Mike Huckabee strikes me as a nice enough fellow — if nothing else, he’s been a hoot on the Colbert Report. But make him president?
“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.”
That’s as in this past Monday, not back in the dark ages of the 1980s or something.
The Constitution is, of course, not a perfect document. The fact of its amendment (and re-amendment, in some cases) a couple dozen times over two hundred years demonstrates that.
But changing it to line up with “God” — God as defined and believe by Mike Huckabee? That’s not just scary, it’s just wrong. Because the Constitution is not about who wins, who has to give in, God or the Constitution. God’s law, “God’s standards,” if you believe in such a thing, doesn’t change because the Constitution says or doesn’t say some particular thing. God’s standards, as one would expect Mike Huckabee to espouse them, are a lot bigger than the Constitution.
Failing to amend the Constitution (the context was discussion of abortion and gay marriage) doesn’t actually “change God’s standards.” To imply it does so is actually a hell of an insult toward God.
As to the whole question of how you amend the Constitution to actually make it “God’s standards” — that’s so ludicrous a concept (which standards are you going to pick and choose from, even if you argue with a straight face that we’re talking “Christian” Godly standards) that it should serve to disqualify the man right there. Presumably gay marriage would be out (Should gays be stoned instead?), as would abortion. But should witches be killed? Should restaurants all be kosher? Do we amend the Constitution to anoint kings rather than elect presidents? Is Prohibition back in, or still out? How about the slavery question?
Feh. And I believe he means it, too — which just makes it worse.
(via DOF)
My question, is there a republican candidate that isn’t a complete nutball? McCain might be the least nutballish of all, and it scares me to say that because I despise McCain and his Bush pandering.
Depends on your definition of “nutball,” I suppose. Romney’s not too beyond the pale, when he’s not pandering to conservative Christians. Giuliani’s a pretty standard political type. McCain is probably the least nutballish of all, but his brown-nosing the religious right completely turned me off of him.
Fortunately, I have another party with a few candidates I wouldn’t mind seeing win.
There is no better tool for the Democratic Party in the upcoming election than how strange and extreme the Republicans in the race are.
Once the primaries are done and the real race is on, presuming the Democratic candidate has a more just left of center message we’ll probably see a LOT of moderates from both parties go Dem, and the vast majority of independants, too.
The pandering to the Religious Right is going to bite the Republicans this round.
I offer fervent (if ironic) prayers to that end. 🙂
Reminds me of the comment Senator Jeff Sessions made “The civil libertarians among us would rather defend the constitution than protect our nation’s security.”
I won’t retort with the world’s most overused Ben Franklin quote — but I think the civil libertarians among us would argue that defending the Constitution is protecting our nation’s security — both directly, from those who use secrecy to oppress and commit injustice, and indirectly, a free people being best able to act in their best interests, elect strong and effective leaders, and create a counter-example to those who would threaten us, “foreign or domestic.”
Ideals rarely work as absolutes in the real world — but a strong defense of civil liberties is the best way in a free society to ensure that what limits are placed upon them out of necessity are, in fact, necessary and worthwhile, not conveniences for would-be tyrants and “fathers know best.”
Well put, but I’m sure you have read enough science fiction to know the future looks bleak if we are attacked again by terrorist…here is hoping that there is really enough courage in this country to realize your points…that to me is the true courage, not sending out armies to attack innocent people…
I’ve read enough science fiction to know that the future looks bleak if we give up our freedoms for the sake of security, too. 🙂 And a free people are better able to survive terror attacks, I believe, than a controlled population (if nothing else than because such attacks shake the control).