OK, he didn't exactly say those words. But he came close. He did put his name to this statement:
A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ
This is a guy who wants to lead all Americans. Sure... How does Huckster attempt to show he supports women's rights?
If you look at my cabinet, I had more women in my cabinet and on my staff in key positions, including chief of staff, than any other governor probably in Arkansas history.
Wow. He's not as bad as other former Governors of Arkansas. Considering the only other Governor of Arkansas the average American can name is the one who got busted diddling his intern in-between sexual harassment suits, that's a really lofty achievement, eh?
You know, if the general election is Hillary against Huckabee, Hillary just might prove correct in her thesis that many Republican women will vote for her.
Up until now, I have only skimmed the surface with my general disdain for the Huckster. Sure, I've made some posts and a comment here and there about problems with his stand on issues. But I've held back, because I do believe in Reagan's 11th Commandment and try not to speak too ill of fellow Republicans.
However... I don't think I can consider in good conscience Mike Huckabee to actually be a fellow Republican. He is a liberal big government tax and spend fool who shields himself behind a cloak of religious intolerance and bigotry. He may as well be William Jennings Bryan. Or Lyndon Larouche. And, disturbingly, he is rapidly becoming the Republican Party front-runner.
I am just going to come right out and say it: I can't stand Mike Huckabee. I don't care if he is a "Christian" or not. I won't vote for him. If he is the nominee of the GOP, I will renounce my affiliation and vote for whoever is the Libertarian candidate.
I also don't like to write much regarding the Gullybabe, because she likes to be more private than I do. I can't speak for her here, but I can tell you a little about how politics has shaped our relationship and what I think a Huckabee nomination would mean to her.
She has always been very independent. She has voted for some democrats, and some Republicans, and some independents. She has always been a lot more socially liberal than I, but on some issues, she is even more conservative than I am. She is, shall we say, a complex thinker. And I love her and respect her for that, even when we don't agree on certain issues.
During recent years, she has been somewhat more supportive of the GOP than before. In part it is because the GOP has had good stands on some critical issues. But also, it is because the democrats have just been too far out in left field. But she is still quite independent, and not one to blindly support one party.
When I asked her about Hillary Clinton, she said she can't stand that woman. I asked her if there was a scenario where the GOP nominated someone so vile that she would feel the need to vote for Hillary instead, and her answer was, and this is an exact quote, "if the ballot choices were Hillary Clinton or a dead possum, I'd vote for the dead possum."
But that was before anyone had really heard much about Mike Huckabee.
Again, at this point, I am not speaking for her. I am only writing what I think she might feel. But based on what all has come out about Huckabee in the last few weeks, I believe that, if he were the nominee, Gullybabe, and many women like her, might be forced to hold their noses and cast a ballot for Hillary.
Yes, Mike Huckabee could well register below the hypothetical dead possum.
I mean, come on! "Women should submit to their husbands"? WHAT THE HELL?! Why not take it further, and require women to vote the way their husbands tell them to? Why let them vote at all? How about making women stay home and cook and clean, and asking for an allowance, instead of earning a living? Why not take it all the way and say women should just close their eyes and submit to the sexual desires of men? How about a return to the good ol' days when husbands could beat their wives when they misbehaved? I mean, come on, y'all know she was askin fer it!
Drastic? Maybe. But will a lot of women, even many conservative women, even some devoutly Christian women, feel the same way when they get past the charming one-liners and look at Huckabee's actual record? I think so.
So again, I don't speak for Gullybabe or any other woman. But my heart and my mind are warning me: Huckabee would be a complete disaster for the Republican Party.
He supports big tax increases.
He supports big government spending solutions.
He supports illegal immigration (no matter what Gilchrist thinks).
He is ignorant of foreign policy.
He is ignorant of national defense and intelligence.
He is soft on crime.
His fundamentalist Christian world-view might play well with a small segment of the population that has influence in primary elections, but is out of touch with mainstream America. Don't bother posting a comment if your last name is Brotton - we already know you are insane and you don't need to prove it any further.
And now, there is a very good argument that he is a backwards thinker on women's issues.
If Mike Huckabee is our Party nominee, then it is clear the Republican Party no longer represents ANY of the conservative values I hold dear. His nomination would fracture the Party beyond repair, and allow the democrats to take over every facet of government in a 2008 landslide.
We must not allow that to happen. I am calling on all conservative thinkers, on everyone who believes in the Reagan-model of government, to denounce this charlatan and choose instead ANY of the other candidates. Even the kook Ron Paul has more in common with Reagan than Huckabee has!
We've seen plenty of bumper stickers over the years saying things like "not another Clinton" or "not another Bush." Well, here's my bumper sticker:
NOT ANOTHER GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS!
There. I've said my piece.


I can hear the Brottons now...
BUT BUT BUT HE'S A CHRISTIAN!!!
(insert 800 lines of copy/paste press releases and scripture)
Yes, he's a Christian.
You know what?
