Huck's Army Forum :: Faith, Family & Freedom
http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/

Beck Slams Huckabee (again)
http://www.forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25036
Page 3 of 6

Author:  bmk2307 [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

WinningGuy wrote:
Mike is a somewhat progressive Republican when compared to a libertarian Republican. And Beck, is a libertarian.

Well I guess that he is from Glenn's perspective. But Beck is considered a fringe right wing nut when compared to an independent. Its all about perspective. And when you understand the perspective then you can judge the validity.

Author:  Craig88USC [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

bmk2307 wrote:
WinningGuy wrote:
Mike is a somewhat progressive Republican when compared to a libertarian Republican. And Beck, is a libertarian.

Well I guess that he is from Glenn's perspective. But Beck is considered a fringe right wing nut when compared to an independent. Its all about perspective. And when you understand the perspective then you can judge the validity.



Exactly.


And we need Independents to defeat Obama.

Author:  Craig88USC [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

[quote][/quote]I think sometimes people mistake the Governor's gentlemanly demeanor as some how being "meek or weak." If he does not respond to attacks he is "weak" and if he does he is "thinned skinned." The fact is, Governor Huckabee has solid conservative credentials that can not be denied. The Governor is able to be effective without being obstinate. He is more concerned about what is right and wrong, and what is good for America, not just what's best for him politically. Consequently, some view this as a weakness.

However, meekness is not weakness. It is not a spineless kind of timidity. It is the “strength under control” that is needed in our culture. Meekness is where humility and self-control meet. It is one of the most indispensable aspects of truly Christ like character. It’s the one quality most necessary to tame an out- of -control ego. As arrogance gives way to meekness, it is the cure for countless ills that often hinder the quest for character.

In addition, Huckabee has the ability to appeal to non-conservative voters, independents and minorities. He’s charming and charismatic, a gifted speaker with a quick wit and disarming sense of humor. He is the anti-Obama. Perhaps that is why he has led overall in polling for over a year now.

Even though Beck and those like him in the media have pretended to ignore this reality for months, they are now in a corner. In their mind, the Huck Train must be derailed before it gets any further down the political tracks. It appears to me Beck has "gone Mel Gibson" and may likely self destruct. It remains to be seen how many "conservatives" will follow him over the cliff.

====
Hopefully only a few. :pray

Author:  WinningGuy [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

bmk2307 wrote:
Well I guess that he is from Glenn's perspective. But Beck is considered a fringe right wing nut when compared to an independent.


I have two comments about this statement.

I don't think it's relevant if Beck is "considered" a fringe right wing nut. I think that you'd agree that perception doesn't necessarily equal reality. And that bias abounds everywhere.

And I think that Independents can't really be compared to a particular political philosophy or position. Mainly, because as the name implies, Independents are independent, and their opinions go across the whole political spectrum.

Though I would agree that a high percentage of Independents may have the opinion that Beck is a fringe right wing nut. But that's different than saying that his "is" comparatively.

And also consider, there are a lot of people that consider any conservative a fringe right wing nut.

Quote:
Its all about perspective. And when you understand the perspective then you can judge the validity.


I don't think that's true either.

I don't think that perspective has anything to do with validity. Understanding someone's perspective gives you insight into why they think a certain way. But it doesn't change if a concept, principle, or philosophy should be judged more or less valid. In the end, the principles and policies should be judged according to our own perspectives, not how we imagine the presenter's perspective is.

I could imagine that Obama has the very best intentions. I could even believe that he believes everything he says and wants to do what is best for the country. But that doesn't matter, because I still believe that his principles and policy are destructive.

Author:  WinningGuy [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

Craig88USC wrote:
bmk2307 wrote:
WinningGuy wrote:
Mike is a somewhat progressive Republican when compared to a libertarian Republican. And Beck, is a libertarian.

Well I guess that he is from Glenn's perspective. But Beck is considered a fringe right wing nut when compared to an independent. Its all about perspective. And when you understand the perspective then you can judge the validity.


Exactly.

And we need Independents to defeat Obama.


This is true.

So, while I may be more fiscally conservative than Huckabee, I do think that he would be the best candidate to win the Republican nomination. He has the best chance of winning over the Independents and isn't so progressive that it would completely turn off conservatives. He's less progressive than McCain. He's less progressive than Romney.

I'm of the belief that Huckabee wants government bigger than I want government. But he still wants it smaller than it is now, so that's a positive.

