Natalie Portman may have won an Oscar this week, but Mike Huckabee isn't a fan.

 

In an interview with conservative radio host Michael Medved, the former Arkansas governor and potential 2012 presidential hopeful slammed Portman for glamorizing unwed pregnancy.

 

Portman is expecting her first child with her fiancé, Benjamin Millepied, a choreographer whom she met on the set of "Black Swan." Her critically lauded performance in the film made her a staple on the red carpet this award season, culminating in her Academy Award win for Best Actress on Sunday.

 

While Huckabee praised Portman as a "very brilliant and admirable actress," he suggested her pregnancy sends a bad message to the country.

 

"She got up, she was very visibly pregnant, and it's really it's a problem because she's about seven months pregnant, it's her first pregnancy, and she and the baby's father aren't married, and before two billion people, Natalie Portman says, 'Oh I want to thank my love and he's given me the most wonderful gift,'" Huckabee told Medved, per the liberal group MediaMatters. "He didn't give her the most wonderful gift, which would be a wedding ring! And it just seems to me that sending that kind of message is problematic."

 

The former governor, who is also a pundit on Fox News, called Portman's pregnancy "troubling" and suggested it might "glorify and glamorize" the idea of having children outside of marriage. He argued that most single mothers aren't in the same position as Portman in terms of her lifestyle and resources.

 

"There aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie," Huckabee said. "And I think it gives a distorted image … Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing."

 

It's the third time this week that Huckabee has made headlines for controversial remarks.

 

On Monday, the ex-governor mistakenly suggested in an interview that President Obama had grown up in Kenya. Huckabee later insisted he had simply misspoke, saying Kenya when he had meant Indonesia, and he slammed the media for the "sensationalized" way reporters covered his remarks.

 

But Huckabee found himself on the defense again Wednesday, after he referred to Obama's "different worldview" that was influenced, in part, by growing up around Muslim culture.

 

"I have said many times, publicly, that I do think he has a different worldview, and I think it's in part molded out of a very different experience," Huckabee told radio host Bryan Fischer on Wednesday. "Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings, and you know, our communities were filled with rotary clubs, not madrassas."

 

Madrassas are schools in Muslim countries, but the term has taken on a negative connotation in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. A Huckabee spokesman did not respond to requests for comment from The Ticket about why the ex-governor used that specific wording. But in a statement to CNN, a Huckabee spokesman suggested that people should read his boss's new book to gain a full understanding of what exactly Huckabee is trying to say about Obama's upbringing.

 

All of this publicity is no doubt good for Huckabee, as he peddles a new book and looks to shore up support among conservative GOP voters as he considers a second bid for the White House. But this isn't necessarily the sort of attention that can aid Huckabee's reputation among swing and independent voters, with whom he's performed well in the past in spite of his conservative views on social issues. Polls show most voters, even if they disagree with him, tend to find Huckabee "likable."

 

Just last week, Huckabee seemed to cast himself as a moderate voice on several hot-button issues that have whipped up the conservative right. In one statement, for example, he dismissed "birther" conspiracy theories about Obama--telling reporters the talk is simply a distraction. He defended Michelle Obama's push to combat childhood obesity against attacks from Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin--saying the GOP should instead be "thanking her and praising her." Huckabee even had kind words for Obama, lauding him as a good role model for the country.

 

In a statement issued Friday afternoon, Huckabee defended his comments on Portman, insisting he wasn't trying to "slam" or "attack" her.

 

"Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar and I am glad she will marry her baby's father," Huckabee said. "My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110304/ts_yblog_theticket/mike-huckabee-concludes-a-week-of-gaffes-by-slamming-natalie-portman

 

 

 

Huckabee is an idiot

 

Don't be hammering on Natalie :whip:

Lul Portman got slammed.

I slam the pregnancy too...but only because it's not me who's the father :(

I slam the pregnancy too...but only because it's not me who's the father :(

 

:lol: very true

I think this is stupid. She is nearly 30, graduated from Harvard, makes millions of dollars a year, and they are engaged. It's none of his business.

Stupid Huckabee. :lol:

I :heart: Huckabee's :blush:

l'm pretty sure there are lots of unwed preggos in hollywood. what a douche.

Dear Mike Huckabee, do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

I don't really know what he expects her to do, get UNPREGGO and win the Oscar, or stay preggo and refuse the Oscar and tell us all that she's a sham.

he's not used to seeing Oscar winners (especially for women) being pregnant :sad:

At least Natalie Portman isn't seeking ultimate power in the Presidency of the United States. By comparison I'd say she's pretty humble.

At least Natalie Portman isn't seeking ultimate power in the Presidency of the United States. By comparison I'd say she's pretty humble.

 

haha... good point

It's 2011, why does the US still entertain Religious nutjobs vyying for the White House?, I can't see him getting the Republican nomination anyway.

It's 2011, why does the US still entertain Religious nutjobs vyying for the White House?, I can't see him getting the Republican nomination anyway.

 

Because the country is full of a bunch of idiots who think that religion is an important factor in leading a country.

 

...as if showing your religious means you'll be an amazing president... just like how our previous one was :|

 

 

To be honest I'd rather someone run the country who wasn't religious because I know they'd have a clear mind to make decisions to the best of their knowledge rather than suggestions from a divine power.

So, on that note, who do you think will get the Republican nomination?

RON PAUL :awesome: Probably the only politician in the world with both good intentions and a sane mind. I plan on never voting in my life, but I might make an exception if Ron Paul is a candidate.

Ron Paul would be a great choice, though I strongly doubt he'd get it especially since he wasn't liked by the huge Republican base.

 

I think it seems like Mitt Romney might get the nomination. Though other people will try to run, like Palin who I hope never gets nominated. If she does I think I'll join Obama's campaign and help him run against her. She scares the hell out of me.

Fox hates Ron Paul so I don't see that happening.

 

If Palin wins it's four more years of Obama.

It'll likely be Romney or some other "tough talking" Republican who wants to cut a whopping 0.2% of the total government spending and who will continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of time.

 

I'm not sure the economy will last until that election, though. The % chance of a deflationary collapse is getting higher all the time.

So you don't see the economy getting better even though unemployment is going down a little bit and the stock market numbers have been going up?

Well keep in mind the stock market isn't indicative of quality-of-life. Most people think of it as being "the economy", but the stock market is very different from things like home prices, unemployment rate, cost of health insurance, disposable income, etc.

 

What I see now is evidence of severe inflation. Oil is soaring, and food prices are as well (generally the whole commodities complex). The price of health insurance has skyrocketed recently (especially since the passage of the Obama bill). And finally you see inflation in the price of stocks. All this is being brought about by the Federal Reserve's policies of QE and POMO.

 

Unemployment is actually higher. What the media reports are the government's numbers, but if you look at Gallup's numbers and include birth/death changes, you see the job losses are getting steeper. We're still well in double-digits. (I mentioned birth/death because the economy must create a certain number of jobs every month just to keep up with population growth).

 

EDIT: Let me add this, the price of cotton recently -

 

 

So you'll see fewer clothing sales and more expensive clothes generally. Up over 200% in the past couple years.

 

Whoever claims there isn't inflation is lying.

I guess that's true, I guess for me I saw the stock market as an indicator of the economy and also that with unemployment rates, though the gov't messes with the numbers that for the most part they were probably around perhaps by a few .1's of a percent off.

 

I mean besides cutting spending, do you think there are any other solutions to help the economy, or do you think that we've dug ourselves too deep a hole to get out, which then the question is what happens to the country?

I've always felt Saffire not only believes the economy will crash beyond recognition, but actually wants it to.

I guess that's true, I guess for me I saw the stock market as an indicator of the economy and also that with unemployment rates, though the gov't messes with the numbers that for the most part they were probably around perhaps by a few .1's of a percent off.

 

I mean besides cutting spending, do you think there are any other solutions to help the economy, or do you think that we've dug ourselves too deep a hole to get out, which then the question is what happens to the country?

 

It's more than a few tenths of a percent difference, it's usually around 5 or 6% (lately). If you look at the number of people who are "underemployed" (working part time) and people who just dropped out of the labor market altogether (discouraged workers), the real number is around 17% now. This is actually the number the government used to report, back before Bill Clinton was in office.

 

Gallup's latest poll said the unemployment rate was around 10.2% if I recall correctly. You can look it up if you're interested.

 

As for solutions, we sort of reached the "point of no return" back in 2002 or so. That's when interest payments on the national debt became so unmanageable that a natural interest rate was impossible, so the Federal Reserve had painted itself into a corner. Ever since then a policy of low rates has been the norm. Real interest rates are around 0.25% now, so they can't go much lower.

 

Most of these bonds the Fed is selling, it buys itself. So recently China dropped from the #1 holder of US debt (bonds) and now the Federal Reserve is #1. What does it mean when you make a bond, and then buy it from yourself? It's just a fancy way of printing money.

 

So this is called "monetizing the debt" and we've been doing it for a little over a year now. The policy is referred to as "Quantitative Easing" to make it sound haughty and complex. The new money is spent by the government and government employees (as they earn their paychecks).

 

Every month the US spends about 80 billion dollars on interest payments on the national debt (that's not cutting into the principle at all). To give you an idea of how much this is, Google is worth about 194 billion dollars now. So we lose a Google every two and a half months. We lose an Apple every 4 months.

 

So yes, I'm rooting for a collapse of the bond market. I don't think the American people agreed to this debt, and therefore we shouldn't pay for it (either by taxes or a devalued dollar).

 

The solution will be a return to bimetallism (gold and silver backed currency) and a disbanding of the Federal Reserve. That won't come easy. It's very possible we will see violence in the US (a la Egypt and Libya) as cost of living continues to spiral out of control, unemployment rises, and the government can no longer pay out the welfare checks.

 

But I am an optimist in this way - the continuation of this system we currently have is inefficient and steals from the public to enrich a few. Any new system that replaces it will likely create a much higher standard of living for us. Think: only one parent having to work, cheaper college and healthcare, easier to save for retirement without having to risk it all in the stock market, cheaper homes, more disposable income, etc.