[El Scorcho]

I'm pulling out of here. Everyone feel free to follow up as you please and have the last word. I just can't keep up the pace and have lost interest. Have fun, though.

[LUconn]

We win!

[TallyW]

Peter Peter Peter...

Calm down buddy. It's okay. I wasn't calling you stupid. I said you were ignorant (lacking information) and you overcompensate ignorance with big words strung together.

Did you notice the rest of my post or were you too busy reading them both to find a tone to compare to a thread "a year ago"... that's funny.

Don't get your feelings hurt so easily.

When you questioned who I was for you set up another logical falicy. We can go with straw man or false dichotomy, take your pick. You assumed I was either grouping Liberty people or Christians into a group with whom Huckabee could win. I wasn't. What I read was you setting up only two options which weren't at all what I said and then you followed that up with "Either way...". When you say "Either way... blah blah blah" you are saying "regardless of which of the two you associated with "our", I want to crush your thought of a Huckabee win with everything I'm about to say." Meaning, it doesn't really matter who you referred to as being supporters. It does matter. It shows that you missed a very obvious point (the thread was full of people with favorable opinions of Huckabee).

The fact that you misrepresented me on something so silly and then followed it up with a monologue reminesant of Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football it gave me the sense that you had little to say but you used a lot of words to say it. So yes I did mention that you appeared to be lacking in understanding. Don't be biter. Be better.

Do you talk the way you write?

Now, lest there is an attempt to pigeon-hole me, by that I don't mean they have to agree with any candidate that I end up favoring, but it does suggest that a more rigorous rubric, mental exercise and intellectual critique to disqualify a candidate from one's short list should be utilized other than, "I don't like some of the people who support Candidate X, therefore I shall not vote for him."

If you talk this way in person at lunch then I apologize. If you're doing that for the sake of a FlameFans.com post, I stand by my earlier post.

[TDDance234]

I think it's a pretty good bet, you're going to see a Huckabee/Paul ticket coming soon.

You're not going to see Romney and Guiliani digging at Huckabee because a) there is nothing to dig and 2) they are both eyeing Huckabee as a running-mate and won't jeapordize their standing with him. Meanwhile, the two of them are pounding at each other--neither one of them advancing on their campaign one bit. Paul would give Huckabee enough of the independent/moderate vote than any other running mate currently in the picture.

It's a no brainer.

[PeterParker]

Peter Peter Peter...

Calm down buddy. It's okay. I wasn't calling you stupid. I said you were ignorant (lacking information) and you overcompensate ignorance with big words strung together.

Did you notice the rest of my post or were you too busy reading them both to find a tone to compare to a thread "a year ago"... that's funny.

Don't get your feelings hurt so easily.

When you questioned who I was for you set up another logical falicy. We can go with straw man or false dichotomy, take your pick. You assumed I was either grouping Liberty people or Christians into a group with whom Huckabee could win. I wasn't. What I read was you setting up only two options which weren't at all what I said and then you followed that up with "Either way...". When you say "Either way... blah blah blah" you are saying "regardless of which of the two you associated with "our", I want to crush your thought of a Huckabee win with everything I'm about to say." Meaning, it doesn't really matter who you referred to as being supporters. It does matter. It shows that you missed a very obvious point (the thread was full of people with favorable opinions of Huckabee).

The fact that you misrepresented me on something so silly and then followed it up with a monologue reminesant of Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football it gave me the sense that you had little to say but you used a lot of words to say it. So yes I did mention that you appeared to be lacking in understanding. Don't be biter. Be better.

Do you talk the way you write?

Now, lest there is an attempt to pigeon-hole me, by that I don't mean they have to agree with any candidate that I end up favoring, but it does suggest that a more rigorous rubric, mental exercise and intellectual critique to disqualify a candidate from one's short list should be utilized other than, "I don't like some of the people who support Candidate X, therefore I shall not vote for him."

If you talk this way in person at lunch then I apologize. If you're doing that for the sake of a FlameFans.com post, I stand by my earlier post.

Better yet:

[JDUB]

again.. too much to read. but i think a huckabee paul ticket would be a great idea!

[phoenix]

I don't even know where to begin with this. You're citing pirates from Islamic nations in the 1700's as our first encounter with modern terrorism? Really? You honestly think that the current situation in the middle east is the evolution of, or a direct relation to that?

