Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Mike Huckabee on Flags & Fags


It's simply a manifestation of the tendency for evangelical religious whackos to be the biggest hypocrites on well as d-bags.

Posted by Kaija | January 18, 2008 6:29 AM

our intern walked into work this morning proclaiming herself a fuckabee fan and that is the best man for the job. so much for the 'youth vote.'

Posted by j | January 18, 2008 6:36 AM

I find it best for my own sanity to not think too much about how Republican loonies justify their fucked up positions.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 18, 2008 6:37 AM

He's just crab-walking on the flag issue, trying to get himself out of what even he knows is a jam. Let's get real for a minute here - for all practical purposes, states' rights just don't exist anymore. Which is really too bad; I rather think it's an excellent idea to keep the federal government as small and unobtrusive as possible. Not gonna happen in our lifetimes, though.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 18, 2008 6:56 AM

You'll get some two-faced obfuscation about how marriage is an institution that pre-dates the United States and is ordained by God, while the flag is a personal matter of taste that has no negative impact on the stability of families, blah blah.....

Posted by Yeek | January 18, 2008 7:04 AM

Excellent argument, Dan!!

One that can and should be made...and I wish someone would ask douchebags like him and other candidates about.

Id love to know how the white woman ad the black man running for president have no problem promoting states rights over the constitutional protections that should be extended to LGBT families.

Was the concept of states rights a reasonable way to extend suffrage to women?? Was states rights a reasonable position to take for the establishment of citizenship to freed slaves??

Don't look behind the curtain!!

Posted by patrick | January 18, 2008 7:12 AM

"Cuz I'm right and you're wrong. So pphhffffttthh!"

Probabaly not what he'd say, but it's certainly exactly what would be going through his head.

Posted by steve | January 18, 2008 7:21 AM

I want Huckabee to demonstrate what they would do with that flag pole. Seriously, Mike: will you demonstrate on yourself what should happen to that flag pole? And how does that exactly reconcile with your "christianity"?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 18, 2008 7:26 AM

racist douchbaggery! That is exactly what goes on in SC. and all over the south. Hell, all over the country...

Posted by Mike in MO | January 18, 2008 7:40 AM

Because the confederate flag, like represents our heritage and the founding fathers would have supported that. This is a Christian nation, damnit, and ....

OK. I was totally trying to be funny and sarcastic and couldn't even finish the thought.

I've asked this question of many a conservative, although not in regards to the flag. They really don't get it. "Hypocrite" must be a term coined by the vast left-wing conspiracy to turn this into a godless nation full of people with reproductive rights who are free to love who they love.

Posted by Jo | January 18, 2008 7:45 AM

Huckabee is so going to regret making an enemy of Dan Savage; it's pretty much the best story of the campaign so far.

Posted by thegayrecluse | January 18, 2008 7:54 AM

Answer: cognitive dissonance. And I'll tell you where he can stick that flagpole too.

Posted by Brendan | January 18, 2008 8:07 AM

God hates flags.

Posted by Soupytwist | January 18, 2008 8:12 AM

Why do we give these people any respect at all by actign like they hjsut have a few cognitive problems and logical flaws?

Huckabee (like all right wing leaders) knows exactly what he's doing.

He's lying to a bunch of working class white men so they vote for him on cultural values so he can then totaly screw them over by preventing national health care, and giving huge tax breaks to the rich and to corporations.


He doesn't give a goddamn about the confederate flag nor states rights; he gives a goddamn about fooling enough people to get power.

Most republicans don't really believe all that cultural crap they spew to get power. They all know gay people. They have gays on their staffs. They drink cocktails with gays when they hang out in Washington, D.C. bars -- or at Spokane conventions.

They have relatives who are gay.

But in public they bash gays to get the antigay vote, to get power, to reward their rich cronies.

They're not dumb and this scam has been working for about 50-60 years.

Posted by unPC | January 18, 2008 8:18 AM

LMAO @ 13.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 18, 2008 8:18 AM

Hey, Dan, if you're really lucky, you could end up on Fuckabee's "enemies" list once he gets into office. I was on Nixon's list, and consider it quite an honor.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 18, 2008 8:24 AM


They don't really want to get rid of gay people, like march them into concentration camps. They want them around, but closeted and shamed. They like a hierarchal social structure of winners and losers, first class and second class.

