Though Fred Thompson finally ended his dance of the seven veils and revealed his candidacy to Jay Leno in a taped appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show,” it’s Mike Huckabee – who has always made the most of his limited time in the spotlight as a second-tier candidate – who’s looking sexy after Wednesday’s “The First of the Fall Republican Debate” in Durham, NH.
The highlight of the evening was the electrifying and impassioned give-and-take – imagine, an actual debate broke out at the “you have one minute for answers, 30 second for rebuttals” debate! – between Huckabee and Ron Paul on whether and when to pull out of Iraq.
Chris Wallace set the stage by asking the anti-war Paul whether the US should try “to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out,” protect “the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S” and if troops should be left in the region “to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?” Paul explained his positions more lucidly than ever before:
Paul: “The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them? Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. … The war has not gone well one bit. … The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”
Wallace: “[Y]ou’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?”
Paul: “No! I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.”
After Sam Brownback weighed in on all this, Huckabee took it right to Paul. Speaking in measured tones, Huckabee came off as strong and principled, but the more excitable Paul became, the higher-pitched and whinier his voice got so even if he said something that made sense, he sounded unreasonable:
Huckabee: Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we’re there. … We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.
Paul: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people.
Huckabee: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under G-d. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.
Paul: We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party! We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.
Huckabee: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.
Wallace and his colleague, Wendell Goler, threw tough questions at the candidates, but it seemed to The Stiletto that Giuliani – who got asked questions that would have made a lesser man squirm (as Romney did when a voter whose son served two tours in Iraq slammed him for comparing being in harm’s way to Romney’s five sons riding the Mitt Mobile to further their father’s political ambitions) – was able to explain himself clearly and forthrightly, without hemming and hawing or bobbing and weaving:
Wallace: Back in 1994, you said the following: “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being a fugitive, which is really unfair.” As president, would you continue to protect illegals from what you then called unfair enforcement of our borders?
Giuliani: Chris, you haven’t really described the entire extent of the executive order. The first part of the executive order points out that the police should report all illegals suspected of committing a crime or who have committed a crime. In fact, the year before I was mayor the immigration service stopped taking names from the police department of people that the police department were reporting. So the problem that I had was I had 400,000 illegal immigrants – roughly – in New York City, and I had a city that was the crime capital of America.
***
Goler: Fred Thompson says the Virginia Tech tragedy might have been lessened if some of the students had been allowed to carry guns. He also says that he never felt safe in your city because of its gun control laws. What do you have to say to him about either of these assertions?
Giuliani: Well, I would say to him the FBI would disagree with that. New York City was during the years that I was mayor the safest large city in the United States. … I took a city that was the crime capital of America, and I made it not only the safest large city in America, I made it safer than 189 small cities.
Goler: And the idea of letting college students carry weapons?
Giuliani: The focus of our law should be on criminals. That’s what I did in New York City. I reduced shootings in New York City by 75 percent. And I did it by focusing not on guns but on criminals, putting them in jail, putting them in jail for long periods of time when they committed crimes with guns, and it worked.
***
Wallace: Mayor Giuliani, you say that you were a big tax cutter in New York, but you did raise fees and fines, and in fact you even went to court to fight elimination of the commuter tax. … [W]hy not take the Americans for Tax Reform pledge not to increase marginal rates, sir?
Giuliani: It’s a matter of principle. I think if you’re president of the United States, you take one pledge: to uphold the Constitution of the United States. There would be literally thousands of issues on which you would take a pledge if you let groups do that to you. So I’ve always taken the view that you take one pledge, it’s to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Carl Cameron, who was stationed at a local eatery to field questions from voters, gave University of New Hampshire poly-sci major James Tautkus the mike to ask an incomprehensibly phrased question that turned out to be about Giuliani’s messy private life.
Giuliani: I certainly haven’t lived a perfect life. I am not running as the perfect candidate for president of the United States. I’m running as a human being who has been very successful as a leader, and had definable results in a situation in which people thought it was impossible to accomplish these things. … So obviously any issues in my private life do not affect my public performance.
Finally, Giuliani gave arguably the smartest answer of the bunch to the loaded hypothetical with which moderator Brit Hume likes to end Fox-sponsored debates. In this scenario, U.N. weapons inspectors say that Iran is on the verge of – or even may already be – producing nukes. U.S. inspectors have been kicked out of the country, the number of cross-border incidents between Iran and Iraq have increased, and the threats against Israel have escalated:
Giuliani: Well, I think that we have to look Iran really in a different way than just a Cold War analysis. … Iran is right now the single biggest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. … So the real risk, to me, is not their launching an attack … The more realistic one is, they’re going to hand nuclear material off to the terrorists that they are presently supplying. So America has to have a clear position. The position should be that Iran is not going to be allowed to go nuclear. … Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, but it was because he pointed like a thousand missiles at Soviet cities. And he negotiated with them. I heard this confusion in the Democratic debate about when to talk and when not to talk- well, he talked to them with a thousand missiles pointed directly at their cities.
Perhaps The Stiletto was watching a different debate on Wednesday night than the sad-sack group of NH voters gathered together by pollster Frank Luntz, who thought that the debate was disappointing, that John McCain was the clear winner and that Rudy kept harping on his experience as NYC’s mayor too much.
Why shouldn’t Rudy talk about how he turned around NYC – and how he kept his head on 9/11 while all about him were losing theirs? The Stiletto lived in NYC during the Dinkins years, and has some understanding of what it might be like to live in Beirut. What Rudy accomplished was nothing less than a miracle – and he even lowered her taxes to boot!
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.
71 users commented in " Huckabee Is Now A First-Tier Candidate "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYou left off Ron Pauls last reply to his exchange with Huckabee.
The Stiletto pruned everyone’s responses for brevity. Anyone who wants to read every last jot and tittle of the debate Q&As is welcome to click on the link to the full transcript published in The New York Times that is included in the article.
Sure Huckabee won. That’s why Ron Paul won the text poll by a wide margin, has won 7 out of the last 13 official GOP straw polls, placed in the top 3 in 10 out of 13 of these races. AND see ;
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=16747
RonPaul2008.com Web Traffic at All Time High
Figures updated as of two days ago, Thursday, from Alexa, show that traffic at http://www.RonPaul2008.com has reached an all time high.
Traffic rank is at an all time high of 10,226 (the lower the number the better)
Reach is also at an all time high of 0.017% (percent of global users who visit the site).
Ron Paul’s website traffic continues to trounce all GOP competitors by a landslide.
In second place among GOP’s as of two days ago, was ImWithFred.com, which had traffic rank at 37,779 and reach of 0.0055%.
Huckabee continues to bite the dust with horrible statistics of a traffic rank of 81,563 and reach of 0.002%.
Figures and trends can be seen here:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr…onpaul2008.com
I love it when people leave off Ron Paul’s most important line of the debate – wonder why that is – probably to be deceitful.
Here is the last part of that debate:
MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.
REP. PAUL: We’re losing — we’ve lost over — (cheers, applause) — we have lost — we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in — we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long — what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home! (cheers, applause)
Huckabee first tier? lol
There is no interest in the tax increasing Huckabee. Why would there be? While govenor he raised taxes 60% from the time he got into office to the time he left.
Other than the fact that now for some odd reason the mainstream media is trying to push him into the “first tier” category he’s not really generating any buzz.
Ron Paul on the other hand everywhere he goes is surrounded with mobs of people. Name one candidate that is drawing the crowds that Ron Paul is drawing! Fox news security had to make the good Dr. leave the stage after the debate the other night because crowds of people were coming up to him trying to shake his hand. Any other candidate get this treatment? NO. So go ahead and keep trying to promote other candidates. We the people know the TRUTH!
HA HA HA HA HA
Thats funny. Ron Paul wins the vote after the debate and beat him by almost 20 percent. Do you know how to count? 1,2,3 and then 4. If the numbers are right there, right on the main screen of fox news, obviously Ron Paul is a top tier candidate. Go Ronny!
The number of Americans we have lost in the War on Terror is far smaller than any other war lomg-duration this nation has fought. Personally, The Stiletto finds it disturbing how closely some of what Osama bin Laden says in his new tape echoes some of what Paul said in this latest debate.
Having said that, if Ron Paul wins a single primary, you can count on The Stiletto to acknowledge his feat.
If the sustained effort by the MSM and others to promote Huckabee into the top tier works, it will actually help Ron Paul. First, it will further fragment the top tier, leaving less than an average of 20 percent of the Republican vote for each of them (McCain, Rudy, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee). This will make it much harder for the powers-that-be to find a pretext to exclude Paul from future debates and much easier for Paul, the only antiwar candidate, to draw a contrast between himself and the pro-war field. The 20 percent figue, btw, is probably too high since I suspect that Paul will surge to five or six percent because of the debate.
Rey, the results you refer to are text-messages phoned in by fanatical Libertarians and are not scientific. Giuliani remains on top in the national polls, and Huckabee came in 2nd in the IA straw poll without buying his votes like Romney did. Libertarians are living in an echo chamber.
Dodsworth, The Stiletto has been accused of many things but never being part of the MSM.
Huckabee’s ascention to the top tier hurts Romney, who has a lot of baggage (not the least of which is his well-deserved reputation as a flip-flopper). Thompson’s entry into the race also hurts Romney for the same reason. The Stiletto thinks Huckabee and Thompson are going to have to duke it out to see who knocks Romney out of the top tier.
Last week’s debate shows that it’s too soon to count McCain out, and Rudy has shown remarkable staying power, given that his position on the issues is anathema to most conservatives.
Why should we promote someone to first tier for being wrong? Please read Michael Scheuer – the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit what he says about Ron Paul’s foreign policy here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rep_Paul_and_the_Founders_versus_Our_Interventionist_Elite_3
Or watch him in a press conference after the “Rudy Giuliani dust up”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
1. Why does Stiletto refer to Libertarians as fanatical ?
2. Does Stiletto have some plausible reason why the other candidates
generate no ‘fanatical’ interest in their positions ?
Thanks for your interest, anyway…
Your response to these point will be enlightening.
Since when was it not OK, not object to a war for “HONOR”? Did he ever serve!? NOPE HUCKABEE NEVER SERVED!
Also, if elections are based on what the people want, and if the American people demand changes, and the politicians are saying NO, we shouldnt care about what the people want [i.e. elections],
THEN, NEWSFLASH!!
WE ARE NOT IN A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE!!
re: RON PAUL
You are saying the same thing they said about VIETNAM – “if we pull out all hell will break loose”
BEING OVER there is creating more recruits, making the defense contracors insanely rich, indebting our country, and reminding me of Russia’s bullydumb focus on winning for honor in Afghanistan.
WE ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT OBL wanted, creating A HUGE RECRUITING CAMPAIGN, and going bankrupt taxing future generations with all this inflation and DEBT, while funneling funds that could be used to get us off the dependency of oil, strengthen our borders, and get our ship together.
AMERICA is succumbing to pressures of globalists, oil companies, fear, and religious interests for Israel too
WE NEED TO WAKE UP , be strong, Iraq wont be a safe haven, the longer we are there, the more revenge is built via dead civilians, and the seen occupation.
>>The number of Americans we have lost in the War on Terror is far smaller than any other war lomg-duration this nation has fought.
The purpose of our military is to defend the United States. Unless you can show how invading Iraq and occupying the country is worth the cost in lives and treasure, saying in effect “It’s not quite as bloody as Vietnam or Korea” is not a compelling point.
>>Personally, The Stiletto finds it disturbing how closely some of what Osama bin Laden says in his new tape echoes some of what Paul said in this latest debate.
Thoughtlessly doing the opposite of what an enemy says is a natural reaction, but a dangerous one, since it gives him another way of influencing our behavior. If he were saying Americans were too chicken to attack him in Pakistan, would the appropriate response to be invading the country and proving him wrong? Instead, we should figure out what is in our national interests *first*, and then figure out the best way to accomplish that regardless of whether or not bin Laden approves.
In other words, we should debate whether or not it is worth sacrificing more blood, sweat, tears, and cash in the Iraqi desert, without worrying about the opinion — pro or con — of some terrorist.
I didn’t claim that the MSM is the only force promoting Huckabee, but they are certainly one of them. CNN, for example, cropped the debate to Huckabee’s advantage.
Like patriotism, honor is one of the last refuges of scoundrels. Huckabee’s use of it was hardly original. In 1968, Richard Nixon deployed the “peace with honor” mantra to win the oval office. Four years later, after 20 thousand more Americans died, he agreed to the same peace treaty terms that he could have had in 1969. All of those Americans died needlessly for a concept of honor that in the end proved to be dishonorable in its results. Hopefully, the American people won’t fall for this snake-oil again in 2008.
Huckabee as a top tier, who would have thunk it?
Here is a man who used to be a pastor yet thinks premptive war is a just war.
That the use of tactical nukes against Iran would be acceptable.
Who thinks that ignoring the Constitution in attacking Iraq is Honorable.
That condones the use of torture on prisoners.
Mike Huckabee supports the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, and the Military Commissions Act, all that violate the Constitution.
If this is what being a Republican is supposed to be all about, may the political party die a horrible death.
There is nothing Conservative about Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee. They would ALL hand over our national sovereignty to the UN at the drop of a hat.
Rep. Ron Paul hits it right on the head every time. When asked where he gets his answers from, he need only point to the Constitution.
For your listening pleasure, here is Ron Paul being interviewed by John Lofton for an hour with much about his faith brought out. Gotta disagree with him on one issue as you will probably as well but overall do agree with him.
http://theamericanview.com/dictator/media/898/aview_20070825.mp3
To TheOneLaw: Considering how few self-identified Libertarians there are in the US as opposed to self-identified Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats and Liberals, the fact that Ron Paul keeps winning these text-message polls after the Fox News debates means that a fair number of Libertarians are sitting there texting their votes for him over and over and over and over and over. That, in The Stiletto’s book, is fanaticism. Rudy is not generating fanaticism, but he does generate enthusiasm everywhere he goes – even when he went to Regent University – the Christian college founded by conservative televangelist Pat Robertson – a couple of months back, he got a standing ovation. And one could also argue that Huckabee generated a fair amount of enthusiasm in IA when he got all those people to pony up $35 of their own money to vote for him in the straw poll. At this juncture, most voters are just surveying the scene and waiting to see how the field of nine shakes out.
To John: If you look at all the candidates running on the Democrat and Republican side – and the field is larger on both sides than in any other election – the vast majority have no military experience. It is at least possible that we may never have another president who served in combat in our lifetimes. The West Point – White House trajectory is no more.
To Mike: The Stiletto actually agreed with some of what Paul said – specifically, that everything that the planners of the Iraq War said would happen (such as it will be funded by Iraqi oil revenue) has not come to pass. The Stiletto is also disturbed that Pres. Bush keeps changing the goalposts in defining the success of the mission. However, because of the incompetent way the war was prosecuted, we are now in a situation where the country is unable to govern its people or defend itself against Islamofascist insurgents. The vaccuum we created with this instability will enable Iran to arm the Islamofascists with nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. Then, we will be fighting them over here (and guess what – thanks to all of those student visas Bush handed out to Saudi students, they are already over here) and they will have the means to kill millions. Unfortunately, we cannot leave now. However, The Stiletto believes the only workable solution is to allow the partition of the country into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish zones (The Stiletto doesn’t give a flying fig what the Turks think of this idea) and leave behind just enough troops to keep the Turks from invading the Kurdish area and to keep the Sunni and Shia on their side of the border separating them. Meanwhile, each state will have a vested interest in protecting its borders with its own forces so that the US contingent doesn’t even have to be huge.
Hopefully, Newt will jump in too. With Huckabee, that would fragment the top tier to 6, thus helping Paul even more. I can dream, can’t I?
“there texting their votes for him over and over and over and over and over.”
Simply untrue. Fox limited it one vote per phone. The people who say this are sore losers who are trying to cover up the fact that their side for its candidates than the Paulites do. Perhaps some of the potential anti-Paul texters are too busy watching their hero on Law and Order re-runs.
Stiletto,
Good reporting, though I think it’s inappropriate to include the entire Paul-Huckabee exchange EXCEPT for the final response to the “honor” charge. The “brevity” defense doesn’t fly when you’re publishing 5/6 of the exchange. It certainly leaves the reader with the impression that Huckabee’s final comments were the end of the exchange. Once you pass a certain point (in this case I’d say anything more than one back-and-forth from each candidate), it’s no longer a “clip” and should be published verbatim and in its entirety.
