Huckabee exposes hypocrisy of GOP leaders on abortion
Mike Huckabee, perhaps the most prominent leader of the GOP’s evangelical wing, has come out strongly in defense of U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, the party’s nominee for U.S. Senate in Missouri. Here’s a portion of the email that Huckabee sent out to his followers:
The Party’s leaders have for reasons that aren’t rational, left (Akin) behind on the political battlefield, wounded and bleeding, a casualty of his self-inflicted, but not intentional wound. In a Party that supposedly stands for life, it was tragic to see the carefully orchestrated and systematic attack on a fellow Republican. Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated.
I was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview. This was a serious mistake, but it was blown out of proportion not by the left, but by Akin’s own Republican Party. Is this what the party really thinks of principled pro-life advocates? Do we forgive and forget the verbal gaffes of Republicans who are “conveniently pro-life” for political advantage, but crucify one who truly believes that every life is sacred?
Who ordered this “Code Red” on Akin? There were talking point memos sent from the National Republican Senatorial Committee suggesting language to urge Akin to drop out. Political consultants were ordered to stay away from Akin or lose future business with GOP committees. Operatives were recruited to set up a network of pastors to call Akin to urge him to get out. Money has changed hands to push him off the plank. It is disgraceful.
From the spotlights of political offices and media perches, it may appear that the demand for Akin’s head is universal in the party. I assure you it is not. There is a vast, but mostly quiet army of people who have an innate sense of fairness and don’t like to see a fellow political pilgrim bullied. If Todd Akin loses the Senate seat, I will not blame Todd Akin. He made his mistake, but was man enough to admit it and apologize. I’m waiting for the apology from whoever the genius was on the high pedestals of our party who thought it wise to not only shoot our wounded, but run over him with tanks and trucks and then feed his body to the liberal wolves. It wasn’t just Todd Akin that was treated with contempt by the thinly veiled attack on Todd Akin. It was all the people who have faithfully knocked doors, made calls, and made sacrificial contributions to elect Republicans because we thought we were welcome in the party. Todd Akin owned his mistake. Who will step up and admit the effort being made to discredit Akin and apologize for the sleazy way it’s been handled?
Without in any way minimizing Akin’s rhetoric, there’s a lot of truth in Huckabee’s screed. The congressman’s position on rape and abortion is not by any means out of line with that of the Republican Party mainstream. The 2012 party platform calls for a ban on abortion, with no provision for exceptions in cases of rape and incest. It also calls for recognition in law that human life begins at the moment of conception, a position that precludes the right to choose for rape and incest victims.
As Huckabee understands, Akin is being ostracized by his party not for what he believes, but for stating what he believes too bluntly, and for calling attention to things that party elders want to keep hidden. It is telling, for instance, that Mitt Romney’s campaign is refusing to allow reporters to interview him unless they agree beforehand not to ask questions about abortion.
The GOP establishment wants the loyalty of the pro-life movement without the political baggage that comes with it among the general public. And it is bitterly angry with Akin because he has made it difficult to achieve those contradictory goals.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
632 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
August 24th, 2012
5:57 pm
“Huckabee exposes that the Republican Party is a big tent party.”
Uh huh. We’ve seen that “big tent” in the R platform. Very “liberal” plank on abortion that is.
Brosephus™
August 24th, 2012
6:11 pm
Liberalism has acquired entirely new nuances since the 60s, Brosephus. So I find your argument somewhat specious.
The GOP of the 1890’s is not the same one of 2012, but that has not stopped people from calling themselves members of the “Party of Lincoln” either. Neither party is the same as it was in the 1960’s, yet that doesn’t stop people from asserting that Republicans were for Civil Rights and Democrats fought against them, does it?
That argument does not address the fact that core ideology does not change. Liberalism now is the same as Liberalism then just as Conservatism now is the same as Conservatism then. The reason you think there’s such a change is that popular opinion has tried to mislabel both ideologies in order to paint them in the most negative light possible. The ideologies themselves have not changed. What has changed is that people have tried to redefine them. If you fall for the current definition instead of the true definition, then you’ll never understand the truth.
Your question is not a fair one. It is not hard at all to find Blacks who have realized significant achievements with the help of conservative people. And you know it. Why make it a party thing?
You obviously didn’t read the question, or else you would not have asked that. I specifically said NOT Republican or Democrat America. I’m asking you to look beyond the party labels and to the underlying ideology.
Classical definition of Conservative is one who is likely to keep things the same and is less open to new and sometimes radical ideas. The classical definition of Liberal is one who is open to trying new and sometimes radical ideas and is less open to keeping things the same. Which ideology in the 1960’s wanted to keep things as they were? Which ideology was striving to change things?
You are definitely right when you say it’s not about party. It’s about which group is more open to change and trying something new versus which party doesn’t want to change and wants to keep things as they were in the good old days.
Lucifer
August 24th, 2012
6:34 pm
I refer to Rush Limbaugh as “Old Lard Ass.” Haven’t listened to him in years.
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
6:36 pm
JHM
“I made no *claim* to monolithism.”
Granted. But you did state flatly that “…the media isn’t partisan (@ 4:30). Given that we now have such entities as the Huffington Post and Daily Caller making up the so-called “new media” and legitimately being included under the rubric “media” and given the emergence of cable news organizations like FNC and MSNBC (which clearly tilt toward the right and left, respectively), I could not fathom how you could make such a blanket statement when, in fact, it is patently obvious that certain entities adhere to a particular party or cause. Indeed, so false is your assertion that I could only assume you were thinking of earlier times. Perhaps the “unnamed studies” upon which you seem to base your *opinion* are a bit outdated and you should observe current realities.
“Yet the media need not BE monolithic to act in its own best interests.”
Now who is putting words in other people’s mouths? But to your point, I would say that being partisan is just acting precisely in their own best interests, because they are telling their supportive audience just what their itching ears want to hear.
“By your logic, no individual would take shelter from tornadoes unless the storm was headed *directly* at them. Either the community as a whole would take shelter or it would not.”
I don’t see how this hypothetical situation applies to the argument since I think you have gone off on a tangent. I’ll give you an “A” for imagination, though.
“Your personal behavior, while laudable, is not something your *race* gets credit for.”
I was not expecting for that to happen. I made mention of these things only to head off at the pass all of the bloggers who might want to simply peg me as a racist because I am speaking candidly about some less-than-politically-correct things. I agree it does not at all prove that whites are not racist; only that not all white are – an argument that does not need to be made.
“Oh, good grief. You’re griping and ranting about a MOVIE TITLE?”
I can only conclude you have never played much basketball and certainly none in inner city areas (as I have). I have been, on occasion, the only white player on the court and have been called “Larry Bird” when I made a good move and scored or made a great pass. When I was in the service, I wound up one day playing one-on-one against 4 black guys in a row (beating all but the last) and was surprised to see a group of about 20 other black guys standing around watching when there had been no one there when I started. The idea that white guys can’t play basketball or jump is a cultural one and subtly racist in nature. The reason there are not more white guys in the NBA is because they don’t spend that much time playing it (like I did and most blacks do). It’s the same reason so few blacks play in the MLB today. You certainly don’t have to be a track star to be a great basketball player – LB proved that beyond a doubt.
“I haven’t said anything to the contrary and I’ve made no such charge.”
I believe that and respect you for it. You don’t have to prove your fair-mindedness to me. I feel good that you are that way. But I have been speaking generally not about any one person in particular.
GT
August 24th, 2012
6:37 pm
Secrecy is the password of the GOP. Hide your colors, say politically correct phases, don’t get caught telling the truth or giving too much information, we might fool them again. A old country boy is raised hearing it is better to keep your mouth shut and have em think you are stupid than to open your mouth and give em proof you are.
Seems weird to me that a party wants to control the world but doesn’t want the voter to know who they really are. This would lead you to believe that he or she knows he or she is wrong. I use to think the party was just stupid, now I think it is a manipulation of smart people who want to rule, and the means only equal the end.
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
6:49 pm
“Classical definition of Conservative is one who is likely to keep things the same and is less open to new and sometimes radical ideas. The classical definition of Liberal is one who is open to trying new and sometimes radical ideas and is less open to keeping things the same.”
