Category Archives: Wacky Republicans

Huckabee: “Amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards”

The Almighty, who inspired a book so perfectly drafted it contradicts itself on who Jesus’s granddad was, apparently has some issues with the wording of our Constitution. That according to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who had this to say in Michigan:

“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.”

Note that in Huckabee’s America, the Constitution, the bedrock and foundation of our nation, is “some contemporary view.” Just a fad. Some new-fangled nonsense cooked up by a bunch of wig-and-panty-hose-wearing hippies in the 1780s. These kids and their “separation of powers” and “due process.”

This kind of talk should set all freedom-loving Americans on alert level “Holy Shit!”  Huckleberry is proposing, in no uncertain terms, a theocracy, specifically, a Christian theocracy.  It is unfathomable to me that someone running for President of the freaking United States could so blatantly disregard (nay, actively oppose) the First Amendment, upon which so much of our progress and identity as a people depends.

There is one interpretation of these remarks that lowers the threat level to “Gigantic Douchebag,” but just barely.  The allusion to amending the Constitution to meet “God’s standards” and the references to opponents who are unwilling to do so could very well be a “dog whistle”to Christians on one specific issue — gay marriage.  Huckabee may essentially have been saying, “I’ll amend the Constitution to keep the queers from getting hitched, and my opponents won’t.”  I’m just speculating here, but that’s the first thing that came to my mind. 



Christian Candidates Withhold the Juicy Details

In the past couple of weeks, both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have telegraphed an interesting tell — one that (I hope) bodes well for secular sanity in America.  When questioned about the specifics of their absurd religious beliefs — Huckabee is a creationistand Romney a Mormon — both refused to discuss details, instead preferring vague professions of faith and solidarity with other believers.  The political calculation behind this suggests that both Huckabee and Romney have realized that, to the average American that does not share their particular beliefs, they will sound batshit crazy if Huckleberry starts talking about Earth being 6,000 years old and Romney spinning out the details of Joseph Smith and his amazing golden plates.

This merely interesting conjecture becomes positively galling when one sees Mike’s and Mitt’s defensiveness about being questioned on their beliefs.   At one of the CNN debates, Huckabee characterized as an “unfair question”an inquiry as to whether he believed the creation story in Genesis (with the questioner noting that, at a previous debate, Huckabee indicated he does not accept the theory of evolution).  That didn’t stop the Huckster from repeating (6 times by my count), that he does believe God created the universe.  When Wolf Blitzer followed up to ask whether Huckabee believes in a literal 6 day creation story that happened 6,000 years ago, Rev. Mike fell back on “I don’t know” as a response.

Continue reading

Time to take the gloves off?

boxer.gif   I’m normally a stickler for principle.  Take the high road and all that stuff.  But the Bush Administration’s contempt for government accountability and the rule of law has got me thinking perhaps its time to the Democrats to get nasty and do what’s necessary to bring King George to heel.  Dahlia Lithwick has a good piece on Slate today describing how former White House aide Sara Taylor “played Congress like a harp” during her non-testimony.  Harriet Miers didn’t even show up for her testimony, leading Dems to consider contempt proceedings.

I propose a simpler solution — take Bush up on his offer to conduct closed-door interviews of Taylor and Miers without transcripts, and at the conclusion of the meeting, politely shake hands, walk into the hallway, and tell the press every damning thing that was said.  What he’s going to do, arrest them?  Sue them?  Refuse to cooperat…well, you get the picture.

C’mon, Dems.  I’m all for integrity, but once in a while, you have to get your hands dirty.

Enlighten us, O’Wise One

So I was intrigued when on MSN my eyes did spy a link to something labeled “Bill O’Reilly: What I’ve Learned.” “This ought to be interesting,” thought I. “Perhaps he’ll pontificate on the (decaying) state of society. Or the illusory nature of celebrity. Or how much it sucks to get caught groping a co-worker.” So in I plunged, only to be greeted at first glance with:

There’s no excuse for eating rice cakes at any time. It’s like eating dust. What are they doing here?

