Hitchens probably not voting for “smirking hick” Mike Huckabee
posted at 7:46 pm on December 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Huck must love stuff like this. To borrow an unfortunate phrase from Tony Snow, the more he can make himself a martyr to the “war on God,” the more he becomes a protest vote for Christians who feel their beliefs aren’t properly respected. That’s what the Journal was getting at this morning in floating the idea of an evangelical boycott if Huck loses. If I were his campaign director, I’d be quietly circulating this through the appropriate Christian channels.
[W]hat Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. And the right of Huckabee to win the election and fill the White House with morons like himself is unaffected by my expression of an opinion…
Isn’t it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It’s not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of “faith” at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It’s not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything “faith-based.” It’s that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.
Question: Would Hitch secretly like to see Huck get the nomination? As president, he would be to atheists what Bush is to the nutroots. A Huckabee candidacy could potentially also do wonders for reducing the religious influence within the GOP, as plenty of non-religious conservatives will balk if the party crowns a guy who’s suspect on every issue except one. It’d be a dose of strong medicine for the Dobsonites who’ve threatened to walk away from virtually every other candidate: Here, run your guy in the general and see how you do without us for a change. With the GOP facing long odds anyway and Huck expected by many to be an especially “easy kill,” the climate’s as favorable as it’ll ever be to administer some of that medicine.
In spite of all that I’m guessing Hitch does not support the Huck nomination, for the simple reason that he takes the war seriously and can’t be too encouraged at the prospect of a Democratic president waging aggressive peace. I wonder who he does support, then. McCain, probably.
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:
I heard he supports Giuliani.
Alex K on December 17, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Well, back in April he was:
http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/04/christopher_hitchens_god_is_not_great_1.php
Alex K on December 17, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Dammit Hitch, we’re trying to derail the “smirking hick” and making progress, you aren’t helping with stuff like this.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 8:00 PM
That would have been my guess.
FloatingRock on December 17, 2007 at 8:01 PM
hitch ….yawn…
redrock on December 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Isn’t Hitch British, and therefore not subject to the rights bestowed by the Constitution of the United States of America?
Also:
[W]hat Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account care about a pompous, irrelevant jackass like Chris Hitchens, who is an unusually stupid primate who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is.
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM
If you are his friend (Huck) or family you can pretty much get away with murder and all will be forgiven right here on the temporal plane. Hang a dog, kill a girl, no prob. And heaven help any LE that might get in the way of his forgiveness, might just get you out of a job.
bbz123 on December 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Naturalized citizen.
baldilocks on December 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Exactly.
ScottMcC on December 17, 2007 at 8:04 PM
ROTFLMAO………….Allahpundit shall now have his name changed to………..Capitan Obvious…Might as well have written a headline that said…Pope probably not voting for “sulfur belching” Lucifer…
doriangrey on December 17, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Damnit, how come all the hollyweird types never actually leave but we always manage to import some of the worst crap out there… yeesh.
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 8:07 PM
No offense AP, but DG’s comment was funny and made me chuckle.
TheSitRep on December 17, 2007 at 8:13 PM
OTOH, there’s Marc Steyn.
baldilocks on December 17, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Ummm,not sure,I like Hitchen’s stance on the war,
but isn’t a primate a monkey!
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 8:15 PM
…the more he becomes a protest vote for Christians who feel their beliefs aren’t properly respected.
I think you’re probably right about how it will play. I guess, personally, I think there’s some justification for it.
God knows if Obama were getting lots of comments focuses primarily on his skin tone, many people (Hitchens included) wouldn’t consider it a minor offense.
John on December 17, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Doh!
Focused not focuses.
John on December 17, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Hitchens is pro-war cause he rightly fears fanatical muslim influence. Why does he think he/we can fight the Muslims without the evangelicals? Would venture a guess that they are over-represented in the military. Wonder how they’ll vote?
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Are you kidding?! Christopher Hitchens is an American national treasurer. (And yes, he is a naturalized U.S. citizen.) Come on now. You don’t have to agree with him or even like him to acknowledge that he’s an intellectual tour de force. He adds vim and color to our public discourse.
I wouldn’t worry about Hitch generating pro-Huckabee blowback. I doubt that Hitch is widely read among those most likely to be offended by his commentary.
paul006 on December 17, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Damnit…
BKennedy on December 17,2007 at 8:07PM.
