The Instigator
dlw7505
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
adamh
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Mike Huckabee is the best candidate for the Republicans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,465 times Debate No: 721
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (16)

 

dlw7505

Pro

I would like to take this opportunity to see what other people think about Mike. Personally he is my choice for several reasons, but that does not necessarily make him the best republican candidate.
Mike is a true conservative who's speaking style and charisma is comparable to that of bill Clinton. In the debates he has shown that he can think quickly on his feet while speaking with sincerity.
He is also one of the only candidates to share his vision for American rather than to trash the other candidates and truly desecrate the republican name.
adamh

Con

I'd like to start this debate off by saying that I do not hate Huckabee, nor do I think he's the worst Republican running in the primaries. However, I do not think that he is the best Republican candidate.

First, I'll share some things about Mike that I like (either a lot or to some extent): his pro-life/stem cell reputation, his work to define marriage through a constitutional amendment, gay adoption stance, support of teaching alternatives to Darwinism in schools, his pro-gun record, support for military growth, pro-Israel philosophy, and his anti-universal healthcare views.

However, I ask - why settle for a Republican candidate who is solid on some issues but not the majority of issues when there is a candidate who is? Personally, I support Fred Thompson for president because I feel he best encompasses the conservative viewpoint (at least out of everyone running). I'm not going to turn this into a "why you should vote for FDT" debate, so I'll lay off the facts about Fred for awhile.

The problems I have with Mike Huckabee are as follows:
• His views of immigration. He agreed with the President's immigration plan (aka amnesty for illegals). In his state of Arkansas, he supported using taxpayer money to fund the college tuition of illegal immigrants children. He also wants to abolish the law that says one must be a natural born citizen to become president.

• His tax record is not that of an economic conservative. In 1996 he signed a sales tax hike to fund the Park and Tourism Departments of Arkansas; in 2001 he supported an internet sales tax; he opposed the repeal of sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002; he signed bills raising taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, and a bed-tax for patients in private nursing homes between the years of 1999 and 2001; he opposed a bill from congress that would ban internet taxes in 2003; and in 2004 he allowed 17% sales tax increase in his state. Through his career as governor he was responsible for 37% higher sales tax, 16% higher gas tax, and a 103% tobacco tax. This is simply not the conservative way. This coupled with his willingness to use tax money for illegal immigrants provides a scary outlook for what his presidency would look like. His tax stances are very Clinton-esque.

• He has been known to give pardons to criminals who simply claim to be born-again Christians and he gave more pardons as the governor of Arkansas than even Bill Clinton did.

• His 'compassionate' conservative stance is not what the country needs after 8 years of Bush. We need a die-hard, Reagan conservative and Huckabee is most certainly not one of these. He is a BIG government conservative just like W and in the same way the democrat candidates are for big government. Check out this article: http://www.foxnews.com...

As much as I don't like saying it since I am a Christian myself, I believe the majority of people supporting him are doing so because he's a proud pro-life Christian and the media has spent so much time hashing on that that it seems there no other logical candidate for the Evangelicals to vote for. I say examine the facts closely and you'll find there's other candidates who share the same positives with Huckabee but don't have as negatives.

I'll end with a quote from Fred Thompson when asked - isn't Huckabee a conservative?
"You're talking about Huckabee? No. He's pro-life and of course I received the endorsement of the national pro-life group and several of the state groups, we share that strong conviction. But in terms of social policies taxes and illegal immigration and in terms of his view as how the world works, as best as I can determine it, we don't share those views at all. I think we have a different vantage point on that."
Debate Round No. 1
dlw7505

Pro

History tells us that the president come 2008 will more than likely be a Democrat. There for, the Republican Party needs someone who holds the conservative values yet is fairly moderate and appealing to "moderate liberals". This debate is not about who is the most conservative candidate, rather it is about who would have the best chance of 1 winning and 2 maintaining mostly conservative views.

Your Problems with Huckabee

Immigration –
-He never showed support for the "Bush/McCain" amnesty proposal; he actually strongly opposes it on his web site (If he has supported it I would like to see the proof)
-If by, "he supported using taxpayer money to fund the college tuition of illegal immigrant's children" you are referring to the Academic Challenge Scholarship, I see no problem with this.
Just to educate you on the matter, this was a scholarship for children (who did not make the choice to be illegal) of illegal immigrants (who made the choice). The parameters of this scholarship were four fold.
1. The student had to have been in the Arkansas school district for their entire education. This means from the age of 5-6 to the age of 17-18.
2. The student had to be an A+ student showing an exemplary record.
3. The student had to be Drug and Alcohol free
4. The student had to be applying for citizenship (turning them into the tax payers)
This scholarship gave opportunity to those who had none.
-As for the argument about him wanting to abolish the natural born citizen law, I cannot disprove that, but I would like to know where you got that information.

Taxes-
-He is very clear that he wants to eliminate the IRS (a governmental entity) and supports the fair tax. This way we are only taxed on what we decide to buy rather than what we make. This encourages less spending and more savings.

Pardons as Governor-
- He is also the only Governor who is known for the amount of time and research into cases before making any decision like that. He does not just make rash decisions.

In my opinion, Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents. However, realistically that is not the type of Republican who would stand a chance of winning after 8 years of Republican Bush

I will end my arguments with a quote from Huckabee
"I am the Republican candidate with the best spirit and attitude to work with a Democrat Congress to end the gridlock and get things done. I am a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody. I don't believe that Republicans are right all the time or that Democrats are wrong all the time."

This is the type of man the Republicans need.
adamh

Con

I disagree that we need someone who appeals to moderate liberals and that is because for a candidate to appeal to moderate liberals, that candidate himself would have to be a moderate. No, this country needs a strong conservative that the entire Republican party can get excited about. I can understand where you're coming from - you want one of our guys to win so you're willing to sacrifice a few conservative principles. While I can appreciate that, I disagree. One more compassionate, big-government Republican in office (especially after the Bush terms) will be the end of the party as we know it. Eight years of another Bush-like president in office will take away the Republican party's reputation as the party of less government and more nanny state, the party will be the new Big-Government party.

I do understand the parameters of his illegal alien scholarship, but my question is this: why not give the scholarship money to an American citizen who meets all of these parameters? All that scholarship does is inspire the illegal immigrants to flock to Arkansas and get their children into the school system with the hopes that they'll get such a scholarship and go to college, all while never being documented or paying a cent in taxes.

I understand that Mike supports the FairTax and that is great as I am a huge advocate of the program. However, I was not talking about federal income tax earlier, I was talking about his history with state sales tax as governor. My fear is that he will start out great, trying to get the FairTax initiated, then once it's in place will give a hike to what was a 15% tax just like he did with taxes in Arkansas.

I never said that his decision-making involving pardons was rash or not thoughout, rather, he makes these decisions with his heart(back to the compassionate conservative thing) rather than with his brain. If people are guilty of a crime, they do the time, it's as simple as that - no exceptions regardless of what religious experience or personal turnaround they may or may not have had.

Mike was also the only Republican candidate who did not raise his hand when asked who supports the president's veto of the SCHIP bill. In case you forgot, this is the bill that would've given HUGE increases on tobacco products to fund a children's health care program. I'm in favor of helping poor children, but this bill didn't target the right people and was a total piece of garbage. On top of that, it would've taxed a group of consumers who have been taxed up to their eyeballs already. Taxing a specific group of consumers is discrimination and infringes on their right to use tobacco products as they choose. Mike was in favor of this bill because he is staunchly anti-tobacco (which does not go along with the conservative stance of less government regulation and personal freedom) and because his compassion makes him feel compelled to give children healthcare without recognizing the consequences of giving free healthcare to kids up to age 25 with household incomes of up to $70,000. With those parameters there could literally be a family of four(a 24-year old mother and father, a 4-year old child and a 2-year old child) who make $65,000 a year and get completely free healthcare for every member of the family, all on the your bill. How could a conservative be in favor a plan like this?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Republicans do not need a wishy-washy, compassionate, moderate, try to please everyone Republican. They need a man who takes traditional conservative stances and turns the Republican party back into the party of self-reliance, strong values, less government, personal freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility.
Debate Round No. 2
dlw7505

Pro

Let's cut to the chase. An ultra conservative will not win the election in 08'. It will take a conservative who also appeals to the democrats. 8 years with no republican in office will sure enough hurt things more than this would. Especially with the house and senate the way they are right now.

As far as your scholarship question. Currently legal citizens have the ability to receive different Grant money and scholarships. Illegal CHILDREN do not. However the intentions of this program, though not passed, were to give those illegal CHILDREN a reason to apply for citizenship and become tax payers.

Look at the things he "hiked" taxes on, alcohol and tobacco mainly, and what did he do with that money, build roads and improve schools.

The people, who are convicted of crimes, still have rights. One of those rights includes the right to appeal your case to the governor of your state. Or do you suggest we take criminal rights away. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you if you did, but currently they have those rights.
adamh

Con

While I appreciate where you're coming from I must disagree.
"An ultra conservative will not win the election in 08'. It will take a conservative who also appeals to the democrats."

Why must the Republican candidate appeal to the democrats? After 8 years of Bush, no registered democrat is voting for a republican regardless of how liberal he is. By making our guy appeal to democrats, we're only hurting oursleves by supporting a liberal republican in office. The democrats will vote for someone who is more liberal than they are before they vote for someone who is more conservative than they are (think Hillary vs Mike and a moderate-liberal in the booth). Remember: a conservative who appeals to the democrats is NOT A CONSERVATIVE!

If we had a guy we all could get behind and who really stood for what we believed, I believe we could rally behind him and soar to a win in '08. We need someone to inspire and bring back the greatness of the Republican party that has been lost for the last decade or so.

We don't need the democrats votes to win in '08, we need a candidate who will get every Republican voting in November, we need a candidate who will get people talking at the watercooler, we need a Republican who will inspire us to go tell our friends and convert our enemies, we need a Republican who stands for the traditional values (and everyone of them) and invigorates our party. It was once Grand Old Party, and with the right candidate, the Republican party can be grand once more.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Fimbulvintr 9 years ago
Fimbulvintr
"Neo-Conservatism" is essentially the "old left" that has transplanted itself onto the Republicans. Common characteristics of a neo-con include rabid appeal to the Christian Right, acceptance of government expansion, Imperialist foreign policies, and rejection of all things socially liberal. They have really clung to the past 3 Republican presidents, HW Bush, Bush, and Reagan. Neo-cons came from a split back in the 50s and 60s where the liberals broke into 2 factions.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
What the heck is "neo-conservatism"? Do any of the people who use it on a daily basis know what it means, or is it just a buzzword?
Posted by Fimbulvintr 9 years ago
Fimbulvintr
Ron Paul is still the only one appealing to the true republican base, neo-conservatism has tainted so much of it.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
He's been taking a lot of cheap shots lately. I don't like his style... Fred Thompson is my candidate. The guy has a dignity that none of the others quite capture.
Posted by FrontLineConservative 9 years ago
FrontLineConservative
Huckabee is by far the better candidate in the Republican Party.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Mike Huckabee is my hero, is the candidate to beat the Democrats and he is the candidate for America.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
While I agree with you, Adamh, that what this country needs is a strong conservative, I would be willing to sacrifice an aweful lot not to have Hillary in office. All of the best indicators show that it is the moderates that usually win the office. Obviously this was not the case with Ronald Reagan, and I think we would agree that it was Jimmy Carter's disasterous presidency that paved the way for Reagan. In addition, I believe that a majority of the country is really conservative, and that all we need is a truly conservative candidate to mobilize us.

In light of that, it may indeed be the best bet to vote for the most conservative Republican. If he wins, awesome. If he doesn't win, then four years of Hillary and a few more years of a Democratic congress should wake people up enough to vote for another Reagan conservative. Either way we'll get the Reagan conservative we're looking for.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jessica.spangler 9 years ago
jessica.spangler
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyTempleton 9 years ago
RoyTempleton
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SCOTTMILLER66 9 years ago
SCOTTMILLER66
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FrontLineConservative 9 years ago
FrontLineConservative
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brandonallison48 9 years ago
brandonallison48
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by aam3550 9 years ago
aam3550
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ashbash 9 years ago
Ashbash
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dlw7505 9 years ago
dlw7505
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jester 9 years ago
Jester
dlw7505adamhTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03