Huck compares Christmas ad analyses to Beatles’ “Paul is dead” hoax; Update: Respect Huck’s fundamentalism or we’ll walk, warns Lee Harris

posted at 4:30 pm on December 18, 2007 by Allahpundit

From Jesus to the band that’s bigger than Jesus:

“Actually I will confess this, if you play this spot backwards it says ‘Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead,’” the presidential candidate joked to reporters in Houston Tuesday. “So the next thing you know, someone will be playing it backwards to find out the subliminal messages that are really there.”…

The former Arkansas governor said the spot was last-minute and ad-libbed: “They had a bookshelf behind me, a bookshelf. So now I have these people saying, ‘ahhh there was a subtle message there,’” said Huckabee. “….I never cease to be amazed at the manner in which people will try to dissect the simplest messages, can’t even say ‘Merry Christmas’ anymore without somebody getting all upset about it.”

Even this goofy little aside is evidence of Huck’s shrewdness. Matt Taibbi began his sneering profile of Huckabee with the story of how the candidate sought him out after an event, knowing he was from Rolling Stone, and charmed him with the saga of how he came to pardon Keith Richards. The media stereotype of evangelical Christians is one of hopeless squares, almost hermetically insulated from the culture they live in; for Huck, as a minister, that goes double. Dropping classic rock references on them is instantly disarming, the near equivalent of an in-joke in referring to a shared experience. The press loves it, too, hence the frequent mentions of Huck playing bass in a band. Why, he’s almost human!

Anyway, how silly of us to have detected any sly symbolism in this studiously non-political ad that offers nothing but goodwill and visions of dancing sugar plums to all who behold it. And how cynical of Ace to wonder why, being studiously non-political, it’s only running in the key early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Exit question: Anyone here signed up yet for, er, Huck’s Army? They are, in fact, waging war against dark forces.

Update: After endless threats from Christian conservatives like Dobson to bolt the party because McCain and then Giuliani and then Thompson weren’t good enough, I suspect I speak for a lot of Republicans when I say we’re in no mood for this.

More and more, the attack on Huckabee has become a not very subtle attack on his Christian fundamentalism. This would pose no problem if the Republicans could dispense with the vote of Christian fundamentalists, but it cannot hope to win the indispensable states in the South without them. This is simple arithmetic. Now all would be well if the Christian fundamentalists were the clueless morons that they are alleged to be by those cultured despisers, but they are not. At the very minimum they have the same intelligence of sheep who, if fleeced once too often, will begin to think that they are merely being used, and not looked after. The Left has long charged the Republican establishment with cynically manipulating Christian social conservatives in order to further the agenda of the vested interests, duping the hicks with promises of cultural conservatism in order to get them to swallow tax breaks to the greedy rich. If the Republican establishment is really interested in self-immolation, they need only give Christian conservatives a good reason to suspect them of such crass manipulation of their deeply held convictions by those who look down on them with contempt and derision.

In short, handle Huckabee with care. Oppose him, if you wish, but do so in a way that preserves both his dignity and those of the people for whom he speaks so eloquently. Otherwise sooner or later they will find another home, and it will not be in the Republican Party.

Precisely the sort of unifying resentment Huck’s trying to nurture by injecting religion into his campaign and then waiting for the attacks to come. Harris refers earlier in the piece to the “Anybody But Huckabee tsunami” sweeping the GOP, which he traces to some sort of establishment panic at the fact that Huck didn’t cater to monied interests to earn his lead. Pure garbage: It’s because he’s suspect on nearly every major issue. Suspect on crime, suspect on taxes, suspect on immigration, suspect on terrorism per his “do unto others” policy — which, I suppose, qualifies in Harris’s mind as the sort of attack on fundamentalism at which he’s threatening to balk. If you’re looking for a reason to be offended, odds are you’ll find one. The great conservative crack-up was bound to come sooner or later; I guess this is it. Let’s get on with it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

No a political ad by the current front runner who just may be the next POTUS.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:37 PM

“Current front runner” in some states, yes.

“…may be the next POTUS”, not very likely.

Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 6:39 PM

@ Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Because god is a word, and it isnt at the beginning of my sentence. If I start a sentence, “God I feel like watching tv”, then I will capitalize the word.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Christmas greeting with cross symbolism and mention of jesus + “I want to take this country back for Jesus” = ?????

Really reaching for a political point?

Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:38 PM

That’s the way, muyoso…you didn’t have to compare him to the Taliban at all.

jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

@ Slublog on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

All I am saying is that its VERY scary for someone like me to hear the things he is saying. When someone says that he wants to take backa nation for his religion, and that anyone who doesnt believe in his religion is evil, and he is serious, I take notice.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:41 PM

may be the next POTUS”, not very likely.

Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Without regards to whom you are supporting: who do you think will be the next POTUS?

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:42 PM

@ jdpaz on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

The fact that a comparison can be made at all on a viewpoint level, not a moral equivelancy level, is scary.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:43 PM

@ Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Because god is a word, and it isnt at the beginning of my sentence. If I start a sentence, “God I feel like watching tv”, then I will capitalize the word.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:40 PM

It doesn’t surprise me that you missed the point entirely.

Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:47 PM

No a political ad by the current front runner who just may be the next POTUS.

So it’s not the cross that makes him a fascist it’s the fact that it appeared in a political ad. Oh, I see. Christianity + Presidential Politics = Fascism.

If, God forbid, Pete Stark were to run for President and make an ad featuring a subliminal letter A on the bookshelf behind him, would that be fascism?

Why or why not?

John on December 18, 2007 at 6:48 PM

@ Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 6:47 PM

No, I got your point exactly. I was just being an ass. See, I am not a “believer” as you would say. So yes, turn of phrase.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:49 PM

@ John on December 18, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Don’t take the ad out of context of Hucks own words mind you. Put it in context and maybe you will see.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:50 PM

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Thanks, Sweeper, and right back atcha.

I dunno…when I go to a store this time of year I get a “have a happy holiday.” When I say “Merry Christmas” I get either a weird look or the kind of glance that I imagine subversives in the Soviet Union would get when they shared a pass phrase.

I’ve also worked for companies that officially frowned on “Merry Christmas” in favor of more PC terms. And then there’s that whole “holiday tree” thing.

Point being, I think it’s reasonable for Christmas-celebrators to feel like they have targets on their backs.

JohnTant on December 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM

I’m not a Christian fundamentalist and I’m 100% against the nomination of Huckabee.

That being said, I think that Christian fundamentalism is a net positive force in the U.S. I also admire and support the influence that Christian fundamentalists exert in this country.

I don’t agree with Christian fundamentalists on many issues, but when they’re attacked because of their religion I feel insulted because I support them and admire them, even though I’m not one of them.

I agree with Lee Harris in this regard: Christian fundamentalists should support no candidate who attacks Huckabee, or who’s supporters attack Huckabee, because of his religious beliefs. If that means supporting a candidate from another party or sitting home on election day, so be it.

If Huckabee had a history of supporting all the right policy positions and he was a good Christian, the good-Christian characteristic would be a factor that would weigh in his favor in my opinion. However, since Huckabee has a long history of supporting all the wrong policy positions, and he justifies that support by claiming religious imperative, I feel obligated to act in my own interest by possibly supporting a candidate from another party, or sitting home on election day, if Huckabee gains the Republican nomination.

jaime on December 18, 2007 at 6:53 PM

John on December 18, 2007 at 6:48 PM

John, I’ve said elsewhere today, It’s not Christianity that is a problem here. It’s a belief that ones religious beliefs are justification for telling another individual how they will live their lives.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 6:54 PM

@ jaime on December 18, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I dont think people are attacking his religion, they are attacking his fundamentalism. Just like when people attack islamic fundamentalism, they arent necessarily attacking islam, they are attacking their adherence to such grossly unpopular beliefs, and grossly dated beliefs, i.e. their fundamentalism.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I would venture to guess that if made aware of his comments and record, 90 percent of people in this country would exclude him from their consideration outright. He is a lunatic. His viewpoints are ridiculous on several issues, and severely outdated on others.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Yet isolationism, a return to the gold standard, trafficing with neo-nazi’s and 9/11 conspirators, etc. is okay?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 18, 2007 at 6:59 PM

The great conservative crack-up was bound to come sooner or later; I guess this is it. Let’s get on with it.

