His point was in reference to Obama's outlook on the British and where it might come from.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4564736/huckabee-explains-controversial-kenya-comments


Here you go.

Im not sure I agree with him, but I can see his point. I just dont think he was trying to say he grew up in Kenya, just that his family ties to Kenya has had some influence on his world view.

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2011 11:09:27 AM

First of all what is Obama's outlook on the British exactly? he hates them? what?


I'll admit that it could have possibly been a gaff, but his only family ties to Kenya where through his dad, whom he had very little contact with when he was growing up. I wonder why Huckabee doesn't talk about the affect his british descended mom and grandparents had on him, you know, the people that actually raised him.

All I see is Huckabee trying to paint Obama as different from "the rest of us" rather than try to actually discuss policy, even though he claims he wants to.

3/3/2011 11:44:16 AM

It wasn't a slip of the tongue, because if it was then what he said wouldn't make any sense. He's basically saying that he meant to say Indonesia but he said Kenya. That's a lie.

From The Washington Post:

Quote :

"Indonesia used to be a Dutch colony, known as the Dutch East Indies. The British controlled Malaysia, which is kind of close to Indonesia, but the Mau Mau uprising took place in Kenya in the 1950s. Churchill was the British prime minister when the uprising erupted in 1952. Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was reportedly detained during the conflict, though that is not confirmed. (See third update below.) In his memoir "Dreams from my Father," Obama wrote that he did not visit Kenya until he was in his 20s. Obama barely knew his father, who abandoned Obama's mother shortly after he was born and played almost no role in Obama's upbringing. The question of the Winston Churchill bust is a bit murkier. Huckabee is right that the British press went a little nuts over this issue. But the bust was on loan from the British to President George W. Bush and the White House said it was due to be returned before Obama even arrived at the White House. Still, the British embassy said they would extend the loan if Obama wished. But Obama replaced the bust with one of Abraham Lincoln--a Republican!--and now the Churchill bust resides at the residence of the British ambassador. Obama later tried make amends, praising Churchill at a news conference and making a point of noting he kept a biography of Churchill on display. But in any case Churchill had nothing to do with Indonesia, where Obama lived for five years, until he was 10. ... Huckabee appeared on Bryan Fischer's radio show Wednesday and discussed the incident further, noting that, regarding the return of the Churchill bust, he merely quoted the outrage of a British newspaper in his book. "I do think he [Obama] has a different world view and I think it is, in part, molded out of a very different experience," Huckabee said. "Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas." The idea that Obama attended a madrassa had been debunked by original Fact Checker Michael Dobbs (it was a Catholic school.) But the notion that Obama is anti-colonial--and that this is bad--is also a little strange. After all, one of the biggest foes of Winston Churchill's efforts to hold onto British colonies was none other than President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/03/huckabees_kenya_clarification.html

3/3/2011 9:16:33 PM

Quote :

"All I see is Huckabee trying to paint Obama as different from "the rest of us" rather than try to actually discuss policy, even though he claims he wants to. "

I think you are correct. Discussing where he might have gotten his opinion from is not a discussion on his policy.

I think it was clearly a gaff that he said Kenya. And I agree that he is trying to point out that he is different than most americans. It is certainly politics. But if your grandfather was locked up by another nation, you might resent that nation a bit. It is plausible, Ill give him that.

Im not saying I agree with Huck, just that he has apologized for the gaff and that I see the point he was trying to make.

3/3/2011 9:27:53 PM

Quote :

"Im not saying I agree with Huck, just that he has apologized for the gaff and that I see the point he was trying to make. "

That doesn't make the thought any less dumb.

The gov. and society was doing stuff against the black community domestically until the 80s. What you're implying is that black americans would make questionable presidents until people growing up in the 80s are grandfathers?

It seems like he's trying to use "identity politics" with a certain 70% of the population. He'll reap what he sows...

3/3/2011 9:36:13 PM

Even if Obama's childhood had been true to Huckabee's imagining, its a ridiculous point to make.

3/4/2011 12:00:11 PM

Huckabee has a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease right now.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41913720/ns/today-entertainment/

3/5/2011 1:02:44 AM

Between the crazy stuff he's been willing to say lately, and his being a "candidate" that fox decided not to suspend, perhaps he has decided against running?

3/5/2011 1:09:33 AM

^that would make sense. Or just isnt close to announcing.

