Media, White House erupt at Huckabee for saying something about Democrats and women’s libidos

posted at 4:06 pm on January 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

Does it really matter what he said? The liberal thought process on this works this way, I think: “Known social conservative + something about women + something about sex and birth control = outrage.” Right? It’s basically Pavlovian. Which is why even many Republicans who sympathize with social conservatism rub their temples at the thought of nominating a loud-and-proud social con as nominee. You don’t want biased, soft-headed media lefties setting the parameters for who you can nominate, but on the other hand, if you know your guy’s going to spend the campaign tapdancing around soundbite landmines — sometimes justifiably, sometimes not — why bother?

This is, as anyone who reads at a third-grade level will tell you, a shot at Democrats for practicing an especially narrow form of identity politics, not at women.

If there’s any conservative who’s stood boldly against big government and Uncle Sugar in his career, it’s Huck. Ah well. Pavlov’s bell having sounded, the salivation begins:

White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed comments by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at a Republican meeting Thursday as “offensive.”

“Whoever said it, it sounds offensive to me, and to women,” Carney told reporters after saying he hadn’t seen reports of Huckabee’s remarks.

I like the way he put that — “it sounds offensive,” as though he’s not sure but heard just enough offense-triggering buzzwords when it was read to him that there could, logically, be only one conclusion. Exactly my point up top. Whether it is offensive isn’t important, especially in the initial rush to denounce and capitalize politically. It sounds offensive. Close enough.

Once the media settles down, they’ll zero in on the part of what Huckabee said that does deserve scrutiny, the bit at the end about birth control as the province of people who can’t control their urges. That’s his way as a devout Christian of giving thumbs down to fornication, I take it; if you’re not practicing premarital abstinence, it must be because you’re incapable on some level and need contraception to protect you from the consequences. Not so. Plenty of people could pass on recreational sex but choose not to because they don’t see the moral harm in it that Huck does. See Ace for more on that. I thought the party had moved on from squabbling about contraception, especially after the upset when Stephanopoulos blindsided Romney with a question about it during the primary debates in 2012, but it’s hard to move on when you’ve got a would-be presidential candidate disapprovingly identifying some sort of irresistible compulsion to the way most people behave sexually. See what I mean about landmines of his own making?

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I elect ‘Huckabee’ as slang for conservative women’s libido.
verbaluce on January 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM

And “verbaluce” as slang for (D) tendencies to have heard about a topic in passing but to have no actual knowledge of it.

lostmotherland sure verbaluced that earlier attempt on equating military spending to food stamps, didn’t he?

rogerb on January 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM

You mean “red states”, right?

Care to look at balance of payments between red and blue?

How about divorce rates, out of wedlock births, income, AND educational achievement.

Try again.

inklake on January 24, 2014 at 9:17 AM

LOL, And another dumbfukk weighs in. You idiots are predictable if nothing else. Try this for starters, maybe you’ll get it.

STATES don’t Vote. People do.

Sure let’s talk about divorce rates, out of wedlock births and educational achievement.

Divorce rates: Higher among democrat voters regardless of what state they live in. What this has to do with anything I have no idea.

Out of Wedlock Births Pregnancies: Higher among “Blue Voters” regardless of what color state they live in.

Educational Achievement: High School dropouts vote “Blue” overwhelmingly.

Now for those subsidies. You might start by learning the definition.

ROFLMAO, another ignorant progtard reciting the old blue state vs red state meme. LOL

You do know, fukktard, that the majority of FED $ going back to the states is in the form of Social Security and Medicare (both libtard programs by the way). Who gets SS and Medicare? Oh yeah, old retired people who have paid into the system all their lives. Which means they are getting what they contributed during their working years back while sending less $ back to the Feds for income tax. What states have an older/retired population? Oh yeah, the red ones.

The other big chunk of Fed $ going back to the states is for the military,federal land management and indian lands…what states have more military bases, national parks, federal managed land and large indian reservations? Why it’s aA couple of those southern conservative states like MT and AK that are on your list.

The other portion is medicaid and welfare. On a per capita basis you are more likely to be an obama voter if you take medicaid regardless of what state you live in.

Welfare NY and CA get 40%+ of all the FEDERAL funds for WELFARE sent to the states.

And all that money flowing from the “Blue States”? It’s not coming from the “blue voters” in those states. It’s coming from the wealthy who overwhelmingly vote “red”.

You do know that the “blue states” have quite a few more corporations which send their tax money from that state to the feds. You do know that most corporations derive their income from all across the US from both red and blue states.

So sorry scooter…you’re as ignorant as Ric lostmotherland. You must be one of the high school dropouts that vote democrat.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

I heard the Governor of NY proclaimed the state as off limits for conservatives…any truth to that..?

d1carter on January 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Huckabee wasn’t saying women (or men for that matter) can’t control their libido. He’s saying Deomcrats try to get women to believe that. Democrats pitch the idea that birth control is a necessity, that you can’t live without it, because dang it, you have no control over when you have sex. And because it’s a necessity, like food, and air, and cellphones, it should be provided free to everybody.

hawksruleva on January 24, 2014 at 11:06 AM

This jibber jabber can all be ended if we just accept Allah’s Sharia and the words of his Prophet (pbuh).

Nomennovum on January 24, 2014 at 1:58 PM

No. Leaders are supposed to lead.

blink on January 24, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Leadership is a form of persuasion.

fadetogray on January 24, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Your comments make it clear that you’re clueless about true leadership.

blink on January 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Sheeesh, blink. Try to imagine you aren’t God.

Leadership is a form of persuasion with regard to the general group of people one is leading. A leader often needs to use coercion against obstacles (the obstacle may be one of the group he is leading). If the obstacle is the group he is leading, then he’s not showing leadership. His leadership has failed, and now he is ruling by coercion.

fadetogray on January 24, 2014 at 10:54 PM

Coercion is a tool, and I can easily give you a few examples of coercion being the RIGHT tool under certain circumstances.

blink on January 24, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Coercion by a real leader acting as a leader (not a tyrant) of the group being led, and not just of an obstacle?

I suspect ours is a difference of definitions, not of meaning, and I know a fair amount of history, but perhaps I have been missing a whole theme, so please enlighten me.

fadetogray on January 24, 2014 at 11:50 PM

BTW, blink, do you believe it makes sense for absolutist pro-life people (full human rights at conception; no exceptions but the life of the mother) to try to jam that banning of abortion into law nationally now (if circumstance were to happen to give them the chance) without having first persuaded the electorate of the righteousness of their cause?

If you are not arguing that, then I am not interested in carrying this further.

fadetogray on January 25, 2014 at 12:06 AM

You don’t seem to know much about leadership.

blink on January 25, 2014 at 12:27 AM

I was talking about political leadership, and as you have given none of your ‘easy’ examples, and it is apparent you are not interested in discussing how this applies to the issue I was relating it to (the politics of abortion), I am not interested in further discussion with you while you are in full troll mode.

Have a nice day, blink.

fadetogray on January 25, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I guess what Allah is saying is that practicing Christians either need not apply for higher political offices or they need to check their religious beliefs at the door, in the interests of political success. I’m not even sure that the latter option is viable for a Christian who really believes and practices the teachings in the Bible. I don’t even much like Huckabee, but his message of women (and men for that matter) practicing self-mastery and personal responsibility is much needed in our society. If we pay for birth control, we, the taxpayers, fund a lifestyle that goes against the fundamental religious beliefs of a large percentage of our population. Beside that, where does it all end? Do we fund breast augmentation, penis implants, cosmetic surgery, etc., because individuals come to believe that they need it to be mentally balanced and healthy. The US Constitution clearly had none of this in mind when it was written. Politicians and liberal judges have stretched the meaning of it so far, that its true meaning is hardly recognizable anymore.

NuclearPhysicist on January 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Elected officials aren’t supposed to be auto-switches attached to political surveys.

blink on January 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM

I didn’t say they should be. There is a huge space between “auto-switches attached to political surveys” and cramming through laws I like no matter how unpopular they are.

fadetogray on January 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM

And don’t laws such as those forbidding partial birth abortions have quite a bit of support? Don’t laws forbidding taxpayer money from being used to fund certain things have quite a bit of support? Is anyone really trying to make contraception illegal?

blink on January 25, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Glad to see we’ve found common ground. Let’s run on that and leave the philosophizing about conception to philosophy classes and blogs, not political campaigns.

fadetogray on January 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM

What conservatives who go the whole personhood at conception route have to do is realize that being elected a representative in a republican democracy doesn’t make you those voters’ RULER.

fadetogray on January 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Then I rambled on and got in trouble with you. Conciseness is my friend.

fadetogray on January 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Are you claiming that conservatives are guilty of not realizing this more than anyone else?


fadetogray on January 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM

The argument that this is a “shot at democrats” and Huckabee is parodying them with a statement he doesn’t really believe doesn’t add up.

As Allahpundit says, anyone who can read at a third grade level can see his words are meant to be a parody of democratic way of thinking.

BUT his quote states that any woman who is on birth control can’t control their libido… doesn’t matter that the government regulates health care so that it’s paid for or not. There’s no other way to take his comments (as he spoke them) other than he thinks that women on birth control can’t control their libido. Which is preposterous.

Tom_Shipley on January 26, 2014 at 8:48 PM