How The Democrats are Lying About Huckabee’s ‘Women’s Libido’ Comment

Mike Huckabee did not say a single thing that was outrageous during his remarks to an RNC winter meeting on January 23. But that won’t stop the Old Media complex from lying about his comments and desperately trying to spin his comments as some sort of attack on women. It was, in fact, just the opposite.

Left-wing spin artists that pretend to be journalists, like CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Dana Bash, immediately launched into an attack on Huckabee as if he was disparaging women or attacking their rights–because, you know, Republicans hate women, and all.

Bash most especially immediately lied about Huckabee’s comments, mischaracterizing them so badly that one would think she didn’t actually hear the comments and is only regurgitating the lies spread by extremists that she picked up on the Internet.

It’s bad enough that “reporter” Bash followed the left-wing attack machine’s lie-filled narrative but it’s worse because she was actually in the audience and heard Huckabee first hand.

This so-called reporter jumped to her Twitter account and wrote the following: “At Rnc meeting @MikeHuckabee just said fed govt shouldn’t help women w who can’t control their libido w birth control.”

This is a blatant lie.

The fact is, Huckabee didn’t say anything controversial at all. The former Arkansas Governor said that it is Democrats, rather, who infantilize women and treat them as being so stupid and unable to control themselves that they need government to plan out their lives.

Republicans, Huckabee said, think women are strong enough, smart enough, and capable enough to plan their lives without government interference.

Here is what he said in its entirety…

I think it’s time Republicans no longer accept listening to the Democrats talk about a war on women because the fact is the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women, for them to be empowered to be something other than victims of their gender.

Women I know are outraged that the Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth-control medication. Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything that anyone else can do.

Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and capacity of women. That’s not a war on them, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the woman of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.

Let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be, and women across America need to stand up and say, enough of that nonsense. And I think it’s time we lead that discussion.

Huckabee is exactly, 100 percent right here and anyone that tries to spin Huckabee’s comments as anti-woman are in one of two camps; they are either liars, or they never bothered to listen to what Huckabee said and are just parroting the left-wing spinmeisters.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 24, 2014.
Filed under Abortion, Asshats, Big government, Conservatives, corruption, Culture, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    Let me just say that it is really hard to care much about a RINO lamenting that he is being characterized as some far right conservative. What Huckabee and his RINO friends need to understand is that no matter how much they try to make the media love them, the MSM will throw them under the bus at the first opportunity.

    • warnertoddhuston

      This is not a “Huckabee” issue. It is a lying media issue.

      • jim_m

        Yeah OK. The media lies and it is still a good lesson for RINO’s to learn. Not that they will.

      • Retired military

        IMO it is a how the lying media treats RINOs issue.
        As far as Huckabee goes, I don’t want him to go away mad. I just want him to go away. Same with McCain, Graham, Boehner and the lot.

        • jim_m

          RINO’s primarily seek media attention because the media loves to hold them out as the maverick reformers trying to change the republican party SO the RINO gets all the love and attention he wants as long as he stays within that narrative.

          The worst of them, like McCain, learn that they get the most love and
          attention when they are betraying the conservative base and so they do
          so as frequently as they can to keep their faces in the media.

          However, once the RINO leaves that narrative the media will attack him like any other republican enemy. McCain found this out when he ran for President. Unfortunately the lesson he learned is to stick to the lefty narrative and not that he was being an ignorant tool.

  • stan25

    Don’t you just hate when DemocRATs are so desperate that they have to spin the truth to meet their standards of BS? Especially the genuflecting Obama lovers, that are on PMNSNBC and the Communist News Network.

  • JWH

    I still think a set of twenty-sided dice is the best birth-control method out there.

  • ModeratePoli

    Wow, what an echo chamber. You guys will never figure out what was offensive between yourselves.

    • warnertoddhuston

      There wasn’t anything offensive, except you and the media’s reactions.

      • ModeratePoli

        So you declare. How well do you win elections with attitude? How successful are you at convincing voters you didn’t get last time? That attitude didn’t work out so well last election. But that’s ok, because there’s always someone who gains when you lose… since you don’t mind giving votes away to the other guys.

    • jim_m

      Maybe you could get “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” to explain it to us.

      Now I know that saying that it is unusual for black people to be clean, articulate, intelligent (bright) and nice-looking is OK because none of you race merchants on the left said boo when Biden said that about obama.

      Forgive me if it appears that your ideas of what is offensive have more to do with who your ideological opponents are than what is really offensive.

