Valueless Voter's Debate if Huckabee Doesn't Clarify.
A son named Saul, an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites—a head taller than any of the others. - 1 Samuel 9:2
Saul didn't work out so well, David was after God's own heart.
But Janet Folger and others take the straw poll (who picked the delegates) to mean Huckabee is anointed as candidate.
Her bible must be different than mine (probably in the number of books as I'm Roman Catholic). Ismael came first, but Issac was the son of promise. Esau was first born, but Jacob got the blessing. Ephraim and Manasseh also were reversed. Saul came first, but David was God's man.
However something struck me - RON PAUL was the only one to vote differently on any issue from the pack that I remember seeing. And it was on some controversial questions and not just one. So his opinions can't be what the audience wants to hear. The positions were perfectly consistent with his constitutionalism. So if he won't change positions even to score a few debate points, he isn't going to change if he is in the president's office.
Even Reagan changed. Bush the elder raised taxes after it was a key campaign promise not to, and his son has abandoned every conservative principle I can think of (true con, not neo con).
I've contacted the organizations and asked - Mitt Romney and Huckabee agree on almost everything, and for the most part so did the rest of the field. Why believe one will hold true but not the other? And our sitting president would probably have answered IDENTICALLY were the debate held for the 2000 election.
Why wouldn't Huckabee flip the red or green switch for the corrupt DC people when he is around them? He wouldn't dissent on anything. Maybe even Bill Clinton would "give the right answers" if he was there. Maybe Hillary would too.
I don't wish to accuse Huckabee, but following the crowd is following the crowd. Ron Paul didn't and hasn't for decades. If there was a single dissenting vote in Congress on an issue, it was usually his. I can find nowhere Huckabee has a record of dissenting and staying on principle (if anyone here knows, enlighten me).
But I will give Huckabee a chance.
One one question on which he differed from Ron Paul - Terri Schiavo. OK, he would "save" her? What would he have done differently? Would he too wait for congress to produce a pontius pilate paper then throw it back to the courts while Terri was starving like Bush? Or would he send in the FDA swat team, the FBI, the National Guard or something? Will he charge Greer, Felos, and Schiavo with murder, violating the rights of the disabled, or whatever? Declare them enemy combatants and send them to GITMO to be waterboarded (would he do that to abortionists who have taken more innocent life than anyone from Al Quaeda)? Or would he only do what Congress and the Courts allowed him to do?
There is NO authority in the constitution for any such actions at the federal level, which is why Ron Paul said No. If Huckabee meant to say "I will only act if I get permission from the court and congress", he pressed the wrong button. "Only if they will let me" in this case means No - and for a wrong and evil reason. If he thinks he has such authority, let him clearly state what he will do as President regardless of what any other branch of government does or says.
If he means he will be a tyrant and usurper for Christ, it will be better than the rest of the tepid fools running and he can end abortion by his second week in office. But let that be clear - Ron Paul refuses to usurp even authority the courts and congress would look the other way on.
If not, he is and will be no different than the other sellout senators, corrupt congressmen, and prostituted presidents in either party we've had over my adult life.
Will Huckabee answer this? How about a Huckabee - Paul runoff?