And third class, illegals. Keeping workers around who can't call the police or go to a hospital serves them well too.

They don't really care about a half century from now; if they did they'd want Hispanic votes. They can just transform their platform when they need to and say all this was ancient history. It worked for the Dixiecrats, right?

Posted by elenchos | January 18, 2008 8:29 AM

Mendacity! Mendacity!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 18, 2008 8:40 AM

unpc@14, exactly. they've hijacked the "moral highground." and it's often not even a rational argument they use to get there. the left has to figure out how to kick them off it and take it back. that's our challenge. and i have a feeling it's gonna take someone who understands what a fucking sound byte is, eg: not folks like people like kerry and gore. obama seems to get it, whatever you may think of him, you gotta give him that.

Posted by ellarosa | January 18, 2008 9:10 AM

Great argument Dan but I just want to point out one thing: We've got civil unions here in New Hampshire now too. I know that it isn't relevant to your point, but when you list Vermont and Connecticut as having civil unions (not to mention Mass having marriage) don't leave NH out. Good people fought hard here, and in New Jersey as well, although their civil unions have proven to be not-so useful thus far (as I suspect ours might sadly be). I doubt Huckabee, who has to be one of the scariest people in ages if only because he is so charming, would leave New Hampshire and New Jersey's civil unions alone while going after Vermont and Connecticut.

Posted by Winter | January 18, 2008 9:26 AM

Here, here Savage. I'd like an answer to that question as well.

Posted by Alphonse | January 18, 2008 9:28 AM

Well, since slavery is explicitly endorsed in the Bible, I suspect it has more to do with Mike Huckabee wanting to write it back into the constitution than state's rights. :-/

Posted by Gander | January 18, 2008 9:35 AM

States where he's competitive in the primary or general get to do what they want. States where he's not are to be turned into the Republic of Gilead.

Posted by Gitai | January 18, 2008 9:44 AM

Hmmm. In the course of two days, Mike Huckabee has made a bestiality reference and an anal penetration reference. I wonder if he employs a wide stance in the airport restroom?

Posted by J.R. | January 18, 2008 10:04 AM

Huckabee: (v.) Any act of anal penetration using a pole, rod, or other similar object, e.g., "We were really going at it on the kitchen table, when suddenly he huckabeed me with a spatula handle."

Posted by COMTE | January 18, 2008 10:20 AM

I think fuckabee is going to be caught on a pole (or smokin' one) in the next two years.

Posted by subwlf | January 18, 2008 11:05 AM

a spatula handle!?!? a round, smooth, wooden spoon is a better is your going to get huckabee'd. the flat handle does nothing.

that would be a great question. but, really, we all agree that some things should be decided by the federal government (maybe abortion rights, for instance), and other things decided by state. there is nothing hypocritical about that.

Posted by infrequent | January 18, 2008 11:09 AM

Well, it's not like I would know from personal experience or anything, @27.

(Besides, I was sort of making a stretch at a "Stripes" in-joke, i.e. "the spatula treatment".)

Posted by COMTE | January 18, 2008 11:42 AM

oh, i don't know anything about stripes. except, of course, what i learned in the candy cane thread. stripes are about jesus, which, coincidentally, is what this thread is kind of about as well....

Posted by infrequent | January 18, 2008 1:39 PM

Um, "Stripes", the movie?

Oh nevermind, I've reached "trying to explain the joke" mode...

Posted by COMTE | January 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Dan you have the public Mic, you should ask the question. Frame it in a sexual light and you'll be sticking to your skill set.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | January 18, 2008 3:57 PM

ha! and *i* was making a joke about *not* knowing what stripes was... which was ungot. ungot? yes, ungot. oh well.

Posted by infrequent | January 18, 2008 4:34 PM

Why does Huckabee keep trying to tell me where I should put my pole? It's none of his fuckin' business.

Posted by TLjr | January 18, 2008 8:25 PM

Posted by Jesus | January 20, 2008 6:37 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).