    • Retired military

      I am offended that you were offended.
      Why isn’t my being offended just as bad as you being offended?

      • jim_m

        Because you are a conservative therefore you have no civil rights.

    • alanstorm

      There wasn’t anything offensive, infant. Unless, of course, you define “offensive” as being equal to “accurate”.

      Judging by the Democratic socialist’s actions, Mr. Huckabee accurately described their beliefs. What exactly is your objection?

      • ModeratePoli

        You are so silly to think that contraceptives must be treated differently from all other classes of medicines. Huckabee is silly to think so too. Limbaugh was silly and also clear in how he insulted people over it. How do you defend that position?

        • warnertoddhuston

          You are “silly” to call contraceptives a “medicine.”

          • ModeratePoli

            No, you’re the one who doesn’t understand what constitutes a medicine. Your doctor, who prescribes it, can explain it to you. All you people who are making such a huge deal about contraceptives are old-fashioned prudes. You need to get in touch with wives, daughters, and granddaughters, shut up, and listen to someone else’s voice for a change. And don’t stop with one hand-picked person. Talk to at least 6.

            By the way, I bet at least one member of your family uses or has used contraceptives. Wake up! http://moderatepoli.blogspot.com/2014/01/denying-contraceptive-coverage-is-slut.html

          • Hawk_TX

            From the Merriam Webster dictionary.

            Medicine

            : a substance that is used in treating disease or relieving pain and that is usually in the form of a pill or a liquid

            : the science that deals with preventing, curing, and treating diseases

            Contraceptives cannot be considered medicine because pregnancy is not a disease. No matter how much you liberals believe it is.

          • ModeratePoli

            Congratulations. You can cut and paste from a dictionary. Now let’s see if you can listen to someone other than a male over the age of 50. Go talk to some women, genius. And check with your doctor, just to be sure that the medical profession follows what Webster dictates.

          • Brucehenry

            Pregnancy is not a disease. But endometriosis is, and is treated with oral contraceptives. Severe dysmenorrhea is a valid medical condition and is treated with oral contraceptives. Many conditions arise with pregnant women that would not arise had the women not BECOME pregnant, and those pregnancies are prevented by contraceptives.

            So your layman’s dictionary definition of medicine is really inapplicable, genius.

            Stop splitting hairs and talk about substance.

          • jim_m

            See my response to moderatepoli above. There are ways to have insurance pay for contraception in the situations you mention. Otherwise I don’t see why taxpayers should subsidize any form of contraception.

          • Brucehenry

            OK that may be a fair point.

            Except that “Jim doesn’t see why” is not a valid reason for it NOT to be covered.

            Sorry, a little ex post facto editing there, mea culpa.

          • jim_m

            Hang on. There are many different types of contraception. Not all require a physician’s prescription.

            Also, if someone needs an oral contraceptive for a medical reason then the Dr’s office can specify that and the insurance company would potentially pay for them. It is not unusual for insurance to approve/disapprove of a treatment based on diagnosis. This would be the reasonable position here.

            But apart from a legitimate medical condition there is no reason for anyone to get tax payer subsidy for any form of contraception.

          • ModeratePoli

            That contraceptives should be covered for a medical reason is ONE reasonable position, not the only reasonable position. Frequently, people don’t want to have a children.

            That’s another very reasonable reason to use contraceptives. Or do you disagree with that? The doctors I know agree with it and therefore prescribe contraceptives.

          • jim_m

            Frequently, people don’t want to have a children.

            That’s a very reasonable use for contraceptives.and they can pay for their contraception themselves.

          • ModeratePoli

            If my pharmacy plan will cover my cholesterol med and thousands of other meds, it should cover contraceptives. That’s my argument, and that’s what you have to answer.

          • jim_m

            It covers your cholesterol med for valid medical purposes and not just because you feel like taking one.

            Apart from the select few legitimate medical purposes there is no reason to have insurance cover contraception as a blanket mandate.

          • Brucehenry

            NO that’s a valid point. High cholesterol can be lowered by any number of methods that wouldn’t cost an insurer a penny, like diet and exercise. High cholesterol by itself is not a disease but can lead to serious medical conditions — JUST LIKE PREGNANCY.

          • jim_m

            Bruce, crossing the street can lead to serious medical conditions. I don’t demand that my health insurance pay for my Johnston & Murphy’s.

            Nor should I be paying for your health club membership so you can keep your weight down and avoid diabetes. Diabetes, after all, really is a serious medical condition but we do not pay to avoid it.

