I don't know how anyone can argue for any candidate over McCain, he clearly knows what he is talking about more than any other republican (or any of the dems for that matter) and Mr. McCain does not side step questions and never gives some coached up answer. I agree that Huckabee looks polished but after Bush I will never vote for one of these evangelist who thinks the world is 6,000 years old. How do those beliefs carry over into the changing world we live in? A-they don't
He's got a long record of being utterly incompetent in the Senate, and the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act is just a small part of that. I've always said that the best way to get more of something is to have McCain support a bill to eliminate it. If he had no record, gave the speaches that he did, and didn't support a war that needs to be ended, his debate performance and rhetoric might some attention. But just like Romney, McCain's past makes me really unlikely to support them in the present.
Well I guess it depends on what you think is most important. I really don't care what Huckabee's thoughts are on the life of the earth. I'm more interested in what his thoughts are on how we approach terrorism and the economy.
It's exciting to see Mikey H moving up in the recognition ladder. Here's something from Dick Morris, who has worked for both Clinton and Huckabee: MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE By DICK MORRIS Published on TheHill.com on November 28, 2007. Printer-Friendly Version As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the early ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative. A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005. In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition. Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer. He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.) He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security. And he can win in Iowa. When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one. Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee. But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medical spending,” he says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative anxious to save tax money. So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa, most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP contest, giving Rudy a big boost. And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, sweeping the early primaries, Giuliani will have a very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It can be done, but it’s tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney. In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations, their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to win.
imo, folks who share those beliefs that Bush and Huckabee have let their personal feelings effect decison making in other area's so while I agree that the other issues are more important there is a track record with these evangelist's that make me want to go the other way
I watched a large chunk of the debate last night and saw nothing to impress me. I'm surprised hundreds of Republicans aren't stepping in front of buses today out of dispair. Geez, what a lousy bunch of candidates! You guys are actually making the Democratic bunch look good, no mean feat. D&D. Attempt Something. Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.
by not intentionally planting our questions? there is clearly no great reagan, but you guys don't exactly have an FDR or kennedy
If you really seriously think about it a minute these guys must be delusional, egotists, or power hungry. All of them (except Mr. Paul) Why would anyone want to take responsibility for the problems we are in? I guess I'd do it for the money and the benefits- NO on second thought I'd pass. Who wants to have to deal with what is becoming a nightmare- war, debt, deterioration at every level- education, healthcare, immigration, terrorism, global warming, nuclear powder kegs etc etc It's like- please pick me to dump the world's problems on. This thing is like a reality show. Everyone tells what they will do, we all vote. And nothing gets better, except the winner goes home with the million dollars. Let's vote them all off the island and pick a president who has never been a republican or a democrat and is smarter than a fifth grader. I think Van Gundy might be my write in vote. (vote for Ron Paul )
Why even bother watching? You obviously weren't watching with anything but a closed mind. You probably still think Reagan is the Devil. I've said it before, but I want Huckabee because he wants the Fair Tax, which is MY largest issue. His demeanor and answers were clever and concise. I'm not sure he'll get the nod, but oddly enough, I had a dream last night that he won the nomination. He has gone from a nobody that Steven Colbert was making fun of a few short months ago to a potential front-runner. That is no small feat. Seriously, Deck. This thread isn't for you, and you're sounding as mean-spirited as T_J can be in threads about Dems. And your Impeach Bush and his monkeys/etc.? Let it go. It simply isn't remotely funny anymore, nor is it ever going to happen. Quit sucking on sour grapes.
what i think isnt funny anymore is the fact that we have a bunch of criminals running this country and they will not be held accountable for their actions. authorization of illegal torture practices illegally spying and wiretapping of americans funding of propaganda and fake news stories and paying off reporters starting a war based on lies and manipulation promotion of the north american union and amnesty for illegals "free speech zones" military commissions act of 2006
Huckabee needs to firm up the perception of him on issues such as economic policy, foreign policy, and energy policy, in my opinion. He is strong on social issues. What separates him from the others is that he is very COMFORTABLE speaking. He speaks naturally whereas the others painfully and meticulously just try to avoid stepping in it when they answer questions. Huckabee comes across as more credible because of this. If the 'likeability' test of the magic fairy dust that gets you elected, he certainly has it. Whether he has the money or organization to win may be another story. And yes, Deckard is the biggest hypocrite on this BBS. He's a total partisan who for some reason thinks he has the moral authority to tell others to 'keep it civil'. What a joke he's become. A rather unfunny joke. He's a dullard.
I think the politically correct term is a war on terrorism or maybe globalization or maybe it's one village at a time... I think some folk somewhere have a pretty good idea where this is all going. I actually think this is on purpose. But what do I know.
Whether you agree or disagree with Deckard, he could never be considered a dullard. And, although we are usually on opposite sides of the fence, I've never found him to be a joke or a joker. I just wish everyone tried to keep these discussions civil.
Thanks, thumbs. I don't pay any attention to Trader_J, except for his humor factor, which has been pretty dull lately, making his comment appear rather ironic to me. Fatty, I watch the GOP debates for the same reason that I sometimes listen to Limbaugh. I try to understand why people I otherwise find intelligent decide to vote for some of these people. I have to say that it is mystifying. Seriously, it reminds me of how the great mass of people in the South supported slavery, pre-Civil War, even though slaves were incredibly expensive (look it up) and most of them would never be able to own one. Most of Bush's tax policies have been aimed at helping the rich, as if they needed it, yet the middle class buys into the line that they are getting big benefits from those policies, when they are not. Gun owners act like Democrats are going to take away their guns, which is ludicrous... most of the Democrats I know own guns and are either active hunters, or were in the past. The pro-life people (nods to thumbs and some others here) fixate on that one issue and make their vote based on it, when Democrats are also pro-life. I frequently read material that makes it sound like women skip happily to get an abortion, when that couldn't be further from the truth. It is about equal rights for women. Look at the story about the poor woman in Saudi Arabia if you want an example of discrimination against women. The right to have an abortion doesn't equate to mass numbers of women getting abortions. It is the desire of a human being to have control of their own body. From there, the subject breaks down into nit-picking and acrimony. I'm against 3rd trimester abortions unless the health of a woman is threatened. Some here would think I'm an evil b*stard for believing even that should be allowed. And so on, and so on. As for what I post at the bottom of my posts, it is something I do for myself, and I really don't care if anyone likes it or not, except for Clutch. If he has a problem with it, I'm all ears. Bush has done far more than is needed to justify being impeached. That's my opinion. If someone disagrees, groovy. At least in this country, it is their right. Thank goodness. Oh, and Bush is absolutely nothing like Ronald Reagan. No, I didn't vote for Reagan, and was very worried when he was elected, but looking back, he was a moderate Republican compared to the clown in office today. I would much prefer Reagan in office to Bush. He was a hell of a lot smarter. And I won't post in this thread again. Happy, everyone? Great! D&D. Attempt Something. Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.
When you have Dems arguing that the second amendment does not guarantee an individual right and there are several jurisdictions trying to outlaw handgun ownership, the fact that you know Dems that own guns is small comfort. Millions. Millions have been aborted, at a rate of about one million per year. So the right to an abortion does in fact lead to mass numbers of women getting abortions. The fact that you think it is about equal rights for women (because men are having so many abortions, right?) shows why you cannot understand the importance people put on this issue. The pro-life people are not trying to subjugate women, they are trying to save babies from being murdered by their own mothers. No one is against women having control over their own bodies, but the right to swing your fist ends at the point where it would touch my face. If women want to have the abortion procedure done to them when they are not pregnant, no one would care. It is not control of their bodies that is a concern, it is the protection of the other person that happens to be living in there for a few months. To compare outlawing abortion to getting flogged for being gang raped is sickening.
One caveat we all tend to overlook is the rights of the father (assuming the union was not born of rape). From youthful experience, I understand that barren, empty, hollow, helpless feeling of loss first hand.
I do think thats a bit of a generalization. Huckabee might believe that the earth is 6,000 years old but he is the one pushing for the space program to expand while Obama is pushing for the other way.
No, it's still an opinion ... as is yours ... as is mine (and while I am disturbed by a number of Bush's policies, none of his actions have been proved illegal. That's a fact).
