What's the purpose of a Presidential debate? The answer to that question determines how the events should be judged. Yet from reading the post-debate coverage, most pundits and bloggers seem to miss the point entirely.
Many political junkies score the debates like boxing matches, awarding points for landing punches against an opponent. That is why their analysis is often useless in judging the actual impact it will have on the race. Rather than trying to win by TKO, the purpose of a debate is to sway undecided and less-than-committed voters by giving them a reason to vote for a candidate.
While I can't claim to be completely objective, that is the standard I used for grading the South Carolina debate.
Winner (3-Way Tie): McCain, Huckabee, and Romney
McCain: Coming off the win in NH gives McCain a few extra points. He needed them to make up for his answer on global warming, an unforced error that may have cost him a few votes. On other issues, however, he gave a passable performance. He deftly handled the national security issues and made a strong case for being the best choice for commander-in-chief.
True, the constant harping on The Surge was a bit overdone, though it likely played well in a state with a heavy military presence. On the other hand, the majority of active-duty servicemembers--the ones most likely to be impressed by his performance--probably vote absentee in other states. Still, he may have won over some National Guardsman and South Carolina veterans. He needs to take all the votes he can get to pass Huckabee. Score: A-
Huckabee -- Voters just now tuning into the election saw a candidate who was solid on foreign policy, empathetic about their economic concerns, and not afraid to admit he was a Christian. Add to this Huckabee's good-humor and unflappability and you get a solid boost in the polls. Score: A
Romney -- Unlike the previous few debates, Romney was not the primary target of attack (that honor fell to Huckabee). That helped him to focus on the issues, which he handled with aplomb. He was knowledgeable on foreign policy and gave a tough answer on immigration. The abortion question could have hurt him but by being less than truthful (contra his claim, he was not forced to pay for abortions that were not medically necessary) he prevented it from doing any damage. While Romney didn't get the standout performance he needed to boost him in South Carolina, he also didn't' do anything that would damage him in Michigan. For this debate, Romney joined the circle of winners simply by not losing. Score: B
Loser (2-Way Tie): Thompson and Paul
Fred Thompson -- As a former supporter of Sen. Thompson it pains me to admit that he embarrassed himself in this debate. He needed to sway undecided voters and give people a reason to vote for him. On both accounts he failed. If this was the first time you had seen Sen. Thompson what impression would you come away with? Would you be able to name a single position on which he differed significantly from the other candidates?
The FredHeads and the chattering class, both of which have been waiting breathlessly for Thompson to wake up from his nap, will be swooning over the performance. But most voters will be left wondering what was up with that cranky old man on the end (no, the cranky old man on the other end). Score: C -
(Think I'm wrong? Wait till you see the poll results. Fred's numbers will barely budge.)
Ron Paul -- Dr. Paul's supporters will have a reason to be pleased with his performance. When he stuck to the issues, he made a solid case for his libertarian viewpoint. He wasn't witty but he had more good lines than in any other debate.
However, his refusal to completely denounce the 9/11 Truthers sunk him. His failure to adequately distance himself from both racists and conspiracy theorists shows that he doesn’t mind being associated despicable wackos. He also made the mistake of sounding like he was once was a Truther too and had changed his mind. He wasn't (at least I don’t think he was) but the gaffe will cause even more damage. Score: D
Neither won nor lost: Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani -- He wasn't competing here…and it showed. Giuliani has faded into the background in the past few debates and this latest was no exception. Still, by the time his Florida-first strategy kicks in this performance will have long been forgotten. Score: C +
Other notes of interest:
The Thompson/Huckabee Spat-- Thompson took a swipe at Huckabee and drew back a stump.
For Thompson to attack Huckabee on his record as Governor just underscores that the former Senator has no executive experience. While he has some solid policy positions, Thompson was a lackluster Senator who packed it off to Hollywood without having sponsored a single significant piece of legislation (unless you count campaign finance reform).
Thompson read off his cue cards (by the way, what's up with that?) about Huckabee being a "tax and spend" liberal. As the people of Iowa and New Hampshire found out, that's a bunch of nonsense. When the people of South Carolina do their homework they'll see the Thompson has misled them. That won't go over well.
Also, why is Thompson hitting Huckabee on a tax pledge that he himself has refused to sign? And whey did he misrepresent what Huckabee actually said to Tim Russert?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think you got to be very careful. I, I wouldn't propose any new taxes. I wouldn't support any. But if we're in a situation where we are in a different level of war, where there is no other option, I think that it's a very dangerous position to make pledges that are outside the most important pledge you make, and that is the oath you take to uphold the Constitution and protect the people of the United States.
Question of the night: Will it be obvious after the South Carolina primary that Thompson stayed in the race merely to be a stalkinghorse for McCain? Or is he just auditioning to be McCain's VP? (Sorry, Fred. McCain don't need the deadweight.)
Religious bigotry: The question about wives submitting to husbands could have been a disaster yet Huckabee turned it from a negative to a positive. Still, it was an inappropriate question to ask someone running for President. Would FOX News ever dare to ask Romney about a point of Mormon doctrine?
Worst debate blogging (conservative publication category): NRO's The Corner -- Their hatred for Huckabee has become palpable. The voices of sanity (Ramesh, Byron) were absent tonight which left the more extreme members, led by Mark Levin (The Great Screecher), to drag down the level of discourse.
Best debate blogging (conservative publication category): The Weekly Standard -- Staffed with pundits who think before they type, the Standard has some of the most balanced coverage in the blogosphere.
Other Takes:
John Mark Reynolds nails Thompson:
For the first time, I have an opinion about Fred Thompson: he is not very likable.... Family members and good friends were big fans. Most have now abandoned him sadly and now I see why.
His handlers should hope Thompson goes back to sleep . . . for when awake Thompson is an irritating intellectual light-weight reading talking points created by pollsters.
His sole reason for running, or meandering, now seems to be “taking down” Mike Huckabee in the South. Give Giuliani a pass as a “liberal” and go after Mike?Way to build that Reagan Coalition, Fred.
Quick: name one thing of consequence Fred Thompson did in the Senate.
Peter Lawler surveys the results:
[Bill Kristol's] analysis is more fair-and-balanced and, I think, more astute than the instant analyses of NRO. Fred does deserve the most-improved award, but, in the crucial exchange between him and Huck, the Governor held his own, defending his record in a clear and manly way without losing his cool. McCain's surge eloquence may have helped him in Michigan. Huck's religion answer may have helped him in South Carolina. I do think Romney was a bit better than Bill does, but I do agree that he probably didn't distinguish himself enough.
James Antle had the best approach to the debate:
For the first hour of the debate, I watched the debate. During the second hour of the debate, I drank beer. I very much preferred the second hour of the debate and consider myself the winner overall.
Apparently, Luntz focus group says Fred Thompson wins debate (youtube link) and the early analysis on some the major conservative blogs seems to agree. In fact, they seem inverted to yours, giving Mitt and Huck the bottom of the barrel scores (next to Paul, who, let's face it, is never going to sound sane).
I'm a tentative Fred supporter, but I do have to agree with you that conservative blogs are far too harshly critical of Huck. I think far too much nefariousness has been ascribed to the man and you actually did a good job defending him on several counts. That bei8ng said, I also think you're little strong in your bias as well and it may be skewing your otherwise sound analysis.
So, I guess we'll see how things pan out.
Actually, I'm mistaken. They (conservative blogs) have generally given gave Giuliani and Mitt the bottom scores. McCain and Thompson came in at the top. Huck was in the middle.
I thought Paul hit it out of the park on what it means to be a conservative. Huckabee needs to take a lesson on spending and other issues of freedom.
Huck's the darling of the godless CFR now, which is ironic since so many religious are fooled by him.
I see, Joe, that you have problems with Paulbots as well.
Joe,
Alas, we don't have cable. So I missed the 3rd debate in 6 days. You said "Romney joined the circle of winners simply by not losing." But wouldn't it be the other way around, if Michigan is his Final Exam? (He's already raised expectations, which is the same thing he did immediately after placing 2nd in Iowa.)
Mike Huckabee is a superb rhetorician, but his oneliners are getting old. I've heard the flak line several times now, ditto with other lines that sounded great the first time. The most alarming line of all had to do with his ignorance of a foreign policy issue which he shrugged off with "But I stayed at a Holiday Express Inn last night."
Fred Thompson will get lots of donations after tonight's debate and the polls will catch up with him in a few days.
Polls are just snapshots in time as New Hampshire showed us. Obama lost 14 points or so in one day and I am virtually alone in believing that the High Priestess of Feminism, Gloria Steinem's oped in the New York Times implying it was Hillary's turn and Obama needed more experience was hugely responsible
- that and Hillary's new slogan: Flow More Tears (Mary Matalin's line) turned around that pri
I'm a Mitt Romney supporter and thought he did well tonight, as usual.
However, I thought the best of the night was Thompson. I didn't get to hear the entire debate because I was listening to it from work and was distracted from time to time for doing the things that they pay me for. But I liked Thompsons vigor, his going after Huckabee and basically sounding like he's finally alive.
I thought Huckabee (Excluding Ron Paul from my analysis) did the worst. He sounded like a whiner.
Also, it doesn't matter who wins Michigan. The well is poisoned just like in New Hampshire.
I think your preferences are clouding your judgment on this one, Joe, while remaining fully aware that my bias is probably the opposite of yours. The only gripe conservatives have had with Thompson has been his lack of vigor in seeking the nomination. It may be late, but he came out swinging last night. Of course, he came out swinging after your candidate.
Thompson's strong point in running is his claim that he embodies conservatism better than the other candidates, and he made that case forcibly last night using Huckabee as the counterexample.
I don't know if that makes for the beginning of a turnaround that can win him South Carolina. I certainly hope so. Even if not, I hope the other candidates start picking up on his points and ideas.
I went in as a voter leaning toward Ron Paul but open being persuaded by someone else. (I like much of Paul's ideology, but there's too much water under the bridge for his foreign policy to work right now, and he's not commander-in-chief material. And he made one comment that sounded like a conspiracy theory...)
So after the debate I think I changed my mind and will vote for.... Fred Thompson. No offense, Joe, but you are definitely viewing these things with blinders on (though not as bad as Hugh Hewitt). You rate Thompson a loser because he came after your guy where your guy is vulnerable. I've not been persuaded that Huckabee doesn't believe that government is the solution to our ills.
You said of McCain (who was merely OK at best tonight): "He needs to take all the votes he can get to pass Huckabee." Heading into the debate, McCain was actually leading here.
Your support of Huckabee has completely blinded you. Fred listed a litany of things on which he differs from Huckabee - not the least of which is closing Guantanamo. This is not a minor issue. In fact it sickens me that Huckabee is capitulating the the left on this issue. Fred was exactly right in attacking him on it.
As to whether it will matter in the primaries, you are correct. It may not matter at all. Maybe people have decided they like government growth and want to support a "gentler, kinder GWOT."
Bingo.
I did like the way Huckabee fielded the "graciously submissive wife" business. He could hardly have done a better job with that.
Joe, thanks for your analysis and your great rundown of other analysis. It brought sanity and balance.
I think that now we have seen Thompson at his best--energized, focused, and on his game--and his best is not good enough to win the general election.
He is too much confined to one range: alpha male, bordering on cranky, hard-line conservative. Even Hillary could make him seem like a marginal character.
Huckabee, on the other hand, was able to survive the strongest possible attack from the right (from Thompson), and still retained enough composure to knock an attack from the left (the "religion" question) out of the ballpark.
And this is an important point, I think. During the general election, Huckabee will not be attacked from the right. Every opponent--whether it be Obama, Hillary, Bloomberg, or the MSM, will be attacking Huckabee from the left--and he has shown that he's a master at handling these attacks and in the process representing marriage and family as important and valuable.
At the debate last night, only Huckabee went out of his way to speak about life, marriage, and family. I believe Romney has good values, but he's not good at talking about them. I feel affection for McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani, but none of them really cares about protecting life and the family. Not really. Because of these things, my support for Huckabee is even stronger now than it was before.
At the debate last night, only Huckabee went out of his way to speak about life, marriage, and family.
What is it that you evangelicals imagine that the president can, or should, do to make families better? Beyond abortion, that is. We're electing a commander in chief, not a family counselor in chief. Are you into social engineering now? Beyond lip service, what can a president possibly do to make families stay together, or make them form in the first place?
NH Huckabee needs to take a lesson on spending and other issues of freedom.
How so? Huckabee had an outstanding record on spending while Governor. What complaint to do you have with his spending policies?
Huck's the darling of the godless CFR now, which is ironic since so many religious are fooled by him.
I think you're confusing Huck with Thompson, who is a member of the CFR.
Alex But wouldn't it be the other way around, if Michigan is his Final Exam?
I think this debate had as much effect on MI as it did SC. That is why it I think Romney needed to do well (or at least not harm himself) in this one.
Sandra The most alarming line of all had to do with his ignorance of a foreign policy issue which he shrugged off with "But I stayed at a Holiday Express Inn last night."
Do you even know where he delivered that line? It was on Don Imus' radio show. Hitting him for making a funny remark on a humorous morning radio show is a bit silly.
Fred Thompson will get lots of donations after tonight's debate and the polls will catch up with him in a few days.
Uh, yeah. I'm sure he will.
Darrell Thompson's strong point in running is his claim that he embodies conservatism better than the other candidates, and he made that case forcibly last night using Huckabee as the counterexample.
But he had to do it by being dishonest. He said that Huckabee opposed vouchers, which wasn’t true. He said he had a "liberal record" taxes and spending, which wasn’t true. If Thompson has to resort to lying to make himself look better should we really trust him?
I've not been persuaded that Huckabee doesn't believe that government is the solution to our ills.
Can you point to any evidence that Huckabee believes the " government is the solution to our ills"? That talking point has no basis in reality. It was spread by the other campaigns because they knew they couldn’t beat him on the truth.
Jeff …not the least of which is closing Guantanamo.
Huckabee wants to follow Bush's current policy, which is to close Gitmo as soon as the hardcore terrorists have been tried and convicted. Why is that a "liberal" policy?
Any chance you might get back to talking about Christianity any time soon?
Robert Duquette:
What is it that you evangelicals imagine that the president can, or should, do to make families better?
1. Bully pulpit. Limited govt fans seem to overlook Huckabee's intentions to make the bully pulpit an important part of his presidency across a wide range of issues, instead of bloating govt with policies and bureaucracy. Speak in favor of the family, rather than make ill-advised policies that don't work (e.g. national voucher system with strings attached for home schoolers).
2. Veto anti-family laws that impinge the family's integrity, e.g. in education, in so far as he can legitimately do so under the principles of federalism.
3. Execute laws/policies that promote marriage, e.g. tax credits, in so far as he can do so under the principles of federalism.
Just use your imagination and temper it with some wisdom.
Or, you might do some research and see what his positions are at his website.
Also look under sanctity of life.
I can't wait until we have finally settled on a republican nominee. I don't know who is worse between Joe and Hugh Hewitt. Both are incapable of seeing a fault with their guy, and unwilling to concede that the other candidates have any positives.
I'm really close to sitting this election out. Two things are dawning on me. First none of this matters regardless of who becomes president, America is on the downhill side of its historical trajectory. Second, that for Christians to be so tied up with politics is a misplacement of energy and unseemly.
Joe, thank you for your thoughtful and informative blog. I enjoy your responses to the comments almost as much as I enjoy your original posts themselves.
I'm clearly not as informed as you on are on all the issues. If/when you have the time, I wonder if you might stop by my blog? I could use all the helpful suggestions you have. Thanks!
http://dontdrinkthekingswine.blogspot.com/
The question about wives submitting to husbands could have been a disaster yet Huckabee turned it from a negative to a positive. Still, it was an inappropriate question to ask someone running for President. Would FOX News ever dare to ask Romney about a point of Mormon doctrine?
It was a perfectly appropriate question. People have a right to know how crazy a potential president is. In Huckabee's case, the answer is: "plenty". But even if it weren't germane in itself, Huckabee makes it so by constantly harping on his religious beliefs in a political context. He even began his political career by famously stating that he intended to "take America back for Christ" and was running for office for that reason. If that's his intention, he has to be asked exactly how it would translate into policy. And I would expect Romney to be asked similar questions if he had ever openly stated that he intended to "take America back for polygamy".
As for Huckabee's answer, it's interesting that he can only "turn it into a positive" by making it sound like he doesn't really mean what he obviously means. The infamous Southern Baptist convention plank calling for "submission", that Huckabee endorses, does not envision an equality of authority and independence between husbands and wives, and the Bible passage in question does not posit a symmetrical relationship or set of obligations between husbands and wives. They mean exactly what they say: that wives are to submit to their husband's authority - and there are plenty of fundie whackos who are all too eager to make that explicit. Huckabee surely doesn't disagree - and if he does, I'm sure many people would be glad for an explicit clarification stating that he believes that husbands and wives have equal and independent roles, that husbands are called on to "submit" to their wives just as wives are to husbands, and that wives do not need permission from their husbands for anything husbands do not need permission from their wives for.
If that's what he thinks - as he disingenuously tried to imply last night - he should say so. Joe - you are certainly in a position to get a statement from him on that question: why don't you do so, and release it to the press?
"I've not been persuaded that Huckabee doesn't believe that government is the solution to our ills.
"Can you point to any evidence that Huckabee believes the " government is the solution to our ills"? That talking point has no basis in reality. It was spread by the other campaigns because they knew they couldn’t beat him on the truth."
His answer to the question from Chris Wallace last night (being asked to respond to the fact that he raised taxes), after the gag line about "I'll tell you what I raised - hope", was to run through a list of all the government programs and initiatives he led -- all the ways the government tried to cure societal ills.
----
Milan Hejduk is right -- thanks for the reminder.
ACF His answer to the question from Chris Wallace last night (being asked to respond to the fact that he raised taxes), after the gag line about "I'll tell you what I raised - hope", was to run through a list of all the government programs and initiatives he led -- all the ways the government tried to cure societal ills.
All the ways the government tried to cure societal ills? He talked about fixing roads and schools. What is wrong with a governor fixing either one of those?
Kevin T. Keith wrote:
It was a perfectly appropriate question.
I agree. But I'll also note that this is the only point of agreement between us.
People have a right to know how crazy a potential president is. In Huckabee's case, the answer is: "plenty".
That may be, but if that answer is based on this issue, then the craziness isn't with Huckabee.
As for Huckabee's answer, it's interesting that he can only "turn it into a positive" by making it sound like he doesn't really mean what he obviously means.
Or you don't understand what he means. And that's generally the problem.
The infamous Southern Baptist convention plank calling for "submission", that Huckabee endorses, does not envision an equality of authority and independence between husbands and wives,
That's absolutely right. First, husbands and wives are not independent. They are, as Scripture states, "one flesh", joined together. Nevertheless, a marriage is an organization, and all organizations need hierarchy. That's why you have a supervisor at work, and CEOs have boards of directors, and journalists have editors, and privates have sergeants. The husband is responsible for all of the decisions -- whether he makes them or not.
and the Bible passage in question does not posit a symmetrical relationship or set of obligations between husbands and wives. They mean exactly what they say: that wives are to submit to their husband's authority - and there are plenty of fundie whackos who are all too eager to make that explicit.
Tried that attitude at work?
Huckabee surely doesn't disagree - and if he does, I'm sure many people would be glad for an explicit clarification stating that he believes that husbands and wives have equal and independent roles,
Nope.
that husbands are called on to "submit" to their wives just as wives are to husbands,
Read the passage in context. What do you think, "husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church" means?
I've been married for 27 years. I know my wife's strong points and where she makes better decisions than me. That's why delegation exists.
and that wives do not need permission from their husbands for anything husbands do not need permission from their wives for.
That isn't what marriage is about. It isn't about permission. Nor is it about power. It's about love.
That's absolutely right. First, husbands and wives are not independent. They are, as Scripture states, "one flesh", joined together. Nevertheless, a marriage is an organization, and all organizations need hierarchy. That's why you have a supervisor at work, and CEOs have boards of directors, and journalists have editors, and privates have sergeants
Not quite. The CEO has a board of directors but the board of directors itself is made up of equal ranks. If there are 5 people on the board then each gets a vote and no one is expected to 'submit'.
Likewise, I'm ewwwed out by the image that I'm supposed to be 'one fleshed' with my boss and co-workers (or at least most of them insert Grocho Marx expression or quip here). You overstretched the analogy too far now!
The husband is responsible for all of the decisions -- whether he makes them or not.
Interesting, so if the wife commits a crime should the husband be held somewhat accountable for it but not the reverse (wives are not accountable for their husband's crimes)? That, of course, would be a major change in our law but it does seem to fit with your statement.
You've basically told us that you've read the 'submission' plank to mean something that is basically sane (or somewhat sane). Keith raises a valid point that others read it more literally to be endorsing what is essentially insane in a modern country. It's perfectly fair to ask which version Huckabee goes for.
Robert Duquette writes:
"What is it that you evangelicals imagine that the president can, or should, do to make families better?"
David Brooks made a good point about this in last week's New York Times.
"Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html?hp
I think Brooks is right.
Joe - Got to disagree with you. Thompson was the big winner in my mind.
stepdan
I think Brooks is right.
Indeed he is but that still doesn't answer the question that Robert asked, "What is it that you evangelicals imagine that the president can, or should, do to make families better?".
I serously doubt, for example, that your daughter is not a single parent today because a Republican is in the White House....or if she is she wouldn't have became one if Huckabee had been elected 8 years ago.
Christy Lynn Wilson Joe - Got to disagree with you. Thompson was the big winner in my mind.
I could always be wrong.
By the way, what issue did Thompson promote last night that set him apart from Hucakbee? The only thing that I can think of is the closing of Gitmo, but for some odd reason Thompson doesn't seem to understand that issue (he thinks that transferring them to the states changes their legal status--it doesn't).
I disagree Boonton.
President Bush has pushed for and gotten millions of dollars for Community Marriage Initiatives. That money is being used today at the community level to fund programs that train couples to strengthen their marriage, learn relationship skills, etc. and that counsel couples considering marriage. As I recall Huckabee pushed something similar in his state.
I doubt any Democratic President would propose such a program.
Granted, no President can have impact every single family-related decision, but he can sure use his position and influence over the budget process to set priorities.
“Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has."
To echo what other people have already said better, social issues are important, but there are limits to what government can or should do about them. Individuals and private institutions like churches are better able to handle most of these issues than any kind of government program or bureaucracy, and in the course of creating a government solution, experience has shown that such programs will often lead to additional problems along with failing to solve the problem on which they focus.
For Huckabee and his supporters, that’s a fairly fundamental part of this thing we call “conservatism”.
“President Bush has pushed for and gotten millions of dollars for Community Marriage Initiatives. That money is being used today at the community level to fund programs that train couples to strengthen their marriage, learn relationship skills, etc. and that counsel couples considering marriage. As I recall Huckabee pushed something similar in his state.”
Like you said, the President is welcome to give his opinion and use the bully pulpit on these issues, but do we really want government getting involved in telling couples how to live out a marriage? Is this not the kind of thing that families, churches, and other such institutions do better without creating additional government expansion into our lives and checkbooks?
I used to think Kevin T Keith and Boonton were pretty smart guys. Their reaction to the "wives submit to their husbands" proves otherwise. They are either too lazy to find the passage in question and read it in its full context, or are incabable of understanding even the most basic Christian doctrine. Even if they disagree with the implications of that doctrine, you'd think someone who was reasonably intelligent could understand the doctrine itself.
...for some odd reason Thompson doesn't seem to understand that issue [legal status of Gitmo detainees] (he thinks that transferring them to the states changes their legal status--it doesn't).
Who to believe? Attorney and lawmaker with vast experience or the guys who say "he doesn't understand the issue?"
I'm not trying to be smart here, but one wonders if Fred knows something that you don't know.
Jeff I'm not trying to be smart here, but one wonders if Fred knows something that you don't know.
Back in 2004 the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that the United States Constitution entitled the detainees to challenge the validity of their detention. The Supreme Court confirmed that the aspect of the Bush Presidency's detainee policy that asserted that the captives should have no access to the protections of habeas corpus was unconstitutional.
In other words, prisoners at Gitmo have the same legal rights as they do if they are on U.S. soil. For a lawyer like Thompson not to know about a decision that was ruled on three years ago shows that he isn't paying attention.
Bully pulpit. Limited govt fans seem to overlook Huckabee's intentions to make the bully pulpit an important part of his presidency across a wide range of issues, instead of bloating govt with policies and bureaucracy. Speak in favor of the family, rather than make ill-advised policies that don't work (e.g. national voucher system with strings attached for home schoolers).
Talk isn't going to solve anything. Maybe you evangelicals are used to the role of preacher in your life, but most Americans aren't going to put up with it. Americans don't like to be bullied, from the pulpit or from anywhere else. If all he's offering is talk, then nothing will change.
Huckabee wants to be preacher-in-chief, from what I've gathered. Beyond family issues, he wants to tell us to stop smoking, to lose weight and eat healthy. He's a nanny. The last nanny we elected to the presidency, Jimmy Carter, was a disaster. Are you old enough to remember the "malaise" speech? Carter used the bully pulpit, (nag pulpit, more accurately) to tell Americans that we weren't trying hard enough to solve our problems, that we were just a bunch of shiftless layabouts. At his next job review, his employers showed him the door. Huckabee reminds me of Jimmy Carter more than any other politician.
Yep, that why the average voters selected Thompson as the winner :-) And why he got the first big reaction of the night when he nailed your guy!
Normally I would agree with you Darrell DeLaney. Government cannot be trusted to get this stuff right.
But with respect to the Community Marriage Initiatives, the federal government's role is financial. No doubt there are some strings attached, but the money is going to local nonprofits ("other institutions" as you call them) that specifically deal with strengthening families.
I would rather see the federal government addressing the problem on the front end (i.e. promoting healthy marriages) than just focusing on the cleaning up the mess left behind from family breakdown.
Here's the larger point for me: Conservatives should care about family breakdown, not just because of what it does to those involved. Whether we like it or not, when families break down, it is the impulse of government is grow to deal with the social problems that result.
Stronger families equal less government.
Considering how much the federal government spends on other needless programs, this sounds like a good investment to me.
Boonton
[wrf3] That's absolutely right. First, husbands and wives are not independent. They are, as Scripture states, "one flesh", joined together. Nevertheless, a marriage is an organization, and all organizations need hierarchy. That's why you have a supervisor at work, and CEOs have boards of directors, and journalists have editors, and privates have sergeants
Not quite. The CEO has a board of directors but the board of directors itself is made up of equal ranks. If there are 5 people on the board then each gets a vote and no one is expected to 'submit'.
The CEO still has to submit to the will of the board. And the board has to submit to the will of the stockholders. But you miss the point. In a marriage that votes, who breaks a tie?
Likewise, I'm ewwwed out by the image that I'm supposed to be 'one fleshed' with my boss and co-workers (or at least most of them insert Grocho Marx expression or quip here). You overstretched the analogy too far now!
"One-flesh" addressed the issue of independence. In marriage, there is none. "Hierarchy" addressed the issue of submission.
[wrf3] The husband is responsible for all of the decisions -- whether he makes them or not.
Interesting, so if the wife commits a crime should the husband be held somewhat accountable for it but not the reverse (wives are not accountable for their husband's crimes)?
I didn't say that. Your spin violates conservation of dependence.
That, of course, would be a major change in our law but it does seem to fit with your statement.
Why do you think wives can't be compelled to testify against their husbands in US courts? It's because of the "one flesh" notion. In any case, have you ever worked for a really, really good boss who took the heat when you screwed up? After all, wasn't he/she responsible for oversight to make sure that you didn't, but it happened, anyway?
You've basically told us that you've read the 'submission' plank to mean something that is basically sane (or somewhat sane).
It's the orthodox position.
Keith raises a valid point that others read it more literally to be endorsing what is essentially insane in a modern country.
Sorry, but what didn't I read literally? The problem comes from those who cannot read. It says, "wives submit to your husbands." Some people, especially critics, take that to mean, "wives put up with tyranny", when the context has never, ever permitted that.
It's perfectly fair to ask which version Huckabee goes for.
It's sad that he even has to be asked. But the Bible is distorted, purposively or not, more than the platform of one's political opponents.
stepdan
President Bush has pushed for and gotten millions of dollars for Community Marriage Initiatives. That money is being used today at the community level to fund programs that train couples to strengthen their marriage, learn relationship skills, etc.
To be honest this sounds like pork to me. Even if it isn't, even if it's a wonderful use of money it's only a drop in the ocean. If you tried to scale this up by a factor of ten or one-hundred you'd almost certainly end up with a pork program at best.
I would rather see the federal government addressing the problem on the front end (i.e. promoting healthy marriages) than just focusing on the cleaning up the mess left behind from family breakdown.
The problem with this position is that I just don't think the Fed. gov't can do it. What makes a healthy marriage is hardly obvious and even if it is I doubt anyone can really say they are able to teach it. At least with more realistic things like job training you can at least begin to make some useful metrics....like seeing how many people get jobs after taking the class versus not taking it.
The local non-profits that are getting this money are no doubt using it for some good but if these programs are so great why were they so low in the budgets of the local groups? How do you know this money has done anything useful? "Communication" classes can be helpful to people but I've also seen a lot of 'classes' that are just time wasters full of the usual psychological claptrap that looks to be little more than a vehicle for 'consultants' to keep earning a living. Anyone who works in the corporate world should know what I'm talking about....there they often advertise themselves as "team builders".
Their reaction to the "wives submit to their husbands" proves otherwise. They are either too lazy to find the passage in question and read it in its full context, or are incabable of understanding even the most basic Christian doctrine.
We only pointed out it is perfectly valid to question what this means. wrf's argument seems pretty strained to me and actually seems to reinforce Kevin's criticism. If the husband is like the boss and the wife is like the worker then yes 'submit' really means submit and not this 'one flesh' that wrf says it is. Yes human resources may give my boss duties and responsibilities but they are also pretty clear I have to follow my boss's instructions within limits.
And Keith is right to point out that there are fundies who read the passage as it sounds. Now maybe they are wrong to read it that way but it is hardly wrong to ask how Huckabee reads it.
Booton,
What is your understanding of the meaning of "one flesh"?
since this is an evangelical outpost, just throwing this out there, to see what kind of remarks this brings forth. which one looks correct? any comments? please reply.
God
Family
Others
Myself
or
Myself
Others
Family
God
Boonton
We only pointed out it is perfectly valid to question what this means.
And I don't think we disagreed.
wrf's argument seems pretty strained to me and actually seems to reinforce Kevin's criticism. If the husband is like the boss and the wife is like the worker then yes 'submit' really means submit and not this 'one flesh' that wrf says it is.
So it's completely impossible for both "submit" and "one flesh" to be true simultaneously?
Yes human resources may give my boss duties and responsibilities but they are also pretty clear I have to follow my boss's instructions within limits.
Unlike marriage HR doesn't also add "bosses, love your employees". Which is too bad. The workplace would be better if they did.
The CEO still has to submit to the will of the board. And the board has to submit to the will of the stockholders. But you miss the point. In a marriage that votes, who breaks a tie?
You're trying to say we should not object to the submission line, I think, because hierarchy is everywhere....but it isn't. Yes the Board is above the CEO and in theory the stockholders are above the board but members of the board are not in a heirarchy to each other...they are equal.
If you're trying to say that the husband and wife are equal but submission means the husband breaks the tie...well that's pretty meaningless. You're saying if husband and wife disagree then husband wins. In that setup what's the point of having a 'vote'?
While you can find lots of hierarchy relationships in the world that doesn't somehow prove all relationships must be hierarchial. Two business partners with equal stakes, for example, do not have a hierarchial relationship. Nor do co-workers or collegues. That does leave the danger that a 'tie' might develop and if that happens the members must work beyond it or fail as a unit. So be it.
On husbands being responsible for wive's decisions
I didn't say that. Your spin violates conservation of dependence.
I didn't say you said that, I asked you a question. If a husband is responsible for all decisions, whether he makes them or not then why shouldn't a husband be held accountable for a wife's crimes? Does the world responsible have any meaning at all when you use it?
You're talking like the husband is a captain of a ship or a military leader who is responsible for the actions of the men under him...even if they act against his orders or without his knowledge. But in that case responsible means something. If the navy has a captain whose crew is constantly committing crimes they will discipline the captain even if the captain never gave permission for his crew to violate the law.
Why do you think wives can't be compelled to testify against their husbands in US courts? It's because of the "one flesh" notion. In any case, have you ever worked for a really, really good boss who took the heat when you screwed up? After all, wasn't he/she responsible for oversight to make sure that you didn't, but it happened, anyway?
But responsible is one way. You're talking about spousal immunity but it works in both directions....husbands also cannot be compelled to testify against their wives. That's not the same as one member being the 'boss' and another being the 'worker'.
Sorry, but what didn't I read literally? The problem comes from those who cannot read. It says, "wives submit to your husbands." Some people, especially critics, take that to mean, "wives put up with tyranny", when the context has never, ever permitted that.
Perhaps but they also read it as you're trying to say....."wives submit to your boss, boss be a good boss". Frankly, that doesn't fly IMO. The critics of this passage are not refusing to recognize that husbands are also being told not to be tyrants, the critics do not like the idea that husbands are being given the power of tyrants. IMO mature people recognize this is not the way to have a happy marriage.
What is your understanding of the meaning of "one flesh"?
I would say it means a successful marriage becomes less like two individuals and more like one person.
And how do you think that is suppose to happen if one does not submit to the other?
Why would it require submission at all?
Actually before Paul admonishes women to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, being willing to die for her, he begins with "submit to one another." The evidence of Spirit infilling alluded to in Eph 5:19 is obedience to Paul's apostolic charge of mutual submission in Eph 5:20, which then takes the sexually complementary forms Paul uses to flesh out his directive.
Not only is mutual submission part of the original, it is the key to a literal understanding of the entire passage.
If you find tyranny or abuse here it is because you haven't read the entire thing or because you can't understand what you read.
Or let me try to put it like this. Suppose all of North and South America were to suddenly disappear. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would become one huge ocean. Yet it would be odd to say one submitted to the other.
Ken,
Kevin was talking about the plank of the Southern Baptist Convention. Does that talk about mutual submission?
Joe's right, you have to grade these things from the standpoint of what each candidate needed to do. I think Fred did what he needed to do to excite his base. But like Joe, I don't think it's going to help him much in the polls. His base has become as shrill as Ron Paul's and probably nastier. Here is my take:
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/01/11/grading-the-repubs-part-eleven/
"The problem comes from those who cannot read."
Yes, i have come across many people who like to take bits and pieces of scripture out of context to make it into what ever they want it to be. The problem is not just that of literacy. It is also a spiritual problem. Jesus said, " But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." (for more information on this passage, read John chapter 16.) The people who are critics of this scripture, about husbands and wifes, are not being guided by the Spirit of truth, for if they were, they could accept it.
Joe,
You sound winny and scared. You , for good reason, are biased. Like the Paulites, you heard what you wanted to hear. The proof is in the pudding. As you said, undecideds are what matter. The Luntz group, and the vast majority of bloggers all saw the same thing: The Fred Thompson they have been waiting to see.
Sorry Joe. Thompson gave Huckabee a well deserved beating.
Just out of curiosity, how many of the folks involved in this marriage discussion have been in or are in "successful marriages"? Just to set minimal criteria, successful marriages must be minimum 5 years old and not have ended in divorce, and the spouses must have remembered each other's birthday and their anniversary for at least the last 2 years.
married ten years, as of last november, to the same woman. we have had our stuggles, but we have kept on going, trusting in the Word of God, and have refused to quit. its all about denying self.
ucfengr asks Just out of curiosity, how many of the folks involved in this marriage discussion have been in or are in "successful marriages"? Just to set minimal criteria, successful marriages must be minimum 5 years old and not have ended in divorce, and the spouses must have remembered each other's birthday and their anniversary for at least the last 2 years.
27.25 years.
fyi, that same woman, has been the only woman.
The comment that Huck made last night about sending the Iranians to the 'Gates of Hell' was repulsive and disturbing as a christian.
Who as a believer would be GLEEFUL and RELISH the thought that ANYBODY would go to Hell? This type of speech is from the venom of the serpent himself.
You know what ...I have never visited your site before and from alot of the comments that I have read I have come to the conclusion that many in Christendom really are LOST and apostate. The slander and gossip...name calling, (Paulbots) and the JOY over WAR-MONGERING and FEAR...this is DISGUSTING.
The 'value voters' today are no different than the 'pharisees' of yesterday. They shun a man like Ron Paul who has been married 50 years to the same woman, is a professing christian, delivered 4,000 babies, is pro-life, pro-constitution, never has raiesed taxes, gives back a portion of his congressional budget to the gov't every year....and STILL he can't get the votes of the SHEEPLE.
Jesus was the same too....he was beloved by the sinners..(just as Paul is ) and the religious folk killed him too.
Wake up Church, do some research for yourself and stop being intelluctually lazy.
www.christians4ronpaul.com
After reading the comments, you tried once again to defend the voucher issue. Once again, there is a HUGE difference between school choice vouchers, and Public school choice vouchers. The latter seems the only one acceptable to the Huckster. The former is the only one that matters to conservatives.
Thompson differentiated himself specifically from:
1) Huckabee - not a Reagan conservative
2) Romney - No, we are not going to address 12 million illegals individually
3) McCain - Amnesty bill (though it was a weak slap)
4) All the others - Palestine matters and matters a LOT.
Boonton writes You're trying to say we should not object to the submission line, I think, because hierarchy is everywhere....but it isn't.
Oh, nonsense. Of course it is. God is over all, then His Son, and every one of us will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord.
Yes the Board is above the CEO and in theory the stockholders are above the board but members of the board are not in a heirarchy to each other...they are equal.
In which case they have to vote and there has to be a tiebreaker. In marriage, there's an even number of people. How do you break a tie?
If you're trying to say that the husband and wife are equal but submission means the husband breaks the tie...well that's pretty meaningless.
I've never said that the "husband and wife are equal". We're talking about the authority and the responsibility for settling disagreements.
You're saying if husband and wife disagree then husband wins. In that setup what's the point of having a 'vote'?
First, it isn't a case of "winning". My wife is not my opponent. Second, I didn't bring up voting in the context of marriage (because it doesn't make sense).
While you can find lots of hierarchy relationships in the world that doesn't somehow prove all relationships must be hierarchial. Two business partners with equal stakes, for example, do not have a hierarchial relationship. Nor do co-workers or collegues. That does leave the danger that a 'tie' might develop and if that happens the members must work beyond it or fail as a unit. So be it.
For marriage, failure isn't an option. Therefore, indecision isn't an option. The buck has to stop somewhere.
More later...
as for the debate, i'm going with Huck, cuz the target was definitly on him last night, and he was able to take the lick'n and keep on tick'n. i have lived in arkansas my entire life. life was good under him. one thing is for certain, he hasn't wavered on the issues, he is still the same guy.
fyi, i am bias, and i'm not ashamed of it. that being said, whoever wins on the republican side, that is who i will vote for.
First, it isn't a case of "winning". My wife is not my opponent. Second, I didn't bring up voting in the context of marriage (because it doesn't make sense).
Actually you did when you wrote we need this submission to 'break a tie'.
In which case they have to vote and there has to be a tiebreaker. In marriage, there's an even number of people. How do you break a tie?
Answer: You don't. If you have a successful marriage you don't have ties. If you're really more like one person than like two individual people then you don't need a 'tie breaking mechanism' anymore than you need a tie breaking mechanism for your own personal decisions.
And no that's not some impossible idea. Quite a few marriages are indeed like that or can become like that. I can see how an idea like "wives submit to husbands" can prevent such a union from happening. In order for a union to happen both sides have to change. That's not going to happen if one side thinks he is the 'tie-breaker'.
For marriage, failure isn't an option. Therefore, indecision isn't an option. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Actually yes it is. That is why a successful marriage is a good thing, because it's quite possible to have a failed marriage. And indecision is also an option. In fact, not coming to a decision could be a catalyst to the bonding we are talking about with 'one flesh'.
What's interesting about the counter-examples you've given is that they are exactly the opposite of 'one flesh'. Take a boss-worker relationship. They are by definition two different people and the rules are set up because it is expected they will sometimes disagree and when that happens "indecision isn't an option". Ditto for your other examples like CEO.Board. Conflict is built into the design of those relationships so they have a conflict resolution mechanism. "One flesh", if it means anything implies no conflict which means the ideal marriage does not have a set of hiarachial rules to resolve conflicts. Both sides have to work on not having conflicts just like your left and right hands don't have conflicts about what to do.
Huckabee was still feeling sore this morning when he talked to Joe Scarborough and said:
I think Fred needs some Metamucil. I think it would help a lot if he gets some. You know, he was in a bad mood last night.
That garnered this response from the Thompson campaign:
So Fred Thompson criticizes Huckabee’s political positions, and Huckabee’s response is…a juvenile personal insult? You stay classy, Huckabee.
Ugh... Huckabee must really be struggling.
Answer: You don't. If you have a successful marriage you don't have ties. If you're really more like one person than like two individual people then you don't need a 'tie breaking mechanism' anymore than you need a tie breaking mechanism for your own personal decisions.
Have you ever been married, Boonton? I ask because this statement reminds me of the time before I had children, when I was a much better parent.
Uhh.. Joe,
On the online donation meter, Thompson's raised over 150,000 from the start of the debate until right now.
You know what? He was exactly right about the GOP coalition being pulled in different directions.
Why did Human Events endorse him this morning, commenting about the commanding performance and his prescence on the stage?
Joe, it would be ok if Huckabee could unite the party, but he can't. The party is being pulled in 1,000 different directions, and Huckabee only strongly appeals to one (two including the Fairtaxers) of those groups.
Thompson appeals to the majority of them. After watching this campaign unfold, the only two that could possibly rally the party are Thompson and Romney, and Romney's somehow alienated those who don't support him.
Last night's debate drew the largest audience of the election cycle. Heck, even Hugh Hewitt said Thompson did the best, and he hates the idea of a Thompson candidacy.
You cherrypick the one blog that says Huckabee did extremely well, and you put that as the best coverage. Joe, only two or three blogs agree. Even the network blogs say Thompson won, and that's quite amazing.
I don't remember you crying about Huckabee's attacks on Romney during the last debate and how it would hurt him. Heck, when Huckabee was an also ran, I don't remember you crying about how he went after Thompson over the NRLC endorsement.
The fact is that there are a lot of worries about Huckabee among the prominent conservatives. Instead of trying to appeal to them, he picks fights with them. Going after the Club for Greed, CATO, Limbaugh (someone in the campaign did), the Wall Street Journal, etc... is not the way to win over the skeptics. Having Ed Rollins talking about knocking Romney's teeth out and insulting Thompson is not the way to win over the skeptics.
Pulling a stunt like he did with that ad in Iowa might've fooled some people, but it was an amatuer and tasteless move.
Robert Duquette:
Huckabee wants to be preacher-in-chief, from what I've gathered. Beyond family issues, he wants to tell us to stop smoking, to lose weight and eat healthy. He's a nanny.
Your opinion on the bully pulpit is pretty amusing for a conservative. The fact is, it's effective, especially now with the powerful role media plays in contemporary society.
You don't get more small government than the bully pulpit. But maybe you don't want a small govt, or don't believe the govt can promote change without resorting to making itself bigger.
People who actually want a small govt promoting conservative ideas (rather than a big govt promoting "conservative" ideas like Mitt Romney who "likes" govt mandates like universal health care) recognize the goodness of the bully pulpit.
But you keep trying to push your "conservative" agenda with big govt if you want.
Tommy:
On the online donation meter, Thompson's raised over 150,000 from the start of the debate until right now.
Oh, you mean kind of like how Ron Paul raised $6 million in one day? Wow, Thompson's got a lot of work to do to catch up to Ron Paul... Whew. =P
giggling
How about small government without bullying? Who says its government's responsibility to make us thin and healthy? Who says its government's responsibility to make families stronger?
It's not. Big government starts with the idea that government should change the culture. Once the idea sets in, then it's only a matter of time between jawboning and legislating.
If you don't like the culture, then go out and do something about it. Don't wait for government to do something. If Huckabee wants to be a preacher he should have stayed a preacher. If he wants to help Americans lose weight he should become a motivational speaker. A true conservative realizes that it is government's role to protect the liberties of individuals, who will apply their efforts voluntarily to to better the culture.
Let's see. Joe's guy gets an A, and the guy who attacked Joe's guy gets a C-. Hmmmm. Something's fishy here. Fox must have paid off Frank Luntz's focus group yahoo's to say Fred won the debate hands down, and Huckbee, well, he didn't do so well. Amazing what an emotionally vested interest will do to a person's perceptions. Can anybody say distort them?
Odder still, or maybe just silly altogether, would be to suggest the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were married in that case.
Giggling,
Nobody can top Ron Paul's donations online. It's impressive and I'll be the first to admit it. He's up to 400,000 tonight, so it's respectable for online donations from a group that isn't going to get the online type of support like Paul does.
Joe,
Did you hear what Judge Robert Bork said today?
on the Levin show
Boonton
[wrf3] First, it isn't a case of "winning". My wife is not my opponent. Second, I didn't bring up voting in the context of marriage (because it doesn't make sense).
Actually you did when you wrote we need this submission to 'break a tie'.
[wrf3] In which case they have to vote and there has to be a tiebreaker. In marriage, there's an even number of people. How do you break a tie?
Voting deals with groups where there is no one authority. Voting can't apply to marriage because there are two people and that means there needs to be a tie-breaker. Someone has to decide what that tie-breaker is going to be and be responsible for the outcome.
Answer: You don't. If you have a successful marriage you don't have ties.
Are we living in the same universe? No husband and wife agree on everything all the time.
And no that's not some impossible idea. Quite a few marriages are indeed like that or can become like that. I can see how an idea like "wives submit to husbands" can prevent such a union from happening. In order for a union to happen both sides have to change. That's not going to happen if one side thinks he is the 'tie-breaker'.
That's because you don't factor love into the equation. My job as a husband is to help my wife become the best person she can be; I can't do that and remain static myself.
[wrf3] For marriage, failure isn't an option. Therefore, indecision isn't an option. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Actually yes it is. That is why a successful marriage is a good thing, because it's quite possible to have a failed marriage.
We aren't communicating. I understand that it's possible to have a failed marriage (my parents divorced when I was 14). That's not an option for me or my wife. We will make it work as far as humanly possible.
And indecision is also an option. In fact, not coming to a decision could be a catalyst to the bonding we are talking about with 'one flesh'.
Someone still has to decide that indecision is the right decision.
What's interesting about the counter-examples you've given is that they are exactly the opposite of 'one flesh'.
Why? Do you think "one flesh" always means "one mind"? If so, do you think it happens instantly?
Boontoon,
You need to be enlightened about the umbrella of authority concept, checkout this website - iblp.org/iblp/seminars/basic/principles
The man is the boss-there are no ties in marriage, the man says what's what.
Well, if the point hasn't gotten lost, I'd like to throw my .02 on What's the Point?
I was considering voting for Thompson a while back, but got disgusted with his cavalier, lackadaisical attitude about the whole thing and began looking around more seriously at the other candidates.
I am strongly leaning toward voting for Huckabee, but I am wrestling with uncertainty as I know many others are.
So now that I have shared where I am coming from, I have to say that if my candidate could only sound like Thompson did last night by using cue cards, crib notes, etc (and what some are even going so far as to say may have been a bluetooth-type ear piece) - I would be too disgusted to even consider putting him in a position to represent our country to other governments!!!
With the negative, arrogant, sluggardly image that he has presented thus far to his own country, I shudder to think how he would be perceived by our allies, let alone our enemies - especially on the many occasions when he has to speak extemporaneously!
wrf3
I m curious about one thing...in all this discussion about "needing a tie breaker" in marital conflicts, with your position obviously being that the husband should always fill that role, what happens when the husband is an idiot? What makes HIS judgement so much better than HERS that only HE can make all the right decisions...because thats essentially what you re saying...unless you allow for the possible marriage here and there where the WIFE is the tie breaker and the husband submit to HIS wife in all things...so how about it?
Fred Thompson did not even come close to winning the debate last night. You could say he won by staying awake for 90 minutes, at least most of it judging by his swaying back and forth and the fact that he said "uh" 12,645 times throughout the night. Most of his remarks were broad generalizations, misguided at that, of Huckabee which have been hashed several times over, but I guess Fred missed that while he was taking his 4 month nap. Fred is simply a grumpy old man that is trying to save face and in the process, is helping his old friend John McCain win the nomination. The question should really be, do you want John McCain as your nominee because he is just fine with me even if I do prefer Huckabee.
In regards to the Reagan Coalition, at least Huckabee has 2 out of the 3 legs of the Reagan stool, and I would argue he has all 3, but McCain only has 1. The reason I would argue that Huckabee has all 3 is because he did his job first and foremost. Sometimes a Governor has to raise taxes in order to build roads and schools especially when he had already cut $380 million out of the budget. At least his constituents agreed with him in doing so and that is the most important thing. You should also not overlook the fact that the citizens of Arkansas were able to get more tax relief just after he left office because of his fiscal responsibility. He also left office with a pretty decent favorable rating unlike another Governor running for President.
All in all, I would say John McCain won the debate because he was the front runner going in and no one even tried to mount a serious attack against him. Romney flailed at him a little but never phased him. McCain will win Michigan and probably SC if Fred has anything to do with it. And that will be all she wrote folks.
Joseph pretty much encapsulates the reasons why I fear a Huckabee presidency in this one line:
Sometimes a Governor has to raise taxes in order to build roads and schools especially when he had already cut $380 million out of the budget.
This is the Huckabee campaigns excuse for raising taxes.
When isn't there a "good" excuse for raising taxes on people? There are always going to be schools and roads that need fixing. And when there aren't schools and roads, their's going to be wars and Katrina's. Huckabee's answer, and the Democrats answer, is always to raise taxes.
Couldn't it be argued that good schools are a good long tern economic benefit and good roads are crucial to interstate commerce? So many schools these days have those trailers stacking up outside of schools built by our forbears who know the value of education.
see, there you go again about taxes, for your information, we here in arkansas get the option to vote on some of things. and we voted for increases to improve the roads, so, if thats what we wanted, what buisness is it of yours?
don't get me wrong, i like low taxes, but i live here, i know. i'm a middle class american, married with kids, and thank be to the Lord,i don't struggle at all financially. what bothers me, is that some of you act like all you care about is money. wow, get a grip.
Have you ever been married, Boonton? I ask because this statement reminds me of the time before I had children, when I was a much better parent.
More or less for some time now.
Odder still, or maybe just silly altogether, would be to suggest the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were married in that case.
There's gotta be a name for people who demolish hypotheticals in particularly annoying ways.
wrf
Are we living in the same universe? No husband and wife agree on everything all the time.
They don't have to agree but they do have to decide together and that's just the way it is.
That's because you don't factor love into the equation. My job as a husband is to help my wife become the best person she can be; I can't do that and remain static myself.
Put that together with "so that's why I have to be the 'tie-breaker'" and you've got the receipe to many cold nights.
That's not an option for me or my wife. We will make it work as far as humanly possible.
Which means you both have to decide. How you do it has to be found by both of you. That very well may mean your wife yields to your decisions....more likely it means a mix of both where you will sometimes yield to her and vice versa. Either way one-flesh would mean the unity of your marriage comes before any particular side in any particular disagreement.
Why? Do you think "one flesh" always means "one mind"? If so, do you think it happens instantly?
No it doesn't just like an individual isn't always 'one mind'. And no it doesn't happen instantly, it's a process IMO and a rather long one.
JohnW
The man is the boss-there are no ties in marriage, the man says what's what.
You will never be a happy person nor have a happy marriage.
Baggi
When isn't there a "good" excuse for raising taxes on people? There are always going to be schools and roads that need fixing. And when there aren't schools and roads, their's going to be wars and Katrina's. Huckabee's answer, and the Democrats answer, is always to raise taxes.
As I said previously in another thread, the problem with conservatives is that they long ago stopped being grownups. Here's a basic concept, every dollar spent is a tax either today or tomorrow. The biggest tax raiser in US history therefore is not 'the Democrats' but George Bush.
i have been listening to Rush almost every day for a while now. i find that alot of things he says are true. i think i have heard him say that there is not a true reagan conservative in the race. he has made comments about all the candidates, but i find that he is far more critical of huckabee than any of the others. don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the different view of the candidate, for that is a good thing, but is seems like whenever somone calls in to talk about huckabee, there is an intense anger in rush's voice, that is not present when discussing the other republican candidates. i do sense a bit of that anger when he talks about john mccain, but it's not quite as intense. he says that it's because he don't want people trying to redefine conservatism, but i haven't heard anyone come out and say that huckabee is conservatism incarnate. i think his conspiracy theory about mccain and huckabee making a back room deal to push out romney is purdy pathetic. i don't think that this is a good strategy for success, because, one of these candidate will be the nominee, and any of them would be far better than hillary or barack.
Kev,
Rush is famous for inserting small bits of truth into things and then stretching the truth to where its bull. Try NPR instead.
More or less for some time now.
What does that mean? You are either married or you're not; there is no "more or less" married?
Ludwig writes: I'm curious about one thing...in all this discussion about "needing a tie breaker" in marital conflicts, with your position obviously being that the husband should always fill that role, what happens when the husband is an idiot?
One might argue that the wife is an idiot for marrying him. But that doesn't help the discussion. The answer depends on another question: "what do you do with idiots?" The Christian answer is to try to improve their abilities. And for this, the Christian wife isn't without recourse, for the husband is subject to the Church. Another approach would be for the wife to see if she can get her husband to delegate.
What makes HIS judgement so much better than HERS that only HE can make all the right decisions...
Here we go again. Nothing was said about "his judgement [being] better" or that "only HE can make the right decisions."
because thats essentially what you re saying...
Really? Where? To use an example from the business world, I've had bosses who didn't have better judgement, and didn't make right decisions; but I've had to submit to them.
unless you allow for the possible marriage here and there where the WIFE is the tie breaker and the husband submit to HIS wife in all things...so how about it?
How about what? A smart husband will know the areas where his wife outperforms him and will delegate. But delegation is itself a decision, and the responsibility for that lies with the husband.
wrf3
the point i was making is that it all comes down to the INDIVIDUALS, not their respective genders. I have encountered plenty of men who are unfit to rule over anyone, themselves included and many woman for whom leadership and decision making comes as naturally as breathing just as i have met plenty of men who are decicive and smart as well as women who are anything but. So but "how about it" i was asking you...do you think that all marriages absolutely have to be lorded over by the husband, regardless of his ability or inability to do so successfully or is there such a thing as a "godly" marriage where the woman has the final say in matters of decision making? Oh and fyi, idiots deserve to be happy in love same as everyone else.
Joe Re: GITMO
I'm no lawyer, so I have to do the best I can. From what I have been able to learn, you and Huckabee are wrong on the issue. It looks like it has to do with how the prisoners are designated. Bringing them to US soil will allow renewed legal challenges regarding their status. The prisoners cannot be brought to U.S. soil before congress enacts legislation creating new legal categories for terrorism detainees.
You don't just get to "close Gitmo and move them to Leavenworth." With due respect, it is Huckabee who should have a better grasp of the issues.