Redstate

But, she was right in her last comment that Fred hasn't been consistent and that rightly concerns her about Thompson. A lot of people really, really want to support Fred, but he hasn't been strong until tonight, where he was great. He needs to continue to be strong before he really brings a lot of people into his camp. If Romney bombs out in Michigan, I'd bet that many of his backers turn to Fred as the conservative standard bearer.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

That said, I was particularly impressed with how Fred dismantled Huckabee being a conservative. His noting that Huckster got the NEA's endorsement because he'd veto any school choice legislation won't play well in South Carolina.

Agreed. That laundry list dismantling Huck was long overdue, and Thompson was the right person to do it. Huck replied with that "flak" comment, but didn't address the claims.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Faux .. as long as you keep saying that you just associate yourself with Kossack paranoia. Hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Seriously.

absentee

| | |

Fred made Huckabee look foolish, and Huckabee's responses were downright wimpy. I'm sure you won't believe anyone here, but the Fox focus group certainly saw it.

Because when he even has the virtually unanimous chorus of people in the Corner saying he won, along with me, he won.

He was forceful against Huckabee. He corrected everyone else's records. And he had some of the most memorable lines of the night.

He, more than anyone, needed to show the voters that he was actually in this thing. He did that tonight.

Fight On!

I agree with you that he needed to show the voters he was in it. I appreciate the reply.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/571gtv...

They list Huck as the best performance, but Thompson as the winner? And why? Because he destroyed Huck.
Three graphs down, the opinion is that Huck was good on religion, bad on everything else.

So, no, Huckabee didn't have the best performance, if that article is to meaning anything.
R.J.

But they were the only not-bad replies he COULD give.

Fred Crossed Huck's T and stayed their the whole time unloading with his broadside vs just Huck's front guns.
No contest.
All Huck managed was to not get completely blown away...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

He is viable and will be much more so if everyone would back him instead of saying that they wish they could.

and as far as viability, he'll be even more so once you back him.

He exceeded his latest fundraising goal a few minutes ago, though the deadline was 6 PM EST tomorrow night.

Jeremiah 17:9.

Wahoo! Yes indeed he did. I been watching that and chipping in what I can. The debate powered him over the top. Now keep on rolling FRED!

http://www.fred08.com/Index.aspx

I agree with all you said.

The guy's an actor. Some of these questions are obvious. He ought to be able to rattle off an answer without a pause. Or ten of them.

That said, tonight was a great improvement and hopefully we are going to see a whole lot more. I liked the fact that he told a couple of jokes as well. Go Fred.

That's a big line with Evangelicals. "not ashamed" of Christ. Pauline.

Problem--Huckabee is a lousy representative of the causes so many so-cons hold dear. Fred should be their man.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Huckabee commented basically that he was the one being asked biblical questions.

Well, Huckabee did mention evangelicals in a prior comment. He opened the door.

He brings it up and then questions why he's asked about it. It's all part of his game. He uses Christianity for his own gain. How sad.

Mary

He who bases his appeal based on his credentials as a "Christian Leader" is going to get those questions. Mullah Huckaboob wants it both ways.

He can't compete as a genuine conservative so he's selling his campaign to the evangelical social conservatives, he can't run away from that ploy when he chooses.

And by the way, Fox was respectful in questioning past statements, what do you think the Donks will do when they get copies of his sermons? Mainstream non evangelical America will not vote for him in a general election.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Mullah Huckaboob

Come on...senseless namecalling

Imam HuckaFraud ?

Pastor HuckaFraud?

This guy is about the worst thing to come down the political pike sense Jimmy Carter, and his nomination will result in the largest defeat in US history for a political party in the general election, sorry you don't get that.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

the name calling is excessive.

P.S. Not a supporter of Huckabee, I just like civilized debate.

I don't think much of many of his positions.

But I don't think he is an Imam either. That's an insult best left in the drawer because you have better weapons to bring to the fight.

Huckabee called his fiscally conservative opponents "Shiite Republicans" during debates on his tax increases.

Great defense. Doesn't work on the play ground in grade school. It certainly doesn't work here.

If he can dish it out, he can take it.

Ma-om! He did it first! :-)

Be of good cheer. Go in peace. Contribute money to Fred.

I'm not looking for a fight with any Republicans.

if Huckabee were to get the nomination, these names will be nothing compared to what the democrats come up with. Names that the MSM will find terrible but will also repeat them over and over until they stick. Huckabee will be branded as a "religious nut", "from the taliban wing of the party", "intolerant imam"...

Don't forget Romney's "magic underpants" or McCain's "temper".

The names will fly so we'd better get used to it. There is nothing wrong with figuring what the opposition will do to each potential nominee before supporting any one of them.

I agree.

Also, Huckabee often wants it both ways. In an appearance last week, he tried to attach himself to Reagan's hip by citing the 11th Commandment. Before and after, however, he attacked his fellow Republicans. So much for the 11th Commandment!

Thompson did well tonight, but I have to agree with him: It's a horrible venue for anyone who's serious about the issues.

I trust Thompson will follow this up with solid issue-oriented ads and campaign appearances.

He's the only person qualified to be our next president.

One more thought: Thompson was not critical of McCain. And vice versa. Care to bet that it will be a Thompson/McCain ticket in November?

He said he had a different view than "my friend McCain" on immigration and (to my surprise) used the same "my friend" language about Huckabee.

Saying he has a different view is not being critical. He was critical of Huckabee and attacked his positions directly. Fred did not attack McCain.

Fair enough. But I think it's important to note that he did clearly disagree with McCain on immigration. There's some talk at various blogs about Thompson being just a "tool" to help McCain win. I think that's utter nonsense.

that was referenced. Thats OK though since Huck errantly referenced chapter 6. More importantly, the passage was about Jesus preparation of the church for heaven, not about marriage. Often it is used out of context by topical preachers. The quote from the NIV:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Ephesians 5:22 -- which says wives submit to your husbands

it is Eph 5:25 -- that says husbands love your wives ... as Christ loved the church

Huckabee did not quote it correctly --

however, you may be right about Huckabee and Ephesians 11

because Eph 5:11 says .. have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them

and Eph 6:11 says Put on the full armor of God so that you can take a stand against the devil's schemes

while Eph 4:11 says in reference to Christ's grace .."it was he who gave to some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service

So I find it very interesting that Huckabee would misquote the passage

I find it interesting that the reference to 11 be it 5 or 6 is more of a warning against men like Mike Huckabee.

Here ends the lesson.

I was recalling from memory. :)

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

actually Primitive Baptist, and started most Sunday mornings between the age of two or so and sixteen or seventeen by having to recite a Bible verse in Sunday School. "Jesus Wept" always worked if you really weren't into it.

I am very thankful for that experience because it gave me superb memorization skills that have served me very well in later life. That said, I don't ever remember a preacher at the pulpit without his Bible before him. No matter how well you know Scripture, Law, or whatever, you are a fool to try to quote from memory in a public or adversarial forum. You WILL get some of it wrong, and there WILL be someone who catches it.

In my advocate days, I used to jibe that I knew the contract or law "like a Baptist Minister knows the New Testament." Well, that was kinda' a lie. Yes, I did know it very well, had lots of it more or less memorized and if pressed could BS my way through with a lot of very intimidating quotes. But in reality, I would never have done that without the book, or Book, as the case may be, in front of me.

I don't like Huckabee, but it is a hard standard you guys are applying. He probably shouldn't have gone there, or at least made it clear he was paraphrasing, but I defy any of you to survive long in a Scripture quoting contest, or a Law quoting contest, or even a rule quoting contest - watched any instant replays lately? Fools try to rattle it off, the genuinely prepared has it in front of him or makes it clear that he is paraphrasing from memory.

In Vino Veritas

all who understand politics and adulthood should realize the absurdity of using our theoligical beliefs to prove political points. Maybe he mentioned the wrong passage, but there IS a passage that many Evangelical Christians interpret to say "wives must submit to husbands". Too argue that that is not correct is beyond juvenile and a non sequitur. This is not the Diet of Worms, it is a presidential debate.

We Christians must admit the old joke about France and America. France has three relgions and 400 cheeses. We have three cheeses and 300 religions (mostly protestant). We are not here to debate on demonination over another, or one Bible version over another. I did not check the verse, but what is the point here? Huck as queried about an Evangelical tenet, and he responed. In fact, it was Huck's best commentary of the night, by far.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Of all the ways he could have mis-quoted it, he mis-quoted it in a way that could be interpreted as altering the Bible to be more politically palatable.

Even if it was just an honest slip, it could cost him because it could make it look like he is ashamed of the Bible.

If not for that one little bit, he could have hit a grand slam on that question.

HTML Help for Red Staters

for various reasons lol, but since you are pushing it, I will do so tomorrow. I have not followed the entire thread, a mistake I make quite often, but I have an idea what you are referring to. He did tone down that evangelical tenet I think. It is not that both give 100 percent, but that each one gives a different 100 percent. In other words, the wife should submit to the husband's teaching, and the husband should "submit" to teaching well (paraphrase). Is that your point?

I guess I got the idea that some with different views were using different "modern" Bible versions to call Huck wrong and too fundamentalist, I may have read this wrong. Either way, Huck's main point that he is not embarrased by his relgion and the tenet has no effect on the presidency was a good one.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I talked about it with my brother tonight, a student at an independent Baptist Bible college, and he looked it up. Wives submit and Husbands love. This may seem minor but there are lot of groups out there who believe the King James Bible is the true English translation, being perfect and divinely inspired.

For him to deviate from the KJV will not play well with a big chunk of his base. And some may be inclined to assume the worst.

It's not a matter of in-depth interpretation. It's a matter of the literal wording that is going to trip him up.

HTML Help for Red Staters

literacy. I know what you are getting at, I realize there are many Southern Baptists/Evangelicals that believe in "King James Only". I could break my own rule and talk about how the King James was based on more "modern" texts that the more modern Bible versions that are based on older Biblical texts, ironically. Or I could mention that the Bible has been translated into 2,700 languages, and it would be odd if God only Divinely inspired the English version of 1611.

But my main point is I do NOT think this issue you fairly mention will hurt Huck in a measurable way in the SC primary. BTW, I love the KJV, it is the most beautiful English version of the Holy Bible and is of unparalled importance to our civilization and culture.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Personally I think it was the dumbest possible question to ask to try to trip him up, but not being a fan of his, I'm hoping this little error will hurt him.

But, we'll see!

HTML Help for Red Staters

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Until I finished my story, he agreed with Huck's version of the quote :-) So you may be right on the Bible literacy issue.

HTML Help for Red Staters

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

As a non SBC evangelical from a group generally thought to be to the theological right of SB I just want to say Huck's witness was fine. He was prepared in season and out to give a reply.

Few of us would think the Fox debate would include an exegete of Pauline Household passages. He was put in a position in which his faith was being exposed as a national political liability. He chose to defend it. I remember a few political trap questions concerning taxes and Ceasar, or women caught in adultry that weren't exactly answered in the direct fashion. I'm sure if Wendal Phillips wants more of an answer he can have it.

That's a good point but please don't make any more comparisons between Huckabee and My Lord and Savior.

"Republicans think every day is the 4th of July, but the democrats think every day is April 15th." -Ronald Reagan

the KJV.

Huck is cool on this.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

HTML Help for Red Staters

Doesn't really matter. It's only relevant at all to the extent that it represents Huckabee accurately representing himself, and he is Southern Baptist.

It's not a matter of whether he has correctly understood the Bible, but whether or not he is obfuscating his denominational understanding to satisfy the PC police, yes?

absentee

| | | /

I think that if he's interpreted by some of his base as having changed the Bible to make it more palatable to feminists, then that will hurt him with the people his answer to that question should have excited like crazy.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The only ones that will really care about this is the independent fundamental baptists. They'll squawk about it, but they really have no place else to go. Huckabee is the closest to them where it matters: He's a baptist, and he's saying most of the things they want to hear.

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.

==== 13 ====

They are in general less strict about their kids listening to Bon Jovi than to 4HIM. As far as that group is concerned, you are better off being an atheist than a liberal Christian. His explanation will not play well with them.
Just saying.

I've been on several email discussion groups with them for many years, and I've known quite a few personally. I don't disagree with what you've said here, but at the end of the day IF they pull the lever, it'll be for Huckabee. The only thing I'll concede this might do is keep them at home. They do know how to boycott.

What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.

==== 13 ====

But attendant to that is the accurate public representation of the Biblical understanding of a group that is a significant chess piece this election, who he is absolutely identified as a representative of. If making him seem hypocritical requires misrepresenting that group then it's not worth it to me.

He can beaten, even among those voters, simply by doing what Fred did last night. Addressing his record, policies, and positions. As evidenced by the number of members of that group posting here for other candidates, myself included.

absentee

| | |

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I checked your verses, they are correct, I made a good point but in the wrong place :)

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Didn't Huckabee misquote Ephesians 5? I could have sworn he said that first it says wives submit to your husbands and then husbands submit to your wives.

It actually says:
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church..."

Fred08.com

That it means for the husbands to also submit to their wives is a widely accepted understanding. My father is a PhD and professor of religion and philosophy at a southern baptist seminary. He studies the Bible in the original languages, which he also teaches. He has always always explained that verse exactly like Huckabee did.

Huckabee was right on the money.

absentee

| | |

My Father was cowboy who made beer. Huckabee was in a tough spot with the question but the Bible clearly teaches that the husband has the headship role in marriage and the the wife is clearly commanded to submit to her own Husband as unto the Lord. He could have done a better job explaining what Biblical headship means if he had mentioned that the Word commands to husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, meaning that a Husband is to sacrifice himself for the good of the wife. He was in a tough spot but he played to the PC crowd

Don't call me a liar. I know exactly what I was taught by my father who you just mocked.

As soon as you and your alcoholic father learn ancient Hebrew I'll be interested in your Biblical insights. Deal?

absentee

| | |

Ephesians is Koine Greek heh.

And no thanks, but I don't think I will calm down. I was replying to a mocking jerk who decided that I lie about the Bible. If it weren't for ban policies I'd have a lot more to say in reply to it.

absentee

| | |

I was trying to be lighthearted because a mocking jerk isn't worth you get overly upset about. I have known you for a long time here, and have never had anything but respect for your posts, regardless of whether I agree or not.

It's galling having to defend Huckabee nearly every day. I honestly don't see why people think attacking him religiously is productive.

absentee

| | |

Man.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I didnt call you a liar and I gave Mr Huckabee credit for being in a tough spot. Why are you calling my Dad names? The Bible does teach the headship of the Husband over the Wife. Thats a fact.

could interpret "Husband is to sacrifice himself for the good of the wife" as a form of submission, but personally I think the whole conversation is micro-parsing. I think most evangelicals understood what his main point was.

You're exactly right. It's hard to be charitable to Huckabee here. Surely he knows that the passage says submit and love, i.e. each is called to a different task. He apparently chose to misrepresent the passage to appeal to the mainstream ... and then went on to say he wasn't ashamed of his faith. Hmm; but he seems to be ashamed of that passage.

The irony: he's such a smooth talker that he could have stuck to what the Bible actually says without raising any eyebrows.

He wasn't ashamed, he was keeping with every other Southern Baptist church I've ever been a member of, and that's more than a few, moved around a lot.

And really, what is with attacking him on his religious views? The man has always been honest with his faith and his Lord. Who are you to call his conviction into question?

absentee

| | |

I think he loses some credibility with the very people he was playing to. The people who are big on the Bible and life issues but not into much else will see that he is not accurate on this. In the Baptist circles I am involved with (not SBC) misusing the Bible is far worse than deriding it.

All due respect but your reply completely disregards the content of my post. I said he did NOT misuse the Bible, not that misusing it was ok.

absentee

| | |

I forgot to type the first paragraph of my response, so obviously you have no idea where I was coming from.

I believe he did mischaracterize it, but that may be a difference between the SBC and the independent Baptist crowd I am used to, rather than him being incorrect. Many people will see that as at least a dumbing down of that passage which is as much about the relationship of Christ and the Church as it is about marriage. It says in plain terms that women need to submit to their husbands, and that men need to sacrifice all for their wives.

Note:Pastor Huckabee was very correct on the 100-100 analogy and I applaud him for that.

I'm sure that some people will disagree with Huckabee's understanding, different denominations etc. But mischaracterizing means intent. Sether and others are suggesting he intentionally obfuscated in the interest of political correctness.

I can personally attest that he gave the correct Southern Baptist line about marriage. SUBMIT. I was taught this word for word.

It is one thing to say his interpretation of the Bible is different. It is another for people to attack him as a betrayer of his faith. Not that you were, but I think it is clear which posters I am referring to

absentee

| | |

I was more in that as an intellectual exercise on the likely effects with voters than any kind of theological discussion.

What exactly did Huckabee say?

He said exactly what I was taught in pre-Marital counseling with my father and, yes Sether, my father's credentials are relevant, as he is the expert witness I'm referencing. You know, southern baptist preacher, same as Huckabee.

absentee

| | |

...that husbands should submit to wives? I wasn't able to see his response.

He said he won't impose his beliefs but practice them unashamedly. "The point is that as wives submit themselves to their husbands, the husbands also submit themselves to their wives." More stuff I couldn't type fast enough, then the analogy about marriage being not 50/50 but 100/100.

absentee

| | |

Fred supporters more interested in theology than the debate? That is funny. Absentee, I really did not mean to insult your Dad. I was just trying to point out that whether or not he was a scholar does not change what the Bible teaches. My Dad really was a cowboy who made beer in Sun Valley.

sether,
In that case I take back my hilarious insult. I thought you were being facetious. You do have to admit the odds that someone's father was actually a beer-making cowboy were fairly slim.

absentee

| | |

After the election maybe we can find a theology blog and take this up again. Are you a teetotaler? I for one enjoy my Christian Liberties. Just kidding.

Actually I am a teetotaller, but not like, judgmentally of others. Personally.

I stay out of theology blogs. In such forums "my dad said" has a little less attendant gravitas than in an unrelated locale.

If your Dad is a major league pitcher, his second-hand advice is gold to your little league coach, but you don't go selling it to Nolan Ryan.

absentee

| | |

Look man Huck was a bit PC on this. It was a tough spot but the Husband still is the Head in the home that is obligated in scripture to lay down His life for the good of his wife.

...that the husband is not the head of the home?

Actually all Christians should submit to one another (this includes wives to husbands and husbands to wives). Look at the verse directly before Ephesians 5:22:

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205

Sometimes simply looking at the context of a passage is all that is needed!

What Huckabee did was passively dismiss the idea of headship in favor of mutual submission. You can make the call if that is legitimate in your view.

...outright said that the husband is not the head of the home, then there could be a problem. But from what I have heard, he simply said that there should be mutual submission.

Is a theme throughout the Bible. It was Christ who submitted himself to us, even as He is clearly the head of the Church.

What are we to learn from Jesus washing feet, from his protestations innumerable that He came to serve.

The Husband is the Head of the home as Christ is Head of the Church. He submits his will to the needs of his wife and his home, he surrenders his judgement for His judgement. A man submits to his wife and, through his humility and symbolic sacrifice, is the head of the home.

The man should submit to his wife in his way, as she submits to him in hers. This is what I was taught. I think it is clear this is what Huckabee said.

The issue at hand, of course, was his authenticity in his response. I think the fact that others are taught the same thing, whether it is agreeable to all, is sufficient evidence of authenticity in his response.

absentee

| | |

The bible does teach that Husbands and Wifes should submit to one another i.e. not be selfish but yield to the other. But that does not nullify the teaching that the Husband is the Head over the Wife. Servant leadership.

You can for free at Bible Gateway.com

Guess someone is already on google mocking Hucksters misquote.

MSM will take a day at least to pick up on it. Because they do not know the Bible at all.

It says from memory, Wives submit to your husbands, and husbands in the same way love your wives and serve them even as Christ loved the church.

Sacrificial love? Yes. Submit? No.

The fact his wife is out of control could have to do with the fact that her moderate to liberal husband was a walking billboard for the sin of gluttony for most of their marriage.

Yours,
Another SBC preachers kid

"You can for free at Bible Gateway.com"

Well, actually I have my own Bible, smoky. He didn't misquote because he didn't quote, he explained. Preachers do that now and then, which you might have noticed if your signature is true.

absentee

| | |

Thanks for the information. Much of what I've seen from Huckabee raises questions, so when he goes against what looks to me like a very clear textual contrast (submit vs. love), I called him on it. If you can point to any Southern Baptist resources that discuss the passage, I will most certainly take a look. (I realize that may be a tall order -- not sure if that sort of thing is online.)

Husbands' submit to God.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I agree that Huckabee's response will probably help him more than most people/pundits realize.

I am not evangelical, nor even Christian, but my mother is both, and while I doubt his answer changed the mind of anyone who supports a different candidate, I am pretty sure that he just increased the turnout of the people he needs substantially.

In my experience, the stereotypical Huckabee voter has a mild (and not entirely unjustified) persecution complex. The fact that he unashamedly (and quite eloquently) stood up for his (and their) faith is not going to go unnoticed. In fact, I expect it will be recounted by word of mouth beyond the people who actually saw the debate, much more so than Thompson's blistering and unanswered attack on policy matters.

Huckabee won't be selected as a VP for his foreign policy experience. He'll be selected for his Social views by McCain or Rudy to solidify the base and ensure a strong grassroots effort in the general election.

There's far better candidates to beef up SoCon cred than Huckabee the albatross. I can't imagine picking a guy who makes such boneheaded foreign policy statements, has such love for populist rhetoric, is so fundamentally dishonest and unethical, and has such overall poor judgement as a running mate. He's not the best SoCons have to offer. He's not even the 1000th best.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I personally think that Huck is, at worst, 30th best SoCon VP possibility.

At best, 27th.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Huck will do the picking

CBS, I'm just stating a fact. He didn't deliver that line well and it could have been his most memorable of the night.

Otherwise, he did not get enough airtime to shine.

Fight On!

that's why he is so divisive amongst Conservatives.

Some (Hugh Hewitt & Co.) see him as the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

The rest of his see him for what he is: a Northeastern elitist with more personal ambition to be President than attachment to the Conservative Movement.

Makes him a polarizing figure.

Plus he's a dork.

The Huckster has EASILY had the most divisive rhetoric of any republican, save Ron Paul.

amongst Conservatives. I didn't say his rhetoric was divisive.

He is a divisive figure because of the vigor with which some of his supporters defend him, and the passion with which his detractors go after him.

He is divisive, at least amongst those of us who are lifelong Conservatives. If he was the real thing we would have gotten behind him by now, and Fred never would have had a reason to get into this race last summer.

Mitt just can't unite Conservatives. His roots are too deep in liberal Northeastern politics. It's that simple.

"He is divisive, at least amongst those of us who are lifelong Conservatives."

There's not a single candidate in this race that is deeply conservative, so to say that Huckabee is divisive to you as a "lifelong conservative" but others aren't is hogwash.

A true conservative (lifelong means nothing) would be disappointed with every horse in this race, not just Mike Huckabee.

Rudy - He's a RINO if there ever was one.
McCain - Refer to any legislation with his name on it.
Romney - He took a conservative stance on issues when he decided to run for POTUS and his flip-flops make John Kerry look good.
Huckabee - Conservative on social issues only.
Fred - By far the most conservative of them all, but unfortunately woke up a little to late.

Rudy - He's a RINO if there ever was one.

This is extremely unfair and inaccurate. The man is the strongest and most consistent Hawk among any of the candidates, as far as national security and terrorism. He just proposed the largest tax cut in history, a plan well-conceived to bolster the economy and our international competitiveness. He wants health-care to remain in the private sector. Nobody is tougher on crime, and as a former prosecutor, he has no truck with with judicial activism (Ted Olsen is one of his closest advisors, for Pete's sake). He also has a strong plan to secure the borders, which is just the sort of "impossible" problem he solved when he reduced crime by dramatically as mayor of NYC.

I understand and respect that he has positions people disagree with, but why not argue how your policy, or your candidate's policy, is better than his, instead of lobbing rhetorical bombs like "RINO" that have nothing to do with the facts? It is very easy to trumpet one's own ideology purity and narrow the definition of a Republican to "what I believe, and nothing else". But that is the recipe for making us a minority party.

Maybe you are an unwitting Rino and don't realize it? Rudy is the bain of liberals, trust me, if we chose him, they would be way more angry than if we chose a Fred, Mitt, or McCain. Rudy can not be a RINO because he has fought liberal Democrats his entire political life. He can not be a RINO because he has been the most coveted (along with McCain) Republican endorser for 7 years. GWB did not call him a RINO when he asked Rudy to campaign with/for him.

You may not like Rudy's stances on certain issues, I have problem with him too. But this RINO talk, particulary in Rudy's case, is offensive, and simply politically WRONG.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

All bots think their guy is some improved version of Ronald Reagan... even better than the original. I get really tired of hearing Huckabots and the Huckster himself trashing Reagan (as he did tonight) to make him look somehow comparable.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Those who call Romney a fake obviously place a little less emphasis on real world accomplishments or getting things done. They're the kind of people who make decisions by checking little boxes on a piece of paper.

When a man uses the line item veto over 800 times on a state's budget and gets railed upon for having no attachment to the conservative movement, I frankly have little respect for or confidence in the capacities of the accusers.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

it was Robin speaking TO Will Scarlett, "Have I wronged you in a previous life?"

Your accuracy says it all...

If McCain wins Michigan, he will be seen as the front runner and blow Fred out.

I wonder if Fred would accept a VP slot from McCain. I think he might, given the fact that McCain may well only serve one term.

I'm not sure Fred would be the best choice, even though I like him, I think someone younger like Sanford might be better for McCain, but I wouldn't mind him either.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Gov Pawlenty got on the McCain train very early in the process as co-chair of his campaign. I think there's a reason for that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I know we've gotten into into before, but I would be shocked if McCain got the nomination and Pawlenty wasn't his VP choice. Pawlenty has been angling for this since the get-go - too bad he's a RINO like McCain.

Ronulans alive and well.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

That's pure spin. Fred owned it from start to finish. Romney gave the same kind of ineffectual rhetoric as usual. It didn't help Mitt in NH where he had his best shot, it definitely won't help him in a Southern Conservative state. Afterall, Mitt even said at the bogus CNN/YouTube that he didn't "recognize that flag" regarding the stars and bars. Won't win him many friends in South Carolina. He's a fish out of water outside the Northeast.

If Romney doesn't win Michigan he's done. Even if he does win it, that's not much to brag about. Every candidate should be able to carry their home state.

I know you're up on Thompson looking good tonight, and he did. But I think you've absolutely tanked objectivity. Romney's debate performances absolutely did help him in New Hampshire, where he had fallen behind by double digits.

You claim Romney's done outside of Michigan and that he's a fish out of the water outside the Northeast. But I frankly think Romney is the best position of any candidate to win Nevada. I'll further note that Nevada carries more delegates than does South Carolina.

Indeed, I think Romney plays very well out west where he's not overrun by evangelical voters or independents/liberals as you're going to see in Michigan and saw in New Hampshire.

Now, I know you'd like to see Romney as being after Michigan, but that's wishful thinking on your part. If Romney doesn't win Nevada, I might agree with you.

The guy who is on the ropes is Fred Thompson. If he fails to win, he's finished. But he fought like a champ tonight, and it's high time. Some people meet challenges well, and that was Thompson. What's more, he made Huckabee once again looked confused.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

I've yet to see a Western state Romney does well in that does not have a substantially larger percentage of Mormons than the nation as a whole.

He won that state. Nevada is pretty close to Wyoming in % Mormon population.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Romney does best in the Deseret region.

HTML Help for Red Staters

10% Mormon is why he won Wyoming.

10% Mormon he has no shot at Arizona.

Just spin.

Arizona has a significant Mormon population as well.. about 5.5%. Quite a number of those Western states have significant Mormon populations.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Here's a map of LDS population:

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I am pretty sure that if there is a God, he does not want you to knock on people's doors and annoy them during a college football game.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

that makes it unanimous. If a lefty thinks Fred lost, then he MUST have won!

then, yup, he was negative.

I'm not an evangelical and it didn't work at all for me.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

I am an evangelical/ born again Christian and Huck was wrong in the quote and referenced the wrong passage - and totally misquoted the Bible.

If he still has any evangelical votes after this -- I wonder what is going on inside that church ---

I guess they are altering the Bible just as Huck is altering what it means to be a conservative!

You better figure out how to cut into McCain's support because Fred and Mitt are on your right flank.

The question shouldn't have been asked, though.

How was it great that he misquoted and misreferenced the Bible and dodged a direct "yes or no" answer? How was it great that he misunderstands the scripture in question? He does not understand that Ephesians 5:25-33 is about Christ preparation of the church? I think its great he's a Christian but to be a Pastor for years and misunderstand basic principals of scripture is inexcusable to me.

the religious questions were solely directed at him, and then deflected the question by reference to his wife and personal life. I'm not a theologian and assume what you wrote on that score is true, but like most listeners I do not plan to vote on religious grounds. If you look at the answer from my standpoint, ignorant of the theological aspects, it was a great answer.

And for the record, Huckabee is with Paul and McCain among those whom I have decided not to give my vote in the primary. I just thought he handled himself very well and deserved the credit.

I think most people are aware of the reasons he is asked questions like that... he sets himself up for it. If Fred Thompson was running as the Christian Leader, you can be sure he would be asked similar questions. If Huckabee makes religion an issue in the campaign and while he was in public office, the MSM will be sure to oblige in asking him about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

By his previous statements wherein he claims that his political policies are driven by his religious beliefs he invites precisely these types of questions. There are interviews in which he makes this point even more directly than the following one, but you can certainly see the point from this one.

Stephanopoulos: Let me ask you another question about Governor Romney. His religion, he's a Mormon, has become -- is going to become a big part of this campaign, clearly.

You're a Southern Baptist, a former Southern Baptist preacher. And that denomination teaches, I believe, that Mormonism is a cult.

How big a hurdle is that going to be for Governor Romney in this campaign?

Huckabee: Well, you know, I'm not sure. And I don't know that anyone knows.

What I can tell you is about my faith and what it means. And I think people ought to look at every person who runs for office and they ought to ask them questions about who they are and what they are about and what drives their decisions.

I'm not as troubled by a person who has a different faith. I'm troubled by a person who tells me their faith doesn't influence their decisions. Because if a person says to me, "Here's my faith, but it doesn't influence me at all," what it says to me is: "My faith isn't very significant."

Stephanopoulos: How does it influence yours?

Huckabee: It totally drives it. It makes everything click for me.

And that will explain to you why I have a passion for life. But it means that my pro-life position doesn't end at the birth canal; that I believe that life is more than a gestation period. I believe life begins at conception; I just don't think it ends at birth.

And that's why, as a governor, I've fourth hard to see children have medical insurance and decent schools and safe neighborhoods and drinking water and affordable housing, because that's consistent with me being pro-life. I don't want to see some single mom, you know, worry and struggle that she's not going to be able to have food for her kids. I don't want some wife to have the daylights beaten out of her by some abusive husband and have nowhere to turn.

Those are things that are driven because of my faith. That's not a political position. It's a faith position.

Well actually it is both: a political position driven by a faith position. He has specifically encouraged questions about his faith because he is proud that it determines his political policies. (I personally think he goes wrong by projecting the obligations of his faith onto government). He is running on that. So it is shell game when he takes umbrage with only certain faith-related questions which happen to make him uncomfortable.

He's gotten a lot of money since the debate started...I think nearly 50k

I know...doesn't sound like a ton compared to Romney's 5 mil day, but Thompson's campaign isn't about spending a ton of money

"I know...doesn't sound like a ton compared to Romney's 5 mil day, but Thompson's campaign isn't about spending a ton of money"

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

Huck is a one-hit-wonder and the SC evangelicals don't drink his brand of kool-aide. The only hope he has is that the biblical attack that Faux was ignorant enough to launch is enough to encourage more Christians to support him.

But don't mistake salesmanship for denial. Fred supporters need to promote their candidate as other supporters need to theirs.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

Very nice commentary David

If you're not conservative, you're not right.

For point 1, I thought Hume did a pretty good job making him look like a fool with the fast boat question. Also, in no circumstance is it possible to say no one effectively made him look foolish, since he effectively does so himself each time he opens that racist conspiracy hole on his face.

absentee

| | |

crystal clear, I am speaking of Ron Paul the last.

_________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

e.g. he wouldn't give an inch to Colmes: "and if they did give up their nuclear program in 2003, what happened to convince them? ... Iraq". (That's a paraphrase from memory.)

we will see

if Huckabee wins two primaries next week, it's because of tonight's debate.

Right.

Your logic is stunning. Better lay off the weed AND the vodka.

Nah, you need to go ahead and cut back right now.

Who is crazier Ronulans or Hucksters? They both seem to demonstrate the same aversion to reason blindly follow without listening to what their candidate is saying.

Huck lies and is wrong. Ron Paul is evil. This makes his supporters far far worse than Huck's, and it's not close. Do you see why?

HTML Help for Red Staters

I like you flyer but that was too dismissive. This marks the first debate where Fred was largely named the winner at Redstate.

Check the archives if you don't believe me.

absentee

| | |

I was trying to be a bit glib but not offensive.

From what I have read Fred did have a pretty good debate. But the FredHeads here think he always has good debates. I remember watching the first debate in which I thought he seemed out of it and uninterested yet I came here and the FredHeads were giddy about how well he did.

And honestly I don't think it is possible for some here to say anything positive about Huckabee.

This is why there is such a disconnect between RedState and the real world. Here Fred would win the nomination hands down without a challenge and Huckabee would barely get noticed. In the real world almost the inverse is occurring.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

His comments about Bush's foreign policy were irritating and knocked him off my short list, but he hasn't said much else that bothers me. He could climb back on in the future.

Having said that, he seems to engender a passion on the part of a lot of conservatives, and not just evangelicals. We'll see what happens.

He got the verse numbers wrong. Whoop de do. He had the idea and the theology right (and don't launch into a theology discussion - this ain't the place)

that will be important to evangelicals.

wives don't have to love their husbands - they just must submit

the husbands are suppose to love their wives - as Christ loved the church -- which is basically sacrifice their lives for their wife as if she was one with him -- thereby they become one.

I know. His view is the view held by most evangelicals.

that will be great news if true.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

replay

As a married woman and a conservative feminist I know Ephesians -- very well -- because this where most women are turned off by Paul.

You don't misquote the passage -- if you are trying to sell yourself to evangelicals -- you don't misquote the passage.

Looked like Huckabee was getting into the everyone should love each other because God is love that you find in the liberal churchs.

Not the folks I've know from Bible study, pro-life activism.

They will see:

(1) Some secular media guy brought up his reasonable interpretation of certain scriptural passages--interpretations that many of them share.

(2) That Huckabee answered by noting that it was not relevant and unfair to bring it up.

(3) That Huckabee added that he was not ashamed to be a Christian.

They will like him more.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

they will be critical of Huckabee getting it wrong.

Only a small fraction will be upset: Those who are both (1) committed Christians and (2) feminists, and (3) already dislike Huckabee and (4) are looking for yet another reason to dislike him.

And all women are not feminists.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Point 3 is especially true. If he is not president he will become bigger than Joel Olstien. The church of Huck.

there must have been a collective eye roll at that. Also, when he re-used that "patriotism, not for profit" line, and "let's have a little straight talk here." How do you get inspired by someone that tells you your job isn't coming back?

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

That's because he doesn't have to try to redefine Reaganism to match up with his beliefs and ideology. Unlike all the others.

Good and balanced post

Two anti-Romney Huck lovers saying they thought Mitt lost and Huck won. Didn't see that coming.

The only thing clear about this debate is Fred won and he did it in part by blasting Huck from all directions.

please don't make your arguement with broad strokes. There were also about 5 of the men in particular who said SC is not like any other state and Fred is making his stand there..in his backyard.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

One woman said it. The rest basically shouted her down.

Fred decided to stake his claim in a state where he had the best shot to win.

That's like saying it's too late for Rudy too.

As everyone has been saying, this race is wide open. Fred proved tonight that he can step up and compete when he's in a real Conservative Republican state.

He didn't have the money to saturate the airwaves in Iowa, and he doesn't engage in Huck's populist rhetoric that worked in Iowa. Fred didn't bother with New Hampshire because of McCain's strength there, and Romney's regional powerbase there.

So now we're in Fred territory, and he's proved tonight he's in this race to win.

Great post. The sad thing is you can fool a lot of people by stating untruths in venues such as this debate. Conservative talk and conservative action are definitely two different quantities.

I like the fair tax in principle, but it would require repealing the 16th(or is it the 19th amendment... hah) amendment - otherwise I would almost guarantee that we'd be getting hit on both sides.

Sheesh.

Bye!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

explaining these loans we supposedly got from China.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

and not recent purchases, but this is from the US Treasury.

Also, I believe there was a recent news story or two about China investing Billions in our financial markets. I can see where someone might think that China is giving us "loans" (although the difference between loaning money and investing in something seems to be lost on this person).

I actually think that RPs one-liner about China's and Pakistan was good for "zinger" points. Too bad it was erased by his statements about Israel and Iran's offensive intentions.

"about Israel, and about Iran's offensive intentions"

Didn't mean to make that sound like Israel's offensive intentions.

“Anyone that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder

_there are going to be a lot of dissapointed people if he loses because he did it "his" way, when we all know he is the best on the issues hands down.

Huck is a great speaker, we have known that from the beginning. However well he said it, he could not hide that he is a big government compassionate "conservative".

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Unfortunately most of the FredHeads just want to use inflamatory rhetoric to bash Huck in hopes he will go away and Fred can have his voters. I wish more spoke as you.

You are clearly new around here, so let me give you some advice. Running around from thread to thread randomly bemoaning the evil Fredheads (or any group for that matter) is not a good way to act. It doesn't earn you any friends. You want to debate real ideas, go ahead. Otherwise, Hinz rule for you.

I will gladly debate the issues with you or anyone else. I have done so in regards to Huck on the only diary I have written. I have to post madly like 15 people as it is my call in life to balance the overwhelming numbers of the FredHeads. If you have issues with the substance of what I post, then let me know and I will answer otherwise try and quiet some poor other Huck supporter.

Peace

Hinz Rule it is. Remember, you are always free to read up on my opinions and try to engage me with respect to facts. The substance of your post is a blatant, generalized attack on a whole group of people who you have rightly noted form a solid plurality on this site. If you weren't posting it from thread to thread in some kind of a tantrum because "Fredheads" are having a good night, I probably would have simply ignored it.

based on any type of factual evidence? Is there any doubt that RS has a large plurality of vocal Fred supporters? I beleive I voiced negative sentiments in 'two threads in reference to Fred supporters. While having to read multiple entries essentially calling supporters of Huck uninformed, confused or worse.

Please clarify regarding this "tantrum" for my edification?

Look before you leap.

Peace

I'm a Romney supporter and I want Fred to use "inflammatory rhetoric to bash Huck in hopes he will go away." In fact, I don't care who uses the inflammatory rhetoric, or in this case - the truth - to expose Huck's liberal, anti-conservative policies.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I have Fred as my number 2 so I'm not going to slap him around but I try to be civil to Mitt as well and talk about the issues even though I don't plan to vote for him.

McCain didn't act as asleep at the wheel
He acted like it was almost a joke he had to share the stage with "these other guys"
Cocky and smug

And if Rudy references Ronald Reagan one more time and I will throw something at my screen

I have to admit Huckabee made the moderator wish he had never asked the "relgion" question

How come no one asks Mitt if he is wearing his magical underwear?

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

It was like a drumbeat that made it sound as if he didn't have his own ideas. I thought that was a bad move on his part.

Take your anti-Mormon comments elsewhere bigot.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

How can this possibly be considered sarcasm. He is just mocking someone's religion plain and simple.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

I only suggest this because it immediately followed the comment about the stupid question on faith directed at Huckabee. The funny logic would then say that you should ask a stupid question on faith to Mitt. The underwear thing would definitely qualify as a stupid question.

but I hope you can see why it is offensive for you to state that. According to your argument someone could ask Hillary whether "that time of the month would affect her judgement." Then a Hillary supporter could write - "Why don't they just ask Obama about being less evolved than a white man - or some other very offensive remark.

Anyway, whatever, I don't really care...

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

I don't think there was any mocking of Mitt's religion going on. The mocking was at the stupidity of asking the religion question this late in the game. I mean no offense, I just was hoping to shed some light on some obviously twisted humor.

I'm a little extra sensitive lately.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

but I think the point was "if they're gonna beat up Huckabee about his religious beliefs, why not Romney also?" For some reason, bashing one's Christian beliefs seems to be more acceptable than bashing Mitt's Mormonism. Granted, Huckabee has brought quite a bit of it on himself with his in-your-face "Christian leader" stuff...but Christian-bashing is a spectator sport in American culture in general.

either way, the comment was nothing special, it deserves no more comment in my opinion. It was not funny, I do know that.
\
___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

you seem to have a way of saying what I just said...only so much better!

questions about his faith is because he doesn't make it a prominent point of his campaign. He's made one speech about it, and he was basically a deacon at his church (which is a standard position for someone who is devout, and not a major position of leadership for which one has to have extensive amounts of schooling and be ordained, like Huckabee). Huckabee, from the floating cross, to the "Jesus & Satan" question, to the "Christian leader" ad, has constantly played his faith like a fiddle. If Mitt did the same thing, he would get flailed because of it.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

And that's not mocking someone's religion?

But lets not be fair here, lets just throw the word bigot around

Please

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

Mullah Huckabee? Does that fall under a similar prohibition?

Plus I agree in his defense it seemed like sarcasm.

If you think I'm wrong please don't hurt me...

"Mullah Huckabee"

I completely agree, that is just as bad.

absentee

| | |

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

If your replying to me your dead wrong!

My comment was a legimate question as to why Christianity is attacked but Romney gets off scott-free!

And since when is it being a bigot to state a fact?

You don't even know me and you attack me as bigot?

So if you are referring to me and you are a moderator and you don't want to post here anymore
than fine because you are making a huge knee jerk rush to judgement

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

The question to Huckabee was fair, it was stupid, but fair. In fact Huckabee answered the question well and gained by doing so. The questioner asked a specific question about scripture, and evangelical interpretation of that scripture.

On the other hand, your comment about "magical underwear" was a dismissive, unsound comment. I do not know if it was a slur or not, but I have a pretty good idea. Maybe you could simply elaborate on the specific thing you said and we could better understand your point about fairness. You also implied Mormons are not Christian, something they would deny.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Myabe you would like to explain the fairness of "Mullah Huckabee"

I understand that Mormon consider themselves to Christians, I do not and I am entitled to my opinion.

My opinion is based on doctrinal knowledge of Christianity in comparison to the doctrine of Mormonism of which I did a great deal of research. However since this is a political site and not a religion site I can't expound. However if your really interested in facts and care spend some time doing research, its there.

Its just amazing to me that I am branded a bigot for one comment almost instantly yet "Mullah Huckster" is posted over and over again?

Telling

Joanie
RV Wanna-be
Maddie the Wonderdog
"apackof2, coming to a town near you!"

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
Lamentations 3:22

Actually, I, who made the "bigot" comment, already admitted that I am a little overly sensitive lately and I was therefore prepared to drop it. Then you made this post, which clearly shows you have an anti-Mormon opinion. I think you should just go away. It's not my call to ban you but we don't need these types of posts here.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

been shown you are against Mormonism. Riberio, who called you out, at least was right you have it in for Mormons. I agree you have a right to do this. You keep mentioning "Mullah Huckabee" as if I should know what you are talking about. I do not read every post or diary, but I did see the debate. The questioner asked about evangelical doctrine, you compared that to your attack on Romney's faith.

I do not care what you believe about Mormonism or any candidate. I do care about logic and reason. We can not have true debate unless we all agree that we must support our arguments with logic and reason. I said you failed to show how the question to Huckabee in the debate was the same as your comment on Mormon magic underwear. Several here thought it was tongue in cheek, David and I saw it was not. All I did was ask you to explain in greater detail, you chose not to.

I personally do not care what you think about certain relgions, but I will call you out every time when I know you are basing your comments on your own personal flavor of religion and not established fact that all should accept.

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

His Christianity wasn't attacked; he was part of a full page advertisement on the topic, that had previously been a point of discussion in regard to his candidacy. It was a perfectly valid question.

Believe me, as the son of a preacher man, and a southern baptist myself, I am quick to defend Huckabee's religious stands. But this was a fair question.

Anyway, he certainly gained from it.

absentee

| | |

Sorry to burst your bubble DGaines but the majority of the people here are REAL CONSERVATIVES. We don't want a RINO or worse, a dim, and most of us won't vote for either one. I for one will not hold my nose and vote for Mitt, Rudy, Mikie, or Johnnie Boy. Fred's the only conservative in this race and as a life long conservative it's who I'll vote for, even if it means I have to write his name in in November. It's just the way it is. When it came down to Arnie and Bustmywalet for gov here in ca I wrote in Mickey Mouse. My wonderful "better-half" wrote in Mini. We will not, nor ever, vote for anyone who does not support our values, period. We have principles that we refuse to compromise on. Deal with it!

“Anyone that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder

Because guys like Fred Barnes and Charles whatever his name is will still rip Fred when given the chance.

What I had problems with had more to do with the focus group. I think even though they loved Fred tonight, it seemd Luntz still had to do the media thing about "too late."

Voters need to pay attention, if they think someone is the best candidate, the timing is not an issue.

3 states in the bag so far, SC determines Republican nominee. I will conceed that should Fred not be able to pull it out. The only exception may be if Fred is very close and things stay chaotic. I don't think this kind of race has happened since 1980.

It was Fred's night, I think Huckabee remains strong in debates, despite him not being strong on the issues.

No Romney tonight, nothing wrong from McCain and Guiliani, they are just not my picks.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

That George Allen was onboard with Fred, so I seriously doubt he is the announcment.

Other than Huckabee stealing McCain's "gates of hell tonight" Fred and Huck have natural senses of humor. McCain uses the same line over and over again, Romney is a complete fraud when he tries to be funny (don't touch my hair.)

Neutral on Rudy... I don't think he is funnier than anyone else, but not a phony.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

fred's humor usually comes off as forced to me. Huck I'd agree with mostly. all of the others, including Fred, have mixed results in the humor department, hit and miss. I might give Rudy 2nd place based on percentage - he's not as funny as often, but he doesn't generally fall flat as often the way McCain and Romney - who both can be wickedly funny when they're on - do at times

not sure what the "gates of hell" line has to do with humor, though I agree (I assume I'm agreeing) that it didn't work for Huck near as well as it did for McCain. (if you want to criticize a wording flub, Erick, I'd do i on Huck here)

But a one liner- and many viewers are judging debates based on one liners, and Huck did not use it as well as McCain, but McCain is overusing it now too, every single stump speech.

Yes I resonate with Fred's sense of humor, but we hear this from a lot of people too, not saying he's hilarious, but there is nothing fake. I think Huck's humor is good too.

Looks like we agree on Rudy, I was neutral on him.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

It's hardly a "you people" group. I and many others have called home run on Mitt. I thought he was excellent tonight.

Surely someone who's engaged here as often as you have knows there's no consensus on candidates.

But look, the way you "win" this kind of debate is simple. By being the person who most people agree won. Surf off Redstate and look around. Fred won, no question about it.

absentee

| | |

by that standard, Fred's won EVERY debate. it's laughable.

and I'm coming neither to bury Fred nor to praise Mitt here. I thought both were ok, but neither spectacular. I don't have a problem with someone saying Fred won, that's a reasonable enough assessment for tonight when no one really stood out. but the over-the-top "FRED WON!!!111oneonewonwon" postings are more than a little old. that doesn't apply to everyone, no, but its gotten to the point that Fredheads have turned me as off to their candidate as Ronulans and Obamatons (not that those two candidates needed the help, which is a mild praise for Fred at least)

I guess really the only interesting parts of tonights debate for me was the whack-a-Paul mini-game which EVERYONE won at.

maybe I'm being a little (but only a little) harsh. call me a grumpy young man if you like, I probably do need to get some sleep anyway :P

Objection upthread from flyerhawk, but I simply don't agree that Fred has been named the winner roundly after all the debates. Nor most of the debates. Nor, indeed, any of the debates.

In fact, this is the first debate where I've seen any candidate get the majority of nods as winner.

But, look. It doesn't change a thing. The point of the debates is to win people over. If most of the people are won over ...

What other standard is there for the candidates? It's not an actual debate, after all. It's a political "debate".

And believe me, I'm the first to want to quell over enthusiasm and hypercritical behavior. That's what my McThomneyiani blog entry and my signature are about.

absentee

| | |

Than there are a lot of people on this site who know that means that Fred definitely won, if not dominated. Fred won this debate. He stood out among the pack.

How did he do it? Two things:

Style - Yes FredHeads, style is very, very, important and I hope you can admit that after tonight.

Bashing Huckabee - Someone needed to do it and Fred did an exceptional job of exposing Huckabee for what he really is - a pseudo-conservative.

I agree that Mitt did well. I think if he had more questions then his performance was equally as good as the last, which I thought was his best. The thing is, Fred outshined him and everyone else.

Am I jumping ship to Fred - absolutely not. Fred is still number two for me but I can not tell you how relieved I am that my number two guy put together such a good showing - Go Fred!

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

for me was when he essentially grabbed control to answer the Reagan question.

MY GOD! Did I read this right??? I've got to get over to Townhall and give my old friend Hugh some grief!!!

“Anyone that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder

Is that anything like a turkey ba$ter? I prefer to use those self-ba$ting bags you can get at the grocery store.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't care who you are for, swearing even with clever symbols instead of letters will get you a one way ticket out of here.

and drops out of the race and endorses McCain I will NOT vote for McCain. I will not, nor ever, vote for a RINO. McCain is a RINO. The others are far to the left and I can not support or vote for any of them. I will not ignore my principles, not today and not in November. Sorry, just can't do it.

“Anyone that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder

We all have our Shibboleths (Sp?). I quess they define RINO for each of us.

One of mine goes back to impeachment. Since Fred voted out one count he just passes. I respect your willingness to stand on principle. I couldn't vote for Hutchenson here in Arkansas in 2002 because he'd dumped his wife and married a staffer. Now I've got Senator Pryor for life it looks like.

But I still have a reflection in the mirror.

3. He accurately described the situation we face and the choice we have.

absentee

| | |

My expectations are never low concerning Fred Thompson. I believe he has won each and every debate he's been in. He's the only real conservative in this race. How can anyone expect anything less?

“Anyone that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder

You mean to tell me that even Barns thought Fred won the debate? This is indeed NEWS! Stop the press!!!

“Anyone that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.” – David Broder

which is just ridiculous. Huck got killed.

For those who have concluded Huck a heretic Fred was willing to throw the first stone and it nailed him.

For those who were uncertain of his sin I'm not so sure they'll follow suit as some (Barnes, Kristol) think Huck ducked it anyway.

More importantly - Huck was given a perfect question to solidify his orthodoxy with SC evangelicals and he played it for all it was worth. He also did well on neutralizing the "soft" foreign policy complaint with his "Gates of Hell" defiance. If faith (SoCon)trumps reason (FisCon)then he did what he needed to keep the lion's share of the evangelicals and that might be all he needs.

So you may be right that Fred killed him on the lib laundry list but be may have been born again on the marriage question.