In this week’s conservative hypocritical moment, likely presidential candidate Mike Huckabee condemned Oscar winner Natalie Portman for “glamourising” her out-of-wedlock pregnancy:
One of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, “Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.” There aren’t really a lot of single mums out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. 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, and it’s unfortunate that we glorify and glamourise the idea of out of children wedlock.
I don’t necessarily disagree with Huckabee’s point (although his last sentence is a bit tangled). However, back when Bristol Palin announced her out-of-wedlock pregnancy during the 2008 campaign, Huckabee didn’t think it was a big deal. Huckabee said then that the surprise pregnancy announcement should not affect support for Sarah Palin in the conservative and religious right communities, and claimed that it was ok since Bristol was going to keep the baby and marry the child’s father.
Of course, those two cases are completely different. After all Bristol Palin never did marry Levi Johnston. And Portman is not only in a stable relationship with the father of her upcoming child, but is engaged to him.
Maybe Huckabee is just having a Dan Quayle moment, although at least Huckabee is picking on a real person, instead of a fictional one.
