Mike Huckabee For President Thread

[rdawg]

You want this guy to be president?


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2yj_okz7ZwI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT></P>
He's a creationist who is running as a theocrat. Sorry, but that's not the kind of thing we are supposed to put up with in America.

If he were a Muslim who took a phone call from Allah at a political rally, I'm certain he would be lambasted. If he were a Scientologist who took a phone call from Xenu, I'm sure we would all roll our eyes and laugh.

But the above stunt, and all his ridiculous Christian pandering, gets rounds of applause and support threads like this one.

First off not that great of a fundraiser idea. Moving on, you do have to put up with that in America. This country was not founded on the principles of Islam or Scientology, it was founded on Christianity . Our forefathers founded this country on the principles of faith and freedom of which we still fight to defend these against enemies both foreign and domestic. Now you can take it to the aclu if you wish, but we will continue to support candidates with the moral fiber this country was founded on. In America you can practice other religions all you want but Christians should and will take their faith everywhere they go. You can take you Christian intolerance and go to Cuba or China where You won't have to put up with creationists or real Republicans.

[Reason]

In the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, it is clearly stated:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It is a common misconception, the idea America was founded on Christian values by Christian men who were so Christian they all had the Bible memorized and wanted it included as much as possible in the Constitution. It is not true, it is American mythology.

Remember, "In God We Trust" didn't appear on our money until 1957. "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

The founding fathers were a group of well-educated, slave-owning, wealthy, aristocratic idealists living in a nasty, ignorant age. No matter their personal religious beliefs, which are debatable, they envisioned a country where religion kept out of the affairs of government.

Even if they WERE very Christian men, the way they treated blacks, American Indians and women certainly was not, and thus any discussion of this nation being founded on Christian ideas is so tainted by their dispositions in this matter, the argument is moot.

They drew heavily from the Greeks and the various philosophers in vogue at the time and drew up plans for a utopia of ideas, democracy and personal freedoms which is probably impossible given the nature of human beings.

That's what makes the Constitution so great. It is a blueprint for an America which doesn't exist and never has. It may one day come to be, but not as long as people like Mike Huckabee can drum up so much support.

Here are some other examples:

"As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin (Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

[Fish-Bait]

Bagel.

[Fish-Bait]

yeah, it looks like he's squeezin' somethin' out of his butt.

[TDaleBeavers]

So it is hit or miss with more hit in recent years? Thanks much.


No really... 1992 was the last "miss" as far as the Iowa Caucus goes..and that one was easily explainable. Tom Harkin got over 85 percent of the caucus "vote", but did nothing anywhere else. The other Democrats made no real effort to campaign there because of Harkin's "native son" status.

In 1988, both Dick Gephardt (Missouri) and Bob Dole (Kansas) were from neighboring states and had some advantage going in. Paul Simon (the late Senator of bow tie fame, not the singer) from neighboring Illinois came in 2nd on the Demo side while eventual nominee Michael Dukakis came in 3rd.

[fuzzis]

First, we ask about voting history and only include those who say they vote all of the time or most of the time.

Perfect example of what I am talking about. I read some place where 10% of the population are disaffected. I was one of those. I actually think that it is higher IMO. These polls don't take into account those who are newly able to vote. This goes for all the candidates, not just Ron Paul so you can not say now I am pulling one way or the other. In essence, many people who don't vote now have someone to vote for. I have never voted before and I know many people haven't that are going to now. :clap:



The simple fact of the matter is that people who have voted in the past are more likely to vote in the future. Efforts like Rock the Vote and Vote or Die, which have been aimed at getting young people involved are not very successful simply because those who have not voted before are very likely to not be vested in the process. We have an extremely low voter turnout, and those candidates who count on first-time voters have been disappointed time and time again. When you factor in that some of those problematic percentages can be accounted for and controlled in the statistical evaluation, you're again tilting at windmills.

Sorry.

It would be interesting to take a look at a poll of first-time voters and see what the pulse is there, and then poll that sample again after the elections to see if they actually got out and voted and what they felt that process meant to them, etc.


Second, we ask how closely the respondent has followed the Presidential debates and other campaign activities. Those following the campaign Very or Somewhat Closely are included

How is this relevant?? So the ones who dont follow closely are not included?? Wow, really scientific.



This one is actually very relevant if you consider what the caucus procedure is. Those who are involved early on/paying attention are more likely to get out to the primary election, which does not have the benefit of local races to boost voter turnout. (Dale, correct me if I'm wrong on that one)



Third, we ask specifically about how likely each person was to participate in the caucus. Those who are Very or Somewhat Likely to participate are included in the final sample.

This is an important dependent variable. The campaigns of each candidate have the potential to reach voters on a weekly basis. So the ones who are not voting now are thrown out and likely not included in again with a phone call later. So the ones who may vote one particular way get ignored altogether.



I'm not quite sure how you got from point A to point B. :confused: Why wouldn't you want to poll people who are are very or somewhat likely to be involved in the caucus procedure? To include others would introduce more of the inaccuracy you've been railing against.

A poll is a snapshot of that moment in time, and they update them frequently. So those who weren't included this time because they have yet to be reached by a candidate could very well be included the next time the poll is conducted. It's not like pollsters stick with one sample the entire primary season.



We also looked at an even tighter screen by including by asking the following question… Many times, things come up that make it impossible for someone to participate in the caucuses. This year, the event will be held much closer to the holidays and winter weather is also a possibility. Are you certain that you will participate in the Iowa caucuses or is it possible that something might come up to prevent you from attending?

A good dependent variable. At least they acknowledge this variable!


As we examined each scenario, the results shifted modestly but the overall results remained quite consistent.

How can this be consistent when 3 out of the 4 mentioned variables are not fully integrated into the sampling?? This is precisely my point.



You have a flawed understanding of the process and how it works. The variables are accounted for or are not as important as you think they are, whether you agree with the assessment or not.

I fully recognize that statistics can be made to say just about whatever you want them to, but I also know that there are pollsters out there who are doing some excellent work. Rasmussen and Zogby are two of those (although I seem to recall Zogby calling for Kerry in 2004, which we all know wasn't accurate). People like Zogby and Rasmussen build their reputations and make their money by being accurate. People aren't going to pay to see their poll results if they're not pretty close. They're not working for the Republicans or the Democrats; they don't get paid by someone else to go out and do a poll most of the time...and in most cases, you can actually look at the survey questions to determine for yourself if there's bias.

I'm not saying rely on polls, but they're an important piece of a larger picture.



Thanks Fuzz for the posting. From here on out when you post something, I will read it and elaborate my opinions! I know I try to sound like a know-it-all and for that I apologize. I am just worried about this country and believe strongly unless we reel some of this corruption in, our Republic will fall. Roman empire???

If you think that Ron Paul is the answer, then he's going to have to start doing better in those polls. Like it or not, that's a benchmark that really can't be ignored. That's going to be some evidence that his message is hitting its mark among a broader audience...which is key for him. For a lot of people, Ron Paul lacks legitimacy, even if he talks a good game. He needs a bit of that traditional weight and heft. There's still time, but it's running out fast.

[rdawg]

"How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britian, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection.
Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor....And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

[rdawg]

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convcing proofs I see of this truth-- that God governns in the affairs of men. And is a sparrow cannot fall to the ground wihtout His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this. I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

~Benjamin Franklin 1787 Addressing the Continental Congress resestablishing prayer in Congress which is still practiced today.

There you go Space Cadet, I mean reason.

[Reason]

Hey Reason, what's up with the Crazy Kirk avatar?

No good reason, I had it saved on my computer when I joined.

[Reason]

There you go Space Cadet, I mean reason.

You resort to ad hominem retorts?

Yes, women couldn't vote, people could buy and sell other people, and they prayed before they held session.

There is a big difference between a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and ceremonial prayer before commencing with business. I don't think they should pray, but it seems harmless in comparison to crapping on the Fourteenth Amendment.

[rdawg]

You resort to ad hominem retorts?

Yes, women couldn't vote, people could buy and sell other people, and they prayed before they held session.

There is a big difference between a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and ceremonial prayer before commencing with business. I don't think they should pray, but it seems harmless in comparison to crapping on the Fourteenth Amendment.


I agree things weren't perfect and we weren't always good stewards of what we had as a country. However this is part of our nation and we will stick to our guns and preserve what is morally right. Rogue judges and states have no right to try to bastardize the institution of marriage to accomodate homosexuals, they are tolerated in all areas of this country but they will never be able to be married because that their commitment to eachother does not equate to the marriage of one man and one women, it is a divine institution not one created by man nor the state.

[hendrixfreak70]

The simple fact of the matter is that people who have voted in the past are more likely to vote in the future. Efforts like Rock the Vote and Vote or Die, which have been aimed at getting young people involved are not very successful simply because those who have not voted before are very likely to not be vested in the process. We have an extremely low voter turnout, and those candidates who count on first-time voters have been disappointed time and time again. When you factor in that some of those problematic percentages can be accounted for and controlled in the statistical evaluation, you're again tilting at windmills.

Sorry.

It would be interesting to take a look at a poll of first-time voters and see what the pulse is there, and then poll that sample again after the elections to see if they actually got out and voted and what they felt that process meant to them, etc

The first part I agree with the first sentence Fuzz. I do. My contention here is those who are disaffected now have alot more reason to vote. The poll you cited does not include this variable. That is the truth and yes in this instance this is a pitch for Ron Paul, I know I am not alone in pitching my first ever vote to him.

This one is actually very relevant if you consider what the caucus procedure is. Those who are involved early on/paying attention are more likely to get out to the primary election, which does not have the benefit of local races to boost voter turnout. (Dale, correct me if I'm wrong on that one)

Very likely and somewhat likely are the only ones included in on the sample. How can THAT be an accurate account of who MAY vote when there are so many tangents NOT considered??? Of course, you can not include the unknown. By its very nature it is flawed.

I'm not quite sure how you got from point A to point B. :confused: Why wouldn't you want to poll people who are are very or somewhat likely to be involved in the caucus procedure? To include others would introduce more of the inaccuracy you've been railing against.

It would not because of the variables I pointed out. There is always, ALWAYS the possibility that someone may or may not vote when it comes time but is unlikely to vote at that snapshot in time you refer to. And yes of course you would want to include those who are likely to vote too. By its very nature it is an inaccurate process because even though they address the variables, THEY DO NOT consider them into the process. I can address a crowd all day but until I include them in my speech I have done little to persuade them. The same goes for those who are unlikely to vote at that certain time.

You have a flawed understanding of the process and how it works. The variables are accounted for or are not as important as you think they are, whether you agree with the assessment or not.

I fully recognize that statistics can be made to say just about whatever you want them to, but I also know that there are pollsters out there who are doing some excellent work. Rasmussen and Zogby are two of those (although I seem to recall Zogby calling for Kerry in 2004, which we all know wasn't accurate). People like Zogby and Rasmussen build their reputations and make their money by being accurate. People aren't going to pay to see their poll results if they're not pretty close. They're not working for the Republicans or the Democrats; they don't get paid by someone else to go out and do a poll most of the time...and in most cases, you can actually look at the survey questions to determine for yourself if there's bias.

I'm not saying rely on polls, but they're an important piece of a larger picture.

First off you are problably correct. There are many pollster who may be doing some good work, just not accurate. And in no way do I have a flawed understanding of the 'process'. The process you refer to is one political scientists use to gather and analysis data. I am currently taking PS 500 (Graduate Political Science Analysis Class) and part of the class is geared around gathering data and of course analysing it. This includes formulating a hypothesis and determining the independent/dependent variables. These polls outright are not inclusive and even if they ADDRESS a variable they DO NOT include it in on the sampling. In essence they do about 3/4 of the work. The very notion something can be scientific and accurate is absurd. In order for something to be accurate completely we would have to get into absolute truth, which is an oxymoron. There are so many unknowns in science. There are so many unknowns in politics. Thusly the polls are not a reflection of the complete and notice the COMPLETE picture. Maybe as you say a snapshot but they should not be lauded as the truth. Endgame.

For a lot of people, Ron Paul lacks legitimacy, even if he talks a good game. He needs a bit of that traditional weight and heft. There's still time, but it's running out fast.

Now this is something you and I agree on completely. It is a shame more people are not aware of foreign policy blunders, the Constitution, and good sound fiscally repsonsible economics. All of these are very much related and in order for us to return our Republic back to its station, we must get the special interests and demagogues out. <!-- / message --><!-- #### SHOW REPUTATION GIVEN IN POST START - BY LEVI THORNTON #### --><!-- #### SHOW REPUTATION GIVEN IN POST END - BY LEVI THORNTON #### --><!-- sig -->

[fuzzis]

First off you are problably correct. There are many pollster who may be doing some good work, just not accurate. And in no way do I have a flawed understanding of the 'process'. The process you refer to is one political scientists use to gather and analysis data. I am currently taking PS 500 (Graduate Political Science Analysis Class) and part of the class is geared around gathering data and of course analysing it. This includes formulating a hypothesis and determining the independent/dependent variables. These polls outright are not inclusive and even if they ADDRESS a variable they DO NOT include it in on the sampling. In essence they do about 3/4 of the work. The very notion something can be scientific and accurate is absurd. In order for something to be accurate completely we would have to get into absolute truth, which is an oxymoron. There are so many unknowns in science. There are so many unknowns in politics. Thusly the polls are not a reflection of the complete and notice the COMPLETE picture. Maybe as you say a snapshot but they should not be lauded as the truth. Endgame.



The process you do not understand is statistical analysis. (I have a doctoral minor in statistics/research...and like I said, it's been about a year and a half since I had my last class, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings). That's what a poll is....statistical (not political science) analysis, and by looking particularly at the Rasumussen data, sophisticated analysis. None of which I would claim to be able to do without some serious assistance and refreshing). You can talk about a lot of things, but you don't understand that all of those things...that you think are important and others have determined aren't...can be controlled for during the statistical analysis. I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about that process (and I'm sure there are those here who know it better than I do and are just letting me blunder along), but I know that a lot of the points you're trying to make fall far short because you don't get that there's more to it than assigning variables and doing a doing an ANOVA.

And nowhere did I say a COMPLETE picture. I have argued against your notion that polls are useless (and archaic). There is great value in them and by ignoring them, you and Ron Paul are ensuring a defeat.

[Hob684]

and by ignoring them, you and Ron Paul are ensuring a defeat.

so b/c "we" don't know stats like you do, RP will lose.





sure! :smt023

[fuzzis]

so b/c "we" don't know stats like you do, RP will lose.





sure! :smt023

Not quite what I said at all, but...thanks. Y'all just can't afford to ignore the numbers. Even though you take comfort in fundraising. Eventually the reality has to set in that there's a disconnect and there needs to be some way to bridge the gap, which doesn't include thinking it's some sort of conspiracy.

[dreamhippy]

I noticed after the CNN screwed up debate, that mostly Huckabee but also Ron Paul actually gained while the so-called front runners Mitt and Rudy put on a Punch and Judy show and saw their numbers fall.

[Hob684]

its ok fuzz.. i get where you're comin from and personally i have conceded that i don't know as much as you do about stats... thus everytime someone quotes polls i sit back and wait on your Galliant entrance.

i still like lookin at your avatar though... mmmm time to go wake up the wife.

[dreamhippy]

Only one could pull that off....

[Pirate_129]

I don't have a doctoral minor in stats, but I did take a couple of undergrad and one grad level stats class. That was enough to learn the one undeniable truth about statistics. That is that the talkers often manipulate and skew stats in an attempt, often successfully, to control the doers. :smt103

[dreamhippy]

Just read what Mark Twain said about them.

[rdawg]

LMAO. Hill doesn't have a chance. Huck can be VP if he plays his cards right.

GOP will win again unless an Independent captures the hearts, minds, and common sense of the middle majority.

Were not going for second my friend, show a little faith. Hucks got a great chance at winning this. Also, Hawkeye are you conceding????

[Hob684]

[/size]Also, Hawkeye are you conceding????


better watch out....


i'm pretty sure thems fightin words.

[hendrixfreak70]

The process you do not understand is statistical analysis. (I have a doctoral minor in statistics/research...and like I said, it's been about a year and a half since I had my last class, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings). That's what a poll is....statistical (not political science) analysis, and by looking particularly at the Rasumussen data, sophisticated analysis. None of which I would claim to be able to do without some serious assistance and refreshing). You can talk about a lot of things, but you don't understand that all of those things...that you think are important and others have determined aren't...can be controlled for during the statistical analysis. I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about that process (and I'm sure there are those here who know it better than I do and are just letting me blunder along), but I know that a lot of the points you're trying to make fall far short because you don't get that there's more to it than assigning variables and doing a doing an ANOVA.

And nowhere did I say a COMPLETE picture. I have argued against your notion that polls are useless (and archaic). There is great value in them and by ignoring them, you and Ron Paul are ensuring a defeat.

Data analysis be it political science or statistical is the same process. However it is clear to me that you and I have a differing methods in which to do this. Also alot of these polls you cite do not include Ron Paul because the media has not recognized him as a top tier candidate despite his enormous fundraising. So they have done him a disservice and assured that his name WON'T get out. So it is hard to argue that the media does not play a role in the polling, polling can be manipulated, variables are not included in the sampling, and on and on and on. And yes I have determined the aforementioned things important and neither you nor a pollster is going to change my mind or the others who feel this way. How can a poll be accurate when it doesn't include one of the candidates (or all of the candidates)? I mean I threw my support behind Alan Keyes in 2000 and he came in second in the Mississippi primary behind W. A distant second. Explain away with statistical analysis on that. Suffice it to say he was not expected to do that nor was it really relevant anyway. All I am saying is polling is only as accurate as the pollster want it to be. And yes I take pride in the fundraising because unless they are outright lying to us, he has raised far more than expected which means many donors. And I personally know...Im counting now....at least 12 people who have not donated but are going to vote for Ron Paul. I may be the only one in America with this story, but statistically speaking:laugh: I doubt it! Can your statistical analysis meaning explain the Diebold voting machine and its ineptitude??

[fuzzis]

The Rasmussen poll for Iowa (and for New Hampshire) does include Paul. As do Zogby polls (Zogby released an interesting "blind bio" poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391) that Paul did very well in when the poll was opened to likely voters nationwide, not just likely Republican voters. With Republican voters, he came in last. So. Since he's running on that ticket, he's got some work to do there. Apparently. Cumulatively these polls seem to be saying that if Ron Paul is hoping to make a move, he's needs to start making it now). So I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Railing against the "mainstream media" is a common tactic, but I haven't linked to a poll done by the mainstream media, nor am I particularly talking about those. It's a neat obfuscation strategy, but it's not working here. Perhaps we need to try to talk about the same things?

Because you apparently missed it the first time I posted it or are willfully trying to imply that I'm saying something I'm not since you keep saying it, let me say it again:

"I fully recognize that statistics can be made to say just about whatever you want them to, but I also know that there are pollsters out there who are doing some excellent work." (Their livelihoods and reputations depend upon it)

As far as your folks who are voting and haven't donated...or who have even donated and are voting...the truth of that will be out shortly, and unless something changes soon, there are going to be a lot of very disappointed people who have supported Paul. I don't mean to be a downer, but you all have a lot working against you. You're staking a lot on things that historically have not born themselves out.

And you're also branching out a bit here, moving away from what I'm talking about. (the part about diebold...again...nice attempt at diversion)

[rdawg]

drive down 49 south today and see how we're conceding. we'll give you a bumper sticker and some navy beans, man. :smt118


LOL!The way you said what you said sounded like a concession. But now it sounds like your having a concession stand. I's love to come by but I'm out of town this weekend.

[hendrixfreak70]

The Rasmussen poll for Iowa (and for New Hampshire) does include Paul. As do Zogby polls (Zogby released an interesting "blind bio" poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391) that Paul did very well in when the poll was opened to likely voters nationwide, not just likely Republican voters. With Republican voters, he came in last. So. Since he's running on that ticket, he's got some work to do there. Apparently. Cumulatively these polls seem to be saying that if Ron Paul is hoping to make a move, he's needs to start making it now). So I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Railing against the "mainstream media" is a common tactic, but I haven't linked to a poll done by the mainstream media, nor am I particularly talking about those. It's a neat obfuscation strategy, but it's not working here. Perhaps we need to try to talk about the same things?

Because you apparently missed it the first time I posted it or are willfully trying to imply that I'm saying something I'm not since you keep saying it, let me say it again:

"I fully recognize that statistics can be made to say just about whatever you want them to, but I also know that there are pollsters out there who are doing some excellent work." (Their livelihoods and reputations depend upon it)

As far as your folks who are voting and haven't donated...or who have even donated and are voting...the truth of that will be out shortly, and unless something changes soon, there are going to be a lot of very disappointed people who have supported Paul. I don't mean to be a downer, but you all have a lot working against you. You're staking a lot on things that historically have not born themselves out.

And you're also branching out a bit here, moving away from what I'm talking about. (the part about diebold...again...nice attempt at diversion)

Well it seems as though we are making some headway. I am glad that we agree to disagree. I assure you I was not trying a diversion attempt. The media and polls are inherently linked, maybe we werent talking about that but they are. Diebold will make it difficult for any non-establishment candidate to win, also not trying to divert as I am aware that we are not talking about that previously. I have said my piece, you yours. We agree to disagree. I also am not saying that all polls don't include Paul, just some don't. One last note, I do not think you will find one disappointed Paul voter, here is why: it isn't Ron Paul himself, I dont care about him I care about the message he brings. His message is one of freedom, traditional conservative values, smaller government, and Constitutional rule. Dr. Paul may pass on today but the message will not and he has awoken many people to that message. Look for another Ron Paul type in 2012 if he doesnt run again.

[dreamhippy]

One last note, I do not think you will find one disappointed Paul voter, here is why: it isn't Ron Paul himself, I dont care about him (I do) I care about the message he brings. His message is one of freedom, traditional conservative values, smaller government, and Constitutional rule. Dr. Paul may pass on today but the message will not and he has awoken many people to that message. Look for another Ron Paul type in 2012 if he doesnt run again.

Nah! We won`t be dissappointed! His message IS great!
Yep! He`ll be running for his 2nd term! :)

[dollfus46]

Well, I do know that statistics can't make up for experience. And as one who has been around a looooooong time my experience tells me I don't know chit about statistics.:woohoo::hitit:

[dollfus46]

The process you do not understand is statistical analysis. (I have a doctoral minor in statistics/research...and like I said, it's been about a year and a half since I had my last class, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings). That's what a poll is....statistical (not political science) analysis, and by looking particularly at the Rasumussen data, sophisticated analysis. None of which I would claim to be able to do without some serious assistance and refreshing). You can talk about a lot of things, but you don't understand that all of those things...that you think are important and others have determined aren't...can be controlled for during the statistical analysis. I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about that process (and I'm sure there are those here who know it better than I do and are just letting me blunder along), but I know that a lot of the points you're trying to make fall far short because you don't get that there's more to it than assigning variables and doing a doing an ANOVA.

And nowhere did I say a COMPLETE picture. I have argued against your notion that polls are useless (and archaic). There is great value in them and by ignoring them, you and Ron Paul are ensuring a defeat.

Oh YEAH? Well, I took Probability and Statistics once. I know how many times you have to reach into a drawer of brown and black sox before you get a match So don't try to pull the wool over this boy's eyes. :smt019.

[hburgguy06]

Mike has moved into first place in Iowa in the running average of polls on real clear politics ... Additionally, Rasmussen has him in 2nd nationally, only one point away from a statistical tie for first with Guiliani....

[Hob684]

i'm going to start groaning everyone who quotes a poll as fact from here until November.



seriously.


100% of myhattiesburg.com agrees with me.

(Sample Size = 1person, Polling data is interpolated by the distance of the moon from my backyard on any given night, Accuracy : +/- 100%)

[Reason]

I disagree with you, Rdawg, when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Marriage has two definitions in our society. Marriage is a religious institution, and marriage is also a legal agreement.

As a religious institution, people can do whatever they wish. Your church thinks marriage is sacred and holy and should only be between a man and a woman? Fine. Your church would never allow same-sex marriages under its roof? Fine.

As a legal agreement, it confers rights and privileges unmarried people do not get. If a state or federal government bans it, or puts it to a vote, that is as unconstitutional as putting the right to bear arms to a vote.
In America there are 1,049 laws that directly affect an individual based on whether or not he or she is married. And, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, rights conferred to one person cannot be refused to another.

If two individuals want to enter a binding legal agreement with their local government, it has nothing to do with how you view that agreement through the lens of your religion.

People should be allowed to consider marriage as whatever they choose to based on their personal beliefs, and the state should allow those people to be joined in a legal union that has nothing to do with those beliefs.

Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage, like Huckabee, is unpatriotic and has little concern for personal freedoms or civil liberties.

If all the gay couples in America suddenly were married, it wouldn't affect your life in the slightest way.

Supporting a constitutional amendment taking away the rights of certain group of people while everyone else gets to enjoy them sounds a lot like the way blacks and women used to be treated in this country. Supporting a candidate who wants to alter the constitution for this purpose has nothing to do with the good of the nation; it is simple bigotry.

[dreamhippy]

Gay people CAN GET MARRIED! ANYWHERE in the USA! Gay men can marry any willing woman, gay or straight. Gay women can marry any willing man, gay or straight. It seems to me that they already have EQUAL RIGHTS, but just want some SPECIAL rights (which would then set the precedent for changing laws for those into bicycles and teddy bears, etc.). I know, I know, y`all be gentle. I know that`s not going to make people happy to hear, but technically, I am right.

[rdawg]

I disagree with you, Rdawg, when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Marriage has two definitions in our society. Marriage is a religious institution, and marriage is also a legal agreement.

As a religious institution, people can do whatever they wish. Your church thinks marriage is sacred and holy and should only be between a man and a woman? Fine. Your church would never allow same-sex marriages under its roof? Fine.

As a legal agreement, it confers rights and privileges unmarried people do not get. If a state or federal government bans it, or puts it to a vote, that is as unconstitutional as putting the right to bear arms to a vote.
In America there are 1,049 laws that directly affect an individual based on whether or not he or she is married. And, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, rights conferred to one person cannot be refused to another.

If two individuals want to enter a binding legal agreement with their local government, it has nothing to do with how you view that agreement through the lens of your religion.

People should be allowed to consider marriage as whatever they choose to based on their personal beliefs, and the state should allow those people to be joined in a legal union that has nothing to do with those beliefs.

Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage, like Huckabee, is unpatriotic and has little concern for personal freedoms or civil liberties.

If all the gay couples in America suddenly were married, it wouldn't affect your life in the slightest way.

Supporting a constitutional amendment taking away the rights of certain group of people while everyone else gets to enjoy them sounds a lot like the way blacks and women used to be treated in this country. Supporting a candidate who wants to alter the constitution for this purpose has nothing to do with the good of the nation; it is simple bigotry.


Gay people are asking for special rights. Marriage is a covenanat between two people(a man and a woman) and God. The state didn't invent marriage. Never try to compare the movement for Gay promotion, to womens sufferage or the civil rights movement. People are born black,as I was, and women are born women, gay people have made a decision to be gay. They are not forced into slavery, denied eating at the lunch counter, or not allowed to vote. Speaking of votes take it to the people of this country and you will see that the PEOPLE of this country will overwhelmingly vote for an ammendment just as they have in many states in our union. One question to you though, Should the LDS cults be allowed to practice polygamy, or why can't Joey marry a 13 yr old girl? Are those civil liberties being denied to Americans????? Try serving 3 tours of Iraq and then you can decide who is patriotic.