Perhaps not the strongest opening salvo. But there must be more, right?

Never been with a hooker, never been on a blind date. My ego’s too big.

No argument there, Papa Bear. But then we get to the meat of O’Reilly’s wisdom:

Yes, I get angry when the federal government spends $100,000 on a study to find out why people don’t like beets. I wouldn’t mind paying 60 percent of every dollar I make in taxes if I was helping somebody in the street who wants to clean up his life, or giving some kid a school lunch and an after-school program. I’m more than happy to do that. It’s a philosophical thing. If I work hard for my money, I don’t want to see it wasted.

Really?! That seems uncharacteristically soft-hearted of the No-Spinmeister. Oh, wait:

Dr. Spock was lucky he never met William O’Reilly Sr. There would have been violence.

The best part of being six four is that I can see over everyone in the movies, even those ladies with the big bouffants. Look, the way I swagger around, if I was five two, it would be brutal.

If you’re gonna swagger, it’s better to be big.

On television, people respond to my definite view of the world.

You can’t ever wipe out evil. But it’s like this: If someone comes to your house bent on killing you or your family, what do you do? You don’t negotiate with them. You don’t try to understand why they’re coming to kill you and your family. You kill them. That’s what you do.

And then a couplet that nearly made my head explode:

Women want to find one Mr. Right, and men want to find all the dream girls they can get their hands on.

I had rules. I would never sleep with any girl who was drunk or high. And believe me, in the sixties and the seventies, I lost a lot of opportunities. But again, the ego. I wanted them to say, “Hey, O’Reilly, c’mon in here.” I didn’t want them staggering in, saying, “What’s your name?” That wasn’t going to do it for me.

Hmmm, there’s that big ego again. Give me all the girls I can get my hands on, but only if they really want me. I think we see the pattern here. But lest we leave this font of wisdom (seriously, you’re 57 and this is all you got?!) on a down note, here’s a mental picture you’ll spend all day trying to eradicate:

Disco? I didn’t have a white suit or anything like that. And I wasn’t running around with Bianca Jagger. I’d just show up, get out on the dance floor, and fake it. The soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever was pretty good. I like Evelyn “Champagne” King. My wife gives me such a hard time when she sees me teach my little daughter all the disco songs. She knows the booty song. KC and the Sunshine Band. You know, Shake shake shake … shake shake shake … shake your booooooty.


Could I ever be a Republican?

Ahoy-hoy, Midwestern Ladies and Gents! After a long break from blogging, I’m back with an existential quandary that’s been haunting my thoughts for the past few days — if I were to run for office someday, could I even consider running as a Republican?

My visceral reaction is “Oh, hell no!” The GOP as it stands today is everything I dislike about politics (and further, the darker parts of humanity in general) — intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, myopic, superficially religious, and disdainful of law and civil liberties.  Their program is, as far as I can tell, driven almost exclusively by the desire to hold and wield power for its own sake.

But part of me knows that there are some ideas I subscribe to that would conventionally be considered “conservative” — limited government, balanced budgets, market-based economic policies, freer trade.  My “conservative” ideas play out in very “progressive” ways, however, meaning I would not fit well with today’s GOP.  For example, I believe limited government requires that government not intrude into whom Americans choose to love and marry, or attempt to legislate morality.  My market-based economic ideas arise from the conviction that market-based solutions, on the whole, result in better outcomes for everyone, including the poor.

Knowing that the national Republican Party is not amenable to the progressive slant of my conservative ideas, I nevertheless wonder if there would not be value in running as a Republican to, pardon the hyperbole, “save” the country from a far-right party spinning out of control.  By injecting a more moderate view of conservatism (a la presidential candidate Ron Paul) into the party, or at least public discussions of the party, could a “progressive conservative” movement eventually bring the GOP back from the brink?  Probably wishful thinking on my part, but an interesting thought experiment.