Posted on 12/30/2007 12:02:17 PM PST by wastedpotential
--Huckbee would not Veto the S-Chip bill that Bush vetoed. Neither would McCain.
Huckabee still supports his illegal alien scholarship program. McCain is the King of Shamnesty and voted to give the illegals social security benefits.
-- Huckabee is in favor of mandatory greenhouse gas caps. So is McCain. Did you see the McCain-Leiberman global warming bill? Very Kyotoesque.
-- Huck was the weakest of all the candidates on illegal aliens (except shamnesty McCain), calling law and order GOPers racists and demagogues.
-- Huck now wants to close Gitmo and outlaw waterboarding. McCain too.
-- Huck has the highest pardon/commutation numbers for criminals, probably in the history of the country. McCain didn't get a chance to do all that, but he wants to protect terrorists from harsh interrogations.
-- Huck got an F from the CATO institute, McCain got a C+ from the NRA.
In other words, Huck and McCain are not really conservatives at all. And I am suspect of any who partner with them.
Hunter and Romney have the most conservative platforms which align with the GOP platform. Romney is leading or tied in several states and Hunter is at 1 or 2% in most places. A Romney/Hunter ticket would be nice.
Is this true? It seems to be a universal belief, but it also seems to be a pandora's box of possible abuses. Why do we believe this is so? It certainly isn't constitutional. In fact the congress seems to be more involved with the military than the executive concerning the military.
And what does it mean exactly? Couldn't any employee of the federal government apply that role to his position.
Would anyone care to address this? It seems like a stupid question, but I really am uncomfortable with this formulation.
If you believe that is what Huckabee supporters think, I suggest it is not they who are comparatively ignorant.
Romney’s platform is conservative today, but will it be tomorrow? Or to paraphrase Gov. Romney:
“I saw a liberal governor march with conservatives in Iowa and NH to get the nomination, only to go back to his liberal ways once nominated.”
Watch out for that platform, as it is probably sand shifting beneath your feet.
Why not Huckabee? He has fewer flaws than Romney and McCain.
I actually disagree. Here in my state, we vote on property tax levys for school funding all the time. If we passed no levys, there would be no funding for public schools, fire departments etc ...
Here’s the way that folks in Massachussetts get their road funding (like, say, the Big Dig project in Boston). Earmark some pork spending and hide it in a 3000 page omnibus spending bill.
If you don’t vote for Mike, You hate Jesus!!!
That's rhetorical, I'm sure. There's no such thing as a flawless man (or woman) and even if there was, it could be your flaws that failed to let you see it.
By flawless, most people mean someone who agrees with them 100% of the time. I don't think you could find a very large group of people who agreed 100%. I'm happy to go with the candidate who agrees with most of my positions and also (important this year) has the skills to get his way more often than not. It's the closest I'll find to "perfection".
That is a very well thought out commentary on this interview. What in this interview makes you think that is the stance of Gov. Huckabee?
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
____________________________________________________
I am loathe to argue with a Huckabee supporter. I will say that Mr. Huckabee has an excellent stance that has not changed over the years on abortion; but, I disagree with him on his illegal immigration ideas, his isolationist head in the sand ideas on national security and taxes.
Our federal government is not our savior. We have laws, they should be enforced. The 10th amendment has been forgotten and Mr. Huckabee hasen’t a clue about federalism. Yes he was a state governor and he grabbed as many federal dollars as he could and still raised taxes but only for important things. Well, what if he thinks something is important that I don’t think is important.
It is wonderful that Mr. Huckabee is a born again Christian but it is not wonderful that he wears it on his sleeve. I believe that by their works you will know them and Mr. Huckabees works are liberal. I understand that there are many who like liberals, I underatand that but I don’t have to like it or support someone who has that philosophy of life. Happy New Year :)
Duncan Hunter is the only chance conservatives have.
Imagine what the USA will look like in the next ten years if the conservatives miss this boat.
Done, finito
I don’t argue with folks, I am genuinely interested in understanding why people think Huck is a socialist. I believe that there are things that state and local governments are tasked with doing - like building roads and providing education - that the federal government has no business with. The taxation in AR before and after he left did not change much (less than 1/10 of 1 percent) and its overall taxation remains one of the lowest in the country.
Anyway, I like Huckabee, not because he is a pro-life liberal, but because he I believe him to be a true conservative. He is a bit protectionist (not nearly as much as he has been portrayed), but I also believe he has a populist rhetoric combined with a conservative philosophy will play well with the NASCAR crowd in areas crucial to Republican success.
Happy New Year to you too! :)
Hope springs eternal. :-)
The fact that he is the establishment’s candidate does not reassure me much. I believe he ran in 2002 as a pro-choice, typical NE Republican, then began changing his positions on the issues once elected so that he could position himself for a national campaign.
To "provide for the common defense" is one reason given in the Preamble of the Constitution for the establishment of the Constitutional government of the United States taken as a whole. Protecting the country is the "first job" of the whole bunch not just the president.
Just not going to happen.
Won't be a President ROMNEY either.
If Thompson doesn't get the nomination there will be a donkey in the WH next January.
Somehow I believe if the leftist morons had enough sense to nominate Kerry over Howard Dean the GOP will send Huckabee and Romney packing starting with the Southern primaries in a couple of weeks.
Literature from the Romney campaign in 1994 reveals the truth about Romney's conservative positions on the issues in the Senate race. One campaign flyer unearthed from the 1994 race lists a side-by-side comparison of positions held by Romney and Kennedy for 24 election issues. Images of the front and back of the flyer are available on the Web. A closeup of the flyer with the candidate comparison on the issues can be clicked on here: See Campaign Platform in 1994 here.
James Bopp, Jr., a leading constitutional attorney and pro-life advocate, wrote:
"Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute
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.