The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Mike Huckabee.....embarassing

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: 1/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,906 times Debate No: 1299
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (13)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

As a Republican, I have to say Mike Huckabee winning the caucus tonight will/is embarassing. It just furtheres the notion that Republicans are all ignorant religious fanatics, who will vote on issues that shouldn't matter in government, even in the face of a political moron.

Huckabee is a terrible politician and has no cogent response or position on any of the issues. His only card is his faith and religious experience. He is lucky a state with traditional values is first, or he would have been out of this race already. Huckabee winning Iowa would/does take away from a REAL republican who would have a REAL shot at winning the nomination and the presidency. For my party's sake, I hope Huckabee doesn't win, or if he does/did, that it goes no further and am ashamed of Iowa republicans in general.

By the way, I am not arguing for my personal opinion, this is generally a bash on Huckabee, so any response crediting him will work. Thanks.
cody30228

Con

I tried to summarize your points
1. Huckabee too religious
2. Bad politician
3. No positions

are these about right?

ok first why your points are wrong and then why he is good
1. Religion
Huckabee is religious. But he has yet to show that religion will make him a bad president. Besides, our founding fathers were all religious. They turned out great.

2. Bad politician
I wont attack this point here, but down in my own section for why Huckabee is good

3. No position
Excuse me? Have you tried to learn about his position?
http://www.mikehuckabee.com...
go there. It shows all of his positions. prove to me he has no position.

****************HUCKABEE 08************************************************
Ok here is why Huckabee is a great man for president
1. Secure America Plan
2. Bad politician
3. Personable

1. Secure America Plan
http://www.mikehuckabee.com...
the whole plan is outlined here
the plan is good for following reasons
- it solves the problem
this is rare in Washington these days
- it is very detailed
it isn't a broad plan. It's a real plan
- it has a good chance to work
nothing too costly or too hard. Also a change in Washington

2. Bad politician.
"Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now"
"The president's approval rating remains a weak 35 percent"
http://abcnews.go.com...

Obviously, American are fed up with politics and politicians. In bleep bleep county (where i live) it was recorded in the Houston Chronicle that only 22% of voters, well, voted in the country elections. We need a leader who isn't a politician. Someone who has morals. Who believes in doing what is right, not what a lobbyist says. Comes in Huckabee. No bad reputation. No bad conscience. Huckabee is better than everyone else because he is a worse politician.

3. Personable
I'm not making this up, I just couldn't find the magazine again. Apparently, Huckabee is rated #1 in most honest and most moral of all the candidates. Both red and blue. He is over 50% in both categories. Guiliani is around 20, as well is Clinton. He makes people enjoy his company. This speaker dignitos is worth more than any foreign affairs experience. HE can do great things because he is charismatic. Now I'm not saying Huckabee is like Hitler, but Hitler was able to do some many things because he was charismatic.

All these reasons show why Huckabee would be a great president
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

wingnut2280 forfeited this round.
cody30228

Con

One more reason why Huckabee is not embarrassing
NH Debate last night.
Huckabee was funny, and he maid a great closing point about him running against Obama.

Can't say much more besides what I have said above.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

1) Religion

I am not saying being religious is a problem. I stated that Huckabee's religion is the only reason he won the Iowa caucus and is even considered a viable candidate. His religiously zealous supporters reenforce the common notion that republicans are nothing but conservative religious fanatics who want to spread the Bible throughout our government.

2) Bad Politician

This is NOT a good thing. There is difference between being a corrupt politician and a good one. Not all politicians in washington are selling out to corporate investors, despite popular opinion. This point is merely a commentary on his poor campaigning skills and awkward policy stances. I'm not saying being a dirty politician is good, but being politically savvy (at least to some degree) is.

3) No Position

This is exactly what I mean. Huckabee practically copy and pasted all of the none contreversial republican positions and is relying on wit, religion and humor to win him the nomination. How hard is it for any republican to say "I am tough on crime" or "I am pro-life". My point here is that Huckabee fumbles through any type of question until he can loop it back to some Chuck Norris joke or religious affirmation. This was obvious when he is asked questions outside of the debates. When asked about teh Bhuto problem in Pakistan, Huckabee needed clarification on who she was, before saying that he needed to investigate further before he could make a conclusive solution. This is typical Huckabee. He is marketed well (plays the bass for crowds, tells jokes, and is religious), but clearly is not fit to be president.

4) Secure America Plan

Again, this is exactly what I mean. The Huckabee campaign just uses positions that every republican has had for the last 5 years and asserts them as revolutionary. Tell me one none-religious position that is unique to Huckabee.

5) Personability

This is essentially the only thing Huckabee has going for him and it does not merit a presidential nomination. If you watch any Huckabee interview or campaign speech that isn't pre-scripted and requires him to answer on the spot, he fumbles through giving rudementary responses which sound pretty, but have no substance.

