I am with Erick, Huckabee won the debate
By Alexham Posted in 2008 — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
And his answer to this question is a big reason why:
I was also once again extremely impressed with Governor Huckabee's comments on the necessity of promoting a "Culture of Life" from conception until natural death.
The front-runners had better keep an eye on Huckabee. He is quickly moving into the first tier of candidates.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | And The Winner Is . . . — Comments (21) »
I am with Erick, Huckabee won the debate 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
By this kind of logic we could argue Fox News won this debate and the last Democratic debate.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
These early debates are nothing more than a sideshow full of soundbites without much detail. The debates have yet to produce any clear frontrunner who participated in them, yet Fred Thompson continues to rise in the polls. For example, in the state of Florida, Fred Thompson has jumped up to a close second place in the latest poll there.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
He knows how to approach these questions without pushing people away. That's so valuable to the conservative movement.
It really angers me how the media tries to potray individuals who have doubts about evolution as ignorant or outside the mainstream. It's a form of McCarthyism, you have to kiss the ring of evolution or you're a Bible-thumping extremist. With all that is going on in the world today, does this issue even really matter? Like Huckabee said, he's not going to be writing science textbooks for Eighth Graders.
I am impressed with Huckabee, he is articulate and has strong convictions, but I think having a GOP Presidential nominee that was a former Baptist preacher is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Outside of the South, this would be a deal breaker for a lot of people.
Even though I myself am a conservative Baptist, there is something very unseemly to me about spiritual leaders becoming political leaders.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
First, I'd have to say that it's more the religious right who are obsessed with evolution. The left has come to terms and doesn't argue much about it. The media loves conflict so they ask the R candidates because there's more chance of a battle.
The questions about evolution have a deeper basis than just evolution. We need to know whether the candidates base their positions and decisions on science and hard evidence, or on belief.
This is very important to many voters. The idea that a president might be elected who could ignore the best available data and make decisions from a strongly-held but mistaken belief is very disturbing. [One example: We'll be greeted as liberators when we occupy Iraq.]
There are a lot of people who look at a candidate who says "I don't believe in evolution." and write them off as a wingnut. The same candidate might as well say "I don't believe the earth rotates."
Fact: The earth rotates. Fact: Life evolves. If a candidate ignores all available science, evidence, and common sense then they probably won't be a very good president.
your position. Are you saying that all life is a result of evolution, and if so, are you saying that it is scientifically established that all life resulted from evolution?
Most of us "religious right" folks also believe in evolution - within species. It is, as you say, quite undeniable. It is the idea that evolution explains everything that we have a problem with. Even at that, I don't know that I've heard anyone claim that it is scientifically established that evolution explains the origins of life. Is it your position that it is established scientific fact that evolution explains the origins of life?
You've been warned before about throwing elbows while making a point, and here we are. This is actually your final warning: Make your point without getting in little jabs at conservative or Republican bogeymen along the way, or leave, by your hand or mine.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Your line of thinking implies that those of us who do not believe in macroevolution (change from one species to another over time, rather change within species) do not adhere to science. That's an absurd assumption. I have studied science (physics, chemistry, meteorology) virtually my entire life, and it IS my life. But, like MANY scientists, contrary to the fantasies of the evolutionists, I do not believe in "evolution" as the media and anti-Christian crowd portray it.
An adherence to science does not depend upon a belief in evolution. Evolution is but one miniscule portion of the sciences. Despite its insigificance, the left still attempts to use it to marginalize and caricature conservative Christians. And that's exactly what was behind the question at the debate - an attempt to marginalize a Christian candidate, and thankfully Huckabee repelled it admirably.
"Here I stand, I can do no other". Classic!
I refer you tho swglaw's post, which states conservative's views pretty well. I would add that I really do not think anyone disputes the fact that life evolves. Remember though, there is a difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law. Right?
Here are the issues I am concerned about, and science has been unable to answer these questions:
1) Origin of life - care to take a whack at that one? From everything that I have read, and I have read a lot on this subject, the attempt to scientifically prove how life on this earth originated is at a dead end, with one theory actually being the "seeding" of this planet with life from another. Man.
2) The fossil record. I believed the little chart - you know, with a monkey turning into a monkey-man turning into a man, until I looked at the fossils which attempted to "prove" this. At best they are fragments of bones, and there really aren't that many of them. A little too much faith is required there.
3) Evolution of one species into another. The fossil record simply does not support this, and there are plenty of fossils to examine. It seems that most life sort of "exploded" onto the scene, and disappeared quickly thereafter, without morphing into some other species.
I am certainly willing to listen, but it seems that hiding behind a study or two, calling it fact, then calling those who question it Philistines isn't helpful. This debate is not so much about evolution as it is origin of life. If your side were honest about this, maybe we could get somewhere.
Don't back down on evolution!!! You are with an *overwhelming* majority of Americans on this issue (and a growing number of intellectuals).
A new campaign slogan for Huckabee:
"I didn't evolve."
Let the others continue to evolve their positions on abortion, etc. Huckabee has always been pro-life, and that is because he is pro-Creation and pro-God and anti-Darwinian-Evolution.
Huckabee, while not a terrible candidate, is overly enamored with the nanny state, and that's something I'm not particularly fond of, especially after eight years of Bush the younger. Not that he's a bad guy, but I think we can do far better.
"To all those whom I have not yet offended: Please stand by, and I will work to remedy the situation as soon as possible."
Patiently waiting for a Fred Thompson / John Engler ticket.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thought Huckabee totally carried that debate. I've liked Huckabee a lot ever since I heard him explain why Evangelicals often feel marginalized by the Republican party (on Hannity). Fred had my vote definitely sewed up until tonight. But now I'm thinking he'll have to work awfully hard to pull me away from Huckabee.
Forty isn't old -- if you're a tree!
also drug out the Katrina carcass unprompted and furthered the myth that the fed govt can prevent hurricane victims from suffering for more than 2 seconds after the clouds clear and he suggested that the GOP is at fault for people thinking that we only care for life inside the womb and not out.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
No, it is just smart politics to stake out a middle ground. It is a great political line to say that we need to care for life both in and out of the womb -- this appeals to both pro-lifers and Democrats.
outside the womb just because we don't favor tax theft by a majority
caring means doing what produces the best results for the downtrodden
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/c9d7ce46-23d1-4364-85af-1985f1a3382c
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I wish the news media would differentiate between biblical creationism and creationism, and between evolution and Darwinism. Unfortunately, some of the Religious Right
have fallen into their trap by confusing these theological and scientific terms.
The majority of Americans believe in God, but don't accept either biblical creationism or Darwinism. Accepting the scientific theory of evolution doesn't preclude anybody from being a Christian. This is a myth perpetuated by both the leftist news media and the Fundamentalist
Protestants.
... a man with a center who seems to have thought through who he is and what he believes. He has just put himself on my radar screen.
Jack
The World's Ruined
It's sad that to be considered a "christian" by some people, you have to believe something as ridiculous as young-earth creationism. At least the candidate did not say that, but he clearly does not believe that man evolved from earlier primates, and he did. The scientific evidence for evolution and the enormous age of the universe is overwhelming.
But creationism is not just bad science, it's bad religion. Instead of looking to the words of Jesus about clothing the naked or feeding the poor, we have this enormous emphasis on the misinterpretation of the creation story, forging it into a sort of Orwellian tool of power. Already we are beginning to see the idea of the Sun-centered solar system being refuted by some clerics. And soon, we will have to believe that 2+2=5 or we will be guilty of thought crime.
Paranoid much?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Pope John Paul II clearly stated that scientific theories about the evolution of mankind and the age of the earth do not necessarily contradict Christian theology. He would agree that "social justice," should be emphasized over biblical interpretation.
And, if I can express it briefly, there are many issues within the debate between creationism and evolution that could easily overtake what time and resources are available for classroom discussion. Everything from the argument of if Genesis 1:2 is supposed to say "and the earth became without form and void" (suggesting a previous age of indeterminate length before the Overthrow) to possible outside intervention in the creation of modern humans could be discussed with just as much validity as the main schools of thought as they exist today, as there are holes and unanswered questions in each.
Did you know that Hebrew and Arabic both use the English word for "million?" Large numbers in ancient times were reckoned in thousands. And I would say that the verse stating a day with God "is as a thousand years" is not the same as saying that it equals a thousand years. Just one more of the many possible points of contention.
Huckabee didn't claim to be a young earth creationist, an old earth creationist, an intelligent design advocate, or a theistic evolutionist. He said, quite reasonably, that he doesn't know the how or the how long. He just forthrightly stated his belief that God created.
No one on the left can even think about entering this debate without mischaracterizing the views of their opponents. It is sad, and intellectually lazy. It seems like they know just enough about the Bible to make fools of themselves.
Some of you might be surprised. Almost half of Americans (a clear plurality) do indeed believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.
See http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
I don't feel qualified to opine much on the issue since my knowledge of biology is probably more limited than it should be and I'm not too interested in the debate.
And the winner is:
Fred Thompson, who wasn't even there!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/gop-presidential-candidates-debat...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
You're speaking my language. And though I don't hold out much hope for you this year, (and I'm kinda a FredHead), you're young enough that I hope to see a lot of you in the future. Like about 8 years in the Senate and then the White House.
Good luck.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
are mostly there b/c they are involved in a long interview process for the VP slot. Fred Thompson I feel loses b/c the longer he, as Malkin notes, "toe dips" into the Presidential contest the more GOP primary voters are going to wonder, does he really want to be president, and do we really want to vote for someone who acts as though they don't?
Other than that, Huckabee did indeed win the debate, but it won't count for much, other than inching his way towards the VP nomination.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism. ." --John C. Calhoun
I'm not going to debate evolution vs. creationism here, but I do have to say that Huckabee showed juvenility with his response to the question.
Huckabee comes off as a cry baby after that answer. Other candidates were okay with answering questions about evolution This topic is important to many voters. It clearly is relevant.
This is an important topic. And contrary to what Huckabee says, it is relevant to the job of the President. The President will be in charge of science and science education in this country. He's right in that he won't be writing eighth-grade textbooks, but the President will be responsible for allocating moneys to schools and research that would have a great deal of impact on the evolution debate. Just think about this: A president has the authority to push for removing the word 'evolution' from all textbooks and re-allocate money to that end -- or even push for a Constitutional amendment removing evolution if they were so inclined.
Also, the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Many cases might argue that teaching creationism is akin to a violation of the church and state principle. Will the next President nominate a judge who supports that viewpoint or not? I don't know.
So how is this not relevant?
I remember my eighth-grade teacher had a poster that like a no smoking sign, but instead of a depiction of a cigarette, it had the word "whining" inside the crossed out circle ... "NO WHINING" ... He should get a poster like that.
... ill-informed comments I've ever read.
Well done.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Who says that morals are not taught in middle school and that the President has no impact on what is taught in our schools. Take for example President Bush and sexual education. Bush tied federal grants for schools if the state decided to teach an abstinence-only program -- it's called the State Abstinence Education Program by the Dept. of Health and Human Services. A similar thing could feasibly be done for evolution-only or creationism-only curriculum. Therefore, knowing one's opinion on the topic is important.
So for anyone who argues that the President does not get involved in middle school education is mistaken. He may not in charge of the actual science, but he is partially responsible for the allocation to funding to states, and able to tie the money to caveats.
Who says that morals are not taught in middle school and that the President has no impact on what is taught in our schools. Take for example President Bush and sexual education. Bush tied federal grants for schools if the state decided to teach an abstinence-only program -- it's called the State Abstinence Education Program by the Dept. of Health and Human Services. A similar thing could feasibly be done for evolution-only or creationism-only curriculum. Therefore, knowing one's opinion on the topic is important.
So for anyone who argues that the President does not get involved in middle school education is mistaken. He may not in charge of the actual science, but he is partially responsible for the allocation to funding to states, and able to tie the money to caveats.
And so far no one has discounted the Supreme Court argument. Seeing that the court has been given the responsibility to determine what is "religion" and what is "secular", cases on this principle come up time and again.
Another man who has made the court their favorite means of influencing policy.
Thank you for pointing out why we need a court that interprets the law instead of making it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
... that somebody didn't read my statement
How did my statement say I was favoring the court to make policy? I am just simply saying that this is the current set up with a court that makes policy (and has been doing so for the past at least half century).
While I won't get into the evolution debate, something else bothered me about the lack of a follow up question about protecting life at all stages. I think it's very interesting that Wolf chose not to ask what seems to me to be the natural follow-up question to that: if you support life in all it's various stages, do you support the death penalty? I won't get into the "life" arguments that about with respect to the deaths of civilians in iraq not to mention 3500 american lives lost.
The concept of "Life" as an issue has been boiled down to abortion only. Life is important for all people - indeed it is one of our natural rights "Life, Liberty, and Property" for John Locke, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to our founders. It seems a bit hypocritical, or at least disengenuous to trumpet the culture of life and then say it only applies to "certain" lives. While the crimes committed by people getting the death penalty are most likely eggregious and ought to be punished, but I think many (including the Pope and other religious leaders) would agree that the "eye for an eye" nature of vengeance, the unequal application of it, and the sometiems barbaric execution of it are certainly things that don't respect the basic principals of "Life" that we republicans are so quick to trumpet as a superiority of our party. I won't even mention all the people executed who were later exhonorated by DNA or other evidence excluded from trial.
But be that as it may, I find that it sad that not a single question came up about the death penalty (in either debate now that i think about it) - i guess it's "settled orthodoxy" at this point. That's too bad.
...is a sine qua non of running for the Presidency from the Party of Death's side, unashamed support for the death penalty is one of the minimum criteria to be President for the GOP.
By the way: Please don't use "our" dishonestly. Not a good way to start.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Not to urinate on your little thesis, but this:
I won't even mention all the people executed who were later exhonorated by DNA
has never happened.
And you really need to come up with a linky-poo for the "other evidence excluded from trial".
As for your basic argument, if we are pro-life, a perfectly appropriate punishment for the deliberate killing of another is the death penalty. The severity of the price shows that we value the life that was taken so much that a person has to pay the ultimate price for the crime.
Failure to execute means that we only value the life that was taken enough to protect ourselves from the murderer, by incarcerating him in a secure place where we won't be at risk.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_tv_dnadeath....
Maybe you're right, kill them all and let God sort them out. Your "urinat[ing] on my thesis" has convinced me, I take back my prior comment.
... and I must point that it doesn't say that there have been people executed that have later been exonerated by DNA evidence.
Seems to me you're attempting a bait and switch.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
...deaths of civilians in Iraq not to mention..."
...because you'd be arguing that we could never engage an enemy that hides among civilians, and, anyway, there could never be any threat so mortal that nothing less awful than lethal violence would be justified in defeating it.
"Culture of Life" does not equal "Suicide Pact" or "Dhimmitude".
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
"If they want a President who doesn't believe in God, there's probably plenty of choices."
Does he mean write-ins?
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
I heard nothing to show that he can do anything other than speak with eloquence and heart about God and love of life. That isn't what makes someone a president in my view. He should go be a deacon or something.
but breaking into that first rank is going to be virtually impossible for him because its a crowded field and he lacks name recognition. What I think he has done over the last three debates is make a very strong case for himself as a vice presidential candidate.