Reasons To be wary of Mr. Huckabee

[WeaselInYerFoot]

After doing more research, I honestly can't see much difference between Huckabee and President Bush. I don't want 4 or 8 more years in the same situation. Anyways, Pastor Chuck Baldwin once again has a good article that warns against Huckabee and the dangers of his neo-conservative history.


Many Christian conservatives see Mike Huckabee as the best candidate to deliver the GOP from an impending pro-abortion presidential nomination of either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Huckabee is doing especially well in Iowa, particularly among evangelicals. Is Mike Huckabee worthy of this support, however? The facts say no.

I have already attempted to warn my evangelical brethren as to the dangers of supporting Mike Huckabee. See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html However, that first column was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Here are more reasons to beware of Mike Huckabee.

Robert Novak recently wrote a column about Mike Huckabee entitled, "The False Conservative." In the column he said, "Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans."

Novak also said, "There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. . . He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes."

Novak continued saying, "Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee 'a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak.' Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism."

Calling Huckabee a proponent of big-government is an understatement. "If you listen closely, all the things he supports increase the size, power and cost of government. From subsidies for energy research to increasing money for health care and government housing, the size, power, and cost of government will not shrink under a President Mike Huckabee; they will increase . . . Mr. Huckabee swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution when he became governor, yet many of his proposals are clearly unconstitutional." (Source: David Ulrich, Letter of the Week, World Net Daily, 10/26/07)

In addition, Dr. Jerome Corsi reports that "Financial inducements arranged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to establish a Mexican consular office in Little Rock may have violated state law, according to an Arkansas attorney."

Writing for World Net Daily, Dr. Corsi exposed the fact that Mike Huckabee "worked with some of the state's most prominent and politically powerful businesses to establish the [Mexican] consulate as a magnet for drawing illegal immigrants to the state to accept low-paying jobs."

Corsi goes on to report that "Arkansas attorney Chip Sexton provided WND a written legal brief arguing the state government's sublease to Mexico of office space for the consulate was illegal under Arkansas law. Sexton contended the deal raised questions about the appropriateness of private citizens and corporations in Arkansas providing financial incentives for the government of Mexico to locate a consulate office in Little Rock."

Corsi also writes that "Robert Trevino, commissioner of Arkansas Rehabilitation Services, told WND he and Huckabee helped arrange state and private financial support to induce Mexico to establish the consulate as a business development 'quid pro quo.'

"Trevino signed on July 7, 2006, a 'Facilities Use Agreement' with Mexican consular officials to rent state government office space for $1 a year on the second floor of the Arkansas Rehabilitation Services building at 26 Corporate Hills in Little Rock."

According to Sexton, not only did subleasing state government offices to Mexico violate Arkansas state law under Ark. Code Ann. 22-2-114(C)(i) which provides: "After July 1, 1975, no state agency shall enter into or renew or otherwise negotiate a lease between itself as lessor or lessee and a nongovernmental or other government lessor or lessee," but it was even more offensive in that "there was nothing in the lease or other agreements that would have prevented the Mexican consulate from providing legal assistance to illegal aliens."

In addition, Corsi also exposed the fact that Mike Huckabee worked with Mexican President Vicente Fox to help provide cheap Mexican labor for Tyson foods and other large Arkansas corporations. According to Corsi, "Trevino confirmed he was state director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, also known as LULAC, an activist group strongly advocating for the rights of Hispanic immigrants in the U.S., when on Oct. 3, 2003, he accompanied Huckabee in a state airplane to visit [President Vicente] Fox in Mexico."

There is more.

The American Spectator reported that "Fourteen times, the ethics commission--a respected body, not a partisan witch-hunt group--investigated claims against Huckabee. Five of those times, it officially reprimanded him. And as only MSNBC among the big national media has reported at an real length, there were lots of other mini-scandals and embarrassments along the way."

Plus, writing for The Washington Times, Greg Pierce quoted Hillyer as saying, "[Huckabee] used public money for family restaurant meals, boat expenses, and other personal uses. He tried to claim as his own some $70,000 of furniture donated to the governor's mansion. He repeatedly, and obstinately, against the pleadings even from conservative columnists and editorials, refused to divulge the names of donors to a 'charitable' organization he set up while lieutenant governor--an outfit whose main charitable purpose seemed to be to pay Huckabee to make speeches. Then, as a kicker, he misreported the income itself from the suspicious 'charity.'"

Mike Huckabee's beliefs and actions even border on the bizarre. According to David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, "GOP presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee suggested that as president he would, for the good of the people, support a federal anti-smoking law. You see, as governor, Huckabee supported such laws because, well, he doesn't like smoking and doesn't think folks should indulge in so heath-threatening an activity. If he could move on up to the presidency, he would continue his abolitionist crusade at the national level without giving much, if any, thought to the question of whether the Constitution or anything else would legitimize a federal ban on smoking."

I have yet one more word of warning for those evangelicals supporting Huckabee because he is pro-life: Mike Huckabee will most definitely support Rudy Giuliani should Giuliani obtain the Republican nomination. Count on it.

I ask you, how could a committed "pro-life" conservative support a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control liberal such as Rudy Giuliani? He couldn't.

At the end of the day, however, there is absolutely no question that Huckabee will support Giuliani (or any other pro-abortion Republican), because, when all is said and done, Huckabee and his fellow big-government Republicans have no real commitment to the life issue or to any other conservative principle.

Let's say it plainly: Mike Huckabee is just another big-government, establishment politician who will do nothing to stem the tide of socialism or fascism (pick your poison) emanating from Washington, D.C., these days.

Dear Christian friend, don't be duped by Mike Huckabee.

© Chuck Baldwin

source (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071127.html)

[middletree]

I agree. I have been surprised at the number of conservatives who have bought into Huckabee, when he has all kinds of red flags.

That said, he doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination.

[Jesuslove]

From Yahoo.com....

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Mike Huckabee's presidential rivals are pointing to chinks in his record as Arkansas' governor — from ethics complaints to tax increases to illegal immigration and his support for releasing a rapist who was later convicted of killing a Missouri woman.

The Republican presidential candidate has plenty to champion from his 10 1/2 years as governor — including school improvements and health insurance for the children of the working poor. But his record has rough edges, and Huckabee has a habit of playing fast and loose with it.

Other campaigns for the GOP nomination, watching Huckabee's rise in polls in Iowa, are starting to mine his past for political fodder. Take ethics, for example.

"People are starting to contact us and they're saying we want everything on Mike Huckabee," says Graham Sloan, director of the state's Ethics Commission.

What they'll find is 436 pages of documents chronicling Huckabee's various tangles with a commission he's derided as a political tool of Democrats. It's a panel that has held proceedings 20 times on the former governor and lieutenant governor.

But the Ethics Commission files don't cover everything, and this year — anticipating criticism — Huckabee's campaign set up a "truth squad" to push his side of various stories. It often offers, at best, an incomplete account of his record.

On major issues:

_The truth squad says the only finding by the Arkansas Ethics Commission that Huckabee accepted a gift improperly was tossed out by a state court. In fact, the panel investigated 16 complaints against Huckabee and found five violations. Only one, for accepting a $500 canoe from Coca-Cola, was tossed out.

Two of the complaints against Huckabee pertain to unreported gifts — the canoe and a $200 stadium blanket received by his wife, Janet. Two stem from cash the governor or his wife received but did not initially report. The panel also ruled in 2003 that Huckabee's campaign violated state law when it used its funds to pay for an event during the summer of 2002 called Gospel Fest

During his tenure, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000, according to documents filed with the Arkansas secretary of state's office. (He accepted 187 gifts in his first three years as governor but was not required to report their value.)

_Huckabee has consistently understated his role in the parole of rapist Wayne DuMond, who had been convicted in the 1984 rape of a distant cousin of former President Clinton.

Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned DuMond's guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, who had been castrated by masked men while awaiting trial. Huckabee said then he had "serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt" and acknowledged later that he had met with DuMond's wife about the case while he was lieutenant governor. Two months after ascending to the governor's office, Huckabee met with the woman again.

The ex-governor now blames his predecessor for making DuMond parole eligible — Jim Guy Tucker commuted a life-plus-20 years sentence to 39 1/2 years — but distances himself from his role in DuMond's release. Huckabee met privately with the state parole board, and two members have said he pressured them for a vote.

"He made it obvious that he thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it," former board member Charles Chastain said in 2001. "Some board members who were usually very tough about letting people out ... (later) voted in favor of him, and seemed eager to."

On his campaign Web site, Huckabee says the parole board was made up entirely of Democrats appointed by Clinton and Tucker. It doesn't mention that Huckabee reappointed board member Railey Steele days before he voted with three other members to set DuMond free. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman in Missouri and died in 2005.

_Huckabee likes to say he was tough on taxes in Arkansas, noting a $100 million tax cut in 1997 that until this year was Arkansas' largest. When asked about a fuel tax increase he backed in 1999, Huckabee says incorrectly that he joined 80 percent of Arkansas voters in approving it.

Huckabee in 1999 supported a $1 billion highway bond program, including costs for interest and lawyers' fees, but the question on the ballot was only whether the state could take on the debt, not how Arkansas would pay for it. Huckabee had signed the fuel tax increase two months earlier.

Shortly after taking office, Huckabee took a four-day trip by bass boat along the Arkansas River to tout a 1/8th-cent sales tax increase for outdoor programs. (Two nature centers now carry the names of Huckabee and his wife.) Taxes went up $40 million in the months before the $100 million tax cut Huckabee touts.

Other taxes went up as Arkansas changed its property tax system and made improvements to its school system.

_Huckabee's recent strong stand on immigration, including an intolerance toward companies that employ illegal immigrants, runs counter to the image he crafted in his final years in office. He was battling conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures.

Huckabee opposed a Republican lawmaker's efforts in 2005 to require proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren't federally mandated and proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Huckabee derided the bill as un-American and un-Christian and said the bill's sponsor drank a different "Jesus juice."

That same year, Huckabee failed in his effort to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuition to Arkansas colleges. At the time, Huckabee said he didn't understand the opposition to it.

"It hurts me on a personal as well as a policy level to think that we are still debating issues that I kind of hoped we had put aside in the 1960s, maybe at the latest the '70s, and yet I understand people have deep passions about things usually they don't fully understand," Huckabee said.

[wannabaRSgirl]

I agree. I have been surprised at the number of conservatives who have bought into Huckabee, when he has all kinds of red flags.

That said, he doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination.

I can't remember which guy you are pulling for. Too lazy to go back and check. Do you have someone in mind yet?

[SonflowerGurl]

I can't remember which guy you are pulling for. Too lazy to go back and check. Do you have someone in mind yet?

I was just thinking the same thing.

I'm sure there will be mud tossed. Time will tell what sticks.

[middletree]

I can't remember which guy you are pulling for. Too lazy to go back and check. Do you have someone in mind yet?

I have not yet stated anyone I am leaning toward. I can't say that I have narrowed it down too much.

I have found flaws in all of them. I have, however, found one or two who seem to be running because they actually love their country, so even if I disagree with some of their positions, I like that about them.

However, this list of candidates who are running for the right reasons is a short one, and they always get portrayed as crazies (see Allen Keyes in the previous two elections). I suspect that if Ron Paul gets more support and looks less like a longshot, the media will no longer be able to ignore him, and will change their tone and start making him out to be a loon, as well.

[rossid]

I can't remember which guy you are pulling for. Too lazy to go back and check. Do you have someone in mind yet?
Huckabee.

Why are Republicans now 'big government'? That is a shame...

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Huckabee.

Why are Republicans now 'big government'? That is a shame...

If you're against big government, why are you for Govr. Huckabee?

He's anything BUT for small government (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/national/203850/).

[WeaselInYerFoot]

The more I read about him the more it worries me. This guy is dangerous. I'm sorry to say it, and I hate to specially when he's a pastor of a "cousin" denomination (I'm independent baptist). But sheep's clothing fits anyone really. He looks like a sheep, a really white one right now, which is why I was interested in him. But all you really have to do is look at their past and see if they had always been a sheep. This is all I've pulled up so far:

- Is willing to sign a national smoking ban prohibiting the use of tobacco in public places (link (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/huckabee-says-h.html)). I don't smoke, but it's everyone else's right do so.

- Wants to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens (link (http://arkjournal.com/2007/11/newsflash-mike-huckabee-supported-bill.html))

- Helped release a convicted rapist (that was originally sentenced to life in prison) who then murdered another woman in Missouri after being released. (link (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?Articl eID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419))

- This one's strange... He ordered all hard drives and records to be destroyed after his term was up in AR. Including records that showed how "Huckabee and his family were using the $60,000-a-year Governor's Mansion fund as their personal piggy bank." (link (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?Articl eID=29b3f942-6cd2-4e6f-984a-61dbfba5bf42)) Which by the way, cost over $100,000 taxpayer dollars to get those computers replaced.

- this last one has repeated information from this thread but more additional stuff as well, about how he received 100's of thousands of dollars in gifts and how some of these "giving" people suddenly had high government positions later on. (link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/))

[middletree]

- Is willing to sign a national smoking ban prohibiting the use of tobacco in public places (link (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/huckabee-says-h.html)). I don't smoke, but it's everyone else's right do so.


I completely disagree with you on this one issue, but otherwise, your points are well-researched. Thanks for this.

[SonflowerGurl]

"Reasons to be wary of Mike Huckabee"....because he's ahead of the candidate you support ;)

(general comment, not directed at anyone in particular)

[rossid]

If you're against big government, why are you for Govr. Huckabee?

He's anything BUT for small government (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/national/203850/).Because he's a Baptist... :P

[mat1583]

I completely disagree with you on this one issue, but otherwise, your points are well-researched. Thanks for this.

Why do you disagree with this issue? I think it should be left up to the state and local governments to decide whether or not smoking should be banned in public places - not the federal government's decision.

I do not think either has the authority to ban smoking in private establishments (not public places) such as restaurants, bars and bowling lanes.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Because he's a Baptist... :P

So am I, but I certainly don't think I'm apt for being a president! :eek:

[WeaselInYerFoot]

"Reasons to be wary of Mike Huckabee"....because he's ahead of the candidate you support ;)

(general comment, not directed at anyone in particular)

It's true though! If I didn't know that half of my family is in love with him and that most people at my church are so enthused about him I wouldn't post this. I'm concerned because the labels (Christian or baptist) we so frequently use have blinded some to the point where they won't even bother researching. I wouldn't be surprised that when I show my family these things, they'll dismiss it and think nothing of it.

I managed to change their minds about Giuliani (easily). But Huckabee will be hard given that thinking of a Pastor being a president will make them feel like the United States will now be the biggest church in the world! lol!

[clemsontigers23]

Why do you disagree with this issue? I think it should be left up to the state and local governments to decide whether or not smoking should be banned in public places - not the federal government's decision.

I do not think either has the authority to ban smoking in private establishments (not public places) such as restaurants, bars and bowling lanes.

-washboard

I would agree you with you if it wasn't proven that secondhand smoke also causes cancer and respiratory problems. It becomes an issue when it affects the health of others.

[mat1583]

I managed to change their minds about Giuliani (easily). But Huckabee will be hard given that thinking of a Pastor being a president will make them feel like the United States will now be the biggest church in the world! lol!

Hey, just remind them that Bush didn't think twice about proudly proclaiming his Christianity and then raining bombs of the heads of Iraqis...

-washboard

[mat1583]

I would agree you with you if it wasn't proven that secondhand smoke also causes cancer and respiratory problems. It becomes an issue when it affects the health of others.

It arguably causes cancer. We had a great big discussion a while back about this. I posted plenty of research and articles about how the conclusions from the 1992 meta-analysis were either skewed, biased or inconclusive at best.

And by the way...loud music at Third Day concerts also affects the health and hearing of others, but millions of people worldwide still choose to destroy their hearing. If you don't want to choke in second-hand smoke, then don't go to private establishments that allow it. Boycotts do speak words in certain circumstances.

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

It arguably causes cancer. We had a great big discussion a while back about this. I posted plenty of research and articles about how the conclusions from the 1992 meta-analysis were either skewed, biased or inconclusive at best.

And by the way...loud music at Third Day concerts also affects the health and hearing of others, but millions of people worldwide still choose to destroy their hearing. If you don't want to choke in second-hand smoke, then don't go to private establishments that allow it. Boycotts do speak words in certain circumstances.

-washboard

There's a big difference between going to a Third Day concert and the local Applebee's. Concerts and eating establishments are not even in the same ballpark. If a person decides they want to eat at Applebee's yet they are being subjected to cancer-causing secondhand smoke, isn't that infringing on their rights and freedoms as well? If a person wants to smoke, it is perfectly legal OUTSIDE the establishment.

[middletree]

Why do you disagree with this issue? I think it should be left up to the state and local governments to decide whether or not smoking should be banned in public places

But that's not what you said in the post to which I replied. You said that individuals should have the right to smoke. Now you are saying that govt can ban it, but only local and state govt.

I'd like to see all tobacco permanently banned. If that conflicts with the Republican platform, I don't care.

[Jesuslove]

I'd like to see all tobacco permanently banned. If that conflicts with the Republican platform, I don't care.

I agree! I'd like to see a national ban on indoor smoking.

[Jesuslove]

Quick question: Why doesn't Mike Huckabee have any children? I'm just curious.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Quick question: Why doesn't Mike Huckabee have any children? I'm just curious.

He does. Not sure how many, but I know he at least has a son. You may not hear about him much because he's in somewhat of a mess. I personally wouldn't hold his son's actions against Huckabee because sometimes, no matter what you do they still have a mind of their own. But I'm pretty sure there's classless people out there who would use it against his campaign, whence the reason why he's not mentioned a great deal.

[mat1583]

Concerts and eating establishments are not even in the same ballpark.

What makes them not in the same ballpark? Both places are private property in which the owners of the property invite the public in. You are given the privilege of entering the property, and do NOT have the right to stay. You can be asked to leave at any time. If you do not comply, you can be arrested for trespassing on a private property. If you go to a concert, you go under the assumption that there is going to be loud music that could damage your hearing. When you go to a baseball park, you go under the knowledge that a bat or ball could fly into the stands and injure you. If you go to a bar, you go under the knowledge that there could be people smoking, which could annoy you. Please explain to me why it is any different.


But that's not what you said in the post to which I replied. You said that individuals should have the right to smoke. Now you are saying that govt can ban it, but only local and state govt.

Actually, that was Weasel that said everyone has the right. I do agree with that, but to a certain extent. I do believe that state and local governments have the right to ban smoking in public places such as a city park, state owned government buildings...anywhere the public has the right to access. This differs greatly from private property where the public is given the privilege, not the right to access.


I'd like to see all tobacco permanently banned. If that conflicts with the Republican platform, I don't care.

If you want all tobacco permanently banned, would you also have alcohol, fatty foods, caffeine, or pretty much any other potentially harmful substance banned? It just follows the same premise.

-washboard

[middletree]

Actually, that was Weasel


Sorry. You both look very much alike here ;)

If you want all tobacco permanently banned, would you also have alcohol, fatty foods, caffeine, or pretty much any other potentially harmful substance banned? It just follows the same premise.


Analogies never work for me. They are never apples to apples. Tobacco is a special kind of killer, and is useless for anything else. Alcohol, for one, has benefits. When I start my own country, I'm banning it outright. That, and Apple computers. And reruns of Boy Meets World.

[mat1583]

And reruns of Boy Meets World.

Now this I agree on!

-washboard

[cheewiee]

...That, and Apple computers...

James, I think you are a closeted Mac User....

[wannabaRSgirl]

Previously mentioned was Huckabee's mis-use of manion renovation money. I don't know how one would disprove that but don't see how it would be entirely true. However, during those renovations he and his family were willing to stay in a double-wide on the mansion property. The mansion also just happens to be the THE WORST part of Little Rock, so that would have been a nice opportunity to leave the HOOD for awhile.

[mat1583]

Sorry. You both look very much alike here ;)
Alcohol, for one, has benefits.

Interesting CNN article about the pros and cons of drinking alcohol:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/12/04/healthmag.alcohol/index.html

It answers questions such as:

Can a glass a day keep the doctor - and the pounds - away?
Will drinking too much make me age faster?
Does having a drink or two take a toll on my energy?
Could my drinking lead to alcoholism?
Am I missing out on the benefits of drinking?

# Story Highlights
# Study: Women who drank one drink per day gained less weight than abstainers
# Moderate drinking seems to raise good, lower bad cholesterol
# A lcohol lessen inhibitions, which can lead to unhealthy food choices

-washboard

and now back to your regularly scheduled programming

[middletree]

Good link. I don't drink (come from a long line of alcoholics), but I cannot say it's a sin to drink. And I certainly cannot say it is only harmful and has no benefits, which is why I replied to that part of that other post. Tobacco, on the other hand, offers nothing helpful to anyone except tobacco farmers, and the Congressmen from their states.

[clemsontigers23]

What makes them not in the same ballpark? Both places are private property in which the owners of the property invite the public in. You are given the privilege of entering the property, and do NOT have the right to stay. You can be asked to leave at any time. If you do not comply, you can be arrested for trespassing on a private property. If you go to a concert, you go under the assumption that there is going to be loud music that could damage your hearing. When you go to a baseball park, you go under the knowledge that a bat or ball could fly into the stands and injure you. If you go to a bar, you go under the knowledge that there could be people smoking, which could annoy you. Please explain to me why it is any different.



Actually, that was Weasel that said everyone has the right. I do agree with that, but to a certain extent. I do believe that state and local governments have the right to ban smoking in public places such as a city park, state owned government buildings...anywhere the public has the right to access. This differs greatly from private property where the public is given the privilege, not the right to access.



If you want all tobacco permanently banned, would you also have alcohol, fatty foods, caffeine, or pretty much any other potentially harmful substance banned? It just follows the same premise.

-washboard

Being exposed to loud music at concerts is a given. Going to Applebee's and being exposed to cancer-causing cigarette smoke is another story. Why should a person have to make the choice of not going to the local Applebee's just because some jerks who don't care about the health of others want to light up? Is that or is that not infringing on the person's right to not be exposed to cancer-causing tobacco? Is it not their right to be able to eat at an eating establishment without having to worry about the dangers of secondhand smoke?

I'd also like to note that at concerts and sporting events across the country, even those held outside, smoking is banned for the comfort of those who do not wish to inhale the cancer. Why should it be any different in eating establishments?

[clemsontigers23]

As far as Mike Huckabee is concerned, I think this video says it all ;) :

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

[middletree]

That video is funny, and clearly an attempt at humor, not to be taken too seriously. It's nice to see that Huck has a sense of humor. I can't imagine most other candidates doing that.

As much as Huckabee isn't a real conservative, the bottom line is that if it comes down to him or Hillary, he's getting my vote. If it's Rudy vs. Hillary, I am going to organize the largest prayer gathering ever.

[clemsontigers23]

That video is funny, and clearly an attempt at humor, not to be taken too seriously. It's nice to see that Huck has a sense of humor. I can't imagine most other candidates doing that.

As much as Huckabee isn't a real conservative, the bottom line is that if it comes down to him or Hillary, he's getting my vote. If it's Rudy vs. Hillary, I am going to organize the largest prayer gathering ever.

Because Lord help us all if it came down to having to choose between Hill and Rudy. ;)

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I'll just punch in all the holes in the ballot just to see what happens.

[mat1583]

Being exposed to loud music at concerts is a given. Going to Applebee's and being exposed to cancer-causing cigarette smoke is another story.

Second hand smoke hasn't been conclusively proven to cause cancer. If you want to know why, there's already a huge thread that discusses this. Just look up the 1992 EPA passive smoking study, and then the Osteen Decision by the federal courts. The 92 EPA study is what everyone (including the American Heart and Lung Association) cites when they claim passive smoking is cancer causing. The Osteen Decision said that the EPA cherry picked its evidence to support a conclusion they had come to before the study ever happened. The court also concluded that the EPA, "adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion... In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning…"

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm


Why should a person have to make the choice of not going to the local Applebee's just because some jerks who don't care about the health of others want to light up?

Why should I have to choose to go to a pub or bar that does not play deafeningly loud music? I should be able to go to any bar and not have to worry about my hearing being destroyed, shouldn't I?


Is that or is that not infringing on the person's right to not be exposed to cancer-causing tobacco? Is it not their right to be able to eat at an eating establishment without having to worry about the dangers of secondhand smoke?

What about loud toddlers that are crying continuously. That's infringing on my right to enjoy a peaceful, quiet dinner isn't it? It's not even a right in the first place to be eating at that establishment. You have no right to enter that private property, but you are given the privilege. If the owner's of that establishment choose to allow people to smoke, you have the right to leave, but not to force the private owner to adhere to certain rules.

What about when you go to a baseball stadium. There is a slight chance that a ball hit by a player may knock you in the head and crack your skull. Does that mean you have the right to go to the baseball stadium and force them to stop playing because of the chance that you might be killed by a baseball?


I'd also like to note that at concerts and sporting events across the country, even those held outside, smoking is banned for the comfort of those who do not wish to inhale the cancer. Why should it be any different in eating establishments?
I'd also like to point out that smoking is banned in some of those stadiums and concerts by the venue owner's discretion. Yes, some are by law...but there are also private owners that choose to have a smoke-free area.

The problem I have with the smoking laws is that it does not recognize any difference between private establishments and public places. Most of the laws exempt dwellings. What if you had a large neighborhood Christmas party of about 30-40 people and wanted to allow smoking. You send out a general invitation to everyone in the neighborhood, regardless of if you know them personally. If there was one person that did not like the smoking, do you think they should be allowed to have you prosecuted for allowing smoking in an area where the public was invited? If no, then explain to me the difference between a neighborhood Christmas party and a bar/club and why a bar/club should not be considered private property - just like a house.

-washboard

[mat1583]

I'll just punch in all the holes in the ballot just to see what happens.

If RP doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing him in. I don't want any of the others being the leader of our nation and possibly the destroyer of our freedoms.

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

Second hand smoke hasn't been conclusively proven to cause cancer. If you want to know why, there's already a huge thread that discusses this. Just look up the 1992 EPA passive smoking study, and then the Osteen Decision by the federal courts. The 92 EPA study is what everyone (including the American Heart and Lung Association) cites when they claim passive smoking is cancer causing. The Osteen Decision said that the EPA cherry picked its evidence to support a conclusion they had come to before the study ever happened. The court also concluded that the EPA, "adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion... In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning…"

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

While studies may not present a definitive conclusion, it also hasn't been proven that secondhand smoke DOESN'T cause health problems.

Why should I have to choose to go to a pub or bar that does not play deafeningly loud music? I should be able to go to any bar and not have to worry about my hearing being destroyed, shouldn't I?

Fair enough.

What about loud toddlers that are crying continuously. That's infringing on my right to enjoy a peaceful, quiet dinner isn't it? It's not even a right in the first place to be eating at that establishment. You have no right to enter that private property, but you are given the privilege. If the owner's of that establishment choose to allow people to smoke, you have the right to leave, but not to force the private owner to adhere to certain rules.

Also fair, though I agree with middletree that since smoking causes health problems it shouldn't be allowed at an establishment open to the public as it jeopardizes the health of those who do not wish to smoke.

What about when you go to a baseball stadium. There is a slight chance that a ball hit by a player may knock you in the head and crack your skull. Does that mean you have the right to go to the baseball stadium and force them to stop playing because of the chance that you might be killed by a baseball?

Of course not.

The problem I have with the smoking laws is that it does not recognize any difference between private establishments and public places. Most of the laws exempt dwellings. What if you had a large neighborhood Christmas party of about 30-40 people and wanted to allow smoking. You send out a general invitation to everyone in the neighborhood, regardless of if you know them personally. If there was one person that did not like the smoking, do you think they should be allowed to have you prosecuted for allowing smoking in an area where the public was invited? If no, then explain to me the difference between a neighborhood Christmas party and a bar/club and why a bar/club should not be considered private property - just like a house.

-washboard

No, a person should not be allowed to prosecute the owner of the house, and if it has to be legal then tobacco should be allowed at houses as it is not a place of business where hundreds of people are coming in and out of every day. Although the establishment may be a private establishment, they still have a responsibility to look out for the health of their customers instead of exposing them to possibly deadly toxins, such as cigarette smoke. Since many restaurants were not living up to this responsibility, something had to be done to make sure they would ensure the health of the consumers. Smoking is not a right, or a privilege. Laws are designed to protect individuals, and making a law prohibiting the spreading of deadly toxins in public places, albeit a private establishment, is perfectly constitutional and right.

[middletree]

Second hand smoke hasn't been conclusively proven to cause cancer.
I should be able to go to any bar and not have to worry about my hearing being destroyed, shouldn't I?

The problem I have with the smoking laws is that it does not recognize any difference between private establishments and public places.

Substitute a few words here and there, and the arguments you make in this post sound a lot like pro-choice arguments when it comes to abortion.

In fact, the tobacco laws and the resistance to them really remind me a lot of what we have seen with abortion in my lifetime. In both cases, you have a very harmful activity, and it's a huge industry, and the people who have money at stake do two things to keep their industry legal: (1) lobby Congress heavily, including financial contributions, and (2) spread the word that this issue isn't about harming anyone; it's about freedom of choice.

As a pro-lifer, I'm pro-life all the way. Protect babies. Banish tobacco. Banish guns that are not for hunting. Clean up the environment. And ban the death penalty. Those who point out that it's illogical to protect baby whales and yet be pro-choice when it comes to abortion (and it certainly is illogical) should also look at pro-life positions on these other topics.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Back to the subject at hand...

Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html) is a detailed report on the Dumond rape case. This is serious stuff, but I'm glad that it's being brought out now and not after he'd get the nomination (IF he did) because it would have given Hillary (IF she's also nominated) the White House.

The link also includes the three letters that were sent to him, in which the rape victims plead him to not release Mr. Dumond.

[Jesuslove]

Back to the subject at hand...

Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html) is a detailed report on the Dumond rape case. This is serious stuff, but I'm glad that it's being brought out now and not after he'd get the nomination (IF he did) because it would have given Hillary (IF she's also nominated) the White House.

The link also includes the three letters that were sent to him, in which the rape victims plead him to not release Mr. Dumond.

This story got a lot of press yesterday. It seems as if the decision to release Mr. Dumond was politically motivated as Mr. Dumond's first victim was a distant relative of Bill Clinton. I think the more press this story gets, the more it will impact his polling numbers.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Additional Information on Govr. Huckabee's tax increases:

Ernie Dumas writes: Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.


Source: Link! (http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialswhos-biggest-tax-raiser.html)

[Jason]

As a pro-lifer, I'm pro-life all the way. Protect babies. Banish tobacco. Banish guns that are not for hunting. Clean up the environment. And ban the death penalty. Those who point out that it's illogical to protect baby whales and yet be pro-choice when it comes to abortion (and it certainly is illogical) should also look at pro-life positions on these other topics.

You sound like me.

[sandyandporter]

As a pro-lifer, I'm pro-life all the way. Protect babies. Banish tobacco. Banish guns that are not for hunting. Clean up the environment. And ban the death penalty. Those who point out that it's illogical to protect baby whales and yet be pro-choice when it comes to abortion (and it certainly is illogical) should also look at pro-life positions on these other topics.

Is there a thread somewhere on the death penalty? I searched for one and couldn't find it. Before I was saved I was pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Once I was saved I became pro-life and sat on the fence about the death penalty.

Some friends of mine who have walked with the Lord for a long time feel that the death penalty has biblical support. Being so young in the Lord I just was like "ok" I'll be pro death penalty if that is God's wish.

When I saw you state that you are against the death penalty I thought.... hmmm is this something that Christians are divided on? I would love to hear what you and others have to say. Should I start a thread on it or is there one you can point me to?

Thanks!!! Your little (;) )sister in Christ, Sandy

[middletree]

You sound like me.

I've been told I sound like Ernie from Sesame Street.

[Jason]

I've been told I sound like Ernie from Sesame Street.

Maybe we both sound like Ernie? ;)

I assume you're against euthanasia and right-to-die?

[middletree]

Is there a thread somewhere on the death penalty?
I know it's been discussed, but I cannot recall when. Old threads get deleted periodically.

I don't know how divided we are about this. The Mosaic Law certainly allows for the DP, so I cannot say that God is against it. But I know that nobody can say that God requires it, because we aren't under the Mosaic Law. If anyone tells you that we should require it because Leviticus says so, ask 'em if they eat bacon. ;)

I am against it simply because I don't want to take away the chance for anyone to respond to the Gospel. Lock 'em up for life if their crime was a heinous one, because they can still get saved in jail. But I know enough about salvation to know that it happens when someone responds to the Holy Spirit, and cannot happen if the Spirit is not present and moving on them. I am not comfortable with deciding when someone should die, because to me, that's like saying I'm forcing the Holy Spirit to move up His timetable.

I realize that this position has holes in it. Should a police officer shoot to kill to protect a life? How about a soldier? I know these conflicts exist, but I'm not backing down regarding the DP.

I realize that this is not biblically defensible, and that's why I used words in the previous paragraph which indicate I am relying on gut feelings. I do not judge anyone who thinks otherwise. But I will make this pledge: if I am in a position to tell a prosecutor that I don't want him to seek the DP for someone who murders a loved one of mine, I will do so. God willing, I'll never have to live up to that pledge.


Thanks!!! Your little (;) )sister in Christ, Sandy
Oh, you got younger than me, huh? (I turn 43 next month).

[middletree]

Maybe we both sound like Ernie? ;)

I assume you're against euthanasia and right-to-die?

Yes, but I understand and would not be judgmental of someone who chooses to exercise such a right if they are in such a position and it's legal. It's between them and God, but as a general principle, I'm against it.

[mat1583]

Some friends of mine who have walked with the Lord for a long time feel that the death penalty has biblical support.

Capital punishment was prescribed in OT times for breaking certain parts of Levitical law. I'm not sure if they had any sort of court system back then, but I don't believe God was telling them every time whether or not a person was guilty of the crime they were accused of committing. That means there had to be some way to determine one's guilt, and a system for carrying out the punishment if they were found guilty.

-washboard

[middletree]

Capital punishment was prescribed in OT times for breaking certain parts of Levitical law.
They had judges.

It should also be pointed out that they had to have two witnesses who saw the murder take place before putting anyone to death. So these folks who call for the DP and cite Leviticus should be made aware that if they want to bring in the Law of Moses, we were mistaken when we put Tim McVeigh, among others, to death.

[mat1583]

Substitute a few words here and there, and the arguments you make in this post sound a lot like pro-choice arguments when it comes to abortion.

In fact, the tobacco laws and the resistance to them really remind me a lot of what we have seen with abortion in my lifetime. In both cases, you have a very harmful activity, and it's a huge industry, and the people who have money at stake do two things to keep their industry legal: (1) lobby Congress heavily, including financial contributions, and (2) spread the word that this issue isn't about harming anyone; it's about freedom of choice.

As a pro-lifer, I'm pro-life all the way. Protect babies. Banish tobacco. Banish guns that are not for hunting. Clean up the environment. And ban the death penalty. Those who point out that it's illogical to protect baby whales and yet be pro-choice when it comes to abortion (and it certainly is illogical) should also look at pro-life positions on these other topics.

Way to completely change the subject.

I'm not going to argue this any further, as I already have in another thread. It's off topic and wondering even further away.

-washboard

[sandyandporter]

I know it's been discussed, but I cannot recall when. Old threads get deleted periodically.

I don't know how divided we are about this. The Mosaic Law certainly allows for the DP, so I cannot say that God is against it. But I know that nobody can say that God requires it, because we aren't under the Mosaic Law. If anyone tells you that we should require it because Leviticus says so, ask 'em if they eat bacon. ;)

I am against it simply because I don't want to take away the chance for anyone to respond to the Gospel. Lock 'em up for life if their crime was a heinous one, because they can still get saved in jail. But I know enough about salvation to know that it happens when someone responds to the Holy Spirit, and cannot happen if the Spirit is not present and moving on them. I am not comfortable with deciding when someone should die, because to me, that's like saying I'm forcing the Holy Spirit to move up His timetable.

I realize that this position has holes in it. Should a police officer shoot to kill to protect a life? How about a soldier? I know these conflicts exist, but I'm not backing down regarding the DP.

I realize that this is not biblically defensible, and that's why I used words in the previous paragraph which indicate I am relying on gut feelings. I do not judge anyone who thinks otherwise. But I will make this pledge: if I am in a position to tell a prosecutor that I don't want him to seek the DP for someone who murders a loved one of mine, I will do so. God willing, I'll never have to live up to that pledge.).


I will have to spend some time in prayer on this. I guess I thought it was required thinking... I know that becoming pro-life was something that I HAD to become as a believer. However it wasn't just a head choice, it became my heart's choice as well. For some time now my HEAD has told me to support the death penalty but my heart has remained silent. I'm just happy to see that I have a choice on this.

Oh, you got younger than me, huh? (I turn 43 next month).

LOL! I was referring to you being an "older and wiser" Christian than me.... not our chronological ages. But it's nice to know the next time you smart off to me I can tell you to respect your elders! ;) :cool: :P

[Jason]

Yes, but I understand and would not be judgmental of someone who chooses to exercise such a right if they are in such a position and it's legal. It's between them and God, but as a general principle, I'm against it.

You may or may not know, but I put out a press release when the movie Million Dollar Baby was released and as a result was interviewed on Pittsburgh radio.

Here's the press release:

Disabled Christian Author Speaks Against “Million Dollar Baby” Movie

Ventilator-dependent, confined to a wheelchair, and living in a rehabilitation center, Christian author and speaker Jason Mitchener has much in common with Hilary Swank’s character Maggie at the end of Clint Eastwood’s boxing movie “Million Dollar Baby.” The difference is that Mitchener is a true fighter.

(PRWEB) February 1, 2005 -- “I wanted to stop the moviegoers as they left the theater to tell them Maggie wasn’t the typical ventilator-dependent, disabled person. Most of us want to live.”

For Christian author and speaker, Jason Mitchener, Clint Eastwood’s film “Million Dollar Baby” was just another inspirational boxing movie until the surprise third act when Hilary Swank’s character Maggie ends up as a quadriplegic and ventilator-dependent.

Mitchener, who is also confined to a wheelchair and ventilator dependent, was at first excited to see a movie portray someone similar to him. “But when I saw Maggie asking Clint Eastwood’s character to end her life, I wanted to scream, ‘Don’t do it! Life is worth living.’”

In 1991, Mitchener was admitted to a rehabilitation center at the age of 21. He couldn’t bathe, feed, or dress himself. Paralyzed from the shoulders down due to a rare neuromuscular disease, he now required a ventilator to help him breathe. “At first, I felt useless, like my life was over. But I knew God had bigger plans for me.” Those plans included the publication of his devotional book “Just Passing Through: Notes from a Fellow Traveler” which he typed with a stick held between his teeth.

“Eastwood’s film shook me to the core,” Mitchener says. “It was yet another attempt to show that the life of a disabled person has no value.” Mitchener proves his value every day by ministering daily to the hundreds of people who subscribe to his e-mail devotional messages. He is also a talented digital artist and songwriter who has had songs recorded on CDs by three Christian music artists.

“I couldn’t understand Maggie’s wish to end her life. She was a boxer, but she stopped fighting,” Mitchener says. With his fierce desire to encourage others through his love for life, Mitchener is the true fighter.

Find out more about Jason Mitchener at:
http://www.JasonMitchener.com

[mat1583]

They had judges.

Heh, I completely forgot about that book in the Bible :)


It should also be pointed out that they had to have two witnesses who saw the murder take place before putting anyone to death. So these folks who call for the DP and cite Leviticus should be made aware that if they want to bring in the Law of Moses, we were mistaken when we put Tim McVeigh, among others, to death.
I believe DNA evidence, video cameras, and other technology have somewhat taken the place of the requirement of two witnesses for a crime. In fact, DNA evidence can be a better witness than any human - mistaken visual identity seems fairly common. DNA evidence has even saved a few innocent people that were once on death row.

-washboard

[sandyandporter]

You may or may not know, but I put out a press release when the movie Million Dollar Baby was released and as a result was interviewed on Pittsburgh radio.

Here's the press release:

Disabled Christian Author Speaks Against “Million Dollar Baby” Movie

Ventilator-dependent, confined to a wheelchair, and living in a rehabilitation center, Christian author and speaker Jason Mitchener has much in common with Hilary Swank’s character Maggie at the end of Clint Eastwood’s boxing movie “Million Dollar Baby.” The difference is that Mitchener is a true fighter.

(PRWEB) February 1, 2005 -- “I wanted to stop the moviegoers as they left the theater to tell them Maggie wasn’t the typical ventilator-dependent, disabled person. Most of us want to live.”

For Christian author and speaker, Jason Mitchener, Clint Eastwood’s film “Million Dollar Baby” was just another inspirational boxing movie until the surprise third act when Hilary Swank’s character Maggie ends up as a quadriplegic and ventilator-dependent.

Mitchener, who is also confined to a wheelchair and ventilator dependent, was at first excited to see a movie portray someone similar to him. “But when I saw Maggie asking Clint Eastwood’s character to end her life, I wanted to scream, ‘Don’t do it! Life is worth living.’”

In 1991, Mitchener was admitted to a rehabilitation center at the age of 21. He couldn’t bathe, feed, or dress himself. Paralyzed from the shoulders down due to a rare neuromuscular disease, he now required a ventilator to help him breathe. “At first, I felt useless, like my life was over. But I knew God had bigger plans for me.” Those plans included the publication of his devotional book “Just Passing Through: Notes from a Fellow Traveler” which he typed with a stick held between his teeth.

“Eastwood’s film shook me to the core,” Mitchener says. “It was yet another attempt to show that the life of a disabled person has no value.” Mitchener proves his value every day by ministering daily to the hundreds of people who subscribe to his e-mail devotional messages. He is also a talented digital artist and songwriter who has had songs recorded on CDs by three Christian music artists.

“I couldn’t understand Maggie’s wish to end her life. She was a boxer, but she stopped fighting,” Mitchener says. With his fierce desire to encourage others through his love for life, Mitchener is the true fighter.

Find out more about Jason Mitchener at:
http://www.JasonMitchener.com

You gave me goosebumps! You know I'm such a fan!

[wannabaRSgirl]

Because Lord help us all if it came down to having to choose between Hill and Rudy. ;)

Hate to derail but have you guys seen this?

What is a Hillbilly?

[sandyandporter]

Hate to derail but have you guys seen this?

What is a Hillbilly?

That's just frightening! :eek:

[Jason]

You gave me goosebumps! You know I'm such a fan!

:o

[sandyandporter]

:o


Pretty sure we can consider this thread officially hijacked!

[wannabaRSgirl]

Pretty sure we can consider this thread officially hijacked!

Since it is hijacked, maybe we could change it to PRO-Huck! I am a Huck-a-fan!

[Jason]

Since it is hijacked, maybe we could change it to PRO-Huck! I am a Huck-a-fan!

Yes, but you also inhale Tabasco sauce. ;)

[middletree]

I will have to spend some time in prayer on this. I guess I thought it was required thinking.

A lot people here and in the Evangelical church in general think that whatever the Republican platform says, we must agree with. And the Republican position is to be pro-DP. I don't personally like this line of thinking any more than I like someone following the entire Democratic party line. Each issue should be judged on its own merits.

[Andi]

Yes, but you also inhale Tabasco sauce. ;)

I am a witness to that....along with the other 200+* people who viewed.


* a guess here, not an actual number....lol

[middletree]

You may or may not know, but I put out a press release when the movie Million Dollar Baby was released and as a result was interviewed on Pittsburgh radio.

No, I didn't.

Interestingly, I recently got that movie because it was $2.99 on Black Friday. I haven't watched it yet. I was already vaguely familiar with that part of the story, though.

[middletree]

I believe DNA evidence, video cameras, and other technology have somewhat taken the place of the requirement of two witnesses for a crime.

But that's not convincing to someone who's in favor of following the Law. Ask them if they like replacing Saturday with Sunday for a day to meet and worship. Whether it's two witnesses or DNA, it doesn't matter because we aren't under the Law. I know you know that, but it drives me nuts when some pro-DP types use Leviticus to back up their position.

[mat1583]

I know you know that, but it drives me nuts when some pro-DP types use Leviticus to back up their position.

I'm just trying to get the point across that since I believe God is the same today as He was yesterday- that He wouldn't suddenly be against capital punishment in general....maybe the system isn't a good one, but the idea of capital punishment isn't inherently evil.

-washboard

[Jason]

No, I didn't.

Interestingly, I recently got that movie because it was $2.99 on Black Friday. I haven't watched it yet. I was already vaguely familiar with that part of the story, though.

I apologize if I ruined the ending, although I believe the screenwriter is the one who actually ruined the ending.

[Andi]

I'm just trying to get the point across that since I believe God is the same today as He was yesterday- that He wouldn't suddenly be against capital punishment in general....maybe the system isn't a good one, but the idea of capital punishment isn't inherently evil.

-washboard

I agree with you.

We are commanded to love one another. And to love our enemies.

I believe we can love someone even when they are being put to death for a heinous crime.

I love my children. And when I am dishing out punishment....I don't stop loving them.

[wannabaRSgirl]

I am a witness to that....along with the other 200+* people who viewed.


* a guess here, not an actual number....lol

let's keep it on the DL, I guess that doesn't give me much of a platform huh. :cool:

[Jason]

I agree with you.

We are commanded to love one another. And to love our enemies.

I believe we can love someone even when they are being put to death for a heinous crime.

I love my children. And when I am dishing out punishment....I don't stop loving them.

Yes but as James said:

I am against it simply because I don't want to take away the chance for anyone to respond to the Gospel. Lock 'em up for life if their crime was a heinous one, because they can still get saved in jail. But I know enough about salvation to know that it happens when someone responds to the Holy Spirit, and cannot happen if the Spirit is not present and moving on them. I am not comfortable with deciding when someone should die, because to me, that's like saying I'm forcing the Holy Spirit to move up His timetable.o so. God willing, I'll never have to live up to that pledge.

[rossid]

My best friend said his wife could not support Romney because his church says women are saved through their husband. Apologies for inaccuracies on this point...

So I mention that I support Huckabee because I DO agree with his basic theology as a Baptist. Even though I may disagree with his stances on particular issues we should agree on most moral items. I'm almost a single issue (morality) voter...

[mat1583]

So I mention that I support Huckabee because I DO agree with his basic theology as a Baptist. Even though I may disagree with his stances on particular issues we should agree on most moral items. I'm almost a single issue (morality) voter...

That scares the mess out of me. What if everyone voted their morality and we were instead a majority Buddhist or Islamic nation..what do you think the laws would be like?

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

That scares the mess out of me. What if everyone voted their morality and we were instead a majority Buddhist or Islamic nation..what do you think the laws would be like?

-washboard

Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Voting based on their claimed belief system has been proven highly ineffective. I thought this generation learned that with President Bush.

[clemsontigers23]

Mike Huckabee has moved into 2nd behind Rudy!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_po/presidential_race_ap_poll

WASHINGTON - Mike Huckabee has vaulted from nowhere into second place in the Republican presidential race, riding a burst of support from evangelicals, Southerners and conservatives, a nationwide poll showed Friday.

The surge by the former Arkansas governor has come largely at the expense of Fred Thompson, according to the national survey by The Associated Press and Ipsos. Thompson has dropped after failing to galvanize the party's right-wing core as much as some had expected.

Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner, yet while his support long has been steady it shows signs of fraying. Huckabee's growing strength in the South has come as the former New York mayor's support there has dropped, the poll found.

"Why not me?" Huckabee said in an interview Thursday. "I meet all the criteria. I'm conservative, but I think I appeal to a broader set of voters. And I think that people are also looking for someone with whom they can identify."

The poll showed Giuliani at 26 percent among Republican and GOP-leaning voters, about where he has been since spring. Huckabee has 18 percent, up from 10 percent in an AP-Ipsos survey a month ago and 3 percent in July.

Arizona Sen. John McCain has 13 percent, Mitt Romney 12 percent and Thompson 11 percent.

Huckabee's ascent in the national poll echoed his upswing in Iowa, whose Jan. 3 nominating caucuses will be the first votes in the 2008 presidential campaign. A recent AP-Pew Research Center poll showed Huckabee in a virtual tie there with Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, though Huckabee trails significantly in New Hampshire and South Carolina, two other important states that vote early next year.

A Baptist minister who mixes a folksy manner with an emphasis on his faith, Huckabee now has the support of 25 percent of white evangelical voters, 23 percent of conservatives and 28 percent of Southerners, the AP-Ipsos poll found. That is a solid increase in each of those areas since November, and a lead or share of the lead in each category.

"It's his humanness. He's not like a robot," said Natosha Romine, 24, a homemaker from Dallas and Huckabee supporter interviewed in the survey. "You could tell he's been through some stuff, like he's one of us."

The Democratic race showed virtually no change from last month. In the new AP-Ipsos national survey, Hillary Rodham Clinton has about a 2-to-1 lead over Barack Obama, 45 percent to 23 percent, with John Edwards at 12 percent, though a recent AP-Pew poll showed a three-way battle among them in Iowa.

Just a month ago in the GOP race, Thompson was in second place with 19 percent. Along with his drop in total support since then, his backing from conservatives also has fallen, though his support from evangelicals and Southerners has stayed roughly the same. In all three categories, he now trails Huckabee.

"You need to be able to have a broader-based conservative coalition" than Huckabee has to win, said John McLaughlin, Thompson's pollster, who said the race remains fluid. "The question is can he broaden? The challenge to the other candidates is can we get a greater share of conservative votes."

Giuliani's national support has barely budged since spring, but his backing from Southerners has fallen since November. He now trails Huckabee in that category, and is about tied with him for conservatives and evangelicals. The AP-Pew polling showed Giuliani trailing in Iowa and New Hampshire and sharing the South Carolina lead with Thompson and Romney.

"While other candidates have gone up and down, the mayor's support has stayed steady and strong," said Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella.

A front-runner in the earliest contests until Huckabee caught him in Iowa, Romney has met resistance because of some voters' qualms about his Mormon religion. In a speech Thursday in College Station, Texas, he said while he would never abandon his religious beliefs, his church would not influence his decisions as president.

Evangelicals represent about four in 10 GOP voters nationally, according to the new AP-Ipsos survey. That makes them a crucial Republican constituency, though it also underscores why the more moderate Giuliani remains a strong contender.

Despite Huckabee's strength with evangelical voters, he has had a tougher time building support among less religious Republicans. He had the support of only 14 percent of non-evangelicals in the survey, compared with Giuliani's 31 percent.

"If he's going to be successful in the long run, he has to expand his appeal from social conservatives," said Neil Newhouse, a GOP pollster not affiliated with a presidential candidate. "If he's able to do that, he'll give anybody a run for their money."

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,009 adults nationally and was conducted from Dec. 3-5. It had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 469 Democrats and people leaning Democratic with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, and 376 Republicans and GOP leaners with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.

I'm not sure what's so bad about a man of God leading our nation, but I for one think he's MUCH better than ol' Rudy. ;)

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Once again, a parole board member appears on TV and claims that Huckabee CAME TO THEM for the release of Dumond. Exactly contrary to what Huckabee has said. If this man is telling the truth, then Huckabee is blatantly lying. Quite Godly indeed.

Interview with the Parole Board member (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RruItGsaGco)

[rossid]

So Huckabee is lying when he says Clinton and Hunt commuted the sentence?

Who said this:

"Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind"

I know most of you realize it was Romney and NOT Huckabee.

Beware of Romney.

[SonflowerGurl]

Once again, a parole board member appears on TV and claims that Huckabee CAME TO THEM for the release of Dumond. Exactly contrary to what Huckabee has said. If this man is telling the truth, then Huckabee is blatantly lying. Quite Godly indeed.


There would be no reason to spread negative misinformation about Huckabee, now would there be? Who'd have anything to gain from that?

[clemsontigers23]

I think Huckabee would be a great president, though I found this article to be interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids_5;_ylt=ApB. zeP2ai7JcHlQrGQwoK3XbuRF

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."

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague," Huckabee wrote.

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

The AP submitted the questionnaire to both candidates; only Huckabee responded. Incumbent Sen. Dale Bumpers won his four term; Huckabee was elected lieutenant governor the next year and became governor in 1996.

When asked about AIDS research in 1992, Huckabee complained that AIDS research received an unfair share of federal dollars when compared to cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

"In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified," Huckabee wrote. "An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research."

Huckabee did not return messages left with his campaign.

When Huckabee wrote his answers in 1992, it was common knowledge that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. In late 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there were 195,718 AIDS patients in the country and that 126,159 people had died from the syndrome.

The nation had an increased awareness of AIDS at the time because pro basketball star Magic Johnson had recently disclosed he carried the virus responsible for it. Johnson retired but returned to the NBA briefly during the 1994-95 season.

Since becoming a presidential candidate this year, Huckabee has supported increased federal funding for AIDS research through the National Institutes of Health.

"My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals," Huckabee said in a statement posted on his campaign Web site last month.

Also in the wide-ranging AP questionnaire in 1992, Huckabee said, "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

A Southern Baptist preacher, Huckabee has been a favorite among social conservatives for his vocal opposition to gay marriage. In 2003, Huckabee said that the U.S. Supreme Court was probably right to strike down anti-sodomy laws, but that states still should be able to restrict things such as gay marriage or domestic partner benefits.

"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."

It certainly does bring up some interesting ideas about AIDS, but his suggestion of a quarantine probably wasn't the greatest idea in the world. Either way, I'm sure he's learned a lot in the past 15 years about AIDS.

I hold the belief that AIDS started out as a result of a sinful lifestyle (homosexuality) and has now spread as being a result of a sinful lifestyle of all sexual sin, not just homosexuality. I firmly believe it is God's way of warning us not to dabble in sexual sin as it is not only a spiritual issue, it is now a health issue as well. I do agree with Pastor Huckabee's position in those regards, though I do not think a quarantine is necessary.

Perhaps Ron Paul supporters will like the fact that he talks about leaving the issues up to the states and not the federal government.

[mat1583]

Perhaps Ron Paul supporters will like the fact that he talks about leaving the issues up to the states and not the federal government.

Well, Huckabee says that he thinks states should be able to oppose gay marriage. Ron Paul most likely opposes the state or federal government having anything at all to do with marriage - be it straight or gay. Marriage is not a government affair, and thus the government should never have gotten their hands in it. Homosexuals have an incentive to get married because of the monetary benefits associated with it. If those benefits didn't exist, I'm willing to bet that gay marriages would be much less of an issue. Either that or churches and Christians would be handling more of the spiritual side of it instead of worrying about who the government should legally allow to marry.

-washboard

[rossid]

Looks like FoxNews.com has the quarantine idea as a headline.

[Veni Vidi Velo]

You know what . . . here's my two cents . . . everybody get on their knees & just pray for God's Man, whoever that may be, come to the forefront. And pray for the state of our country, our communities, our leaders, & our families. Go & read Judges & then think about our American society & the prevailing attitudes of the day & see if you don't have more than a little fear of God creep into you . . . we need all the prayer we can get right now.

Put your seatbelts on, it's going to be a rough year of politicking.

[Veni Vidi Velo]

That scares the mess out of me. What if everyone voted their morality and we were instead a majority Buddhist or Islamic nation..what do you think the laws would be like?

-washboard

Just ran across this comment & have to respond . . . if you know your history, & you should, we have voted our morality in the past, & if you'll examine what used to be illegal or extremely taboo in the past, you'll be able to get a measure of how far our morals have slid in the past 40 years. And the majority of the Buddhist or Islamic nations are not necessarily democracies where the common people can vote based on their morality.

You might want to examine some of the laws that are currently in effect in our country right now . . . they are very reflective of the moral atmosphere (or lack thereof).

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Just ran across this comment & have to respond . . . if you know your history, & you should, we have voted our morality in the past, & if you'll examine what used to be illegal or extremely taboo in the past, you'll be able to get a measure of how far our morals have slid in the past 40 years. And the majority of the Buddhist or Islamic nations are not necessarily democracies where the common people can vote based on their morality.

You might want to examine some of the laws that are currently in effect in our country right now . . . they are very reflective of the moral atmosphere (or lack thereof).

I respect you views and everyone els'es. But read this (http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=100728) and let me know what you think of it (when you have the time of course).

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Perhaps Ron Paul supporters will like the fact that he talks about leaving the issues up to the states and not the federal government.

It's his history I'm mostly worried about. I very rarely pay attention to their present day rhetoric. Any guy can stand up in front of the camera and tell people what they want to hear. We've seen that with all politicians. Huckabee's history is far and inconsistent from his promises. Ron Paul however, is saying what he's been living and saying for the past 20 years. If anyone is willing to find some flip flopping or controversy on the Dr. I'm willing to listen.

[middletree]

If anyone is willing to find some flip flopping or controversy
For the record, I don't have a problem if a candidate has engaged in flip-flopping. People grow and mature; in the process, they sometimes change their minds. I've got several positions on topics that are the exact opposite of the positions I held a decade ago. In fact, I'd be very suspect of someone who never changes, as it is a sign they aren't willing to admit they might be wrong about something.

[Veni Vidi Velo]

I respect you views and everyone els'es. But read this (http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=100728) and let me know what you think of it (when you have the time of course).

Point well made & well taken . . . however, all societies, regardless of religious influence, have to legislate morality to a degree or the society degrades into a complete state of chaos as you increase the population. When I say morality, I mean basic morals, such as murder, stealing, etc.

When I take a stance on the legislated morality & the last 40 years, look at what loosening up the laws on murder (i.e., abortion), sexuality (legalized same-sex unions & marriage, proliferation of sexually explicit material), gambling (state lotteries & casino's), etc have gotten us . . . . so where do you draw the line & say someone can't use the morality of their faith as a basis for the decisions they will make as a publicly elected (& paid) official . . . given these people will be making decisions using our tax money & that financially & morally impact our lives, we have just reason to examine their beliefs & determine if they will be a factor in the performance of that person in executing the duties of the office they seek.

[clemsontigers23]

Point well made & well taken . . . however, all societies, regardless of religious influence, have to legislate morality to a degree or the society degrades into a complete state of chaos as you increase the population. When I say morality, I mean basic morals, such as murder, stealing, etc.

When I take a stance on the legislated morality & the last 40 years, look at what loosening up the laws on murder (i.e., abortion), sexuality (legalized same-sex unions & marriage, proliferation of sexually explicit material), gambling (state lotteries & casino's), etc have gotten us . . . . so where do you draw the line & say someone can't use the morality of their faith as a basis for the decisions they will make as a publicly elected (& paid) official . . . given these people will be making decisions using our tax money & that financially & morally impact our lives, we have just reason to examine their beliefs & determine if they will be a factor in the performance of that person in executing the duties of the office they seek.

I like what you're saying here and agree with all of it.l I also agree that we should be praying for wisdom about who to vote for because it is a huge decision. We have, over the years, seen a gradual increase in immorality in America and I have a feeling if an un-Godly person wins then we will only see this worsen. Whoever leads our nation should be leading it based on the will of God. Any other way would only lead our nation to destruction, which is where we're heading anyways, but it would certainly speed up the process and would do so in a way that would lead to even more un-Godliness. We, as Christians, have slowly stood by and watched our Christian freedoms be stripped away from us, and we need a strong believer in Christ to be able to stand up to the increasing attacks on Christians and morality, as well as lead our nation in a Godly manner. Mike Huckabee is a man who I believe would do that, and try not to laugh, but Chuck Norris is a very committed follower of Christ and he wouldn't throw around his endorsement to an unknown candidate if he didn't believe he would lead our country by the will of God.

[mat1583]

Just ran across this comment & have to respond . . . if you know your history, & you should, we have voted our morality in the past, & if you'll examine what used to be illegal or extremely taboo in the past, you'll be able to get a measure of how far our morals have slid in the past 40 years. And the majority of the Buddhist or Islamic nations are not necessarily democracies where the common people can vote based on their morality.

You might want to examine some of the laws that are currently in effect in our country right now . . . they are very reflective of the moral atmosphere (or lack thereof).

I was speaking about religious morality, particularly Christians voting against things they themselves consider sinful, but non-believers do not (gambling, alcohol, drugs, etc.) I know that a lot of laws we have today are a reflection of Christian morality, but that doesn't mean I agree with those laws. The temperance movement was based on religious morality - believing it's a sin to drink alcohol. I do not in any way thinks it's sinful to consume alcohol though. Do you? What about gambling? I believe you should be able to spend your well earned money however you so choose.

In regards to Islamic nations, it doesn't matter if they are democracies or not. The laws are still based on Islamic laws. Just look at what happened to the British woman a week ago. Her class named a bear Mohammed and she was sentenced to prison! This is a moral law based on the Islamic religion, not basic moral code.

-washboard

[mat1583]

For the record, I don't have a problem if a candidate has engaged in flip-flopping. People grow and mature; in the process, they sometimes change their minds. I've got several positions on topics that are the exact opposite of the positions I held a decade ago. In fact, I'd be very suspect of someone who never changes, as it is a sign they aren't willing to admit they might be wrong about something.

I prefer a principled man over someone who is easily swayed.

The problem with flip-flopping is that it usually occurs mid-term and is influenced heavily by lobbyists. If someone is elected because of their promises, it is wrong for them to break those promises to their constituents by flip-flopping on those issues, especially when it comes down to things like taxes, abortion, punishment for criminals, etc.

-washboard

[middletree]

I prefer a principled man over someone who is easily swayed.
One can be principled and still change positions on a topic over the years. I am principled and I have done just that.

As for your 2nd paragraph, I am not talking about someone who changes positions because lobbyists tell him to. The fact is that in campaigns, one candidate usually accuses another of flip-flopping, and offers as proof the fact that they made a speech against something 10 or more years ago. That is the way is has played out in campaigns. And there's nothing wrong with changing a position under those circumstances. If it can be shown that a campaign contribution can be tied to a politician's changed stance, then that's one thing. But the flip-flopping accusation has been used so broadly as to cover many men who simply changed their minds as they grew.

BTW, do you reject any candidate who swung from pro-choice to pro-life? Or do you embrace them?

[mat1583]

One can be principled and still change positions on a topic over the years. I am principled and I have done just that.

I'm not saying that a politician has no right to change their minds about something. I have changed my mind about a lot of things as well, but I am not running for any kind of office.

You point taken, but I still prefer a candidate whose moral standards are objectively defined and are not easily swayed by emotional and monetary distractions. Ron Paul's principles are clearly and strictly defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. His ideology is based upon that of our founding fathers and has been constant for nearly 20 years. I italicized prefer because in some circumstance I suppose I could choose a candidate whose principles have changed over time.


And there's nothing wrong with changing a position under those circumstances. If it can be shown that a campaign contribution can be tied to a politician's changed stance, then that's one thing. But the flip-flopping accusation has been used so broadly as to cover many men who simply changed their minds as they grew.

Do you believe there's nothing wrong with a candidate running on a particular platform and then changing positions on that platform while they are in office? In essence, they are lying to their constituents and not upholding their duty in office. The flip-flopping card is used because it highlights a potentially flaky candidate whose opinion could be easily swayed while in office. I think it is a legitimate concern.



BTW, do you reject any candidate who swung from pro-choice to pro-life? Or do you embrace them?

See my first couple paragraphs. Also, my support of a candidate depends on more than just one platform.

-washboard

[middletree]

Ron Paul's principles are clearly and strictly defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. His ideology is based upon that of our founding fathers and has been constant for nearly 20 years.


Yeah, but he's 70-something. The people I have usually heard being criticized for flip-flopping are those who changed positions between their 30's and 50's, and I can tell you as a 42-year-old that a lot of thinking goes on during those years, and a lot of truths become much clearer. For that reason, I don't buy into criticisms of candidates in that position.


Do you believe there's nothing wrong with a candidate running on a particular platform and then changing positions on that platform while they are in office?
The candidates I am thinking of were in Congress or some other public office for over 20 years. Congressmen, in particular, have a habit of keeping the same job for a decade or two. No, I don't have a problem with someone changing positions during that time.


my support of a candidate depends on more than just one platform.

Of course. I picked abortion because that's the one which seems to have the most across-the-board agreement here. I have certainly seen a lot of rejoicing when a public figure embraces pro-life thinking. I've seen posts here which said nice things about known socialists Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty, when they came out as pro-lifers, plus Norma McCovey (the Roe is Roe vs. Wade). In all 3 cases, these folks went from being outspoken pro-choice proponents to embracing the pro-life position. I just think it's funny how we will slam John Kerry for flip-flopping, but celebrate when someone makes the leap when it comes to "our side" regarding abortion.

[mat1583]

I don't buy into criticisms of candidates in that position.

Ok.



The candidates I am thinking of were in Congress or some other public office for over 20 years. Congressmen, in particular, have a habit of keeping the same job for a decade or two. No, I don't have a problem with someone changing positions during that time.

If I were a voter that helped elect a Congressman to office that promised to lower taxes and he/she instead raised them, I would have a big problem with that. The same goes with electing a pro-life politician that changes to pro-choice. You are saying that you would not have a problem with a person you voted for based on their platform to change that platform while in office to something you do not support?



Of course. I picked abortion because that's the one which seems to have the most across-the-board agreement here. I have certainly seen a lot of rejoicing when a public figure embraces pro-life thinking. I've seen posts here which said nice things about known socialists Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty, when they came out as pro-lifers, plus Norma McCovey (the Roe is Roe vs. Wade). In all 3 cases, these folks went from being outspoken pro-choice proponents to embracing the pro-life position. I just think it's funny how we will slam John Kerry for flip-flopping, but celebrate when someone makes the leap when it comes to "our side" regarding abortion.

It's certainly worth rejoicing when someone realizes the right to life of a fetus as we recognize it. The stance on abortion is much more black and white than taxes, privacy, and economics. There's much less of a chance of a politician changing positions on abortion mid-term than the other, much greyer areas.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Sorry guys, but there's more (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/14/huckabee/?source=whitelist).

If all this is true, this is serious abuse of powers.

[mat1583]

Sorry guys, but there's more (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/14/huckabee/?source=whitelist).

If all this is true, this is serious abuse of powers.

could you post the full article? You have to be a member or something like that to view it.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Will do! source (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/14/huckabee/?source=whitelist)


Huckabee and criminals: It's worse than just Wayne DuMond
The former governor's feckless, faith-based clemency policies in Arkansas continued for years after the convicted rapist was released.

By Joe Conason

Dec. 14, 2007 | Responding to accusations that he caused a rapist and killer named Wayne DuMond to be set loose from the Arkansas prison system -- leading ultimately to the murder of at least one and probably two women in Missouri -- Mike Huckabee has long denied any personal responsibility for that profoundly stupid decision. In the past he has tried to blame DuMond's parole on both Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker, who preceded him as governor. More recently, he has denounced the charge that he pressured the Arkansas parole board into freeing DuMond, who has since died, as "nonsense."

And now Huckabee, who plainly hoped to please the prisoner's deranged right-wing advocates back when he promised to commute DuMond's sentence, says that he laments the politicization of a tragedy.

"There are families who are truly, understandably and reasonably, grief-stricken," he told CNN, referring to the relatives of DuMond's victims, including the mother of a Missouri woman he raped and murdered who has vowed to campaign against Huckabee. "And for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret politics is reduced to that."

According to good old Huck, the fault still lies elsewhere, presumably with that nebulous "system." How could anyone believe that he would let a vicious killer and rapist walk free? It is all too believable, if only because Huckabee continued to exercise his powers of clemency and commutation just as foolishly and frivolously for years after he should have learned better from the DuMond mistake. He bestowed those favors on prisoners he happened to meet, on prisoners with personal connections to him or his family, and especially on prisoners recommended to him by pastors whom he happened to know from his own previous career as a Baptist minister and denominational leader. As with DuMond, whose case was pleaded by a preacher named Jay Cole, prisoners guilty of heinous crimes could be washed clean in Huckabee's estimation if a pastor of his acquaintance importuned him. Among the thugs to whom he granted clemency was a robber who had beaten a man to death with a lead pipe.

For several years after 1996, when he first considered parole for DuMond (he was released in 1999), the Arkansas governor freed as many as 1,000 prisoners. Some were undoubtedly deserving of release, but others were dangerous and violent felons like DuMond who should have been kept behind bars. Huckabee's questionable methods and motivations never changed until prosecutors, the media, his fellow Republicans and virtually the entire state of Arkansas rose up in protest against his idiocy.

The case that sparked the citizen revolt against Huckabee came to public attention in 2004, when he announced his intention to release a murderer and rapist named Glen Green. What seems to have impressed him was the endorsement of Green provided by one Rev. Johnny Jackson, a Baptist minister in the town of Jacksonville and friend of the governor's. Observers doubted that Huckabee had bothered to glance at the case file before he decided to release Green, because he could not have helped being chilled by the harrowing confession it contained.

In 1974, Green was serving as a sergeant at Little Rock Air Force Base, located in a suburban county outside the state capital. On a certain evening, he seized Helen Lynnette Spencer, 18, and brought her to a quiet spot on the base where he assaulted and tried to rape her. She briefly escaped from Green, who then caught her and beat her brutally with nunchaku sticks. He stuffed her into the trunk of his car and drove her off the base to another county, where he pulled her into the front seat and violated her. Since she wasn't dead, he ran over her several times with his car, and finally dumped her corpse in a bayou. When Spencer's body was found, her hand was reaching up from the swampy waters.

This was the series of events that Green and his gullible minister -- who reportedly described the perp as "a humble Christian man" -- later insisted had been "accidental," an explanation that Huckabee inexplicably accepted. The prosecutors who put Green away for life in 1974 believed that he was capable of killing again, and they were stunned when the governor ignored their advice, along with the unanimous opinion of the Arkansas parole authorities. Only the anguished protests of the victim's family, amplified by the local media, eventually forced Huckabee to rescind the commutation of Green's sentence, which he had already announced.

The pattern could not have been clearer, as described by Arkansas columnist Garrick Feldman, who crusaded against Huckabee's feckless, faith-based clemency and pardon policies. Killers and rapists need not express remorse, as the Green case showed. They need only profess their salvation, "especially if a minister from Huckabee's circle vouches for their jailhouse conversion."

Whatever Huckabee now says about the DuMond case, he continued to misuse his authority for several years after the fatal consequences of that fiasco became all too obvious. Behind his pattern of error and misconduct is a troubling arrogance that is not unfamiliar in a certain kind of evangelical politician. He would not be the first elected official who did something stupid and destructive because he had convinced himself that he was fulfilling the will of God. The question is why the rest of us should want to risk our safety and security by entertaining such delusions again.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

These things just keep popping up. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241) I urge all of you Huckabee supporters to please not turn a blind eye and actually do some research. Being a minister (who actually only went to 1 year of seminary and never got his degree in theology as he claimed in the debate) is not enough to run a country.