BKennedy:Your telling me since 1776,that there still
are British on your soil!hahahahaha
canopfor on December 17, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Hitch just wrote a great ad for Huck. Should be made into a tract and handed out during Sunday services across the nation :)
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 8:35 PM
There is a lot of Thomas Paine in Hitch. Maybe too much.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Thought he had that vote already. What’s your/his plan for winning the other Republicans?
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Perhaps not but you can bet Hucks bunch will play it for all it’s worth and make sure that all those likely to be offended will know about him.
Hitch is not doing us a favor here and should STFU!
conservnut on December 17, 2007 at 8:39 PM
I’m voting McCain until he drops out, then probably Rudy.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Sadly that is one of the things that Hitch is constitutionally incapable of doing, even when doing so would further his cause more than an hours worth of scathing diatribe…
doriangrey on December 17, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Sadly indeed my friend!
conservnut on December 17, 2007 at 8:45 PM
There’s a segment of the Republican party who think that the party would be better off if a Democrat is elected president. Having Huckabee as the GOP nominee would pretty much make that happen. At first I thought that Hitchens–by penning this piece–was doing his best to make that happen, but then I remembered that Hitchens isn’t a Republican.
Then I employed Occam’s Razor and realized that I was probably giving Hitchens too much credit for forward thinking. His Huckabee rant has no strategic purpose; it’s merely a knee-jerk response to any and all things religious and especially things Christian. Hitch doesn’t care that many Christians find Huckabee to be a totally unacceptable candidate. He doesn’t care that, due to his high-profile anti-theism, he may be making things worse by giving Huckabee supporters ammunition. He’s not thinking about his rant inadvertently helping Huckabee’s ascendancy–which ultimately would hamper success in Iraq, something Hitchens claims to support.
All Hitchens sees is another opportunity to wage battle in his…Crusade…by assailing Christians in print.
There’s a word for people like Mr. Hitchens. I have four for him; one of them begins with the letter ‘F.’
baldilocks on December 17, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Those would be the four words.
baldilocks on December 17, 2007 at 9:00 PM
I tend to agree. That’s why I asked about evangelicals and military service, and evangelicals and their natural opposition to radical Islam. Hitch, who had to leave his own country because it was finished, now wants to write off a potential ally in his battle against religious extremism. Maybe he is being a knee-jerk a-hole at the moment.
JiangxiDad on December 17, 2007 at 9:04 PM
The Constitution does not bestow rights–it protects rights “endowed by our Creator” (as much as Hitchens must loathe that phrase in our Declaration) by limiting the power of the federal government. Hitchens is protected from government encroachment as much as any citizen (regardless of his citizenship status).
DrMagnolias on December 17, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Hitchens regularly proves himself to have a limited grasp on history and the only reason anyone here likes him is that his hatred of all religions has caused him to hate Islam.
Hitchens is only our friend under the mantra “the enemy of my enemy is a friend.” Hitchens is otherwise a Trotskyite communist windbag. He’s an intellectual alright, but only in the bad ivory tower can’t see past his own ego way.
Hitchens is a man who makes his fortune by attacking people who believe in a deity he denies the existence of. If everyone were to suddenly be “enlightened” and join him as fellow nonbelievers, he’d be out of a job. Hitchens, Dawkins, and their whole lot not only believe in God, they know he is the only reason they have any prosperity.
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Well said.
DrMagnolias on December 17, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Baldilocks is right on.
I enjoy Hitchens’ smackdowns, they’re truly a thing of beauty, but when he gets even close to the subject of religion he goes completely off the rails and, in this case, might end up helping somebody that we desperately need to get kicked out of the race.
Misha I on December 17, 2007 at 10:35 PM
The Dobsonites need to learn some elementary proof rules. Especially the words “necessary but not sufficient”. A (substantial proportion) of their votes are necessary. They are insufficient to win the presidency.
Given that the only qualification Huck has is “pastor”, and in all other ways is a center-left moderate at his most conservative, everyone else in the GOP will bolt if they force Huck. I’d rather have Jimmeh Carter back, since at least we’d be assured of R opposition to his initiatives. Martin Luther said it best “Better a wise Turk than a foolish Christian”.
libertarianuberalles on December 17, 2007 at 10:39 PM
ROTFLMAO……….Yes, and in doing so he displays a characteristic Hitchen’s flaw. which is quite paradoxical for an individual so reputed to be an intellectual. He argues from emotion and passion while failing to employee reason and logic. Hitchen’s ardent assault on all things religions and especially Christian is predicated on his belief that there is no god.
However enlightened this personal belief may be taken to be, it is not and cannot be taken to be either a rational or logical position, the dictates of logic make this impossible.
The question of god’s existence is not a question that can be answered, one can no more prove the existence or non existence of god, than one can search every square meter of the universe to determine if pink unicorns exist. Falling this burden of proof required for an absolute statement in either direction it becomes logically impossible to assert that god does not exist.
Hitchen’s displays that lack of foresight in choosing to make an enemy of a god whom he personally does not believe exists (there is an interesting paradox here I will get back to shortly). He decries religion as a vile plague upon humanity made all the more insidious by the horrendous acts done to humans by other humans in the name of a god that does not exist.
Now back to that paradox, how does one make an enemy out of someone whom one does not believe exists? Well for Hitchens it requires a bit of intellectual slight of hand. His enemy is none other than god, but since he does not believe god to exist he lets loose with the full venting of his furry on the only symbolic representation available to him, and that is the belief in god of others, to wit, religion.
From a rational and logical position, one does not attack or defend that which one does not believe to exist. If indeed god does not exist there is no point in attacking him. Nor is there any point in attacking those who believe that he exists since even if god does not exist it is impossible to actually prove that he does not exist.
A simple rule of logic comes into play here. A lack of proof of existence is not proof of a lack of existence. This is known as a willing suspension of belief/disbelief. The fact that Hitchen’s fails to make such a willing suspension of belief/disbelief speaks volumes regarding his motivation for making an enemy of god in the first place.
Were Hithcen’s assaults on religion not predicated upon his believing god does not exist, one could logically conclude that his enemy was in fact not god himself, but man made religions. One need not believe that god does not exist to see ample reason to make religion ones enemy.
However having failed to make this distinction Hitchen’s reveals that it is not religion itself that fuels his ire, but the intangible object for which religion is merely the available tangible target.
The shortsightedness here is multiple, If god does exist, Hitchen’s would in fact be completely incapable of contending with him on any level what so ever. Hence the notion of willingly making an enemy of a incalculably superior opponent defies any an all logic and reason.
If god does not exist the notion of making an enemy out of nothing is equally absurd and lacking either logic or reason.
The rather pathetic act of transferring aggression from the intangible to the tangible likewise shows neither reason nor logic. It has all the ethical and moral high ground of beating up Jimmy, because you cant find Tommy to beat up.
All that is really left here is to ponder what exactly it is that god did, or did not do, that has so profoundly angered Hitchen’s that he would choose to make an enemy out of someone whom Hitchen’s himself claims he does not believe exists.
doriangrey on December 17, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Hitchens is no atheist. Look at that picture, he worships the god Nicotine.
BL@KBIRD on December 17, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I’m glad Hitchens spoke out. Some percentage of the population thinks rather well of him, and I don’t see how it hurts them to have their moment of amusement about Huckabee. I got my two seconds of jollies from it, (but doriangray’s joke above was a full ten seconds of jollies.) And I doubt Hitchen’s remark will hurt anything, as I doubt that Huckabee can win the Republican primary. I urge those concerned that this someway helps Huckabee to think long-term. Most fundamentalist Christian aren’t such nasty little fools that they’ll remember what Hitchens said two days from now.
thuja on December 17, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I don’t find this post particularly smart, constructive, or funny. There are lots of Christians who think Huckabee is a jerk and a huckster, and I don’t suppose Christians are any more susceptible to idiotic boycott claptrap than anyone else.
Jaibones on December 17, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Your logic is twisted. When atheist say god doesn’t exist they mean it in exactly the way I mean that pink unicorns don’t exist in my bathtub. Nothing logically precludes the pink unicorns from being in the bathtub and hiding when I come to look. I couldn’t prove that that is not the case. Atheist simply mean that God is as unlikely as those tricky pink unicorns.
There is a further subtlety. Atheist do mean that for some description of God that is impossible that God exist, as it is impossible for invisible, pink unicorns to exist. These atheists are by definition right in some of their arguments, as some really lousy attempts at defining God have been made by theists. But you are right about the most common atheist proof of the non-existance of God: atheist theodicy arguments. These arguments basically claim that because evil exists, God doesn’t exists. These arguments are fantasy in exactly the manner of socialist economics. It’s sad that people who think themselves clever can believe such tripe.
thuja on December 17, 2007 at 11:19 PM
I would have gone with “wall-eyed do-gooding progressive neocon.” I’ve not seem him smirk so much, but I swear the man could stand at the end of the reflecting pool and see both the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial without turning his head. Maybe he should work that into his standup routine. Something about being able to keep an eye on the Left and the Right without getting a sore neck?
Plus, doesn’t Bush have a lock on the “smirking” adjective? Seems lazy to recycle.
Mark Jaquith on December 17, 2007 at 11:40 PM
No, that would be a willing suspension of belief/disbelief. It is one thing to assert that you believe that the probability of god existing is extremely/infinitesimally low and another thing altogether to assert as a fact your personal belief that god categorically does not exist.
One is an acceptance that the answer to the question has far to many variables for an meaningful answer to be derived from it, while the other is a straight out assertion of fact lacking valid data to substantiate it.
From a strictly logical point of view you have to actually have the data to either prove or disprove something before you can assert it in absolute terms. Making an absolute assertion without the data to prove that assertion is illogical and irrational. It is something generally referred to as an act of faith.
doriangrey on December 17, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Doriangrey,
Despite my inability to prove that there aren’t pink unicorns in my bathtub, I doubt most people would have much problem with me baldly asserting that there are absolutely no pink unicorns in my bathtub. And I would be utterly unwilling to characterize my anti-pink unicorn stance as an act of faith.
Anyway, I’m going to go on to absolutely assert that this little word game you’re playing here isn’t where atheist/believer argument is interesting. No one is by definition wrong in this debate–barring those on both sides who define God badly. Thus, the debate is better served by arguments for God and rebuttals, or arguments against God and rebuttals.
thuja on December 18, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Hitch?
STFU?
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!
Bhwahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!! (wiping laughtears from eyes)
hillbillyjim on December 18, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Good point. What was I thinking? :-)
baldilocks on December 18, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I like Hitchens, his many warts and all. But would anyone be so stupid as to vote for Huck just because Hitchens doesn’t like him?
“Well, I’ll show you, you English public school snob!”
Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 1:44 AM
That could explain a lot.
Maybe those tricky pink unicorns that were hidding in your bathroom beam over to my living room every time you go into your bathroom to look for them.
I thought I heard something from downstairs but when I went downstairs to look in my living room I didn’t see any pink unicorns.
Maybe they beamed back over to your bathroom and you had left by then so you didn’t see them either. Could you please check your bathroom again. Try tip toeing up to your bathroom and then rush in real quick.
I am beginning to worry about them. With all the beaming back and forth between your bathroom and my living room, they must be getting pretty hungry by now and one of us should probably feed them something.
MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 3:05 AM
1. Huckabee really is hopeless.
2. It has nothing to do with his religion or his being a “hick,” though. There are plenty of Arkansas Baptist fundamentalists who also think Huckabee is a complete moron and/or a corrupt liar.
Ali-Bubba on December 18, 2007 at 4:22 AM
“He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.”
–George Orwell
HerrMorgenholz on December 18, 2007 at 4:37 AM
Hitchens regularly proves himself to have a limited grasp on history and the only reason anyone here likes him is that his hatred of all religions has caused him to hate Islam.
BKennedy
Really? I liked him before he really started to go after Islam. The man, regardless of his political leanings, is a brilliant writer. Probably one of the best of his generation.
As for the limited grasp of history, would you care to provide examples?
Krydor on December 18, 2007 at 9:04 AM
I must confess, I always find the pink unicorn analogy outrageously funny. Not because it has any logical validity, it doesn’t. The discussion of god’s existence is impossible because of the size and number of data sets involved. They are unquantifiable. The size and number of data sets involved in the pink unicorn question are merely cumbersome, rendering the analogy false.
Your bathtub is a very finite and definable space, whereas the universe is not. Thus the analogy dies a miserable whimpering death. What we cannot do is define the volume of the universe, let alone quantify it down to the micron cubed, nor can we define the duration of the universe to the century, let alone the fermi second.
All of human existence, let alone the minute duration for which we have possessed the capacity to semi accurately record and measure our observations doesn’t even represent a blink of the proverbial eye of the universe. To imagine that the data sets we have thus far recorded could even remotely be employed to determine the positive or negative value associated with god’s existence is nothing less than ignorance compounded by arrogance bordering on insanity.
Ah…Much Beaming there is in that statement young padawan… Far more Jim Beam I sense however involved in this beaming than reason or logic.
doriangrey on December 18, 2007 at 9:06 AM
A couple of weeks ago Hannukkah and Judaism were in Hitchens line of fire as The Crusade Against The Great Evil of Religion continued and he had the audacity to claim the Greeks were secular compared to the Jews. Along with, of course, getting the entire Hannukkah thing wrong.
