Video: Huckabee says the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” Update: Huck’s website disagrees
posted at 1:29 pm on January 18, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The comment came during an interview with CNN this morning.
I’m not going to rant about this. I will point out that Huckabee’s position doesn’t square up well with the Constitution’s amendment process — a process laid out precisely because it ought to be difficult to change the Constitution, but change is sometimes necessary, and it’s necessary because the Constitution isn’t a living, breathing document. If it were, as the proponents of that understanding tend to believe, you can find meanings in the penumbras of what’s actually written, meanings that might in fact be at odds with the plain understanding of the words themselves, without having to amend the document to find the new meaning therein. And I will also point out that the “living, breathing document” argument regarding the Constitution comes not from conservative or constructionist thinking, but from the left.
Make of all that what you will. Huckabee’s “living, breathing” statement hits at just under 4 minutes in.
Update: Well, I might rant about this. Slublog emails to note that Gov. Huckabee doesn’t agree with his own campaign web site, which says:
I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.”
It goes on from there to detail what the “living Constitution” means and why he rejects it.
So will his excuse be that he didn’t write that part of his own web site, or that he didn’t read it?
Update: Fred Thompson agrees with Huckabee’s website, not Huckabee’s interview.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
As did Sam Alito, ergo the “some things are very specific” statement.
But regardless, there is a vast difference here. Sam Alito is operating in the judicial function. Of course that should be the standard for judges. But that standard is not required for non-judicial entities.
My point was that hearing someone refer to the Constitution as a living thing–though I detest the phrase personally–does not entail the idea that they adopt a liberal understanding of the Constitution.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Well, it appears Huck thinks it is a living, breathing document doing interviews, but says that is not the case on his weblog. Which is it? If it was a matter of context in the interview, does that mean we just ignore conflicting statements? How many sides of a position is he allowed?
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Huckabee, Biblical scholar that he is, will certainly recognize this reference.
His right hand didn’t know what his left was doing.
Hawkins1701 on January 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
His excuse, of course, must be that he has no strong opinion on whether or not the Constitution is a “living breathing” document or not, and is merely telling people what he thinks they want to hear at the time.
The one thing he does have a strong opinion on is that Mike Huckabee should be President. He doesn’t concern himself with the why.
gridlock2 on January 18, 2008 at 2:24 PM
His website statement makes it clear he knows “living Constitution” is a liberal concept/code word and he used it anyway. This suggests either Clintonian scheming or his mouth getting ahead of him again.
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Huckabee and McCain, these guys are so liberal that if they were allowed out wearing only their Conservative clothing they’d be arrested for indecency.
Speakup on January 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
So, which is the reality? What it says on his website, or what comes straight from his mouth?
Frozen Tex on January 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Still going out of your way to misinterpret the statement, I see. This reflects poorly on you guys.
The contexts are totally different. What’s his statement?
The meaning of the Constitution can be changed by Constitutional amendment, however; and this is what the clip says.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. This is really disappointing, actually. As a site that has been trying to counter the bias of the mainstream media, you have suddenly developed your own.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM
What??? His website says he rejects something that he says in an interview that he supports, but we’re the problem?
Whatev.
Bryan on January 18, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Huckabee and McCain, these guys are so liberal that if they were allowed out wearing only their Conservative clothing they’d be arrested for indecency.
Speakup on January 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
LOL!!!
kcd on January 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I’m sorry, I can’t abide the Huckster but I think Bryan’s of the mark here. Gomer’s talking about the amending process when he makes that ill-advised remark.
True, on the left “living breathing document’ is code for “make it up as you go along” but that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that the process that makes amending the Constitution possible is what makes it a “living breathing document.” So while he’s saying it poorly, he’s saying exactly the same thing Bryan is.
What’re you gonna do? He’s from Arkansas and he doesn’t get out much. There’s plenty to not like him for, but I think this is piling on.
Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Again, his website makes it clear he knows “living Constitution” is a liberal code word/concept and he uses it anyway during interviews. This either shows that Huckabee doesn’t read his own policy statements or that he’s unaware how offensive that phrase is to a conservative audience.
Neither reflects well on him.
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 2:31 PM
If you watch the video he is talking about amendments, not judicial fiat. I think people are making a big deal about very little.
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Then, the only other explanation is that he speaks without thinking about the ramifications of what he says. You cool with that?
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM
No, this is one more bit of evidence that he’s just winging it, saying whatever comes to his mind without thinking it through. He may be perfectly fine on judges etc, but he’s given you no reason to think that he’s put any serious thought into what’s on his web site or what comes out of his mouth. Remember, his excuse for the “arrogant bunker mentality” line that got him into trouble is that he may not have even written it. And that was an op-ed for Foreign Affairs with his name on the byline, which was supposed to be his magnum opus on foreign policy.
Bryan on January 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM
If legal documents are “living” then I need to call my mortgage company and tell them that the living document know as my “Note” is now to read that the interest rate is 0.0%
Crazy!!! The Constitution is not living, our Founding Fathers knew changes might be needed and that is why we can have it Amended.
GO FRED!!!
azcop on January 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I forget, was Huckabee the guy that gave speeches on Mormonism or the guy that wondered out loud if Mormonism taught that Satan and Jesus are brothers.
Is this the Huckabee that thought not giving benefits to illegals was against Christian social justice (and by proxy his soul) or the Huckabee that demands no amnesty and swift deportation?
Please clarify for me which
John KerryMike Huckabee we’re talking about.BKennedy on January 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
No, it makes it clear that whoever wrote that knows the code-word and knows (or at least wants us to think) that Huckabee is against the concept it corresponds to. That doesn’t mean that that’s what Huckabee was thinking about when he answered on live television. If we don’t give Huckabee the benefit or the doubt for one off-the-cuff flub, then we have to suddenly agree that Bush is a moron for his misuse of the English language or that Reagan was a racist (or a Clintonian schemer) for his planned speech at Neshoba County fairgrounds. I’m not ready to agree to that. Again, I don’t like Huckabee, but I really doubt that was a veiled code-word made for the benefit of liberals (not one of whom would vote for him anyway).
calbear on January 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Huckabee’s big “strength” is supposedly his speaking ability. He ought, therefore, to be held to a high standard regarding his political speech. Choosing such a charged phrase was not wise, and calls into question whether he really is the great orator his supporters are holding him up to be. Same with the ill-advised fried squirrel story, the tasteless flag pole joke, his many contradictory statements, and the many, many examples of feigned innocence to date. He’s not a Great Communicator because he’s winging it waaaay too much (like Bryan said).
aero on January 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The one truth that Huckabee has convinced me of is that he truly has mastered the art of speaking to the “TWO AMERICAS” at the same time.
Texas Gal on January 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Isn’t that what Ron Paul does?
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The constitution is a living breathing document only so long as it is followed. Once we ceace to follow that inspired document it becomes meaningless.
If congress were to pass a law prohibiting prayer in school, would it violate that part of the first amendment that reads “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof“?
If congress cannot prohibit prayer in school, and it is their job to legislate, how did the Supreme Court do it without violating the first amendment and the separation of powers clause?
Article 1 Section 1: All legislative power granted herein belongs to a congress consisting of a house of representatives and a senate.
If “All” legislative power belongs to congress, there is “NO” legislative power anywhere else. Legislation is the act of creating law. A law is a government imposed rule. The Supreme Court has no authority to create any new rule, law or order any policy. They may strike a law down that is unconstitutional; however, they cannot create any law.
When liberals talk about a living constitution they are really saying that the constitution is dead.
The Rock on January 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I don’t believe Huckabee actually favors judicial activism. He knows very well that liberal judges who view the constituion as a living, breathing document are the mortal enemies of social conservatives. So I am left to wonder if he was careless or if he was trying to appeal to the media and libs? Either option is bad. We don’t need a president who uses sloppy and imprecise language any more than we need a president who panders to the media and the libs.
flyfisher on January 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I think you and I are in violent agreement here. I’ve come to the conclusion that Huck’s campaign is about 90% off the cuff winging it. He just says whatever comes to mind at any given moment, and since there’s not a lot of well-constructed political philosophy underneath, he says a lot of nonsense.
Bush’s problem is different. He’s just inarticulate, but there is a bedrock philosophy underneath that’s mostly conservative (except on immigration, of course). I don’t think there is any political depth with Huckabee, and he can’t blame his verbal flubs on being inarticulate since he’s supposedly the GOP’s silver-tongued candidate. He’s supposed to be the second-best talker in the race, after Obama.
Bottom line — he’s winging it, and that’s when he screws up because to the extent that he has instincts it’s to say whatever sounds nice, and that’s usually the liberal line. What liberals say often sounds nice even when it’s a monstrous lie.
Bryan on January 18, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Seems like the Left Huck doesnt know what the right Huck is doing at any one time
William Amos on January 18, 2008 at 2:40 PM
You are adopting the textualism of John Paul Stevens.
Would you agree that the same words can mean different things? If so, then context is of utmost importance when evaluating a statement. Let me try to explain this.
On his website, Huckabee rejects the notion of the Constitution as a living document. In this statement, he is referring to the judicial context. Hence, we can assume he means the phrase “living document” in the sense it has been used by liberals. That meaning is this: the meaning of the Constitution can change without amendment, and judges have the authority to declare that change. In other words, this usage of the phrase essentially means that judges can change the meaning of the Constitution. That is a no-no, and Huckabee does not support it.
However, in the video clip, Huckabee uses the phrase “living breathing…” in a non-judicial context. I’ve said already the use of the phrase is ill-advised. However, it is clear from what he says in the clip that he does not support the notion that the meaning of the Constitution “evolves” without an amendment. In this clip he acknowledges the following: 1) The meaning of the Constitution is not absolutely fixed. 2) If the meaning of the Constitution is to be changed, it must be changed via an amendment.
Hence, I submit two things: First, Huckabee’s statement in the clip is consistent with his statement on his website. He used the same words, but he articulated different concepts. Second, there is nothing in either this video clip or his website about judges that is inconsistent with standard conservative Constitutional theories.
I hope that helps. I hope you can look at this a little more carefully, and perhaps update the post accordingly. The post paints him as having a liberal view of the Constitution, and exactly the opposite is true.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 2:40 PM
That’s the thing–it’s not just ONE off-the-cuff flub. It’s part of a pattern now. Almost every day now Huckabee says something ranging from questionable to outright horrifying. We’re past benefit of the doubt with him. He has foot-in-mouth disease almost as bad as Biden does.
aero on January 18, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Well that I’ll sign on to no problem. But in fairness–and this guy is so hapless the least we can do is be fair–that’s not the way you presented your beef.
Hell, I read your synopsis and was ready to excoriate the guy. But when I got to the clip the guy I was mad at was you, for making me waste four minutes listening to that guy not revealing himself as a Consititution ripping lib’ral but just Gomer being Gomer.
Hell, I already knew he was that.
Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 2:41 PM
There’s a right Huck?
Frozen Tex on January 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Still spinning for Huck, I see. Must make you dizzy.
amerpundit on January 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM
A few days after the recent Hot Air signup period, two of the new Huckabee supporters were making their case for his nomination. One of them endorsed Huckabee/McCain because of Huck’s support for illegal immigrants. The other endorsed Huckabee/Hunter based on Huck’s tough stand against illegal immigration.
I don’t think Huckabee supporters care how many positions he takes on issues.
FloatingRock on January 18, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Well, I guess he figures that if he takes enough different positions, EVERYONE will eventually think he’s right.
aero on January 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM
No spin. Just a bit of careful analysis. I don’t understand why careful analysis should make one dizzy. I rather think that it makes one rational.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 2:50 PM
If it was a one-time thing he’d get a pass from me. But given all of the other areas where he’s shown liberal instincts, and where he has said weird things that needed explanation or shown that doesn’t possess the first clue about what he’s talking about (remember Cuba?), it’s fair to criticize him on what he actually says about vital matters. Right? After all, it was just yesterday that he said he supported a very draconian version of campaign finance reform, and it was this morning that he was talking about shoving flagpoles where the sun don’t shine.
