Two words to vote for him: Pro life.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=11

Herb

Two words to vote against him: Anti-choice.

Pro-Life Huckabee says-

"I was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license."

(but screw with me and you're dead meat)


"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk (referring to AIDS)."

(but those sinful fags kinda deserve an AIDS-induced death)


"I probably dislike the death penalty more than anybody on this stage, but for a very different reason. I've actually had to carry it out, more than any governor in my state's history. I had to carry out the death penalty because that was my job. I did it because I believed, after reading every page of every transcript and everything in that file, it was the only conclusion we could come to. But I didn't enjoy it."

(You see, I had to do it. Sure, I had pardon power and could have stopped every single execution during my tenure, but the transcripts and files and such showed that they had to die. But that's okay, because I didn't enjoy it. Y'see, my pro-life conscience and deep faith couldn't overcome all those files and transcripts. But I'm pro-life. Really. Vote for me.)

I say vote for Huckabee too. I would love nothing more than for him to win the GOP nomination. In fact, I've got a bumper stick on my car that says "Pro-choicer for Huckabee".

Mr. Huckabee is my guy for the primary.

I like Mr. McCain and Rudy has his strong points.

It was a tough call to not go with Alan Keyes. But I think Mr. Huckabee has a much stronger chance.

Herb

McCain is my guy because he BEST represents the TRUE Republicans that lean to the MIDDLE of the road. Rudy has WAY TOO MUCH dirt in his past and he makes me feel icky to think of as President. Kinda like what DUHbya makes me feel like. YUCK!

The fact that it was a tough call not to go with Alan Keyes means you're even more extreme than you put yourself out to be. Alan Keyes is a certified nutbag and a terrible father.

Short of Lincoln-Nixon, my dream ticket would be Huckabee-Keyes.

Herb

I'll bet Huckabee thinks Keyes is an idiot. And he'd be right.

One little problem with McCain Trix - he blindly supports the whole Iraq thing, and has talked about escalating it.

Deal-breaker here. Otherwise, I'm totally in your camp!

Right now McCain is the ONLY Republican getting consideration whatsoever here.

If you like Bush, vote for McCain, he will continue many of the bad policies Bush has implemented.

Which is really amazing to me because of the heated words Bush and McCain exchanged during the 2000 election.

I thought for sure McCain would stay at arms length from Bush and not go into his corner. Probably the biggest surprise to me.

I am a huge Huckabee fan and let the record show that Ol' Herb called it here MONTHS ago.

Imagine the pro-life judges he could appoint on the Supreme Court! We'd have it packed for decades!

Herb 'Huckabee' Milhous

So MILLIONS and MILLIONS of women will have no CHOICE what they do to THERE OWN bodies?

I will say one thing for The HUCKster. He is staying FAR away from DUHbya and Co.
If The HUCKster can start throwing some TRUE Republican things into his campaign like FISCAL Responsibility and tone down the HOLYER than thou talk then we might get somewhere.
And if he crams Iraq and TERROR down our throats then he is toast.
WE NEED CHANGE IN AMERICA!!!! We need someone that gives a shit about what is going on HERE! Schools, roads, OUR ECONOMY! and how to KEEP US SAFE HERE! We can't stand by anymore and settle for DUHbya's to get into office EVER AGAIN!

Mr. Huckabee is a compassionate conservative.

Herb 'Huckabee' Nixon IV

I view what happened in Iowa like radio trends. It's only a snapshot and the race is still wide open. This is just one of many indicators and gives this side of the board plenty of fodder to volley for the next few months.

If you are pro-choice and want change, Obama is your man.

Herb-

If Huckabee gets the GOP nod, I know you would love to see Keyes as his VP, but in a more realistic sense who would you like to see get the nod if you had a choice?

Paul

"If Huckabee gets the GOP nod, I know you would love to see Keyes as his VP, but in a more realistic sense who would you like to see get the nod if you had a choice?"

Great question, Chris. In my opinion, it'd help to bring someone on with a firm grasp of international affairs. This could include someone like Mr. McCain, who is also pro-life, by the way.

Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas. And Mr. Clinton's choice of Mr. Gore then gave us a VP who was hardly an international expert. In other words, Mr. Huckabee could handily do as well, provided he brings on someone with a geo-strategic and international background.

