Posted on 12/12/2007 8:23:32 AM PST by jodiluvshoes
Where did you find the article? It will not be published until this Sunday. Is it on the web somewhere?
The President of the United States of America? The Commander in Chief?
That we have men in TWO WAR THEATERS right now?
Unfortunately, these are not "social" things he's concerned with or conservative about.
Trent Lott, Harry Truman, and tens of millions of Americans are part of baptistic type denominations....(those that practice “believer’s only baptism”)
They are conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, white, black, short, tall, .....
James Dobson started it with his comments about FDT not being a Christian. It’s gone downhill from there.
Huckster is trolling for votes among bigots. There are even worse quotes from his supporters to validate that. No apology needed.
>>We don’t need to be calling candidates names - we can address them on the issues and their actions.
I think you got it right in this 2nd post. Call Huckabee on his failed policies. Call him on his religious attacks. Call him on his name calling. But don’t drop to that level.
lol
“A con man commenting on a religion invented by a con man....how ironic.”
Well, then, he should feign ignorance should he. :-)
Yes, I agree with that, however, a good number of "conservative Evangelicals" are conservative on some social issues (abortion), but see government programs like welfare and other social programs as a way of showing compassion to the poor. Remember the first president Falwell help to elect was Jimmy Carter.
Each should be judged individually, but it looks like Huckabee is one of those conservative liberals.
I doubt the majority are real bigots, but good people being told that voting for Huck, instead of the other “sinners” in the race, will be moral, principled, and good for the soul, so to speak.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?hp
It’s in today’s NYT. They say it’s a preview of the article for Sunday, but the part about Mormonism is in there.
Any Republican who bashes Mormons is a fool. Mormons are the most loyal Republican voters. If no Mormons existed, then NV and AZ would be as Blue as California. Ironicly while white Evangelicals and Mormons disagree on theology, they share the same political concerns. White Evangelicals have more in common politically with Mormons than with Black Evangelicals.
Huckabee is a liberal on every issue other than abortion and gay rights, which are two issues he won’t be able to do a damn thing about if he’s elected President anyway.
That our men with boots on the ground were most important, but I was wrong.
An interview with Huckabee: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VZad4M8-EcsJ:www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/huckabee.php+democratic+legislature+of+Arkansas+and+Mike+Huckabee&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
John Hawkins: Now, a related question on taxes… According to your bio, you “pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history.” On the other hand, let me ask you about this. The Club for Growth blog noted several tax raises that you had during your time in and they said, “Huckabee signed a 3-cent gas tax increase in 1999. He called for a state sales tax hike in 2002. He signed a 25-cent cigarette tax hike in 2003. He allowed a major tax hike package to pass in 2004.” So, where do you stand on taxes on the national level? Are there any taxes you think need to be cut? Any you think need to be raised? What do you think about that?
Mike Huckabee: Well, The Club for Growth, in a typical fashion, acts more like a talk show host than they do a serious seeker of facts and they have a lot of nice tools that they use for their own fund raising mechanism to show that they’re champions of conservatism, but I find their message sometimes appalling. For example, one of the taxes they claimed that I had supported, I — in fact — didn’t sign. I don’t have much of a veto power in Arkansas.
John Hawkins: So that would be the 2004 package?
Mike Huckabee: Right, and that was the one where I felt like the legislature...we were under a court order to increase funding for education - and, you know, I would have been willing to see us put more money - but not if we didn’t have efficiency and accountability in how the money was spent. Well, the legislature basically put money, but they didn’t put a level of efficiency - and I refused to sign it - and what happens is, in Arkansas that will become law after 5 days without my signature.
The reason I didn’t veto the bill is because there already were far more than enough votes to override the veto because a simple majority overrides any veto. Even if the bill required 75 votes to pass, 51 votes would actually override the veto. There’s no point. I’ve only vetoed a few pieces of legislation in 10 years, most of which were because of they were unconstitutional and I had a clear reason to withhold them.
Interestingly with an overwhelming Democrat legislature. I’ve vetoed bills that were unconstitutional and they overrode the veto. I vetoed a couple of bills in 1997 because not only did I think they were unconstitutional, but I said they were a complete fraud of taxpayer money. They went ahead and overrode the vetoes and the net result was that within 2 years there were about 4 state senators either indicted and/or convicted and jailed as a result of that legislation. But, they still overrode the vetoes in spite of that.
So there was another tax increase I think that they tried to hit me up for; it was a surcharge on income tax. I did not support it and I did not sign it. It was later repealed, which I did sign the repeal. The gas tax was put to a vote of the people because it was for a road program - to do a bonded road program. We had some of the worst roads in the nation. The people voted on it by an 80% margin. I make no apology for fixing our roads because during our road program, again, the people overwhelmingly supported that and they had a chance to vote on it and the result was we created 40,000 jobs at a time when the nation was in recession and we re-built our highway system and it was very, very helpful to us and to our economy.
Thanks.
Seems fairly benign to me. Maybe not savvy to have taken the bait, but not untrue either, according to many statements made by Mormons here and elsewhere.
I think there are better digs to make if that was his goal.
Still, all in all, it was one statement in an entire article.
Hmmmmm...you mean like some FReepers' setting their own bar on a candidate's conservative purity in order to fit their small-minded views?
Isn't the GOP a pluralistic political party too? Or, is it only for the far RIGHT?
Get REAL...we can't win elections by ourselves. And as the creep toward socialism picks up steam, we can't take the time to make protest statements with our ballots.
Whether Huckabee's in the midst of his 15 minutes or not remains to be seen, but I get seconds of mirth watching Malkin et al, get incensed over Gilchrist's endorsment.
He’s romney’s spokes-concubine, best I can tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.