Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 07:36 AM
Original message |
Watch Huckabee be added to the GOP first tier |
|
If his numbers rise in South Carolina amon evangelicals.....The GOP might be headed for the biggest convention foodfight in decades.
|
4dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 07:42 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I watched a news briefing yesterday as they reviewed the straw poll in Iowa. They(the pundits) are claiming the Huckabee is now the religious conservative's choice.
|
Sadie4629
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 08:22 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't know much about Huckabee |
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. He has a "covenant marriage" |
|
which is some sort of stronger marriage than the regular one. While governor here, he forced school consolidation, which angered the folks in small communities--until they found out all it meant was the kids still went to their schools-parents just had less of a say on what went on, as one board ran all the schools. All it has done is raise taxes and created more bureaucracy--hasn't improved education at all.
The one thing he espoused that was ok was preventative health care--he advocated for health education centers to be placed around the state. But they don't educate--they are a place where folks can put out fliers and information, and people can go check out things for themselves. Some classes are free, some charge, but there's no real organization or recommendation of what a person should do.
Huckabee would be one to raise taxes without increasing any benefit to the people, and one who would rely solely on private enterprise to solve our problems. Yes, he's against abortion, gays, and all that, too.
|
Benhurst
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Sounds like a good church-going, God-fearing Republican to me. |
Sadie4629
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. Consolidated schools increased taxes-- |
|
--and bureaucracy? That doesn't make any sense. Where I live we have a gazillion tiny little school districts--each with their own school board, superintendent, and all the accompanying costs. I think it would make more sense and be more beneficial to the students for the districts to unify, have ONE superintendant, ONE superintendant's secretary, ONE high school with ONE principal. They could offer far more classes--foreign languages is one thing they scrimp on, art is another. Can't see how consolidating increases costs.
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Here's how it worked in NW Arkansas |
|
Example: the Mt. Judea and Deer School districts consolidated. Deer's tax levy was much higher than Mt. Judea's. There was an election to ask everyone in the district to pay the higher Deer levy (no option to lower the levy, of course). Since there are more folks at Deer than at Mt.Judea, you know what happened. Now get this--these two districts are miles apart-Deer on the mountain, Mt. Judea in a valley. I know (since this is my district and I'm interested in these things) that what happened was that the Mt. Judea superintendent was made "director" of Mt. Judea, with no change in salary. The superintendent at Deer became overall superintendent with a slight raise in salary. There is just more paperwork for them to do to "coordinate" the two schools. There are still two high schools, two grade schools, two principals for each. I think maybe now they have a traveling teacher to teach language at the two schools, but this was only in the planning stage the last time I heard.
BTW, the distance between the two schools is so great that there is no way they could consolidate to one building.
|
Sadie4629
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
That's terrible. It could have worked for the benefit of everyone, especially the students, but they screwed it up.
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. Arkansas education has been screwed up for a long time |
|
I moved here from Texas, will full teaching credentials, a MEd,and twenty years' experience. I wasn't even considered for any job except substitute (which pays the same for a high school graduate or someone like me). The reason I wasn't considered was the fact that I wasn't related to or friends of the members of the school board. I found out later that that is how they pick their teachers. I knew of two young teachers, both with BS degrees and two years' teaching. I knew one of the teachers to be excellent and the other to be so-so--both had worked over the summer in the day care program where I was working. The board chose the so-so teacher because she had three relatives on the board, where the other one only had one. And they were told, and accepted, that reason. In Illinois, where I have also taught, it is ILLEGAL for any Board member to do this sort of thing. Maybe that is one reason Illinois always ranks towards the top in education and Arkansas is always at the bottom. Like a lot of things here, it is a good old boy's network. Huckabee would bring that sort of thing to the White House.
|
Sadie4629
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
20. Clinton ran as the education President |
|
or something like that. Was the nepotism part of the system during his years as governor? Or did it crop up afterwards? Seems to me that something that is that ingrained would have had to be a longstanding part of the way things are done.
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. Yes, it was here even then |
|
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 11:27 AM by ayeshahaqqiqa
The good old boys network is alive and strong in Arkansas--and is corrupt. I voted for Clinton in '92, but held my nose to do so. I was really voting for Al Gore, if truth be known.
|
lazer47
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
9. He is also a liar, he has spent 3/4 of his life lying about being |
|
a minister, and the other part of his life was making life in Arkansas as difficult as possible.
|
Sparkly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
12. "some sort of stronger marriage than the regular one." |
|
:rofl: Isn't that hilarious?? Marriages come in different strengths to these people.
"Will you extra-strength marry me?"
|
TheFarseer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
11. I like that he is for |
|
stopping outsourcing and preventative care, but I can't vote for anyone that is IN LOVE with the (un)Fair Tax.
|
LBJDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:29 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Unlike Thompson (who's lazy), Giuliani (who's stupid and can't deliver a speech), McCain (who's lost it), and Romney (who can't connect with normal people), Huckabee is very clever and great at disguising his fanatically religious agenda as something kind and peaceful. I'm kind of worried, actually.
|
Bombtrack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Does anyone think Huckabee looks like Nixon ? |
LBJDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Yeah; he does, a little nt |
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message |
13. I doubt it. He's as unqualified as the rest of them. |
|
No foreign policy experience, inveterate tax raiser, and it's doubtful he'll even win his home state if Hillary is the nominee. He's also the gov who refused to pass disaster legislation until the words "act of God" were stripped from the bill, if I'm not mistaken. He's a fundie nutjob, not much better than Brownback. Unelectable.
|
Sadie4629
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
I learned back in high school, in the stone age, that most people want to see gubernatorial experience in a candidate--and, overwhelmingly, people have elected former governors. That's why I like(d?) Richardson--thought he was among the more electible candidates.
As for foreign policy experience--Bill Clinton had none, and that didn't keep people from voting for him.
Also, I assume you think Arkansas will go for Hillary because of Bill, but Arkansas didn't go Dem in 2000 even when Bill's VP was the candidate, so I'm not sure how the Clinton connection would help her.
|
lazer47
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. IMHO Arkansas will not go Hillary |
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. Foreign policy experience will be key this time around. |
|
If a Governor is considered pretty good to great, he/she has an advantage. Huckabee, to my knowledge, has had mixed reviews. Same with Richardson. I don't think this is the year of the Governor, simply because the ones that are running aren't that impressive or Presidential. Mitt isn't beloved in Massachusetts, BUT he can point to a lot of prior business/CEO success, and he looks Presidential. Huckabee does not. He's a fat guy who lost weight. That's his crowning achievement, as far as I know. That, and pulling some sort of scam to get gifts from a department store registry on his way out of office with either tax or campaign funds.
|
Sadie4629
(919 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. If foreign policy experience is so important |
|
then maybe we need to look to one of our longtime Senators, like Kerry, or, of course, to Gore who had EIGHT YEARS of participating in foreign policy successes.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
25. I agree, but they're not running, so what can you do? The foreign |
|
policy experts on our side (Richardson, Biden and Dodd) simply do not have the charisma or star power to break through to the top tier. Hillary is on the Armed Services committee, Obama is on the Foreign Relations Committee--so they are at least fairly well-schooled on foreign policy and defense issues. Rudy, Fred Thompson (been out of the Senate too long), Romney, Huckabee--little to no current foreign policy/military creds. McCain has a LOT of foreign policy/defense expertise, but he's toast for other reasons. I think the advantage goes to Dems and Senators this cycle. Governors are great for tinkering around with domestic issues, but this is not 1992 or 2000.
|
LostInAnomie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
28. Foreign policy experience will be as important as the media decides it to be |
|
If they want the narrative to be about who has more experience, that's what it will be. If they want to make it about an underdog governor fighting the Democratic political machine, that's what it will be.
Knowing the media's bias, they will set up a narrative that best suits the Repukes.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #28 |
30. I agree to some extent--but the Repubs are simply not going to |
|
suddenly put up Huckabee--there's nothing to this guy, aside from religious fervor and weight loss. He's a foreign policy moron (I've heard him in interviews)--he'll have his ass handed to him by any of our top three in a debate, and the Repubs know it. Brownback is the same way. That's why Rudy McThompney is still on top--they are simply stronger candidates in either achievement or personality/image. Remember that there's a reason why front-runners are front-runners. Everyone wants to see someone suddenly come out of nowhere, but the most impressive candidates are usually at the top from the beginning, at least on the Repub side. Boring, but true.
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
27. don't count on Arkansas going Clinton |
|
Mrs. Clinton made her share of enemies in the state while here. And many are mad that the Clintons moved to New York state-they see it as simply furthering their political ambitions.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #27 |
29. I wouldn't have thought it either, but that's the opinion in Freepville. |
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
32. There are parts of Arkansas that are very red |
|
so far, the only political signs for publicans I've seen are hand made out of cardboard boxes and lettered with marker. Both are for Ron Paul and say VOTE NO TAXES-RON PAUL. Gives you the idea of the mindset of the area.
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:12 AM
Response to Original message |
17. It's still possible that there'd be 2 folks from New York and |
|
Edited on Sun Aug-12-07 11:58 AM by Old Crusoe
and two folks from Arkansas on the 2 main parties' tickets in 08. HClinton, Ghouliani, Clark, and Huckabee.
I think the Democrats win that match-up.
If Bloomberg decides to enter the race as a very well-funded independent, Ghouliani loses New York state by an even greater margin than against HClinton alone.
If Huckabee were somehow to top the GOP ticket, I think any of our people can whomp him good. A Huckabee candidacy takes no blue state away from us and may even lose some of the GOP states they won in 2000 and 2004.
And despite the slightly weaker showing yesterday by Brownback, Huck is going to be outflanked by Brownback's organization (and the zealotry of his supporters) come January for the actual caucus.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
22. I agree with you, OC, about Brownback--I'm surprised that the |
|
media is making a huge deal out of the Huckster (whom I fully expected to come in second--what is this "dark horse surprise"?), when Brownback (who IMO is even less impressive) was only a couple hundred votes behind. Brownie is not going to give up after a respectable third, unfortunately--he thinks, as does the Huck, that he's on a mission from God.
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
24. Yes. They're both frightening creatures who see themselves as |
|
God's own angels.
I'm looking at the GOP field and I'm not seeing anyone who can be nominated. Brownback and Huckabee are going to try to shred each other to bits between now and January -- which will be a delight to watch! -- while McCain is on life support (maybe Bill Frist can make a determination of viability by videotape), Ghouliani is unraveling by the hour, and Romney is a cross between Dracula and a game show host.
Scary bunch.
|
LostInAnomie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 11:30 AM
Response to Original message |
26. If Huckabee had more money and more media attention he would be very dangerous. |
|
He's a very likeable that is very good at putting a smiling face and soothing words to a horribly regressive ideology.
|
jenmito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message |
31. He just said he now considers himself in the top tier after his 2nd place in IA |
|
On Face the Nation. And to tell you the truth, I think we should fear HIM more than any other Repub. with his populist message and lack of flip-flopping and multiple marriages.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |