, McCain has shown he's just a shill, too. And a vampiric one.
At least he wants to amend the Constitution, i.e., change it in the correct manner, rather than trying to find a judge to create law out of thin air in its place. That makes him and people like morally as well as legally superior to those who commonly seek the alternative.
The Religious Right is over-hyped; most Americans don't want what they want, and there's no need for the many enemies of them (at various levels of degeneracy) to engage in extremism in reaction to them.
McCain: “maverick” = self-centered attention-seeking; don't forget Keating.
Don't overreact (or react wrongly) to McCain or Lieberman vs. Iraq or Iran.
Just because my cat sleeps in my bed doesn't mean I have sex with him!
“someone who won't just say what the audience wants to hear”
That could be even more said about Obama.
McCain is not a great choice- just better than the rest of what is out there. McCain appears willing to take an unpopular stand and has crossed the aisle to work with the other side.
I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee, in any case, even though I think their candidates are also flawed. This long campaign season has just emphasized that no one person is ideally prepared to deal with our problems. Seven years of division has left us weakened and angry at each other.
DLS- Do you think the other nominees are not self-aggrandizing attention-seekers? Romney with his huge entourage? Giuliani, who is tooting his own horn about 9/11 and who fired his first police commissioner because he received too much credit for reducing NYC's crime wave? Huckabee, the “Christian” candidate? Only an attention-seeking egotist would seek the office in the first place.
I think Huck is in over his head, though it has nothing or nearly nothing to do with his Religious Right (not Christian Identity, much less Dominionist) nature, and is likely to be put in the VP post to attract the votes of the Religious Right. As we can see here, even ordinary members of that contingent are the object of PC and far-left hatred, truly demonized. (There's a huge amount of mirror talk in Stickings's start of this thread.)
cosmo- Well, I disagree with McCain on Iraq, but I think HE believes we need to be there. I don't understand why none of the nominees are talking about the 15 billion we are spending there, while the Iraq government gets their act together.
“Do you think the other nominees are not self-aggrandizing attention-seekers?”
Of course the others are. But McCain is notoriously so, doing it by intentionally defying his party or his so-called “conservatism.”
'At least he wants to amend the Constitution, i.e., change it in the correct manner, rather than trying to find a judge to create law out of thin air in its place. That makes him and people like morally as well as legally superior to those who commonly seek the alternative.'
The Constitution was left vague precisely so that later generations could interpret it more easily. This was the greatest thing about the document. In that way, it is the strict constructionists who simply do not fundamentally understand the Constitution, nor the Founders' intent for it. Those who have applied the most liberal application of the words are the most closely connected to the spirit of the entity.
'At least he wants to amend the Constitution, i.e., change it in the correct manner, rather than trying to find a judge to create law out of thin air in its place. That makes him and people like morally as well as legally superior to those who commonly seek the alternative.'
The Constitution was left vague precisely so that later generations could interpret it more easily. This was the greatest thing about the document. In that way, it is the strict constructionists who simply do not fundamentally understand the Constitution, nor the Founders' intent for it. Those who have applied the most liberal application of the words are the most closely connected to the spirit of the entity.
Kritt: 'Well, I disagree with McCain on Iraq, but I think HE believes we need to be there.'
Which is exactly why he suffers from clinical psychosis.
Kritt: 'Well, I disagree with McCain on Iraq, but I think HE believes we need to be there.'
Which is exactly why he suffers from clinical psychosis.
DLS- But didn't Lieberman do the exact same thing to his party? Yet, a lot of Conservatives admire him.
DLS- But didn't Lieberman do the exact same thing to his party? Yet, a lot of Conservatives admire him.
“The Constitution was left vague precisely so that later generations could interpret it more easily.”
Not to have it mean nothing like it was ever intended to mean, or even the opposite of what it obviously means. Clarification is one thing, extending the meaning of something to apply to what was never foreseen by those who wrote the law is one thing, illegitimate activism to try to get judges to substitute their views and desires (and those of activists who seek the judges' decisions, who often cannot win elections and will not see their goals legislated in the correct way) is something else completely. Nobody can legitimately say that a judge has the right to say that “red” now means green. Nobody has the right to lie in the face of those who made their intentions plainly clear. They deserve to have their relatives' “living, breathing” [sic] wills creatively “re-interpreted” to their loss.
Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.
“The Constitution was left vague precisely so that later generations could interpret it more easily.”