I also think it’s unfounded to call Mike Huckabee “first-tier.” You’re editorializing a bit too much here with claims that Paul sounded unreasonable, etc.
Finally, you reveal your true colors in your comment by shockingly comparing Paul to Bin Laden. Whether or not you agree with Paul’s foreign policy, it is inappropriate and disingenuous to hurl such attacks. What Chris Wallace did (and what you are doing here) is inappropriate for one irrefutable reason: Paul held this foreign policy belief long before 9/11. His non-interventionist position pre-dates Bin Laden’s fatwa.
While I suppose you are entitled to take offense when someone evaluates the motives of our enemies and makes that evaluation part of their argument, a thorough policy analysis would include such considerations.
Ultimately, attacking Paul as “taking his marching orders from al Qaeda” is as nonsensical as attacking George Washington’s opposition to “foreign entanglements” as “giving bin Laden what he wants.”
Dodsworth: Since The Stiletto did not go through the trouble of texting her vote for the candidate of her chocie, she has to take your word for it as someone who did text his vote for Paul that it was one vote per phone. How many phones do you have, anyway? ; )
Jack: The Stiletto made sure to include the link to the debate transcript so people can read the responses in full for themselves. Actually, The Stiletto thought much of what Paul said made sense – especially if you view the world through an isolationist lens – but she was literally referring to the pitch and timbre of his voice when she said he “sounded” unreasonable. He sounded like a yappy little dog. Plus he has a very slight build. Like it or not, ever since the Nixon-Kennedy debate – which Nixon clearly won if you listened it on the radio and not watched it on TV – how a candidate looks and sounds (i.e., “presidential” – whatever that may mean) counts as much as anything else.
Stiletto: where do you retrieve the audacity of claiming to know how Iraq’s society should be organized? What legitimates you to do so? Are you an expert or something? Do you know their culture? Have you lived there? Did you actually reflect on this point before publicly stating that you wouldn’t care about splitting off a part of Turkey? I believe it is precisely this sort of arrogance and recklessness regarding other people’s internal affairs that causes the people of foreign countries to feel aggressed by the US. The US foreign policy of the last decades, which was motivated and sold to the people via such pretentious attitudes, has caused a lot of hatred towards the US, including 9/11. Ron Paul is smart enough to realize that and (re)act accordingly. Huckabees statement to continue an error in order to save honor is disqualifying by itself, and it is scary as it is reminiscent of the end of the third Reich when it was obvious that Germany had lost the war and Hitler wouldn’t give up because of ill-defined concepts such as ‘honor’ and ‘blood’. But also your generalizing and unbacked incrimination of all Saudi students being in this country is far from being democratic and reminiscent of racism.
May I suggest that before declaring Huckabee a first-tier candidate, the Stiletto might find it useful to meditate on his reasons for doing so. If it is indeed because he finds that Huckabee’s assumed ‘presidential’ looks and sounds are sufficient and that the actual content of his comments is irrelevant he should at least change his blog to something like ‘The Stiletto – the inconsistent blog of a superficial racist’ in order to alert the average reader of the mediocre quality of his blog. I’m out, this is a brain dead retard.
At the very least watching all these people (the Stiletto included) try their best to marginalize Ron Paul is entertaining. So now their next trick is to rally behind Mike Huckabee and his folksy “Mama once told me” bit and declare him First Tier. Ha Ha. Who the $%^# is he, Forrest Gump?? I like Mike Huckabee but he is WAY out of his league against Ron Paul. Mama told me that if I break something I buy it. Oh really. Was your mom paying with other peoples lives?? Are you man enough to look the next American soldier who is destined to die over there in the face and tell them that they are going to die so that you can have some sense of honor?? And they say Ron Paul is the loon. Ron Paul 08.
“the fact that Ron Paul keeps winning these text-message polls after the Fox News debates means that a fair number of Libertarians are sitting there texting their votes for him over and over and over and over and over. That, in The Stiletto’s book, is fanaticism.”
Wow taking a lie strait out of hannity’s mouth, here is a youtube video of what happens when you try to vote twice with the same phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUxQadgSkoA
obviously you need to do some research before you make claims, Oh and i love how leave the last response from Paul out. Nice!
That fact that Huckabee has to fall back on the old one nation under God and something about honor, shows how weak his argument is. If Fox Let them continue i am sure huckabee would run out of tired catch phrases, And Paul would still have valid points to share. Please show a little intelligence when you post.
Tom: Educate yourself by reading Charles Krauthammer’s column about partitioning Iraq: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/09/07/iraq_divided
He is not the only one to have suggested this (in fact, Brownback did as well during the debate), and after following the arguments pro and con closely for months, The Stiletto has concluded that partitioning the country is the only path towards us extricating ourselves without a precipitous withdrawal.
The Stiletto will not dignify rest of your rant with a response since your idea of debate is to call someone a racist. You don’t like The Stiletto Blog, fine. Don’t read it. You think you know more than The Stiletto? Fine, write your own damn blog.
To everyone who’s drunk the Ron Paul Kool Aid: Why don’t you do a Google News search on “Huckabee” – The Stiletto is not alone in noting the strong showing he has made in all of the debates. You might not like it, but Huckabee is increasingly perceived as a dark horse candidate. The reality of the situation is that alone of the second-tier candidates, Huckabee managed to cut through the clutter. Why don’t you read the analyses by other pundits and direct your vituperative comments at them? Why should The Stiletto have all the fun?
Huckabee is just the same as every other candidate running for the Republican nomination.
Honor? What honor comes with torturing and killing innocent people in an undeclared, unconstitutional war. What honor comes with not being able to answer the question of HOW MUCH DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY?
What honor? Our economy is headed for a big crash if we continue borrowing the way we do. You people better wake up to reality.
Don’t be fooled by calls to honor, appeals to the emotion, or these lies. This is how the informed military and their families feel.
I was just thinking of Huckabee’s honor and how he never served. I haven’t either but I wouldn’t talk to a vet about honor. It just doesn’t make sense. This article is bad but the comments are great! The Stiletto…..thats a funny name.
The Stiletto needs to stop referring to herself as “The Stiletto.” The third person thing is beginning to grate. 🙂
Also, The Jack Parkman notes that there was no response (or even acknowledgment) regarding The Stiletto’s patently offensive comparison of Ron Paul with Bin Laden.
This is coming from someone who found the lion’s share of your piece insightful and on-point: even one little casual tidbit can be so inappropriate as to tank your credibility. “Personally, The Stiletto finds it disturbing how closely some of what Osama bin Laden says in his new tape echoes some of what Paul said in this latest debate,” is such a tidbit.
A simple apology and acknowledgment that you spoke too loosely goes a long way toward setting the record straight and smoothing things over. One needn’t allow an otherwise reasonable viewpoint to be tossed into the bin of irrelevancy as if it were Hannitistic hackery.
Sorry to get on your nerves, Jack, but The Stiletto has good reasons to maintain a nom de guerre – even though Kyle thinks it’s a funny name. During the debate, Ron Paul said that the “neoconservatives” got us into the war, the war is unwinnable and we should get out ASAP. Bin Laden made these same points – and even himself made reference to “neoconservatives.” That is specifically what I was referring to.
I am not questioning Paul’s patriotism, and for all I know both him and Bin Laden may be proven right in the end. Today, as things stand I am not sure why we went to Iraq, why we prosecuted the war the way we did and what we want to accomplish there. However, I do know that we can;t leave things the way they are now by just pulling out for reasons I stated earlier in this thread. I truly believe that allowing the country to naturally partition itself and then leaving a small force behind to make sure everyone stays in their designated region is the answer.
Huckabee… Consider his rationale:
“Huckabee: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under G-d. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.”
Later, after the debate, in the “spin room” he expanded on this theme, saying that while you can disagree with a presidential candidate while they are ruynning, but if they win, we need to respect the office and support them in whatever they choose to do and promote – else, we would not be “one nation under God”.
This is simply moral and political insanity. This means that we should have supported Clinton in his attempt to implement socialized medicine when he was president. That pro-lifers are immoral and unpatriotic for opposing the policies that are responsible for the killing of over a million children in the womb each year. This, in a nutshell is a modern reguritation of the “divine right of kings” argument that the Declaration of Independence and the book “Common Sense” addressed in the times of our republic’s framing.
The “divine right of kings” doctrine in essence said that kings are in place by God’s will, and therefore whatever they want to do is reflective of the Will of G-d – therefore, to resist or disagree with what they did or wanted to do, was disobediance to G-d.
As Huckabee has a ministerial background it is not a leap to realize that this idea comes from a theological viewpoint he holds – not just a political one – probably a misinterpretation of Romans 13.
The facts are I, as a pro-life Christian (constitutionalist – not a libertarian) am in no way responsible for abortion or the immoral invasion of Iraq, a nation that in no way whatsoever had an capacity to attack us. Period.
And, agreeing with and supporting whatever a given president advocates when it violates common sense, basic morality, the Constitution and the laws of God does not in any way make us “one nation under God” rather, if we all did it, we would be “one nation under a immoral political leader”.
Huckabee holds a dangerous view of the role of civil govenrment. He has an even more dangerous view of the relationship between executive power and the people. His philosophy is the “divine right” of the executive branch (especially if it is him in charge) to do whatever it wants, and that anyone that opposes its actions is morally wrong in doing so. I think most people and Christians that support him on the basis of his presented public persona, and do so without really investigating what this man really advocates and his past governmental track record. They need to dig deeper.
Stiletto,
And Hunter won first place at the Texas straw poll, too. Do you think that makes him the sure-shot for the next President?
Give it a rest. Just support your candidate, but not at the expense of Ron Paul. I am not calling Huckabee a kook, because for the most part, I respect him. And in any other election cycle without Ron Paul, I would probably be supporting him. But, Ron Paul is different, far different. His supporters recognize this and they are NOT going to let go no matter how much you shake them.
I do, however, respect and empathize with your view on Iraq as you detailed in your last post. Maybe we just need people actually talking about bringing them home. Everyone is either talking about “staying the course” or going after Iran. We can’t afford this right now. We are going to go the way of Russia soon. China is handing us a noose and our current President and most of the candidates are putting it around our necks.
Greg M.
Wow, great point and well spelled out. I can PROMISE you that if Hillary Clinton is elected, I will NOT unite behind her in her efforts to destroy our nation. Except for Romney or Guiliani (and possibly Thomspson once I actually hear what he has to say), I would at the very least stand behind any of the GOP candidates a majority of the time. These two would be no different than Hillary in my opinion.
Of course, being that this is America, I am free to my dissent. One nation united under God is a reference to our STATES being united under God. Not the sovereign people.
Scott: The majority of Freepers are as passionately behind Duncan Hunter as the folks in this thread are behind Ron Paul – and would probably react with the same howls of protest at the idea that Huckabee is in the first tier while their candidate struggles to get traction (the TX straw poll notwithstanding). Huckabee is not The Stiletto’s candidate, and this article is merely a snapshot of the lay of the political landscape after this last Republican debate. Just a few minutes ago on Fox News Watch, Jim Pinkerton said that Huckabee was the hot candidate, and Fred Thompson’s moment had passed. Why don’t you all go to the Fox News Web site and beat up on him (sorry, Jim)?
Huck scored 2nd in the Iowa straw poll, but that seemed to be his “15 minutes”, as there’s not much to add to that.
Ron Paul has been first tier since he entered the race, but not according to the MSM. Think about it. He has been blacklisted/black outed, ignored and ridiculed by the MSM from the start, and screwed around in the debates. If he’s no big deal, why the HUGE effort against him?
Many forget that in Q2, Ron Paul finished 3rd in cash on hand (after subtracting debt, Romney) and received more donations from military members than ANY other candidate. The only Rep candidate close in military donations was McCain, who finished 3rd behind Paul and Obama.
And Ron Paul has more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place real life straw poll wins combined than any other Rep candidate (so much for the ‘internet only’ BS) and this includes that old mummy, Fred Thompson.
Paul: The Stiletto wants to look deeper into your points. Do you have links to articles and Web sites to get her started on her research? And by the way, a handful of The Stiletto’s friends are Libertarians/Paul supporters so she owes it to them, as well, to understand where they’re coming from.
“Considering how few self-identified Libertarians there are in the US as opposed to self-identified Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats and Liberals”
You are mixing concepts here. Republicans and Democrats are political parties. Conservatives and Liberals are positions on the political spectrum whose meaning changes over time. Libertarian, although also the name of a political party founded a few decades ago, is a political philosophy. There are lots of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who consider themselves libertarians – they are the ones sending the text messages.
“Tom: Educate yourself by reading Charles Krauthammer’s column about partitioning Iraq: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/09/07/iraq_divided”
What does it matter what he thinks? Is he Iraqi? Does he own Iraq? What would you say about some Iraqi, French or Korean who wrote an article about how the US should be partitioned into Red and Blue states? Such destructive arrogance!
Mark: Last time The Stiletto checked the US is a country in which people are free to express their opinions whether you like those opinions or not.
As a tribal society, Iraqis cannot live together in peace. The US army has resorted to building walls to separate Sunni and Shia neighborhoods. The Kurds have a de facto partition because they are geographically removed from the epicenter of the insurgency. In the end, Iraq will be partitioned whether you like it or not – it’s the only way to create the stability necessary for the US to withdraw without leaving a country convulsed in genocidal destruction.
I said nothing about your right to express your opinion. I pointed out that it was destructive arrogance to go around trying to decide the fate of other countries. It is this type of thinking that lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents and the waste of billions of dollars.
In fact, you go on to exacerbate this line of thought – not only do you know what’s best for the Iraqis, you know exactly what will happen if the US withdraws before the country is partitioned! Amazing! Let me know what stocks to buy, too, please!
Imagine some Chinese saying that China must invade the US to unite the Red and Blue tribes so as to avoid genocidal destruction. You would consider that comment insane and offensive. And yet, you have no trouble doing the same with respect to Iraq.
It’s simple: all of those who want to fight foreign wars can volunteer by getting on planes and going overseas – no need to take billions from taxpayers against their will, just go ahead and fight! Leave the rest of us out of it so that we can defend the country if it ever should be attacked.
Stiletto-
Ah, “I.” What a wonderful pronoun. It’s nice to see you use it. I understand your desire to write under a non de plume (how journalism is a war, though, is beyond me 🙂 ). It was your constant use of the third person I found disturbing.
You keep pushing this back to the partitioning of Iraq, which I find irrelevant to the theme of comparing the rhetoric of Paul and bin Laden. I don’t disagree with you on the partitioning of Iraq, per se. I also don’t disagree that a dramatic pullout would have consequences. I never contested that logic.
As I wrote before, I found your piece (largely) well-written and professional. But declaring after the fact that you don’t question Paul’s patriotism or that bin Laden has used the term “neoconservative” doesn’t justify the out-of-the-blue jabs that you threw.
You said Paul sounded “unreasonable” and whiny. You thoroughly documented an exchange between Paul and Huckabee (included 5/6 of it, not the “highlights”) but pruned Paul’s final response which has widely been considered important to providing context. And you found it “disturbing” that bin Laden used the same rhetoric.
Should we be “disturbed” by Ben Bernanke because both he and bin Laden have spoken about “sub-prime mortgages” (they have)?
Finally, a note about Giuliani. You should read Freakonomics, if you haven’t already. You give Giuliani far too much credit for the turnaround in New York, which began nationwide before he took office. I’m not saying Giuliani cannot claim some credit on some fronts, but he’s quick to claim much more credit than he deserves while ignoring some troubling aspects to his reign. Seven years into his term he had a 36% approval rating — that has to tell you something.
Mike: Given the level of sectarian violence in the country now, it is reasonable to foresee a genocidal bloodbath. The Stiletto has a particular interest in preventing genocide and will not continue to waste her time on your jeuvenile sophistry. Good day, sir.
Jack: The Stiletto was referring to the effect of Paul’s voice on her auditory nerves. His voice is thin, whiny and gets high pitched when he becomes excited.
On Fox News Watch yesterday, Cal Thomas made the point that – though it’s superficial – Fred Thompson may actually have an advantage of the other candidates because he is very tall (taller than Lincoln) and has a baritone voice – which commands people’s attention.
Since you keep castigating The Stiletto for not including every last comma in Pauls’ answer – even though she did include a link so anyone can read it – perhaps it would have done better not to have quoted a single thing Paul said and merely noted that he sounded like a yapping dog so it didn’t matter what he said. Really, we’ve known all this since the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Politics 101.
This article was how one observer perceived the debate. As she pointed out in the article, the voters gathered together by Frank Luntz had a completely different take. In the eye of the beholder.
As for Giuliani, The Stiletto lived in NYC during the time when thugs were roaming the streets, Staten Island was laying plans to secede from the rest of the city (in case you don’t know, Staten Island has the highest tax base in the city so this would have been catastrophic), the middle class was fleeing and people had written NYC off as “ungovernable.” No one can give Giuliani ENOUGH credit for what he did in the years leading to 9/11 and afterwards when all the gains that had been made could have been lost.
Finally, bin Laden’s statement brought to mind the campaign rhetoric of several candidates – mostly on the Dem side. And The Stiletto is toying with the idea of doing a compare-contrast – if she can get around to it before the news cycle moves on to something else. Obviously, bin Laden is paying very close attention to the campaign and is co-opting messages that he thinks will resonate with the American people.
Mike Huckabee continues to prove himself as the conservative candidate who puts “people over paperwork.” This was evidenced by his leadership in Arkansas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Huckabee has worked on making people’s lives better for decades and the American people will be fortunate to have his leadership to a greater extent,
This is the definition of chauvinist: zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory
Name on other candidate that has said the same consistent message for the last 20 years. My answer would be Ron Paul. Who would you say has done the same. Are you against individual liberty and the Constitution. That is simply what Ron Paul is for. No candidate will solve all the probs we have I know, but I just want to know what you have against individual liberty, the Constitution etc….?
Have you read the document? Do you realize that it has basically been raped these last 8 years. Every vote counts and it is not wasted if you vote on principles and morals. Dont vote for what the media tells you is a sure thing or who looks the most presidential or how squeeky someones voice is ..jeez stiletto. His voice ??? Thats all you got. Why not vote on principal instead of how sexy his voice is. God bless you and have a good day Robert Crain Wilmington, NC
Robert: Paul lost his claim of being driven entirely by principle when he said this in the debate: “We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party! We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.” Like any other politician, it’s all about winning elections.
Paul made the comment about the party losing elections at a party event (the Republican debate). The principle behind the comment has been consistent: the US should not be invading other countries. It should keep its army at home and defend itself.
Stiletto,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on some of those issues, but I respect your attempts to explain them. I still feel you’re giving too much credit to Giuliani. But you’re entitled.
Just when I was ready to find a natural and convenient point to move on, you lay another whopper out there.
“Paul lost his claim of being driven entirely by principle when he said this in the debate [insert Paul’s ‘dug a hole for our party’ line]…Like any other politician, it’s all about winning elections.”
That is woefully uncalled for. Whether you agree with Paul’s foreign policy or disagree, he certainly didn’t select it due to its potential for electoral approval. Nor has he changed his ideology to enhance his political clout.
Paul M.O. is that he doesn’t change his positions when the wind shifts. I think we can all agree on that. If he were more willing to do so (or even compromise), he’d be on much better terms with GOP leadership.
Trying to PERSUADE fellow Republican politicians and voters to stop being stubborn and adopt a certain position is not automatically an “unprincipled” approach. Perhaps if Paul became a noninterventionist recently, or did so to pander, attacking his principles would be fair comment. But that’s not the case, and you’re out of line.
Ok well you didnt answer my question. Do you know of any other candidate that has been the same for the last 20 years. Yeah of course Paul wants to win, and….whats your point. Thats not the point of his statement. The point of his statement was very clear and is always clear no matter what the guy says but anyway he said that we should change our forein policy. You cant argue with that. Recognize truth when you see it dont be so blind to the facts. I agree with Jack Parkman completely with his last statement.
So, Jack and Robert: Are you saying Paul has never, ever changed his opinion or his mind on anything in 20 years? Is this verifiably true? And if it is, this is a good thing? The world has changed so much in 20 years – heck, it’s changed a lot since 9/11/01. Surely his thinking on certain issues may have been influenced by events that occurred since he formulated his position on every conceivable issue possible? And they say Bush is inflexible and incapable of change …
So if you maintain your principles, you are inflexible. If you change your principles, you are a flip-flopper. And you accuse me of “jeuvenile (sic) sophistry”…
The principle put forth by some of the Founding Fathers with respect to foreign policy was: “trade with all, entangling alliances with none.” Seems timeless to me!
I just discovered this forum today – and have found the comments made here and commentary given both interesting and insightful on many fronts. One that I find lacking is a deeper understanding in exactly what this “War on Terror” to be about. One thing that I have found missing in many of the comment (and retorts for or against them) is a mention of the jihad which can substantially be credited as the true issue at hand. I did serve in the military, but that in not of consequence here. And I was born and raised in Texas, and have not lived in the Middle East, which is why I do not claim the personally be an expert on matters there. Instead – I challenge any who read this to listen to the words of a true expert. Dr. Walid Phares is a man of amazing insight into what is really going on in the Middle East, and has been for generations. He can be counted as an expert in that he is originally from Lebanon, grew up there, was schooled at the University of Beirut (before going on to earn degrees from other Universities) and has been called in to educate the forums of committees of the State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security Departments, the US Congress, the European Parliament, the United Nations Security Council – and is also a regular guest on just about every network around – NBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, PBS,BBC, Al Hurra TV, France 24, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya News programs. I’ve included a couple of links below to talks he gave on what he holds to be the truth behind the situation at hand. I urge you to listen to them, and would love remarks and thoughts by any willing to do so here, or to be emailed to me at markdanielmiller@yahoo.com. FYI – the links only appear to work in Internet Explorer. I tried them in Firefox (by FAR my browser of choice 🙂 – but to no avail. I look forward to your thoughts! 🙂
http://www.coralridge.org./medialibrary.asp?mediaId=3305
http://www.coralridge.org./medialibrary.asp?mediaId=3306
PS – in case anyone’s curious about Dr. Walid Phares – you can read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Phares
PPS – an interesting article and video interview between Huckabee and CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml
Huckabee is an adroit public speaker. He is all about calling his listeners to “do something,” to awaken them to their own empowerment, and summon them to action in order that “Main Street,” and not “Wall Street,” will prevail in guarding the values and beliefs upon which the Republic was founded.
