Not at all. Just that when it comes to policy, which is what people here claim to care about, maybe it would be better to look at what Huckabee did in addition to what he said.
I haven’t seen much discussion of that.
Right you are. We just want to distort all the facts about them like when they were expressed, who expressed them, and how they could only mean what a biased source claims they do. By all means, carry on.
So he’s a flip-flopper?
“Grew in office” 
Like I said, there is lots to criticize here on policy grounds. Huckabee is pro-life and opposes gay marriage - it isn’t hard to see how his personal beliefs affected these policy views.
However, these views, for better or worse, are within the mainstream of both the Republican party and the general continuum of American political thought. And he has other political views he claims that are inspired by faith that seem far less controversial.
As I said before, it’s a far cry from this to “hates America.”
I think the “hates America” tag line is intended as a bit of irony, as he is one of a group who feels maligned and slandered by the use of said line, and others like it, to denigrate entirely valid views on world and national events.
I’m sure you have seen the line used in precisely that tone: “You support the Dallas Cowboys? Well, then, tell me, Moto, why do you hate America?”
Merely an example, of course, we have no reason to believe developmentally challenged people are any less patriiotic than anyone else.
IF it was just in the title, I’d agree with you, but Diogenes made it clear in his OP that he was cereal.
I think more and more of these statements are going to come back to haunt Huckabee. For example, here are a couple more quotes from an AP questionnaire filled out in 92:
I wonder what other scary statements will come crawling out of Huckabee’s past. Given his very conservative religious beliefs and his staunch support for Israel, I’m wondering if he holds similar beliefs to the end times crowd.
I’ll take that as a concession that the time difference is, at best, irrelevant. Thanks.
I think there should be a bran on this kind of comment.
He’s raisin a good point, you can’t blame him for milking it.
Christ is the visible symbol of a religion. Religion is the source of the vast majority of the world’s problems.
I’d roar, too.
So much for that whole don’t judge bit, eh?
What is with the GOP and homosexuality? They seem fixated on the topic. :rolleyes:
In the interest of fairness, he did say this today:
Huckabee Would No Longer Quarantine AIDS Pts
But then again, all he says is that he did say he would do this, and now he wouldn’t SAY that. He doesn’t say he’s changed his thinking about the issue–just that he wouldn’t admit to it in public. This is not progress.
Half and half. I was being hyperbolic and ironic but I also think there is a legitimate kernel of anti-Americanism in a philosophy which claims that the secular constututional system is useless and amoral.
Ugh. It’s one thing to be concerned about the effect of Huckabee’s faith on his policy preferences. It’s another to look at some ambiguous statements made a decade ago in a room full of ministers and use them to describe someone as a “theocrat” or a “sociopath” (Ha!) That’s useless hyperbole. If people read it and believe you, it becomes harmful bullshit.
Also, IMO Dio hasn’t received nearly enough crap for calling Bill Clinton a sociopath who thinks people have problems because they aren’t Christian enough. I don’t know, but if it was me, I would take that mistake as a sign that maybe – just maybe – I suck at figuring out what a politician’s speech actually means.
I saw him interviewed and he did say he’d changed his thinking. He claimed that he made his previous statement based on the info he had at the time, although he must’ve been several years out of date, even then. It’s all about the contagiousness of the diseases, which he said doesn’t warrant quarantine.
Oooh, nailed 'im!
To be fair, he was answering a questionaire, so presumably he had been asked about it. But I think most in the GOP would be happen never to discuss it-- to shove it back into the closet where it once was. They are only “fixated” on the topic to the extent that it has become more mainstream.
But it sounds to me like he’d still shun homosexuals in some way. Or at least not be open-minded regarding legislation or advocacy that involves them (and their “lifestyle”). And there is this: do we want a leader who speaks using old, outdated information? Bush has been in his own little world and I think we’ve had enough of reality bending. I’d like a leader who isn’t afraid of hearing facts and then using advice and judgement to act on those facts, not someone who hangs onto info that fits his own world view and reinforces his bias. Crazy, I know.
And he seemed like such a nice guy on The Daily Show. I can admire him (I suppose) for publicly adhering to his faith, but since I find his interpretation of that faith twisted, hateful and just plain wrong, I don’t admire him all that much. He seems like a decent fellow, until you consider that he judges gays, women who have had abortions etc. The emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
John Mace–ah, the old “don’t ask, don’t tell” applying to all of life, not just the military. How weasely of them. Let’s pretend this doesn’t exist and we’ll be happy? Bosh.
Yes, I think we should be very leery of someone who thinks he has all the answers. And no, I can’t imagine him being open minded wrt legislation favorable to gays. Not to defend that position, but it isn’t particularly unusual in the US to think like that.
Again, I’m not agreeing with that position, just explaining it. The GOP does seem to be obsessed with homosexuality, but they wouldn’t seem that way if this were the “good old days” where people were embarrassed to discuss it. Most of them don’t seem to be able to have a rational discussion of the topic. Mix in conservative religion, and things just get worse.
I’m not a fan of Maureen Dowd, but her column yesterday nicely put into perspective some of the grotesque pandering to religious voters that’s taken place in this campaign. She interviewed Jon Krakauer, author of a best-seller on Mormonism about Mitt Romney’s recent speech on his faith:
"The problem with Mitt is not his religion; it is his overeager policy shape-shifting. He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one. Disguised as a courageous, Kennedyesque statement of principle, the talk was really just an attempt to compete with the evolution-disdaining, religion-baiting Huckabee and get Baptists to concede that Mormons are Christians.
“J.F.K.’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic,” Mr. Krakauer agreed. “Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”
