Huckabee: God's Vote Only One That Matters To Me
It turns out there's only endorsement Mike Huckabee is really after. And it's not a a certain senator, or a Republican activist group, or even Chuck Norris himself — it's God, and that's what determines his public policy agenda.
The American Prospect reports that Huckabee appeared this week on the televangelism show Believers' Voice of Victory, and he declared proudly, "I had to come to the conclusion that I only had one client ... when I laid my head on the pillow, I'd say, 'Lord, are you pleased?' ... even if I get voted out of office, I'll never get voted out of heaven."
If this seems familiar, that's because it is — President Bush himself once told Bob Woodward the following about whether he consulted his father for advice: "You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."
Comments (36)
phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 3:44 PM:The sheer pomposity of these airhead claims is immeasurable. Anyone who believes that God speaks through current or prospective heads-of-State needs to move into a large comfortable rubber room.
slcathena wrote on November 28, 2007 3:49 PM:I'll say it again, Huckabee scares me more than any of them. He'll rally the base, he's likeable, and he's got that same instrument of God means I don't have to be accountable to people thing going on...
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 28, 2007 4:20 PM:Hopefully, God will do the right thing and crush this pukes hopes early and hard.
Huckleberry had been the least objectionable of the Republicans . . . Now it looks as if Tancredo might usurp that position and Tancredo is farging insane . . .
On the Clock wrote on November 28, 2007 4:20 PM:Did you know the oil we use to heat our homes and run our cars comes from dinosaurs that died only 6,000 years ago?
I sure didn't...
ralphbon wrote on November 28, 2007 4:22 PM:I'm reminded of the Onion headline that appeared the week after 911:
Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell
Ditto for all those religiously fervent backers of wars of aggression and enhanced interrogation.
MarcNYC wrote on November 28, 2007 4:30 PM:He's already said that he doesn't believe in evolution and that it is only a theory. Has anyone asked him if he believes in gravity, because, after all, that's only a theory too?
phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 4:30 PM:If Ashcroft can volunteer for enhanced interrogation, shouldn't Huck-boy be right behind?
John wrote on November 28, 2007 4:34 PM:For MarkNYC -- I suppose instead of the theory of gravity he believes in "intelligtent falling."
dances with beagles wrote on November 28, 2007 4:41 PM:Need to put these televangelists out of their offices also. I recall Kenneth Copeland saying on this same show a few years ago (his show) that Democrats were on the outs with God because of support for gay marriage. God told him this personally. This guy flys his private jet all over the place to collect dollars mainly from the sick and the poor, who think if they give or just believe like Copeland does God will give them a jet also. "Even a janitor can have a jet" is one of Copeland's sayings, and God will give it to you if you just believe hard enough and of course, give hard enough. Maybe so, and that would be nice, but someone needs to find out just how many folks in Copeland's little cult have actually gotten the pay off from God.
woody, tokin librul wrote on November 28, 2007 4:42 PM:WTF kind of country accords the status of a plausible candidate for the presidency to anyone who publicly announces they do NOT accept evolution, forget the fact that this drooling loon believes dinosaurs and people walked the earth together 6000 years ago? Are the 'people' of this country so scared/stupid as to seriously consider Huckleberry for any position with more responsibility than a fucking circus clown?
I do think there's a pretty good chance Huckleberry may end up on the ticket with Romney, as a counter-weight to Mitt's Mormonist lunacy. An angel named Moroni? You really can't make up stuff like that.
Huckabee is appalling for a variety of reasons. But this, frankly, strikes me as a non-story. It's just the Arkansas way of saying, "I'm accountable first of all to my conscience, and only then to the voters. If the voters don't agree, I'm willing to take my lumps." The issue is, what policies does Huckabee's conscience (which he interprets as his client God) urge him to pursue?
If they were consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, that would scarcely disturb any of us.
As a believer myself, if I were in elective office, I'd be likely to say something similar, in similar words. And I sure as hell don't want to see a theocracy in this country, and I know for a certainty that the answer to Who Would Jesus Torture is the null set. Yeah, I've got a notion that Huckabee's take on both those issues would differ. But the American Prospect interview snippet doesn't count for or against that notion.
jvill wrote on November 28, 2007 4:45 PM:"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Susan B. Anthony.
phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 4:52 PM:hey woody. When's the last time you checked the actual figures on how many Americans ascribe to evolution and how many believe the biblical version? There are a phenomenal number of Americans who through ignorance or sheer will power refuse to accept evolution as science--hence the whole Bush anti-science agenda has held sway--hence guys like Hucksterbee can be spoken of as credible candidates.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 4:52 PM:feel the Wayne Dumond-mentum!!!
