Republicans Split on Huckabee Staying in Race

scitsonga »

Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ep1433 "Citsonga - Please tell me what exactly you disagree with in my earlier post.

I usually get on this site after a day of work and tired, so sometimes i am not clear on what I say. What I meant was I dont think what you described is what Obama believes- "no one who works should be poor", if he did say that, It might have been rhetoric, but he would not take the US in the direction of a socialist state where we are all "economically equal" I do agree basically with what you stated. Sorry for that confusion..

ep1433 »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

citsonga - Please tell me what exactly you disagree with in my earlier post. My only point was that people will valuable skills aren't poor, and Obama wants people with non-valuable or low-value skills to not be poor as well. Tell me what I got wrong or what you disagree with.

In a general sense, I suppose I wish no one was poor. And as a Christian I believe 1.) Christ is the great equalizer, and 2.) wealth is only of this earth, and 3.) true wealth is not measure in dollars anyway. But I also don't want a government to be interceding and trying to force a market to pay all skills a high-wage. First, it is economically impossible, and second is is undesireable. It is undesireable because such policies cause people to not gain skills and knowledge our country needs. If I could make 50K delivering newspapers I might quit my job in finance and just do something like that. But the world needs accountants (thats why you don't know any poor accountants) and soon we'd have a shortage of similar valued skills and a surplus of low-valued skills.

This is all just basic economics. Either Obama lacks that simple knowledge (scary) or is lying that he thinks he can change reality (bad) or he truly wants to subvert a history of economic free-markets in favor of socialism (very, very bad).

Strudelcookies »

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Huckabee just dropped out. The end.

scitsonga »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ep1433, I can see why you wouldn't vote for Obama. I dont necessarily agree with much of your post, but I do understand where you are coming from. I too dont agree with everything Obama has said, but there is much about him that I like. For starters, he is none of the other viable candidates. I myself am a fiscal conservative, but I do believe the working poor,as are all Americans , entitled to health care. I think that is where Obama is coming from to a large degree. I wouldn't call him a socialist, but he is liberal in many ways. I have many liberal views myself.

scitsonga »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Some ME & Iraq history for ML (continued):

Its OK by the US for a country to be autocratic when they are an ally of the US such as the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein or the corrupt autocratic royal family of Saudi Arabia. However, when allied dictators such as Saddam then oppose the interests of the US, they then become our enemy. Recall the photos of donald rumsfeld chumming up with saddam in the 1980 as saddam was gassing the Iranians and Kurds- it was not big problem because he was a friend of the US. The US sold him weapons systems, he sold the US oil- he was a business partner of the US, just as the Saudi Royla family is now and the Shah of Iran was. Americans generally dont want to know this side of American foreign policy. Learn about US abuses in the ME for decades, and one will learn why 9-11 occured.

scitsonga »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Some ME & Iraq history for ML:

Interviews and polls taken of the way Iraqi's felt about their country before and after the invasion seem to indicate that the average Iraqi felt more secure and better off economically than today. The Iraqi people did not ask to be "liberated" by the US. There is in fact a tremendous level of resentment by most Iraqi's towards the US because of the invasion which they did not want or ask for. The average person in Iraq, and indeed the average citizen of the Middle East , understand why the US attempts to impose its will in the ME. Its simple, its mainly about OIL. How would americans take to an invasion of the US by a foreign army - not very well I'm sure. Contrary to what bush, cheney and the neocons tell the largely ignorant american public (ignorant from the standpoint of little to no knowledge of the ME and its history as it relates to the imperial ambitions of Western countries to secure oil interests) the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi's from the grip of sadddam. Its all about US control and influence in the ME. 9-11 occurred because of decades abuses by the US in the ME. Its really too bad the US forgot lessons learned from Vietnam. In both the case of Vietnam and Iraq, american ignorance and arrogance led to the deaths and injury of millions of innocent Vietnamese and Iraqi's. By the way, Iraq and Saddam were not involved with 9-11.


The thing that really adds insult to injury in Iraq is the fact that the US had no post invasion strategy. bush and his band of fools completely ignored the warnings ME experts offered in regard to having a post invasion strategy to provide security. They did not have a strategy to protect the people nor the countries infrastructure. Amazingly, and quite telling, the only real security provided after the fall of Baghdad, was military protection of the oil ministry. In the mean time, hospitals, schools, clinics, museums, government buildings, universities, libraries, power plants, water and sewage plants- all looted.

bush, cheney and other high ranking neocons are responsible for the destruction of Iraq and its people. Much of the world consider bush and cheney war criminals and should be brought to the Hague.

