Blogs and Stories
The Backstory on My Infamous YouTube Moment
An excerpt from the governor’s new autobiography, Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America.
It was hard to call these debates at all. Most were structured so as to feature the host—not the candidates. I publicly said that they were more like a game show than a true debate. Even worse, the questions were sometimes ludicrous. An example is that in the very first debate, host Chris Matthews asked for a show of hands of who didn’t believe in evolution. It was a ridiculous question, given that no president in American history has ever written the text of an eighth-grade science text book and has no role in such things. In addition, a show of hands didn’t allow us to give any additional information or elaboration—nor even clarification as to whether the question pertained to macroevolution…or microevolution. Later, I would get the same question in a different way: Wolf Blitzer asked me during a June 2007 debate on the campus of the Saint Alselm College in New Hampshire if I believed in evolution.
It was a ridiculous question, given that no president in American history has ever written the text of an eighth-grade science text book and has no role in such things.
Of all the political talking heads, Wolf is one of my personal favorites. He’s been fair to me and respectful, and was willing to have me on his show when others were ignoring me. In addition, he does what some won’t—he actually lets his guest give an answer without interrupting to argue. So while I felt he was doing his job by asking me a question that had liberal bloggers lighting up the Internet since the MSNBC debate in the “raise your hand” moment, I was more than a bit frustrated that after all the months on the campaign trail talking about energy independence, health care, education, national security, the FairTax, and loss of jobs, I was expected to use what precious little time I had during the debate to answer a totally irrelevant question that had absolutely nothing to do with being president. Maybe I had some pent-up frustration for having been pushed to the sidelines waiting for an opportunity to speak when he asked, but when asked, I told him I didn’t think it had anything to do with being president and then he pushed even harder and said, ‘Well, do you believe in evolution?’
The answer that exploded out of my mouth for the next ninety seconds would end up having over a million hits at video-sharing Web sites and then was e-mailed to hundreds of thousands of people across the nation and shown in churches in Sunday morning services.
From the book Do The Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America, by Mike Huckabee by arrangement with Sentinel, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Copyright (c) Mike Huckabee, 2008.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Asking a candidate for first magistrate if he believes in evolution is a "ridiculous question....totally irrelevant" with " absolutely nothing to do with being president." By this statement Mr. Huckabee resoundingly restates his lack of qualification to be president.
Displacing the teaching of science in the classroom with religious "revealed truths" is a current issue of great importance to the nation. Tens of millions of the very voters Mr. Huckabee pandered most for believe that science instruction should be made subject to their religiously held superstitions.
To pretend the issue is not important while at the same time using it as a way to prove his bona fides to anti-science primitives is damning both as a hypocritical opportunism and as personal scientific ignorance.
Palin was bad, but thank God we didn't have a brush with this guy getting the VP nod.
Evolution vs. creationism should definitely be an issue for someone seeking to be POTUS. It is a barometer of intellect.
I would like to know if a candidate for president believes in fairy tales or is a well-educated individual capable of rational thought.
I wish the question "Do you believe in evolution?" was never asked though. It should have been asked "Do you understand evolution?" There's nothing to 'believe' about it.
A candidate who wishes to exclude faith from the classroom is a candidate that wants American students to regain their educational footing amongst other citizens of the world, not simply to become backwater hicks without common sense or a command of logic.
If you look bad because of the question posed to you, it's your fault, not Matthews' or Blitzer's.
Huckabee wants it both ways doesn't he? He wants to pander to the evangelical wingnuts and also claim that his views on evolution aren't important in evaluating a Presidential candidate. Nice try.
When Republicans accept that they will have to get evangelical wingnuts out of the party they might stand a chance at winning a Presidential election.
Common sense ought to tell them that, but I doubt Huckabee has a chapter on that in his book. He is, after all, King of the Wingnuts.
You're right, Issywise, it's a current issue of great importance to the nation - but it's not up to the POTUS, but to school boards.
It would be equally silly to choose a candidate for school board based on whether he thinks we should pull out of Iraq.
No one who understands that evolution is a fact gets bogged down in whether someone meant macro- or microevolution, Huck. Stick to preachin'.
The issue that threatens to rip our constitution to shreds is the worm of religious fundamentalism. Scientific evidence, theory and fact are not up for a vote. The GOP is in need of evolution on a number of levels.
Republicans, the Reverend Huckabee included, made a big deal of President Elect Obama's past associations during the campaign. How can he now say that his views on evolution/creationism aren't important information for the voting public to know and factor into their decision? Are they not a reflection of the most important past association of all...that of an individual with his mind?
OK, maybe I just need to work on my reading comprehension, but I fail to see anywhere in this excerpt where he actually explains his views on evolution. He's just whining that he shouldn't have been asked the question. Sorry, but science is important. It's a valid question.
HarlDelos
Nonsense!
The only reason kids aren't being taught creationism in American public schools today is because federal courts have ruled that capturing school boards to shove your religious views down kids throats in science classes is unconstitutional.
Surely, you are aware of who appoint federal judges?
Huckabee's supporters want to capture the federal government so they shove their religion down all our throats with the aid of the presidency.
Please don't sell soft soap around here. We are all awake.
@HarlDelos
Your comment on how to not chose a school board member doesn't necessarily compare. The POTUS has much more influence over school issues, through who he picks to head the Dept of Education, than a school board member has over Iraq policy, so it should matter what he has to say.
In addition, by saying that he doesn't believe in evolution, he's showing a lot about his decision making abilities. When all reliable scientific evidence points to one thing and you say, "You know what, I'm not going to believe that because of something that was written in a book around 1600 years ago," it says a lot about how that person's mind works.
The teaching of evolution vs creationism (or it's shamelessly thin alter-ego "intelligent design") is a major issue right now, and a question about whether a candidate believes in evolution or not is certainly relevant. To claim otherwise only shows that Mr. Huckabee knows he's on the less-popular end of that particular spectrum and wishes he hadn't been made to express his standing.
In a country where a candidate can be called Godless and shamed because she dared to share the same room with a *gasp* atheist, any and all questions regarding a candidates beliefs should remain fair game.
Perhaps, if the US ever gets past its religious hang-ups, and an atheist is able to be a viable candidate, then maybe such questions will no longer be relevant. Until then, they should shut up and answer or -- if they really don't want to be pressed to answer -- stay the hell out of public office.
Crying foul when your beliefs might draw unwanted attention, when you deliberately appeal to those who share them is hypocritical in the extreme.
Evolution is scientific theory backed by evidence; it has nothing to do with "belief." Belief is the assertion that something is true even though there is no evidence for the assertion. I assert that mighty Thor causes thunder, even though I have absolutely no proof that what I say is true. Huckabee is in the same predicament.
I personally judge people by their views on evolution vs. creationism (or intelligent design, whatever). It is one of many questions of that type that illustrates how a person views scientific facts and his religious beliefs, and which of those weigh in more when it comes to decision making. That especially matters to voters when a person is in the most important decision making postion in this country.
Maybe Mr. Huckabee was implying he believes in the separation of church and state. Hmm.
It's always seemed to me that the argument between Creationists and Evolutionists is a flawed one. Why is it controversial to imagine that the building of the Universe can be described in multiple ways - both literary and technically. I tell my son that gravity is the force that pulls things down to the Earth, but that does not limit or contradict the fact that Universal "down" doesn't really exist.
Evolutionists who deny Creationism diminish the poetry of the soul and Creationists who deny Evolution ignore the precision of God's work.
Or, in more earthy terms, Creationism is analog and Evolution is digital. An mp3 will never replace the crackle of a vinyl record, but it plays on more contemporary systems.
If these fogies want to listen to phonographs, let em. So long as they aren't forcing the rest of us.
@ghettosavant:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, except they are metaphorically attempting to deny the existence of MP3s while forcing our kids to lug around phonographs in a biased side-by-side comparison.
Organized religion began for only one purpose; the control of people and wealth. Organized religion denounced every advancement in science as blasphemy: The earth was the center of the universe; Giving women anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve; Even a disagreement, with proof in evidence, was cause to be burned at the stake. All in an effort to control.
There is nothing wrong with religion for beliefs sake for surely some magic must exist to explain the beautiful complexity of the universe however, organized religion purports to be the correct answer for everything.
Nevertheless, it has been used to justify war, murder and almost every crime imaginable. I pray to my God that I never fall victim to the brainwashing of an organized religion.
Evolution is part of our society now. If we can't learn to address it then we have no hope..
The question of whether or not one believes in evolution drives at the greater question of whether or not one believes in rational fact-based scientific method as opposed to belief due to faith alone. I would find myself very worried with a president (i.e. last 8 years) who decided to believe things based off of their preconceived notions or a book written 1800-2600 years ago. If one has a personal faith in God, so be it, but that does not mean that one should reject empiricism in worldly affairs. Doing so definitely should be a disqualification for a job of presiding over the U.S.
Rev Huckabee the question was an important question. I want to know where you stand because if you become president I want to know if you are going to bring your religion to the office. I don't believe the country needs to have a minister as president. I don't want any religious leaders as presidents. I want them to have faith in their higher powers. This country is moving to much to the right.
governance takes leadership.
leadership takes good decision making.
good decision making takes accurate date and impeccable reason.
if you belive in creationsim, flat earth, earth centric solar system or any other such anti-science nonsense your personal philosophy is based neither on accurate date or reason.
ergo. you are not fit to lead.
especially in the science/technology driven 21st century.
if we need to find a leader of a desert tribe of bronze age superstitious morons we will give you a call Huck.
Huckabee is a class act. Even though I'm an athiest liberal, I thought him and obama brought the most positivity to the campaign - and i respect that.
Does anyone know if there is a clip of this video somewhere still up to view?
It's like asking someone how many black friends they have. The audience will draw unfair conclusions about you if you respond zero ... or in this case, NO.
might i suggest for your next book that you research how many gay people have been beaten and killed. you obviously need the education, and the stories would fill volumes.
southernyankee, how is huckabee stating his beliefs going to determine if he "brings them to the office"? Should all Presidents have to agnostic/atheist? Evolution is a theory, and I am aware of the evidence and the gaps in the theory. Personal I think of evolution as God's tool to create the world we see around us. I find it comforting that I can acknowledge my faith and science together. Regardless of this, a) Huckabee is right that there were far greater issues in this campaign season than evolution vs. creation (and every single poll that I saw supports this) and b) it is somewhat irrelevant. Look at Bush, he is staunchly agains evolution and abortion, and in 8 years he appointed 2 justices including the Chief Justice, and we still haven't overturned Roe v. Wade or reversed whoever vs. whoever that ruled you can't teach creation in public schools.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.