P J Evans wrote on November 28, 2007 5:01 PM:"I had to come to the conclusion that I only had one client ... "
So who voted him _into_ office?
Because I'm pretty sure that God isn't a legal voter in Arkansas (or any other state) and doesn't outweigh the real voters.
And I'm positive that I don't want as president someone whose reasoning abilities don't get past "god said 'let there be light', and there was light".
So he knows with certainty that he is going to Heaven? Isn't that, y'know, God's decision? Did he pay indulgences to get his ticket to Heaven? or is he merely a proud blowhard? And isn't there something in the Bible about such presumptiveness?
Stanley wrote on November 28, 2007 5:14 PM:I have it on good authority that Huckabee happens to believe that Zeus and Apollo are also in their appropriate places, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster will prevail.
It amazes me that otherwise bright people knowingly and purposefully accept that they will be better served by refusing to think
How tragic for them. How tragic for us if we put them in positions of power.
Have we not learned enough already about the consequences of having such fools in power from our exerience with His Arrogance, George W.?
I used to think that the greatest threat to humanity was ignorance and the exploitation of the ignorant by those that held only their personal gain paramount.
Now I see that ignorance has become a virtue alongside greed in a terrible Machiavellian display.
The greatest threat to humanity is the tolerance of religious dogmatics. The success of "Religious Fundamentalism" as a political force is the the foil of the democratic processes and signals the demise of civilization, true progress and human suffrage.
phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 5:38 PM:Welcome back to the Middle Ages. Serf's up!
Frog Leg wrote on November 28, 2007 5:52 PM:Wow. The cluelessness of people on this board on religious issues is amazing, not to mention the hostility to any meaningful religion. Try not to jump to conclusions about Huckabee's comments; they're much more nuanced than is believed here.
phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 5:56 PM:Hey frog leg, are you saying that when someone says "Lord are you pleased?" in front of an audience of evangelicals, they expect the audience to NOT take them literally? You have got to be kidding.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 7:15 PM:Some ORU critics have been skeptical that the board is dedicated to any meaningful change in how the university, which is over $50 million in debt, is operated. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating three members of the board of regents -- Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, and Kenneth Copeland -- for allegedly using their tax-exempt ministry funds for their own personal enrichment. And Copeland's son-in-law, George Pearsons, is the board's chairman.
Frog Leg wrote on November 28, 2007 7:18 PM:Phil, what he is saying here (and how a religious person would understand it) is that he is concerned about doing the right thing, and he will pray to help discern what the right thing to do is. And a majority of Americans wouldn't think that's a bad idea. Anything beyond this is just something you're reading into the statement.
Robbie wrote on November 28, 2007 7:21 PM:Crackers, ignorant, dumb ass, crackers--how did white trash come to run the Republican party? Time was all you needed was a wide stance and a lobbyist in the next booth, now it takes God's hand on your dick to get the Republican nomination. Damn I'd hate to die in some religious war started by idiots.
glennpdx wrote on November 28, 2007 7:28 PM:Hey, I want one of those Huckabee "Get Out of Hell Free" cards. Anyone know where he got his?
Cautious Man wrote on November 28, 2007 10:03 PM:"President Bush himself once told Bob Woodward the following about whether he consulted his father for advice: 'You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.'"
Every time I read that, I have the same reaction -
"Right, dickhead. And God gave you a father who was a Congressman, CIA chief, VP and President, who had invaded Iraq to boot. You were SUPPOSED to ask him for advice, dirt-bag!"
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Some of these comments are the funniest I've ever read. Man, TPM has seriously got the most hilarious posters of any site - and I don't mean that disparagingly or facetiously; I'm fully on the side of you who are taking Huckleberry to task. Personally, I think the litmus test should be that if you say things like a "higher father" is who you appeal to (and that father's a god) or "God's vote is the only one that matters to me" you should be disqualified from holding any public office, period. You don't even get to be a page in a library. You are out, out, out, out, out when it comes to collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
I've said it once, I'll say it a billion times before I die: believe what you want, worship who/what you want, do it with gusto and vigor, but KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. You're doing it because it's post-death insurance, right? Okay, great. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
David wrote on November 28, 2007 11:18 PM:@nicteis -
That was one of the most thoughtful responses I've read on this site. I happen to completely agree, but even if I didn't –- thanks for keeping the discourse level-headed, incisive and funny.
Also, fair.
blank wrote on November 28, 2007 11:44 PM:I second David's comment.
nicteis is right. All Huckabee is saying is that he will follow his conscience.
Fistic Mystic wrote on November 29, 2007 2:23 AM:The Christian response: "Get Out of Hell Free" cards are being handed out for free by Jesus to anyone who will admit his own sinful nature and humble himself to ask for forgiveness.
Huckabee is a decent man and a talented executive. Time named him one of the five best governors in America in 2005. He's smart, too - he got his 4 year degree in 2.5 years while working his way through college and dealing with his wife's cancer.
Anger, sarcasm, and hostility aren't useful. It would be nice if we could have a respectful discourse here.
The Facilitatrix wrote on November 29, 2007 3:24 AM:Huckabee is perhaps just the most extreme example of how far away from governing the US according to the foundation given by the Constitution we have gotten, but I am increasingly disquieted by the emphasis on faith in this campaign--for all of the candidates.
This didn't used to be an issue, in my recollection. Yes, there have always been some candidates who have lorded their religiosity over their opponents, but I very much doubt that anyone who declined to make a public statement about their faith (something to effect of, "That's a personal area that has no effect on what I believe I can do for this country") could even conduct a serious campaign today.
Look at Kucinich: He has what I believe is the most comprehensive and progressive agenda for the presidency. He has already written plans, submitted House resolutions, and covered all the areas I understand Progressives want covered, and he even seems to practice what he professes. Yet when word came out that he had some sort of profound experience when he saw what (at least to him) was a UFO, he came to be looked upon as a nut case, in addition to already being utterly unelectable (look at all the MSM articles about him; he's never given any print without some slam about the impossibility of his winning).
But there's a guy sitting in the White House right now who believes he has conversations with God. The homeless guy picked up for a legal infraction who claims that gets a 72-hour hold for psych observation.
I freely admit that I'm currently affected by reading Sam Harris's "The End of Faith." He manages to put religious faith into terms that show, at the very least, that it is rationally misguided to accept without qualms leaders who are devout in their faith because, if they are truly devout, this makes them deny, for instance, the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and the origins of humankind. This is not a good foundation for governing a country, I believe.
It's maybe troubling to some that Bush believes he has a pipeline to his deity, but because his deity is the one that is generally accepted to be the same one that most people in the US believe in, there is no outcry about this and the unreasonableness of his claim. But do one of the little exercises Harris presents and exchange "God" with "Zeus" or "Odin" or "Osiris," and it's a different story, isn't it? Yet at one time, and for long periods of time, each of those deities was the accepted deity for their respective cultures.
I like what Christian had to say above: "worship who/what you want, do it with gusto and vigor, but KEEP IT TO YOURSELF." A cursory look at history shows pretty quickly that living under a theocracy rather than separating the civic and religious aspects of a civilization imposes restrictions on its populace that generally ends up in intolerance, suspicion, imprisonment, and death pretty quickly when people don't share the mandated faith vigorously enough.
I'm not an atheist (yet), but I am truly at the point of agnosticism, if only because devout faith seems to require not only leaving your reason at the church door but abandoning it altogether. This country doesn't want people expressing reasoned opinions (The emperor is naked!) that question the virtue of a faith that must by definition deny reason.
I'm not feeling good about the direction this country is going. I can only hope that those "moderate" faithful can act on their discomfort with a Huckabee and keep him out of office.
Sam Harris also has a few things to say about the "moderate" faithful and the hesitance to challenge faith-based professions as we hesitate to challenge nothing else we might see as unreasonable: Religious tolerance is actually more dangerous than intolerance, since the tolerant are unlikely to stop the repressions of the intolerant, whereas the intolerant have no such reluctance about the tolerant.
So I'm going to say it: If we're sitting around having a drink and waxing philosophical, then maybe I want to know what you believe in. But if you're running for an office that will affect the future of this nation, its people, and the world, keep your faith to yourself and remember that yours is a political office with civic responsibilities. If you want to act on your faith, become a missionary instead.
