More attention, more problems for Huckabee

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Dec 8 

Many candidates are risking present and future backlashes for their intolerance of homosexuals and effective endorsements of segregation by opposing gay marriage. This affliction affects the majority of both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, but none may have to answer for past policies more than recent media darling, Mike Huckabee. Huck has had the unenviable task of explaining and defending everything he’s done in his career, as the pile of troublesome stories have risen even faster than his poll numbers.

Huckabee’s latest cause for concern involves some answers he gave during his failed 1992 senate campaign. In an AP questionnaire, Huck stated that “homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.” He continued, suggesting, “we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.” That certainly sounds like segregation, and on a level matched by no other candidate. Huckabee recent statements have been far less divisive – he’s backed off a bit, and even supports federal funding for AIDS research – but how many more of these stories, which seem to appear daily, can Huckabee’s campaign withstand?

Comments

  • Jacosta

    Couldn’t have said it better myself…from:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/10/huckabee-tries-to-outdo-perino-on-cuba/

    “…there are now enough examples of Huck’s ignorance or suspected ignorance in policy matters that it might be worth compiling them and putting them in their own entry. Revisit the AIDS (positions) post for a few. He thought the new NIE was four years old; he thought ICE was still known as INS; he thought Gitmo was a fine idea until he talked to some retired generals about it, and then very suddenly he didn’t; he thought the danger of transmitting HIV through casual contact was sufficient to warrant a quarantine six years after we knew it wasn’t; and now he appears to have known less about U.S.-Cuba relations than the average citizen until, at best, five years ago. And that’s not counting his adoption of the Fair Tax, which some conservatives regard as so nutty as to be practically disqualifying of any candidate who proposes it.”

  • Lazlo

    Bah. AIDs was misunderstood back in 1992. I would allow any politician to change their mind on that issue.

    But homosexuality? Sure the Bible ain’t for it; however, the Bible cannot be used to limit freedoms of homosexuals. You can consider it a sin all you want, but you can’t deny people’s unless they break laws. And right now, homosexuals are treated like second-class citizens when it comes to marriage.

    When people got the government passing marriage-related legislation was when it became okay for homosexuals to get married. A church can say homosexuals can’t be married in my church…but a judge shouldn’t be able to prevent two consenting adults from marrying.

    I know the *intention* of church’s influence on government was to legislate their brand of morality. But it is now backfiring…and religious folk don’t like it.

    The debate over what marriage means is pointless unless you can prove why a male/female parental structure is superior to any other. One could argue that a child needs a positive male and a positive female rolemodel; however:

    1. Are the parents the only place children can get positive male and female role models from? No.

    2. A male/female parental structure often doesn’t have two positive role models. Should those children be taken away? No. So, the whole role model argument is bogus.

    Polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia? Right now the government only has laws concerning two consenting adult marriages; thus, there is no legal foundation for polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia.

    Enough of the legal side.

    Let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Is homosexuality a psychological disorder? If so, then you can make a case that they are a second-class citizen…not capable of handling the responsibility to have children or not trustworthy enough to have children. Don’t laugh or scoff, some psychologists (mostly in the past) and many great minds have deemed homosexuals to be so emotionally unfit…under regression, sexual disorder, and other theories (lol, castration anxiety).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

    I personally don’t believe in these theories. Many psychologists in the past thought being female or having dark skin meant you had a psychological disorder and thus the government was justified in denying them certain rights.

    I believe that psychology is a valid science; however, I also believe that many psychologists are sell outs and will say whatever for a buck. Many scientists, lawyers, teachers, engineers, journalists, police, entertainers, politicians, and other so-called authority figures sell out.

    So, since I or no one else can prove that homosexuals should be denied the same rights and heteros, they should have the same rights.

  • Ron Richey

    To AndDru 1 and all the other Huckabee supporters here, let me make a heart-felt appeal to you. I’ve been pretty hard on your candidate lately. I won’t necessarily apologize for that, but I will apologize if the tone and tenor of some of my comments have been over the top. I am, as you can tell, passionate about my perceptions the Huckabee candidacy.

    I do, however, want to extend an olive leaf of sorts, and make a direct appeal to all of you to consider changing your support from Governor Huckabee to (and in some cases, back to) Governor Mitt Romney. Now, I realize that by doing this when Huckabee seems to be invincible might seem ludicrous to some of his supporters. But it is the most intelligent and pragmatic among you that I hope to attract today.

    Consider these reasons (penned by my good friend Vic Lundquist) why Mike Huckabee will not ever get close to being the Republican nominee in 2008:

    1) He has no money to sustain a paid, professional team of advisors.

    2) He has no national organization to speak of.

    3) He has done very little at all to qualify to be on every state’s ballot, an effort that requires significant early planning, deep grassroots support, and lots of money to sustain.

    4) He has no access to the intellectual brainpower necessary to staff a national advisory board, let alone state boards. All of the other major “varsity” candidates (to borrow a term used in the Journal article below) have scooped up most, if not all of the most influential possible advisors.

    5) He has no real endorsements to speak of, outside of celebrity names (since when has a celebrity been a great asset for a Republican?).

