The evangelical case against Huckabee
posted at 3:38 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, not the case. A case, made by Slublog on this gray day in which the GOP contemplates doing battle next November against a tax-and-spend nanny stater with … a tax-and-spend nanny stater. I’ve included the clip below from September where he talked about banning smoking in workplaces nationwide. Slu wonders in passing if he’ll be proposing a constitutional amendment to get that done. I doubt it; expect him to wield the Commerce Clause like a mighty hammer.
I leave you with this, transcribed by a lefty source and therefore worthy of healthy skepticism but alarming insofar as … it does sound like him, doesn’t it? Remember when Brownback, quoting Mother Teresa, declared, “All for Jesus”? Huck’s a little more specific:
As Arkansas governor, Huckabee added, “I had to come to the conclusion that I only had one client… when I laid my head on the pillow, I’d say, ‘Lord, are you pleased?’ … even if I get voted out of office, I’ll never get voted out of heaven.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It’s about time someone brought God into this campaign season.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Another pathological effort, designed for the denigration of Christians. Gather round, all … take your best shots at Huckabee; but, more importantly, take your best shots at each other – if you’re Christians, that is.
That’s your real intent. Right?
Oh, god, thyself.
Oh, and remember, there will be more anti-Christian fun tomorrow. Rest assured.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 28, 2007 at 3:46 PM
This is the last thread of mine that you attempt to hijack with your incessant shrieking about denigrating Christians. I just linked approvingly to a guy who is himself a proud evangelical Christian.
Next time you interrupt one of these threads, you’re banned. If you don’t like the posts, don’t read them.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Americans by and large want their presidents to be religious/Christian, but they do not another religious zealot in the white house. If Huckabee doesn’t figure this out he is going to preach himself right out of the running.
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 3:48 PM
It’s just too bad that Fred! didn’t jump on this wagon first.
heatherrc77 on November 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Another religious zealot?
Who was the first?
terryannonline on November 28, 2007 at 3:54 PM
So did Huckocchio give God 10% of all the hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of
bribesgifts that he got whileGobernadorGovernor of Arkansas?MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Jorge “ROP” Arbusto.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 3:55 PM
So who am I supposed to vote for?
No. Seriously. After reading this blog for the last few weeks, I’m basically feeling turned off about just about everybody.
Slublog’s post effectively soured me on Huckabee. Fred’s in a narcoleptic coma somewhere being nursed by his hideous yet hawt wife, Rudy is probably marching in a gay pride parade, Mitt is in his basement performing some ancient, arcane Mormon ritual (or working on that awesome hair-do), McCain is – ironically – just about missing in action at this point, Newt is off on his latest book tour (or in the green room at Fox News), Arnold is Austrian and a Kennedy, and Ben Stein still hasn’t gotten the red out.
So who do I vote for? I can’t even trust Chuck Norris to explain it to me anymore.
How about a series of positive posts highlighting the positive aspects of each candidate? Maybe that’d help.
Are Democrat primary voters feeling the same way? Am I the only conservative feeling like this?
Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I said quite a few times if Fred had bothered to show up to the Values Voter debate, like he said he would, he’d be the one getting the “inexplicable” surge right now.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 3:56 PM
If there is a rock ‘n roll heaven, I bet they have one hell of a band.
Heaven ain’t a democracy.
Hening on November 28, 2007 at 3:56 PM
“If 10% is good enough for Jesus, then it aught to be enough for Uncle Sam”
I dont know who sang it, but it sure works for me!
mrfixit on November 28, 2007 at 3:57 PM
That could be true, but he still has my vote.
heatherrc77 on November 28, 2007 at 3:59 PM
This has been my point in fighting the Huckabee bashing this whole time. Picking apart Huckabee’s record like Slublog did effectively eliminates EVERY candidate. Not one of them has a perfect record and all of them have flipped on major issues, with the possible exception of Rudy who has just consistently stayed on the wrong side of them.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 3:59 PM
The last person standing who isn’t Hillary.
Sorry, but that’s the best I’ve got.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yeah, pretty much. The only truly bad candidate among the big five, I think, is Huckabee. The others are all fiscally conservative and, except for Rudy, reasonably socially conservative.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 4:02 PM
A) Many are, yes. B) No.
Basically, we’re picking the best of the worst. I’ll end up voting for whoever has the fewest negatives in the primary. Then, I’ll vote for just about any Republican before the Democrat nominee.
Fun, as usual.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM
You know who I’d like to vote for? The guy who does Fred!’s radio commentaries. But he doesn’t seem to be running.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM
“Huckabee bashing?” Is that all you took from the post? Sheesh.
I’m not seeking perfection on every issue, but what I thought my post made clear was that Huckabee’s philosophy on government power is the problem, not his particular views on social issues.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Exactly. If Fred! doesn’t win the Primary, whatever Republican did is getting my vote. “Anyone but Hillary” (or any Democrap for that matter).
heatherrc77 on November 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM
It was watched by what- 9 people? It got very little buzz outside of World Net Daily; there’s no reason to believe that it had much of any impact.
My take? This election is 75% about style, 25% about substance. I see little other way to explain it.
Hollowpoint on November 28, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Which candidate are you for then and why? I am willing to bet I could make a similar post about that person.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Yes, you can count me in on that as well.
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 4:07 PM
It got a lot of attention in churches. Why do you think he has 48% of the evangelical vote? His win at the Values Voter debate was substantial. The Focus on the Family crew, AFA, Arlington Group, etc have all been quietly pointing toward those results for direction.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 4:09 PM
My vote is safe there. I know who to vote for next November (or more precisely, who not to vote for). After years as a Democrat, then a mixed-ticket sort of voter … in 2004, it was straight ticket Republican. It will be for the foreseeable future. So I guess it doesn’t matter much (to me) who wins the nomination, as long as they win they win the general.
The truth is that (even though I may make fun of some of you), I’m kind of jealous of the Fred-heads and Mitts-mutts and Huck’s-hicks. (If that last catches on, I want royalties).
I just want to be excited about somebody. Every time I think I might be … it fades.
And I didn’t see Slublog’s post as Huckabee bashing … just pointing out a couple key factors. And a nationwide smoking ban – because of the philosophy it represents – sort of seals the deal for me.
I like Huckabee. A lot. But I can’t be much excited about him.
Weird as it may sound now, I was really thrilled to be a Dubya supporter in 2004. My first ever yard sign. I’m still proud of that vote, despite immigration, Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports … etc etc etc.
I just want that feeling back. I wanna care a little more.
At the moment, the more I learn, the less I care.
Somebody get me excited about their guy. Please.
Or give me a new guy. Or girl.
Is Michelle old enough to run?
Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 4:09 PM
I think that I could support any Republican candidate, with varying levels of enthusiasm, over HildaBeast™, except Rudycapo and Huckocchio.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Actually, you probably couldn’t. I do not believe any of the other candidates have such a distorted view of the role of the federal government. Huckabee is easily the worst of the candidates in that regard.
And honestly? Haven’t picked yet.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 4:10 PM
You mean unlike Rudy’s gun grabbing dictatorial authority or Romney’s health care for everyone? Fred and McCain are the two without major flaws on roles of federal governments yet they come with plenty of their own baggage.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Interesting. I go to an Evangelical chruch now but I don’t really claim to speak from any evangelical perspective. Bryan, however, is Southern Baptist–and one who is sometimes critical of church influences like Rick Warren. I’d like to see him update on this post and hear what he has to say about his fellow SB, Huck.
see-dubya on November 28, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Nice job Slublog. A welfare state in the name of Jesus is just as Godless as one in the name of Ted Kennedy.
Valiant on November 28, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Good writeup, slublog.
I’m not exactly the guy to go to on matters of theology, but it seems that Huck needs to brush up on that little “render unto Caesar” thing.
thirteen28 on November 28, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Yes, I agree completely..
Yep.
Disagree. Huck is a born-again Harry Reid, as I posted elswhere. Those of you who support him, just admit that you are NOT conservative, your just Christian. Might as well vote for the Archbishop of Dingleberry (see here: http://sixmeatbuffet.com/archives/2007/11/25/the-archbishop-of-dingleberry/ )
peski on November 28, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Giuliani, for all of his faults, has not proposed changing the constitution to come in line with his personal views on the second amendment. Huckabee has. That’s the difference.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 4:16 PM
I don’t agree with Huck as a nanny stater, but here’s the question. How DO you deal with addicting items? Let’s look at drugs–cocaine, for instance. Lots say that the war on drugs has failed, we should legalize it, etc.
I have a hard time legalizing something that will kill you, and indeed will most likely kill you, and provides no other mitigating benefit (which puts the dangers of automobiles out of the question, though some things to make them safer as well would be nice). Cocaine is pure evil. Same with tobacco, honestly–it’s addicting and will kill you. It provides very little health benefits, and none of those are found in cigarettes.
The problem with all of these is that they take away someone’s right to choose. Once I’m addicted to cocaine, how do I stop? How many people struggle with tobacco addictions, things they want to stop doing? Outlawing these things with an effective policy to make them less desireable will prevent some people from getting addicted to them: witness the difference in the number of people addicted to porn in the 50’s when it was mostly illegal, versus now.
Making it illegal makes people criminals, though, who are trying to stop. And that’s forcing your morality on someone else.
So, I guess my question is: once you recognize the need to reduce cigarettes, drug use, or other addictions: what should be done to stop them? Just letting people with ulterior motives to seduce naive persons into trying something and then becoming addicted is abhorrent. Church’s only cannot be the solution, I think. What ideas should we use to address addictions?
Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I feel guilty now. Listen, I hope people aren’t getting all their news and commentary from us. I’m sure there’s stuff to be found at Red State about some of the candidates’ more positive attributes. I just figured we’re all aware of the good points by now and we are, after all, in a season of mudslinging ahead of the primaries. It stands to reason the coverage will be more negative.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I should clarify – Huckabee has proposed such changes based on his own personal views.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I’ll vote for a man of God above all; if that’s what Huck is. I’ll watch as it unfolds.
apostle53 on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Slublog,
The only candidates who said they do not support those amendments are Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. Rudy and Romney have dodged the questions whenever I’ve seen them asked.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Actually, I believe Romney has come out in favor of the FMA. I might be wrong on that, though.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 4:27 PM
It’s not just HotAir. It’s everywhere.
It may frankly just be me. This may be the way it is every primary cycle. I have noticed that the Democrats don’t seem very happy with each other at the moment, either.
It’s obviously been at least 8 years since I was actually paying attention at this point. Maybe this is just par for the course.
But obviously it would behoove me and those who feel similarly to go do our own research and get our own damn selves excited. I guess.
Slublog’s post just hit me pretty hard. I can forgive a lot in a candidate. But that sort of view of the power of the federal government? It’s pretty much the opposite of what I believe in.
Does Chuck Norris know about this?
Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Depressing.
peski on November 28, 2007 at 4:29 PM
There, fixed it for you.
It’s sad to say, but there is a lot of truth to it. That’s one reason why Fred is lagging in the campaign. He’s got the most well thought-out policy positions right now, but at the moment anyway, he looks like a guy that would have trouble selling a bag of marijuana at a Grateful Dead concert.
Money counts too, of course.
Rudy and Mitt both have significant disadvantages with various wings of the conservative movement, but they have done a much better job in selling their campaigns, which is one reason why they have been at or near the top of the polls.
thirteen28 on November 28, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I’ll vote for Hillary before Huckabee.
Lehosh on November 28, 2007 at 4:30 PM
*GASP!* The horror!!
heatherrc77 on November 28, 2007 at 4:31 PM
“It’s about time someone brought God into this campaign season.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 3:40 PM”
.
Amen, brother! A country FOUNDED on Christian principles, has certainly lost it’s way without them.
.
I appreciate the Sublog’s thoughts on keeping federalism and fiscal restraint as important elements of a Christian candidate, but in my opinion, smoking is a sin (just another “pharmakeia”, legal or not) and is CERTAINLY a carcinogen and a real pain in the ass to those of us who have to breath the crap of the morons who do it.
.
As far as taxes, Arkansas had UNBELIEVABLY bad roads when Huckabee raised taxes, and since tourism plays such an important part of the states economy, having bad roads is like going to Disneyland, but having half the rides shutdown.
.
You need to spend money to make money. (let alone, the misery of the Arkansas residents trying to miss the foot-deep potholes every day.
.
