Couldn’t agree more, man. Why is he even running as a Republican?
But then again, Republicans are basically nany state people these days. Except for one of course. Ron Paul.
It’s becoming more and more clear to me. Most major problems in the country are the result of federal government intervention. They’re the cause of high health care expenses, a social security crisis, poor public schools, war on drugs, war on poverty, etc. On and on you could go.
What Republicans need to figure out is just as the government screws up domestic affairs because of unintended consequences, so it screws up domestic affairs. Overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 and you destabilize the region. Back the Shah, radicalize Iran and end up with Khomeni. Back Saddam, end with Gulf War 1. Intervene in Gulf War 1 and get 9/11 for your reward. Back Musharaff as he overthrows a democratically elected government, end up with an Al Qaeda refugee camp in Pakistan. And they have nukes. Everyone in countries supposedly friendly to us (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) hates our guts. And their response is somewhat logical. We’d feel the same way if China was in here propping up our government so that it was favorable to them.
Boy, they typos were pretty bad there. I meant to say that as government intervention screws up domestic affairs, in the same way it screws up foreign affairs.
Ron Paul is a joke! He was practically booed off the stage at the Univision debate a few days ago. Mike Huckabee is impressive and very principled, unlike Mitt Romney who will flip his positions for political expediency. Huckabee is a social conservative, which is extremely rare in the Republican Party and it is important to me. They talk about this so called “nanny state”. That is just another little clever name made up by the far right to demonize the man because he quite literally saved his own life by making lifestyle changes that helped him drop over 100lbs. How many presidential candidates can say that they were once knocking on the door of death at 300lbs and can now say they have run in 3 separate marathons? How many can say they have even competed one marathon? Give me a break with this “nanny state” bullshit! He is a good man who will get things done, because he knows how to reach across the aisle, as he had to in heavily democratic Arkansas. This country has had too many years of what i would call very polarizing administrations. First Clinton and now GW. It’s time to bring the country together, and I can think of no one better qualified than Mike Huckabee.
For me, Huckabee is the worst type of “unifier”: unifying the governing philosophy of the left with the aggressive busybodyness of some elements of the religious right.
I suppose it’s “RINO-ish”, but I’d far rather have a social liberal - or at least a social “don’t care” - and economic conservative, which is the exact opposite of Huckabee. Sure, he got the bright idea of using the Fair Tax to have some tax-fighter cred, but, given how he governed Arkansas, his heart isn’t in it, while he’s clearly a fan of using the government to “help”.
calcon, I’d have a question for you. If you don’t like Bush, why would you like Huck? As far as I can see he’s basically Bush on steroids. More war. More big government. He wants more energy subsidies, more health care subsidies. Incidentally he’s the only Republican candidate to oppose school choice.
That’s why we call him nanny state, not because he lost weight. It’s because he seems to think if any idea is a good idea, it should be a federal program. He wants a national smoking ban. If that’s not nanny state, then what is?
Wow, even against school choice? Daaammmn! I can’t believe I even considered voting for him! He is so bad I’d rather vote Democrat than vote for him in the general election.
[quote comment=”167814″]Wow, even against school choice? Daaammmn! I can’t believe I even considered voting for him! He is so bad I’d rather vote Democrat than vote for him in the general election.
Good question, Calcon! I want to know if HP would vote Hillary before Huckabee. PErsonally, I would NEVER vote for a democrat. I would vote 3rd party before I voted for democrat. Democrats have done enough with their wicked abortion cause.
The difference between a Huckabee and a Clinton being so insignificant (both wrong in very different and yet important areas) that I would simply stay home.
Its no wonder why Bloomberg is salivating to spend 1 billion dollars.
Huckabee is a joke, Romney will say anything to get elected, Guliani has his personal and ethical problems, Thompson cant get anyone excited, McCain has his immigration problems to the right and Iraq problems to the left.
Obama has no experience and lacks specifics, Edwars is very far left, Hillary is well Hillary.
With all of the candidates in both parties so flawed, I wouldn’t be suprised if someone wakes Ross Perot up to get in the race.
No election has been this up for grabs for a long time.
Couldn’t agree more, man. Why is he even running as a Republican?
But then again, Republicans are basically nany state people these days. Except for one of course. Ron Paul.
It’s becoming more and more clear to me. Most major problems in the country are the result of federal government intervention. They’re the cause of high health care expenses, a social security crisis, poor public schools, war on drugs, war on poverty, etc. On and on you could go.
What Republicans need to figure out is just as the government screws up domestic affairs because of unintended consequences, so it screws up domestic affairs. Overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 and you destabilize the region. Back the Shah, radicalize Iran and end up with Khomeni. Back Saddam, end with Gulf War 1. Intervene in Gulf War 1 and get 9/11 for your reward. Back Musharaff as he overthrows a democratically elected government, end up with an Al Qaeda refugee camp in Pakistan. And they have nukes. Everyone in countries supposedly friendly to us (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) hates our guts. And their response is somewhat logical. We’d feel the same way if China was in here propping up our government so that it was favorable to them.
Boy, they typos were pretty bad there. I meant to say that as government intervention screws up domestic affairs, in the same way it screws up foreign affairs.
Don’t worry, context made that clear. Good points, btw.
The dude’s a moonbat with a Bible…
Ron Paul is a joke! He was practically booed off the stage at the Univision debate a few days ago. Mike Huckabee is impressive and very principled, unlike Mitt Romney who will flip his positions for political expediency. Huckabee is a social conservative, which is extremely rare in the Republican Party and it is important to me. They talk about this so called “nanny state”. That is just another little clever name made up by the far right to demonize the man because he quite literally saved his own life by making lifestyle changes that helped him drop over 100lbs. How many presidential candidates can say that they were once knocking on the door of death at 300lbs and can now say they have run in 3 separate marathons? How many can say they have even competed one marathon? Give me a break with this “nanny state” bullshit! He is a good man who will get things done, because he knows how to reach across the aisle, as he had to in heavily democratic Arkansas. This country has had too many years of what i would call very polarizing administrations. First Clinton and now GW. It’s time to bring the country together, and I can think of no one better qualified than Mike Huckabee.
Calcon, did you read the link? What are your thoughts on it? I used to like Huckabee…but the more I learn about him, the less I like him.
For me, Huckabee is the worst type of “unifier”: unifying the governing philosophy of the left with the aggressive busybodyness of some elements of the religious right.
I suppose it’s “RINO-ish”, but I’d far rather have a social liberal - or at least a social “don’t care” - and economic conservative, which is the exact opposite of Huckabee. Sure, he got the bright idea of using the Fair Tax to have some tax-fighter cred, but, given how he governed Arkansas, his heart isn’t in it, while he’s clearly a fan of using the government to “help”.
calcon, I’d have a question for you. If you don’t like Bush, why would you like Huck? As far as I can see he’s basically Bush on steroids. More war. More big government. He wants more energy subsidies, more health care subsidies. Incidentally he’s the only Republican candidate to oppose school choice.
That’s why we call him nanny state, not because he lost weight. It’s because he seems to think if any idea is a good idea, it should be a federal program. He wants a national smoking ban. If that’s not nanny state, then what is?
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,316496,00.html
Wow, even against school choice? Daaammmn! I can’t believe I even considered voting for him! He is so bad I’d rather vote Democrat than vote for him in the general election.
ANYBODY BUT HUCKABEE is my new slogan.
How is Huckabee on Spying on Americans? because I definitely am 100% for it. Namely those of us who use the internet.
[quote comment=”167814″]Wow, even against school choice? Daaammmn! I can’t believe I even considered voting for him! He is so bad I’d rather vote Democrat than vote for him in the general election.
ANYBODY BUT HUCKABEE is my new slogan.[/quote]
Would you really vote for Hillary over Huckabee?
Good question, Calcon! I want to know if HP would vote Hillary before Huckabee. PErsonally, I would NEVER vote for a democrat. I would vote 3rd party before I voted for democrat. Democrats have done enough with their wicked abortion cause.
I like Huckabee. Particularly his FAIR tax plan.
The difference between a Huckabee and a Clinton being so insignificant (both wrong in very different and yet important areas) that I would simply stay home.
Its no wonder why Bloomberg is salivating to spend 1 billion dollars.
Huckabee is a joke, Romney will say anything to get elected, Guliani has his personal and ethical problems, Thompson cant get anyone excited, McCain has his immigration problems to the right and Iraq problems to the left.
Obama has no experience and lacks specifics, Edwars is very far left, Hillary is well Hillary.
With all of the candidates in both parties so flawed, I wouldn’t be suprised if someone wakes Ross Perot up to get in the race.
No election has been this up for grabs for a long time.
Obama is far left. You should have read up on obama’s bio.
Hillary appeases the left at every turn.
Edwards has no clue as to what’s going on politically even with in his own party.
Hillary appeases everyone at every turn.
Certainly her war record does not appease the left.
Frankly, McCain is the only Republican with a shot in a national election.
It appears that come election day 2008 HP can plan a vacation.