Huckbee Claims Gay Marriage Leads To “Criminalization Of Christianity”

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee is calling legalization of same-sex marriage a move towards the “criminalization of Christianity.”

“I think it’s fair to say that Christian convictions are under attack as never before,” Huckabee said Thursday, according to audio of the call obtained by Right Wing Watch, a project of the progressive advocacy group People for the American Way. “Not just in our lifetime, but ever before in the history of this great nation. We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity.”

The former governor of Arkansas, who is expected to announce his presidential bid on May 5, said it is his “biblical duty” to pray for the members of the Supreme Court as they prepare to rule on same-sex marriage this summer.

Huckabee also appeared to be defending gay conversion therapy. He did note a trend among Republican donors which upsets him but I see as a change for the better: “supposedly conservative donors and conservative office holders are running away from the issue.” Many Republicans realize this is a battle they have lost and are moving on.

Huckabee’s statements show  the distorted view of the religious right on the role of religion and government, and why the Founding Fathers were right in establishing a secular state based upon the principle of separation of church and state. Respecting gay rights based upon support for individual liberty does not limit the legitimate rights of Christians. They certainly are not forced to enter into gay marriages (and I’m not sure how Huckabee would respond to those Christian homosexuals who do exist). Despite the paranoia of some on the religious right, legalization of same-sex marriage would not mean that churches opposed to homosexuality would be forced to perform gay marriages.

The only “right” which Christians would see limited is the “right” to use the power of government to impose their religious views upon others. This is what the religious right is fighting over.

Please Share

Clinton Trailing Republicans In Battle Ground States Prior To Announcing Her Candidacy As Voters Consider Her To Be Dishonest

Hillary Clinton is going to announce her candidacy to be the best president money can buy with a video on Sunday. Then later that evening you can see more treacherous people seeking power on this season’s premier of  Game of Thrones. If after watching Clinton’s video you want to watch even more video in which you are constantly being deceived by a dishonest woman, I would recommend watching Gone Girl. 

With her announcement imminent, Clinton continues to drop in the swing state polls. The Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll shows Clinton trailing or tied in match-ups against Republicans in Iowa and Colorado while still holding a lead in Virginia:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, and she finds herself in a close race with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in each state, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today. In head-to-head matchups, every Republican candidate effectively ties her in Colorado and almost all Republicans effectively tie her in Iowa.

Secretary Clinton has lost ground in almost every matchup in Colorado and Iowa since a February 18 Swing State Poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. The Swing State Poll focuses on key states in the presidential election.

One bright spot for Clinton is Virginia, the largest of the three states, where she leads all Republicans, including 47 – 40 percent over Bush, compared to a 42 – 42 percent tie in February.

Voters in each state say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. Her overall favorability has dropped significantly in Colorado and Iowa, while Virginia is unchanged. Favorability ratings for the Republicans are lackluster, at best.

The poll has her trailing Rand Paul in both Iowa and Colorado. She is even struggling against candidates such as Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee. Although she does better in head to head matches against the Republican candidates in Virginia, and the numbers aren’t as bad as in the other swing states, Clinton is still not trusted:

Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, Virginia voters say 52 – 40 percent. Her e-mail scandal is important to their vote, 51 percent of voters say, while 47 percent say it’s not so important or not important at all. The e-mail issue makes 39 percent less likely to voter for her, while 56 percent say it makes no difference.

Serious questions about the e-mail scandal remain, 54 percent of voters say, while 38 percent say Clinton has given satisfactory answers. Virginia voters say 51 – 46 percent a Congressional investigation into the e-mail scandal would be politically motivated.

The email scandal is more likely to hurt her as more voters are paying attention to the issue, but Clinton is likely to receive a favorable bounce after announcing her candidacy.

Some Democrats have been willing to ignore both Clinton’s ethical lapses and her conservative views due to the belief that she has the best chance to win the general election. Instead it is increasingly looking like Clinton might have a difficult time winning the 2016 election.

Please Share

Potential Conservative Attacks On Obama If He Had Attended Paris March

I recently discussed why the right wingers attacking Obama regarding the recent rally in France are wrong as it was both impractical and noted why it would have been inappropriate for Obama to have attended. If he had gone there is no doubt he would have been attacked by the right for multiple reasons, including:

  • The cost of the trip
  • The security risks in appearing at such an event with inadequate time to prepare
  • Hogging the limelight, making the trip about him
  • The disruption his security measures would have caused in Paris if he attended
  • Ignoring the request of the French government that he not attend because of the disruption it would have caused
  • Wearing the wrong color suit
  • Having the wrong skin color (more implied than said out loud)
  • Not being in Washington at a time when there would have been a greater risk of terrorist attacks
  • Just for going to France, because conservatives usually hate France
  • For allowing his kids to remain home without parental supervision where they might listen to Beyoncé (and they would be even madder when this led to Jimmy Carter defending him)

On the other hand, if a Republican president had not attended, they would have had no complaints and would have praised him for not going to France.

Please Share

Clinton v. Bush, Again?

Clinton Bush

A lot can change between now and when the two major political parties pick their nominees, but it is looking increasingly like we might face another Clinton v. Bush campaign. Larry Sabato, while acknowledging that there are factors which could cause him to lose, has placed Jeb Bush alone in his top tier of Republican nominees:

So for the first time in a while, we elevate a candidate to the First Tier of the Crystal Ball’s GOP rankings for president. Jeb Bush fills a long-established vacuum. Our decision is tentative; his poll ratings are still underwhelming, and Bush is a shaky frontrunner. Yet Bush is No. 1 on a giant roster as we begin the long roller-coaster process of picking the party nominees over the next year and a half.

We are amazed that Republicans could nominate their third Bush for a fifth run at the White House since 1988. Such family dominance of either major party is unprecedented in American history, unless you want to link Republican Teddy Roosevelt’s one nomination (1904) with Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s four nominations (1932-1944). The Roosevelt presidencies were separated by party labels and 24 years. The Bush presidencies, should Jeb win it all, will have been separated by just eight-year intervals.

By no means is Bush a sure thing — far from it. The path to the nomination will likely be tougher for this Bush than it was for his father in 1988 and brother in 2000. The party establishment is still a force to be reckoned with, but nowhere near as dominant in the GOP of 2015 as it was in those earlier times.

Currently, more than three-quarters of Republicans want someone other than Bush. The frontrunner depends on a split in conservative ranks — which appears to be happening — as well as a concerted push by the party’s establishment leaders and donors to freeze out Bush alternatives (including Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and John Kasich). We’ve always doubted Romney would run unless the pragmatists in the leadership and donor class deemed a rescue mission essential; right now, they do not. The remaining Bush alternatives are still in the game, though.

After Bush, Sabato has Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie in the second tier, with other candidates ranked down to a seventh tier. Mike Huckabee, who has also taken recent action towards a possible campaign, is in the third tier along with Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. My Governor, Rick Snyder of Michigan is in the fourth tier. He is likely the least bat-shit crazy of the bunch, but I fear that even if he was president he would acquiesce to far too much from a Republican Congress, as he sometimes does with the bat-shit crazy Michigan legislature. Snyder originally won the Republican nomination for Governor because of support from Democrats in 2010 when he looked like the lesser evil when it was apparent that a Republican was going to win.

With three-quarters of Republicans wanting someone other than Bush, it certainly seems possible that another candidate could emerge. While there is some sentiment among Democrats for someone other than Clinton, there do not appear to be any serious challengers at this point.

Please Share

Republicans Attack Ebola Czar While Blocking Surgeon General Nomination

On the surface, Republicans have been all over the place regarding the idea of a government official to coordinate handling of Ebola. For example, there’s John McCain. Back in 2009 he attacked Obama over having too many czars:

Then McCain demanded an Ebola czar:

“From spending time here in Arizona, my constituents are not comforted,” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told State of the Union host Candy Crowley Sunday morning. “There has to be more reassurance given to them. I would say that we don’t know exactly who’s in charge. There has to be some kind of czar.”

So Obama appointed an Ebola czar. Ezra Klein explained why Ron Klain is an excellent choice:

Today, the White House will announce that Klain is being named “Ebola czar.” It’s a good choice because it shows a healthy respect for how hard the bureaucratic job of coordinating the Ebola response really is.

The Ebola response involves various arms of the Department of Health and Human Services (particularly, though not solely, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, President Obama’s office, private stakeholders, and many, many more.

The “czar” position requires someone who knows how these different agencies and institutions work, who’s got the stature to corral their efforts, who knows who to call when something unusual is needed, who can keep the policy straight…

Actual government experience is badly underrated in Washington. Politicians run for office promising that they know how to run businesses, not Senate offices. “Bureaucrat” is often lobbed as an insult. But in processes like this one, government experience really matters. Nominating Klain suggests the White House is thinking about this correctly: as an effort that requires the coordination of already ample resources, where the danger is that the federal government will be too slow in sharing information across agencies and getting the resources where they need to go.

John McCain’s reaction to the appointment of an Ebola czar was to again attack Obama for doing what he recommended:

“Frankly, I don’t think Mr. Klain fits the bill, as a partisan Democrat, certainly not in any effort to address this issue in a bipartisan fashion,” McCain said Friday evening on Fox News.

“He has no experience or knowledge or background in medicine,” he added.

McCain is hardly the only Republican with irrational attacks. For example, Steven Taylor has looked at even more irrational attacks from Mike Huckabee. The only common thread to Republican response appears to be a knee jerk opposition to whatever Obama does.

The duties of an Ebola czar are exactly the bureaucratic skills which Klain has, not being a medial expert. Of course there is a position in government which should have a background in medicine, and work closely with the Ebola czar. That would be the Surgeon General–a nomination which Republicans have blocked as Obama’s nominee has shown concern for gun violence.  Now Democrats are demanding that the Senate vote for approval of the Surgeon General nominee:

More than two dozen House Democrats are calling on the Senate to swiftly approve Vivek Murthy’s nomination to serve as surgeon general to help combat the spread of the deadly Ebola virus in the U.S.

Murthy’s nomination got sidelined after Republicans and vulnerable Senate Democrats voiced reservations about the Harvard Medical School physician’s outspoken views on gun violence and public health. But the House Democrats, in a letter set to be released next week, argue that the Obama administration needs a top official in place to help with the Ebola response.

“The American public would benefit from having a Surgeon General to disseminate information that is desperately needed,” the Democrats wrote. “The Surgeon General can also work to amplify the Center for Disease Control’s actions, reassure the American people, and combat misinformation here at home.”

We have around 30,000 deaths due to guns a year in this country, but Republicans would rather ignore this problem, while playing politics and creating hysteria with a disease which so far has resulted in exactly one death in this country.

Please Share

Mike Huckabee Thinks Democrats Are Providing Coverage Of Birth Control Pills Because Women Cannot Control Their Libido

After being embarrassed by comments such as Todd Akin on “legitimate rape” and Richard Mourdock, saying that pregnancies resulting from rape are a “gift from god,” the Republican Party has been trying to teach their candidates how to speak without offending women. (Maybe they should teach their candidates about science, history, and economics t00). It appears that Mike Huckabee (who could also use some education on science) did not show up to the class on how to avoid offending women. This is how he wants the Republicans to speak to women:

“I think it’s time Republicans no longer accept listening to the Democrats talk about a ‘war on women,'” Huckabee said during a speech at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Washington. “The fact is the Republicans don’t have a war on women, they have a war for women, to empower them to be something other than victims of their gender.”

Huckabee said Democrats rely on women believing they are weaker than men and in need of government handouts, including the contraception mandate in Obamacare.

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,” Huckabee said. “Let’s take that discussion all across America.

He is saying what he thinks Democrats think, but from the context it sure appears that he is projecting his views here. Apparently, in Huckabee’s mind women who do need birth control are those who cannot control their libidos and do what he thinks unmarried women should do–abstain from sex. I believe this is a view he shares with Rush Limbaugh who called Sandra Fluke a slut for advocating in support of contraception coverage. After marriage, one Republican Congressman, Steve Pearce, recently advised that the wife’s role is to “voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice.” This is a view which Huckabee appears to share.

Was this comment on  libido just a one-time mistake? No, he has used the same line before on his show.

Taylor Marsh tried to explain things to Huckabee:

Democrats are aiding women economically with free reproductive health care that includes preventative screening and birth control, not because they think we’re sluts, but because they know it’s a basic healthcare cost that drains the pockets of young women, and they’re trying to level the economic playing field a bit for us. Republicans are the ones who are fighting basic reproductive health care coverage, which hurts women.

Please Share

American Taliban Watch: Ryan Joins Romney In Supporting School Prayer

While the speeches at the Democratic convention concentrated on the economy, health care, and national security as reasons to support the Democrats over the Republicans, Paul Ryan provided a reminder that voting Democratic is also important to preserve our heritage of separation of church and state. Ryan spoke out in favor of prayer in the public schools while campaigning in Utah:

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said Wednesday that he supports prayer in public schools.

The Wisconsin congressman addressed the issue during a brief stop inside a Republican volunteer center in Provo, Utah. He was in the state to attend a fundraiser.

Asked by a volunteer whether he supported giving states the right to allow “prayer or pledge” in schools, Ryan said he did.

“That’s a constitutional issue of the states, moral responsibility of parents, education,” Ryan continued.

“Exactly, so I am hoping to try and push that,” said the volunteer, 40-year-old Jenny Free, of Highland, Utah, a mother of nine.

“You know in Utah, I would think you would have a pretty good chance,” Ryan responded.

The remarks are generally in line with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who said last year that he supports prayer in public schools as well. Romney told an Iowa audience that there should be more prayer in schools and more “religious ornamentation” in the public square.

This is an example of how radical this Republican ticket is. Back in 2007 Mike Huckabee questioned the need for prayer in public schools:

The family that prays together doesn’t have to worry about the absence of government-mandated prayer in public schools, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told a group of reporters today.

The comments from Huckabee, who recently stepped down after a successful decade as Arkansas governor, were something of a surprise coming from the former Southern Baptist minister who has enjoyed support from Christian conservatives in his political climb — and hopes to do so again in his bid for Republicans’ 2008 presidential nomination. Decades after the Supreme Court struck down prayer in public schools as an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom, the issue continues to rankle Christian conservatives.

But Huckabee said he never could understand why so many people “railed against (the absence of) prayer in schools when they didn’t even pray at home.”

The former governor’s remarks on prayer came as he answered a question on whether the U.S.—contrary to Bush administration policy — should be diplomatically engaging Iran and Syria to address the Mideast conflicts. “Generally I don’t think talking to someone is a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of strength,” Huckabee said. Then, in making the point that people should seek out different points of view, as an aside he noted that fellow conservatives often had asked him why he and his wife sent their children to public schools rather than to Christian schools.

“I felt it was not the schools’ job,” he said, to teach his children to pray, but the family’s. For himself, Huckabee quipped, “I prayed in school every time I took a math test.”

Please Share

GOP Convention Day Three: The Lying Is Escalated

The Republican convention on Wednesday was fairly uneventful until Paul Ryan gave his speech. Prior to Ryan speaking the most exciting moment was the applause which Susana Martinez received for saying she carries a Smith & Wesson. Condi Rice joined the rest of the party in avoiding mention of the president she served under. I tweeted a suggestion for a drinking game earlier tonight: “GOP Convention Drinking Game For Teetotalers: Have a drink every time George Bush is mentioned.” Rice did have a hard time finding any actual fault in Obama’s foreign policy in an interview earlier in the day.

Mike Huckabee’s speech was much weaker than I expected. I did wonder how Huckabee knows what percentage of his income Mitt Romney gave to charity? Has he seen Romney’s tax returns? How much of Romney’s donations went to the Mormon Church as opposed to real charities?

The day brought more news of racism on the floor of the convention and in the Romney campaign. There have been new problems for Romney, between antagonizing the Paul supporters (which might make a difference in a very close election) and embarrassment from the yacht holding a party for this top supporters flying the flag of the Cayman Islands.

Until Paul Ryan came on, the most annoying thing I heard from Tampa was in radio interviews during the afternoon in which Republicans repeated their usual claims of superiority on family values. The difference between liberals and conservatives is not that liberals don’t practice family values. The difference is that Democrats do not use big government to impose their values on others as Republicans do. Democrats are also more inclusive, allowing gays to practice family values as married couples as opposed to defining what a marriage must be for others as many Republicans do. Numerous studies looking at who is more “moral” have shown the blue states to come out ahead of the red states and atheists to come out ahead over those are religious. Any measurement of such things is questionable, but it certainly does not support the Republican view of being superior on family values.

The convention ended the evening with a weird mashup–Eddie Munster giving John Galt’s speech. (Herman Munster was backstage fuming over all the lies Eddie was telling).

Paul Ryan showed he was an excellent choice by Mitt Romney. Ryan has all the Romney lies down well, and even added a few of his own.

Ryan attacked Obama for a plant which closed in his district. The decision to close the plant was made under George Bush,  and the plant stopped production under George Bush while Ryan opposed bailing out the auto industry. He attacked Obama for the stimulus, leaving out all the stimulus money he sought for his district, and ignoring the fact that the stimulus saved the economy which was in free fall when Obama took office. He blamed Obama for the deficit which was run up by George Bush, with the votes of Congressional Republicans including Paul Ryan. He blamed Obama for the drop in the credit rating which was caused by the irresponsibility of Congressional Republicans who threatened not to pay the bills they ran up. He repeated the big lie that Obama cut money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. The fact is that the cuts are for matters such as reducing the subsidies to insurance companies from George Bush’s plan, not to cut benefits for seniors, and that these cuts are also in Ryan’s budget. Obama is increasing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries such as eliminating the donut hole for prescription medications and covering preventive care not previously covered. In contrast Ryan seeks to turn Medicare into a voucher program which would greatly increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors. He also wants to greatly reduce Medicaid spending–much of which assists seniors on Medicare who cannot afford Medicare premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.

Ryan also spoke of freedom, but it is the conservative version of freedom which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms this nation was founded upon. Ryan supports the freedom of religious fanatics to impose their views upon others. Ryan supports the freedom of the ultra-wealthy to plunder the wealth of the nation and destroy the middle class.

Tomorrow night pathological liar Mitt Romney will speak.

Please Share

Huckabee Has Letter Calling Obama Advisers Political Whores Pulled

Honorable move by Mike Huckabee to demand that a fund raising  letter sent on his letterhead referring to Obama’s advisers as “morally repugnant political whores” be pulled. Huckabee denies having approved this. I am inclined to believe him. Compare Huckabee’s action in stating he did not approve this as soon as the letter went out to Ron Paul claiming he did not know about multiple racist and anti-Semitic items under his name, years after pocketing the money raised.

Please Share

Republicans Show Little Enthusiasm For Romney Nomination And It Appears Mutual On Mitt’s Part

It is now as official as it is going to get for a while. Barack Obama has obtained enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and it would take a rather major and unpredictable event to change the trajectory of the Republican race to deny Mitt Romney the Republican nomination. It remains possible that Romney might fall slightly short of the number of committed delegates to win, but there are likely to be near 600 unbound delegates, making it easy for Romney to pick up enough to win the nomination.  This is ensured by the manner that the party leadership is increasingly backing him, seeing his nomination as inevitable. On the other hand, Joe Scarborough says that nobody in the GOP establishment believes Romney can win. Republican voters are accepting the reality of his nomination, feeling satisfied but only eleven percent are actually excited by this outcome. The same poll also shows that a majority of Republican voters realize that Romney says what he thinks people want to hear as opposed to what he believes.

With Romney’s nomination having been fairly certain for the last few weeks, we are starting to get some inside information about the campaign. After all, Americans have become too inpatient to wait until after a campaign is over as might have been the case in the past. According to the National Review, Mike Allen and Evan Thomas’ e-book, Inside the Circus says that “Romney didn’t even have an oppo book on Rick Santorum a few days before the Iowa caucuses.” Personally I think they were foolish to totally write him off, not that it mattered in the end. With the other conservative candidates rising and then falling, I expected Santorum to pick up enough conservative votes to achieve some victories over Romney. Ultimately Romney did have a winning strategy:

[O]n March 14 and 15, Romney had raised over $3 million in New York and Connecticut. … The Romney campaign had a clever pitch for the event. Schmoozing with his money pals before the events, a Romney fund-raiser pointed out that “slightly more than half the delegates” to the GOP convention at Tampa “are evangelicals.” These true-believer conservatives are averse not only to Romney but to semi-reasonable types like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels. As a result, said this fund-raiser, the “responsible Republican guys” are “starting to realize” that at a brokered convention “it’s not going to be Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, a ticket they could really love. It’s probably Huckabee-Palin or Palin-Huckabee.” That was enough to scare the Wall Street crowd into getting out their checkbooks.

With Republicans already showing little enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s probable nomination, I wonder how the Huckabee and Palin supporters in the party accept this characterization of Huckabee and Palin as not even making his “semi-reasonable” list.

Please Share