But all this jibber-jabber about raising/lowering taxes and nanny state blah blah blah………DOESN’T MEAN SQUAT when compared to a candidates REAL CHARACTER qualities, which seem to shine through when Huckabee speaks. By contrast, look at Shrillary’s complete LACK of anything resembling morals.
.
WE MUST have a candidate with real principles to weather the storm for the NEXT FULL YEAR, and as much as I like Rudy, look at trouble he’s in today. He has no morals or principles, but he’s tough on terrorism. That’s not good enough. I just keep thinking of him dressed in drag. lol. And I WOULD vote for him, if he were the GOP candidate. I’m not against ANY of the GOP except for kook paul. (and maybe McCain)
.
To my eye, no one even comes close to Huckabee in the kind of man (person) that I want to elect to lead the free world!
.
It’s going to be a tough 12 months coming up. We’d better have a candidate with morals, character, wisdom and honor.
Believe me, it’s all going to come out before the end.
.
And when the 10 Commandments GO BACK UP, and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, you’re going to see the old America again!
.
What a joy that would be, eh!
.
Keith_Z on November 28, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I agree with many of Hucks social positions (immigration a notable exception) but am not so sure about his fiscal ones. Given a choice between a fiscally irresponsible candidate and a morally deprived one, I’d have to go with values.
Lets face it, morality is legislated. Laws regulate our conduct based on someone’s moral code. Since this is the case, and especially since morality is more often than not legislated from the bench, isn’t it better to have someone who will appoint judges who share your values?
My preference would be to have truly impartial judges who do not legislate, but that just is not the way it is.
We are raising our kids in a moral vacuum of relativism and PC. I can always raise my child to be successful financially, but I find it harder to defend her from institutions that insist it is their duty to vaccinate a 9 year old for STDs, give her “sex education”, hand her a condom and secretly take her for an abortion a couple years later.
The bottom line is that morality IS important when selecting a candidate. Come 2008, I will do my best to find a moral canidate who is fiscally sound. But given the choice, I will go with the morals.
jman on November 28, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Whatever it is, you don’t use the government to stop them. You accept that the world is an imperfect place and that this is one of the costs in living in a free society.
Unless you want to be like Saudi Arabia, et al. I’m sure addiction to nicotine, cocaine, etc. occurs much less frequently over there …
thirteen28 on November 28, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Sounds like Jimmah Carter is your man.
peski on November 28, 2007 at 4:34 PM
From the view of the primary as a horse race, Hot Air has been fascinating. As Huck has finally gained momentum in the polls, he has been exposed here as basically unacceptable. I suppose I would support him in the general election because the things he is bad at, the Democrats are worse at.
But this crowd has little use for him, me included.
Jaibones on November 28, 2007 at 4:39 PM
My theological views come close to being defined as “Reformed Baptist.”
But I am definitely no fan of Mike Huckabee.
His rejection of the Reformed principle of “2 Kingdom View” opens the door wide open for Huckabee’s liberal views on economics, government spending, and illegal immigration.
I hope he does not win the GOP nomination.
ColtsFan on November 28, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I think a lot of the problem is the absolute frustration with Fred. I know I for one am VERY disappointed in his campaign. I’ve told one of his staffers that directly too. Many of us had hoped he would turn out to be the true conservative leader we’d been looking for and what we got was validation on the laziness criticism. “I think I have some good ideas and with your help I might like to implement some of them.” Just doesn’t make for a good campaign. As I see it the debate tonight is pretty make or break with him. If we get more of the ho hum Fred then he might as well pack it up.
Huckabee is pretty much a well spoken W. There’s not much difference in their attitude on government or philosophy as far as I can tell with the exception that Huckabee seems to have come around on the immigration issue.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 4:42 PM
No guilt allowed, Allah. You’re just doing your job. But if you feel the need for atonement you could always do a post all about DUNCAN HUNTER! :D
NTWR on November 28, 2007 at 4:43 PM
The moment you posted that Jesus started weeping again. When asked which was the greatest commandment did not quote the law, because he above all others knew that the law cannot save anyone. Instead he told everyone exactly how to fulfill the law, and it was through an act of personal choice.
He knew that only by giving choices could anyone be saved, you cannot legislate morality, you cannot save lives with laws, you can only breed resentment and rebellion. Is this to say that all laws are inherently bad? God forbid no, some laws are in fact necessary, but they do not exist to save lives, they exist to punish those that refuse to do what is right and choose to do what is evil.
The last thing the United States of America needs is an individual in the Whitehouse that believes they can legislate morality without destroying the democratic principals this great republic was founded on.
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Huckabee supporters seem to be putting faith over substance in his case. I’m glad he’s got a stranglehold on Jesus, but no way will I vote for anyone who doesn’t appear to value basic Freedom.
I am holding on for Fred. His policies are straight from my wish list, and he’s the most reliably conservative one of the bunch. No, he’s not the second coming of Reagan as the great communicator. But he’s not bad, either, and I’m not voting for the president who makes the most entertaining TV.
TexasDan on November 28, 2007 at 4:47 PM
It seems that every time there is critisism of Fred it’s about his capaignin’ STYLE not his substance. Well- I thought he won the last debate, and I been hearin’ him on talkradio and he does a good job.
What would you like him to do that he ain’t doin?
He doesn’t have Mitt’s personal fortune so he can’t just buy folks. He doesn’t have the MSM backin’ that Rudy does. Shoot even Chris Matthews was LAMENTIN’ the favorable press that Huckabee is gittin’ from the libs lately.
WHAT WOULD YA HAVE FRED DO? It’s my humble opinion that the MSM is scared shi*less’a Fred. I believe they think he’s the only one that can really BEAT the democrats. Go back and read what ya’ll have said about Fred- He’s GOT THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PLAN.
By GOD- just back your favorite choice and polls be da*ned!
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Peski! Thats it! You have nailed it. The closest possible political equivalent to Mike Huckabee IS Jimmy Carter! You absolutely freeking nailed it!
What a knockout punch of a line that would be in the upcoming debate. Make a comment about how when Mike Huckabee wakes up in the morning and looks at himself in the mirror the reflected image is Jimmy Carter politically reborn.
Zetterson on November 28, 2007 at 4:49 PM
10 commandments (actually 11 depending on what sect of Christianity you prefer):
Thou shalt have no other gods before me – Your religion over mine, no moral guidance
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol – Your religion over mine, no moral guidance
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God – Your religion over mine, no moral guidance
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy – Your religion over mine, no moral guidance
Honor thy Father and Mother – Finally, moral guidance! But freaking obvious.
Thou shalt not murder – ditto
Thou shalt not commit adultery – more of the same
Thou shalt not steal – ok
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor – yes, that’s clear
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house – fair enough
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife – I get the idea
This is the moral foundation of the wester world? Whatever.
Roe v. Wade – I’m with you, but this is just one small issue among many, and clearly NOT the most important issue when selecting a President (can you say nuclear war)?
And exactly what “old America” is that? When was the golden age?
peski on November 28, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Professor, politicians are not a good thing. They deserve the reputation they have. You just have to know what you’re looking for, examine each candidate with a critical eye, and hope your judgement is good.
jaime on November 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM
.
What kind of “moral relativistic” baloney is this????
.
What do you think a STOP SIGN does? IT SAVES LIVES.
.
And where, pray tell, did I say to legislate morality???
.
Are you saying that the 10 commandments being taken out of our society was A GOOD THING???
.
Jesus wept alright, and he still does…..at garbage like this!
.
Unfrickingbelievable!
.
Keith_Z on November 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM
What would I like to see Fred do? Well first off I’d have liked him to drive his happy *** down to Ft. Lauderdale from Orlando and attend the Values Voter debate like his campaign said he was going to three weeks before. It’s not a long drive, I made it there and back this passed weekend.
Secondly I would like him to be animated, passionate, and forceful. He’s got the right ideas but acts like he’s either unsure of himself or just doesn’t want to be there.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Right now I think Huck is the biggest danger to a Republican win in ‘08.
NTWR on November 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM
By the way,
Unless you’re an Arab.
On second thought, screw this. You can’t control my thoughts. I won’t TAKE your house or wife, but thinking about it won’t hurt anybody. In fact, thinking about it might inspire me to achieve enough to get my own, thus benefiting society. So screw your thought police commandments.
peski on November 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Slublog slices like an effing hammer.
