I wasn’t looking forward to listening to Mike Huckabee gloat about how successful his call for a Chik-Fil-A appreciation day was. Actually, when I heard the first update about this at around noon Wednesday on Fox, it wasn’t all that clear that it was a success, despite what Megan Kelly kept saying. I heard her offer three pieces of evidence:
1. Video of a long line at a Chik-Fil-A restaurant in Houston. But I have seen long lines in Houston that had nothing to do with politics, or with chicken.
2. A reporter in Atlanta who said he saw long lines.
3. “Emails from all over.” Yes, I, too, get emails from all over, and if I could believe a tenth of what they said, I would be a billionaire several times over by now.
But it turned out, apparently, that the appreciation day really was a success, and Huckabee had solid grounds to gloat. But that doesn’t mean I want to listen to him gloat. Personally, I intend to boycott Chik-Fil-A until somebody there learns how to spell “chick.” And “filet.”
Fortunately, Huckabee remains determined to rarely ever let a topic extend past one segment, so he quickly moved on to the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom by requiring employers who offer health insurance to cover contraception. About which I have a couple of serious questions, since I am not Catholic and don’t quite understand this whole issue:
1. Do Catholics believe that it is an actual sin for employers to pay for contraception, or is the sin charged against those who use contraception? I mean, nothing in Obamacare requires people to actually use contraception; it just requires employers to pay for those who do use it. Employers have to pay for lots of things they would prefer not to pay for, and employees have a lot of freedom to do evil and nasty things with the money they are paid. How is contraception different?
2. How does forcing employers to pay for contraception differ from forcing employers to pay taxes to support torture and unjust wars? Should anybody be required to pay for anything that’s morally objectionable?
Good luck with getting Huckabee to answer those questions. Better luck getting answers from Sean Hannity, who played a clip from Obama arguing that Romney would increase taxes on the middle class. Then he had on the actual Romney, who denied that he would do any such thing.
Hannity never explained this, at least not in the portion of the show I heard, but I assume he and Obama were referring to this new study, which finds that, even given the most favorable possible interpretation, Romney’s tax plan can’t be revenue neutral and still give big tax cuts to his rich buddies unless it also raises taxes on the middle class. Romney’s campaign still hasn’t explained how this study is wrong, but with a hard-nosed, top-notch investigative reporter like Hannity on the case, we were bound to see Romney’s feet held to the fire on talk radio, right? Right. Also, Limbaugh announced that he has joined the Democratic Party.