Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Huckabee is impressive

In addition to Chuck Norris and "Nature Boy" Ric Flair, I might soon be giving my endorsement to Mike Huckabee for president...if anyone cares.

I'm torn between Ron Paul and Huckabee. Honestly, Ron Paul doesn't have a real chance to win, he just doesn't. Huckabee does havea chance, especially if you believe the latest polls. Fred Thompson is a huge disappointment so far.

So now I start the task of learning as much about Huckabee as I can. I won't lie and say I ever thought voting for a governor from Arkansas makes sense, but I just might this time.

I am playing various clips of his debate speeches as I study today. This clip actually impresses me quite a bit. I think he answers well.

15 comments:

Frontier Forest said...

Originally I was a 100% “Fred man”, but the more I listen to Huckabee, the more impressed I am. Not only in his brave and uncompromising stand for Christ, but with his compelling, concise and persuasive oracle abilities. He very much reminds me of a young Ronald Regan. Wolf Blitzer tried his best to force Huckabee into making a dogmatic statement about God’s timing during creation. But Huckabee’s, almost Biblical remarks, made many stand up and take note! Using the great quote from old Luther, helped his cause for my enthusiastic support! “Here I stand! And I can do no other!”

AJF said...

Yeah, if Huckabee quotes Calvin, I'm all the way in.

Jeremy Morgan said...

I'd take him over any of the other Republican candidates and certainly over the dems, but not by much. For all the "lesser of two evils" folks out there he's probably a pretty good choice. Here are my concerns with him. He uses quite a bit of Statist/Nationalistic rhetoric and he supports powers for the central government that clearly go beyond the scope of the powers they were granted by our constitution. He also seems to be big on foreign intervention. I really think that he's just more of the same, only turned down a notch or two. I also think he stands a good chance because he appeals to the mass of evangelical pro-war folks whose favorite quotes on the nature of government come from Romans 13, Thomas Hobbes, and Niccolo Machiavelli.

Kampfgruppe Hoppa said...

I do what Tony's doing and read up on him. I don't think he's a real fiscal conservative. Then again, when it comes to that there's seems to be no difference between the GOP and Dems.

AJF said...

But Jeremy, what do you really think? :)

Matt Staples said...

I keep running into more and more people who say they like Ron Paul but won't (can't?) vote for him because he is not electable. But, if everyone who said that actually voted for him, he might be a fighting chance. By the way, Ron Paul is a professing believer too - he just chooses not to make a big deal out of it. I'm sick to death of the "lesser of two evils" argument. Voting for a "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

AJF said...

Matt, not sure what to say about he electability issue, it is what it is. Paul has thus far done a good job punching holes in the current mode of operation, but he has yet to communicate his full vision and plan of action. I'll be listening intently as he does, so will many others like me who are torn.

With regard to a vote for Huckabee, I don't see that as an "evil", lesser or otherwise. He might make an excellent choice.

As for Paul being a professing believer, that's great. I don't expect a candidate to be ferociously outspoken about their faith. In this clip, and in many forums, Huckabee is asked point blank, so he answers. Don't fault him for that. The guy's a baptist minister, so he'll have many questions about his faith. Big deal.

The jury is still out for me, it's between Paul and Huck. Huck is more electable at this time. Maybe that will change.

Rick Calohan said...

Here is the problem with the endorsement game; no matter which candidate wins the nomination they are not going to represent 100% of the party platform or the party or even half of the United States based on their policy positions. Ever since the 1960 presidential debates, it comes down to style over substance. Those who listened to the debate said Nixon won those who watched in on television said Kennedy won. Here in lies what maybe the problem with Fred Thompson, if you hear him during the game show, because that is what the debates seem to me, you might get over his appearance.

These debates at this stage are like elimination rounds nothing but sound bites, all style no substance.

Yes, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and former candidate Senator Brownback raised their hands in the affirmative that they believe in creation over evolution in the debate featured in the clip. Fred Thompson was not in that debate.

With Mike Huckabee, I agree with his policy stands on

Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

I disagree with his policy stands on:

Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy

With Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, I only disagree with them on Energy policy, which, I explained in an earlier post I do not believe that the federal government should subsidize business.

As for Ron Paul, I covered that in a previous post, there was a clip I saw on Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air Blog at www.hotair.com


http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/04/meeting-of-the-minds-ron-paul-versus-joy-and-whoopi-on-abortion/

Two candidates are running that I will not support if they are nominated they are Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani because of his social policies and Romney because he is a Mormon and although many Mormons may share many of the conservative views I hold, they do not worship the same living Triune God, the heart of Mormonism is in short
As man is, God once was,
And as God is, man may become.

May we remind those who are trapped in cults

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way to death.

rgmann said...

I agree that Huckabee’s answer was pretty good under the current political climate, and I like him the best out of all the candidates so far. Of course, I would have answered the question a bit more directly…and most likely sealed my political fate in the process! I’m many things, but a diplomat is not one of them.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God… For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” -- Exodus 20:8-11

I wasn’t there when God created the heavens and the earth either. But God has clearly revealed to us how long it took him to create everything. I’m not sure how God could have made it any clearer. This issue only becomes uncertain for those who are more impressed with so-called scientific knowledge than with God’s infallible revelation.

AJF said...

Huckabee affirmed the main scriptural point- God created using NO EVOLUTION in the process. This shows a person not impressed with modern science, for that I commend him.

malcolm said...

My favorite thing that Huckabee did was living in a double wide on the grounds of the goernor's mansion while it was being re-done. The main thing I don't like about Ron Paul is that he is a total isolationist as far as I can tell. I think his stance on Iraq is radical and unrealistic.

Frontier Forest said...

Excellent thoughts! Maybe old Fred can move out of "Dull-Ville".

rgmann said...

Huckabee affirmed the main scriptural point- God created using NO EVOLUTION in the process.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, the belief that God created the world “in six days that represented periods of time” is referred to as “Theistic Evolution.” Thus, while Huckabee clearly denied “Atheistic Evolution” in his answer, he left “Theistic Evolution” wide open as a viable option. That’s not quite the same as affirming “NO EVOLUTION in the process.” And I just don’t believe that Theistic Evolution can be validly maintained in light of Exodus 20:8-11 (and a host of other clear passages of Scripture).

This shows a person not impressed with modern science, for that I commend him.

Perhaps you’re right. Huckabee definitely said many good things, and was more courageous than most politicians would have been in answering that question. Nevertheless, I don’t believe the theory of Theistic Evolution originated from a sound exegesis of Scripture. Rather, it originated from a desire to make the Genesis account of creation more palatable in light of modern scientific theories. So, maybe Huckabee isn’t “impressed with modern science,” but his answer (“I’m not sure, I wasn’t there”) didn’t seem very impressed with the clarity of Scripture either.

AJF said...

Roger,

You are right to disclaim as you have. Theistic evolution is not an exegetical option as I understand the text. I thought Huckabee's last statement "if you want to think we descended from primates..." or something like that was a statement against evolution. Yes, he could have been clearer on that particular point.

MitchC said...

It's encouraging to see that Chuck Norris and I are not the only ones who thinks Huckabee is a good choice!