Huckabee for President?

imported post

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18

Here's a link to his Second Amendment "Issue" on his website. I have read through his stands on certain issues and I'm wondering if it is all just lip service. Does anybody know if what he sayson his website holds true to how he votes, etc?



Just curious.

imported post

just google mike huckabee lies

He is a full blown liar who hides behind his past as a pastor

imported post

I don't think Huckabee is into the "lip service"BS as most politicians are, but I don't like some of his stances on some issues, such as his being FOR continiuing to pay for illegal immigrants kids' education. I say deport them all, and revoke American citizenship from the "anchor-babies" even.

IMO, he does well on most of the other issues I think, but it's not enough for me to vote for the guy...

So I think he's a straight-shooter and certainly appreciate his apparent honesty, but I just don't like some of his positions.

But I guess there never WILL be a candidate I agree with 100% anyway...unless *I* were running:shock: ...which would/could NEVER happen!

-- John D.

imported post

hsmith wrote:

just google mike huckabee lies

He is a full blown liar who hides behind his past as a pastor

Click to expand...

So basically he's just like any other politician? Except that most weren't pastors. :celebrate

imported post

Well, if he really IS a liar, shame on him...especially considering his being a pastor.

But I just don't really know what the truth is with people saying this and that about ALL the candidates.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I stopped being a one-issue voter a LONG time ago...I look at a candidate'sWHOLE platform.

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

Well, if he really IS a liar, shame on him...especially considering his being a pastor.

But I just don't really know what the truth is with people saying this and that about ALL the candidates.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I stopped being a one-issue voter a LONG time ago...I look at a candidate'sWHOLE platform.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

John I agree

I am now trying to look more at the whole man and what he may or may not be able to do for the country.

My list keeps getting whittled off at the top.

The man I will probably vote for, will probably not be the best for guns, but again as with John D. I have never been a one issue voter and I too look at the whole platform.




Tarzan

imported post

QUOTE: " I oppose gun control based on geography."
Note how he carefully does NOT say he opposes gun control. Given how carefully he has worded some other things (job creation, for one), I don't trust this.

And given that 2nd amendment issues - if he is a true supporter, and I'm not convinced - are about the ONLY ones I agree with him on .....

No, Huckabee will not get my vote.

imported post

The 2nd Amendment is about the only issue I think Mike IS strong on.

He is a concealed carry permit holder himself.

However, his whole concept of "hope = tax increases" would be really bad for the economy. If I cannot afford ammunition to practice because the economy tanks, my second amendment right doesn't mean a whole lot

I was very strong on Huckabee last November or December beause of his decent 2nd amendment record. In fact I nearly donated to his campaign. But the more I have learned on other issues; the more I realised he is just NOT the guy.

imported post

Skeptic wrote:

If I cannot afford ammunition to practice because the economy tanks, my second amendment right doesn't mean a whole lot

Click to expand...

If it tanks low enough... you might need that 2nd again. > )

imported post

Basically it comes down to this:

When November rolls around, there is giong to be one issue on the voters minds. It ain't guns or Mexicans either fellas. It's the economy. It's obvious to everyone that the world economy is in recession and that the American economy is not responding well. As republicans have ALWAYS done, they will convey the image of the "stewards of the economy," the only ones who can bring American economic life back to where it should be. Obviously the best candidate for this would be *gags a little* Romney.

That said, with the odd twist of fate that has taken place in the last few decades, social conservatism has somehow been thrown in and tangled up in the Republican platform. Anyone with any knowledge of Keynesian economics and the economic system of the United States knows that the moral normative structures in a socially conservative society aren't very compatible with the theory of economic liberalism that the Republican party supports. Be that as it may, the "evangelical" vote has been hoisted to a lofty position in recent years, so the party must take into consideration that Mr. Romney is NOT POPULAR at all with these voters. Enter Mike Huckabee.

Now we have two men. We have two, seemingly conflictual religions. We have two very different stances on taxes, illegals, guns, and the economy. However, with the combined experiences of these two men, it seems like the desire for economic stewardship and social conservatism are simultaneously filled.

From the standpoint of a mutli-issue voter, a neo-realist, and a libertarian (odd combination no?), I see the only logical option the Republican party has is to nominate Romney for President and Huckabee for Vice President in 2008. If this doesn't happen, you can go to bed at night on 4 November 2008 assured that when you wake up in the morning, a Democrat will be the next President.

Agree with me or not, this is how I see it.

imported post

It doesn't look like he is going to get the nomination anyway. Also, Virginia's primary isn't until after super Tuesday, which should go a long way toward identifying the eventual nominee. It looks as thoughwe will be stuck with McCain or Romney, either of which would be better than Obama or Hildebeast.

imported post

vmathis12019,

Easy enough for you to say, way out out there in America (I guessAlabama still is American).

Live downhere on the sorry Mexican border where I am...it's a whole different story.


-- John D.

imported post

I am a die-hard Ron Paul supporter and believe he is the best on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights.

Huckabee is the 2nd best on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. He's horrible on pretty much everything else, but he's solid on the 2nd Amendment and I have no doubts about that. I could vote for him (in the general...NEVER in the primary) based on that issue alone.

Ron Paul is much better though all around.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

I am a die-hard Ron Paul supporter and believe he is the best on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights.

Huckabee is the 2nd best on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. He's horrible on pretty much everything else, but he's solid on the 2nd Amendment and I have no doubts about that. I could vote for him (in the general...NEVER in the primary) based on that issue alone.

Ron Paul is much better though all around.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul is already the nominee of the Constitution Party, so I think he is already on the General Election ballot in over 40 states. :celebrate

Mitt Romney is a gun grabber. I'd rather vote for my dog than him.

Ron Paul Revolution.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

vmathis12019,

Easy enough for you to say, way out out there in America (I guessAlabama still is American).

Live downhere on the sorry Mexican border where I am...it's a whole different story.


-- John D.

Click to expand...

I definitely understand what you mean. My statements don't even necessarily reflect my own concerns. It is more of a generalization about the American public writ large.

What I tend to believe about people like the members of OCDO is that we are generally political activists. We have one issue, the 2nd Amendment, that we see as paramount and focus much of our political activity and thought on (this is just a generalization... I know we all have other political concerns). While we have great reasons for our fanatacism (John Horgan's definition) about the 2nd amendment, I can assure you that the majority of American voters are not nearly as passionate about it as we are.

Politics in America is a zero-sum game. Example:

2 candidates:
Candidate 1: 2a supporter, economic defect
Candidate 2: Economic steward, 2a defect

You obviously cannot elect both to the same position. The question becomes, which do you choose based on your own cognitive map and normative values.By choosing one, you give up the ability to choose another. It is basic macro-sociological cost-benefit analysis. Many here would likely choose Candidate 1. I can assure you that the majority of American voters would NOT choose this candidate, especially considering the economic situation of our country.

Even I, a pro-2a activist, realize the importance of economics in electing our national leader. I personally intend to vote forDr. Paul when the primaries come around. However, when the general election comes, and (what I believe is) the inevitable happens, I will vote for Mitt Romney for the office of president. I'd rather have him, than Barack Obama, who I also believe is the obvious candidate for the Dems.

On a side note: I believe that the fate of our second amendment rights rests more on the decision of the DC v. Heller case, not who the president is.

(I guessAlabama still is American).

Click to expand...

And just what exactly do you mean by that hmm?

imported post

vmathis12019 wrote:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"On a side note: I believe that the fate of our second amendment rights rests more on the decision of the DC v. Heller case, not who the president is.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

--1-- The next president will probably either sign or veto a permanent Assault Weapons Ban. If we lose that fight, we won't get it back (this is why I'll never vote for Romney. I will not let the AWB be signed by a Republican).

--2--The next president will appoint 1-3 justices that will sit on the court that will decide cases like Heller.

--3-- The outcome of Heller bears very little on our 2nd Amendment rights. We don't have to win to retain our rights. If we lose, it will be demoralizing, but not a knock out by any stretch. We've already been operating for the last 70 years on the assumption that there IS NO 2nd Amendment anyway. If they rule against us, nothing will change; all our rights will still be at the ballot box, just as they are now. If we win, we'll have the ballot box and the courts to protect our rights.

More than likely, neither side will be happy with Justice Keneddy's concurring opinion, which will likely be the one that counts.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

vmathis12019 wrote:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"On a side note: I believe that the fate of our second amendment rights rests more on the decision of the DC v. Heller case, not who the president is.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

--1-- The next president will probably either sign or veto a permanent Assault Weapons Ban. If we lose that fight, we won't get it back (this is why I'll never vote for Romney. I will not let the AWB be signed by a Republican).

--2--The next president will appoint 1-3 justices that will sit on the court that will decide cases like Heller.

--3-- The outcome of Heller bears very little on our 2nd Amendment rights. We don't have to win to retain our rights. If we lose, it will be demoralizing, but not a knock out by any stretch. We've already been operating for the last 70 years on the assumption that there IS NO 2nd Amendment anyway. If they rule against us, nothing will change; all our rights will still be at the ballot box, just as they are now. If we win, we'll have the ballot box and the courts to protect our rights.

More than likely, neither side will be happy with Justice Keneddy's concurring opinion, which will likely be the one that counts.

Click to expand...

I was at the gunshow here in Hampton this weekend spreading the word about Ron Paul. Lots and lots of gun walking by saying "not interested" or just putting there hand up like "whatever" One guy even said "I don't vote for those guys" It's also the same when trying to tell some people about the VCDL. These people are why we have gun rights fights on our hands. These people also actually deserve another AWB.

imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:

I was at the gunshow here in Hampton this weekend spreading the word about Ron Paul. Lots and lots of gun walking by saying "not interested" or just putting there hand up like "whatever" One guy even said "I don't vote for those guy" It's also the same when trying to tell some people about the VCDL. These people are why we have gun rights fights on our hands. These people also actually deserve another AWB.

Click to expand...

Aye, but I don't :?

imported post

I have many reasons to dislike Huckabee.

Here is one of the reasons though, he supports the unconstitutional federally funded schools. HE is against Home Schooling - (I Could and did carry all the time when in HS! Never a school shooting!).

http://www.home-school.com/news/huckabee.html

Just because they have CCW permit, don't mean crap. Even Rambo has one of the unubtanium permits in CA.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

vmathis12019 wrote:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"On a side note: I believe that the fate of our second amendment rights rests more on the decision of the DC v. Heller case, not who the president is.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

--1-- The next president will probably either sign or veto a permanent Assault Weapons Ban. If we lose that fight, we won't get it back (this is why I'll never vote for Romney. I will not let the AWB be signed by a Republican).

--2--The next president will appoint 1-3 justices that will sit on the court that will decide cases like Heller.

--3-- The outcome of Heller bears very little on our 2nd Amendment rights. We don't have to win to retain our rights. If we lose, it will be demoralizing, but not a knock out by any stretch. We've already been operating for the last 70 years on the assumption that there IS NO 2nd Amendment anyway. If they rule against us, nothing will change; all our rights will still be at the ballot box, just as they are now. If we win, we'll have the ballot box and the courts to protect our rights.

More than likely, neither side will be happy with Justice Keneddy's concurring opinion, which will likely be the one that counts.

Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled to believe that if you wish. I personally believe the outcome of that case will have far more impact than you think. We are already seeing the introduction of anti-gun legislation with the ammunition encoding. There is a great power differential between those with weapons and those without. If the supreme court hands down a decision that would allow bans like the DC ban to stand, how long do you think we have until that sweeps across the nation? 10 or 20 years? Maybe less? I suppose this is more a matter of opinion and personal beliefs about the public policy-making decisions of our nationthan anything else, but I see the SupCo case as far more pressing in the case of the 2nd amendment than the president elect.

Just something to think about. Forgive the cynicism, but the outcome of the primary elections seems pretty obvious to me. I was simply offering what I percieve as the inevitable circumstance of Romney as the nominee. I don't necessarily like it, but there's nothing any of us can do to change it. Like I said, I intend to vote for Dr. Paul, and encourage my friends and family to do so as well. But when the final votes are counted, I think you will find that I was right about this.

I could be wrong, but the political scientist in me just doesn't see any way around it. If the Republicans want to stand a chance in the general election, Romney/Huckabee is their only option. Even with that package, therestill existsa great chance that we will see a Democratic president in 2009 (and an extremely socially liberal blackone at that). It's really a disheartening prospect, but what can you do? We live in a country of appx. 300 million people. The president (and therefor the Republicans) only has a national approval rate of about 35%. We, folks, are in for another rough four years the way I see it.

Just my rather verbose .02.