'Women I know are outraged that the Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication.'
Because when a governor in 2005 supports and signs a bipartisan bill that mandates contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, including for religiously-affiliated organizations like hospitals and universities, and then turns around in 2014 and declares that such a thing on the federal level is an "insult" to women and a sign of how horrible That Man in the White House and That Man's Democratic Cronies are …
… well, forget it, Jake, it's politics.
Huckabee vs. Huckabee
As governor, did Mike Huckabee support the same contraception policy he’s condemning now? In an amusing twist, yes.
57 view(s)
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
–Barack Obama, April 17, 2008
Huckabee's a politician and, maybe like Obama, he's "evolved"…..or devolved…depending on how you look at things.
I second +Mark Means's sentiment. I voted for Obama on his first run, I'm ashamed to say.
People change their views over time, and a decade is a loooong time to learn new things and change your opinion regarding previously acted upon issues.
Fair enough, +Mark Means — though Obama has at least addressed that he's changed his mind on this issue.
So have we seen any changes or evolution or intermediate steps in this from Huckabee? From supporting requiring insurance policies to cover contraception for all except explicitly religious institutions, to some area sort of in-between phase, to now pontificating that such a program is an insult to women and a sign of the corruptly paternalistic and dependence-driven Democratic party?
Disappointed in Obama as I am, but not in the least ashamed of having voted for him over McCain or Romney.
@George – Ditto.
Does there need to be something between? It sounds like you're trying to make a point against Huckabee for the sake of it, or to push the politics of the subject.
He voted one way, then he changed his mind. He's entitled to do that.
I'm not defending the guy, and neither do I support all of his views. Just noting an observation.
I think if a politician (as someone whose career is the discussion and pursuit of policy) changes their mind significantly on a topic, then some explanation (or even at least acknowledgment) is in order, lest the change be seen as hypocritical or mere political expediency. Especially when the change in mind involves attacking others for holding the position he previously held.
I can see that.
I'm not sure if he's acknowledged it. I don't really follow his exploits.