Huckafuck was on CNN saying the only constitutional amendments he'd support while president is
to

"protect the sanctity of marriage"= gays are going to hell

and

"look after unborn americans" = outlaw abortion

this guy is too evangelical for me. i imagine he'd support the tenants of the patriot acts to help the war on drugs so that he can bust me smoking a bowl in my living room while easting chettos

1/8/2008 4:48:58 PM

^Id support the illegal thing, although you dont need to touch the constitution to do it.

Id support civil unions as long as they are as difficult to get out of as a marriage, and they cant sue a church for discrimination if they dont allow them to have their ceremony at that church.

1/8/2008 4:53:02 PM

Quote :

"they cant sue a church for discrimination if they dont allow them to have their ceremony at that church."

I agree with this part. A private church should have discretion on who they allow to wed in their facilities.

1/8/2008 4:55:39 PM

^sure just like a private country club, but they still get sued for discrimination. It will happen.

Fairtax by far outweighs any of the other BS huckabee is spouting. I dont think he can get a constitutional ban on either imo.

1/8/2008 5:14:07 PM

You know, something just occurred to me, and it stinks like hell.

Huckabee is winning conservative support for pushing the FairTax - which, for all of its flaws, is at least an innovative approach, and easily red meat for a conservative crowd. But just how serious is he about it?

Consider - when he proposes his Constitutional Amendments, the two he proposes are abortion and [no homo]. Repealing the 16th Amendment is nowhere on that list. (Which is kind of essential if someone is actually serious about the FairTax proposal).

Next, if Huckabee is such a supporter of the notion of the FairTax, then why as governor did he make no attempt to push a comprehensive reform toward a consumption tax? It may not have been "The FairTax (tm)", but he had it in his power to push for that kind of reform in his capacity as an executive. He didn't.

So just how serious is he about it this time around, except as a tool for winning primary votes?

1/8/2008 5:29:59 PM

^you could be right. Bush won on talking about cutting spending and no nation building. But at least he is the only one talking about it, which will have my full support. As opposed to the others who promise this and that with other peoples money. One candidate is actually promising you YOUR money. Refreshing.

Here is a post article on it and how he gains support from it. He used to push for a flat tax, but since shifted to the fairtax. MIght explain why he didnt push it earlier. Can a governor choose a tax structure anyway?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122702155.html

1/8/2008 5:46:10 PM

Not choose, but he certainly is in a prominent position to propose. That's my point, mostly. He didn't really use his position as chief executive to advance any kind of significant tax reform approaching structural reform then - so why now? Except, that is, as a cynical move for the primaries?

1/8/2008 6:08:32 PM

Quote :

"why as governor did he make no attempt to push a comprehensive reform toward a consumption tax? "

Arkansas already has a sales tax. You cannot really do a FairTax in just one state. It wouldn't remove any of the embedded fed. taxes.

Quote :

"Repealing the 16th Amendment is nowhere on that list."

I believe the FairTax bill (HR 25, S 1025) was amended so that it could not go into effect until the 16th Amendment was repealed. So if you support the FairTax, you are already supporting the repeal of that amendment.

1/8/2008 6:16:45 PM

Quote :

"Arkansas already has a sales tax. You cannot really do a FairTax in just one state. It wouldn't remove any of the embedded fed. taxes."

This is a disingenuous argument. Huckabee was well within his power to propose a significant structural shift away from a mixed system of property/income taxes at the state level to an exclusive system of state sales tax. Lacking that, why the sudden move to propose it now?

Quote :

"I believe the FairTax bill (HR 25, S 1025) was amended so that it could not go into effect until the 16th Amendment was repealed. So if you support the FairTax, you are already supporting the repeal of that amendment."

Repealing an Amendment requires an Amendment. So, if it's so important to Huckabee - why doesn't it show up anywhere in his short list? Unless, of course, it's not really as critical of a priority as he makes it out to be...

1/8/2008 6:21:47 PM

I think earthdog makes a good point. Its not like he was a senator. He was a governor, so Im not sure how much he could have pushed a Federal tax change.

However, I do see your point on having the amendment left out of his list. Its an interesting question, no doubt. However, he is the only one talking about it. So he has my support. Its a huge step in the right direction. I would, however, feel better about it if it didnt have a prebate, and just had no tax on food and clothes.

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2008 6:25:46 PM

But Huckabee did push other tax initiatives as governor. No, he wasn't a legislator - but he was in a position of key influence. He used that influence for other tax-related matters, but not to push for structural reform. So, why not? And, why now?

This is what's bugging me - a trail of evidence pointing to the fact that he's pushing this out as a cynical move to earn economic conservative credentials where they otherwise lack. It's not like there's much of a paper trail of Huckabee as an economic conservative before his run for president - this seems like an all-too-convenient means to paper over that deficit.

1/8/2008 6:47:28 PM

I just love coming into SB and reading each candidate's thread because all it is are people against the person bashing them.

What does Huckabee's evolution belief have to do with him running this country? I am sure the other candidates have the same exact belief that you do so you vote for them instead of this guy.

[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 2:42 AM. Reason : damn]

1/9/2008 2:41:36 AM

Quote :

"What does Huckabee's evolution belief have to do with him running this country? "

If we didn't have a federal dept of education which can, through funding, dictate policy to local districts, then a anti-evolution president couldn't force teachers to fall into line.

Now I guess he could always get congress to pass a law outlawing the "Darwin Fish" ornament some have attached to their car bumpers.

1/9/2008 10:59:07 AM

Colbert wants to be huckabee's running mate.



if this happens, ill consider voting republican. lolol

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/10/huckabee-looks-for-colbert-bump/

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : lolol]

1/10/2008 2:24:19 PM

^ No, Huckabee on four separate occasions has told Colbert he'd be his running mate.

And confirmed it again last night.

I figured he'd've rescinded it by now. He's actually a serious candidate.

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2008 7:06:09 PM

^^^ So, then, how bout we do away with the Dept. of Education, then? Would that make huckaliar any better for you?

1/10/2008 7:10:41 PM

^
Hmmmm.... if we could do away with at least one huge useless federal agency-and get the FairTax?

I might take off my Darwin Fish for that.

1/10/2008 7:25:02 PM

the iran gates of hell comment made me want to throw up

1/10/2008 9:36:27 PM

I hope Romney wins over HuckaFuck. We are pretty fucked if 08 is Huckabee vs. Hillary

1/11/2008 12:44:09 PM

seriously, we're in trouble if this guy is Pres. I don't think he will be capable at all of maintaining the separation of church and state.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

Quote :

""I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.""

even Joe Scarborough claimed that was "a reach" as far as church and state, but only went as far as saying "maybe liberals would find it to be a breach"

[Edited on January 15, 2008 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2008 10:46:17 PM

holy shit

1/15/2008 11:14:15 PM

i'm emailing this shit to my religious die hard republican back home

1/15/2008 11:37:41 PM

I'd like to see him back pedal out of that one.

It could be his Dean-scream.

1/16/2008 2:17:23 AM

Quote :

"It could be his Dean-scream."

Although it might help him in South Carolina.

1/16/2008 6:53:24 AM

Huck is doing some mighty big pandering with that line.
But according to the AP, half of S. Carolina's GOP voters are white evangelicals. And since this state's primary is a make-it-or-break-it for so many players, it's hard to blame him for the tactic. He's just trying to survive the day.

They all are.

He must know he is eventually going to have to face up to those comments someday. It will be interesting to see how he handles it.

1/16/2008 10:41:37 AM

What is the big deal? All he said was that he wanted to work within the bounds of our law to support legislation which a large part of American society supports. He is not trying to just do some end-run around the law to impose morality on all ya all. He is saying that we should work within the law to support legislation which empower the American public over say the condescending jurismisprudence that has flowed freely from the US-supreme court over the last half-century.

Specifically, I'd guess he is talking about a marriage amendment.

Anyway, relax it would never get that far, and even if it did the supreme court would just make something up to avoid submitting to the will of the people.

1/16/2008 11:16:49 AM

Well, we're ostensibly fighting a war against the concept of theocracy in a nation founded by deists, who adamantly opposed the idea of a church-state union. Saying that he wants to bring the Constitution in line with God's law would be a pretty bold statement. Aside from the obvious complications of determining what, exactly, "God's Law" is, it would be a repudiation of over two centuries of religious pluralism.

Either way, it’s irrelevant because it will never happen. The only explicitly moralistic amendment that was ever passed was the 18th Amendment and, as we all know, it was repealed. Faced with explicitly moral amendments to the Constitution, I see the American people rejecting it by a large majority.

1/16/2008 11:33:41 AM

Quote :

"All he said was that he wanted to work within the bounds of our law to support legislation which a large part of American society supports."

no, that's not at all what he said. He specifically said he wants to amend the constitution to support God's standards . Whether "god's standard", whatever that is, is or is not also what "a large part of American society supports" is irrelevant. If he wants to start the legal process to outlaw abortion or gay marriage or whatever via a Constitutional amendment, of course he has the right to do so. But to explicitly state that his rational for that action is to bring "God's standards" to the Constitution is clearly in violation of the separation of church and state.

As JCASHFAN said, having a leader like this is leading down the path of a theocracy, one of the major things the United States was never supposed to be.

If this would or would not happen (i.e. if President Huckabee could or could not get Constitutional amendments passed on what he believes to be God's law) is also largely irrelevant, because he has now clearly shown that he does not have respect for a secular government. As EarthDogg said, yes, this is obviously pandering to an evangelical base in SC that actually would support a theistic Christian-run government. But if his pandering allows him to make statements like this, I don't think he can really be trusted to remain objective on these issues when in office.

However, I don't think this is going to turn into a "dean-scream" for him. The media is largely going to stay away from this for fear of being labeled as anti-christian or anti-religious or whatever. Huckabee will get a free pass to say whatever he wants and treat the stump like a Southern Baptist pulpit.

1/16/2008 1:27:09 PM

Quote :

" no, that's not at all what he said. He specifically said he wants to amend the constitution to support God's standards . Whether "god's standard", whatever that is, is or is not also what "a large part of American society supports" is irrelevant. If he wants to start the legal process to outlaw abortion or gay marriage or whatever via a Constitutional amendment, of course he has the right to do so. But to explicitly state that his rational for that action is to bring "God's standards" to the Constitution is clearly in violation of the separation of church and state. "

So if I motivate my support for the FAIR tax on the basis of scripture that violates the separation of church and state? I thought it was ultimately the content of the law that matters, not the rational. For example, the RICO laws were never intended to be applied to abortion protesters but they were because the content was not specific to mobsters even though that was the rationale. So rationale for a law is not the essential thing. Granted, it may be what helps get it passed in the first place.

In short, to simply state that we cannot enact laws that enjoy religious support is preposterous. The issue should be the content of the law. Do you think that concept X is good for the country? If all us religious right folks happen to share the same opinion on concept X that does not make our opinions and votes any less viable.

Quote :

" As JCASHFAN said, having a leader like this is leading down the path of a theocracy, one of the major things the United States was never supposed to be. If this would or would not happen (i.e. if President Huckabee could or could not get Constitutional amendments passed on what he believes to be God's law) is also largely irrelevant, because he has now clearly shown that he does not have respect for a secular government. As EarthDogg said, yes, this is obviously pandering to an evangelical base in SC that actually would support a theistic Christian-run government. But if his pandering allows him to make statements like this, I don't think he can really be trusted to remain objective on these issues when in office."

Actually he has just shown he has more respect for the secular government than the supreme court has the past half-century or so. He at least acknowledged the need for amendments and such... in contrast the left just leapfrogged over several decades of debate about abortion and just legislated it from the bench. Now this is just an example but it is certainly not an isolated one.

I don't think anyone wants to return to the blue-laws and such. What we want is simply the protection of the unborn by law, protection of the weak and old, and free religious speech everywhere (even if you are in a government job). As I see it the biggest and easiest step in the right direction (which would also shake the apathy out of our bloated government schools) is to start a voucher program. I don't want to institute a religion in government, and neither does anybody else. We simply want the government to give money without consideration to whether or not something may be religious.

Frankly, I'd rather shrink the government in general so this is a non-issue.

It seems to me that if you really want to worry about a religion creeping into schools and government in such a way that it gets to the point of forming a litmus test for acceptance or participation then you should first worry about the Gai-worshipping tree huggers and their promulgation of
moralistic-environmentalism to the children.

Quote :

"However, I don't think this is going to turn into a "dean-scream" for him. The media is largely going to stay away from this for fear of being labeled as anti-christian or anti-religious or whatever. Huckabee will get a free pass to say whatever he wants and treat the stump like a Southern Baptist pulpit."

The media likes Huckabee for a variety of reasons.

1.) easy picking for democrats, I have no idea if this is true or false. I actually think most Americans
are not as deluded about the virtues of deism as all ya all, but I'm an optimist.

2.) he is not even remotely fiscally conservative, this becomes more and more clear as we hear him speak about people's problems... I'm still listening though, he may convince me otherwise as the election wears on.

3.) he is just generally likable.

1/16/2008 7:55:02 PM

dubya was just generally likable in 2000.

1/16/2008 8:05:07 PM

even if he was generally liked, he still only won in 2000 with the help of nadar and some dumbfucks in florida

1/16/2008 8:11:37 PM

1/16/2008 8:19:55 PM

folks, I'm telling you it'll be Huck on the GOP ticket this Nov.

absolutely certain.

Which is good.

The Dems should win.

1/16/2008 11:31:04 PM

Romney beat Huck among evangelicals in Michigan... could pose a threat, we'll see in a month or so.

1/17/2008 12:16:10 AM

I knew those magic underpants were good for something.

1/17/2008 12:17:45 AM

^ haha

Quote :

"In short, to simply state that we cannot enact laws that enjoy religious support is preposterous."

No, what's preposterous is considering your statement (which is true, taken at face value and out of context) to Huckabee's stated goal of changing the Constitution to meet "God's standards".

1/17/2008 1:41:43 AM

^well, pragmatically it is no more preposterous than supposing that a FAIR tax will be passed.

I'm not sure I understand your post.

I don't see how what I said was so different than what Huckabee said.

1/18/2008 2:13:19 AM

There is a huge, fundamental difference between enacting laws that happen to enjoy religious support and enacting laws based on religion (especially if you're doing so in such a dogmatic, organized manner, as Huckabee is suggesting).

Equating these two things, as you did, is preposterous.

1/18/2008 2:34:37 AM

this is the dude that thinks the earth is 6000 years old right?

1/18/2008 2:35:46 AM

I've even defended--and continue to defend--him over what he's said concerning evolution. What he has said is quite reasonable compared to the impression many people have.

This is absolutely absurd, though, and is completely indefensible.

1/18/2008 2:46:32 AM

^^actually I think he has the most reasonable view of all. He is a skeptic, he says he wasn't there so he doesn't know for certain what happened.

^ & ^^^No, I don't really think it is preposterous. Huckabee says he wants to change the Constitution to meet "God's standards", this is not to say he wants to make the whole Constitution word for word from the Bible or something. It is simply a compact way of stating an ensemble of beliefs which social conservatives happen to agree on.

Most ideas of a moral nature can be traced back to a motivation from Scripture. So just because he encapsulates the set of morals he upholds in terms of the Christianity he holds dear that is wrong? Have we gotten to the point where you cannot give due to the Author of truth without being mocked and maligned?

Anyway, ignoring the political side of Huck's statement, I hope most Christians would agree with the last half of it, certainly there are branches of Christianity which feel the need to redefine what is moral to "fit in" with modern society...

In a nutshell this is what is wrong with the concept of "separation of church and state" as it is commonly held. It leads people to think that we should not even entertain laws which agree with Scripture. How stupid.

The point was to avoid having an official state religion.

If I define marriage to be between a man and a woman, what religion am I?

If I make abortion illegal again then what religion am I?

If I make genetic euthanasia illegal then what religion am I?

These are all consistent with Scripture but not unique to Christianity.

1/18/2008 3:16:45 AM

Quote :

"It leads people to think that we should not even entertain laws which agree with Scripture. How stupid. "

That is not at all what I'm saying.


In addition, abortion is certainly not, at its core, a religious debate--much less a question to be viewed through the lens of Christianity. The abortion debate should be centered almost wholly around defining the point at which human life begins.

1/18/2008 3:26:38 AM

Quote :

"The abortion debate should be centered almost wholly around defining the point at which human life begins."

Which is a question that will never be 100% answered because people come into the debate on that question with a predisposed viewpoint and will only give evidence that supports their own personal view.

Seriously, why so much time and money is wasted on this issue when abortion will never be made illegal and will never be made entirely legal cause both sides are in one big expansive stalemate that will never move is beyond me.

Either have a binding plebiscite where the side with the most votes wins and their view carries the day or just shut up about it already.

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 9:21:35 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/18/huckabee-takes-heat-for-gay-marriage-comments/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Mike Huckabee is taking heat from some members of the gay community over recent comments that appeared to equate gay marriage with bestiality. In an interview with the religious Web site beliefnet.com, Huckabee pushes back on recent critics who have called some of his positions "radical." "I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal," he said in the interview, published on the Web site Wednesday. ""

Nice to see he can focus on the issues that really matter.

1/18/2008 2:44:54 PM

Quote :

"actually I think he has the most reasonable view of all. He is a skeptic, he says he wasn't there so he doesn't know for certain what happened."

I love what the Christian's definition of a skeptic is: someone who is unwilling or intellectually unable to seek out, learn, understand, and accept modern established scientific facts, instead falling back to the default historical views based on mythology and theology.
i.e. "i personally don't understand how evolution works because it's so complicated, so instead of taking the time and effort to learn about it myself, or trusting thousands of expert who devotes their lives and careers to such topics, i'll just choose to believe whatever's in the bible, no matter how ridiculous it is given modern science knowledge."

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 3:23:16 PM

Quote :

"Nice to see he can focus on the issues that really matter."

^^ Sad thing is that probably DOES really matter to him.... and a lot of people that think like he does.

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : f]

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : d]

1/18/2008 3:33:19 PM

So is Huckabee completely off the map now?

I haven't read through the entire thread, so I'm sure his background has been throughly discussed, but it just shocks me that he was a front runner, and now all I hear about is McCain and Romney

1/28/2008 9:26:44 AM

Could we really have a President named HUCK-A-BEE anyway?? The comedians would tear him a new one. Sounds more like a character from the Beverly hill billies then a presidential figure.

1/28/2008 9:34:04 AM

right

we should really decide who we vote on based on their name

good call

1/28/2008 9:34:57 AM

^sure, if we can president named Hussein, I think huckabee will be fine.

Has he clarified the Gods image quote? This is the first ive heard of it. Did he actually say it? No one is talking about it.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 9:39:21 AM