The Instigator
wingnut2280
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points

The Huckabee-McCain Alliance

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,339 times Debate No: 2430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (11)

 

wingnut2280

Con

Mike Huckabee and John McCain are in political cahoots. Thats right, cahoots.

Huckabee has stayed in the race in order to ensure a McCain nomination. While other candidates have dropped out in better circumstances, Huckabee stays in to split the base and draw votes from Romney. This has allowed McCain the victory on super tuesday and to become the heir-apparent to the nomination.

McCain and Huckabee each have a personal despise for Romney and have worked togehter to ensure he doesn't get nominated. Despite the backlash of many Republicans, Huckabee has assured voters that he will stay in. Even with an exceptionally suprising showing on tuesday, Huckabee still stands NO chance of winning the nomination and has stayed in as a mere attempt to gain the VP spot on McCain's ticket.

This alliance is seedy and backhanded. Not to quote Romney to closely, but this is the same old Washington tricks that we have seen from people like the Clintons. Its pretty shameful and I am thoroughly embarassed to be a Republican. I guess it took a Carter to bring about a Reagan and it will take Hillary to bring Newt.
clsmooth

Pro

1. Huckabee is staying in the race for one primary reason: To raise his own profile. Picking up the wins that he did yesterday will allow him to stay on the national stage for years to come. In addition to "helping" McCain (if he did), he is lining himself up nicely to be McCain's VP nominee.

2. No one put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to vote for Huckabee. The people who voted for Huckabee did so for a reason. Many of whom did so for RELIGIOUS reasons, and as such, they would NEVER vote for Romney the Mormon, whom they consider to be a non-Christian. If anything, Huckabee denied McCain a more solid victory on Super Tuesday.

3. Huckabee does have "a chance" of winning the nomination. It's an outside chance, but a chance nonetheless. If all four candidates stay in the race through the convention, then it is highly improbable for McCain to have the necessary delegates to win the nomination. He needs 50% of the outstanding delegates. If he is unable to win them, this would result in a brokered convention, wherein Huckabee might be able to win over delegates on the second or subsequent ballots. He is, after all, easily the best speaker of the candidates.

4. If McCain and Huckabee have a deal in place, it is in no way "seedy" or "backhanded." This is the way politics works. If Romney deserved the nomination, he would be able to get 50%+1 of the votes. If he's unable to do that, then he doesn't deserve the nomination.

Romney is a spoiled little rich-boy whiner. He doesn't have enough money to buy off the electorate, so he promises more socialism for Michigan and elsewhere using stolen taxpayer dollars. I hate McCain and Huckabee, but Romney is clearly the worst, and his idiotic supporters are even worse than him.
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Con

1) So, you agree that Huckabee's motives are selfish in nature and not correlated to winning the presidential nomination.

2) People who voted for Huckabee, even if they did so for religious reasons, did so because they are typically conservative. Look at the exit polls among the base. A large percent of the base went to Huckabee that would have otherwise went to Romney. While I do agree that some of the evangelical voters wouldn't vote for Romney, a large portion of them would pick the vastly more conservative candidate.

3) A brokered convention is a contentious topic in and of itself. Even in this event, Huckabee still stands third in delegates and would have little to no chance in the best case scenario. Regardless, you agreed above that he isn't staying in for the nomination, but to better himself.

4) "This is the way politics works" Exactly. This is the way Washington has worked for years. This political play skews what the party really wants. Its like when Perot ran in 1992. He splits the Republican vote and gives Clinton plurality. The same situation is occuring here. We won't know if Romney 'deserved' the nomination because people who don't want McCain are split between two candidates. An overwhelming percentage of the base doesn't want McCain. Had Huckabee dropped out, like others in better circumstances than he did before him, conservatives and republicans would have had a clear alternative to the despised McCain.

Your personal opinion of Romney aside, the base clearly doesn't want McCain to be nominated. Huckabee staying in on McCain's behalf allows McCain to mask this by splitting the base and winning moderates and independents.
clsmooth

Pro

1. No, they are related to winning the presidency. See point #3. Raising his profile makes it all the more likely that he can win the nomination on the convention floor. Otherwise, a VP nod, whether successful or not, would line Huckabee up for the presidency in 2012 or 2016. If you think Huckabee doesn't want to be president, he does -- and of course, that's "selfish."

2. Ha! "Conservative"? You're kidding me, right? The National Taxpayers Union says Huckabee would increase federal spending by $54.2 billion. How the heck is he "conservative"? Conservative interest groups like the Club For Growth are vehemently anti-Huckabee. Huckabee is even more liberal than Romney ($19.5 billion), who himself is an industrial socialist. McCain is easily the most conservative among these three ($6.9 billion), with only one even remotely conservative candidate in the race, Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion). Source: http://www.ntu.org...

3. You don't understand how a brokered convention would work. The delegates would only be pledged on the first ballot. After that, they could totally change their minds. As a preacher and excellent speaker, Huckabee has a "chance" to win the nomination on the floor. The more delegates he wins in the meantime, the greater his chances.

4. Okay, so you don't like how "politics works," and instead, think that the candidates you don't like should be made to drop out so that the people who support them would be prevented from voting for them. This is a horribly left-wing elitist opinion, not surprising coming from a supporter of teh industrial-socialist/fascist faux-conservative, moneybags Romney.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Con

1) So, Huckabee knows he isn't going to be president, but wants to ensure his political career for years to come? gotcha. Thats definately a reason he should stay in.

2) The issue isn't whether or not they are actually conservative. Your statistics are irrelevant. The question is whether Huckabee supporters would vote for Rmoney or McCain. While some would be bound by religion. Most would respond to the conservative aura surrounding Romney (true or not) and embrace the conservative backlash facing McCain. So, since Huckabee voters would vote for Romney, his involvement directly favors McCain. Exit polls prove.

3) OK, brokers could change their minds. But this doesn't mean that they could be swayed to Huckabee. Huckabee's speaking abilities aside, he would still have to sway the largest amount of delegates. Seeing the conservative backlash facing himself and McCain, this isn't likely. Even so, others have dropped out in better circumstances, such as Edwards. Further proving Huckabee is only staying in the race to better himself career-wise, his allies and hinder Romney.

4) I don't like how politics works. I wish my politicians would be upfront and allow the party to be accurately reflected instead of politicians acting for personal gain.

You admit that Huckabee has a small chance of winning and is only staying in for personal and professional gain. Of course he wants to win, but, realizing this small chance, he has formed a political alliance, based on personal relationships, in order to keep himself politically relevant. This has cost the Republican party a chance at nominating a candidate who relfects them. These type of seedy, behind-the-scenes deals aren't legitimate and they have hamstringed republican voters.
clsmooth

Pro

1. No. Huckabee is TRYING to win, but angling for the future or a VP nomination. This is no different from Reagan's heroic run in '76. If you think outsiders making their voice heard is "what's wrong with politics" then I say you're an elitist. No one is forcing anyone to vote for Huckabee or Paul. Romney is an entitled a-hole and people don't want to vote for him. He needs to get over it.

2. I totally disagree with your assessment that Huckabee's voters would vote for Romney if Huckabee were not a candidate. There is no basis in this assertion. Huckabee's supporters are populists, and Romney is the furthest thing from a populist. Huckabee was born in the white ghetto and Romney was born into an aristocracy. Huckabee's supporters do not identify with a Massachusetts liberal like Romney, and that's that.

3. Edwards had no chance at all. Huckabee has "a chance." He is a unique candidate with a definite constituency. Huckabee could be the "compromise" candidate between Romney and McCain. It might be reasoned that he has a better chance of winning the general election. So long as his supporters want him to continue, who are YOU to say he shouldn't? You are really quite pompous and presumptuous.

4. You don't like how politics works -- you wish that you were a dictator and could force people out of the race when they failed to meet your criteria. That's elitism.

There is nothing "seedy" about this. What's "seedy" is welfare-funded primaries. Nominations SHOULD be made through deal-making and coalition-building.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sully 9 years ago
sully
I don't think he ever called you a bigot. He stated that he did not believe that the conservative christians were bigots. Not sure if you missed that or if you are just trying to spin the facts to avoid looking bad. You would make a great politician, you have an amazing ability to never admit when you are wrong.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I referred to his "stupidity" after he attacked me and called me a bigot based on his own ignorance of common mathematical notation, frequently used on message boards. I think I can be spared the guilt from this "attack" since it was in retaliation to an undeserved attack. I said he was "illiterate" of the math notation, which is true.
Posted by sully 9 years ago
sully
In previous comments on this page you called mikelwallace stupid and illiterate. Those are personal attacks.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Okay, here was the offensive comment: I said people were, IN MY OPINION, "idiotic, immoral, and elitist" IF they WANTED to be poor. This was not an attack on any individual, but on the ideology of Communism, often championed by the wealthy elite Left. Again, your reading comprehension is called into question.

Here is the other comment that mikewallace found so offensive:

"Historically, conservatives have been opposed to free markets. Even today, most conservatives are mercantilists, not capitalists. Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations to proselytize free-market capitalism AGAINST the dominant economic system of his day, mercantilism. Adam Smith was considered a liberal in his day, and the enemies of capitalism were considered conservatives. So if YOU are for free markets and consider yourself a conservative, that's fine by me. Ron Paul also considers himself a conservative. But he is pretty much the only public figure I know who identifies with conservatism and yet promotes laissez-faire free-market capitalism in the Adam Smith tradition."

Notice I said "IF YOU ARE FOR FREE MARKETS AND CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSERVATIVE, THAT'S FINE BY ME." I just pointed out HISTORICAL FACTS about the original conservatives, who were defenders of ancien regime. The original conservatives and the original "right" were AGAINST capitalism and democracy. The original proponents of capitalism and democracy were called LIBERALS and were considered to be part of the "left."

How are you offended by this? This is the truth. And if you had a good education, you would know this.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
ok first off...calm down and get ahold of yourself. You really need to act more like an adult. I debated a 13 year old who had more self control than you. Second, let the math notation thing go, it was my mistake and I thanked you for clarifying it for me about 6 comments ago, kinda beating a dead horse on that one. and the personal attacks were not you caling me a fascist, it was about when you call people stupid and idiotic and uneducated. let me say that again so you understand....it was about you calling people stupid and idiotic and uneducated. I dont care that you think i am a fascist, really, i think that you are a radical and it impairs your logic, but i have never called you stupid or attacked your literacy or education, or said "how the F". Your greatest weakness is your inability to control your emotions, it impairs your judgement and quite frankly makes you sound a little rediculous in the way to speak so disrespectfully to others. So Im gonna go ahead and stop posting comments here, you can feel free to attack again and call me stupid or illiterate all you want, (we all know how powerful that makes you) but remember, you are making a complete fool of yourself again with your over-emotional prideful arrogance. Have a nice day.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Just obscure the facts with your attacks.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

1. I did not diss Christians.

2. You do not know basic math notation.

3. Mitt Romney is in no way for a "free market."

Is Mitt for a free market in education? In health care? In money? In agriculture? Is he for free trade? How the F is he for a "free market" -- he's not even for a free market in any one industry, let alone entirely.

No, I am not an anarchist, but I don't consider that an insult. I am for the same amount of government that Thomas Jefferson was for. Anything you say about me, you are saying about Thomas Jefferson. You, on the other hand, are for more government than any president prior to FDR. You are, in fact, a fascist.

I can't address your comment about "immature personal attacks" because I don't know what you're talking about. Pointing out someone's political ideology is not a personal attack. Someone flipping out, as you did, because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MATH NOTATION, is not my problem. I was not insulting Christians, and if you were even remotely literate, you would understand that.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
By the way you never adressed my comment about your immature personal attacks...too prideful?
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
You make me laugh clsmooth. You need to get a grip on reality bro. You are no different than an extreme leftist that just runs around calling everybody names like stupid or idiotic like a child, and calling those who disagree fascists. You do bring entertainment to the site though. If I am a fascist then you must be an anarchist by the way. Thank goodness you will never be in a position of power in this great country, that would be scary.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I didn't diss conservative Christians. You don't know what "/=" means. That's a PROBLEM, and it's YOUR problem, not mine.

Mitt is NOT for a "free market" economy. He is for agricultural subsidies, tons of government spending in Michigan, etc. He is a FASCIST. Look it up. Free market /= government partnership with business. Free market = FREE MARKET. What is Mitt's take on the Fed? How can you be "free market" if you believe in central banks and fiat currency. That is fascism/socialism.

I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job, despite the evidence that suggests it may have been. I simply cannot believe that our evil government could be so competent.

I'm unsure of the constitutionality of the income tax. I do know that it is a great evil that prohibits anything resembling a free market, though.

Do NOT call yourself "free market." You are a fascist. That isn't an insult anymore than "liberal" is an insult. Hitler and Mussolini gave fascism a bad name, but it is a political/economic ideology espoused by people like Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, etc. They are not as evil or intelligent as Hitler.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I have to ask, why is it that when someone challenges your views you have to resort to name calling like a 12 year old. This is not the first time on this site that you have called someone stupid or ignorant or idiots for disagreeing.

http://www.debate.org...

why dont you start acting 29 pal?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 gogott 9 years ago
gogott
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 sully 9 years ago
sully
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 malmal16 9 years ago
malmal16
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
wingnut2280clsmoothTied
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