Not to have it mean nothing like it was ever intended to mean, or even the opposite of what it obviously means. Clarification is one thing, extending the meaning of something to apply to what was never foreseen by those who wrote the law is one thing, illegitimate activism to try to get judges to substitute their views and desires (and those of activists who seek the judges' decisions, who often cannot win elections and will not see their goals legislated in the correct way) is something else completely. Nobody can legitimately say that a judge has the right to say that “red” now means green. Nobody has the right to lie in the face of those who made their intentions plainly clear. They deserve to have their relatives' “living, breathing” [sic] wills creatively “re-interpreted” to their loss.
Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.
“But didn't Lieberman do the exact same thing to his party? Yet, a lot of Conservatives admire him.”
And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.
“But didn't Lieberman do the exact same thing to his party? Yet, a lot of Conservatives admire him.”
And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.
Meanwhile, McCain and Huckabee are being attacked from farther right.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/697/conservative-ta…
Meanwhile, McCain and Huckabee are being attacked from farther right.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/697/conservative-ta…
DLS: 'Not to have it mean nothing like it was ever intended to mean, or even the opposite of what it obviously means. Clarification is one thing, extending the meaning of something to apply to what was never foreseen by those who wrote the law is one thing, illegitimate activism to try to get judges to substitute their views and desires (and those of activists who seek the judges' decisions, who often cannot win elections and will not see their goals legislated in the correct way) is something else completely. Nobody can legitimately say that a judge has the right to say that “red” now means green. Nobody has the right to lie in the face of those who made their intentions plainly clear. They deserve to have their relatives' “living, breathing” [sic] wills creatively “re-interpreted” to their loss.'
***No judge has ever hit an opposite meaning. Cas ein point, the 2md Amendment is clear as ever, for its wording is clear.
But, when the slaves were freed, as example, this gave humans sovereignty over their lives and forms. A logical extension is the right of a woman over her body- and no, a fetus is not an independent human being. Thus Roe was a logical extension of the extension of rights to all members of society. So is euthanasia. Living wills just clarify what is manifestly the decision of one- when or when not to end their existences.
'Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.'
The psychosis is to stay and expect a difference from doing the same thing. Leave, asap. It's the only sane option, one that Vietnam shd have branded into the American ass.
DLS: 'Not to have it mean nothing like it was ever intended to mean, or even the opposite of what it obviously means. Clarification is one thing, extending the meaning of something to apply to what was never foreseen by those who wrote the law is one thing, illegitimate activism to try to get judges to substitute their views and desires (and those of activists who seek the judges' decisions, who often cannot win elections and will not see their goals legislated in the correct way) is something else completely. Nobody can legitimately say that a judge has the right to say that “red” now means green. Nobody has the right to lie in the face of those who made their intentions plainly clear. They deserve to have their relatives' “living, breathing” [sic] wills creatively “re-interpreted” to their loss.'
***No judge has ever hit an opposite meaning. Cas ein point, the 2md Amendment is clear as ever, for its wording is clear.
But, when the slaves were freed, as example, this gave humans sovereignty over their lives and forms. A logical extension is the right of a woman over her body- and no, a fetus is not an independent human being. Thus Roe was a logical extension of the extension of rights to all members of society. So is euthanasia. Living wills just clarify what is manifestly the decision of one- when or when not to end their existences.
'Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.'
The psychosis is to stay and expect a difference from doing the same thing. Leave, asap. It's the only sane option, one that Vietnam shd have branded into the American ass.
DLS- But you admire Lieberman for having the guts to break away from the party line, yet condemn McCain for being a Maverick?
BTW, its Lieberman's stance on the war that would cause me to vote against him, if I were a Connecticut voter. I agree with Cosmo- its pretty much insanity and an expensive insanity. How long can we afford to spend 15 billion a month in Iraq?
DLS- But you admire Lieberman for having the guts to break away from the party line, yet condemn McCain for being a Maverick?
BTW, its Lieberman's stance on the war that would cause me to vote against him, if I were a Connecticut voter. I agree with Cosmo- its pretty much insanity and an expensive insanity. How long can we afford to spend 15 billion a month in Iraq?
krit:
If I may interpret this from DLS:
<quote>And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.</quote>
Republicans see Lieberman agreeing with them and defying his party as “turning back from the Dark Side”, so to speak, since he was (and some things may still be) a Democrat. When a Republican dares to disagree with his own kind & defy them, he's a traitor. In other words, “It's OK If You Agree With Me” (IOKIYAWM).
krit:
If I may interpret this from DLS:
<quote>And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.</quote>
Republicans see Lieberman agreeing with them and defying his party as “turning back from the Dark Side”, so to speak, since he was (and some things may still be) a Democrat. When a Republican dares to disagree with his own kind & defy them, he's a traitor. In other words, “It's OK If You Agree With Me” (IOKIYAWM).
Anna- Exactly!
Anna- Exactly!