I don’t know that I would call these “classical” definitions of these terms. I agree that resistance or openness to change is essential to their meaning, but not that the change must be “radical”. It often turns out to be that way, but it is an effect rather than a cause in my mind.
“You are definitely right when you say it’s not about party. It’s about which group is more open to change and trying something new versus which party doesn’t want to change and wants to keep things as they were in the good old days.”
Again, I would not entirely agree. Change can be either good or bad. There is such a thing as throwing out the baby with the bath water. You mention the 60s, which in many of our minds was a kind of watershed decade. I think it was good that evil authoritarianism was exposed for what it is. I think it is bad we lost our respect for authority in general in the process. I think it was good people saw they could effect change through protests. I think it was bad that the idea “free love” replaced traditional sexual mores. And so on.
I think we should all be in favor of constructive change and against destructive change. Perhaps Republicans have been sometimes been averse to the former while Democrats have sometimes been in favor of the latter.
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
6:54 pm
“If you’re just gonna make sh*t up, there’s no sense in being half-assed about it.”
I’m still waiting for something more than a sentence or two from you – that is NOT a snark and actually represent a position of some sort. Until then, everything you post is merely Kamchak spam.
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
6:57 pm
“Towncrier – why would you say, or even think that blacks vote for obama ONLY because he’s black?”
I didn’t say that. Look at my posts. I said that 94% of blacks vote for a particular party, and that means well before Obama came on the scene.
Did they vote for Clinton ONLY because he’s white?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 24th, 2012
6:59 pm
I’m still waiting for something more than a sentence or two from you – that is NOT a snark and actually represent a position of some sort.
You don’t get to dictate how or what I post, sport.
You get what you deserve.
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
7:02 pm
“You don’t get to dictate how or what I post, sport.”
News flash – a challenge to your intellect does not represent an attempt to dictate your actions.
“You get what you deserve.”
Sometime I do, sometimes I don’t (like all of us).
Brosephus™
August 24th, 2012
7:10 pm
I think we should all be in favor of constructive change and against destructive change. Perhaps Republicans have been sometimes been averse to the former while Democrats have sometimes been in favor of the latter.
I can agree with the first part, but I think you’re showing a bit of ideological bias on the last part. Both parties have their fair share of both types of changes. When it comes to things that have positively affected the Black community however, those changes have come with the aid of progressive minded people.
Another thing to look into when questioning Black support of the Democratic Party is the same thing with the Jewish community. Going back to that magic decade, the 60’s, the Jewish community was there arm-in-arm with Black Americans fighting for those Civil Rights. Take a look into many of the Northerners who were killed in the South during the 60’s.
This is something I’ve been looking into for a while now. It started off as a search to find why Blacks separated from the GOP. After doing lots of reading, I began to understand that it was more about the ideology as opposed to the party. Once you track the rightward shift of the GOP post 1960’s and compare that to the Black migration to the Democratic Party, you can begin to see things clearly.
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
7:34 pm
“I can agree with the first part, but I think you’re showing a bit of ideological bias on the last part. Both parties have their fair share of both types of changes. When it comes to things that have positively affected the Black community however, those changes have come with the aid of progressive minded people.”
I respect your thinking and contributions to this blog, Brosephus. I guess every once and awhile I get upset at where we are at morally as a nation. What prompted it this time? Watching a (I guess syndicated) edition of Allens’ Comics Unleashed the other which included an appearance by Pauly Shore. I remember always wondering what talent people saw in him a decade or more ago and then I decided to see if he really did have comic talent. So I went on the Internet and googled youtube videos of his standup routines. I was horrified at what I heard (I don’t go to comedy clubs). And I thought” “My God, is THIS what we have come to as a nation”? Ten whole minutes detailing a sexual act with unceasing profanities. Pray tell me, what GOOD does that sort of thing do America? Who do I blame if not liberals? It is NOT social conservatives that have supported this kind of change!
My beef with liberalism is mainly over moral issues. I am much more flexible when it comes to fiscal and military matters.
Brosephus™
August 24th, 2012
7:49 pm
Towncrier
It’s perfectly reasonable to get upset. We’re only human. I probably get more upset about things I read here than anywhere else. I have learned to channel that into researching things. Anytime I read something derogatory about people, I go back to see where the behavior comes from. Sometimes, I think I would have been better off with a Psychology degree as opposed to a Math degree.
