• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huckabee Opts Against 2012 White House Bid

soccerboy22 said:
But he said he was Christian, so why bother questioning it anymore if religion doesn't matter to the voters? Because it does matter. Plus it was just another thing to pile on Obama about.
Click to expand...

Exactly: someone cares or they would not care enough to even question it. Period.
 
I've always felt that Mike Huckabee would be an outstanding foreign diplomat, perhaps even a formidable Secretary of State.

But he's not presidential.
 
haymarket said:
If Palin gets in, Huckabee supporters will go to her. It is her natural constituency.

Palin is between a rock and a hard place at this point in time. She is just about six months from becoming completely and totally irrelevant on any level. She must do something and do something big to keep the gravy train rolling and extend her 15 minutes of fame. The easy way to do that is to run for president. But then she has to also have an eye on the polls which say that 2/3 of the public pretty much loathes her and would not vote for her.

Huckabee smartly realized he could not raise them money or win the election. He would have been made to look like an INHERIT THE WIND caricature in the general election and he knew it.
Click to expand...

she's not going to run.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't think voters care all that much about what religion someone is, although the media tries to make a stink about Romney being a Mormon.
Click to expand...

Have you ever lived in the Deep South? Frankly, I can't see many of the people (bigots) I had to deal with while living in Georgia voting for a Roman Catholic... Anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well in the so-called Bible Belt...
 
cpwill said:
:) gosh, if only there were a highly successful conservative Republican Governor with a demonstrated ability to win moderates and independents, even when running into Obama headwinds who was interested in running...... :D
Click to expand...

I would have said that Mike Huckabee might've given me a heart strings to voting for him, and I'm also would vote for Mitt Romney. Also Barb I meant to type Mitt Romney.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: fine. if you want to be silly, two can play.

Anyone who calls for the imposition of a national standard on the states forcing them to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships is thereby pushing the Federal Government into one of the few areas still traditionally left up to the states. they thus have no right to call themselves libertarians because any other opinion about politics, economics, proper governance, or the interaction of individuals in society is all mooted by that one - stupid - issue.
Click to expand...

Full Faith and Credit Clause, as well as the federal government giving special privileges to married couples makes it a federal issue. There isn't any real need for the federal government to tell states to redefine marriage, the federal government just needs to redefine its definition for marriage under the law. The Full Faith and Credit Clause supersedes a state individual right to not recognized the marriage contract of other states.

This is a very libertarian explanation of the problem.
 
it's certainly a libertarian attempt. but small government conservatives will disagree on what the proper venue is here - this seems rather solidly within state control for the states, and the Congress is of course free to define marriage for the Federal Government however it sees fit. Yay federalism :).


but your claim that anyone who disagrees with you on this one minor issue has somehow turned into a big government supporter remains ludicrous. just because you do not like something does not make it big government.


ludahai said:
Have you ever lived in the Deep South? Frankly, I can't see many of the people (bigots) I had to deal with while living in Georgia voting for a Roman Catholic... Anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well in the so-called Bible Belt...
Click to expand...

I am from central-northern Alabama; about as Deep South as you can get. I can't say that I have ever witnessed anything like what you are describing, and as the son of a minister, I was raised pretty steeped in the religious side of that culture. When my cousin married my best friend who was catholic, i can't recall a single person even commenting on it other than to ask where they would go to church, and who would do the service.
 
The reality that the GOP is facing is that the majority of the potentially strong candidates are looking at the race and seeing that it is virtually going to be impossible to defeat Obama in 2012, barring a complete economic collapse. They would rather wait until 2016 than run a losing campaign in 2012. As a result, the GOP is going to be stuck with the second tier candidates like Gingrich, Palin and Pawlenty...and the third tier candidates like Cain. Their only real shot is Romney and the base is exploding to try to keep him from getting the nomination.

2016 will be a stronger year for the GOP....2012 is history at this point.
 
it would be impossible for us to beat Obama if we were in a full-throated recovery. however, we aren't even producing enough jobs to keep up with the people "entering the workforce"; much less make up the ones we lost. I'm thinking that the Republican Primary might turn out to be just as tough if not a tougher contest for the Republican Nominee than the General.
 
cpwill said:
it's certainly a libertarian attempt. but small government conservatives will disagree on what the proper venue is here - this seems rather solidly within state control for the states, and the Congress is of course free to define marriage for the Federal Government however it sees fit. Yay federalism :).

but your claim that anyone who disagrees with you on this one minor issue has somehow turned into a big government supporter remains ludicrous. just because you do not like something does not make it big government.
Click to expand...

Its a trend. If you support the gov determining who can and who can't enter into marriage contracts, then you also tend to support legislation that follows the same lines like legislating from the bible.

And when I say big government, I don't mean federal government. I mean government period. You can have big state government if the state purses legislation that prevents private contracts, establishes minimum wage laws, insurance mandate, etc.
 
cpwill said:
it would be impossible for us to beat Obama if we were in a full-throated recovery. however, we aren't even producing enough jobs to keep up with the people "entering the workforce"; much less make up the ones we lost. I'm thinking that the Republican Primary might turn out to be just as tough if not a tougher contest for the Republican Nominee than the General.
Click to expand...

Any way you cut it, the winner of a GOP primary nomination procedure loses in November. Both Huckabee and Trump knew that.
 
the government has been issuing marriage licences since the founding. this is nothing new and it is nothing expansionary.
 
haymarket said:
Any way you cut it, the winner of a GOP primary nomination procedure loses in November. Both Huckabee and Trump knew that.
Click to expand...

see... you keep saying that, but other than hyperventilating about the Ryan plan you never demonstrate it....
 
cpwill said:
the government has been issuing marriage licences since the founding. this is nothing new and it is nothing expansionary.
Click to expand...

I know its nothing new. I'm simply saying that the Full Faith and Credit clause combined with the special privileged of marriage should require states to apply these rules equally to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. If they aren't applied equally, then thats supporting gov interfering in people's private lives.
 
cpwill said:
it would be impossible for us to beat Obama if we were in a full-throated recovery. however, we aren't even producing enough jobs to keep up with the people "entering the workforce"; much less make up the ones we lost. I'm thinking that the Republican Primary might turn out to be just as tough if not a tougher contest for the Republican Nominee than the General.
Click to expand...

Really? Who has the GOP got that can win in the general election? The only one that has a shot is Romney and he may not even make it past the extremist base in the primary.
 
disneydude said:
Really? Who has the GOP got that can win in the general election? The only one that has a shot is Romney and he may not even make it past the extremist base in the primary.
Click to expand...

Mitch Daniels. If he runs, he can actually give Obama a run for his money.
 
I couldn't care less. Frankly, I don't think he's presidential material, anyhow.
 
disneydude said:
I bet you will set Mitch Daniels as well as Jeb Bush opt to stay out of this one.
Click to expand...

Anyone with Bush in their name would be wise to stay out it. If Mitch doesn't run, the repubs have no chance.
 
xpiher said:
Anyone with Bush in their name would be wise to stay out it. If Mitch doesn't run, the repubs have no chance.
Click to expand...

The ones that really think that they have a real shot of becomming President are going to wait until 2016 when their chances will improve.
 
disneydude said:
I bet you will set Mitch Daniels as well as Jeb Bush opt to stay out of this one.
Click to expand...


Mitch has already pointed out that he's pretty sure he can beat Obama. Given that attacks won't stick well on him, and Obama seems to have already made the decision to go with attacks for 2012 (a sad change from 2008, when there were some negatives, but not as many as we had seen in previous elections by far); and that Daniels will have a seemingly much more successful record to put against Obama's (and Obama will "own" the lengthy malaise and lack of recovery); the President will be operating at a distinct disadvantage.
 
Thank you, Will! That's what I'm talking about. Specifics.
 
Marshabar said:
The field still seems very amorphous but one thing that rings solid is the fact that Laura Bush called Mitch Daniels' wife to encourage and advise her. That means the big dogs like Daniels. He is well connected and seems like someone that group would support.

The problem is conservatives don't like his resume. If the Republican bigs push Daniels we could see a third candidate. Frankly I don't think they care whether its Daniels or Obama in the White House, just so it isn't an outsider.

The bankers want their own dogs running the government they bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

Turns out Cain is an insider after all.

Was head of Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.
 
cpwill said:
Mitch has already pointed out that he's pretty sure he can beat Obama. Given that attacks won't stick well on him, and Obama seems to have already made the decision to go with attacks for 2012 (a sad change from 2008, when there were some negatives, but not as many as we had seen in previous elections by far); and that Daniels will have a seemingly much more successful record to put against Obama's (and Obama will "own" the lengthy malaise and lack of recovery); the President will be operating at a distinct disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen....a conservative pollster....disagrees with your assessment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom