“They are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government.”

— Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, addressing the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, on the message that Democrats send to women. He was quoted by The Washington Post.

17 Comments

    • No, Moore, Democrats never say this. In fact, they never declare their true intentions. We can only learn them from what they actually do, not from what they say. I give you a half-century of failed social programs as proof that Democrats say one thing (“help the poor”) and do something sinister (destroy families and create inter-generational welfare dependency even as Obama says we’re now in the 6th year of an economic recovery).

      • *Sigh* I’m sure to regret this, but….

        What is the divorce rate among Republicans and/or conservatives?
        What is the rate of _________ (pick your favorite symptom of destroyed families) among Republicans and/or conservatives?
        What specific social programs do you have in mind and what is the evidence they have failed?
        How many families, exactly, are part of “inter-generational welfare dependency,” how much, exactly, do they cost the gov’t, and why, exactly, are they dependent?
        Have Republican policies done anything to hurt families or cause welfare dependency?

        You’ve given us nothing but mere assertions and sweeping generalizations, but here’s your chance to give us some evidence.

          • Eric, regarding divorce: The divorce rates began to climb precipitously along with the adoption of “no fault” divorce in the states. That is illustrative of a basic liberal position that takes away the stigma of “blame” and also the foundation of a civil society: personal responsibility.

        • Eric, I will not do a rundown of each point you make. The facts are easily found by Googling.

          In general, there is no disputing that there are more people on welfare and in poverty today, proportionally speaking, than there were 45 years ago. This was true 5 years and more ago as well, so I’m not laying all the blame at the feet (of clay) of the Socialist-in-Chief.

          I spent a career in education working in the inner city. The numbers of today’s children whose grandparents and great-grandparents were on the dole is staggering. It doesn’t matter what they cost the government today. The fact remains that “Great Society” and “War on Poverty were supposed to alleviate this. Do you know that in the past half century we have spent over 20 trillion dollars on these programs?

          Yes, Republican policies have hurt because they have proven to be a continuation of what had already been put in place. The GOP had done nothing at all in all this time to make improvements in these programs or to shrink them.

          Why are so many people dependent? Consider: Back in the ’90’s a GOP Congress forced Clinton to revamp welfare, to stiffen requirements for participation. In my state alone, Voila! welfare recipients found themselves getting jobs and becoming self-supporting. Not all of them, of course, but the trend was in a positive direction, proving that there are dependent people who can be forced to become independent and responsible. Such reforms, though, go against the grain of Democrat philosophy which is statist and sees government as the answer to every problem and the master of everyone. Does Obamacare come to mind?

          If what I first wrote was a puzzle to you, I ask where you venture for your “news and information.” You will not pick up any of this “stuff” in the mainstream media.

          • Regarding divorce, so you want conservative views on divorce to be reflected in law, even when those same conservative views contribute to a cultural patterns that lead to divorce? What about that scenario is supposed to be plausible, much less desirable?

            If you can’t, or won’t, answer even one of my questions with some supporting evidence and argument, why should I listen to your anecdotal points? I don’t see how you can go off about what Dems and libs allegedly believe when you can’t even articulate views you support? And as far as your one statistic goes, $20 trillion spent on the War of Poverty, let’s be clear: I don’t care how much you hate the MSM, but the Tea Party News Network is not a bastion of reliable journalism.

            Further, if you think the GOP’s only harm comes from failing to undo social programs you don’t like, you have a very limited idea of “harm.” If families disintegrate due to divorce, abuse, or whatever, economic issues usually play a significant, contributing role to those situations. And again, let’s be clear: the GOP champions economic policies that favor the already wealthy, squeeze the disappearing middle class, and ignore the working and impoverished.

    • Eric, you might be able to write him off once you’ve been able to actually face the conservative philosophy and demonstrate that it is wrong. Are you up to the task? If so, you stand alone.

      • Ah, yes. Duane. Lamers. From the “Less-Than-Logical” branch of the Lamers clan, I believe. Who, of course, thinks the burden of proof lies not on “conservative philosophy,” but on any who dare question it. And who also thinks one must debunk “conservative philosophy” in toto in order to criticize an obvious tool like Huckabee. To whom the only fitting response is: pfff.

    • I thought we did that already in 2008 (or was it 2012)?

      He isn’t still in any kind of government office. Somehow I doubt he has it in him to run in 2016. But it will at least be amusing for a week or two.

  1. So Huckabee thinks the Right champions women by whining about their libidos? Yes, I expect this kind of thing from the party that gave us keeping a dead woman on life support because she’s pregnant, in order to make sure she delivers the baby she’s carrying (which in all likelihood is in nearly as bad shape as she is, having been subjected to the same blood clot that killed her).

    • PsiCop, what you and Eric took, I suspect, is the quote found in the Washington Post piece. Huckabee prefaced this with another important sentence or two in which he stated that he didn’t think women were so needy and dependent on government. Go ahead and look up the entire quote for yourself. You won’t find it, though, if you go looking for it in the mainstream media. Fox ran the entire quote.

      That said, I’ll agree that Huckabee said too much or poorly phrased that second part, the widely published part. He should have known better, given his prior experiences as a candidate. Another reason to keep him off the list of possible WH occupants in 2017. If one cannot take on the silly side, liberalism, one has no business being in the running.

      • Nothing in the full quote makes Huckabee sound any better. All he did was try to cast opposition to contraception as the moral high ground. By pretending conservatives have more respect for women than liberals. By attributing to liberals what conservatives themselves actually believe (and have said, thank you Rush Limbaugh), which is that women are having too much sex.

        Still waiting for you to answer my questions by the way.

    • He thinks that if he calls women dirty whores he is entitled to make decisions for them. Claiming moral high ground does not mean you have power to make decisions for other people. Its saying, “my holier than thou attitude trumps your personal liberties.”

      Of course there is no sane, rational, objection to contraception. People who oppose contraception are essentially saying the like poverty, crime, and limits to education/economic opportunities. Saying one want to make it more difficult for women to obtain it, is essentially declaring that should be second class citizens. Since this issue only really affects women in a meaningful way.

  2. Now he is pretending the statement never happened
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/26/mike_huckabee_keeps_pretending_the_media_is_lying_about_his_libido_comment.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

    It still comes down to insulting women and declaring himself to have far superior judgment than all women, who merely follow their libido. Saying essentially, all women should just bow to his superior moral character. Typical conservative view of privacy and civil liberties. I am holier than thou, so you must do what I say (and somehow call that exercising freedom).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.