Huckabee puts his listeners at ease, and reassures them, articulating clear concepts in a natural, easy style (no doubt something well-cultivated as a pastor). One can easily imagine sitting comfortably with this man over a cup of coffee at the Main Street Cafe.
Most importantly, Huckabee convinces many that he is ONE with the FairTax grassroots movement. Romney”s recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4fa6Z_4Po )” drew a sharp contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what”s wrong with the income tax can”t be fixed with “a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver.” That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to – and misery of – American families, invigorates his campaign”s raison d”etre.
“Main Street” will have to demand ( http://snipr.com/simplifythecode ) that their legislators deliver the bill to Huckabee, if elected.
It was mentioned to me (perhaps as a hint) that the most successful people tend to recognize mistakes and wrongs and call them mistakes and wrongs even when it is embarrassing to them. Continuing in doing something that doesn’t work or is wrong in an attempt to avoid embarrassment is silly. And if there is anything to that mentioned study, then such continuing is contrary to overall success.
Christians have a concept of repentance. It is basically this: Stop now! Turn around! Go the right way!
Children have a simple concept of learning. It is basically this: Ow! That burns! I’m not going to touch that again!
Perhaps successful people know what to say: Yikes! That was a goof!
Scott: whom are you speaking to and to which study are you referring?
Oh God, the Fair Tax, in which everyone goes on welfare, receiving a friggin’ check from the government every month. What a nightmare.
“Paul: The Stiletto wants to look deeper into your points. Do you have links to articles and Web sites to get her started on her research?”
Are you serious that information is pretty readily available
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-best-q2-fundraising-from-soldiers.html
I’m at work, it took all of 2 minutes to find this. If you are going to write articles like this it would probably behoove you to get off your a** and do a little research!
Well, Mark, I see you’ve a broad understanding about the ways in which the current income tax is really “blessing” us. LOL (The “prebate” is the only way to avoid continuing the “lobbyist industry” that now occupies 53% of K Street.)
http://snipr.com/fthuckabeeonirs
Ian, where did you get that I said ANYTHING positive about the current income tax regime? I am opposed to it.
I am also opposed to the Fair Tax that turns all Americans into welfare dependents.
Both systems are terrible and destructive.
You propose to trade one piece of crap for another. That is no solution.
The only way to end the “lobbyist industry” is to make it unprofitable. That is, eliminate the possibility that lobbying can lead to economic payoffs. One big step forward would be to eliminate the current tax regime.
New York Times
Among Republican candidates, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is the only one who opposes the war in Iraq and he is the top recipient of money from military members. He has received $19,250 so far.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/military-donors-shift-a-bit-to-democrats/
Mark, the only real plan to rid us of theIRS and continual tax favors under the Tax Code, is the FairTax. The most serious problem that FairTax corrects is costly, hidden, inequitable taxation that comes with the “taxing biz” industry. Unless we put an end to the damage that attaching social engineering does to the economy, a lot more Americans – of all income groups – are going to be devastated. But, don’t take MY word for it: http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress
I am quite familiar with the negative consequences of the current code. I am just saying that turning everyone into welfare queens is not a solution.
Mark, it comes down to this: How do you untax poverty-level spending?
If you do it by rules and reg’s – you’ve got corporations, other non-profits – and all of their lobbyists – all over it. An “advance rebate” is a efficacious way to handle it. It’s not welfare; it’s a rebate. Linder discusses how they finally arrived at this solution in this C-SPAN interview: http://snipurl.com/lindr
HAHAHA, I had the best laugh of the day when I read this headline.
Huck can’t even get 50 people out to vote for him in a poll in NH.
Huck ain’t no first tier candidate.
Iowa was fixed and if Iowa was an indication then Rudy and McCain should get out eh?
Call it what you want. A check from the government that you depend on to live is welfare, whatever the excuse or purpose. I am fully aware of all the arguments that have been made about how this is so wonderful. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
The best way to combat poverty is to create economic opportunities. You do this by eliminating taxes.
From what I have read (wish I could cite a source, sorry) eliminating all income tax would lead to an average 20% drop in retail prices. Whether that’s the right number or not, doesn’t really matter. Fact is, eliminating income tax would lead to a drop in prices, an increase in purchasing power and an increase in the economic rate of growth. Not to mention, it would significantly simplify lives and cut government bureaucracy.
Sounds a lot better than building a complex new form of welfare.
I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS MAN- – –
The prebate simply covers the taxes you will pay for essential goods and services up to the poverty level as per the dept of HHS. It is based on family size a family 0f 4 will get a little over 500.00 at the beginning of the mth. A family below the poverty level will be untaxed. But in order to be fair every legal resident with a SS# that is the head of household will get their share. The illegals, the drug dealers, the porn industry will all pay the tax on new items they buy with their ill-gotten gains but will not get any prebate. Eeven the hundreds of millions of tourist that come here will be paying into our tax base. The Prebate makes it a progressive rather than regressive tax.
Leave A Reply