Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huckabee believes that creationism should be thought in schools *. I refuse to vote for someone that wants religion taught in a science class. It's beyond stupidity.
The fake Christian candidate with that plastic fake smile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
Mike Huckabee was a potential Republican nominee back in the early election season, since then he has made quite a name for himself in the news and television shows.
My question is, how does the general population of C-D-F feel about him? Please vote and post, if you don't really know anything about him, please don't post or vote.
Personally, I believe he was the best man for the job of taking on Obama. He was quickly shoved aside after losing important Southern states in favor of other candidates.
He was a Moderate, not radical, but unlike McCain, he has a very friendly personality, and was quite the comedian. Despite being a deeply religious man, his political take on Social issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc. was to leave it up to the states to decide - which shows that he is a truer Republican.
I like Huckabee but not as much as McCain. I was hoping McCain would have chose him or Romney as his running mate but he goes and does something stupid by choosing this Palin idiot. Really really disappointed me.
What were his liberal spending habits? That sounds like something from Club for Growth, which painted Huckabee that way, using clips out of context from a speech he made. If you like I'll post a link to the entire speech.
No, I've never heard of the Club For Growth.
Compared to Paul, Thompson, or even McCain, Huckabee struck me as a populist. He was "fair trade", not free trade - he supported a bigger, more expensive 'war on drugs'. He wanted big federal expenditures on things that are traditionally local expenditures: sewer, water, and stormwater infrastructure. He wanted more highway spending, and he led me to believe that he wanted more federal educational spending. He also wanted to increase farm subsidies.
Granted, these aren't extremely liberal ideas. He just struck me as a Bush-type of politician, who treated "fiscal conservatism" as a convenient talking point, not as a governing philosophy.
Compared to Paul, Thompson, or even McCain, Huckabee struck me as a populist. He was - he supported a bigger, more expensive 'war on drugs'. He wanted big federal expenditures on things that are traditionally local expenditures: sewer, water, and stormwater infrastructure. He wanted more highway spending, and he led me to believe that he wanted more federal educational spending. He also wanted to increase farm subsidies.
Granted, these aren't extremely liberal ideas. He just struck me as a Bush-type of politician, who treated "fiscal conservatism" as a convenient talking point, not as a governing philosophy.
Unfortunately, the original site no longer has his views, but there are certain things we absolutely need, such as highway expenditures. Bridge infrastructure is top of the list. Before Huckabee took the helm in Arkansas, the roads there were considered to be among the worst in the country. And, since we have much better technology now than we used to, it would more than pay for itself. I have a gut feeling that we are still using old technology, which means we are spending more than we need to because it breaks down faster. As far as I'm concerned, that is a conservative viewpoint.
Huckabee recognized energy and the economy as a national security issues, both of which agree with my own thoughts.
I don't recall exactly what he meant by fair trade vs free trade.
He was pro-FairTax, which BTW, would be good for the economy. We've been doing things that hurt the economy for a long time.
I don't see many politicians talk in terms of governing philosophies as much as what they perceive as shortcomings of the country and what they want to do about them, or what they do that is better than the old way.
BTW, the Club for Growth was pretty much ubiquitous during the primaries. As I mentioned previously, they did some writing in which they picked and chose sources that agreed with their own thoughts, and they butchered statements made by certain candidates so voters would get the wrong idea -- In other words, they were as dishonest as they come. The only good thing they believe, which they never mentioned during the primaries, was that they were for the FairTax as well. That was because they were helping Romney as opposed to Huckabee.
Unfortunately, the original site no longer has his views, but there are certain things we absolutely need, such as highway expenditures. Bridge infrastructure is top of the list. Before Huckabee took the helm in Arkansas, the roads there were considered to be among the worst in the country. And, since we have much better technology now than we used to, it would more than pay for itself. I have a gut feeling that we are still using old technology, which means we are spending more than we need to because it breaks down faster. As far as I'm concerned, that is a conservative viewpoint.
It's a minor point, but I'd disagree with your last statement. Federal funding of roads & bridges doesn't strike me as conservative. I always felt that should be the sole responsibility of the individual states.
That hazy "federal vs. state" question is one reason why our nation's bridges are bad; our states are often skirting their responsibilties, sitting around waiting on the federal government to give them money.
It's a minor point, but I'd disagree with your last statement. Federal funding of roads & bridges doesn't strike me as conservative. I always felt that should be the sole responsibility of the individual states.
That hazy "federal vs. state" question is one reason why our nation's bridges are bad; our states are often skirting their responsibilties, sitting around waiting on the federal government to give them money.
Maybe. But some are on interstate highways. And, there are a huge number of bridges --75,871 in all-- that are "structurally deficient" as they put it. Many --80,306-- are "functionally obsolete." I don't know if there is any overlap between the two figures, but I'd be curious about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mike who?
