Huckabee Defends Wright

Huckabee

Huckabee Supporters

"He asked that if he's elected that he could be sworn in on the Koran."

It never ceases to amaze me that there are actually people out there who believe things like that.

UPDATE: Yeah, there sure are a lot of crazy Huckabee supporters.

UPDATE II:

Graph: Huckabee's Fair Tax

(via Fact Check)

It looks like Mike Huckabee's "Fair Tax" would increase the tax burden on those earning $15,000-$200,000, and significantly ease the burden on those earning more than $200,000 (and, to a lesser extent, those earning less than $15,000).

Why do people keep calling him a "populist"?

UPDATE: This is what Mike Huckabee's presidential website says about the Fair Tax:

When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.

You can't make this stuff up.

Mike Huckabee on Mitt Romney

Mike Huckabee recently ran this attack ad against Mitt Romney, accusing him of dishonesty. What I found particularly mind-bending was that Huckabee criticized Romney because of the "No Executions" during Romney's stint as governor. First of all, that's a pretty bizarre criticism coming from somebody running so heavily on the fact that he's a former minister. I'm not quite sure that Jesus would approve of such a position* (although Huckabee has suggested in the past that he would).

Second, and most damning for Huckabee, is the fact that Massachusetts does not employ the death penalty. For someone harping on "dishonest attacks," this is really a pretty big deal. He's criticizing Romney here for not doing something that he had no legal ability to do. Furthermore, it's important to point out that Romney attempted (and failed) to restore the death penalty in Massachusetts.

I personally don't like Huckabee or Romney, but I'm really sick of these false and misleading advertisements. Especially since Huckabee himself ends the ad by saying, "If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he'll be dishonest on the job."

*According to the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." When a woman was about to be stoned to death for adultery, Jesus came to her aid and said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I'm not aware of any Jesus quotes endorsing retribution (the Old Testament God, on the other hand, suggested that we use the death penalty to kill homosexuals and disobedient children). Plus, he might be a bit sensitive about how he was subject to the death penalty, himself.

UPDATE: Factcheck.org has more on this ad here.

Mike Huckabee on the Source of Our Laws

Mike Huckabee recently made this claim in an MSNBC interview:

"The Ten Commandments form the basis of most of our laws and therefore, you know if you look through them does anybody find anything there that would be all that objectionable? I don't think most people would if they actually read them."

This claim is pretty easy to refute. In fact, Ed Brayton has already done it:

Of the ten commandments, only two would even be constitutional in the United States, with a third being constitutional in limited circumstances. The other 7 could not possibly be the basis for any law because they would be clearly unconstitutional. Let's take a look at them one by one:

1. Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

Blatantly unconstitutional. The free exercise clause of the first amendment guarantees that we each have the right to follow any God and any religious belief system we wish.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Also unconstitutional on free exercise grounds. Americans can make any graven image they wish to make, and bow down to whatever god or idol they wish.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Again, unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother

A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.

6. Thou shalt not kill

This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system. But it's also found in EVERY legal system, even those that have nothing to do with the bible or Christianity. No society can condone murder of each other and survive, so this is simply a survival imperative.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

Another one that is a good idea, but not constitutional if legally enforced. Adultery is a moral wrong, but it's a private matter between individuals.

8. Thou shalt not steal

This is the second one that is obviously constitutional, but also found in every legal system regardless of the religious system that may have initially spawned it. A universal imperative that would be part of the law even if the bible never existed.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings. And while lying may be wrong, it's not legally wrong except in specific circumstances - perjury and libel/slander. Under our system, most instances of lying would be covered by the first amendment free speech clause.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

Not only unconstitutional, it would require the ability to read minds. If coveting what your neighbor has was against the law in the US, there would be no "keeping up with the Joneses". You cannot, under our system, legislate against thoughts or feelings.

The "basis of most of our laws"? Not even close.

Ed Rollins on the Founding Fathers

At a FOX News Republican debate back in October, Mike Huckabee said this:

When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator

That wasn't true. Not by a long shot.

Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).

A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it's a little unclear just how many. The conservative Heritage Foundation said two other signers were former clergymen. The religion web site Adherents.com said four signers of the declaration were current or former full-time preachers. But everyone agrees only Witherspoon was an active minister when he signed the Declaration of Independence.

Now, it looks like Huckabee's campaign chairman Ed Rollins is making a similar argument about the drafters of the Constitution. From CNN:

DOBBS: I have never, perhaps you have, but never in my experience have I seen so many candidates talking about God in a primary campaign and in a general election, I presume and it will remain there. How comfortable are you with that and is it appropriate for God to be in religion and faith to be this prominent in a secular campaign for president?

ROLLINS: You go back to the signing of the Constitution I think 26 of the people that signed it were ministers.

But only one of the signers (Abraham Baldwin) was a minister. Two if you count Hugh Williamson, who "became a licensed Presbyterian teacher but was never ordained.... he ... took a position as professor of mathematics at his alma mater." Where do they get this stuff?

(h/t Steve M.)

Wolf Blitzer on Mike Huckabee on Mormonism

Wolf Blitzer hosted Mike Huckabee on the Situation Room, and asked him this question:

BLITZER (12/12/07): All right. The New York Times Sunday magazine has a long profile of you, and one line has jumped out and is causing a lot of commotion right now.

When you asked this question to the interviewer, the reporter who wrote the story, you said this: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Now, as you know, Mormons say that's a canard, they don't believe that, that's been a canard spread by people who don't like Mormonism.

I want you to explain what you were doing by even raising that question.

Is this really just "a canard spread by people who don't like Mormonism"? This is what the official Latter Day Saints website says:

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

How could two such great spirits become so totally opposite? The answer lies in the principle of agency, which has existed from all eternity. (See D&C 93:30–31.) Of Lucifer, the scripture says that because of rebellion “he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies.” (Moses 4:4.) Note that he was not created evil, but became Satan by his own choice.

When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13–14; Moses 4:1–2.) When his modification of the Father’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7–9; D&C 29:36–37.)

That brothers would make dramatically different choices is not unusual. It has happened time and again, as the scriptures attest: Cain chose to serve Satan; Abel chose to serve God. (See Moses 5:16–18.) Esau “despised his birthright”; Jacob wanted to honor it. (Gen. 25:29–34.) Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him; he sought to preserve them. (Gen. 37:12–24; Gen. 45:3–11.)

Is it really too much to ask for CNN to do a little bit of research before devolving into the he-said-she-said style of journalism?

CNN Praises Huckabee For Dodging Questions

Back in June, CNN hosted a Republican debate. When asked if the earth was literally created in a six-day period 6,000 years ago (a scientifically untenable position), creationist candidate Mike Huckabee dodged the question, simply making a joke about not being there. The correct answer was no. Nonetheless, all of the commentators at CNN thought this was a brilliant answer. According to the easily impressed Anderson Cooper, "the question of creationism came up tonight. Mike Huckabee talked about it very eloquently." Never mind the substance of the question, and the fact that the answer was unresponsive. The guy's a smooth talker, and that's apparently all the cable news pundits care about.

At this week's CNN/Youtube Republican debate, Huckabee did it again. When asked "What would Jesus do?" with regard to the death penalty, Mike Huckabee said "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do." Once again, the easily impressed Anderson Cooper has looked back on the night and expressed his admiration for what he thought was "certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question."

Personally, I think that Jesus probably wouldn't rely on the death penalty. According to the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." When a woman was about to be stoned (the death penalty) for adultery, Jesus came to her aid and said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I'm not aware of any Jesus quotes endorsing retribution (the Old Testament God, on the other hand, suggested that we use the death penalty to kill homosexuals and disobedient children). Plus, he might be a bit sensitive about how he was subject to the death penalty, himself.

UPDATE: It looks like somebody asked Huckabee this question (WWJD) before. Here is his response from 1997:

“Interestingly enough,” Huckabee allowed, “if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, ‘This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency’.”

Hm. At least it's more of a direct answer. But to take the fact that he didn't specifically condemn it (while he was busy being tortured), and to infer from that that he endorses it (or at least tacitly approves of it) seems a little absurd to me. Especially given his specific repudiation of "an eye for an eye" in the Sermon on the Mount speech.

Mike Huckabee on the Founding Fathers

At the Republican debate the other night, Mike Huckabee (R-AR) said this:

When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator

Turns out, that's not true. Not by a long shot.

Only one of the 56 was an active clergyman, and that was John Witherspoon. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University).

A few more of the signers were former clergymen, though it's a little unclear just how many. The conservative Heritage Foundation said two other signers were former clergymen. The religion web site Adherents.com said four signers of the declaration were current or former full-time preachers. But everyone agrees only Witherspoon was an active minister when he signed the Declaration of Independence.

For those of you out there with calculators, 1/56 is not "most." Neither is 4/56, if we want to be overly generous to Huckabee. But of course, nobody at FOX News called him out on this. Neither did any of the other major news networks.

Minister Endorses Huckabee, Prays For Death of Critics

The Reverend Wiley S. Drake (pictured left) recently endorsed Mike Huckabee on his Church's stationary, as well as on an Internet radio program. When Americans United for Separation of Church and State requested an IRS investigation, based on the political involvement of this tax-exempt organization, Wiley Drake fired back:

“In light of the recent attack from the ememies (sic) of God,” he wrote, “I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer.” An imprecatory prayer is one that asks God to curse, injure or kill one’s adversaries.

Oh yeah, and this is the same Wiley Drake who signed a petition in support of James Kopp (who was convicted of killing an OB/GYN for performing legal abortions). So you can tell he really means it. (Drake's personal contribution to the petition read, in relevant part: "The price of blood is high. Some will pay high, and some will pay low, but pay, we all will for the 40 million babies we have killed. God bless you my brother as you serve Him, and His little ones.")

To his credit, Mike Huckabee denounced the "evil comments" of Wiley Drake.

...I wonder if Bill O'Reilly will condemn the Southern Baptist Convention (who elected Drake as Vice President) as a "hate group" that is "no different" from the Nazis and the KKK. Or is that label only reserved for open-forum websites?

Abstinence-Only Renewal

The United States spends somewhere around $87.5 million each year on abstinence-only education. Given this hefty bill, Congress recently commissioned a study to determine if it was paying off. The result?

"The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence."

Source:
Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs.

And just for good measure, here are a few more.

"Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse."

Source:
The American Medical Association, 1999.

"…It is a matter of grave concern that there is such a large incentive to adopt unproven abstinence-only approaches." "…the effective programs identified to date provide information about safer sex, condoms, and contraceptives, in addition to encouraging abstinence."

Source:
Office of National AIDS Policy, September 2000.

"…Investing hundreds of millions of dollars of federal and state funds over five years in abstinence-only programs with no evidence of effectiveness constitutes poor fiscal and public health policy…. Congress, as well as other federal, state and local policy makers, [should] eliminate requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education."

Source:
The Institute of Medicine, October 2000.

"Proponents of abstinence-only policies argue that providing information about contraception or providing condoms to adolescents sends a mixed message to youth and may promote sexual activity." However, "expert panels that have studied this issue, have concluded that comprehensive sex and HIV/AIDS education programs and condom availability programs can be effective in reducing high-risk sexual behaviors among adolescents. In addition, these reviews and expert panels conclude that school-based sex education and condom availability programs do not increase sexual activity among adolescents."

Source:
The Institute of Medicine, October 2000.

"…Two trends have contributed to the declines in teenage birth and pregnancy rates. First, the long-term increase in the proportion of teenaged women who were sexually experienced leveled [off]… In addition, among sexually experienced teenagers who used any method of contraception, condom use increased substantially."

Source:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997.

"Although sexual abstinence is a desirable objective, programs must include instruction in safer sex behavior, including condom use. The effectiveness of these programs is supported by strong scientific evidence."

Source:
The National Institutes of Health, 1997.

"All adolescents should be counseled about the correct and consistent use of latex condoms to reduce risk of infection."

Source:
American Academy of Pediatrics, January 2001.

Basically, the program is a failure and doesn't even increase abstinence, let alone reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. So what does Congress do in response? Well, the House subcommittee wants to increase federal funding by $27.8 to $141 million. Apparently, the Democrats are complying with this in order to persuade Congressional Republicans to go along with their other domestic spending plans. But there's not even any guarantee that that will happen.

So what we have here is an expensive program that the majority party says it doesn't want, that the data shows doesn't work, and which apparently will just increase incidents of teenage pregnancy and STDs. And the Democrats are agreeing to increase its funding.

It's also worth noting that federal funding of abstinence-only education has a history of subsidizing religious proselytization. For example, over $1 million in federal funds were spent on the Silver Ring Thing, an abstinence-only group that attempted to achieve its goal by handing out silver rings lined with bible quotes. Currently, the Stop and Think program is receiving funds for abstinence-only education in Oregon. This group requires that its supervisors “possess an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ; possess knowledge of the Word of God, and the ability to communicate it’s [sic] truth; exhibit a loving and merciful spirit; [and] attend a Bible believing local church or fellowship.”

And just for fun, what do the presidential candidates think about this?

• John McCain "strongly opposes efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to eliminate abstinence-only sex education classes for school-aged children."
  
• Mike Huckabee says

  "Abstinence education provides a valuable counterweight to peer pressure and the message young people get from the popular culture encouraging casual relationships and separating sex from love, commitment and marriage. I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools. That is the responsibility of parents. I am disappointed that funding for abstinence education is not likely to be renewed by the Democrat Congress. This reversal only emphasizes how important it is for Republicans to take back Congress and win the White House with an authentic conservative in 2008. I miss the America I grew up in where the Gideons gave Bibles to fifth graders instead of school nurses giving condoms to eighth graders. With so much at stake, it's important that we return to the core values and guiding principles which have made our country great."

• Sam Brownback says

  "Abstinence-only programs are great examples of curriculums that send positive messages to young people encouraging them to protect themselves and their future. Teens who abstain from sexual activity are less likely to have children out-of-wedlock; less likely to live in poverty and on welfare; and more likely to have stable marriages as adults. Title V of the Social Security Act supports abstinence education and aims to keep our youth out of harm's way by protecting them from sexually transmitted diseases and other risky situations. Accordingly, I support the reauthorization of Title V and have recently sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee asking Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to make this reauthorization a reality."

  
  

Huckabee on Evolution

From the GOP debate last night:


Why is Huckabee so surprised that this question would come up? Even though the president doesn't personally write school curriculum, he does have the power to sign or veto legislation touching on the issue (see the Santorum amendment), and he has significant power and influence in the Department of Education. If you support taking biology education back to the Middle Ages, then that's a perfectly fair question to ask. Especially since you have said in the past that "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism."

After complaining that the question was unfair and that it simply asked if he believed in god or not (which is 100% not what the question asked and completely ignores the fact that most people reconcile their belief in god with evolution), Huckabee makes a strange assertion: "But I’ll tell you what I can tell the country. If they want a president who doesn’t believe in God, there’s probably plenty of choices." Actually, there are no choices. Unless Huckabee equates belief in evolution with godlessness (as it appears he might be doing here), in which case there are thankfully other options.

When asked if he believes that the earth was literally created in a six-day period 6,000 years ago, Huckabee made a joke about not being there. Here's a hint: you could always look at the evidence. I don't know why this ridiculous comment received so much laughter and applause (I'm looking at you, Rudy). Especially in this context, where Huckabee refused to distance himself from the scientifically untenable position of a 6,000 year-old earth.

...Also, I don't understand the bizarre argument that somehow "days" could really mean "periods of time" (up to and including millions of years, to be safe).

In the end, Huckabee concludes with a bit of sniping masked as something resembling tolerance: "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they're certainly welcome to do it." Uh, Mike, not only have we descended from primates, but we are taxonomically classified as primates ourselves!

Despite this all-around horrible response, CNN commentators ate it up:
ANDERSON COOPER: Certainly, the question of creationism came up tonight. Mike Huckabee talked about it very eloquently.
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think Governor Huckabee was very eloquent.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I thought the most eloquent person I heard, either tonight or Sunday night, was Mike Huckabee. I thought his answer about evolution and his one about what it means to be pro-life were breathtaking.
AMY HOLMES, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I thought again Huckabee did a great job of actually turning that question around. It's not such an unusual thing to believe in creationism. And this isn't an exotic point of view; it's one that's held by many Americans.
TERRY JEFFREY, EDITOR, "HUMANT EVENTS": He's a very eloquent man.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: A lot of people very impressed with his performance, calling him polished and funny, particularly interested in his answers to the questions about evolution and his belief in God. They thought that he was very succinct and very, very polished.

C'mon guys, you're just easily impressed by anything that sounds good. How about examining the content?

UPDATE: CNN continues to embarass itself with poor coverage of this issue. Instead of saying even once that the overwhelming majority of geologists, paleontologists, biologists, etc. believe young-earth creationism (what Huckabee was asked about) to be incredibly silly, CNN just states that "former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, offered a spirited defense of the biblical creation narrative," and then uncritically repeats his arguments.

The GOP and Evolution

At the Republican debate last night, the moderator asked if any of the ten candidates did not believe in evolution. Three of the ten(Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee) raised their hands.

Just to flesh things out a bit, let's see what these guys have had to say about the topic in the past:

Sam Brownback:

• "it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption"
  -Speaking in support of the Santorum amendment (at S6152) which would have teachers present objections to evolution whenever it is taught in science classes

Mike Huckabee:

• "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism."
  -Arkansans Ask
  
• "I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people."
  -Arkansans Ask
• "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."
  -Arkansans Ask
• "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process.''
  -Associated Press