Huckabee on wives

[Faithless]

They've dug-up an almost 20-year old story about a one-time attitude of Mike Huckabee and his wife that --

“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

Now, no one has asked whether he still believes that, but still in '88 could one expect that this sort of belief would be taken seriously?

Huckabee Signed 'USA Today' Ad Backing Idea of Wife as 'Servant' (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003690055)

Published: December 30, 2007 11:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON Mike Huckabee and his wife, Janet, in 1988 signed a full-page ad in USA Today backing the idea of the wife in any marriage serving as a "servant" in relation to her husband.

Then-Gov. Huckabee was one of 131 signatories on the full-page USA Today ad backing a controversial position on the role of women in marriage that had been adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

The ad Huckabee signed congratulated the convention: “You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.”

Where is this notion rooted?

In a recent blog item defending Huckabee's view, Lee Webb, news anchor at Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, wrote that the apostle Paul's "directive that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives is found in Ephesians 5:22-33. Many in the church would have us to believe this passage is simply a cultural ordinance, in other words, no longer applicable in our modern, more evolved society. Read Ephesians 5:31 and you'll discover that Paul is rooting his directive back to Creation. That means it does apply to us today."

Huckabee on Sunday said he stood by another 1998 comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

[kimpossible]

I've read this reported about, oh, 10-12 times now. There has yet to be any information on whether Huckabee knew exactly what would be printed or he merely signed on to a proposal of the ad that was non-specific. What is known is that until Ed Rollins joined Huckabee, his campaign was run by his daughter, Sara. Previously she worked on her fathers campaigns and the Department of Education. Huckabee's wife also worked for the Red Cross until recently. So whatever he signed on to regarding the ad, the Huckabee women seem to be working women.

Now, what might be of more concrete concern to women voters is his lack of foreign policy knowledge combined with a myopic and misguided view that the US can 'win' the war on terrorism. While he is very strong on education, he is very weak on world affairs and is very much pro-life.

[VV o n g B a]

well if he's a true christian, that's exactly what he ought to believe. back when i was more ... subversive, i led bible studies and sunday school, i'd point to this specific part of the bible to generate a little debate in teenager heads. obviously the girls didn't like it much.

but if the bible is the word of god, then u gotta swallow it, "modern society" be damned. u can make a case for overlooking old testament calls for genocide, but u can't overlook anything in the new testament.

[Arex]

Huckabee is a bit behind the times. Remember his 1992 comments implying that those with AIDS should be quarantined?

LA Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-huckabee12dec12,0,5514341.story?coll=la-home-center)

Not 1982, 1992.

[Arex]

Huckabee is a bit behind the times. Remember his 1992 comments implying that those with AIDS should be quarantined?

LA Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-huckabee12dec12,0,5514341.story?coll=la-home-center)

Not 1982, 1992.

[haplesshobo]

Huckabee was asked a question about this whole controversy in the South Carolina debate, and he just knocked it out of the park and got huge applause from the crowd. Six months ago, I didn't think he could be a serious candidate but he is surprisingly effective. This isn't the first time he's done some political jijitsu, where he's taken a potentially damaging political attack and turned it around on his political opponents.



Now, what might be of more concrete concern to women voters is his lack of foreign policy knowledge combined with a myopic and misguided view that the US can 'win' the war on terrorism. While he is very strong on education, he is very weak on world affairs and is very much pro-life.

With the exception of Ron Paul, I thought Huckabee has been the critical Republican candidate of Bush's foreign policy. In a lot of ways, Huckabee sounds like a democrat and already other Republicans are attacking Huckabee as 'liberal'.

[Arex]

^ I did like the fact that, unlike all the other Republican candidates ('cept Ron Paul) who still seem to have Bush's nuts bouncing off their chins, he didn't have a problem talking shit about Bush's foreign policy.

[mr. x]

as much as Huckabee is seriously not what this country needs right now, at least he has a bit of humor. Not that Giuliani doesn't but I'm getting seriously fascist vibes from him these days, glad he's not in the running so far.

[kimpossible]

I personally like Huckabee. Has much to do with first being introduced to him on The Daily Show. He has a lot of good ideas. I'm with him on most domestic issues - particularly education and the environment. Never held his religious views or marriage issues because I didn't hold Bill Clinton's religious views or marriage issues against him. All the candidates cite God and their faith. I figure out of all of them maybe he'll take his swearing in on the Bible more seriously.

He's woefully out of touch with the world outside of the US, however, and I don't think he understands one bit about trade or economics. Read one of his quotes this morning during a debate that Iraq would see the gates of Hell for attacking us. Jesus, protect me from your followers. We don't need WWIII:The Crusades.

[Yeahman]

Read one of his quotes this morning during a debate that Iraq would see the gates of Hell for attacking us.
You aren't referring to what he said on Colbert two nights ago, are you? He said he'd follow Bin Laden into hell with a water pistol.

IMO, Huckabee is without a doubt the most likable candidate, Democrat or Republican. His policy positions are more tolerable than most but still leave a lot to be desired. I wouldn't vote for him but I wouldn't protest if he won. But then again nice guys aren't always good presidents (See Carter).

[kimpossible]

Oops, I meant to type Iran. It was something he said on a debate with regard to a Naval ship being attacked. He was on Colbert? Gotta youtube that, thanks.

[haplesshobo]

IMO, Huckabee is without a doubt the most likable candidate, Democrat or Republican.

During this whole campaign cycle, the media annointed Barack Obama as the most charismatic candidate and the best orator. But, its been Huckabee, through sheer charisma and likeability, who is doing well in the polls when nobody was even giving him a shot just a few months ago. He goes into those towns and gives those speeches, he ends up converting skeptical audiences and turns a political liability around to make him look even better.

Huckabee has that Reganesque 'It' factor, where you may not like his policies but you still end up liking the guy anyways. I can see why people like Huckabee, whereas with Bush, I never understand the appeal. To me, Bush came across as an entitled frat guy.

[kimpossible]

With the exception of Ron Paul, I thought Huckabee has been the critical Republican candidate of Bush's foreign policy.

Critical, yes. Knowledgeable? Like to see more proof of that and I've been on the lookout for it. He's not really up on intelligence reports or political geography. But that's where the right VP could make a difference. Just not another Cheney episode where the VP basically shoves his arm up the Prez's ass and runs the country by proxy.


In a lot of ways, Huckabee sounds like a democrat and already other Republicans are attacking Huckabee as 'liberal'.

Of course you may feel differently but I don't see Huckabee as more of a Democrat than he has centrist views or doesn't feel he has to stick to party rhetoric in order to govern. That is one thing I like about him.

During this whole campaign cycle, the media annointed Barack Obama as the most charismatic candidate and the best orator. But, its been Huckabee, through sheer charisma and likeability, who is doing well in the polls when nobody was even giving him a shot just a few months ago.

Add savvy to that list. He's made some tremendously smart moves with limited budgeting. Yes, I'm sure Rollins had something to do with it, specifically the press conference for the negative Romney ad that he wasn't going to show *cue laughter*, but he's been on Daily Show, Colbert and Tonight Show. Better than free ads right there.

[Yeahman]

Huckabee has that Reganesque 'It' factor, where you may not like his policies but you still end up liking the guy anyways. I can see why people like Huckabee, whereas with Bush, I never understand the appeal. To me, Bush came across as an entitled frat guy.
That was the appeal. A large chunk of America votes based on who they'd like to have a beer with.

[haplesshobo]

That was the appeal. A large chunk of America votes based on who they'd like to have a beer with.

See I never saw Bush as somebody I'd have a beer with. Instead, I saw him as the obnoxious frat guy who would crash your party and get drunk off your beer and give you a nickname like 'Chino' cause he doesn't even know who you are.

[mr. x]

See I never saw Bush as somebody I'd have a beer with. Instead, I saw him as the obnoxious frat guy who would crash your party and get drunk off your beer and give you a nickname like 'Chino' cause he doesn't even know who you are.

EXACTLY. I don't think Bush is Hilter Mark II despite going to UC Berkeley, but I don't think he's the downhome cowboy all the republicans continuously tell themselves he is. He's just a privileged, spoiled frat boy who's had stuff handed to him.

[Yeahman]

u can make a case for overlooking old testament calls for genocide, but u can't overlook anything in the new testament.
What about the part about women having to veil themselves during worship? There are some culture-specific references in the NT.

The idea that the "man of the house" has the final say wasn't challenged until fairly recently in history. Even long after women entered the workforce, husbands were still the head of the household. That's not to say that women cannot disagree with their husbands. Merely, that the wife should accept that her husband has veto power.

I read somewhere that Hillary is holding an attack on reserve for Huckabee regarding this issue. But Bill and Hillary are young enough to have been married using the new vows that omit the woman's promise to "honor and obey."

[kimpossible]

Why would this not be a case of actions louder than words when it comes to marriage? Clinton cheated very publicly on his wife at least once that we know of. Then lied repeatedly about it. Hey, if Hilary wants to keep on keeping on with him fine by me. She picked him. I know I voted for him twice.

Meanwhile Huckabee signs on to some religious ad that he may or may not have approved every single word of but thus far has not been revealed as a womanizer. He apparently believes in the professional competence of the women in his family. His daughter ran his campaign for him. Chelsea Clinton? I guess Hilary had enough faith to let her answer some phones.

I'm a voting American and issues important to men are no less important to me because the President will most likely have a penis and I have a vagina. I'm not voting for a husband, I'm voting for a President. I don't care if Hilary wants to stay with a womanizer or Huckabee wants to be the traditional me-man me-lead with regard to his wife. Let me know when I can stop worrying about their married lives.

[Faithless]

ABC News asks: Did Pastor Huck Flub Marriage Question? (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4143050&page=1)

A Southern Baptist leader clarifies where Huck tries to back peddle.

Says Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, "Somebody has to be in charge," ... "The Bible says the husband is in charge." While the husband should "solicit his wife's views," ultimately "he is going to make the decision."

Huck needs to denounce these people for their backwardsness. Oh wait. They are his people.

By JUSTIN ROOD | Jan. 16, 2008

...
At a debate sponsored by Fox News last week, Huckabee, who has made his faith a central component to his campaign, was asked about his public endorsement of a controversial 1998 statement on family and marriage by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the organizing body of Southern Baptists.

The statement, which ran along with signatures from Huckabee, his wife and more than 100 other prominent figures, said that while "husband and wife are of equal worth before God," the wife "is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband[.]"

"Women voters in both parties harshly criticize that," Fox's Carl Cameron said to Huckabee. "Is that position politically viable in the general election of 2008, sir?"

"The point," Huckabee responded, "is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it's not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other."

Not exactly, according to a man who may be the Southern Baptist's leading authority on the statement. Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, helped draft the statement. According to Land, the statement says that while the husband and wife are equal before God, "the wife does not get veto power over the husband's decision."

"Somebody has to be in charge," Land explained. "The Bible says the husband is in charge." While the husband should "solicit his wife's views," ultimately "he is going to make the decision."
...

[Yeahman]

^ I don't see how any mainstream Bible-believing Christian could disagree.