Herb

This could include someone like Mr. McCain.

Aside from the Pro-Choice stuff McCain would be great working with the International community but he will have to distance himself even farther from DUHbya and Co. QUICKLY!

McCain is too old. He's pushing 71. Plus, his arms are too short.

For someone who hates Bush and his foreign policy, I hope you know that McCain will continue on with the blunder in Iraq and the middle east in general, providing the GOP can continue their record breaking filibusters. Should he win, count this as my "told you so" in a few years.

McCain has really hurt himself politcally. There was a time I could've even handled him as president over what we currently have, but he is sounding so much like Bush these days I can hardly see the difference.

I don't think he's too old to be president. I believe his ideas are old.

If he goes 8 years, that will put him at close to 79. 71 may not be too old, but 79 is, in regards to being President. He may think he still has it at that age, but he won't.

I think we make too much of the age issue. If a person is qualified and able to perform the duties of president, age should not be a problem.

Age is such a relative thing. I'm in mid-life and I'm physically and mentally stronger than I was in my 20s and 30s. The reason being is I have a high standard about my health and cognitive capabilities.

I would also be lying if I didn't say that with mid-life ones body does go through changes and you need to embrace those changes in a positive way.

Bottom line, being 79 and being the president is not a problem with me, unless they're a really bad president and have been for 8 years. Age does not help you in anyway then.

Edselehr,
I don't even know where to begin criticizing your comments about Huckabee. First of all, holding anti-abortion AND pro death-penalty views is compatible if your reasoning is that INNOCENT life needs to be protected. Second, it's not the job of the governor to grant clemency (you used the word "pardon"- I can only assume you meant "clemency") to death row inmates because he has a personal objection to it.

"McCain is too old. He's pushing 71. Plus, his arms are too short."

Don't make fun of Mr. McCain's infirmity. It's not funny. He has problems because he spent 5.5 years in a Vietnamese hell-hole with a broken arm after being shot down. The evil commies worked him over and twisted his broken limb, causing him incredible pain. He paid the price for our freedom.

Herb

I have to lean towards Herb point here. What McCain endured as a POW we can't really fathom nor make fun of the either.

My point still stands that even though I would never vote for McCain, his age should not make any difference about his ability to be president.

"He paid the price for our freedom."

Not to diminish the suffering McCain went through or his service to our country, but exactly how did the Vietnam war contribute to our freedom?

Shane,

The entire reason for my post was the use of the term "pro-life" when one means "anti-abortion". Words mean things, and the term pro-life is, I feel, disingenuous when used by many who are anti-abortion. If Huckabee were truly pro-life he would also be against the death penalty (how many wrongly convicted prisoners ["innocent"] have been executed?), and he likely wouldn't be a hunter.

Thank you for the clarification on clemency - I goofed. A pardon would erase the conviction, but clemency reduces or eliminates the punishment. I meant clemency.

"If Huckabee were truly pro-life..."

The guy released plenty of felons, and at least one went on to murder someone.

Mr. Huckabee is being pilloried by some for being soft on crime. Just because he didn't let all the killers loose doesn't lessen Mr. Huckabee's pro-life credentials.

Words indeed mean things. The term pro-choice is hardly a choice to the unborn child whose life is snuffed out.

Herb

Whoa, Herb.

I'm not commenting on Huckabee's record on dealing with crime. In fact, he seems to be attacking crime strongly on many fronts - including the contesting of few death sentences. But the stronger one becomes on going after criminals, generally the less respectful they are of constitutional and human rights. For example, the death penalty is a very strong response to crime, but flies in the face of every humans inalienable right to life.

I think we would both agree that the pro-life groups are more precisely described as anti-abortion. But what is the more accurate term to use for the pro-choice people? Pro-abortion? Perhaps, but I believe that pro-choice folks would love to see a world without abortions; however, the reality is that abortions will happen, so we should manage that situation, and that the mother should have the final "choice" (with legal perameters) on if, when, and how it should occur. That's Roe v. Wade in a nutshell.

New topic: Is murder okay if sanctioned by the state? I think you would say yes on the death penalty issue, and no on the abortion issue. I chafe at the use of "protecting the innocent" arguments. Certainly an embryo, if it is a human life at that stage, is innocent - no argument there. But what about the innocent killed in war, or the innocent that are wrongly found guilty in our criminal justice system? Do they not call for the same fervent protections you demand for the preborn? So why aren't your calls for the end of war, or the end of the death penalty, just as strong as your calls for the end of abortion?

The reason that this abortion issue keeps coming up is that both sides are talking past each other. The anti-abortion (pro-life) groups see the fertilized egg as life, while the pro-choice groups look at viability outside the womb as an indication of life. It all about where you draw that line, and that is an issue we continue to debate. The abortion question is really secondary to that.

I actually use the terms "pro-abortion", and "anti-abortion" to refer to the different groups. In my view, this sort of boils it down the core issue. Abortion is the issue that’s contested, not the broad concepts of choice or life. Choice and life are not specific "issues", but buzz words that society wants to agree with instantly when they are spoken. I think that's why these groups have chosen those words to describe their respective stances.

I actually do take issue with the term "right to life" being applied to groups who oppose doctor-assisted suicide though, because if you prohibit this by law, it's really more of a responsibility to life, than a right to life. I've always been against abortion because the human being in the womb is innocent and has no choice, but I can't support prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide, because I see it as a truly personal issue (an issue that ends the life of a willing party, truly ‘my body, my choice’, with no other party directly affected).

Secondary... Absolutely agreed. I'm a total realist on that matter. If we embraced that reality, 10 years of rational thought applied to the problem would wipe abortion off the map, for all intents and purposes.

Is murder ok if sanctioned by the state?

IMHO, no. My reason is simple: we do not have absolute confidence in our judgments. There are some people that really deserve it, and could be a pretty huge risk, if allowed to go free.

We don't have absolutes in our security either, so that really makes for a tough dilemma. Actually, that matter means I'll abide by the will of the people, hoping debate will render a very high degree of sanity.

The Innocence Project has been very revealing. We make a lotta mistakes. While confinement cannot be undone, we can cut our losses and the harm, by freeing somebody wrongly imprisoned. The same is not true for death.

If we do it at all, it needs to have very serious checks built in. It needs to be really ugly too, like people have to watch it, and end up being able to deal with it, or it simply wasn't worth it.

Either way, I don't think this is anything we should be electing Presidents on. We've courts for that, and if we have even an ounce of self-respect, we can established balanced courts and let them deliberate on the matter.

That's the only way to deal with this stuff in a just and humane manner.

Which makes one wonder about those wanting more of their kind of judges in the courts. Good representation is ok, of course. If everybody pushes for that, we are gonna get some balance. All good.

Electing and or supporting somebody willing to just pack them in, flawed, rational or not, isn't really aligned with the spirit of how it's all supposed to go.

What's worse is the escalation we are seeing. It's being done right now, so we are losing balance and some of our democracy and with that the benefits of it. Over correcting the other way, just continues the mess!

On the other hand, leaving it stand is a mess too?

What to do?

@shane

Using "pro-abortion" is just not correct. I am for choice, but totally against abortion. Would prefer we just don't have them. However, I also realize there are four forces used to regulate behavior:

law, norms, money, physics.

Passing a no-abortion no matter what law, does not stop abortion! All it really does is make abortion expensive! The reality is there will absolutely be abortions. There is no getting around this.

At the worst, the mother could kill herself and end the pregnancy that way.

To me, that means she is in charge, as she really can call the shots, period, end of story.

That's physics in play, and it speaks to choice, by way of our human condition.

If the law does not reflect that reality, then it's poor law, and will have unintended consequenses.

Best case regulation is one where norms, money, physics and law all reinforce the desired behavior, and that's the pro-choice position most often articulated.

It's absolutely not a pro-abortion one. IMHO, use of that term only escalates the differences. That impacts norms, making the problem harder!

I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion, BTW.

Edselehr,
I posted my last post before I saw yours, so it wasn't a direct response to you.

The unfortunate deaths of Americans and our allies that occur in war are casualties of a cause; the unintentional result of allied war efforts. If we're talking about our soldiers killing the enemy, we'd have to look at who the enemy is and why we engaged them- but that's a big topic. Justifications for wars can be debated, and the inevitable casualties should always be considered before determining whether a war effort is "worth it". I know it sounds cold, but I'm sure you wouldn't suggest we should have stayed out of WWII, for instance, because of the casualties. As trite it might sound, it is true that freedom is not free.

When life is ended via abortion, that's the immediate effect, the intended result of the action of performing an abortion in the name of convenience. And the victim in this case is always innocent.

"I actually use the terms "pro-abortion", and "anti-abortion" to refer to the different groups. In my view, this sort of boils it down the core issue. Abortion is the issue that’s contested, not the broad concepts of choice or life. Choice and life are not specific "issues", but buzz words that society wants to agree with instantly when they are spoken. I think that's why these groups have chosen those words to describe their respective stances."

I think the terms you have chosen are more honest, but are in their own way tainted. No one wants to be anti-anything, hence the "pro-life" label the anti-abortion groups have adopted (though 'anti-abortion' is perfectly accurate). "Pro-abortion" is tainted with the idea that this groups want to see abortions happen - is actually promoting that more abortions occur. Some may believe this, but I've never gotten that impression from groups that support a woman's decision to have an abortion. It's like the young mothers we see in schools today - no one thinks its a good idea for 14-year olds to be having sex and getting pregnant, and we have found no way to completely stop it, so we have support systems for teenagers that make that choice. The support system does not condone the action, just recognizes the reality and deals with it. So, "pro-abortion" is like saying you are "pro-teenage mothers". Sounds as if you want to see more of it, rather than trying to assist those who have chosen to do it.

Yes, abortion is the secondary issue. If we all can agree when life starts, then the abortion question (if and when) will be answered. Can't do the second without the first.

Missing KSKD wrote:
"Using "pro-abortion" is just not correct. I am for choice, but totally against abortion. Would prefer we just don't have them. However, I also realize there are four forces used to regulate behavior:

law, norms, money, physics.

Passing a no-abortion no matter what law, does not stop abortion! All it really does is make abortion expensive! The reality is there will absolutely be abortions. There is no getting around this."

Then we could use the term "Pro-legalized abortion", if you prefer. And I cannot wrap my brain around your point. It is so sad to me that you want to keep abortion legal because it will always exist. You know what else will always exist? Domestic violence, murder, rape, the list goes on and on and on. No one said making abortion illegal would stop it. What it would do is criminalize the action, thereby acting as a deterrent for committing the crime, and making the procedure harder to obtain. Of course it would not stop it completely, but it would be reduced, just like murder, rape, theft, and every other crime that occurs less frequently than it would if the government endorsed it!

"...what is the more accurate term to use for the pro-choice people? Pro-abortion? Perhaps, but I believe that pro-choice folks would love to see a world without abortions.."

Good point. Let's address it this way:

If someone were personally opposed to slavery, wanted no part of it, thought it was like murder and even hated it...yet said they were 'pro-choice' on the topic, that highlights the 'have it both ways' mentality of the abortion crowd.

Herb

"that highlights the 'have it both ways' mentality of the abortion crowd."

Please describe how they "have it both ways" in some more detail. Are you saying it is impossible to be truly against an action if you allow others to exercise it?

Also, remember that we still have some not-yet-agreed-upon terms floating around out there:

Is abortion the ending of a life or the ending of a pregnancy? Are they they same thing?

When does life begin?

Is every unhealthy action by a pregnant woman to be considered child abuse?

What is a miscarriage? Might it be considered a natural abortion? How do we deal with that?

Questions, questions...

Shane: your choice of the word "convenience" shows your total unwillingness to be part of the solution to this issue, and your old school male mentality.

How convenient that men can walk away from a one night stand, unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancy with Not Mrs. Right, failed contraception, etc., and to get any help from you "unexpected" fathers we have to prove you're the donor and fight you in court! And all the while, you're trying to prove that said female is the whore of Babylon and you're just a trapped choirboy.

Pregnancy, childbirth, and raising that child is a responsibility that stays with US for LIFE, just as choosing adoption or abortion.

The decision a woman makes is her business and does not affect you in the least. She has to live with it and answer for it. Your judgement is expressly forbidden in that book you guys are always quoting, too, BTW.

"Are you saying it is impossible to be truly against an action if you allow others to exercise it?"

Look at the slavery example. So-called 'pro-choicers' can say anything they want. However, talk is cheap and they can't truly be believed, for if they were as much against abortion as they claim, they'd join the pro-life cause.

It's like Mr. Clinton saying he didn't inhale. Please. The left wants it both ways.

Herb

Third world countries ban abortion. The US in not a third world country (yet). Banning abortion would have the same effect as prohibition. It would be a failure, wouldn't reduce the amount of abortions, create a black market, and cost more women their lives. Worldwide statistics show that countries that ban abortion have the same abortion rates as those that allow abortion legally.

"It is so sad to me that you want to keep abortion legal because it will always exist."

Not quite right.

The law needs to reflect reality, and that reality is a woman can choose to end her pregnancy. Doing so might be costly, but it is her choice period.

As for making it harder to obtain, that again is only working a couple of the means we have to regulate behavior.

If we work hard on the norms, for example, then social pressure and availability of alternatives would make obtaining abortion services far less desirable, particularly given rational and effective alternatives are on the table, open and accessable.

So, one good balance would be to outright ban late term abortions, make serious supervision and over sight mandatory for mid term ones, and early ones on a sliding ramp, where next day morning after pill, which is really contraception in a lot of peoples minds, is on the table, working it's way up the chain of difficulty from there.

Now, we've got a balance between those that think the law needs to be strong, and those that want the law to reflect reality, and those that believe choice should be on the table.

Another reality is the longer things go, the more universally we agree it's wrong. So do that. When does life begin is another such reality.

We more or less agree that life is at the point of viability. Lots of us agree on it being earlier, with significant disagreement in the first few days.

Our law needs to reflect that, or we've got some people legislating their beliefs onto others and that's just not cool --ever.

If you want to regulate behavior, you've gotta put up defensible laws, be able to answer questions to establish norms, correctly apply the money, and pay respect to physical realities.

Banning it outright, because it's "wrong", does not do these things, is not defensible, and therefore is not just.

It quite simply is not always wrong! These are moral matters and our morality differers --at least until more facts have come in to play. We've got debate for that, and the fruits of it can then impact the law over time.

As a rape victim if they want to carry that kid and why, just by way of one example where choice really should be on the table.

Vitalogy mentioned prohibition too. That's exactly how it's gonna work!

If my moral choice is to help somebody obtain an abortion, trust me, it's absolutely gonna happen, law or no. Ask around on a few tough scenarios. You will find people perfectly willing to violate the law, for moral reasons.

On that basis alone, an outright ban is not warranted as it cannot achieve it's goal. And if the goal is to make things "harder", I can point you to the balance I proposed above, and strong education aimed at social norms which can also easily make it "harder", leaving alternatives on the table, which in turn, means the outright ban is not "the only way" to accomplish the goal.

TONS of women would be getting ILLEGAL abortions and dying because of it....
Is that what you want Herb? Kill both of them????
I still want to know how Herb is going to pay for all the babies that NOBODY wants? Who takes care of the babies born to Special needs people??? Who takes care of all the babies born to women whom have been raped? Whom are 13? 14? 15?
TAX INCREASE!

Herb, from your perspective, the treatment of a post-birth human and a fetus are analogous - the rights of one are no less or more than the rights of the other. Therefore, abortion is the removal of life from a human, and slavery is the removal of liberty from a human - equally abhorrent.

But pro-choice (pro-abortion) advocates do not see blastocysts, zygots and embryos as human life, but as potential life - much as the female egg itself is potential life. Sexual intercourse is a step toward life, fertilization of that egg is another step, but the final step is viablity, which is generally in the third trimester. So for the pro-choice group, equating a human trapped in slavery with a single-celled fertilized egg is silly.

Again, the debate cannot come to a conclusion because each side is working from a different premise. Your slavery analogy can only be used when both sides agree when a cell or cells become "human" and therefore has human rights.

Herb writes:

Look at the slavery example. So-called 'pro-choicers' can say anything they want. However, talk is cheap and they can't truly be believed, for if they were as much against abortion as they claim, they'd join the pro-life cause.



OK, Mr. Pro-lifer, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and join the pro-life movement our side is sponsoring and support an end to the war in Iraq. Even Huckaberry is way ahead of you on that one.

"..why don't you stop being a hypocrite and join the pro-life movement our side is sponsoring and support an end to the war in Iraq."

I'm all for leaving ASAP. I also believe we should be compensated with oil. But if we leave too soon, the mass slaughter we leave behind will hardly be a pro-life cause.

"Some libertarian critics also complain that [Ron Paul's] opposition to abortion rights for women violates libertarian principles of choice. In an interview, Paul says that he came to his views on abortion in part from his experience delivering babies. "From the very beginning, I had a moral and legal obligation to take care of two people, the mother and the child, and if I did anything wrong, I realized that I could be sued for it," he said. "That had an impact on me."

[Ron Paul] recalls witnessing an illegal abortion in his first year out of medical school that made an impression, too. "Once I became more firmly entrenched with libertarian beliefs, I realized that another life was involved, I saw this as a principle of nonaggression, which libertarians adhere to. The baby has a choice, too."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0102/p01s08-uspo.html

No, the embryo does not have a choice, the mother does. Her body, her choice. Mind your own business.

Entre_nous WRITES:
your choice of the word "convenience" shows your total unwillingness to be part of the solution to this issue, and your old school male mentality.... The decision a woman makes is her business and does not affect you in the least. She has to live with it and answer for it. Your judgment is expressly forbidden in that book you guys are always quoting, too, BTW."

Does not affect me in the least? First of all, the father is affected financially and emotionally by having children, so let's clear that up. Secondly, my argument is not one that is exclusively made by men. That's a cop-out argument some women who favor legalized abortion make to attempt to marginalize men involved in the debate. The baby in the womb could be male or female, and regardless, he or she has the right to live. And lastly, I have never quoted the Bible on this board, so leave me out of the "you guys" category, whatever that is. It amazes me that some people don't think someone can come to his or her own anti-abortion conclusion based on logic and compassion alone, without quoting or even being directly influenced by the Bible. But I think I will leave you with a quote. Not from the Bible, but from a woman who opposes abortion, AND mentions the concept of convenience to decry it:

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish"- Mother Theresa

Bingo, Shane.

And I don't even carry water for the Pope, either.

Herb

The best part about how our current set up is, is that people like Shane and Herb are free to not participate in abortion. Hopefully both of you practice what you preach.

Their also free not to commit murder. Abortion is the taking of a human life, that is not usually considered a personal choice.

But, Shane, are YOU that father? Then by all means, get involved. If you're not THAT father, stay out of it. Men are only affected when they CHOOSE to participate, or are forced to by the courts. Why should one party be allowed choice and the other not?

Men marginalize themselves by not taking responsibility for their half of conception.

Again, you make assumptions regarding the reasons why women choose abortion, and judge them for it. It's not that easy, or simple, for most women. Pro life people always act like we live in a perfect world, where everyone has the means to survive. I'm not talking about the bigger house or new Mercedes. That's convenience. I'm talking about rent and food on the table. Medical care. Basic necessity has nothing to do with "convenience" or "living as you wish".

I have great respect for the work of Mother Theresa, but how many children was SHE forced to give birth to? Yep, 0. She may have loved them as her own, but that's not what we're talking about.

"Abortion is the taking of a human life."

Not according to our laws.

An ABC poll from 2003 found that 62% of respondents thought "partial-birth abortion" should be illegal.

And illegal it now is.

Herb

And that's a good thing! But if you make it 100% illegal you run the risk many women dying from botched abortions from UNLICENCED doctors.

Herb said>>>
But if we leave too soon, the mass slaughter we leave behind will hardly be a pro-life cause.

You should thank YOUR fearless leader for that! The biggest blunder and will FOREVER be synonymous for being DUHbya's war.

Weird thought.....

Don't know why but when I see this thread I think of the movie Tombstone and Val Kilmer saying "I'm Here Huckleberry" just before he wasted that guy.

Continue.....

"An ABC poll from 2003 found that 62% of respondents thought "partial-birth abortion" should be illegal.

And illegal it now is."

...putting to a halt about 0.17% of abortions previously performed. It was by no means an overused procedure.

"...DUHbya's war.."

Oh, you mean the war voted on, approved and funded by democrats in congress?

Herb

That would be the very same one Herb. The one that was THOUGHT UP by DUHbya and Co. and put before America with FALSE information. YUP! That very same one that DUHbya and Co. when into HALF cocked like arrogant warmongers with NO out!
That would be the one Herb.
The one that DUHbya signed EXECUTIVE POWER to do what ever he GD well pleased.
That would be the one......

"...FALSE information..."

Nice try.

As Mrs. Clinton would say "Not so fast."

False information, like that provided to us by our European allies, plus the State Department, the CIA, NSA and Defense department?

Sorry. Only democrat shills would give a pass to the democrats who voted for this war whilst piling on the republicans for the very same thing.

Herb

Flase information is right Herb. Thinking other wise would just be flat wrong.

"I have great respect for the work of Mother Theresa, but how many children was SHE forced to give birth to? Yep, 0."

I was wondering if anyone would actually suggest that Mother Theresa's celibacy was the sole factor in her opposition to abortion. Wow. forced? Just like you're "forced" to raise your kids because the law doesn't allow you tie them up to keep them quiet. I also hate how I'm "forced" to live next to a noisy neighbor because the law doesn't allow me to kill him. Oh wait, I don't own my apartment building. If I owned it, it would be "my building, my choice", right?

So back to Herb’s original post about Huckabee. I think in a previous thread you wanted my opinions of the guy and at that time I hadn't paid attention to him.

Now after further review here are just some thoughts. First impressions. Very likeable. Warm, witty, very pastoral, could easily pull up a chair next to him and talk about many things, entertainment, sports, theology and of course politics.

From watching a few of his speeches in front of a crowd he seems to connect with his constituency.

His message. I know for Herb he says all the right things concerning pro-life. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is making the campaign about only one issue. We have been down this road and I don’t believe those beyond the conservative evangelical community, and some within it’s walls, will hold too a one or two issue campaign again. There are so many other relevant moral issues that need as much or equal time than just abortion. So this is where I feel he is unelectable and a bit extreme. Not that he is against abortions but that he makes it the primary issue. I just don’t see it helping him to the White House.

Herb I can totally see where Huckabee is YOUR man. He’s intelligent with a decent sense of humor. But is too narrow focused on one issue that in my opinion may influence in the wrong way other decisions he would make if he were president. He doesn’t come across as being very balanced to me with the other issues because of his primary issue. He would butt heads with a democratic house and senate and we already have that and it's getting us nowhere.

I respect your opinion, Chris, but having read and watched him a tad more of late, I believe Mr. Huckabee is far more multi-dimensional than either of us may have realized.

He was a very popular governor in Arkansas for over a decade. He has worked in an executive position quite admirably. Sure, I like the fact that he's a godly man. But certainly, he's got blind spots. His international experience is nil. But so was Mr. Clinton's.

I'll take an honest and godly, yet imperfect man like Mr. Huckabee anyday. God works well through imperfect people. Besides, what are the other candidate options that are so much better, anyway?

That said, if a man like Mr. McCain was nominated, I would pull the voting lever for him with relish as well.

Herb

I'll admit I haven't watched any of the debates on TV. I have seen some video replay on the internet but mostly I have taken a backseat to both parties until the nominations come through, then I'll be a tad more involved.

Right now it’s posturing, positioning and to be very honest the typical ugly politics.

I'm not leaning towards anyone at this time for either party. It's my new approach ever since becoming a registered Independent after 30 years as a Republican.

Comparing Huckabee and Clinton, although flattering for Huckabee, the two are very different.

What you want as an honest, Godly, imperfect man to be President, I simply want the best person for the job. Being Godly does not make a president good. That is my opinion of Bush.

Plus Huckabee's take on the Ephesians passage is a total misinterpretation of scripture. But I have posted that on a previous thread for your perusal.

I thought the Church's position on premarital sex, unnatural forms of birth control, natural forms of birth control allowed to married people, and vows of celibacy were so well known I wouldn't have to spell it out for you. Sorry. As a representative of said Church, and follower of it's teachings, what other opinion could she have had?

As for your noisy neighbor, follow the steps outlined in your Rental Agreement, and if one of his party girls turns up unexpectedly pregnant, follow your beliefs and offer your emotional and financial support up to and including taking on that responsibility of raising the child, alone, to the best of your ability, if she is considering abortion. Since she's probably a total stranger, I bet she tells you to butt out and files a protection order against you. And her pregnancy would affect you HOW?