My other dark horse candidate would be Herman Cain. Love that guy.

Author:  cschande [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

WinningGuy wrote:
So, while I may be more fiscally conservative than Huckabee, I do think that he would be the best candidate to win the Republican nomination. He has the best chance of winning over the Independents and isn't so progressive that it would completely turn off conservatives. He's less progressive than McCain. He's less progressive than Romney.

I'm of the belief that Huckabee wants government bigger than I want government. But he still wants it smaller than it is now, so that's a positive.

My other dark horse candidate would be Herman Cain. Love that guy.


Winning Guy, first, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you're willing to support Mike despite not feeling like you line up perfectly with him on all the issues. A lot of people these days fool themselves into thinking they can demand perfect candidates who do and say and believe everything exactly as they'd have them to. If that's what you're looking for, the best you can hope for is someone who's all talking points and no action, because, as any executive will tell you, action requires compromise and being willing to work with people you don't agree with in order to do as much good as you possibly can within the limits of what you have to work with.

Secondly, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to check out Dick Morris's article on Huck's credentials as a fiscal conservative. I think Huck may be closer to where you stand on fiscal policy than you realize when you consider his record in perspective (something few in the conservative media are willing to do, unfortunately).

I hope that helps!

Author:  bmk2307 [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

WinningGuy wrote:
I don't think it's relevant if Beck is "considered" a fringe right wing nut. I think that you'd agree that perception doesn't necessarily equal reality. And that bias abounds everywhere.


Exactly. That was my point. Beck's perception does not equal reality.

Author:  christopher.wilkerson [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

WinningGuy wrote:

I'm of the belief that Huckabee wants government bigger than I want government. But he still wants it smaller than it is now, so that's a positive.


I would urge you to reevaluate that belief. I think the goal-post for conservatism has been moved or the term redefined in recent years, thanks to the explosion in talk-radio and conservative outlets of information on the internet. And I think that conversation is good for the movement. However, it seems that conservatism has been conflated with libertarianism.

Now, Huckabee has emphatically said that he is not a libertarian. He is conservative, and he is a Republican; that is to say, he holds to a Republican and conservative philosophy concerning governance. If we're trying to dig into MH's brain and see what he wants, I believe that he would want a much smaller government, like what the founders set up --a more libertarian government. But if politics is the art of the possible, Huckabee is a much more responsible leader because he recognizes the present reality. No single president or congress could reverse 225 years of 'progressive' government expansion. I think that's what a lot of the talk radio crowd, the ditto-heads, the shiite Republicans want, - nay, demand! Like children, they demand it. My main point is that there is a huge difference between what we want, and what we need (and what we can get).

A wise leader recognizes that to try to do too much at once without the support of a healthy majority of the people, he will be severely punished at the ballot box. Ask Obama about this. A defeat as horrible as this could bring huge majorities of socialists into the Congress, setting the conservative movement back for years, if not decades. Remember, Liberalism always has the upper hand because it is the path of least resistance. It's always simpler to let the government direct your life and provide for you.

Author:  QuoVadisAnima [ Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

Winning Guy, you have aroused my curiosity, could you share what specifically Huckabee has done that you have issues with?

P.S. Love your ability to disagree agreeably! :like

Author:  WinningGuy [ Mon May 02, 2011 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Winning Guy, you have aroused my curiosity, could you share what specifically Huckabee has done that you have issues with?

P.S. Love your ability to disagree agreeably! :like


I don't really have "issues" with him.

I love that he supports the Fair Tax. And that alone probably helps move him to the front in my book.

He does sometimes support government programs that I hope will be eventually eliminated. Like the existence of things like the Department of Education. But also, I do realize that the shrinking of government is something that would need to be done gradually. And Huckabee's government would be a step in the right direction, while something like Ron Paul's government might be a little too shocking for people to take. And I disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

I don't really like how Huckabee responded to Beck though. I thought it seemed a bit personal.

Author:  ConservTexan [ Mon May 02, 2011 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

Winning Guy, welcome to HucksArmy.

Glad to have you report for duty.

It is interesting that you decided to enlist and then write posts looking as if you report directly to Glenn Beck.

You will find here that we welcome all discussions, but first and foremost, we support Gov. Mike Huckabee for POTUS in 2012.

We would hate to put you on latrine duty if all you do is post about Glenn Beck's political talking points against Huckabee.