[CircusRide]

It'll be interesting to see where the big money goes now that Huckabee is making a big move.

[rdawg]

rdawg, how did the Huck meetup go at Gander Mtn, Saturday?

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x137/mselle01/IMG_2208.jpg

:smt040

I haven't talked to anyone. I was in Tennessee this weekend.

[Reason]

Gay people are asking for special rights. Marriage is a covenanat between two people(a man and a woman) and God. The state didn't invent marriage. Never try to compare the movement for Gay promotion, to womens sufferage or the civil rights movement. People are born black,as I was, and women are born women, gay people have made a decision to be gay. They are not forced into slavery, denied eating at the lunch counter, or not allowed to vote. Speaking of votes take it to the people of this country and you will see that the PEOPLE of this country will overwhelmingly vote for an ammendment just as they have in many states in our union. One question to you though, Should the LDS cults be allowed to practice polygamy, or why can't Joey marry a 13 yr old girl? Are those civil liberties being denied to Americans????? Try serving 3 tours of Iraq and then you can decide who is patriotic.

I suspected religion was the source of your opinion. No, homosexuality is not a choice. But, if you believe it is, I can understand how you would feel the way you do. You certainly should vote for Huckabee, as he shares your opinion. I disagree based on common sense and scientific evidence to the contrary.

Despite this...

No one is asking for special rights. As I noted before, marriage is a social contract between an adult, tax-paying citizen and another adult, tax-paying citizen in the eyes of the law. It should not matter whether they are both male or both female, or whether or not they are homosexual - in other words, civil unions. But, as long as the law calls it marriage, these sorts of disagreements will continue.

IT IS ALSO A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION - and each religion has a different definition, belief system and tradition, which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW.

Allowing any one religion's doctrines to dictate how the law is written and interpreted is wrong. Some religions expect followers to pray five times a day, but that shouldn't be the law. Some religions say marriage is between one man and one woman, but that shouldn't be the law.

I know two same-sex couples who are married in the eyes of their religion; they both are raising children too, but they can't reap the same legal benefits of other married couples because the state doesn't recognize their religious union. They are adults, they love their country, they work hard, they pay taxes, they are citizens. To deny them the right to a legal union is wrong and pathetic.

In answer to your question whether polygamy should be legal - sure. Who cares? It hurts no one. If a man and two women all willingly live together, have sex, share the rent and the chores - no problem. Let them get married and all the sudden it's illegal. It is silly and a waste of the legal system's time.

In answer to your comment on how people vote, people routinely voted against the legality of interracial marriage across the country well into the latter part of the 20th century, and many still would. Basic liberties shouldn't be put to a vote. When slavery was put to a vote, it usually won.

In answer to the 13-year-old remark, no, 13-year-olds are not considered adults, and they don't pay taxes, so no marriage for them.

[rdawg]

I suspected religion was the source of your opinion. No, homosexuality is not a choice. But, if you believe it is, I can understand how you would feel the way you do. You certainly should vote for Huckabee, as he shares your opinion. I disagree based on common sense and scientific evidence to the contrary.

Despite this...

No one is asking for special rights. As I noted before, marriage is a social contract between an adult, tax-paying citizen and another adult, tax-paying citizen in the eyes of the law. It should not matter whether they are both male or both female, or whether or not they are homosexual - in other words, civil unions. But, as long as the law calls it marriage, these sorts of disagreements will continue.

IT IS ALSO A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION - and each religion has a different definition, belief system and tradition, which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW.

Allowing any one religion's doctrines to dictate how the law is written and interpreted is wrong. Some religions expect followers to pray five times a day, but that shouldn't be the law. Some religions say marriage is between one man and one woman, but that shouldn't be the law.

I know two same-sex couples who are married in the eyes of their religion; they both are raising children too, but they can't reap the same legal benefits of other married couples because the state doesn't recognize their religious union. They are adults, they love their country, they work hard, they pay taxes, they are citizens. To deny them the right to a legal union is wrong and pathetic.

In answer to your question whether polygamy should be legal - sure. Who cares? It hurts no one. If a man and two women all willingly live together, have sex, share the rent and the chores - no problem. Let them get married and all the sudden it's illegal. It is silly and a waste of the legal system's time.

In answer to your comment on how people vote, people routinely voted against the legality of interracial marriage across the country well into the latter part of the 20th century, and many still would. Basic liberties shouldn't be put to a vote. When slavery was put to a vote, it usually won.

In answer to the 13-year-old remark, no, 13-year-olds are not considered adults, and they don't pay taxes, so no marriage for them.

This is not about slavery or interracial marrying. This is not the 1860's or the 1960's while there have been mistakes on both in the past they do not equate with this issue. This is not a basic liberty. Marriage is even seen by the eyes of the state as a contract between men and women to provide stability for any children that are born out of that marriage. Look Reason we are going to just aggree to disagree because you can't understand the basic principles this country was founded on and has peacefully existed with until the demoralization of the nation due to those who seek to satisfy their own desires, and those who let them by being pc. Your obvious support of moral relativism will fit in with any democatic candidate and I hope you can decide on that one I have decided on my candidate and I will continue to support traditional moral values and Mike Huckabee for President. If you have any other issues with our platform please feel free to share, but there is no religious litmus test huckabee or any candidate has to be subject to. Huckabee is a Christian and it is part of his life and his work. So deal with it, and move on.

[Reason]

...because you can't understand the basic principles this country was founded on and has peacefully existed with until the demoralization of the nation due to those who seek to satisfy their own desires...

No.

[fuzzis]

The Chuck Norris Effect (http://www.newsweek.com/id/73272)

...and for the record, I believe that the state has no business being in the marriage game. If you want to get married, you do it in your church and leave the state out of it.

[TDaleBeavers]

Huckamania is on the rise!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Although I acknowledge during a primary season, national polling is largely meaningless, these numbers do reflect a significant change.

Rudy G 18% (down from 27% just five days earlier)
Huckabee 18% (now tied nationally, up from 13% in five days)
McCain 14% (slight increase)
Thompson 13% (pretty steady)
Romney 12% (slumped from 15% in last week)

Like I said, I'm not presenting this as fact, and as we know, these numbers change all the time. But, I think it further illustrates that Huckabee has considerable momentum right now.

[TDaleBeavers]

Romney has a considerable advantage in New Hampshire, being from neighboring Massachusetts. I believe 75 percent of New Hampshire residents receive news from Boston TV stations. Thus New Hampshire voters have been exposed to Mitt Romney for years, whereas they really have not with Huckabee and some of the others. Dukakis carried the Demo primary in New Hampshire in 1988, Paul Tsongas (not Clinton) did in 1992. On the Republican side, we haven't had a true Northeastern candidate run in quite a while, so there's no comparisons to be made.

