Day: January 17, 2008

Huckabee Panders to S.C. GOP – Again Equates Homosexuality with Pedophilia, Bestiality

Jon Ponder

You Can Never Go Wrong Preaching Hate to South Carolina Republicans

When Mike Huckabee’s poll numbers began to rise in late November, he claimed that his success was equivalent to the New Testament miracle of the loaves and the fishes. (In fact, it was because the Christian nationalist base of the GOP had nowhere else to go.)

“I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.”
– Huckabee

The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll of voters in Saturday’s South Carolina GOP primary has shown Huckabee stuck behind John McCain 29 percent to 22 percent for the last three days. The combined factors of troubling poll numbers and three straight primary losses appear to have caused Huckabee to lose faith in the strategy of depending on God to deliver his voters to the polls on Saturday. So today he tossed red meat to South Carolina Talibanis by ramping up his hate speech toward gays:

INTERVIEWER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

He also clarified the extent to which he would rewrite the Constitution to bring it into conformity with biblical law:

INTERVIEWER: Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?

HUCKABEE:No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.”

At least we know now that he wouldn’t also outlaw other mortal sins like adultery, premarital sex, working on Sunday, children sassing their parents and saying “God damn.”

Or do we?

Huckabee’s position today on the equivalence of gay relationships, which are consensual, and pedophilia and bestiality, which are not, is a 180-degree flipflop from the position he took on “Meet the Press” about two weeks ago:

RUSSERT: …And, and this is what you wrote in your book, “Kids Who Kill,” in 1998: “It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations–from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.” Why would you link homosexuality with sadomasochism, pedophilia and necrophilia?

HUCKABEE: Well, what I was pointing out is all of these are deviations from what has been the traditional concept of sexual behavior and men and women having children, raising those children in the context of a, of a traditional marriage and family. And, again, taken out of the larger context of that book, speaking about how so many of our social institutions have been broken down.

RUSSERT: But do you think homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia…

HUCKABEE: Oh, of course not.

RUSSERT: …or sadomasochism?

HUCKABEE: No, of course not. I didn’t say…

It bears repeating that pedophilia, sadomasochism and necrophilia are not “publicly endorsed and institutionally supported” aberrations.

The record should also reflect rightwing Christians do not practice what they preach about “traditional marriage.” Born-agains have a slightly higher divorce rate than normal Americans.

Politico Deals from the Bottom of the Race Card Deck

Buck Banks

As if the current tempest in a teacup over who played the race card first in the Democratic primary weren’t stupid enough, The Politico ran an article today that sought to characterize the Congressional Black Caucus as fractured over whom to endorse. This is a clear example of the media (not sure Politico qualifies as MSM or not) going to some lengths to create a story ex nihilo.

The headline screeches “Obama Splits Black Caucus.” The lede breathlessly jumps in with:

Even though Barack Obama may become the first African-American ever to represent a major party as the nominee for president, many black lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not supporting him. And that’s creating tensions within the Congressional Black Caucus.

The way Hearn presents the information makes it seem like there’s a big problem here.

The writer, Josephine Hearn, goes on to note:

More than a third of the black members of Congress are backing Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Edwards in the presidential primary, a stance that puts them at odds with many of their African-American constituents, who, recent polls show, are beginning to shift to Obama’s camp.

Sounds pretty fractured, don’t it? Until you read down to the actual numbers:

Of the 42 black members of the House, 17 are behind Obama, 16 are with Clinton, two are with Edwards and seven remain uncommitted.

Ms. Hearn’s math is correct — 16 + 2 = 18, which works out to 42 percent of the Caucus is backing Clinton or Edwards. Heck, in the Pensito Review executive suite, what we call PR math (which we use to count readers) would have changed that to “nearly half of the Caucus.” But the way Hearn presents the information makes it seem like there’s a big problem here, with black congressional members who endorsed Clinton now being criticized by their peers and constituents for not backing Obama.

[…]

Missing White House E-Mails – Incompetence or Deliberate Law-Breaking?

Buck Banks

In a well-established pattern of the Bush presidency, the controversy over a missing 5 million to 10 million White House e-mails seems to be the result of either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to destroy potentially incriminating evidence. Sound familiar? You bet.

At the heart of the controversy is whether mixed in among those millions of messages were some regarding the exposure of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative.

‘We still do not know what was lost, why it was lost, and what steps we have to take to recover it — assuming it is still recoverable.’
– Meredith Fuchs, general counsel for the National Security Archive

The White House has been typically reluctant to comply with requests for information about how it handles and stores what are in effect presidential records, which are required by law to be preserved. But if it was a cover-up and the tapes were destroyed, then criminal charges could be laid. However, if it was just incompetence — seems the White House was in the habit of reusing the record tapes, meaning that while not purposefully destroyed, the e-mails were taped over, effectively making it impossible to retrieve them.

Finally, Tuesday the White House complied with a magistrate’s order to do some ‘splaining:

In their lawsuits, the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington suggest the e-mails were improperly deleted from White House computer servers. Over 5 million White House e-mails are missing, CREW alleged. Recently, the group said it has been told by reliable sources that the actual figure of missing e-mail is over 10 million.

Typically, the Bush administration takes the position that it is above the law:

In asking that the complaints be dismissed, the Bush administration says the president’s record keeping practices under the Presidential Records Act are not reviewable by the courts. Also, the Federal Records Act does not allow the far-reaching action the two private groups are demanding, the administration contends.

[…]

Rep. Wexler Delivers Cheney Impeachment Petition to Congress

Jon Ponder

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) writes:

Last night, I took to the floor of the House of Representatives and outlined our case as to why this Congress must hold immediate hearings on Rep. Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment.

I didn’t do it alone: I was armed with nearly 200,000 signatures of support from you and so many others. Please watch the video of this speech and forward it to as many people as possible. I’ve posted it on the front page of www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

This morning, I delivered letters to all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, urging them to support Cheney Impeachment Hearings. You can read a copy of both the letter to my colleagues as well as the letter to Chairman Conyers I am asking them to sign [here].

Additionally, I have delivered to my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee a list of names who have signed up at www.WexlerWantsHearings.com. We now have almost 200,000 patriotic Americans dedicated to this cause.

We are beginning to make some progress. I have urged the Democratic Leadership to enforce the subpoenas being ignored by Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten by holding them in contempt of Congress.

This fight is not over. You must continue the pressure on your representatives and the media, or Congress will take no notice. That would be a historic mistake – one we must prevent Congress from making.

We stand at a critical juncture in our efforts. Forget all of those arguments that it is too late or that we have run out of time. You can’t run the clock out on our Constitution. Those of us dedicated to this fight – Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the online community, and millions of patriotic Americans – will keep the pressure on.

I will be furiously lobbying my fellow members of Congress to get behind these efforts and sign onto my letter to Chairman Conyers.

Please continue to spread the word and help deliver accountability to the corrupt Bush-Cheney administration.

With great respect,

Congressman Robert Wexler