We know the truth about Mike Huckabee's record. While he is not perfect, he does have a successful 10 1/2 years governing record which makes him the perfect candidate to go head to head against Obama.

Again, welcome aboard!

Author:  ColoradoMom4Huckabee [ Mon May 02, 2011 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

WinningGuy wrote:

He does sometimes support government programs that I hope will be eventually eliminated. Like the existence of things like the Department of Education. But also, I do realize that the shrinking of government is something that would need to be done gradually. And Huckabee's government would be a step in the right direction, while something like Ron Paul's government might be a little too shocking for people to take. And I disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy.


Just to be clear, Huckabee has said he would sign a bill eliminating the Federal Dept of Education:


Quote:
In a conference call with bloggers today, I asked him plainly:

If you were president in 2013 and a Republican House and Senate voted to end the federal school breakfast program in one year and the school lunch program one year after that, and the department of education the year after that, would you sign the bill, considering that in your book you show that these things would be better handled by parents, churches, and the states, respectively, rather than the federal government, and in fact, the federal role in education is itself unconstitutional?

His answer: Yes,
he would sign a bill abolishing the Federal Department of Education, if Congress gave him such a bill to sign. On the question of school lunches, he fudged a little (pardon the pun), suggesting that he would consider it if he could be assured there would a church organization or the states would make up the difference. Not a knee-jerk answer, but thoughtful and responsive, even if a little tentative.


http://race42012.com/2011/02/21/huckabe ... nted-bill/

Author:  WinningGuy [ Mon May 02, 2011 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

ConservTexan wrote:
Winning Guy, welcome to HucksArmy.

Glad to have you report for duty.

It is interesting that you decided to enlist and then write posts looking as if you report directly to Glenn Beck.


Actually, I signed up here in the last Presidential election cycle. I knew that Huckabee was a Fair Tax proponent. So he was my choice in 2008.

I do listen to Glenn Beck casually. I switch stations a lot on my 90 minute drive to work, so I would say that I hear about 3 to 5 hrs of Glenn Beck per week. And I do like him. I don't always agree with his conclusions. But he does seem genuine and his heart appears to be in the right place.

I also honestly don't think he meant his criticism to Huckabee to be some sort of attack. It was just a description of their philosophical differences.

Quote:
You will find here that we welcome all discussions, but first and foremost, we support Gov. Mike Huckabee for POTUS in 2012.

We would hate to put you on latrine duty if all you do is post about Glenn Beck's political talking points against Huckabee.


Haha. I don't expect anyone else to be a Beck fan. But I think that Huckabee handled it poorly. That's my main gripe. Not enough to pick someone else right now as my front runner though. Though, I will admit that Herman Cain is close.

Quote:
We know the truth about Mike Huckabee's record. While he is not perfect, he does have a successful 10 1/2 years governing record which makes him the perfect candidate to go head to head against Obama.

Again, welcome aboard!


I don't expect perfection. Mainly because that will be different for everyone. And I actually don't want a libertarian (I don't use a capital "L" because I'm a libertarian in the same way that Larry Elder is) in the White House at this time. I don't think the country would be prepared for it.

But what I do love about Huckabee is that he appears to be honest and genuine. Character is important to me.

Author:  QuoVadisAnima [ Mon May 02, 2011 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

Debbie, Winning Guy has a scant but established track record with HA - search his posts. I think it's unlikely that we're being trolled again.

Winning Guy, it's not unreasonable to suggest that Huckabee's response to Beck may have been more emotional than ideal, but I don't believe it is exactly a defining moment either.

He's had to put up with so much garbage from his opponents (& I don't just mean politicians) calling him a liberal that I find it infuriating & it's not even me. Most people will understand.

The issues that Beck points to in order to justify his remarks were not even verified before he threw them out there. It's egotists like Beck who are willing to sink our chances of regaining the WH in 2012 because they are more interested in their own glory than in the truth.

Which political figure would you say best characterizes your pov? (Doesn't have to be a pol - just someone whose politics are identifiable)

I do find it a little disturbing that you would use the word "progressive" in describing Huckabee even when it's only being applied on a relative scale. Yet you do not seem to be able to identify a specific concrete point on which you can hang that label? I am puzzled as to what you are basing this on then.

Author:  ConservTexan [ Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

Quote:
Actually, I signed up here in the last Presidential election cycle. I knew that Huckabee was a Fair Tax proponent. So he was my choice in 2008.


Oops, my bad. Sorry about that.

Maybe I have to report for latrine duty now :lol:

Author:  WinningGuy [ Tue May 03, 2011 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Which political figure would you say best characterizes your pov? (Doesn't have to be a pol - just someone whose politics are identifiable)


Not quite sure about political figures. But if you're familiar with Larry Elder, I'm pretty close to that.

Quote:
I do find it a little disturbing that you would use the word "progressive" in describing Huckabee even when it's only being applied on a relative scale. Yet you do not seem to be able to identify a specific concrete point on which you can hang that label? I am puzzled as to what you are basing this on then.


I don't really use "progressive" to describe Huckabee in general conversation. I was just using it in this thread because this thread was about what Beck said. And I was trying to keep things in that context.

Normally I would say that Huckabee is a little more "moderate" than I am. But don't get me wrong. I don't think he's a Romney or anything like that.

Author:  QuoVadisAnima [ Fri May 06, 2011 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

I've heard of Larry Elder - read a few of his columns over the years & liked them - but know little about him. Here's what wikipedia says:
Quote:
Elder's political views are philosophically libertarian, and have also been described as conservative.[12] He supports free trade, school choice and abortion rights.[13] He opposes the income tax and supports replacing it with the FairTax, a national retail sales tax. He is also a firm opponent of the war on drugs and has been quoted as saying "Philosophically, I think that if somebody wants to sit around and get stoned that's up to him or her. And if that ruins your life, so be it....So I am for drug legalization."[6] Although he is not an Objectivist, he says that Atlas Shrugged, written by novelist Ayn Rand, is one of his favorite books.[14]

He has called himself a "libertarian with a small 'l'" to distance himself from the national Libertarian Party concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Elder was registered as Decline to State, but became a Republican in May 2003 in support of the War on Terror,[15] to be more influential within the Republican Party and to open up the possibility of running for office.[14] In his May 13, 2003 column for Jewish World Review, Elder explained reregistering as a Republican by quoting Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, who said, "I am a Republican with a capital 'R,' and a libertarian with a small 'l.' I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles. But because that's the way I am the most useful and have the most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian."[15] Elder ended his column by saying, "Make no mistake: My libertarian principles remain unchanged. But as writer Midge Decter once said, 'There comes a time to join the side you're on.'"[15] Elder has said that the Libertarian Party differs in ways from the libertarian philosophy, which has roots in the Whig and Republican parties[citation needed]. Melding the two parties, he sometimes refers to himself as a "Republitarian," which he defines as a Republican Party member who holds libertarian political ideals.[16]

Elder's name was in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times (17 August 2006) that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and supported Israel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[17]

Following Elder's reregistering as a Republican, in a 2008 interview with The New Individualist Magazine, he said, "A lot of my listeners will often call up and say, 'I preferred you when you were a Libertarian.' I always tell them I never was a 'capital-L Libertarian.' I am still 'small-l.' It’s a philosophy to me, not a party."[14] Elder supported presidential candidates Harry Browne[14] in 2000, George W. Bush[18] in 2004, and John McCain[19] in 2008.

Roll Call reported that Elder contemplated a possible run for the United States Senate against California Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010.[20]
I must confess that I get frustrated with people who have a reasonable amount of life experience & still do not see how the social issues DO affect all of us negatively - that's where the "social" part comes from = society.

Having worked in pharmacy for 15yrs, for example (borrowing from Elders wiki bio above), I've seen that legalizing drugs does not at all eliminate the problems with them & addicts do not just fade into a drug hazed oblivion & out of society. The legal addicts were just as scary to deal with as the illegal ones. They still steal, cheat, lie & hold places up to get their fix. And the cops who have to pick up the pieces after these people will tell you pretty much the same - a fatal car crash is still just as fatal whether the driver was stoned on legal substances or illegal ones.

Author:  GrannyT [ Sat May 07, 2011 6:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Having worked in pharmacy for 15yrs, for example (borrowing from Elders wiki bio above), I've seen that legalizing drugs does not at all eliminate the problems with them & addicts do not just fade into a drug hazed oblivion & out of society. The legal addicts were just as scary to deal with as the illegal ones. They still steal, cheat, lie & hold places up to get their fix. And the cops who have to pick up the pieces after these people will tell you pretty much the same - a fatal car crash is still just as fatal whether the driver was stoned on legal substances or illegal ones.

That is one of the things I totally disagree with Paul & Johnson about, too. I'm suspicious that a lot of Paul's support money is from wealthy users and/or dealers that think legalized drugs would help solve their problems. I heard that heroine was one of the winners of the debate. :shock: What is wrong with people? I understand what Johnson said about the cost of incarceration. But incarcerating murderers, rapist, thieves, etc. is expensive, too. Does that mean we should let them "do their own thing"?

I remember an evangelist (WW 2 vet and former wrestler) telling stories of running into "kids" that told him they just wanted to do their own thing and asked him what was wrong with that. He told them they ought to be glad there were laws against that restraining people; because "someone's own thing might be shooting punks they disagreed with."

Author:  WinningGuy [ Mon May 09, 2011 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

QuoVadisAnima wrote:
I've heard of Larry Elder - read a few of his columns over the years & liked them - but know little about him. Here's what wikipedia says:
Quote:
Elder's political views are philosophically libertarian, and have also been described as conservative.[12] He supports free trade, school choice and abortion rights.[13] He opposes the income tax and supports replacing it with the FairTax, a national retail sales tax. He is also a firm opponent of the war on drugs and has been quoted as saying "Philosophically, I think that if somebody wants to sit around and get stoned that's up to him or her. And if that ruins your life, so be it....So I am for drug legalization."[6] Although he is not an Objectivist, he says that Atlas Shrugged, written by novelist Ayn Rand, is one of his favorite books.[14]

He has called himself a "libertarian with a small 'l'" to distance himself from the national Libertarian Party concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Elder was registered as Decline to State, but became a Republican in May 2003 in support of the War on Terror,[15] to be more influential within the Republican Party and to open up the possibility of running for office.[14] In his May 13, 2003 column for Jewish World Review, Elder explained reregistering as a Republican by quoting Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, who said, "I am a Republican with a capital 'R,' and a libertarian with a small 'l.' I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles. But because that's the way I am the most useful and have the most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian."[15] Elder ended his column by saying, "Make no mistake: My libertarian principles remain unchanged. But as writer Midge Decter once said, 'There comes a time to join the side you're on.'"[15] Elder has said that the Libertarian Party differs in ways from the libertarian philosophy, which has roots in the Whig and Republican parties[citation needed]. Melding the two parties, he sometimes refers to himself as a "Republitarian," which he defines as a Republican Party member who holds libertarian political ideals.[16]

Elder's name was in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times (17 August 2006) that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and supported Israel in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[17]

Following Elder's reregistering as a Republican, in a 2008 interview with The New Individualist Magazine, he said, "A lot of my listeners will often call up and say, 'I preferred you when you were a Libertarian.' I always tell them I never was a 'capital-L Libertarian.' I am still 'small-l.' It’s a philosophy to me, not a party."[14] Elder supported presidential candidates Harry Browne[14] in 2000, George W. Bush[18] in 2004, and John McCain[19] in 2008.

Roll Call reported that Elder contemplated a possible run for the United States Senate against California Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010.[20]
I must confess that I get frustrated with people who have a reasonable amount of life experience & still do not see how the social issues DO affect all of us negatively - that's where the "social" part comes from = society.

Having worked in pharmacy for 15yrs, for example (borrowing from Elders wiki bio above), I've seen that legalizing drugs does not at all eliminate the problems with them & addicts do not just fade into a drug hazed oblivion & out of society. The legal addicts were just as scary to deal with as the illegal ones. They still steal, cheat, lie & hold places up to get their fix. And the cops who have to pick up the pieces after these people will tell you pretty much the same - a fatal car crash is still just as fatal whether the driver was stoned on legal substances or illegal ones.


I do disagree with him on abortion. Because I think that protecting life is paramount.

But I do agree with legalization of drugs. I don't think it makes the problem of drug users go away. They still have to be dealt with. But it helps to get rid of the underground black market that is taking so many resources to combat. Drug dealing murderers will have to look for another line of work.

At the rate the country seems to be going, it may be in peddling fast food.

Author:  Craig88USC [ Mon May 09, 2011 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Beck Slams Huckabee (again)

Anyone who runs for President on a platform of legalizing weed, heroin, speed, etc etc will lose.

AND LOSE BADLY, PERIOD.

Page 3 of 6 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/