Mr. Wow Blog
Mr. wOw: A Brief Musing on Mike Huckabee and Natalie Portman
12:00 am | March 10, 2011

Author: Mr. Wow | Category: Point of View | Comments: 65

The presidential hopeful has criticized the Oscar winner on many fronts. But does she really deserve to be called a “starlet?”

Mike Huckabee’s frantic back and forth on his remarks about President Obama’s upbringing (Kenya, Indonesia — Mars?!) and his clucking over pregnant and unwed Oscar-winner Natalie Portman have been very amusing. Not quite as amusing as the Charlie Sheen Show, but pretty close. I was especially tickled by Mike’s dragging in the Mau Mau uprising in relation of Obama. Oh, Mr. Huckabee, who could be silly enough to misinterpret your meanings?

I’m not going to survey the entire landscape of Huckabee’s quotes, or his insistence he was misquoted and – natch — a victim of the liberal media. I am going to focus on this one: “People see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet…” Stop right there.

Mr. Huckabee, Natalie Portman is not a “starlet.” She is a star. She just nabbed an Oscar. (Not that I think she deserved it, but you all know that.) See, back in the day — my day — we knew what a starlet was. She was a young actress, well-known perhaps, but not yet a big name, or a box-office draw. She was a star in training, not blazing, just a hopeful twinkle on the Hollywood horizon. Lindsay Lohan was a starlet, became (very briefly) a star and is now a sad study in how it can all go wrong.

However, over the past decade or so, the word “starlet” has somehow become twisted. I hear it used about past legendary movie females, and I hear it used about today’s younger actresses. Julia Roberts is not a starlet, yet not long ago I came across a magazine piece that described her as such. The late Jane Russell was not a starlet. Elizabeth Taylor is not a starlet! I don’t know how it happened, but this miss-use of the word has to cease. It is grotesque.

Mike Huckabee, you ignorant slut — as Dan Akroyd used to say to Jane Curtin — Natalie Portman is a star. You can get on your high horse all you like about her unmarried state and the baby she is carrying, but the lady is a genuine star of the first magnitude. If you think she is “glamorizing” unwed motherhood to thousands of susceptible, poor, uneducated teenage girls, that is your right to think so. And to say it. (I remember when Vanessa Redgrave was leading us all to perdition with her unmarried pregnancies. Oh, and Goldie Hawn, too. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.)

But just get it right, Mike — she’s a star. And a lovely human being.

But perhaps if Natalie was the daughter of a politician who couldn’t complete a term in office, a daughter who also publicly carried and bore a child without benefit of wedlock, it wouldn’t look so awful to you?

Just saying.

Comments:
  • rick gould

    I haven’t followed this much, but I couldn’t agree more, Mr. wOw.
    The hypocrisy is so laughable.
    And most politicians from both parties today are like bad actors. And worse attention whores than the Paris Hiltons of the Hollywood that they so love to criticize…

    4:08 am | March 10, 2011
  • Chris Glass`

    Mike Huckabee needs to get his own house in order and mind his own business. He spends more time pointing fingers to grandstand than he does doing his own job. Why doesn’t he find a real interest to tackle such as ending hunger or helping the homeless instead of picking a target to be self-righteous about?

    6:19 am | March 10, 2011
  • ann penn

    I don’t keep up with either stars or starlets, but the likes of Mike Huckabee would be even more outraged if this young pregnant woman had aborted the embryo/fetus.
    Once pregnant, there are three options ahead:  miscarriage, abortion, birth.  Those on the far right can’t have it both ways.  And to pretend that unmarried are not having sex (or, alas, sometimes being raped) isn’t a practical outlook, no matter what your personal beliefs on the subject may be.

    8:48 am | March 10, 2011
    • Kathleen August

      Well, I wouldn’t count miscarriage as an option, but otherwise I agree. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.
       
       

      2:06 am | March 13, 2011
  • David Bolton

    People like Mike Huckabee disgust me with their selective morality. Let’s be sure to pick on someone who makes millions, has a steady job and has worked since she was a child, promotes social welfare causes and so forth. Yeah, let’s use HER as our bad example. And the thing is… Stephen Colbert is exactly right when he protested with his faux indignation on his show the other night, how Mike Huckabee appeared and was actually somewhat reasonable, and said nothing like this type of BS rhetoric because of the demographics that were watching the show. He didn’t want to appear crazy and completely out of touch with a bunch of people who likely enjoy Natalie Portman movies and most importantly, he probably didn’t want to get booed on national television. It’s like when people pick on Madonna because she dares to adopt children who will almost certainly die without some sort of external help. “Oh, she’s destroying their culture.” “Oh, she should adopt someone here.” “Oh, she’s a horrible person and a slut.” Let’s see, if Madonna offered a scholarship for your kid that paid his/her way through school—you’d be first in line to sign up.
     
