Anyone else distrust Huckabee?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LT701, Dec 12, 2007.

  1. You mean he is another lying corrupt politician that will claim whatever he needs to get his votes, even though his record does not support his stance?

    I'm just wondering, how many more of these cookie cutter candidates does it take for people to realize that it's just a show. They don't care about the issues that matter to you, they never have and never will.

    Huckabee has only impressed me on two topics, healthcare, or more specifically, health and claim to remove the IRS. However, his record shows that he just pays lip service. He is another Giuliani, with a different suit.
    #31     Dec 14, 2007
  2. Yeah that was kinda my point. Almost without exception, every candidate has changed direction on certain points to either differentiate themselves, or align themselves. It is much more valuable to look at their record rather than their words.

    We all know that most of what a candidate promises will not and should not be realized during their term in office. Getting elected is a matter of appeal. Candidates must pander to the audience. A president who is bent on enforcing all campaign promises regardless of the present situation is retarded. Candidates should feel free to represent ideals, knowing full well that most of it will not come to pass.

    Take Ron Paul for example. I love what the guy says. But in reality he has accomplished very little considering the amount of time he's been in office. He has grid-lock written across his forehead. Right now we need someone who can unite Washington and accomplish things regardless of congress majority. Ron Paul can't do that. His worst nightmare is a democrat majority. He would get absolutely nothing done. But in the end, the reason he won't win the primaries is because he doesn't have mass appeal. He has niche appeal.
    #32     Dec 17, 2007
  3. Was reading Huckabee's FA article online, link below:

    haven't made it all the way through, but thought to myself, this sounds reasonable, perhaps palatable to a paleoconservative like myself.

    However, note who is reputed to be his foreign policy advisor - Frank Gaffney - one of the original PNAC signatories and thus a neocon.

    *sigh* and just when I thought we were going to get a moderate republican candidate that I actually could get excited about.
    #33     Dec 17, 2007
  4. Westward


    I'm voting for the first guy to come out and say that we're going to kick the Chinese in the ass and tariff every single piece of 5hit they send over here until they fluctuate their currency.

    They're the scummiest scumbags we deal with.
    #34     Dec 19, 2007
  5. ...But this populist revolt is not just about religion. Mr. Huckabee calls himself the candidate of Main Street, taking on a party that has become "a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street." He's a throwback to a kind of conservatism that had a home in the Democratic Party before it embraced the counterculture – and created Reagan Democrats.

    In a time of mounting economic anxiety, Mr. Huckabee could do worse than to position himself as an outsider critic of a party that just last week blocked an exceedingly modest tax increase on big oil companies to fund research into alternative fuels. His about-face on immigration indicates that he is either an opportunist, or that he is beginning to understand that the conservative grassroots is tired of globalizing Washington elites favoring business interests over their countrymen's common good.

    And Mr. Huckabee is hitting the demographic sweet spot in a changing conservative coalition. A comprehensive 2005 survey by the non-partisan Pew Center found most Americans who identify with the GOP favor policies that are socially conservative but economically progressive. A significant number of conservative Democrats identify with this basic outlook – and conceivably would be open to voting for him over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, two social arch-liberals.

    Mr. Huckabee probably isn't the best advocate for populist conservatism at the moment. On policy, he too often seems to be winging it. Because of his relative unpreparedness, he might not make it to the general election. But his legacy will define conservative politics for the next political era.
    #35     Dec 19, 2007
  6. LT701


    I wrote a fairly damning critique of ron paul along the lines you mention, on another thread but i have to admit, that although he's never gotten anything done about the things he's for, it is true that he's voted against everything he says he's against.

    as a congressman, that's nice, but it doent mean much.

    a 'Dr No' president, would stil be an improvement, as BS needs 2/3rds to pass

    since about everything bush and clinton have done is bad, doing nothing would be refreshing
    #36     Dec 19, 2007
  7. and richard haass who is president of the CFR... not to mention the CFR published Huckabee's letter on foreign policy. the guy has scum written all over him. he is bought and paid for by the same neocons that lied us into the illegal Iraq war. go fk yourself doodoo... its not going to work.
    #37     Dec 19, 2007
  8. I have some trouble with this. While many Republican voters favor conservative social positions, I think the majority are hardly economic "progressives", which in media-speak means favor raising taxes. There is no doubt that many in the Evangelical/family values wing of the party are in favor of "populist" tax policies, and that fact has caused a lot of tension with other members of the Republican coalition. That wing of the party is hardly a majority, although it may be in Iowa.

    A coalition works only if you do not step on other coalition members' toes. When Evangelicals suddenly start talking "progressive" economics, they are playing into the Democrats' hands. The basic rule of the republican coalition is that each member gets its way on a set of key issues. For Evangelicals, it is abortion and judges. Tax policy belongs to the low tax, opportunity society Republicans. Many members of that group favor liberal social policies, as do the national security/neo-con wing, but they keep their thoughts to themselves to preserve the coalition. Evangelicals would be wise to do the same thing.
    #38     Dec 20, 2007
  9. Just when I was beginning to wonder if I was being a tad too harsh on Huck, Ann Coulter sets me straight:

    December 19, 2007

    Despite the overwhelming popular demand for another column on Ron Radosh's review of Stan Evans' book, this week's column will address the urgent matter of evangelical Christians getting blamed for Mike Huckabee.

    To paraphrase the Jews, this is "bad for the evangelicals."

    As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

    The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

    I went on a massive book tour for Godless just last year, including a boffo opening interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today," a one-on-one, full-hour interview with Chris Matthews on "Hardball," and various other hostile interviews from the organs of establishmentarian opinion.

    But I didn't get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.

    If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can also name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have rejected Darwin's discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it.

    But they won't ask us, because, unlike the cornpone, we won't immediately collapse under gentle questioning. It's one thing to be "easily led" by the pope. Huckabee is easily led by Larry King.

    Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

    I don't understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions -- as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism -- does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

    Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as "man-made global warming." Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

    Huckabee immediately dropped his alleged skepticism of Darwinism and turned to his main goal as president of the United States: teaching children more art and music. This, he said, was his "passion" because "I think our education system is failing kids because we're not touching the right side of the brain -- the creative side. We are focusing on the left side."

    I think I know someone who has just read an article in Reader's Digest about left brain/right brain differences!

    When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible's rather pointed remarks about sodomy -- fitting the MSM's image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I'm usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.)

    And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

    In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) -- despite the allegedly hallowed principle of "stare decisis." As explained in Godless, stare decisis means: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

    Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays' rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.

    Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy.

    But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion "probably was appropriate."

    He made these remarks on his monthly radio show, "Ask the Governor," as was widely reported at the time, including a July 3, 2003, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article titled, "Huckabee Says Sex Lives of Adults Not State Affair." I stress that "Ask the Governor" was not a wacky, comedy-based, morning zoo-type radio program. It was supposed to be serious.

    Employing the ACLU's "any law I don't like is unconstitutional" test, Huckabee said he supported the court's decision because a law "that prohibited private behavior among adults" would be difficult to enforce. Next he'll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers "nonstarters."

    How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage?

    Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are "probably" unconstitutional.

    Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a spirited dissent in Lawrence, joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, raising the somewhat embarrassing point that homosexual sodomy is not technically mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, our Founding Fathers would have been our "Founding Life Partners."

    Scalia said that inasmuch as the Texas law furthered "the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity," the court's ruling placed all these laws in jeopardy.

    Most important, Scalia said: "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." At least no court has tried to legalize gay marriage since that 2003 ruling, so we can be grateful for -- Hey, wait a minute!

    Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but he supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a "constitutional right" to gay marriage. I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

    No wonder Huckabee is the evangelical liberals like.
    #39     Dec 20, 2007
  10. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
    #40     Dec 21, 2007