Hucksterbee: Answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:10am

This guys is a dangerous creep.

The Founding Father fought so that people like him would have NOTHING TO DO with the government.

===

"In one of the first churches I was assigned to, I thought I was supposed to be the captain of a warship leading the congregation into a battle against spiritual darkness," he said.
"But they wanted the captain of the Love Boat. They just wanted everybody to be happy. It was not about how many people were won to Christ or how many teens were pulled away from drugs or how many marriages were saved. Instead, it was about the seniors having a great trip going to watch the fall leaves change, the teen-agers going to a better summer camp than the church across town."...
"I went to Vacation Bible School for all the wrong reasons -- I was told they'd give me all the cookies I could eat and all the Kool-Aid I could drink. But that day I got something better than cookies and Kool-Aid. I got the Savior.
"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Huckabee: U.S. gave up on religion

[Calvin]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:14am

Isn't Gavin MacLeod on those religious stations all the time, anyway?

Don't worry. I just hit snooze.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:15am

I thought that was Fred Grundy!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:21am

i was worried for a little while there when the gop nomination was kinda in free-fall. i worried that the worst of all tragedies would occur and the gop would lose the white house. now i wasn't worried for myself, mind you. no, my worry came for some of my friends here at bww. if the democrats were to win back the white house, what would they rail against here? how would they fill their days? what unsuspecting person or thing would their hatred focus upon?

well, thanks to huck, i am no longer worried. they will have a fine target for the next eight years.

heck i may even join them in taking a few shots here and there since i am not beholding in anyway to the pastor.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:23am

Is that Kool-Aid reference to be taken without irony?

Interesting that he mentioned saving marriage. Apart from endorsing wildly discriminatory legislature, I'd love to know just what his plans are for saving marriages in this country. I realize that anti-gay marriage legislation will do 90% of the work, but I'm wondering what that other 10% will be.

Are non-religiously brainwashed republicans really plan to vote for him? I just don't get it. Does homobigotry really wield that much power that the thought of a Jesus-obsessed nutjob as the leader of the free world seems like a good idea?

[tazber]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:26am

I know papa really thinks he's gonna win, but in the end he's way too totalitarian for most Americans to stomach.
People don't want a Catholic school principal for a president.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:28am

I didnt think they'd want an actor either...or a blithering idiot, like we have now.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:28am

touche.

Maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that such a thing won't happen.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:29am

have you seen him speak, phyl? he's ridiculously good.

plus, his "family values" resonate. it doesn't come across as hatred to them, it comes across as traditional faith based values as opposed to the sinful lifestyle which you've chosen for yourself. they don't hate you because you have chosen to enjoy f*cking other men, they just hate the fact that you actually are f*cking other men.

it won't be just republicans that vote for him. nominate osama and he gets the bigot voters that will refuse to elect a black man. nominate the carpet bagger and he gets the misogynist voters that refuse to elect a woman. nominate the breck girl and...well, he's already got the gay haters on his side so you don't lose so many with that choice.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:32am

Who's Chris?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 10:42am

they just hate the fact that you actually are f*cking other men

Tell that to any school kid who gets taunted for being a fag. It's not the act, it's homosexuality itself. They hate those of us who are sodomized on a regular basis as much as they hate those of us who aren't.

It's good that we're not in some sort of medieval, backward times. Imagine living in a civilization where the systematic oppression of gays wasn't a campaign promise? Imagine if all the heterosexual fornicators were being villainized for votes. How lucky we are to be alive in this age when the only biblical sexual transgression is homosexuality.

Updated On: 12/10/07 at 10:42 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 11:18am

i'm not saying it's right, phyl, but that is their mind-set and it will only change with time and education. you can rail against it and wish it were not so, lament the ignorance that allows such values to be taught in homes across this land, invoke the middle ages, dream of a time when the overwhelming majority is discriminated against by the minority (maybe this is why so many on the left liked iraq the way it was before we went in, the majority was dominated by the minority) and make fun of the stupidity of those who hold these views but none of those things will change the facts.

i'm sorry it's so, but it is. it's not right, but life is not fair. it will be so until people come out off the closet and america is forced to realize that gays are not just the toe tapping demons of the rest stop, but their friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. and that there's nothing wrong with them.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 11:42am

I don't dream of the majority being discriminated by the minority. I dream of a day when I won't turn on the news and hear that another state is working to pass legislation to prevent me from rights I already don't have. I dream of the day when I'll be left the f*ck alone. But folks like Huckabee, et al won't allow that. I'm not the one marching behind a couple of passages in the bible and using that to dispute the last 2000 years of scientific and social progress. It's really up to the folks in your party to save it from the evangelical tenterhooks, but I don't see that happening. As long as the promises of lower taxes, defense of "freedom," etc are dangled, taking some of the heat off the gays isn't even going to come on the radar. Homobigotry continues to become more institutionalized, and until there's a real republican crusade against heterosexual sex, there aren't going to be enough people to stand up and say enough.

I just want someone to explain to me (beyond simply they demonize gays because they can) why usually the only (or at the very least, the loudest) religious issue these people clamor behind. Huckabee may be the jesusiest, but it's still just pandering. Why not work to reestablish adultery laws? Why not impose draconian regulations on divorce?

i'm sorry it's so, but it is. it's not right, but life is not fair. it will be so until people come out off the closet and america is forced to realize that gays are not just the toe tapping demons of the rest stop, but their friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. and that there's nothing wrong with them.

Wasn't that settled in 1997 or so? We're going backward, not forward. I don't expect widespread acceptance of homosexuality in my lifetime, but that's not the point. The point is that this one misguided Jesus issue that obscures everything else.

Seriously, what the f*ck else I am supposed to do to make these people get it through their heads?

At a certain point, there's really nothing else the royal we of gaydom can do. Until more republicans take a stand, things aren't going to change.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 11:55am

ok, i suggest that if you want the gop to make those kinds of changes that you get behind the huckabee campaign because he's the one person in this race who i can see suggesting those kinds of policies. i mean the penalties on straights. not the acceptance of gays, but the persecution of straights which will lead to gay acceptance. i also suggest you hold your breath waiting for them to come into being.

as far as huck, he'll win in a landslide against osama and by 7% at minimum against the carpet bagger. he'll do it not with just gop votes, but with middle america proudly holding up "a buck for huck" signs.

i agree, the gop needs to come to a better place on gay issues - i think rudy might be able to lead them there - but to pretend they are the only ones who run on those issues is laughably naive. think kerry might have won in '04 if he'd listened to clinton and tossed the gays overboard? probably.

i'm not a supporter of huckabee, and namo hates it when i look at this stuff obbjectively, but the fact is that he connects with voters often because of his stance on gays which outside the golden tower of this board is still in line with the majority, unfortunately. you can call for the gop to go after straights and cry hypocrisy when they don't but they have the majority on their side on this issue and know it.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 11:58am

I'm still of the opinion that the quickest way to change the world on the gay issue is to come out to everyone you know. It's much harder to demonize a brother than a stranger. possible, but harder.

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:06pm

When the news broke this weekend that Huckabee had endorsed less funding for AIDS and isolation of homosexuals in 1992 I thought "Wow, how hhigh will his numbers climb now?"

[Calvin]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:11pm

Perhaps the stress of the campaign will have him turning back to Little Debbie for support.

Then, instead of cackling and haircuts, the media can focus on dumb stories like "Is America ready for an obese president?" or "Not since Taft..."

'Cause if the Tyra Banks/"Deal Or No Deal" girls in fat suit experiments have taught us anything, it's that Middle America hates the obese almost as much as it hates the gays.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:15pm

That's because in so many cases it's like looking in a mirror.

[Calvin]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:15pm

In both cases, as it were.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:21pm

maybe this is why so many on the left liked iraq the way it was before we went in, the majority was dominated by the minority

Like who?

You mean people who pointed out that women were treated better? The people who point out that essential services like clean water were more readily available? That doesn't mean those people "liked" Iraq better either way or liked Saddam's cruelty.

So who do you mean who LIKES Iraq better the way it was before we went in--and F*CKed it it beyond all repair?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:24pm

ok, i suggest that if you want the gop to make those kinds of changes that you get behind the huckabee campaign because he's the one person in this race who i can see suggesting those kinds of policies.

Honestly, I might just do that if he did suggest those policies, because it would show him to be less of hypocrite than his peers. But those policies would alienate people in his base, while the demonization of gays goes unchecked. Because it can. Save for abortion, why aren't other social issues being denounced by these candidates in the name of the bible?

i agree, the gop needs to come to a better place on gay issues - i think rudy might be able to lead them there - but to pretend they are the only ones who run on those issues is laughably naive.

I know they aren't the only ones who run on these issues, but they do make it seem as though it's one of the impenetrable tenants of the GOP way. Of course, there aren't any religiously obsessed democrats who look like they may grab the nomination. You can understand my concern with someone like Huckabee in the forefront, since the dehumanization of gays has been a GOP calling card for years now. I don't really expect a democratic candidate to serve my basic human rights much better, but I don't fear being strung up like one of Margaret Atwood's "gender traitors" when I contemplate any of them in power.

I'm still of the opinion that the quickest way to change the world on the gay issue is to come out to everyone you know. It's much harder to demonize a brother than a stranger. possible, but harder.

I appreciate it in thought, but I don't know that's the really the case. You'd be suprised how deeply rooted hatred of homsexuality can be, especially since it's more and more now constitutionally based . My best friend's mother (to whom he is out) voted for anti-gay legislation in their state. I have republican friends who support domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage and have said that to my face. Sure, there are some people who'll say, "Hey, my brother/sister/friend, etc is gay. Perhaps I should think about the consequences to them if I vote a certain way" but I think those people are few and far between. It's okay to discriminate against gay people. They think Jesus wants them to and their politicians reinforce that.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:33pm

All of this 'hoping' and 'convincing' of one's self is how we got into this mess with the last two elections.

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:38pm

Phyllis it is dispiriting. I had a fairly good friend who is very conservative. I tried to address the issue delicately to no avail. Finally I said "That's me. When the Republican Party says that allowing gays to marry will lead to legalized beastiality- they are talking about ME. How can you endorse that?"

He looked slightly uncomfortable but didn't budge. I don't know if he really believes that and didn't want to admit it or just doesn't care- or his party is more important.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 12:58pm

You know, honestly, sometimes I think that gay people just need to shut up for five seconds. If the gay political leaders of this country stood up for a minute and said "Okay, this Mike Huckabee guy wants to isolate us from the rest of the population: but he also has a completely inneffectual stance on the middle east, he's completely partisan and only represents the ideals of 30 % of this country, he has no experience with foreign affairs, he has a questionable track record, questionable ideas about science (and while 25 % of our country may think the sun revolves around the earth the rest do not)," etc. There are a host of reasons to support this guy. Why do we insist on picking the one issue that so many Americans are afflicted with backwater views to carp on?

It's like when everyone was talking about gay marriage. It was the wrong issue. Most people thought that they were trying to force churches to perform gay marriages. I think we need to leave people to their religious beliefs but make sure we keep them out of politics.

But I disagree that Mike Huckabee has going to win the GOP. Iowa is one thing but once the initial infatuation ends, the enthusiasm will die down.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/10/07 at 1:00pm

"Save for abortion, why aren't other social issues being denounced by these candidates in the name of the bible?"

It is easy for ignorant, "religious" people to demonize gays, because they aren't tempted by homosexuality. (I'm not talking about Larry Craig or other self-hating closet cases; their motivation is apparent.) Think about it--almost every other "sin" is one we've all been tempted to do at some time or another--most people have felt the urge to kill, steal, lie, covet, etc., etc. But the evangelicals can say, "Hey, I'm a man who has no desire to sleep with another man. The people who do must be sick, and we can demonize them and feel superior to them and blame them for everything, because we don't share that temptation and we would never do the things they do."

That's why they have no frigging room to talk. Miss Manners once said (apropos of whether she ever felt the temptation to be rude), "Would you trust a priest who had never been tempted to sin?" No I wouldn't, which is why self-righteous "religious" heteros have absolutely no right to tell me how to live my life.