Conservative Voter »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

McCain can't legally run I'd like to know why he's in the race?
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/31019

ep1433 »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

citsonga - I'll grant you that Obama is intelligent and articulate. It isn't his abilities that worry me. It is his positions I have a serious problem with, as should any free-market conservative. He says "no one who works should be poor". Huh? really? See, in the world I live in, no one who works at a valued skill IS poor. I've never met a poor doctor. I've never met a poor college professor. Gain a valuable skill and you'll never be poor. If you are poor, you're skills apparently aren't valued by the market. It's that simple. But for Obama to try and subvert reality shows us his true colors - he's a socialist.

Huckabee still lacks the delgates of Romney. Mitt could rejoin after a few weeks off and be ahead of Huck. That's pathetic. Huck jumped the shark long ago. Conservative need to get behing McCain or live through four years of Obama's bizarro-world policies, where reality is suspended in favor of lollipops and rainbows.

BoldEvangelical »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Run Mike Run! See Mike Run! Help Mike Run! Send Money so Mike can Run!
Vote Mike Huckabee 2008!
Ronald Reagan ran an underdog campaign in 1976. He campaigned up to the convention, despite many of the establishment Republicans asking him to quit. Reagan did not win in 1976, but neither did he fail. He gave one of the greatest speeches ever at the convention and four years later received the GOP nomination and was elected President of the US in a landslide against the liberal Carter. Mike Huckabee is the future of the Republican Party. Go Huck go!
www.mikehuckabee.com
Please call all your friends in Texas and Ohio today and urge them to vote for Huckabee today!
As the democrats in my home state of NC say, vote early and vote often! LOL!

ML »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Bush is attacked politically for attacking Iraq. Sadaam chemically killed 400,000 of the people living within his own borders, and Bush stopped him from killing hundreds of thousands more.
Many have seen the real and undeniable photos of the mass graves. Sadaam was like Hitler. So were members of Sadaam's family. So Bush had the guts to stop a mass murderer, and the world hates him. So what? Bush is ready to stand before God. Bush is against abortion. McCain supports Bush and the military. So does Huckabee. To me, either McCain or Huckabee would be better than any Democrat (Hillary or Obama) and both McCain and Huckabee are pro-life. So let them both stay in and we will see who gets the most votes.

citsonga »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

It's ironic that those who are so adamantly advocating "save the embryo" and "the fetus" in America have no qualms about permitting a war of death and destruction on the peoples of Iraq

SqueakyWheel »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

It's ironic that those who are so adamantly advocating "peace" and not "war" in Iraq would have no qualms about permitting "war" in the womb against the unborn via abortions.

scottwww »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Any ruling that was made on the part of Barry Goldwater referring to his being born in a U.S. territory before it became a state is irrelevant to the case of John McCain being born in the Canal Zone which was never a U.S. territory.


A natural born Citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil. To be able to be Presdident of the United States, among other things, you must be a natural born Citizen. Since Senator John McCain is not a natural born Citizen (he was born outside the U.S.) it is by law that he was naturalized as a citizen at birth because of parentage. He was not a natural born Citizen based on the nature of where he was born.


Some may not agree with the Constitution of the United States, but it is what it is. It's the supreme law of the land.


U.S. Constitution.net
U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 1


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

If you don't like it, then change it through an amendment. But don't make it something that it isn't. That is a trick, not worthy of any American who stands by the constitution.


The Supreme Court needs to judge. That is why the Supreme Courts exists. Unfortunately, it is not likely to reach the court until one who is not a natural born Citizen gets elected to the presidency. This would be a crisis. The vice president would probably have to take over.


Here is a link to a much more detailed analysis.

If Senator Claire McCaskill's hastily scrawled "fix" actually goes through congress, it is a law that would need to be judged by the Supreme Court of the United States. Unless it is an amendment to the constitution, then McCaskill (and congress) would be undermining the supreme law of the land that is the U.S. Constitution.


In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy that is legal. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be elligible to hold the office of President.

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

scottwww »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The treaty to establish the Canal Zone clearly does not establish a U.S. territory. For any who would pursue that further, consider the definition of territory.

Territory: In the United States, a portion of the country not included within the limits of any State, and not yet admitted as a State into the Union, but organized with a separate legislature, under a Territorial governor and other officers appointed by the President and Senate of the United States.

Territory: a part of the United States not included within any state but organized with a separate legislature

Territory: A subdivision of the United States that is not a state and is administered by an appointed or elected governor and elected legislature.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

scottwww »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

In presenting this constitutional matter, the purpose is to bring attention to the need for a remedy that is legal. This may also mean that the remedy would not be in place in time for Senator John McCain to be elligible to hold the office of President.

Not everyone who is born an American citizen is a natural born Citizen. To be a natural born Citizen one must be born on U.S. soil. Senator John McCain was not born on U.S. soil. This disqualifies him from holding the office of the president. He can run, he just can't take the office.

Some claim that the Canal Zone was a United States territory, leading them to the conclusion that McCain was born on U.S. soil. The evidence disputes that assertion. When the treaty was signed that gave the U.S. control of the Canal Zone, the territory was retained by the Republic of Panama.


www.yale.edu
Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal (Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty), November 18, 1903

Concluded November 18, 1903; ratification advised by the Senate February 23, 1904; ratified by President February 25,1904; ratifications exchanged February 26, 1904; proclaimed February 26, 1904. (U.S. Stats., vol. 33.)

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama being desirous to insure the construction of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oecans, and the Congress of the United States of America having passed an act approved June 28, 1902, in furtherance of that object, by which the President of the United States is authorized to acquire within a reasonable time the control of the necessary territory of the Republic of Colombia, and the sovereignty of such territory being actually vested in the Republic of Panama, the high contracting parties have resolved for that purpose to conclude a convention and have accordingly appointed as their plenipotentiaries,

ARTICLE III

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.

ARTICLE V

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity a monopoly for the construction, maintenance and operation of any system of communication by means of canal or railroad across its territory between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific ocean.

Conservative Voter »

Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:25 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Obama is wrong supporting abortion, murder is murder.
Obama, claims to be Christian but if he really knew Jesus as his Lord and Saviour he should already know this.
Is an election for the White House worth more then obeying God, Obama can't have it both ways not with God he can't.
Jesus said
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: Matthew 5:21

citsonga »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

To paraphrase SqueakyWheel:

Anyone who voted for bush will, in part, have one's hands stained in the blood of America's wars and executions. Now that one has read this, one cannot plead ignorance before the throne of God.

citsonga »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

SqueakyWheel ,

Almost no one favors abortion, sometimes it is necessary to protect the life of the mother, and yes genetics testing can now detect severe abnormalities in a fetus. It should be up to the mother of the fetus to decide whether to end the pregnancy- not you, not the government, not the church.. Instead of going back to the days of back alley abortions prior to the legalization of abortions in the US. There needs to be a harder push in the US for sex education and free contraceptives to all that want them. That will result in reductions of abortions. There are many reasons for a woman to choose an abortion, its a personal decision that needs to be left to the individual.

I find it interesting that so many Christians are critical of Sen Obama because he supports a womans right to choose. Yet they support Bush and his invasion of Iraq which has resulted in the wholesale destruction of the country and the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. A war in which the US had no moral authority to engage in. Bush was also a strong advocate of capital punishment in a state which which is biased to the execution of the poor and indigent- little in the way of resources to defend themselves. Instead of erring on the side of caution to eliminate the possibility of executing innocents, the state of Texas had the highest number of executions than any other state while bush was governor. So, bush, and his Christian supporters are all about saving fetus and embryo's, but little else. I believe thats called hypocrisy.

SqueakyWheel »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:21 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

For All Obama Supporters:

A vote for Obama means a vote to choose death for unborn babies during all 9 months of pregnancy for whatever reason, health-related or not, psychological or not, financial or not, sex-selection or not, and to be subsidized with forced taxpayer funding via medicaid. Obama favors the legalization of inhuman partial-birth abortion. In addition, a girl may be raped and be forced to have an abortion by the perpetrator when transported across state lines, all with the awareness of taxpayer supported Planned Parenthood, a strong Obama supporter. Parents will not be informed if their minor-aged daughter gets an abortion, although parental consent is required in order to have the school give that same daughter an aspirin. Under Obama's vision, unborn babies undergoing the pain of abortion will not be permitted to have any type of anesthesia. In Obama's America, many "snowflake" chidren will never be permitted the opportunity to live, since human embryos will be subject to unethical scientific research and then destroyed. In Obama's America, animal rights priorities will overtake human unborn baby as priorities.

Anyone who votes for Obama will, in part, have one's hands stained in the blood of America's abortions. Now that one has read this, one cannot plead ignorance before the throne of God.

citsonga »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

wrhalver "But McCain cannot ignore the more conservative side of the Repubilcan Party (and the influencial Christian leaders) who favor Huckabee."

Yeah, you make a good point there, mccain could make him a running mate if he believes it is necessary to get out christian votes in large enough numbers to overcome the democrat. But, he wont like it and either will I.

thanx for the feed back.

wrhalver »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Citsonga:

You are right, Huckabee normally would not be high on McCain's list.

But McCain cannot ignore the more conservative side of the Repubilcan Party (and the influencial Christian leaders) who favor Huckabee.

McCain is already working to chip away at the popular support for Obama that would carry into the general election. McCain does not want to underestimate this support as Hillary Clinton did.

McCain needs a unified Repubican Party that stands strong behind him. Whether he likes it or not, McCain may need to show some willingness to seriously work with Huckabee.

citsonga »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

wrhalver "The Republicans should consider Huckabee for a high ranking cabinet position."

Thats unlikely, mmcain would not want a person like Huck in his admin.

citsonga »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Conservative Voter:
"McCain may think he has it all in the bag, but I'm fixing too stay home come election day if McCain runs for office, He he's not someone I'd send too the White House, he's not a fair man."

As an Obama supporter, I like the fact that you will be staying home on election day.

citsonga »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ProfessorX: "Truly truly I say unto you. If Mike Huckabee's voice is not heard somewhere in the white house, Barak Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. (period) And thus we will be living in the age of antichrist right smack through the tribulation to horror of many."

Huck destroyed any chance of becoming president by announcing he would amend the US Constitution to make it a more "Christian Nation". He may not be aware that in the very first amendment, it starts out "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Sen Obama on the other hand is a constitutional law professor and recognizes the importance of the first amendment, thats one of the reasons he will make a good and effective president.

wrhalver »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

If Huckabee has the financial support to remain in the race until the numbers eliminate him, then he should. I credit him for not bowing to popular pressure. In this respect he is being just like McCain.

The Republicans should consider Huckabee for a high ranking cabinet position.

Conservative Voter »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:53 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Huckabee needs to stay in the race, I'm not really big on McCain he's a Liberal he said so him self, he tried to down play it, but the bible tell us in the book of Matthew,

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Matthew 15:18

And I also don't like the fact that McCain won't debate Huckabee, there is still a race going on and McCain has not won . He owes Huckabee and the Conservative Voters this debate, but he won't do it. That tells alot about his integrity. McCain may think he has it all in the bag, but I'm fixing too stay home come election day if McCain runs for office, He he's not someone I'd send too the White House, he's not a fair man.

ProfessorX »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:37 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Truly truly I say unto you. If Mike Huckabee's voice is not heard somewhere in the white house, Barak Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States. (period) And thus we will be living in the age of antichrist right smack through the tribulation to horror of many.

ProfessorX »

Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:31 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

You know what? I am so displeased with the republican party right now about how they have not paid closer attention to Mike Huckabee's Campaign and strategic plan to help this country that I by conviction must vote for Mike Huckabee as my write-in candidate if he is at the very least not selected as McCains running mate. Mow our nation is headed either to more war or socialism all because we have allowed the arrogant media and political masons to cherry pick the variour nominees of the two largest political parties. Meanwhile, various interest groups who once detested McCain are now jocking for position to be his "lap dog." I have always liked John McCain and never had anything bad to say about him. But I like Mike Huckabee a bit better. Texas and Ohio just vote for Mike Huckabee just this one time.

citsonga »

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

juliek "Mike Huckabee should stay in this race, it is only fair that the other states get the right to vote for who ever "

I agree, but fortunately he has almost no chance

citsonga »

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

SqueakyWheel "Huckabee need not win all the necessary delegates to "win." All he needs to do is to prevent McCain from winning the sufficient numbers of delegates needed."

mccain will be the nominee, he wont be prez, but he will be repub candidate

SqueakyWheel »

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Huckabee need not win all the necessary delegates to "win." All he needs to do is to prevent McCain from winning the sufficient numbers of delegates needed. Also, McCain is hamstrung by campaign finance rules; he can only spend another 2 million, for a max of about $51 million permitted. Essentially, Huckabee will have the free rein to spend for advertising in the remaining states while McCain can only sit on his wallet. Otherwise, McCain will risk facing severe fines for breaking the campaign finance laws, ones that he pushed through himself.

FullGospel »

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Well, let's look at the numbers: the candidate closest to getting enough delegates from the country as a whole is a Republican. That's good. The person who's in fourth place and the furthest away from a nomination is fighting him. What's odd is that he's also a Republican (Huckabee). The more effective Huckabee is, the greater the chance that Obama will be our next President.

Huckabee needs to get out of the way. He's showing why he's in fourth place. He just doesn't get the big picture.

Juliek »

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:08 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Mike Huckabee should stay in this race, it is only fair that the other states get the right to vote for who ever they want and not just have it forced o them, they are registered voters and tax payers like the other states.
I can't understand why some that claim to be christian does not vote for the only man that is a true Christian that is running for Office.
I believe this actually proves which one truely believes in God's word and those that just go to church and have no idea what God is all about. "FAITH-FAMILY-LIFE