Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said today that the "jury is still out" on whether or not humans co-existed with dinosaurs and other pre-historic creatures.
Responding to a question during a rally in Plainview, a Des Moines suburb, Huckabee said that it was possible that humans interacted with the giant reptiles as recently as 6,000 years ago.
"Did humans live alongside dinosaurs? I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure. But I do know that my Bible describes dragons in Genesis. They could have drowned in Noah's Flood," he said.
According to recent polls, Huckabee has surged in both Iowa and South Carolina.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/huckabee.dinosaurs/index.html
2007-12-12 04:59:35 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
With his 1300 pardons as governor, I feel for the GOP if he is.
2007-12-12 05:02:06 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Here is the problem, what he belives about evolution and dinosaurs doesn't matter for a president. If there was a triceratops problem that he had to fight, then it would be an issue but they are long past gone. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR IDIOTIC MEDIA asking questions that have nothing to do with education, immigration, taxes, healthcare, etc.
So, Huckabee is the best republican's have because:
1. He is against amnesty for illegals and has put out a comprehensive immigration plan.
2. He supports education and has dealt with it.
3. He is a pro-environment conservative
4. He has govern a democratic state for a decade and has shown he can support bi-partisanship.
5. He is a fiscal conservative with a plan to support the fair tax.
I have much more, but I doubt that would help anyone who is focusing their vote on dinosaurs.
2007-12-12 05:12:02 · answer #2 · answered by doughboy_woohoo 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I think at this point the Republicans are looking for someone low key, and regular guy. They are trying to repeat the charm of the 2004 election, where decorated war hero and articulate intellectual Kerry was beat by a nebbish with no positive track record in any part of his life. The theory is people liked Bush's unintimidating resumé. They were asked, and had the election framed for them by the media, in these terms: "Would you join this man for a backyard barbecue, and a few cold brews?" Obviously, Kerry couldn't compete with Bush on that playing field. They are trying the same thing now. Hilary is being portrayed as what we'd call "hard charging" and "forceful" if she was a man, but who, because she's a woman, we call "shrill" and "harpie-like". Obama and Edwards are playing right into the negativity-alert media's hands by being increasingly shrill at Hilary, as they feel the momentum slip their grasp. All the Democrats seem too loud, too flamboyant, too cocksure, too annoyingly pushy at this point. Careful there: Remember Gore in the 2000 debate? He got up in Bush's face and smirked all the way through it, mercilessly dominating Bush. He thought he'd seem smart; instead, he seemed smug. He seemed like a bully, in fact.
When the low key GOP and high-strung Democrat meet in debate, it will all be over for the loudest and most arrogant and annoying personality. Sorry, but that's PR and people's perceptions these days.
2007-12-12 05:10:12 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
the entire factor to the subject of "Joe the Plumber" replaced into no longer possibly something to do with Joe however the certainty that he replaced into waiting to get Obama to bare his authentic objective in lifestyles, government assisted wealth redistribution, Obama needless to say pronounced that "we would desire to unfold that wealth around". Joe replaced into claiming to agonize because of the fact he replaced into thinking of beginning his very own organization, authentic or no longer, no longer the factor. Why is Huckabee utilising him, nicely possibly because of the fact he needs to refresh peoples concepts on that yet extremely basically he could understand for specific.
2016-10-11 03:31:53 · answer #4 · answered by menachekanian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Mike Huckabee is our best chance of having another Bushlike presidency, but he would probably be worse, because at least Bush was well connected. Huckabee is just a pious fool... I would rather vote for an illegal immigrant than him..
2007-12-12 05:03:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Sadly yes.
This is the best the republicans have.
Unfortunately, based on the last two elections, he stands a pretty good chance of being our next president.
Lets hope God doesn't tell him to invade China.
2007-12-12 05:07:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Polls from Iowa show Republian voters don't have much interest in any Republican candidate.
2007-12-12 05:03:48 · answer #7 · answered by Neomaxizoomedweebie 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I would say Mitt Romney is the best they have. Huckabee is just more likable as a speaker.
2007-12-12 05:03:12 · answer #8 · answered by Xenogyst 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I wouldn't mind Mike Huckabee. He seems very qualified for the job. He is a strong man of Faith and would make a great President.
2007-12-12 05:03:50 · answer #9 · answered by mustagme 7 · 2⤊ 7⤋
In my opinion, I believe he is the Republican's best chance to win the presidency, although I believe a Democrat will win it.
2007-12-12 05:06:36 · answer #10 · answered by Charles WE 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