    Ah well, it’s not like Mike Huckabee has a chance in hell of winning anyway.

    8:53 am | March 10, 2011
    • Anais P

      No, he doesn’t have a chance of winning, but in the meantime Huckabee throws his absurd and sometimes lying (about Obama’s origins) comments out there for ill-informed people  to believe. The question is, how dare he criticize a working star worth millions with acknowledged talent (an Oscar, Golden Globe and other awards), a Harvard degree and a fiance, all of which and whom will help her with the baby – and say NOTHING about another famous unwed mother with a GED, no discernible talent or job and no moral support from the father of her baby? Indeed, she tried to keep the father away from her child! Huck’s hypocrisy is stunning and transparent. One wonders what indeed are his motives. Perhaps he has recently found out Portman is a Democrat or something?

      9:58 am | March 10, 2011
      • David Bolton

        I’m reading between the lines (or dancing with the stars) to determine just WHO you could possibly be talking about!

        4:32 pm | March 10, 2011
        • Anais P

          LOL! Of course you know I mean Bristol Palin. I am just stunned by the enormous contrast between these two unwed mothers and how vastly different their circumstances are — yet he criticizes Portman who is in a hugely better position in all ways — age, education, talent, finances and her baby’s obviously devoted father — to have and raise this child. It just boggles my mind …

          5:59 pm | March 10, 2011
        • Andy
          Andy C

          Don’t want to get started on that fiasco — I can still see that poor guy dragging her around the dance floor.  Besides, what “star” is she — what is a teen advocate?  And why was a political figure on that show?  There you did it — you got me going again.  I was going to stop watching that show after they kept her on and on and on and on and on. 

          10:08 am | March 12, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear David…He has a chance of winning in Hell.  What do you think Washington is?  I never say never.  Even about the likes of Mr. Huckabee and Mrs. Palin.

      4:21 pm | March 11, 2011
      • David Bolton

        Nah, I’m not worried that he will—not because of middle American’s stupidity, but rather middle America’s bigotry. Take Mitt Romney, for example. I believe he’d have a chance if he were a Liberal, because liberals have a tendency to vote for change (Obama being the latest—if not greatest, example). But my Southern Baptist relatives regard Mitt as being little more than a cult member—what with that crazy Mormon thing he’s got going on.

        11:05 pm | March 11, 2011
  • Chip Griswold

    I have only watched Huckabee a couple of times, and enjoyed how well he treated his guest.  He was polite and respectable regardless of the opinion that guest held.  What happened?  Is he practicing mean spiritedness for a political run?  Sheesh Mike, get a grip.

    I find it curious that politicians have this need to attack other’s children, looks, and on and on.  Ms Portman’s decision to be a mother is hers and hers alone:  None of our business, none of Huckabees.  Mr Huckabee should remember, and many of us too, that sometimes if you haven’t anything good to say, best to say nothing.

    If MH is considering a run, those type remarks will not help his cause.

    9:55 am | March 10, 2011
  • Richard Bassett

      
     And, of course, Vice President Dan Quale’s remarks about an unwed pregnant Murphy Brown (Candice Bergen) were almost twenty years ago. Though Candice was not pregnant, her character was. That season she won an Emmy and thanked Dan Quale. All of the morality issues eventually died down. So, now…the topic raises its ugly head again. This time, an actress as an actual unwed pregnant mother. Hunkabee (who shows he could care less about the entertainment industry, with the use of starlets and all of that) is remarking that Portman is living a privileged life (with millions of dollars, I assume) and most unwed mothers certainly are not. Maybe he is clumping them all together. To be fair, I live close to a neighborhood where almost all mothers are unwed. Unfortunately, it is all urban. It is expected that the men who impregnate 15 year old girls remain unwed themselves and fighting for financial support is an ongoing issue. Most times, the unwed mothers are on the losing end of this battle, forcing them (mother and baby) to live with THEIR unwed mother. Most educational opportunities are not available and there is never any chance for most of these unwed mothers to further their education and social skills after age 15. They believe that this is their fate. The only world that they know. This is the norm and this is a population that we struggle to assist to avoid depending on state aid (money), but this has been shown to be a downhill battle. The chances of becoming hungry and homeless usually becomes increasingly greater.  It is an international issue. If Hunkabee’s agenda is to stress this situation, using Nat Portman (as an example) just isn’t realistic. I doubt that this example benefits any one. Using millionaires in Hollywood as a role model regarding difficult social services isn’t the way to go. Role models are nothing but a myth. That is my objection to the Hunkabee/ Portman battle. To most people, it reinforces that Hunkabee doesn’t reconize a compromised world. Could he be that clueless…publicly? I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to make sense. In other words, he may be using the wrong messenger to provide the message.

    10:00 am | March 10, 2011
    • Paul Smith

      Quite the contrary, Richard, it is a conversation that should be had more often.  The images of unwed motherhood used to be those of the drug addled, impoverished, uneducated, trailor park sort.  Lovely, Harvard educated, Long-Island girls who decide to have babies “with no ring on it” do send signals to young girls, often to the impressionable, the uneducated, the minorities where unwed pregnacy rates are soaring, and no one celebrates.  The faces we choose to put on pregnancy is usually not the women who are dead ended by it.  Bristol and Natalie should be looked upon as the anomalies they are.

      11:23 am | March 10, 2011
      • Richard Bassett

        Paul, the images exist because they are the target population that social service workers take on as clients. And it is the majority of very young unwed teen-age mothers. And there is more to the issue. Partners who will not use condoms, a rather cheap form of birth control, plays a role just as important. I work with this population of people and very, very few are Harvard educated, Long Island girls (I purposely omitted the word lovely). Nat sending a message to ‘those’ girls does not exists, thus, Huckabee using her as the ‘example’ to these girls does not exist, as well. Using Nat (in this day & age) makes no sense. You’re description is a bit harsh as not all unwed mothers are drug-addicted, trailer park sorts. But poverty does play a part. And by uneducated, I mean their belief that this is their reality (destiny), perpetuated by their peers and parents (who live in similar circumstances). That is just how the world is. We hope to give these girls a belief that there is more to life…they do not have to follow the path of their peers/parents…and assist them in finding the means to a better life. This is no small task but the issue continues to be federally funded across the USA. Nat Portman does not belong in this category, nor is she a role model to the Harvard educated girls with a future/ career being cemented in whatever they choose.

        1:27 pm | March 10, 2011
    • Pdr de

      Hi Richard,
      I agree with your comments – lived on the south side of Chicago for many years amid the poverty and drugs and despair – everyone loves those beautiful little babies – they life the veil of ugliness and misery for a while but then they grow up and become additional problems with parents and relatives ill equipped to show them the way to go.  That was many years ago and since then the problems have been much, much worse.
      I believe when you wrote this sentence, however, “This is the norm and this is a population that we struggle to assist to avoid depending on state aid (money), but this has been shown to be a downhill battle” you actually meant it was an uphill battle – and uphill battle denotes a difficult and challenging struggle wherein one tries and tries but little or nothing is gained.   Always enjoy your comments on many subjects.
       
       

      1:21 pm | March 11, 2011
      • Richard Bassett

        Of Love, uphill.
        Love to you, Pdr de…Thank you!

        1:44 pm | March 11, 2011
    • Kathleen August

      The best way to shut up the Right to Life’rs is to ask them flat out, “If Roe v Wade is overturned – and millions of unwanted pregnancies are forced to term – exactly how many of these resulting children are YOU willing to take PERSONAL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY for? From pre-natal through college. How many? One? two? Five? A dozen? You insist on your right to impose YOUR personal beliefs on others and impact their lives – so put your money where your mouth is – who many are we talking about?”
      And watch them squirm and try to tap dance their way out of answering.

      2:22 am | March 13, 2011
      • Richard Bassett

         If you are addressing me, Kathleen, I am not choosing “Right to Lifer’s vs. Pro Choice”. I take everything on a case by case basis. Yes, there is a law…but when people are suffering emotionally; the law does not comfort them. (Though I doubt that you are addressing me) and something as delicate as pregnancy is definitely a deep issue. You need to evaluate whether ending a pregnancy with help or hurt the unwed mother in the long run. This is the job of a competent counselor. Receipting facts and figures with the issue at hand does not bring comfort to anyone. We are all human, not a scribble on a piece of paper.

        9:08 am | March 13, 2011
        • Haunted Lady
          HauntedLady

          While I enjoy reading your posts and feel that you are a rational and compassionate person, you don’t really have the choice to terminate a pregnancy. In my opinion, no man has the right to choose one way or the other unless and until he becomes pregnant and is faced with all that that implies. The inherent patronization of a man determining a woman’s choice is deeply offensive. The issue should be decided solely by the woman who may or may not consult a physician and/or a qualified counselor. In any case, that does not ever mean that anyone else has any say in the final decision.

          11:21 am | March 13, 2011
          • Richard Bassett

            You are now saying that all state, congressional (legislated, executive and judicial) and senate governmental bureau’s consist of all men, when that is certainly not true. Presidents have currently been men but even he doesn’t have the power to finalize a perspective law. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if our laws had to be created by a specific gender? That is not done here, in the USA.  I do not know if your opinion is even based on law, opposed to religion…but let’s get the facts straight. In theory, either gender can be prevalent in the USA. Now, it happens to be men. That is certainly not an absolute. Of course, a woman does not need counseling if she chooses but it is her choice. Everything is her choice. Now, if religion is at the root of your disagreement then we simply do not agree and let’s leave it at that. You, too, provide insightful posts.

            3:02 pm | March 13, 2011
          • Haunted Lady
            HauntedLady

            Frankly, I object to the principle that men should make laws regarding a woman’s body. There are and have been societies in which a personal decision such as abortion was not subject to that society’s laws. There is no valid reason for some men in our society to make something so personal a public matter subject to debate and regulation. I feel that the whole issue digs into the dynamics between women and men as they have evolved over the centuries. Women have been the property of men in the past and some men have a real problem with the concept of women as intelligent, independent human beings. Fortunately, not all men feel that way but I do wish they would get their noses out of our wombs. As long as the male majority can regulate our bodies, we will not be full and equal citizens.

            10:27 am | March 14, 2011
          • Briana Baran

            Respectfully, Haunted Lady, as a woman who fully believes in freedom of choice, and living in Texas, openly displays an emblem representing this particular opinion on my car (the only one I have seen here in the 16 years since I acquired it), I do not in any way believe that it is men who are entirely responsible for the ongoing attempts to curtail reproductive freedom…for both genders.
             
            I have experienced the picket lines at a well-established medical clinic at which no abortions were performed…and over half those present were women of childbearing age, often with their offspring in tow. My sister switched doctors, in Chicago, Illinois, because her female ob/gyn refused to even consider the possibility of her desiring an amniocentesis should she become pregnant, because she never approved abortions even when medically necessary. Sarah Palin is part of the Christian Dominionist movement…and about 40% of its members are female, and they are strictly against any kind of birth control, much less abortion for any reason. Far too many women I have known, and still know, refuse to even contemplate the idea of abortion, even for their daughters in the instance of rape.
             
            Also, while I have no idea as to your relationship status or sexual orientation, I have been married to my husband for almost 17 years. Our marriage is not only based in love, but mutual respect, honesty, support and trust. If I became pregnant (doubtful at this time, as he willingly volunteered to have a vasectomy rather than allow me to have a dangerous, and much less reliable tubal ligation…and I am also on birth control pills and peri-menopausal), I would discuss the options with him before making a choice, because it would be his child too. The decision would be between us…not some god or religion neither of us believe in, or other family members, or society…but between us. It takes two to conceive, and if you as a woman love, respect and trust the man with whom you conceived, I believe you should at least consult with him before making such a crucial decision. And, just perhaps, maybe these things should be well hashed out before you take that chance of becoming pregnant at all. Our uteri, our bodies, yes?
             
            I am not his property (good grief, that’s a joke), his chattel, or his servant. We are true partners. I would have been heartbroken had he waltzed out and gotten a vasectomy without some kind of discussion before we had our beautiful son. Women scream about this kind of behavior in men all of the time…but men are not our property either.

            12:07 pm | March 16, 2011
  • Daniel Sugar

    It’s very Dan Quayle/ Murphy Brown.

    10:29 am | March 10, 2011
  • Baby Snooks

    I know the community manager will get very angry about my saying this but what concerns me most about where this country is headed under the guidance of these “moral leaders” all of whom of course are Republicans is that they seem intent to turn this country into a gigantic trailer park. Which seems to be where most of them came from. And all of them need to go back to.

    I am speaking in the literal sense and don’t mean to offend those who do live in a trailer park.  And in the literal sense the term “cheap white trailer trash” comes to mind every time one of these “moral leaders” opens their trashy mouths. Including Newt Gingrich. I passed on that story. The headline alone was enough. I am trying to forget it but I believe it was “Presidential Hopeful Says Patriotism Was Behind His Marital Infidelity.” Please. 

    As for Mike Huckabee’s comment about a starlets the reality is all he sees is a young actress with a pair of boobs. Which translates to starlet instead of star.  And so of course because she is pregnant and not married, she is also a slut.  As no doubt all starlets are in his mind.

    I don’t recall his making the same comments about Bristol Palin. But of course she wasn’t a starlet. Then. Or now.  Or ever will be. 

    Personally I wish you had done a column about the “Muslim Terrorists Among Us” hearings which were called for by a member of Congress who had supported the IRA terrorists. Which sums up what’s wrong with Republicans. And what’s wrong with this country.  The main thing that’s wrong at the moment are the Republicans.

    10:33 am | March 10, 2011
    • Briana Baran

      Baby, what is most peculiar is that Mike Huckabee has displayed an absolute disdain and contempt for Clan Palin as low-rent, backwoods, redneck trailer trash of the worst sort. O, yes indeed, he has. Of course, since the Palins are Republicans, and Huckabee is a Republican, he’s not going to voice any remarks about people whose family tree does not fork right now, as it might destroy his nebulous chances of getting a foot in…the back porch screen door.
       
      I am so happy that you mentioned the IRA supporting bastards who want hearings on all of those dark-haired, oily, Semitic-looking, slimy Arab terrorists in our midst. Not all of those crying for such hearings, those round faced, red-cheeked, fair skinned, light-eyed supporters of the bold IRA (love those who supply money for training camps in Northern Africa, weapons and explosives for Northern Ireland’s “Freedom Fighting” baby killers) were once Republicans, but certainly a great many of the new movement currently are. Let’s just remember what a fair-haired boy Timothy McVeigh was…his IRA counterparts were, and are, just as Northern European, and every bit as repulsive, senseless, fanatical and o so worthy of extermination.
       
      I grew up in Chicago, Baby, and watched Neo-Nazis march past my friends’ homes in Skokie, and had to listen to my sister’s friends IRA supporting parents blather about the Old Sod and the Good Fight. The majority of terrorists are quite fair on the outside…and fouler than night in a sewage trench within.

      12:20 pm | March 16, 2011
  • Daniel Sugar

    P.S. This makes Mike the ultimate birther.

    10:33 am | March 10, 2011
  • Baby Snooks

    Oops. I meant I am speaking in the figurative sense.  Just in case someone thinks I meant in the literal sense. Which I didn’t.   They really need to add an “edit” feature.

    10:37 am | March 10, 2011
  • Maggie W

    What is it about Republicans?  One of the reasons they were run out of town in 2008 is because , when in power, they take the high moral ground.  For two years they have yapped about jobs, jobs, jobs.  The redundancy was deafening.  They get control of the House and in short order they are all over Planned Parenthood, abortion, and my personal fave… what really “constitutes rape”.  But what about jobs? Oh, that?  Eh, not so important.

    I find Huck’s statement about Portman to be curious.  Huck is okay, considering the lame crowd he runs with politically.  There is nothing wrong with his message but bringing up a famous name to make his point was uncalled for.  As Richard pointed out so well, poverty and unwed pregancies go together like salt and pepper. 

    At present, I am thoroughly enjoying The Real Housewives of Newt show.  SNL would be hard pressed to come up with something this entertaining.

    11:05 am | March 10, 2011
    • Baby Snooks

      Mike Huckabee is not okay. He’s actually quite scary. As are those with narrow religious views that they would impose on everyone else. 

      Newt Gingrich is the poster boy of the moral corruption of the Republicans. And the inherent hypocrisy.  And he more than anyone else made the “deal with the devil” known as the “Contract with America” which was really the “Contract with Wall Street” which turned our democracy into an oligarchy and which led to the ruination of our country both econonically and morally. 

      We are a falliing empire. About to devour itself as we “balance the budget” by in essence telling a growing majority of Americans to do everyone a favor and drop dead under a freeway underpass. Not only our poor but our elderly and even our children.

      No doubt Newt Gingrich would be the perfect president. Just as John McCain would have. Men who dump their wives because the wives have somehow become “inconvenient” are perfect for a nation that seeks to dump those who also have somehow become “inconvenient.”

      11:27 am | March 10, 2011
    • Kathleen August

      One upon a time – a long, long time ago – there was the Gipper, who wanted to be President SO bad. But there was no way he could muster enough votes.
      So his win-at-any-cost minions decided to embrace and invite the Religious Right to make up those numbers – never mind that they opening a Pandora’s box of rapacious, bible-thumping ignorance.
      Lo and behold! IT WORKED! And the Gipper won TWO terms and all was well with the country – unless you looked behind the curtain to see that he weakened worker and environmental protections, cut taxes for the rich by 60% and deregulated just about everything – including the savings and loan industry.
      But ASIDE from that – he was a great President! Except that he doubled the deficit and increased spending by 80%.
      But still – the Gipper was a wise and great President. Even though he was the first to turn the US into a debtor nation and whose “trickle down economics” resulted in the highest number of farm failures, bank failures and personal bankruptcies than ever before.
      But he was honest and true – despite the fact that more members of his administration were charged with crimes than the cumulative total of all other presidents of the 20th century – and he himself testified – under oath – “I don’t remember.” (Because he probably didn’t.)
      BUT STILL….!
       
       

      3:09 am | March 13, 2011
  • Belinda Joy

    LOL! Oops Mr. Wow, I too am guilty of using the startlet term a lot.
     
    Lesson learned. :-)

    11:40 am | March 10, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Belinda…oh,  go ahead and use the term starlet.  That was just Mr. Wow’s superficial  hook to start  up the interesting conversation here. 

      Even though it does annoy me.

      4:27 pm | March 11, 2011
  • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

    Ahhhh Mr. Wow, you almost sucked me back in with this column.
    Scarlett

    12:38 pm | March 10, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Katie Scarlett…well, almost is good enough for me.

      4:28 pm | March 11, 2011
      • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

        I have sinned and fallen short. I responded below. One can only hope that I my resolve for healthy eating and excercising holds better than my resolve to not get dragged into these debates. LOL!!
        Scarlett

        8:42 am | March 14, 2011
      • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

        You write an editorial about being judgmental and have 50+ “judgmental” comments as a response. Isn’t that a teeny bit “ironic”.
        Just saying.
        Scarlett

        8:47 am | March 14, 2011
  • Karin Dobson

    A few years ago Rick Mercer,Canadian comedien,had a show called “Talking to Americans”.I would reccomend viewing the segment he did with Mike Huckabee on youtube. This was aired in Canada prior to the 2008 election and you can imagine how confused we were to see the former Govenor was actually running for the office of President.

    12:59 pm | March 10, 2011
  • Mr. Wow, in 2008 Huckabee commented on Bristol’s pregnancy thus:
     
    “It ought to be a reminder that here is a family that loves one another. They stuck with each other though the tough times and that’s what families do,” Huckabee said…
    He said Palin did the right thing by announcing 17-year-old daughter Bristol will keep her baby and marry the child’s father.

    “I’m grateful for the way she’s being supported by her family. As she should be,” Huckabee said.
     
    http://www.nj.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/09/republican_convention_mike_huc.html

    4:26 pm | March 10, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Lila…he is such a loathsome person.  But I say that with love in my heart.

      4:29 pm | March 11, 2011
      • Andy
        Andy C

        Or as they used to say in “Seinfeld” — “Not that that’s a bad thing.”

        9:33 pm | March 11, 2011
  • Miss Lee

    I live in a very urban neighborhood that was, until recently, single family, owner occupied homes.  The housing crisis has changed that and now there are several rental units on my block.  Most are no problem but the section 8 houses have caused many problems for us.  They were all occupied by single mothers, their children and a constant changing parade of young men.  Two of these houses were so bad that the city pulled the landlord’s rental license.  Only one house has been relatively trouble free.  So I do believe that single, poor mothers are a problem at least for me.  Selfish perhaps but I deserve the quiet enjoyment of my house.  I highly doubt that any of the young women in these homes even know who Ms. Portman is or would ever go see the Black Swan.  Their rolemodels are young singers and rappers.  Mr Huckabee is just plain stupid to not know that economic class is the key factor to the success of a single mother.  Ms. Portman will be fine.  Mr Huckabee should concentrate on helping those and their children who are not doing as well and have very limited futures rather than shaking a finger at a rich young woman.  Those  of us who see the problem every day would like to see some constructive efforts in this regard not another Republican idiot showing his hind end, again.

    8:02 pm | March 10, 2011
  • Mr. Wow

    Dear Miss Lee….if Mr. Huckabee concentrated on helping people with children with limited futures, he would actually be the Christian he inists he is.  But those who insist they are this or that, rarely are.  That’s ok of you’re really a brunette or actually 39.  Or if you go by the name Mr. Wow.  (who is so not)    But the “I’m a good Christian” stuff is a sure sign of no soul in residence,

    4:39 pm | March 11, 2011
    • Baby Snooks

      But the “I’m a good Christian” stuff is a sure sign of no soul in residence
      ___________________________________________________

      My experience so far has been that the “good Christians” believe the only way to save their soul is to save everyone else’s. 

      Baby Snooks had another “encounter” with an African-American on the subject of homosexuality. Baby Snooks was told in no uncertain terms that the Bible is the literal word of god and god has condemned homosexuals.  I told her she needed to go back and read the literal word of god again since god also cursed her. 

      Baby Snooks does not believe in this “mean old man in the sky” that the Jews and Christians and Muslims believe in. Mainly because according to the Christians and the Muslims he “mean old man in the sky” has told them to annihilate the others.  Odd to say the least since it is the same god.  I think the “nice old man in the sky” that I do bellieve in cast Abraham into the desert and then threw a big black rock at him.  Which Abraham misinterpreted.  And the rest, as they say, is history.  And man created god in his image.   Or Abraham did.  At least the Jews aren’t intent on annhilating everyone else.  But might if someone decides again to try to annihilate them. 

      The big black rock by the way enshrined in what remains of the temple Abraham built around it in Mecca is assumed to be a big black diamond.  Peace no doubt will come to the Middle East when the oil runs out and the Saud family decides to sell it.  And calls their favorite Jewish jeweler.   Unless the Christians decide to “liberate” the diamond first.

      The House Select Committee on Un-Christian Activiites is currently conducting “hearings” about the threat of fundamentalist Islam.  It should be conducting hearings about the threat of fundamentalist Christianity.  Both are threats to peace.  Definitely threats to peace of mind. 

      I like my “nice old man in the sky” who sent his people to Rio who had to hide their “nice old man in the sky” and their music and hid the music by inventing the samba and gave us Carnival each year.  If everyone learned to samba I suspect we would get along a little better.  It’s hard to get in the mood to kill everyone else if everyone else is dancing in the streets along with you.  Maybe we should send all the Republicans to Rio next year. 

      We definitely should send Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. 

      9:06 am | March 12, 2011
  • tuttibelle

    He is such a hypocrite that he will probably endorse Bristol Palin’s “memoir” she is writing.

    5:05 pm | March 11, 2011
  • Andy
    Andy C

    And don’t I love it when they start casting stones — the high and mighty have so much further to fall.

    9:31 pm | March 11, 2011
    • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

      And of course there are none so “high and mighty and self-righteous” posting here, now is there? In my over-active imagination, I see so many “falling” from their pedastals of hypocrisy. And I am not referring to Huckabee nor the Republicans, whom according to many here, hold a monopoly on hypocrisy and casting stones.
      Scarlett

      8:40 am | March 14, 2011
      • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

        For clarity, I was not referring to the Christians, good or not so good, either.
        Scarlett

        9:21 am | March 14, 2011
      • Baby Snooks

        I am as pure as the fallen snow. I just drifted a little here and there as Mae West put it.  But I don’t judge others until they judge others. Cast the first stone and Baby Snooks may drop a boulder on you. Or set your fax machine on fire.  I’m quite notorious. As someone once commented, people hear the fax machine moan, then groan, then notice the smoke and then they see the letterhead and run for their lives. 

        11:25 am | March 14, 2011
        • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

          Too funny, thanks for the laugh!! I so enjoy your posts, whether I agree or not on the content. You seem like someone that I would so enjoy knowing personally!
          Maybe if I ever make it out your way…………

          or if you ever find yourself “deep in the heart of Dixie”.
          Scarlett

          3:50 pm | March 14, 2011
  • crystalclear

    I don’t agree that this about Republicans or any other party.   This is about one man, Mike Huckabee.   I’ve always liked him.   He is an open book on his personal opinions.   I’m not sure he is presidential material in 2012 mainly because he is an open book on his personal opinions.  

    6:53 am | March 12, 2011
  • crystalclear

    Mr. Wow, I don’t believe anyone knows what Mike Huckabee does for those in need.   We can only speculate.   I believe he is a good Christian by his admission.  I haven’t witnessed anything to state otherwise.    Politicians are often unfairly criticized for not doing something….even when we have no knowledge of their personal acts of charity to others.

    6:57 am | March 12, 2011
    • Baby Snooks

      I believe he is a good Christian by his admission.  I haven’t witnessed anything to state otherwise. 
      ____________________________________________________

      My experience has been that those who proclaim themselves to be “good Christians” usually are not.  Most have not really read the words of Christ. Or the admonitions. Particularly the one about casting stones. Or casting judgements.

      9:22 am | March 12, 2011
    • Mr. Wow

      Dear Crystalclear…the man is still involved in politics, and speaks of politcal issues.  Therefore he is wallowing in the soul-less hypocrisy that is politics (on both sides of the aisle) and therefore is mostly interested in himself, rather than others. 

      I’ve never known a politician to refrain from telling us the good they supposedly do.

      9:42 am | March 12, 2011
  • crystalclear

    Well, Mr. W, you’ve certainly made a good point.   As I said earlier, I like Mike Huckabee but there’s something important missing in his dialogue that prevents him from wowing the masses.  I still think he is one of the good guys just not presidential material IMO. 

    4:14 pm | March 12, 2011
  • crystalclear

    Baby Snooks, can’t disagree with you regarding your comment above.   However, I personally feel that Huckabee is one of the good guys.  

    4:17 pm | March 12, 2011
    • Baby Snooks

      I am sure there are things about Huckabee that are admirable but as far as his being  a “leader” a leader doesnt need to tell people how to live. He or she sets an example of how to live. 

      The last real leader we had in this country Was Eisenhower. Who in his wisdom finally addressed the rabidness of the “Red Scare” by inviting the “Redhead” along with “Ricky and the Mertzes” to the White House. People don’t really think about that but I always have. That more than anything else was the beginning of the end of McCarthyism and one of the most shameful chapters in our nation’s history. 

      And here we are 60 years later. With another McCarthy. Another Republican. And another “house committee.”  60 years ago it was the House Select Committe on Un-American Activities. 60 years later it is the House Select Committe on Un-Chritstian activities. 

      Enough already with the “patriots” who in my opinion always have been the “traitors” to this country and everything it was supposed to stand for. 

      11:42 am | March 14, 2011
  • Karen Ferguson

    When I first read the “starlet” remark, my instant reaction was that MH had tagged himself as archaic –the term is so sexist as to be laughable.  Would males contemporaries of Natalie Portman be called starlets –the “starlets” Christian Bale and Jake Gyllenhaal?  Or men who have starred with her –the “starlets” Jude Law and Javier Bardem?  How about her co-winner for the Oscar this year, the “starlet” Colin Firth? (Though I must admit, in his knee breeches and pony tail, as Valmont he looked pretty cute.)

    9:26 pm | March 13, 2011
    • Haunted Lady
      HauntedLady

      That’s not a bad idea. How about the “starlet” George Clooney? Or maybe Harrison Ford? This could be very funny after a glass or two of wine.

      10:30 am | March 14, 2011
  • Chip Griswold

    Tell me by the standards set here: Who is a good buy in politics.  See list below:

    That’s right, no one makes the grade.

    8:46 am | March 14, 2011
  • Chip Griswold

    oppss should say “good guy.”

    8:46 am | March 14, 2011
    • Scarlett Ohara Mitchell

      Perhaps a “freudian slip”? BUYING a politician?????
      Scarlett

      3:52 pm | March 14, 2011
      • Chip Griswold

        OMG Scarlett!  That’s good!  lol. 

        7:06 am | March 15, 2011
  • Tee Zee

    Mike Huckabee is a hypocrite of the highest order.  He’s hoping no one’s is willing to dig into the back of his closet.  He felt compelled to criticize Natale Portman, then I question his own “parenting” and his role in the cover up for the  behavior of his “boy scout  counselor” son who admitted to catching a stray dog during a summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR,  hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death.  Or is this what  passes for Christian values in AR.

    5:46 pm | March 14, 2011
    • arcadiayarddog
      Jean Smith

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/huckabee/dog.asp Huh. All I know is us white trailer trash people would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or run out of the county, whichever was cheapest and easiest. Maybe when he speaks of a rich, beautiful young woman’s failings as a role model, he’s relating it to his own experience – his rich young son SHOULD have been a role model, especially at Boy Scout camp. Wow.

      9:59 am | March 16, 2011
  • Leave a Reply

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

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <br> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <i> <img alt="" align="" border="" class="" height="" hspace="" longdesc="" vspace="" src="" style="" width=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <li> <ol> <p> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <u> <ul>