Bob wrote on November 29, 2007 6:38 AM:Actually it is possible to talk with God. When Jesus died, at that moment, the temple curtain was torn in two. That signified that through his sacrificial death, the way was opened into the inner sanctuary, the holy of holies where God is. No longer does man need a priest to talk to God for him. Any man can go directly to God through Jesus. Any man can be clean enough (perfect) through the blood of Jesus to approach God. Huck can indeed pray to God and God wants to speak to us in order that we will do the right thing. Whether we like George Bush or not, whether we agree or not with his "hearing from God" and his decisions, should not prejudice us towards Huckabee. Most Americans want a man who will search his own soul and the heart of God before making decisions that affect others. Of course no one is 100% perfect. Sometimes we miss what God is saying... but it is great to have leadership that sincerely seeks the truth and does their best for the country. Isn't that better than having leaders who follow their own ideas and desires... if you struggle with the absurdity of people doubting evolution... take a look at "creatures that defy evolution" it's a fair argument
Bob
Last night at the Forum, one in the mob stood up with Christian scriptures in hand, and asked if candidates believed the Bible is the word of God.
Toward the end of the debate, or shortly after, TPM posted an update opine that Pastor Huckabee “…hit it out of the ballpark…” with his reply to the question. I searched TPM today, looking for last night’s debate post proclaiming Hucksta’s grand slam — can’t find it.
This morning, NPR ran a clip of Huckabee’s response — paraphrased: “… I believe the [Christian] Bible is revelation from God… I don’t understand all of it… but yes, it is God’s revelation.”
The good Pastor believes the Bible to be God’s revelation, but admits he doesn’t get it — or some of it.
In other words, God’s revelations are incoherent, or not intended to be understood by Pastor Huckabee.
How do voters even consider electing a President who testifies to believing in what he does not understand?
Call it faith.
Bob,
I'm not going to get into an argument about belief with you. Insofar as "creatures that defy evolution" are concerned, if we did not yet know about how infections actually occur, we might still hold to a belief in a moral judgment by God upon those who suffer from disease (though too many still do hold that belief, in my opinion). There are many things we do not yet know. This does not mean they are unknowable.
My worry is exactly what you state is a good thing: "Most Americans want a man [sic] who will search his own soul and the heart of God before making decisions that affect others." If by this you mean that Americans hope their elected officials will behave ethically and make decisions that will benefit the American people without being influenced by beliefs that are based on writings that guarantee afterlife benefits for some and not for others (according to their beliefs and not their ethical attributes) then fine. But that's not the meaning I get from you. Because you imply that Jesus is the conduit to God, you preclude access by any other method or belief.
This is not what our Constitution intended in the First Amendment. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This--understandable to those who apply reason to it--implies a reciprocal relationship in which religion does not factor in the making and executing of laws. What you see as good in Bush and Huckabee is exactly what worries me.
Apparently it worried Thos. Jefferson, too, because he stated, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" [1].
That wall doesn't have a doorway that locks only on one side, allowing access to government by religion but not access to religion by government. It's a wall.
There's a lot of ground between having "leadership that sincerely seeks the truth and does their best for the country" and "leaders who follow their own ideas and desires." If that "truth" comes from beliefs that narrowly define what truth is and proscribe behaviors not because they are unethical but because they stand as some sort of threat to the perpetuation of religious beliefs--to the exclusion of other, competitive or contradictory beliefs--then I might prefer the leader who can think for herself, without the constraints placed upon her by a 2,600-to-1,800-year-old text [2] by numerous authors that has undergone numerous translations (many of which have proven to be inaccurate) and that laid out often-contradictory rules and recommendations to cultures that no longer exist, even if she might give into the occasional desire.
1. Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01). Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. U.S. Library of Congress.
2. Scientific evidence places the writing of the Old Testament between the 7th and 6th centuries BCE [http://www.bibleorigins.net/]. The New Testament is generally accepted to have been first "canonized," i.e., so widely distributed that no further alterations could occur without dispute, by the 3rd century CE [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html].
Leon wrote on November 30, 2007 3:15 PM:It's said that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. It is amazing how predominantly ignorant you all are about the Bible and ways of God about whom you seem to speak authoritatively. Yet you bash those of us who speak about God as being the ignorant ones. Do yourselves a favor, grab a Bible and actually read through it, grab literature about the founding fathers, their beliefs, and the constitution - then after that speak to the issue much more intelligently.