It’s fair based on his written record to wonder if he even reads what he has supposedly written. It’s fair to criticize him for saying things that are at direct odds with the conservative image he’s trying to build. We may as well have all this out there now before the guy sneaks up and becomes the nominee.
Honestly, I don’t know what the guy believes when it comes to politics. Is he a strict constructionist or does he think conservatives are “Shiite Republicans?”
Bryan on January 18, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Uh huh. “rational”. In the interview Huck says the Constitution is a living document. On his website he says it isn’t.
amerpundit on January 18, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Hapless is NOT a quality I want in a president. Nor should it be an excuse to not examine someone who wants (VERY, VERY much, apparently) to be the leader of the free world.
The main thrust of this thread is that it is but a further example fortifying the position that this guy is a pure politician in the vein of Carter and Clinton. I think he doesn’t have core beliefs insomuch that he has adopted positions that he thinks will appeal to the most broad of spectrums. However, those are in conflict with his practices. His actions are conservative, so when his words aren’t either, I believe we get a glimpse past the facade into the real core of the man.
I don’t trust him, and his presidency would have a disasterous effect not only on the Republican party but the nation.
Darksean on January 18, 2008 at 2:54 PM
And spinners tend not to admit to spinning.
amerpundit on January 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Huckabee is a “YEAARRRRGGHHHH!!” in slow motion.
geckomon on January 18, 2008 at 2:55 PM
His actions AREN’T conservative, sorry.
Wishing for edit ability…
Darksean on January 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM
(H)e is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
James 1:8
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 18, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Nice, subtle catch. The 1st amendment protects our right to worship and free speech. Our freedom is from our Creator. The Constitution protects that freedom from the government Surprised the Preacher missed that one too.
Mallard T. Drake on January 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
That’s not originalism. Antonin Scalia defines originalist thought this way: “What it meant when it was adopted it means today, and its meaning doesn’t change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times. If it’s inadequate, we can amend it. That’s why there’s an amendment provision.”
The amendment provision does not change meaning – it replaces it.
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Would you consider yourself to be an originalist? Because if so, you certainly haven’t applied the doctrine.
I am an originalist; not just in Constitutional construction, but in every day life. The same words can have multiple meanings. That’s not spin; that is fact.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Triangulation!
Must be an Arkansas thing.
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 3:02 PM
This “living, breathing” constitution line just confirms my fear that Huckabee will appoint activist judges to the courts. They may try to legislate what the Huckster deems Chirstian values rather than secular values, but this too muddles jurisprudence and abrogates the rights of the executive and legislative branches of government.
phronesis on January 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Insider Advantage Poll 1/17
McCain 26
Huck 26
Romney 13
Thompson 13
Paul 5
Rudy 5
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_primary-233.html
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I don’t have a problem with describing it this way. I think this is merely a semantic difference, though. Adding an amendment often does change the meaning. After the 18th Amendment was ratified, the meaning of the constitution was that alcohol was prohibited. After the 21st was ratified, the meaning of the Constitution was that alcohol was not prohibited.
I submit that, in at least some circumstances, adding to the Constitution is changing the meaning of it.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Okay, that I can buy. I thought you were accusing him of being a flip-flopper, not of talking out of an orifice other than his mouth.
calbear on January 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Meaning is derived by context, not word appearance.
Words in the Constitution can only have one meaning in their context, or would you like to argue “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” has multiple meanings?
BKennedy on January 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Everyday of Huck on the Stump is like another scene in Python’s “Argument Clinic”:
“Yes it is!”
“No it isn’t!”
X_LA_Native on January 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Would it be a good idea for Huck to read the Constitution before he starts to amend it?
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Originalist? Yes, I believe so. See Slublog’s last comment, too.
****
Found this, too. Al Gore, 2000:
amerpundit on January 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
If Romney’s supporters would go to Thompson, just for SC, Thompson would have a shot at the top spot. Romney left the state–his people should take that as their cue and vote for Thompson to show that South Carolinians want an actual conservative to win in their state.
aero on January 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM
It’s not simply semantics, though. If you say the constitution currently has no fixed meaning, then you are opening its words up to the type of quick interpretation favored by the left.
If you begin with the more conservative premise that the constitution does have a fixed meaning, but that meaning is no longer relevant, then that’s where the amendment process comes in to replace that meaning with an updated meaning through a much more deliberate process.
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I can’t beleive Fred is losing to this guy.
tort_feasor on January 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM
All right!
Another biased article about Huckabee with wildly out of context quotes!
Hey…the more biased articles with easily disprovable and out of context quotes…the more it looks like you’re desperately searching for dirt…to no avail!
HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 3:09 PM
As it stands right now, we don’t know what he believes. We can guess, rationalize, and hope we know what he meant. I’m still for waiting 24 hours for a signed pledge to something or other.
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Wondered where he was…
Where’s Wise Golden?
Frozen Tex on January 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Putz.
peski on January 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Ah, Harald is here. Now, we’ll get the straight scoop.
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Not that I needed another reason not to vote for the guy, but it doesn’t get much bigger than this. The Supreme idiots who thought that “public use” (see Kelo) and “unabridged speech” (see McCain-Feingold) also think the constitution is a living document. We sure as hell don’t need Huckabee appointing any more morons to the court who think they have the power to amend the constitution.
orlandocajun on January 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Heh. Well said. The problem is, he seems to speak from that orifice all too frequently.
Bryan on January 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Shill. If you actually made the argument and “easily disproved” the stupid lying idiocy that the Huckster has become by presenting some sort of evidence, you’d just be a dupe. But since you can’t, you’re just a shill.
peski on January 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM
But the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed absolutely, which is the key part. The question is not whether the meaning of the Constitution if fixed. The question is who has the authority to change/alter its meaning? Certainly not judges. But the people through amendment? Most certainly.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Rich Lowry had a good article today dealing with the limits of Huckster’s appeal.
The money quote:
phronesis on January 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Heh.
peski on January 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Surely you aren’t suggesting that Huckabee would agree with that statement from Gore in 2000. If you were suggesting as much, there could be no greater proof that you are, in fact, not an originalist.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Looks like SC Romney voter’s second choice is:
McCain 40%
Huck 20%
Fred 26%
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I didn’t say that. My comment was two separate comments, hence the asterisks in-between.
amerpundit on January 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Yes, I see Huck as an aberration. He wont do well at all outside of the Bible Belt
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Fred has a good shot at second place, but first is slipping away. Still hoping the polls are screwed up.
a capella on January 18, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I think you are right and Huck won’t be the nominee because of it. However, Romney won’t do well inside the Bible Belt. He doesn’t connect with Southerners whatsoever.
flyfisher on January 18, 2008 at 3:29 PM
You may be right. Romney spent millions in SC and he may get third out of it. But Romney can win the nomination without coming in 1st place in any bible belt states, but can he win the general without carrying them?
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Depends on who he’s running against. If he’s running against Clinton, then it’s likely he will be able to carry those states. Against Obama, a little less so.
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM
That depends on how far the Republican party has shifted for issues to identity politics. Paleo-con Buchanan thinks he can win the general.
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Huckabee is polling high with: 18-29 yo and 30-44 yo than any other Republican candidate
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Listen, man, on all that I’m with you. Right there with you. And to anyone who misunderstood, I’m not defending Gomer in the sense that I agree with what I said or in any way saying I’d vote for him.
Hell, I came to the somewhat startling realization the other day that if it were Gomer vs. Obama I’d probably vote for Obama, and if it were Gomer vs. Hillary, well…God. Please. No.
But I don’t think it will be. This fool ain’t getting the nomination. I still have at least that much faith.
I think it’s a valid criticism of the guy that he evidently does not know that the phrase “living breathing document” is a the-tv-screen-is-in-danger-of-flying-objects line to many people in his own party. You and me included. I think it’s valid criticism of the guy to say his campaign must be a living breathing campaign because it’s amended every freakin’ day.
But this…
…doesn’t say any of that.
Again in fairness to Gomer, he wasn’t saying any of that. He was just using the phrase associated with it. Bad, dumb, stupid thing to do. But that should have been the point.
Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
What about with a Romney/Fred ticket?
peski on January 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
The first thing I ever wrote to Fred Thompson when his website got up and running was “Senator Thompson, please tell Jack McCoy that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document.” (McCoy actually said that on an episode of Law & Order)
Turns out it’s a so-called Republican who needs to be educated on that one. Very sad indeed.
Connie on January 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
By then the economy may be entrenched as teh #1 issue and he should be in good shape with that issue.
bnelson44 on January 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I believe that is on the mark.
knob on January 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I agree with this.
However, it manifestly does entail the idea that they regard the Constitution as a mere political tract rather than substantive law.
Hence, Huck can fugoff.
Centerfire on January 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Agreed. I am from Tennessee and now live in North Mississippi, a few miles outside of Memphis. I don’t know anyone, including Al Gore loving Democrats, who like Hillary. She cannot win in the South, even against Romney. But Romney doesn’t inspire anyone, so my guess is Obama would at least be competitive in the South.
flyfisher on January 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Huck is also wrong that the Constitution is a “secular” document. That is not true. The constitution is a theist document. It acknowledges gods existence in terms of natural law but does not take preference to any organized religion.
RightisRight on January 18, 2008 at 3:46 PM
May be the best summation of Huckabee. He believes in small government and will tell you so, but somehow he thinks the federal government should ban smoking. He doesn’t believe in socialism, but somehow he thinks illegal immigrants should be getting scholarship money for education. He believes in being strong in the war on terror, but he’d close Gitmo and move the terrorists to Leavenworth, just to appease other governments.
If you look at his broad principles, he seems like he would be a sound conservative. But I bet for every conservative principle he espouses, he contradicts that principle in some way when he gets to the details. It’s like he lives in a soundbite world, but never connects what he says in soundbites to real-world consequences and principles.
Just like a liberal. The good intention is all you need.
Now, it may be that this is just the way he is. Or it may be, and this is my opinion, that he makes the broad statements of principles to appeal to the group he thinks will vote for him, but then panders to the smaller groups by contradicting the bigger principles with some plan or policy they will like.
I think he has many supporters who are not stupid, but are just not cynical/skeptical enough to examine his whole record and see the contradictions.
In other words, he’s like Jimmy Carter. Carter appealed to many conservative voters because he was a moral, “born again” Sunday School teacher, and people who didn’t examine him too closely thought he would be like most moral, “born again” Sunday School teachers, and be staunchly anti-Communist, pro-life, pro-family, non-environmental-extremist, etc. Instead, of course, he was very none of those things.
I think people support Huckabee because of who they think he is, and will be very disappointed if he wins. But he looks good, until you start looking at the details.
And candidly, the same applies to McCain. Not that McCain is dishonest in any way, but some of the details of what he supports completely contradict his generally conservative principles.
I’m not voting for either of them….
tom on January 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Any combination of Romney/Fred is a winner in the South. Fred on top would have more enthusiasm. He is loved around here. Is Romney loved anywhere?
flyfisher on January 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Huckabee’s amendment proposals are in lock-step with the Republican party platform.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM
“Bringing the Constitution in line with God’s wishes”?!?! Ummmmm, don’t think so.
aero on January 18, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Sunday’s headlines:
Mike Huckabee wins south carolina in landslide victory…leads in national polls!
Disgraced democrat Juan Mccain and lobbyist Fred Thompson drop out!
HaraldHardrada on January 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I was rather referring to the proposal to define marriage in the Federal Constitution, and the proposal to extend Constitutional protection to the unborn.
But obfuscate if you must.
medguy on January 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Huckebee is one slippery slimy politician. He is so friggin Clintonesque he has the same effect on my lunch.
EJDolbow on January 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM
It certainly looks that way.
Spirit of 1776 on January 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Huckabee’s a Lib.
And when his son hung that dog- Huck tried to use his influence to git the kid off.
And he registered for wedding gifts 30 years after he got married because it was illegal to accept gifts over $100 in value UNLESS THEY WERE WEDDING GIFTS!
By God, I hope Huck and McCain lose!
Ex-tex on January 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Heh.
Come with me
And you’ll be
In a world of
Pure imagination
Slublog on January 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »