Huckabee Gaining in the Polls

[vrblackwell]

Huckabee for President!!!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[TRFrance]

Realistically , he has 2 chances: Slim and none.

Might be a nice guy, but I dont think he''ll go far.

Its probably gonna be Rudy vs Hillary 2008.

[scotty]

Thats really the sad truth, He is best in the Republican field but I don't think he will beat Hillary, and thats what conservatives are looking at is who can beat Hillary. Unfortunatly none of them can. Hillary will win.

[Ferd]

Many conservitives are now suggesting that Hukabee isnt really all that conservitive on fiscal issues. his one chip is as an abortion conservitive. (I heard this yesterday.)

this bugs me because I have kind of turned toward Huckabee in the last few weeks.

[scotty]

He believes abortion is a state issue, not something the Federal Gov. should be involved in. I've had him for Governor for 8 years , anything you wanna know just ask. He is not the ideal "perfect" choice but who is.

[Thad]

He believes abortion is a state issue, not something the Federal Gov. should be involved in. I've had him for Governor for 8 years , anything you wanna know just ask. He is not the ideal "perfect" choice but who is.



I heard he use to be a Baptist preacher ?????

[scotty]

Yup, like I said he's not perfect :blink

But would you rather have a mormon?
After all, if you ask them they are all "Christians"

[Ferd]

I am not going to vote for Romney in the primary. that is 100% but what is wrong with a President being Morman.

can someone explain that?

[pelathais]

Yup, like I said he's not perfect :blink

But would you rather have a mormon?
After all, if you ask them they are all "Christians"
I know Apostolics who refuse to be called "Christian." They feel that it's a repugnant term.

[Thad]

I know Apostolics who refuse to be called "Christian." They feel that it's a repugnant term.


really?? never heard that before

it's biblical isn't it?

why would it be repugnant? because it lumps us in w/all others?

[Thad]

I heard he use to be a Baptist preacher ?????



* * * BUMP * * *

[scotty]

I am not going to vote for Romney in the primary. that is 100% but what is wrong with a President being Morman.

can someone explain that?

Well for one their health care plan stinks!

:heeheehee

[Thad]

FERD, Since Scott is Ignoring my Question I'll ask you:

Is it true that huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister ?

[scotty]

FERD, Since Scott is Ignoring my Question I'll ask you:

Is it true that huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister ?

uuuuuuuu........like waaaaaaay back at post #7 ??

Sorry ,,, Yup ...is southern for yes

[Ferd]

FERD, Since Scott is Ignoring my Question I'll ask you:

Is it true that huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister ?

Scotty answered you. yes he was a SB Minister.

[Thad]

Scotty answered you. yes he was a SB Minister.


Thanks FERD

if he did i didn't see it

[scotty]

are my post not showing up ?

[Thad]

Yup, like I said he's not perfect :blink

But would you rather have a mormon?
After all, if you ask them they are all "Christians"


scott, you said Yup, he's not perfect, not "yup he's a bapt min.
i thought you was answering someone else
okay, we got it straight

yes, i'd rather have a Baptist over a morman but i'm still voting democratic :tease

[scotty]

lol....that's cool, My prediction is Hillary will win regardless, it's pretty much a given.

[Thad]

lol....that's cool, My prediction is Hillary will win regardless, it's pretty much a given.


She will and let's face it, Obama will likely be on the ticket too.


love you FERD

[scotty]

oh well sure, why not, first woman and first African-American, I would go for it too.

[scotty]

And he is still rising. Go Huckster!! You know why he won't win?!?!? Because he is too nice and he tells the truth. Everyone knows that a person who is honest and good can never make it as a politician.

[Twisp]

There was an article yesterday about him on Yahoo.

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/huckabee_record)

[crazy4jesus08]

Realistically , he has 2 chances: Slim and none.

Might be a nice guy, but I dont think he''ll go far.

Its probably gonna be Rudy vs Hillary 2008.

Yes. That is extremely likely. If you ask me I don't think any of the republicans are qualified for presidency.

[Ferd]

Yes. That is extremely likely. If you ask me I don't think any of the republicans are qualified for presidency.

when you say they arent "qualified" are you speaking of resume or positions on the issues?

[crakjak]

scott, you said Yup, he's not perfect, not "yup he's a bapt min.
i thought you was answering someone else
okay, we got it straight

yes, i'd rather have a Baptist over a morman but i'm still voting democratic :tease


Now we understand, Thad you are messed up politically!!:tease:tease Hillary? and Hussan? Wow, give me the Morman.

[scotty]

Well if none of the republicans are qualified then you won't be voting at all I guess?? Cause if your standards are that high then ain't no democrat qualified either.

[Ferd]

Well if none of the republicans are qualified then you won't be voting at all I guess?? Cause if your standards are that high then ain't no democrat qualified either.

This is a very interesting delma.

On the Republican side, the top 3 candidates are very qualified to be president, if one simply looks at their resumes. However, none of them really appeal polictally to the republican base.

on the other side, the top 3 democrats are clearly NOT qualified to be president if you are looking at their resumes however, all three play well to the democtrat base.

for the repbulicans, Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee all have executive experience, and are seasoned politicains. However, all three have something that causes mainstream conservitives to not trust them.

for the Dems, the qualified candiates are Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. Neither of these guys have a chance of getting the Dem nomination.

it is a wacky election cycle.

[Michael The Disciple]

I know Apostolics who refuse to be called "Christian." They feel that it's a repugnant term.

No such thing as "apostolics" in scripture.

[scotty]

Unfortunatly it will come down to who has the most money. Simply put, no one will be able to raise the kind of money that China is donating to Hillary. How many people is the count up to now that donated the maximum but can't be found now.?

whats the issue with Huckster that mainstream is having a problem with.

[Ferd]

Unfortunatly it will come down to who has the most money. Simply put, no one will be able to raise the kind of money that China is donating to Hillary. How many people is the count up to now that donated the maximum but can't be found now.?

whats the issue with Huckster that mainstream is having a problem with.

Money may or may not carry the day. Romeny has more than anyone on the R side and he is getting beat by a broke arkansas governor.

Huckabee as Governor, raised taxes several times and worked to give illegals, legal ID cards.

On Abortion, he is the only really solid Pro-Life candidate.

[dizzyde]

Has anyone seen this? I don't know much about the man, but this was very impressive to me, it's not every day when you see a politician refuse to duck a polarizing issue. FYI, my political affiliation is smack-dab in the middle of "I don't have a clue." I'm a recovering republican.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

[Ferd]

Has anyone seen this? I don't know much about the man, but this was very impressive to me, it's not every day when you see a politician refuse to duck a polarizing issue. FYI, my political affiliation is smack-dab in the middle of "I don't have a clue." I'm a recovering republican.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

I cant get to youtube from work. who is it?

i am sorry you feel the need to recover from being one of the good guys.

[dizzyde]

I cant get to youtube from work. who is it?

i am sorry you feel the need to recover from being one of the good guys.

It is Huckabee regarding creation and evolution. I should say I am recovering from politics in general. Color me EXTREMELY disillusioned.

[stmatthew]

I am not sure I will even vote this time around, as none of them have won my vote yet.

[pelathais]

Has anyone seen this? I don't know much about the man, but this was very impressive to me, it's not every day when you see a politician refuse to duck a polarizing issue. FYI, my political affiliation is smack-dab in the middle of "I don't have a clue." I'm a recovering republican.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

He does duck Blitzer's follow up about the 6 day creation. He sounded sincere but I would feel more comfortable with a president who understood the natural world and didn't say things like, "I don't know... I wasn't there..."

We know he wasn't there, but did he show up for geology or biology classes in college?

[scotty]

Money may or may not carry the day. Romeny has more than anyone on the R side and he is getting beat by a broke arkansas governor.

Huckabee as Governor, raised taxes several times and worked to give illegals, legal ID cards.

On Abortion, he is the only really solid Pro-Life candidate.

Yes he did raise taxes on retail items, but lowered taxes on income.
That is his overall tax plan, to lower your wage taxes way down and just have a set tax on retail items. You get to keep all of your paycheck and just pay taxes when you purchase something. Wonder how well it works?
We are enjoying a 1.3 billion dollar surplus. Of course we have a Democrat for governor now so that will be gone in a year or so.

As for the creation question I thought that was kind of dumb really. What does his views on creation have to do with his political ability to be president? How come nobody asked Hillary what she believed concerning creation? Guess Gore created everything right before he created the internet. I Blitzer was asking a religious or moral question in a political setting just to put him on the spot. Here is a thought, lets ask Hillary how she feels concerning lying and cheating or adultry.

[Titus2Mom]

One small comment...has there ever been an APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL President?

What difference does the denomination make? False doctrine is false doctrine. They are being elected to run our NATION not our church.

What does their record say, and do they know the difference between STATE jurisdiction and FEDERAL jurisdiction, and have they ever even READ the CONSTITUTION?

Or will they hire people like this:

On Oct. 23, Donald Kerr, deputy director of the Office of National Intelligence, outlined the new order of things: "Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it's an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture." Well, yes, the Bill of Rights, for instance, includes protections against "search," as well as "seizure." But that was then. As Kerr put it, "In our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity - or the appearance of anonymity - is quickly becoming a thing of the past."

[Titus2Mom]

On Abortion, he is the only really solid Pro-Life candidate.

I would disagree. Ron Paul has been an Obstetrician, delivered thousands of babies, and is staunchly against abortion. But he knows the difference between State and Federal Law and who has jurisdiction where. A President does not have the authority to make abortion illegal nationally. As EVIL as it is, the STATE's are the ones that need to stop it, not the Feds.

Candidates can make all the statements and promises they want, but in the long run, do they actually have the ability to keep them legally?

[Ferd]

I would disagree. Ron Paul has been an Obstetrician, delivered thousands of babies, and is staunchly against abortion. But he knows the difference between State and Federal Law and who has jurisdiction where. A President does not have the authority to make abortion illegal nationally. As EVIL as it is, the STATE's are the ones that need to stop it, not the Feds.

Candidates can make all the statements and promises they want, but in the long run, do they actually have the ability to keep them legally?

well, as prolife as RP is, I dont consider him a Republican running for president. He is a Liberatarian running for president and he and I have the same chance of getting elected...(thank God.)

[Ferd]

Yes he did raise taxes on retail items, but lowered taxes on income.
That is his overall tax plan, to lower your wage taxes way down and just have a set tax on retail items. You get to keep all of your paycheck and just pay taxes when you purchase something. Wonder how well it works?
We are enjoying a 1.3 billion dollar surplus. Of course we have a Democrat for governor now so that will be gone in a year or so.

As for the creation question I thought that was kind of dumb really. What does his views on creation have to do with his political ability to be president? How come nobody asked Hillary what she believed concerning creation? Guess Gore created everything right before he created the internet. I Blitzer was asking a religious or moral question in a political setting just to put him on the spot. Here is a thought, lets ask Hillary how she feels concerning lying and cheating or adultry.

My friend Pressing On posted his on GNC yesterday. very interesting and helps me lean more towards Mike H even more.


Mike Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Wednesday, November 28, 2007

As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record. As his political consultant in the ea rly ’90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.

A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47 percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.

In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.

Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn’t need it any longer.

He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.

And he can win in Iowa.



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/D...l_conservative

[Titus2Mom]

well, as prolife as RP is, I dont consider him a Republican running for president. He is a Liberatarian running for president and he and I have the same chance of getting elected...(thank God.)

I'm still not going to support anyone I disagree with, no matter what their "chances" are. As I stated in another thread, I view my vote as my personal endorsement, and will not give it to anyone that I don't feel has earned it. No matter how "popular" they are.

[Ferd]

I'm still not going to support anyone I disagree with, no matter what their "chances" are. As I stated in another thread, I view my vote as my personal endorsement, and will not give it to anyone that I don't feel has earned it. No matter how "popular" they are.

I think that is a great way of looking at it.


2 things though, loosing on principle is still a loss (and a loss means another 3 Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the supreme court) and Ron Paul's view of the constitution is without context.

[scotty]

I'm still not going to support anyone I disagree with, no matter what their "chances" are. As I stated in another thread, I view my vote as my personal endorsement, and will not give it to anyone that I don't feel has earned it. No matter how "popular" they are.

2 things though, loosing on principle is still a loss (and a loss means another 3 Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the supreme court) and Ron Paul's view of the constitution is without context.

Ferd is right, what good is a prolife President if he appoints moderate judges to the bench that overturn what you believe? Thats the thing about politics, you can't look at the person, you have to look at the big picture.

[Falla39]

Huckabee in 2nd Place in GOP Race


http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/december/1207_huckabee_2nd1.shtml

[Twisp]

I think that once the Dumond case starts making national headlines and the other candidates start picking up on it, Huckabee is going to be dead in the water. There's been a few articles and reports on it so far, but nothing like there will be closer to the primaries.

[vrblackwell]

Money may or may not carry the day. Romeny has more than anyone on the R side and he is getting beat by a broke arkansas governor.

Huckabee as Governor, raised taxes several times and worked to give illegals, legal ID cards.
On Abortion, he is the only really solid Pro-Life candidate.

In the time that Huckabee served as Governor taxes went up less then a penny. In fact, taxes in the state of Arkansas was much lower across the board when he left than when he came. As far as I;D cards for illegals, this is the first I have heard of this and I have been following Huckabee for awhile as well as politics.


If you want to know about Huckabee read below. He was in fact one of the best Governors ever to serve.


Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas is recognized as a national leader in the areas of education reform and health care reform. Huckabee is the chairman of the Education Commission of the States, a highly respected education policy organization. He will lead the ECS until July 2006. The ECS helps governors, legislators, state education officials and others identify, develop and implement public policies to improve student learning at all levels. The organization, which is based in Denver, was formed in 1965.

Arkansas' ACTAAP system is widely hailed as one of the nation's best school accountability programs. Huckabee has pushed through reforms in Arkansas that have significantly expanded the availability of college scholarships, increased the number of charter schools and established new approaches to workforce education. His Smart Start initiative placed a heavy emphasis on reading and mathematics for students from kindergarten through the fourth grade. He then created Smart Step, a similar emphasis for students from the fifth through the eighth grades. Student scores on standardized tests have risen steadily since the creation of Smart Start and Smart Step.

Huckabee became governor in July 1996 when his predecessor resigned. He was one of the youngest governors in the country at the time. Huckabee first was elected lieutenant governor in a 1993 special election and was elected to a full four-year term in 1994. He was only the fourth Republican to be elected to statewide office since Reconstruction. Huckabee was elected to a full four-year term as governor in 1998, attracting the largest percentage of the vote ever received by a Republican gubernatorial nominee in Arkansas, and was re-elected to another four-year term in November 2002. He's now the second longest-serving governor in the country.

In addition to his education reform efforts, Huckabee has been a leader in improving health care for Arkansans. He created the ARKids First program, a nationally recognized initiative that provides health insurance to tens of thousands of children who previously had no access to health insurance. He also led a ballot initiative in 2000 that devotes all of the state's tobacco settlement money to improving the health of Arkansans. He recently announced the Healthy Arkansas initiative to encourage Arkansans to stop smoking, exercise more and eat healthier. Huckabee's efforts to improve his own health have received national attention. Diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 2003, he lost 110 pounds. In March 2005, Huckabee completed the Little Rock Marathon. The Road Runners Club of America named him its Southern Region Runner of the Year, and he was named USA Track & Field's Athlete of the Week for the country. Huckabee's fourth book, "Quit Digging Your Grave With A Knife And Fork," will be released by Time Warner Book Group in May 2005.

In 1996 during his first months in office, Huckabee led the fight for Amendment 75 to the Arkansas Constitution. The amendment created a sales tax of one-eighth of a cent that benefits the state Department of Parks and Tourism, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the state Department of Heritage and the Keep Arkansas Beautiful Commission. Proceeds from the amendment have allowed Arkansas to build the finest system of state parks in the country along with a system of state-of-the-art nature centers operated by the Game and Fish Commission. The first of those nature centers at Pine Bluff was named after the governor in recognition of his conservation efforts. Huckabee, a noted outdoorsman, was honored in 1997 as the American Sportfishing Association Man of the Year and was inducted in 2000 to the Arkansas Outdoor Hall of Fame.

Huckabee also has become known nationally for his focus on technology in state government. He created an automobile license renewal system that's a model for states across the country. He has supported other advancements that have made Arkansas a technology leader among the states. Brown University recognized Arkansas for being first in the country in on-line services.

Many Arkansans also have come to know Huckabee as the "highway governor." That's because he developed and led the campaign for a 1999 bond issue to totally rehabilitate the state's system of crumbling interstate highways. Arkansas is now in the midst of the largest road construction project in its history.

Huckabee, a fiscal conservative, pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history. He led efforts to establish a Property Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and created a welfare reform program that reduced the welfare rolls in the state by almost 50 percent.

The governor is a noted speaker and author. He has given speeches on politics and public policy to groups across the country and around the world. He's a regular guest on national television and radio shows, discussing issues of importance to the states. In the fall of 1997, his book "Character Is The Issue" was released by Broadman & Holman. The book chronicles Huckabee's political career and discusses the importance of character in politics and life. The following year, Broadman & Holman released "Kids Who Kill," a book that addresses the issue of juvenile violence. His third book, "Living Beyond Your Lifetime," was released in 2000. It examines how to establish a legacy that will live on after one's death.

Huckabee has taken on numerous national leadership roles. In addition to being the chairman of the Education Commission of the States, he's the immediate past president of the Council of State Governments. The CSG is the nation's only organization serving every elected and appointed official in all three branches of state government. Founded in 1933 on the premise that states are the best sources of insight and innovation, the CSG provides a network for state leaders to share ideas.

Huckabee is the vice chairman of the National Governors Association. He will become NGA chairman in July 2005. The NGA, founded in 1908, is the group through which the nation's governors collectively influence the development of national policy. Huckabee is also the NGA's lead governor on the issue of Medicaid reform.

The Arkansas governor is extremely active in regional organizations. He's the immediate past state co-chairman of the Delta Regional Authority. He was selected to the post by the governors of the other seven states that are part of the DRA -- Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky and Illinois. The DRA was established by Congress to help alleviate poverty and stimulate economic growth in impoverished counties in the eight member states. Huckabee is a former chairman of the Southern Governors' Association, the Southern Regional Education Board, the Southern Growth Policies Board, the Southern Technology Council and the Southern International Trade Council.

Huckabee also is a former chairman of the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission. The 37-state coalition develops energy policy and lobbies Congress on energy matters, serving as the voice of state government on energy issues. Congress approved the creation of the IOGCC in 1935. Since that time, the commission has been the leading voice for state regulation of oil and gas production.

The governor and his wife, Janet, have three grown children -- John Mark, David and Sarah. Huckabee enjoys hunting, fishing, reading and playing bass guitar in his band, Capitol Offense.

My favorite places to go on the web are the accuweather.com, walmart.com, Google and the Drudge Report.

My favorite books include "To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, "The Complete Guide To Running" from Runner's World, "Who Moved My Cheese" by Spencer Johnson and "How Should We Then Live?" by Francis Schaeffer.

My favorite authors are Spencer Johnson and Francis Schaeffer.

[SiblingRevelry]

Sorry to interrupt the Huckabee lovefest, but does the Governor ever intend to explain his actions with regards to the parole of Wayne DuMond?

[vrblackwell]

Sorry to interrupt the Huckabee lovefest, but does the Governor ever intend to explain his actions with regards to the parole of Wayne DuMond?

He has on many occasions. He did not parole him. The parole board did. In Arkansas the Gov. does not have the power to initiate nor stop a parole.

[SoCaliUPC]

I don't care for Huckabee. His "political history" makes me uncomfortable. Huckabee vs. one of the 3 top Democrats is not going to be a victory for the Republican Party. The race is 5 people....2 Republicans and 3 Democrats.... Guiliani and Romney for the Republicans and Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for the Demoncrats.

[Twisp]

He has on many occasions. He did not parole him. The parole board did. In Arkansas the Gov. does not have the power to initiate nor stop a parole.
He did write a letter to the parole board saying that he should be released early, and he stumped for his early release on many occasions.

[Twisp]

Another interesting article about Huckabee:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, surging in Iowa polls in the Republican presidential race, wrote on a questionnaire while running for U.S. Senate in 1992 that homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk," Huckabee wrote in the questionnaire for The Associated Press, which reported the answer on Saturday.

In another answer that could damage his standing in the presidential race, Huckabee wrote on the questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research themselves.

"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.

"An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

The revelations could dampen the enthusiasm for the candidacy of Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, because the language clashes with his image as a compassionate, sunny leader.

It also could cause Republican voters to reevaluate whether he would be effective at winning swing voters in a general election that looks trying for the GOP.

Huckabee also wrote that he wanted to quarantine AIDS patients, according to the AP:

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague.... It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

Huckabee's written public statements came during his initial run for public office, which he lost to incumbent Democratic Sen. Dale Bumpers.

Huckabee is not renouncing the comments, but is seeking to explain them by pointing to the context of the times.

The former governor told reporters Saturday in Asheville, N.C., that there were “a lot of questions” about AIDS when he filled out the AP survey in 1992, according to Joy Lin of CBS News. Huckabee brought up a case in 1991 of a patient who had contracted AIDS from her dentist and said the nation was in “real panic."

“What I mentioned was that the only time in human history that we had not quarantined people who were carrier of a disease for which we didn’t know where it was going was this time,” said Huckabee.

“If I were making those same comments today, I might make them a little differently,” he added. “But obviously I have to stand by what I said. ... Medical protocol typically says that if you have a disease for which there is no cure and you are uncertain about the transmission of it, the first thing you do is quarantine or isolate the carriers.”

Still, the report is a second distraction at a time when Huckabee has tied or passed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in polls in Iowa. A Newsweek poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers taken Wednesday and Thursday found Huckabee leading Romney by a 2-1 margin, 39 percent to 17 percent. Newsweek’s last poll, in late September, had Huckabee at 6 percent and Romney at 25 percent.

Even before the revelation about his incendiary 1992 views on AIDS policy, Huckabee was facing questions about whether he will be a durable candidate and is prepared for commander-in-chief responsibilities.

The scrutiny has been harsh, leading some Republicans to wonder if Huckabee peaked too soon.

This week in Iowa, he left reporters agape when he said he had not heard about an intelligence report on Iran that had been dominating newscasts and front pages for two days. He later blamed his staff.

Perhaps more damagingly, he has not warded off questions about his role in the 1999 parole of a rapist, supported by Arkansas pastors, who went on to kill a mother of three.

Huckabee said on NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday that he “didn’t put pressure” on the parole board. The former governor acknowledged to CBS’s “The Early Show” that he considered – but denied – a commutation, although the convict was eventually freed, anyway.

“It wasn't so much his innocence, but it was the sentence and the fact that while he was awaiting trial, someone broke into his home,” Huckabee said. “It was a horrible case from start to finish for everybody – for the victims, for him.”

Nevertheless, heavy television attention to the case – with its shades of the Willie Horton case that was so damaging to Michael Dukakis in his 1988 presidential race – has undercut Huckabee’s law-and-order credentials and raised questions about his candor and judgment.

In a quick check of Republican reaction after the AP story broke, some conservatives said they viewed Huckabee’s answers as a blunt statement of views held by many in his Southern Baptist flock, and an antidote to the waffling that pervades politics.

So it may turn out that his more damaging answer was not the one about his view of homosexuality but rather his foray into federal policy – quarantining AIDS patients and cutting funding for research.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7270.html

Whether or not I support the guy aside (and I don't), I really don't think this guy can keep up the kind of support he has right now. If there's anymore history like this and Dumond in his closet, he doesn't stand much of a chance.

[aquestioninggirl]

He believes abortion is a state issue, not something the Federal Gov. should be involved in. I've had him for Governor for 8 years , anything you wanna know just ask. He is not the ideal "perfect" choice but who is.

Are you my Brother -in Law? LOL!

[Twisp]

Update on Huckabee's AIDs statements:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee refused to retract a statement he made in 1992 calling for the isolation of AIDS patients.


Surging in the polls, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee campaigns Saturday in Asheville, North Carolina.

Responding to an Associated Press questionnaire, Huckabee said steps should be taken to "isolate the carriers of this plague" during his failed run for a U.S. Senate seat from Arkansas 15 years ago.

He said he probably would not make the same statement today because of what is known about how HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is transmitted.

"I had simply made the point -- and I still believe this today -- that in the late '80s and early '90s, when we didn't know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols that we would have acted," Huckabee told Fox News on Sunday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 1985 that AIDS was not transmitted by casual contact. But Huckabee said at the time, "there were other concerns being voiced by public health officials."

He disputed the characterization that he was calling for individuals infected with HIV to be quarantined.

"Now, would I say things a little differently in 2007? Probably so," Huckabee told Fox News. "But I'm not going to recant or retract from the statement that I did make because, again, the point was not saying we ought to lock people up who have HIV/AIDS."

Huckabee did not explain how individuals with HIV would have been isolated.

During his Senate run, Huckabee also told the AP in the questionnaire that he found homosexuality to be "an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle."

Speaking Monday in Miami, Florida, Huckabee said he still stands by his earlier remarks on homosexuality.

"Let's understand what sin means," Huckabee said. "Sin means missing the mark. Missing the mark could mean missing the mark in any area. We've all missed the mark."

The former Baptist minister said the "proper relationship" is one between a married man and woman having children.

"If we didn't have that as the ideal, we wouldn't have a civilization that was able to perpetuate," he said. "So, rather than read into something incredibly out of line, just read into the fact that I believe that the ideal relationship is one-man, one-woman, pro-life."

The former Arkansas governor has come under increased scrutiny since his rapid rise in the polls, particularly in Iowa, where a McClatchy-MSNBC poll conducted December 3-6 has him leading the GOP field with the support of 32 percent of likely caucus-goers.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had been leading in Iowa for months, was the second closest rival for the GOP presidential nomination, at 20 percent. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Huckabee also has come under scrutiny for his role in the parole of a convicted rapist who later went on to rape and kill another woman.

As Arkansas governor, Huckabee supported the parole of Wayne DuMond, who was convicted and sentenced to a life term for raping a 17-year-old girl. After DuMond's parole in 1999, he killed a woman in Kansas City, Missouri, in 2003. DuMond died in prison two years later.

Huckabee wrote a 1996 letter to DuMond supporting his release from prison, but the candidate said the decision was made by a parole board dominated by appointees of his predecessors, Jim Guy Tucker and Bill Clinton.

Former members of the Arkansas Parole Board at the time also said that Huckabee pressured them to approve DuMond's parole, though Huckabee denies doing so.

Last week, the mother of the woman DuMond killed in 2003 said she would actively campaign against Huckabee.

In an interview with CNN, Huckabee called it "heartbreaking" that the rape victims' deaths had become politicized.

"There are families who are truly, understandably and reasonably, grief-stricken," Huckabee said. "And for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret politics is reduced to that."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/index.html

[scotty]

He did write a letter to the parole board saying that he should be released early, and he stumped for his early release on many occasions.


No sir he did not, Gov. Tucker gave Dumond his clemency 2 weeks before being escorted out of the governors masion by state police. It was done when Huckabee walked in office the next day.

There is alot of "out of context" material and just flat out lies going around, of course that is politics. As for the articles you have posted above I fail to see the problem. (other than the source....CNN ?? come on ) They are pulling quotes from the late 80's to the early 90's. No one knew much about how AIDS was spread back then. I remember it was said you could get it from a toliet seat. He speaks against homosexuality, whats the problem.

Here is why he will not be president, he tells the truth, like it is , then challenges you to back up your own statements with action.
Lets see , when was the last time we had a President like that..........hhmmmmmmm.......... oh yeah, JFK...

What ever happened to that guy.

If you don't like Huckabee don't sweat it, it's gonna be like a new preacher that comes in and steps on your toes with the truth,,, he won't be around long.

[Ferd]

Scotty, im in a quandry. i want to support Huck. but there just seems to be this steady stream of things that lead me to believe he cant win.

I want a winner.

[scotty]

I know , thats the down fall, having to settle for less in values in order to gain in popularity....

Good picture of society today, we vote on a president based on his/her popularity to win as opposed to being the right person for the job.

Like I said , thats why Huckabee will never win.

Weigh the few negatives that have been raised against the many negatives of Hillary and yet we have to find someone else to beat her.

Whats wrong with that picture.?

[Ferd]

I know , thats the down fall, having to settle for less in values in order to gain in popularity....

Good picture of society today, we vote on a president based on his/her popularity to win as opposed to being the right person for the job.

Like I said , thats why Huckabee will never win.

Weigh the few negatives that have been raised against the many negatives of Hillary and yet we have to find someone else to beat her.

Whats wrong with that picture.?

well, some of the negatives put him in the same boat with the other guys IMOH.

the immagration thing is a big deal.
I am not nearly as worried about the raising taxes issue as he is for a consumpiton tax which I like.

However on the religion front, it sure seems that he has said some things that bug me. That comercial where he calls himself "the christian" leader will be turned against him.

I still like the guy and am still leaning his direction but there are some things that just flat bug me.

Drudge is reporting that the Democrats have issued an order that no one is to attack him because they WANT him to win the Republican primary. Their polls are showing he is the most beatable.

[scotty]

Like I said , popularity will win over issues. As for the rest of it , I'll quoate Huckabee himself from the post above.

"There are families who are truly, understandably and reasonably, grief-stricken," Huckabee said. "And for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret politics is reduced to that."

[Ferd]

Like I said , popularity will win over issues. As for the rest of it , I'll quoate Huckabee himself from the post above.

"There are families who are truly, understandably and reasonably, grief-stricken," Huckabee said. "And for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret politics is reduced to that."

Scotty, thati is a non-answer.

the Republicans have certain standards that they have to live by. Does the name Willy Horton ring a bell?

Huck needs to provide some detailed answers.

[scotty]

that could be where we part ways, I don't think either party has certain standards anymore. the Republican party didn't get nothing done in congress during the 8 years control they had because they were in fighting. Same with the Democrats right now. JFK was the more conservative than most Republicans have ever been. The parties swapped sides somewhere along the way and now it's gotten to where you could create 4 or 5 different parties out of what's there.

On the Huck subject , what detailed answers would like to know.?

[Ferd]

that could be where we part ways, I don't think either party has certain standards anymore. the Republican party didn't get nothing done in congress during the 8 years control they had because they were in fighting. Same with the Democrats right now. JFK was the more conservative than most Republicans have ever been. The parties swapped sides somewhere along the way and now it's gotten to where you could create 4 or 5 different parties out of what's there.

On the Huck subject , what detailed answers would like to know.?

The two big ones that come to mind are
1. why the pardon, did it let a guy out of jail who then killed? what were his reasons?

2. why back a plan to educate illegal aliens?

[scotty]

The two big ones that come to mind are
1. why the pardon, did it let a guy out of jail who then killed? what were his reasons?

2. why back a plan to educate illegal aliens?


1. Gonna say this one more time, He did not pardon anyone. Arkansas state law does not allow it. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker recomended his pardon to an all Democratic Parole board appointed by Bill Clinton. Can a governor write a letter stating his opinion on the matter ? Yes. Did he ? Yes. So when in history has an all Democratic Parole Board ever been influenced by a Republican Governor? The Board made the finale call. Period. The same democratic board is the one releasing all the statements about it.

2.The plan he backed singled out the parents of children born here. I don't like illegal immigrants either but I kinda saw the point behind this one. It was drawn up after the feds come down here to a Tyson plant and haul off a bunch of illegals leaving behind 15 to 20 children under the age of 12 who were born in America thus they were, by law, citizens. What was worse was the feds never coordinated the sting with the state so these children were left there without immediate care until state officials could figure out where they were and if there parents had been taken. Needless to say this leaves us the tax payers with a huge burden since the children are citizens they have the right to be cared for by our government.
That set the stage for the plan Huckabee wanted to see passed. He wanted to educate the parents as an option to orphaning the children. It was not a blanket plan that covered all aliens.

As I said I too have a problem with illegal aliens, however I have a bigger problem with a government who goes after hard working aliens because its an "easy catch" while not even turning over law breaking aliens they catch on the street to ICE.

[Ferd]

Answer 2 gets closer to an exceptable answer.


Answer 1 leaves a bit to be desired. he wrote a letter asking for the release of a prisoner who killed upon release.

that is a problem for me.

[scotty]

why? Take a look at what you said. He killed after being released. He had not killed before, so how could anyone know he would. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Personally I don't agree either, but then again I often catch myself asking why one sits on death row for years, why not go ahead and kill them? Well now that several have been found innocent through dna after sitting on death row for years I thank God I am not a law maker.
People were wrong when they covicted the innocent, he was wrong supporting Dumonds release. You ever been wrong?

Either way it was a bad decision, but there is no way he could have known, nor could any of us for that matter. Fact is he was due to get out 2 years later anyway. Would he still have killed then?

To me it is an honest mistake, which makes it a non-issue to me. "Learning" mistakes fall under that same catagory to me. I had no problem with Clinton inhaling at some point in time in his life. But he knew well what he was doing with the cigar and lying under oath.

While the release was an unfortunate event, it is not a "defining" charactoristic.

[Hoovie]

HUCKABEE TAKES IOWA!!!

[Hoovie]

I am about to become a HUCkABEE suporter!

I am rethinking my key reservation regarding HUCK (electability)

[Felicity]

John Edwards hair looked great tonite. ;)

:toofunny

[Hoovie]

John Edwards hair looked great tonite. ;)

:toofunny

...and Hillary had a nice smile!

[Ronzo]

I am about to become a HUCkABEE suporter!

I am rethinking my key reservation regarding HUCK (electability)

How about his cattiness...?


In my opinion... hes got W #2 written all over him

[Hoovie]

How about his cattiness...?


In my opinion... hes got W #2 written all over him

explain please

[Felicity]

I'm not enthused really about any of the candidates who are running -- not a fan of any of them although I've been very impressed with Giuliani as a leader since 9-11. Just not sure as I can really see him in the role of President though.

At this point, I can't really see any of them in that role, but things change as time goes on.

[Ronzo]

explain please

"I'm calling you all here to announce that we had planned on running a mudslinging campaign commercial against my opponent. However, I want to take the high road and not run it because that just the kind of guy I am.

...BUT... just to prove to you that we had one set to go, I'm going to show it to you now... on NATIONAL TV... Here it is..."


Give


Me


A


Break




Stupid move for a guy who claims to be a Christian. Shows he's NO BETTER at keeping the moral compass than the rest of the career corrupt politicians...


He lost me there...


His attitude is just as smug as W... If he wins, I predict 4 more years of arrogance in the presidency...

[Apprehended]

Realistically , he has 2 chances: Slim and none.

Might be a nice guy, but I dont think he''ll go far.

Its probably gonna be Rudy vs Hillary 2008.

I still believe it will be between Romney and Hillary.

I don't think there is a Democrat that can beat a Repuclican. Obama? No way! Edwards? The people will see through him. Hillary? She's is the only one that has a chance but she will wilt like a flower in the desert.

[Hoovie]

"I'm calling you all here to announce that we had planned on running a mudslinging campaign commercial against my opponent. However, I want to take the high road and not run it because that just the kind of guy I am.

...BUT... just to prove to you that we had one set to go, I'm going to show it to you now... on NATIONAL TV... Here it is..."


Give


Me


A


Break




Stupid move for a guy who claims to be a Christian. Shows he's NO BETTER at keeping the moral compass than the rest of the career corrupt politicians...


He lost me there...


His attitude is just as smug as W... If he wins, I predict 4 more years of arrogance in the presidency...

I don't see it as a huge problem. The media was not given any footage at all from the ads - they could only report what they saw. Don't you think the move actually helped him in the polls? I think so.

[Apprehended]

I just heard Obama say that he would end tax cuts for corporations export jobs overseas. What an IDIOT!

He knows how to send workers and the WHOLE Corporation overseas too, losing ALL the taxes instead of a very little of it. His light bulb seems to be less than one watt and growing dimmer.

[Felicity]

I think Hillary and Mr. Hillary were very disappointed and fairly surprised tonight. You could sense it in both of them .... the body language and facial expression. Though they're both pros at keeping their cool, you could still pick up on it.

[Barb]

I think Hillary and Mr. Hillary were very disappointed and fairly surprised tonight. You could sense it in both of them .... the body language and facial expression. Though they're both pros at keeping their cool, you could still pick up on it.

:heeheehee

[RandyWayne]

I just heard Obama say that he would end tax cuts for corporations export jobs overseas. What an IDIOT!

He knows how to send workers and the WHOLE Corporation overseas too, losing ALL the taxes instead of a very little of it. His light bulb seems to be less than one watt and growing dimmer.

Most of the presidential candidates have close to zero knowledge on all things "economic".
Obama will probably announce that he has a plan to make "Every American a WEALTHY American!" -which will involve waking up on a Friday and finding that every person has 3 zero's added to their pay check, which of course will mean that everything in the store will ALSO have "3 zero's" added to it's price....

"Since we made the 'leaf' legal tender, we have all become immensely rich. Of course there is also a slight inflationary problem...." -Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams.

[Ronzo]

I don't see it as a huge problem. The media was not given any footage at all from the ads - they could only report what they saw. Don't you think the move actually helped him in the polls? I think so.

I don't care if it helped him in the polls. It was unethical.

[Cindy]

John Edwards hair looked great tonite. ;)

:toofunny

:jolly

[ChristopherHall]

I find it interesting that the most religious of both parties showed strong. Both men are decent candidates from their respective parties.

It's important to note that most business owners I know personally would rather have the profile they had under Clinton than the profile they have presently under Bush. Only a select section of the corporate economy are pleased with the recent Republican leadership.

We do need to level the tax burden so that the burden of taxation is more fair. If Corporations have "corporate personhood" rights in regards to free speech and political funding...they should share the tax burden with all Americans. Right now you and me shoulder a greater share of the "tax burden" than the nation's largest corporations in comparison to their profits. We also need stronger incentives to keep jobs here and stiff tax penalties for moving jobs overseas. Corporations that move jobs overseas should face strong tax penalties on products sold in the US or relocate to their foreign markets entirely. Right now they get tax cuts though they move labor overseas, over generous tax cuts. They should only receive tax cuts if they keep jobs in the US, the more jobs kept here...the greater the tax benefit. Move 200 jobs overseas and loose your tax cuts. Oh too stiff for you? Well...relocate. I assure you that most reputable companies will opt to stay seeing that most other nations have higher taxes than we do. If they leave...great...we're innovative and it opens the field for new businesses and corporations that will remain in the US.

In the past 8 years the Republican agenda has failed and led to serious economic hardship. We need a change. If the Republicans can't figure it out it's time to punish them. Since the Republicans want to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave, I say throw 'em in the brig.

Corporate power sickens me. They are kings and we are peasants begging for bread. Our founding fathers wouldn't put up with this...they'd through another tea party. And the fact that so many of us Christians are corporate lap dogs barking the party line really worries me. Both Huckabee and Obama are populists. If they gain the nominations, the Reaganomic theory of trickle-down economic growth is dead.

My friends in Canada found it interesting. Ron said, "America may finally figure out what it means to be a nation with a strong domestic policy again."

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

They days Lincoln feared are increasingly upon us. But we line up like sheep to pay our political homage at the altars of corporate power.

[trickledown]

If Corporations have "corporate personhood" rights in regards to free speech and political funding...they should share the tax burden with all Americans. Right now you and me shoulder a greater share of the "tax burden" than the nation's largest corporations in comparison to their profits.

Don't forget that the corporations you speak of are owned by shareholders who are taxed on their profits. You can't solve your tax problems by adding taxes to the corporations that have seen profits the past few years. Cutting taxes even more and allowing these corps and small businesses to grow is a more viable solution. Sure there are some really troubling practices among the US' largest industries but they are not to blame for being profitable. Financial freedom has made all of us in America wealthy and only the proliferation of entitlements will ruin that prosperity.

[trickledown]

If Corporations have "corporate personhood" rights in regards to free speech and political funding...they should share the tax burden with all Americans. Right now you and me shoulder a greater share of the "tax burden" than the nation's largest corporations in comparison to their profits.

Don't forget that those corporations are owned by shareholders that are taxed on their profits. You can't solve your tax problems by taxing large corps at a higher rate. You seem to be advocating a disguised tax of taking from the haves to fund entitlements for others. Corps can't be vilified for trying to stay viable and competitive. If you aren't growing in business... you soon start dying. Steeper tax cuts for business large and small stimulate our economy and (forgive me for this term) is Reaganesque in practice.

[trickledown]

It's important to note that most business owners I know personally would rather have the profile they had under Clinton than the profile they have presently under Bush. Only a select section of the corporate economy are pleased with the recent Republican leadership.

I am not sure of your friends business perspectives. Personally the of the dozen or so business owners I talk with regularly, only two long for the climate they had under Clinton... and that is only because they were very profitable during the 90's.

[ChristopherHall]

If Corporations have "corporate personhood" rights in regards to free speech and political funding...they should share the tax burden with all Americans. Right now you and me shoulder a greater share of the "tax burden" than the nation's largest corporations in comparison to their profits.

Don't forget that those corporations are owned by shareholders that are taxed on their profits. You can't solve your tax problems by taxing large corps at a higher rate. You seem to be advocating a disguised tax of taking from the haves to fund entitlements for others. Corps can't be vilified for trying to stay viable and competitive. If you aren't growing in business... you soon start dying. Steeper tax cuts for business large and small stimulate our economy and (forgive me for this term) is Reaganesque in practice.

I have no issue with giving decent tax breaks, benefits and shelters, to corporations that invest in and create jobs in the United States. It’s offering all these tax benefits to companies that are moving thousands of jobs overseas. If they are not willing to invest in this country and keep jobs in this country they shouldn’t receive tax rewards. Why reward a company that sends hundreds of jobs overseas? Reward those who stay and penalize those who move jobs overseas. Family values are about more than just abortion and marriage…without an income families collapse. When a company moves hundreds of jobs to India, Mexico, or China they are abandoning American families. It’s about more than money bro.

I do believe in strong domestic social policy. I’m most concerned with tax burden. When businesses get massive tax breaks the government’s bills are still there. Those costs are handed down to us, the individual tax payers, and we see our taxes go up. For example if the government gives away billions in tax breaks they have to cut block grant funding for various projects and programs. These programs will not go away. Sometimes they serve an essential function in local economies and communities. So then states and counties begin raising property taxes, sales taxes, levees, and fees. The more of the cost of government is handed down to you and me. Now, that’s not a problem if the corporate sector is creating jobs in the US and passing down enough profits to sustain livable wages. But right now we see corporations with record profits, with record tax breaks, extensive and specialized tax shelters, who are moving jobs overseas or paying wages that are not matching inflation and the basic cost of living. That has to change or America won’t have a middle class in 10 years, we’ll be like so many South American nations with only a wealthy aristocratic class and an impoverished working class; welcome to, The Bana-Republic of America. We all pay our fair share and benefits should only be granted to those sustaining THIS economy with wages.

I disagree. Like Communism, Reaganomics sounds good on paper but doesn’t work itself out in the real world. Our economy is in shambles today because of Reaganomics. We see growing numbers of those without health insurance (who we pay for with higher premiums, premiums so high the taxes for a national insurance plan would now be cheaper). Deregulation of the banking industry allowed for predatory lending practices and variable rate loans that have left our housing market battered and broken. Unemployment numbers are indicating that we are marching steadily toward recession. Many don’t realize that while our actual unemployment numbers are good, wages and benefits are down. The economy is shifting into lower paying service jobs and most real industry is moving overseas. Our national labor motto will soon be, “Do you want fries with that?” College tuitions are up and fewer are able to afford college which will create a shortage of educated workers. If Reaganomics worked, we’ve had decades of it, we should be living high on the hog. But we’re not. Reaganomics has only delivered to the higher income brackets and has failed the middle and lower class. The theory was that if we benefit those at the top the profits would “trickledown” in more jobs and higher wages but in reality those profits at the top overseas investments and ungodly CEO salaries. Think about this…in 2006 (if my memory serves me correctly) the CEO of United Health Care walked away with 1.7 BILLION dollars in stock options. That’s one man folks. That was supposed to trickle down. So frankly, I personally believe that Reaganomics is like Communism, sounds good on paper but doesn’t work. Apparently the American people are thinking the same thing because the front runners in both parties are economic progressives. ;)

I don’t think that we should increase taxes for corporations across the board. I’m not anti-corporation, though I’m tough on corporations. I think we should only reward those corporations who pay livable wages and keep jobs in America. Penalize them for sending jobs overseas and paying lower wages. We’re the biggest market in the world…if they want to remain here and do business here…they have to be investing jobs and wages here.

[ChristopherHall]

It's important to note that most business owners I know personally would rather have the profile they had under Clinton than the profile they have presently under Bush. Only a select section of the corporate economy are pleased with the recent Republican leadership.

I am not sure of your friends business perspectives. Personally the of the dozen or so business owners I talk with regularly, only two long for the climate they had under Clinton... and that is only because they were very profitable during the 90's.

I think it depends on who you talk to and where you’re located. Some are ideological liars who will say anything pro-Republican (you know the modern conservatism has become the new “political correctness”, if you don’t believe me try being a devout Christian who favors centrist politics). Create an ID and choose to go out to a Christian forum and just offer some insight on some things that might be more progressive, like more block grant funding for No Child Left Behind, non-profits, and faith based orgs (something Republicans promised and didn’t deliver). Watch out bro…you’re very faith in Jesus will be challenged because God knows, Christians can only be Republicans. People feel free to bash and trash Democrats and those of more moderate political leanings freely…but let someone call the Republicans on their failures and it’s on buddy, you’ll catch fiery darts from every direction.

Some business owners can cut jobs and benefits, make a decent profit and say, “Wow, business was great.” Others can do the same thing and feel in their conscience that cutting the jobs and benefits hurt people and say, “Sure, I made decent profits, but it’s just not as good as it was. I had to lay John Doe off…and that’s the last thing his family needed after they had to foreclose on their home.” Most of it has to do with personal values and outlook.

[Apprehended]

Christopher Hall.

There is a growing chorus of "I will vote for the candidate that promises to give me the keys to the national treasury."

Do you feel that the path to more entitlements is the answer to what our economy needs? What is about the free enterprise (emphasis on "enterprise") system that you disagree with? Why do you feel that more entitlements would be helpful for the common good?

[deltaguitar]

There is just way too much to reply to but I will pick a few points in which you are way off.

1) Corporations are owned by shareholders who are people just like you and me. When the corporation pays taxes so do the shareholders. Not just once at the corporate level but also at the individual level when dividends are passed out to the owners.

2) The largest growth in our economy has come from small businesses, not the fortune 500. That is why the Bush tax cuts were focused on small businesses and family farms.

3) No one forces you to work for a corporation. If they aren't paying you a wage that you feel is fair you can either leave or bargain with them to pay you more. Remember, they need people. If there aren't enough workers the price of wages will go up until the supply of workers exceeds the demand. Wages will then go down.

4) Corporate tax rates are way higher than individual tax rates. Also, if a corporation keeps their money and doesn't distribute as dividends then they have to pay another tax on top of the income tax to keep their cash.

[scotty]

"I'm calling you all here to announce that we had planned on running a mudslinging campaign commercial against my opponent. However, I want to take the high road and not run it because that just the kind of guy I am.

...BUT... just to prove to you that we had one set to go, I'm going to show it to you now... on NATIONAL TV... Here it is..."


Give


Me


A


Break




Stupid move for a guy who claims to be a Christian. Shows he's NO BETTER at keeping the moral compass than the rest of the career corrupt politicians...


He lost me there...


His attitude is just as smug as W... If he wins, I predict 4 more years of arrogance in the presidency...


Absolutly Brilliant!!!!!!!!!

The press has been bashing him since day one because he was a christian, (even after the win last night they just kept at it).

He used their own weapon to place an ad nationwide that he never could have afforded to place. Have you seen the ad? I have seen it in its entirety and here is the barn burner...THERE IS NO MUDSLINGING...After I watched it I was left thinking , what was so bad about that?....All it done was state Romneys past record on issues.....no negativity....and in turn made the press look like fools for covering it.....

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO HUCKSTER

[deltaguitar]

Yep. One of the greatest moves in political history.

[Apprehended]

Yep. One of the greatest moves in political history.

I don't see the greatness in it. He damaged himself more than he helped.

Speaking of great political moves. Since politics can be so dirty I am reminded of a dirty trick that ol' Lyndon Johnson pulled while runnng for Seantor many years ago.

He said to his campaign staff, "We will secretly let the people know that my oponent has been having sex with animals."

Shocked, one of the staff memebers asked. "Oh my God, is that true?"

Johnson replied, "Well, I don't know if it is or not but I would like to see him running all over Texas trying to deny it." :jolly

Politics is a dirty business. That is why I hate to see the ever encroaching specter rise up in the Apostolic movement.

[Pragmatist]

We do need to level the tax burden so that the burden of taxation is more fair. If Corporations have "corporate personhood" rights in regards to free speech and political funding...they should share the tax burden with all Americans. Right now you and me shoulder a greater share of the "tax burden" than the nation's largest corporations in comparison to their profits. We also need stronger incentives to keep jobs here and stiff tax penalties for moving jobs overseas. Corporations that move jobs overseas should face strong tax penalties on products sold in the US or relocate to their foreign markets entirely. Right now they get tax cuts though they move labor overseas, over generous tax cuts. They should only receive tax cuts if they keep jobs in the US, the more jobs kept here...the greater the tax benefit. Move 200 jobs overseas and loose your tax cuts. Oh too stiff for you? Well...relocate. I assure you that most reputable companies will opt to stay seeing that most other nations have higher taxes than we do. If they leave...great...we're innovative and it opens the field for new businesses and corporations that will remain in the US.


Just a couple points...

Competition forces corporations to move jobs overseas. Do you want more collapses like the automotive industry is seeing?

Relocation ensures that they will pay zero in taxes. I am sure that will be helpful.:thumbsdown

[Ferd]

Taxing corporations, is just adding a hidden tax to the people who purchase the goods and services provided by the corporations.

what a silly idea.

[Ferd]

ChrisHall, i have no idea why you call yourself a moderate.

[ChristopherHall]

Christopher Hall.

There is a growing chorus of "I will vote for the candidate that promises to give me the keys to the national treasury."

I think you’re misunderstanding how we on the other side see it. The national treasury belongs to all of us. Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The national treasury belongs to…the people. The people democratically choose what to do with the national treasury by voting for individuals and issues. I know most of you guys on the far right don’t like democratic processes, even Bush admitted a dictatorship would be far easier to manage, but that’s the way it is here in the US. We the people can vote and decide if we feel we’d rather see more of our money go to cover tax refunds and tax cuts for the lower, middle, or upper classes. Most of the time when dealing with tax cuts and tax rebates progressive relieve the middle class…the conservatives relieve the top 2% and promise it will trickle down to us somehow…and we stand on that promise like it’s gold even after we get a pink slip and our wages drop in relation to cost of living, our benefits are cut, and our jobs move overseas. We the people can also vote and decide if we’d rather the funds of the national treasury be used for domestic programs and policies here at home. Some would rather see money go for federal block grants to fund TANF or CDBG programs. Others would rather expand Medicare funding or fund unfunded Republican ideas like No Child Left Behind or non-profit and faith based initiatives.

Do you feel that the path to more entitlements is the answer to what our economy needs? What is about the free enterprise (emphasis on "enterprise") system that you disagree with? Why do you feel that more entitlements would be helpful for the common good?

I’ve not mentioned any additional entitlements; I do believe the programs we have committed to should be properly funded. Would I support additional entitlements? It depends. Is it really necessary? Is it economical? Sure, I might. There’s nothing stating that entitlements are a “sin”. Even in ancient Israel the poor (widows, orphans, needy) were entitled to glean, receive the third year’s tithe, and not be charged usury. The Bible’s socio-economic structure is rather progressive, more progressive than most conservatives realize. The prophet Daniel’s counseled the King of Babylon regarding the domestic policy the King should adopt stating that he should relieve the poor. How was this to be done? By lessening the burdens upon the poor, burdens were taxes. Tax breaks and tax relief was to be targeted to those who actually needed it to survive. The book of Amos is virtually a progressive manifesto of the Scriptures if the historical context is understood. Please note…this is why so many Jewish authorities are progressive politically and why Israel is a nation with a mixed economy.

But in all honesty, I don’t think I’d support increasing any entitlements in the area of welfare. If I were to increase entitlements in any way it would be to properly fund Social Security and draft a National Health Insurance program by incrementally expanding Medicare as an option for all Americans. The cost of health insurance premiums are currently far higher than any tax increase that would be necessary. Also by expanding Medicare a National Health Insurance program to cover the uninsured would be almost 60% funded the moment the ink dried. My logic is this, and you’re free to disagree, we’re paying for the uninsured anyway you cut it. The uninsured/underinsured go to hospital emergency rooms or can’t pay their medical bills (medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, 25,000 people last year alone filed bankruptcy because they couldn’t pay their medical bills). We’re not talking about bums and derelicts. We’re talking about those who are known as the “working poor”. These individuals often work two jobs to make ends meet or work one low end service job and raise a family, live paycheck to paycheck, and have little or no health insurance coverage. When they go to the emergency room and get billed they can’t pay the bill. Hospitals don’t just eat the loss…they pass it on by raising the costs of health care. When the cost of health care rises the insurance companies have to raise premiums to maintain their profit margin (sometimes they use this as an opportunity to boost profit margins based on “projects” that are debatable). So once health insurance premiums rise, fewer people can afford it and so the number of the uninsured grows. That means there are more individuals that cannot pay their medical bills, hospitals raise their health care costs again, and insurance companies raise premiums again, and viola, now a few more can’t afford health insurance. So the system begins to implode on itself until premiums are so high the working class cannot afford it. This hurts businesses too seeing that all too often their greatest expense is health benefits. With the system as it is and looking at where it is heading the taxes to sustain a National Health Care Insurance program would be cheaper on both the individual and businesses. An optional National Health Insurance program might be a good start. First it would guarantee that all Americans are insured. This would mean hospitals would be paid for what they do and the cost of health care would stabilize…or even go down. Insurance companies would then be forced to compete with the national system and lower insurance premiums to stay competitive. This would be the market force that prevents them from maintaining high premiums though the cost of health care goes down. Once the beast is deflated, if the system achieves balance keep the duel system…but if not take the next step and nationalize it. The national system could be drafted by looking at the best and greatest systems throughout the world, avoiding the pitfalls, we wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. Or we could simply shift things into government issued high deductible HSA’s supplemented by state or federal funding to cover the deductible. This would boost the banking industry. There are many different ways to do this…we just have to get the guts to do what we’ve convinced ourselves as something that just cannot be done. It can be done and I firmly believe that right or wrong…it will be done. Just let another 10 million Americans loose their health insurance in the next 5 to 10 years….our premiums will be so high (I won’t be able to afford it) and viola, instant mandate of the people. We’re paying for everyone either way. The question is how can we do it in the least expensive fashion. In our current health care system nearly 30% of cost goes strictly to clerical records keeping etc. Just having a centralized medical database would reduce costs drastically. But conservative leaders are bought and paid for by the insurance companies…they can nickel and dime us with fees etc. and not only and the cost of clerical and records keeping down to us…but add to that profit margin by justifying increases based on market projections (that debatable) so they can stay ahead of the curve…so they claim.

That’s the only real “entitlement” program I would consider supporting. As far as Welfare etc, make the program temporary and set strong goals (professional or educational) and fund it with block grants not exceeding what’s currently allocated.

Those are my thoughts bro. Sure, feel free to disagree, but just understand that the progressive side of things is based on a logic and isn’t purely irrational. Also, those on the progressive side are just as Christian as y’all on the conservative side.

God bless.

[ChristopherHall]

Just a couple points...

Competition forces corporations to move jobs overseas. Do you want more collapses like the automotive industry is seeing?

Relocation ensures that they will pay zero in taxes. I am sure that will be helpful.:thumbsdown

If they relocate good for them...however, we're the world's biggest importer. You see our current system gives them tax breaks with a whimper and a plead to not leave. THEY LEAVE ANYWAY…they leave with the tax cuts and invest that money overseas also. So here’s what needs to be done. You need someone with enough guts to stand up to these corporations. Only offer tax cuts, shelters, rebates, etc. to those corporations that create jobs HERE and invest in our markets. If a corporation moves jobs overseas…cut their tax benefits and place heavy taxes on goods sold here in our markets. Make it painful to do business here while producing overseas. They don’t want China or Central American markets…we’re the biggest market. Make it hurt to leave and do business with us from the outside. Plus their markets are far more fragile. Most corporations will line up and bring jobs home because the real tax benefits will go to those doing business in the US and they will want to remain a part of the largest and most wealthy market on earth. If they leave…it will open the door for new corporations that stay in the US to fill the vacuum. Markets will always find a way to achieve balance and fill any void. Sadly right now those voids are being filled by service jobs at McDonald’s.

You got to be creative and willing to play hardball with corporate interests. Not to mention….think outside the box on how you can persuade them to play the game by the rules. ;)

[ChristopherHall]

Taxing corporations, is just adding a hidden tax to the people who purchase the goods and services provided by the corporations.

what a silly idea.

Only lay heavy taxes on the purchase of goods produced overseas. Make it hurt to sell things to Americans. Also this will use market forces to convince Americans to...buy American instead of committing treason with their wallets.

[ChristopherHall]

ChrisHall, i have no idea why you call yourself a moderate.

Personal jab? lol

Remember...what I've said before; I'm expecting a tidal wave of personal attacks from my brothers for disagreeing politically. But that doesn't sway me. Reaganomics is a dismal failure and Americans know it. That's why economic progressives won on both sides in Iowa. If a conservative holding to trickledown economics gets the nomination for the R's...it's a sure win for the Democrats. Guys, Reaganomics is on the way out. Like a fad diet, it didn't work like they expected it to and now it's on the way out. Time to try a new theory.

[deltaguitar]

Personal jab? lol

Remember...what I've said before; I'm expecting a tidal wave of personal attacks from my brothers for disagreeing politically. But that doesn't sway me. Reaganomics is a dismal failure and Americans know it. That's why economic progressives won on both sides in Iowa. If a conservative holding to trickledown economics gets the nomination for the R's...it's a sure win for the Democrats. Guys, Reaganomics is on the way out. Like a fad diet, it didn't work like they expected it to and now it's on the way out. Time to try a new theory.

OMG!!! The whole theory is that people know what to do with their money better that the Federal Government. As you free up the supply of money it will be better used for growth. Lets get the government out of our lives and then we will really see the economy grow. These corporations are leaving because they can't compete in large part because of government regulation.

[bishopnl]

That's why economic progressives won on both sides in Iowa.

No it's not.

Huckabee won b/c he was in a midwest state as a conservative evangelical Christian campaigning against a Mormon and a pro-choice advocate.

And Edwards is much more economically regres--oops, I mean "progressive" than Obama.

Face it, Chris. Socialism has failed time and again. Unfortunately, willing dupes always believe it just never had the right personnel to implement it, so consequently they keep drudging it up.

And Reaganomics was a smashing success. Record breaking tax revenues, prosperity that lasted well into the 90's, and a huge percentage of Americans who believe Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever. The reason the deficit grew was b/c Reagan was saddled with an incompetent Democratic congress who loved to spend...although the word incompetent is a bit redundant when describing Democrats.

[bishopnl]

The whole theory is that people know what to do with their money better that the Federal Government.

Not according to liberals. To them, the pockets of the wealthy are a national piggy bank to be picked at leisure.

The fact is, liberalism at it's core is about theft. It requires an ugly mentality of greed that says, if I don't have it, they shouldn't have it either. So we'll take from them and give to me.

[ChristopherHall]

There is just way too much to reply to but I will pick a few points in which you are way off.

1) Corporations are owned by shareholders who are people just like you and me. When the corporation pays taxes so do the shareholders. Not just once at the corporate level but also at the individual level when dividends are passed out to the owners.

Offer generous tax cuts to businesses that stay here and invest here. Heavily tax the profits and/or sale of goods in US markets. Make it hurt to sell out America.

2) The largest growth in our economy has come from small businesses, not the fortune 500. That is why the Bush tax cuts were focused on small businesses and family farms.

The Bush tax cuts enormously benefited the large corporations, not to mention the “no bid” contracts connected to the war. While many small businesses did benefit…they should have received more. When compared Bush shafted the lower and middle class worker, threw a bone to small businesses and just threw money at the top corporations in America who supported him. Small businesses that provide the most stimuli for our economy should have received far more.

3) No one forces you to work for a corporation. If they aren't paying you a wage that you feel is fair you can either leave or bargain with them to pay you more. Remember, they need people. If there aren't enough workers the price of wages will go up until the supply of workers exceeds the demand. Wages will then go down.

I don’t work for a corporation. I work for the government. I’m an account reconciler in the Division of Water for my local government. I spend my days opening purchase orders, paying bills, and policing contractors who are trying to rip off tax payers.

4) Corporate tax rates are way higher than individual tax rates. Also, if a corporation keeps their money and doesn't distribute as dividends then they have to pay another tax on top of the income tax to keep their cash.

Don’t look at “rate”. You see, they want you to look at the “tax rates”. By doing this they skew the whole picture. Look at the “tax burden”. For example, let’s say a family of four pay so much in taxes. They only make enough to barely get by paycheck to paycheck. Now let’s look at a billion dollar corporation. Even if it’s taxed at the same “rate” as the family of four, the corporation walks away with big profits (record profits last quarter mind you). The corporation really needs to shoulder more “tax burden” so that the economic burden of functioning in the American economy is shared. That means the corporation should have some sense of what it’s like living paycheck to paycheck, for lack of a better example. By distributing the tax burden evenly the working class family experiences some relief and businesses shoulder their fair share of the burden.

We also need to return to the restrictions our founding fathers and others in their time placed on corporate powers such as:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was
not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

When faced with the East India Company and other corporations loyal to the crown, our founding fathers walked away knowing danger of corporate power all too well. Many laws like these are on the books state level but are un-enforced.

[ChristopherHall]

Bishopnl,

Please don’t get nasty. Your post essentially calls anyone who disagrees with you a dupe and a thief. Frankly, that’s not true.

Also, I don’t believe in socialism. If you’ve been duped into believing in the false notion that it’s either or, that’s your issue. Frankly, I support a mixed economy. Neither entirely socialist or capitalist. Neither theory works in it’s purist form. Those who think either one does is grossly ignorant of history. We’re already a mixed economy, we’re hurting because we’re shifting to being the Wild West in 2008. Frankly, most of the world is far more progressive if we are…if corporations want to move to some third world banana republic…let them. Just don’t make it easy for them to do business here. ;)

I fear both pure socialism and pure capitalism. Frankly, like Lincoln and others I’m seriously suspicious of both government and corporate power.

[ChristopherHall]

Let’s all just play conservative and sing “Everything is Beautiful”. LOL

It's going to take a centrist approach to survive in the world today.

[Ferd]

Personal jab? lol

Remember...what I've said before; I'm expecting a tidal wave of personal attacks from my brothers for disagreeing politically. But that doesn't sway me. Reaganomics is a dismal failure and Americans know it. That's why economic progressives won on both sides in Iowa. If a conservative holding to trickledown economics gets the nomination for the R's...it's a sure win for the Democrats. Guys, Reaganomics is on the way out. Like a fad diet, it didn't work like they expected it to and now it's on the way out. Time to try a new theory.

That was not an attack. if I were to make judgements about your value as a person based on your political postioning, that would be a personal attack.

but clearly you have articulated what you believe here, and what you have said is not what Moderates believe.

My brother, you are a solid Apostolic fellow with a serious liberal bent to your national politics.

That isnt an attack. it is simply the truth. I wish you well, consider you a brother in the lord, and pray to high holy heaven your view of politics doesnt carry the day in november.

Love ya man.

[bishopnl]

Bishopnl,

Please don’t get nasty. Your post essentially calls anyone who disagrees with you a dupe and a thief. Frankly, that’s not true.

Also, I don’t believe in socialism. If you’ve been duped into believing in the false notion that it’s either or, that’s your issue. Frankly, I support a mixed economy. Neither entirely socialist or capitalist. Neither theory works in it’s purist form. Those who think either one does is grossly ignorant of history. We’re already a mixed economy, we’re hurting because we’re shifting to being the Wild West in 2008. Frankly, most of the world is far more progressive if we are…if corporations want to move to some third world banana republic…let them. Just don’t make it easy for them to do business here. ;)

I fear both pure socialism and pure capitalism. Frankly, like Lincoln and others I’m seriously suspicious of both government and corporate power.

I did not call everyone who disagrees with me a dupe or a thief. I certaintly do believe that those who disagree with me are wrong, whether it's through misguided notions or willful ignorance, I can't say. So what? We all have our opinions.

I do believe that liberalism, at it's core, is about greed. That doesn't mean everyone who suscribes to it is greedy...some people, apparently you included, honestly believe it's purported good intentions.

As for you not being a socialist: Maybe not a pure socialist...but wealth redistribution, government control, and heavy progressive taxation are all hallmarks of socialistic systems. A rose by any other name would smell as...well, not sweet, but I'm sure you understand my point.

Frankly, Chris, I hate liberalism. Call me unChristian, a jerk, whatever. I believe liberalism is a destructive and humanistic philosophy that encourages reliance on man and not on God. As for other nations being more "progressive" than us...America is the most powerful and richest nation on earth. People spend years trying to get into this country. So what in the world makes you believe other countries have it better than we do? Because their people can wait in line for a year or so for critical surgery at the hands of incompetent physicians, but the government pays for it so they are better?

[bishopnl]

Let’s all just play conservative and sing “Everything is Beautiful”. LOL

It's going to take a centrist approach to survive in the world today.

Let's all play liberal and sing "The Ballad of Robin Hood."

The fact is, his good intentions still didn't excuse the fact that he was still committing theft.

Centrist is just another term for fence straddler.

[ChristopherHall]

Let's all play liberal and sing "The Ballad of Robin Hood."

The fact is, his good intentions still didn't excuse the fact that he was still committing theft.

If the government took tax money and chose to redistribute it without the consent of the governed, it would be theft. However, if the governed choose to have their government spend money or domestic projects the government is a servant that must obey.

Centrist is just another term for fence straddler.

:ohplease

[bishopnl]

If the government took tax money and chose to redistribute it without the consent of the governed, it would be theft. However, if the governed choose to have their government spend money or domestic projects the government is a servant that must obey.

Sorry, Chris, but that's just a weak excuse. I don't choose for the government to redistribute my wealth on domestic welfare. I don't believe it's constitutional or lawful. And most people can find at least one, if not many, areas of government spending with which they disagree.

So it is theft. Just because it's cloaked in a veneer of legislation doesn't make it right.

[Esther]

Sorry, Chris, but that's just a weak excuse. I don't choose for the government to redistribute my wealth on domestic welfare. I don't believe it's constitutional or lawful. And most people can find at least one, if not many, areas of government spending with which they disagree.

So it is theft. Just because it's cloaked in a veneer of legislation doesn't make it right.

I agree with that statement!

[Walkbyfaith7]

I was joyful to see Huckabee win Iowa.

I am a Ron Paul supporter but if it's between Huckabee and Obama...I'll go Huckabee.

Anyone else here support Ron Paul?

[Aquila]

Oh boy, more political conservatives bashing political liberals. If any of you have been outside the United States for any extended period of time you will know that a devoted Christian can be of any political stripe. Get off eachother's backs and lighten up.

[trickledown]

Does it surprise anyone that Chris is a government worker who spends his days on the lookout for those contractors (probably small business types that benefited from Pres. Bush) who are trying to "rip-off" the taxpayer? Sorry to make it sound so defaming but those are his on observations?

Few choose to bite the hand that feeds them.

[Apprehended]

ChristopherHall

You are a strong contender for what all socialist contend for; that being a NANNY government. The proponents of NANNY government want the government to be there to wiped their hineys and tend to every little sniffle and stubbed toe.

To the rest of us, this trend is abhorrent. Our nation was founded on what is declared in the Preemble to the Constitution. Read that document, and the Constitution too. I believe them to be divinely inspired. Framers of the Constitution were at loggerheads for many days until Uncle Ben suggested prayer. After prayer, everything fell into place immediately.

The idea of NANNY government is not in the least hinted in the Constition or the Preemble to it. This is a much later contrivance since the electorate has learned how to manipulate power hungry politicians. Those evil men would sell their mamma and the keys to the treasury for one vote just to gain and remain in power.

[Apprehended]

I was joyful to see Huckabee win Iowa.

I am a Ron Paul supporter but if it's between Huckabee and Obama...I'll go Huckabee.

Anyone else here support Ron Paul?

I am afraid that your dreams of a Huckabee run is just that...a dream.

He was a one shot wonder in Iowa but with no money and nothing but losses in support going into other primaries, his only hope is continued free press and the debates. That alone does not have staying power. You've got to have the money for continued exposure.

I think Iowa and possible South Carolina is only a one or two shot wonder. Super Tuesday will prove to be the tell all. Someone, possibly Romney will wrap it up by then, I suspect. It is possible to go to the Convention undecided. If that happens, the Republican National Convention will have to sort it out...probably between Romney and McCain.

Just my guess....

[Walkbyfaith7]

I am afraid that your dreams of a Huckabee run is just that...a dream.

He was a one shot wonder in Iowa but with no money and nothing but losses in support going into other primaries, his only hope is continued free press and the debates. That alone does not have staying power. You've got to have the money for continued exposure.

I think Iowa and possible South Carolina is only a one or two shot wonder. Super Tuesday will prove to be the tell all. Someone, possibly Romney will wrap it up by then, I suspect. It is possible to go to the Convention undecided. If that happens, the Republican National Convention will have to sort it out...probably between Romney and McCain.

Just my guess....

I don't really know Huckabee that well, but I like what I have seen thus far.

Money is nothing. If he wins another state soon, that could propel MANY people to donate to his cause. Money will not be a problem if he asks for monetary support. You have not been following his campaign to know enough because he isn't focusing on money, but on people. If he was shouting money, money, money...we would and will get it from his supporters.

He probably won't win. BUT I can assure you his support just doubled after the Iowa win.

[Walkbyfaith7]

Also Mitt virtually is financing his own campaign and others like Ron Paul raised more money from supporters. Actually Ron Paul raised more money than ANY republican candidate for president in the 4th quarter of last year- almost 19 million in 3 months!

[Apprehended]

I don't really know Huckabee that well, but I like what I have seen thus far.

Money is nothing. If he wins another state soon, that could propel MANY people to donate to his cause. Money will not be a problem if he asks for monetary support. You have not been following his campaign to know enough because he isn't focusing on money, but on people. If he was shouting money, money, money...we would and will get it from his supporters.

He probably won't win. BUT I can assure you his support just doubled after the Iowa win.

True. Very true.

But, he is still going to need an awful lot of money, not only for advertising toward Super Tuesday which is only a month away. Super Tuesday will probably tell the story.

Also, we have a spoiler waiting in the wings...Michael Bloomberg, a liberal Republican. If Huckabee wins the nomination, there is going to be a huge outpouring of support for drafting Bloomberg to run as an Independent. This will also spoil the Democrats to a lesser extent. If Bloomberg runs as an Independent, the chances of Huckabee winning the Gen. election is nil to nothing.

[trickledown]

Apprehended you are the first poster (though I certainly could have missed it) to bring the spoiler prediction out. My very real concern is that Bloomburg will be another Perot. We will have to wait a bit but if he runs against a Romney and Clinton or Rudy and Clinton, he could steal enough votes to propel Clinton to power with a considerable minority of the popular vote.