Actually, there are some scholars that trace it further back than that -- all the way to the battle of Lepanto in the 1500s. We forget that the Arabs in general have a cultural memory that goes farther back than anything we've got in the West. They're still bitter about the Crusades, and use them as an example of Western hostility to Islam even today.

[TallyW]

Better yet:

Now that's more like it. Ahhh.... doesn't that sound better?

By the way... for a guy so defensive about ad hominem ... you've gotta love your signature picture.
No... that doesn't prove my point about your attitude at all.

[kel varson]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 6c0a3.html

Nice Op/Ed article on Huckabee.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/po ... m_gop.html

This other article explains that Huckabee won the last debate, contrary to what Fox News is telling us. For some reason Fox doesn't want to give Huckabee any credit. Fox is pretty much the only media outlet saying Romney and Fred Thompson won the last debate.

I guess because Hannity such a big Giuliani Backer. Watching or listenting to Hannity is now impossible. His love fest w/ Giuliani just makes me sick.

[ALUmnus]

I didn't think Huckabee won the debate. And neither did Bill Bennet, who was commentating the post-debate stuff for CNN.

[Knucklehead]

I didn't see the whole debate, but the clips I've seen show why I like Mike. He is very straight forward and honest. He is guided by principals and morals. He comes across SO honestly that most see a man like me or you not a typical stuffed-shirt politician. We are so cursed with vapid, empty, power hungry leaders that noone stands on principal any more. Many in Washington are there for #1 and #1 only. I believe that God is tryly guiding Mike and it is very clear for all to see through his transparent speach. I think America is starting to see that he is the ONLY real person running right now. Do I have a couple of areas where he concerns me, sure. Do I trust him to "Do the right thing", YES!
I think we should get behind a man who says he is allowing God to guide hi through this process and lift him up in prayer EVERY day!

[kel varson]

I didn't think Huckabee won the debate. And neither did Bill Bennet, who was commentating the post-debate stuff for CNN.

On substance you are right, Thompson probably did just as well if not better. However, likeablitly, enthusiasm and the ability to convey his message, that is where Huckabee shines. Giuliani and Romney definitely struggled with a few of the questions.

[Knucklehead]

That is why I disagree with most who say Mike is not electable. I believe he will translate well across parties because some will vote for him just on honesty and likability.

[ALUmnus]

What about Huckabee's stance on immigration?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... 00094/1002

Mr. Huckabee yesterday defended his record, but he said if voters are looking for the toughest guy, he's not their man.
"Is my answer satisfactory to all the Republicans? The answer's 'no.' " he said. "Some people want me to be a lot harsher. I think my answer is the honest and the right one."

He pretty much tries to portray everyone who wants to be strict on illegal immigrants as hatemongers. Sounds like a democrat to me.

[ToTheLeft]

Sounds like a politician to me.

Fixed.

That's life in politics. Politicians will try and make other candidates look bad, and over-zealous supporters will feed the lies and exaggerations.

Just like you did with that post.

That's life in politics, you do it too, so hop off of the high and mighty horse and come back down to Earth.

I have no idea which candidate you support, i read this thread sparingly, but I am sure he has made a similar move, so i can safely say you support someone who reeks of "Democrat", as you put it, as well.

Perspective.

[TallyW]

ALUmnus:

Bennett wasn't watching the same debate. In his analysis he said "Romney went all in as you say in Texas Hold 'Em. Whether it was the BIBLE, Abortion, Guns..."

If Bill Bennet thought Romney went All-In with these questions, he's watching a different debate.

Guns- His answer was just silly. Watch the clip. He says that his son owns two and then the question moves on and he adds "He buys expensive things for me." I have no clue what his point was.

Cooper: Is there anyone here besides Senator McCain who does not own a gun? Mayor Giuliani? Governor Romney?

Romney: I have two guns in my home. They are owned by my son Josh.

Cooper: All right, there you have it.

We have another question on a similar topic.

Romney: He buys expensive things for me.

On the Bible:

Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try...

(Applause)

... I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.

Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?

Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.

The hesitation and facial expressions don't come across in the transcript and certain his answer was EXTREMELY calculated. You guys all know that the bible is secondary to the Book of Mormon for LDS members.

This is where I do think it's fair to consider his Mormon faith. Not simply on the basis of it not being a true Christian denomination as the media is portraying it.... but because he's purposefully allowing this distinction to go unnoticed. He's perfectly fine with trying to convince the world that his entire faith is something that its not.

Some compare this to JFK when the country was worried that his Catholicism would be an issue. JFK came out and basically said "yeah, I'm Catholic but I'm not taking orders from the Pope." But Romney comes out and splits hairs in one word after another to convince America that Mormonism is simply a denomination like methodist or presbyterian or baptist. He knows it's not. To me this is a HUGE red flag. I don't care if he's a Mormon... apart from I think it's a cult... I'm not concerned with his being Mormon or Jewish or even Muslim... I'm concerned about a guy who's willing to compromise even his faith on the campaign trail. Come out and tell us that you're a Mormon. Tell us that it's not Christianity.

When he uses a phrase like " I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word" he knows that he's using a calculated phrase that can be taken both ways (for protestants to feel he's one of them and for Mormons to feel he's being a good Mormon).


On Abortion he came out and said he was wrong and changed his mind...

On gays in the military he said about his position in 1994 "it was a different time then". What was different? We were in peace time. But it was in peace time that he wanted to push forward a different agenda which the military would have in place during times of war. Now today he says that because we're in war that his old position wouldn't work today. In 1994 did Romney think we'd never again go to war? Did he believe we'd just have a peace-time army so it didn't matter that he supported policies which today he argues would hurt morale among the troops?

For Bennet to say that Romney went all in on these issues is a joke.

[TallyW]

What about Huckabee's stance on immigration?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... 00094/1002

Mr. Huckabee yesterday defended his record, but he said if voters are looking for the toughest guy, he's not their man.
"Is my answer satisfactory to all the Republicans? The answer's 'no.' " he said. "Some people want me to be a lot harsher. I think my answer is the honest and the right one."

He pretty much tries to portray everyone who wants to be strict on illegal immigrants as hatemongers. Sounds like a democrat to me.

This was the one issue that took me a VERY long time to become comfortable with Huckabee on.

He's not portraying people who are strict as being hatemongers. I didn't see a word in anything he said that would lead me remotely close to believing he's portraying others as anything.

What he is portraying is his view that deporting 12 million illegals and their children isn't going to realistically happen. He's portraying a position that seems the most workable solution.

If this is an issue for you please visit his video on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjSQpNZYu1E

As we consider what to do here I'd say you'd agree with everything Huckabee says except on the people already here. This is the biggest issue I had to ponder before going with Huckabee. Where I came down on it was that I don't honestly believe in my heart that we can actually deport 12 million people, especially in the next 4 years. Unless we turned to some sort of national policy turning our citizens on each other... I can't see it actually happening. Even if we did we would have racial profiling like you've never seen before. Imagine the level of harassment for our citizens who are here legally. From the Oval office he can do a lot more to clean up this mess than launch minute-man campaigns around the country.

So for me while I would like to say that it would be easy or even realistic to deport 12 million people, I think his solution goes to the border first. If he can build stronger borders and deal with those who are already here on a case by case basis... I'll be pleased on this issue.

If the borders are the issue that would keep you from voting Huckabee... there is always Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter Of course Tancredo's scare tactics about the border would be eased if Huckabee is President and he strengthens the border like he proposes. The issues of what to do with those already here is where you'll see some differences.

Tom: http://teamtancredo.org/
Duncan: http://www.gohunter08.com/

[ALUmnus]

Personally, I trust Bill Bennett's analysis over most in this arena, and the point I was making was that not everyone in the media was giving Huckabee a free pass in this debate. I believe Huckabee to be a pushover, not a leader. Based on the way he governed, his liberal answers in the PBS debate, and his applause-meter answers in many of the other debates, I don't trust him on some issues, including immigration.

"Unfortunately, instead of being angry at the federal government for totally failing us in this, they sometimes get angry at the people themselves," he said.

"Our country is better than that, to punish children for what their parents did in breaking the law. If that costs me the election, it costs me the election, but somewhere along the line we cannot just pander to the anger and hostility without challenging it," he said.

To me, lines like that infer that those who want to be tough on immigration are hateful and mean. And it has little to do with deportation, and more to do with actually accomodating illegals.

Totheleft, nice try, but I'm not an overzelous supporter of anyone. As most can see, many of the candidates are still adding to their platforms, so deciding on one now is a bit premature, especially since my primary is not for a few more months. This thread is about Huckabee, so I was bringing to light some opposing viewpoints regarding his mindset and stance on an issue. And no, no one I support will "reek of Democrat", but it's probably safe to say you're not sure what Democrat exactly means. I don't have a life in politics, I follow it, but don't submit myself to it, and won't push "my" or any certain candidate on someone, I just try to inform people about the person they seem to be supporting.

[TallyW]

ALUMNUS says: "I don't have a life in politics, I follow it, but don't submit myself to it, and won't push "my" or any certain candidate on someone, I just try to inform people about the person they seem to be supporting."

You won't pick a candidate yourself, you just want to "inform" those who are supporting a candidate. Okay.

As far as candidates forming policy right now I guess I don't see it that way. Thats the point of knowing about the candidate and their past actions. Making a decision on the person over policy is more important. The policies get changed based on current events and opposition in congress. We elect people not policies.


What's funny about Huckabee is that the more people attack him as a liberal the more he continues to gain support. Christian conservatives who like him like him because of his social stances. Independants like his common sense approach to the same issues that folks call him "liberal" on. Electability? Keep calling him a liberal and he's going to look better and better. It also helps with some folks out there who may have a problem with his being a former Pastor. He's moved into 2nd nationally and over the last 30 days in Iowa he's moved from 12% to 29%. No other canidate has as much momentum right now. Romney is going to address his mormon faith this week. That will be interesting. As more Americans see him in the coming weeks I'm looking forward to him eating into Giulliani's numbers.

[ATrain]

I don't like anybody running (Republican or Democrat). I'm writing myself in...as A-Train, no less (such things get mentioned in the local paper back in the outskirts of Farmville).

[ALUmnus]

Tally, I usually agree with most things you post, but when you disagree with someone even in the lightest, you just keep going at them. Learn how to pick your fights, you're going to find yourself with no friends sooner or later. There's nothing wrong with what I said, yet you try to construe it as some type of fallacy. Your fervor for Huckabee is starting to come off like a Paul supporter.

[kel varson]

You're already starting to see this from the media and as Huckabee's popularity soars it going to get worse. I'm talking about something Rush Limbaugh pointed out yesterday and it will be something Huckabee will have to overcome. That is the fact that liberals are going to want to pain Huckabee as the next GW. His policies and Faith stance is more like GW than any of the other candidates. Libs are going to push this point hard if Huckabee gets the nod.

I mentioned that I am alread seeing this. On Hardball yesterday while one of the commentators criticized everyone for even brining religion into the picture, she later mentioned that Huckabee being in the white house would be awful. Basically insinuating that he would be a Bible thumping wacko.

[FlameDad]

Your fervor for Huckabee is starting to come off like a Paul supporter.

[Rocketfan]

Chuck Norris is a certified Web sensation. Widely circulated facts about his accomplishments, strength, and energy have elevated him to a level of popularity seldom seen by actors pushing 70. But can Norris's fabled powers impact the leader of the free world?

The actor who kicked copious butt on "Walker, Texas Ranger" is now attempting to bench press a presidential candidate from obscurity to front-runner with his endorsement of Mike Huckabee. Searches on Norris are up 10% over the past week, but more importantly, lookups on "mike huckabee chuck norris" are up a whopping 457%.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/80798/chu ... werful-man

[LUconn]

http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Sate ... 7780&path=

Critics question Falwell Jr.'s Huckabee endorsement


By Christa Desrets
cdesrets@newsadvance.com
December 4, 2007



Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee speaks to the student body at Liberty University on Nov. 28. Jerry Falwell, Jr., left, has personally endorsed Huckabee. Photo by Jill Nance
Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr.’s recent endorsement of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is under scrutiny by a Washington-based group that says the endorsement was a violation of federal tax laws.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Tuesday sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service asking that it investigate the matter. Falwell said that the complaint was “unfounded.”

What a pathetic organization. Making a living off of checking up on non-profits to see what they're up to. Wish I had thought of it.