Huck doesnt stand a chance. But he will get my vote for supporting the fairtax.

3/5/2011 9:50:31 AM

Huckabee could never get my vote. Let's see: he's a neo-conservative, he's a religious fundamentalist, he's not actually going to tackle any of the systemic flaws in the government. He's another Republican/Fox Machine clown. Fuck that guy, fuck any of these Fox News "front runners."

3/5/2011 10:28:28 AM

^fairtax fixes a big problem with our govt. imo

I think you get that, a lot of these issues fix themselves. (balanced budget admendment too)

3/5/2011 10:50:31 AM

It just changes the way revenue is collected. It does nothing to control spending, it does nothing to fix entitlements, and it does nothing to address a corrupt central banking structure.

In other Huckabee related news:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/03/04/mike-huckabee-criticizess-natalie-portmans-pregnancy/?KEYWORDS=huckabee

Quote :

"In an interview with radio talk show host Michael Medved that took place on Monday but that’s getting traction today, Huckabee said that Portman’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy was “troubling.” “It’s unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea” of having children without being married, Huckabee said on the program."

Quote :

"–”You know Michael, one of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.’ But there aren’t really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie.” –”Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that’s the story that we’re not seeing.” –”You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids — across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.”"

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/03/04/mike-huckabee-criticizess-natalie-portmans-pregnancy/?KEYWORDS=huckabee

What a douche. Shut the fuck up already, you judgmental prick.

3/5/2011 3:11:20 PM

Quote :

"It just changes the way revenue is collected. It does nothing to control spending, it does nothing to fix entitlements, and it does nothing to address a corrupt central banking structure. "

I disagree. We will have more people paying in. In order to pay for X people will actually see the increase in tax they pay, instead of just pushing it on a small minority of people.

People would take home their entire paychecks and, hopefully, investing much more. Thus limiting the need for entitlements. The benefit would now be back on working, instead of not working. (for some)

He is right about the majority of single moms, but it is his opinion. he has no right to judge Portman. She can afford her own kid.

3/5/2011 4:35:20 PM

Quote :

"Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that’s the story that we’re not seeing."

and so he wants to cut back on the government assistance which according to him would make the majority of single mom's children starve to death. I guess divorced moms children without child support will also starve to death.

[Edited on March 5, 2011 at 7:13 PM. Reason : silly me and my logical train of thought.]

3/5/2011 7:12:35 PM

Pro life, y'all.

3/5/2011 10:53:14 PM

unfortunately the GOP has yet to come up with a candidate worthy of my vote. its quite sad actually.

also, a side note, if the economy makes a decent rebound by the time the elections rolls around it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to win.

[Edited on March 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : f]

3/7/2011 2:23:36 PM

Huckabee on single moms in 2008. See if you can pick out what's different.

Quote :

""It ought to be a reminder that here is a family that loves one another. They stuck with each other though the tough times and that's what families do." ... Huckabee said the surprise pregnancy announcement should not affect vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's support in the conservative and religious right communities. ... "I'm grateful for the way she's being supported by her family." "

3/7/2011 3:44:30 PM

Quote :

"There is about 0% chance that the GOP will come up with a candidate that I can tolerate. That is just too much to ask of them. And if someone like Palin runs, I'll vote for Obama. "

Stop voting for people you don't like just because the other guy is worse. No candidate is perfect, of course, but I finally resolved that if they aren't at least decent, I will not vote for them.

3/7/2011 10:38:26 PM

Obama is not a bad choice for a pro-military, fiscal conservative like yourself, Duke. Sure, we've got some crazy deficits right now, but Obama has shown a willingness to work with the GOP to keep taxes low and cut discretionary spending. I can't find too much fault with his role as commander-in-chief, having retained top military brass and turned the focus of our war efforts to Afghanistan.

I would imagine that you probably balked at the stimulus and Affordable Care Act, but beyond those, what are your major gripes with Obama? I feel like he has shown himself to be a pragmatic centrist, eschewing far-left ideology for level-headed leadership in wake of the disaster that was W's presidency.

3/7/2011 11:12:36 PM

Quote :

"I would imagine that you probably balked at the stimulus and Affordable Care Act, but beyond those, what are your major gripes with Obama?"

Probably the fact that everyone was wrong about him during the elections

3/7/2011 11:59:00 PM

If you actually listened to him, he campaigned as a centrist. That's why I voted for him.

All the progressives who are so disappointed in him must have been projecting their own beliefs onto him, or they weren't paying attention.

3/8/2011 11:49:16 AM

Quote :

"pro-military, fiscal conservative"

I lol'd

3/8/2011 12:13:42 PM

^fiscal conservative?

The birthers make more sense than that. lol

3/8/2011 12:16:48 PM

Just the idea that it's possible to be fiscally conservative while wanting to maintain the size and mission of the U.S. military is funny.

3/8/2011 1:11:34 PM

Quote :

"cut discretionary spending."

this is the dumbest thing cause it has no effect on the deficit

3/8/2011 1:25:57 PM

No effect?

Don't be stupid.

3/8/2011 2:00:23 PM

ok a tiny effect not worth mentioning

3/8/2011 2:17:40 PM

Entitlements are the biggie. Defense is a very distant second, esp when looking long term.

I think most conservatives give defense a pass bc it is actually the job of the federal govt. However, it does need to be addressed when dealing with our current situation.

^yep. Republicans want to trim just over 1% off the budget and the outcry over it is ridiculous. If there is this much pushback over so little, we really are fucked.

[Edited on March 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2011 2:26:44 PM

A perfect example of American politics...just the other day, when voting on budget amendments, there was one amendment (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll065.xml) that spent $10 million on a sewer project in Tijuana, Mexico. The vote passed to cut it, but by a slim margin (228-203, with 21 Republicans voting against cutting it, and 9 democrats voting for cutting it). I'm sorry, but if you were one of the 203 members of congress that voted to keep that funding then you clearly just do not understand the magnitude of the debt that we have.

We ought to break out a a pillory and some tomatoes for all of those idiots who can't fucking cut $10 million on a foreign fucking project just because they don't have the balls to tell Mexico to fix their own fucking sewer system.

3/8/2011 2:40:49 PM

Quote :

"Entitlements are the biggie."

Your talking about earmarks? Why? They are such a small part of our budget I don't understand why everyone makes a big deal out of it. Also, removing them doesn't reduce spending at all it just removes the promise that it will go to specific pet projects. It may still, but it just isn't a sure thing.

3/8/2011 3:39:55 PM

^^
This is the only description I could find regarding that amendment:

"An amendment numbered 379 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce by $10,000,000 the Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants account."

Where did you hear it was for a sewer project in Tijuana?

[Edited on March 8, 2011 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2011 3:47:45 PM

Quote :

"Your talking about earmarks?"

What? Entitlements are FAR from earmarks

3/8/2011 4:10:39 PM

entitlements such as office space, budgets, vehicles, stuff like that? i guess one way to take down a giant pyramid is by starting with the teeny little point at the top. :shrug:

3/8/2011 4:48:31 PM

By entitlements aren't they referring to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?

3/8/2011 5:01:30 PM

yeah

^^ entitlement is not a synonym for expenditure

3/8/2011 5:01:59 PM

I'd like to know what process they're going through to determine what is and isn't "discretionary" spending. It was all discretionary at one point, and as far as I'm concerned, it's all discretionary now.

3/8/2011 5:07:15 PM

^^^^^^

Starts at the bottom of page H989

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-02-16/pdf/CREC-2011-02-16-pt1-PgH957-2.pdf#page=34

3/8/2011 7:08:55 PM

Discretionary spending is subject to annual congressional authorization. It can be increased, decreased or cut entirely with an up or down vote.

Non-discretionary spending, such as Medicare, Medicaid, SS and interest on debt, is locked in and would require new laws to change.

[Edited on March 8, 2011 at 7:25 PM. Reason : 2]

3/8/2011 7:24:17 PM

^^
Thanks. Apparently it's because massive amounts of waste from Tijuana is washing up on California's beaches. We can't exactly force Mexico to take care of it so I can see why it would be necessary.

http://www.takepart.com/news/2010/09/27/mexican-wastewater-trashes-california-beaches

3/8/2011 7:43:03 PM

Imperial Beach in San Diego and a lot of the Silver Strand are essentially sewers because of how bad Tijuana and the Tijuana estuary are. it's causing massive negative impact to the ecosystem there and is driving down property values and business development. IB was one of the shittiest areas of San Diego when I was in the area back in 2002-2004

3/9/2011 3:45:25 PM

wrong thread

3/10/2011 8:49:31 PM

Quote :

"When Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accepted the endorsement of Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee in 2008, the result was a PR disaster. After critics pointed to Hagee's incendiary views on gays (whom he held responsible for Hurricane Katrina) and Catholicism (which he described as a "false cult"), the Arizona Republican called Hagee's views "crazy and unacceptable" and renounced the endorsement. But three years later, Hagee is once more involved in Republican presidential politics. Later this month, he'll host former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a 2012 aspirant, at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio. For the candidate and the pastor, the summit is a chance for two controversial figures to help each other back into the spotlight—though a Hagee spokesman says the pastor has no plans to endorse Gingrich. "Every so often [Hagee] pops up like a Whac-A-Mole and then goes away again," says Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, who was part of the anti-Hagee choir three years ago. "Why does someone like Newt Gingrich feel like he has to have a public association with this person? Clearly it's about politics."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/newt-gingrich-john-hagee

Is there any way to pin Gingrich's serial infidelity on the gays?

3/15/2011 12:39:28 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/trump-says-he-has-doubts-about-obama%E2%80%99s-birth-place/

lol

3/17/2011 2:34:42 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/19/1063723/gingrich-to-address-wake-gop-next.html

Quote :

"Former U.S. House speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich will be the keynote speaker Thursday at the Wake County Republican convention. The convention will begin at 7 p.m. in the Kerr Scott Building on the State Fairgrounds in Raleigh, and Gingrich is scheduled to speak first, according to Susan Bryant, chairwoman of the Wake County Republicans."

Looks like the local GOP is bringing him to town.

3/19/2011 3:56:21 PM

If they allow questions (which is a big if), I plan on asking him why he takes the big government approach to social issues, give some specific example, and then sit back and watch him give some BS answer.

3/20/2011 11:40:45 AM

Pretty sure Ron Paul supports that sort of stuff, too. Just as long as it's not the Federal courts making decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#We_the_People_Act

So if you live in Alabama and can't afford to "vote with your feet" for one reason or another, your constitutional rights are SOL. Freedom!

3/21/2011 3:52:00 PM

That's better than the alternative, which is terribly shortsighted federal policies (and amendments) that no one can opt out of unless they leave the country.

I mean, here's the reality: there are states in this country that are not going to become "enlightened" anytime soon. I blame it on religion, the media, and spineless politicians, but it is what it is. At least federalism, if done right, allows people that really do believe in freedom to try out their ideas. If you actually look at what Ron Paul has said about same sex marriage, he doesn't want the government involved in regulation of relationships at all, and I agree. It's unnecessary. That's the mainstream view among "paultards."

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2011 5:13:37 PM

Let's start making a list of "candidates" whose "candidacy" and anything referring to it should be surrounded by disbelief quotation marks.

Newt Gingrich
Sarah Palin
Hike Huckabee
Donald Trump


There are two options:

1. They actually think that they can win. Diagnosis: delusional
2. They're only "running" to sell more books and charge more for speaker fees. Diagnosis: cynics leveraging our democracy to make a buck.

3/21/2011 6:34:25 PM

Quote :

"I mean, here's the reality: there are states in this country that are not going to become "enlightened" anytime soon. I blame it on religion, the media, and spineless politicians, but it is what it is. At least federalism, if done right, allows people that really do believe in freedom to try out their ideas. If you actually look at what Ron Paul has said about same sex marriage, he doesn't want the government involved in regulation of relationships at all, and I agree. It's unnecessary. That's the mainstream view among "paultards.""

So if a state wants to deny equal protection under the law, that's ok in a universal sense? I mean, what is more important: universal liberty or "state's rights" (and I'm not using that as a synonym for constitutional federalism, but rather as a synonym for a vulgar localism)?

The constitution seems to promote the former in the case of equal protection, imo. Why should religious-based decisions not receive that same treatment that we reserve for everything else protected under the bill of rights.

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 6:56 PM. Reason : x]

3/21/2011 6:54:49 PM

Quote :

"So if a state wants to deny equal protection under the law, that's ok in a universal sense? I mean, what is more important: universal liberty or "state's rights"?"

I don't think it's okay. The problem I'm bringing up (which seems to be a bigger threat) is that a government capable of enforcing "universal liberty" is capable of enforcing a lot more. If you have a powerful federal government, and we have an Idiocracy scenario, liberty doesn't end up winning out.

3/21/2011 6:57:11 PM