    6) Now that he is considered by the MSM to be a “frontrunner”, he is starting to receive the intense noon-day strip-search all front-runners have endured, some better than others (consider Fred’s fall from grace as one example). His high poll numbers today reflect, by in large, the honeymoon period Huckabee enjoyed two weeks ago. The poll numbers that will be coming out in December will start to reflect all the Michael Jackson moon dancing he has engaged in these past two weeks.

    7) Since #6 has just begun, every reporter who wants to make a name for themselves will be digging everywhere in Arkansas to uncover every conceivable fact about Huckabee’s past life. Which means there is a high probability we will start to receive a larger number of negative “news” items coming to light about the man from Hope.

    8) Huckabee has no strategic plan of any kind. He is beaming from ear to ear just to be on the varsity team. He reminds me of the Rudy (from the film of the same name) who makes it on the team but never gets to play. His only real idea is the so-called “fair tax” which has been effectively shot down by every major analyst as impractical and effectively impossible in today’s world.

    9) Did I mention he has no money? Not only does he not have any serious money to run a serious, national presidential campaign, he does not have the ability to raise the kind of money needed to fuel a campaign.

    10) Lacking in items 1 to 9 above, Mike Huckabee changes the subject and makes his candidacy about his religion. Forget the fact that his invoking his “Christian” religion in his advertising would get him kicked out of the game if any of his competitors were Jewish. Let’s admit to ourselves that the only reason Mike Huckabee has even made it this far in the presidential race is because die-hard religious voters simply ignore the realities of a 21st century campaign required to reach millions of voters in this vast nation. Those less politically astute supporters either don’t care about the long-term impossibilities or they are simply enamored by the excitement of day to see their man rise to the top as the flavor of the month.

    To continue quoting my friend Vic (he’s so much more measured in his tone than I have a tendency to be…):

    “The realities of the above list will be much more apparent in the next few weeks.

    “If you are currently a Mike Huckabee supporter, please seriously consider our invitation to switch over to the Romney camp at a time when doing so could make a difference. Sooner or later, you will be leaving Mike Huckabee’s camp. He knows it and we know it. If you already knew the practical facts listed above or if you are now learning them, you are nonetheless fully informed.

    “With complete respect and sincerity, we invite you to jump in with us, roll up your sleeves, and work with us shoulder to shoulder to support the most intelligent, the most respected, the most qualified, and the most competent presidential candidate to seek the Office of President in my lifetime. to quote David Nierenberg as he spoke to me this week in College Station, “I have personally known many highly successful executives in America, and without exception, Mitt Romney is the most capable and competent executive to ever run for President.” “

  • Ron Richey
  • Ron Richey

    Here are some excerpts from an article in todays Wall Street Journal opinion page that reflects the “Glib Naivete” that is one of my many issues with Governor Huckabee:

    Quote:

    The irony is that if he ever did win the nomination, Mr. Huckabee would be vulnerable to the same sort of attacks from the left, if not more so. The political contradiction of his economic policy is that, even as he campaigns as a populist, his signature tax proposal is the most radical reform imaginable–the so-called “fair tax.”

    There’s a lot to be said for taxing consumption over income, and the fair tax would be worth consideration if we were writing a tax code from scratch. Realistically, we’re not. The plan would require repealing the Sixteenth Amendment that allowed a federal income tax, and the chances of that happening are approximately zero. The political risk, given the nature of government, is that we’d end up with both an income tax and a national sales tax. Europe, here we come.

    But the fair tax also fits into Mr. Huckabee’s populist pitch as a way to “abolish” the hated IRS. GOP audiences love that one, and so do we.

    But in the case of the fair tax this boast is also misleading. One problem with a national sales tax is that its rate would have to be very high to raise enough money to fund the government. A rate of 30%, or even 23%, is high enough to invite its own major enforcement problems, so the tax police would still be very much with us.

    As a political matter, the fair tax would offer a bull’s-eye for Democrats, who would love to run against a plan that would instantly make most purchases 30% more expensive.

    In the American system, such a radical change as the fair tax is possible only in a crisis, and we aren’t living in one now.

    Mr. Huckabee nonetheless writes that “when” his reform is enacted, “it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.” That glib naiveté should provide some indication of how seriously the former Governor has thought through the political and policy complications of his biggest idea–and also explain why, until recently, Mr. Huckabee was considered an implausible candidate.

    end Quote.

  • Ron Richey

    AndDru1, you are the one in denial. Here’s just one of the many issues coming to light: The Huck gave pardons to 700 felons during his term, which is 5 times the number of pardons given by all neighboring states–combined! Does he seriously believe that his judgment is better than the juries who convicted those bums? If this is the case, I seriously question the man’s judgment on this and so many other issues. In the case of the released rapist, there are 4 parole board members who are directly contradicting Huck’s accounts of the matter. In the mouths of two or more witnesses…

    I could go on for hours like this…

  • Troy La Mana

    It is always good to have more information on the candidates. Sometimes it is good while other times it is bad. I would classify this as bad. It may not effect the nomination but could, if he wins, effect the election.

  • Ken Hamilton

    Huckabee acquired a reputation here in Arkansas for having a thin skin when it comes to handling criticism directed toward him.

    It will be interesting to see if he can keep his temper in check or if he will finally explode in anger, have a Howard Dean “scream” moment, and sink his campaign.

  • Russ

    He’s definitely getting more attention, but more problems? Newsweek has him up 22 points in Iowa, and nationally he has vaulted from 5th to 2nd and is even first in the latest Rasmussen poll. Seems like everything is coming up Huck.

  • RobA

    1992 was a long time ago. I really don’t think this will stick much. Do you really think the gay community was going to flock to the Huck08 campaign anyway? I think he breaks even at worst, or possibly even picks up an extra few votes on the right. If he wins the nomination (still a long shot) this issue will certainly be back to haunt him in the general. But for the primary, this won’t hurt a bit.

    Also, I don’t buy the media building this guy up. I remember those early debates, Huck got very little time. But he used what he did get and made an impact. Personally, I never heard of the guy before the debates. But he impressed me every time. Now he’s a front runner and I really find myself rooting for him, though I’m still not sure I will vote for him. Doesn’t really matter. My state doesn’t vote until after Super Tuesday, so my vote doesn’t even count!

  • AndDru1

    Amen Gary! haha…

  • AndDru1

    The media’s job is to report not distort information. Huck said that we should quarantine those with the AID’s virus, so that it doesn’t spread. He didn’t say we should just quarantine the gay ones, that’s absurd. I mean, unless you’re suggesting that only homosexuals get aids…

    I’ve responded to the rest of those in previous posts, you know they’re not true Ron. Why do you persist in lying about the man’s record/positions/character ?

    The Huckster is here to stay, the media didn’t create him, the American people did.

  • Gary Russell

    Can anyone explain to me how any of this is a problem at all for Huckabee?

    1) “homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle”

    I challenge you to find ONE Huckabee voter (or future voter) who would hear this and say, ‘Oh, that changes my vote’.
    Hello – those of us who support Huckabee are SOCIAL conservatives!

    2)”we now know it (the gay lifestyle) can pose a dangerous public health risk.”

    Does ANYONE (even the homosexual community) dispute this? How could such an obvious statement (even back in 1992) offend anyone?

    3)“we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.”

    Huckabee explains in his own words:
    “In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease,” he said. “Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years.”

    Ethan, you make a feeble attempt at joining the attack/spin cycle on this one. I was especially impressed by your skillful use of almost every negative word that you could throw into a two paragraph posting. I belive they included: “Risk, backlash, intolerance, affliction, unenviable, troublesome, concern, failed, segregation, and divisive”.

    If accusing a conservative Christian candidate of being against the practice of homosexuality and concern about the spread of AIDS is the worst that his opponents can come up with, I’m booking my flight to his Inauguration immediately!

  • Ron

    The mainstream media (you either love them or hate them), is doing their job. Every other top tier presidential candidate has had their record poured over and nit-picked to death. They have been thoroughly vetted, and the voters know where they stand, and they have had to own up to things and the voters have either had to come to grips with the issue, or the candidate loses support. Why should up-CHuckabee be any different? He can’t come flying in under the radar and expect to sneak away with the nomination, little alone a caucus victory, without his day in the sun, where people will be able to judge him on his record. That’s what a republican democracy is about, boys and girls…

    Sure, the mainstream media tends to exaggerate the issues, but in up-CHuckabee, they have a truly rich collection of issues to pull from. He releases rapists from prison, then lies about it. He is soft on immigration and wants to invite them all to come and go to school in Arkansas (we call that an illegal immigration magnet–and they’re bad ideas), then spins/lies about it. He jokes about foreign policy, then doesn’t pay any attention to important issues on Iran. He is for Guantannamo, then he is against it–all within a matter of weeks (can you spell F-L-I-P F-L-O-P). He claims that God made him move up in the polls (PALEEEASEE!!!) The simple fact is, that he was so low in the national numbers for so long, for a very good reason–it is because he is an awful candidate, and would make an absolutely horrible president.

    He is naive, jocular, and misguided in his “God supports me” laize faire kind of attitude towards leadership and its responsibilities. Now, when all of the reality of his record comes to light, lets just hope that the gullible voters in Iowa are paying attention and put this character back where he belongs–in the single digit second tier.

  • Frank USA

    I agree… Huck is the man! Well don’t Christians have a reserved view of homesexuals anyway? It would have been real bad the other way around!

  • AndDru1

    Write it down, Huck’s message of social conservatism and responsible populism is a winning fusion. He’ll win the nomination, then win in the general by the largest margin we’ve seen in recent history. Truly a William Jennings Bryan throwback.

    Huck cares about homosexuals, and isn’t quite as zealous as he was when he ran for the senate. But don’t expect him to recant anything, he’s a man of principle. If he backtracked, you’d lose all respect for him. Why not go ahead and say it…”it’s either Ron Paul or Hillary” for some of you guys.

  • Pdiddy

    write it down, huck is hot now because the media made him hot, and they’ll now they’ll tear him back down, just like mccain, huck may win Iowa, but he won’t win the nomination