Following the first successful Huckabee Presidential Forum on December 3rd, later tonight we'll witness a second incarnation of the event held in South Carolina. The broadcast will not be live but will rather be a pre-recorded replay of the event which happens around noon on Saturday. There will not be an official live stream from Fox News but I'd wager that a bootleg stream will popup before the show airs.
Full Video: Watch The entire Huckabee Forum 2: South Carolina Undecided
Air Time: Saturday, January 14 at 8pm ET on Fox News
Participants: Romney, Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry (Ron Paul decided not to attend)
Report from Examiner.com:
This Saturday, January 14, 2012, Fox “news” will air a prerecorded forum/debate moderated by former Governor Mike Huckabee who has his own show on Fox “News” called “Huckabee”. Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC) will join Huckabee and will also offer questions.
The forum/debate will be held at the Sottile Theatre, 44 George Street at the College of Charleston, and will start at 12:00pm ET, Saturday, January 14. 2012, but it will not be aired live. It will air on the Fox “News” channel that night at 8:00pm ET prerecorded, in order to edit the forum/debate where needed.
Doors will open at 10:30 am, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
The reports concerning Ron Paul's attendance have been mixed. Paul was indeed invited to attend, as he attended the first Huckabee forum, however, reports indicate he has chosen not to attend this time around for an unspecified reason. That is the latest information I can find, please leave a comment with link if there is confirmation that Paul will attend the forum.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- huckabee forum 1/14/12
- fox debate january 14
- mike huckabee forum live
- GOP debate 1/14/12
- january 14th debate
- mike huckabee show january 14 2012
- huckabee forum live stream
- mike huckabee show forum
- ron paul huckabee forum south carolina
- 1/14/12 Republican Debate
- Huckabee GOP forum from South Carolina tonight at 8pm ET on Fox News
- huckabee forum january 14 2012
I like the debates when the public ask the questions instead of the media. I wish all debates was done by the public.
WOW!!! This was just taken over by Ron Paul people! I'll give you people credit…you do LOVE your candidate! I am all for sticking by the people you love so I won't knock that, but you really think he shouldn't go to the debate because they will "edit him out"…Don't you know that THEY KNOW that his people would make that such a big deal that there is NO WAY they would even think about it! This is worse than pulling out a gender or race card! It's like you guys almost know the way he talks about foreign policy is maybe "over the top" and so you guys are coming up with conspiracy theories! Yall lighten up! No matter which candidate gets this part of the race…we are still on the SAME TEAM! No OBAMA!
There have been cases of media bias against Dr. Paul that have been documented consistently and are still being documented. Hardly anybody thinks they will "edit him out" but they will probably shorten some answers for length or potentially remove some of the shorter or in their opinion less consequential comments. There isn't some covert conspiracy against Dr. Paul. They just really don't like him and are IMHO incapable of separating their personal opinions from their fair representation of all points of view. His opinions are frequently framed as "crazy" "wacky" or even "over the top" as you point out, but they are opinions that are held by a statistically significant portion of the country consistently over a sustained period of time. Many of the policies (even foreign aid) were at one point both commonly held and in many ways active policy of the times. As for foreign policy, it isn't "over the top" think that a congress of elected officials debating and voting on whether or not to go to war is a better idea than one man making the decision without any sort of vote at all. The president doesn't get to make that call. Ron Paul could be a James Bond villain set on the complete destruction of the world, but as long as the power to use military force was with congress then he's essentially powerless. Obama has greatly challenged the scope of which the president can use force without congressional approval, but Ron Paul would attempt to scale back the power that the executive branch has. He also only supports the use of force for the defense of our nation or our interests overseas. He puts this simply to contrast the huge scope of military force being used by Obama, but don't misinterpret that to mean he will never attempt to go to war with anyone ever under any circumstances.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQzluYtzNAY The scenario in this clip is very similar to the one we're in currently with Iran in addition to rescuing fishermen. If the intelligence suggests it's in our national interest and congress approves then he would move in quickly get it done and get out. That sounds like more decisive, rational foreign policy than I've seen in a while. Ensuring that any act of war be done with congressional approval, limiting the scope of the executive branch to use force, and quickly and decisively take action and come home. This isn't intended to be spam, but an opportunity comes up to be able to try to clearly articulate Dr. Paul's stance (because it so frequently isn't) then I have to take it.
hes a nut he beleives that 9/11 was a inside job and a conspiracy even after osama came out on televeision an said that they were responsible for it all. he thinks the governemnt had something to do with it. so thats why he gets edited people just shake there head and he tells half truths about things to.
I am probably going to regret putting it this bluntly, but you are the one who made the statement…
In the immortal words of Joe Wilson(R-SC), "You lie!"
If you have done any research of your own, you know that Paul has *never* said he thought 9/11 was an "inside job", or even a "conspiracy". He has, however, called for a more thorough investigation, just as have members of the 9/11 Commission and many others. When the members of the august body tasked with investigating the attach say it needs more investigation, then perhaps, just perhaps, people should listen.
What Paul actually says is even more despicable than claiming 9-11 was an inside job, when he says that the United States brought 9-11 upon itself and was deserving of the devastation. Some of his comments border on treason. Unfortunately we don't enforce treasonous acts any longer in our country, or we'd have taken action with the current administration.
It's Paul's off the wall comments like this that cause his credibility and mental stability to come under question.
Dr. James, now you are the one telling the lie. I believe know full well that Dr. Paul did not, ever, say that the United States was deserving of the devastation of 9/11. He said, and the Commission and the CIA both concurred, that our own past actions had consequences ("blowback") and that we have to realize that this affects or even is "the reason they hate us" (as many people put it). He very clearly said that the terrorists were responsible for their actions and had to be held accountable for it, and voted to authorize military action to apprehend those responsible. But he never said that we deserved to have property destroyed or people killed. It is your (and others') off the wall comments like this that impugn a good man trying to have an honest discussion.
OH!!! Well Newville….that to me sounds exactly like what Dr. James said! What in the WORLD could we have done to someone to make them SO MAD that their only answer was 9/11? I can't imagine having a PRESIDENT that would say something that awful. I wish he could have told all of the victims of that day that they had to die because this country brought it on themselves! WOW!
Josie, you are missing the point. The terrorists' actions were their own responsibility, end of story. They murdered people, they need to be brought to justice. This is the same thing that Ron Paul said. Just because you, or I , or the US military, do things that make other people mad, even very mad, does not give those people the right to violently attack us. They reacted improperly, violently, criminally, but they weren't reacting to a bunch of rich Americans partying it up halfway around the world.
I take it Josie isn't a true trekker, lol. (trekker, prime directive)
Roy Elsworth.
You are gravely mistaken and have certainly misconstrued his political views. While some of his supporters may adhere to such reasons for 9/11, he certainly does not. Please do your research on the man before partaking in comments about his "supposed" views.
@me—Thank you sooo much for taking the time to write that much in such a classy way! I really hate how nasty these things can get. I will say that the things that I have always liked about Paul is that he wants to kinda stay out of everyone else's business and not start "dumb wars"…..With that said though, it FREAKS me out because he says things like he would move back in the Strait of Hormuz. That we can't just go around putting sanctions on people. Iran isn't a joke or a country you can even attempt to play nice with. Putting harsh pressure on them is the only thing that works. Now they have vowed to get us back because they think we killed their scientist….The thing is, Ron Paul does have some interesting economic policy ideas, but he would have to have congress help with that and in 30 years he has only been able to pass 1 thing and it had to do with a road or bridge or that may not be right but it's close. What he could do however on his 1st day in office is bring home all of our military from around the world. I wonder if that includes Guam? It's a US territory, but I lived there for a while and learned a lot about why that tiny island is critical to our safety! I have NO PROBLEM with ending the war we are in and taking some of their money as payment for helping them fight it to help us pay off our debt. ANYWAY These are my concerns…if you see this post and have any answers I'd really love to learn them. Thanks! ~Josie
Are you trying to say the other members of congress who were "effective" in passing their legislation and running up a 16 billion dollar debt were in some way good for this country? Maybe Ron Paul, being a doctor remembered the phrase: "do no harm".
Actually it is over 16 TRILLION (not billion) if they raise the debt ceiling again…and they will. BUT WHAT???? I don't really know where you got that from? I was just saying that because we "saved" Iraq from Saddam and then rebuilt the place to make it way better using OUR money when they have PLENTY of their own, I think we should have taken some of theirs to pay us back. When we did all of that mess in Libya, We should have gotten some of there money. Same now with Afghan…..And if you think that is aweful then just think about what all we could be paying back to China if we had done that. OR we could have worked out an oil agreement with Iraq? I mean they would have GLADLY done it! We honestly helped them a lot. reguardless of what the media says. But do I think we should have done all we did…NOPE!
Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, not the oath of Wicca, "do no harm." Well unless he's a Witch Doctor, which wouldn't surprise me.
Do you really fear Iran? There is no PROOF that they're developing a nuclear weapon. It's been repeated so many times in the news media by people stating an OPINION that people believe it.
Here's a link for you to take a look at about the repeated statement that was alledged to President Ahmadinejad of Iran- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/
Why do we need to fear Iran? The facts speak for themselves. Even if for the sake of argument they were trying to develop a nuclear weapon, they would not be the only Muslim country that has them(Pakistan has them now). They understand that use of a nuclear weapon against us (or Israel) would only have one result… their destruction. Israel has at least a 100 nuclear weapons now (some believe as high as 400) and the means to deliver them. The United States has over 5000!
Ron Paul has stated that he believes in a strong national defense. I have no doubt that he would act quickly and decisively if we were ever attacked. Our current armanent is a deterrent against other countries attacking us.
Terrorism is a separate issue. If we are attacked by terrorists our focus should be on tracking down those terrorists responsible… NOT getting bogged down in a foreign country where we end up in nation-building like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul voted in favor of going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. He DIDN'T support the nation-building that followed. Now that Bin Laden is dead (along with much of the top leadership of Al Qaeda), the Taliban government that supported him is out of power, why are we still in Afghanistan? Most politicians it seems would argue that it's in our national interest. Is it really? Can any rational person not think that a massive military presence in another country wouldn't be considered a provokation by anyone? How would WE feel? Ron Paul states (rightly I believe) that we should respect other countries sovereignty just as we expect (and demand) the same respect. Do you think this policy would make it more or LESS likely we need to go to war?
Ron Paul believes in defending our country, but being cautious when it comes to foreign intervention. He believes that the Constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress for very good reasons. To prevent us from rushing in unless a real threat exists that can be shown to a majority of Congress. He believes that ONE man should not have the POWER to take our country to war. Are these not things that the majority of Americans believe also?
Americans react to the elements of fear and greed. In war many must die so a few can become rich. Iran is every politicians dream (well almost as Ron Paul is an exception). An easy sell on fear (nuclear Iran) and greed (oil).
See Bill…I don't think you understood that YES I was asking a real question with real concern. I THOUGHT I did that in a nice way so for you to come back at me with the kind of "smart butt" wording I don't think was called for but that is my opinion and I do have several questions about what you just wrote but that's why I addressed my comment to the other person I was talking with before because he/she was able to talk politics without acting like a know it all! And SIR…If you are not aware by now that Ahmadinejad is a crazy psycho mad man that will do what he says ANYWAY he possibly can you are very wrong. Even if it isn't a nuclear weapon…they could just start car bombing everywhere and still hurt a lot of people. I also don't want to go to ANYMORE wars that we do not have to go into and I think coming out of Afghanistan is great! But how you feel about our alliance with Israel??? If something happened there it is our duty to help them. It isn't even a discussion. I don't know what Paul would do, but I know A LOT of this country would go crazy if we didn't help! Ok well you have a blessed day! AND REMEMBER…everybody here wants to see Obama out of office! We are on the same team at the end of the day so don't act ugly to people in here!
Josie,
" Ahmadinejad is a crazy psycho mad man that will do what he says ANYWAY he possibly can you are very wrong"
Ahmadinejad may be a crazy psycho. He may be cold and calculating. I can't diagnose him. But if you think that he runs Iran, or even the military or the RG, then you are mistaken. He is not-so-gradually being left out in the cold by Khameini and the other council leaders. Ahmadinejad is a "democratic face", an effective figurehead rendered largely impotent by the Iranian constitution, except that he does get to be in the public eye. The problem is that his mouth has become a loose cannon, and his rhetoric has distanced him from the real power in the country. He has only about a year left in his position, weak as it is, and then he is not allowed to serve again, even via rigged elections.
Josie I did nothing more than reply to the thread (you realize it's an open thread that anyone can respond too?)… if you want to read something into it thats not there then that's your problem
) So much gets lost in the "written" word and you should realize that 
Please try to read with more of an "open" mind 
And by the way… YOU are stating OPINION's (not facts) that can't be proven and in a very rude way yourself. I didn't insult you. I didn't call you a "smart butt" or a "know it all". I simply tried to answer your questions and in thanks you insulted me
) Go take a look in the mirror. You've already made up your mind. You have beliefs that aren't even subject to "discussion". Tell me who appointed you an expert 
) No discussion even 
) If you don't want to have a discussion then why are you even posting here? If you want to debate people then provide FACTS to backup your positions or at least support someone having a different opinion. Lets compare backgrounds… I bet I have a lot more DIRECT experience with terrorism than you do!
I answered your question with as many facts as I could dig up to reassure you. It really sounds like you've already made up your mind about certain things and no amount of facts will convince you otherwise
)
How many rights are you personally willing to give up in return for the "illusion" of security? Do you believe that violating due process and a persons 4th Amendment rights are okay as long it's for "our" security? All the other candidates do. How many members of your family are you willing to sacrifice fighting a country that hasn't attacked us? In our legal system do we convict people because they "think" about doing something? Or do we only punish people who have actually committed a crime?
You fear terrorists and car bombs and the "wrong" people having nuclear weapons. We all do including Ron Paul. The differences are in what we think we should do about it. I happen to think that Ron Paul has the right idea. A strong national defense to act as a deterrent and willingness to go after those responsible for acts of terrorism.
Unlike you, I don't see getting rid of Obama as the primary goal. I see SAVING our country as the primary goal. We are on the path to war and economic collapse with any candidate other than Paul. This is what I believe and I can articulate this position. Look at where Paul is in the polls… there are a significant number of people who feel the same way. Based on what you're writing I suspect you've already made up your mind… as have I. Time will tell who is right.
I think Dr. James may have heard Ron Paul say something like 9/11 goes beyond the religious and American way of like issues. That there are some Americans who would resent a foreign power if they were to set up military bases here as it might be seen as an occupation. (With 900 US bases on foreign soil it is possible a few just might think like a few Americans would)
Now I myself would welcome say China to spend a few trillion dollars and set up a base in every state so long as they used America union labor and made in USA hardware. Then after they went broke we (the USA) could loan them the money to keep the bases operational and run up a huge debt to us
@Bill- You questioned me, my family, and my knowledge so I'll just tell you a little bit and you can decide.You say you have more "DIRECT experience with terrorism" You asked, "How many rights are you personally willing to give up in return for the "illusion" of security" and,"How many members of your family are you willing to sacrifice fighting a country that hasn't attacked us?" I live on a little island in the Pacific called Guam (a territory of the United States.) It's location is crucial to our countrys safety because of it's perfect location. Every major country in the world wants this land. In 1941 the Japanese used Pearl Harbor as a way to lower our security and capture Guam within hours of their attack in Hawaii. In 1944 we liberated the Chamorro people of Guam and have set up an Air Force and Navy base here. We are expected to also get a Marine base in the next couple of years. I live on Andersen Air Force Base. My husband is an A.F. officer who happens to be somewhere in the middle east that I don't even know about. I do know that right now his job and what he does daily depends every second on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. I also know that I will not see him until the end of April at best! Yes…you are right! I DO have my mind made up! I also know quite a bit about war, sacrifice, and why we should have military all around the world! If you don't LIKE being taken care of by these men and women that risk their lives everyday for your safety and freedom (you know that 4th amendment right you speak of) or maybe it's that you don't BELIEVE YOU NEED it… then BLESS YOUR HEART get in line! I would love to send you over there insted of my husband or any of his friends! And Sir, if you need any other facts I'll be happy to help! I'm sure I have a call roster for some of my spouses that would love to tell you their facts too. BTW…You brought up Israel having maybe 400 weapons… I hope they do! They are our alli and as a Christian I believe if tomorrow we needed to go to war with them we would have to do that. Would I like that? NO! Can we afford that? NO! But it is a must! I wouldn't say that about any other country, however! So to sleep at night I could never vote for Ron Paul and these are my facts!
Josie I meant no offense. But you were rude whether you want to admit it or not
If you go to name calling automatically when someone writes something you disagree with then expect a response 
It's difficult to see what the "tone" is in written comments. You originally read into my comments much that wasn't there. You made it "personal" 
)
It was more of a rhetorical question as I believe most people don't want to give up their rights. I've been to Guam. It's surrounded by reminders of WWII. They had a tough time during WWII no doubt about that.
I'm sure you won't like what I have to say now
You somehow think you're experience gives you the right to lecture me. This started with me answering questions in general and as much for other people as for you with my opinions based on my experience and knowledge of what we're up against. Being a military spouse is a tough job. You're certainly entitled to an opinion
Unlike you though, I did swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. When Congress decides to ignore the Constitution that bothers me. As I said, military spouse's have a hard time, no doubt. It's tough. It's not the same as being active duty though. You believe you know about war and you do know "something" about that… but you don't really know what war is as you've never personally experienced it.
You told me a bit about you so I will return the favor…
I will be retired from the US Navy the end of this month. I'm on terminal leave now. I spent the last ten years working in Force Protection and Anti-terrorism, a pretty good chunk of that in the Middle East. I just returned from Afghanistan in July. So despite your experience as a military spouse, I can tell you that you have a long way to go to be where I am or where your husband is for that matter. You have not seen the things I've seen, you nave not experienced the things I have, and you have not felt what I have felt. When it's all said and done you have no personal experience with war. Only what you've been told. Hopefully you're able to understand theres a difference.
A reality check (not that I expect you to care about "our" opinion)… active duty military give more money to Ron Paul than ALL the other candidates COMBINED! What do we know that you don't? What do those who have "experienced" war know that people like you only have "heard about"?
One of Ron Paul's issues is with foreign military bases. Here's another reality check for you… The country is going BROKE. We don't have the money to sustain those foreign bases that have more to do with money and little to nothing to do with our defense. For whatever reason you seem concerned that Guam would be considered "foreign". Last I checked it's still American territory.
I understand your concern as the US Military pumps a huge amount of money into the economy of Guam. How do you expect the US Government to continue to pay for those bases? Where should we cut so we can maintain those bases? Club for Growth's, Andy Roth, called Ron Paul's economic plan "spectacular". Not terms that were used for any other candidate. Which would you rather see… the United States continuing to try to pay for bases in foreign countries we can't afford, or close those bases so that we can maintain our own bases and open more in our own country?
Ron Paul is in favor of a strong defense, he just doesn't believe that we need to be in other countries to defend our country. He's very pro-military. He stated during tonights debate that he expected, if anything, we will end up with MORE miltary bases in the United States. We could have a MUCH STRONGER military and defense if we weren't spread out all over the planet policing the world and engaged in nation-building!
I happen to think that war often has nothing to do with defending the US, no matter how much the mainstream media may try to convince us otherwise. It's an opinion that has been around for a long time. Here are a few quotes from Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, who was decorated 5 times for heroism and TWICE received the Medal of Honor. He wrote a book after his retirement called "War Is a Racket".
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese. Another quote..
"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."
These things were true then, and they are true now. Just update the countries. Dwight D. Eisenhower also warned against the military/industrial complex as does Ron Paul. Who is making money from all this and where does the money come from that is used to pay them? When high-ranking retired military officers warn us about this, should we listen? I believe we should.
You can vote for whoever you want, as can I. I really don't think Ron Paul will win, although I have hopes, as there aren't any other plans being put out by the other candidates that will keep our country from bankruptcy. When that happens, tell me… how will we pay for a strong defense then? Sad that so many people are incapable of making the paradigm shift that would be required to be able to see it. We need to save the money that is being spent on military bases in other countries so that we have a military that is strong enough to respond with overwhelming force against any attack. If we continue to attack countries based on our "perception" that they are a threat. We can always find potential threats.
I have been a member of the military for most of my adult life. I think we both can agree that we need a STRONG military. I'm 100% behind that. We will just have to agree to disagree on which candidate will provide us with the strongest military and who can save our economy.
"in 30 years he has only been able to pass 1 thing and it had to do with a road or bridge or that may not be right but it's close." Those were your words not mine. Had the rest of congress had the same record we would not be any 16 trillion in debt for sure.
Now I do not disagree with that!
If Ron Paul should be elected as next President I really should be happy not upset.Just have to keep up with knowledge that Armagedon is right around corner.This will mean that my time to be with the Lord is about to take place.
Armageddon is indeed right around corner for sure as evidenced by the 16 trillion dollar debt.
Thus far I have heard only one candidate that intends to do anything about it like on day one. The rest all have 10 year + plans that take effect long after they have rewarded those who put them in power and it ain't the voters who will be rewarded.
HEHE!!!
I gotta remember that one!!!!
Ron Paul is too wise to be fooled by these "editing" jokers. Ron Paul 2012!
If MSM doesn't wise up and report news rather than create it, they're gonna lose lots of valuable viewers/contributors.
All of your reasonings are valid on why Dr. Paul was not in attendance. My thought is that he went back to Texas to hear and be present when he won the Texas Straw Poll. Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul definitely should be in the debate, but if he has chosen not to attend, or has a commitment he feels is more important, then I'm disappointed. As for the editing — I think Huckabee is as hateful towards Romney as he is towards Paul. Huckabee got into the 2008 campaign for the sole purpose of keeping Romney from getting the nomination. So if there is editing to be done that makes any candidate look bad, Romney is as likely as Paul to be the victim.
I'd like to see a one-on-one Lincoln style debate between Paul and Romney, as it looks like it's narrowing down to a 2-horse race.
I think a prerecorded debate hosted by Fox and Mike Huckabee, both who openly display their animosity towards Ron Paul and his supporters, would likely be an unfair event with his presence. Provide no room for editing by the neocons.
FOX NEWS IS PART OF THE MSM…THEY HAVE SHOWN LATELY THAT THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE…..TO MANY LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS TAKEN AND NOT CHALLENGED BY THE 'CONSERVATIVE' HOST…YOU DECIDE
I read what you printed but I've been to Qatar. (I still support Ron Paul though, lol)