As for myself, I really did not take notice of Huckabee until his numbers started to rise.. All this attention has made me want to take another look. I am liking what I see... It would not be the first time a sort of unknown came from out of no where in Arkansas of all places.... What I really wonder is if they would change the signs on the entrance and exit to Arkansas to Home of President Huckabee, instead of former You Know Who.... Wouldn't that just beat all if they built Huckabee's Presidential Library right next to Clintons...
Federal Education, is socialized education. It's known as central economic planning. I am correct on this. The rest of your response is typical slander, Ad Hominem attacks, and deflections to my candidate (who you refuse to address the positions of). You have not refuted the Club for Growth (despite claiming you have done so), and you have not sourced or adequately defended the 5 ethics reprimands against Huckabee by his State. Which is fine, I'm not interested in slander, I'm interested in facts.
It's not opinion. The only persons in the Republican party who consider Huckabee a fiscal conservative, is Huckabee himself. I watch the debates, monitor his website, read articles on him, browse his grassroots forums, and watch his videos from the campaign trail. Giuliani would probably choke on his tongue if you told him Huckabee was a fis-con. That's what Ron Paul supports. Huckabee is against consensual unions between two adults, even outside the boundary of legal marriage. Oh really? Then why did Mike push for and provide Education subsidies for illegal aliens in Arkansas? He was grilled on this at the last debate. Yes, he's for fair trade (some form of protectionism, although admittedly it might be very weak) but no specifics. He's for cutting government spending, but he doesn't mention any targets of waste. Again, there is no address on monetary policy, and the remaining economic policies are very "light" (being polite). It is very interesting that he is for globalization, while talking about Fair Trade. The two ideas are not necessarily compatible. Well, Reagan was a Libertarian Republican, so I would be curious to know where you find common ground. Exactly, and that is Ron Paul's position. On money, the economy, spending etc. Paul is probably the closest to Reagan's platform in 1979, and Goldwater's platform in 1963. Paul wants to return education to the States, not centrally manage it from Washington. DC has the most expensive and worst education system in the country, and that is run by the Federal government (the only district the federal government has municipal control over). Conservative Republicans have long had the Dept. of Ed in their crosshairs as an official segment of party platform.
It's amazing how everything always ends up back at Ron Paul.. Meanwhile he does not even show up in the top 5 in either national or Iowa polls...
I just post the truth. But he shows up top 5 in Nevada, New Hampshire and TIED for 5th in Iowa with McCain. I've addressed the polls numerous times. The only time you can count on poll front runners winning, is when they are the incumbent. When you factor in the margin of error on most of the polls, no one is clearly out front except Romney. And again, that's because they are meaningless. The nomination is not decided on popular vote. It's decided by delegates at the Republican National Convention. In fact, most people don't even understand that Iowa is a caucus, and until their state convention, winning in Iowa is meaningless except as a PR boost for New Hampshire and later primaries.
The truth is, he is not doing to well.. I'm not sure I would be too proud of that kind of truth. There is something to be proud of... Tied for 7%... Hmmmm.. I don't remember a time in US history where someone tied with 7% of the vote has won... A margin of error of 3 to 4% still does not give too much leeway IMO.. Polls are only meaningful to you when they go your way.. I'm not looking for a poll to favor my opinion.. I'm still undecided... All a poll did for me is take a look in a direction I never thought I would look... Aren't you the same one that asked if I was gonna vote in the primaries? If you are not, my apologies.. I know someone did a while back in another thread. I never answered because I figured why embarrass the person asking given a public popular vote does not determine a primary election. Delegates do. Generally about 50% of the time, the winner of the Iowa cacus goes on to win the General Election.. That's pretty significant to me.
I don't agree with that assessment. Again, the polls are irrelevant except for a gauge of what kind of press a candidate will get. I remember when he was being written off at 1%. Or 0%. I remember when someone(s) with 5% or less this close to Iowa won their nominations. Not really. I've been talking about delegates for some time now. I understand the process much better than I did before, now that I am involved in grassroots campaigning. But your looking in a new direction makes my point about attention. I did ask. But only to ascertain if you were involving yourself in the nominating process. Not to gauge public opinion. But how often does the front runner win the Iowa Caucus?
I realize that it is not totally Bush's fault...congress is the ones that put all the pork there, but I wish he would have veto'ed some of it. my company requires me to pay into it...guess thats what happens when you are self employed by a company that you don't own (don't ask how that works, its a very complicated process....)...its all thanks to the IRS.
You are incorrect, as usual. I cannot help you with the credibility problem, but since you raised education as an issue, then claimed you didn't, then claimed you did and re-identified it as socialized education, I posted some facts (something you've chosen not to use) about Huckabee on education. In fact, I'm going to do the same, just so two posts down the line, you can claim it never happened: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVvZcPSHL9_XQajF5pZYfSx-uyNwD8TB0FPG2 Facts are not slander. You believe your candidate should not answer for his past racism issues, yet you believe my candidate should answer for allegations that I've already proven incorrect. Heh, I don't blame you. Actually, I have refuted them and used sources to do such. That you would dishonestly suggest I haven't, when clearly I have (I even used one of ruber's own sources) is the epitome of the dishonesty I continue to point out. It just blows my mind. You make up what you need to, on the spot, regardless of what just took place. I understand your frustration. You support a candidate who has a racist background, has been caught making and defending racist comments; as a result of such, has a wide following of racists, neo nazis, white supremacists and other nefarious entities, that make up about 5% of the US population. And that 5% is about what he has in the polls and can't seem to change it, despite everyone else moving up, or moving down. That ought to tell you something. Your candidate has no accomplishment. He's never accomplished anything, never passed any meaningful legislation, never led, never done anything. If my candidate's claim to fame was a record of doing nothng and pandering to conspiracy nuts and white supremacists, I'd be a little worried too. Actually, I have higher morals and values than that. He wouldn't be my candidate at all.
Ahh but this is where you are wrong, many articles I have read show Huckabee went above and beyond normal laws, to the point of being possibly illegal in order to get this guy released. It was not just normal government in action. In fact according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...uckabee+Wayne+Dumond&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us There are many articles on the subject, he in fact did want him released. It was not just standard government actions, he himself made it happen from all that I have read.
Ah yes, Mike's views on education. But where is his plan to return education to the states? That's my entire point in this thread. He has views, but no plan. If you want to read real plans, look at Fred Thompson's site. He has comprehensive action plans to implement his platform. I want to know how Mike intends to return Education to the states, not quotes from articles that it should be "less federal". Reagan had party platform to abolish the Department of Education, and spoke to it long before he was governor of Cali. Paul also has a tax plan for education, as well as closing the Department of Education. But what action will Huckabee take? All he is indicating what he may or may not sign when it comes across his desk as President. Nothing more. Do you have more to provide on this topic? FYI, Paul is endorsed by homeschoolers, including the legendary Virginia Baker. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/homeschoolers/endorsements/ Of course, you collect hundreds of posts by gworld and AGS, but you can't even post where you rebutted the claims by one of the foremost foundations on fiscal conservatism. More Ad Hominem attacks, and besides the weak defense of mounted for Education, which has turned out to be nothing more than opinion, we're still waiting for clarity on Mike Huckabee's positions. Are they conservative, or are they liberal? I'm not frustrated. I'm loving watching you defend your candidate, testing to see if you have done the research, and have a zeal and passion that matches my own.
Unfortunately for Huckabee, this is going to be his Dukakis swift boat moment the minute Romney or Giuliani gets desperate.
I think you missed my point. Absolutely everybody has skeletons in their closets, I was just intending to poke fun at something that I just happened to see on Digg shortly before seeing this thread. Also, my main point in supporting Ron Paul had nothing to do with Huckabee, but it was just because he was interesting to me. As I see it, there are far too many presidential candidates and most of them just seem like more of the same old crap that we've been seeing from both parties for years. There are only 3 candidates that interest me: 1. Barack Obama: He actually has a good chance at winning the Democratic party, and I'd support him. 2. Hillary Clinton: She also has a good chance at the Democratic party but I don't really like her. I just find her interesting. 3. Ron Paul: He doesn't really have a good chance at the Republican party (not yet, as his supporters would say). Nonetheless, I find him extremely interesting. The rest simply don't interest me. Now of course I could do extensive research on each and every candidate to provide myself with complete knowledge of the situation...but I just don't like politics enough to do that. I rather have anarchy anyways...
Barrack Obaman, closet Muslim.. Hillary Clinton, power monger Ron Paul, moonbat... That is just how they come off to me..
That couldn't be the point of your post. Your post made assumptions, false assumptions, which I corrected. When I posted about Huckabee's Education successes, you claimed you didn't mention it. Then claimed you did again. Further, I corrected your falsehoods regarding socialized education, when clearly Mike has stated education should be a state issue. As far as what his plan is, I don't know. I'll take the high road here and not make it up, like some do. I'm held to a higher standard Have you researched? That I continue to correct the misrepresentations clearly shows you have not. I've yet to see his plan. Reagan promised to get rid of it, a newly formed cabinet, but was unable. Saying one is going to abolish it is far different than actually doing it. My point was, that your assumption about socialized education was incorrect and to use Mike's own words to counter the falsehood. To that end, I've achieved the objective. If I did, I would post it. That's nice. RP has a lot of endorsements. This is the first one I've seen that wasn't from a "nefarious" group of white supremacists, neonazis or anti-semites. A step up, congratulations! However, Huckabee has experience with education. RP has no experience. He's never achieved anything or passed any legislation. Huckabee has an impressive record on education. Try as you may, there simply is no comparison for RP. RP has no record. I'm surprised, knowing full well you participated in this very discussion earlier today, when I posted credible sources to counter such. I guess it's all you have left? Really poor on the credibility meter. Yes, you have made a lot of ad hominem attacks on Huckabee. I've been very fortunate to have countered the falsehoods with facts. I'm not frustrated either. I'm actually stunned at the level of dishonesty. I hold myself to a higher standard.
Where? First, I have been holding back on socialized education. I'll drop that bomb later in this discussion, I don't feel you have completely over-extended yourself yet. Second, isn't his plan important? Shouldn't an expert with a long track record on education have a plan if he is running for President? The Dems have healthcare plans. Republicans have fiscal plans. Where is Mike's plan on his strongest position? I noticed you didn't counter me on social healthcare either. But we'll digest that tasty morsel later. Reagan promised to get rid of it because it was party platform, and he campaigned for it for almost 20 years. Reagan was a man of convictions not compromises. I don't have time to promote all of his endorsements. Unlike Huckabee, who rushes Chuck Norris into an advertisement, Paul doesn't over promote his endorsements or call large press conferences. He doesn't bring his celebrity endorsers to his debate appearances for the cameras. Many of them, are just ordinary Americans with an extra-ordinary record for public service or civilian oversight. Paul has never passed any legislation? Oh really? Hahaha. That's funny. Paul has a 30 year record in Congress as a Constitutionalist, a voting record that is unmatched by any other politician in history. And yet link happy GTech won't post the link. I read hundreds of posts on a dozen forums daily. I'm sure the Club for Growth and Cato Institute would like to know how they have been debunked. By all means, post it again and I will forward it to them for scrutiny. You are one poster who should never be stunned at dishonesty. Your reputation on this forum speaks for itself. This high standard must be a new thing, maybe the holiness of Huckabee is rubbing off on you.
Here and here. Of course, you know this, as you participated, but I'm always happy to correct your dishonesty. Obviously I don't have time to counter all of the Club for Greed's false attacks, but feel free to forward them. No surprise that you support them though. No, you've been confused about what you have and have not said. I'm keeping you in check. Who says he doesn't have a plan? He has experience with education. Your candidate doesn't. No need to save the dishonesty for later, let's do it now. Here are Mike's positions on healthcare. Subjective. Has no bearing. Do you feel your candidate has a better position? He has no experience on the issue, no history, no accomplishment. Dismantling America is not a solution. If I were RP, I wouldn't be too ready to rush out the likes of alex jones and david duke either. Never passed any meaningful legislation. I don't believe it's funny though, it's really pretty sad. He has no record. He has a record of doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, no leadership. Nothing. Posted it above. Again, you were there in the discussion. You should explain this latest level of dishonesty on your part. I doubt you will though. You are correct here too. I should not be stunned at your level of dishonesty. My reputation does speak for itself. As does yours