Pray tell me, what GOOD does that sort of thing do America? Who do I blame if not liberals?
Blame the Founding Fathers. Freedom of speech is just that. There are thousands of things said and printed that do no good for America. In the grand scheme of things, those are the very things that make America what it truly is. No other country has such a broad freedom to express themselves as we do here. When I see things like that, whether or not I agree with what’s said, I just smile when I realize that there are very few countries where one can get away with saying the things we can here.
givememyfairshare
August 24th, 2012
8:00 pm
Doggone/GA – sorry but my 2:35 was not a lie. He argued that exact point for one hour on the floor while a state senator
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
August 24th, 2012
9:01 pm
Granny:
“I would suggest that as a person of faith, you should respect other people of faith who feel in their hearts ….differently.
As there are no direct words from the man we both follow, so would not that be the the truly Christian way?”
1) I would fight for their right to “feel” that way but I will work under the law to keep them from killing the unborn.
2) Jesus never said anything about slavery, child molestation or credit card fraud either. However, as part of the Trinity in the O.T. He did say, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” …………. and you only know a “person” !
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
9:14 pm
“Blame the Founding Fathers. Freedom of speech is just that.”
I will have to disagree with you here. I blame the SCOTUS and the liberals who have pushed the obscenity envelop. Speech is, IN FACT, limited in some circumstances – so it is never entirely or absolutely “free”. So a line HAS been drawn that restricts it. I am saying that the line needs to be redrawn and don’t quite have the nonchalance about such things many on the left do. I don’t see how one can argue with a straight face or intelligence that the founding fathers meant by “free speech” a movie called “Debbie Does Dallas” if he wants to make intent (as with all other legal contracts and forms of communication) the basis of meaning. If one wants to “deconstruct” what someone wrote and make it mean what one feels it should mean, then he can make “free speech” mean whatever he wants it to mean. Please tell me you don’t construe other legal documents (especially those by which you are bound) besides the Constitution as “living” and open to continually changing interpretations.
Since you are into research, may I recommend you give these two books by E.D. Hirsch a reading: Validity in Interpretation and The Aims of Interpretation? At one time, I had considered applying to and attending UVA to learn from this man. He’s a sharp cookie.
JKL2
August 24th, 2012
9:15 pm
obama should look to sign USADA to a cabinent position. They can come out and strip Armstrong of his titles without having any jurisdiction to do so.
Their best case scenario is that they’ll give three trophies to banned for life doper Jan Ullrich and another to recently returned from his two year ban for doping Ivan Basso.
DNC must be chomping at the bit to sign brilliant people like that…
Towncrier
August 24th, 2012
9:34 pm
“Jesus never said anything about slavery, child molestation or credit card fraud either.”
To my knowledge, the Bible makes no mention of abortion. It does mention miscarriages and the sacrifice of children to idols. It does speak about slavery, homosexuality, adultery, bestiality, bearing false witness, lying, murder, rape and theft – but not child molestation. It also, as Scout indicates, clearly implies in a number of verses that a fetus is a person at some point in pregnancy.
Exodus 21:22-24 is often cited as proof that abortions might well be permissible, but that argument hinges on translating the Hebrew word “yatza” as miscarriage when it not so interpreted elsewhere but as either a stillbirth pr premature birth. The Hebrew word shachol specifically refers to a miscarriage.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
August 24th, 2012
10:08 pm
Towncrier:
Thank you.
ODD OWL
August 24th, 2012
10:20 pm
The Romney/Ryan Republicans are in a tizzy over all of these unmarried Women having sex… So if the Romney/Ryan Regime is elected, they are exploring ways to provide Federal Government loans to companies that manufacture chastity belts… The Romney/Ryan Republicans are preparing to take America back to the 12th century… The only men that will have access to Women’s hum hum good will be the locksmiths… Obama/Biden ==> Leaning forward… Romney/Ryan ==> Leaning backward…
Proud to be me
August 24th, 2012
10:39 pm
Jay when are you going to write about Joe Biden’s many misspoken and outrageous comments!!
As someone recently said . . either put up or shut up!
Paddy O
August 25th, 2012
2:38 am
sadly, jay again makes an error of judgement – is he the McCain of the AJC? Does he really think the Repubs adopt a platform just to hide it? The reason they want Akin gone is he is jeopardizing a cake walk of an election in Missouri; however, I with Akins’ sincere apology, I don’t think it will hurt him come election time. If you believe in G-d; and that conception is a blessing, then unless the mother’s life is in danger, the abortion would be a mortal sin. however, in a secular gov’t, it makes it almost impossible to gain support without the stipulation for rape and incest – and, since they are relatively rare – even the quoted 30,000 out of approximately 1.2 million per year is only 3%, and far less evil than is tolerated today. As a baptist minister, Huckabees position is consistent. Liberal mindset is sadly painfully fuzzy – intentional or not.
Paddy O
August 25th, 2012
2:39 am
proud: liberals are tunnel vision hypocrits – who are fully cognizant of how gullible and easily manipulated fellow liberals are. Sort of like a dog who will instantly start barking at a certain decibel.
Paddy O
August 25th, 2012
2:41 am
odd owl demonstrates the typical casual stupidity of liberaldom. thank fully. IF liberals even pretended to be virtuous, they would be dangerous to the liberty of this nation.
Paddy O
August 25th, 2012
2:48 am
brosephus: do not make the mistake of a pining Supreme Court when you confuse freedom of speech (and the press – the written word) with expression. Expression is vague, and if the authors of the Consitution intended it to be vague, would have written it that way. All Americans have undeniable freedom of speech (minimally truncated – yelling fire in crowded theater – especially considering recent events), and of the written word – which are exceptionally powerful in the pursuit of persuading others to agree with you. Burning a flag does not do that. Nor does throwing manure on a sacred object. But, despite their lifelong tenure, the Supremes are weakened by the very limits contained in the Consititution -so, over time they have expanded it to provide themselves with greater relevence, and to have something to do every year.
Paddy O
August 25th, 2012
2:53 am
Luckily for conservatives, liberals really do not care for virtue, personal accountability or fiscal responsibility – which exposes their movement quite easily as a movement of the lazy and irresponsible in society. sadly, this lack of interest while simultaneously bribing much of the public with fiscal freebies, is damaging to the nations fiscal stability,economy and ability to honestly address genuine problems.
Reality
August 25th, 2012
4:08 pm
I know Jay those hypocritical Republicans. The Democrats NEVER say or do anything hypocritical.
Reality
August 25th, 2012
4:13 pm
You Jay are a carbon copy of Mike Luckovich, you see all the missgivens of those nasty old Republicans. But seem to totaly ignor the many foolish, goofy, stupid, ignorant, things the Demorats come up with.
Huck reportedly raises eyebrow about Romney on call boosting Akin – POLITICO.com « Ye Olde Soapbox
August 25th, 2012
10:08 pm
[...] Huckabee exposes hypocrisy of GOP leaders on abortion (blogs.ajc.com) [...]
Huckabee exposes hypocrisy of GOP leaders on abortion | Jay Bookman « Ye Olde Soapbox
August 25th, 2012
10:43 pm
[...] Huckabee exposes hypocrisy of GOP leaders on abortion | Jay Bookman. [...]
Towncrier
August 26th, 2012
2:18 am
Just for you, JHM:
The executive editor of the New York Times is disputing an accusation of liberal bias made by her very own public editor, Arthur Brisbane.
In his final column for the Times, Brisbane wrote that his fellow staffers “share a kind of political and cultural progressivism” that “virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.” Brisbane even argued that Times reporters approached some liberal issues, like gay marriage and the Occupy movement, “more like causes than news subjects.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/nyts-abramson-rebuts-brisbane-charge-133211.html
Now what have you to say???
LDH20
August 27th, 2012
9:44 am
“Not for a moral failure or corruption or a criminal act, but for a misstatement which he contritely and utterly repudiated”
NO, it was not a misstatement, there was NO fact or truth in it. He made it up out of whole cloth, he LIED to the American people + whatever thought process brought him to that point is idiotic and we would be vulnerable to him taking other factually inaccurate positions. THAT is why he has to go.