This is a must see moment from September 5th’s Republican primary debate in NH. Mike Huckabee explains why we need to finish the job in Iraq, and he responds to Ron Paul’s call to abandon the fight. It’s the most spirited part of the debate on all accounts, and gives great insight into the character of Huckabee.
[vodpod id=Groupvideo.282208&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26]
Voters seem to like Huckabee’s response too.
Don’t forget to follow the latest key stories on Mike Huckabee, with video clips and links, at my Huckabee blog: Go Huckabee!
Sure they liked it. Thats why Ron Paul won the text poll after the debate by a wide margin. That’s why he’s won in 7 of the last 13 official GOP straw polls since Iowa, and in the top 3 in 10 of these last 13 straw polls.
Ron Paul is the only standout in this election and the only man that can beat Hillary in the national election, I don’t understand how any Republican could think that Huckabee anouncing that he does not care if he loses the national election a win in any sort of debate.
Only Ron Paul can win the National Election, unless the Republicans wake up and realize this fact we are going to end up with a fat ugly lying murdering socialist for President.
New post at: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=16747
RonPaul2008.com Web Traffic at All Time High
Figures updated as of two days ago, Thursday, from Alexa, show that traffic at http://www.RonPaul2008.com has reached an all time high.
Traffic rank is at an all time high of 10,226 (the lower the number the better)
Reach is also at an all time high of 0.017% (percent of global users who visit the site).
Ron Paul’s website traffic continues to trounce all GOP competitors by a landslide.
In second place among GOP’s as of two days ago, was ImWithFred.com, which had traffic rank at 37,779 and reach of 0.0055%.
Huckabee continues to bite the dust with horrible statistics of a traffic rank of 81,563 and reach of 0.002%.
Figures and trends can be seen here:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr…onpaul2008.com
I don’t get why a religious based website should be promoting war. Smacks of GW Bush’s call for a “crusade” against Islam which caused an outrage and a retraction.
Just found your site. I am a reformed Christian (PCA) as well and I support Ron Paul for President. He has said on record that he believes the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
As far as the Huckabee/Paul moment. Huckabee is wrong regarding our foreign policy.
Please read Michael Scheuer – the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit what he says about Ron Paul’s foreign policy here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rep_Paul_and_the_Founders_versus_Our_Interventionist_Elite_3
Or watch him in a press conference after the “Rudy Giuliani dust upâ€.
Keep the faith. I appreciate Huckabee above all the other candidates but the Christian doctrine of the Just War Theory holds more sway than Huckabee’s mama’s Pottery Barn theory.
Please do check out the links.
For your listening pleasure, here is Ron Paul being interviewed by John Lofton for an hour with much about his faith brought out. Gotta disagree with him on one issue as you will probably as well but overall do agree with him.
http://theamericanview.com/dictator/media/898/aview_20070825.mp3
Also,
On a reformed note, check out http://www.puritanboard.com it’s a reformed message board. Used to be a moderator over there and still post there regularly. We discuss theology, politics, you name it. You should enjoy it!
Hate to say it commentors…and you’ll see what I mean an a short while, but if Paul can’t even win the Republican nomination, you can bet he won’t stand a chance against Hillary. As “fresh” as he is (and don’t get me wrong, as a fellow Texan myself, I like Paul, and what he stands for), we’ll be selling ice skates to the devil before he gets the popular vote.
And like it or not, for Huckabee to go toe-to-toe with your man, that says something about kind of backbone he has. Paul would make a great V.P. or Secretary of State, but we need someone like Mike to lead the way…
I LIKE MIKE!
p.s. – Paul insinuates that “neo-cons” aren’t Americans. I hope he doesn’t feel the same way about Southern Baptists…
Ron Paul wins the text and small straw polls because his supporters are cherrypickers… when the numbers of a poll such as a scientific poll or the Iowa straw poll expose the ceiling of Paul’s support his supporters say that poll was rigged… Pretty pathetic.
I believe Huckabee got second in the text poll after a long gradual period of time while Paul had all his votes at once, showing that his support was voting for him regardless. while Huckabee was voted for probably by people who had not considered him previously. Huckabee doesn’t have the internet mod to do cherry picking or money to buy votes, his victories are all the sweeter.
Yes some alleged the Texas poll was “rigged”. Depends on your point of view. But excluding all new Republicans without question excluded huge numbers of Paul voters. Is that “scientific” or is that “rigged”? Similarly telephone polls are screened and don’t always reveal how they screen voters. People are called cold and it is highly skewed towards the names the media promotes the most. They of course call their polls “scientific” and refuse to even mention the small straw polls.
The Iowa poll was bought by Romney’s busloads of people he paid all their expenses for the day. You call that “scientific”?
The media is owned by a very small number of companies and there are substantial vested corporate interests to promote war and marginalise opponents of the war.
p.s. – Paul insinuates that “neo-cons†aren’t Americans. I hope he doesn’t feel the same way about Southern Baptists…
To brotherhank:
Ron Paul IS a Southern Baptist. Listen to the Lofton interview.
Even though I’m a Presbyterian…gotta say that I love Al Mohler. 🙂
Chris Rhoades, I do believe, you can correct me if I am wrong, but Neo-cons like Wolfawitz have dual citizenship, Isreali and US.
I figured my post here would bring out the Ron Paul supporters.
I guess its okay to not give a hoot about Iraq. We, as Huckabee has admitted, have “broke” their security, and its okay for us to cut and run with our tail behind our legs??
Regardless of whether you think the war was legitimate (and the vast majority of people in the know at the time did think so), we are there. We have an obligation to leave behind as secure an Iraq as we can.
Now as for Paul, there is no way he can win the Republican nomination, because he is too radical. In principle I agree with a lot of what he says, but we have to change things carefully and slowly. We can’t just go in and wipe out whole cabinet positions, evacuate nearly all overseas troops, and stuff.
I have a theory about his support. Much of it is coming from people who are Democrats at heart and will vote that way when it counts. They just hate Bush so much, they are cheering for the clearest anti-Bush republican of the lot.
You can’t tell me a texting poll is scientific. All it takes is a lot of people voting several times to skew the poll.
Ron Paul was at the Texas Straw Poll, Huckabee wasn’t. Huckabee has hardly spent anything in TX and he is in double digits there. That’s the kind of polls that counts.
Paul is out of touch with the average American voter. He comes across as more extreme than even the top Democratic candidates.
I respect that he is Christian, and has owned up to his faith. I just don’t see him as capable of leading our country. Not the kind of experience needed, etc. Can he really unite the country and congress to actually get things done?
Sorry guys, this remains a pro-Huckabee place.
Oh, and Brian, your “crusade” comment doesn’t do much to persuade people to your cause. Your tactics are an in your face blitz and who cares if I convince anyone, I’ll just defend Paul come what may.
My thoughts on whether Iraq was a just war do not amount to a religious crusade, by any means. I think that getting rid of a cruel dictator who killed his own people was a lofty goal. Preventing the possibility of that madman supporting terrorists with WMDs was another lofty goal. Was it just to invade? I’m not entirely certain, but there are legitimate cases which can be made.
None of this comes close to “crusade” terminology. You are “poisoning the well” in this debate. Nothing about the invasion had anything to do with Iraq being a Muslim state. Look at how America allowed Afghanistan to produce a very Islamic state constitution.
I am not a Paul supporter but I admire his standing up against the status quo. But it is that status quo that is built in to the Primary system that will doom his candidacy, not his message. he does not stand a chance when the money starts to flow for advertising time. As to his winning the polls after the debate, that does not surprise me. Most of Pauls support comes from tech savvy individuals. Most people whom are Hardcore Republican voters are not tech savvy and many are like my father who would just as soon stomp on his cell phone than answer it.
A response to fundyreformed:
America’s complete withdrawal from Iraq would not be at all similar to a retreat with “our tail behind our legs.” It would be, rather, a correction of a mistake made by the current leaders of our country, and a correction that would spare many of our citizens’ lives.
As Paul rightly states in the video clip you posted above, it was not the American people who decided to go to war with Iraq, but a small group of neoconservative administrators who took this nation’s foreign policy into their own hands. There was no formal declaration of war, and we blatantly violated international law.
In regards to your criticism of the polling results (which echoes Sean Hannity’s unprofessional reaction), you are correct: a texting poll is not scientific. You should know, however, that it is impossible to vote twice from the same phone number. This fact seriously narrows the possibility of any individual voting multiple times.
You call Congressman Paul “extreme.” Now consider the state of our nation today. We’re trillions of dollars in debt, on the brink of a conflict with Iran, and our civil liberties are in grave danger. Could it be that some extreme changes are just what the United States needs?
You also claim that Paul doesn’t have “the kind of experience needed” to be our leader. Do you forget that he is in his tenth term as a member of Congress? In addition, if you read what Paul has written and pay attention to the references he makes in interviews and debates, it will become clear that he has done his reading and is one of the most informed candidates in either party.
America has had enough lies, corruption, and neoconservative rhetoric. We need to stop spreading ourselves so thin and return to the founding ideals that made this nation so great.
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was planned long before 9-11. It has nothing to do with a “just war” and everything to do with American imperialism. This short video of the late great Aaron Russo tells of his conversation with Nick Rockefeller who told him 10 months before 9-11 that there was to be an “event” in the United States that would cause the US to invade Afghanistan for the oil pipeline, and Iraq to set up permanent US bases to secure the oilfields. And that US soldiers would be searching caves in Afghanistan looking for terrorists but there would be noone there. See it yourself at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777865020434008209. Look into this a bit beyond the Huckabee soundbites and you find there is nothing “just” about this war.
That link should have been without the full stop:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777865020434008209
What this guy said.
Great read, and sums up my feelings on the huck/paul exchange quite well.
I think that most people read the Huckabee/Paul exchange from the viewpoint that they went into the debate with. Those that like Paul saw it as a win for him. I do not support Paul and I really did not have a Republican or Democrat candidate that I was leaning towards before the debate. But though I was impressed with the way Paul handled that exchange I was not impressed with his take. I actually came away from the debate, mostly on the strength of that one exchange leaning towards Huckabee. But I do not see either taking the Republican Primary. Unless someone stumbles the races are most likely Clinton-Edwards-Obama for the Democrats and Giuliani-Romney with an outside chance for McCain and Thompson for the Republicans.
All I could think when I heard that little noodle of a spine Ron Paul was that this guy is a total wimp! He even sounds like that whining Democrat Dennis Kusinich!
Mike Huckabee video
I agree with “the scoundrel”. That doesn’t make me a scoundrel though!
He’s right about the tech savvy support Paul enjoys and that preconceived bias will color how one views who “won” in the exchange.
I do respect Paul, but I stand by my statement that he doesn’t have enough experience. He doesn’t have executive experience. He hasn’t governed a state like Huckabee or Romney have. That does prepare one for leadership better. He seems an idealist and a loud clarion call for change. But that doesn’t seem to translate well into a good governor or president.
Oh and in my opinion some of the links spread around above are way too far-fetched. I’ve never been big on “conspiracy theories” and etc.
And I say we all are entitled to our own opinions, so respect mine. I’ll respect yours.
Finally, make sure you check out the link right below the video above. It takes you to a video clip you can see the real-time reaction of both independents/undecided voters and Republican voters. Huckabee clearly won in the eyes of the voters. And I would have to bet most of them were neither Ron Paul devotees nor Huckabee supporters either.
Blessings to all from the Gospel of Jesus (which is a SURE thing, and politics is NOT),
Bob Hayton
Huck’s response to McCain’s patriotism is telling about Huck’s character. He went out of his way to give credit to one who sacrificed so much for our country. Reagan would have done the same!
I think that Rep. Paul was caught off guard by Huck’s statements, and it appears that Ron Paul is still stuck on an obsession about how/why the war in Iraq started in the first place. This is where the Democrats are stuck at, and can’t look forward beyond the end of their collective noses. Secondly, the pervasive disingenousness of Ron Paul supporters by their ‘polling methods’ isn’t worth the pixels they are displayed on. Considering the trolls that have invaded Bob’s blogsite, I’m not at all convinced that Ron Paul’s support is more than an inch deep. Sorry for the tone of my comments here, but I don’t think that Ron Paul is a viable (and credible) candidate.
The Saddam-was-a-nasty-dictator line as a new justification for the war is invented only because the WMD line was exposed as a bald face lie. If you find Russo’s statement about what Nick Rockfeller disclosed about the need for war in Iraq and Afghanistan then you should read up on the Project for a New American Century. The rationale for US imperialism in the Mid East was laid out by them, and even predicted that a “new Pearl Harbour” would be needed to get public support for war in the region.
The war in Iraq SHOULD have been planned well before 9-11. Iraq was in violation of its terms of surrender since Clinton was in office, but Clinton refused to do anything about it.
I supported the war because I was concerned about WMD, but more than that I supported it because we cannot allow nations to violate terms of surrender. If we were to allow Iraq to violate its terms of surrender it would mean we would have to absolutely obliterate the next enemy, because we could not ever be sure that they would adhere to their terms of surrender. That would result in far more death and bloodshed. Unfortunately, war is not going to go away in this life.
WMD was always just one of the reasons that we went to Iraq. No one, not President Bush and not any of his spokespeople, ever said that WMD was the sole reason for invading Iraq. It’s disheartening that they did not find the stockpiles that they thought they would, but it doesn’t change the fact that the war was justified. Plus, if it was all a big sham, I guarantee you we would have found WMD everywhere, because they would have been planted.
Great points, Casey.
I’m a reformed Southern Baptist myself, and I support Ron Paul.
I can’t see how you, as a conservative and a Christian, can support the prolongation of this war.
War is a government program.
Just like Social Security, just like Medicare and Medicaid, just like welfare. And the military is just another government agency, just like the IRS.
Giving a bureaucrat an assault rifle doesn’t make him supportive of conservative or Christian ideals.
Ron Paul has had a whole slew of reformed staffers, Gary North and John Robbins among them. His theology is going to sounder than Huckabee’s, and it shows in his political positions, which minimize the role of government.
That’s important because government is nothing but organized aggressive force. Think about it: what are our boys being forced to do over in Iraq: knocking down doors, invading the private property of everyday folks and pointing guns at them, hoping to catch a terrorist. Maybe, once in while, they find who they’re looking for. Just statistically speaking, there’s got to be a whole lot more times when they don’t, and they violate the property rights of people who are completely innocent – not to mention threatening them with death.
What about all the Christian Iraqis caught up in all this mess? This isn’t the way to go about things. This war is an example of how all government programs work: they screw things up and then just ask for a little more time and money to “fix” them.
“I figured my post here would bring out the Ron Paul supporters.”
Well it is a place for debate and comments … of course if you don’t have an opinion that is opposite of your own you don’t have a debate … you have what is known as a group think. You should welcome it as it helps define each candidate a bit better.
“I guess its okay to not give a hoot about Iraq. We, as Huckabee has admitted, have “broke†their security, and its okay for us to cut and run with our tail behind our legs??”
Not giving a hoot and deciding not to be a bad and sometimes abusive parent are two different things. You have to address the facts here. The United States has continually screwed up in the Middle East. We successfully over through one of the only democracies that has formed in the Middle East in human history with the shah, we funded/trained Saddam Hessian, and we funded/trained Obama Bin Laden … all for reasons of trying to “helpâ€. If you don’t learn from history you are forced to repeat it … and the lesson is we suck at this and need to stop trying to help.
You can’t force peace and you certainly can not force democracy … especially at the barrel of a gun. The people have to WANT both. Unfortunately the saying is true … What is war but to end the talking and what is diplomacy but to end the Fighting. It is a cycle that can not be shortcut. The Iraq people need to come to the point in their civil war where they all decide that the price is far too high to continue and actually want peace.
“Regardless of whether you think the war was legitimate (and the vast majority of people in the know at the time did think so), we are there. We have an obligation to leave behind as secure an Iraq as we can.â€
Did you ever consider what would have happened if England did the same crap during our civil war and helped the south in order to secure their cotton/corn trade and prices? Interfering with a Civil War is always a bad idea.
“Now as for Paul, there is no way he can win the Republican nomination, because he is too radical. In principle I agree with a lot of what he says, but we have to change things carefully and slowly. We can’t just go in and wipe out whole cabinet positions, evacuate nearly all overseas troops, and stuff. “
If we did anything slowly and carefully we wouldn’t be in this war to begin with. We rushed in … we can just as easily rush out. The vast majority of Ron Pauls ideas (I think all except the military pull out) are not instant. He has long term transition ideas for everything he has proposed. Example, we all know he doesn’t like the FED … so his plan is to legalize competitive currencies based on either gold or silver. Let the best currency win. A note here … there has never been inflation or recession when using a gold standard.
“I have a theory about his support. Much of it is coming from people who are Democrats at heart and will vote that way when it counts. They just hate Bush so much, they are cheering for the clearest anti-Bush republican of the lot.â€
Incorrect, most are republicans that either became independents or have gone into hiding over the embarrassment that is Bush. We are looking for redemption and that is Ron Paul. To me I can’t imagine anyone that considers themselves an American not voting for someone that is running on the same ideals / platform of Thomas Jefferson. Doesn’t it strike anyone as sad that someone can get this much support from the idea of actually following the constitution? And even sadder that this idea is considered “fringe�!
“You can’t tell me a texting poll is scientific. All it takes is a lot of people voting several times to skew the poll.â€
I don’t trust any polls … It all comes down to the vote tally imo which no one can say to know the outcome of till its done.
“Sorry guys, this remains a pro-Huckabee placeâ€
That’s true, but some clean honest debate does have its place.
Hi, I’m another Southern Baptist here. I can’t, in good conscience, vote for Huckabee in the primary, I must vote for Ron Paul.
Putting aside the war issue, which looks like it has received a good share of discussion here, I would like to look at the other issues. Ron Paul is running on traditional republican principles, constitutional principles, and a very true conservative. He is essentially running on the same platform as our founding fathers. As I understand it, our Constitution supports and does not conflict with Biblical values, so there should not be a conflict where he would have to abandon his constitutional principles to obey his biblical mandates.
Let’s take the issue of abortion. Getting Roe vs. Wade would be monumental, and a wonderful accomplishment, no matter who does it. But I think it would be more likely for Ron Paul to have it overturned because it is unconstitutional than for Huckabee to get it overturned because it is morally wrong.
Huckabee is a social conservative but more of a liberal in the other areas, such as fiscal policy. I have liked some of his remarks along the way, but in those areas he is similar to Paul. I have a serious concern about his trustworthiness. In particular his comments about having a theology degree, when in fact he does NOT, have raised a red flag. Who goes around saying they have a degree when they only took 1 year of a course? And where are his sermons – why can’t I find several of them online and read them? Why did he destroy the computer hard disks when he left his office?
I’m not convinced that being a pastor and then a governor of Arkansas is any more qualification for being President than being a medical doctor, a flight surgeon, a 10-term congressman, and a scholar who is an expert in economics, foreign policy and the writings and positions of our Founding Fathers. Experience is always necessary, but when someone is based on rock-solid principles and have wise understanding, I think that will enable him to weather whatever comes. Most politicians I would liken to men who build their house on the sand, whereas Ron Paul has built his house on the most solid rock. Paul and Huckabee have different areas of experience, but I would say two large areas of inexperience for Huckabee are exactly Paul’s areas of strength, namely economics and foreign policy.
As to electability, I do wonder if any of the Republicans can actually be elected President this year, but I really doubt that if Huckabee got the nomination that he could win, because his overt “Christian-ness” repulses many non-Christians. In contrast, a wide variety of people feel drawn to the Paul campaign once they understand his principles, so I think he could win many of those votes that will otherwise be going toward whatever Democrat, and the nomination would lend the credence needed to gain the support of most Republicans.
Unlike some Ron Paul fans, I don’t think a Huckabee presidency would be the worst thing in the world (that would be a Clinton presidency!). We do need someone to take a strong stand for the RIGHT on moral issues. I would be okay with it, but I don’t think he is the best man for the job.