The polls I've seen have shown Huckabee near a second place tie (around 15 percent) in New Hampshire though well behind Romney. Should Huck win Iowa, you will see a considerable surge towards his candidacy in New Hampshire. He might not win New Hampshire, but a strong second place showing will certainly help him in South Carolina and other primary states to follow.

[TDaleBeavers]

The one I've specifically seen online in a rasmussen poll (no link beyond www.rasmussenreports.com (http://www.rasmussenreports.com) that i can link) likely Republican primary voters which shows Romney at 34%, McCain and Giuliani at 15% and Huckabee at 14%. Margin of error is +/- 3 %.

[CircusRide]

Chuck Norris can whip Clinton's ass.

[hburgguy06]

Rasmussen's daily tracking actually has Huckabee now taking the national front-runner status from Guiliani ...

Huckabee 20%
Guiliani 17%
McCain 13%
Romeny 13%
Thompson 10%
Paul 7%

I suspect it may be even higher tomorrow...

[dreamhippy]

And you sure said a mouth full! Ron Paul will win BOTH in the popular vote and in the Electoral College. :)

[rdawg]

here is the plan Huckabee has to secure our borders.(and it is not Chuck Norris!)

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=26

[TDaleBeavers]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215/page/1


Here's a stunning new Newsweek poll in Iowa:

Huckabee 39%
Romney 17%
Thompson 10%

Even I have some doubts that the Huckaboom is this huge! Awesome if true though!

[dollfus46]

And you sure said a mouth full! Ron Paul will win BOTH in the popular vote and in the Electoral College. :)

I could live with RP as President.

[dollfus46]

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."

See the entire story here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids).

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but 50 years ago I advocated isolating homosexuals on an island. We grow, we learn that we fear what we don't understand. As we gain knowledge we deal with it in the proper manner. AIDS 15 years ago terrified everyone. We once thought mosquitoes could spread it. I'd never heard of AIDS 15 years ago. It was about 1997 when I first heard news of AIDS and only homosexuals got it then, or so we thought. Now we know we can get it from toys imported from China.;)

[Conveyor Belt]

I don't think Huckabee could be Obama. I still stand by Obama as the guy to take the Dem nomination. I said it months ago, and I'm still standing firm by it.

I got to wondering about an Obama/Oprah ticket... man, that would KILL! Can you imagine? That's women aged 25-65 right there. Hang it up and go home....

I think the repub race is going to come down to Huckabee and Romney. At this point, I'm really thinking Romney will take it. Huckabee, while more personable, is just a little bit too much 'hickish'(that's the best word I can find) for a nod.

Both candidates are flawed, though. I think Romney could beat Obama, but I'm not sure Huckabee could. Just my 'gut' instinct. We'll see how it plays out over the next year.

[Astra]

What gets me about what he said about AIDS is that by the time he made those original remarks, the transmission paths were VERY established and well-known. I was in second or third grade and I knew all about it because of Ryan White's death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White) back in 1990. That poor kid was all over the media, along with plenty of information on the disease. There's absolutely no truth in saying that nobody knew how it was transmitted in 1992 - by then, transmission had been understood for close to a decade. In addition to White, Magic Johnson went public with the disease in 1991. There really isn't an excuse for a well-educated adult who I would have expected to keep up with the news to be unaware of how it worked.

I give him credit for addressing what he said, but I think he put his foot in his mouth by trying to excuse it with ignorance (as in the unknowing kind). As scary as AIDS is, I could really understand that point of view from back in the early 1980s, but by the time he actually said it there was just way too much accumulated knowledge to hang on to it, much less advocate it.

I really think is going to stick with people more than the "sinful" part. After all, that isn't surprising given his background. He should keep in mind though that he is running to be President of the entire country and that sinners vote too (and not just the gay ones). I don't think being called a sinner is going to bother gay rights supporters unless their "sin" is legislated against.

Oh, and CB: I'm still a year from hitting that demographic, but no way in heck would I vote for Oprah. She started a school in Africa because she said Americans were too entitled and greedy, then preaches on her show about the wonders of luxury products most people will never even lay eyes upon much less buy. Then she gives away cars to audience members and dispenses tons of advice on marrying and having kids (two things she's never actually done). I can't take the hypocrisy.

I hate her taste in books, too ;)

[fuzzis]

I got to wondering about an Obama/Oprah ticket... man, that would KILL! Can you imagine? That's women aged 25-65 right there. Hang it up and go home....



It would never happen. One of the criticisms of Obama is that he lacks the experience to be President. If he gets the nod, he'd have to find someone to run as his VP that would bring some balance there. With Oprah having absolutely no political experience, he'd be crucified.

And besides...there are probably as many women who find Oprah revolting as there are that absolutely love her.

[dollfus46]

What gets me about what he said about AIDS is that by the time he made those original remarks, the transmission paths were VERY established and well-known. I was in second or third grade and I knew all about it because of Ryan White's death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White) back in 1990. That poor kid was all over the media, along with plenty of information on the disease. There's absolutely no truth in saying that nobody knew how it was transmitted in 1992 - by then, transmission had been understood for close to a decade. In addition to White, Magic Johnson went public with the disease in 1991. There really isn't an excuse for a well-educated adult who I would have expected to keep up with the news to be unaware of how it worked.

I give him credit for addressing what he said, but I think he put his foot in his mouth by trying to excuse it with ignorance (as in the unknowing kind). As scary as AIDS is, I could really understand that point of view from back in the early 1980s, but by the time he actually said it there was just way too much accumulated knowledge to hang on to it, much less advocate it.

I really think is going to stick with people more than the "sinful" part. After all, that isn't surprising given his background. He should keep in mind though that he is running to be President of the entire country and that sinners vote too (and not just the gay ones). I don't think being called a sinner is going to bother gay rights supporters unless their "sin" is legislated against.

Oh, and CB: I'm still a year from hitting that demographic, but no way in heck would I vote for Oprah. She started a school in Africa because she said Americans were too entitled and greedy, then preaches on her show about the wonders of luxury products most people will never even lay eyes upon much less buy. Then she gives away cars to audience members and dispenses tons of advice on marrying and having kids (two things she's never actually done). I can't take the hypocrisy.

I hate her taste in books, too ;)
Oprah is a racist. Fact.

[Conveyor Belt]

There's a lot of people drinking the Oprah kool-aid, though. It was just a fun thought that ran through my head.

I can't stand Oprah, either. But lots of folks love her.

I don't think Obama's going to bring in a Cheney on his ticket, though. Obama/Edwards might make it, though... although I think Edwards is flawed in many ways. I'm going to have to mull over who Obama would want as a running mate...

[dollfus46]

There's a lot of people drinking the Oprah kool-aid, though. It was just a fun thought that ran through my head.

I can't stand Oprah, either. But lots of folks love her.

I don't think Obama's going to bring in a Cheney on his ticket, though. Obama/Edwards might make it, though... although I think Edwards is flawed in many ways. I'm going to have to mull over who Obama would want as a running mate...

A lot of people consider the running mate. I, for one, don't give it but a fleeting look. I think Hussain and Edwards would lose badly. Hussain has to come up with someone with experience and someone who is less liberal than he. Two radical liberals would die a quick death, I think.

[fuzzis]

There's a lot of people drinking the Oprah kool-aid, though. It was just a fun thought that ran through my head.

I can't stand Oprah, either. But lots of folks love her.

I don't think Obama's going to bring in a Cheney on his ticket, though. Obama/Edwards might make it, though... although I think Edwards is flawed in many ways. I'm going to have to mull over who Obama would want as a running mate...

I don't think that Edwards will take the No. 2 spot again. With his wife's health, I would imagine it's either an all or nothing type of game.

[dollfus46]

Well, Hussain's rally at Williams-Brice stadium in Columbia was a black fest. And Oprah, summoned Martin Luther King back from the grave.

[rdawg]

Now that Huckabee is considered a legitimate candidate, the media is flash its teeth at him about his religion...

Check this (http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/jonesboro/afhuckabee08.asp) out.


Good I hope they will continue to bring it. Since we won't argue the issues we argue about his religion. Will it ever come down to politics here or is the media so anti-Christian that all we get is more of this?

[TDaleBeavers]

I was reading somewhere on my minibrower last night, that Oprah said she'd voted for as many Republicans over the years as Democrats. I remember her softball interview with the President during his 2000 race, but she was out bashing the Iraq War Saturday and citing Obama's consistent opposition to it as a major reason for her support of him.

Anyone really believe Oprah is not a partisan Democrat?

[rdawg]

Can I assume that is a rhetorical question? ;)

no, honest question. will we ever get off of huck's religion and into politics???

[fuzzis]

Anyone really believe Oprah is not a partisan Democrat?

Anyone really care whether Oprah is or is not a partisan Democrat? :confused:

[TDaleBeavers]

Maybe not...be the question does go to the credibility and real value of Oprah's endorsement, particularly to independent and moderate voters. Oprah has noted that this is the first time she's ever made an endorsement...as if this should be given greater value because it is a "rare commodity".

If she has been truly "non aligned" politically..then certainly to some it's worth a hearing. If the statement was just bs for public consumption, I'll put it in the Barbara Streisand (sp) category of "so what?".

[Conveyor Belt]

Probably not. It will get much worse before it gets better.

Well, when you keep throwing it out there, what are people supposed to do?

Electing a candidate based on religion is almost, if not worse, than not electing someone based on religion.

This whole cycle is already a vote for the least flawed. Where are the true leaders in our Country?

[hendrixfreak70]

I was reading somewhere on my minibrower last night, that Oprah said she'd voted for as many Republicans over the years as Democrats. I remember her softball interview with the President during his 2000 race, but she was out bashing the Iraq War Saturday and citing Obama's consistent opposition to it as a major reason for her support of him.

Anyone really believe Oprah is not a partisan Democrat?


I can tell you this... she is not as savvy politically as the media or she may want herself to appear. If she genuinely opposed the War in Iraq then she would support Ron Paul. Obama has cited on several occasions wanting to spread the war to Pakistan. So, in her eyes it is ok to attack and occupy Pakistan but not Iraq? Obama didn't vote for the war because he was not yet in Congress. He has voted against the funding only as a means of political expedience, he really doesnt care. He is a CFR member with that plays the part of a caring politician but give me a break.... fighting Pakistan is the same as fighting Iraq. Oprah is an idiot who has no grasp of politics. She sees a black man from Illinois supposedly being anti-war and he could be the antichrist and she will support him. What a tool. A spade is a spade.

[Conveyor Belt]

You painting a generalization with a fairly broad brush that simply because someone is a Christian that they should not be considered a "true leader" in this country.

Did I mention Christianity in this post? No.

Let me clarify.

God tends to tell certain religions certain things. I'm not going to elaborate on that, but if you think about it, you'll get it. ANYHOW, once a candidate, ANY candidate starts spouting off the word 'God', from Obama to Huckabee, to McCain and Romney and Hillary, I think a firm look at their religious background is in order to see exactly what America can expect their 'God' to answer when they decide to pray to him/her/it over issues.

So, to expect to be able to throw God around in a campaign, then act all snooty and offended when someone starts digging and prodding is just silly. The Republicans did it to Obama, it's being done to Romney and Huckabee...

[dollfus46]

no, honest question. will we ever get off of huck's religion and into politics???
Not as long as he is in the top tier.

[dollfus46]

Anyone really care whether Oprah is or is not a partisan Democrat? :confused:

Not one iota. She's probably not the only one.:laugh:

[rdawg]

I have heard that FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and that Rupert Murdoch wants to see Rudy Giuliani elected. The FOX employees fear the boss. They will support Mike Huckabee's attempt to defeat the deep-pocketed Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses so that he can be eliminated from the race. However, if the national polls have Huckabee even with Giuliani, then FOX will get vicious towards Huckabee, as on Hannity and Colmes this evening.
But I also heard Newt Gingrich warn on the very same program that Huckabee may possess a singular quality that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had: those who attack them see a decrease in their own popularity. If that is the case, Romney and others better not go negative. Ditto for the corporate media. They will have the opposite effect of the one they intend.

[rdawg]

From Drudge:

DEMS HOLD FIRE ON HUCKABEE; SEE 'EASY KILL' IN GENERAL ELECTION
Tue Dec 11 2007 10:27:53 ET

**Exclusive**

Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal.

The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination.

The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.

Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the "glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it."

In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy.

The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd.

[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]

In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.

"He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

"His letting out murderers because they shout 'Jesus', his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain't even scratching the surface of what we've got on him."

The discipline the Democrats have shown in not engaging Huckabee has earned the praise of one former Republican Party official:

"The Democrats are doing a much better job restraining themselves than the GOP did in 2003 when Howard Dean looked like he was on the brink of winning the nomination."

A close friend to Huckabee explains: "Look, Mike is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. They should be squirming."

Developing...

Nobody thought that Mike could lead the pack of the GOP. I guess the demos will learn in Nov. that seeing is believing.

[Conveyor Belt]

Quit drinking the koolaid... Huckabee has LOTS of baggage and will NOT win in a general election.

[fuzzis]

Isn't demeaning fellow posters now bannable?

Demeaning fellow posters has ALWAYS been something to at least warrant moderator/administrative attention. If you think that a post crosses the line, report it. :smt105

[rdawg]

The latest endorsement for Huckabee is in. Minuteman Project Founder Jim Gilchrist in now on board. Hopefully this will help silence the attacks on Huckabee being soft on immigration. If you still haven't seen the Immigration Plan please do it is a few posts back on this thread.

[Conveyor Belt]

Isn't demeaning fellow posters now bannable?

I didn't realize telling another member that they shouldn't believe everything positive they hear about something/someone, and dismissing all negatives, ie, drinking koolaid, was demeaning.

Now, if someone would have said, don't be an idiot koolaid drinker, or you're an idiot/as$hole/etc koolaid drinker, then I'd say that's demeaning.

Rdawg knows I'm just ribbing him... even if he is a Huckabee koolaid drinker.

[Scarlett O'Hara]

Inside Edition reported today that he has the lowest net worth of any candidate.............1.1 million

[rdawg]

Inside Edition reported today that he has the lowest net worth of any candidate.............1.1 million

Yeah it's really great that we have been outspent yet are taking leads everywhere. it is really exciting to see someone seeing gains with limited resources but getting out the message the old fashion way, meeting the people,

[Imapepper]

Now I know that Mike Huckabee is a contender. NBC news was just attacking him on stuff!!

[LipsofanAngel]

Now I know that Mike Huckabee is a contender. NBC news was just attacking him on stuff!!

yeah, I saw that last night. I don't have much of an opinion this year... I think it will be a choice of picking the lesser of evils- whoever that ends up being.

[dollfus46]

yeah, I saw that last night. I don't have much of an opinion this year... I think it will be a choice of picking the lesser of evils- whoever that ends up being.
What concerns me, it the Democrats are tickled to death with their candidates but the Republican Party can't get fired up about any one guy. I think the most enthusiastic party will sweep their candidate into office. Just thinking aloud.

[LipsofanAngel]

What concerns me, it the Democrats are tickled to death with their candidates but the Republican Party can't get fired up about any one guy. I think the most enthusiastic party will sweep their candidate into office. Just thinking aloud.
yeah, I think you're right... I typically vote republican, but I just don't have strong feelings either way about any of 'em this year.

[rdawg]

YouTube - Mike Huckabee for Commander-In-Chief (ad)

Great video with excerpts from a speech at the ACU event. Great argument to RP and all the demos who want top cut and run.

[rdawg]

ED ROLLINS, yes the Ed Rollins is the national campaign chairman for Huck. If you don't know what this means please see the article. As Ric Flair would say, WHOOOOO!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ed_Rollins_huckabee_/2007/12/14/57047.html?s=al&promo_code=4161-1

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=435

[dollfus46]

ED ROLLINS, yes the Ed Rollins is the national campaign chairman for Huck. If you don't know what this means please see the article. As Ric Flair would say, WHOOOOO!!!!

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ed_Rollins_huckabee_/2007/12/14/57047.html?s=al&promo_code=4161-1

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=435

Yeah, I like to quote ric flair too. It always give me a certain bit of savoir faire in a crowd.:laugh:

[fuzzis]

The Huckabee Factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?pagewanted=1), from the NYT Magazine. Long, long article.

[Conveyor Belt]

The Huckabee Factor (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?pagewanted=1), from the NYT Magazine. Long, long article.

Jesus, 11 pages of that? I can't read that far... tell me what it says.

[dollfus46]

Jesus, 11 pages of that? I can't read that far... tell me what it says.

I'd read The NYT about as quickly as I'd dive off a tall building into a damp washcloth. I'd bet it's a glowing endorsement of Huckleberry. At the very least it's an honest unbiased insight into the man and his politics.:kekeke: The standard for which all media should subscribe. But, I am curious. So I just might peek later.

[dollfus46]

You must be referring to Jesus Alou, CB. Heh heh heh.

[Reason]

I read the NYT piece. It is good, objective and fair.

[dollfus46]

I read the NYT piece. It is good, objective and fair.

I believe it.:kekeke:

[dreamhippy]

Did you hear Huckabee's foreign policy advisor is the President of the CFR? CNN outed him today on this...

[mspolitics82]

no, honest question. will we ever get off of huck's religion and into politics???

I don't think that will be possible....after all he IS a Southern Baptist minister . I am Southern Baptist, too---a very active one and very devout Christian----but at this point, I have not decided to vote for Huckabee... I will if he gets the nomination; but, because of his religious position, I don't think the media will ever ease up, and I don't think he will get the nomination, because I don't think Republicans will believe he can win enough votes nationwide to beat Hillary or Obama.......which may be difficult for ANY Republican to do if Ron Paul runs as independent or if enough Ron Paul people write him in.

As far as Huck's politics....I mostly agree with him....he had a poor record as Arkansas governor with tax increases......and has a really bad overall stand against illegal immigration....two negatives that cause me to veer away from him at this point.

[mspolitics82]

I read the NYT piece. It is good, objective and fair.


Fair question.....just because you like the NYT piece, but DOLLFUS does not like the NYT, was that a reason to GROAN? With all respect, and taking a big chance of getting GROANED by you, do you have a problem with someone merely disagreeing with you?

[dreamhippy]

http://www.miamiherald.com/692/v-print/story/317531.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/692/v-print/story/317531.html)

[hendrixfreak70]

Did you hear Huckabee's foreign policy advisor is the President of the CFR? CNN outed him today on this...

Wow. Isn't his name Richard Haas or something?? That is great, what little (and I mean little) respect I had for Huck is now gone. He probably has received the invite in the mail. Good for the CFR. I may have to start a thread about these people. Sorry to hijack your thread Rdawg.

[dollfus46]

Tell me again what CFR is?

[dollfus46]

Wow. Isn't his name Richard Haas or something?? That is great, what little (and I mean little) respect I had for Huck is now gone. He probably has received the invite in the mail. Good for the CFR. I may have to start a thread about these people. Sorry to hijack your thread Rdawg.

Just curious, but what about Huckleberry caused you to disrespect him?:confused:

[Reason]

Fair question.....just because you like the NYT piece, but DOLLFUS does not like the NYT, was that a reason to GROAN? With all respect, and taking a big chance of getting GROANED by you, do you have a problem with someone merely disagreeing with you?

That is not why I groaned. I groaned because he said he would never read anything written by the NYT, which in real life, would cause me to groan.

Is groaning a big deal around here? Have I missed something?

[hendrixfreak70]

Tell me again what CFR is?


Council on Foreign Relations. They are the neo-conservative group that has hijacked traditional conservative values and passed them off as traditional. I will start a thread about it later.

[Imapepper]

Thanks...I was also wondering what CFR means.:smt001

[dollfus46]

Council on Foreign Relations. They are the neo-conservative group that has hijacked traditional conservative values and passed them off as tr aditional. I will start a thread about it later.

Sounds like my kind of group. Hijacked the traditional conservative values. Do you know you're the only person here I've ever heard use the term traditional conservative? Heh heh heh. It's always neo-conservative, radical conservative, radical right, religious right. The tern Neo conservative is used arbitrarily with no concept to it's meaning. Neo=New. It was started during the Reagan era as Democrats crossed over and voted for Reagan. They became neo-conservatives. Or new conservatives. Why can't we just be conservatives? Liberals whine about us using the term "liberal" as something bad but they turn around and call us everything negative but just plain conservative. You'd think a conservative never existed. You cannot find one liberal here that has ever used the term "conservative". They just can't do it.:laugh: