I'm surprised no one started one of these yet. After raising his hand on the evolution disbelief question, I don't know if I can take him seriously, but I always thought he seemed like a pretty good guy. This is a pretty cool story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/08/26/VI2007082601187.html
If he doesn't impede the execution of evolutionary science, do you think that the questioning of belief in evolution excludes him from being President? Because otherwise, I see him as a fine candidate with good ideas and he seems like a real good guy.
Agreed on all counts. He's a little too right wing with regards to religion (for me). That aside, he seems like a guy who would be worth at least a second look.
I didn't say it excluded him, but I have to hear more of his thoughts on science. If he has issues with the actual theory and the "missing link" then I am willing to listen to what the guy has to say. If he flat out rejects it as science because he is a strict creationist, then I have some major issues with his judgment and how he might impede other scientific research. Let's put it this way. I will keep a keen eye open for his thoughts on stem cell research, global warming etc. in the campaign. I am not a single issue voter but at the same time, I think our scientific community has taken a step backwards over the past 6 years and I don't want to see that extend out to a possible 16. It's not just the funding but also the perception. There are lots of places in the world to do research. I would like to see the best and the brightest here in the US.
How dare Huckabee pardon that despicable devil-worshipping rock n roller? I will tell everybody in my megachurch not to vote for him.
It seems like he parried the evolution question in one of the debates, going into the "how can you quantify the length of a day to God" angle. So, I'm satisfied he doesn't accept the actual wording of the passages in Genesis. He's a perfectly acceptable candidate, but I doubt he has the profile to raise the cake to stay in this race. Another example is Tommy Thompson.
Yeah, well now not so much. Mike Huckabee supports a national indoor smoking ban. In other words, he's a big government conservative who wants to expand the power of the federal government.
Right, I can't support this type of authoritarianism. Why not ban red meat? Heart disease would go way down.
He's an ordained minister (I believe) and a Republican, so his conservative views on religion aren't exactly surprising. All in all, I kind of like the guy. Don't know if I'd vote for him (liking him doesn't mean I agree with him), but he does seem sincere, a quality that is sorely lacking in most politicians.
Interesting. What are they? Is there a definitive list somewhere? And shouldn't banning smoking in indoor places be a local issue if it is to be an issue at all?
I've come around on smoking bans--I used to be against them, even though I'm a former smoker who thinks it's a stupid and wasteful and dangerous habit. And I still wouldn't want smoking outlawed. But saying you have the right to smoke doesn't mean you have the right to smoke wherever you want. I think smoking pot should be legal, for example, but that doesn't mean you should be able to do it wherever and whenever you want--legalized doesn't mean unregulated.
I agree with both you and MB. I am a fan of smoking bans in public indoor and close proximity outdoor spaces such as staduims and ampitheaters. But I also believe that Gov. Huckabee has a poor view on federalism regarding this issue. This is a state matter.
I'm not saying you should. I'm fine with banning smoking in public schools, municipal buildings, and places like that. And while I absolutely abhor smoking cigarettes, I think it should be up to the business owner whether to allow it, and in any event, MitH is correct, this is a local issue, not a federal one. One would think a self-proclaimed conservative would recognize that. Even Hillary Clinton had recognized this while advocating for local bans.
If this is the case, businesses who choose to make the right decision and ban it will be punished by going out of business. Nice. Not to mention it leaves those who are allergic or react badly with smoke, no choice but to stay home because they are a smaller minority than smokers themselves. Huckabee's got it right, smoking is no different than allowing someone to walk into a public place with any other hazardous material.
Why? As I said, I hate smoking, and would be much more likely to patronize a business that prohibited it than one that didn't. I don't think I'm the only one like that either.
Well there wasn't enough of your kind around for about 30 years then I suppose. Otherwise plenty of restaurants would have made the decision to go completely non-smoking before the law got involved. Why didn't they? They were afraid they'd lose too much business.
I definitely agree that it should be handled at the local level but this presents a problem as well. My brother just testified before the Kansas house on this issue or more accurately, whether or not to grandfather existing businesses. Apprantly, they have convincing evidence that with unequal laws in Kansas and Missouri, some small mom and pop bars and restaurants will lose enough business to make them go under. A fed law would even the field. I used to be on board with the argument that private businesses should be able to decide for themselves and let the market sort it out BUT I have since been convinced that for service level employees, too many of them would take jobs and be subjected to smoke for eight hours at a time. I don't think simply saying "find a job in a non-smoking restaurant" is sufficient. Real bad effect on pregnant working women. In Chicago they have now banned smoking in public places meaning that there is not even a designated smoking area at places like soldier field. I think this is ridiculous as is bans near entrances of buildings. I have seen nothing to suggest that walking past someone smoking out doors causes any significant exposure to smoke. In my mind, these laws were passed simply because people find the smoke to be icky. Sorry, but were there is a public health issue, I'm on board. Where a legal product is simply annoying people a ban is going way too far. From what I have seen, peer pressure is doing a pretty good job of policing the annoying smoke.
[off topic] I was waiting for the lite rail train when I got off work early this afternoon and some dude was smoking pot at the station. At 3pm. Outside. In the middle of downtown. With about 30 people around. I'm not really complaining, I mean I'm for legalization of pot in your own home, but that was a bit strange.
I'm not a Huckabee supporter but he is kicking major ass right now. He's pulled ahead of Romney in Iowa in the latest poll, despite Romney's $30 million investment. Debate audiences love him and attacks don't seem to stick to him. He's got all the polling momentum despite raising very little money. I would go as far as to say that Huckabee is now the favorite, even over Giuliani. He's the kind of guy that can convince everyone he's going to support their favorite program while cutting taxes and "preserving honor" at the same time.
I'm thinking that him and Obama are the only candidates who can get more than 51% of the vote and I think the country is sick and tired of 51% presidents.