While I'm still holding out hope that Fred Thompson will catch that "fire in the belly", thus far his campaign has been less than impressive. On the other hand, Mike Huckabee has been coming on strong in Iowa and he's beginning to get some serious attention from the media - both positive and negative. I've seen several of his interviews on the Sunday Morning shows and come away pretty impressed with him. He's handled the negative stuff pretty well and I like some of his ideas. My question though is can he win? Can he win the nomination, and more importantly, can he win the general election? Those are the questions posed here for Republicans to debate. (The why part is implied)

Aquilla

I have done some research on Huckabee, and he does have some good ideas. On the Thompson issue, only in the past week or two has he begun is campaign ads. I live in Iowa and I think we get more attention from the candidates than most other states. Most of the ads are from the dems, but Mitt has been pretty prominent. I don't think I have seen a Huckabee ad yet, so if he starts putting those out, I think he may get a surge in numbers. Whether or not he can actually win the election, it is hard to say. I don't know of any 'dirt' on him, but there is plenty of mud to sling at the leaders of the dem race.

I invite everyone to check out http://cox2008.com/cox/. John Cox is a very unknown candidate. I really like his positions on those issues that are important to me. I will be voting Cox on January 3rd, 2008. Unfortunately since he is not a beltway veteran or a multimillionare, he doesn't get the exposure that I think he deserves. Check him out and let me know what you think. If you like him, pass the word.

I don't have time for as long a response as id like for this one, im at my folks until Sunday or Monday but I really do favor Mike Huckabee over any other candidate. He has a demeanor that strikes me as genuine and sincere. However the questions you are asking really are the million dollar questions here. So can he win? Well I think the biggest challenge for him ironically will be winning the primary. If he can do that I believe he actually has the best chance of any republican candidate to defeat someone like Hillary. I believe this because his personality is almost opposite of hers. She is inconsistent, while he seems very consistent. She is a text book polished politician while he is someone who seems more direct and less rehearsed, she will say anything to get elected while Mike really never gave me that impression. This sort of thing will come out if it were just the two of them. Thats supposing Hillary wins, which seems likely. Although I think he could probably beat any democrat thats running today.

Well gotta run, I hope everyone had a good thanksgiving.

I like Huck. He is a straight shooter and so obviously a good man and a good conservative you would think he would be the choice.

I would hope that he either wins or is the VP choice.

However, you do all know that he extended "in state tuition" to children of illegals. (Non-citizens, not anchor babies. that are citizens despite their parents' citizenship).

Look at debate here (the CNN YouTube debate, Question 5)

I don't know about you but a large portion of the conservatives who sat home last Nov (06) did so based on the border and illegal situation. I don't want to see that again. Lost the majority for us.

Mike Huckabee took a modest lead of 0.2% in the Ref's Poll Averages on Sunday. Obama took the lead from Hillary as well by a slightly larger margin of 0.6%. A lead change in an individual poll does not necessarily signify a shift in the race because of variables that impact individual polls. When a lead change occurs in a reliable poll average, a major shift is generally occurring because averages are not as vulnerable to the variables that cause great shifts in individual polls.

We will see whether the lead changes hold up, but even if they do not both Romney and Clinton are in trouble in Iowa. Clinton can withstand a loss in Iowa but if Obama wins Iowa and Democrats begin to question Hillary's electability and competence, she could be in trouble. Romney probably cannot withstand a loss in Iowa considering how much he has spent and the high expectations for him in the state. Huckabee's biggest Iowa fan is Giuliani. If Huckabee upsets Romney in Iowa the Romney strategy will likely derail.

One positive exists for Romney in this shift, however, in that it downgrades the expectations of Romney in Iowa. If he wins by a small margin the claim that he underperformed will not carry as much sting. Obama and Huckabee each scored big on Sunday.

politicalref.com

Thanks for posting that link RealDeal. I didn't watch too much of that debate, but frankly I liked Huckabee's answer to the question. Immigration is one issue that I would be considered pretty liberal on, even in this forum because I see immigrants who come to this country to build productive lives as a strength for America. I would support a policy that makes it easier for those kinds of people to come here and contribute. Huckabee's response about favoring a policy that enables children who aren't yet citizens to get an education so they can become productive citizens is something I certainly agree with. You know, from a taxpayer standpoint, it costs one hell of a lot less to educate a person for four years so they can get a good-paying, productive job and become a taxpayer than it does to lock them up in prison for 10 years because they lack the skills to do anything other than rob liquor stores.

All things considered, I'd put Huckabee's response to this question in the plus column.


Aquilla

In the circumstances that Gov. Huckabee laid out in his response, I think there is some validity to his position. But on the other hand, I think action should have been taken sooner. Here is my inner conflict with the issue:

On the one hand, the reality is that some families have been here illegally for many years. When a family comes here with small children, younger than 5, and stays here illegally until that child is a senior in highschool, that factor has to be taken into consideration. That child didn't break the law, his parents did. That child has been competing with his peers his entire life just the same as everyone else. That child has to achieve a certain standard to recieve the scholarship just as everyone else. There are no special privledges given to that child because of him being illegal.

On the other hand, how did this child of illegal immigrants, who is not an anchor baby, get through public education from first grade through his senior year. How many millions of dollars were spent to educate this child throughout his educational career? Only citizens of this country should recieve public education. Even private schools should be held accountable. If a private school knowingly teaches the children of illegal aliens, they should face the same punishment as the businesses that employ the parents of those children.

So, I think to solve this issue, the states should expell all children that are not here legally. We should also remove the anchor baby law. If you come here illegally and have a child, that child will have the same status as the parent. If the parent goes through the legal process of being here legally, the child will automatically do the same, unless the child has started a life of crime (teenagers in gangs, etc.) at which point both the parents and the children should be deported. If the parents can't keep their children off the streets, they shouldn't be here no matter how wonderful they are. This spills over into another discussion regarding our own citizens, but that is for another thread.

I see no reason why we can't deport every single illegal immigrant. Get rid of the IRS, department of education, department of energy, welfare, homeland security, and all the entitlement programs and you have billions of dollars to use to enforce our laws, which by the way is the federal governments primary job.