Bad Candy on November 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Im with you Tex. There really hasn’t been any real negative press to deter me from Fred! getting my vote. Everyone keeps talking about how Fred! is lazy, but am I the only one to notice how many threads there have been lately about Fred!? More than any other canidate….
heatherrc77 on November 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Uh, yeah. Isn’t this kind of the whole point of conservatism? Limited government?
I’m a little concerned that some of the commenters aren’t so sure on this point.
Outstanding post.
Some of the talk of legislating “sins” sure worries me. I keep trying to find something in the 10 Commandments (or anywhere in the Bible) about smoking being a sin. Tobacco was popular even two millennia ago. I suspect Christ himself may have enjoyed a pipe now and then.
Which is beside the point. The point is – who gets to decide which sins we legislate against?
And since when did the federal government start being run based on what’s “sinful?”
More to the point, since when is ANY of that stuff the federal government’s job?
And how could any conservative think otherwise?
Frankly some scary stuff. Yesterday I would have pegged my likelihood of supporting Huckabee at about 30-40%. Now it’s about 3%.
Am I just crazy wanting a small government conservative – who keeps the federal government out of both my wallet and my private life?
Or for Pete’s sake, at least doesn’t want to amend the Constitution to accomplish every whim?
I’m writing in Ben Stein’s name. At least he makes me smile.
Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM
That was hilarious and dead-on, unfortunately. Thank you. I could live with McCain, Rudy, Fred, or Mitt. I hate McCain and Rudy on immigration, don’t trust Rudy on health-care and social security reform, think Fred is an empty suit like Bush was eight years ago, and don’t trust Mitt 100% yet. If I was forced to choose, I’d pick Mitt b/c he is talking seriously tough on immigration and the WOT. Next McCain b/c he is a man of honor, I like him, he is balls-to-the-wall tough, and is a hawk. Then Rudy, then Fred. I’d pick Hillary over Huck, maybe Obama, too.
RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 4:58 PM
How would you like to see him manifest this- ads? where?
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 4:59 PM
You are right to stress the importance of a candidate’s character qualities.
But I think this article points out publicly documented facts that have made me very uncomfortable about Huckabee’s character qualities.
And I commend Hot Air for letting us conservatives know about this before the primary season kicks in full swing.
ColtsFan on November 28, 2007 at 4:59 PM
What is wrong with Gov. Huckabee saying that? I know athiest may look down on it as subservient or naive. But he is a Christian and I would hope that a Christian would wonder before they go to sleep if they pleased God that day. I tivoed the some of the week with Huckabee on Kenneth Copeland and its been pretty good from a Christian perspective. You can watch the entire week at http://www.kcm.org/media/webcasts/
Huckabee may not be perfect he has flaws like any other candidate, but this constant bashing is getting boring.
Complete7 on November 28, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Romney is Opposed.
jaime on November 28, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Keith_Z, FYI a stop sign itself is not a law. And our founders would agree with the what you quoted.
Zetterson on November 28, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Wow, that is almost exactly my thinking, except I would probably put Fred ahead of Rudy, and Huck over Obama.
peski on November 28, 2007 at 5:05 PM
It was noted above that Jimmy Carter is a shining example of how voting Christian without looking under the hood can go very, very badly.
I like how all disagreement is now considered “bashing.” In other threads its “bigotry.” Lets knock this crap off and have a decent discussion like adults.
TexasDan on November 28, 2007 at 5:06 PM
He’ll never get voted out of heaven…that’s pretty damn cocky.
Bad Candy on November 28, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Dude, I would vote for an absolute bastard, if he could convince me he would reduce the government to a third of it’s current size in his first term, with plans for further reduction in his second. Someone who sincerely promises to expand government power and fulfills that promise isn’t a man of integrity. He’s just a guy buying votes.
H*ck is a nanny stater who honestly wants to grow governemnt. But, as Ronaldus Magnus said, government is the problem.
For all you religious types: What do the four beasts in Daniel represent? GOVERNMENTS!! Especially in the modern world, government has become the replacement for God. H*ck is apparently so stupid that he doesn’t understand this.
If you like H*ck, then H*ck you!!
urbancenturion on November 28, 2007 at 5:06 PM
The perfect bumber sticker would be thus:
Huckabee = Jimmy Carter
Zetterson on November 28, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Two points.
1. If the general election comes down to one tax and spend gun control nanny stater vs one tax and spend pro 2nd Ammendment nanny stater, I’ll vote in favor of guns every time. However, if all things are equal (two gun control advocates) I’ll simply write in “None of the above”
2. When I left Arkansas in ‘89, it was still a “balanced budget” state and I think had a 10% cap on interest rates. Is that still valid and if so, has that ever been addressed in discussions of Huckabee’s tax and spend history?
Catseye on November 28, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I’ll note, I’ll probably be pretty damn lucky to get voted into heaven…
Bad Candy on November 28, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Nice point. You’re probably right that Huckabee will be another Carter.
jaime on November 28, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Jimmuh Huckabee?
Bad Candy on November 28, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Excellent Point.
The Bible states that we as Christians are commanded to “judge” those who claim to be professing Christians.
Just because one is a “Christian” does not warrant a “free pass.” To question a Christian publicly does not automatically warrant the outrageous claim of “bashing” or “bigotry.”
I welcome discussion on any politician who claims to be a Christian.
ColtsFan on November 28, 2007 at 5:17 PM
My problem with Huck is the same I had with Jimmy. He believes he has the ear of God, or vice versa, and he is simply convinced that whatever he believes is right.
Labamigo on November 28, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Good luck with that, pal! I don’t think you are alone.
Some people say that the Rep’s have put up a strong field, but this post is a good example how there is no single rallying person. I still believe that the majority of Americans are conservative in nature, but I don’t see any real enthusiasm this year aside from the temporary Fred-head bit – and even that was more image than substance imo. I hate to say it, but looks like an anti-Hillary ticket, and I don’t know that that will get it done.
Works for me:)
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Huckabee thinking like that – or feeling that way.
But saying it out loud – in his capacity as a the chief executive of a state? Yeah. That’s troubling.
Much of the time, when the atheist crowd starts babbling about the separation of church and state, they’re wrong, in my opinion. Or exaggerating. Or having a little hyperbolic fun. Or leaping to the “slippery slope” argument a little too soon.
But that statement is precisely the kind of thing that ought to worry everyone who supports the U.S. Constitution.
Jesus – or Mohammad, or Buddha, or John Smith, or the Great Green Arklesiezure – is not Huckabee’s “only client.”
The people of Arkansas are his only “clients.”
I applaud his faith. I hope it guides him as he serves the constituents who hired him to serve their interests.
Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Look, I can agree with his opinion, but unless he’s Moses, turning glowing colors from his conversations with God, he should really take into consideration that being voted out of office is God’s way of telling him he’s wrong.
I’ll admit that I get the vast majority of my information right here, but I’ll second the others who have said Hot Air isn’t the only one giving us the depressing news of politics.
Even without all this news it’s been very difficult to get excited about the 2008 election. I know I’d rather the Democrats don’t win, but I don’t have someone I want in the White House. I’m not convinced that will change any time soon either.
And honestly, I’ve enjoyed the beating the Dems in congress have taken and sometimes would rather just have a Democrat in the White House and quit worrying about having to defend the president.
But then I think of the war and retiring supreme court judges…
The truth is, I’m probably just much more informed this election than I have been in the past. I can’t imagine how I would have felt in 1999 had I gone to blogs. I’m sure there were plenty of reasons to not like Bush even back then.
Esthier on November 28, 2007 at 5:30 PM
If I were capable of pity I would pity you. Pity however has never solved a single problem so I find it a complete waste of time and emotion. Why pray tell do you think our founding fathers put the establishment clause in our constitution?
Surely it was easily within their grasp to establish the United States as a Christian theocracy, yet oddly enough they chose not to. A full two thirds of the founding fathers were seminary students and or ordained ministers, yet in their near infinite wisdom they chose to create a democrat republic instead, why do you suppose they made that choice?
As I very clearly stated
but Laws do not make people moral, they are there to condemn you when you are immoral. Have you never read the Apostle Paul’s treaties on the law in the book of Romans?
When did you endorse legislating morality? When you endorsed a candidate that wants to do exactly that you endorsed legislating morality.
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Agreed. And I hate the “Anybody but X” rhetoric. I loathe it.
It doesn’t inspire people. Leadership inspires people.
And it doesn’t work very well. It doesn’t get people to the voting booth. It gets people angry – I think it sways polls – but it doesn’t excite people.
I’m pretty sure the “Anybody but Bush” stupidity helped sink John Kerry. That and the fact that he’s a complete tool. BDS may have riled up the base, but it didn’t inspire the non-voters. Only leadership does that.
I may end up voting the “Anybody but X” ticket, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to say it out loud. I think its a loser.
I guess I’m going to become a full on Fred-Head or Mitt’s-Mutt or whatever when the time comes.
Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 5:33 PM
This is where I get my American political news. The negative stuff matters only when it sticks, and it’s been sticking so can’t blame you. Better to go in with eyes wide-open.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 5:35 PM
One does not get voted into or out of heaven,there is no luck involved, according to Christian theology (which I happen to subscribe to) one arrives in heaven at Jesus Christ’s invitation. Whether you accept that invitation or not is up to you.
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 5:36 PM
He was opposed to it in March, now he’s for it. At least it appears so; Romney’s positions change so often it’s hard to tell one day to the next.
Hollowpoint on November 28, 2007 at 5:36 PM
In a sentence, that’s why I enjoy your posts.
A good point, with which I agree.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I would get excited about Duncan Hunter as a candidate because of his steadfast character and position on illegal immigration. He has the distinction of being a war hero, without throwing it out there every time he opens his mouth, his son just returned from military service and is running for office. His take on how to wage war against those that attacked and killed 3000 of our fellow Americans and his resolve to build the dang fence is right in line with how I feel. However, because Duncan doesn’t have the flair and appeal of a Rudi or Mitt, the pulpit persona of Huck preaching his brand of politics, the on again off again washiness/hardliner McCain, and the nuttiness of Ron, Duncan’s been left on the sidelines. A shame too. He is the most conservative and would do his very best to uphold his election promises. Along with morality, I’d also say integrity ranks right up there too. We can certainly offer up a candidate that mirrors our own beliefs and our own perceived morals, and give the libtards the election and minimally 16 years in the White House. By then, we won’t have a country to defend.
24K lady on November 28, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Theodore Roosevelt.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 5:44 PM
The Professor has a point. Hmmmm. Perhaps it’s time to throw our support to Ron Paul.
My collie says:
Why not? It’s just as well. An asteroid is going to hit the earth and kill everyone in 2029 anyway. We might as well sit back and enjoy all the entertainment provided by President Paul in our waning days on this planet.
Kind of appropos, don’t you think? Tens of thousands of years of human existence ends with nothing more meaningful than a giant rock that falls out of the sky. The politicians (and everyone else) will finally get what they got coming to them, dontcha’ think?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on November 28, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Would you be so kind as to explain your reference?
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Sorry CC, I’m going to have to go with your collie on this one… ;)
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I agree, Hunter is a fine choice. I spent some time a few days ago looking at the “position” statements of all the Rep candidates as presented on their own websites. The only place where I really find issue with Hunter is that the “values” issues seem to be at the top of his priority list (at least the way they’re presented) and with this one:
This is a complete overreach. For those that would support this, what part of personal freedom don’t you understand?
In any case, I wish Hunter could make a bigger splash. Maybe he’ll end up as a running mate, but I doubt it.
peski on November 28, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Sure. He is a Republican legend (and usually in the top five polled most beloved Presidents) and he stretched the authority of the executive branch and used that power to answer what he thought were moral calls to action. I won’t use pity if you don’t like that word, but certainly he was driven by compassion. Some people even have labeled his personal political platform as the 10 commandments platform. Just saying.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I’d like to hear more of Hunter’s policies. Whenever he opens his mouth in a debate 9 times out of 10 he’s bashing our involvement with China.
I don’t like us being too beholden to China either but we have a real influence there. Unlike some of these other countries where we are exporting democracy the Chinese people LOVE western culture and WANT freedom. With more Christians in China that Communists they’d be quite likely to know how to better handle it as well. That’s why I don’t like slapping the evil label on them. The government is bad and about as evil as you can get but the people are good. We have an amazing opportunity there to within the next 20 years or so turn the last major bastion of Communism into a real ally. He just strikes me as too prejudiced against China to make any headway there.
bj1126 on November 28, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »