Huckabee victorious in Kansas / LJWorld.com

Archive for Sunday, February 10, 2008

Haraz N. Ghanbari/AP Photo. Enlarge photo.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, pictured Saturday in Washington, won 59.8 percent in the Kansas GOP caucus.

February 10, 2008

Area Republicans caucus

With the race to November heating up in every state, area voters participated in the first Kansas Republican presidential caucus in decades on Saturday. Enlarge video

2008 Kansas Republican Caucus

Kris Kobach talks about the Kansas GOP presidential caucus

Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach talks about U.S. Sen. John McCain's loss in the Kansas GOP presidential caucus.

Republicans make a choice

Members of the GOP in Kansas voted in caucuses today. Here are the results of voting, provided by the Kansas Republican Party.

Election 2008 - Kansas Caucuses

Full coverage of the 2008 Kansas Caucuses, including interactive map of polling places and a Q&A about the process.

Photo by John Henry

Rick Davis, center, checks in Julie Reece on Saturday during the Republican caucus at South Junior High School. In Lawrence, 870 Republicans participated in the caucus.

Photo by John Henry

Residents line up to caucus Saturday, Feb. 9, 2008 during the Republican caucus at South Junior High School.

Defying U.S. Sen. John McCain's lead in the Republican presidential race, Kansas GOP caucusgoers on Saturday flocked to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who easily won statewide and in Lawrence.

"I think it reflects the fact that people still want a voice and still want a choice," said Zach Stoltenberg, a Huckabee supporter and Kansas University architecture graduate student. "It doesn't matter what CNN or Fox News or anybody says. This race isn't over."

Huckabee garnered 59.8 percent of Kansas support, trouncing McCain, who received 23.6 percent of the 19,432 votes.

At the Lawrence site, Huckabee won 43.9 percent of the total votes, compared with McCain's 28.4 percent and Paul's 20 percent.

The results were seen by some as a signal to McCain that many conservatives were not yet on board.

"The size of the defeat (for McCain) in Kansas is a bit of a message, and that's the message that 'No, you haven't won us over yet,'" said Bob Beatty, a Washburn University associate political science professor.

Republicans whose main issues are illegal immigration and abortion are still not warming up to McCain, according to Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach.

"It sends a signal at an important time to John McCain that he's got to work hard to bring those voters into line behind him," Kobach said.

Huckabee won 36 Kansas delegates toward the GOP nomination, although he still trails McCain nationwide, who has won more than 700 of the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. Texas Congressman Ron Paul won 11 percent support in Kansas.

Caucus procedures mixed

Across the state Saturday at 66 caucus sites, party leaders said the turnout mostly met expectations in a race with a clear national front-runner. But it also trailed the 37,000 Democrats who participated in the party's open caucus Tuesday that gave Illinois Sen. Barack Obama a victory in a much tighter nationwide nominating race versus New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In Lawrence, waiting through long lines and working through parking issues, 870 Republicans from Douglas and area counties voted at South Junior High School, 2734 La.

Registered Republicans could vote at any site in their congressional district. Lawrence's site allowed votes from the 3rd and 2nd districts to cast votes, but many voters came from Miami, Franklin and other area counties also to caucus there.

County leaders acknowledged it was difficult to plan for turnout, and they expected 400 to 500 people. The higher numbers of voters forced some voters to wait in line for more than 90 minutes, but because the building has several hallways, some voters only had to wait outside for a short time.

Some complained about the wait in line because only a few volunteers were checking registration. Some voters also said they were unable to hear speeches from campaign representatives because the public-address system didn't work in the auditorium.

And some participants said the process was confusing and did not seem organized.

"They were clearly overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up," said Jake Messersmith, a McCain supporter and Lawrence resident.

Jason Littlejohn, who supported Paul, used a video camera to document some part of the process. He said some votes were cast and allowed to be counted after voting was declared closed. He also said some voters may have been confused on which congressional district box to place their ballots.

"I care about the process. I want an honest process," Littlejohn said.

Douglas County Republican Chairman Craig Campbell said about four voters were allowed to cast votes while volunteers were counting votes because the voters said they had come earlier, waited in line and had to leave but returned. He also said organizers were confident that votes were counted in the correct congressional districts because of a color-coded sticker system.

Three of Paul's supporters helped count the votes, and they were satisfied with the results and a third-place finish at the site, said Adam Wood, a KU junior and Douglas County coordinator for the campaign.

Others said most people in line were glad just to participate.

"They are really upbeat about being able to exercise their voting privileges and letting their voice be heard," said Tim O'Dea, of Le Loup in Franklin County.

Campbell said overall, the event went well because more than 90 percent of voters cast a ballot 90 minutes from the start of the caucus. The event also came with a few glitches like the microphone, but many voters were likely already decided on their votes, he said.

It was the first caucus of some significance in two decades. Many organizers and participants were unfamiliar with the process, which made it difficult to plan for. The race also changed this week when former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts suspended his campaign, giving another edge to McCain.

"It's kind of messy, but I've never been to one before, so for all I know, this is normal," said Mary Scott, of Eudora.

When the Legislature decided not to fund a primary election, which could cost about $2 million, state parties were responsible for the caucuses. Campbell said it cost the county party only about $200 to rent South plus some other minimal expenses.

Local GOP office holders and candidates, like Jim Ryun, who is trying to win back a U.S. House seat, spent time mingling among voters. Party leaders said the turnout was encouraging even if it led to some long lines.

"We'll be sitting down and reviewing that. At least we can get ideas down on paper while it's still fresh in our heads," Campbell said.

The local turnout didn't match the 4,872 Democrats who voted in Tuesday's caucuses at Lawrence sites. But Campbell said that wasn't surprising because of county Democratic leanings, Romney's exit and McCain's lead in the national delegate count.

Conservative support

Huckabee capitalized on conservative voters in Kansas, and he made four stops across the state Friday while McCain touched down only in Wichita.

The low vote totals for McCain was also seen as somewhat surprising because U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and a conservative Republican endorsed McCain and stumped heavily for him.

"McCain has a long way to go towards unifying the Republican party," said Joe Aistrup, head of Kansas State University's political science department.

Now, it also appears to be a two-man race with Huckabee benefiting from Romney's departure, said Beatty, of Washburn University's faculty.

Huckabee's supporters also said the race still was not over.

"It's important for when the election comes up that he'll know that I supported him in the caucuses," said Cole Brown, a Lawrence resident.

Huckabee's win in Kansas was cheered loudly by the conservative Kansas Republican Assembly and Kansans for Life, which is the largest anti-abortion group on the state.

"The results show that even if the conservative voters had continued to remain split between Governors' Huckabee and Romney, as they were earlier this week, either one could have easily defeated Sen. McCain," said Charlotte Esau, KRA executive director.

"United, conservatives made it clear that they want their issues to have a key place at the table no matter who ends up being the Republican nominee," she said.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, said the "HuckaBOOM" in Kansas shows "it's not over yet."

Culp said that McCain's choice of outgoing national Republican committeeman Steve Cloud as his Kansas campaign coordinator angered anti-abortion voters because of Cloud's support of abortion-rights candidates.

"If McCain's folks were serious about unity and reaching to conservatives, they didn't show it," she said.

Kobach said McCain's earlier proposals to provide a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants has been unpopular. And, he said, evangelical Christians break toward Huckabee.

"My speculation on this is it's not that evangelical voters dislike John McCain, it's that they really like Mike Huckabee," he said.

Kobach, however, said he was confident that if McCain becomes the nominee, he will unite and energize Republicans from across the party's spectrum.

"I think it's a good thing this happened, frankly, for John McCain because he needs to see these statistics now rather than see them in July and August," Kobach said.

"It's important that he unify the Republican Party behind him, which I think he can do and he will do," he said.

- Staff writer Scott Rothschild contributed to this report.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

10 February 2008
at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

Would be funny if it was Clinton VS McCain. You will never see two more candidates hated in their OWN party then those two.
10 February 2008
at 7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Send your neighbors kid to die so my kid's death is not pointless. That should be the slogan of every republican other than Ron Paul. Not to many history students around that recall the blunders of fallen empires.
I wish we could have this exciting of an electoral process without the inspiration of the worst president ever.
The lesson I have taken from the Kansas primaries is; Kansas Democrats are real liberal and Kansas Republicans are real evangelical.
10 February 2008
at 7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

Where were the moderate Republicans yesterday? Chalk up another hatchet job for Kansans for Life. Do they not realize they are the reason Sebelius was elected in 2002 (due to the hatchet job on Bob Knight allowing Shallenberger to win the primary), and now all they do is help the Democrats? I really wonder if Kansans for Life and James Dobson really WANT the Democrats to win in November. I am ashamed of my state right now.
10 February 2008
at 7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Huckabees is downright scary. He wants to re-write (note: not amend) the Constitution to “Bring it more in tune with the bible”.

Anyone who votes for this guy is too stupid to vote anyways. Government officials will be contacting you soon to brand “Idiot” on your head and sterilize you so that you will no longer pollute the gene pool.
10 February 2008
at 8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

Ragingbear says:

“Anyone who votes for this guy is too stupid to vote anyways. Government officials will be contacting you soon to brand “Idiot” on your head and sterilize you so that you will no longer pollute the gene pool.”

Although I get a chuckle out of that….I would say the same thing about people who vote for Obama. I mean really, what has he done? He is a good motivational speaker and says what many people want to hear….but what has he done? To me he is just a liberal George W. Bush down to being dangerously niave on foreign policy.

I cannot believe how many scary people we have had in this primary…Brownback, Romney, Edwards, Obama, Huckabee, and Kuchinich (although I could stand to look at his hot wife for 4 years). One of these years, a perfect storm will occur to allow one of these people to be President….and I will consider moving to New Zealand.
10 February 2008
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

He is still so likable when he says scary things. Yes, let the Protestants rewrite the constitution. Don't make it so d@mn all inclusive this time. Those drunken ideas were taken way to literally and then we ended up with liberals.
10 February 2008
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MacHeath (Anonymous) says…

ain't it funny that the kooks in the GOP are now called the “conservatives” in the party. We have a highly motived “kook” fringe in this state. We have beat em back before, we can do it again. Actually, I hope they get pissed, and flip to the democrats. Let them screw that party up for a few years.

10 February 2008
at 8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

What have any of them done? Don't hate the young guy because the ladies still want to do him. Someone young and naive and full of hope is a nice change compared to entrenched and having checked off every box, or a nice looking puppet like Gorge. The voting record may be short but it tells me what I need to know.
10 February 2008
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

I would the the person who has a history saying what they will do and follow through. All I know about Obama is talk, and when it comes to foreign policy, scary talk. I would rather have a centrist person who has a history of following through on what they say and that is John McCain.
10 February 2008
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

Excuse me….I would like the person….not I would the the person….
10 February 2008
at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

Huckabee!? What is wrong with the GOP? This is exactly why I left your party and become independent. Huckabee can't win and why would we want him for president if he could. He advocates changing the Constitution to include Bible standards for all Americans but all Americans aren't Christians Huckie. I don't care for any of the candidates from either party but Huckabee, unbelievable! Oh, but on a positive note the bumper stickers would be great!
10 February 2008
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

queequeg (Anonymous) says…

sure looks like a lot of white people
10 February 2008
at 9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sundancewierdo (Anonymous) says…

i'm totally against having a baptist minister as president, talk about coming in with an agenda. all of you who vote for moral issues, well done, look where that's gotten us. personally i'm sick of the good old boys club making decisions for the rest of us (that includes you hillary). i'm voting for the young guy, he couldn't do any worse, and he's going to make a very real effort to take care of the people of this country. and queequeg, it is a lot of white people.
10 February 2008
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…

this is funny the article is about him winning and all the post are against him. Just funny.
10 February 2008
at 10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

Huckabee won in Kansas because this state has too much in common with the Bible Belt. I am sure Huckabee won by a big margin in places like Olathe…

10 February 2008
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

As long as nationally the Republican Party is dominated by Bush and McCain and at the state level by the religious right, the conservative movement in the US and Kansas is doomed to be a failure.

The conventional wisdom of the national leadership is that McCain can beat Clinton. Two problems with that. First, campaigns that depends on voting against the opposition instead of voting for their candidate don't do so well. Ask John Kerry about how well that worked out. Second, Clinton is looking less like the choice of Democrats. If Obama gets the nod of the Democrats, as I expect, there goes your anti-Clinton motivations and raison d'Ãtre.

The conventional wisdom of the state leadership seems to believe that the religious rights agenda must come front and center at the local level. Any attempt of fiscal conservatives who don't tow a hard religious line is quickly and effectively marginalized.

While I might vote for Juan McCain I won't do so enthusiastically. I certainly won't be telling anyone that he is the BEST candidate. That would be like announcing, “I have chlamydia, it's the BEST of the sexually transmitted diseases!” It's just not something you do in polite society.
10 February 2008
at 10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

“Anyone who votes for this guy is too stupid to vote anyways.”

You shouldn't be surprised, Ragingbear. Afterall, this is Kansas. Land of the people who want to go back to the days of slavery. People who want to kill all Muslims and non-Christians. People who'd love to drag someone behind their pickup trucks. No wonder Huckabee-S got the vote.
10 February 2008
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LiberalDude (Anonymous) says…

Not surprising that the Kansas Republicans chose a candidate who doesn't believe in evolution and is a Baptist Preacher. Their new party slogan should be- “The Kansas Republicans: bringing America back to the 1800's when religious white men ruled the world.”
10 February 2008
at 11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…

The most telling thing in this report is the voter turnout: Republicans: 19,432; Democrats: 37,000.

If Hillary gets the Dem nod, then many of those independents (and former republicans) that voted in the Dem category (about 27% at the caucus I attended) will switch to McCain. On the other hand, if O'Bama gets the nod then they will remain in the Dem column.

Do the math: 27% of 37000 = 9990 swing voters.
37,000 - 9990 = 27010 democratic votes (Clinton vs McCain)
19432 + 9990 = 29422 republican votes (Clinton vs McCain)

based on the sentiment revealed this past week, O'Bama could carry Kansas, while if it's Clinton vs McCain, then McCain will carry Kansas.
10 February 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

workinghard (Anonymous) says…

Kind of reminds me of the JFK campaign.
10 February 2008
at 11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Obama doesn't stand a chance in H=ll of carrying Kansas.
10 February 2008
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

someonewhocares (Anonymous) says…

I for one support Huckabee because he supports family and life and he has a track record that proves it.

Life that is valued as precious, important, and equal at ALL stages (whether it be an embryo, fetus, baby, child, teen, adult, or senior) is extremely important to me. So are family values and faith that, in all honesty, are the base line that determines whether this country can either become great or continue in it's downward spiral.

I have voted, do vote, and will continue voting for a canditate that is willing to fight for and stand up for these issues.
10 February 2008
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

The Christian fundamentalist are as anxious to have a President as the Muslim fundamentalists want Bin Laden.

10 February 2008
at 12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

I think Jason Littlejohn asked the important question to Huckabee supporters during his caucus speech for Ron Paul yesterday. How does one support a candidate whose chief foerign policy advisor is Richard M. Hass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations? Mr. Hass rejects the idea of national sovereignty and advocates for the ending of the U.S. Consitution and a full merger of North America.

This is Huckabee's main advisor in an area he has no experience! Having Mr. Hass formulating Huckabee's policy is very dangerous and something every Huck supporter should examine closely.
10 February 2008
at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

There is little doubt on both sides that the Democrats will be the ones winning the election. Bush has done too much to allow people to have much faith in the Republican Party. Especially being that they may groan a bit, but have never tried to actually step in and curtail Bush Jr.'s abuse of power and him wiping his rear with The Constitution.
10 February 2008
at 12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

McCain, McBush, it hardly matters.

Everyone running on the GOP ticket offers nothing different from 4 more years of warmongering BushCheneyCo.
10 February 2008
at 12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Huckabee supports life, someone said?

Does he support education, jobs, opportunities for women, keeping jobs in the U.S., job training, sex education, birth control, and social services for someone trying to have a baby without a partner? Does he support peace instead of war?

Or does he support life like George W. Bush supports life?
10 February 2008
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

Apparently many Kansas Republicans who voted for Huckabee have not read the book “What's the Matter With Kansas.” Voting for the social conservative candidate while ignoring your own economic self interests makes no sense to me.
10 February 2008
at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Its:

More truth to that than you know.
10 February 2008
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LiberalDude (Anonymous) says…

OK Marion and its,

If what you say is true, then why did the “Real Republicans” chose not to caucus?

Marion, which candidate are you supporting? You strike me as the type that doesn't vote and then sits back and complains about whoever wins.
10 February 2008
at 3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

Thought the Real Republicans were all Huckabee supporters. At the very least the Real Republicans were all evangelicals.

10 February 2008
at 5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

I see the antichristian bigotry is out in full force today!

I and others like me have been described as wishing a theocracy to come back, slavery to return, etc. by resorting to such invective you belie your own inability to function in real political argumentation, thanks, I'll take that win by default.

***
the poli sci prof is correct, Huckabee was not my first, second, or third choice, in this primary season. I am an evangelical prolife christian but was going to support [in this order] Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney [mormons are good people and have fine personal/social values], and now Huckabee. in the national election I will probably vote to support McCain (as noted by Sigmund above) but McCain tried to give all kinds of open-boarders benefits to illegal immigrants. he believes in the man-made global warming mythology that can and would cripple our country. he has caused major curtailing of freedoms of political speech; this is actual not mythical as libs talk about GWB and the patriot act but can't find one person who has had rights interferred with. so, it felt good to stick a finger in the eye of mcCain and the liber/mooshy moderate republican party leadership's eyes! 60%=pretty damned good! we done good

***
The low vote totals for McCain was also seen as somewhat surprising because U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and a conservative Republican endorsed McCain
and stumped heavily for him.

because senator sam tossed his cookies on illegal immigration and whent along with McCain on that horrible compromise called “comprehensive immigration reform” that would have granted z-visa amnesty to all of them in our country. he even voted to give illegals *access to social security benefits* for their work history, even if it had been under a false identity!!! if anybody runs against senator sam in the primary *I'm voting for that person*!

***
indeed the article is right, yesterday, we sent a message and meant to send it loud and clear. we still don't trust McCain!
10 February 2008
at 6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

CAclarks (Anonymous) says…

Ragingbear says:

“Anyone who votes for this guy is too stupid to vote anyways. Government officials will be contacting you soon to brand “Idiot” on your head and sterilize you so that you will no longer pollute the gene pool.”

This may be overstated, but the essence is right on. What would happen to funding for the NSF under a Huckabee administration? NASA? Any federally funded scientific research? This guy obviously cannot accept any evidence of fact or theories that does not align with his own narrow beliefs. The US is in jeopardy of losing its global technological leadership as it is. To advocate this kind of leadership is basically ceding our world-wide position without even a whimper.
10 February 2008
at 6:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

bearded_gnome, you and I have certainly had our share of squabbles in the past. Since your last post sounds at least halfway sincere… I'd like to ask you a couple of equally-sincere questions.

First, you talk about “sending a message.” Are you suggesting that you, and perhaps others, didn't so much vote 'for Huckabee,” as much as vote “against McCain?”

Secondly…

You've probably seen this already, as I've posted this before in a couple of places on these forums. This is a quote from Huckabee… from a campaign speech he gave in Michigan last month:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

-Mike Huckabee
Monday January 14, 2008

How do you view this quote? I mean, I read this, and what I think is, “Huckabee wants to alter the Constitution. Since the only part of the Constitution that specifically addresses religion is the First Amendment, he must want to alter or even abolish the First Amendment.”

That's what I come away with. What do *you* get out of the quote?

Do you feel Huckabee sincerely believes this, or do you think this is just one of those cases of a candidate opening their mouth a little too wide?

Thanks…
10 February 2008
at 6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unklemonkey (Anonymous) says…

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/…

The Associated Press has called Maine for Barack Obama.

Off topic, I know, but Huckabee is an idiot anyway.
10 February 2008
at 7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…

I wasn't surprised at all by Huckabee's win in Kansas. He was probably counting on his stupid campaign commercials with their blatant christian symbols to hook in the simple-minded bigots — and unfortunately they worked.
10 February 2008
at 7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

wow,
aggie, a post without invective smear or categorical bigotted statements, perhaps you are improving aggie?
yes, you read my post correctly, I knew I could have “identified with Huckabee” but I'm aware that's not the best way to select a president: I'd vote for a black female jewish woman running for president if she had the right ideas and the prereq values, without hesitation. as my post stated, I was willing to vote for a mormon. the insane msm made too much of the mormonism of mitt romney. overwhelmingly us christians know: mormons are great people with values that agree with ours; their sacred books just don't fit with ours so they shouldn't be considered christians; but they deserve the same religious freedom we do. as an aside, did you note 'sundanceweirdo' above wants to put in a completely unconstitutional religious test for office, and would deprive clergimen of their 1st, 4th, and perhaps 6th and 8th amendments' rights. but, I digress. I carefully considered Huckabee from the beginning and he was not my first, second, or third choice. but, as an opportunity to vote against juan McCain and the mooshy moderates who stand for nothing, I was very happy to. now, some of my friends and fellow church members happily voted for huckabee, chiefly because they believed they could trust him better than most politicians and I think there's some to that position. also, James Dobson endorsed him and of course Huckabee is prolife which is for all of us one of the most paramount values. juan McCain has in the past limited political speech, including speech by antiabortion group in wisconsin.
so, you asked, there's your answer, for me, after others dropped out, as stated in the first message, my vote was an opportunity to send a message: I don't trust Juan McCain and the mooshy moderates-senator sam included.

now, as to your second question: honestly, what he has said is indeed literally correct. despite the work of the religious liberals and unbelievers, the Bible cannot be amended. some carismatic churches believe in personal and private revelation but they are generally off track and quickly lose sight of the importance of the bible.
when I heard Huckabee make that statement my first reaction was “oh boy, here it comes!” meaning that that statement would provoke a lot of blowback. I must commend you that a candidate you obviously oppose vehemently you still allow could have foot in mouth disease, thanks. I do know the Bible rather well, and have studied with Baptist pastors and honestly I was unsure to what exactly he was referring about making the constitution more in line with God's love. I did wonder if it meant the human life amendment perhaps, or something else?
hope that helps.
10 February 2008
at 8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…

No one seems to have mentioned the import of the obvious: The “D”s turned out double the number of Kansas caucus goers as did the “R”s and did it on a weekday night in horrible weather. This scenario has been repeated around the country. I know that huge numbers of independents and “R”s changed their registration to “D” in order to caucus.
10 February 2008
at 9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bliddel (Anonymous) says…

Certainly, the list of candidates for President is less appealing than ever before.

Clinton, Obama, and McCain all want to repeal the second amendment, ignore the tenth amendment, and spend all our ever-increasing taxes jousting at windmills (manmade global warming). McCain has already voted to repeal the first amendment (via McCain-Feingold). Clinton, Obama, and Paul all want to cut and run in Iraq. Huckabee (somewhat like Fred Phelps) appears to want to suffocate any non-Baptists or GLBT he can accuse (so much for his defense of the first amendment). Only Ron Paul seems to recognize the danger of Kellog V New London. Only Ron Paul did not abuse the loophole in the law that allows politicians to overwhelm our phone lines with their mechanized campaign messages from 7AM to 9PM for days prior to every election. Of the Republicans, only Ron Paul seems to realize the difference between being pro-life and wanting to ignore the tenth amendment by forcing one's own religious convictions on innocent pregnant women who may have been raped or been the victim of incest.

Just as the excesses of the Clinton presidency decimated the Democrats in the 1990s, the excesses of Bush 43 have turned compassionate conservatism into downright fascism, and made Republican conservatives appear as extreme as the socialists.

It is no wonder to me that voters in the two largest political parties are really pissed off and really disillusioned.

So, which of your few remaining rights do you most want to get rid of? You have a real alternative: You could vote Libertarian…

10 February 2008
at 10:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

bliddel:
95% of abortions are *birth control abortions…RE judge Bork. and I give you that, if a woman is not able to give concent, age, impairment, abortion is fine. but don't let abortion be an enabler for continued statutory rape by keeping the older man's identity secret. 95% of abortions for birth control means there are a lot of women walking around who have had more than one, and a lot of women suffering “post-abortion syndrome” a real traumatic symptomology, though not recognizede by the liberal american psychiatric assn.
11 February 2008
at 11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Huckabee protests Washington caucus results

“washington — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee cried foul Sunday after John McCain's apparent victory in the Washington state caucuses Saturday.”

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nationa…

A Bit More on Why Washington's Caucus Controversy Is Much Ado About Nothing

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.co…
11 February 2008
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Ironic, too, that—to hear them tell it—it's usually “the other side” where all the voting irregularities occur… ;)

I'd much rather see Kansas chuck the caucus altogether, in favor of primary elections.
11 February 2008
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BrianR (Anonymous) says…

So then Huckabee will have to lie when he takes his oath of office to “solemnly swear that [he] will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”?

Huckabee is sounding a lot like a domestic threat to the Constitution. You don't get to defend the Constitution you want or desire, you swear to defend the Constitution we've got. He should think hard about the number of people who've taken that oath and have taken it seriously.

Erasing the line between Church and State will destroy the Union, is that what people really want?
11 February 2008
at 3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acg (Anonymous) says…

This Huckabee idiot is scary and I'm so disappointed that he took KS. I mean, I knew this place was full of a**hats, but I had no idea how bad it really is. I feel so badly for those that are completely blinded by their religious nonsense. It's like they've been brainwashed by a cult, but on a much larger scale. I don't know whether or not to wish they'd come back to the pack or just go ahead and drink the koolaid and get it overwith.
11 February 2008
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

“Obama doesn't stand a chance in H=ll of carrying Kansas.”

I wouldn't be so sure… over 37,000 people caucused for the Democratic Nominee, whereas, Republicans only had about 20,000. If we can duplicate that success in November then Sen. McCain would have to carry Kansas which he couldn't do on Saturday. Sen. Obama captured 73.3% of that 37,000, while McCain mustered 23.6% of 20,000. It would appear as though Obama has the upper hand and our best chance to put Kansas in the Blue for 08.
11 February 2008
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

Huckabee is just a frightening candidate. It is so good that McCain has the advantage. He is definitely the “lesser” of the two evils in terms of the Republican camp. Huckabee definitely appeals to those in the Bible Belt states. At least Ron Paul would abide by the consitution and not potentially change it like the loony Huckabee.
11 February 2008
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Some rather interesting “patterns” can be seen, by perusing some of the documents found here…

http://www.kssos.org/elections/electi…

11 February 2008
at 7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Everyone of the candidates remaining besides Ron Paul plans to take a tremendous dookie all over the Constitution…but as Jonas reminded us, the idiot masses already think the Constitution is “Unrealistic and Totally Unimplementable.”