If evangelicals bolt the Republican Party I can’t imagine that they’d vote for a pro-choice Democrat, which leads me to believe they would either start or adopt a third party of their own. But they’ll be taking a big gamble if they do so. What if Gore decides to run as the Green Party candidate and splits the liberal vote, resulting in a win for the Republican Party without the evangelicals? Will anybody ever want them back, after they’ve shown themselves to be both unreliable and unneeded?

All I’m saying is that threats work both ways. As it stands now, evangelicals are an important part of the conservative coalition. If they bolt, they may find themselves permanently trapped in a small corner of political destiny.

FloatingRock on December 18, 2007 at 7:01 PM

@ Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 18, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Apparently ignorance of candidates positions is ok, as you mistated half of his positions. He is not an isolationist. He is a non-intervention(ist). There is a difference. Isolationists want NO interaction with the outside world. Non-intervention is a policy that allows trade and diplomacy and all normal functions of capitalism and world trade, but argues that our military shouldnt be used to go out and police the world, but should ONLY be used when there is a direct threat to OUR country.

As for the stupid neo-nazi 9/11 conspiracy crap, if you want to delude yourself that YOUR candidate doesnt have the same group of people donating to their campaign, go ahead. A candidate that gets 57 THOUSAND unique donors in a single day doesnt have the time or reseources to go through and do background checks on all of the donors. The fact that he has supporters who have stupid viewpoints means NOTHING to me, as he isnt going to change his positions to meet their stupid ideas. He has PUBLICLY stated this exact same thing.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 7:05 PM

JohnTant on December 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM

It’s funny because I always do the same thing in stores when I get a “Happy Holiday”, but, at least in my case, I always get a warm reception when I say “Merry Christmas”. Also, my company party this year was definately a Christmas Party. Although if the keepers of the Christmas identity saw what was going on they would have named it something else (maybe after Bacchus). I guess in just comes down to perspective.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 7:08 PM

I dont think people are attacking his religion, they are attacking his fundamentalism.

I don’t see the difference. Attacking someone for their religious beliefs because they really believe the doctrine rather than only believing it up to a point? Who sets the limits? You?

Anyway, that wasn’t my point. My point was that Huckabee uses his religious beliefs to justify his bad policy positions. For example, he says God sent the illegal aliens to the U.S. to make up for slavery. He said people who don’t support giving illegal aliens tuition breaks are unChristian, etc. Those are the reasons to oppose him, not his religious beliefs.

My girlfriend is a fundamentalist Christian and she opposes Huckabee for his bad policy, not for his religious beliefs.

jaime on December 18, 2007 at 7:08 PM

@ jaime on December 18, 2007 at 7:08 PM

God sent the illegal aliens to the U.S. to make up for slavery

He F*CKING said that? I hear a new thing everyday that makes me think he is more and more of a lunatic.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Respect Huck’s fundamentalism or we’ll walk, warns Lee Harris

Don’t let the church door hit you on the way out.

MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Re, the update:

It’s Huck who is doing the manipulating of the Christian fundamentalists here. It’s unfortunate that they don’t recognize it.

(Full disclosure: I’m a staunch Christian, just as anti-abortion as Huck is.)

urbancenturion on December 18, 2007 at 7:15 PM

It’s a belief that ones religious beliefs are justification for telling another individual how they will live their lives.

Fine but where is anything like that happening in this ad.

John on December 18, 2007 at 7:18 PM

I hear a new thing everyday that makes me think he is more and more of a lunatic.

Exactly so. And it has nothing to do with his religion.

jaime on December 18, 2007 at 7:18 PM

“The very word Christmas comes from the contraction of ‘Christ Mass’ — the worship of Christ – again, change the word if we don’t want to talk about it, but that’s what it symbolizes and represents.”

I am VERY surprised that an ordained “Man of God” would get this wrong!

The word Christmas comes from the contraction of “Christ Mas” (one ‘s’). “Mas” is “Day” in Latin. The word “Christmas” means “Day of Christ” or “Christ’s Day.”

leepro on December 18, 2007 at 7:23 PM

So far, This is wha we know about Huckabee:

He thinks gays are evil
He thinks women should know their place
He wants to unite the country under one religion
He has no problem covering up crimes of his family
He lets his religion dictate all of his policies

So, how is he different from say, the taliban?

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Less head chopping.

Kinder and gentler Taliban?

MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Fine but where is anything like that happening in this ad.

John on December 18, 2007 at 7:18 PM

I never said it was in this ad. If Huckabee wants to use identity politics, he does so at his own risk.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Apparently ignorance of candidates positions is ok, as you mistated half of his positions. He is not an isolationist. He is a non-intervention(ist). There is a difference. Isolationists want NO interaction with the outside world. Non-intervention is a policy that allows trade and diplomacy and all normal functions of capitalism and world trade, but argues that our military shouldnt be used to go out and police the world, but should ONLY be used when there is a direct threat to OUR country.

define direct threat?

If a nation/state was financing privateers to go out and attack cruise ships to rob their american passengers, and take hostages/slaves would Ron Paul send the navy out to put a stop to it? If congress said no, we aren’t going to declare war on these people, would he abide by it?

As for my second part, perhaps you could google the name Alex Jones, I hear he’s a big fan of your candidate.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM

i can’t believe it’s 2007 in a post 9/11 world and this is the slate of candidates we’re presented with. talk about an empty suit.

like America will elect a baptist pastor as chief executive?

JazzBass on December 18, 2007 at 7:36 PM

That being said, I think that Christian fundamentalism is a net positive force in the U.S. I also admire and support the influence that Christian fundamentalists exert in this country.

jaime on December 18, 2007 at 6:53 PM

I shared that view up until a few weeks ago,

Then along came Jones The High Reverend Huckster.

MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 7:38 PM

I shared that view up until a few weeks ago,

Then along came Jones The High Reverend Huckster.

The Huckster isn’t Christian fundamentalism. He’s just a liberal politician trying to twist Christianity to justify his own liberal policy preferences.

jaime on December 18, 2007 at 7:43 PM

There is a big difference between disrespecting fundamentalist Christians and disrespecting the fundamentalist Christian leadership (excluding Pat Robertson). And we have good reason to disrespect the leadership. The leadership is acting like spoiled children, not like people who are rendering unto Caesar’s which is Caesar’s. And all Caesar wants is for them to behave maturely in a democracy. It’s not really that hard to compromise some of the time. I gay, atheist, environmental Republican and I’ve got real good at compromise.

While there was that one perhaps justified tantrum in the temple with the money changers, would Jesus do perpetual hissy-fits?

thuja on December 18, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Yes, worry that my attack on Huck might be a subtle attack on religion.

The fact that its a blatant and overt attack on his liberal nanny-state big-government tendencies? Overlooked in favor of calling people names.

Well, ok. Whenever I fear that Huck is going to raise taxes, raise spending, and pass intrusive laws to try to craft society without worrying about the repercussions of his actions; I’ll just remember I’m a bigot.

Yep, that makes me really want to vote for him. Ignore my concerns and call me names. Works every time.

gekkobear on December 18, 2007 at 8:14 PM

@ Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Apparently you dont get that I do not care WHO supports RP or why they support him. As long as the candidate stays true to his word and is not swayed by his donors political positions, it doesnt matter to me. RP has a history or being true to his word and being honest, and that is something i cannot say of any other candidate.

Also, I believe RP would send the navy to fix that situation you put forth, IF the congress approved it, as is mandated in the constitution.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 8:24 PM

@ jaime on December 18, 2007 at 7:18 PM

It has EVERYTHING to do with his religion, because HE is making it about his religion. EVERYTHING he says, he ties to his religion. He is doing this so an attack on him is an attack on his religion, and he is using that to try and garner support from his base. Frankly, I dont care who I offend when I attack Huck. If you want to take it as an attack on his religion, that is fine by me.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 8:25 PM

If the voters dismiss Romney for reasons other than his religion I guess I could live with it, and vote for McCain or Giuliani or Fred. But the Huckster’s constant injection of Christian fundamentalism into this campaign season is just obnoxious, and I hope he is rejected so soundly that his supporters will be unable to bitch and moan about it.

WasatchMan on December 18, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Also, I believe RP would send the navy to fix that situation you put forth, IF the congress approved it, as is mandated in the constitution.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 8:24 PM

How do you believe he would go about convincing a good majority of congress to allow him to take action against said privateers, or do you believe that congress might instead accept those losses and instead make payments in order to keep ships flying the US flag safe?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 18, 2007 at 8:35 PM

I’ve got a lovely bunch of coconuts

Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 9:02 PM

It has EVERYTHING to do with his religion, because HE is making it about his religion.

I don’t think so, and let me give you an example to illustrate why I say that.

Let’s say that you don’t like abortion. And let’s further say that a supporter of abortion points out that Roe v. Wade found a constitutional right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution and therefore abortion is moral, just, and “the right thing to do”.

Do you attack the Constitution? “The Constitution sucks”, “anybody that believes the Constitution is a moron”, etc?

Or do you recognize that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, that Roe was wrongly decided, and that anyone who uses the right to privacy to justify abortion is an idiot?

Same thing with Huckabee. It’s not the religion that’s an idiot, it’s the guy that tries to use the religion to justify wrong-headed policy choices.

If you want to take it as an attack on his religion, that is fine by me.

You would probably be better served by attacking Huckabee’s arguments, not his religion. Sure, doing it that way might be a little more work, but if your intention is to engage in meaningful discussion of Huckabee’s candidacy that method will probably work better for you.

jaime on December 18, 2007 at 9:07 PM

The candidate can be characterized in two words: Elmer Gantry. Once you figure that out, everything else becomes crystal-clear.

It’s a very minor thing compared to the pardons, the tax hikes, the lies about the tax hikes, his stance on immigration, the disastrous foreign policy proposals, his wide-eyed-and-innocent act when he bashes non-evangelicals, etc., etc., etc. — but the thing that really got my goat was the “gift registry”. I mean, how greedy was that? How socially unacceptable? How narcissistic to think everybody would be thrilled to shower them with lavish presents, and that they totally *deserved* them because of their sacrificial public service? Check the boxes below you think apply:

[ ] Classy
[ ] Ethical
[ ] I’m sure Laura Bush would have done it if she’d
thought of it
[ ] Pretty damn trashy

From all local accounts, the idea originated with Mrs. Huckabee. If there was ever a time when Mike should have insisted she ‘submit’ to his superior judgment, that was it. Course, it didn’t happen. Seems to me, their ‘social’ compass and their ‘moral’ compass were both way out of whack.

So now we hear that the son tortured animals, and his dad used his political influence to hush it up. (And we thought Socks got a raw deal!) Is that true? If so, policy matters aside, what a fascinating prospective First Family, huh?

Basically, I’m thinking Lee H. needs to spend a little time in AR researching some stuff. It might help cure his bad case of Knee Jerk.

grits on December 18, 2007 at 9:17 PM

(1) Huck sucks on the issues. It’s hard to sugar coat that.

(2) Because Huck sucks on the issues, his campaign has been making explicitly religious appeals to voters. This is nauseating.

(3) It’s, sadly, about what America has come to expect from a segment of fundamentalist Christians.

(4) I don’t want it in the GOP. If that hurts Lee Harris’ widdle feewings, well, eff him.

Centerfire on December 18, 2007 at 9:18 PM

The candidate can be characterized in two words: Elmer Gantry. Once you figure that out, everything else becomes crystal-clear.

Look at the means which a man employs, consider his motives, observe his pleasures. A man simply cannot conceal himself.
- Confucius

So now we hear that the son tortured animals, and his dad used his political influence to hush it up. (And we thought Socks got a raw deal!) Is that true? If so, policy matters aside, what a fascinating prospective First Family, huh?

grits on December 18, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Didn’t they have a TV show like that a few decades ago?

The Huckabee Adams Family.

No wait, what was I thinking, the Adams Family was actually more normal and certainly much more lovable.

MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Is this a subliminal smack against Ron Paul?

Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Huck’s Army? Is Huckabee now copy-catting Mormon missionaries?

Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Huckabee seems to me to be a personally good man, who I don’t want to be President.

The Paul is dead line was a good way to diffuse the ridiculous “floating cross” meme that was made out of a bookshelf background.

I don’t know. Be against his policies and don’t support his bid for the nomination. But don’t be petty and destructive.

MayBee on December 18, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Lee Haris seems a tad bit whiny to me. Maybe he SHOULD find a new party!

Gatordoug on December 18, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Maybee — You make a good point. And I expect that, looking from the outside in, my comments might be characterized as both “petty” and “destructive”. Please keep in mind, however, that they were statements of pure, unadulterated fact.

I would also ask you to understand that, for those of us who live here, it’s a very personal matter. Three recent national embarrassments are enough. We ‘natives’ of the Tri-State area (TN/MS/AR) tried so hard to warn you about Bill and Hill and Al. Nobody listened when we tried the polite approach. So, this time, we’re screaming bloody murder! Sorry if it’s offensive, but that seems to be the only way to get people’s attention. Fred Thompson is a man of intelligence and integrity. Mike Huckabee is just a Southern Baptist preacher who is in so far over his head he’d drown within 6 months of election — and take the rest of the country down with him.

I revere the Judeo-Christian heritage of this great nation. But, hey, I think Christopher Hitchens’ voice needs to be heard. It’s an eloquent one. He may be loud and obnoxious at times — but every time I read one of his (uncensored) rants against religion, I can’t help but think what an extraordinary country we live in! I can’t prove it, of course, but I sincerely believe that Mike Huckabee wants to silence such voices. Not a big believer in religious ‘dissonance’, our Mikey.

On religion, Mike Huckabee wants uniformity. I want diversity. On language, Mike Huckabee wants diversity. I demand uniformity. Forgetting all his (un)ethical baggage and his dadgum ignorance, those two points create an unbreachable divide.

Oops — there I go getting petty again. But how can you help it when you’re discussing a snakeoil salesman from Hope, Arkansas, who has the audacity to think he should be the Leader of the Free World??

grits on December 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Then along came Jones The High Reverend Huckster.

MB4 on December 18, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Pastor Holiday Inn Express.

I would be delighted to vote for an evangelical Christian, if he or she were a conservative with a decent grasp of foreign policy. Sadly, Huck just doesn’t qualify. And I’m furious that he’s using Christianity to try to cover that up.

Laura on December 19, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Laura, fully agree. Not only to cover it up, but then he and his will turn it into an “anti-Christian” thing.

Entelechy on December 19, 2007 at 1:10 AM

This would pose no problem if the Republicans could dispense with the vote of Christian fundamentalists, but it cannot hope to win the indispensable states in the South without them.

That grammar is awful. What is the antecedent of it?

Or is he deliberately referring to Republicans as it, as in, “It puts the lotion on, or it gets the hose again”?

paul006 on December 19, 2007 at 3:37 AM

In my view, Huckles qualifies as a religionist. I do not know his relationship with Jesus, and that is up to him.
But Huckles is a liberal religionist, in my view. Do not trust Huckles.

saved on December 19, 2007 at 5:35 AM

If you play any of Huck’s ads or speeches backwards, he sounds like a conservative.

saint kansas on December 19, 2007 at 8:21 AM

Huckabee’s claim to be the most pious and selfless of men rings hollow when you consider the following: Arkansas set up a trust fund to do something about health care. Just by coincidence, $60,000.00 dollars managed to do directly to Mike Huckabee for “speaking fees”. Not a dime went for any public purpose. Arkansas had an ethics law against giving gifts to public figures. There was an exception for wedding gifts. So what do the Huckabees do? They have a phony reaffirmation of marriage ceremony and then claim that the ethics rule does not apply to them Even more crass, they list on the internet the gifts that they want people (i.e lobbyists) to give to them. When asked, Huckabee says “tut tut, we only got stuff from Targets). He conveniently forgot about the nice baubles he got from Dillards as well. Then it turns out that his son got caught in a Mike Vick type of crime. So what happens? The kid somehow escapes prosecution and the State Police Commander is removed from office by one MIke Huckabee. All coincidence?

Larraby on December 19, 2007 at 8:53 AM

Okay, I honor his faith…now get out of politics.

right2bright on December 19, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Seen this yet? Just got it in my queue.

rightwingprof on December 19, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Lee Harris is spot on. Christians by and large have been loosely affiliated with the Republican party for some time due to certain values which the party has supported and the opposition party (Democrat) has not. If the Republican establishment (and I consider the blogosphere just another wing of the establishment, as the bizarre Huckattack offensive HotAir launched clearly demonstrates) continues to trash talk the millions of Christians in this country who know exactly what they’re looking for in a presidential candidate and see that Huckabee fits the bill, they’re going to regret it for a long, long time.

Jared White on December 19, 2007 at 3:16 PM

I am an evangelical.
I have been a Republican for 25 years.
I can’t stand Huckabee, and would never vote for him in the primary.
I love politics and reading Hotair.
I hate it when posters on here compare us to the Taliban.
Comments like those make me want to stay home on election day in November, no matter who the Republican candidate is.
Sometimes I feel like I might as well go to the Kos and read over there. I expect to be insulted for my faith by the liberals over there. Comments have much more sting when coming from fellow conservatives.

Jodella on December 19, 2007 at 4:17 PM

AP’s dead-on right here. I don’t know what the hell Lee Harris was thinking.

I’m about as socially liberal as anyone voting (R) can be, but even the so-cons don’t seem to have much good to say about Huck.

Huckabee’s candidacy seems to be built on the fact he’s a minister and pretty much nothing else. I think evangelicals are smarter than this, and the Huvkabubble will burst by mid-Jan.

TallDave on December 19, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Sometimes I feel like I might as well go to the Kos and read over there. I expect to be insulted for my faith by the liberals over there. Comments have much more sting when coming from fellow conservatives.

Jodella on December 19, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Bear in mind that it may not actually be your fellow conservatives who are saying those things–not everybody that posts here is conservative, whether they think they are or not. And some are just obnoxious, or don’t have two brain cells to rub together. Anybody who’d seriously make the Taliban comparison is either an idiot or is blinded by hatred of religion. And I say that as someone who isn’t religious myself.

ReubenJCogburn on December 19, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Taliban didn’t allow females to go to school or even to the goddamn doctor.

It’s disgusting and inaccurate to compare any large American movement to the Taliban. I can’t think of any group in American history that was so misgynist as the Taliban; not even the creepy FLDS polygamists.

juliesa on December 19, 2007 at 8:37 PM

move along.

Huckover

amend2 on December 19, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Arkansas had an ethics law against giving gifts to public figures. There was an exception for wedding gifts. So what do the Huckabees do? They have a phony reaffirmation of marriage ceremony and then claim that the ethics rule does not apply to them

Then it turns out that his son got caught in a Mike Vick type of crime. So what happens? The kid somehow escapes prosecution and the State Police Commander is removed from office by one MIke Huckabee. All coincidence?

Larraby on December 19, 2007 at 8:53 AM

The man is a total putz.

MB4 on December 20, 2007 at 12:26 AM

But if he says homosexuality is on a continuum with necrophilia (as Mother Jones is claiming today), do I get to criticize that? Or am I being insensitive to fundamentalist claims?

Allahpundit on December 18, 2007 at 5:07 PM
WTF? Did he really say that?

Bad Candy on December 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Whether he said it, it is true, according to fundamental doctrine. Same with extra-marital sex.

Some things about being a Christian are hard for non-Christians to understand. Another thing that is hard to understand is that we know what world we live in, and will not try to turn the USA into a Puritan land. We know that is up to society as a whole to do.

For the record, I am supporting Duncan Hunter, who is also a fundamentalist Baptist. Then, Fred, then Huck, and even Ron Paul. However, if Frudy Rudy gets the nomination, I’m not voting Republican for the President. I’ll vote 3rd party.

Sensei Ern on December 20, 2007 at 10:59 AM

CNN has started it’s next upclick of christian smearing tonight. Bunch of whackos on the side of the road speaking in tongues and ending with the reporter quoting scripture.

Griz on December 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2