all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Dec 18th 2007

pastor mike’s foreign policy naivete: greater even than b. hussein o.

by now most have heard about mike huckabee’s embarrassing article in foreign affairs magazine, in which he basically sounded like a liberal democrat. this is bad timing for mike. i’m sure he wishes the article came out after the primary season (in which he has pretended to be a conservative). in the article, in addition to comparing osama bin laden to “brer rabbit” (good one!) our party’s own howard dean also said this:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

peter wehner of national review provides the definitive slap-down response. here are excerpts:

Perhaps the place to begin is with his contention that America is ungenerous, which (according to Huckabee) explains the animus now directed at the United States. The fact is that the United States has sacrificed an enormous amount of blood and treasure to help other nations. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong and even offensive.

[snip]

Memo to Mike Huckabee: Sometimes we are despised for all the right reasons.

Ronald Reagan engendered anger from nations because he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire;” deployed Cruise and Pershing Missiles in Europe; moved ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative; and supported the contras in Nicaragua. Millions took to the streets in Europe to oppose his defense build-up. Does Governor Huckabee believe Reagan’s actions were wrong simply because in many countries they were unpopular? Of course we would prefer to have universal support for our actions rather than encounter opposition. But does Huckabee understand that sometimes right and wise actions elicit opposition, and sometimes even intense and widespread opposition?

[snip]

If Pastor Mike thinks that dealing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sayyid Ali Khamenei is akin to tension arising between high-school juniors Sally and Sue, he has a few things to learn — and the presidency is not the place for such basic on-the-job training.

ouch. read the whole thing.

it seems like every day, something comes out that should shake everyone back to reality so they realize mike huckabee is a walking train wreck. yet, polls still put him in the lead in several early primaries.

i think the following message for evangelicals from david french and charles mitchell at evangelicals for mitt needs to get out there:

[A] fear we often hear is that the LDS church would use a President Romney as a “celebrity endorser” to market Mormonism.

[snip]

In my mind, this line of reasoning is more responsible than any other for the religious-based objections to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. It is also so theologically and intellectually flawed that it almost makes me want to weep.

Do religions really stand or fall based on the attractiveness of their most famous adherents? Or does God perhaps have a say (I would say the decisive say) in the process? I presume that your correspondents would never stay in a Marriott hotel, fly Jetblue, or root for the 49ers when Steve Young was throwing touchdown passes to Jerry Rice. Because, after all, they don’t want to endorse anyone or anything that brings credibility to the LDS church. I suppose God stands helplessly by as religions compete for souls by offering up a series of accomplished, attractive politicians and celebrities. (“I see your Steve Young and raise you a Kurt Warner.”)

In fact, as we know from the Bible, God more often uses the “least of these.” The King of Kings came not as a prince but a carpenter and allowed himself to be executed between two petty criminals. His apostles did not run Roman provinces but were instead chased across an empire, met in caves, and were sometimes torn apart in arenas for public amusement. And yet Christianity has endured and flourished. Why? Because – perhaps, just perhaps – God is in control.

So when I see Christians say that the eternal souls of men are in danger because a Mormon of genuine integrity and real accomplishment is running for president, I wonder who (or what) they have faith in: the sovereignty of a loving God who holds the nations in his hands, or the persuasive power of a Mormon missionary who can add one more celebrity to the list of famous LDSers (“we’re right because Gladys Knight, Danny Ainge, Dale Murphy, Harry Reid, and – yes – Mitt Romney say so!”)

One Response to “pastor mike’s foreign policy naivete: greater even than b. hussein o.”

  1. When I was reading it, I too had thought the analogies to high school and parent/child relationships strange, but I wrote it off since I didn’t like Huckabee already.

    Hearing some other people rip into it for it makes me feel better.

    Does his grammar also just seem strange?

    The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

    This feeds my “if he can’t run a campaign, or write an essay well, he shouldn’t be President” mentality.