Quote of the day
posted at 10:47 pm on January 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.”
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:
He forgot institutionally supported necrophilia!
doubleplusundead on January 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
It’s not up to the federal government to legislate morality or to tell the church who they will or will not marry. If a state or a church wants to sanctify a union between a guy and a chicken that’s up to them, the people of the state and church, not the federal government.
P. James Moriarty on January 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM
The problem is that the Government should never have been involved in marriage in the first place.
Why do I need a licence to marry? Does my spouse have an engine and wheels?
Damian G. on January 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Dear God,
Please do not allow this man, who wishes to subvert your will by denying us our free will, to get within a hair’s width of getting the Republican nod for POTUS.
And if you would so inspire the people of SC to send all RINOs back to the zoo where they belong it would be ever so nice.
Amen.
SimplyKimberly on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Chickenlover?
doubleplusundead on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Hey AP, the top ranked bestiality site on the internet has a higher alexa ranking than the top ranked gay site, hotair, dailykos, or the huffingtonpost. Just sayin…(I hang out in low places aka the chans)
ninjapirate on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
@P. James Moriarty
Yes, except marriage is a government sanctioned contract that comes with certain benefits. That is perfectly within the realm of government regulation.
Jeff_McAwesome on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Nuance.
WasatchMan on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
So if I vote for Fred!, I get to marry my dog?
billy on January 16, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Thank you.
Griz on January 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
That’ll play extremely well in South Carolina.
SouthernGent on January 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I wouldn’t if I were you.
PETA would be on your ass like white on rice.
SimplyKimberly on January 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Well looks like Byran was onto something regarding Warren and Huck.
Damien G. That’s what I don’t get either. What does government have to do with it?
Spirit of 1776 on January 16, 2008 at 11:00 PM
This will disappoint zoophiles.
brak on January 16, 2008 at 11:01 PM
…how did you get that out of this post?
MadisonConservative on January 16, 2008 at 11:01 PM
SimplyKimberly on January 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Well, don’t be too sure. PETA isn’t exactly known for treating the animals it shelters with TLC…
Damian G. on January 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Just a reminder.
Commentators HaraldHardrada, Huckfan, and popularpolitics are Huckabee campaign implants.
Please ignore them at all times.
Thank you.
I explain it all here.
Mcguyver on January 16, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Yes, because we all know Americans are lining up to marry their Shih Tzu.
I’ll take “The Federal Government the Hell Away from My Personal Life” for $1,000, Alex.
amerpundit on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM
I don’t care what excuse they use, when an individual like Huck wants to subjugate me and mine by taking away my free will, for some strange reason it scares the hell out of me.
How can I hope any President will save and preserve our second amendment rights when they threaten all the others.
Speakup on January 16, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Unfortunately, South Carolina’s Senator is Lindsay “RINO” Graham. If they elect people like that to their senate in South Carolina, don’t expect them to do any better in a presidential primary. My guess is Hucklebee #1, McAmnesty #2, Romney #3, Thompson #4.
paulsur on January 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Duh. The libertines in the crowd apparently haven’t figured this out. South Carolina doesn’t give a rat’s ass about bestiality web sites and you marrying your dog; that’s just crazy talk. They’ll make good and damn sure you don’t marry your same-sex partner, though.
Huck may be a liberal knucklehead on economics and foreign policy, but he knows who lives in South Carolina, girls.
Jaibones on January 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM
One could make an argument for state law defining exactly what a marraige is, but a constitutional amendment? No. This is one of those cross-over issues. The law grants certain rights with a marraige, but if it says what can or cannot be defined as marraige then it’s telling religon what it can or cannot do. On the governments side, just because they can, by law, write a definition, it doesn’t mean it should. On the other hand, just because the law says that it’s OK for a chuch to marry two men/women, man goat, whatever, it doesn’t mean it’s either moral or right. For the Fed to make a blanket law or constitutional amendment giving a one-size-fits-all definition is not the roll of the Fed.
Beyond that, this whole thing is a religous pipedream. While I personally define marraige as one man, one woman, getting 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to sign on is simply not in the cards. Bottom line, it’s another line/promise from the Huckster that he will never be able to deliver, but might get him some votes from the gullable.
P. James Moriarty on January 16, 2008 at 11:14 PM
It’s interesting that he essentially dodges the question rather than denying that he wants to bring “the constitution into strict conformity with the Bible.” Later he states that he was only refering to the marriage amendment and the HLA because these issues are already “talked about in the political realm.” Presumably that means any when any other issues are “talked about in the political realm” he would then try to bring the constitution into conformity with the Bible. Scary stuff and quite contrary to pluralism.
phronesis on January 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I wonder what else Huckawannabe will say.
upinak on January 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Classic SP episode. Respect my authoritay.
malan89 on January 16, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I pray that the poor South Carolinians got the wake-up call of their life when Grahamnasty was working with John McCain on the Shamnesty Bill. I’m not saying it’s impossible of course, but I simply refuse to believe that SC will vote for Huck. I will be shocked. Regarding Romney, well, South Carolina is just too conservative for him. He’s a late-comer republican and not very consistent at that. I predict: #1 Fred, #2, Mitt, #3 McCain and #4 Huck. I just pray that the citizens of SC consider carefully and thoughtfully. That’s almost all I can do from here.
Oink on January 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM
If the founding fathers had wanted pronouncements on marriage in the Constitution, they would have put them there.
MB4 on January 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM
I agree with Rush, when we get to the conservative states were Huck and McCain can’t get any Dem or Ind votes it will all be over for them.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Huck just leave the Constitution alone you anti-federalist fascist piece of scum. Also could you please leave the party once your ass gets handed to you after Super Tuesday?
CABE on January 16, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Quite right. But I don’t think the founders could have imagined activist liberal judge fabricating a right for two men to marry based on a bizzare interpretration of the constitution either. Judges have erred when they have used a very loose intepretaion of the 14th amendment’s “equal protection” clause to try and compel states to accept gay marriage.
phronesis on January 16, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Quoting the closer:
Q. To just close on a more personal, spiritual note, is there anything else you want to leave people with in terms of specifically the power of prayer in your life and how it has helped you get through the temptations and challenges of the campaigns?
A. I think it’s just important that people know that their prayers have gotten me this far, when there’s no way that the limited resources we have had should have me in contention role for first place. We are there, and the only explanation is that little has become much.
*sniff*
/hey! I want to hear more about those “temptations”!
RushBaby on January 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I do think that Huck’s praise of the malliablity of the Constituion lends itself to more judicial activism rather than less. The founder made amendments possible but also quite difficult for a reason. And failing an amendment it is not the place of judges to impose either secular values nor “God’s values” in contradiciton to the Constituion.
phronesis on January 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM
I didn’t read the whole article, but the first few Q&A show why some Christians are drawn to this man. I have friends at church who are not politically active who liked him when he first started to surge because he was willing to speak so openly about his faith, his belief in God’s word, etc. They didn’t know anything about his politics yet, but they liked that a national public figure would be so openly in favor of things they agree with in an age when Christians and Christianity are so routinely trashed in the media. As more info trickles out about his actual policies, they are less enamoured with him, but it takes time for non-political junkies to get that information. My friends assumed that if his Biblical views were similar to theirs, his political views would be, too. They are wrong.
TX Mom on January 16, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Yeah, that part about Warren and Huckster being at the seminary together jumped out at me too. And they do have an awful lot in common, including being utter disasters on foreign policy.
I hate to be the one to break the bad news to Beliefnet, but the last thing a shameless hypocritical snake oil salesman like the Huckster is going to do is improve Christianity’s image. Especially if he somehow–God forbid–gets the nomination.
ReubenJCogburn on January 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM
We’re toast.
sonnyspats1 on January 17, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Judging by his former self, I think we could make a good guess about his temptations. Cake, fast food, etc. Indeed he’s still so tempted he thinks the only way he can stop himself is to use the government to ban them all.
phronesis on January 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Temptations.
I think there is bathroom stall in a shopping mall in Huck future.
Be interesting to see what his stance will be.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
You must be talking about this.
The komments are priceless. ////DEPENDS ALERT!////
RushBaby on January 17, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Chill people. If a president wants to promote a constitutional amendment, let him/her try. Such an amendment must be proposed by a convention of states or by Congress, and must be ratified by state convention or state legislatures. Obviously this is much better than an activist judge issuing a decree…
It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify and support of a 2/3 majority in both houses. This is extraordinarily difficult; the founding fathers obviously realized the bar must be set high.
It also must be said the the president has no role whatsoever in any of the process.
digitalintrigue on January 17, 2008 at 12:17 AM
You must be talking about this.
The komments are priceless: ///DEPENDS ALERT!///
RushBaby on January 17, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Not that I’m a big Huck fan for various reasons, but I will take a stab at the marriage thing. Marriage is about the kids. Not that kids ever get a guarantee to be raised by a mother and a father, (and obviously that in and of itself is no guarantee that they will do well in life) but at least, as a society, we should promote it as much as possible. It has been proven over and over again to be the best way to be raised. Yes, I know some have been raised differently, but I’m talking about the best way for as many kids as possible. It’s simply better for society. …I didn’t say everyone….I said as many as possible.
jjjen on January 17, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I’m a bit confused about Huckabee. I’m a very conservative born-again Christian who initially loved him. When he surged and more stories came out about about his time in Arkansas, I blanched.
I began viewing him as a liberal Christian, which disappointed me. I read Bryan’s post from a couple of weeks ago where he pointed out the internal fighting the Southern Baptists went through about a decade ago, where Huckabee sided with the liberals of the faith. That bothered me ALOT.
But the things that Huckabee has never wavered on in his political life (to my knowledge) is his stance on abortion and marriage. Those are the two most important issues in my mind.
Abortion, because life is created by God, therefore Holy. Marriage because a man plus a woman plus children is the foundation of all society. Mess with the foundation and chaos will reign.
We are witnessing the fruit of decades of liberals trying to redefine family and marriage. More divorce, less marriage, more broken families, higher rates of suicide, etc.
So though I dislike many of Huckabee’s views, given a choice between a conservative on economic issues (like Romney) but don’t trust their views on the two issues I sited above (I don’t trust Romney’s recent switch on both issues), I’ll vote for Huckabee.
Those two issues trump just about everything with me, as well as many other conservative Christians.
Skidd on January 17, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Is Huck keeping the Man-Robotwhore thing open? Because I’ve been saving my money for that and I don’t want it to go to waste.
Kasper Hauser on January 17, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Governments have been disqualifying cults from being acceptable religions because they are destructive, exploitative, and dangerous. Government can place limits on the extremity of the perversity to which people will allow themselves to go in the name of “religion.” I find the concept of the social contract less than completely convincing a justification for government interference in people’s lives; but until Jesus comes back to rule the Earth, it’s all we’ve got.
If you feel some overwhelming need to marry a six year old girl, and then consummate the marriage when she’s nine, then find another country, as far as I’m concerned.
urbancenturion on January 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM
You have nothing to fear from any of the Republican candidates, with regard to your two biggest issues, in my opinion. But your instinct tossed up a bunch of red flags with regard to Mike Huckabee. I would simply advise you to heed the caution signs that you have the blessing to recognize.
RushBaby on January 17, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Damian G. on January 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM
… Well?
DaveS on January 17, 2008 at 12:51 AM
I wish that were true but don’t believe it is.
My vote is with Thompson right now but if he drops out, I may have to grit my teeth, pray to God and vote for Huckabee.
Skidd on January 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Your prayers are already answered: you have an inner voice.
RushBaby on January 17, 2008 at 1:03 AM
this guy is a nutcase! we are all in DEEP trouble if he somehow gets nominated…
homesickamerican on January 17, 2008 at 1:19 AM
…only in yer little head, which is becomeing too big, and hopefully this will be your undoing.
Priceless. And this from a friendly atheist, you RB.
I was depressed this day about the political situation and the fights here, because of it. Tonight I’m happy, though. Humor and itrigue make this strange season more endurable.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 1:38 AM
S/b humor and intrigue, and waiting and seeing.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 1:40 AM
The Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887
Thank the Republicans and their war against Polygamy and the Mormon church.
Sebastian on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 AM
So if a state or church “sanctify a union between a guy and a chicken,” then they’re married. Presumably, they can now adopt. But adopt what? Babies? Chickens? If it’s now a valid marriage, then their marriage can’t be discriminated against.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out a church or state making marriages affects not just the church or state or the “married” couple, but everyone in contact with the new “married” couple. Therefore, your statement scales the heights of absurdity where the air is very, very thin.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 17, 2008 at 1:44 AM
I should add to the above (my comment at 1:44) that the above is the opposite of the real issue. The only justification for creating an amendment to declare marriage as between a man and a woman is to prevent some ridiculous judges declaring that the U.S. Constitution guarantees that homosexual men must be allowed to marry homosexual men, or they’ve been deprived of equal rights before the law.
Obviously, the Constitution says no such thing. But activist judges have become very adept at making the Constitution say things it doesn’t. If a guarantee could be made that the Supreme Court/federal courts would not do that, the whole movement for a “gay marriage” amendment would be gone tomorrow.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 17, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Here’s an even more hilarious version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-wWiLb9oFc
HaraldHardrada on January 17, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Y’all seen this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8QvpnY8eqY
Watch it now and link it everywhere!!!!
TBinSTL on January 17, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Forgive me if I’m missing something, but how exactly would extending the right to marry to homosexual couples result in fewer marriages? Would you choose not to marry because your gay neighbors are wed? I’m guessing the answer to that question is no, for the vast majority of the population. In the end, marriage sanctioned by the state is just a legal contract allowing one partner certain access to the property and decision making process of the other (e.g. medical decisions), which can have a stabilizing effect on the married couple as well as any children or other relatives they might have. Basically, your spouse is your backup, and vice versa. Marriage rates depend on the incentives and disincentives for tying the knot for each individual couple that considers doing so. How exactly would gay marriage influence the benefits of matrimony to straight couples?
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Life is cold, and the game is old
Just see how virtue repays you
You turn and someone betrays you
Betray him first
And the game’s reversed!
Faces change, even smiles grow strange
And we all have so many faces
The real self often erases
And only fools follow golden rules
We all are caught in the middle
Of one long treacherous riddle
Of who trusts who, maybe I’ll trust you
But can you trust me?
Wait and see!
Percy on January 17, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Let us all hope that this clown’s fifteen minutes is up.
For good.
GO FRED!
Dave R. on January 17, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Percy, du Mephistopheles.
Ach, Augenblick, verweile doch, du bist so schön!
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 2:45 AM
BigS,
The point you’re missing is; by changing the nature of marriage to include gay marriage, you’re not only instituting evil, you’re simultaneously declaring that morality is wrong and irrelevant.
Don’t forget the liberals are most assuredly waging a culture war against Christianity and morality. If we allow them to pass this, then you can kiss America(and the rest of the world)goodbye.
America is a Christian nation founded on Biblical principles. The family is the backbone and strength of our freedom. Break that and we die!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlGnnwrl1Z4
HaraldHardrada on January 17, 2008 at 2:51 AM
Do y’all’ have a problem with a little Christian sharia?
Hey wait a minute Huck, first things first. We have to get science teachers to put make the earth and put it back into the center of the solar system. Why, they have been teaching heresy for hundreds of years.
Then you can go ahead and tackle universal health care, free leeches for everyone.
TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Huckabee signs the pledge
But can we trust him?
Ratings on Illegal immigration
MB4 on January 17, 2008 at 3:33 AM
Gay marriage is not evil. Weird, but not e
Most people who call themselves liberal, or the new “in” word progressive, are not waging a war against Christianity and morality and the sky is not falling, not because of that anyway.
The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
MB4 on January 17, 2008 at 3:53 AM
Dang you get up early
or stay up late.
TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 5:15 AM
What about those female robots the Japs are working on?
awesum on January 17, 2008 at 6:40 AM
That should play well in the general election, if God forbid, he gets that far.
Go Mitt!
ctmom on January 17, 2008 at 6:59 AM
Gov. Huckster, please go away.
Zorro on January 17, 2008 at 7:01 AM
Someone needs to go through Huck The Schmuck’s pockets. It’s obvious this guy is smoking funny stuff when no one is looking.
pilamaye on January 17, 2008 at 7:13 AM
Whoa. Crazy stuff… Tell me again why so many of us are voting for this guy? We rejected Pat Robertson for all the crazy that came from his mouth, so why haven’t we kicked this guy to the curb as well.
Gartrip on January 17, 2008 at 7:20 AM
We can until he needs to change his position again.
BacaDog on January 17, 2008 at 7:45 AM
If gay marriage was a right then they wouldn’t have to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. Any other arguement is just noise and fogs the whole question. Marriage is between a man and a woman and the government got involved to protect women and children. Churches can do anything thet want but finances are at the bottom of any business and I quarantee you even the most liberal church knows that if they throw open the doors and become the “gay” religion they will be out of business fast. I am sure there are devout gays but overall, religion and faith are not part of the “gay lifestyle”.
peacenprosperity on January 17, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Keep the Feds out of this morality issue…let them stick with what they do best, stealing our money and throwing it away.
right2bright on January 17, 2008 at 9:03 AM
I know this is off-topic and late, but I’m in South Carolina and I got an anti-Romney SUPER pro-Huck push poll call 2 days ago. At the time, I had no idea what a push poll was..hadn’t been on HotAir in a couple of days (sorry!) to catch up, and frankly, I’ve never been polled. All it did was turn me off of this man’s Presidential run even more than his ideas do.
I’m voting for Fred. And so is everyone I know.
serpentineshel on January 17, 2008 at 9:06 AM
That kind of thinking can be very deceptive. Among certain groups everyone they know is voting for the Huckster.
Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM
BuyDanish..
Again, sorry I haven’t checked in for a while or posted in a while, but I support Fred Thompson, but I had no intention of being deceptive. My statement isn’t exactly unsubstantiated.
Thompson’s had a boost in the polls here recently, so somebody’s looking at voting for him. You may as well believe it’s my friends.
serpentineshel on January 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Ugh, terrible run on sentence..I was up watching it snow all night. I even previewed it.
More coffee…
serpentineshel on January 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I’m glad you were already here, pointing out the obvious, so I didn’t have to bother.
SouthernDem on January 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM
People who plan well, and have their priorities defined enjoy the luxury of nonconformance.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM
The problem is that the Government should never have been involved in marriage in the first place.
Why do I need a licence to marry? Does my spouse have an engine and wheels?
Damian G. on January 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM
my ex was the size of a Buick does that count??
Joey1974 on January 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Err…
Biblically speaking, “a man and three women” would be completely normal; a man and one woman would indicate an unsuccessful provider.
q2600 on January 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
@HaraldHardrada on January 17, 2008 at 2:51 AM
I suppose the dog that your pervert candidate’s kid hung in summer camp was Sparky the Gay Dog from South Park, right? Nothing like murderous intolerance to give a shine to a fraudelent asshat evangelical, is there?
thejackal on January 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Huckabible. It’s all he has
Fred 08
Buttercup on January 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Huck digs his grave deeper by the day.
thejackal on January 17, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I sure as shootin hope serpentineshel has WAYYY more friends than Buy Danish!!
ihasurnominashun on January 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Ditto!
RedLizard64 on January 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM
So, to what should the Constitution conform if not Biblical principles?
Atlas Shrugged?
The Yellow Pages?
101 Uses For a Dead Cat?
Das Kapital?
corona on January 17, 2008 at 4:37 PM
corona,
The Constitution should conform to the constitution.
Though, from your list, Atlas Shrugged is fine.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I think it should always stand to promote and defend the underlying philosophical principles illuminated in the Declaration of Indepedence.
Also, I find the notion of amending the Constitution to include an article that constrains “the people” rather than the government, to be very alarming. It would be a radical shift in the fabric of the document.
If two chaps getting married is their idea of pursuing happiness, then so be it.
LimeyGeek on January 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
This link will probably come as a surprise many – judging from the comments.
http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html
roydee43 on January 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM
exactly. jesus said it himself: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
homesickamerican on January 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Absolutely! I too was enamoured by Huck, but the more I learned about him, the more I dislike him. At this point, I would NEVER vote for him or John McCain! Fred is the most conservative in the race. I hope SC is doing their homework and come to that same conclusion in order to push him to the top. If he wins or places 2nd in SC, surely the media will be forced to give him more face time. They haven’t so far because they are scared sh$%less of him!
kcd on January 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Hmm, that’s why Hucklebee isn’t polling well in the Sudan.
Tzetzes on January 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM
But seriously, this was another cheap shot at Mormonism, and hence at Romney.
Tzetzes on January 18, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Why is Huck so tough on Islam?
BL@KBIRD on January 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Why is Huck so tough on Islam?
BL@KBIRD on January 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Comment pages: