Huckabee Goes After Natalie Portman

Huckabee's morality is selective, unless he attacked Palin's kid for being a high school drop out unwed teenage mother and binge drinking chubby slut, then Mike is just being another right wing turd, liar and immoral cretin destined for eternity in hell, drinking stank orange juice from Anita Bryant's lice encrusted crotch

 

The lead story on GMA this morning is "Huckabee v. Hollywood."

That means he wins the week, since at this early stage in the game, it's all about name recognition.

 

That's ridiculous. They're making a story out of nothing.

 

BTW, the woman delivering the weather on GMA today is named Chickage Windler. Her parents (assuming she was raised by 2, after all, she is white -- right, Huckabee?) must have known from the womb she'd grow up to be a meteorologist, what with a name like that!

 

Huckabee was wrong to single out Portman. I'd rather see more of a discussion on children born out of wedlock as a whole rather than being on centered which unmarried celebrity got pregnant.

 

Like YF said, he was asked the question about Portman and answered it. He didn't single her out. The interviewer did. And politicians always use anecdotes as surrogates for bigger issues anyway. Joe the Plumber. The woman at the State of the Union address who kept saying, "That's me." So do journalists, by the way. Look how many anecdotal ledes we use to introduce a wider issue.

Also, I disagree with Mitt Romney on almost everything. But to say he's some sort of intellectual lightweight trust fund baby is inaccurate. He's got a JD/MBA from Harvard, for the love of God. Yes, he was born with some advantages. But that doesn't negate anything he did afterward. If anything, it is anecdotal evidence of how much someone's conditions make it possible for them to succeed (as opposed to using the ol' bootstraps. People like Bill Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor are exceptions, not the rule. Most people at places like Harvard are like Romney).

To me, the criticism of Romney because he came from money is analogous to the criticism of Barack Obama because of the suspicion that he was an "affirmative action" admit to Harvard Law. For god's sake, he graduated from Columbia, went to Harvard Law, wrote/graded onto the law review, was elected editor of it, scored an internship at a prestigious Chicago mega-firm, was offered a job by the Chicago mega-firm, then turned down a huge salary from said mega-firm to go into politics/public service instead. At some point, the focus should be on what the guy accomplished, not how he got there.

Same with Romney.

 

Romney made his millions by filleting workforces while running Bain. Use teh Googles and you can find out more.

(Yeah, everyone else did it, too, etc.)

He's a smart guy and did a good job with the SLC Olympics, but being elected a Republican governor in Massachusetts wasn't all that unusual from 1990-2006.

Oh, yeah, and this.

 

That's a perfectly valid criticism. Like I said, no way in hell I would ever vote for the guy. I disagree with him on almost everything. But he's a bright guy who has endured an educational and business gauntlet of the highest order. He's not some political legacy admit doing keg stands in the back room.

 

How's about we just impose a nationwide mandate that people stay out of other people's affairs, especially and including marital status?

 

Completely and utterly impossible. Everyone will have a different definition of "persona affairs" vs. "society's business."

 

So no child support any more, for example?

 

Motive speaks to the goal of his actions. Government officials need to stay out of the business of trying to shove their morals down the throats of others. If they can't do that, that should indicate to us as a voting public that they have no business being elected to do anything.

Think about what this jackass is doing. He is saying a wealthy woman in a committed relationship should not be pregnant. Ridiculous.