Finally, I would just like to point out that all of your arguments support my reasoning. You claim that Huckabee is this really nice, religious, inexperienced guy. That is the problem. He has no policy merit or knowledge and the Huckabee campaign is tied together with trendy jokes and religious personability. His nomination would reopen a healing wound on the face of the party.
cody30228

Con

Religion:
Not all of his support is from religious people.
http://www.iowaindependent.com...
Less than half of his support came from evangelicals

Bad Politician:
Savvy politician good.
Really? So why are the savvy politicians holding approval ratings under 50%
why is Mike Huckabee and Barrack Obama, the 2 least experienced win Iowa? Why was Romney, a politician of only 4 years, come in 2nd? Why are term limits becoming popular if we want old politicians? Romney said that McCain has been around in Washington so long that he has lobbyists all around his elbows.
Good politician: not liked
lobbyists
Bad politician: like
no lobbyists

I think it is clear which is the advantage.

No Position:
You claim that he has standard republican with no individual stance
Let me go through his positions and explain them to you
Secure America Plan does not have any amnesty. McCain and Giuliani agree on a plan with practical amnesty.

Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment and Same-sex marriage is what almost all republicans support. Why? Because if he didn't he would be a democrat

FairTax is not supported by any other republican besides Huckabee. Standard republican? Yeah Right.

He supports energy independence, yet many Americans see Republicans as big-oil men. The stereotype does not fit with Huckabee

Personability:
Really? Bad speaker? I just watched an interview on FOX and he did not stutter any more than anyone else. If he is not personable, than why is he rated #1 on most honest and most moral of all the candidates?

This was your ending
"You claim that Huckabee is this really nice, religious, inexperienced guy. That is the problem. He has no policy merit or knowledge and the Huckabee campaign is tied together with trendy jokes and religious personability. His nomination would reopen a healing wound on the face of the party."

Nice, is not a bad thing
Religion, is not the reason for all of his supporters
Inexperienced, is a good thing among the public
Policy, is different in major issues such as Taxes and Immigration
Knowledge, you only stated that he has to research some about one issue. Better research than some rash action done without thinking
Only jokes and religion, yeah right! He had one, maybe two jokes at the debate. Thompson, Giuliani had 1, Romney has a thousand outside of debate, and McCain had 4 or 5.

So far, you have supported MY side. You agreed he is nice. I prove that being a bad politician is good. You do not. He is better than many republican candidates, and he is actually one of the best.
Debate Round No. 3
wingnut2280

Pro

1) As a Politician

There is a big distinction between experience and being a good politician. Obama is a good politician because he understands how to run a campaign, make political alliances etc. Huckabee lacks these skills as we saw in Iowa. His campaign did nearly all it could do to fumble away the Iowa win just days before the vote. Huckabee swore not to make a negative ad, then, showed the press the ad he would have run if he were running negative ads....which he isn't...somehow. This shows his lack of political skill, not just his inexperience.

New Hampshire proves that the only reason Huckabee was able to win Iowa is due to its overwhelmingly religious populous in comparison to NH. He finished in a distant third, even with his Iowa momentum.

McCain and Clinton, perhaps the two MOST "washington" of the bunch, just won NH. Obviously people don't mind good politicians with experience.

The assumption that all politicians have lobbyists, or that all lobbyists are bad is a misconception that your whole argument is premised around. There are good practical purposes for lobbyists as well.

The point remains that a good politician is going to be needed in order to win the presidency. Huckabee isn't one. He runs an awkward campaign which relies on trendy references and religious appeals. If he wasn't as funny and personable as he is, he wouldn't even be being considered as a candidate because of his weak political skills. This is obviously not just because of his experience, and is not a good thing. Obama is very politically savvy, yet unexperienced and has a non-D.C. reputation, but still is viable in both states and seen as a very electable candidate. Huckabee retains no political skills, regardless of experience. The two are very different.

2) Position

Obviously all republicans are going to have most issues and stances in common. However, Huckabee has no unique or original stances or views on any major issues. He does not literally have NO PLAN, just no original or unique one. All candidates talk about being energy diversified and independent despite common conception. My principle point here is that Huckabee is not a policy thinker. He gets beat up in the debates and on talk shows on the issues other than religious or moral ones. This is obvious. The Bhutto example was just one. Huckabee is becoming famous for slipping his way out of speaking on policy issues by shifting the focus onto moral anecdotes or trendy jokes.

Here he is getting beat up on meet the press:
http://youtube.com...

Here he is caught fumbling through another policy decision:
http://youtube.com...

There are dozens of times where Huckabee proves that he flat out does not have the policy chops to win the presidency. Why do you think all of his ads are about how much of a "christian leader" he is? He has played the relgion card enough in Iowa, and it worked. Now we see NH, a less religious state, realizing the lack of political knowledge and skill Huckabee has.

I did not mean to imply that he had NO positions. I was simply pointing out that Huckabee is one of the weakest candidates on the issues devoid of morals and religion. His policy merit is weak and it shows.

3) Personability

Maybe we misunderstand each other on this point. I'm not talking about public speaker in the sense that one has confidence and can clearly articulate. All politicians can do this. Huckabee, however, can not seem to makes his points clearly, dodges questions and does not articulate himself ON THE ISSUES.

In any debate, or in any speech, Huckabee uses zingers and witty stories to dodge his way out of explaining the tough questions. This is true, WATCH HIM.

Finally, I don't say that being nice or honest, or being religious is a bad thing. I DO say that these are the only things Huckabee has going for him. I would hope that my president is a personable guy. I would also hope though, that he has some policy knowledge (experienced or no) and can cogently explain himslef and his positions without referencing Chuck Norris or some religious anecdote from boyhood. All of my points from the first round go unanswered. You don't answer the fact that Huckabee would be unable to beat the Democrats, or that his zealous relgious nature (doesn't believe in evolution) would take the party back decades. You don't answer the fact that he doesn't have political merit (experience is different).

Huckabee has proven to us that he doesn't not have the political where-with-all to win the presidency. My point in this debate is that his nomination would be a damaging embarassment to the party and that he doesn't deserve to be our nominee. You haven't responded to any point on this subject, merely pointed out that Huckabee is a likeable guy (which I don't deny). But, the fact that he is likeable is part of the problem. Thats all he has to offer as a candidate (as I have illustrated above) and I fear (as do many other republicans) that his nomination would bite us in the long run. What have you said that proves me otherwise?
cody30228

Con

Let me hit on key points for the conclusion
1.Politician experience
Huckabee won Iowa, as I showed, with less than half religious vote. He got third in New Hampshire, when he was projected to get 6th a week earlier. This shows that he did better off than expected. McCain is very likable, and less of a politician than Giuliani or Romney. Clinton pulled over half of the women vote. She also was seen very emotional at speeches. This was supposed to be what got her rankings up. Obama beat Edwards, a politician. New Hampshire only shows that the voters, especially in the Republican side, like people, not politicians.
Huckabee must have some political skills because he was voted governor multiple times. But he has little corruption from Washington. Yes, I do state that all lobbyists are bad. Why? Because they are. Even if lobbying for a good cause, the means of getting someone's support is wrong. Money and perks are the tools for lobbyists, and Huckabee has yet to fall victim.

2.Positions
You attack Huckabee by saying he has no individual position can has trouble defending it. First, he is the only one supporting a FairTax. He is the only one the has the 9-step Secure America plan devoid of amnesty or ID cards. The two biggest issues, he is unique on. You lack serious evidence otherwise.
The two videos you have do show his stumbling and mumbling and void of reason. If anything it shows he has enough knowledge to defend his plans. You never prove he is devoid of merit on his positions as you claim. We stand here and can realize that Huckabee is very strong and unique on his positions, and is not an embarrassment at all.

3.Personability
All you really say is how likable he is. You never have any negative impacts drawn from this.

So this is why Huckabee is NOT an embarrassment, as why you should vote CON.
- Is not corrupted by lobbyists
- Is supported by the people
- Has a strong stance
- Is very personable

You have only one reason to vote Pro, and that is his experience. I admit this has some drawbacks, but we can all clearly see that Huckabee has more ups than downs.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by lstultz2 9 years ago
lstultz2
It's intersting to note that a young senator with no experience and a former minister won the caucus in Iowa. The reson is they move people. They're hopeful and see a future. It is no different than when president Bush stood on the pile of ruble in New York when the towers came down and said, "we'll find the guys who did this and they will all feel us." Every leader is made by how they deal with the issues in front of them-hence the term leader. I agree Huckabee may not be perfect, but who among us is, however if I get to-he's got my vote.
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
yah... i'm feeling you on the huckee issue pro. Whether or not people are justified in calling a Relgious Right fanantic doesn't really matter. The point is it is an unfornate steriotype of the GOP that could only reinforced by the nomination of a former cleric.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
sluggerjal you mean pro right?
Posted by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
con says that huckabbe has no plan. well than under that logic no one would be a good president because everyone usually has the same plan as someone else has. I am in debate and maybe you should plan out and think through your points better before you start writing crap that does not make sense.
Posted by hydr8 9 years ago
hydr8
You think that because our founding father's came up with the first amendment means they weren't religious? It's no secret that our congress would start their meetings with long sessions of prayer to "Almighty God". They understood that there should be a separation of church and state, but never meant for a separation of God and state. The difference is in the functions of the church and state and their authority. God was never meant to be taken out of the picture.
Posted by AndrewNietzsche 9 years ago
AndrewNietzsche
Oh, I guess i should comment on the debate. Pro is winning thus far.
Posted by AndrewNietzsche 9 years ago
AndrewNietzsche
"Besides, our founding fathers were all religious. They turned out great. " - Well, that last part is true... but our founding fathers weren't really religious. First Amendment kind of contradicts that. Most of them were deist.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 Arjunk193 9 years ago
Arjunk193
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 Avalonjohn44 9 years ago
Avalonjohn44
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 Conservative360 9 years ago
Conservative360
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 mrjpb104 9 years ago
mrjpb104
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 lstultz2 9 years ago
lstultz2
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 DerekHum84 9 years ago
DerekHum84
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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 azrael777 9 years ago
azrael777
wingnut2280cody30228Tied
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