          • Brucehenry

            But you do demand that if you break your ankle stepping awkwardly off a curb that your insurance cover the ER visit.

          • jim_m

            Last I checked a broken bone was a legitimate medical expense and not objected to by any religion. Even a JW or Christian scientist will get their leg cast.

            But when I demand oxy for my ankle, I don’t expect that I should get it paid for just because I want it and it really isn’t needed.

          • ModeratePoli

            Except up above you agreed that avoiding pregnancy was a very reasonable reason for using contraceptives. So contraceptives to avoid pregnancy meet the medical criteria for using a medicine. Therefore they should be covered.

          • jim_m

            It is a reasonable use for contraceptives. Perhaps you missed the point where I object to paying for yours?

          • ModeratePoli

            No, you missed the point. Why should a class of prescription medicines NOT BE COVERED? Were you objecting to my cholesterol med? To heart or blood pressure meds? Pain meds? Allergy meds? How many categories of meds do you object to being covered in pharmacy plans? Please, don’t weasel out of this question.

          • jim_m

            I just said that they should be covered for specific applications. Frankly I object to all your meds, but that is about you and not about the coverage ;)

            I made it perfectly clear, that for valid medical reasons I did not object to prescription drugs being paid for by an insurance plan. I don’t think that you should just get any drug paid for for any reason as I commented above.

            I also don’t believe that I have the right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs in order to satisfy my convenience. Oral contraceptives are not the only treatment for anything and certainly not necessary to avoid pregnancy.

            And that is what this usually boils down to, Fascists like you who disagree with other people’s religious beliefs (beliefs rooted in a philosophy 800 years old) and want to force them to violate them because you believe that you are ever so much more enlightened than everyone else. Drop the moderate BS, you are as far left as the rest of them.

          • ModeratePoli

            Oh, I’m a fascist, am I? You’re the one who thinks your personal objections to contraception matter when it comes to other people’s health care.

            You failed to show how contraceptives should be treated differently from other medications. Yet you tried to make that argument.

            So, because you failed to make a logical argument, you pull out the political insults. Bully for you. I’m not a fascist, I am a moderate and a swing voter. As for dropping BS, you should do that. Stop kidding yourself about contraceptives, and why it bothers you.

          • jim_m

            It’s not about healthcare. There are other ways to avoid pregnancy. There is no reason to force taxpayers to pay for oral contraception.

            I did say that for other medical reasons apart from contraception you could justify prescribing those meds. But you missed that part because what you are really interested in is the forcing of your belief set onto other people.

            And as for contraceptives, I am not a Catholic. I have no problem with oral contraceptives or any other sort. I have a real problem with anti-religious bigots like you cramming their beliefs down everyone else’s throats.

            There is nothing moderate about your position It is virulently anti-religious and stands in opposition to the 1st amendment.

          • ModeratePoli

            Are you suggesting that you should decide how people avoid pregnancy? Do you get to decide what methods are OK and what methods aren’t? Wow, how intrusive of you. No, you don’t get to make those decisions for other people. That position doesn’t make me a anti-religious bigot, it just means that your religious opinions don’t dictate to other people.

            You can believe whatever you want. But if you want to turn those beliefs into public policy, you can expect a lot of pushback.

            Again, you fail to show that I’m not a moderate. You just label me as bigoted. Yet I’m not the one making arguments about how others should use healthcare. That would be you.

            As for virulently anti-religious, boy, you are ramping up the insults. My sweetie’s pastor, now a bishop, was a good friend because we both worked in caring professions where caring and healing were paramount. You’re radar is really off. Maybe you don’t handle differences of opinion very well, so you assume I’m a terrible person when actually I’m a good person who happens to disagree with you. Try that idea.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s how Jim rolls, Newbie. Stick around he makes it fun around here.

          • jim_m

            I really think that you have to be a complete and utterly ignorant ass to think that if your health plan doesn’t pay for contraception that your employer is somehow preventing you from ever using it.

            Whatever invective I throw in his direction is completely deserved.

          • ModeratePoli

            You really can’t stand that I blew out your arguments. It’s disappointing to realize your beliefs weren’t as strong as you thought, and you don’t handle it with much grace. (Well, that’s an understatement considering you’ve called me a fascist, anti-religious bigot, a constitution-haters, among others.)

            Do you want to know why you don’t want healthcare plans to cover contraceptives, but you don’t feel that way about heart meds? Read this.

          • jim_m

            You haven’t even blown your nose. I see that you have your own left wing blog and that you are trolling for hits here.

            I also see that you will not address the fact that you are wrong on jurisprudence.

            I also see that you are unwilling to answer the question of how it is that employers prevent employees from getting contraception if they don’t cover it with insurance.

            It seems to me that your tactic is to spew BS left wing crap, refuse to answer any questions, and declare victory without backing up your bs.

            I’ve read your links. They confirm that you are nothing like a moderate. You parrot obama admin talking points on obamacare and contraception. You are very far left in your hatred of religion and your belief that religion should not play any role in public life.

            If you think that global population is a problem then I suggest that you look up the UN population estimate. The median estimate has global population at around 8.9 B in 2050 and beginning to decline. The fact is that as the poorer nations develop their growth rate decreases and much of the developed world is already below replacement.

            The real problem is what are we going to do when global population begins to decline. One of the chief factors in economic growth is population growth. WIth global population in decline we will see a global economic crisis like never before. I am glad I won’t be around for that.

          • ModeratePoli

            You are still in attack mode since the weaknesses of your arguments have been revealed. I will say again that there is no logical, unbiased reason to treat contraceptives any differently from other prescription medicines. There may be personal reasons or religious reasons, but none that should matter in the healthcare system.

            If you have such a terrible time accepting that, oh well. If you can find any BS in my summation (rather than throwing in some other weaker argument), but please point it out. Your failure to do so just shows what a strong logical argument it is.

          • jim_m

            You have yet to answer my questions. That shows that you have no argument against my position.

            I have already answered the question about treating oral contraception like other prescription meds. If you are too feeble to read the comments I cannot help you.

            Meanwhile you can finally answer my questions:

            How is it that employers prevent employees from getting contraception if they don’t cover it with insurance?

            How is allowing the same religious exception that the SCOTUS has granted for over 40 years somehow changing the law?

            I’ve asked at least 3 times now and you have avoided answering it each time. You have posted links to lefty screeds attacking people who want to uphold the religious exemption as “slut shaming”. Whatever. You cannot make an honest argument so you are changing the subject.

            Answer the questions. Try to be honest for once.

          • ModeratePoli

            No, I have a stronger argument. You say people can afford to pay for contraceptives–generally true, but that doesn’t trump my argument that contraceptives shouldn’t be dealt with differently. Likewise for your other arguments. Until you can explain why contraceptives should be dealt with differently, all your arguments are insufficient and beside the point.

            As for countering your SCOTUS claims, you haven’t presented their argument, you’ve only vaguely referred to an exception, and you haven’t given any details on the extent of the exception. You are also hiding behind an appeal to authority, a well-known form of fallacious argument.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry, where did you see a right to health insurance in the Constitution? I’ve don’t recall that being in there.

            Maybe you could post a quote from the relevant article of the Constitution.

            Meanwhile I will trump your bullshit excuse with the first amendment right to religious expression.

            And the SCOTUS has upheld a religious exception for many purposes and has done so unanimously in many cases

            http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school-v-eeoc/

            http://infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/scotus_law.html#LRT

            http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/31/22128010-supreme-court-halts-contraception-mandate-for-nuns-group?lite

            The religious exception based on the first amendment is pretty clear in the jurisprudence.

            But ignorant jerks like you don’t really care about other people’s rights. You only care about yours and your rights trump everyone else’s.

          • ModeratePoli

            I’ll show you again how my argument works. I know the Constitution has nothing about health care in it, but what does that have to do with health insurance treating contraception differently from other prescriptions?

            As for religious freedom rights, they have limits too, including in most employment issues. Employers are disallowed to discriminate on religious grounds, even should they claim it is “religious expression.” Are you going to call that limitation BS?

          • jim_m

            Employers are disallowed to discriminate on religious grounds, even should they claim it is “religious expression.” Are you going to call that limitation BS?

            Not only am I calling your position BS, the Supreme Court of the United States calls it BS too:
            http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school-v-eeoc/

            9-0 that employment discrimination laws do not apply. I think I have proven my point. You are ignorant and an ideologue.

          • ModeratePoli

            To a limited extent, religious organizations are allowed to discriminate. But you knew that, and I don’t have a problem with it. But you also know that businesses like Hobby Lobby aren’t religious organizations. And a lot of large organizations like Catholic hospital groups have strong limits on where they can discriminate, as you also know.

          • jim_m

            Thank you for the walk back of your previous BS.

          • ModeratePoli

            I didn’t walk back anything. I never attacked or disagreed with the limited exception that churches have to discriminate.

          • jim_m

            Yes you did. You claimed that there was no religious exception for employment law and I successfully demonstrated that where religious belief intersected with employment the 1st amendment was the controlling law and not EEOC mandates.

            And while some EEOC laws do applied to religious organizations and owners these are laws where there is no religious doctrine. For instance you can apply sex discrimination laws to a catholic hospital but you cannot apply them to the priesthood.

            In the case of obamacare, the law intersects with religious views on the contraception issue. The religious views will win out and you will find very few legal scholars who will argue to the contrary.

          • ModeratePoli

            I wrote: “As for religious freedom rights, they have limits too, including in most employment issues. ” Note the “most.” I was quite aware of the ministerial exception since I had heard the news report about the case months ago. I don’t have a problem with the ministerial exception–it seems quite reasonable to me in its limited form. But the ministerial exception is quite limited. so your statement “I successfully demonstrated that where religious belief intersected with employment the 1st amendment was the controlling law and not EEOC mandates” is very much too broad. Look up the limits of the ministerial exception. There’s no reason to think it will be broadened to Catholic hospitals or Hobby Lobby.

          • jim_m

            That’s right you unread moron. I’m just making up the entire idea of a religious exception. Go follow the links I just posted if you think this is something new.

            The SCOTUS has held that in various areas of the law that religious organizations are exempt form having to comply. Further, they have held that the sincere religious belief is enough to get people exempted from various laws, including those with regard to healthcare.

          • ModeratePoli

            LOL I’m unread. Another desperate insult. Jim, do you acknowledge the limits of the religious exception? I certainly do, and they are quite limited with regards to employment. As you know. Honesty, Jim.

          • jim_m

            As soon as you demonstrate a limit I will recognize it. The contraception mandate is not such a limit and will be overturned by the Supreme Court, probably in a 9-0 ruling.

            If your religious belief is that contraception is murder then forcing someone to pay for insurance that provides contraception is violating that belief.

            It doesn’t matter what your views are with regard to that religious belief.

            And if you think that the religious exception stops at employment I posted a link to an article on the Hosanna Tabor Case where they ruled 9-0 that religious organizations are exempted from EEOC laws.

            Ignorance. You have a lot of it. And it shows that you are saying that there is no religious exception or that it ends when it comes to employment. If you read you would know that you are wrong.

          • ModeratePoli

            You make a prediction, which is good because we will see objectively how your prediction turns out.

            You call me ignorant, but I’ve demonstrated a lot of knowledge, and gotten you quite angry in the process. Your insult is very lame indeed.

          • jim_m

            Look below dumbass. I just posted a link that shows that your position is in direct opposition to a unanimous SCOTUS ruling.

            What links have you posted to back up your BS? other than your BS blog?

            I’m not angry, which is the funny part. If you think this is angry, Bruce can disabuse you of that notion. He’s seen me angry.

          • ModeratePoli

            Oh, you hurl unwarranted insults for fun then. As for posting links, what links are necessary when my argument is the contraceptives shouldn’t be treated any differently from other prescription meds? Do you want to link to sites that show contraceptives are prescription meds? I didn’t think that was in doubt. What part of my argument needs outside substantiation?

          • ModeratePoli

            Also, I am always honest. It’s easy for me to do because I’m not a partisan, so I can and do question all positions and arguments.

          • jim_m

            I don’t suppose to tell anyone on how they should or should not get pregnant.

            You are the one demanding that people violate their religious beliefs in order to accommodate the most expensive method.

            And as for push back, what I advocate has been public policy for decades. Try looking up the SCOTUS rulings for the last 40 years around this issue. The writing is on the wall with this one too. Only left wing ignoramuses like yourself think that forcing people to violate their religious beliefs has the backing of jurisprudence.

            Not having insurance pay for contraception doesn’t prevent you from getting it yourself, or do you think that somehow Catholic Priests follow employees around interdicting all contraception from their lives?

            Contraception is cheap and easily available for anyone who wants it. Only an ideologically blinkered ass thinks that you have to have insurance pay for it or you don’t get any access to it.

            But I’m willing to bet that you accept just about any BS obama tell you so you probably really do believe that if people can’t get contraception for free then they have zero access to it and that your employer has control over everything you do in your private life. You should get out more. This argument for forcing people to pay for contraception is feeble and anti-constitutional. But them my experience is that people like you don’t think we should have a constitution any more.

          • jim_m

            Before we go on, I would love to hear you explain just how it is that when an employer doesn’t pay for your contraception that he is preventing you from ever using it.

            You do realize that condoms are less than a buck apiece don’t you? ( and the Bradley method is free!)

          • ModeratePoli

            Wow, lots of anger from someone who never even answered the question why one class of drugs should be excluded. You hide behind your (questionable) interpretation of SCOTUS rulings, and you throw a lot of names.

            I can prove that I don’t believe everything Obama says.

            “You should get out more.” Take your own advice.

          • jim_m

            I believe I have already answered that question on this thread. There is ample precedence for contraceptives to be prescribed where there is a medical condition like endometriosis being treated and I think that it is justified to have insurance pay for that.

            Otherwise I do not see where there is any reason to force insurance plans to cover contraception when it is purely elective. Most insurance plans do not cover elective plastic surgery either. Are you now going to say that we are violating people’s rights to get breast implants? If you employer won’t pay for your new knockers he is violating your rights. Because no one ever paid for elective plastic surgery themselves.

          • Brucehenry

            Pregnancy itself is dangerous to a woman’s health. While rare nowadays, it’s still not unheard of for women to die in childbirth. BTW men NEVER die in childbirth.

            Even if it doesn’t kill them, and it rarely does, pregnancy puts a hell of a strain on women’s bodies and in some cases has a deleterious effect on their looks and hence their self confidence and mental health. There are valid medical reasons to avoid pregnancy.

            And don’t tell me that they should just not have sex, because men can have sex without any concern that they may die as a result of it, or that their health will be affected.

          • jim_m

            Pregnancy itself is dangerous to a woman’s health

            False on its face and completely ignorant of the obvious fact that if it really were dangerous the human race would be extinct.

            Prescription oral contraception is not required to avoid pregnancy.

            If you really were concerned for women’s health you would be demanding that they use condoms. Anyone can tell you that the pill does not prevent sexually transmitted disease.

            This is how we know that the lefty position on contraception is pure bullshit, because if they really believed the crap they were shoveling they would be demanding condoms to be carried by all people at all times.

          • Brucehenry

            Don’t be silly, we can’t all be expected to follow wingnut logic.

            That’s like saying if rightwingers are so concerned about gay marriage ruining the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage they would be pushing to outlaw divorce.

          • Vagabond661

            Or believing “gun free” zones actually protects law abiding citizens.

        • alanstorm

          “You are so silly to think that contraceptives must be treated differently from all other classes of medicines.”

          Child, they are. Or do you get all your medicine with no co-pay?

          • ModeratePoli

            I’m not a child. Are you? Why do you make a stupid or insulting assumption like that? I don’t suppose you wanted an answer with an attitude like that, so you won’t get one.

        • alanstorm

          Besides, you’re missing the point. Nothing in what he said was offensive, unless you find accuracy offensive. He accurately described the liberal position.

  • superdestroyer

    The sentence that mentions libido is so poorly worded and poorly constructed that whoever wrote it for Mr. Huckabee should ever be allowed to write a speech again. That sentence ran too many ideas into once sentence and then jumbled them up.

    Once again, a Republican cannot resist sticking his hand in the fire again and is surprise that he is burned again.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      For the last 12+ years, the media’s been twisting and turning statements by conservatives into pretzels and then sprinkling their own meanings on them, while ignoring statements by Democrats that would have been met with screams of ‘RACISM!’ if a conservative had uttered them.

      Of course, if what you want is to silence any opposition, that’s a good tactic. Unfortunately, it’s led the Democrats to be ruled by Pelosi and Reid – two blatantly partisan politicians who would seem to see themselves as untouchable aristocracy propping up a figurehead monarch.

      But you keep trying to persuade yourself that it’s a good thing, a GREAT thing, a most wonderful and magnificent thing that the country is led by fools like that. You’ve given the country to arsonists who would burn it down and laugh at the flames, thinking they’re so great destroying something they’ve got no idea about rebuilding.

      Keep cheering them. Maybe they’ll throw you a treat.

    • Retired military

      Huckabee is a RINO. not a republican.

    • 914

      “The sentence that mentions libido is so poorly worded and poorly constructed that whoever wrote it for Mr. Huckabee should ever be allowed to write a speech again. That sentence ran too many ideas into once sentence and then jumbled them up.”

      Self parody is your strong point. lol

      • superdestroyer

        I am not a speech writer nor am I promoting an idea that most American oppose. If the social conservatives/fiscal liberal like Huckabee keep talking about abortion and saying stupid things, then they should expect to viciously attacked in the media and mocked. If they do not want to be mocked they need to prepare better and actually test their ideas before going public.

        • 914

          Oh? You mean like ObamaCare.. Yep, they tested that one before they allegedly read it and America soundly rejected it and guess what? It’s still here making peoples lives miserable.

          I could care less about Huckaberry Rino.

        • 914

          Oh? You mean like ObamaCare.. Yep, they tested that one before they allegedly read it and America soundly rejected it and guess what? It’s still here making peoples lives miserable.

          I could care less about Huckaberry Rino.

        • alanstorm

          You., sir, are an idiot.

          Your opinion, pathetic as it is, is that conservatives should only say things that cannot possibly be misunderstood, and that liberals get a free pass for misunderstanding conservative statements.

          That is a rare example of pure Used Food. THe Democratic socialists can’t claim to be the Party of Geniuses and simultaneously claim that they misunderstood a simple paragraph (that 99% of those knuckle-dragging conservatives understood).

          The DS party has used up all of it’s benefit of the doubt, and then some.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Lying and Democrats are like lungs and breathing. And it goes without saying that Huckabee said nothing wrong here or even off color. Perfectly legitimate comments. They struck a nerve with the Idiocracy left (BIRM), however, and as such their deranged and Pravda-style reactions were par for the course. Often the truth hurts. Here’s the other germane point, which relates to the underlying issue but never gets reported anywhere. This whole so-called “gender gap” thing is a farce. It’s the global warming of political memes. The GOP doesn’t have a problem with women. Not decades ago. Not today. White women voted for Romney by an overwhelming majority: 56-42. That’s despite the media, despite academia, despite the unions, despite non-voting conservatives and despite the Sandra Fluke and Lena Dunham demograpic. Hell, even a walking corpse of a candidate like McCain won the white female vote: 53-46. The issue with the GOP and the overall female demographic, like everything else in this severe decline stage of our politics, is race. Female racial minorities vote so in lock step for Democrats it would make people blush even in one-party states. That’s the issue. Race. Not gender. Handouts, dependency, brainwashing and lies. Not anything else under the sun.

  • Brucehenry

    Two things.

    First, a guy with a history of saying stuff on the Internet that has only a vague, passing relationship to truth should be careful about calling ANYBODY a liar. Just this week we were regaled with a story of an actress who resigned from the Vagina Monologues — but the headline of Warner’s article about it screamed she had been “fired.” Guess what? She hadn’t been.

    Second, it’s funny when Republicans try to reframe what Democrats say to fit their weird narrative. Just like the (oft-heard on Wizbang) trope that “Liberals are the REAL racists because they support affirmative action!” Now we hear that “Democrats are the REAL misogynists because they want birth control covered by insurance!”

    That’s what’s offensive about Huckabee’s remark. Not that it was part of any “War on Women,” but that it is another example of dishonesty. The He-Who-Smelt-It-Dealt-It school of racism detection becomes the She-Who-Smelt-It-Dealt-It school of misogyny detection.

    Unfortunately for Huckabee and the gazillions of butthurt liars in the wingnut blogosphere, women are smarter than he thinks they are, as a rule.

    • jim_m

      Very good approximation of Westlake, Bruce.

      • Retired military

        Nah Bruce used paragraphs.

    • jim_m

      Actually, lefties are the real racists and real misogynists and the only proof we need of that is the vulgar and vile treatment of conservative women such as Michelle Malkin,

      Or perhaps you’d like to defend this: http://www.therudenews.com/archives/4457

      And don’t go claiming it is some joke.

      And then of course there is this:
      http://images.morris.com/images/lubbock/mdControlled/cms/2008/12/11/366453053.jpg

      • Brucehenry

        Oh yeah I stand corrected, lol.

        Because “comedians” on the right didn’t spend the Clinton administration calling Hillary a ball-cutting murderer and secret lesbian. They never refer to Michelle as a “wookie” (and OF COURSE we never see that on Wizbang DON’T BE RIDICULOSE!). Dennis Miller and those who think he’s hilarious have never ridiculed Pelosi as a Botox survivor yada yada. And they never ever ever would refer to a woman expressing a political point of view as a “slut.”

        Because all those things are misogynistic, and as Jim points out, liberals — and only liberals — are the REAL misogynists.

        Woooops, there’s this latest evidence:

        http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/01/the_backlash_against_wendy_dav.php

        • jim_m

          Just pointing out that it is never misogynstic when your side does it.

          You didn’t even bother to admit that these things were hate-filled and offensive in the extreme. Tell you what. Let’s have a poll on how many people want to hate fuck your daughter. I’m sure you would find that really funny.

          Well, you would find it funny if it were on a lefty web site.

          • Brucehenry

            Kinda goes without saying that these things were offensive. I mean, that was your point, right? Am I required to concede every point you make explicitly, or suffer the consequence of having my family dragged into it?

            Because you don’t wanna go there, Jim. I’ve gleaned a few tidbits about your personal life over the years and have so far resisted any urge to interject them. It ain’t right.

            BTW, in your link it does note that both “the left and the right have come down on Guy Cimbalo,” the “author” of this bit of loveliness.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/playboy-scorned-for-hatef_n_210556.html

            Now I know that Bill Maher and other liberals say nasty things about Palin and Coulter, and some conservatives say ugly things about Pelosi and Michelle. That’s not what makes one “side” of the argument effectively misogynistic as opposed to the other “side.” It’s the policies, dude.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, there is nothing demeaning about a campaign platform that reduces women to their use as sexual objects.

            Let’s be honest. The left sees women as sexual tools and little else.

            And I was just pointing out that you claim these are jokes, but they really aren’t funny. I just wanted to give you an eye opener while you are so willing to laugh at other people’s misfortunes.

            Seriously, where is the right coming out with the same sort of hate as Cimbalo? Where did McCain staffers make fun of female candidates in the manner that obama’s did? This kind of crap is encouraged on the left.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes and how very convincing to find this characterization of what the Obama campaign was about on a wingnut antiabortion website. If we can’t take THEIR word for what the Obama campaign is trying to convey, whose word CAN we take? Maybe yours, Jim?

            BTW be honest: Had you ever heard of this Cimbalo guy before this? I hadn’t. Maybe because I haven’t read Playboy in probably 20 or 30 years.

            BTW my eyes are open. I don’t need you mentioning my daughter to awaken me, just so you know, especially like that. I won’t say anything about your kids and your marriage, etc if you don’t say anything about mine, agreed?

          • jim_m

            OK, so both sides make rude comments about specific individuals. I would argue that the left makes far more offensive ones suggesting that conservative women are whores and that they should be raped. You don’t find that coming from the right.

            But you cannot just toss off the leftist treatment of women as a group. The obama campaign slogan s a good example of that. And lest you need reminding when it comes down to measurable treatment of women the left pays women less for the same work that men do or systematically excludes them from the best jobs . I don’t expect you to understand the last part. It involves math.

          • Brucehenry

            Your link reveals the Obama White House pays women, as a rule, less than their male counterparts. It also reveals that Obama is doing better than both Clinton and Bush in that regard.

            We’ll leave aside the fact that you have, once again, taken ONE example and generalized it so that it MUST mean that the entirety of “the left” “pays women less…or systematically excludes them from the best jobs.”

            Not only does your link mention ONLY the White House and not “the left,” whoever that might be, it doesn’t say ANYTHING about whether or not those employees are doing “the same work” nor does it say anything about any systematic exclusion (although it does remark about the small ratio of women to men in the inner circle).

            This in a comment thread about how the left is “lying” when it twists Huckabee’s quoted remarks, lol. This from a guy who rejoins “Here, here!” when the subject of “intellectual honesty” is brought up, lolololol.

            EDIT: Perhaps the reason you would argue that the left makes more offensive jokes about women is because you spend so much time in the right blogosphere. If you read a little more widely you might not be so butthurt all the time.

          • jim_m

            The point is not that someone is worse than obama. The point is that they are hypocrites and that they violate the very law they claim to comply with. But of course we all knew that the aw would never be used on dems. The law is only there to punish your enemies.

            You know, it’s kind of like the dems bitching and moaning about how racist conservatives are when obama’s campaign headquarters was almost exclusively white.

    • 914

      Thanks for that derpable moment.

  • deltamary

    Does RINO -mean- “Republican In Name Only”? If not, what does it stand for? And who “coined” it? Guess I’m in the dark -I do not care for the Main Stream Media and do not listen to their “sillyassed” bashing. I neeed a dictionary for these abraviated words and other Alphas– (I have some of these of my own,too.) but why should I waste my time decoding what they say?

    • Scalia

      Yes, that’s what it means. As to its origins, you’ll find interesting tidbits in this entry for RINO.

      • deltamary

        Thank you–Now I don’t feel so dumb.

  • Constitution First

    The sun will rise in the morning.

    The will be a sky above our heads.

    The Left Wing Malfeasant Media will be caught in another Moonbat lie.

    Safe in the knowledge that there are certainties in our lifetimes that you can take to the bank.