Hitchens apparently skipped over the “pantheon of Gods” part of Greek history in his haste to lambaste the foolishness of Hanukkah or whatever more venomous adjective(s) he used.
If Hitchens’ writing is brilliant, Amanda Marcotte must be writer of the year. The only difference between the two is that Marcotte makes more references to lewd sexual acts and human genitalia and has the same lack of knowledge and the same bitter hatred flowing through every syllable.
BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Hitchens for president ! :)
Syndic Nuruodo on December 18, 2007 at 9:53 AM
I am an evangelical Christian, but I am not a Huckabee supporter. However, it does annoy me when some bloated, smarmy, sniffy Brit uses the word “hick” to describe any Southerner.
Renae on December 18, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Um, check the U.S. Constitution.
baldilocks on December 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Thank you.
I take exception to a member of the British pseudointelligencia, who at best graduated cum laude, referring to someone who graduated magna cum laude as a “hick”. From the little I’ve seen of Hitchens, I have no doubt that he would be one of those broken down British drunken aristocrats, crying in his gin and tonic in an Algerian bar if someone didn’t think his “airs” were amusing enough to pay him. I also have no doubt that when he was in school, he was a type of “Draco Malfoy”.
Catseye on December 18, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Hitchens apparently skipped over the “pantheon of Gods” part of Greek history in his haste to lambaste the foolishness of Hanukkah or whatever more venomous adjective(s) he used.
When it comes to the roles religions played in each society, then Hitch is entirely correct. That’s an essay in and of itself.
His interpretation of Hanukkah is wrong. For some reason, he’s blaming the Macabbes for the doings of Antiochus. I don’t know how much truth there is to Hellenized Jews getting curb-stomped by their more strict countrymen, but he’s used that theme a couple of times.
That doesn’t make him constantly wrong with regards to history.
Krydor on December 18, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Ah, the forces of tolerance have been out in droves on this thread. I’ve been watching you last night, with little fortitude/spunk to go after you. Good thing. Some of you I love dearly, and others I respect for your intellect. I just don’t understand how you could not see the miracle which is the fact that Mr. Hitchens chose to become a U.S. citizen, and that this country is there to have offered it.
I’d just love it if Mr. Steyn would go for the U.S. citizenship. That he, Mr. Hitchens and Ayn Rand graced us with their presence and their minds is a blessing, for different reasons, agree or disagree with any of them. This is the only country on Earth which’s citizenship they enhance, and which really deserves them.
The believers are often as intolerant as the ‘totalitarian’ atheists.
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Among so many things I admire about you J, is that you are so informed and quick to set the record/s straight. Thank you,
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 1:11 PM
BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 9:29 AM
I agree that if Mr. Hitchens is mistaken, he should correct himself. However, we all make mistakes, even you will make quite a few in what I wish to be a long and productive life for you. One mistake doesn’t negate a man’s labor, even if you philosophically wholeheartedly disagree with him. Life will teach you the hard way, “you’ll see”, as Professor Blather says. Where is our Professor Blather, lately? I miss him.
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 1:28 PM
magna cum laude?? Oh hells no!
Huck got his degree in religion, rather than his intended field of study, at a small college. Sure it’s a well regarded small school for the region, but let’s not try to pretend that Huck is some sort of intellectual giant. He took a less than challenging major at a lower tier school (all small schools are at a lower tier – Wellesley et all are lower tier as well). Getting decent grades in a shallow raindrop of an intellectual environment is nothing to brag on.
If you are an intellectual giant, you go to a top tier national or international school. Your rank out of your program then means little, except for how much you loved your course of study. Oachita isn’t LA community college but it also isn’t Cal-Tech or Oxford.
I do like the high level of proof above – and it is funny to see how some of the commenters here are exceptionally unfamiliar with formal logic and rules of proof. Any good empiricist knows that it is essentially impossible to prove a negative, and that there are far too many arguments over unproveable statements.
The main thing about good science is the use of a testable hypothesis. If you have a good theory, it has to have some implications that can either be proven or disproven. The strong form of atheism is simply another religion, fervent belief in something that is outside the bounds of reason and our perception. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance – the acknowledgement that one doesn’t know and cannot know the answer. Any positive belief in the existence or nonexistence of God(s) requires a leap of faith outside of logic and argument.
libertarianuberalles on December 18, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: