I am not a supporter of Mike Huckabee but his skill as a politician is impressive and I think he has scared the Republican Establishment - which may help explain the sudden media support for John McCain, although they clearly aimed to knock out Romney , who is an considered an outsider.
I heard Huckabee at a New Hampshire rally earlier today and it impressed me how he is in sync with the concerns of the people. I'm guessing this is a replay ( scheduled for 10 ) but it may be another event. C-SPAN has a way of not following their announced schedule. Chuck Norris gave a good speech, too.
C-SPAN
10:18 PM EST
0:45
Public Affairs Event
Huckabee Campaign Event
Huckabee Presidential Campaign
Chuck Norris
Mike Huckabee , R-AR
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 66
If that is true, the people want:
1. To abolish the income tax and the IRS and replace it with a regressive 23% sales tax.
2. To abolish Social Security
3. To make abortion illegal in the United States...even in cases of rape and incest.
4. To make the teaching of "Creation Science" mandatory in public school science classes.
If this is indeed what the American people want, then I am living in the wrong country.
Fortunately, I do NOT think this is what the vast majority of voters want. They just need to learn a little more about this likeable guy, Huck the Hick.
Jim Burroway, writing for the excellent Box Turtle Bulliten
[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com], continues his in depth look at GOP presidential hopeful Jim Huckabee : ' We reported earlier
[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/12/20/1187] on Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee's fundraising event at the home of Houston multimillionaire Steven Hotze, a well-known Christian Reconstructionist
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism]. Pastor Rick Scarborough, who also maintains Reconstructionist beliefs, was there as well. Since then, we've learned that Huckabee's ties go far deeper than mere acquaintances and financial backers. He has a history of working very closely with some very well-known Reconstructionists over the years. In this report, we will examine two of Huckabee's closest Reconstructionist colleagues. Modern Christian Reconstructionism (sometimes known as Dominionism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology]) was founded
by the late R.J. Rushdoony [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony] and his son-in-law, Gary North. Rushdoony believed that it was the duty of every Bible-believing Christian to place each and every word of the Bible at the core of that person's life. According to Rushdoony, this meant that the Bible must necessarily replace all civil laws and constitutions with the Old and New Testaments, including the revival of the death penalty for homosexuality, incest, adultery, lying about one's virginity, and apostasy or public blasphemy, among a much longer list of biblical crimes.
Rushdoony wrote that Democracy is a heresy and "the great love of the failures and cowards of life." '
I would like to hear someone question Huck on his connections to these people, and his acceptance or rejection of their beliefs.
I am also concerned about Huckabee's religious bias, especially regarding abortion . His record on education is very good. I don't see why Creation shouldn't be taught in schools as religious belief, although Creationism in nuts. So is "Darwinism" no more than one theory of evolution among many scientists, who have no religious belief at all. There are sharply contrasting theories .
Huckabee's populist economics makes a lot of sense because it is against Wall Street, although his notions of reforming the tax system and Social Security are not clear. Sales tax need not be unfair.
I think Obama has made a serious error by abandoning the populist progressive position. If he got elected he would have nothing to work with. FDR played it right in getting elected: he included that element so when he won he could use it. Obama has sacrificed authenticity for short- term political gain. Huckabee has retained his authenticity as has Ron Paul.
As for teaching creationism in schools, I wouldn't object to it being taught in a comparative religion class, I would object strongly to it being taught in any science class. There is a load of scientific evidence to support evolution as a theory. There is none whatever to support creationism, and scientific theories require some proof (not necessarily conclusive proof as that would then be a fact not a theory, but some proof).
One other point: Many scientists are religious as well. One does not preclude the other.
As for his tax program, he wants to eliminate income tax and replace it with a 23% sales tax. Now sales taxes are notoriously regressive because poor people spend virtually ALL of their income, whereas wealthy people invest most of theirs. Huck proposes to give back a chunk of the collected taxes to low income people, creating a huge welfare system to administer. I would think this would make true conservatives pull their hair out.
Re teaching religion in public schools...Carolyn has it right. Teach it in a class that compares ALL religions, giving equal weight to each.
Is a movie cartoon character a real endorsement?
But running the country?
I think President Huckabee would continue Bush's grants to faith-based charities...something I consider to be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
His other ideas, I have already addressed here...totally wacko.
I find it almost unbelievable that he is a serious candidate for President, and I have to think that the pros in the Republican party are just waiting and hoping for him to self-destruct.
Why no mention of his gain of eight delegates in Wyoming?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004110054_wyo06.html
What the hell is wrong with the most prosperous people paying the most to sustain the country that gave them prosperity ... at least it does not take food out of their children's mouths, or prevent affordable education from being available to people?
What are you, a Commie or sumthin'? Them rich folks DESERVE all that money!
We're always gonna have them poor folks. If you feed 'em, they just gonna breed MORE poor folks, and then where are ya?
Get your head on straight, boy!
Oh, and he is not pushing Creationism (which doesn't place any credit in evolution). I am a biologist and learned more than most people know about evolution and Darwin's theories in college. It is not infallible. There are holes and there will always be the question of why? This question can only be answered in faith... in a devine creator (God) or just plain chance (Darwin). Huckabee does not refute Darwin's ideas and evolution. He believes simply that whatever happened, however it happened, and on what timeline, was all part of God's plan. Why not let kids be openminded and encouraged to believe what they want instead of only jamming one side down their throats? Are people really that afraid that our kids just might believe that there is a God?
It is unfortunate how much media plays a role in the outcome of an election. So many people depend on large media when it comes time to vote. However, there are still many people out there who do not just "go with the flow", and do their homework and figure out who is right for them.
I think Obamamania is very much influenced by how much positive media attention he has gotten recently. People are jumping on the band wagon because he is popular and comes across well. I'm not saying that I am against Obama. I think he is wonderful. He has appeared with the message people want to hear in this change-starved country. The numbers you see in NH today will reflect this popularity contest.
I believe that Huckabee is the guy people (esp. in the republican party) want as their best candidate. He is a modern conservative. He does not just say and support things because of his party's traditional view and for political gain, however he aligns well with many of the issues republicans care about the most and that is why he is popular with republicans. I feel that one of the greatest things is that he can reach out across the party line and get support from many democrats. By his new/young appeal (as opposed to most of the other GOP candidates) he will win the support of young people like me who have traditionally been either on the fence/independent, or a little on the progressive end of the spectrum.
I have never seen a candidate who is so genuine, smart, honest, well-spoken, well-grounded in his beliefs, and humorous. He is one of the only republican candidates who supports the sanctity of life AND has a real plan for the good of the planet. He is for the "little guy" and supporting hard work for positive gain. He has drawn a lot of new/young people out and really raises them up. His message appeals in a similar fashion to the way Obama's message does. It is a well thought out message of hope, change, and progress for our country.
If it comes to Huckabee and Obama in November, I believe Huckabee will have it when it comes to true test of character and potential in the White House.
I agree with you that Huckabee is authentic what he says he would wish to accomplish, but I do not think he understands the establishment in DC or the economy, foreign affairs etc . He has not shown he has the qualifications to be President. He has a good record as Governor to his credit, although he has at times introduced his religious beliefs into his governing, believing this was in line with the Constitution. I don't agree. He is the best campaigner of the Republicans because he is a skilled politician.
Obama has charisma and intelligence. However, he has not lived from his guts yet. He is still immature and he has not had enough life experience. He is still on an ego trip and believes he can do more than he knows how to do. He promises but they are promises from someone who has not been tested in life. I have noted many blacks will not support him because they feel he is a "bargainer." He hasn't come down to earth yet .
Sorry that is incorrect. In one of the presidential debates, Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback, three Republican candidates for president raised their hands when all the candidates present were asked if they did not believe in Evolution.
There is no proof of how "evolution" works, there are different theories. What is popularly called "Darwinism" leaves many unsolved questions and it fails to explain how the differences in species occur . It has not been demonstrated, for example, that the different life forms developed from a single cell, species by species in a seguential way as the popular notion of Darwinism suggests. Study the evidence from scientific research . Religious or philosophical theories often offer explanations which misrepresent scientific research.
The "Big Bang" is one scientific theory, but there are also theories that suggest it didn't occur . There is no evidence yet to prove it did.
Also just because you do not agree with everything a presidential candidate believes, I don't think that it is fair to say that he should be disqualified to be president.
As for your last comment, I think you need to do a little more research into evolution and the beginning of this Earth. When it comes down to it, you can't explain anything without a little faith.
My statement was that "evolution exists." That is a fact. I didn't try to explain HOW it works. And I acknowledged that we do not have complete knowledge of the process from the earliest stages of simple life forms up to the present day. But many of the holes HAVE been filled over time. The fact that we do not have the whole picture does not mean that evolution is invalid. People who say, "It's only a theory" do not understand the Scientific method.
Katrina,
I disagree with things most of the candidates say, but if one of them says that the moon is made of cheese, I think that disqualifies him to be president. In Huck's case, there are many, many other issues that I believe place him on the fringes of American political thought. I have detailed his positions on those issues about a hundred posts ago in this thread, and nobody has responded to them or tried to refute them.
I invite you to go back and read my enumerated list of his positions and then come back and tell me again what a "moderate" you think he is.
And finally, I have read extensively about the origins of the universe, of the earth, of life on earth and on human consciousness. None of these things can be explained by science. We simply do not have enough information, and possibly we are not intelligent enough to ever really understand these things. That understanding may have to wait for the next step on the evolutionary ladder.
But the fact that these things cannot be explained does NOT mandate the intervention of a supernatural power. It just simply means we don't know.
Ignorance is not a bad thing, Katrina. If we knew everything, life would be pretty boring. One of the most ennobling characteristics of the human species is our insatiable quest for knowledge. To me, saying, "Oh well, don't bother trying to figure it out. God did it." is a cop out.
In this day and age these concepts often present a real problem when it comes to relationships around the world with other religions, especially that of the Muslim view.
To have a national leader that thinks "that" way would be extremely dangerous for the entire world the way things are ... IMnsHO.
Anybody out there who is a Christian or a believer in any other religion, come here and tell me this is not correct. I challenge all comers!
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer
"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
Albert Einstein
"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe"
Werner von Braun, father of space science, September 7, 2002
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design."
Physicist Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics"
"The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle---an architect."
Scientist Allan Sandage
"Meanwhile, their' evolutionists unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel
"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."
Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France]
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."
[quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"
Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."
Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University
Finally,
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
You are illogical in saying "evolution exists" because there is are many conflicting theories on how the laws governing the processes of change of life forms work based on our knowledge gained by the scientific method. Was the human model developed first and then the other species of life were derived from that model but each having its own separate characteristics and laws? The relation of different species is not understood. They respond in unique ways to their environment . The "Darwiniian" notion of "evolution" as a development from one simple form to a more advanced one has been shown to not be true in many respects. There are many examples which contradict it.
We know we know very little about the origin of universe and the origin of life. Scientists think the can observe 4% of the matter of the universe, and for the rest they have various theories about, which are based on inference. What do we know of human history? Very little. We have evidence of human species from 1.3 million years ago, evidence that suggests human cultures with some forms of ritual and religion 300,000 years ago. There are many periods in more recent history that we recognize we have no evidence about, although we do have evidence before those periods and after those periods. There are many gaps and unknowns.
Katrine D.,
I note you asked whom I support. If I had a personal choice of the sort of candidate I would like to see as President, perhaps Ralph Nader . I don't know what I would do if I were in NH now or in a general election. I have known Ron Paul since 1972, years before he got into Congress and he has the best grasp of how the government works. Perhaps those who have made the effort to learn from what he brought to the public square will in future work to change the way things are run.
I think Romney is a principled , intelligent man but doesn't understand politics and is not an insider. He lacks the common touch because of not having experienced how many less educated live. He would work to clean up the system along the lines he says and the corrupt Congress (both parties) fear him. I am impressed by Bill Richardson because of his understanding of foreign policy, his experience and his leadership qualities. I believe he has close ties to the banking industry and is an insider. I don't know now enough about him otherwise. However he has made his views very clear to the public, and I agree with much of what he says. He did not pander to the people.
Clarke...you are confusing "how" with "what." I have said several times now that we do not understand a lot of things, but Darwin himself observed the process of natural selection in changes that he noticed in bird populations between his visits to the Galapagos. Did he understand "how" that happened? He theorized that it was a case of variants with survival advantages being more successful at breeding, but I suppose he couldn't offer a mathematical proof for that. However, there was no question about the "what" and he documented that very carefully. Since then, countless other naturalists have observed similar phenomena. When I said "evolution exists" that is what I meant. That is not "illogical," Clarke. It is plain and simple, a statement of fact.
To say "evolution exists" when no one can say what "evolution" is, as it has multiple possible meanings does not seem to me a logical statement. You believe "evolution'"exists, when it comes down to it. "Natural selection" that Darwin described proved to be based on errors in his observation when examined by others making observations.
I am sure there is "a" meaning for "evolution" that can "fit" into the potentials of our "evolution" which is surely taking place as we speak to one degree or another ... except of course where some may well be devolving ...
As wacky as it may seem to most, I have personally had contact with a spiritual realm that has impressed me with the supreme intelligence that exists there ... thus I am most certain that there is also a definition among the many that would satisfy my belief (without any doubt what-so-ever) that there is such a thing as a God that can communicate with us via Spirit ...
Everything is a mix and all concepts of "separation" are but differing mixes common to each other in varying degrees of space/time interactions (frequencies) that we have deemed by "our" definitions as having certain meanings in common to us ...
But to get back on thread, IF we get one of these "religious" guys as our next national leader, I sure hope he makes decisions more balanced and benevolent than many that would vote for him would make IF they were to hold that office.
When you say "no one can say what evolution is," I think you are referring to the difference between "big" evolution and "small" evolution. Christian fundamentalists deny the reality of either of these, saying that God created all of the species about 6000 years ago, and they remain unchanged from his original "design." That is provably untrue, and most people understand that "small" evolution is happening continuously...Darwin's finches, the spotted moth data and lots of other examples.
That is "small" evolution.
Scientists have been studying the process of "big" evolution for a long time, and have shown how many of the modern species have evolved from earlier, quite different forms...horses and dogs for example. But the process remains undefined for man's emergence, although some links have been found. I will not detail those here. The information is readily available if you want to find it.
But the real issue here is...that Creationists...and I guess you are one...spend a lot of effort trying to debunk Evolution. Why? Because, if the theory of Evolution is wrong, then Creation must be the answer, right?
Michael Shermer, writer and founder of the Skeptics Society had this to say about that notion:
"Natural selection" is an unscientific term Darwinism applies to adaptation within a species to conditions. It implies conditions are"natural." But what is "natural"? What pupose does a species serve in terms of life, that is all life ? To say a species adapts in order to "survive" doesn't explain the changes in species.
If we remove one species from an environment it may lead to the disappearance of other species dependent on it for life and their disappearance may lead to destruction of the land through erosion , fire, flood etc because the network of life is complex and interdependent. But we need to understand the purpose of any species on a larger scale than this.
The whole planet is subject to many forces coming from planets, suns, galaxies and so on. What is the purpose of the Earth ?
Insects are the largest species and they receive and transmit many forces coming from outside the Earth. Ants transmit many electromagnetic forces to the environment, for example. The effects of these forces are demonstrable in certain places and related to the ants.
If we wish to study evolution seriously we have to include many factors.
What is the pupose of human life on Earth, not only in relation to the other species but in terms of the universe? We receive energies from the whole universe . For what purpose? Each organ in our body receives all these energies. The human processes thes energies for its use in certain ways and it also transmits them to other life. The mind , which is not the brain, also receives energies in the form of impressions and thoughts and the mind processes these for its use and for all life.
What is the pupose of human life on Earth, not only in relation to the other species but in terms of the universe? We receive energies from the whole universe . For what purpose? Each organ in our body receives all these energies. The human processes thes energies for its use in certain ways and it also transmits them to other life. The mind , which is not the brain, also receives energies in the form of impressions and thoughts and the mind processes these for its use and for all life."
Some of these questions are interesting but aren't really germane to the question of speciation and the development of new traits. Science was never designed to consider purpose or truth any more than an electric mixer is. Science is about explaining and predicting natural phenomena through the use of a particular set of techniques. It's produced a whole bunch of useful things, a whole bunch of interesting things, and revealed an incredible amount of beauty. Purpose and truth are philosophical entities.
1. To abolish the income tax and the IRS and replace it with a regressive 23% sales tax.
2. To abolish Social Security
3. To make abortion illegal in the United States...even in cases of rape and incest.
4. To make the teaching of "Creation Science" mandatory in public school science classes.
I agree with Bert.
I don't think that Huckabee's easy manner or inner convictions are going to matter to any of the voters whoi do not share huckabee's fundamentalist convictions.
Although he has a heart-warming, "common man" pitch, I have not seen any evidence that he is becoming a populist Presidential choice.
There has been no movement of anyone other than religious conservatives to his standard.
Let's stick to true science and not conjectures.
Darwin wrote: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Science is a method of inquiry. What Einstein called "Technoscience" is the application of partial knowledge gained from inquiry. The consciousness of the inquirer determines the quality of the inquiry. There is no truth in science, except partial truth subject to further partial truth.
You're right about it being a method of inquiry. That's what it is and that's all it is. Any scientist will tell you the same thing. It's not a a secret. People who were asleep in general science in middle school tend to think of science as something like religion or philosophy. It's not and doesn't pretend to be.
Which raises the question who benefits? When research and technology is restricted to a few and not made available to many, used for purposes to serve the the few; when technology is used to destroy others and to gain power and wealth; when technology is used to serve humanity's selfishness and desires what then?
"But, Felix - Darwin's work was peer reviewed and remains the best we have. Natural selection is the process by which all life manifests itself. Evolution theory is sound science. Does it explain the mysteries that you are so fond of raising? Absolutely not. "
>>>>
Have you read the posts on this thread? Or are you just trying to be funny writing this nonsense, none of which is supported by contemporary science?
But this is accomplishing nothing, folks. We will have to agree to disagree.
Life is too short to spend it on futile arguments like this.
We each have our own opinions...and they are not going to change as a result of this discussion. We have, I believe, said all there is to say on the subject, and are now starting to repeat ourselves.
This is my last post in this thread.
Science, philosophy, art, religion are aspects of mind and reality. Discoveries in science come from the same source, which is mind. The rational faculty only processes what is received . It cannot invent anything "new' but only discover or rediscover it and bring it into use. The quality of observation and adherence to reason are subservient to the the creative capacity and consciousness of the mind of the seeker.
But the net result of those two factors will be one's "philosophy" which will most likely determine everything else in his life because the way we think about things reflects in intentions which reflect in outcomes ... action then reaction in that order ... IMnsHO.
I was thinking in terms of consciousness. Everything has consciousness, as a stone or a planet or a star , but on a scale. Human consciousness has different levels .
As we are all one , so we are all of one mind.
I stand by my comment. Evolution theory is sound science and should not be denigrated by the ignorant.
You wrote:
"Although he has a heart-warming, "common man" pitch, I have not seen any evidence that he is becoming a populist Presidential choice.
There has been no movement of anyone other than religious conservatives to his standard."
Huckabee has courted the homeschoolers and the NEA, the labor union of public school teachers. The 16,000-member New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association recommended to its members Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. The state chapter's membership is more than 25% Republican. The other Repubs have avoided the NEA so that partially explains their endorsement. Huckabee had helped them in March in reaching a settlement with the school system in Manchester NH.
He spoke to the national NEA in July, which other Repubs did not . He had been actively involved in reforming the school system in Arkansas and this three children attended public schools.
Science provides us with evidence and various explanations of the changing life on Earth. But evolution science recognizes many factors involved in change. Scientists disagree in many cases in interpreting what the factors are. In the case of Darwin's work there are proven errors in his interpretations. What you refer to as "Evolution theory" is better described as a scientific field comprising many different theories and lines of research.
Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer
Albert Einstein
Werner von Braun, father of space science, September 7, 2002
Physicist Paul Davies
Scientist Allan Sandage
Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel
Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist
Bounoure, Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France
T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist
Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University
I could have quoted many more, but, I'm glad I didn't or they, too, would have been relegated to Joe's List of...'the ignorant'.
Bert- you have argued your side of it pretty well.
Here is my bottom line judgement on Huckabee.
1. He has every right to be an Evangelical Christian, it's a free Country.
2. After seven years of an Evangelical Christian president, with the accompanying Terri Schiavo nonsense, efforts to slow stem research, and passing money to faith based initiatives, I have no interest in replacing him with another who is actually MORE Evangelical than Bush.
3. I am not sure that being an Evangelical Republican Populist works, even in theory. It's somewhat paradoxical and self contradictory, you know what I mean? You're a Republican and you do not read the Wall Street Journal? Get real.
4. Huckabee attempts to be kinder and gentler on the climate change topic, in keeping with the tides of Evangelicalism. Robertson and Dobson are aging, Falwell is dead, and Richard Cizik is having an impact. The new thing is "stewardship", rather than reading Genesis as a blank check to have dominion over the earth and rape it for the benefit of Exxon. Fine, that's progress of a sort. But look, climate change is a matter of science. if you have already stated that you are suspicious of science in the sense that you ignore evolution and cling to creationism even to the extent of advocating that it be taught in public schools, how am I going to take seriously anything that you say about combatting climate change? When you are in office, you will find reasons to change your mind. Oh my, it would be nice to replace those coal fired plants with solar ones, but gee that would cost too many jobs. so sorry, you will have to wait for the next president.
Sorry Huckabee, I am tired of what we have and i am danged if i want another 8 years of it. Fool me once, shame on you. We won't get fooled again.
The ridiculous hair-splitting attempts to deny the Theory of Evolution on this thread are sufficient reason to reject any more anti-science "true-believers" on the political stage.