SO IS EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE ON BOTH SIDES (except maybe Kucinich - I honestly don't know but I think he is maybe atheist).
Now that we have put THAT issue to rest, and confirmed that every (viable) contender of both parties is, in fact, of one form of Christian faith or another, can we PLEASE get back to ISSUES?
Posted by: Independent Thinker | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 12:32 PM
Since I'm a Jew, I am going to support the candidate who can best stand up to the threat of international militant islamofacism. That ain't Mike Huckabee.
Didn't Mike Huckabee say the Jews killed the baby Jesus? Or was it that Mitt Romney is Satan's brother? It's hard to keep track of these things.
Posted by: Joe Lieberman (not really) | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 12:35 PM
Hey, Anthony and Tammy, don't you keep putting "Romney/Huckabee" in all your spam comments?
Are you that stupid?
Huckabee actually BELIEVES Romney's faith is a demonic cult. Romney has nothing but complete disdain for the ingorant rube Huckabee. They will NEVER be on the same ticket. If one is the nominee, the other will be completely shut out. If one is elected, the other won't even be considered for a low grade cabinet post.
Get a clue.
Posted by: Not the Brottons | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 12:38 PM
This is why I say Fred Thompson is the best of the lot. He keeps his faith private, he stands up to schoolmarms, and his stare can cook a thanksgiving turkey in 1 minute.
Posted by: Sakaki | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 01:14 PM
Reagan's 11th commandment does not apply to the Huckster. He's a Dem. At best he's a RINO.
Posted by: Patrick Joubert Conlon | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 01:32 PM
Looks like NWR is pissed off for other valid reasons:
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-not-for-mike-huckabee-carol-sue.html
I really hope he goes down in flames before votes are cast.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 01:54 PM
Mike Huckabee is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 02:07 PM
A big government Elmer Gantry; just what I've been waiting for. Where did this horror come from, and what kind of McGovernesque blow-out are his supporters pushing?
Posted by: abbydog | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 02:20 PM
Reverend Huckabee's Christianity is one of the major reasons I will not vote for him. Not that he's Christian, but that he's running as a Christian -- presenting his religion as a major reason why one should support him. I'm a secular pro-freedom individualist, and I'm utterly fed up with the increasing mixing of religion into public discourse.
I'd vote for Giuliani. I'd vote for Thompson. Romney or McCain I'd stay home. If it's Hillary vs. Reverend Huckabee, I'll vote for Hillary. Policywise he offers me nothing, and he advances the role of religion in Republican politics in a way I find pernicious and destructive.
Posted by: Kyle Haight | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 02:21 PM
Every freak of nature in politics is coming out of the woodwork to run for president.
Obama is my man. At least he's got some class, and he's the only one besides John Edwards who does.
Huckabee and Romney are jokes.
Posted by: Denise | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 02:41 PM
I'm sorry, I only read the first couple of paragraphs and decided I must make this post:
Is having more women in your cabinet really the benchmark you want to use to promote that you are "Pro" women's rights? I see that argument being a lot like polygamy. I have multiple wives therefore I am pro women.
Doesn't hold a lot of water for me.
Posted by: Jim in KFalls | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 02:57 PM
Maybe more people will understand how some of us feel about the prospect of Giuliani as the nominee.
Now, if only Thompson were running a competent campaign. Or if Ron Paul worked on -- well -- not giving people the impression of nuttiness. Then maybe the Republicans could have a real candidate.
Posted by: James Nightshade | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 03:16 PM
I'm a republican man who would hold my nose and turn into a conservative democrat if Huckabee were the Nominee.
Posted by: John Gillmor | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 03:16 PM
I'm a republican man who would hold my nose and turn into a conservative democrat if Huckabee were the Nominee.
Posted by: John Gillmor | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 03:16 PM
Instapundit linked to this takedown from the Thompson campaign.
If all this is true, I'll have to rethink my "Anyone But Hillary" vow. At least a weathervane sometimes points in the right direction.
Posted by: Bill Peschel | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 03:33 PM
Sorry, forgot the link.
http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2007/fred-thompson-campaign-apologies/
Posted by: Bill Peschel | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 03:34 PM
The first quote is a fairly direct paraphrase of what the Bible says. You're certainly free to disagree but treating it as if it were an oddity from outer space makes you look badly educated and rather parochial.
Posted by: David Gray | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 03:45 PM
I'd probably vote conservative, if not for the fact that I don't want to live in a theocracy. Apparently the Republicans don't understand what our society was like when the church did run it. For those of you who forgot medieval history, reference modern day Iran.
Posted by: Brent | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 04:20 PM
It is also a direct take from the Bible to say that gays should be stoned to death.
It is also a direct take from the Bible to say that if someone preaches a false religion he should be stoned to death.
It is also a direct take from the Bible to say that if you rape a virgin, you can pay off her father and take her as your bride.
Don't give me that sanctimonius "it's in the Bible" shit.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 04:20 PM
If you read the Koran, it quickly becomes obvious that Shariah (which no one in their right minds wants to live by) agrees quite well with Biblical/Old testament law.
Our founders bled and died to give us the opportunity to form our own beliefs according to our own conscience.
If religion means so much to these politicians, why do they use it as a cheap tool to manipulate the masses into giving them personal power?
Posted by: Brent | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 04:41 PM
I can't imagine voting for Rev. Gomer Huckabee - does anyone really think he has any conservative appeal beyond the single issue christian right?
That is like nominating John F. Kerry because he knows how to salute.
It also highlights the problem with starting the process in Iowa.
Posted by: Marko | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 04:59 PM
I'm a Republican female and I'm not impressed with Huckabee. At all. I ain't votin' for Hillary! though.
I'm a FredHead. He's a non-practicing Christian like me, but that's not why. I'm with Joe Lieberman (not really) - I'm voting for someone who will continue an aggressive American defense posture. Huckabee hasn't even proved he believes in us defending ourselves period, plus he's for big government solutions. Feh.
Posted by: Peg C. | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 05:04 PM
What ever happened to natural gender rolls and family? I'm not saying women need to stay in the kitchen, but someone needs to stay home to raise the children. And yes, that someone could be the man too.
Posted by: The Cheezer | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 05:40 PM
Independent for McCain ...
Honest, patriotic, smart, Christian, conservative, will defend the country against real threats. For the life of me I can't understand why he is being largely ignored.
Posted by: Portones | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 06:09 PM
Mike Huckabee is quite possibly the only republican candidate who could make me support Ron Paul. I would sooner cut my arm off than vote for Her Royal Clintoness.
Posted by: Rix | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 08:09 PM
Heh! I've never bought into that whole "11th Commandment" stuff. "Don't speak ill of a fellow Republican"? Sorry - if they're asses, I'm going to note that fact.
George W. Bush is an ass when it comes to illegal aliens. So is McCain. Huckabee would be more appropriately named "Wannabee".
It's small wonder that the Dems are happy with the Huckster - he presents such a target-rich environment.
Posted by: max | Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 08:29 PM
I want to remind everyone that 4 years ago at this time, Howard Dean was annointed the democratic nominee.
Posted by: Sid Leiken | Friday, 14 December 2007 at 07:59 AM
I keep reminding people of that myself.
However, there is one big difference between Huck and Dean:
When Dean ran, he had been successfully building up his campaign and enjoyed front runner status in the polls for about a year, then collapsed.
Huck has been the one no one paid attention to until just a few weeks ago. He is the guy surging when the long-time front runners have faltered.
Huck might be more like John Kerry than Howard Dean. Kerry was all but written off, then began to surge just before the Iowa caucus as voters began to see that Dean maybe wasn't the best choice. Then in the general, he was a nightmare. That could be the same story with Huck.
I hope not.
What I hope is that people will see that Huck is both Dean AND Kerry - that he is the guy who will falter AND that, if nominated, he would be a big let down. I hope they see this in the next two weeks, and allow someone like Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani to emerge for us.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Friday, 14 December 2007 at 10:00 AM
OK, I just have to weigh in on this.
The Bible verse was taken totally out of context. It has nothing to do with women being subservient to men. It's relationship/marriage advice to couples. Yes, the actual verse says that women are supposed to submit to their husbands ... but it also says that men are supposed to submit to their wives and love them like they love the church.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The majority of Christians are familiar with the verse and with the context and it has nothing to do with the Huckster being pro-woman.
Being a female conservative Christian Republican myself, I refuse to vote for him, too. The more I hear, the more I read, the more I discuss, the more I think ... the more the light shines on what he's done and how he's governed, and what his ethics are really like ... the more I'm certain he's the wrong choice for the GOP.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christian Republicans out there that don't bother to read, think, discuss ... they are only Republicans out of habit and have a lot in common with the dems in that they rely on "feelings" too much.
This applies to my mom ... she's taken in by the Huckster and recently told me he's her candidate ... it's likely just 'cause he's a Christian ... the same reason she voted for Jimmy Carter. (I hope she has the good grace to be embarrassed about *that* decision by now.)
I can only hope that more comes out and that the lamestream media start covering it more and more ... but sheeple being what they are, they will probably bleat away and ignore it. I hope the intelligent among us will have the good sense to make sure he doesn't get the nomination.
The Huck Stops Here!
Posted by: HMIL | Friday, 14 December 2007 at 10:36 PM
"it's likely just 'cause he's a Christian "
As I keep saying, EVERY ONE of the GOP candidates is a Christian.
Saying "I'm voting for Huckabee because he is Christian" makes as much sense as saying "I'm voting for Huckabee because he has pulse" or "he wore a tie" or "he speaks English."
Yes, it is admirable to want such qualities as a heartbeat, the ability to dress, and the ability to speak in a common language in a candidate. But since every candidate passes those tests, you need to base your selection on other factors.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Saturday, 15 December 2007 at 10:00 AM